jaclaz

Well, if it is still working (though with "random" interruptions) you are anyway a "lucky enough" peep , as long as after a reset the disk comes back online "normally". If I were you I would try imaging it with a tool capable of "restarting where failed". There are two options that I know of: 1) a manual way, using something *like* Datarescuedd (Windows, GUI, but of course you can use the same approach from a Linux "plain" dd or ddrescue) to image in chunks: http://www.datarescue.com/photorescue/v3/drdd.htm http://reboot.pro/topic/15040-data-recovery-off-clicking-disk/?p=133567 a 5% size would probably be appropriate. 2) automated (but not that it will give you much advantage, since you need to be there to reset the disk when it fails) using (Linux only I believe) ddrescue or dd_rescue: http://www.garloff.de/kurt/linux/ddrescue/ but if you use one of these there is no need to "reassemble" the image chunks in a new image. Please note how there are different versions of ddrescue named differently and confusingly: https://askubuntu.com/questions/211578/whats-the-difference-between-ddrescue-gddrescue-and-dd-rescue Be aware that on other Seagate crappy hard disks (7200.11, not LP) we have seen cases where the disk, was revived but "maxed out" at an "initial" part only, cannot say if this is your case. Keep the stupid thing cold/ventilated (an old AT/ATX PSU 12 cm in diam, placed at a few cm from the disk will do) while imaging. As a side note (it greatly depends on how the disk was partitioned, assuming it was just a huge NTFS partition) you already imaged a large enough part of the disk (i.e. enough to contain the $MFT, so if you only need *some* files you could use the partial image to find the extents where those files ae on the disk and extract only the releant extents. (long and prone to errors, still ... ) jaclaz

Well, we do agree on the weird mess, but you are - without any actual need - offending my much beloved batch/cmd (and .ini files) that actually do work, by mixing them with the monstruosity of the Winbuilder "classic" sintax and its (crazy) extensions. Batch - at least - has FOR loops, CALL and (much criticized by know-it-alls computer science guru's, BTW) GOTO statements Winbuilder .scripts resemble the worst possible kind of batch, the kind that total clueless people tend to write when they do they first tests, basically a macro recorder output (in the case of the Winbuilder is not of course incompetence by the good .script Authors, it is actual limits of the language). And .ini files can at least be §@ç#ing READ by the naked eye (unlike most of the replacement devised by the same computer science gurus i.e. the omnipresent XML, that is largely unreadable and more often than not misused). To do simple tasks all you need is simple tools, use Occam's Razor whenever possible. The long term, final aim of PEbakery should be to have a readable/writable simple language (which I understand being not trivial, and that will take a loooong time) while the next immediate step that of fully validating (by being able to re-build *all* existing projects) the actual interpreter of the "old" deprecated language. Sounds like a very good plan. jaclaz

Garbage collection on a SSD is NOT "trim". And (most modern) SSD have internal "garbage collection" routines, largely (please read as "entirely" undocumented) that may (or may not) work when the device is idle (with no activity whatsoever for long extents of time) or using the "small idle times" that happen in everyday use all the time. The mass storage device (barring - say - a server that is continuously streaming data) are in actual use ony a minimal fraction of the time they are ON. In practice, and in normal use, there is no need whatsoever to keep the PC on and idle, no matter which OS it is running. There is a lot of confusion on the matter because the actual devices changed and what may have made sense in - say - 2010 or 2011 doesn't make anymore sense five years later. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/04/ask-ars-my-ssd-does-garbage-collection-so-i-dont-need-trim-right/ @muzungu Which specific EXACT make/model SSD are you using? Knowing that it may be possible to understand whther it has GC integrated. jaclaz

OT, but not much, I hoped it was the Microsoft device seen in this video (please take note on how entertained do the good MS engineers look while playing with this device): but after a second look it is just a "Gakken worldeye", only a projector: jaclaz

Trim isn't a "state of mind", It is a particular action done to a SSD (or similar) and it is (much) like cutting your hair. You go to the barber and he cuts your hair with scissors, you have a friend cutting your hair with a razor, you use the old method of the torch and wet towel , it doesn't matter, the end result is that your hair are objectively and undoubtedly shorter than before, as an example your hat that was a little bit too tight would now be slightly loose. A "trimmed" SSD is trimmed, no matter what made the trim. To be more technical *something* tells the internal controller of the SSD which blocks are considered "suitable to be trimmed" and then it is the SSD's own internal controller that proceeds to the trimming. So, if you prefer, it is more like your mother (or wife, or friend) telling you "Have your hair cut". What sometimes is confusing is that some OS (like Windows 7 and later, BUT ONLY on NTFS drives, not on FAT32 drives) have "automatic trim", i.e. as soon as a file is deleted (really deleted, not put in the bin) the OS notifies the SSD that the extents (area) once occupied by the file is now re-usable and the SSD controller decides whether to add that area to the spare sectors or to use it next write, etc. jaclaz

Go here: http://rloew.x10host.com/catalog2.htm get the DOS TRIM demo: http://rloew.x10host.com/Programs/TRIMCHK.ZIP Add an option to dual-boot DOS to your machine.[1] Test the program and see if it works on your machine. If it does buy the full program and - once in a while, let's say once per month or so - you boot to Dos, Trim the SS and live happily. jaclaz [1] if you need help to do this just ask.

As a side note and JFYI, an (educated? ) guess is that they were copy pasted from a .reg file (removing spaces), the \ <newline> is a common way in .reg (and in .vbs, besides several flavours of C and Linux shells) to make the "code" fit in a given screen/character number width, not something "peculiar" to Winbuilder. jaclaz

Which as said it is good, though still I cannot understand. The (old, unsupported and now also deprecated) Winbuilder 082 had IMHO some serious issues with an overcomplex, often futile, primitive and often not human-writable (let alone human-readable) syntax. If this project (in a future, when the developer will have time, etc.) will lead to a new (clear, simple, human-writable and human-readable) syntax while being compatible with existing .sctipts or projects it represents a much needed innovation. If this project is only meant as having a faster interpreter for the same botched syntax I cannot see much of its usefulness. The scripting language is either (or will be) 100% compatible or it is not. If it is not (and adds much needed better syntax and new functions) soon .scripts/projects will be written/modified for this new builder (and will thus lose compatibility with the old one). If you prefer, in my perverted mind, I would have liked a new (good, fast, and what not) interpreter with its own (better) scripting language AND with the possibility to interpret/convert (to the new syntax) the old, largely botched syntax of Winbuilder. If this is the first step in that direction, the PEbakery represents an exceptional innovation if it is (or will be) limited to be a faster interpreter of the old language, it represents only a faster interpreter of the old language. I can understand that one (of the very few) project/.script developer might find useful to run (say, just guessing, no idea on the order of magnitude of the speed increase) a test build in two minutes instead of (still say) five minutes, but I don't think that shortening the build time of the "final user" represents a game changing innovation. Mind you, this is not to detract in any way from the good work of the Author of PEbakery , I am sure he spent lots of time and did a very good work. jaclaz

Sure it is , having choices is always a good thing. And don't worry, the note is only referring to the continuation of the good old car-fuel story: http://reboot.pro/topic/12547-offtopic-by-psc-reply-here/?p=109801 Here having a new slight twist, given that the car doesn't brake very well, and has issues in left turns, tutbocharging its engine (while a good thing in itself ) won't unfortunately help for that issue. jaclaz

I know , thanks. Still it seems to me - together with .Net that is needed for the runtime also - a "queer" requirement for an Open Source project (though of course perfectly in-line with the Windows 7 requirement ). And I continue to fail to see a *need* for a "faster" builder (no matter if using the same, old, and largely flawed syntax of Winbuilder 082 - including commas and quotes - or if using the new, revolutionary and if possible even more flawed syntax of the totally senseless Winbuilder 2013, or *whatever* it is called the one-developer and one-user building system that followed it). As a side-side note, IMHO a "better" link to MistyPE is its documentation webpage: http://mistyprojects.co.uk/mistype/mistype.docs/readme.html http://mistyprojects.co.uk/mistype/mistype.docs/readme.files/intro.htm where new users of the project can read about the "base philosophy" behind it and get familiar with the available options and building process (that should remain exactly the same if done through this new builder). jaclaz

Yep , personally I never fully understood the utility (genericaly speaking) of "unattended" for most uses (see below). Large corporations tend to buy hardware in batches, so you have (say) 100 actually identical systems, you take your time (sometimes plenty of it) to set-up properly one and then you just make an image of it that you then can re-deploy, perfectly configured to the other 99, then you just "personalize" the thingy (Computer ID, if needed SID, etc.), at next reboot, this is way faster than anything, because besides the main OS you can pre-install any sort of software, custom set each and every detail, etc . Even if you have 2000 PC's, all you will need would be some 10-20 images, On the other hand, if you have only (say) 2 systems it takes much less time to install them "attended", unless - for whatever resons - you reinstall very often (and if this is the case, then making an image is still a better/faster option). The use of "Unattended" and "universal hardware images" seems to me useful only in some particular cases, where there is the need to install on many (very) different systems and where the "end result" is either required to be "generic" or however that will be later (attended) personalized. But - still to be fair - the .wim format and the possibility to "capture" (and "apply") an image through WDS is actually "nice", but only since the various (and various versions of) imageX and Dism "peculiarities" have been (hopefully) solved, and of course only on Gb network, the good ol' 100 Mb ones were IMHO too slow compared to a "local" deployment. jaclaz

