Clonezilla does not work with Windows 8.1 in cloning disk(disk-to-disk clone)

Discussion in 'PC Hardware' started by RayLopez99, Oct 27, 2014.

  1. RayLopez99

    RayLopez99 Guest

    I downloaded the latest version of Clonezilla, in an attempt to do a disk-to-disk clone (I am upgrading from a smaller HDD to a larger HDD). Windows 8.1 OS, NTFS, SATA drives (6 GBps)

    I followed all the instructions online on how to do this. For example here is one site (there are also Youtube videos that I watched): http://clonezilla.org/show-live-doc-content.php?topic=clonezilla-live/doc/03_Disk_to_disk_clone

    Clonezilla failed to do a clone, giving an error. I tried it twice, bootingfrom a CD-ROM, and both times it failed.

    Upon reboot I had to reformat the D: drive using Windows Disk Manager because Clonezilla did something to it to make it disappear.

    I then used Acronis True Image 2014, which did work to do a disk-to-disk clone from old to new drive.

    BTW, in the past I have used Clonezilla to take a backup image of a Windows8.1 OS HD, no problem. But the disk-to-disk clone feature failed.

    Question to anybody reading this: after I clone the C: drive into the D: drive, both being SATA, I assume that I can, after the system is stable withthe new C: drive (old D: drive), plug in the old "C" drive (which will nowbe the D: drive), and Windows will recognize it (maybe I'll have to fiddlewith the BIOS, but there should be no problem)? Then I can reformat the old C: drive and use it like a D: drive? I don't see why not.
     
    RayLopez99, Oct 27, 2014
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. RayLopez99

    Paul Guest

    When you clone a drive. boot the destination disk at least once,
    by itself.

    disk1 --> disk2
    disconnect disk1, boot disk2
    shutdown
    reconnect disk1, do whatever you want (boot either disk1 or disk2)
    format disk1 if you want

    If you don't do that, the clone disk when booted, sees the pagefile
    on the original disk, and becomes confused about where C: is located.
    If the clone boots by itself, it discovers only facilities located
    on its own disk.

    The only time this sort of thing fails, is if you don't really understand
    where the "boot" and "system" partitions are located. Look in Disk Management
    before cloning, to understand whether everything you need, is actually
    on disk1 in the first place. There should be a "boot" and a "system".
    Some people have multiple disks, stuff is all over the place, the
    setup is very confused (they have C: but use D:\Program Files). If
    you're going to do stuff like that, you'd better be a rocket
    scientist. And know all the gotchas.

    HTH,
    Paul
     
    Paul, Oct 27, 2014
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. RayLopez99

    RayLopez99 Guest

    Thanks Paul. I did do what you suggested, just by intuition, without reading your reply. The only complication is that the old C drive (now D:), "disk1", was not recognized by Windows 8.1. So I went into BIOS, checked (turned on) the "Hot Swap" option for this drive (which the BIOS was recognizing), and then Windows saw it on reboot. But, confusingly, Windows assigned it two letters, D: and F (since there was a CD-ROM that was E:), with the old system files on F:. So I went into Disk Manager (hard to find with Windows 8, as is everything, even if you use their crummy Search, but it's under "Computer Management"), and tried to shrink/delete these "F", and "D" partitions (the latter had system files from the old C: drive). That failed (took too long) so I simply used File Explorer, and much to my shock and awe, found you can actually still format a hard drive by right clicking, checking format, quick format,NTFS, etc. That's kind of shocking since it meansanybody with elevated privileges can reformat your HD if you let them sit at the keyboard. Pretty scary, I thought MSFT hid that feature years ago. But, long story short, I did format the old C: drive,reassigned it a "D:" letter, rebooted, and now everything is OK: old D: drive is new,larger, "C:" drive with system files on it. The old "C:" drive is the new "D:", smaller and slower, and I'll use this new blank D drive for backing up the new C: drive (as well as using external USB HD for this) and to store my porn, which takes a lot of space. The only kind of funny thing is that since I think the SATA 3? 6 GBps ports are recognized by BIOS as 0 and 1, and since I did not bother with moving the cables, when you do a Task Manager the new"D" drive (old C:) shows up as "Drive 0" not "1", but that's a trivial annoyance.

