Citizen Bob <spam@uce.gov> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Citizen Bob <spam@uce.gov> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

>>>>> You still do not appreciate the situation I am in.

>>>> Wrong.

>>> Do you depend on your computer every day to
>>> make money? Or do you just use it for recreation?

>> Irrelevant to what is possible for YOU to do for a TEST.

> It is not irrelevant to me. I use my computer in financial transactions
> every day, including weekends. I simply cannot stop using it to run tests.

Irrelevant to whether there are plenty of tests you can do in that situation.

>>> In order to test the new install, I would
>>> have to run it full time for several days.

>> Wrong.

> The problem does not manifest itself for days at a time.

Doesnt mean that you have to run the test drive continuously for that time.

Even you should be able to boot it occasionally over that time.

> I would have to install all the apps I normally use to perform a valid test

Wrong when it turns out that you can produce the
corrupted MFT when JUST running ImPerfect Disk.

> and I would have to do it for at least 1 week.

Wrong again.

> I cannot afford to do that.

You dont need to do that.

> Although I do use my computer for recreation
> like you, I do use it for finanacial transactions.

So do I thanks.

>>> What am I supposed to do about all the apps I normally
>>> run in the course of a day? I can't just abandon my routine
>>> for a test - I need to run the apps every weekday.

>> I doubt you actually run all that many of them every weekday

> You do not know what you are talking about.

We'll see...

> How could you possibly know what I run or do not run every weekday?

I do know that you are very unlikely to actually run the
100s of apps you claim to have installed every weekday.

> I do financial transactions every day of the week.
> The most intense activity is during the week.

Irrelevant to how many apps that actually involves.

>> and if you do,

> There is no "if I do". I do run financial
> transactions every day of the week.

Irrelevant to how many apps that actually involves.

>> you can certainly do the other test, try with the drive
>> directly connected instead of in a removable drive bay.

> Why would the removable bay corrupt an NTFS partition only at boot time?

Because even you should have noticed considerable drive activity at boot time.

> I have never experienced a corrupt NTFS partition while running.

You dont know that because you have never actually tested that.

ALL you know is that no entrys have showed up in the EV reporting a problem.

> That's also why I do not believe that RAM memory is involved.

See above.

> Anyway I have run extensive diagnostics on all hard
> drives and RAM and nothing shows any signs of failure.

Irrelevant to what is clearly corrupting the DATA in the MFT.

>>> If I do not install enough apps then I can't run the things I need to run.

>> I doubt that involves all that many apps,

> You do not know what you are talking about.

We'll see...

> How could you possibly know what I run or do not run every weekday?

I do know that you are very unlikely to actually run the
100s of apps you claim to have installed every weekday.

> I do financial transactions every day of the week.
> The most intense activity is during the week.

Irrelevant to how many apps that actually involves.

> They take quite a few apps to run in entirety.

Irrelevant to how many apps that actually involves.

>> and if it does,

> There is no "if I do". I do need a lot of apps.

Irrelevant to how many apps that actually involves.

>> you can certainly do the other test, try with the drive
>> directly connected instead of in a removable drive bay.

> Why would the removable bay corrupt an NTFS partition only at boot time?

Because even you should have noticed considerable drive activity at boot time.

> I have never experienced a corrupt NTFS partition while running.

You dont know that because you have never actually tested that.

ALL you know is that no entrys have showed up in the EV reporting a problem.

> But I plan on doing this test anyway, just to
> eliminate the possibility however remote it may be.

Yep, its the only sensible approach because its so easy to do.

>>> How am I going to run two versions of Win2K
>>> on two separate partitions at the same time?

>> You dont have to run them at the same time.

> In order to reproduce the conditions that the corruption
> occurs I need to run the test 24x7 for at least a week.

Wrong. You can just run ImPerfect disk on the clean 2K
install since that does corrupt the MFT on that current install.

> I cannot reboot anytime or the test will not be valid.

