jaclaz

Maybe doing a full boot time log with Procmon would help. Hmmm. jaclaz

Well, besides being myself (sucking), you stated and re-stated how ALL MS OS suck or sucked in their time, exception made for (maybe) Windows 7 and now Windows 8/8.x (but only your specially tuned version doesn't suck). I am of the opposite opinion, i.e. not only NONE of MS OS sucked in their time (well, wait, no , exception made for Vista as released) and - as a matter of fact - they don't even suck (much) nowadays (which does not mean that many betterings were not made at each new OS release and not even that some - few - betterings were not made lately). I have been happily and contentedly computing before DOS, in DOS times, in Windows 3.1x times, in Windows NT times, in 2K times (sorry 9x/Me friends I actually never used those) and in XP times, and I am pretty sure that - when I will find an actual reason/need to switch to 7 or to a later OS, I will be able - like I managed to do all these years - to continue happily and contentedly computing alright. While reportedly all these years you lived and worked unsatisfied of the operating systems and hardware you had, dreaming of better ones until Windows 7 came: but still you were not happy or contented about them and it took you years or months to tweak them in such a way to satisfy you. I fully understand how after living so many years working in environments that didn't fully satisfy you, and dreaming about better computing experiences once you finally managed, through some really hard work, to reach your dream you are very proud of the result, and you wish to tell everyone how your lifetime dream became reality , still, maybe you overdo it a bit when you regularly and repeatedly downplay other people's (more modest) experience, used Operating System or hardware, underlining the uniqueness of your achievements, boasting how powerful and what not is your extremely top-end system, how smooth goes each and every operation you perform on them and how all other people are having a worse computing experience than you have. Now: jaclaz

@submix8c Yes , I also noticed the 11602 MB free on a 1 Mb partition queerness when retyping the contents of the screenshot, first time I thought I had made a typo, but it is actually in the image, though I would not give to it too much relevance, it is entirely possible that it is a "glitch in the matrix". No MBR CODE may be "peculiar" as you wish (or be missing altogether) but the DATA (i.e. the partition table entries) should remain however "standard" (though it would be well possible that the Windows XP setup parses *something* strangely) @oldtiger64 No matter what setup/solution/approach you will choose, you next step should be to make a backup copy of the MBR and post a copy of it for examination. To make this backup, get HDhacker (don't be fooled by the name, it is a commonly used tool useful to simply backup some relevant sectors of the hard disk): http://dimio.altervista.org/eng/ You want to run it, then, in "Drive to operate": Select "Physical Drive (MBR)" Choose Physical drive "0" (since you have only one disk that will be it) in Select sector, leave the default of "First Sector (MBR)" selcted Click on "Read sector from disk" Click on "Save sector to file", saving the file as (say) C:\HPoriginal.mbr Then compress the C:\HPoriginal.mbr into a .zip archive and attach to your next post the .zip archive file (NOT the .mbr one). jaclaz

Hmmm , given that: and that: and that you seemingly spend what little remains of that time by bragging about how good you are at doing your demanding stuff on your top class hardware, perfectly tweaked and set up (only thanks to your unique and superior to anyone else experience and knowledge): you are most probably right. I seem however to better enjoy my free time, and I have to remark how should being me actually suck, it would anyway suck in a modest, minimal way, requiring much less experience and computing power. _______________________________________________________________________________________________ JFYI, the above represents a line, which is the thing you just crossed, or - to be more exact - the thing beyond which your ego expanded. jaclaz

Well, the story is nearing the end, once also the SwitcherQE will have been tested (hopefully with success) all that remains is to double check everything and "RTM". Being the smart guy I am , I left however open the possibility of a sequel, for which your opinion/ideas/etc. would be appreciated, here is the rough storyboard (second part of the post): http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/173265-formatting-an-external-drive-using-different-interfaces/?p=1095074 jaclaz P.S.: As a bonus for the (affectionate) readers of this saga, find attached the (hopefully) final version of the accompanying Excel worksheet, as always password protected, but the password is empty PriLogxls.zip

But anyway all this has nothing to do with my use of WIN31FAHR as unit of measure and it's accuracy. Was NT 4.00 8 to 16 time better than WIN311? You can bet on it. Was 2K 16 to to 64 times better than WIN311? Hmmm, surely 16 to 32 times better, maybe not 64 times so. Was XP 64 to 128 times better than WIN311? Hmmm, hardly 64 to 128 times better, was it 2 to 4 times better than 2K? . ... We can use however MISNT4 as an alternate unit of measure . MISNT4 equates to the minimal install size of a NT 4.00, which is a little less than 200 Mb, 175 or 180 if I recall correctly. Windows 2000 at around 700 Mb scores a MISNT4 of around 3 and actually reflects how better 2K was when compared to NT 400. Windows XP at around 1500 Mb scores a MISNT4 of around 8, i.e. more than double, almost triple the 2k, but without corresponding "enhancements". Vista and it's Service Pack 3 rectius Windows 7 grew to some 12 Gb, if I recall correctly, i.e a score of 67 MISNT4 or a x8 growth when compared to XP, almost 20 (twenty) times when compared to 2K, and in this case the lack of corresponding enhancements seems to me self-evident. As said, not only it is sad, but when analyzed through these units of measure, sadder. jaclaz

OT, and JFYI, that is quite common, and we have an exception to confirm the rule : http://reboot.pro/topic/3380-sounds-arabic-for-me/page-2#entry24277 And don't worry , you didn't open (till now) any "new" can of worms, this one has been opened since a long time. BUT, now that you have posted the relevant info, you indeed opened an (almost) new one . I am re-attaching your image, so that other people may have a look at it without downloading the file and opening it in Word. Textually, the situation is the following: D: Partition1 (HP_recovery) [NTFS] 1 MB (11602 Mb free) H: Partition2 (System) [NTFS] 1025 MB (648 Mb free) C: Partition3 (Windows) [NTFS] 618676 MB (545528 Mb Free) E: Partition4 (HP:Tools) [FAT32] 95702 MB (2018 Mb free) And we have a problem. The MBR partitioning scheme (which is what is commonly used up to Windows 7, with Windows 8+ trying to switch to GPT) only has 4 (four) partition entries (imagine them as 4 "slots"). This means that you can have ONLY up to: a. 4 primary partitions b. 3 primary partitions + 1 Extended (the extended partition can contain many volumes) and since right now it seems like you have all 4 "slots" taken by 4 primary partitions you cannot have additional volumes. This particularly can of worm, is not completely new: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/150419-solved-what-gives-after-4-primary-drives/ but it does make things slightly more complex, and the presence of the HP_recovery and of the HP_Tools partitions may additionally mean that you are using a "peculiar" MBR code, that MUST be backed up/preserved as recreating it might be if not impossible, absurdly difficult: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/131620-hp-notebook-the-recovery-partition-could-not-be-found/ So, we will need to make an even more accurate "plan" than expected. jaclaz

Actually the premise is that "it doesn't matter what is the OP wishes" , in the sense that he might be unaware of the strings attached to the one (or the other) drive lettering schemes and thus we tried offering him (and everyone else) choices. Till now cdob's experiments : provided two nice and easy enough methods (needing not to use a migrate.inf) to obtain in the end: the C:\ drive letter assigned to the "XP partition" a "first available", but NOT C:\, drive letter assigned to the "XP partition" BUT the C:\ drive letter assigned in XP to the "Windows 7 partition"The mentioned guide used as reference provided instead a much less than optimal experience, as in the provided screenshot: as though you can later change (in XP) the drive letter of the "7 partition" to C:\, since the E:\ is "fixed" (as changing a system drive letter of an installed XP, though possible, is a complex and prone to error procedure) you would remain with a "hole" represented by the "D:\" drive letter (unless you want to assign it in XP to the "boot" partition that doesn't have a drive letter in 7). jaclaz

NO hurry whatever. jaclaz

Sure , but the ultimate sophistication is simplicity. Please try the attached, the only (meaningful) change/new "limitation" is that the NTFS volume will be assigned a Label of either Data_4kb or Data_512, something that could be actually called a "feature". Test it and let me know what you think ... jaclaz SwitcherQE001.zip

@NoelC We are in the usual disagreement. It is not about what can be done, but on what is actually done by most people, and which part of that is actually productive. Not everyone develops software. Not everyone has a multi-monitor setup. Not everyone writes programs while video-conferencing with someone at the other end of the planet. Most people in their work hours or when using a computer for their business write letters, or input data in a vertical app, or makes a few calculations on a (usually lousy and half-@§§ed) spreadsheet. Anyway back in the old days we had a specific device, called telephone, to talk two-way (optionally hands-free) with other people, another specific device, called radio or tape player to have music (usually not when working), if you think about it a little bit, the new integration of these devices/functions into the PC has been possible only partially due to the evolution of the operating systems, and much more by the evolution of the hardware (but even more than that by the increased bandwidth of our connections, which again is hardware) and the decreasing of costs. But if you think only at the OS, sure Windows 3.1x sucked (and sometimes sucked big), but if you think of it (circa 1992/93) as an evolution over what was available (say) 3 years before it was great. And if you go back to good ol' NT3.51/4.00 times, 3 years later (1995/96), it was actually really years ahead. (and the whole system used 8 to 16 W311FAHR) But roughly 3 years later, Windows 2000 (which was an improvement over NT 4.00 in many ways) brought not that many changes. (and the whole system used 16 to 64 W311FAHR) And 2 years later XP didn't bring much (meaningful) ones. (while using at least, but still for the whole system, 64 to 128 W311FAHR) Another 6 years later (double that period) Vista didn't bring any. (and really-really needed 256 W311FAHR) And another 3 years later Vista SP3 rectius Windows 7 brought only marginal enhancements/additions (and everyone started bickering about the need of using 64 bits to have more than 512 W311FAHR) And another 3 years later 8 didn't bring any. Now look at Windows 10 and compare it with what was available 3 years ago. It is sad, and as said sadder if you put it in a wider perspective. jaclaz

