Jump to content
MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. ×

alacran

Member
  • Content Count

    309
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Donations

    $0.00 

Everything posted by alacran

  1. Thanks, allready fixed the post. Yes, I'm aware Porteus entries are included in your programs, I tested first Porteus, it boots fine, but tested on 2 PCs and the sound do not work on both of them. Slacko64-7.0 sound works fine. EDIT: Porteus sound is working fine, but the program do not include any sound file to tets the sound, then from it comes my idea it was not working fine, just tested on Yutube and all is fine. By the way I usually have found sound issues on many distros, only Ubuntu and Linux-Mint Cinnamon (not the other Mint flavors) worked fine here, In fact your entri
  2. Thanks for your new versions. I will download and test them ASAP. I improved a little the menus from my previous post to load Slacko64-7.0 from Slacko64 folder located on the root of U-BOOT or U_NTFS partitions. For a folder (Slacko64) on the root of U-BOOT or U-NTFS partition on USB device Default KBD is en-US but can be changed on first boot; pkeys=es is a sample to set my Spanish KBD, delete it if unneeded. MBR grub4dos iftitle [if exist (hd0,0)/Slacko64/puppy_slacko64_7.0.sfs] Puppy Linux Slacko64 - (hd0,0)/Slacko64 kernel /Slacko64/vmlinuz pmedia=usbflash pdrv=U-BOOT psubdir=/
  3. JFYI I was able to run Puppy Linux slacko64-7.0 from a folder on the root of U-BOOT partition. Procedure: Create Slacko64-7.0 folder on the root of U-BOOT partition. Download the ISO and extract to that folder, as a bare minimum only following files are required: fdrv_slacko64_7.0.sfs, initrd.gz, puppy_slacko64_7.0.sfs, vmlinuz and zdrv_slacko64_7.0.sfs (332 MB in total). This are the menu entries I used: For a folder (Slacko64-7.0) on the root of U-BOOT (FAT-32) partition on USB device Default KBD is en-US but can be changed on first boot; pkeys=es is a sam
  4. There is no rush my friend, take your time, and maybe better waith for new UEFI grub4dos version. By the way as I read grub2 of a1ve do not have that problem since the begining because it is coded to find the EFI on FAT-32 first and FORCE to load it, only when it is not present there, it looks for it on NTFS partition. That's way you were able to boot from it and not from G4E when you had the compressed EFI on NTFS partition. alacran
  5. Yes, that sound fine, I usually make the VHDs from Win10XPE_x64, as it boots as Trusted Installer, there is no problem to remove the x-Boot and x-EFI, but it's better if they are not created, in fact I deleted them and bootmgr and BOOTNXT files before make a new recaptured WIM file, but so far they were created and renamed every time I use VHD_WIMBOOT. It will be good if they are not recreated anymore, as in any future new version approach are also unnecessary. Hope reboot.pro will be online soon. EDIT: Thanks for correcting me, I will take care of not commit that mistake aga
  6. Attached the Wof status, my incredulous friend. alacran WOF_Status_L_EFI_2020-12-29_04-46-37.7z
  7. New version working very fine. Go to my issue Report: https://github.com/chenall/grub4dos/issues/248 Almost at the very end of it you will find a message from yaya, download the BOOTX64.rar.txt, delete the .txt and extrac the new version, he allready implemented the map -- mem --top and now it is possible to load files to the top memory just as on MBR version I just tested it Rambooting a 2 partition VHD of 2.3 GB and it booted very fine. I assume it will be officially released very soon. alacran
  8. Having the VHD attached, I created the boot files/folders with this command bcdboot L:\Windows /s K: /f ALL and latter edited the BCDs with BootIce. alacran
  9. Just to make sure it was not an issue created by a possible mistake I committed, I deleted all the VHDs used for testing since 2020-11-26 version and created a new 900 MB Win10XPE_x64.vhd FAT-32 single partition VHD just extracting the ISO to it, and also a 1088 MB 2 partitions Mini-10-UEFI-WB.vhd (WimBoot VHD), both are booting fine but the virtual Floppies, CDs and VHDs are present too on this new Mini-10-UEFI-WB.vhd. If Rambooting Mini-10-UEFI-WB.vhd on MBR all is fine (no virtual devices on it), then there is no dubt they are created by the UEFI version of grub4dos during loading to R
