Corrupt NTFS filesystem

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
> Citizen Bob <spam@uce.gov> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>
>>> That is however why I suggested not using Perfect Disk
>>> for a while, in case it that thats corrupting the MFT.
>
>> PerfectDisk is very new - only a month or two old.
>> This problem has been going on for a year.
>
> Like I said, you've only just said that.
>
>> Something I just thought of. When I first started using PerfectDisk,
>> every once in a while it would cause the same corruption problem.
>> I knew because before I ran PD, I would reboot to make sure the
>> volume was not corrupt and then I would create a clone backup.
>> Then I would reboot and run PD and then reboot to see if it
>> corrupted the disk, Sure enough, a couple times it did and I
>> had to use either the clone I just made to recover or run chkdsk.
>
> That would seem to indicate that its actually disk activity that
> produces the corruption, supporting the possibility that is just
> something as basic as the removable drive tray thats the problem.
>
> There clearly isnt any other app involved
> when an ImPerfect Disk run corrupts the drive.

> Bet its the removable drive bay or the cable.

And ImPerfect Disk is the obvious thing to use when testing
for corruption, no need to run the normal 2K install for days etc.

>> Speaking of clones I think I mentioned this but sometimes
>> you may not have picked up on it. If I put the clone in the
>> D: without changing the signature with Win98SE fdisk /mbr,
>> it will always BSOD. That's because Win2K tried to mount
>> the same device to two disks with identical signatures.
>
> I dont believe that claim about 2K, essentially because clones work
> fine for others without that abortion involving Win98SE fdisk /mbr
>
> What are you doing the cloning with again ?
>
>> If I use the trick of Win98SE fdisk /mbr on the D: disk,
>> then I do not get the BSOD. Of course Win2K prompts
>> me to reboot because it has found a "new device".
>
>> So let's imaging the scenario where I have a clone in archive
>
> Not clear what you mean by that last.
>
>> which I use as the boot disk when the original
>> disk gets corrupted. I mount this archived clone
>
> Or that either.
>
>> as the boot disk and mount the bad disk as D: so I can run
>> chkdsk d: /f on it. Since I changed the signature on the bad
>> disk to prevent the device conflict and BSOD, and if I don't
>> reboot to satisfy Win2K's request for a new device, then
>> chkdsk will screw up the bad disk and it is not recoverable.
>> IOW, it can't even be mounted any more.
>
> Cant really understand what you mean
> config wise with those 'archive' comments.

On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 20:26:59 GMT, spam@uce.gov (Citizen Bob)
wrote:

>On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 16:49:07 -0400, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>
>>>I still do not know what Registry keys you are referring to.
>
>>I posted them. HKCU-software, HKLM- software,
>>HK-Classes-Root.
>
>I never saw that post. You did not post any Registry keys like the
>ones above on this forum that I can find.

Well you replied to the post I made that listed them, but
you snipped them out of your reply.


>
>I ran a Google Groups Advanced search on this forum with "HKCU" as the
>keyword. I found only this exact post - the one I am replying to right
>here - and one other that had nothing to do with this discussion.

HKEY Current User.

As I already wrote, they're abbreviations, and if you were
actually doing it, you'd see the key in regedit.


>
>Either your computer is broken or you are posting to another group or
>you are hallucinating. But don't take my word for it - check it out
>yourself on Google. If you find it, then I am hallucinating.

You replied to it.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.c...ecc0cae9bea167

(or tinyURL style):
http://tinyurl.com/yev756

>
>>It shouldn't be though, you're only merging the software
>>keys, not the entire registry, and ideally weeding out
>>software you dont' even have installed anymore before
>>exporting it, but if you want to save time and not weed that
>>stuff out, that's ok too- it'll just be a little clutter
>>opposed to a lot of it and the problem.
>
>If those are the only keys I have to deal with, then I can weed them
>out in a text editor or a Registry editor.

Did you do a clean installation yet?
If not, this is exactly what you are doing wrong, trying to
think on things. You will have spent 3X as much time
thinking on it, as it would've taken to do it.
Remember this is a clean test installation, there is no
thought necessary, you are not jeopardizing data, and you
should be making backups of it. It is not at all necessary
to know the whole process, only to start doing it and go
from there.

>
>>There's no point in typing anything more if you're not going
>>to get the system into a state where it could be applied.
>
>Now that I know what keys to export, I can guage the size of the
>project. It looks doable now, so I will put it on my calendar.

