Help... I've lost my book

This is all way outside my paygrade and then some but this bit intrigued me.

Trebo58 said:

I can see that the drive is registering as FAT12, from it's orginal NTFS.

Click to expand...

Isn't FAT12 prehistoric and was applicable to very tiny volumes decades ago?

Could that point to a corrupt header or something and Windows is using FAT12 as some kind of fallback to try and make sense of it. If so then has something corrupted the disk massively to make it appear like that?

I just got curious looking into that, the mention of FAT12 as that might be some important clue for those that have more experience in this.

Mooly said:

This is all way outside my paygrade and then some but this bit intrigued me.



Isn't FAT12 prehistoric and was applicable to very tiny volumes decades ago?

Could that point to a corrupt header or something and Windows is using FAT12 as some kind of fallback to try and make sense of it. If so then has something corrupted the disk massively to make it appear like that?

I just got curious looking into that, the mention of FAT12 as that might be some important clue for those that have more experience in this.

Click to expand...

It's probably a typo, as the screenshots don't show that.

kelper said:

That depends on his chances of a) succeeding or b) trashing the data/metadata in that partition by an unwise command. As data recovery services do, I hope he has imaged the disk or partition and is working on the image, not the original.

Click to expand...

As far as I remember GetDataBack warns you against using the same disk to copy the data. It won't even allow you. Common sense, if the disk is damaged you don't trust it, you copy somewhere else. If there is no spare disk, at least you first copy the most valuable data (such as OP's book) and resume some other time when you do have a disk.

kelper said:

That depends on his chances of a) succeeding or b) trashing the data/metadata in that partition by an unwise command. As data recovery services do, I hope he has imaged the disk or partition and is working on the image, not the original.

Click to expand...

The clone would be USELESS, unless he clones the whole disk sector-by-sector. This is because simple cloning copies all found files and ignores any unallocated areas. Even then, I would not trust the clone to recover data, it's best to work directly on the original.

Mooly said:

This is all way outside my paygrade and then some but this bit intrigued me.



Isn't FAT12 prehistoric and was applicable to very tiny volumes decades ago?

Could that point to a corrupt header or something and Windows is using FAT12 as some kind of fallback to try and make sense of it. If so then has something corrupted the disk massively to make it appear like that?

I just got curious looking into that, the mention of FAT12 as that might be some important clue for those that have more experience in this.

Click to expand...

He probably meant FAT32, not FAT12 which was only for floppies. It's a typo.

IMPORTANT: If the recovery tool cannot identify the partition format, make sure you select NTFS! Any other will not find any data or won't be able to extract them, and if the recovery tool tries to "correct" the missing partition as FAT32 you will lose it for good! Make extra sure you select NTFS, if not detected automatically by the recovery tool! Properly identifying the partition format improves chances of success. Wrong identification could be a disaster!

spapakons said:

The clone would be USELESS, unless he clones the whole disk sector-by-sector. This is because simple cloning copies all found files and ignores any unallocated areas. Even then, I would not trust the clone to recover data, it's best to work directly on the original.

Click to expand...

Cloning is not the same as copying files.

I would do it the other way around. I would work on the clone, since you can clone the clone indefinitely. A sector by sector clone is a 100% replica of the original disk. Assuming the original disk still works at least one time so you can produce the clone. If not, then the data recovery is a lost cause any ways without proper recovery equipment and skill, which in turn can cost up to thousands. I would never work on a damaged or corrupt device more than absolutely necessary. It could cause even more damage to the surface, filesystem and files.

SlicEnDicE said:

Cloning is not the same as copying files.

I would do it the other way around. I would work on the clone, since you can clone the clone indefinitely. A sector by sector clone is a 100% replica of the original disk. Assuming the original disk still works at least one time so you can produce the clone. If not, then the data recovery is a lost cause any ways without proper recovery equipment and skill, which in turn can cost up to thousands. I would never work on a damaged or corrupt device more than absolutely necessary. It could cause even more damage to the surface, filesystem and files.

Click to expand...

You forget one important detail. If the disk is damaged (a lot of bad sectors or physical damage like a mechanical shock), then cloning sector-by-sector stresses the controller of the disk which can die any time. So you have to choose, risk more damage while trying to recover data or while cloning the disk? If the scan is interrupted there is a chance to recover data from the aera which is already scanned. If the clone is interrupted the target disk might not be readable. From what I have read so far the OP's disk is not physically damaged (I hope so), it has lost the partition. So there is no immediate risk scanning the surface to recover the data. I would not like to waste some hours just for cloning. I would use the second disk for copying the detected data.

If a disk is really that damaged, I would power it off and send it to a professional. In this case the read heads or the surface would be damaged and you would hear it in the sound of the drive. Every rotation would destroy more and more data outside the most damaged area. It could be a matter of seconds and all data could be lost forever. A simple SMART check would also reveal these very obvious issues, which is absolutely the first thing one should do before anything else.