Not at all, we are currently hung up on a partition/volume that is not "seen" by the Windows XP setup and in the meantime (until that issue is - hopefully - solved) we are playing the drive letter game. You are actually rowing on a huge hole with some remnants of the boat around it. To sum up: most people like (or are forced by ignorance - no offence whatever intended ) to have their Windows (be it XP or 7 or *whatever*) installed to the C:\ drive letter even those that know how (and like or want ) to install to a different drive letter, when dual booting choose (wrongly [1] BTW) to have SAME volumes have DIFFERENT drive letters assigned to them according to the actual OS booted a few people (rightly[1] BTW) set up their system in such a way that NO MATTER WHICH OS is booted all accessible/mounted volumes have the SAME drive letters assigned to the SAME volume (this as an example allows - without checking in which OS you are currently booted into - that a batch, or a setting in a program, etc, will always "land" on the SAME, INTENDED volume) STILL a number of programs (because of ignorance, stupidity or both of the people who wrote them - this time with some offence intended ) will only work when hosted on drive letter C:\ (or write their settings or their output only on drive C:\ ) so these aspects need to be taken into account when setting up a system Ultimately, assigning the drive letter can be either a mere "preference" of the user or a NEED, but in both cases, if we can have the freedom to choose, we have the right to choose, and everyone can choose (hopefully wisely): http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097576/quotes?item=qt0357926 jaclaz [1]Compare with: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/169320-dual-booting-dos-and-win7/

And you get right here : http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/172826-windows-10-first-impressions/page-8#entry1093084 jaclaz

Been extremely dinosaurish I would like to point out a different unit of measure, the W311FAHR (only to put things into perspective ) A W311R equates to 4 Mb of RAM, i.e. to the amount of RAM present in a PC the hardware on which a WHOLE Windows 3.11 Operating system ran normally (and on which you could at the time - say - write a letter, or create a spreadsheet, etc. fine, though slowly). A W311FAHR equates to 8 Mb of RAM, i.e. to the amount of RAM present in a PC the hardware on which a WHOLE Windows 3.11 Operating system ran "Fast As Hell". So, we are now at the point where Winamp uses by itself roughly 1 (one) W311FAHR to play some music (which BTW all in all is fine, as at least it is doing "something" ), and the stupid Windows Search uses by itself roughly 2 (two) W311FAHR to do absolutely NOTHING (not "nothing useful", actually "nothing"). Put this way it is even sadder. jaclaz

Yep . WinsetupFromUSB is just one of the methods developed here. However so that you know WinsetupFromUSB uses grub4dos (but also BootICE can use it and as well RMPREPUSB, as a matter of fact the "companion" to RMPREPUSB "Easy2boot" makes use of grub4dos through a set of batches/scripts). jaclaz

Sure they won't work. It is not like you run any tool that you find without having understood the basics and hope that by sheer luck they will fix your problem. Read this: http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=22984 Once you will have digested the contents, you may want to read this one: http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=23408 (a DriveImageXML backup, besides more generally the bootsector of a volume image, holds enough info to rebuild the MBR DATA) jaclaz

You mean you know ONLY 3 of them? However you are still not providing enough info, happy you solved the issue anyway (one way or the other). jaclaz

I was rethinking on the long delay that the diskpart rescan creates, and I tried again not using it but doing instead a "plainer" Mountvol removing/reassigning of drive letter after the switching. Obviously it is rather "immediate". The consequences are seemingly ONLY that the (rightly "switched") volume: does not show in Explorer "root" view it's label (i.e. it remains "Local disk" even if the volume has a label BUT it shows used/free space if you right click on it in Explorer and choose properties it is shown as "RAW", and has NO label (BUT the usage/free space is correct)Apart from those, everything else seems to work "normally". And if I "force" the writing of a label to it it seems like the situation is instantly updated. I have to do a few more tests, but I believe that re-assigning a label to the volume would assure a much faster update and we could get rid of most of the diskpart commands. jaclaz

