Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  • Donations

  • Country


jaclaz last won the day on February 1

jaclaz had the most liked content!

About jaclaz

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • OS
    none specified

Recent Profile Visitors

24,896 profile views

jaclaz's Achievements



  1. I think (but do not quote me on this) that it may work, though I don't see the actual scope of this replacing of the processor, the notebook has probably a Core i3 or i5, there shouldn't be much difference in speed/performance replacing the original processor with a Pentium 6100, they seem very similar, at least on this comparison: https://technical.city/en/cpu/Core-i3-380M-vs-Pentium-P6100 Maybe if it has a Celeron, there would be some improvement, but I doubt it will be much, if any: https://technical.city/en/cpu/Celeron-P4600-vs-Pentium-P6100 Also the Fujitsu BIOS might be locked to the default processor installed in factory, clock speed of the P6100 seem to be same as the Celeron, but different from i3 and i5. IMHO all in all such an upgrade (which seems more like a same-level-grade) could be risky/problematic (if possible at all) without bearing any noticeable advantage. jaclaz
  2. Maybe the issue is connected with the different way USB "Mass Storage" devices are handled in Windows 10 (as compared to previous Windows, i.e. multiple partitions visible as opposed to single partition)? Is that stick partitioned or not (direct volume or "superfloppy")? And if it is partitioned, is it MBR or GPT "style"? AFAIK USB 3.0 devices are (transparently) compatible with USB 2.0 ports, they will only be slower in data transfer. jaclaz
  3. And - just for the record - at each and every update/new version the good guys managed to bork either links or contents of CODE tags (or both). jaclaz
  4. You can try to rule out the CD out of the equation using a local source (copied to the hard disk) and WINNT.EXE from DOS (beware the approach is complex). Reference: the 911CD board is long death, you will need to use the Wayback Machine to check the contents. Or you could try the WinsetupfromUSB on a USB stick: https://msfn.org/board/topic/120444-how-to-install-windows-from-usb-winsetupfromusb-with-gui/ jaclaz
  5. That laptop model is declared compatible with XP: https://www.levnapc.cz/ProductsFiles/FS-Lifebook-S710-technicke-specifikace-en.pdf Is the question only related to the new processor? In itself the processor seems compatible with XP.: https://www.game-debate.com/hardware/index.php?gid=719&graphics=HD Pentium P6100 So the question is if specifically you can replace that specific processor on the specific laptop? jaclaz
  6. I am so sad. He was a great person. I knew him since my first days on MSFN, many, many years ago, and besides the public interactions on the board we had a lot of correspondence via PM's, both on computing and on a whole range of different topics, from cinema and TV to art and linguistics (he could read and understand very well Italian and I can understand a very little Portuguese, we had a common interest in Latin - as root of both languages - and we often exchanged opinions on these and many other things), I considered him a friend. I will greatly miss him and our exchanges. Besides his great work in helping and advising other people on technical matters, he was always polite and just (as a moderator), while often managing to keep a veil of humour in his posts. He told me about his illness, describing it as a "a quite mean cancer", from the tone of his latest messages he was fighting fiercely against it, and was hoping to defeat it only one month before, at the end of september. May he R.I.P. jaclaz
  7. Is that the Max_Path issue? You should be able to access the file via the \\?\ syntax, but it has to be tried, as any tool may (or may not) support this alternate notation: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/fileio/maximum-file-path-limitation But Long Path Fixer should be able to see those files, maybe there is some other issue involved? The "traditional" way was to use subst to assign temporarily a drive letter to a "deep" folder: https://support.code42.com/Incydr/Agent/Troubleshooting/Windows_file_paths_longer_than_255_characters jaclaz
  8. Yes, the way "cloning" is used varies a lot, it is a years long debate on how cloning is often used - if not improperly - at least not strictly enough (IMHO), JFYI . https://msfn.org/board/topic/157634-hard-disk-cloningimaging-from-inside-windows/ jaclaz
  9. Never happened to me. Maybe there is some setting that gets "stuck" to automatic. If you have the guts for it , you can try to replicate this: https://msfn.org/board/topic/156944-delete-not-clear-pagefile-at-shutdown/?do=findComment&comment=1000282 jaclaz
