jaclaz

Good, but still do check the pins are the "right" ones with a multi-meter/ohm-meter before attempting shorting them. Namely, here: I posted an example (for a different model, but the "base" is the same). jaclaz

@broken120x120 Open a command prompt, that is in Start->All Programs->Accessories->Command Prompt. You will have a black background Window, with something like: C:\Documents and Settings\yourloginname> and a flashing underscore. In this window type: devcon.exe hwids *cc_0403* and press [ENTER] What happens?[1] jaclaz [1] You will need to change the current path to where you actually stored the downloaded devcon.exe, to change path (to - say - D:\Downloaded\devocndir ) type: CD /D D:\Downloaded\devcondir and press [ENTER]

And? jaclaz

Well, the translator did a good enough job, rest assured . The problem with the shorting is that you need to double and triple check that you identified correctly the read channel pads[1] and then you will need several attempts as reportedly the timing is critical. Good luck! jaclaz [1] Particularly check the given inks on how to identify them if your disk drive has a different PCB revision or version

Yes, that is one of those "green" disk drives that need a couple pads to be shorted (NOT for the faint of heart). Besides that post, make sure to read this post AND the provided links: Feel free to ask questions/express your doubts BEFORE risking to fry the PCB (or disk or both ) jaclaz

Only for the record, devcon became Open Source (and redistributable), and here there is also a pre-compiled build (though it has to be seen if it works on 2K) here: https://msfn.org/board/topic/173201-gavottes-ramdisk-automation-package/ jaclaz

All is well that ends well jaclaz

Here: jaclaz

JFYI - and as a very side note - honour ceased to exist around 1781 when the English refused to accept the "paroles" Benjamin Franklin had obtained by the released English prisoners taken by the US privateers: : https://books.google.it/books?id=LaFYAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA87#v=onepage&q&f=false jaclaz

Look, to all practical effect, the Windows 7 in the .vhd is entirely "disk based", NOT Ram based, it does NOT need any addtiional RAM, itis not in ANY way "virtual" and has EXACTLY the same access to hard disk as one installed normally. And of course the version of 10 (which is NOT booted when Windows 7 is booted from .vhd) is totally irrelevant, the version of Windows 7 matters, officially only Ultimate and Enterprise, though as said there are alternate ways for other versions. If you are not aware of these capabilities, you should really document yourself before going astray with your pre-conceptions. Meet the wonderful world of native .vhd booting (BTW info posted here since 2009): jaclaz

Just for the record, WITHOUT IE8: https://filehippo.com/download_security_essentials_xp/ BUT, is it any newer than November 2013 ? https://www.techadvisor.co.uk/download/security/microsoft-security-essentials-windows-xp-44304-3329518/ jaclaz

So in a nutshell gparted is telling you: a. I cannot repair this NTFS filesystem (or any NTFS filesystem for that matters) b. try using CHKDSK to repair it which is exactly QED. Now, there are three ways to run CHKDSK, and in these cases it needs to be run THREE times once in each mode, and - sometimes the whole set needs to be run again after a reboot. This is my personal advice, it is good, sound, and has always worked since the dawn of NTFS: 1) the first time you ALWAYS run it without ANY switch 2) the second time you run it with the /F switch 3) the third time you run it with the /R switch Have you done the above (exactly)? Again, no ifs, no buts, and - just for the record - the gparted advice is inaccurate (if you use the /R switch it implies the /F), BUT it is correct that in some cases you need to reboot for some changes to take effect and re-run the CHKDSK, more than that it (the advice fparted produced) does not apply to your case. Now the good news, since Vista there is a new option for CHKDSK, the /b one: http://www.overclock.net/forum/132-windows/1603282-what-does-chkdsk-b-argument-do.html which is what you want to try running, let us call it the 4th way : 4) the fourth time you run it with the /B switch https://technet.microsoft.com/it-it/library/cc730714(v=ws.10).aspx In other words most probably the old disk had some clusters (not sectors) listed in $BadClus and this file was imaged to the new device, and now it needs to be "reset". You can use ntfstruncate however: https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-hardware-18/resetting-ntfs-bad-sectors-list-with-ntfstruncate-492114/ jaclaz