    All's well that ends well. I did notice the new HDD is 30% faster (it's a 1 TB drive, and the old drive was half that size, and I notice the bigger HDDs have more buffer and are generally about 30% faster than smaller HDDs).

    I might at some point switch from a HDD to an SSD, since I do a lot of compiling of code that takes forever sometimes, but I've read SSD's are 'only' about twice as fast in terms of average speed than HDDs (sequential is another matter). 2x is better than 33% to be sure, but it's not 10x as you might think listening to people talk about how fast their SSD drives are.

    RL
     
    RayLopez99, Oct 28, 2014
    #3
  4. RayLopez99

    Paul Guest

    Maybe some day, they'll remove the throttle in the file system.

    As near as I can determine, by using a RAM Disk, there seems
    to be a command rate limit or an event limit, when working on
    disks. The RAM Disk should be very fast, and it's not. There's
    a bottleneck in there somewhere.

    The OS has various schemes for "fairness", and they must have
    some implementation cost. For example, hardware interrupts
    might be capped at the 10,000 to 20,000 per second region.
    But I can't turn up a CPU clock high enough, to determine
    if this limit ever changes (scales) with CPU clock or not.

    If I load the 60,000+ files from the Firefox source tarball,
    it takes forever to do a search on them. With the RAM Disk,
    it only seems to handle hundreds of files per second. Instead
    of thousands.

    Another data point, my current system with DDR2-800 RAM,
    using a RAMDisk gives ~4GB/sec read bandwidth. I have a new
    computer with DDR3-2400 RAM, and the same RAMDisk software
    gives ~4GB/sec read bandwidth (the new system has absolutely
    HUGE ram bandwidth and has four channels). That should tell you
    something. "Where's my scaling ?" There isn't any. Sad.
    Needs to be adjusted.

    That's why, I like the concept of the SSD, but I don't
    like how the OS handles disks in general. It seems the
    OS is stuck in 1990 or so.

    Keep your eyes open.

    Paul
     
    Paul, Oct 28, 2014
    #4
  5. RayLopez99

    Mark F Guest

    What RAMdisk? What configuration/parameters/etc for the RAMdisk?
    (Sometimes (20+ years ago) there is a software issue such that
    RAMdisks [and even "null" devices] use a smaller blocksize
    than real devices, so a single thread/system piece of software
    is CPU limited.)

    Can you run more than one RAMdisk at a time? If so, what
    happens to the performance? (If possible, install 2 or more
    copies of the software with different names and see if that helps.)

    Have you tried running a virtual disk
    ("virtual disk" suggestions: TrueCrypt or VMware)
    with the underlying storage on the a RAMdisk?
    (Doing so will increase system overhead and remove
    some of the protections for software and hardware failure,
    but might make finding the bottleneck easier.)

    What hardware on both systems?

    What operating system on both systems?

    Have you looked at the per thread CPU use, interrupt use, etc?
    (Maybe something is single threaded and can only use one CPU.
    I had problems 20 or more years ago when the I/O interrupt overhead
    was high enough to saturate a CPU. This was on US$400K servers
    with 16 separate CPUs)

    Are you monitoring things to see if any counts seem too high?
    (I use Iarsn's TaskInfo program.)
     
    Mark F, Oct 28, 2014
    #5
  6. RayLopez99

    Paul Guest

    RAMDISK Lite
    (up to 4GB, may be allocated from PAE or AWE space.
    Buy a copy if you have a really large RAM machine,
    as it will handle as much as 64GB)

    http://memory.dataram.com/products-and-services/software/ramdisk

    That's one of the first really large software RAMDisks that
    works worth a damn. I've used other RAMDisks which were based
    on the Microsoft sample code of years ago. But those had
    relatively low size limits. I used to use those, when doing
    file transfer tests and wanting to eliminate a hard drive
    as a transfer limitation.