Well, you need to be more accurate and provide what you actually get. Of course, at least when experimenting you should open a command prompt and invoke the batch from there, The batch won't "stop" until all lines have been parsed and executed, maybe it doesn't work, but it should give you an error of some kind. Anywyay, now that we know that its usage is intended on 10 and similar, open a command prompt and in it only type the command Tripredacus suggested: wmic os get architecture The software of this board tends to suck, particularly in combination with some browsers, and copy/paste, though using the "Code" tags (that in this release you can obtain exclusively by clicking on the button with symbol "<>" (remember to choose "No Syntax Highlighting") it is usually manageable. Anyway, the .dll's that you are trying to re-register are 32 bit, right? So you need to always use the 32 bit version of regsvr32.exe, this can be done more simply with: SET MyCommand=c:\windows\system32\regsvr32.exe IF EXIST c:\windows\syswow64\regsvr32.exe SET Mycommand=c:\windows\syswow64\regsvr32.exe %MyCommand% c:\e4u_storm\dbvxft.dll /s %MyCommand% c:\e4u_storm\dm.dll /s %MyCommand% c:\e4u_storm\envxrf.dll /s Normally on a 32 bit system there won' t be any \syswow64\ folder, and even if there is one, in it there won't be a regsvr32.exe. And you can remove the "hardcoding" of the C;\ by using environment variables: SET MyCommand=%WINDIR%\system32\regsvr32.exe IF EXIST %WINDIR%\syswow64\regsvr32.exe SET Mycommand=%WINDIR%\syswow64\regsvr32.exe %MyCommand% c:\e4u_storm\dbvxft.dll /s %MyCommand% c:\e4u_storm\dm.dll /s %MyCommand% c:\e4u_storm\envxrf.dll /s jaclaz

Good to see this , you seemingly did already a lot of work , though the reasons behind the *need* of another builder (beside the very, very good idea of releasing it as Open Source) totally escapes me. And Visual Studio 2017 and .Net? jaclaz

Then your nick is just short for AFMNJAMWSK. (Always Forget My Name, Just Ask My Wife She Knows) . Welcome aboard . jaclaz

Yep , and before anyone attempts further strange things, it is better to remind how the particular .wim format that is used in Winflp (Windows for Legacy PC's) is a very early version, not compatible with later imagex or dism, and of course it makes little sense to have a "universal" (as opposed to minimized and machine/use specific) Windows Embedded image, as if you do that, you will come up at the end with something very, very like PosReady2009 . jaclaz

Well, no, you mean quotes, not initials, but echo "64 bit system" should output: "64 bit System" whilst: echo 64 bit system should output: 64 bit system The need for quotes is for PATHs containing spaces. jaclaz

Well, most people outside a corporation/business/large network (and not *all* corporations) actually have a WDS, and it would be - I believe - improbable that a network administrator would start in 2017 deploying XP images. I mean, while still a lot of businesses still run XP on some machines, surely they already have suitable images and already know how to re-deploy them, because they were originally deployed when the machine was set up, and as you correctly say modern hardware has a lot of issues with XP drivers, so that deploying an XP image on new hardware makes very little sense.. But you are right the OP never mentioned a thumb drive or a CD/DVD. On the other hand he also never mentioned WDS, and as originally stated by Tripredacus the OP posted a "generic" (too generic) questions and never followed with more details. Personally I doubt that OP ever used WDS, both the "old" or the "new" way, and the (as we both say very complex) guide you posted a link to uses not a WinPE to apply/deploy the .wim or booting to the WDS to deploy the image, it stops to when the image is captured. We both concur on the fact that today it seems a huge waste of time to deploy a XP sysprepped image, whatever means are used for doing that, still the OP question was about deploying (even if he calls it "installing") an already existing (sysprepped) image (through WinPE), while the (complex) guide you posted to is about creating a (sysprepped) image (through a VmWare install) and capturing it (through WinPE and WDS). Simplified, the overall process is in four steps: 1) Install 2) sysprep 3) capture 4) deploy It seemed to me like the OP asked about #4 only, giving the first three as already done. whilst the mentioned guide stops just before #4. jaclaz

... while remaining still useful for people with less experience or knowledge ... jaclaz

There is a mis-communication of some kind going on. As I see it the guide you linked to seems a complex way to create a hardware independent sysprepped image for deployment through WDS. I personally find it easier to sysprep an offline image, but the OP question was about deploying an already made syprepped image from a WinPE (NOT through WDS) And anyway all are not "installing XP", but rather "deploying XP", it is not the same as "installing". jaclaz