LOL

I give up, don't fix it.

On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 16:49:07 -0400, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:

>HKCU-software, HKLM- software, HK-Classes-Root.

OK here's what I propose to do to make things easy with my setup.

I will clone the current NTFS boot partition to a new disk but make
the partition only half the disk. I will then create a new install of
Win2K on the second partition. I will mount these as D: (current) and
F: (new).

I will then export the above mentioned keys and save the exports for
later use. I will then copy the new Registry in F: in entirety to the
current partition D:, thereby replacing the entire Registry on D:. I
can copy anything else from the new install F: you think is important.

Then I can import the exported keys into the new Registry on D:.

That way I will have a new install of Win2K without having to copy all
the apps and other stuff. I just need to make sure I get the important
parts of the new install copied to the current partition so it behaves
like a new install.


--

"Nothing in the world can take the place of perseverence. Talent
will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent.
Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education
will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and
determination alone are omnipotent."
--Calvin Coolidge

On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 21:05:56 -0400, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:

>http://tinyurl.com/yev756

I passed that by because of the way you stated it:

A few of them would tend to be
HKLM-Software, HKCU-Software, and you mentioned classes so
HKCR.

"A few of them" tells me there are more.

"would tend to be" would tend to be.

Those phrases told me you were not sure, so I didn't take them as a
final statement.

So what is your final statement about the Registry keys I must
transfer to make this new install work? Is your last statement
correct:

HKCU-software, HKLM- software, HK-Classes-Root.

Is that correct?

>Did you do a clean installation yet?

I have not done anything yet because I want to be certain what I am
going to do. Statements like

"A few of them" and "would tend to be" does not cut it with me. I
don't need a merry chase. I will try the "clean install" only when I
am confident that it will work.


>If not, this is exactly what you are doing wrong, trying to
>think on things. You will have spent 3X as much time
>thinking on it, as it would've taken to do it.
>Remember this is a clean test installation, there is no
>thought necessary, you are not jeopardizing data, and you
>should be making backups of it. It is not at all necessary
>to know the whole process, only to start doing it and go
>from there.

Please spare us the trite boring lectures. You have spent more time
finger wagging than anything else. You are not my mother so quit
trying to pretend you are.

>>Now that I know what keys to export, I can guage the size of the
>>project. It looks doable now, so I will put it on my calendar.

>LOL

>I give up, don't fix it.

Now it's my turn to finger wag: That is childish.

But if you need to pout, go ahead if it makes you feel better. When
you grow up you will see how stupid that is.


--

"Nothing in the world can take the place of perseverence. Talent
will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent.
Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education
will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and
determination alone are omnipotent."
--Calvin Coolidge

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 10:24:35 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>> 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.

>> 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. I would have
to install all the apps I normally use to perform a valid test and I
would have to do it for at least 1 week. I cannot afford to do that.
Although I do use my computer for recreation like you, I do use it for
finanacial transactions.

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

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

>and if you do,

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

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

That's also why I do not believe that RAM memory is involved. Anyway I
have run extensive diagnostics on all hard drives and RAM and nothing
shows any signs of failure.

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

I do financial transactions every day of the week. The most intense
activity is during the week. They take quite a few apps to run in
entirety.

>and if it does,

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

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

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

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

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

>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.


>>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. 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.

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. There is no evidence to support that claim. You
have an intense bigotry against Centronic-based removable bays that is
obsessing you.

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? 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.

Why would the removable bay corrupt an NTFS partition only at boot
time? I have never experienced a corrupt NTFS partition while running.

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

>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. 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?

>> 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.

>> 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.

>> 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.

>> - 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.

I know exactly why you resort to insults. It's because of your
justifiable inferiority complex, which goes with your incredible
overblown ego.

You like to think of yourself as God's gift to computers. You are very
good at it and can solve most problems thrown at you. But every once
in a while you take on a problem, like this one, which you cannot
solve easily. That causes your brittle ego all sorts of pain because
you do not know how to deal with frustration.

That's because your ego is far too overblown for your own good. The
only way you have to cope with this pain and frustration caused by
your justifiable inferiority complex (caused by your overblown ego not
being able to solve every problem you encounter) is to blame someone
for the problem instead of just admitting that you can't solve the
problem immediately.