    I have WinXP x32 8GB, with 4GB for OS, 4GB (PAE space) for RAMDisk.
    WinXP x32 *can* access more than 4GB, but it's only allowed to
    do so from Ring0, as a driver. And the RAMDisk runs at driver
    level, in order to do that.

    You can even stick the pagefile on the 4GB RAMDisk, as a
    means of extending the total RAM that WinXP can effectively
    use. But I don't recommend that. In a couple of days testing,
    I could see the odd glitch, so I no longer have it
    configured that way. Now, the RAMDisk is purely discretionary,
    can be turned on or off at any time. And is formatted FAT32,
    since the entire disk cannot be more than 4GB. This is plenty
    for quick unzipping of files, attempts to search, and so on.

    And when you run that RAMDisk on a faster machine, it doesn't
    scale up like it should.

    HDTune does block level access to the disks it tests. I haven't
    bothered to test what block size it uses, but it's supposed to
    be a large block size. It doesn't matter what file system is
    on the hard drive you're testing, since it does no file
    system access, and instead works at the block level (on
    something like \\?\Device\Harddisk0\Partition0 - a block
    device kind of reference).

    Paul
     
    Paul, Oct 28, 2014
    #6
  7. RayLopez99

    lew Guest

    Isn't the "security" apps doing some slowdown of any access to a
    SSD as well as a HDD? I had problems with m$'s security stuff that
    impacted any access to any directory that I do for the 1st time in
    a computer session; note that I do shutdown the computer when
    not in use, "just because".

    Even running m$'s software like "autoruns" appear to elicit a
    security check before the program runs; often just doing a right
    click to get the context menu so I can select something like
    a graphics viewer (irfanview), there is a slowdown before the menu
    appears. Since one of the win7's security updates, there is an
    intrusion into just about everything.

    Now, with win8.1, some security intrusion is there even if it
    is much less; perhaps the win7 security slowdown is a way for
    msft to "force" people to go with win8?

    I don't have any 3rd party security/anti-anything installed.
     
    lew, Oct 28, 2014
    #7
  8. RayLopez99

    Paul Guest

    Let's ignore the file system results for a moment and
    just consider the HDTune results. HDTune works at the
    block level. Once you open a handle to the device and
    the security test passes, all subsequent operations
    are like "reading a file you just opened". There are
    no more security gates. And on the two machines, one
    with more RAM bandwidth, there was no additional
    performance. Something limited the performance,
    and it wasn't hardware. And it wasn't security either.
    Not on a block level test.

    The FAT32 used in the file search test, isn't a particular
    security demon. It's pretty open. Not nearly as nasty
    as NTFS. And the thing is, if there *wasn't* a throttle,
    even security calls could be resolved in a blink of
    an eye. It's a RAM Disk, with zero seek time and
    4GB/sec bandwidth. Even if you checked the security attributes
    of all 60,000 files at 10 microseconds a piece, that doesn't
    account for the minutes of search time. There's just no excuse
    for going that slow. With a 4GB disk and a 4GB/sec bandwidth,
    the entire disk should be readable in 1 second. Even
    allowing for the file search code topping out at
    300MB/sec or so (the kind of speeds I get when I write
    C code here), the search for strings of text should
    complete in ~13 seconds. It takes a *lot* longer than that.
    Some other limitation is present. I'm surprised SSD
    users aren't more disappointed. Your SSD drive has
    close to zero seek time, and at 300-500MB/sec bandwidth,
    it should absolutely scream, rather than "feel 2x faster".
    I feel we're not getting everything we could from
    the hardware. Just a gut feel (using my calibrated eyeball).

    Paul
     
    Paul, Oct 28, 2014
    #8
  9. RayLopez99

    Flasherly Guest

    might at some point switch from a HDD to an SSD, since I do a lot of
    compiling of code that takes forever sometimes, but I've read SSD's
    are 'only' about twice as fast in terms of average speed than HDDs
    (sequential is another matter). 2x is better than 33% to be sure, but
    it's not 10x as you might think listening to people talk about how
    fast their SSD drives are.

