Reclaiming Shadows: Navigating NTFS and FAT Partitions to Unearth Lost Data

The intricate dance between data deletion and recovery in NTFS and FAT partitions presents a fascinating challenge. Although deleting a file seems like erasing it permanently, the underlying file system behaves more like a master illusionist, masking data without truly obliterating it. To embark on the journey of data reclamation, one must first comprehend the structural nuances of these partitions and the way they manage deleted files.

What Happens When You Delete Files on NTFS and FAT?

The NTFS and FAT file systems orchestrate deletion in distinct manners, yet both avoid immediate physical data removal. Instead, they alter metadata structures, flagging sectors as available for reuse. This transient invisibility provides a crucial window for recovery before data becomes overwritten.

In NTFS, deletion updates the Master File Table (MFT) by marking the file record as free, while the actual content lingers on the disk. Conversely, FAT systems manipulate the File Allocation Table by nullifying entries that reference the deleted file’s clusters, rendering the data inaccessible yet intact temporarily.

The Concept of Logical vs Physical Deletion

Grasping the dichotomy between logical and physical deletion is paramount. Logical deletion refers to the removal of directory references and file system pointers, rendering the file invisible to the user and operating system. However, the physical data persists on the disk surface until overwritten by new information.

This distinction underscores the significance of immediate action after accidental deletion; postponing recovery efforts increases the risk of permanent data loss as subsequent writes irreversibly overwrite sectors.

Anatomy of NTFS and FAT Partition Structures

A sophisticated understanding of NTFS and FAT partition structures enriches the data recovery process. NTFS partitions feature the Master File Table—a comprehensive index of files and directories—that governs access and metadata. The MFT’s intricate architecture supports robust file handling but complicates data reconstruction when damaged.

FAT partitions, simpler in design, employ the File Allocation Table to track cluster usage. While less complex, the FAT structure’s linear chain of cluster pointers can fragment data across the disk, challenging recovery tools to piece together deleted files effectively.

Common Causes of File Deletion and Data Loss

While deletion might be intentional, data loss often stems from unanticipated events such as system crashes, malware attacks, or accidental formatting. Each scenario affects recovery feasibility differently.

Understanding these root causes helps tailor recovery strategies. For instance, corrupted file systems might require specialized repair tools before extraction, while hardware failures necessitate forensic techniques to salvage data from damaged platters.

Precautionary Measures to Prevent Data Overwrite

The ephemeral nature of recoverable deleted data means minimizing write operations post-deletion is critical. Simple actions, such as halting disk use, avoiding system restores, or refraining from installing software, enhance chances of successful recovery.

Additionally, leveraging write-protect tools or booting from external recovery media prevents overwriting, safeguarding the remnants of lost files from being erased permanently.

The interplay of metadata manipulation and physical data retention in NTFS and FAT partitions sets the stage for data recovery. Recognizing the distinction between logical and physical deletion alongside the internal workings of file systems provides a robust foundation to approach file reclamation with confidence.

The following parts of this series will explore practical recovery techniques, tools, and advanced troubleshooting methods to navigate the complex landscape of deleted file restoration.

Mastering Practical Techniques and Tools for Recovering Deleted Files on NTFS and FAT Partitions

In the realm of digital forensics and everyday data restoration, theoretical knowledge alone is insufficient to reclaim lost files effectively. Mastery requires familiarity with practical techniques and a discerning approach to recovery tools, tailored to the peculiarities of NTFS and FAT file systems. This article elucidates a comprehensive methodology, bridging the gap between abstract concepts and actionable recovery strategies.

Choosing the Right Recovery Approach: Software or Manual Methods?

The first crossroads in data recovery is deciding between software-driven solutions and manual forensic techniques. While specialized applications offer user-friendly interfaces and automated scans, manual methods—often used by experts—demand a profound understanding of disk structures and hex-level manipulation.

Software Tools: User-Friendly Yet Powerful

For most users, software recovery tools present the most accessible avenue. Programs such as Recuva, EaseUS Data Recovery Wizard, and R-Studio specialize in scanning partition metadata and raw sectors, aiming to reconstruct deleted files before overwriting occurs. Many support both NTFS and FAT systems, recognizing the distinct signatures and file allocation methods.

These utilities often offer deep scan capabilities that search beyond file tables to detect residual data fragments, increasing recovery success in cases of partial file system damage.

