jaclaz

Well, among the "portable devices" we have here both an EEEPC and an Acer One, and though they do have smallish screens and a tiny keyboard, they are not at all that bad, when I am on the move I use either of them with very little difficulties (though I do carry with me also a - tiny as well - mouse, as the trackpad is - at least to me - an "emergency only" pointing device). The biggest hurdle as reported here: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/172826-windows-10-first-impressions/?p=1098622 on the iPad or similar devices are the accented/specific language characters. jaclaz

Sure but I think that the good MS guys or their advertisers (as often happens) have a mixed attitude. It seems like the spot is about attempting to sell a stupid (and stupidly expensive): http://www.cnet.com/products/microsoft-surface-3/ device as a replacement for a laptop, or rather a tiny 10.8" screen netbook,something that you can normally buy for anything between 300 an 400 US$, since the final message is "The tablet that can replace your laptop", and it is offered including Office 365, so in theory the base assumption is that the intended target ALREADY has a laptop and plausibly he/she has a laptop because he/she does on it things that can be and are often done on a laptop. It would be consequent that in order to sell this new device one would show how great it is when used as used as a laptop, let's say showing a middle aged, balding accountant sitting at a table in a badly lighted airport bar inputting numbers on the keyboard (optional keyboard that you can buy separately for a mere US$ 129 BTW ). Frankly it would be a far less entertaining spot, but what they show in the spot is instead some senseless (or hipster according to you ) use of it as a tablet, that would be consistent if the scope and catch phrase was "The tablet that can replace your tablet" . jaclaz

Well, I see no reason why something cannot be hip fine without being confusing, deceiving or plainly stupid. But, according to the mouth of the wolf: http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-8/join-domain-workgroup-homegroup jaclaz

Please, READ again point #6 of the READ-ME-FIRST! If - no matter because you do not understand English or you are not familiar with electronics - you have difficulties with it, see if you can find a friend that can help you . It is NOT POSSIBLE to convert USB to Serial (nor serial to TTL nor USB to TTL) by simply changing pinouts, they are DIFFERENT communication protocols, additionally using DIFFERENT voltage levels. GOOD: Your PC's Serial Port->RS232 to TTL[1] converter->Hard disk Your PC's USB port ->USB to TTL[1] converter->Hard disk Your PC's USB port ->USB to RS232 converter->RS232 to TTL[1] converter->Hard disk BAD: Anything not listed under "GOOD" above. YOU CANNOT build yourself *anything* until you understand the BASICS of this matter, and if you understand the BASICS of this matter you wouldn't be here asking crazy questions. See if you understand better reading this : http://www.robotizando.com.br/artigo_conversor_ttl_pg2.php jaclaz [1] TTL at 3.3 V level AND NOT TTL at 5V level.

Yes, of course. Right now you have 5 options in your menu.lst title Grldr Loading BOOTMGRtitle Grldr loading second disktitle Grldr loading second disk and exchangetitle Grldr loading first part on 2nd disktitle Grldr loading first part on 2nd disk and exchangeAFAICT all of them should lead to successfully boot the Windows 7 on the second disk, but you have to check that, then you choose just one, let's say the first one. You can then have a very simple menu.lst like: Which should simply boot to the Windows 7, which can be even simplified to: or maybe a "boot" command is needed in this last case, i.e.: And yes, sure, exception made for C: and D: you can use disk manager to change drive letters of all other volumes the way you wish, of course you will need to do it twice, once in XP's Disk Manager and once in t the 7's Disk Manager. (drive letter assignment is stored in the Registry of each OS) jaclaz

So basically, if I set up a friend's PC (or a stolen one ) or a leased one I have to lie? I know I am picky, mainly because I am very picky, but all this time I thought that ownership and possession are not the same thing. Particularly in times of (senseless) BYOD, I guess it will manage to have a lot of grown ups (good, honest people) cry, being it additionally "reinforced" by the : In 2015 IMHO: the choice should be NOT at all importantit should be trivial to switch from "that ID" (which one? ) to anyone else, any timeit should be NOT MS business to ensure that I have access to important company resources or somehow prevent it jaclaz