What you need to do is grow up and accept the fact that you are not
superman when it comes to computers. Accept that there are problems
that you cannot solve immediately.

Yours is the curse of an academic who has to maintain an overblown ego
in front of students. You cannot allow them to know you are not
superman, or you will lose your credibility. However, this insane mind
set you have developed over the year spills over into private life,
like on this forum.

Now let's see what inane defense you put up for this analysis.



--

"Nothing in the world can take the place of perseverence. Talent
will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent.
Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education
will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and
determination alone are omnipotent."
--Calvin Coolidge

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 10:34:50 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>That would seem to indicate that its actually disk activity that
>produces the corruption,

I use three identical WD 80 GB drives which I have tested in so many
ways that they are known to be good. I ran a full SpinRight on each of
them overnight. They check out perfectly.

If it were the disks why can I go as long as a week without any
problems?

>supporting the possibility that is just
>something as basic as the removable drive tray thats the problem.

Why would the removable bay corrupt an NTFS partition only at boot
time? I have never experienced a corrupt NTFS partition while running.

>There clearly isnt any other app involved
>when an ImPerfect Disk run corrupts the drive.

>Bet its the removable drive bay or the cable.

Why would the removable bay corrupt an NTFS partition only at boot
time? I have never experienced a corrupt NTFS partition while running.

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

>> Speaking of clones I think I mentioned this but sometimes
>> you may not have picked up on it. If I put the clone in the
>> D: without changing the signature with Win98SE fdisk /mbr,
>> it will always BSOD. That's because Win2K tried to mount
>> the same device to two disks with identical signatures.

>I dont believe that claim about 2K, essentially because clones work
>fine for others without that abortion involving Win98SE fdisk /mbr

You are wrong again.

Disk Signature Conflict On Identical Clone Drives

http://www.goodells.net/multiboot/partsigs.htm

>What are you doing the cloning with again ?

Acronis True Image. I have a boot CD and it runs the clone offline.

>> If I use the trick of Win98SE fdisk /mbr on the D: disk,
>> then I do not get the BSOD. Of course Win2K prompts
>> me to reboot because it has found a "new device".

>> So let's imaging the scenario where I have a clone in archive

>Not clear what you mean by that last.

I always have two clone disks in archive since I have three identical
disks. One is very recent and the other is less recent.

>> which I use as the boot disk when the original
>> disk gets corrupted. I mount this archived clone

>Or that either.

If I get a corrupt disk that cannot be repaired with the automatic
chkdsk that runs at boot time, I have to mount it as D:. So I use the
most recent clone as the boot disk in C:. But they have the same
signature, so get a BSOD. That's why I have to use Win98SE to replace
the first 4 bytes of the signature with zeros, which forces Win2K to
remount it internally.

>> as the boot disk and mount the bad disk as D: so I can run
>> chkdsk d: /f on it. Since I changed the signature on the bad
>> disk to prevent the device conflict and BSOD, and if I don't
>> reboot to satisfy Win2K's request for a new device, then
>> chkdsk will screw up the bad disk and it is not recoverable.
>> IOW, it can't even be mounted any more.

>Cant really understand what you mean
>config wise with those 'archive' comments.

Archive means the disk sits on a shelf away from the computer. That's
why I use removable drive bays.


--

"Nothing in the world can take the place of perseverence. Talent
will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent.
Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education
will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and
determination alone are omnipotent."
--Calvin Coolidge

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 10:36:59 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>And ImPerfect Disk is the obvious thing to use when testing
>for corruption, no need to run the normal 2K install for days etc.

I just ran a Google search on "ImPerfect Disk" and got nothing that is
relevant. Where do I get this ImPerfect Disk?

It sounds like just what I need to check out the disk while it is
running. I can set up a Win2K Schedule to run it periodically,
assuming it can be set up to run quietly in background. If it keeps a
log I can take a look when I choose.

>>> Speaking of clones I think I mentioned this but sometimes
>>> you may not have picked up on it. If I put the clone in the
>>> D: without changing the signature with Win98SE fdisk /mbr,

--

"Nothing in the world can take the place of perseverence. Talent
will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent.
Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education
will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and
determination alone are omnipotent."
--Calvin Coolidge

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 01:52:37 GMT, spam@uce.gov (Citizen Bob)
wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 10:24:35 +1100, "Rod Speed"
><rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>

This idea you have about how valuable your system use is, is
exactly WHY you should never be relying on a system in this
state.

