jaclaz

Well, it is useful in some cases of data recovery, in the sense that for some time after a 00 wipe, deleted/de-indexed data will be easier to rebuild, but the effect is only marginal (and temporary, once the disk has been used for some time intensively, and possibly filled up there won't be many 00ed sectors anymore). Another reason (not particularly relevant on modern disks) is that when wiping a disk you are write-touching (and verifying) each and every sector, so that possible "bad" sectors or areas that weren't detected as such by the controller will come up (and be replaced or excluded). It has to be considered that, exactly because each and every sector is touched (and it is done sequentially, at the fastest possible speed, in a single session) it is actually provoking stress to the disk (just like restoring a dd-like image), it is a good idea, when possible, to make sure that the disk is cooled adequately (and if needed add a fan to keep it cool), with today largish sizes, a 00 wipe or a dd-like copy restore often takes several hours and for that long period of time the disk is working continuously at the fastest speed possible, generating heat without the inactivity times that in normal operation would allow it to cool down. jaclaz

... that has nothing to do with USB, let alone with WinSetupFromUSB with GUI (this topic) . jaclaz

Yep, but the "traditional", caveman approach I always used (integral dd copy) is not faster than "specific tools" (that can skip unused sectors) unless the volume is full up to the brim. Making a backup of first sector (to be later restored or used as source to replicate the disk signature only, that can be done even with grub4dos before booting to windows) takes only a few seconds, costs nothing and allows to gave the two disks mounted at the same time if needed. jaclaz

That is another aspect, the (ab) use of hardlinks in more recent MS operating systems, this has started (AFAIK) with 7. But on NTFS the problem should only be a lot more space taken on a "flat" (without hard links) filesystem. For 10 it seems like there is the possibility of a hard link migration store: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/deployment/usmt/usmt-hard-link-migration-store (I have no experience whatsoever with these Scanstate and Loadstate tools, with the /hardlink switch) jaclaz

Good to know. So, it is very possible that this is the 0.1% hedge case, though the main culprit still seems to me the UEFI NTFS driver, I mean, if the mkfs.ntfs tool did anything "wrong" chkdsk would have surely throw a fit and/or the root directory would have had some other issues under windows. jaclaz

I don't think that gparted can actually format (apply a filesystem to) a NTFS volume, it may create the partition but the actual filesystem should be created by Windows . Or the feature has been added to it? Otherwise it should be irrelevant, unless (for whatever reasons) the GPT partition entry triggers something strange in the MS format tool used. Anyway the confirmation with your next experiment will be useful. jaclaz

It is NOT renaming it, it is mounting the System file (of the copied system) under a temporary hive in the current Registry (of the PE, or other booted OS) in order to edit values. It is either that (mount in current registry under new name) or using an offline registry editor tool. AFAIK some of the new Windows (I believe since 8 or 8.1, but I may well be wrong and it is only since 10) do not (anymore) automagically and silently change the Disk Signature, when they detect a "duplicated" disk they put it in "offline" mode. Only when you manually (why?) put it online again the disk signature will be changed to avoid the collision. jaclaz

Yes, or using an offline Registry editor. But there are TWO keys involved, one is easy (the \DosDevices\C: one), the other one will be something *like* "\??\Volume{317d75f2-eaca-11eb-90ac-806d6172696f}", but it is easily identifiable as it has the same value/contents of the "\DosDevices\C:". And here you open a (small) can of worms, there is another thing that will change (another reason why it won't be a "clone"), the actual 317d75f2-eaca-11eb-90ac-806d6172696f is a V1 UUID that is generated the fitrst time the XP "sees" (and mounts) the volume, and V1 UUID's are generated from some hardware values (MAC address) and from the current date/time. This won't prevent the XP with the newly generated keys to work, of course, still you will alter a data point. It has to be tested, but I don't think that the disk signature/drive letter assignment or the Registry have changed. jaclaz

Robocopy is fine, only the result isn't a "Clone". it is a "Copy". But it should work fine, the possible issue (that you seemingly did NOT have[1]) is with Disk Signature, clearly the SSD has a different disk signature from the original disk. XP identifies partitions/volumes (and assigns drive letters to them) through a combination of disk signature+offset to the beginning of the volume stored in the Registry. Normally you would have to either: 1) restore on the newly initialized SSD the "old" disk signature OR: 2) delete the related keys under HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\MountedDevices (or the whole set of keys under that path) In case #1 XP would boot exactly as before (no possible issues [2]) In case #2 XP would recreate the proper keys from the disk and partition(s)/volume(s) data (this in some cases may lead to a different drive letter assignment) So, all in all, you were lucky (or your setup was so simple that the failsafe provisions implemented in the OS worked), after all life is good . Rest assured that in case of multiple disks/multiple volumes/manually assigned drive letters you need one (or both) the above described procedures in order to boot and have the same drive letter assignment as before, not really-really a problem, since the worst that can happen would be a failure to boot, but nothing would be "damaged" and to fix it is just a matter of deleting a couple keys from a booted PE and reboot. Though in theory the disk signature could be used by any other program, in practice this doesn't happen AFAIK (most probably because the sheer existence of it is not documented by the good MS guys) Good to know that in your case it wasn't needed. jaclaz [1] there is a possible explanation, being that you had at first boot only the SSD and only a partition on it, so the XP auto-fixed the Registry, all in all it had an assignment of C: to a disk and volume that was not (anymore) present and the only volume it found was the single one on the SSD, from which it booted, so it had to assign to it drive letter C:, this is very likely a sort of failsafe (not entirely unlike the one in NTLDR that attempts booting from C:1Windows if BOOT.INI is not found. [2] except in your specific case , as it would not have worked as you would have had a same disk signature but a wrong volume offset (since you aligned it to 1 MB or 2048 sectors instead of the traditional 63)

