jaclaz

Good. Now, please, be nice and consider the event that this very thread is either photographed or printed. I guess that just simply providing the link as opposed to fiddling with a hyperlink only to (apparently) make the text "prettier" has some advantages , including a WYSIWYG that would have easily avoided the (little) mistake. jaclaz

NOT the link you posted, ouroboros? ,Here it is: https://forums.virtualbox.org/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=59559 jaclaz

Well, I still don't understand. If you want to edit an entry in NVRAM the MBR (which is actually a protective MBR in UEFI) has nothing to do with that. The board is acting strangely it seems I have to post opne line at the time and edit the post otherwise it throws an error. When you use (if you use it) the command: (see attached file, the stupid board software doesnt like *something* in the contents) bcdedit_comment.txt

You may want to try Qemu. A Windows port is here: https://qemu.weilnetz.de/ https://qemu.weilnetz.de/w64/ As a side note, I doubt that VMWare *likes* that. And I have seen a lot of reports of Windows 9x working just fine in Virtualbox, example: https://socket3.wordpress.com/2016/09/06/install-configure-windows-95-using-oracle-virtualbox/ so I wonder if you arte having issues because of some "queer" settings or some mis-configuration or something like that. jaclaz

I cannot test it, but of course (being a CLI tool) it won't have any GUI, and being a port a total rewrite of dd it will default to standard input if you do not provide parameters to it (like "normal" dd). Try in it (in an opened command prompt): dd --list and/or any command as documented for the 32 bit version: http://www.chrysocome.net/dd About the (stupid) EFI/UEFI stuff, is Commercial software OK? https://www.easyuefi.com/index-us.html But what does BCDboot/BCDEDIT miss? (I mean don't you just deploy a (stupid) Windows on some (stupid) UEFI hardware?) https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/previous-versions/windows/it-pro/windows-7/dd744347(v=ws.10) https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/manufacture/desktop/bcd-system-store-settings-for-uefi Maybe you could explain/express what actually is your current procedure/what you actually need done? jaclaz

Well, it seemingly went through somehow. jaclaz

... and - since day one two - anyone installing Windows 9x often would install DOS, copy the CD to a folder (if I remember correctly, but I could be wrong, without spaces in the name) and install from there. Some reference: http://smallvoid.com/article/win9x-source-path-install.html http://win.tweaklibrary.com/System/Application-Path/71/Change-default-location-of-source-files-for-Windows-setup/10484/ of course one can - post install - copy anyway the files to the directory on hard disk and modify the Registry so that if an additional file is needed there is no need for the CD ROM. jaclaz

You need choice or similar (there are many of such replacements), for some strange reasons the good MS guys removed it from NT4, 2K and XP (it is in the Resource kit) but re-added it in Vista. *like*: http://www.donationcoder.com/forum/index.php?topic=31344.0 http://www.robvanderwoude.com/choice.php In the latter there is a link to "workaround" in pure batch, secondchoice: http://www.robvanderwoude.com/batexamples.php?fc=S#SecondChoice http://www.robvanderwoude.com/sourcecode.php?src=secondchoice_xp Or you can use this clever trick making use of XCOPY: https://www.dostips.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5409 jaclaz

You first copy File #1, then File #2, then file #3 ... this is what most copying programs will do. An exception is Richcopy (as an example) that uses multiple threads concurrently: https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/2009.04.utilityspotlight.aspx never actually tested if using it causes fragmentation (or more fragmentation than other normal and sequential tools) on the target, but it may. But personally I wouldn't be too preoccupied by fragmentation, nowadays we have efficient defragmentation tools, and even if some fragmentation is created in the case of an "integral" backup it doesn't cost anything to run a defragger on the target after having completed it, on the other hand if you do "incremental" backups some fragmentation is implied in the method i.e. when/if you replace on the backup File 1 with a (larger) version, this latter "won't fit" in the previous space and will likely be fragmented, and as well deleted files or files smaller in the new version will create "holes" that - before or later - will be filled by fragmenterd content. jaclaz

Sure, but - loosely (not that it has any real relevance/impact) - it is to say the least "perplexing" or maybe even "preoccupying" that specifically you (not exactly a newbie ) cannot download the file or resolve the address with Firefox 61.01 and on Internet Explorer 11, on Win7 x64, as this shows some "serious" issue with accessing an otherways apparently perfectly "normal" site (not https or strange javascript, etc.). I guess it is a little revenge for all the sites that don't work (or suddenly stopped working) on my aging browsers. jaclaz