Manual Forensic Techniques: Precision at a Microscopic Level

Conversely, manual recovery involves examining disk sectors with hex editors and file system analyzers. This granular approach is indispensable when software tools fail due to severe corruption or when partial data fragments require reconstruction. Although time-consuming and technically demanding, it grants unparalleled control over the recovery process.

Preparing for Recovery: Best Practices Before You Begin

Preparation is pivotal to maximizing recovery prospects and avoiding further data degradation.

• Create a Disk Image: Rather than operating on the original drive, generate a bit-by-bit image. This preserves the current state, allowing repeated recovery attempts without risking additional damage.

• Use Write-Blocked Environments: Prevent any modification to the source disk by using write blockers or booting from live USB environments to ensure data integrity.

• Ensure Sufficient Storage Space: Recovery processes can generate multiple file versions and logs; secure adequate disk space on an external medium.

• Document the Process: Keeping detailed notes of recovery steps aids troubleshooting and ensures consistent methodology.

Scanning Techniques: Logical and Physical Analysis

Effective recovery hinges on deploying the correct scanning technique aligned with the deletion scenario and file system condition.

Quick Scan vs Deep Scan

• Quick Scan: Relies on file system metadata such as the Master File Table in NTFS or FAT entries to locate deleted files rapidly. Suitable for recent deletions without significant disk changes.

• Deep Scan: Bypasses the file system, scanning raw sectors for known file signatures (magic numbers) to recover data from formatted or heavily corrupted drives.

Deep scanning is resource-intensive but invaluable when file system references are lost or overwritten.

Signature-Based File Recovery

This method employs pattern recognition to identify file headers and footers, enabling the reconstruction of files like documents, images, and videos, even when directory entries are missing. Signature databases embedded in recovery software expand recovery capabilities beyond standard file types.

Recovery Tools in Detail: Exploring Options for NTFS and FAT Partitions

The recovery landscape offers diverse tools, each with distinct advantages suited to specific use cases.

EaseUS Data Recovery Wizard

Known for its intuitive interface and robust scanning algorithms, EaseUS supports both NTFS and FAT partitions. It excels at recovering files from accidental deletion, formatting, or partition corruption, offering preview features and selective restoration.

TestDisk and PhotoRec

Open-source utilities favored by professionals, TestDisk repairs partition tables and recovers lost partitions, while PhotoRec complements it by focusing on file carving from raw data. Their command-line nature provides flexibility and depth at the cost of a steeper learning curve.

R-Studio

A professional-grade recovery suite, R-Studio offers extensive file system support and advanced RAID recovery. Its powerful hex editor and sector-level tools empower users to salvage data from severely compromised drives.

Handling File Fragmentation and Partial Recovery

One significant obstacle in recovering deleted files—,  specially on FAT partitions—is fragmentation. When files are stored non-contiguously, recovery software must correctly link scattered clusters.

Advanced recovery tools use heuristic algorithms to map cluster chains and reconstruct files, yet partial recovery is sometimes unavoidable, leading to corrupted or incomplete files. Understanding the fragmentation extent beforehand can guide expectations and inform post-recovery repair efforts.

Repairing Corrupted Files Post-Recovery

Recovered files, particularly documents and media, often suffer corruption. Employing file repair utilities tailored to specific formats can restore usability.

For instance, Microsoft Office offers built-in repair options for DOCX and XLSX files, while dedicated video repair tools address playback issues. Integrating repair processes post-recovery enhances the overall success rate and user satisfaction.

Avoiding Common Pitfalls in Data Recovery

While the urge to rush recovery is natural, patience and caution are essential to prevent exacerbating data loss.

• Avoid Installing Software on the Affected Drive: This risks overwriting deleted data.

• Don’t Attempt Recovery on Damaged Drives Without Imaging: Mechanical faults require specialized intervention.

• Beware of Overwritten Data: No tool can reliably recover data once overwritten.

• Test Recovered Files Before Mass Restoration: Confirm file integrity to avoid wasting space on unusable files.

Case Study: Recovery from a Formatted FAT Partition

Consider a user who accidentally formatted a FAT32 USB drive containing critical documents. Immediate cessation of use and image creation set the stage for recovery. Utilizing PhotoRec’s signature-based deep scan, the user identified multiple recoverable DOC and JPG files.