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 01:22:45 GMT, spam@uce.gov (Citizen Bob)
wrote:

>On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 21:05:56 -0400, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>
>>http://tinyurl.com/yev756
>
>I passed that by because of the way you stated it:
>
> A few of them would tend to be
>HKLM-Software, HKCU-Software, and you mentioned classes so
>HKCR.
>
>"A few of them" tells me there are more.

Yes that's quite possible.
As I already wrote, the key to doing it is NOT what you are
doing, not trying to think on things.
The key is to actually do it.
Actually.
Not think, do.

You are spending hours "thinking" on things then telling us
you haven't the spare time to do what wouldn't have taken
this long.

As already written, this is a bulk process to get most
things working. Some may not work. Maybe you install 5
things again, or maybe you fire up sysinternal's regmon and
see that when you launch the app, it's trying to read a
particular registry entry, so you merely export that parent
key and merge it.

These are basic concepts, which take more time to think on,
than to do. You may not realize this, and that is why I
continually stress not doing what you are doing, which is
anything except the productive path to get it done. I have
been down this road and have advised what addresses your
expressed need, to have minimal time spent, while you
continue to do the opposite, making it the most drawn out
process possible.


>Those phrases told me you were not sure, so I didn't take them as a
>final statement.

Sure of what? I'm sure you need those keys and I'm sure
it's not guaranteed to make 100% of your apps work. This
was already written, that it is a bulk transfer to get the
majority working, then anything remaining will indicate what
to do next, whether it be more registry entries or files,
but each thing done in turn, NOT trying to do everything at
once is the key.

It is important NOT to do everything at once, because we are
trying to isolate the problem, not duplicate the old
installation perfectly which would naturally reproduce the
problem. Thus, the prudent approach is going to be a
conservative transferral of each type of setting, file, etc.


>
>So what is your final statement about the Registry keys I must
>transfer to make this new install work? Is your last statement
>correct:
>
> HKCU-software, HKLM- software, HK-Classes-Root.
>
>Is that correct?


Yes, export each of these, but not merging them. Get new
installation working 100% first.


>
>>Did you do a clean installation yet?
>
>I have not done anything yet because I want to be certain what I am
>going to do.

What you need to do is to NOT try to think ahead. It is a
fluid process and you may need adapt to what happens. For
instance, after merging registry keys you might launch an
app and get a message like vbrun*.dll not found (or
similar), meaning you need to install MS's visual basic
package.

So in this example, you might google search;

http://www.google.com/search?q=Windo...basic+download

.... and the first hit is the page to download it, then
install.

Such things may happen, but it's not like you have to do it
for every app, one time and you have the visual basic
support.

>Statements like
>
>"A few of them" and "would tend to be" does not cut it with me. I
>don't need a merry chase. I will try the "clean install" only when I
>am confident that it will work.

Then don't.

You are the one with the problem, and you continue to spend
time, yours and ours, on it. This is the next step and it
doesn't matter if you like to do it, can forsee every step
in a process you are not trying to actually DO, or not,
because you only have 3 options left:

1) Live with the problem. Fine by us, it's not our system
but here you are trying to resolve it, so,

2) Do the clean install. As we've already told you, this
is not a matter of being forced to use the clean install for
your daily work, the clean install is a project done in your
spare time, until you are comfortable with it being finished
enough to revert to using it for your daily activities...
and until then you continue using the current problematic
installation.

3) Quit being so difficult and find an alternate point of
view in another forum. I'm not saying "go away", I'm
suggesting that a forum dedicated to WinXP or 2K might have
someone with more insight into the interworkings of NT/2K/XP
such that they might know a mechanism which causes these
phantom duplicate drive entries. That is, if nothing in
Disk Management is revealing. The stop being difficult part
pertains to DOing it- when someone makes a suggestion you
can't take the "I want comprehensive overview and guarantees
first", attitude, you'll have to take the "roll up sleeves
and try the suggestions", attitude. This should not be a
problem providing you are making backups as you'd claimed,
and must necessarily be doing if you are recovering from
this continual data corruption.

