running OS from a rescue CD

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bill
  • Start date Start date
B

Bill

Techies can rescue data from a PC with a crashed and inaccessible OS by
running some sort of basic form of Windoews from a CD. It's very slow but
it does does allow access to the hard drive(s) and the data folders and
allows it to be copied to an external drive. Is there any way I can make or
otherwise acquire such a thing? I have my WinXP Pro SP2 CD but nothing else.

Regards,

Bill
 
There are several forms of such a CD, probably the best known of them is
Bart's PE. However, these CDs are technically complicated and you have
to build them yourself.

It's also possible to use XP's own Recovery Console for this purpose,
but for that you often need a slipstreamed install CD, which you have to
create on your own.

An easier way is to take the bad hard drive and plug it into a computer
with a known good copy of Windows, then use the good copy of Windows to
extract data from the bad hard disk.

But the best solution by far is to make regular backups. Backing up
daily is a good policy. With a set of recent backups you'll always have
access to your data.
 
Hi Leonard,

Just how "technically complicated"??

I've managed to install WinXP SP2 in the past, reformat and partition
drive(s) and set up a RAID0 array - the set up currently on my dead PC. But
that's the limit of my know-how. Are we talking of a level several leagues
up the learning curve?

I'm wondering whether the RAID0 array on the 2 drives will complicate or
indeed make it impossible to follow your suggestion of putting the drives
into a 'good' PC and then recovering the data?

I remember having to load SATA drivers (the F6 floppy routine) at the very
start of the OS installation but were they solely for the MoBo or were they
in any way a requirement of the OS or hard drives?



Regards,



Bill
 
Bill, Just how "technically complicated"??
It's beyond me. I've read about it on here; that's all.

Someone might be able to help you on here.
I am a bit of a parrot here, lol.
 
Bill said:
Hi Leonard,

Just how "technically complicated"??

I've managed to install WinXP SP2 in the past, reformat and partition
drive(s) and set up a RAID0 array - the set up currently on my dead PC.
But that's the limit of my know-how. Are we talking of a level several
leagues up the learning curve?

I'm wondering whether the RAID0 array on the 2 drives will complicate or
indeed make it impossible to follow your suggestion of putting the drives
into a 'good' PC and then recovering the data?

I remember having to load SATA drivers (the F6 floppy routine) at the very
start of the OS installation but were they solely for the MoBo or were
they in any way a requirement of the OS or hard drives?



Regards,



Bill
Click to expand...
 
Hi Bill,


NEVER EVER install your OS on a raid0 (raid1 is very safe btw).
Resist the temptation for more speed as the risks / troubles are not worth
it.
When either disk fails all data is lost (probably partly the case here).

Moving separate / both disk(s) to a healthy system will not work as all data
is evenly distributed on both disks and only readable with the same raid
controller.
Any attempt to access on another system may ruine all data!

My advice ...
1. Leave the disks in your PC and DON'T swap the data cables.
2. DON'T break/reset the raid array in BIOS (will ruine all your data).
3. Prepare the Raid Driver floppy.
4. On a friend's PC, download and burn UBCD4Win (www.ubcd4win.com).
5. Set your bios to boot: 1st from CD, 2nd from raid0.
6. Boot from UBCD4Win CD.
7. Press F6 when asked.
8. Insert floppy and pick your raid controller, leave floppy inserted!
9. UBCD4Win loads Raid driver and you will be able to access your raid disk
set.
10. Backup your import data to a external USB-stick/disk or network drive.
The latter requires Enable Network Support and Enable Drive Sharing.
11. I would not attempt to repair as OS on raid0 remains risky anyway.
12. If robustness is important to you, consider Raid1 (otherwise install OS
on 1 disk).
Advantages: Here, both disk contain the same data, when either fails,
the raid driver
reconstructs the contents automatically while the PC remains
operational !
Moving one disk to another system allows full access to all data to
salvage.
Disadvantages: 1x read speed (slightly increased), 1x write speed
(slightly decreased),
2 disks provide space for 1 disk (ie. 2x 160GB in Raid1 --> 160GB).

When considering a complete reinstall and Raid1 ...

1. In Raid Bios break/reset the Raid0 array (all data is lost).
2. In PC Bios, disable Raid Controller temporarily.
3. Set PC Bios boot order to boot from floppy / CD before hard disk.
3. Boot from disk manufacturer's diagnostics on floppy / CD.
4. Full Zero-Fill a disk (may take hours, don't use quick zero fill)
5. Full Surface Check. a disk (may take hours, don't use quick check)
6. Repeat for other disk.
7. In PC Bios Enable Raid Controller.
8. Enter Raid Bios and setup Raid1 array, save and exit.
9. Run Windows install.
10. Press F6 when asked.
11. Use the earlier built Raid driver floppy.
Now, the procedure to setup Raid1 is similar to Raid0 setup.


HTH,
John7
 
Maybe in your opinion, those of us that perform a regular backup routine
have no problem running on a RAID 0, I do it on my gaming box.
Saying never ever is just you not knowing any better.
 
Cut it out, Murphy. Everybody knows what you are tryng to do. And for
God's sake, take yourself off Rimonabant, and whatever else you need to
manage its side effects. Why are you doing this to yourself?

I am the real Leonard Grey. The rude post copied below was not created
by me. It was created by a disturbed individual named Murphy.

Murphy is a very angry person, and he is apparently suffering side
effects from taking Rimonabant (brand name: Zimultri, produced by
Sanofi-Adventis.) Rimonabant is an anti-obesity drug that has been
documented by the United States FDA to cause severe depression.

Murphy's game is to try to impersonate people in these newsgroups, and
then make rude and even revolting posts in their names. He's done it to
me and to others. Unfortunately, there's nothing anyone can do about it,
AFAIK.

