• Cormy1



    Viewing 15 replies - 1 through 15 (of 31 total)
    • in reply to: Windows sees RAW, chkdsk sees NTFS #2635961

      Don’t think there’s any reason to look beyond GNU ddrescue but I guess if you don’t want to touch Linux, it’s a cool option.
      I have a live boot disk and have used ddrescue before so for me it’s no problem. Just boot, install the package through the manager and run.
      Currently have less than 300kb of bad sectors that it couldn’t read after several passes. To me it’s completely insignificant on a 1TB drive that is less than 50% utilized and doesn’t have important data on it anyway.

      Anyway the drive did end up showing as NTFS formatted eventually, may have just needed to reboot the system for some changes to take.

    • in reply to: Windows sees RAW, chkdsk sees NTFS #2635960

      ddrescue is free and also tells you, I just hadn’t gotten to the point of running it at the time, I’m also unsure of what the point of finding where the errors are occurring even was in the first place, it’s a strange comment to make. I could cross-reference with TestDisk just to map out which partitions contain the bad sectors and go further to figure out which files are corrupt but the repair steps would still end up being the same, and that is backing up the data regardless, so that it can be moved off of bad sectors.

    • in reply to: Windows sees RAW, chkdsk sees NTFS #2615315

      Neither of those tools would indicate where the errors are occurring, SMART data isn’t that smart, you just get a count of various statistics. chkdsk on the other hand does tell me where it is finding bad clusters, relative the filesystem.
      Bad clusters appear when data is failed to be read. There is nothing to correct if you cannot read the data. This is an error that occurs before ECC can take place.
      The disk is not about to die, it is dying, as all disks are. It’s just further along the process.
      The disk is over 10 years old, I’m well aware it is suffering bit rot.
      As I said, there is nothing important in there, I just wanted to know how to fix the partition table, as that is what Windows references in Disk Management to populate the partition data, whereas chkdsk and other applications will actually analyze the data structure to identify the partition type.

      Wouldn’t be the first time I’ve run into and fixed a similar kind of corruption, spinning rust doesn’t like being dropped while powered on very much (laptops). I was just looking for more input regarding what I saw as a fairly unique scenario I couldn’t find mentioned anywhere else online.

    • in reply to: Windows sees RAW, chkdsk sees NTFS #2610757

      It did contain data, though not important data.
      I would of course re-format if need-be but since most of it seemed to to be intact, I wanted to try to recover it.
      Some messages I received while running chkdsk with /r or /b options:

      Windows replaced bad clusters in file
      An unspecified error occurred (75736e6a726e6c2e 500).
      Adding bad clusters to the Bad Clusters File.
      Correcting errors in the master file table’s (MFT) BITMAP attribute.
      Correcting errors in the Volume Bitmap.

      I ended up running chkdsk /r on a loop using a batch file for a few days until it consistently ran without finding any errors to fix. I also attempted to backup the partition using Macrium Reflect, and tried checking the partition using GParted. Pretty much everything had failed in some way or another and I was preparing to run GNU ddrescue or RecuperaBit just to see if I could move the contents, format the partition, and then move them back to see if that made things better, before running bootrec to fix the MBR.
      In any case, today it finally showed up as NTFS in disk management. I have no idea which step ended up finally getting Windows to recognize it, but as I said earlier, chkdsk saw it just fine, as did all the other applications I ran on it so to me it was never a case so dire that I should have to delete the partition entirely.
      I think it’s likely that re-writing the partition table with Testdisk solved it, I maybe just needed to restart the system to see it take effect.
      … and you know I say that but as soon as I unmounted the partition it went right back to showing up as RAW. How very interesting. I mount it, and it shows up as NTFS again.
      That’s special. Guess I’mma continue with backing it up and trying to fix it fully.

    • It’s the HWID upgrade feature with newer builds that likely doesn’t work, but a fresh install with a CoA/standalone key still currently works, as well as digital keys tied to your account.


    • in reply to: Ventoy: Create a Bootable USB With Multiple ISO Files #2590775


      Do you have any addition to make of the comparison between YUMI and Ventoy?

      It’s amazing how little info I seem to be able to dig up on either of these solutions, even though it should be one of the simplest things in the world.

      Particularly concerning the USB format, and whether you can boot into either UEFI or BIOS mode to make a Windows installation onto either an MBR or GPT formatted disk.

    • in reply to: Guide for using Flash Player in 2023 #2590772

      Your links 404 but I assume what the edit does is change the Flash Player to blacklist mode, as the primary method of blocking was originally just putting it in whitelist mode, which means all sites were blocked from running it without specifically whitelisting them.

      I still run flash just fine by editing that whitelist found in C:\Windows\SysWOW64\Macromed\Flash\mms.cfg

      imo, this is a safer method than the one you seem to be showing as you make no mention of whitelisting, so I assume that means it’s just going to run on all sites again (though typically there’s still a prompt to run)
      Additionally, no hex editing is required.

      This of course still relies on you having Flash, which means avoiding the Windows and browser updates that remove it.

      Populate the list following this format:


    • in reply to: Windows Defender not updating on Windows 7 and 8.1 #2584104

      Funny, updates went fine for me today too.
      Now on 1.395.1519.0 on Win8.1
      I guess M$ has figured out their connection issues.

      1 user thanked author for this post.
    • in reply to: Windows Defender not updating on Windows 7 and 8.1 #2584102

      I experienced issues on Windows 7, 8.1 and 10.
      imo, the platform is as irrelevant as always, I just specify it to make others aware and that is my daily-use device. My Windows 7 machine had FEWER issues with this, while my Windows 10 device has a completely broken Windows Defender that hasn’t worked for months.
      Windows Defender is an independent program, as long as it can run, it shouldn’t matter what version of Windows is involved. Don’t think Defender is EOL.
      Hilariously as mentioned below by kandb, the update went without issue today. The error has always indicated a connection issue, not a system issue. Probably M$ fooling around with their security certificates or something.
      I am now on 1.395.1519.0 and have ONLY used Defender to run updates.

      1 user thanked author for this post.
    • in reply to: Windows Defender not updating on Windows 7 and 8.1 #2583030

      <p class=”p-title-value”>Still getting connection failed and error 0x80072F8F on Windows 8.1, has anyone reported this to Microsoft?
      A user on Windows 11 posted a similar issue in March, but the thread was already locked without it being solved…

      1 user thanked author for this post.
    • in reply to: Windows Defender not updating on Windows 7 and 8.1 #2577892

      Ran without issue and said no updates needed, but Defender itself still says it’s out of date and doesn’t appear to be updating correctly on Win8.1

      I am on 1.393.702.0 according to my Defender.

      In trying to fix the strange Kaspersky behaviour I had on my Windows 7 device, I once again made it unbootable.
      The hilarious part is I JUST had it running and was considering doing an in-place upgrade at the time but I didn’t bother. So after restarting and having my SUR/SFC/DISM fixes take, I get the System License Violation BSoD and, once again, it turned out that running such fixes made things worse.
      When things work, LEAVE THEM BE!

    • in reply to: Windows Defender not updating on Windows 7 and 8.1 #2577362

      Can confirm experiencing the same on Win8.1
      My Windows 7 desktop runs Kaspersky and even that had a momentary bug out telling me that the software wasn’t supported and starting properly, but I was able to update it and everything went back to normal.
      You know it’s bad when even the third-party AV is running into conflicts with Defender.

      1 user thanked author for this post.
    • in reply to: Should I upgrade to Windows 10? #2511890

      Messy thread, the formatting of this forum really needs an update.

      In any case, I will just add that the problem you are trying to solve: advertisements showing up on some video site; has nothing to do with your operating system and there is no guarantee that upgrading to Windows 10 will solve it.

      If you have not used Windows 10 in the past, you may now be greeted by new headaches of learning its quirks, while still running into advertisements when you browse the web because the operating system is irrelevant.

      You may have simply needed to update uBlock Origin, or add filters to it for those advertisements. As good as uBlock is, it cannot be aware of every advertisement in existence, and so you could have manually blocked them until uBlock adds those advertisements to the filter lists you subscribe to.


      As for you ISO troubles, the ISO file is a blueprint. RUFUS uses it as a reference to create files and folders on the USB. You will never deal with the ISO file yourself, it is only used by RUFUS. When RUFUS is finished its work, your USB will have a regular folder structure with a setup.exe file in it. You will not see an ISO file on the USB, just as you do not see a blueprint of your house on your property, you are only left with the house.

      Personally, I see no reason for you to upgrade, and if you have no one to setup your new Windows 10 installation for you, I think you will be a bit lost with the UI changes. Plus you’ll be enjoying a whole slew of new telemetry along with all kinds of active elements you never asked for. Cortana, the weather widget, the screensaver factoids and notifications being the first prime suspects for me, not that the Start Menu itself is any better with its myriad of metro buttons, plus fighting with Windows update.

      No, I have yet to be convinced of anything good in Windows 10. I even made a topic on the subject in these forums and I never got an answer that was meaningful to me.

    • in reply to: Forced Update to 21H2 #2487082

      I understand that, but why would it have taken this long to “take”?

      I see now this wasn’t actually the first time, and that I wasn’t actually on 1803 at all.

      Rather I was updated to 1909 on August 17th, 2021. Still over a year after my installation but does make more sense.

      This latest 21H2 update first tried to install on July 6th I see and I guess it has been trying ever since. Perhaps this is because of my “active” hours schedule, which would normally prevent updates from 6AM to midnight, and maybe my parents ended up leaving the PC on overnight on those days.

      Very frustrating.

    • in reply to: Is this the end of the road for Windows 7? #2449115

      Good man, staying on the last Flash-supporting version too.
      I too continue to use 78.15
      It works, that’s all I need. Unfortunately it’s not my IDEAL version, as 69 introduced Pocket and messed New Tab/Window/Homepage controls, 71 also messed with about:config
      I have delved into userchrome.css on other devices, mostly using pre-made ones off the net, it makes a big difference and it’s very safe to tweak.
      Still more comfortable with about:config tweaks, of which I have made many even on 78.15
      I don’t understand how every software update seems intent on making UI less dense/compact, and less accessible at the same time. They waste so much real-estate while simultaneously hiding functions behind sub-menus and dropdowns.
      Want to guess how much space my UI takes up? 81 pixels on my 1080p screen. That includes the Menu Bar, which gives me faster access to more features than what’s hidden in the modern “Hamburger” menu. So menu bar+URL+tabs=81 pixels
      I could shrink the URL bar and tabs a little more but this is still way less space than 99% of the default UIs I see these days, which are more like the Ribbons that Microsoft seems to think are good design.

      2 users thanked author for this post.
    Viewing 15 replies - 1 through 15 (of 31 total)