Despite some fragmentation, the strategic use of repair tools restored most documents. This example underscores the importance of timely action, appropriate tool selection, and supplementary repair procedures.

The Psychological Dimension of Data Recovery

Beyond technical mastery, recovering deleted data invokes a profound psychological interplay between hope, frustration, and relief. Users entrust their digital memories and livelihoods to fragile systems, and navigating recovery can feel like an emotional odyssey.

Understanding this human factor motivates practitioners to balance technical rigor with empathy, ensuring clear communication and realistic expectations throughout the process.

Future-Proofing Data Integrity: Lessons from Recovery Experiences

Each recovery endeavor imparts valuable lessons:

• Regular Backups Are Irreplaceable: Prevention is always preferable to cure.

• Familiarity with File Systems Enhances Preparedness: Knowing NTFS and FAT intricacies informs better recovery choices.

• Immediate Response Is Critical: The longer data remains deleted, the slimmer the recovery odds.

• Invest in Reliable Recovery Tools: Quality software and hardware pay dividends during crises.

Bridging Theory and Practice in Data Recovery

Practical recovery of deleted files on NTFS and FAT partitions demands a blend of strategic preparation, tool proficiency, and patience. From initial imaging to deep scanning and file repair, every step contributes to resurrecting lost data’s ephemeral shadows.

The forthcoming Part 3 will delve into advanced troubleshooting techniques, including recovery from complex corruption and multi-partition environments, further expanding the toolkit for digital preservation.

The Future of File Recovery – Philosophies, Machine Cognition, and Human Relevance

Beyond magnetic imprints and logical tables, there exists a subtle narrative of human intention, machine cognition, and digital entropy. Data recovery is no longer simply about salvaging files but about redefining what it means to restore intention, chronology, and consequence from collapsed architectures.

Redefining Recovery in the Age of Intelligent Automation

Emerging technologies are dramatically reshaping the epistemology of recovery. Machine learning, neural prediction systems, and self-evolving algorithms are beginning to autonomously map damaged volumes, simulate probabilistic outcomes, and regenerate structures previously believed to be unrecoverable.

These systems interpret logical decay not as failure but as an alternative pathway toward digital resurrection. Unlike conventional tools locked in rule-based procedures, cognitive engines learn from fragmented volume behaviors, anticipate structural redundancies, and navigate entropy-driven corruption zones.

Predictive File Reconstruction and Temporal Mapping

When files vanish, often what is truly lost is time—time-stamps, version history, and access chronologies. Predictive file reconstruction no longer just recovers clusters or sectors—it now seeks to rebuild timelines. Tools equipped with AI-based temporal mapping align fragments based on behavioral logs, registry changes, and interaction timestamps.

The goal shifts from raw restoration to authentic resurrection—bringing files back not just as byte sequences, but as meaningful experiences.

File Archeology: Digging Deeper Than Clusters

In many ways, recovery has become an archaeological endeavor. Each sector resembles a stratified layer, with contextual sediment embedded in metadata fragments, journal entries, and event remnants. Advanced recovery practitioners now extract contextual residue—user signatures, access patterns, and implied file relationships.

This deep-dive approach has led to the emergence of data archaeologists who don’t merely use tools, but interpret data like ancient scripts—layered, fractured, yet meaningful.

Emergence of Decentralized File Integrity Networks

Blockchain principles are being repurposed to create decentralized file integrity networks. These networks mirror file states across multiple nodes and timestamp every change. Upon corruption or deletion, these networks act as redundancy sanctuaries, restoring not from backups, but from authenticated distributed states.

Rather than relying on backup drives, the system becomes inherently restorative, capable of reconstructing damaged partitions from hashed memories across trusted nodes.

Recovering in a Quantum Storage Context

As quantum storage emerges, the nature of corruption itself becomes probabilistic. Data isn’t stored in absolute states but exists across superpositions. Traditional recovery logic fails in this realm. New methodologies now adopt quantum-interpretative techniques, recovering data not by scanning for fixed positions but by decoding collapsed wavefunctions of bit histories.

Such complexity demands new metrics—quantum entropy tolerance, probabilistic data integrity, and superpositional redundancy evaluation.