  10. It seems I found the possible cause of the issue: Once Rambooting from a 2046 MB (just 2 MB smaller than 2 GB) VHD there are 3 virtual floppy drives (A:, B: and M:) + 2 virtual CDs (N: and O:) + 2 VHDs (they appear as un-inicialized) all of them related to SVBus, see attached pictures please. I don't have any resolution set on my menu.lst, after Rambooting and once on desktop the OS resolution is very low and it can't be changed. alacran
  11. Just made a 2046 MB VHD with same partition layout and installed on Compact LZX mode my Mini-10x64 on it and it Rambooted flawlessly on UEFI, This probes I was right when I said there is a 2 GB limit imposed to items loaded on Ram on versions grub4dos-0.4.6a_for_UEFI-2020-11-26 and 2020-12-05 I opened an issue on https://github.com/chenall/grub4dos/issues Related to can't map --mem more than 2 GB on Ram: https://github.com/chenall/grub4dos/issues/248 alacran
  12. New version available: This new version is capable to UEFI Ramboot my 800MB Wimboot Mini-10x64 as VHD or as IMA: A big thanks to yaya, a1ve, and all other developers involved on this great achievement. But the 2.3 GB Mini-10x64 Compact mode installed did not boot as VHD or as IMA file: Message is still the same: (hd0,1) Out of memory boot_image_handle not found Press any key to continue.... NOTE: Both, the 800 MB Wimboot and the 2.3 GB Compact mode, where installed on NTFS second partition, and boot files/folders are on first 64 MB FAT-32 0C part
  13. Just for testing pourposes, (as I do not see any practical use for it), I created a 900 MB VHD, inicialized it as MBR, single partition FAT-32 0C, and extracted there the content of my Win10XPE_x64.ISO (843 MB), only excluded the CDUsb.y file to let it find on internal HDs the partition where it is contained. Made following entrie on \EFI\grub\menu.lst: The VHD was loaded to Ram very fine and it booted flawlessly, this confirms the grub4dos for UEFI is working very fine. Then my statement on previous post is valid: I can say only issues pending to solve are Rambooting VHDs
  14. Just to confirm if there could be something wrong during the creation of the IMA file from the VHD file on my previous post, I decided to test it Rambooting on the grub4dos MBR version, using following commands on my vhd.lst, (just to keep more order), which is called by the menu.lst on root of the partition/drive: And it Rambooted very fine on MBR version, this confirms nothing was wrong during making an IMA file from the VHD file. Then the BSOD: INACCESSIBLE BOOT DEVICE got when using UEFI version is related to something else, I guess the current intent on this third version o
  15. I'm able to MBR or UEFI boot, from internal HDs or USB device, MBR menu.lst is on the root of the disk and my UEFI menu.lst is on EFI\grub\menu.lst, as no entry on both menu.lst is shared between MBR and UEFI versions, there is no gain in doing what you suggest, also the developer/author very clearly stated which commands are not available on UEFI version, then it is better to use the right syntax on each case, and don' start trying to twist it. By the way as I found on my very first test, the iftitle do not work on UEFI version, but forgot to comment it. alacran
  16. A new test trying to Ramboot a VHD by means of grub4dos for UEFI: This time I created on my HD a 10x64-WB.vhd, 800 MB VHD inicialized it as MBR, first primary partition is FAT-32 0C Active 64 MB, second partition is NTFS the rest of espace. Then installed on Wimboot mode the Mini-10x64 on NTFS partition by means of wimlib-clc and created manually boot files and folders on Fat-32 partition, and edited both BCDs as on this post to test if it was capable to boot fine, I tested it Rambooting with grub4dos for MBR, and it booted very fine. Then by means of WinImage I made a 10x64-WB.ima
  17. In order to test the use of variables I made following entry on \EFI\grub\menu.lst The linuxmint-19.3-cinnamon-64bit.iso Live CD booted flawlessly as expected, so this confirms it is also valid to use variables on the grub4dos for UEFI menu.lst, just same as the MBR version. alacran
  18. I had to adapt a little the usual especial (cheat code) menu entries as map --hook command is not available and/or required on UEFI version of grub4dos, also avoided the use of variables (just in case), but I think using variables will give same results too, I'll test the use of variables latter. Tried this entries on \EFI\grub\menu.lst Both entries got a successful boot without any issue. So far it seems Linux Live ISOs capables to boot on MBR and/or UEFI, can be booted on UEFI environment just making very minor adaptations to the cheat code used on MBR. alacran
  19. Yes, the Secure Boot is good for nothing, computers get Virus with or without it. The name is a fallacy. But it has being very well sold to the masses. It is only good to make money from the developers and OEMs as their software require to be approved and certified by MS, if not the drivers can't run if Secure Boot is enabled. So far at home all PC's HDs are MBR formated, I usually never format any HD as GPT (an unneeded complication for HDs smaller than 2TB), and as I use to Ramboot VHDs a lot by means of SVBus + grub4dos for MBR, all UEFI PCs at home have CSM enabled and Secure Boo
  20. My mistake, I forgot to map --mem /CD/linuxmint-19.3-cinnamon-64bit.iso (0xff) Will fix the mistake and try again and report back. alacran
  21. It creates a very small second partition FAT-32 formated at the very end of the device, where the NTFS drivers requiered to boot from NTFS on a UEFI environment are located, so anyway you HAVE a FAT-32 partition to let you boot from the boot files folders located on the NTFS first partition, this drivers make also possible to boot from files folders located on a exFAT partition. In both cases as long as Secure Boot is disabled. alacran
  22. The UEFI version is also capable to load to Ram files compressed as *.gz or *.lz4, same as the MBR version does, just tested with the following menu.lst entries: The grub4dos for UEFI \EFI\Boot\BOOTX64.EFI (renamed to g4ex64.efi) is located on MBR (hd1, 0) which has a FAT-32 0C Primary partition where the EFI files/folders reside, of course during UEFI booting the HDs order is swap and becomes (hd0,0) as it is the only UEFI capable (seen then as first HD). All of them were loaded to Ram and booted very fine. But linuxmint-19.3-cinnamon-64bit.iso didn't boot fine, I used this
  23. No, this is only valid to run under UEFI environment, so to try to run something, it has to be UEFI capable. And as jaclaz just said DOS is not UEFI capable. IMHO in fact the name is not really appropiate, also many people on wuyou.net forum think same way, some of them have suggested to rename it to grub4efi or grub4uefi. Almost all code has being rebuild and many features do not exists anymore, some because they do not apply on UEFI environment and other because haven't being developed yet, as an example it lacks map --mem --top command, very useful to Ramboot VHDs (having SVbus
  24. I decided to run another test, this time the VHD is located into VHD folder on the root of the second (MBR) NTFS primary partition of the second internal HD. Using this menu.lst entries (usefull also to check if Gziped files can be loaded to Ram as in the MBR version). No luck, with any of both options for the VHD, I got this message (See attached picture): (hd0,1) Out of memory boot_image_handle not found Press any key to continue.... My comments about the message: (hd0,1) Seems OK, this means the VHD was located, since I'm booting from t
  25. Hi my friend, nice to see you around. Excuseme but I don't see how grub4dos for UEFI may be required for that pourpose, to start it is not Secure Boot capable. To do what you want IMHO you may try just creating first all the required NTFS partitions and use WinNTSetup to install the OS on each partion and let it create or edit (as required) the BCD entries for each location, also BootIce could be usefull to edit those entries names to easy diferenciate each one. When you run WinNTSetup the Hidden and with no letter ESP partition is then visible as Z: and then you can use BootIce to e
×
×
  • Create New...