jaclaz

If the OP actually has a DOS machine and a "real" floppy, an attempt to make a raw image of it (with the read only tab set) costs nothing or next to nothing. There is a particular program (not very famous) that over the years has proved to be very good, called Venus, some info (and more related tools) here: and in links therein. @98SE You would be surprised by the amount of "old" gear some MSFN members have. jaclaz

Well, of course if the disk is converted *automatically* to GPT, then it won't ever boot in BIOS. You clearly need a PE (and a diskpart) from Windows 7 or earlier (and as said earlier the whole point is about using a 32 bit OS). Maybe it is not the diskpart (or whatever) that *automatically* converts to GPT but something else in your process. If your "normal" process worked on a 3 Tb+ disk (in the past), by all means do that. Once you have a single partition working (and booting) normally, and the unallocated portion at the end, all is needed is to create the second partition (it is possible that the first partition needs to be slightly shrinked in order to have the first LBA sector of the second partition within the 2.2 Tb limit. More generally, the test is not about two partitions, it is about n partitions, with the ONLY requisite that the very last partition starts within the 2.2 Tb limit and does not extend for more than the same 2.2 Tb, i.e. the Start LBA of the LAST needs to be less than 2^32-1=4294967295 sectors and the amount of sectors in this last partition does not exceed 2^32-1=4294967295 In any case - re-thinking about this - all in all the experiment makes no real sense (making it with Windows 7 which already supports GPT), it makes sense for those OS's that know nothing about GPT. (we do have a few ways to boot a GPT disk on BIOS, if the OS supports GPT, like Windows 7 and later). jaclaz

Well, the diskpart txt seems just fine. Why didn't you format the second partition? I don't buy - with all due respect - that Windows doesn't boot. In the sense that *something else* (BIOS? or setting in it?) is preventing the booting. (i.e. the BIOS having some limitation with the hard disk size). Otherwise In the worst case, it would fail to boot with a bootBCD error (or however the error would come from the BOOTMGR). For all the code knows the active partition is within the 2.2 Tb limit, so the MBR code will chainload its PBR without issues and the PBR will chainload the BOOTMGR without issues. It is possible - in theory - (but very unlikely) that the presence of the second partition creates an issue, but I greatly doubt it. In any case, you can alway try to clear the second partition entry and try again. Even better, you could install a third party bootloader, like grub4dos to have more control in the booting phase. BUT right now, you can boot from the USB stick, and run grub4dos grub.exe from its DOS. At the grub> prompt, exchange drives: map (hd0) (hd1) map (hd1) (hd0) map --hook then try (reboot and restart, and re-map the drive if it doesn't work) 1) chainloader (hd0)+1 boot OR; 2) root (hd0,0) chainloader +1 boot OR: 3) root (hd0,0) chainloader /bootmgr boot jaclaz

It greatly depends on WHAT exactly are you running (I presume a PE of some kind) AND on HOW exactly you built the PE (from which sources). Had you actually READ the thread, you would have seen that Ntantor: had your same issue and solved it by using an updated version of imagex: jaclaz

And you tried making a copy or recovery of the diskette and you couldn't read it? Sometimes this may depend on a "too new" floppy disk drive or of a non-suitable program. A pure DOS machine may work better than any newer OS, of course with a good, internal, "vintage" floppy disk drive, not one of those el-cheapo USB external ones. jaclaz

An earlier version of the device or an earlier version of the driver? And of course we don't need just (L2), (L1) and (W1), we also need the L2S (source of L2), L1S (source of L1) and W1S (Source of W1), and the (L1S) and the (W1S) need to be the EXACT same version. I somehow suspect that the latter W1S one would be a tricky one to find. jaclaz

I am not even sure it allows you to. It seems like it sees the disk as being around 750 Gb. It is possible that you will need the "experimental" later version than 2.40, either 2.43 or 2.44, in any case you need to switch to LBA view (press F4). But you are running DOS, right? Get the latest grub4dos here: http://grub4dos.chenall.net/categories/downloads/ http://grub4dos.chenall.net/downloads/grub4dos-0.4.6a-2017-06-25/ http://dl.grub4dos.chenall.net/grub4dos-0.4.6a-2017-06-25.7z from the .7z archive extract just grub.exe and copy it to your DOS disk/diskette. Then run it. At the grub> command prompt, first determine the number of the disk you want to edit, In your RPM screenshot it is disk 2 (Ranish should number disks starting with 1, so it is second disk), in grub4dos notation that would be (hd1) (first disk is (hd0). Make sure that it is the right disk by typing: cat --hex skip=446 (hd1)+1 You should see all 00's and a final 55AA. If you don't see the 00's it means that you have the wrong disk or that you didn't clear the partition table entries. If you don't see the 55AA it means that the disk has not been (yet) initialized. If (hd1) is the right disk, run: partnew (hd1,0) 0x07 2048 4294965246 partnew (hd1,1) 0x07 4294967294 1258291200 makeactive (hd1,0) Then run: geometry (hd1) It should give you a Partition 0 and a Partition 1 both "filesystem unknown", and "partition type 0x07". If the disk is not initialized, just create a single primary partition NTFS in diskpart (size doesn't matter) and don't format it. Then you can go to grub, and after having checked as above, clear the partition with "partnew (hd1,0) 0 0 0" jaclaz