Look at it this way. The thing depicted in the image you posted is a translator. It understands Portuguese and translates it in German and viceversa. The hard disk speaks and understands Portuguese only, the serial (RS-232) speaks and understands German only and the USB speaks and understand English only. So: If your computers speaks German (through a Serial port), that thingy should be able to translate the German to the Portuguese the hard disk understands and back. If your computer speaks English (through a USB port) you CANNOT connect to it that thingy, and you will need between PC and that another translator (the USB to RS-232 converter) translating from English to German and back OR a different translator that directly understands English (USB) and can translate to Portuguese (TTL) and viceversa. The hard disk is particularly picky and while it speaks Portuguese (TTL) it only speaks the 3.3V level variant (let's say Brazilian Portuguese) and NOT the 5 V level variant (European Portuguese). There is no way I can tell from your photo if that RS-232 to TTL adapter is 3.3V or 5V level. A 3.3V TTL level will SURELY work. A 5V TTL level will most likely NOT work. It is not a very difficult concept, the idea is to communicate and in order to do so you need devices that talk between them a same language, if you have doubts maybe you can find a friend which is more familiar with the matter (or with English, or both) that may be able to assist you, reading point #6 and following, it is all written there, in an as plain manner as I could manage. jaclaz

The whole point here is not about what you use or what you use for what knowingly (being it "normal" or "abnormal"), it is about what data the good MS guys think fair getting from you unknowingly. jaclaz

@mcsoba That is a SERIAL (or RS-232) to TTL adapter. You need a SERIAL port on your computer (better) OR a SERIAL to USB converter, something *like* these: http://www.ftdichip.com/Products/Cables/USBRS232.htm OR, alternatively, you need a USB to TTL converter, something *like*: http://www.ftdichip.com/Products/Cables/USBTTLSerial.htm Please, DO READ the READ-ME-FIRST, FIRST, particularly points #6 and #10 : http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/143880-seagate-barracuda-720011-read-me-first/ jaclaz

Yes and no. It is important to understand the difference between a boot manager and a boot loader, and since most of the tools are at the same time BOTH, it is easy to get confused. A boot manager is something that can chainload (or pass control to) a boot loader. A boot loader is something that directly loads an Operating System. The default boot manager for NT through Server 2003 is NTLDR. NTLDR is also the one and ONLY boot loader for NT through Server 2003. The default boot manager for Vista and later is BOOTMGR. BOOTMGR is also the one and ONLY boot loader for Vista and later. NTLDR is at the same time a boot manager and a boot loader FOR NT/2K/XP/2003 ONLY. BOOTMGR is at the same time a boot manager and a boot loader for Vista , 7 and later BUT among it's boot manager features it has the capability to chainload the NTLDR, using it as a boot loader. See here (that includes a nice set of graphics): http://www.multibooters.co.uk/multiboot.html Simplified, right now to boot XP you use only NTLDR, and since NTLDR by itself cannot chainload BOOTMGR, we use grub4dos as a "man in the middle" (as an intermediate boot manager). If you change the primary boot manager from NTLDR to BOOTMGR you can get rid of grub4dos, since BOOTMGR can chainload NTLDR "directly". In order to do this you will need to have a copy of the BOOTMGR and of the \boot\BCD on your first disk and change the PBR on the Active partition of it to load BOOTMGR instead of NTLDR, then add to the \boot\BCD a choice to load the NTLDR (if - by any chance - you use Bitlocker it will be needed to change also the MBR code). The MS tools to do the above are bootsect.exe and bcdedit.exe, as they are a bit complex to use, ask before attempting to use them and if needed I will provide you with the exact procedure . jaclaz