Never tried it (as I am 32 bit only) but dd for Windows has a 64 bit release: http://www.chrysocome.net/download http://www.chrysocome.net/downloads/ddrelease64.exe jaclaz

You are welcome , for the record Regedit 4 format is NOT Unicode (while 5 is): https://msfn.org/board/topic/47769-regedit4-vs-windows-registry-editor-v-5/ jaclaz

Which OS is that? This: Works just fine on my XP if imported via Regedit. jaclaz

Well, the bit.ly also works fine on my old Iron (please read as obsolete Chrome), but the "explicit" site has some issues (maybe actually connected to my old Iron), but also with some ads/redirection, and the wanted file seemingly is not listed. The bit.ly download link also works on my (as well old/obsolete) Opera, where it resolves to: http://ericksystem.weebly.com/uploads/1/1/0/3/11039286/repair_this_1.0.zip jaclaz

No need to be sorry, everyone is getting older, unfortunately. JFYI, the generic idea (simplified) on how wear leveling works on a flash device (be it a USB stick or a SSD or a CF card) is the following. 1) the actual device has a controller 2) the controller holds addresses (Real addresses, in the following "R") and addresses (Translated addresses, in the following "T"), through a table of correspondences, including the info about how many times the address has been written to. 3) the T-addresses are less than the R-addresses (there are some "spare" sectors, in the following "S") and are the only address that the OS can actually access Imagine you have a brand new (very small) device that has in total 5 sectors (of which the OS will see only 3), when it is brand new the table will (loosely) look something *like*: R0=T0;0 R1=T1;0 R2=T2;0 R3=S0;0 R4=S1;0 After some time of use the situation might become (for some reasons the operating system writes many more times to T1 than on T0, while T2 is written an "average" of times): R0=T0;314 R1=T1;2120 R2=T2;874 R3=S0;0 R4=S1;0 the wear leveling algorithm may decide that the sector R1 (that the OS accesses as and uses as T1) has been written way too many times and then intervenes, doing the following: 1) copy the contents of sector R0 to S0 2) copy the contents of sector R1 to S1 3) copy the contents of S0 to R1 AND remap the R0 to T1 4) copy the contents of S1 to R0 AND remap the R1 to T0 The situation will become: R0=T1;314 R1=T0;2120 R2=T2;874 R3=S0;1 R4=S1;1 and after some time of similar usage, will eventually become something *like* (in brackets previous writes+new writes): R0=T1;2314 (314+2000) R1=T0;2410 (2120+290) R2=T2;1640 (874+766) R3=S0;1 R4=S1;1 jaclaz

It is actually in the readme files (leeme.txt): http://ericksystem.weebly.com/ http://ericksystem.weebly.com/software.html but yes, the site has some "queer" behaviour, so I am attaching it. jaclaz repair_this_1.0.zip

WHICH webpage? (but yes, wear leveling has nothiing to do with filesystem level activities) jaclaz

As a matter of fact, by copying files sequentially you reduce (or more exactly avoid creating) fragmentation on the target. Just for the record once upon a time NT 3.51 and NT 4.00 did not have any fragmentation utility, so it was common to copy the whole volume contents to a temporary storage, then format the original volume and copy back the whole stuff in order to have a defragmented filesystem. The only "issue" (if it is an issue) of doing copy and paste is that if/when you want to update the backup (and/or make "incremental" backups) you will have difficulties with overwriting existing files and/or replacing with newer ones the old ones, etc. If you adopt an "integral" backup strategy, that is not an issue at all of course. Otherwise I would suggest you the use of Robocopy (the actual command line tool has a little bit daunting sintax, but there are free GUI's for it that are very handy), examples: https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/2006.11.utilityspotlight.aspx https://archive.codeplex.com/?p=betterrobocopygui https://sourceforge.net/projects/roboscript/ https://sourceforge.net/projects/robomirror/ If you are OK with command line tools, besides Robocopy you may want to try the excellent STRARC: http://www.ltr-data.se/opencode.html/ @Sal No prob , it is just that imaging takes more time (and usually more space on target media) because it stores much more information, and sometimes this is not needed as in this case. jaclaz

Yep , that is a common issue with "compilers" (like the AutoHotKey one) that are essentially an assembly of the interpreter .exe + the actual script. Since your script is extemely simple, maybe (it has to be tested) it will work with AutoHotKey v.1.0 (once called "Basic") that should allow to make .exe's in the around 200-300 KB size range. jaclaz

