jaclaz

But, by now, the booted system will most probably have "recorded" the drive letter assignments, and thus the volumes on the IDE disks will keep the "wrong" drive lettering (and won't boot anymore without the "support" form the contents of the SCSI disk). Additionally since you booted a system with two disks with the SAME disk signature, one of the two will have been changed by the OS. Since the C: and D: were still there it is likely that the one on the IDE disk has been modified. I.e. the IDE disk is not anymore a clone AND you booted a "mixed system". This is about the most dangerous thing that you can do as there are concrete risks that (besides botching the "clone" status of the IDE disk) some changes have been made to the actual SCSI disk contents. jaclaz

If that's the answer, what's the question?Maybe looking in first post on the thread would help. You may want it in an extended format: NO. 1 GB is the minimum requirement for a 32 bit Windows 7, from the mouth of the wolf: http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows7/products/system-requirements the 64 bit version has according to Microsoft the minimum requirement of 2 Gb. The other requirements in the given page are: a 1 Ghz processor a 32-bit or 64-bit processor (no mention of number of cores). But you are right, usually those requirements are "really minimum" ones and in practice you need higher specs to have the machine run smoothly. What is the problem (if any)? jaclaz P.S.: Anyone with some past experience on XP may need to be remembered what the minimum requirements for XP were: https://web.archive.org/web/20040701035729/http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/evaluation/sysreqs.mspx

Entirely possible. Though, to be fair, in pseudo code you could have: "square": IF DeltaX>100 THEN GOTO :LOOSEGRIP IF DeltaY>100 THEN GOTO :LOOSEGRIP .... vs. "circle" IF DeltaX*DeltaX+DeltaY*DeltaY> 20000 10000 THEN GOTO :LOOSEGRIP or: IF DeltaX^2+DeltaY^2> 20000 10000 THEN GOTO :LOOSEGRIP avoiding the Square root by using the sum of squares as comparison term, it remains to be seen if two IF conditions would be more or less efficient than the math functions used n the second. The "ellipse" would need a more complex formula, but changing the "square" to a "rectangle" would be a snap. jaclaz

Yep . Right now we have a "circle" with a given radius (that seemingly cannot be modified) and once the mouse exits this circle the "grip" is lost, having the radius changeable would be a first progress, and having the possibility of "stretching" the circle into an ellipse would be second step. In the thread you referenced: http://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/55623/why-do-scrollbars-revert-to-original-scroll-distance-when-mouse-is-dragged-sidew the radius has been measured to around 100 pixels, but most probably this depends on resolution of the display. In any case it is the usual MS approach to tailored suits : jaclaz

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows7/products/system-requirements Rule of the thumb is that a 2x factor on processor speed and a 3x factor to RAM requirements by MS are needed to have a "working" machine. A 64 bit OS makes no sense whatsoever unless you have more than 4 Gb of RAM (and you actually *need* to use it). jaclaz

There are seemingly TWO different issues here. #1 is the place where the BOOTMGR and \boot\BCD reside. #2 is drive letter assigned to the system volume. #1 is easy to fix. Boot the Windows 7 with the USB stick connected. Check if you have a file BOOTMGR in root of the internal disk volume (you may need ot set the Explorer to show hidden and system files) Copy the file BOOTMGR from the root of the USB stick volume to the root of the internal disk volume. Check if you have in root of the internal disk volume a folder \boot\ and in it a file \BCD If not: Create the \boot\ folder on that volume. Open Registry editor and check if you have a BCD000001 hive mounted. Select it and export it (as hive, NOT as .reg) to <driveletter of the volume on internal disk>:\boot\BCD. Open disk management (or use diskpart) and make sure that the volume on internal disk is Active. Try rebooting without the USB connected. What happens? Then we may talk on how to fix (if possible) the issue #2. jaclaz

