🚀 go-pugleaf

Richard RUDEK <x@invalid.zeta.org.au> wrote in message news:397da796.35367520@news.zeta.org.au...
> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>> Richard RUDEK <x@invalid.zeta.org.au> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote

> First of all, Ian has, apparently, already followed my
> suggestion about testing the drive with the Quantum
> Data Protection System utility, which found a fault,

So it turns out that there was indeed a hardware
fault and the result he got wasnt due to the use
of the AUTO settings, which he didnt use anyway.

> and any "discussion" since, has basically
> ceased to be about Ian's specific problems.

Yes, they had moved on to a discussion of your claim that the specific
symptoms he saw was 'probably' the result of using the AUTO settings.

In fact when the detail of the symptoms he saw are considered,
specifically the fact that he could recover quite a bit of what at first
sight appeared to be lost, but very slowly, the evidence in the original
post made it much more likely that he had seen a hardware fault.

And you still havent been able to show how the use of
the AUTO settings could produce the symptoms he saw.

And you dont appear to be able to grasp that no one has
ever disputed that the mapping between CHS and logical
blocks does change with a variety of changes to drive
settings, different bios, use of a drive overlay etc.

What was disputed was that the use of AUTO settings can do that.
And you havent managed to show that thats actually possible with
a system that just spontaneously shows the symptoms he saw.

> You, instead, seem to be on some ego trip, trying your best to make
> a big deal out of something which was suggested, with at best, 5mins
> worth of composition, whilst surfing the net and between downloads.

I wouldnt have even bothered to comment if you had had
the balls to admit that on more thought, that the symptoms
he saw cant be produced by the use of AUTO drive settings.

When you continued to rabbit on about what was never disputed,
that the mapping between CHS and logical blocks does indeed
change with a variety of changes to drive settings, bios used,
drive overlays etc, I just pointed out that that does nothing to
substantiate your claim about the use of AUTO settings.

> An analogy being a group of people sitting on a beach, one asking
> what the time is, nobody having a watch, and people taking a guess.
> Then you, carrying on about the *flaws* of those suggestions which
> differed to yours - basically being a wanker.

You're gunna have to do a hell of a lot better than this
to bullshit your way out of your predicament now Rudek.

There is the tiny matter of your 'what I and Svend
have attempted to explain to you' just below.

You 'think' you're actually fooling anyone at all ?  Fraid not.


>>> Rod, it's plain to me that there's nothing more I can say, that
>>> will convey what I and Svend have attempted to explain to you.

>> You both keep rabitting on about what wasnt even being discussed.

>> No one has ever disputed that the mapping between CHS
>> and logical blocks does indeed change with the drive type
>> settings used in the bios, different bios and drive overlays
>> that get around bios limitations at particular drive sizes.

>> What was being discussed was your assertion
>> that the symptoms that Ian saw can be produced
>> by the use of AUTO drive settings in the bios.

> No, that was not being "discused", at least, not by me.

Wrong. You were the one that made that original claim about AUTO
settings 'probably' being what produced the symptoms Ian saw.

> What started this particular branch of this thread, which I
> and Svend have, according to you, been "rabitting on about",
> was your claim on the 21 Jul @ 6:16, that:

>   The bios AUTO setting doesnt use the partition
>   table. It just asks the drive about its parameters,
>   and the drive doesnt use the partition table either.

And you aint done any more than proclaim that it does use the
partition table and havent been able to do more than proclaim.

> Yes, I did earlier say that I have seen the symptoms which Ian described,
> when I had a corruption of a partition table, along with a buggy BIOS, which
> caused a weird translation problems, and resulted in a DOS mode format
> reporting a large number of consecutive bad clusters, beyond a cetain point.

> Later, when responding "AWP" and "Tpsa", I realised that when Ian
> said "multiple seeks and retries on dodgey sectors", that this *could*
> in fact be drive recalibrations (your suggestion, in a parallel branch),
> rather than DOS retrying. I then related a situation (not as verbosely
> as follows) where I had a drive/BIOS combination that would cause
> the hard disk to recalibrate when I attempted to seek to certain CHS
> addresses. This could only be explained by a bug in the BIOS, as
> flashing the BIOS removed the problem. However, I then attempted
> to reproduce the problem using the new BIOS, and found that if I
> attempted to access beyond the storage capacity of that drive
> (invalid LBA addresses), it caused the hard disk to recalibrate.
> ie The buggy BIOS was most likely producing invalid
> LBA addresses when converting from CHS addresses.

Still irrelevant to Ian's situation where the recals do eventually
return useful data. That is the evidence that the recals cant have
been due to requests for blocks outside what the drive actually has.

> If such a bug where triggered in Ian's system's BIOS, then
> it's possible the recalibrations *could* be explained by such.

Nope, not when the recals do eventually get the data.

> As for your comment about the block address being unsigned,
> so it could contain a negative block address, shows you know little
> about practical programming and machine code (or chosen to be so).

Know a damned sight more about it than you do
boy, and was doing it before you were even born.

> But in addition to the initial suggestion, I also suggested Ian should
> test the drive with a diagnostic utilitiy, to which you replied:

>   But that isnt likely to say much if its an intermittent
>   fault, particularly if it was a fault external to the drive.

> Is that a dismisal, or did you want Ian to use the utility ?

Its just pointing out that when the drive appears to now be
working fine, particularly if the hardware problem is external
to the drive, that particular diagnostic, if it said the drive was
fine, isnt saying anything definitive about whether a hardware
problem was what caused the problems Ian saw.