Well, with all due respect . the procedure you followed doesn't make much sense . When you are in cases such as this one (or similar ones) like data recovery from a failing disk, the FIRST thing you do is to make a forensic sound image (or clone), using a "plain" tool that you already verified, you are fully familiar with and that is proved to be capable of doing that, NO if's, NO but's. Then you make a SECOND image (or clone) and: 1) leave the original disk alone 2) leave the first image alone 3) you work on the seconf image ONLY IF the procedures in #3 above do not give the wanted results, you start again from a newly made second image. The fact that the clone failed (provided that you already verified that the tool you used normally allows to make a clone and that you are familiar with using it) should have told you something. There is no way, with all the things you did to the poor "clone," including the exact way you imaged or cloned the original, that anyone can suggest you a "proper" procedure. Since the original disk is seemingly healthy (I mean mechanically/at sector level) you can now make the forensic sound image (or clone) and start again, and avoid having the second image or clone, but you still need to restart from a copy of the original. You don't and I mean you DON'T run a "repair install" before having verified that both the underlying media (the hard disk or SSD) and the filesystem are "healthy". Gparted is an extremely good tool, but this does not mean that it can be trusted unconditionally, and of course "loads of sectors damaged just like it was on the old drive" doesn't actually mean anything. Do the sectors belong to single files? If yes to which files? (I mean documents, OS system files, program files or NTFS file system structure) Basically with NTFS if the file system structure is damaged, more or less the ONLY chance is running CHKDSK, if it can repair the filesystem, good, if it cannot then you are on your own, example, JFYI: http://reboot.pro/topic/21558-files-now-think-theyre-directories/ and need to perform manual checks and analysis. jaclaz

@Nomen With all due respect, there are NO issues whatsoever with having a Windows 7 in a .vhd, and there are no issues whatsoever in reducing the now senselessly large partition that is used by windows 10 and creating a new partition dedicated to Windows 7. About .vhd boot, Installing it is straightforward and - at the most and in the worse case - you need to restore the previous BOOTMGR and \boot\BCD (then re-add the .vhd booting option). Those that have the media and the key and a non-OEM license of Windows 7 of an adequate version (which are a surprisingly small number) can do it straight. Those that have not the adequate version need to use a couple workarounds, there is no need of any workaround if you go for a separate partition. Multibooting Windows (any version) on a SAME partition has never been supported, and for the reasons - among others - expressed before even if possible (with a lower or higher level of difficulties) it has never been advised by anyone, there are reasons that make it a sub-optimal choice. ...life sucks ... jaclaz

Well, as an anecdote only, many years ago and only as an experiment I had a system running in the same partition: 1) Windows NT 4.0 in D:\WinNT (default) 2) Windows 2000 in D:\Win2K (renamed from the default "Windows") 3) Windows XP in D:\WinXP (renamed from the default "Windows") The issue with %SystemRoot% in those systems could be easily solved by simply changing the name of the Windows directory at the time of the install. The problems were the changes needed to move the "user folders" from root to within the main folder, i.e. I had D:\WinNT\Profiles (good) but I moved the other "default" folder "Program Files" under D:\WinNT, with Windows 2000 there was the need to do the same for "Documents and settings", *like*: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/236621/cannot-move-or-rename-the-documents-and-settings-folder Here you see a comparison of the "default" folder structures: https://installmate.com/support/im9/using/pages/typicalpaths.htm Since Vista (if I recall correctly) the %SystemRoot% diretory is hardcoded to \Windows, and though in theory it should be possible to change that post-install using a PE and and a few tens/hundreds (offline) Registry edits there are other possible issues, with the "Users" folder and the "virtual redirections" in the filesystem, that have only become "worse" in Windows 7, partially off topic, but JFYI: https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_7-files/why-is-documents-and-settings-folder-hidden-and/2a163c13-c5d9-4a2e-843a-c910f968a89c?tab=MoreHelp jaclaz

To be fair if we actually went with ONLY what Microsoft says it is supported and follow ONLY what their support literature and people say, we could well close MSFN.ORG for good . The issue does not revolve really about what they do or don't support, it revolves more around how difficult they made it in NT 6.x+. (in NT up to 5.x it was doable and also relatively easy, issues had traditionally been revolving around what MS - and many other programmers/software vendors - "assumed") jaclaz