  10. No, that is not what I meant. Of course WinHex can copy (clone) disks or make images of them. The point is about having two exact copies (clones) disks connected at the same time to a same Windows NT based OS. Up to a certain Windows version (I think Vista or 7, but I may well be wrong), when this happened the Windows OS would silently and automatically change the disk signature of the second mounted copy. From what I read here and there more recent Windows (possibly from 8 onwards, but as above I may be well wrong) the collision is detected and the second disk is put offline to prevent this change. As well from what I read here and there some specialized "cloning tools" have special provisions to change (in the few places where it is hardcoded, namely the Registry DosDevices and the BCD on Vista and later) settings to reflect the newly changed disk signature. Such a clone won't be an actual clone anymore but will boot and work like the original, and can even co-exist with the original still connected as they will have different disk signatures. jaclaz
  11. Does WinHex have such a feature? I was thinking of dedicated tools like Acronis. Macrium or similar, WinHex (at least the very old version I used many years ago) is AFAIK a generic (and very good AFAIK) hex/disk editor with some advanced features, didn't thought it had this provision automated, but in any case it would have not worked in j7n's case, since he had the two disks mounted at the same time (to create the third partition). On older systems you needed a copy of the MBR (or of just the disk signature) and replace it on the (modified) clone through another system (or via DOS or grub4dos, linux bootdisk etc.), on newer systems the clone is - I believe - put offline to safeguard the disk Signature, but if you put it back online on the same system the collision will happen again. jaclaz
  12. That is the Disk Signature in the MBR: In more recent windows a signature collision is detected and the user is warned (and usually the second disk is taken "offline"), on older systems it is changed automatically and silently to a new value, as you cannot have two disks mounted at the same time with the same disk signature, when you remove the original disk, the new disk is not anymore a "clone". Commercial tools to "move/upgrade" systems to new disks have mechanism to avoid this collision, but since you did a straight direct copy the disk signature was duplicated. @D.Draker JFYI, the bootrec /fixmbr will only check and correct the MBR boot code, it won't change or set the Disk Signature, which was needed in this case. jaclaz
  13. And - should it not work - you can try the similar solution using grub4dos (already linked to in a comment on that xp.win.at page): https://msfn.org/board/topic/154071-f6-without-a-floppy-drive/ though most of surrounding info is about XP, so it may or may not work with 2000. jaclaz
  14. It is strange, maybe it is something "peculiar" to Server 2003 that prevents a particular partition ID to be shown, anyway good to know . With gdisk you can change he partition ID to a "normal" volume and then format it as FAT, can't you? But DOS won't ever be able to access it (being on a GPT style disk), so it would be only an exercise in futility, unless you enter the rabbit hole (which is veeeery deep) and use something like grub4dos to map the extent in real mode to a virtual disk, not really worth it unless you have some queer needs to semi-hide that volume (a plain RAW image file would do the same with less complications). From the little I know about that MS reserved partition, it is only used by some windows versions (probably not even 2003 and 7, more likely 8+) as a sort of cache when resizing (other) volumes, so I believe it is OK to just remove it and make the volume start earlier. Anyway there is something else that is "uncommon", it seems like that MS Reserved partition starts on sector LBA 34 (i.e. right after the protective MBR+GPT header+GPT partition table, 1+1+32) whilst normally any Vista or later Windows would align to 1 MB, i.e. first partition would always start on sector LBA 2048. Your "main" partition is starting on LBA 262178, so that one seems fine is also NOT MB aligned, it is entirely possible that we are used to see also the MS reserved partition MB aligned because it is mostly the second partition, after the UEFI boot one, but in itself it is ignored by the "force to MB alignment" algorithm, another interesting thing to know.. To be "kosher", it would IMHO be advisable to have the large partition start on LBA 2048, though it is not like there will be any bettering in speed or performance that could be noticeable, but probably some software that expects MB alignment might not "like" the current offset. Personally (but mind you besides being a grumpy bastard I am an old one) the sheer idea of having such large volumes is pure folly and I would personally divide that 4 TB into much smaller volumes (and I wouldn't normally even touch 8 TB disks) but for data storage/backup such huge volumes may be fine, only when (if) you might need to make dd copies or attempt to recover data from them it will take about forever. jaclaz
  15. I thought it was a self-evident failure. Check this: http://toastytech.com/guis/bob.html then watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5teG6ou8mWU and you may form your own opinion on why it failed. jaclaz

  • Create New...