Human Error as a Design Problem

The majority of critical data loss still arises from human error. Mis-clicks, accidental formatting, and overconfidence in unverified scripts—each echoes the fragility of our interaction with machines. Rather than fixing the error post-factum, leading recovery systems now integrate psychometric adaptive interfaces that evaluate user confidence, hesitation, and behavior to predict and prevent catastrophic actions before they occur.

This human-centric design reconceptualizes recovery not as damage control, but as preemptive cognition.

Multi-Modal Recovery Intelligence Platforms

Future recovery suites are evolving into multi-modal platforms, combining disk imaging, behavioral heuristics, live logging, and network forensics. These platforms ingest data across formats—audio logs, system telemetry, heat maps, BIOS activity—and synthesize a holistic picture of data loss.

For example, a deleted enterprise file isn’t just gone—it leaves behind evidence in memory, temp folders, audit logs, and even printer queue metadata. Multi-modal intelligence unites these fragments into a single story.

Ethical Machine Agency in Data Restoration

As recovery tools become autonomous, ethical concerns emerge. Should a system restore encrypted private documents without human verification? Who bears responsibility for AI making assumptions about file relationships, ownership, or relevance?

Emergent recovery ethics demand that tools are not just efficient, but cognizant. Protocols around machine agency, digital consent, and algorithmic bias are beginning to shape tool design, ensuring that the recovery process respects digital sovereignty.

The Role of Memory Forensics in Hidden Volume Recovery

Memory forensics, once reserved for law enforcement, has infiltrated mainstream recovery. Tools now extract volatile data snapshots, RAM-resident shadow volumes, and encryption keys floating during execution.

This approach uncovers files never written to disk, including clipboard caches, script fragments, and live session data. It revolutionizes recovery by extending beyond static volumes into the ephemerality of memory itself.

Cyber-Preservation: Recovery as Digital Conservation

Archiving is no longer about mere duplication—it’s about conserving data ecology. With ephemeral cloud containers, decentralized storage, and shifting standards, digital conservators now view recovery as a critical tool in preserving knowledge for future generations.

Institutions are forming digital restoration labs, mimicking art conservation studios, where damaged data sets are painstakingly reconstructed byte by byte with historical fidelity in mind.

Anticipatory Redundancy: Preventive Recovery Models

Some architectures now incorporate anticipatory redundancy, creating multiple mirrored file states before actions even occur. Based on user habits, these systems generate intelligent backups that anticipate risks, thus enabling pre-failure recovery.

This paradigm shift moves from restoration to prediction and simulation, ensuring that the most critical data never truly becomes lost—it exists in potential states, ready for manifestation.

Societal Implications of Data Loss and Recovery

At a macro scale, the implications of recovery transcend technology. Lost data can impact legal outcomes, disrupt financial ecosystems, and reshape historical narratives. In an era where truth often lives inside documents, drives, or digital ledgers, recovery becomes a guardian of collective memory.

A failed restoration might erase years of research, unravel a legal case, or distort personal histories. Thus, recovery isn’t just technical—it’s ethical, historical, and even spiritual.

Cultural Memory and Digital Afterlives

With entire lives now digitized, the notion of digital afterlife gains prominence. From personal documents to voice memos, recovery can resuscitate identities. Tools now assist in reconstructing the lives of lost ones, offering closure or historical insight.

These emerging interfaces might soon allow us to converse with fragments—AI-trained replicas of loved ones built from recovered audio diaries, browsing patterns, and visual memories.

Towards Data Resurrection: Philosophy and Code

The boundary between lost and retrievable grows ever thinner. Philosophers of technology now speak of data resurrection,  where the act of recovery becomes existential. What does it mean to “bring back” something digital? At what point does a file, once damaged, gaia n new identity through reinterpretation?

Recovery becomes a philosophical act—a dance between entropy and order, between collapse and recreation, between forgetfulness and remembrance.

The Eternal Recurrence of Bits

Every deleted file, every corrupted drive, every fragmented sector echoes a deeper pattern of renewal. The future of file recovery isn’t limited to storage mediums or algorithms—it is entwined with consciousness, memory, and the architectures of attention.

We move from recovering files to recovering meanings. From salvaging data to salvaging identity. In a world forever rewriting itself, recovery may well be the last form of permanence we have.

Beyond Recovery – Synthesizing Conscious Archives and Sentient Storage

In an age saturated by data, the boundaries between storage, memory, and identity begin to blur. What once was a simple act of retrieving files from corrupted volumes has evolved into something far more metaphysical. We no longer recover only for access; we recover to remember, to validate existence, and to sustain digital consciousness. The fifth dimension of recovery is not just about data restoration but about the cultivation of memory as infrastructure—where files, logs, and fragments form the skeleton of our collective cognition.

From Static Files to Conscious Archives

Data is no longer inert. With the introduction of intelligent metadata frameworks and behaviorally-aware storage systems, archives are becoming sentient. They interpret not only the content but the context, intention, and emotional resonance of stored information. Recovery in this era demands understanding not just file structures, but the human frameworks they serve.

Archives now evolve with their creators. Every saved draft, every modified version becomes part of a living timeline—one that changes as the creator grows. Thus, recovery includes a historical reconstruction of this evolution, preserving not merely the artifact, but the creative process itself.

Digital Continuity and Legacy Stewardship

The new wave of recovery is inseparable from legacy management. As individuals, institutions, and civilizations become increasingly dependent on digital memory, recovery ensures continuity. Philosophers now liken digital recovery to manuscript preservation during the fall of ancient civilizations—a torch passed not through ink and parchment but through bitwise fidelity.

Stewardship of digital legacy means implementing systems that don’t just restore but contextualize. Intelligent recovery tools now reference historical data, environmental parameters, and user behavior to reestablish original intent. Recovery becomes a form of cultural conservation—restoring not just data, but value.

Multisensory Data Environments and Recovery Challenges

The proliferation of VR, AR, and multisensory interfaces has extended the domain of recovery beyond two-dimensional files. Reconstructing immersive environments involves spatial memory, environmental overlays, gesture records, and sensory haptics.

Recovering these formats demands a synesthetic approach—tools that interpret sensory echoes, spatial anchors, and neural interaction logs. A deleted VR memory is not a flat file, but a fractured multidimensional experience. Recovery systems must now perform sensory inference and simulate experience-level integrity.

Data Recovery as Post-Human Empathy

As AI companions, avatars, and simulated identities proliferate, recovering lost data may mean recovering entire personalities. Ethical debates emerge: Can we restore an AI without violating its emergent agency? If an individual’s cognitive patterns were lost during neural syncing, is restoring them an act of empathy or control?

Post-human recovery doesn’t just fix code; it interacts with evolving digital consciousness. It’s no longer about resurrecting applications but about reawakening sentient configurations. Recovery now plays a role in digital reincarnation—preserving fragments of simulated selves and allowing their stories to persist.

Algorithmic Ancestry and Digital Genealogies

Families, organizations, and species may soon be defined by their data footprints. From source code ancestry to version lineage, we are tracing digital genealogies with unprecedented precision. Recovery tools now integrate with archival systems to reconstruct developmental timelines, usage heredity, and relational context across generations.

This evolution of recovery aligns with algorithmic ancestry—an emerging practice in which data analysts trace informational evolution across codebases, projects, and institutional frameworks. It’s a form of technological lineage mapping, and recovery plays a critical role in filling the gaps.

The Ontology of a Deleted Entity

What does deletion mean in a quantum, decentralized, versioned reality? Deletion is no longer absolute; it is temporal, conditional, and sometimes political. Files aren’t gone; they are displaced—relegated to obscured partitions, unindexed sectors, or anonymized in compliance protocols.

Recovery now operates within this philosophical ambiguity. Is recovering a deleted file an act of resistance? A restoration of truth? An ethical violation? Each recovery process becomes a dialectic between presence and absence, between what was and what could have been.

Counterfeit Recovery and the Risks of Synthetic Restoration

In an age where deepfake files and AI-simulated data proliferate, recovery is not immune to manipulation. Synthetic restoration—where lost data is algorithmically invented to match expectations—poses new dangers. Users may believe they have recovered a truth, while interacting with a well-constructed fabrication.

This risk transforms recovery professionals into digital archaeologists and forensics experts. Authenticity verification, integrity proofing, and origin traceability become essential to ensure that restored data maintains its original truth-state.

Cross-Conscious Archives and the Decentralized Mind

With the fusion of biological and artificial memory through neural interfaces, collective consciousness is no longer theoretical. As thought becomes digitized, memory banks expand across distributed networks. Recovery from such a shared infrastructure implies restoring collective experiences, interwoven ideas, and memories with multiple authors.