Well, you cannot use NTLDR to boot Windows 7, which is what you are attempting to do with this line: Now, be nice . Start again. You want this BOOT.INI: and add to the first disk (together with boot.ini), this menu.lst: and of course a grldr file, you can get it from the latest 0.4.5c version: http://grub4dos.chenall.net/downloads/grub4dos-0.4.5c-2015-04-08/ http://dl.grub4dos.chenall.net/grub4dos-0.4.5c-2015-04-08.7z Theory of operation: Bios boots the MBR of first disk. The MBR code loads the PBR of the Active partition on first disk. The PBR code loads the NTLDR (residing on the active partition on first disk) The NTLDR loads the BOOT.INI choices. You choose "Grub4dos to Windows 7". The NTLDR chainloads the grldr file (grub4dos). The grldr loads the menu.lst choices. You choose the "Grldr Loading BOOTMGR" choice. The grldr looks in all volumes on all disks if he can find in the root a file "BOOTMGR". Then it chainloads the found BOOTMGR. The other entries (that should all work) are other variations with the same final goal of chainloading BOOTMGR on the first partition of second disk. The BOOTMGR loads the choices in \boot\BCD (possibly just one in your case) You choose to boot to Windows 7 (or wait until the timeout in \boot\BCD) and BOOTMGR chainloads WINLOAD.EXE (which is what actually boots the Windows 7). If you prefer, when you boot and choose the "Windows XP", you are using NTLDR as both primary boot manager and bootloader, when you boot and choose "Grub4dos to Windows 7" NTLDR is used only as primary boot manager, grub4dos becomes the secondary boot manager and BOOTMGR becomes tertiary boot manager and boot loader. I know it is confusing , but you should have no issues in following the above with some patience. jaclaz

Sure, and to change boot one would need to change drive order in BIOS, which brings us back where it all began, i.e. here: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/156859-drive-order/?p=1005033 which, starting from here: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/156859-drive-order/?p=1005435 details the grub4dos usage to have each OS "independent". jaclaz

Wait a minute. Try EXACTLY the example given by Joakim http://reboot.pro/files/file/237-runassystem-and-runfromtoken/ jaclaz

Try insulating the "other" set of contacts or try with the PCB completely detached from the drive, see here: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/128807-the-solution-for-seagate-720011-hdds/?p=1079049 jaclaz

Appalling. Thanks for that link, really interesting. All in all I would then see even less reasons to run an ugly, bloated OS as a host for the virtualization, at the end of the day, I would rather have (say) QNX running a VM , hey, wait, seemingly it is exactly what the good guys at QNX are after : http://berryflow.com/2015/02/blackberrys-qnx-launches-hypervisor-1-0-vmm/ jaclaz

Well, if you install first XP, the volume on which you install it (let's say the first primary partition of first hard disk) will get drive letter C:. When you install the Windows 7 that volume will remain C: and the volume (let's say first primary partition of second disk) will get a "later" drive letter. The booting until you have only the XP installed will go: BIOS->First Disk MBR->Active Primary partition PBR (this will be C:\)->NTLDR->BOOT.INI->Windows XP once you will have installed the 7 it will go either: BIOS->First Disk MBR->Active Primary partition PBR (this will be C:\)->BOOTMGR->\boot\BCD->XP choice->NTLDR->BOOT.INI->Windows XP or: BIOS->First Disk MBR->Active Primary partition PBR (this will be C:\)->BOOTMGR->\boot\BCD->7 choice->Winload.exe (on second disk partition, possibly D:\)->Windows 7 If you have only one primary partition on the first disk that will be C: under both OS, whilst the first primary partition on second disk will be D:, again on both OS. As always, using a few tricks and/or a third party bootmanager this can be changed if this is not the expected result. jaclaz

Yoiu convinced me . I am pretty sure you have enough grounds to sue Jumper . But seemingly Drugwash only tried to make you aware of current status of the thingy, answering your question, maybe he deserved not the lecture on GPL compliance and opportunity or using version control. jaclaz

Yep , and I would go further. Tablets (and smartphones) are contributing to killing syntax and grammar of languages or force the user to write in an invented, simplified, language, not suitable for any meaningful purpose. This effect goes almost unnoticed in English because it is an alphabetically simple language, but I can assure you that in languages like Italian and French (and I believe German also) where some "special" characters are needed the result is very noticeable. Till the simplified language was confined (understandably) to kids and to SMS's it was of course fine, but you simply cannot write properly (or it takes you such an effort that it is highly counterproductive) on the "simplified" screen keyboard of a smartphone/tablet. Little by little everyone starts removing accents, proper punctuation, etc. and the result is appalling. About this: as I see it the issue is not with tablets in themselves (which I believe when used for the right scopes are nice little thingies), but in the (false) perception (of course fueled by the advertising and what not) that they are a replacement for a "real" computer, while in reality they may represent an extension to it, or rather a different commodity. I am typing this on a very normal desktop, I have before me a 22" display which is set at the right distance to allow me to see the text I type comfortably, I have under my hands a "real" keyboard (IBM M ), I don't need to look at it to type (and it doesn't cover half the screen area), if I notice an error I have arrow keys that allow me to move the cursor back where I need to make a correction, I have both a "backspace" and a "del" key, I can use SHIFT+ arrow keys to select text, etc., etc. I have a teeny/tiny laptop, which I use when I have to do some work on the move, which is in my perverted mind an extension to the above main PC, and while less convenient for typing, and forcing me to a not fully comfortable posture, is OK for the occasional activity. My mom has an iPad which is an exceptionally good device for what she uses it for (e-mails, some Facebook, a few games, listening to music, looking for info, timetables and the like, searching translations or the occasional definition on dictionaries, researching this or that topic on Wikipedia or similar) which I happen to use from time to time and as long as I do those same activities on it (excluded Facebook) it is a pretty nifty little thingie, but I would not even dream of using it to work with it on (say) an Excel spreadsheet. Now: Would I possibly buy "a" tablet? Possibly yes , my smartphone (which is anyway a very "large" model) has a far too small screen to allow me to read comfortably, and even if my netbook is a very small one it is anyway not "perfect" in portability, I would find an use for the tablet to have it (say) near my couch at home ready if I want to check some info on the internet or have it with me and use it as an e-book reader in a waiting room. Would I possibly buy specifically a "Windows" tablet? Not really , simply because there is no way I could use it as a replacement to any of the other two devices for the use I have for them, and if all I would use it for is some internet browsing, occasional e-mail checking, etc. there is no real reason why I would prefer having a Windows OS, both iOS and Android do that nicely and they are both all in all "user friendly enough", and I am pretty sure that even the stupid Windows 8/8.1 (and the next 10) would do as well nicely for these trivial activities, if I had to choose (being notoriously cheap) I would probably go for the less expensive thingie that would fulfill my requirements which may (or may not) be a Windows based one. In a world where everything will be (before or later) internet based the focus will probably shift from OS to browser, and just like it is now with Chrome vs. Firefox vs. Safari vs. IE vs. Opera[1], etc. the personal preferences would be more aimed to having available your browser of choice on the given hardware platform and the OS will probably fade away in the background. jaclaz [1]For the record after having fought uselessly against Chrome, I have Opera (mini) on my Android smartphone and it is not too shabby.

@Formfiller Sorry to say so, but you are IMHO missing the whole point. It was noticed alright, as it is talked about in the actual release blog post for that build, here: http://blogs.windows.com/bloggingwindows/2015/04/22/windows-10-technical-preview-build-10061-now-available/ The issue here is that a build with such an ENORMOUS issue should have never have come even NEAR a release, and that IF that happened the release should have been canceled, instead of "downsizing" the issue as a mere bug (even if described as "a bit painful") and providing a (lousy) workaround: Imagine Toyota (I am taking Toyota as an example as they have built for themselves over the years a fame for their reliability and pursuit of excellence) engineers presenting a car at specialized press for a drive test (i.e. well before going into mass production and selling the car, just presenting it as a "preview") telling the journalists: "There is a bit painful bug in this car as it doesn't have seats, as a workaround you can use these fruit crates". Unconceivable. jaclaz