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 01:09:25 GMT, spam@uce.gov (Citizen Bob)
wrote:

>On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 16:49:07 -0400, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>
>>HKCU-software, HKLM- software, HK-Classes-Root.
>
>OK here's what I propose to do to make things easy with my setup.
>
>I will clone the current NTFS boot partition to a new disk but make
>the partition only half the disk. I will then create a new install of
>Win2K on the second partition. I will mount these as D: (current) and
>F: (new).
>
>I will then export the above mentioned keys and save the exports for
>later use. I will then copy the new Registry in F: in entirety to the
>current partition D:, thereby replacing the entire Registry on D:. I
>can copy anything else from the new install F: you think is important.

That is not what I'd suggested, and not what I'd do, but if
it's what you want to do, go ahead- it's a clone so if one
way doesn't work you can always try another.

>
>Then I can import the exported keys into the new Registry on D:.
>
>That way I will have a new install of Win2K without having to copy all
>the apps and other stuff.

No, you will have the old install of Win2k, and years worth
of clutter, then merely a slimmer registry. This is
exactly what we wanted to avoid, but maybe you get lucky and
find it (remove the problem) this way regardless.

IMO, the way you're doing it is worse, because with your
proposed method, you are trying to include everything except
for some portions of the registry, you are trying to do
exactly what I advised against, not adding everything (but
the few reg keys) at once so there is no way to see when the
problem resurfaces, if it does- but maybe you will get lucky
and it doesn't.

Either way, make the backups of the clean installation
first, and it'll be easy enough to just restore that and try
again if needed.


>I just need to make sure I get the important
>parts of the new install copied to the current partition so it behaves
>like a new install.

It won't behave like a new install, it'll behave like a
bloated OS and by keeping all those old files you may
inadvertently end up running code you didn't want/need
because it was referenced in the registry keys you added.

The best course is MINIMAL transfer, as much as reasonably
possible without it taking a long time. That would mean not
trying to reuse your current installation files with a new
registry, it would mean attempting to use NOTHING from your
old install except things implicitly necessary to get it to
work.

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.

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

>>> Something I just thought of. When I first started using PerfectDisk,
>>> every once in a while it would cause the same corruption problem.
>>> I knew because before I ran PD, I would reboot to make sure the
>>> volume was not corrupt and then I would create a clone backup.
>>> Then I would reboot and run PD and then reboot to see if it
>>> corrupted the disk, Sure enough, a couple times it did and I
>>> had to use either the clone I just made to recover or run chkdsk.

>> That would seem to indicate that its actually
>> disk activity that produces the corruption,

> I use three identical WD 80 GB drives which I have tested in
> so many ways that they are known to be good. I ran a full
> SpinRight on each of them overnight. They check out perfectly.

Irrelevant to that point.

> If it were the disks

I didnt say it was.

> why can I go as long as a week without any problems?

You'll find out when you identify what is producing the corruption.

>> supporting the possibility that is just something as
>> basic as the removable drive tray thats the problem.

Because it clearly cant be one of the other apps.

> 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.

>> There clearly isnt any other app involved
>> when an ImPerfect Disk run corrupts the drive.

>> Bet its the removable drive bay or the cable.

> 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.

>>> Speaking of clones I think I mentioned this but sometimes
>>> you may not have picked up on it. If I put the clone in the
>>> D: without changing the signature with Win98SE fdisk /mbr,
>>> it will always BSOD. That's because Win2K tried to mount
>>> the same device to two disks with identical signatures.

>> I dont believe that claim about 2K, essentially because clones work
>> fine for others without that abortion involving Win98SE fdisk /mbr

> You are wrong again.

We'll see...

> Disk Signature Conflict On Identical Clone Drives

> http://www.goodells.net/multiboot/partsigs.htm

Doesnt say anything like your claim above.

>> What are you doing the cloning with again ?

> Acronis True Image. I have a boot CD and it runs the clone offline.

>>> If I use the trick of Win98SE fdisk /mbr on the D: disk,
>>> then I do not get the BSOD. Of course Win2K prompts
>>> me to reboot because it has found a "new device".

>>> So let's imaging the scenario where I have a clone in archive

>> Not clear what you mean by that last.

> I always have two clone disks in archive since I have three
> identical disks. One is very recent and the other is less recent.

OK, I realised that you had that many physical drives,
just wouldnt have called that an archive myself.

>>> which I use as the boot disk when the original
>>> disk gets corrupted. I mount this archived clone

>> Or that either.

I just meant the use of the word 'archived' there.