    --
    My first was a Samsung SSD 64G for $40US on the Christmas sales.
    Couple years ago. I put that one across the room, just for
    entertainment booting purposes;- two other plattered containing its
    multimedia (audio/video).

    It's like a transistor radio now, sort of instantaneously. Turn it
    on, do it to it, and turn it off. Go back and repeat sequence
    endlessly. No delays (past the BIOS POST) or then little if anything
    to shutting it down again.

    Then I added a couple more SSDs to this one - just the opposite: two
    (newer and larger units) between a single plattered drive. Quite a
    lot of ways to "play it" between the two SSDs containing 3 active
    partitions and 3 operating systems and a boot arbitrator on one of the
    drives (discounting, formally, *NIX GRUB packaged by MS for Win7 on
    the other SSD my BIOS is set *not* first to boot from).

    Really. Too many to offhand list.

    Raw SSD transfer rates are likely primary, but the list nevertheless
    goes on to encompass quite a few advantages normal daily usage will
    reveal to different individual expectations. If I were you I'd pick
    up a 128G model just for a taste, to "wet your beak," as the Godfather
    might say. They're averaging $50-60 presently. Samsung, again, is
    the premier bulk provider for sales in terms of popularity;- as are
    two of mine, so I won't contest that. (Wasn't quite as "enamored"
    about initially laying in a boot arbitrator and establishing a valid
    active partition boot with a Crucial SSd model I've also bought, even
    though Crucial is fairly well regarded.)

    I never got into Samsung's premier models, btw, with different NAND
    chemical approach to substratums. Faster, longevity stuff, and all of
    that. Of course, they cost more, too. Be more, closer along what
    you're proposing between mechanically plattered and solidstate memory
    drives, closer and more to a narrower sense as to be
    indistinguishable.
     
    Flasherly, Oct 28, 2014
    #9
  10. RayLopez99

    Bill Guest

    If you don't use your computer much, then HDD makes sense.
    Quick processing makes a computer
    more pleasant to use, for me. If you are still using a dial-up modem,
    then ignore this.
     
    Bill, Oct 28, 2014
    #10
  11. RayLopez99

    Flasherly Guest

    Everything's relative. Relative to massive bulk storage, then you
    need a HDD. Relative to speed, SSD. Lots of older laptop users
    "feel" they've renewed their laptop's life expectancy by replacing its
    HDD with a SSD. (I hate working on them, generally with a slower 2.5
    HDD in there, in the first place - god knows what chipset impositions
    are on the architecture;- Although, there's benefit to be derived
    w/out doubt.)

    Also, they've given me (an incentive thingy) 1.4Meg/sec tranx cable
    speeds. Sucks, I know, but I'm calling them back to switch back down
    to 128K - at 1/10th the 1.4M/s speed. Relativity strikes once more.
    It's $44 for me at the lower speed and $60 if stay at high speed. Do
    I have a choice -- O, hell no. There's like two competitors serving
    my area of millions and millions of people. And they all, relatively
    speaking, suck on the Big One. (It's $80 or 90 charged by and for
    that competitor's services, btw, at whatever speed increment over
    1.4M/s what speed they may offer, which I don't know.)

    Try and ignore this, then: I'm very fluent with connecting into
    Bahmfuk, Egypt, during a sandstorm, at 33.6baud dial-up connects. But,
    does that matter here. . .O, hell no - Verizon, for one, will
    literally rub big, fuzzy donkey turds into my face, rather than offer
    me that opportunity: They'll charge me $40 monthly, if I elect dial-up
    while, at the same time offering basic cable 128K/s $30 monthly.

    Relatively, again, we're working in increments of 10-fold. 10-fold
    present speed increases for $10-15 more. My dial-up was $4 monthly,
    so that's again 10-fold more speed I'll be getting when going off this
    "incentive" 1.4M/s thing. Not that it matters. The TELCOs, excuse me
    -- private entrepreneurialism among the Big Ones putting up your
    hindside (at twice average European domestic subscription rates) --
    have passed (local coercion bribery) preventative bylaws, fattening
    local political offices with franchise fees taxes, disallowing carrier
    competition (ISP) apart their structured rates.

