Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Donations

    0.00 USD 
  • Country


About zamarac

zamarac's Achievements



  1. Check if you have displaying the icon enabled in the options. That's the ISO9660 file system icon !?? Thanks. Now I have the icons checked. Split icon now shows up in "Bootable Disk" folder, the package was re-downloaded today. But the extracted folder contains the same Acronis.img, not 2 split files, and the image is impossible to read: once mounted with ImDisk, it doesn't contain a valid file system. So no extents... When extracted separately from the folder - again no extents. When "Show Extents" is selected - no extraction... Also, may I suggest to show extents UNDER Acronis.img file (as expended folder) similar to any mounted archive, rather then in a separate window. Also, when I try to extract the same Acronis.img separately from left pan (assuming, may be this will give 2 extents), it asks for payment - how then you expect us to test the changes you make? And that file is also called Acronis.img that raises the question whether its content is the same as of Acronis.img from "Bootable Disk" folder - how to check that? As to Acronis_Media folder called ISO in the left pan, you mentioned to have downloaded Acronis 2014 ISO. Can you explain, why for ATIH2015_Linux.iso that folder is empty, but for ATIH2014_Linux.iso it is full with files?
  2. The screenshot here shows there is no split to extents as claimed. If you refuse to answer valid on-topic forum member questions, we'll need to discuss what is the actual purpose of this thread - ISOBuster package advertising? If you feel offended in any way by any previous interaction, unfortunately - me too by the attempts to hijack to ISOBuster another thread I started. But it shouldn't prevent a normal discussion on topic in this thread of any interested parties. Always think of - who is the first offender...
  3. It looks like there were attempts made to discuss El-Torito standard supplements. I wonder if that standard was / is ever reviewed, so this discussion can become even more useful if these reviewers are invited. It sounds reasonable to periodically review any standards that are still in use. I'm glad we can discuss this topic without hijacking other threads. Note, all discussions on this forum are public. As to your invitation to "let you know", I don't see Acronis image split into two extents in the last ISOBuster revision. Also, can you explain why Acronis_Media folder at the left pan's top is empty, and why its called ISO folder?
  4. I wonder if the results are clearer by now to "re-write this thingy" as promised? It sounds like a useful free tool for folks interested in the subject.
  5. Don't do that!!! Thanks for your detail replies! I know, I'm always asking silly questions. Though they tend to attract quality answers... and such topics become instant hit. Say, this one was read 700 times for the last 5 days - it might be a forum record given its not a new OS, major update or device announcement. When I imaging, how many people will learn from it useful skills and in-depth understanding of the subject nowhere else discussed for the next 2 years - it drives me crazy to ask even more questions, of course stupid ones. It also shows btw, how many folks are interested to keep booting various service images to RAM from HDD - the option so familiar with Grub4DOS on BIOS PCs, but much less available on UEFI PCs due to under-developed tools - instead of following the MS footsteps of now suddenly booting everything from USB Flash, even though for years they blocked that option either. User interest shows, booting disk images on UEFI systems requires a lot more boot tool developers attention, both in Linux and Windows world, especially given the fact PC & laptop sales are growing again.
  6. UEFI is a firmware just like BIOS is. PCs with UEFI firmware "can" emulate BIOS. If you have a concern about whether or not said ISO can boot on the x86 locked UEFI hardware, I MAY still have that board available to me to test with, providing you can give instructions on how to make the boot media. Thanks for interesting overview. In this thread we were exploring primary boot options available in Acronis ISOs keeping in mind that UEFI emulation of BIOS features via CSM is not always available on every PC despite required by standards. Did you find an answer to your earlier WinPE question from the pic I posted? As to testing Acronis ISOs boot compatibility with UEFI 32-bit FW, that would be nice! I found some ad links to trial install ISOs mentioned here (slow speed). You can try latest Linux and WinPE ones, they seems to be clean, just follow download instructions in bold.
  7. Time to learn some basics? By the way: the 64 bit Acrornis dat*.dat UEFI files works at a 64 bit machine with a BIOS too. No need for the 'BIOS' files at a 64 bit machine. The 'BIOS' files refers to 32 bit machines. You can laugh, I was never a big fan of CDs & DVDs in terms of booting power - too slow and at times costly to make. Not sure I fully understand your comment about BIOS support by UEFI files on a 64-bit PC. On one hand, it means that the 64-bit Linux ISO is likely to work on BIOS 32-bit PC as well - is that correct? But it won't on UEFI 32-bit PC? How about WinPE ISO - can it work on both, and how to find out looking at its structure - possible? Does it mean that on 64-bit BIOS PC, the Boot Catalog points FW to UEFI floppy instead of BIOS floppy? If YES, is it a typical approach for Linux based ISOs? But the BIOS floppy contains other files apart from *.dats. Does it mean that on a BIOS 64-bit PC only UEFI floppy is useful? Since USB Thumb is treated as Hard Drive rather than CD-ROM (I didn't know that ), is it possible to use the Linux ISO's 2 El-Torito images (BIOS and UEFI) on a USB Thumb in any way - either by copying the images or extracting their content? This may be needed, if Acronis is NOT installed on a user's PC, so no way to prepare Acronis USB Thumb from the program GUI, but a user can possibly download Acronis Linux ISO and extract it onto a bootable USB Thumb - possible? Would it work the same way for a WinPE ISO?