Internal testers? WHAT internal testers? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072431/quotes?item=qt0484668 More seriously, I don't think it is intentional, I believe that the level of internal testing (if any) is so low that such a big tree lobster could go unnoticed, most probably the "internal testing" (again if any at all) is surely focused to LOLz and Facebook and Bing and not to actually "working". I mean, if - say - a lesser known program like (in the US) TurboTax doesn't start, it is a bug, if their own Office suite programs don't it means the NO productivity program has been tested. But a mistake can happen to everyone , I have nothing against the good MS guys that were involved in the (completely failed) testing, what I am saying that Gabe Aul calling this "a bug" is totally inappropriate , any senceful "project manager" would have HALTED the release instead. Imagine - say - Ford selling the Pinto knowing that it was dangerous in case of accidents .... NO, wait, I got the wrong example : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto#Allegations_and_lawsuits but anyway that happened some 40 years ago, maybe something has changed for the better in the meantime... jaclaz

Sure , I was just highlighting how things should be called with their name, IF that is a bug, it is a "tree lobster": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dryococelus_australis jaclaz

The normal XP booting: BIOS->MBR->PBR->NTLDR->Choices in BOOT.INI: 1. arcpath to Windows installation 2. PBR/bootsector copy pointing to the CMDCONS (Recovery Console) The way the Recovery Console is loaded is detailed here (JFYI): http://reboot.pro/topic/2362-makebscmd-alpha-release/#entry18878 The normal Vista booting: BIOS->MBR->PBR->BOOTMGR->Choices in \boot\BCD: 1. path to Windows installation WINLOAD.EXE The Vista booting installed after the Windows XP: BIOS->MBR->PBR->BOOTMGR->Choices in \boot\BCD: 1. path to Windows installation WINLOAD.EXE + ANY ENTRY in BOOT.INI which is NOT an arcpath i.e. 2. PBR/bootsector copy pointing to the CMDCONS (Recovery Console), if needed pre-modified with the "cmdcons" string as per given reference. The real issue you may have is if you use the same volume to install the XP and the Vista (because of possible conflicts with paths), if you install (say) the XP to C:\ (first primary partition, active) and the Vista to (still say) D:\ (either second primary partition or logical volume inside extended) you will be fine. In any case, you can still add to the BOOT.INI (to be parsed by the BOOTMGR) a copy of a PBR loading the "old" NTLDR or add to it grldr (grub4dos) and from it boot *anything*. jaclaz

I don't get it. The original XP Ramdisk.sys[1] does work nicely though it needs a registry "patch" and it is limited to 512 Mbyte (not because of itself, but rather because of some limitations in the loader(s)) the size issue when booting is seemingly with the version of the loaders, see: http://www.911cd.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=25389 http://reboot.pro/topic/9474-busting-the-myth-about-ramdisksys-xp2003/ As often happens, it is not clear what is your "final GOAL" (NOT the way you believe you should use to get to it). Care to detail that (the final GOAL)? It is possible that it can be reached through other paths. jaclaz [1] Not really, I am actually lying SP0 and SP1 were never AFAIK/AFAICR tested

Well, no . That is NOT a "bug". A bug is something that by definition is small and thus not immediately evident, that is an essential, basic, fundamental, requisite of a graphical OS, being capable to start a program from the UI part designed to start programs, heck, it is called "Start menu", that is a LARGE (PINK) ELEPHANT! not something that would go unnoticed... jaclaz

Yep, a VM would be a perfect test bed. As a side note 99.9999% of (please read as *all* ) "recovery partitions" are Primary volumes on MBR disks (and of course all volumes in GPT are primary partitions) so there won't be issues in the suggested "make a copy of the disk from sector 0 (the MBR) up to the beginning of first partition/volume", but in the extremely rare (please read as non-existing) case of a recovery partition being actually a logical volume inside extended one would need to additionally save the whole chain of EMBR's. jaclaz