> If I get a corrupt disk that cannot be repaired with the automatic
> chkdsk that runs at boot time, I have to mount it as D:. So I use the
> most recent clone as the boot disk in C:. But they have the same
> signature, so get a BSOD. That's why I have to use Win98SE to replace
> the first 4 bytes of the signature with zeros, which forces Win2K to
> remount it internally.

>>> as the boot disk and mount the bad disk as D: so I can run
>>> chkdsk d: /f on it. Since I changed the signature on the bad
>>> disk to prevent the device conflict and BSOD, and if I don't
>>> reboot to satisfy Win2K's request for a new device, then
>>> chkdsk will screw up the bad disk and it is not recoverable.
>>> IOW, it can't even be mounted any more.

>> Cant really understand what you mean
>> config wise with those 'archive' comments.

> Archive means the disk sits on a shelf away from the
> computer. That's why I use removable drive bays.

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 00:31:30 -0400, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:

>This idea you have about how valuable your system use is, is
>exactly WHY you should never be relying on a system in this
>state.

I have two clones, and I know how to recover. That gets me by.

I make sure that I have at least one archive disk (disk on the shelf)
that works. The way I know it works is I reboot it and if it works I
immediately clone it, then I put it on the shelf. Then I boot the
clone I just made and if it works too I know the original I just put
on the shelf works.

If something in that sequence goes wrong, I immediately fix it. For
example if the clone is broken, I fix it and use it to fix the source
from which it is made, then I start over with the source disk and redo
the above procedure.

Yeah, I know - it's a pain in the ass. That's why I am willing to try
your "clean install" procedure after I make damn sure it is going to
work.



--

"Nothing in the world can take the place of perseverence. Talent
will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent.
Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education
will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and
determination alone are omnipotent."
--Calvin Coolidge

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 16:22:30 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>> 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 have done that as a test - reboot an uncorrupt disk several times
during the day. That's exactly what I did with both the new FAT32 and
the new NTFS I made the other day. Both passed the test every time.

I did not run the FAT32 for a week so I will not know if it would have
worked. I may go back to FAT32 when I figure out what would happen if
one of my DVD applications built a temp file that is larger than 4 GB.
For all I know, that never happens.

The main reason I went back to NTFS was a comment you made (actually
it was one of your famous pontifications) that if I converted the
FAT32 to a new NTFS filesystem it would not get corrupted.
Unfortunately you were wrong, because when I let the system go about 3
days between reboots, it got corrupted.

I can convert over to FAT32 again (I can do it in my sleep now).

>> 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.

You are assuming that the corruption occurs while running instead of
when I shut down for a reboot. There is no evidence to support that.

>> 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.

That does not mean I do not run many of them.

>> 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.

Actually I suspect the corruption occurs at shutdown. I even tried
disabling the write thru cache but it did not help. Then I tried
setting the Registry key that tells Win2K to do a cleanup of the
system files at shutdown, but that did not work either.

>> 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.

I agree and that's why I will run ImPerfect Disk when you tell me
where to get it.

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

Is that where Win2K keeps the so-called "security descripters"?

BTW, when a corrupt disk occurs and Win2K runs chkdsk at boot time
automatically, the repair is almost always the same, which seems to
indicate that whatever is causing the corruption is almost always the
same thing.

When chkdsk at reboot is unable to clean up the mess (and I get a
BSOD), or I get a BSOD before it even gets to run chkdsk - and I have
to mount the disk as D: to run chkdsk from inside Win2K, the repair is
considerably more extensive. Chkdsk fills several screens with repair
comments, most of which is fixing security descripters.

I have run System File Checker (SFC) a couple of times in the outside
chance that I had a virus. I have swept the disk several times with
Ad-Aware and Avast. No viruses detected.

>> 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.

Yes, but there is even more disk activity when I am running yet there
is no indication of disc corruption.

Actually that is not completely true. There was a brief period when
the system would reboot itself while running. I thought it could be
from a corrupt disk during run time. But it did not run chkdsk when it
rebooted and there was no EV record about a corrupt NTFS volume. I
even forced chkdsk on reboot and nothing was wrong.

But that random rebooting went away months ago and I have never
experienced it since.

>> 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.

But first I want to run ImPerfect Disk.

>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 want me to run ImPerfect Disk by itself? I can do that overnight
for 12 hours.

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

Then I need to connect the boot disk directly. I would be very happy
of that turns out to be the problem because I can work around it with
my cloning system. I would have to tell the BIOS to boot off of a disk
in the removable bay so the direct-connected one is D: and therefore I
can run chkdsk on it from inside Win2K.

>> 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.

Especially since I am running a 2 GB pagefile in memory. I still think
it's during shutdown that the problem occurs. If I had the time and
patience, I would take every disk I shutdown and before I rebooted it,
I would mount it as D: so I could run chkdks on it. That way I would
find out if the problem occurs at reboot. But that is a lot of work
and I would rather dedicate my limited resources to things that are
more direct.

>> But I have to reboot to run chkdsk.

>No you dont.

How do you propose to run chkdsk without rebooting or without
remounting the disk as D:?

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

>Go and fuck yourself.

Jeez, you can sure disk it out, but you can't take it. That's a sure
sign of a brittle overblown ego.

>>> Thats just the excuse for the bone headedness.

>> That's an ad hominem.

><reams of your puerile shit flushed where it belongs>

Jeez, you can sure disk it out, but you can't take it. That's a sure
sign of a brittle overblown ego.

>Grow up.

You grow up - you need to a lot more than me.


--

"Nothing in the world can take the place of perseverence. Talent
will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent.
Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education
will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and
determination alone are omnipotent."
--Calvin Coolidge

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 16:34:13 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>> 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.

My vote is that the corruption occurs during shutdown, when Win2K
writes the memory-resident part to the system files, the pagefile and
the MFT.

>> Disk Signature Conflict On Identical Clone Drives

>> http://www.goodells.net/multiboot/partsigs.htm

>Doesnt say anything like your claim above.

It explains why I must use Win98SE fdisk to clear the signature.

>OK, I realised that you had that many physical drives,
>just wouldnt have called that an archive myself.

It's shorter than "removable disk I put on the shelf".

>I just meant the use of the word 'archived' there.

You speak Oz English, which is like Pom English. I speak Real English,
the same as most of the world's computers. The Real English meaning of
"archive" is found in an Real English American dictionary like
Websters Online:

archive: the material preserved


--

"Nothing in the world can take the place of perseverence. Talent
will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent.
Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education
will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and
determination alone are omnipotent."
--Calvin Coolidge

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 00:58:37 -0400, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:

>> A few of them would tend to be
>>HKLM-Software, HKCU-Software, and you mentioned classes so
>>HKCR.

>>"A few of them" tells me there are more.

>Yes that's quite possible.
>As I already wrote, the key to doing it is NOT what you are
>doing, not trying to think on things.
>The key is to actually do it.
>Actually.
>Not think, do.

I do not have time to run around on merry chases. Either I know what I
am going to do has a good chance of success or I pass it by.

>You are spending hours "thinking" on things then telling us
>you haven't the spare time to do what wouldn't have taken
>this long.

I am doing that in hope of running this problem down. I am confident
that you experts will come across something along the way that points
us to the problem. We already have a lot of data, but there are a
couple things still missing.

>As already written, this is a bulk process to get most
>things working. Some may not work. Maybe you install 5
>things again, or maybe you fire up sysinternal's regmon and
>see that when you launch the app, it's trying to read a
>particular registry entry, so you merely export that parent
>key and merge it.

I just as well reinstall Windows and all my apps as do that.

>These are basic concepts, which take more time to think on,
>than to do. You may not realize this, and that is why I
>continually stress not doing what you are doing, which is
>anything except the productive path to get it done. I have
>been down this road and have advised what addresses your
>expressed need, to have minimal time spent, while you
>continue to do the opposite, making it the most drawn out
>process possible.

You must think I sit around looking for things to do. That is not the
case. I am always busy with something.

If I had more confidence that this Registry stunt of yours would
really work, then I would give it a try. But it sounds like you are
just throwing shit on the wall in the outside chance it will work,
maybe. I need more confidence before I embark on a long project such
as we discussed.

My problem with what you propose - exporting three Registry keys - is
that the Registry has a lot more configuration information that is
specific to applications than just 3 keys. If I don't export that,
then I am not going to get a "clean install", as you call it. The
search for more keys could take days. Then I could leave behind some
keys that I do not discover are missing until months later, in which
it is too late to go back and export them because the apps have
changed their configuration and the exported keys do not have that
information.

Whoever came up with that Registry crap should be executed so his
screwed up genes do not contaminate the human race. People do not have
this kind of nightmare to deal with on UNIX, because configurations
are file-based. It is much easier to deal with a flat file than a data
base.

