Resizing Hard Drive Partitions Results in STOP Error



Hard drive partitioning allows a computer user to divide his/her hard drive into separate data areas called 'partitions'. Each hard drive partition can be assigned different storage area and is used to install a different operating system. However, there are times when a user wants to resize a particular hard drive partition to either increase or decrease the storage area allocated to that partition. While the process of resizing hard drive partitions is easy (can be performed by re-installation or using a third party application), it might result in a STOP error message. This mainly happens if the partition table or boot partition file is corrupted. The data saved in the hard drive becomes inaccessible after the STOP error message appears. To access the data, the user needs to either restore the data from an updated backup or recover hard drive a third-party stellar data recovery software.

Justify FullTo elaborate the above problem, consider a practical case where you have dual boot system with Windows XP and 7 installed. You resize the partition using a third party utility to allocate more space to Windows 7 partition. However, after the utility completes resizing of hard drive partitions and you try to boot Windows 7 operating system, it does not start. Each time you try to boot Windows 7, you encounter the below STOP error message:
“0xc0000225
Windows did not start correctly. A recent hardware or software change might be the cause.”
The above error makes the data saved in Windows 7 based hard drive partition inaccessible.

Cause:

Three main causes for the above error message are:

1 Partition table damaged.
2 Boot manager corrupted.
3 Windows 7 does not support partitioning with the tool that you used for resizing.

Resolution:

To get past above error message, an easy way is to re-install Windows 7 operating system. Re-installing not only removes the error but also makes all the files in Windows 7 partition inaccessible. In such cases, if you wish to recoup your files, then you will need to search for a commercial data recovery product.
A Data Recovery Software scans a Windows-based hard drive and recovers all the lost files in a systematic order.
Stellar Phoenix Windows Data Recovery scans your hard drive using powerful, yet safe algorithms. The result of recoverable files is initially displayed on the screen and allows the user to recover all or selected files. Compatible with FAT12, FAT16, FAT32, VFAT, NTFS and NTFS5, the data recovery tool supports Windows 7, Vista, XP, 2003, and 2000.
Article taken from http://hubpages.com/hub/Resizing-Hard-Drive-Partitions-Results-in-STOP-Error

Knowing all about Data Recovery



Data is the most important thing in today's life. Irrespective of whether you are a school goer, or a housewife, or working professional, you do a good amount of work, and have substantial data stored on computer. School goers, play games, chat with friends, and also use computers for making and saving school projects, and presentations. Housewives, shop for grocery, clothes, and discuss important shopping details on the Internet, with their friends like where to get maximum discounts, and where the garage sale is on. Similarly, the working professionals save their business critical data, on the computer, which includes presentations, important zipped files, documents, and information sent to them by clients, employees, and more.

Simply put data is a part and parcel of everybody's day-to-day life. And with every work done on the computer, computer have become most important for everyone. With this dependency on computers, too many people suffer together, if even a single system crashes. And system crash can happen due to any hardware or software malfunction. In case of some software failure situations, and almost all hardware caused system break down cases, one has to turn to recovery services. Getting data recovery services in NJ, is as easy as 123. In fact, good companies have their branches, and data collection centers, in every part of the world.

Data loss can occur to anybody. This is true because the problems that lead to data loss are general, and hence applicable to everyone. A virus attack, or natural disaster like flood, fire or earthquake, power surge, clicking and grinding sound emanating from the hard drive, or failure of hardware component are a few of the reasons that lead to data loss situations, which call for Data Recovery NJ and across the globe.

Data Recovery is a service that is used to salvage data from any and every kind of digital storage media, including internal and external hard disk, RAID arrays, NAS and SAN storage devices, laptops, USB drives, zip drives, memory cards, pen drives, DVDs, CDs, iPods and many more. This task is performed by experts who have long experience in data recovery, and know how to use the complex data recovery tools, and can handle sensitive and even encrypted data.
Stellar Data Recovery Inc., is Data recovery services in NJ branch of Stellar Information Systems Ltd., that is an ISO 9001:2000 certified company and has proprietary tools and techniques along with class 100 clean rooms, where all extraction takes place. Data recovery, NJ has a 'No Recovery, No Charge' policy, and ensures complete recovery of all the data.

Disk Corruption and Dirty System Shutdown May Cause Partition Loss in Windows



Are you unable to boot your Windows computer due to errors in ntfs.sys file? Are you facing STOP error after rebooting your Windows machine? Is your system unbootable after improper system shutdown or disk corruption? This behavior may lead to file system corruption, which is the most critical part of Windows operating system. At this point, all your hard drive partitions become inaccessible and you come across partition loss situations. In order to recover lost partitions, Windows Data Recovery is the last resort. In a practical scenario, Windows may display the following STOP error in ntfs.sys file on a blue screen when you reboot your system, followed by a 'dirty' shutdown or disk corruption

“STOP 0x0000000A”
Ntfs.sys is the main driver file of NTFS file system that enables the Windows operating system to read/write data from/to NTFS file system partitions.
After the above error message, boot process gets halted and you can not access any of your hard drive partitions. In order to get your NTFS partitions back, you need to find out the cause of this problem and fix it using Partition Recovery Software.

Root of the issue

This behavior of Windows operating system occurs when you try to mount an NTFS file system partition whose MFT (Master File Table) or boot sector is damaged. Corruption may occur due to unexpected system shutdown, after system crash or power outages like situations.
Hard drive corruption may also result in this situations. In some cases, disk corruption may simply render it unmountable, without giving a STOP error.

Resolution

Try out the following things to fix this issue:

1 Identify the damaged partition.
2 Prevent this partition from being mounted.
3 Boot Windows computer.

If the damaged partition is boot/system partition, you need to format the hard drive and reinstall operating system. Formatting is the process of removing all the existing hard drive partitions and data and then reinstalling new file system, operating system, and metadata structures. As formatting removes all the hard drive partitions and data, it causes grave partition loss situations and you need to Recover Partition to get your data back.
Recovery is best possible with third-party Partition Recovery Software that methodically scan the whole hard drive using advanced scanning techniques to recover lost partitions and data. They are totally safe and easy to use.

Stellar Phoenix Windows Data Recovery is the most advanced and efficient tool for assured recovery of lost partitions. The software works well with Microsoft Windows 7, Vista, 2003, XP, and 2000. It recovers FAT16, FAT32, VFAT, NTFS, and NTFS5 file system partitions.

How to Speed Up PC?

Speed up your PC is now just a scan away. PC Optimizer Pro scans your PC and finds out all the errors hamper your PC Speed. Moreover, you must have noticed that your PC speed is getting slower day by day. There could be lots of errors in your PC responsible for this. It is very difficult and time consuming to find out these errors manually. PC Optimizer Pro lets you manage and control all your PC errors easily for peak system performance.

PC Optimizer Pro is a complete suite of Registry Optimizer, Tracks Eraser, File Shredder, Startup Manager, Software Uninstaller and System Info. It is designed to significantly increase the speed of your computer and boost System performance. Some of PC Optimizer Pro users reported up to 400% Faster computer Performance.

Whether you are working or surfing: PC Optimizer Pro increases the performance of your PC. It scans your Windows and detects erroneous and outdated entries in the registry. Its powerful utilities help making best use of your PC to keep it running fast, clean, and error free!
PC Optimizer Pro gives you complete peace of mind, faster boot up, lightning fast PC Speed, protects your privacy … and much more.

Why Software Is So Bad



THE JOKE ENCAPSULATES one of the great puzzles of contemporary technology. In an amazingly short time, software has become critical to almost every aspect of modern life. From bank vaults to city stoplights, from telephone networks to DVD players, from automobile air bags to air traffic control systems, the world around us is regulated by code. Yet much software simply doesn’t work reliably: ask anyone who has watched a computer screen flush blue, wiping out hours of effort. All too often, software engineers say, code is bloated, ugly, inefficient and poorly designed; even when programs do function correctly, users find them too hard to understand. Groaning beneath the weight of bricklike manuals, bookstore shelves across the nation testify to the perduring dysfunctionality of software.

“Software’s simply terrible today,” says Watts S. Humphrey, a fellow of Carnegie Mellon University’s Software Engineering Institute who has written several well-known books on software quality. “And it’s getting worse all the time.” Good software, in Humphrey’s view, “is usable, reliable, defect free, cost effective and maintainable. And software now is none of those things. You can’t take something out of the box and know it’s going to work.” Over the years, in the view of Edsger W. Dijkstra, an emeritus computer scientist at the University of Texas at Austin, the average computer user “has been served so poorly that he expects his system to crash all the time, and we witness a massive worldwide distribution of bug-ridden software for which we should be deeply ashamed.”

Jim McCarthy is more generous. The founder, with his wife Michele, of a software quality training company in Woodinville, WA, McCarthy believes that “most software products have the necessary features to be worth buying and using and adopting.” But, he allows, “only the extreme usefulness of software lets us tolerate its huge deficiencies.” McCarthy sometimes begins talks at his school with a PowerPoint presentation. The first slide reads, “Most Software Sucks.”