Tools of tomorrow must decipher not just individual inputs, but entangled neural signatures. The future of recovery lies in reconstructing shared dreams, salvaging communal ideation, and decoding the intangible psyche of a digitized society.

Self-Healing Storage and Anti-Entropy Designs

Storage is undergoing metamorphosis. Self-healing drives, anti-entropy algorithms, and morphogenetic file structures now promise preemptive recovery. These systems are designed not just to prevent data loss but to regenerate damaged structures before they are noticed.

These storage architectures mimic biological systems, capable of adaptive repair, immune response to file corruption, and redundancy recalibration. The role of the recovery expert shifts from technician to biotechnologist, cultivating an ecosystem rather than merely fixing errors.

Sonic Imprints and Resonant File Signatures

Advanced forensic recovery has discovered that deleted files can sometimes leave sonic imprints—electromagnetic echoes recorded in the hardware’s harmonic resonance. This fringe field of recovery interprets residual sound waves within device cavities to reconstruct recent deletions.

Resonant file signatures introduce a poetic element to recovery: files never truly vanish; they reverberate. Recovery becomes the act of listening, of decoding whispers embedded in the silicon itself.

Death of the File and Rise of the Stream

The future may no longer operate on files but on continuous data streams. Real-time processing, edge computing, and persistent state flows challenge the very idea of recoverable units. What happens when data is never stored but perpetually transitions?

In this stream-based paradigm, recovery requires capturing flow states—interrupting, buffering, and analyzing transient sequences. We move from disk forensics to temporal forensics, hunting moments, not files.

Anamnesis Protocols and Digital Rebirth

Borrowing from philosophy, anamnesis implies a soul remembering its past lives. Digital anamnesis refers to systems capable of remembering their former states—restoring themselves from within, based on behavioral memory and heuristic reflection.

This autonomous recovery doesn’t rely on external backups. Instead, systems observe themselves, remember configurations, and simulate return paths. Recovery becomes internalized—an act of remembering, not restoring.

The Persistence of Echoes

All systems degrade. All files fragment. All memories erode. But recovery is not simply resistance against this truth—it is a harmony with decay. It is the gentle act of remembrance, the curiosity that rebuilds from ruin, and the deep understanding that nothing is ever truly lost, only waiting to be found in a new form.

Data recovery has matured into an art form, a philosophical practice, and a testament to the human need for continuity. In seeking to salvage digital fragments, we ultimately salvage parts of ourselves.

Entropic Horizons – The Final Frontier of File Salvation

As the lifespan of data shortens and the velocity of its generation increases, we arrive at an entropic edge, where the cost of preservation challenges the very value of what is being saved. File salvation in this context becomes an existential choice, a measure of meaning weighed against decay.

Organic Decay and Informational Mortality

Every dataset is mortal. Beyond bits and bytes, every digital form mirrors organic entropy. As cosmic dust fades in galactic silence, so too do unaccessed archives degrade in forgotten clusters. Here, data isn’t just lost—it dies. Understanding this mortality reframes recovery as an act of mourning, of digital grief.

The Rise of Digital Ephemerality

Transient communication platforms and expiring media have normalized digital impermanence. Snapshots, disappearing messages, and ephemeral logs reshape ourexpectationsn of persistence. In this age, recovery must reconcile with designed impermanence—sometimes refusing to recover becomes an ethical obligation.

Salvaging After Obsolescence

Hardware rot and platform extinction threaten more than access—they sever understanding. Obsolete systems leave orphaned data, unreadable by modern tools. Recovery now involves digital translation—emulating dead systems, reverse engineering forgotten protocols, and even time-traveling through outdated architectures.

Ethical Dilemmas of Eternal Storage

Is everything worth saving? Eternal storage tempts us to archive the trivial and the toxic. Recovery ethics must navigate memory pollution, hoarding, and the moral responsibility of forgetting. Sometimes, deletion is mercy. Recovery, therefore, must remain selective,  guided by conscience as well as capability.

Conclusion

Ultimately, recovery is less about technology and more about our relationship to memory. It mirrors our desire to resist loss, to reverse time, to defy oblivion. But in the silent void beyond deletion, even echoes fade. We recover not to possess, but to remember—however fleeting that remembrance may be.

• Category: other
• Tags: FAT, Lost Data, NTFS, Partitions