>> What was being discussed was your assertion that
>> the symptoms that Ian saw can be produced by the use
>> of AUTO drive settings in the bios. You havent actually
>> provided a shred of evidence tosupport that assertion.

> Evidence ?

Yep, evidence. Not a shred on that assertion.

> According to you, on the 27 Jul @ 6:22:
>   That brings up the question of how adequate those experiments were.

> you've already questioned the adequacy of my experimentation.

Yes, and if you had actually spelt out the detail of just what you
had done, particularly on the actual bytes changed in the partition
table and the effect that specific changes made had had on the
CHS to logical block mapping, so anyone could try those changes
and see if they get that effect, that would allow anyone who cared
to try it for themselves to see just how valid your claim about the
bios using data in the partitions tables is on that CHS/LBA mapping.

> So it follows that you will likely question
> any experiments that I may make now,

Anyone can try it for themselves if you spell out exactly what
changes to what bytes in the partition table demonstrate a
change in the CHS/LBA mapping, with nothing else changed.

> and ultimately, it will all end up being hearsay.

Wrong when anyone can try the specifics for themselves.

> So why bother.

Because it would provide the evidence to demostrate that your claim
that data in the partition tables does affect the CHS/LBA mapping.

I'd like to know if that is in fact happening.

Corse it still doesnt do a damned thing about the claim that the
use of AUTO settings can produce the effect Ian saw unless you
can also show that those bytes only affect the CHS/LBA mapping
when the AUTO settings are used and not when they arent.

All basic engineering Rudek, as opposed to your smokescreen of bullshit.

> At any rate, I didn't say "this is the cause", so I don't feel that I need
> to, and neither was I going to. Hmmm, perhaps you might explain what
> you consider "evidence", given that we are in an electronic forum ?

Just did above. Precisely the same evidence used in any decent
engineering, the specifics of a particular test that demonstrates a
particular effect that anyone can try for themselves if they know how
to edit the partition table and see what happens to the drive contents.

> On second thoughts, don't bother.

You get no say on that anyway.

>> And with the AUTO settings being the default, even say the
>> resetting of the cmos settings due to something the user is
>> unaware of happening cant produce the effect Ian saw if
>> the AUTO settings had been used before the failure.

> Hey ?  Resetting of the BIOS ?

You rabbited on about the CHS/LBA mapping changing with
manual drive settings changes. One obvious possibility was that
the cmos setting had got lost spontaneously and so a change to
the drive settings had occurred without the user being aware of that.

> The only changes to the BIOS/CMOS settings that I discussed,
> were in descriptions about how you can test to see wether a
> partition table effects/influences what translation method a BIOS
> may choose, when the Hard disk mode option is set to "Auto".

Yes, and clearly its also possible for the drive settings
to change without the user manually changing them.

> Once again, this was directed at your claim
> (the start of this branch of the thread) that:

>   The bios AUTO setting doesn't use the partition table.

Those aint changes to the partition table,
they're changes to the drive settings.

> Perhaps there is genuine confusion about what I was trying to say, in
> relation to the Hard disk "Auto" *MODE* setting, and the Hard disk "Auto"
> *TYPE* setting, as suggested by Svend's message on 23 Jul @ 1:44.

Nope, I was just a bit lax about how I stated the AUTO in that post.

> But I really dislike the way you try to resolve this confusion,

I really dislike yours too, specially that puerile 'So rather
than waving your arms like a fledgling, try it' stunt.

> and you did in fact recognise that I was talking
> about translations, quite early in the piece.

> At any rate, I've lost interest in the rest of your comments,

Not enough to attempt this pathetic attempt to
bullshit your way out of your predicament now tho.

> as before, it all appears to be silly attempts of goating me,

as before, its obvious you dont have the
balls to actually admit to your footshots.

and I really dislike your attitude.

> After 5.5 days (10-12hr days) of solid programming,
> weekend an all, who needs this shit.

This is where we're all sposed to swoon is it boy ?  You might
not actually be the only individual who does that sort of thing.

> If you want to argue about technical inconsistencies (about a suggestion
> of all things), then start with your comments which started this branch of
> the thread on 21 Jul, and look at what was being responded too, and
> not what you would have liked me (or Svend) to respond too.

More of your pathetic excuse for bullshit. Fooling absolutely no
one at all. Its you two clowns who keep rabbiting on about what
was never disputed, that the CHS/LBA mapping does indeed
change with the drive type, the bios used, drive overlays etc.

What was being discussed was whether the use of AUTO setting
can produce a change in the CHS/LBA mapping and no matter how
desperately you bullshit, you've done no more than just bullshit.
Not a shred of evidence has been presented on that claim.

> In fact, I deliberatley didn't respond to your response
> on 22 Jul 6:22, because, you were basically avoiding
> what I and Svend were trying to "discuss" with you.

It was never disputed that the CHS/LBA mapping does
change with drive type, bios used, drive overlays etc. In
fact I have said that repeatedly over the years in here.
Nothing to 'discuss', just a need to point out that that
doesnt have any relevance to your claim that the AUTO
settings can produce a change in the CHS/LBA mapping.

> Maybe you realised you got that wrong... try it.

Wota pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist you are Rudek.

How odd we aint seen any admission from you that
you were wrong on that claim that the symptoms Ian
saw were 'probably' due to the use of AUTO settings.

And it doesnt actually matter a damn what you have the balls to admit
to anyway, everyone can see your desperate squirming on that now.

> I've spent much too much time on this with you, as you have
> demonstrated that you are not worth it. I think the groups that
> your series of diatribe has been distributed to, will also agree.
> I appologise for any part that I've played in it.

Pathetic really. Even a 3 year old could manage better than that Rudek.