jaclaz

Well, there are several ways to obtain in the end the result, but what is the problem with adding a menu.lst to the root of first disk (where grldr is)? jaclaz

Thanks . jaclaz

Sure it won*t. If the device (like it is normal) is seen as "Removable" Windows will only allow a single partition on it. You can install a Filter driver" such as cfadisk.sys dummydisk.sys or diskmod.sys in order to have the device seen as "fixed", but of course this will work only on the system(s) where you installed the filter driver. Alternatively you may want to try "flipping the removable bit", there are specific manufacturer tools for this BUT it is complex and potentially risky, as you may end up with a "broken" stick. Maybe we could better try to understand the reason why a single partition, the full size of the stick, doesn't work for you and fix that problem. jaclaz

That is a "green" or "LP" drive, isn't it? We have unfortunately little info on that drive, WHICH IS NOT a Barracuda 7200.11 as the models for which the "main" thread was started, all we have is here (it is a sticky and you should have already found it): http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/150475-st2000dl003-seagate-barracuda-lp-green-2000gb-suddenly-ceases/ jaclaz

Yep , it is needed to review what EXACTLY is shown at that point of the install, the issue is whether the disk is seen (and HOW it is seen and some of the partitions on it are seen - and HOW exactly, but not those starting beyond 128/137 Gb or crossing that boundary) then the SATA drive probably is the "right" one and the issue is somehow connected with LBA48, if the disk is not seen it is possible that the SATA driver is not the "right" one. But even if it is the "right" driver AND the Registry key for LBA48 is enabled, it is still possible that the issue is connected, as hinted in my previous note directed at cdob, with the need of a "boot" partition (what the good MS guys call "system") to host the NTLDR and related files below the LBA48 limit. jaclaz

Good catch See also if you find anything else not easily understandable or that could be however explained better (or in better English), please. jaclaz

Good , then I would call it a day and call the 011 version "RTM" . What about the Readme.txt? Any ideas/suggestions for it? Find attached the tentative "release" version. jaclaz ReadMe.zip

Maybe it is due to the USB connected disk (or to some other disk connected with a "slowish" BUS/interface) , I am using a Virtual Disk, so it is probably as fast as the (SATA) drive on which the image is hosted. I can do nothing to speed up that, I believe. Try the attached (no version number change), at least it provides a more meaningful message. jaclaz Switcher011.zip

Sure XP is 2K (with mainly some bells and whistles added to it), but the method/approach is the same possibly since NT 3.5 and however hasn't changed in up to 8.x (and possibly even the stupid 10 won't be different). jaclaz

Good. That is "queer". I have no such a pause on my machine. there is a slight, maybe 1/3 of a second delay before the "Please wait while DiskPart ..." line appears. How long does it take on your machine to start Diskpart from command line? And if you start it from command line, and you input the "rescan" command how long does it take for the "Please wait while DiskPart ..." line to appear? The attached .gif shows what happens here. jaclaz

Actually the "pause" should be after: not that much to be assumed . Try the attached 011 version , I "joined" a few lines of info and introduced some empty lines to (hopefully) better highlight what is being done. jaclaz EDIT: Removed, see a few posts below.

Would those references on Veign's site to WMI and having WMI Core in Win 98 be relevant? Or it has nothing to do with GDI? Would something like this: http://support.smartbear.com/viewarticle/54495/ work in 9x? jaclaz

It's only about your note about the cmd windows in some cases closing without giving the opportunity to review the full output, if we make the whole output, even in the "most complex" case, including the "removing of current letter assignment" fit into the "standard" 25 lines that issue is solved. What do you mean by "pauses", at least in Windows XP it seems to me like a "normal" speed, with a line of text output every fraction of a second, exception made for the Diskpart RESCAN, which is however "advertised" by the Diskpart output itself: I mean, if we take one of the last output you posted as a base and number the lines: As I see it, 1 and 2 can be removed without any particular problem, we could make 12 and 13 a single line and add an empty line after them and remove line 14, and we could as well make lines 20 and 21 a single line and remove line 26. The output would become: jaclaz

You need to edit a couple of values in the (offline) Registry. Letter assignment depends on the values inside the key: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\MountedDevices You need to edit \DosDevices\N: name, renaming it to \DosDevices\D: (if already a \DosDevices\D: value exists, you need to first rename this to a drive letter that doesn't exists, let's say \DosDevices\Z:) first. In UBCD there is PCregedit which should do nicely. jaclaz