No. A clone is a clone, but in this particular case (different BUS, SCSI vs. IDE) it won't boot "properly" (or at least it won't boot "as before"). Clones make sense on a very similar (or even "identical") device, they are much less "flexible" then images. The clone can also be made on a different device as long as this device is same size or larger than the original, i.e. if the "clone" can contain ALL data of the source, but if you change the BUS through which the device is connected it won't boot properly without some modifications, that can be either very little or "relevant". An image is an image. You have an original, you make an image of it. Then, if something goes wrong in the original you restore the image to the original device OR (let's say the original hard disk dies ) you get a device identical (or similar) to the original and restore the image to this new device and the result is a clone, that since the device is similar (and is connected through the same bus) will boot EXACTLY as the original did. As well you can make a clone to a different device (if big enough) and then re-clone back to the original device (i.e. you are using the clone as if it was an image (and then it would make more sense to make an image. Practical example. Case 1: You setup a new machine and buy with it two identical disks + another disk to hold only "data". (besides some external storage for backups etc.) You install to it your OS, any number of tools, whatever until you are satisfied. Then you make a clone of this "System disk" to the second identical one, which you connect temporarily to the PC and otherwise store in a safe place). This will take - say - 4 hours time. You recreate the clone - say - once every three months. The day your "system disk" fails (for whatever reasons) you: simply get the clone and replace the "system disk" with it You are back to work in - say - 15 minutes. Case 2: You setup a new machine and buy with it a disk (for "system") + another disk to hold image(s) of the "system disk" + another disk to hold only "data". (besides some external storage for backups etc.) You install to it your OS, any number of tools, whatever until you are satisfied. Then you make an image of this "System disk" to the second one, which you connect temporarily to the PC and otherwise store in a safe place). This will take - say - 4 hours time. You recreate the clone - say - once every three months. The day your "system disk" fails (for whatever reasons) you need to: procure yourself a disk similar to the "system disk" (same BUS, same size or larger, same sector size) once you get that, start restoring to it an image (that will take 4 hours time) You are back to work in - say - three days to get the new disk + 4 hours. While the "hypothetical" 4 hours time are the same (roughly) for a "clone" or for making or restoring a "forensic sound" or "dd like" image, if you use one of the programs that only image used sectors, the time for both taking the "image" and for restoring it will be reduced proportionally to the amount of used space on disk, but what you are using is not anymore a "clone" and not even properly an "image", it is a "backup". I hope that now it is more clear. The matter has been already discussed with more detail here: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/157634-hard-disk-cloningimaging-from-inside-windows/ jaclaz

Another proof of altruism. A guy that finds a several months old thread and decides to join the board only to suggest on his first post a Commercial piece of software to help the OP resolve an issue that (one way or the other) must have been solved a long way ago. jaclaz

Hold your horses. A clone is a clone. An image is an image. A compressed image is a compressed image.A clone will occupy EXACTLY the same amount of sectors of the source AND will also occupy the SAME sectors on target (i.e. Sector 0 from source will be written to Sector 0 of target, Sector 1 to Sector 1, etc.) source and target are both "disks" (i.e. the WHOLE thing). An image will occupy EXACTLY the same amount of sectors of the source BUT will occupy the corresponding sectors of a FILE (not of a disk). I.e. the target is NOT a disk, it is a FILE inside a volume's filesystem (in practice you need a NTFS volume for anything bigger than 4 Gb). A compressed image will occupy a smaller amount of sectors than the source, BUT the target is still a FILE (not a disk). Still, in practice you need a NTFS volume to host the image file. Partition Saving is a very good tool (I actually have used it) the point is that - since you have not "enough" space to make a "real" image, but you need to make a "compressed" image, and it is to be seen if the gzip compression that is used by that tool is "enough" to make an image that can fit in the space (on a NTFS volume) that you have available. Generally speaking, the WIM compression (which now Clonedisk uses) is very, very tight, and it is IMHO likely to produce a smaller image. Once again, remember that there is a different "level" of "possibility to go back" if what you have is a clone or a "dd like" image (plain or compressed) vs. an image of "used sectors only". All in all, seen how (no offence intended ) you are not (yet ) familiar with these procedures, the idea of buying a new hard disk drive to host this clone (or image) is IMHO to be preferred, as having more space than what strictly needed will give you more possibilities. jaclaz

It is a known "issue" or "feature", and it is seemingly "by design". I presume that changing your habit to use instead shift+click on the bottom part of the scrollbar is a no-no, right? The behaviour has it's fans, however, JFYI: http://www.red-bean.com/kfogel/scrollbar-redux.html jaclaz

Yes and no. Meaning that View/Show hidden devices by itself won' t really show "not present" devices unless you issue the mentioned SET command in a command prompt (and keep that command prompt window open) and run devmgt.msc. And I do understand how it is not what you asked for, but from device manager in "Details" you should be able to see the upper and lower filters "attached" to the device. jaclaz

Hmmm. VirtualDub and/or Avidemux: How To Crop Videos With Free Software http://www.ghacks.net/2011/09/21/how-to-crop-videos-with-free-software/ http://www.virtualdub.org/ http://avidemux.sourceforge.net/download.html jaclaz

Myn dictionary is finen, the issue is withn my keyboard, sometimesn it adds an n to what I type jaclaz