    Do I even need such high speeds? Only on occasion, when they're more
    of a convenience - a nice touch. You see, I just don't watch
    televised programming, have no compulsion, miss how control or popular
    acceptance is apportioned, regret or least feel anxiety about not
    doing so these days.

    I only humbly wish not to give those sons of bitches one goddamned
    penny more than feasibly I can, relatively speaking, manage -- without
    giving up essential TelePhonic services, modulated by a microphone and
    speakers, both here, through an independent ISP-based carrier at a
    nominal fee (for a few bucks monthly).
     
    Flasherly, Oct 28, 2014
    #11
  12. RayLopez99

    lew Guest

    Still think security has something to do with file access on a HDD,
    not a ram disk.

    When I had win7 installed, I had to check/change the security settings
    each time as I was denied access! I had 2 HDD with 1 of the HDD as
    a boot drive; when I tried win8 the 1st time, I just installed a 3rd
    HDD for use as the boot drive & still had to do some security access
    changes. Back to win7 & still had to do security changes for
    permissions & sometimes ownership. as the "3rd" hdd is now the
    "C:\"; nothing was done by me for the HDDs except for re-installing
    the apps as the data stayed in the same places.

    After trying win8.1, same problems; then back to win7, etc. Now
    in win8.1, no delays, mostly, as the apps were re-installed into the
    same places & the data remained at their respective partitions,
    D thru I. After reading your posting, I decided to check on the
    permissions & ownership; found that the security settings are very
    different for each partition from what I had done when in win7!

    I do know that at one point I had to change a few "ownerships" to
    myself as the user so that I can have access & full control for that
    partition & hdd; my user name is no longer in any of the partitions'
    security settings. The ownerships has been changed to the
    administrator of the computer name except for a couple of partitions
    where it is a long string of numerics. Looks like that the "security"
    properties are not on the hdd itself? Or win8.1 changed the security
    properties or windows really have the hdd security properties as part
    of the OS......or win8.1 did a "better" job of redoing the security
    properties of the hdd somehow since I definitely didn't reformat or
    change my app & data partitions or the HDD.

    It seems like everything wants to check security of all files, the
    browser, the Intel chipsets' plugin id protection that got installed
    as part of the chipset or the ME install(?); sometimes even doing
    a "dir" hesitates for an unknown reason..
     
    lew, Oct 29, 2014
    #12
  13. RayLopez99

    Paul Guest

    This article hints at the improvements in Vista or later.

    http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/2007.06.acl.aspx

    It's too bad the article doesn't discuss the storage locations
    for that stuff.

    Some of it should be in the file system. (Since Linux claims to
    not handle the security information present in the OS, that means
    something is in the file system itself.) That means
    some level of security is part of the file system.

    When you look at this article, the ACL is in the file system.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ntfs

    $Secure Access control list database that reduces overhead
    having many identical ACLs stored with each file, by
    uniquely storing these ACLs in this database only
    (contains two indices: $SII (Standard_Information ID)
    and $SDH (Security Descriptor Hash), which index the
    stream named $SDS containing actual ACL table).

    And this article, tells you of the file names of the Registry files.
    The registry entries themselves have security settings, and in
    Vista+ you may occasionally notice you're denied access to certain
    registry keys (even as administrator). Forcing you to check the
    ownership. While there is a SECURITY file as part of the file set,
    when I look in WinXP Regedit here, that area is empty.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Registry

    I don't have a good enough view from 60,000 feet, to be giving
    a lecture on this stuff. You only occasionally get an article
    that tries to tie the stuff together. You would probably need
    some course notes from somewhere, to treat the subject properly.

    *******

    Takeown and icacls can be used to do battle with Vista+.
    And Takeown is also available, as a right-click Context Menu
    (shellex) command.

    http://blogs.msdn.com/b/tims/archiv...vista-secret-11-deleting-the-undeletable.aspx

    http://serverfault.com/questions/154018/take-ownership-of-ntfs-volume-after-moving-to-new-machine

    Those are a couple of bookmarks on the subject.

