Vista - recover currupted files

Adam Albright wrote:

> On Sun, 5 Aug 2007 21:42:21 -0500, "Mark"
> <jmhonzell.nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>
>>As I've stated, at least 4 times now: Corrupted files are useless.
>>But, in our use of files, we frequently modify, rename, or move files.
>>Each instance creates a new copy of the file and erases the name in the
>>original pointers, but keeps the pointers until actually overwritten when
>>the space is demanded.
>>If not overwritten, the original file can be recovered and there is
>>typically very minimal data loss.
>>
>>Example:
>>In the case of an important family photo, it might be enough to recover the
>>original before the red eyes were fixed. I never stated that the corrupt
>>file could be repaired. But, if the original could be recovered and used,
>>then the red eyes could be fixed again.
>
>
> Little Richie can't be reasoned with. Like all fanboys, once he makes
> up his mind there is no use trying to change it. It further proves the
> vast majority of MVPs posting to THIS newsgroup are little more than
> Microsoft shills. A shame, since there are some respected and very
> knowledgeable MVPs. I guess the good ones avoid this group like the
> plague most of the time so the bad conduct of the knuckleheads that
> hang out here doesn't rub off.
>

Oh, and you're the pot calling the kettle black!
You're nothing but a two-bit, paid to testify loser accountant shill for
a bunch dead beat, blood sucking attorneys.
You're the lowest of the low. You're beneath whale sh*t!
Get lost.
Your last bit of creditability just flew out the Window (pun intended!).
Frank

But the O/P is ***SPECIFICALLY*** referring to recovered - but
***CORRUPTED*** files. You keep on referring to recovering files. We all
know that you can recover files. Heck, I have been doing so for almost 15
years. Now, if you have an answer, tell the person how to uncorrupt one, as
this is his stated problem.

recovered = file or data that was on the drive without a file name (not in
the MFT or the FAT). These files can/may be recovered. They may be good,
they may be useless.

corrupted = a file, either visible and accessible, or hidden and not
accessible (not in the MFT or the FAT) that is useless because of missing
information.

A good file recovery program will indicate the condition of the file before
the time is spent in the recovery of a corrupted file. A stellar company
that is in the recovery business (I have used them all) will tell you up
front what they can "recover", in pristine condition, prior to doing the
work and charging you a thousand dollars (or more).


--


Regards,

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

"Mark" <jmhonzell.nospam@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:%23ZrnmN91HHA.4712@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> As I've stated, at least 4 times now: Corrupted files are useless.
> But, in our use of files, we frequently modify, rename, or move files.
> Each instance creates a new copy of the file and erases the name in the
> original pointers, but keeps the pointers until actually overwritten when
> the space is demanded.
> If not overwritten, the original file can be recovered and there is
> typically very minimal data loss.
>
> Example:
> In the case of an important family photo, it might be enough to recover
> the original before the red eyes were fixed. I never stated that the
> corrupt file could be repaired. But, if the original could be recovered
> and used, then the red eyes could be fixed again.
>
> ~~~~~~~
> You're response indicates, again, that you either failed to read the
> posts, you don't care to understand, or more likely continue to be simply
> arrogant. I'm not sure how you are helpful enough to anyone with this
> method of response to attain MVP, but alas, you display the title placing
> yet another black mark on the MVP group. As for me, I no longer see your
> comments, but if you still feel the need to strike again... feel free.
>
> "Richard Urban" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:OhpZDl71HHA.5360@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Then they weren't corrupted. Corrupted files have missing information and
>> are likely totally UNUSABLE - unless it is a pure text file that you can
>> fill in the missing information and sentences.
>>
>> How do you fill in corrupted audio information or video information. How
>> about that photo of your glorious friend that now has lost one of her
>> appendages. Lost information, deleted information is ***NOT*** the same
>> as corrupt information. And this whole discussion is about "corrupt"
>> files - not deleted files or files that are a partition that went raw or
>> otherwise lost the partition formation.
>>
>> There is a HUGE difference! Learn this difference.
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Richard Urban
>> Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
>> (For email, remove the obvious from my address)
>>
>> "Mark" <jmhonzell.nospam@insightbb.com> wrote in message
>> news:uCW2$Z51HHA.4584@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>> Rich,
>>>
>>> Either you didn't bother reading the posts, or you are simply arrogant.
>>> I guess you spent too much on those other companies recovering a file.
>>> I only spent $40 and got all my files back from my drive.
>>> And, yes... it was formatted and re-partitioned.
>>> (Exactly what the vendor stated their software could do.)
>>>
>>> As I stated in my prior post, the corrupted file is useless.
>>> My point was the original data may be recovered from a different version
>>> of the same file that is in an "erased" state.
>>>
>>> I didn't state all files could be recovered. I stated I had good
>>> success. (In my case, I recovered ALL my pictures and documents.)
>>> I thought I was clear stating that to recover from the "corrupt" file:
>>> 1. The files had to be modified or re-saved... meaning written to the
>>> disk more than once, or
>>> 2. The area written to originally was not written over.
>>>
>>> This allows "restoring" the "other" version of the same file.
>>>
>>> Most drives when formatted do not use the full format option leaving the
>>> data area untouched.
>>> Re-partitioning does not wipe the drive.
>>> With these two simple tidbits, most files can be recovered from
>>> formatted or re-partitioned drives by a program that looks at the drive
>>> in raw format, finds all the allocation tables and rebuilds them.
>>> Comparing file storage indexes creates the percentage of success of any
>>> one file being recovered and minimizes the effort of sorting through a
>>> lot of garbage files.
>>>
>>> The more expensive restoration:
>>> While wiping a file if extremely effective, wiping a file almost never
>>> touches the File Allocation Table. So, even though the data is "gone,"
>>> the exact location of a file can still be determined, and yes, with the
>>> right software, it can be recovered. (Unless you use a multiple wipe
>>> with random data. Seven times recommended.)
>>>
>>> The impossible:
>>> If the surface of the hard drive is corrupt, you cannot recover the
>>> file.
>>> Degauss the hard drive.
>>> If there is only one original of the file and it is recovered corrupt,
>>> then it typically cannot be repaired.
>>>
>>>
>>> "Richard Urban" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:%23wwoV821HHA.5160@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>> Hell. If that were the case, all files would be recoverable.
>>>>
>>>> Drive Savers and Ontrack can not even do that. These are the folks that
>>>> corporations send their hard drives to for recovery. I have a fellow
>>>> who was charged over $1800 for recovery and he only got back about 40%
>>>> of his files. The others were reported to be - guess what - too
>>>> corrupted to recover.
>>>>
>>>> If you don't backup you have no one to blame but yourself!
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Richard Urban
>>>> Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
>>>> (For email, remove the obvious from my address)
>>>>
>>>> "Mark" <jmhonzell.nospam@insightbb.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:e$Uwg121HHA.6128@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>>> Not exactly. The file you are attempting to use is corrupted. But the
>>>>> original data may still be present.
>>>>>
>>>>> It depends on the corruption, number of times the file has been
>>>>> modified (re-saved), method of loss, encryption, etc.
>>>>> "Corrupted" files are recovered by the feds all the time.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Richard Urban" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:eKvuDz21HHA.1124@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>>>> Corrupted files are just that. Data has gone missing from the file.
>>>>>> It is unreadable and pretty much useless. There is no way to restore
>>>>>> a "corrupted" file, other than via your backup. You DID create a
>>>>>> backup, right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Richard Urban
>>>>>> Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
>>>>>> (For email, remove the obvious from my address)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "I'ecus" <iecus@rcn.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:er%23UH%2311HHA.1168@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>> guys do you know of any good programs that will recover corrupted
>>>>>>> files on a formatted/corrupted HD. I have a HD that just crashed, I
>>>>>>> formatted it and I was able to use getdatarecovery ntfs and some
>>>>>>> other programs that recovered my formatted data. I got everything
>>>>>>> but when I open my .docs or pics they're still corrupted. I tried
>>>>>>> d/ling free and demo software to see if they can fix the corrupted
>>>>>>> docs and pics I found but so far none have worked. Can anyone think
>>>>>>> of any software that worked for them or something that may work for
>>>>>>> me. even if I can find a demo that will show me it really does work.
>>>>>>> I don't mind having to pay for it. This has my wifes and I wedding
>>>>>>> pics and some of her art work that I would really love to get back
>>>>>>> for the both of us....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> thanks for ANY help I can get.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 08:52:41 -0400, I'ecus <iecus@rcn.com> wrote:

>guys do you know of any good programs that will recover corrupted files
>on a formatted/corrupted HD. I have a HD that just crashed, I formatted

Damn fool thing to do, formatting it. WTF were you thinking?

What file system is it - FATxx or NTFS?

If FATxx, see the relevant section at:

http://cquirke.mvps.org/9x

If NTFS, well, this is where the downside kicks in, big time.

Rule #1: Do NOT write to the at-risk HD, and that includes not
exposing it to Windows versions later than Win98SE, as all of these
will initiate unsolicited writes (AutoChk "fixing", System Restore,
thumbnailers, indexers, AutoPlay, etc.)