Sure, sue me. Don't be fooled by the MS lingo and the EULA (which BTW I personally believe to be hardly enforceable if enforceable at all). The good MS guys may have an easy life convincing a "real" OEM that not attaching the sticker is illegal (actually noone believe that, but MS may well retaliate if they don't), but if I legally buy a license and don't transfer it to anyone else nor sell it, I am perfectly OK from a legal standpoint (with all my COA stickers neatly ordered inside a folder), even hypothizing (and IMHO it has not) the EULA has some actual validity. The sticker applied to the machine is anyway a proof of authenticity or legality, not a requisite of it. jaclaz

It is immaterial, BUT there is a slight difference. Up to XP SP2 the install procedure *needed* a (matching) product key to be typed in at install time. Starting with XP SP3 it is possible to defer the entering of the key to post install. It is a sort of "trial period" that may be useful to evaluate for 30 days, expecially nowadays that support for newish hardware is - to say the least - flaky, the OS on the specific machine without having a serial number at all, only the install files/cd. And - as a side note - "large" OEM's (such as an example HP or Dell) have often (largely senselessly and often in very subtle ways) modified the install disc, introducing some changes that - besides possibly "linking" the install to a given hardware, may create issues when the install disc is used to create a PE. @Glenn999 The whole point is that - in theory - the OEM license is granted to you exclusively for the given hardware, and it expires exactly the same moment the given hardware is disposed of/destroyed/etc. It is not much about the fact that it may be illegal to sell the product key, it is more like the fact that a product key has not any legal value, and as such it would be silly to actually pay for it. Of course on e-bay you will find tens or hundreds of such completely illegal sketchy items for sale, and of course there are hundreds of morons less experienced people actually buying them. And now for some fun, an example of actually illegal (in the US) number : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_prime jaclaz

As a matter of fact the point is exactly that (with all due exceptions ) most people here are not "fans" of one Os or the other, they are (largely) "simple" users of it, more or less desperately trying to have the stupid thingy work as it should, in some cases (please read as "often") notwithstanding the efforts of the good MS guys to make Windows (you choose) either Android or an X-Box. You can also whine about the lack of Linux talks here. The worst that can happen to you is that jaclaz would reply with some sarcastic note. Who knows? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Que_Sera,_Sera_(Whatever_Will_Be,_Will_Be) Maybe, just maybe, you could start some Linux related topics and see if there is response in the audience. jaclaz

If you donate an unknown/unstated but sufficient amount of money to the developer he will likely send you via e-mail a code/file/number that allows to disable the watermark and pop-up, The Author has decided to follow this model which is NOT the sale of a license. You show him your appreciation (by sending him what you believe is an appropriate amount of money to support the development) and he may (if he believes the amount adequate) give you one or more codes/files/numbers, Not that it makes much sense to most people, but this is how he decided to manage the stuff. jaclaz

Both would do nicely . Use as reference NOT the first post of this thread, but rather the CarterinCanada's guide: After having duly read/understood the: AND the: The last two explain - among other things - why the adapters/converters you found are OK. jaclaz

Well, there are two (distinct) issues. Microsoft installers are (obviously) backward compatible but not necessarily forward compatible. But besides that (which may be worked around with a trick or two, restoring the BOOTMGR, etc.) the real issue is that since the .wim based approach to install you (we, everyone) were deprived of the possibility of changing the name of the main Windows folder, which is now "Windows". Some earlier versions could be (with some small changes/tricks) installed in theory on the same volume in multi-boot (though it made no real sense and represented what we - highly specialized technicians call "looking for troubles"). BUT as said the good news are that starting from 7 there are ways to install the OS entirely inside a .VHD (native booting of it may need a "high profile" version of Windows 7), jaclaz

Hmmm. I would probably go for Toruk, if needed. jaclaz

Certainly NOT. Not really "have to", You could alternatively use a Windows 7 installed to a .vhd, For the Windows 10 (already installed) OS the .vhd will be just a (large) file, and you wouldn't need to modify the partitioning. jaclaz

Hmmm. Ok, thanks, though still I am not fully convinced. I'll have to check next time I need to connect these machines to the Internet whether they have issues with Windows Update or not. jaclaz