Backing up is not imaging and copying is neither backing up nor imaging (or cloning). This very theme has been discussed to death n times on MSFN. Check this thread first: https://msfn.org/board/topic/157634-hard-disk-cloningimaging-from-inside-windows/ Particularly this post: https://msfn.org/board/topic/157634-hard-disk-cloningimaging-from-inside-windows/?do=findComment&comment=1007158 What (EXACTLY) do you want to do/need? jaclaz

The zipfind. cmd posted just above your last reply EXACTLY: 1) allows as parameters the root directory to search into and (optionally) a pattern to look for 2) prints the full path to the zip file containing the matched pattern file and the filename matching the pattern 3) works also for network paths Since it uses FINDSTR, the use of wildcards is different from the "normal" ones, and matches the (sort of[1]) regular expression used in FINDSTR, of course you can replace in the script the FINDSTR with whatever similar tool that is pipable, such as grep. jaclaz [1] See: https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20151209-00/?p=92361

Something *like* Airdroid? Maybe Airdroid would do : https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/airdroid-file-transfer-share/id1194539178?platform=ipad&preserveScrollPosition=true jaclaz

And now, for no apparent reason , zipfind.cmd: @ECHO OFF ::ZipFind.cmd by jaclaz v0.001 01/08/2018 SETLOCAL ENABLEEXTENSIONS SETLOCAL ENABLEDELAYEDEXPANSION IF %1.==. (SET DirPath="%~dp0") ELSE (SET DirPath="%~1") IF NOT %DirPath:~-2,1%==\ SET DirPath="%DirPath:"=%\" IF NOT EXIST %DirPath% SET DirPath="%~dp0" SET LookFor=%2 IF NOT DEFINED LookFor SET LookFor=. ECHO Looking for pattern "%LookFor%" in files in %DirPath%&ECHO. FOR /F "tokens=* delims=" %%A in ('dir /b /s %DirPath%') do ( REM ECHO %%~dpnxA IF %%~xA==.zip CALL :listzip "%%~dpnxA" ) GOTO :EOF :listzip FOR /F "skip=2 tokens=* delims=" %%B IN ('unzip -l -q %1') DO ( SET Thisline=%%B IF "!ThisLine:~0,4!"=="----" ECHO.&GOTO :EOF ECHO %~1 !ThisLine:~28,50! | FINDSTR /I %LookFor% ) zipfind001.zip

Fixed: @ECHO OFF ::ZipDir.cmd by jaclaz v0.002 01/08/2018 SETLOCAL ENABLEEXTENSIONS SETLOCAL ENABLEDELAYEDEXPANSION IF %1.==. (SET DirPath="%~dp0") ELSE (SET DirPath="%~1") IF NOT %DirPath:~-2,1%==\ SET DirPath="%DirPath:"=%\" IF NOT EXIST %DirPath% SET DirPath="%~dp0" ECHO Directory of %DirPath% ECHO Size Filename ECHO --------- ------------------------------------------ FOR /F "tokens=* delims=" %%A in ('dir /b /s %DirPath%') do ( SET Size= %%~zA SET Size=!Size:~-9,9! ECHO !Size! %%~dpnxA IF %%~xA==.zip ECHO ³&CALL :listzip "%%~dpnxA" ) GOTO :EOF :listzip FOR /F "skip=2 tokens=* delims=" %%B IN ('unzip -l -q %1') DO ( SET Thisline=%%B IF "!ThisLine:~0,4!"=="----" ECHO.&GOTO :EOF ECHO !ThisLine:~0,9! Ã!ThisLine:~28,50! ) jaclaz Zipdir002.zip

There is no searched filename, as it is not what you asked: what I posted is essentially a DIR equivalent comprising contents of ZIP files. Now you are asking something different, a "search" feature for files either "plain" or within .zip archives. If you want to search the output, and have a "full" path returned you will need to change the output prepending the path to the archive to all files within the zip and pipe it into FIND or FINDSTR. Should work for network paths as well, however. Make a directory *like* C:\zipdir and copy to it the script and the unzip.exe, navigate to it, open a command prompt and type in it: zipdir <path> of course if <path> contains spaces you should enclose it in double quotes. In the case of a network path, you need to add a backslash at the beginning (temporarily, the script can be easily fixed to take care of the leading \\ in network paths), see attached image. jaclaz