Oh, my ... jaclaz

PAC-laz's? Is it a spelling problem or an intentional mis-spelling (for *whatever* reasons)? jaclaz

Only to provide some more references, it should be this one: http://www.worldcat.org/title/wiring-circuit-planner-simulator/oclc/33029152 Maybe (just maybe) the actual simulator is the same included in this later CD http://www.worldcat.org/title/get-wired-wire-your-home-for-power-and-the-data-highway/oclc/33962894 jaclaz

Bur why that particular one? Isn't the (actually seemingly more easily available) ASRock 775i65G R3.0: a "better" choice? jaclaz

Not always, but often enough to originate this myth . jaclaz

I don't get it. Usher's suggestion is to NOT use any binary patch, including w98iopat.exe. Or if you prefer, using the patch is the NON-Usher suggestion : jaclaz

Then, get some cats or maybe weasels/martens, both have been used as pets or however domesticated animals by men at least since we have history to take care of mice and rats (and small snakes). jaclaz

jaclaz

I tend to prefer cats. jaclaz

Of course applying a Wim would be OK. The test makes sense with a 7, and actually more with a 7 32 bit, as the 64 bit version may have some "more" 64 bit fields/math in the code, even "accidentally". Any tool that can access the MBR and write hex values to the partition table will be fine, possibly the simpler would be RPM (Ranish Partition Manager) in DOS 7.x, or you could run almost *any* disk edito or dd-like tool from the PE with which you apply the wim, or the simplest would be grub4dos, where the whole thing is a few commands: partnew (hdx,0) 0x07 2048 4294965246 partnew (hdx,1) 0x07 4294967294 1258291200 makeactive (hdx,0) should do. As said I can provide you a complete (Windows 7) MBR to be deployed, with a *random* Disk Signature, and the partition data pre-written. Then you have to format the two /partitions/volumes notmally from - say - diskpart of the PE. jaclaz

With the "default" theme the text looks (if possible) slightly worse. With zoom (font size/whatever) set @110% I can still see the effect, it tends to be less relevant with zoom @125% but to completely remove it I need a 150% zoom in Iron. In Opera is more or less the same, though strangely @120% the pipe symbols | become darker than the Capital I's (while on Iron they are definitely lighter @125%). jaclaz

Yep, that is fine, it is a 512 byte sector disk. Which OS do you want to install on it? I can provide you with either a pre-made set of partition table entries, or a whole MBR or you can use a hex/disk editor. But I need to know the total amount of sectors on disk, or, for the sake of the test, I can make a second partition around 600 Gb, that surely ends before the end of disk, see attached image. jaclaz

Well, at least the good news are that my eysight is still sharp enough And now for NO apparent reason: ||||||||||||||||||||| = 20 x "pipe" symbol IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII = 20 x Capital I iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii = 20 x small caps i llllllllllllllllllll = 20 x small caps L A\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\W = 1 x A + 20 x backslash + 1 x W W////////////////////A = 1 x W+ 20 x slash + 1 A I see (iron) the pipe symbols even whiter (besides od course the spaces) than Capital i's, i.e. I can see 4 different (from clearer to darker) shades of gray in |/I/i/l and slashes and backslashes much lighter (or thinner) than the corresponding A and W diagonal traits. jaclaz

Check these two lines in *any* browser you have handy: IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII = 20 x Capital I llllllllllllllllllll = 20 x small caps L And report. jaclaz

Better, slighlty crispier in Iron. Worse (if possible) in Opera. AND SURPRISINGLY, now in QTweb they are AS BAD as in Iron (possibly a bit worse). jaclaz

Ok, if you find that nice and crispy, then it is "good enough". You happy. Still, you haven't replied (maybe as said it is just my old Iron) to my test lines. Here "I" (capital i) is gray, whilst l (small letter L) is darker/crispier. I have no idea what makes it so, but allow me - notwithstanding my (declared) total ignorance on how web board software works - to believe that security and font choice (or font rendering choices) are VERY unlikely to have ANY connection. Mind you, I do appreciate all the efforts you made over all these years to keep the board alive and safe (or as safe as possible) , and thank you for these. Still, I won't buy that it's "higher security fault" that I cannot read anymore what yesterday was perfectly clear . There must be *somewhere* a setting to either use a more readable font or change the way the font is rendered, and of course you are perfectly free to NOT change that/those setting(s), no problem. Anyway sooner or later MSFN will migrate to https and thus be inaccessible by a number of less than up-to-date browsers. Roger. Out. jaclaz

And? Would you define it as "crispy" or "blurred"? Or maybe "good enough"? Test: IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Do you see the two lines above the same or nearly the same? jaclaz

And Iron too. So, let's declare that a board whose scope is at least partially that of supporting older, now unsupported OS's like - say - Windows 9x/Me and XP but including your beloved Vista, is not accessible anymore by browsers that run in them, except - maybe (I haven't tested it nor I am going to test that) - this or that half@§§edly modified Firefox. We could also close 1/2 to 3/4 of the board's sections and leave only Windows 7 and later related sections, since that is anyway what the majority of users run., even better, hardcode a check to make sure that only Windows 10 is run by users accessing the board. I can understand how MS (and all its shills knowingly or unknowingly) does everything possible to make the online experience of users that do not run Windows 10 (or however a currently supported OS's) a miserable one, but MSFN? And yes, today I am particularly grumpy or at least grumpier than usual . jaclaz