  8. Is that what you're looking for? Where would it show "the ability to boot on x86 and amd64 platforms interchangeably"? I can see only UEFI & BIOS support. The 64 bit UEFI firmware reads the El Torito boot catalog, mounts the EFI referenced FAT floppy and lauch the EFI application \efi\boot\bootX64.efi. Thanks for extreme clarity - as always brief. So the EFI.img is in fact the El-Torito floppy image placed on the ISO, and it has a boot catalog? Is this catalog placed in a certain file inside the floppy, or just in a few sectors in the floppy's bootsector that were referenced to as BootCatalog.cat earlier? But in case of ACIH2015_Linux.iso there are 2 El-Torito floppies on the same ISO - one is for BIOS PC boot, and another is for EFI boot - correct? So how the system finds the right floppy to deal with? Does it mount both (or all) floppies first, and then look for specific files in each? How this structure is different from a bootable Acronis2015_Linux USB Thumb? Any principal differences in booting Linux from ISO compare to a USB Thumb in UEFI and BIOS modes?
  9. If you're asking about Acronis WinPE image, ATIH2015_WinPE5.iso structure was shown in this post. This is 64-bit ISO to my understanding. My question was, how it boots in UEFI mode (even when burned as a CD, though booting it as ISO is more interesting) assuming its Fat-formatted EFI volume is inside El-Torito floppy - is it?
  10. jaclaz All this staff above you keep posting is irrelevant to the thread topic. You don't behave this way on reboot.pro forum - why? You don't try to disrupt discussions over there, neither hijack threads. Is it because popularity of reboot.pro is so low now, there are no new developments, and its owner attempts to sell stolen forum members contributions failed miserably? Sorry you didn't get your cash. Is that why you try to raise popularity of reboot.pro by damaging reputation of msfn.org forum - disrupt popular discussions here? I know you're around for awhile here, but things were never so bad at reboot.pro. So desperate now? As admitted, you were paid a moderator fee on reboot.pro until removed on forum members strong demand, but still keeping your share? While you're just an ordinary member here - so may be trying to extort some deals from msfn.org team by hijacking hot threads?
  11. My goodness, you're a character aren't you ? I strongly disagree with your comments. I will retire from this thread. Everyone in this thread is a character, you're simply not familiar with that. If you "strongly desagree", why your last version: - produced no improvements in the area you claim it did? Can you post a screenshot proving otherwise, using same checksum package? - introduced new bugs like desyncing left and right program pans, and also removal of settings allowing to stop scanning hard drive at each restart - instead of simply opening the last open image at program restart, or at least offering such settings? If I'm mistaken - pls show were. This is not "my" thread, but its not devoted to paid program testing either. If you're willing to offer real improvements relevant to subject of this thread (no other ISOs discussed) with no artificial barriers I'll be glad to test it further. Pls do it on ISOBuster's forum if there is one, but certainly outside of this thread. Your above post was reported to moderation team. Btw you never explained the purpose of inviting such discussion here to begin with, and it doesn't look clear cut to me. You can't do whatever you want in blatant disregard to forum rules - regardless what you think about yourself. Especially when trying at the same time to teach moral in many other threads, like you have any.
  12. I'm more concerned with giving an as good as possible representation of the content.Hence my idea to maybe split it up in two extents. Then you have one file, but IsoBuster allows to see the different sub-parts (extents) to possibly extract those seperately The different images as they are shown by IsoBuster are in a way different floppies. The floppy icon as is shown is in fact a folder. I don't see any changes in this version, especially on points 4 and 5. As to floppy been a folder, we are definitely on different pages. Your floppy says "Bootable Disk", and you called it El-Torito floppy in several places here. It looks like an image for users, not a folder. In this case, what ISO folder means in your GUI? If its not a single El_Torito floppy, I don't see "use case" to extract it as an image. Regarding file system & driver see Img (File Format). If an IMG contains other images, ImDisk can mount it as a regular disk, then other images inside. Intuitive is the key for a paid GUI package, especially when facing competition from a free batch (if jaclaz would be interested to finalize it after a dinner - if he had a dinner). Valid argument for multibooters, probably less for data recovery. There are new annoying bugs in your new version (may be on purpose B) ), but I don't want this thread be hijacked to ISOBuster. Note, out testing and suggestions are free, while your package needs update or enhancement. Going back to the topic of this thread. Presence of what is called 2 El-Torito floppies in the ISO raises the questions: - How the burned Linux CD boots on UEFI and BIOS PCs - what is the boot sequence for each hardware type? - Would one need to extract or copy each IMG to a USB Thumb to make it bootable after copying the mounted ISO content to it?