Formatting kinda breaks Rule #1. Specifically, in FATxx it overwrites
both FATs and thus destroys the info you would need to link together
the loose clusters that hold file data contents.

Recovery strategies will generally assume unfragmented cluster chains
and recover these from recovered directory entries, but any files that
are larger than one cluster and fragmented, will be barfed.

There are a variety of automated tools that can recover stuff from
NTFS, but I've found nothing like DiskEdit for FATxx, nor is
byte-level documentatrion of NTFS structure easy to come by.

>I was able to use getdatarecovery ntfs and some other programs
>that recovered my formatted data. I got everything but when I open my
>.docs or pics they're still corrupted.

JPEGs are a good thing to look at. If they start off OK but from a
certain point, they contain garbage, then that's the loss of chaining
info that is biting your ass. Thank Format for that :-/

>I tried d/ling free and demo software to see if they can fix the
>corrupted docs and pics I found but so far none have worked.

Yup.

>Can anyone think of any software that worked for them or
>something that may work for me. even if I can find a demo
>that will show me it really does work.

On NTFS, your best bet may be R-Studio, which can be used from a Bart
CDR boot (which avoids Windows risks of spontaneous writes).

>I don't mind having to pay for it. This has my wifes and I wedding
>pics and some of her art work that I would really love to get back
>for the both of us....

Oyy... pics are often too big to easily back up.
Why on Earth did you format the drive???

There are some tools well-suited for recovering pictures in particular
- they look for the embedded JPEG marker at the start of the file
data, and can thus work without any directory entry cues. But without
these cues, it's up to you to set the file length, and fragmentation
will leave you with just the top bits of affected files.

>thanks for ANY help I can get.

Sorry to thump you on the formatting, but really, that is a mistake
you must never make again. And sorry to be a bit pessimistic, but the
situation is pretty hairy, especially if NTFS.

If you give more detail on the HD (size, file system, partitioning,
what was wrong with it, what tools you have) I may do better.



>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
On the 'net, *everyone* can hear you scream
>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

On Sun, 5 Aug 2007 10:27:32 -0400, "Richard Urban"

>Corrupted files are just that. Data has gone missing from the file. It is
>unreadable and pretty much useless. There is no way to restore a "corrupted"
>file, other than via your backup.

Wrong. There's a difference between "lost" as in "mislaid" and "lost"
as in "overwritten".

The less the at-risk HD is written to, the better are the chances that
the file contents are not overwritten, but "merely" mislaid.

What happens next, depends on how good and survivable the file system
and surrounding tools are. With a simple, well-documented file system
that is rich in tools, the chances are good. Else, less so.

This situation is not uncommon in my line of work, in my particular
market of stand-alone PCs. It is far more common than concerns over
unauthorised access to data that NTFS can help with, and in this
situation, NTFS is if anything a liability.

And no, I don't just "blame the victim" for not making backups.
That's forcing problems to fit your solution, not addressing the
problems as they arise in the real world.

Though I must say, the temptation to "blame the victim" when the user
FORMATS the at-risk HD is pretty high.



>-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Tip Of The Day:
To disable the 'Tip of the Day' feature...
>-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

A corrupted file is a corrupted file. It may not just have missing
information. The remaining information may be scrambled. 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!

--


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:ecrub3h72rua2dehq007guptvag0gauu66@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 5 Aug 2007 10:27:32 -0400, "Richard Urban"
>
>>Corrupted files are just that. Data has gone missing from the file. It is
>>unreadable and pretty much useless. There is no way to restore a
>>"corrupted"
>>file, other than via your backup.
>
> Wrong. There's a difference between "lost" as in "mislaid" and "lost"
> as in "overwritten".
>
> The less the at-risk HD is written to, the better are the chances that
> the file contents are not overwritten, but "merely" mislaid.
>
> What happens next, depends on how good and survivable the file system
> and surrounding tools are. With a simple, well-documented file system
> that is rich in tools, the chances are good. Else, less so.
>
> This situation is not uncommon in my line of work, in my particular
> market of stand-alone PCs. It is far more common than concerns over
> unauthorised access to data that NTFS can help with, and in this
> situation, NTFS is if anything a liability.
>
> And no, I don't just "blame the victim" for not making backups.
> That's forcing problems to fit your solution, not addressing the
> problems as they arise in the real world.
>
> Though I must say, the temptation to "blame the victim" when the user
> FORMATS the at-risk HD is pretty high.
>
>
>
>>-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
> Tip Of The Day:
> To disable the 'Tip of the Day' feature...
>>-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

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.
>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -

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.
>>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -