What order of imaging is required? - Storage

This is a discussion on What order of imaging is required? - Storage ; "Eric Gisin" wrote: > "Timothy Daniels" wrote: >> "Eric Gisin" wrote: >>> It typically means a mismatch between BIOS and boot sector >>> geometries, or volume corruption. >> >> ...caused by a boot sector that actually applied to the old ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 27 of 27

Thread: What order of imaging is required?

  1. Re: SATA Drive cant boot XP: NTLDR error

    "Eric Gisin" wrote:
    > "Timothy Daniels" wrote:
    >> "Eric Gisin" wrote:
    >>> It typically means a mismatch between BIOS and boot sector
    >>> geometries, or volume corruption.

    >>
    >> ...caused by a boot sector that actually applied to the old
    >> partition now being overwritten by the new image file which
    >> does not have a boot sector? IOW, an obsolete boot sector?
    >>

    > I think they copy boot sector exactly, which is insufficient.
    > They have to patch the CHS values to match the partition table.



    I believe that the OP is copying partition 1 on the old drive to
    partition 1 on the new drive, and partition 1 has the boot files,
    including ntldr. What would change that would make partition 1
    and its contained ntldr not findable?

    *TimDaniels*



  2. Re: SATA Drive cant boot XP: NTLDR error

    Timothy Daniels wrote
    > Rod Speed wrote
    >> Timothy Daniels wrote:
    >>> Folkert Rienstra (a.k.a. "Rod Speed", et. al.) wrote


    >> **** you're a terminal ****wit Timmy. We dont even use the
    >> same usenet server, or the same usenet client either, fool.
    >> The styles and even the spelling is quite different too, stupid.


    > And you can't even tell yourselves apart anymore, Roddels.


    Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.



  3. Re: SATA Drive cant boot XP: NTLDR error

    Timothy Daniels wrote in news:474dd1c9$0$15360$4c368faf@roadrunner.com
    > "Eric Gisin" wrote:
    > > No, the message comes from the volume boot sector, which
    > > only loads NTLDR, nothing else.


    > That's logical and probably true..


    Right, so obviously your comment about it missing was utterly clueless.

    > I'm only going by what several websites stated - that other missing boot
    > files could also result in "ntldr missing or corrupt" error messages.


    But that was not what you said, now was it, Timmy.

    > It *is* conceivable that ntldr returning an error code upon not finding
    > a valid boot.ini or not finding an ntdetect.com to pass control to would
    > cause the boot sector logic to class the error as due to a "missing ntldr".


    Keep digging, Timmy child. How's your chinese.

    >
    > > It typically means a mismatch between BIOS and boot sector
    > > geometries, or volume corruption.

    >
    > ...caused by a boot sector that actually applied to the old
    > partition now being overwritten by the new image file which
    > does not have a boot sector?


    Nope. You can't have an image without a bootsector.
    The bootsector defines the filesystem used in the image.

    > IOW, an obsolete boot sector?
    >
    > *TimDaniels*


  4. Re: SATA Drive cant boot XP: NTLDR error

    Timothy Daniels wrote in news:474e21d1$0$16460$4c368faf@roadrunner.com
    > "Eric Gisin" wrote:
    > > "Timothy Daniels" wrote:
    > > > "Eric Gisin" wrote:
    > > > > It typically means a mismatch between BIOS and boot sector
    > > > > geometries, or volume corruption.
    > > >
    > > > ...caused by a boot sector that actually applied to the old
    > > > partition now being overwritten by the new image file which
    > > > does not have a boot sector? IOW, an obsolete boot sector?
    > > >

    > > I think they copy boot sector exactly, which is insufficient.
    > > They have to patch the CHS values to match the partition table.

    >
    > I believe that the OP is copying partition 1 on the old drive to
    > partition 1 on the new drive, and partition 1 has the boot files,
    > including ntldr.


    > What would change that would make partition 1


    Partition 1 is perfectly 'findable' as is its bootsector.
    ntloader will not be found because ...

    > and its contained ntldr not findable?


    .... different CHS settings between the 2 drives maybe?

    What exactly did you not understand, Timmy, in:

    " I think they copy boot sector exactly, which is insufficient.
    They have to patch the CHS values to match the partition table."


    >
    > *TimDaniels*


  5. Re: SATA Drive cant boot XP: NTLDR error

    "Folkert Rienstra" (a.ka. "Rod Speed", "Eric Gisin") spewed:
    > What exactly did you not understand, Timmy, in:
    >
    > " I think they copy boot sector exactly, which is insufficient.
    > They have to patch the CHS values to match the partition table."



    I don't know, why not turn to your left hand and ask Eric.

    *TimDaniels*



  6. Re: SATA Drive cant boot XP: NTLDR error

    Timothy Daniels wrote in news:474f0a36$0$2309$4c368faf@roadrunner.com
    > "Folkert Rienstra" (a.ka. "Rod Speed", "Eric Gisin") spewed:
    > > What exactly did you not understand, Timmy, in:
    > >
    > > " I think they copy boot sector exactly, which is insufficient.
    > > They have to patch the CHS values to match the partition table."

    >


    > I don't know,


    Yes, Timmy, not a clue.

    > why not turn to your left hand and ask Eric.


    So Eric, what did toddler Timmy not understand in:

    " I think they copy boot sector exactly, which is insufficient.
    They have to patch the CHS values to match the partition table."

    >
    > *TimDaniels*


  7. Re: SATA Drive cant boot XP: NTLDR error

    "Folkert Rienstra" (a.ka.a "Rod Speed", "Eric Gisin", et. al.) finally
    sputtered:
    > So Eric, what did toddler Timmy not understand in:



    Give it a rest, Rod. We all know who and what you are.

    *TimDaniels*



+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2