GETTING WORSE, NOT BETTER

It is difficult to overemphasize the uniqueness of software’s problems. When automotive engineers discuss the cars on the market, they don’t say that vehicles today are no better than they were ten or fifteen years ago. The same is true for aeronautical engineers: nobody claims that Boeing or Airbus makes lousy planes. Nor do electrical engineers complain that chips and circuitry aren’t improving. As the engineering historian Henry Petroski suggested in his 1992 book The Evolution of Useful Things, continual refinement is the usual rule in technology. Engineers constantly notice shortcomings in their designs and fix them little by little, a process Petroski wryly described as “form follows failure.” As a result, products incrementally improve.
Software, alas, seems different. One would expect a 45-million-line program like Windows XP, Microsoft’s newest operating system, to have a few bugs. And software engineering is a newer discipline than mechanical or electrical engineering; the first real programs were created only 50 years ago. But what’s surprising — astonishing, in fact — is that many software engineers believe that software quality is not improving. If anything, they say, it’s getting worse. It’s as if the cars Detroit produced in 2002 were less reliable than those built in 1982.

As software becomes increasingly important, the potential impact of bad code will increase to match, in the view of Peter G. Neumann, a computer scientist at SRI International, a private R&D center in Menlo Park, CA. In the last 15 years alone, software defects have wrecked a European satellite launch, delayed the opening of the hugely expensive Denver airport for a year, destroyed a NASA Mars mission, killed four marines in a helicopter crash, induced a U.S. Navy ship to destroy a civilian airliner, and shut down ambulance systems in London, leading to as many as 30 deaths. And because of our growing dependence on the Net, Neumann says, “We’re much worse off than we were five years ago. The risks are worse and the defenses are not as good. We’re going backwards—and that’s a scary thing.”

Some software companies are responding to these criticisms by revamping their procedures; Microsoft, stung by charges that its products are buggy, is publicly leading the way. Yet problems with software quality have endured so long, and seem so intractably embedded in software culture, that some coders are beginning to think the unthinkable. To their own amazement, these people have found themselves wondering if the real problem with software is that not enough lawyers are involved.

‘IT’S TOTAL CHAOS’

Microsoft released Windows XP on Oct. 25, 2001. That same day, in what may be a record, the company posted 18 megabytes of patches on its Web site: bug fixes, compatibility updates, and enhancements. Two patches fixed important security holes. Or rather, one of them did; the other patch didn’t work. Microsoft advised (and still advises) users to back up critical files before installing the patches. Buyers of the home version of Windows XP, however, discovered that the system provided no way to restore these backup files if things went awry. As Microsoft’s online Knowledge Base blandly explained, the special backup floppy disks created by Windows XP Home “do not work with Windows XP Home.”

Such slip-ups, critics say, are merely surface lapses — signs that the software’s developers were too rushed or too careless to fix obvious defects. The real problems lie in software’s basic design, according to R. A. Downes of Radsoft, a software consulting firm. Or rather, its lack of design. Microsoft’s popular Visual Studio programming software is an example, to Downes’s way of thinking. Simply placing the cursor over the Visual Studio window, Downes has found, invisibly barrages the central processing unit with thousands of unnecessary messages, even though the program is not doing anything. “It’s cataclysmic. ... It’s total chaos,” he complains.

The issue, in the view of Dan Wallach, a computer scientist at Rice University, is not the pointless churning of the processor — after all, he notes, “processing power is cheap.” Nor is Microsoft software especially flawed; critics often employ the company’s products as examples more because they are familiar than because they are unusually bad. Instead, in Wallach’s view, the blooming, buzzing confusion in Visual Studio and so many other programs betrays how the techniques for writing software have failed to keep up with the explosive increase in its complexity.

Programmers write code in languages such as Java, C and C++, which can be read by human beings. Specialized programs known as “compilers” transform this code into the strings of ones and zeroes used by computers. Importantly, compilers refuse to compile code with obvious problems — they spit out error messages instead. Until the 1970s, compilers sat on large mainframes that were often booked days or weeks in advance. Not wanting errors to cause delay, coders — who in the early days tended to be trained as mathematicians or physicists — stayed late in their offices exhaustively checking their work. Writing software was much like writing scientific papers. Rigor, documentation and peer-review vetting were the custom.

