jaclaz

Nice one! It perfectly represents the poor experience any of us had, before or later, JFYI, a recent related thread: jaclaz

No, it doesn't normally. Maybe you have a "custom" or "oem" install CD that works as you describe, but a normal XP install CD proposes to make a single, huge, primary partition, as large as possible, respecting the cylinder end "boundary". And AFAICR the Win2K behaves exactly the same. Whether the Win2K disk manager (and the subsystem beneath it) is "smarter" than the XP one I cannot say, but most probably it is . GParted (but it may depend on specific version) defaults (if I remember correctly) to the "new" 1 Mb alignment. jaclaz

Well, maybe you didn't search hard enough (on MSFN). Be my guest : jaclaz

@Dibya JFYI, first part here: https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems-and-poets/poems/detail/46473 deals with the issue nicely and precisely. The "advice" was written around 1895, so it's not an entirely new phenomenon, it happens to everyone to feel angered, the "trick" is to learn to keep that anger under control. jaclaz

Dibya, it is not IMNSHO a good thing to post here badmouthing or attempting to shame people on another forum, particularly by addressing the WHOLE set of members of that forum as "not having knowledge" or as "fools". If you have any issues with any of the members of Beta Archive, solve those issues with them there, please. And yes, though I am very, very rarely there, I am a member over there too, and I can assure you that your generic "labels" of "ignorant" or "fool" don't apply to the whole community. And to be fair, if the accusation is about some of them being Windows 7 (or later) fanboys, you did start as a pure XP fanboy, stating apodictically how much Windows XP is faster than 7, than bragging about how fast and stable is your XP compared to your Windows 7. jaclaz

I know you will love this one. I just received a letter from a DSL provider (which I won't name but that is among the more common in Italy) that I will attempt to translate from Italian: No comment needed. jaclaz

There is not really a "preferred" resolution (which sounds a bit too "politically correct" for my tastes ) things are binary, a LCD monitor or TV has a "native" resolution, you either can make it with your video card or you cannot,*anything else* will be either blurred or deformed (or both ). There could be some better or worse results depending on the interface used (VGA vs. HDMI, etc.), in theory there shouldn't be (if not in the perverted mind of some video fanatics), and in practice on a perfectly working video card and a perfectly working monitor/TV (and with a good cable) there is no difference that can be appreciated, but there are "somehow faulty" monitors and/or video cards that are sensible to using the one or the other, see also: (in some cases it is possible to "force" the EDID to solve auto-detected resolution and/or modify the video card BIOS to support another resolution). We need the EXACT video card and TV make/models. And actually we already talked about the matter some time ago (just for the record): jaclaz

Well, with all due respect , it seems to me like you are creating yourself a problem, I mean how much does it cost to pay a little attention when you eject a USB device? And in any case what is the problem with HotSwap!? (without disabling anything else/without fiddling with DLL's, etc.) The "batch file" is actually a two liner, the first adds/modify a registry key: reg add "HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Applets\SysTray" /v "Services" /t reg_dword /d 29 /f and the second (re-)starts Systray.exe Check your registry for what is now in that key, "HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Applets\SysTray\Services", it should be 0x0000001d (29). BUT it is re-set by system and need a precise timing, see point #3 here: http://www.v-front.de/2014/02/various-ways-to-address-safely-remove.html maybe it is the timing your issue? The value is most probably interpreted as a binary number where fourth digit represents the "Safely remove" thingy, compare with: http://www.mdgx.com/newtip4.htm (look on the page for "DITCH THAT SOUND ICON") jaclaz

With 8.1 it was mandatory to have a RE environment and most laptop manufacturers (if not all, and definitely including Acer) used additionally a "recovery" partition and an easy way to create recovery media. Specifically the recovery media needs to be a USB stick 16 Gb or bigger: http://acer.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/26287 jaclaz

Well someone confessed http://www.alexstjohn.com/WP/2015/07/27/windows-update-sorry-my-bad/ still he doesn't seem as contrite and regretful as he should be, and he is rather joining (obviously BTW) the legions of whiners: http://www.alexstjohn.com/WP/2016/10/02/doom-for-windows/ jaclaz

@JorgeA I was trying to tell you that if you get a "random" laptop you have big chances of NOT being able to find suitable hardware drivers for the Linux you want to install to it. Have a look around, the interweb is full of people that did what you thought and passed months or years without fully using the laptop capabilities (because of lack of suitable drivers or due to the less than optimal quality/performance of those found). The situation is much less critical for desktops (even if there are still driver issues with them) but with laptops it is really a problem AFAIK. jaclaz

And you would be wrong. What you should do - instead - should be to find a laptop that is ALREADY intended for Linux (and thus drivers will be available) or one on which Linux was already specifically widely used (these tend to be "not-latest-models"). There are a handful of (small) manufacturers that sell these "made for Linux" laptops, just as an example, here is one: https://www.thinkpenguin.com/ and DELL has the "developer edition" line (though it comes with Ubuntu it can certainly be changed to a better distro). jaclaz

Did you go through the "normal" troubleshooting and found nothing? https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/145926 http://www.aumha.org/win4/a/shutdown.php jaclaz

To clear the matter: 1) Primary partitions are UNaffected 2) ONLY Logical volumes inside Extended are affected[1] In a multiboot system with both XP and Windows 2000 it is "standard" and actually historically advised to use logical volumes to store the operating systems, and this is very likely what the OP had. jaclaz [1] Technically it is due to the fact that disk manager *somehow* has hardcoded 62 sectors gap between EMBR and EVBR of each volume, and even when something unrelated (like changing the active status of a primary partition) it automagically re-calculates addresses, thus breaking the EMBR chain and making ALL logical volumes incorrectly mapped or not mapped at all.

... which is good , think about the good MS guys (whose work is actually to upgrade your OS arbitrarily, particularly when everything works fine ) they would all need to find some new activities ... jaclaz

Maybe you have still a loaded image as Nuhi hinted earlier? i.e. for *whatever* reasons the error you are having is misleading and the issue is with the mounting path? jaclaz

Maybe related (or maybe not) do not use space in paths or folder or file names (you will save yourself lots of headaches), and - by the same token - never use the desktop (which path has spaces) when using this kind of utilities (nowadays *everything* should be able to deal with spaces, but you never know and it costs nothing or next to nothing to avoid it by just using simpler names). A sensible path would be: C:\workingdir\ The path you posted however is not a valid path anyway as it has two \ (backslash). jaclaz

Naah, marketing is (mostly) harmless , AI will be the thing that will drive the next near-extinction, coincidentally: http://news.microsoft.com/2016/09/29/microsoft-expands-artificial-intelligence-ai-efforts-with-creation-of-new-microsoft-ai-and-research-group/ (from the same people that brought to you Tay, the long lived Twitter bot ) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tay_(bot) jaclaz

Well, no offence intended, but you provided no actual report that you checked the results of using either GPartEd 0.8.0.5 or GPartEd 0.12.0.2 "properly" or that the programs actually produced "proper" partitionings. Xp (actually disk manager) will make a mess of any disk where there are Logical volumes aligned to Mb (this is known), it is very possible that the same happens during install, so you should provide a copy of the MBR partition table (aligned to the cylinder) and of the MBR partition table (aligned to the Mb) or the exact partitioning scheme you used. I never saw any problem with primary partitions, so my guess is that in your setup one or more logical volumes inside Extended are involved. The extended partition/logical volume issue may also happen post install as just changing the active status of any primary partition will botch all logical volumes inside extended, JFYI: http://reboot.pro/topic/9897-vistawin7-versus-xp-partitioning-issue/ http://www.dcr.net/~w-clayton/Vista/DisappearingPartitions/DisappearingPartitions.htm There are also other factors that may come into play depending on the SP level of the XP (big LBA), but I don't think this is the case. jaclaz

No, you will need also the bootsector code from Windows 2000, check the given reference: https://web.archive.org/web/20121017215600/http://nu2.nu/fixnt4/ AND (should you not be aware of this) remember that you most probably need to have NT4 at SP4 level at least: http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=11383 http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?s=&showtopic=11383&view=findpost&p=70389 (maybe it is not needed unless you "ever" boot a later OS on that system, the NTFS version upgrade is sneaky and "dangerous" ) jaclaz

Windows 3.1x is "essentially" a (16 bit) GUI shell for DOS, it can run on *almost any* hardware (or if you prefer it ships with very generic drivers), Windows 9x (while being also "basically" a shell for DOS, but 32 bit [1]) *needs* a set of "more specialized" drivers, if these are not installed (and suitable drivers for the emulated hardware are not present in the Windows 95 install CD) several issues may happen, see the given post AND links in it: http://blogs.msdn.com/virtual_pc_guy/archive/2005/02/15/372846.aspx It is not unlike what people experience today when attempting to install old Operating Systems on "too new" hardware, the OS might not boot, this or that device may not function at all or not function properly, conflicts may arise, etc. @xpclient Just so you know, the screenshot you posted shows (textual) "Windows 95 Not running" . jaclaz [1] ... and now the flamewar on whether Windows 95 is an Operating System or a just a 32 bit shell for dos may begin ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_95#Dependence_on_MS-DOS

Uniata driver has nothing to do with the issue, it is just the INT13 BIOS limitation: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/224526 The UniAta driver may come into play to overcome another limit, the 128 Gib/137 Gb one: http://nt4ref.zcm.com.au/bigdisk.htm Which is present also in windows 2000 (up to SP3): Unfortunately (for whatever reasons) sites which contained a wealth of information on the matter (and related stuff) were "removed" or "abandoned", once again the Wayback Machine" comes to the rescue: http://www.nu2.nu/fixnt4/ https://web.archive.org/web/20121017215600/http://nu2.nu/fixnt4/ Re: the Windows 2000 needed Registry setting: http://www.cpu-central.com/wwwboard/msg71.asp?id=71290 https://web.archive.org/web/20100901065005/http://www.48bitlba.com/enablebiglbatool.htm jaclaz

Well, it's not like you are the only around that made it, just in case see this: and the following post by dawong. I have no idea what the OP is referring to/is sorry about, however it is perfectly possible to run Windows 95 on VPC 2007, it is only a bit more tricky to install. jaclaz

I know and it's fine, I only pointed out a "better" source for devcon and hinted that maybe the services may be removed with it (normall or getting Trusted Installer credentials) without first changing those keys in the Registry. jaclaz

Sure , Qphotorec is not Photorec, it is its GUI version (slightly less powerful but good nonetheless for most simple recoveries) but it has a different name (the Q is for the QT GUI libaries used). jaclaz