It's not hard to tell the difference between posts made me - the real
me - and Murphy's impersonation. I never make posts like the ones Murphy
makes in my name. And I don't post from the MS web interface, as Murphy
does.

I won't post to this thread again, so any subsequent posts in this
thread that have my name on them are coming from Murphy.

To the OP: I'm truly sorry this mess has gotten in the way of your
getting the answer you need. Please understand there's nothing I can do
about it.
 
Here's a reply from the /real/ Leonard Grey (not the disturbed
individual who is impersonating me in these newsgroups):

By 'technically complicated' I didn't mean to belittle you. These CDs
require a pretty good background in Windows computing. That's not to say
you couldn't do it, it's just an FYI.

I'm certainly no judge of your ability to make a Bart's CD or a
slipstreamed install CD. Instead, go to Bart's home page:

http://www.nu2.nu/pebuilder/

and see how comfortable you feel about it. You can search the internet
using the search term:

how to create a slipstreamed Windows installation CD

and decide if you want to try that.

In my ever-so-humble opinion, I still feel that backing up is the
easiest and most effective way to keep your data safe. Disk imaging (an
advanced form of backup) will make a backup copy of all your software,
even Windows.

I'm sorry that Murphy - the imposter - has messed up your question and I
hope you get a chance to read this.
 
I agree that it doesn't belong in a corporate environment, but not with a
blanket statement that it should never be done.
 
NEVER EVER install your OS on a raid0
Click to expand...


"NEVER EVER" might be somewhat on the extreme side, but I generally
agree with that statement. It's almost always a bad thing to do.

(raid1 is very safe btw).
Click to expand...


Safe, but generally useless for home users.

Most people completely misunderstand what RAID 1 is all about.
RAID 1 (mirroring) is *not* a backup solution. RAID 1 uses two or more
drives, each a duplicate of the others, to provide redundancy, not
backup. It's used in situations (almost always within corporations,
not in homes) where any downtime can't be tolerated, because the way
it works is that if one drive fails the other takes over seamlessly
and almost instantly.

Although some people thing of RAID 1 as a backup technique, that is
*not* what it is, since it's subject to simultaneous loss of the
original and the mirror to many of the most common dangers threatening
your data--severe power glitches, nearby lightning strikes, user
errors, virus attacks, theft of the computer, etc. Most companies that
use RAID 1 also have a strong external backup plan in place.

Resist the temptation for more speed as the risks / troubles are not worth
it.
Click to expand...


Moreover, the additional speed that RAID0 provides is very close to
zero. RAID0 provides severe extra risk, and with almost no benefit.
It's a bad bargain.
 
That pretty much sums it up, but I would have to disagree with your
statement of "the additional speed that RAID0 provides is very close to
zero"
My usage says otherwise.
 
That pretty much sums it up, but I would have to disagree with your
statement of "the additional speed that RAID0 provides is very close to
zero"
My usage says otherwise.
Click to expand...



OK, if that's your experience, but I have run my present computer both
with (in the past) and without (at present) RAID0. I see no
improvement in performance with it. Many other people report the same
experience.
 
And many people report improvements, no different than any other hardware
configuration, depending on what you do with the computer.
Same thing with memory, 2 users go from 512MB to 1GB, the one that just
emails and surfs the web won't notice much, but the gamer/cad user/etc will.
 
Dear OP:
Do not be fooled by the idiots/con artists that frequent these Newsgroups.

My name, "Leonard Grey", is just one of the many aliases that
spammers/spoofers use here.

You will have noticed the "subtle" way they are trying to push their weight
loss product rubbish.

Any posts from he/she, totally ignore for your own Net safety.
If you read between the lines of the reply, you will recognise the "True" me!

Regards.
 
Oh well. This is the fourth night in a row that Murphy is impersonating
me, and making posts under my name.

To the OP: I am the real Leonard Grey. I - and others in these
newsgroups - are being victimized by a poor soul by the name of Murphy.

Murphy's little game is to try to impersonate people in these
newsgroups, and then make ridiculous and even revolting posts in their
names - posts that we would never make on our own. Unfortunately,
there's nothing anyone can do about it.

It's not hard to tell the difference between posts made me - the real
me - and Murphy's impersonation. I never make posts like the ones Murphy
makes in my name. And I don't post from the MS web interface, as Murphy
does.

Murphy is a very angry person, and he is suffering side effects from
taking Rimonabant (brand name: Zimultri, produced by Sanofi-Adventis.)
Rimonabant is an anti-obesity drug that has been documented by the
United States FDA to cause severe depression.

I'm very sorry that your question has become wrapped up in this mess. I
won't be making any more posts to this thread, so any subsequent posts
that you read that have my name on them were not made by me.

To Murphy: I want to believe that you would not be making such a fool of
yourself were it not for Rimonabant, and whatever else you may be taking
to manage the side effects. Take yourself off these drugs, Murphy. You
don't need to hurt yourself any longer.
 
Bill, now you see what I am up against.
I use the Web interface. It is easier, and all I have to do is log into the
MS servers.
But, I DO have to log in!

This SPOOFER admits(the gall of it) to posting from different locations.
There has NEVER been a Nick Murphy post here!

A Mick Murphy DOES post here; but only helpful and informative posts to the
OPs.
Go through the various posts yourself.
Where this weight thing comes from, I have no idea, other than his and
another fake poster "nass".

This fake "grey" has all the properties of a Troll:

http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killfile/anti_troll_faq.htm

I have read all the stereotypes of a Troll above, and this "grey" fits most
of them.
As you can see, all we can do, is put up with it, and HOPE that he just GOES
AWAY!

Thank you for your time.
 
Back
Top