In all other cases, a full clone and working on that clone, or just in case, the clone of the clone, is the best option.

spapakons said:

The clone would be USELESS, unless he clones the whole disk sector-by-sector. This is because simple cloning copies all found files and ignores any unallocated areas. Even then, I would not trust the clone to recover data, it's best to work directly on the original.

Click to expand...

I never said clone.

Just to clarify, when I say clone, I do not mean disk to disk clone but a 1:1 disk to image clone or a disk dump where every single bit is accounted for from sector 0 to MAX.

I don't like to use the word image, because some if not most imaging software skips unallocated and empty space alltogether, which is useless in rescue scenarios of this caliber.

UnsafeRelease said:

I’m sorry for not reading through all the posts, but perhaps my recent issue shares some similarities.
Following a fairly recent Windows update, I lost the partition where I had Linux installed in a dual-boot setup. It didn't just wipe the bootloader; it also destroyed the header sectors where the encryption key was stored, resulting in the loss of all my data.
It seems that recent Windows updates might be more dangerous for external partitions than one would have expected in the past...

Did the author recover his data?

Click to expand...

The author last reported here on Sunday ,the 20th Sep 2026.No further reports since then. We do not know whether he has recvoered his data or not.

jumanji said:

The author last reported here on Sunday.No further reports since then. We do not know whether he has recvoered his data.
or not.

Click to expand...

Evidently they shelled out for the right tools. If they use them right they should be able to at least recover their text files.

From my past experience if the lost partition area wasn't overwritten, he should be able to recover almost everything. That of course implies he uses an appropriate tool to do a full disk scan, there is no point trying to avoid it. Like I said in an older reply there is no fast and easy workaround with this situation (lost partition). If he wants results he has to do it right, no matter how complicated it seems or how much time it needs. It's like trying to cut a tree with a plastic saw. You need a real saw and effort to do it right.

TBH I have not read 6 pages of posts word for word. I'm not trying to be Debbie Downer here but I would think that at some point, a regular user would have to accept that his own efforts using 3rd party tools are not working at which time he would be left with 2 options; seek professional help IF he can afford it, or tighten his belt and accept the loss of the data no matter how valuable it might be to him.

I have a true story that brings home just how important backing up one's data is.

About 8-10 years ago my brother-in-law asked me if I wanted an old PC he had. He was a garage sale fanatic so I didn't ask any questions about where he got it nor did I ever look at what was on the drive. Being much newer than the PC I was using for my Plex server, I formatted the 1 tb drive, did a clean install, and transferred about 800gb of media data to it.

About a month later, his wife called and wanted the PC back. Said it was her old one and had thousands of family pictures on it, Naturally she had made no backup. I agreed to give it back but explained to both of them chances of recovering her data were slim to none since everything had been overwritten. The wife didn't take that well. She cried, screamed, screamed some more, and gave me a good cussing (I mean a REALLY good cussing to which I might haved cussed back...just a little ....Oh I might has well be honest, it ended in a phone cat fight of epic proportions.

He took the drive to some recovery place in Dallas who told him the same thing I had, but the wife was adament about her photos. To keep peace, Bro-in-law ended up paying around a thousand bucks for a mere handful of recoverable photos. My sister in law has not spoken to me since. Not a big loss to me since I never liked her anyway, but I did pretend to for my hubby's sake..

Every time I think about what my husband and I now refer to as "the incident" I wonder if she's backing up her photos now.

Before quitting and going to a professional recovery center or throwing the disk away, any reasonable user should do his best to recover his data. If he feels he cannot do that himself, then he can ask a professional computer repair service, not data recovery center, which can do it for him (if the disk is not physically damaged) at a much more reasonable price than a dedicated recovery center. Most computer stores have a service and many of them also repair other computers, not only their own. So he can pay a visit to one such service and ask for a price. Many don't even need to keep the disk. They have standard pricing usually by hour, such as $50 per hour, say. Others charge by the amount of GB they can recover, but usually they charge by hour independently of the outcome. A honest service will inform the user in advance if the disk is not recoverable and charge a minimum (usually one hour). They can even suggest you a recovery center they cooperate with and probably get some discount. So first do your best to recover any data or let a professional do it for you and THEN decide if you are willing to pay for a recovery center or throw away the disk. It's not a decision you take in a minute! If you decide to give the disk on a recovery center its better worth the $$$$ you are about to pay. And like I said most recovery centers charge for the whole disk, they don't recover just a specific file or folder. So for a full 5TB disk they will ask for a lot of money. For "your convenience" they also provide the extra disk in which they copy the recovered data, of course more expensive than buying the same disk in a computer shop. Ask them if you can provide your own spare disk.