@oldtiger64 #1 I mean, follow the "Option 2" in the given reference guide: http://www.sevenforums.com/tutorials/8057-dual-boot-installation-windows-7-xp.html when you get to Step 5, the guide shows this screenshot: Which I would describe as can you provide the description of what you see at that step? #2 good #3 good, the Windows 7 install uses a sort of "reduced" OS which is called Preinstallation Environment or PE for short, that would be (since it is Windows 7 based a PE 3.x), this may be useful for the install procedure. @cdob I believe that once the right driver (should the current one not be it) is found/integrated there will be anyway a couple of issues, the NTLDR/BOOT.INI/NTDTECT.COM will need to be installed to the "System" partition to fit into "early LBA", but I am not sure that the actual XP can be installed in a volume that resides entirely above the 48 bit LBA limit Do you recall similar setups? jaclaz

Good. Let me know what do you think about making it less verbose. jaclaz

This also applies to the older version Usage Monitor. Since I am in an exceptionally good mood today , I will read the above as: jaclaz

So, 8 slots allow for 4 (or 5) programs? I guess that you should ask Mr. McAleavey for some clarifications/references to these 8 "slots". What you reported he told you here (set aside the "8 slots theory"): http://forums.superantispyware.com/index.php?/topic/499-can-i-run-more-than-2-real-time-antispyware-shield-incl-sas/?p=2275 makes a lot of sense : If I were you I would set aside this "8 slots theory" and run less programs in real time (making use - if you believe that your computer is not secure or not secure enough - some alternate means of protection, like - say - a hardware firewall and possibly an antivirus proxy). It is quite obvious that if you set several different programs, all aimed essentially to the same scope, to run at the same time doing essentially the same thing (accessing files to scan them either by checking their contents against a database of known signature or heuristically analyze them and/or monitoring them for changes) conflicts of some kind may well (please read as will) arise. On the other hand, Mr.McAleavey (do read the set of his articles listed here): http://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/kevin-mcaleavey-writes-about-malware.304034/ has since concluded that there is no working/reliable solution if you run Windows and you would better forget about it and get his KNOS secure OS instead: http://www.knosproject.com/ jaclaz

It is surprising how common this opinion is among people who are professional software developers. Let's not forget how free can mean also freedom and not necessarily or only gratis. jaclaz

Good , and I am attaching it to this post, so that it doesn't get lost. jaclaz G.7z

Out of curiosity, WHO? Hmmm, something very UNlike a FCFS approach: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-come,_first-served which in computing would be correspondent to a FIFO one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFO_(computing_and_electronics) This approach is usually connected with "stacks" (and not with ""slots"), what you describe seems more like LABIFS (Last Arrived Bully Is First Served) WHAT is a "HIPS-type program"? Can you name EXACTLY all the programs you had running and which one failed? In other words, "somewhere on the internet". WHY? I mean, just for the fun of it, because someone told you that the more antivirus/antimlware programs you manage to run concurrently the more secure is your system, because otherwise your PC would run too fast, etc.? It would be IMHO advisable to first make sure that the 8 slots exist before increasing their number to 14. Told by WHOM? It is the first time I heard about this concept of "slots". Can't you remember any other detail about the source of these info? jaclaz

Good. While you are at it, check also this "Veign's Usage Monitor". Here is an old version: https://web.archive.org/web/20080316005020/http://www.veign.com/application.php?appid=110 Latest is possibly this one: https://web.archive.org/web/20140701191607/http://www.veign.com/application.php?appid=110 jaclaz

And most probably in early 2020 the Server 2008 R2 users will be forced to update to Server 2012! The: Windows Server 2008 (original release date 06/05/2008)Windows Server 2008 R2 (original release date 22/10/2009)Windows 7 (original release date 22/10/2009) all three have the same extended support ending on 14/01/2020, as it can be verified here: http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/search?sort=PNα= And on the 10/01/2023 users of Server 2012 will be needing to upgrade to the whatever will be released as "server" correspondent to Windows 10 ... ... the suspense is killing me.... jaclaz

... and, on the other hand, the actual user will not have the permissions/privileges (let alone the knowledge needed) to do anything similar, so they will be stuck to the senseless interface as MS provides it. ...BUT big OEM's (like -say - Lenovo or Samsung) will add to the system any kind of crapware in an attempt to mitigate the impact, with the net result that you will have several slightly different interfaces, some better and some worse, as it already happened with (respectively) Pokki and Quick Starter for Windows 8. jaclaz

Sure , that is actually the "original" way, exactly as posted by Sebijk https://www.sebijk.com/community/board9-community/board5-pc/2984-xp-updates-weiterbeziehen/ In the very early days of this thing, the entries for all the four "still supported products" were added, while soon after it was found out how only the PosReady was needed and enough. See also: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/171814-posready-2009-updates-ported-to-windows-xp-sp3-enu/page-3#entry1078506 jaclaz