OVERWHELMED BY COMPLEXITY

But as computers became widespread, attitudes changed. Instead of meticulously planning code, programmers stayed up in caffeinated all-night hacking sessions, constantly bouncing results off the compiler. Again and again, the compiler would spit back error messages; the programmers would fix the mistakes one by one until the software compiled properly. “The attitude today is that you can write any sloppy piece of code and the compiler will run diagnostics,” says SRI’s Neumann. “If it doesn’t spit out an error message, it must be done correctly, right?”
As programs grew in size and complexity, however, the limits of this “code and fix” approach became evident. On average, professional coders make 100 to 150 errors in every thousand lines of code they write, according to a multiyear study of 13,000 programs by Humphrey of Carnegie Mellon. Using Humphrey’s figures, the business operating system Windows NT 4, with its 16 million lines of code, would thus have been written with about two million mistakes. Most would have been too small to have any effect, but some — many thousands — would have caused serious problems.

Naturally, Microsoft exhaustively tested NT 4 before release, but “in almost any phase of tests you’ll find less than half the defects,” Humphrey says. If Microsoft had gone through four rounds of testing, an expensive and time-consuming procedure, the company would have found at most 15 out of 16 bugs. “That’s going to leave you with something like five defects per thousand lines of code,” Humphrey says. “Which is very low” — but the software would still have as many as 80,000 errors.

Software engineers know that their code is often riddled with lacunae, and they have long been searching for new technologies to prevent them. To manage increasingly distended projects like Windows, for example, they have developed a variety of techniques, of which perhaps the best known is component-based design. Just as houses are built with standardized two-by-fours and electrical fittings, component-based programs are built out of modular, interchangeable elements: an example is the nearly identical menu bar atop every Windows or Macintosh program. Such standardized components, according to Wallach, are not only good engineering practice, they are “the only way you can make something the size of Microsoft Office work at all.” Microsoft, he says, was an early, aggressive promoter of this approach — “it’s the single best engineering decision they ever made.”

IS SOFTWARE A SPECIAL CASE?

The potential risks of bad software were grimly illustrated between 1985 and 1987, when a computer-controlled radiation therapy machine manufactured by the government-backed Atomic Energy of Canada massively overdosed patients in the United States and Canada, killing at least three. In an exhaustive examination, Nancy Leveson, now an MIT computer scientist, assigned much of the blame to the manufacturer’s inadequate software-engineering practices. Because the program used to set radiation intensity was not designed or tested carefully, simple typing errors triggered lethal blasts.

Despite this tragic experience, similar machines running software made by Multidata Systems International, of St. Louis, massively overdosed patients in Panama in 2000 and 2001, leading to eight more deaths. A team from the International Atomic Energy Agency attributed the deaths to “the entering of data” in a way programmers had not anticipated. As Leveson notes, simple data-entry errors should not have lethal consequences. So this failure, too, may be due to inadequate software.

Programming experts tend to agree that such disasters are distressingly common. Consider the Mars Climate Orbiter and the Polar Lander, both destroyed in 1999 by familiar, readily prevented coding errors. But some argue that software simply cannot be judged, measured and improved in the same way as other engineering products. “It’s just a fact that there are things that other engineers can do that we can’t do,” says Shari Pfleeger, a senior researcher at the Rand think tank in Washington, DC, and author of the 1998 volume Software Engineering: Theory and Practice. If a bridge survives a 500-kilogram weight and a 50,000-kilogram weight, Pfleeger notes, engineers can assume that it will bear all the values between. With software, she says, “I can’t make that assumption—I can’t interpolate.”

Moreover, software makers labor under extraordinary demands. Ford and General Motors have been manufacturing the same product — a four-wheeled box with an internal-combustion engine — for decades. In consequence, says Charles H. Connell, former principal engineer of Lotus Development (now part of IBM), they have been able to improve their products incrementally. But software companies are constantly asked to create products — Web browsers in the early 1990s, new cell phone interfaces today — unlike anything seen before. “It’s like a car manufacturer saying, ‘This year we’re going to make a rocket ship instead of a car,’” Connell says. “Of course they’ll have problems.”

“The classic dilemma in software is that people continually want more and more and more stuff,” says Nathan Myhrvold, former chief technology officer of Microsoft. Unfortunately, he notes, the constant demand for novelty means that software is always “in the bleeding-edge phase,” when products are inherently less reliable. In 1983, he says, Microsoft Word had only 27,000 lines of code. “Trouble is, it didn’t do very much” — which customers today wouldn’t accept. If Microsoft had not kept pumping up Word with new features, the product would no longer exist.

“Users are tremendously non-self-aware,” Myhrvold adds. At Microsoft, he says, corporate customers often demanded that the company simultaneously add new features and stop adding new features. “Literally, I’ve heard it in a single breath, a single sentence. ‘We’re not sure why we should upgrade to this new release — it has all this stuff we don’t want — and when are you going to put in these three things?’ And you say, ‘Whaaat?’” Myhrvold’s sardonic summary: “Software sucks because users demand it to.”