Latest news I have: https://msfn.org/board/topic/182107-grub4dos-for-uefi/page/4/#comment-1233863 In a nutshell, there were some issues with the hosting/provider AND the actual machine, so it was shut down and Nuno is going to re-deploy on a new machine from last backup. jaclaz

I was thinking that you could make a short video of when you do these updates, and create a Youtube channel to publish these videos, the simple text description may not transmit to the audience enough the emotions you feel when implementing these updates. Besides (right now) the site gives a 404: jaclaz

And don't forget, other reasons why you could be dead, a short, non exhaustive list: floods lightnings meteorites wars trains derailing drunk drivers or more generally traffic accidents robbers and rapists other crazy people with weapons slipping in your bathroom falling from stairs poison in your food or environment lethal viruses and bacteria ... It's a tough world. jaclaz

Isn't it inside the Windows 98 reskit? A copy is on archive.org, cannot say if it contains what you are looking for: https://archive.org/details/mswin98rskt jaclaz EDIT: it should be also on the "normal" 98 install CD: https://kompy.info/deploying-windows-98-using-batch-98-and-infinst-exe-table-of-c.html#Creating_the_Msbatch.inf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaspersky_bans_and_allegations_of_Russian_government_ties jaclaz

I see now, ignored (content) is not blocked (user) in my dictionary, thanks. I actually have (since years) a couple users' signatures ignored (only because they are confounding me). Didn't know I was "unblockable", it is years that I am not anymore a mod, maybe something remained sticky from back then, or maybe I am just senior enough. jaclaz

Update: Seemingly I was not "blocked"[1] by legacyfan, it was a misunderstanding, the "him" was "you" (D.Draker), I am told that "you" are "blocked"[1] by legacyfan. jaclaz [1] whatever "blocked" means, I am still failing to understand what it does and how you can "block" (or "unblock") an user on this forum

It seems to me like a re-post of the one you posted here about Nintendo closing down (which BTW is NOT a joke and IS NOT funny): Why don't you change the title of this thread (and of the one senselessly duplicated on Wincert) to something more accurate (the general idea is that a topic title should reflect the content of the topic), like (only ideas): "Whatever crosses my mind (by legacyfan)" or "What if a technical forum was Twitter (by legacyfan)" jaclaz

About reboot.pro, you need some patience, I just got a message from Nuno, he is migrating the board to a new machine since the old one had issues and *for some reasons* it was made inaccessible by the provider. I believe it will take a few days, maybe a little more, as the migrating process (from remote) is not "easy-peasy". jaclaz

1. should install normally 2. you don't, even 2007 is tricky: https://msfn.org/board/topic/163488-office-2007-in-windows-2000/ jaclaz

"make the L and the F capital" is too long .... jaclaz

Am I blocked by legacyfan? Good , didn't even know it was a thing on the forum, I had this feeling that some people takes Msfn as Twitter or Facebook ... jaclaz

What do you mean? Enable AutoLogon? Here (pdf): https://www.hmisource.com/otasuke/files/appnotes/APNT1090.pdf jaclaz

A most peculiar use of "they", interesting. jaclaz

You mean without the daily senseless bickering on actual technical topics and the meaningless wishful thinking and do-goodism non-technical topics that permeated the board lately? It was once like that, good times ... jaclaz

Yes and no. At the time Steve6375 did a lot of tests and reported results on reboot.pro (which right now is offline ): reboot.pro/topic/16783-rmprepusb-faster-fat32-write-access-on-flash-memory-drives/ There is/was some further minor improvements with - if I recall correctly - aligning the first data cluster past the volume label, and then there is a possible advantage depending on the actual "page size" of the flash memory/controller. In any case this only affects (noticeably) "slow" media such as USB sticks, for those Steve made the provision in RMPREPUSB: https://rmprepusb.blogspot.com/2014/06/increase-speed-of-your-sd-card-or-flash.html jaclaz