You have grub (legacy) or grub2 or grub4dos? How (EXACTLY) did you create your stick? Are you using a "flat" BartPE (and using "i386" or "minint") or a .iso/img? Standard Litany, please: http://homepage.ntlworld.com./jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/problem-report-standard-litany.html jaclaz

Another idea (to be tested). Let's set explicitly (and as *recommended*): https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd799232(WS.10).aspx#PartitionStructures the 100 mb partition as ID 0x27, keeping it Active, there would be NO practical difference for Windows 7: http://www.sevenforums.com/installation-setup/182645-system-reserved-changing-partition-type-id-0x27.html What would do Windows XP setup? It won't see it, but would it "force" or "require" the "W: thing" to be active? (or refuse to install if not, not knowing where to put NTLDR, etc.?) And how would it behave for the partition "in the middle" (the largish one hosting Windows 7)? Most probably it will assign to that partition the C:\ drive letter, so a migrate.inf would be needed anyway. If we pre-add to the "W:\ thing" a BOOT.INI with a grldr entry, grldr and a menu.lst pointing to the BOOTMGR on the Windows 7 "system" partition, the XP setup should "keep it", adding to it the actual arcpath to the new install, and you could (once) boot through grub4dos to the Windows 7 and from it "fix the booting" (without needing booting form "external", i.e. (this might be interesting as a side note), what if the 100 Mb partition, set as either 0x07 or 0x27, is made active after (and a copy of NTLDR/NTDETECT.COM and BOOT.INI is made from the ones the setup placed on the (at the time of install) active "W: thing" (which should have gotten according to your experiment the C:\ because it was active at the time of install)? Would the Windows 7 bcdboot (or similar) command add *automagically* the XP as dual boot to the \boot\BCD? Or we still need to edit it manually with BCDedit or similar? jaclaz

Well, maybe there is another aspect to be taken into account. IF I was (which I am not, thank goodness) a Windows 8.x user I would be so terrified by the risk of getting by mistake some malware/virus rectius latish Windows Update file that I would anyway browse the Internet on XP ... , or, given the recent issue with update messing with fonts in XP, possibly Windows 2k . jaclaz

You mean you haven't seen many Windows 8 machines or that you have seen many of them completely idle and only a few of them in action (i.e. actually producing something) ? jaclaz

@bphlpt @submix8c Hey peeps, if you can be temporarily distracted , egrabrych already posted (post #8 of this thread) where to find: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc188782.aspx (same link submix8c just posted) which contain the executables allright. WHAT is the problem? The original code, originally linked to on the March 2001 article: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc301756.aspx see the wayback machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20081211013508/http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc301756.aspx was removed and posted (presumably in an updated form) attached to the new January 2003 article. Or the issue is a "collector approach" to get the (possibly outdated) version that was attached to the March 2001 article? If this is the case, it can be found here : https://web.archive.org/web/20010421023355/http://msdn.microsoft.com/code/default.asp?URL=/code/sample.asp?url=/msdn-files/026/002/215/msdncompositedoc.xml https://web.archive.org/web/20020416170116/http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/01/03/code/Leaks.exe BUT it contains ONLY the code (SOURCE) and needs to be compiled. More generally the scheme for code attached to MSDN magazine is: hxxp://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/<two-digit-year>/<month>/code/ like : https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/01/03/code/* jaclaz

Good to know, particularly the fact that SP3 NTLDR and NTDETECT.COM can "live" above the 48bit LBA limit , but you seemingly cheated in the sense that you made a test on a different setup. In oldtiger64's situation the 100 Mb partition would be the active one, and thus it would most probably get the C:\ drive letter and hold the NTLDR/NTDETECT.COM/BOOT:INI, I presume that a migrate.inf will be needed to avoid this. I mean, making (once it has been made sure that it is "seen" by the setup) the "W: thing" the active partition may be a good thing if the scope is to get the C:\ drive letter assigned to it, but not if one wants to keep the "W:" (or some other drive letter). To be on the safe side I would however add the usual BOOT.INI with a C:\grldr entry and grldr to both the "system" partition and to the "W:" thing, this way there should be a way out should any booting issue arise. jaclaz

Well, no. If you modify the BOOT.INI as submix8c suggested and DO NOT have a menu.lst you will get to a grub> prompt. If in it you type: map (hd0) (hd1) [ENTER] map (hd1) (hd0) [ENTER] when you enter: map --hook [ENTER] the mapping will succeed alright as you will have specified the drive map table. BUT, in your case, there is no need for the Windows 7 to be "first disk", so you need not to remap nor hook anything, and as posted the: title boot 7 from second diskroot (hd1,1)chainloader /bootmgrshould do nicely. Please consider how the (hd1,1) in the above comes from your previous report, the first partition on second disk should be (hd1,0), and normally the BOOTMGR is on the first (active) partition. jaclaz