Folkert Rienstra

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*

Folkert Rienstra

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*

Folkert Rienstra

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*

Folkert Rienstra

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*

Timothy Daniels

"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*

Folkert Rienstra

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*

Timothy Daniels

"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*

Timothy Daniels

"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*

Folkert Rienstra

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*

Folkert Rienstra

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*