Yes and no. Sure it is not at all "always valid" (hence the given link to an ample discussion about this and "better" methods) , however - just for the record - the good MS-guys are attempting to make it "valid" as a side effect (or collateral damage) of pushing the senseless UEFI machines, that require an "alignment" between OS and processor bitwidth, Unfortunately, before or later, they will win. jaclaz

Which Windows 10? 32 bit or 64 bit? And (for *whatever reason*) a 64 bit using the 32 bit cmd.exe? There are several ways to check OS, the one you posted seemns fine, but if it doesn't work, see if any of the alternative work for your particular OS/setup: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/12322308/batch-file-to-check-64bit-or-32bit-os More generally (and as a side, side note), the batch is IMHO a bit "redundant", I would simplify it along the lines of: @echo off md c:\e4u_storm copy ocx\*.dll c:\e4u_storm IF "%PROCESSOR_ARCHITECTURE%"=="x86" ( SET Target_Path=c:\windows\syswow64\ ) ELSE ( SET Target_Path=c:\windows\system32 ) ECHO %PROCESSOR_ARCHITECTURE% %Target_Path%regsvr32 c:\e4u_storm\dbvxft.dll /s %Target_Path%regsvr32 c:\e4u_storm\dm.dll /s %Target_Path%regsvr32 c:\e4u_storm\envxrf.dll /s But more than that "as is" it seems (to me) pointless , I mean, no matter if the system is 32 bit or 64 bit, the regsvr32.exe will be in %PATH%, i.e. no matter if it is in c:\windows\syswow64\ or c:\windows\system32\ (or the OS is on another drive, like D:\ or E:\ ) the OS will find and execute it when invoked by simply "regsvr32" or (better) "regsvr32.exe", it is when - for *whatever reason* you want to execute a particular version of an executable and not the one coming with the OS that you need to invoke it with an explicit path. Maybe what you posted is just the "initial part" of a more complex batch, and then there may be other reasons for selecting the "bitwidth" of the OS. However you want to open a command prompt and type manually "echo 64 bit system". What happens? Try echoing something else, like "echo here". What happens? jaclaz

Maybe in 2008 (i.e. when Cannie started this thread/guide) the situation of the internet was a bit different from today and I would also dare to hint that maybe, just maybe, 9 years ago you were a little less knowledgeable and possibly your comment here would have been a little less condescending than today. jaclaz

Not really. The whole point of that linked guide is about sysprepping the image (and then deploying through WDS), not a "normal" install. JFYI, as hinted in an earlier post, a Windows XP can be sysprepped offline (which would simplify the matter): https://web.archive.org/web/20120222113222/http://www.911cd.net:80/forums/index.php?showforum=43 https://web.archive.org/web/20111124134153/http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=22064 jaclaz

Well, we are not in an online computer assistance hotline following a script, and you are not a common user that hasn't ever seen an electrical appliance before, so the canonical questions: 1) Do you have electricity? 2) is the power cable (or power adapter) actualy plugged into mains? 3) Have you tried flipping the on/off switch on the device? 4) Does any light blink or any sound (or movement) come from the device when it is powered up? Were given as already asked for and replied positively. The next questions remain: 5) Is it connected to the "right" USB port? 6) Do you have any other (USB) printer (with "manufacturer" drivers) to test that the USB printing support in the install is working? As that would exclude a malfunctioning USB port/bus on either the computer or the printer and some possible issues with the chosen printer port in software. AFAICR (it is ages I don't install a USB printer on a 9x machine) there were issues with selecting the port as even with the "wrong" driver (but with the "right" port) *something* happened (lights blinking, carriage moving, garbage characters printed, etc.) As a matter of fact while - generally speaking - for years (not anymore I believe) all HP printers were good, sturdy, work mules, the real issues with them has traditionally been the accompanying software (and drivers) and in many cases to actually install (having th eactual original, valid, driver) was a nightmare, one example among the many (please note how these are actual "official" HP support pages ) : https://support.hp.com/ee-en/document/c00523824 https://support.hp.com/gb-en/document/buu01858 The "nearest" model I could find a driver for is the D2360, but as often happens unfortunately with driversguide files, there is no guarantee whatever that the file actually contains what is in the download page description and of course no guarantee whatever that a D23xx may work for D42xx. http://www.driverguide.com/driver/detail.php?driverid=794993&si=b6b7e34bceca9b15578c4e979e0c419d However, at a quick check (Universal Extractor can be used to expand into a sub-directory), it does contain 9x drivers. jaclaz

Good , everything is back to normal improbability level .... jaclaz