  13. IsoBuster I don't know if content of ATIH2014_Linux.iso is different than ATIH2015_Linux.iso in terms of files discussed, but its definitely reflected differently by ISOBuster. It might be interesting for you to understand WHY, because Acronis.img in one is shown as ISO, and in the other as FAT . Acronis.img needs to be "explorable", hence separated into 2 files or extents. As the images exploration stands right now in Linux: >file \BootImage(Linux2015).img x86 boot sector, Acronis Startup Recovery Loader BOOTWIZ .SYS, code offset 0x42, OEM-ID "BOOTWIZ0", sectors/cluster 8, FAT 1, root entries 16, Media descriptor 0xf8, sectors/FAT 159, heads 255, sectors 325337 (volumes > 32 MB) , serial number 0xf1fc2ee9, label: " ", FAT (16 bit) >file \BootImage(Linux2014).imgx86 boot sector, Acronis Startup Recovery Loader BOOTWIZ .SYS, code offset 0x42, OEM-ID "BOOTWIZ0", sectors/cluster 8, FAT 1, root entries 16, sectors/FAT 140, heads 16, sectors 285374 (volumes > 32 MB) , serial number 0xbe3065a3, label: " ", FAT (16 bit) >file \BootImage(PE2015).imgDOS floppy 1440k, x86 hard disk boot sector >file \Acronis(Linux2015).imgdata Meaning, Acronis.img is NOT explorable, doesn't contain a valid file system. As to exporting Bootable_Disk floppy shown in ISOBuster GUI, can it be exported & saved as a single IMG file (Floppy.img) instead of a folder structure? One can mount this file by ImDisk, and see the files inside it, i.e. Catalog.dat, Acronis.img, BootImage.img. Then these images can also be mounted by ImDisk if needed. Regarding file naming, is it reasonable to name Acronis.img as AcronisBIOS.img, and BootImage.img as AcronisEFI.img, or they are listed that way on the CD?
  14. IsoBuster I tested just a little bit, and it looks a lot better now. Still some questions remain: - wouldn't be better to allow extract Bootable Disk as IMG or FOLDER, rather than extracting it as folder only? It remains to be tested whether its possible to directly copy such BootableDisk.img onto another ISO or USB Thumb to make it bootable, or it needs to be extracted onto such Thumb - while inside the Bootable_Disk floppy files seems to be shown with proper sizes now, the structure discussed above doesn't match. It was mentioned that what was named Acronis.img before is in fact a bootloader that points to BIOS image next to it - where is this image now? At the same time what is listed now as Acronis.img can't be explored in Windows despite listed as FAT - Outside of Bootable_Disk floppy, in ATIH2014_Linux.iso the Acronis.img is not listed separately, and Acronis_Media .iso (if its really an ISO) content is equivalent to Acronis_Media folder. While in ATIH2015_Linux.iso the Acronis_Media.iso is empty, and Acronis.img is listed separately. Why is that? - in ATIH2015_WinPE.iso the Acronis.img is shown in Bootable_Disk floppy, but not listed separately, so its content is unknown jaclaz While inviting IsoBuster to the discussion was IMHO a good idea, ISOBuster package deficiencies were not the only ones we stumbled upon in this thread. Even more questions were raised about inability to boot WinPE ISO in UEFI mode, and all of them are relevant to this thread. So may be inviting other known personalities who can address "lost CD mount" issue would be suitable?
  15. I do recognize jaclaz... Still having sanity issues? Did YOU give IsoBuster the link to WinPE ISO, while talking about ISOBuster issues it doesn't have with this particular ISO? IsoBuster Each ISO title is clearly identified in ISOBuster headline, so its hard to get confused. And links to all 3 discussed were given in the above single post for a reason to easily find them. Btw, I suggested to download all 3 trial ISOs for testing ISOBuster to make the relevant issues evident. Regarding Slitaz.iso 30Mb, here's one mentioned in the thread she linked, but there are others around. I'd say, the issue is NOT Acronis specific, but rather resulting from changed landscape of ISO booting methods not accounted for in ISOBuster and similar packages thus far. You likely developed ISOBuster for exploring ISO's without particular accent on how they boot, partly because at that time they booted uniformly on BIOS PCs. Now it changed, so different Service ISO makers use somewhat varying solutions to boot them on BIOS & UEFI hardware. Accounting for BOOT method and images becomes a major requirement for ISOBuster's update. Not surprising, it might be needed to change how things look (visual file representation), even if earlier users find it unfamiliar. Since when learning new things was considered "a problem"? The batch above has comments showing image is checked against known standards and strings to ID its type, size, file system among other things. It doesn't mean this is the only way to do things, but it leans toward generic approach. "How to" question is rather related to the task to make the algorithm as generic as possible (not specific to Acronis). Later in this thread we might look at similar in service purpose Paragon trial ISOs as another example of UEFI ISO boot, and test if "generic" clause holds. The other thing, it would be nice if an image listed as ISO or Floppy in ISOBuster, would be possible to extract not to a folder, but as ISO or Floppy. Right now an attempt to extract something listed as Bootable Disk above using the option "Extract Bootable Disk" produces a folder structure, not to mention the disk content is likely wrong.

  • Create New...