Richard Urban

I NEVER said that data recovery doesn't work. Where did you get that from?

I have successfully recovered hundreds of thousands of files from dozens of
hard drives (drives that have lost their partition table, drives that have
lost their MBR, drives that were formatted, files that were deleted, files
that were cross linked etc.). But when a recovered file is corrupted it is
of no use to the owner. The original poster had just this problem. He said
his recovered files are useless to him. My son paid about $1700.00 to Drive
Savers and that was for getting back about 60% of the missing files on a
hard drive. The others were corrupted and could not be salvaged.

Now, what are we/you really arguing about?

Are you saying that all files can be recovered. If so - hogwash!

--


Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)


"cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote in
message news:dv71c35kjqolkp88k0mktk4c8rsuj20l0c@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 17:04:09 -0400, "Richard Urban"
>
>>A corrupted file is a corrupted file.
>
> Is - OK.
>
>>It may not just have missing information. The remaining information
>>may be scrambled.
>
> May - that's the difference.
>
> It is within that "may" space that one recovers data that is indeed
> corrupted, but has not been overwritten.
>
>>If what you preach is so, Drive Savers, On Track (and others of
>>their kind) would be able to recover all files, all of the time. They
>>can't - because they are - guess what -- corrupted!
>
> If what *you* preach is so, Drive Savers, On Track (and others of
> their kind) would never be able to recover any files, any of the time.
> They often can - even though they are - guess what -- corrupted!
>
> So yes, I would not tell folks "don't bother to make backups, we can
> always recovery your data if something goes wrong".
>
> But no, I would not just throw up my hands and give up, just because a
> file is lost or even corrupted. That's just the starting point for
> recovery attempts, which do not have to be a costly
> freight-HD-to-clean-room affair to give at least some results.
>
>
> By definition, a backup is not identical to the original, because
> whatever misfortune befell the original has not destroyed the backup.
>
> IOW, backup means scoping in all wanted changes and scoping out all
> unwanted changes. How is this miracle of scoping attained?
>
> It isn't. Backups usually lack some wanted material as well as the
> unwanted disaster you are hedging against, or they are so close to the
> "live" data that thay have been equally hit by misfortune.
>
> Backup may let you get back most stuff, assuming it has been done
> effectively, that the backup is not barfed, and that it can be
> restored. When the backup also fails or is not there, or where it is
> incomplete, recovery aims to bridge the gap.
>
>
> Telling me that data recovery doesn't work is like telling Chuck
> Yeagar that man will never fly. I break that rule for a living.
>
> But Chuck Yeagar won't tell you planes don't crash, and I won't tell
> you that data recovery is always possible.
>
>
>
>>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
> Tech Support: The guys who follow the
> 'Parade of New Products' with a shovel.
>>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -