J
Joep
Thanks.
Folkert Rienstra said:"Joep" <[email protected]> wrote in message
Yup.
Right, DiskPatch had nothing to do with the repair, be that
the bad sectors on the original drive nor the logical errors
on the clone drive. It only copied the drive to another, strip-
ping possible data that may have helped in recovering the drive.
Spinrite unmistakably did, but because of further logical
damage it is unclear how much it contributed positively to
the logical repair that was needed beyond that.
Based on my own experience of late I know that files can be
rescued even without FATs, and that based on that, FATs can
even be restored without ever cloning the drive to another one.
Svend's utilities are capable of restoring a drive without ever
cloning it. One of Svend's Fat repair utilities would have had
the same result as SpinRite by copying a good fat copy sector
over a bad one.
Cloning a drive has nothing to do with repair. A cloning utility
is the tool for those who totally mistrust what they are doing.
It would be the day that you had to buy another harddrive in
order to be able to run a defrag on it because it shouldn't be
trusted to do it's job properly and you had to clone it first.
Which should be read as "gave about equally _bad_ results", not
contributable to SpinRite nor DiskPatch. For a "good" result no
logical fixing should have been necessary in the case of SpinRite.
No hard conclusions can be made whether SpinRite didn't do any-
thing useful to the logical repair as neither did DiskPatch.
And the same would have happened with IBMs DFT.
Or using Svend's Findbad.
Or using a diskeditor to write over the defective sectors.
Or let Scandisk sync the FATs as part of the repair.
Even doing totally nothing might result in that socalled "minor" damage.
Even repairing one file can make Scandisk sync the FATs and make all
FAT bad sectors disappear in one swoop. That same unexpected behaviour
may well have attributed to why additional logical repair was needed.
No, it doesn't. Not in comparison with retries.
And time is what you have plenty of and is your friend if you want
as much as possible of your data back in as conveniant a manner.
Malloot.
No, I was dead serious, based it on your own information even.
Be careful of what you wish for.
Take a good look at yourself, Rodney van Steen.
Jij zou 's wat minder achterdochtig moeten zijn.
't Was bedoeld als een veer in je hoed. Als een aanmoediging voor
mensen die serieus bezig zijn met hun vak. Blijkelijk heb ik me zwaar
in je vergist. Wat is dat toch voor een kinderachtig debiel gedrag!
Als ik jou was zou ik 's even heel goed nadenken voor je op deze weg
doorgaat.
Joep said:Hardly original as always ...
Indeed, YUP. Thanks to DiskPatch being facilitator to at least to be able to
attempt logical repairs.
DiskPatch being facilitator to at least to be able to make logical repairs.
Note that OP's client is actually USING the drive cloned by DiskPatch.
This is interesting as you will claim the oposite later on.
Svend himself suggested cloning the drive made sense. Copying
a bad FAT over a good one can be done with DiskPatch as well.
Bull shit. In fact any prof data recovery engineer will *ALWAYS*
clone a disk first.
We are talking repairing a disk here NOT maintenance,
anyway, anyone defragging a disk without a proper backup is
taking a risk. You're arguments stink and do not stand ground.
Nope, 'equal results' describes it very well,
qualifying the results is a different matter.
BTW you did make hard conclusions just a few lines ago,
now you say they can't ne made.
Indeed. I never said it couldn't
Can only be used by more experienced users.
I never said it couldn't
Can only be done by even more experinced users.
I never said it couldn't
Scandisk won't do this in case of bad sectors which was the reason for this
thread, bad sectors that is.
This in reply to what?
Or just an unrelated brianfart (No, NOT original, but
you using it ain't original either!)?
Time by itself wasn't the main point, wasting time on poor results was.
Over kinderachtig gesproken ....
I never said anything about I was researching or not.
If you read things that are not there
I must come to the conclusion you are experiencing one of your phychotic
episodes.
You're insulting me, or Rodney, or both.
I consider it a weakness when it is your only defense to start
comparing people to others.
Anyway, the clone function of DiskPatch is designed to do exactly what OP
has been using it for, clone a disk by transfering all readable sectors to
another disk, nothing more, nothing less.
When OP mentions that using this method he got similar reuslts, and the
same anount of data recovered in the end, as using a in my opinion over
hyped tool as Spinrite then I think to myself that this is cool.
line.Folkert Rienstra said:EXACTLY as original (childish) as your Rod Speed antics below, in the next
Which worked fine after SpinRite too.
And nowhere did OP mention that repairs couldn't be done on the
original drive too. That possibility or impossibility was never covered.
repairs.
That is a yet to be confirmed claim. OP never mentioned that repairs couldn't
be made without other measures. You may be right but you are running ahead.
So what?
No I don't. Just wishful thinking on your part.
That's not the same.
A safeguard against terminal stupidity that never hurts.
Same mechanism.
Juggling sectors around and completely rearranging FATs.
As riskfull if not riskier than relatively small repairs.
Too bad that he confirmed 'about equal results',
words that YOU put in his mouth when earlier he said
"The result was about the same" ... "a little different"
Stop the posturing.
About SpinRite making the drive usable again which DiskPatch had
nothing to do with whatsoever.
Different matters. You are posturing again.
But you were implying it by hyping DiskPatch.
As if DiskPatch is a ball in the park.
Indeed you didn't. Instead you hyped DiskPatch.
Nope
No more experience, probably less than with DiskPatch.
Instead you hyped DiskPatch.
Nope
Maybe it is, but the OP never mentioned that.
OP mentioning that "additional logical repair was needed".
What else?
Yeah, and who started that, Rodney van Steen?
Even poor results can recover *several* files that can't be recovered
without those "poor" results, when bad sectors are in FATs.
Posturing that I typed a line twice when I clearly didn't, *that* is childish.
Indeed you didn't. You said that the new version would do retries and you
also say else where that you don't believe in it. Which is rather strange.
So was being kind by implying that you were still "researching" it.
No reason to fly off the handle, like you did.
Funny that you must say that .....
Stil playing the troll, are we? How's that mirror, is it working for you?
Like your Rod imitation wasn't meant as an insult by itself.
You started the insults, you reap what you sow.
Thanks for confirming what I said all along and (you) then started a row about.
Or similarly overhyped. And that is all that I objected too. It was a totally
harmless comment until you had to go fly off the handle and get insulting.
At least SpinRite did exactly what it was thought to do, repair the drive.
voor gebruikt heeft.Unfortunately it could not be confirmed whether it did that without losing
any bad sector data. The data that was lost after the logical repair may
or may_not have been cause related, direct or indirect, to the bad sectors.