    And this site has a whole bunch of tutorials. The same guy owns
    ghacks, vistax64, sevenforums, eightforums.

    http://www.sevenforums.com/tutorials/1911-take-ownership-shortcut.html?ltr=T

    If I had a question about Windows 7, in a search engine I might try

    site:sevenforums.com tutorial takeown

    to find something topical. You can do searches against
    each of the respective sites. Obviously, some of the
    tutorials on eightforums, are just copied from sevenforums.
    And some tutorials may contain info for more than one OS.
    But overall, that's a great resource and beats random
    articles on some of the other sites. And many of the
    articles may contain .zip or .reg, for "doing and undoing"
    stuff. I usually study those pretty carefully, before
    merging them.

    Paul
     
    Paul, Oct 29, 2014
    #13
  14. RayLopez99

    Mark F Guest

    I bought a Personal License with 64GB support, but I was afraid to
    try using it on my Windows XP Professional system since I didn't
    see how to configure XP to use the extra memory.

    I looked around for configuration instructions and found information
    about two similar products (Ramdisk and PrimoCache)at:
    http://www.romexsoftware.com/en-us/index.html
    Perhaps the original poster can get a trial of one
    of them and see if he get the same performance
    bottleneck.

    I've bought a license for
    Primo Ramdisk Ultimate Edition
    and will read the instructions and try it if they are
    complete and I get brave.
     
    Mark F, Oct 29, 2014
    #14
  15. RayLopez99

    lew Guest

    ........................................
    Thanks Paul, I've made a text file with the stated sites.

    Will pursue more when win 10 arrives. I believe that I forgot to
    state that the installs/re-installs were done as clean installs; no
    idea if I would have encountered same security problems if I had
    just did an install with first formatting the to be system partition.

    At least I know what to do even if a lot of work when I am told that
    I cannot write a file to a partition because I don't have permission.
    There are administrators & ADMINISTRATORS & both are different!
     
    lew, Oct 29, 2014
    #15
  16. RayLopez99

    RayLopez99 Guest

    However Clonezilla works fine to do not a clone but a disk image, and I useit all the time for this purpose, even for Windows 8.1. You have to work from a bootable CD however, and be careful with what you select for the prompts, as explained elsewhere on the net, but it works fine. Never had to do a restore but the disk image is verified and I assume it would work.

    RL
     
    RayLopez99, Nov 26, 2014
    #16
  17. RayLopez99

    Larc Guest

    | On Tuesday, October 28, 2014 6:48:43 AM UTC+8, RayLopez99 wrote:
    | > I downloaded the latest version of Clonezilla, in an attempt to do a '
    |
    | However Clonezilla works fine to do not a clone but a disk image, and I use it all the time for this purpose, even for Windows 8.1. You have to work from a bootable CD however, and be careful with what you select for the prompts, as explained elsewhere on the net, but it works fine. Never had to do a restore but the disk image is verified and I assume it would work.

    Anytime I make a bootable disk I try it. If it won't boot for some reason, I'd
    rather learn that when I don't need it than when I do.

    Larc
     
    Larc, Nov 26, 2014
    #17
  18. RayLopez99

    Flasherly Guest

    Yep. And stay offline when tweaking it in, installing, adding or
    modifying programs. Unplug or disconnect that modem -- especially
    with anything newer in a MS OS, even after engaging "advanced" options
    for -not- connecting back to MS.

    Boot or rewrite a partition from your newly constructed image that's
    then ready to rock and roll - then engage the modem. After some days,
    weeks online, the things that will happen and changes that occur to it
    -- sure is nice, best way to be sure, going back to that image for a
    fresh, new install that no interim test trail program install or
    browser site incident can modify in unwelcome ways.

    A binary image that good is worth protecting once all your programs
    and setting preferentials are tweaked and installed -- and, in my
    case, linked to other partitions. I don't as a rule "install programs"
    onto that C: partition - besides being a collection of ancillary
    programs, seldom capable of degrees of self-modification, unlike
    Windows, and far less likely to need such stringent oversight, such as
    binary OS images -- where a fast if not rather large USB flashstick
    (64/128G - I use 32G) and the freeware program SynchBack or similar
    might suffice.
     