>>Those phrases told me you were not sure, so I didn't take them as a
>>final statement.

>Sure of what? I'm sure you need those keys and I'm sure
>it's not guaranteed to make 100% of your apps work. This
>was already written, that it is a bulk transfer to get the
>majority working, then anything remaining will indicate what
>to do next, whether it be more registry entries or files,
>but each thing done in turn, NOT trying to do everything at
>once is the key.
>
>It is important NOT to do everything at once, because we are
>trying to isolate the problem, not duplicate the old
>installation perfectly which would naturally reproduce the
>problem. Thus, the prudent approach is going to be a
>conservative transferral of each type of setting, file, etc.

That makes more sense than your earlier terse comments. But it still
involves a lot of work chasing after things that I know nothing about.

>> HKCU-software, HKLM- software, HK-Classes-Root.
>>Is that correct?

>Yes, export each of these, but not merging them. Get new
>installation working 100% first.

Of course.

>>>Did you do a clean installation yet?
>>
>>I have not done anything yet because I want to be certain what I am
>>going to do.
>
>What you need to do is to NOT try to think ahead. It is a
>fluid process and you may need adapt to what happens. For
>instance, after merging registry keys you might launch an
>app and get a message like vbrun*.dll not found (or
>similar), meaning you need to install MS's visual basic
>package.
>
>So in this example, you might google search;
>
>http://www.google.com/search?q=Windo...basic+download
>
>... and the first hit is the page to download it, then
>install.

I kept every app and its support files in a ZIP directory. However if
I did have to reinstall, I would consider getting the latest version
so I can at least be updated.

> you only have 3 options left:

You left out going back to a FAT32 system and hoping none of my apps
ever builds a 4 GB file.

Which is what I may do because I never really tested it.

In fact that is exactly what I am going to do before I do anything
else. I can do a FAT32 conversion in my sleep, so it's no big deal. I
actually have the last one but it is dated by now so it would be
better just to make one with this current version of the operating
system and applications. I have installed a lot of new stuff for my
JP1 project I am working on now, including an update of Java.

Let's run the FAT32 for a full week or two and see what happens. I
realize you don't care for FAT32 because it can lead to lost files.
But that's with Win9x or WinME, not Win2K.


--

"Nothing in the world can take the place of perseverence. Talent
will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent.
Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education
will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and
determination alone are omnipotent."
--Calvin Coolidge

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 01:11:04 -0400, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:

>>I will then export the above mentioned keys and save the exports for
>>later use. I will then copy the new Registry in F: in entirety to the
>>current partition D:, thereby replacing the entire Registry on D:. I
>>can copy anything else from the new install F: you think is important.

>That is not what I'd suggested, and not what I'd do, but if
>it's what you want to do, go ahead- it's a clone so if one
>way doesn't work you can always try another.

>>Then I can import the exported keys into the new Registry on D:.

>>That way I will have a new install of Win2K without having to copy all
>>the apps and other stuff.

>No, you will have the old install of Win2k, and years worth
>of clutter, then merely a slimmer registry. This is
>exactly what we wanted to avoid, but maybe you get lucky and
>find it (remove the problem) this way regardless.
>
>IMO, the way you're doing it is worse,
I agree. Forget I mentioned it. If I do a clean install I will have to
do it your way to avoid carrying over any contamination.

However, I would rather just do a new install including all my apps
than to go thru all those contortions. That would guarantee no
contamination.

Of course if I did it that way I would first copy over the Profiles
and install a minimum number of apps to keep productive for my most
important projects. The other stuff I would have to put on hold.

But them if I do that, why not install XP Pro and use its wizard to
move everything from Win2K. I suppose I can learn to live with XP if I
use the compatibility mode. I was wanting to wait for Vista but I
never install a new version of Windows without the first SP out and
tested, and that could be a couple years with Vista. Therefore I
should consider XP for the interim. My son has been running XP for
years and he likes it, so it can't be all that bad.

Then I can slowly install my other apps, taking the opportunity to
upgrade them as I install each one.

It sounds like a plan, but first I want to squeeze the last bit of
life out of Win2K. That's why I am going to convert back to FAT32 and
give it a chance to hang itself by running it a couple weeks.


--

"Nothing in the world can take the place of perseverence. Talent
will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent.
Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education
will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and
determination alone are omnipotent."
--Calvin Coolidge