Wrong.

> Now tell me, genius, how am I going to run my apps
> on the other partition if I am running the test 24x7?

You dont need to do that, stupid.

>> Then you can obviously install what you do need to run,

> If I do that then I just as well do a clean
> reinstall and not chase this problem down.

Wrong again.

>>> I may have a cabling problem because of
>>> the location of the internal vs removable bay.

>> Unlikely given that its easier to cable an internal than a removable bay.

> Again you do not know what you are talking about.

We'll see...

> I have two bays connected to one cable. The second one is near
> the top of the computer, whereas the drive I mount permanently
> is closer to the bottom. I may not have enough cable to reach both.

You dont need to have both connected to the cable to do the test.

> However as I said, I have some hardware for mounting 3.5"
> drives in 5.25" bays, so I can mount the drive next to the
> removable bay and circumvent any possible cable problems.

>> And even if you did need to get another cable for the test, that is
>> well worth doing because its very likely what is corrupting the MFT.

> It is not very likely.

Corse it is.

> There is no evidence to support that claim.

Wrong again. When running ImPerfect Disk ALONE corrupts the MFT,
there are only two possibilitys now, either its a fucked install of 2K that
is the problem, or its a hardware problem, the removable drive bay,
the cable currently being used, or the drive or the controller.

> You have an intense bigotry against Centronic-based
> removable bays that is obsessing you.

I have seen a number of instances where those have caused
problems, QUITE A FEW OF THEM AT BOOT TIME.

> Think about it. If the Kingwin KPF style bays I am using are such
> crap as you make them out to be, why are they still on the market?

They arent all used with the same motherboard yours is.

If they work fine with some motherboard and not others,
you'd get that effect, they arent a problem in some configs.

> Kingwin is still in business, they are still offering that style bay and
> I never hear any complaints about them on this forum or any other.

Even you should be able to find plenty using groups.google.

> Why would the removable bay corrupt an NTFS partition only at boot time?

Because even you should have noticed considerable drive activity at boot time.

> I have never experienced a corrupt NTFS partition while running.

You dont know that because you have never actually tested that.

ALL you know is that no entrys have showed up in the EV reporting a problem.

> But I plan on doing this test anyway, just to
> eliminate the possibility however remote it may be.

Yep, its the only sensible approach because its so easy to do.

>> I'd make sure it was a proper legal ATA cable too,
>> a proper 80 wire flat ribbon cable of legal length. No
>> point in doing the test with a known non standard cable.

> I have stated several times that I have
> an official ATA133 80-wire ribbon cable.

Not recently you havent. Even you should have noticed that
I do comment on quite a few system configs over that time.

> It has the blue connector on one end to ensure proper orientation for CS.

>>> U check EV all the time and have never seen it.

>> All that means is that the OS hasnt noticed it until boot time.

>>> However it may be that it is not being detected except at boot.

>> Precisely.

> However if the filesystem is corrupt at run time, how could it even function?

There's plenty of blemishes that still allow it to function.

It was designed to be that robust.

>>> I can't run chkdsk whenever I want - it must be run at boot.

>> No it doesnt need to to just CHECK for corruption,
>> only for FIXING any corruption seen.

> That only happens at boot time.

Wrong.

>>> Is there some other diagnostic that can detect a corrupt NTFS volume
>>> that I could schedule to run periodically while Win2K is running?

>> You dont need one, chkdsk can do that fine.

> But I have to reboot to run chkdsk.

No you dont.

>>> If I don't want to do something it is not because I am lazy or obstinate

>> That remains to be seen. You've got one hell
>> of a capacity for refusing to do the obvious tests.

> Please stop with the finger wagging. You are not my wife.

Go and fuck yourself.

>>> - it's because I believe I have a good reason not to.

>> Thats just the excuse for the bone headedness.

> That's an ad hominem.

<reams of your puerile shit flushed where it belongs>

Grow up.