Originally Posted by confus-ed
Either Product may or may not do the job with varying levels of 'ability'. (that'd be preference ;))
Its telling you to slave any disk to be recovered to try & avoid more writing taking place on it, as I commented earlier the less writing that has happened the better your chances of getting any files back, obviously the product used must be able to understand both file systems concerned FAT & NTFS
You can use either fat or ntfs with xp (that's down to the options you choose in setup). 98 however only understands FAT based file systems & won't 'see' any ntfs area.....
You make an 'image' of your cd with some imaging software (my that's informative :D - it does a sector by sector copy, different from just copying any files) the best known example is symantecs Ghost, there are others...
Yup you can use either, but without paying for the full version I don't think either will actually let you write the recovered result, which is pooh really as until its actually recovered you can't say for sure that its been recovered 'correctly' - just because it thinks its found a file - it ain't ! - its found the start of file marker, whether it manages to recover any subsequent parts of the file (files very rarely are 'saved' as just one bit as far as the file system is concerned, generally they are small bits (4k) 'linked' by a series of offset pointers which point to the next bit) , you won't know until after your 'full' version has written it back to disk :eek2: