jaclaz

Well, the WIN95 switch will create a Win95 bootsector , the WIN98 switch would have created a Win98 one but don't worry the Win95 should be OK as well , though the bootsector will have the "wrong" OEM ID. http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/53366-boot-pe-from-hard-drive/?p=401100 https://web.archive.org/web/20070815002154/http://forum.winimage.com/viewtopic.php?t=276 Not that OEM ID will be actually used by *anything*: http://homepage.ntlworld.com./jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/volume-boot-block-oem-name-field.html but still you are using a Windows 95 bootsector to load a Windows 98, and it costs nothing to have the "right" bootsector instead. jaclaz

Don't forget other human activities, like smoking that affect this. Do you really-really believe that they are prohibiting smoking everywhere because they care about your health? Comeon , think at the impact of the billions of lighters and matches lighted each day and the amount of heath caused by the ciggys themselves ... jaclaz

You probably want to read this seemingly unrelated topic (also between the lines) here: http://reboot.pro/topic/19874-windows-81-uefi-boot-issues/ And this: http://www.eightforums.com/tutorials/2302-reset-windows-8-a.html Once you are more familiar with the topic, you may want to ask more focused questions/propose new ideas, etc... jaclaz

Naah , a copy of a 2010 report on global warming went through a time/space wormhole, a couple of wooly mammoth read it and lost all their hair from the shock , becoming completely bald. Noah happened by chance to find those two while looking for large mammals and have them board the ark, which just for the record was actually the shell of an ancient alien escape pod that had been abandoned on Earth several thousand years before, when an incident happened on the weekly Saturn-Sirius (via Atlantis) shuttle . Yours sincerely, Giorgio A. Tsoukalos http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/ancient-aliens jaclaz

If you (originally) booted the 98 from a choice in BOOT.INI, what you actually did was to chainload a copy of the Win98 bootsector. Obviously the copy of the bootsector needs to be "refreshed" upon partition changes. There is since the dawn of time (we are talking of good ol' NT 4.00 times) a freeware aimed to solve this issue. Meet bootpart: http://www.winimage.com/bootpart.htm Take some time to understand the (brief) help/instruction text, you should have no issues in running it properly from either XP or 98. If you are not sure about it's usage, ask before running it. jaclaz

Honestly, one of the things that had the WOW effect (on geeks) in Blade Runner (1982) was the sequence where Harrison Ford/Deckard scanned and analyzed the photo on the Esper machine through a vocal interface: I guess that a lot of people believe that the now more than 30 (thirty) years old insight into the future is going to become reality soon. What some people might have not noticed about the above scene is that it happens in Deckard's apartment, at night, in a perfectly silent environment. The troubles in real life with voice actuated commands are mainly connected with background noise and other people's voices (or music, ringtones, etc.) that could be misinterpreted by the speech recognition engine, so it's utility is already very limited, and don't forget that if you work in an office there will be a practical joker that will pop out of nowhere just behind your chair and shout "delete and shred open documents" at the most inconvenient moment.... No , speech recognition is nice , and it has some uses, but as "generic" HID (Human Interface Device) it won't be useful anytime soon. jaclaz

... artificially manufactured in an interstellar multidimensional factory by a very advanced alien civilization that attempted to solve this way their own planet global warning issue, by having constant light snowing on it but Alien Gore[1]slightly miscalculated BOTH the size of the snow flakes AND the universal coordinates where to deliver them.... jaclaz [1]Nomen est omen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_determinism

@dencorso Well, then you should send your transvestite SSD lovely fastish and pricey USB stick to Dave-H to let him ruin test it with my batches or, alternatively, you could install 8.1 to see how the stupid Windows 8.x behaves with it. It is very possible that something changed in 8.x when compared to Windows 7, possibly connected/related directly or indirectly with the Windows to go (or *whatever*). Your stick is for all windows knows, a USB connected SATA SSD, basically because (according to this source): http://www.thessdreview.com/our-reviews/kingston-datatraveler-workspace-32gb-windows-to-go-usb-3-flash-drive-review/ it contains a SSD (Sandforce SATA) controller it contains a (Genesys) USB to SATA bridge it is USB connectedI thought we had agreed to disagree.... http://reboot.pro/topic/19827-sandisk-extreme-pro-usb-30-flash-drive/ @Dave-H Good , so 20-24 Mb space should be enough. jaclaz

sugabeats, no offence intended of course , but this topic is not really "new", it has already been discussed and beaten to death several times on MSFN, quite a lot of members have similar opinions to your ones *like* : http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/158823-why-you-should-avoid-buying-windows-8/page-5#entry1020941 http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/155290-windows-8-deeper-impressions/page-43#entry1013639 some (JFYI) even think that the mouse behaviour on 2K was far better than in XP: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/155923-any-way-to-cannibalize-the-windows-2000-mouse-driver/ jaclaz

Not really exact. Mammoths were evidently not WOOLY (or not wooly enough), otherwise they wouldn't have died by freezing long before the global warming began, don't be fooled by people that say that mammoths were TOO wooly to resist the increases in temperature and were killed by their inability to invent scissors and razors to shave themselves. jaclaz

Yep, I believe that it is something that one should be aware of, but unlikely to be an issue in "real life" (when third party software is involved), but if you simply run on your Vista drive: dir /aL /s C:\>C:\junctions.lstyou should have the list of everything that is not a "real" file or folder, and then be able to take (if needed and possible) the additional steps/workaround/fixes required when/if they are affected by the moving of the installed programs. As a side note, and JFYI, installing Vista or 7 on FAT32 experiments http://reboot.pro/topic/19643-winsxs-hardlinked-files/ jaclaz

Good. I believe the difference is as said earlier: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/173265-formatting-an-external-drive-using-different-interfaces/?p=1092545 not so much between "Fixed" and "Removable" (as both hard disks will be sensed as the "Fixed" type, i.e. devices that can be partitioned normally, unlike USB sticks) but rather "internal" vs. "external", i.e. suitable to hold a page file or not, we have the paradox that you can probably put a pagefile on the disk when it is eSATA connected but not when it is USB connected (unless you add Diikmod as a filter driver). The good (little) news are that I was a bit too pessimistic regarding the "wasted" space due to the overlapped FAT12 volume, by choosing some "smart" values I can "squeeze" some 2,800,000 available bytes out of a volume sized 3,145,728 bytes :. Now a few open questions. on which your data and opinions are welcome. This 3 Mb volume (which may also make the disk bootable, at least when connected through the interface that provides 512 bytes/sector) is IMHO more than enough for hosting on it *any* kind of loader/bootmgr, but I believe that the effect of a "plain" BCDBOOT.EXE command in Vista, 7 or 8.x is to produce a stupid amount of files, including fonts and largely useless "localization" files, or if you prefer, besides BOOTMGR the \boot\ directory has grown to some 20 or more Mb. Can you check the size of your installed Windows 8.x \boot\ directory? Would it be useful to make the first volume grow to 16 or 32 Mb? Or maybe even bigger, switching when needed to FAT 16? I guess that it would be acceptable to lose a few tens of Mb out of a disk that is at least 1 Tb, and since I don't like "one size fits all" solutions (basically as they never fit correctly anyone) maybe it is a good idea if I produce two "base images", one 3 Mb and one the needed size for people that want to have a "full" \boot\ directory. Or do you think I should make a batch to allow the final user to also create the "base image" of (within limits) arbitrary sizes? jaclaz

Sure , as well, once you win the lottery it is very hard when you lose all the money, and once you have driven a Ferrari or a Rolls Royce, it is a frustrating experience to go back driving your good ol' pickup. Still, driving a Ferrari or a Rolls Royce is not "common" and a missing feature in them doesn't affect the masses, which was the point I was trying to make. And, even if you win the lottery, the Ferrari or the Rolls is not something that you actually *need* to commute. To further clear this aspect, I never said that having a multi-monitor setup is in any way "bad", "not convenient" or anything like that, what I said is: Fact: it is not a common setup Opinion: it is not *needed* if not in a small number of professions and even there only in the niche of them that design important things (according to NoelC ) jaclaz

NO prob. let me rephrase: Not insinuating anything, I am plainly stating that (IMHO) the *need* for a multiple display is a "niche", related to: graphical design (very high level one) and that counts for two fingers of my left hand, namely thumb and index CAD/CAM (also rather highish level) and that counts for middle, ring and pinky software engineering (because you tell me so ) web development (because Tripredacus tells me so ) possibly some other activity, NOT usually carried by masses of people, that some other member may add to the listThe total amount of the above represent IMHO less than 5% if you take as 100% is the whole amount of PC's running one form or the other of MS Operating System in a business or for work: jaclaz

Which should mean that the UAC prompt is *needed* on eSATA and NOT *needed* on USB, I can see no issues here, but there must be some communication issues: I can't say anything (and I have to rely on your reports) about the elevate.exe behaviour on Windows 8.1, but this makes no sense, i.e. it is conflicting with what you already reported and with my almost ten years long experience running dsfi on XP, this line:: dsfi \\.\%SecondDriveLetter% 0 0 %Source% || elevate.exe -c -w dsfi \\.\%SecondDriveLetter% 0 0 Run the dsfi and IF IT FAILS (i.e. it reports an error) THEN run it through elevate.exe. I can assure you that dsfi on Windows XP does NOT fail (provided that the arguments supplied to the dsfi command are correct), can you please double and triple check that you edited correctly the batch and that you are running the edited batch? Try again changing the line to: dsfi \\.\%SecondDriveLetter% 0 0 %Source% || PAUSE&elevate.exe -c -w dsfi \\.\%SecondDriveLetter% 0 0 On XP, you should get this message: OK, written 4096 bytes at offset 0 (which means that the first command did succeed and NOT be prompted for UAC - because the prompt with UAC only happens because the "plain" command failed and it is re-run through elevate.exe). On Windows 8.1 you should see the same on USB while on eSATA you should see the "press any key to continue" before being prompted by UAC elevation. jaclaz

So, if you change the relevant lines in the batch: SET Confirm=NOSET /P Confirm=You need to type YES to confirm:IF "YES"=="%Confirm%" dsfi \\.\%SecondDriveLetter% 0 0 %Source% &GOTO :CheckGOTO :EOF as follows: SET Confirm=NOSET /P Confirm=You need to type YES to confirm:IF /I "YES"=="%Confirm%" (dsfi \\.\%SecondDriveLetter% 0 0 %Source% || elevate.exe -c -w dsfi \\.\%SecondDriveLetter% 0 0 %Source%GOTO :Check)GOTO :EOFThe switcher.cmd should work in all CaSeS (if you pardon me the pun ): on Windows 8.x (or more generally in Vista and later) prompting for UAC when needed on Windows XP not prompting for UACand YES and yes would do as welljaclaz

Not insinuating anything, I am plainly stating that (IMHO) the *need* for a multiple display is a "niche", related to: graphical design (very high level one) and that counts for two fingers of my left hand, namely thumb and index CAD/CAM (also rather highish level) and that counts for middle, ring and pinky software engineering (because you tell me so )Personally I cannot even think to work on a graphic/CAD workstation (let's say with Autocad or Bentley Microstation) without a pen/tablet input device, and two monitors, one as work display and one for menus, but still 90 to 95% of people I know that use this kind of stuff at a more than elementary level use a plain single monitor and even a common mouse and however personally it is what? 10 years or so that I don't use seriously Autocad or Microstation. Admittedly, it is very possible that I know personally only very few people and that the few I know are among the ones with less resources and - just like myself - very cheap , but still I believe that it is rather UNcommon to find people that have (let alone *need*) a multiple monitor setup at work. Not at all. The (little) engineering I do is related to buildings/constructions. When it comes to software what I do - at the most - are half-@§§ed batches/simple scripts, nothing that cannot be done without too much hassle on - say - a 800x600 display or that I can do VERY comfortably on a 22" monitor at 1680x1050 (which is what I actually use daily). jaclaz

And - just to show how old (and old fashioned ) I am - you will have to pry my HP 28C calculator from my cold hands... The possibility (offered by HP and Olivetti - but not (say) Panasonic - calculators and by a good ol' IBM "M" keyboard) of pressing a key and KNOW for SURE that you have pressed it without looking at the screen makes to me a lot, really a LOT of difference. Clickity, clickity, click.... jaclaz

Good I am still thinking about problems that this overlapping may cause and evaluating simplicity against "features"/limitations. I have put together a few working schemes, one with both the FAT12 and the NTFS volumes inside extended, one with the FAT 12 primary and the NTFS volume inside extended (on both 512 and 4096 geometries), one where the FAT12 is "fixed", primary and the NTFS one is also a primary and it's MBR entry is rewritten at each switch (more "classical") The first one, on one hand is more elegant as it occupies only one entry in the MBR and this entry in the MBR needs not to be modified once the "base image" is deployed, the second is "better" though it will "waste" more bytes (unusable) for the FAT12, BUT both will have a mismatch in Extended partition size, the third has the disadvantage of requiring to correct both the MBR and the VBR of the NTFS partition at each switch (something - rewriting the MBR partition table at each switch - that I would prefer to avoid, and it has to be seen if doable at all if the switcher.cmd is run from within the FAT12 volume). So, possibly the "right" solution is the second one, the limits would be that two entries in the MBR are occupied, but it would allow, at least when connected through a 512 bytes/sector interface, to boot from the device, which is IMHO a definite plus. jaclaz

Well, maybe for not-so-important things a single display is enough. I am able to count people I know with a multi-monitor setup (that actually *need* it) on the fingers of my left hand, I wouldn't rate this as something "common" or "widely used" (let alone "largely needed"). jaclaz

Very good. Just to avoid this becoming a myth of some kind the commands: F3 T>m0,2,2,0,0,0,0,22 and: F3 T>m0,2,2,,,,,22 (no zeroes) are EXACTLY the same. With the 0's it is the "explicit" form (and is more readable/easier to type correctly), without it works exactly the same as the 0's are implied. jaclaz

DSYNCHRONIZE http://dimio.altervista.org/eng/ jaclaz

Sure , but the point is m00t (with all due respect). It is all about fairness , IMHO people using 8.x do deserve to be nagged by the UAC , the point was only about the current simple implementation that adds the UAC prompt to the poor, innocent XP users, and about having a simple way to have the thingy works as it should (UAC prompt on OS that woud normally require it, NO UAC prompt on OS that would not normally require it) without implementing a Windows OS version detection routine, i.e. finding a simpler solution for that. The queer thing is the behaviour of the command on the USB connected disk, as said before. jaclaz

Well, no. , what is strange is that it seems that there is a sort of "transparent UAC" in the latter On windows XP there is no difference between an eSATA and a USB connected device and the dsfi tool works "normally" on both. From what you report it seems like the stupid Windows 8.x makes a difference (BTW, though I believe that Windows 8.x is very stupid , I didn't thought that it could be this much stupid ) The "Access is denied." when the command is run with the eSATA connected disk is IMHO "normal", you are running the command in a NON elevated command prompt, the stupid UAC intervenes and denies access, this is reported as an ERRORLEVEL of 1 (the command failed). When you run the same command, in the same NON elevated command prompt, the command apparently goes through, i.e. the correct message from dsfi is displayed and the ERRORLEVEL is at 0 level - success - BUT the target disk is NOT changed I can understand how Windows (including XP) may want to distinguish from an "internal" disk (AFAIK an eSATA connected disk is NOT different in any way from a SATA connected disk inside the PC case) and an "external" disk (please read as USB connected) see also: http://reboot.pro/topic/9461-page-file-in-usb-hard-disk/ But I would have expected that the UAC either protects a disk (if "internal" i.e. IDE/SATA/eSATA) or doesn't protect it (if external, i.e. USB), not that how it seems in this latter case it lets the tool write "virtually" (possibly to a cache of some kind and then fails in flushing the cahce to the device). BTW it is not a real issue , in practice we can go back to executing anyway the tool through execute.exe (and thus provoking the unneeded prompt in XP ) or at this point maybe better add to the batch a small OS version detection routine and let it decide, depending on the OS version detected whether to run the command through execute.exe or directly. @dencorso Thanks. I know that I am old-fashioned, but I chose this elevate.exe: http://code.kliu.org/misc/elevate/ over (say) this one: http://jpassing.com/2007/12/08/launch-elevated-processes-from-the-command-line/ because it is 5 kb as opposed to 69 Kb , I fail to see the point in having people downloading and installing 432 KB - 10.9 MB* (or more) of MS bloat jaclaz

This should more or less mean that the hardware (or the driver, or both) is/are capable of finding out that you inserted a USB 2.0 cable in the connection and thus they slow down the negotiation on the Bus (or *whatever*) to USB 2.0 speed. All in all the possibility of the "Ext. HDD's Original USB 3.0 cable" being simply defective (i.e. working fine at USB 2.0 speed BUT failing at USB 3.0 speeds) has not been ruled out. For all we know it is possible that the "Windows 7" (and it's driver(s)) is/are "better" than what Linux uses, in the sense that it is possible that *somehow* the Windows 7 operates at "full" USB 3.0 speed (and the cable prevents it from working properly) while the Ubuntu *somehow* uses a slightly slower transfer/negotiation rate and then succeeds. Or viceversa, it is possible that Ubuntu is "smarter" and, finding that at "full" USB 3.00 speed there are errors in the connection, auto-negotiates a lower speed while the Windows 7 is "dumber" and operates at full speed "or nothing". Maybe the good ol' times are back and the cable is actually the culprit: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/163189-hard-drive-controller-errors-abound-atapi-event-11/ http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/163189-hard-drive-controller-errors-abound-atapi-event-11/?p=1041690 jaclaz