    Flasherly, Nov 26, 2014
    #18
  19. RayLopez99

    RayLopez99 Guest

    You are braver than I. Because trying would imply rewriting back to your C: drive, which, if it fails, will mess up your day. I rather not 'break the glass' to test the 'fire alarm', but simply trust it will work when there's a real emergency.

    BTW, and Flasherly tell me if I'm wrong, I will do a clean install but of Windows 8.1 x64 bit rather than my present 32 bit. That way I can run some 64bit programs like a certain chess engine more efficiently. Researching this, the only thing that can go wrong is drivers, I think, and hopefully myUSB 3.0 and CD/DVD reader/writer will not need updating, since the BIOS claims (the PC is from 2011) it is x64 compatible and presumably Microsoft has generic drivers for x64 for CD/DVD and for USB 3.0 the mobo/BIOS should handle it, I think. I'll let this group know if it fails.

    PS--today I took the case cover off, un-dusted, wow, as Starbu cks Fl ying would say, there was so much dust it was incredible, how the fans even had room to rotate was surprising, and I keep the PC in a room I vacuum and rarely open the windows--and I noticed the clip that holds one of the RAM chips was a bit off the notch of the RAM module, so I gently snapped it back in.. Turned on the power...nothing. So after fiddling for a while, I realized it must be the RAM, so I gently unsnapped the clip--counter-intuitive--and immediately the PC worked again. Let sleeping dogs lie!

    RL
     
    RayLopez99, Nov 26, 2014
    #19
  20. RayLopez99

    Flasherly Guest

    tell me if I'm wrong, I will do a clean install but of Windows 8.1 x64
    bit rather than my present 32 bit. That way I can run some 64bit
    programs like a certain chess engine more efficiently. Researching
    this, the only thing that can go wrong is drivers, I think, and
    hopefully my USB 3.0 and CD/DVD reader/writer will not need updating,
    since the BIOS claims (the PC is from 2011) it is x64 compatible and
    presumably Microsoft has generic drivers for x64 for CD/DVD and for
    USB 3.0 the mobo/BIOS should handle it, I think. I'll let this group
    know if it fails.

    -
    I won't tell you anything, because I'm pretty clueless about W8.1 and,
    for that matter, W7 (64-bit) I installed fairly recently to use for
    more a matter of discrepancies or occasions when needed. I treat it,
    as best for intents, no differently than XP - which included a binary
    backup for no small focus on the initial install (3 operating systems,
    over 2 solidstate drives, with a 3rd-party boot arbitrator *not* on
    the W7 drive and least to conflict with Microsoft's employment of *Nix
    GRUB). Knock on wood, so far so good.

    un-dusted, wow, as Starbu cks Fl ying would say, there was so much
    dust it was incredible, how the fans even had room to rotate was
    surprising, and I keep the PC in a room I vacuum and rarely open the
    windows--and I noticed the clip that holds one of the RAM chips was a
    bit off the notch of the RAM module, so I gently snapped it back in.
    Turned on the power...nothing. So after fiddling for a while, I
    realized it must be the RAM, so I gently unsnapped the
    clip--counter-intuitive--and immediately the PC worked again. Let
    sleeping dogs lie!

    -
    Pull the memory modules and take a hard rubber Ink-Eraser to the lower
    row contacts, both sides, then brush well after for any miniscule
    residue before applying with fast-drying electrical contact cleaner
    and reseating (hit the slots with a quick shot of cleaner, also). I've
    disassembled PCs entirely, leaned them sideways on newspapers, going
    over all the boards with a bottle of alcohol, washing down everything
    clean with soft trim brush, before using a 60gal. air compressor to
    dry things out and reassemble. Just as easy, I suppose, to keep case
    sides opposite the MB plane off, and periodically go in with a vacuum
    cleaner crevice tool. Might not be a pretty case, but at least
    there's nothing accumulating that's hidden.
     
    Flasherly, Nov 26, 2014
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.