Well, to be picky (as I am) they may have them, only they won't publish them , unless the ones paying the money actually like them. But, the issue I was raising was not about honesty of opinions, but rather on accuracy of predictions. If - by trade - you are supposed to make predictions, you are expected to have them being noticeably more accurate than what anyone can get through flipism, then at the second wrong prediction you should be demoted to the role of "the guy that shovels elephant poo on trucks", or at least been prevented to publish any prediction for at least ten years. jaclaz

Gosh, "no new features at all"! Then what's worth "exciting"??? A page in your dictionary, in the volume SAQ-SAT, must have been accidentally ripped off , among the words that you have no chance to read a definition for, there is: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sarcasm The article linked to by roirraWedorehT is however an interesting example of Paul Thurrot doing an U turn jaclaz

Yep. But be aware that predictions are slippery business , see what the analyst Jim Handy predicted in the far past January 2014: http://www.pcworld.com/article/2087480/ssd-prices-face-uncertain-future-in-2014.html With all due respect to the guy (and to PC world that published the main results of his analysis) a price prediction for a whole year proved wrong in 6 months or less and off by 43% should tell us something about analysts... jaclaz

Good. JFYI, although a "RAW" image is preferred (as it will contain ALL information) if you are sure-sure that you have not any files that may need to be undeleted or recovered, you can get away with doing a WIM image (thanks to the wimlib library you don't even need a specific Windows version) which typically will compress to 1/3 or less than original/source. A suitable app (freeware) is Clonedisk: http://labalec.fr/erwan/?page_id=42 http://reboot.pro/index.php?showtopic=8480 jaclaz

Sure , and at a 95% probability it is just a simple filesystem corruption that CHKDSK will be able to fix easily, I was commenting on the statement in itself, without hinting that in your specific case a failed hard disk is likely to have happened. If you prefer, I do believe that in your case the hard disk has not failed, but the fact that it has not failed is not connected in any way to the (relatively short) time it was in operation. Carpenter's example: During inspection of a house: I don't think this roof will collapse any soon, it was built only three years ago. <- makes sense During inspection of a house that suffered from extensive fire damages: I don't think this roof will collapse any soon, it was built only three years ago. <- makes no sense I don't think this roof will collapse any soon. <- OK in both the above cases . jaclaz

Try VBEMP: http://www.bearwindows.reboot.pro/vbe9x.htm http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/163436-vbemp-9x-with-3d-aceleration/ or the SciTech driver. https://web.archive.org/web/20030725183829/http://www1.scitechsoft.com/products/enterprise/free_titles.html jaclaz

Any "in use" HAL will have "hal.dll" filename (but if you check it's properties you will find out how it is a renamed file), see: http://www.techsupportforum.com/forums/f10/solved-missing-hal-dll-issue-416851.html and: http://windowsitpro.com/windows/how-can-i-determine-which-hardware-abstraction-layer-hal-running-my-computer jaclaz

In case of need : http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/155290-windows-8-deeper-impressions/?p=1012588 jaclaz

Remember that nuhi was recently converted to use latin time : http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/163667-nuhi-is-back-post-your-suggestions-here/?p=1071960 jaclaz

Not to put you down but that kind of reasoning makes no sense whatever . Hard disks may fail, as well as filesystems residing on *any* media. Last character in the above sentence is a "full stop" or "period". They may fail within the first few weeks, within the first few months, within the first few years. They will be working fine and then, one day, they will stop working properly. Whether the issue will be and easy fixable one or more generally a fixable one or not is another thing Especially on a laptop, there is no reliable predictive algorithm or calculation on a hard disk drive life. jaclaz

Ow, come on . Everybody builds PE's all day, it is not like brain surgery (it is more like rocket science ). You need a "basic" PE without all the *unneeded* bells and whistles (that are what usually make projects become more complex and thus prone to errors). If you try either QuickPE: http://reboot.pro/files/file/340-quickpe/ or MistyPE: http://reboot.pro/files/file/357-mistype/ you will find yourself with a working PE 3.x (or 4.xx/5.xx) in no time. That will be EXACTLY the case. A failed "transplant" will very likely create a "Frankestein Registry" with the OS not capable to boot on either boards or anyway the result will be a half-botched one. Go back and re-read why exactly having an image of the disk is (besides always a nice thing to have) a MUST in this case. jaclaz

Well, the HAL issue is not a real issue, you can also use the "normal" /HAL option in BOOT.INI to change it: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/833721/en-us http://www.vernalex.com/guides/sysprep/hal.shtml Of course you will need a PE of some kind or however something capable of editing the BOOT.INI or change in advance the BOOT.INI to include all options. The method linked to before - as said - works fine in my experience, but there are other methods, that one amounts more or less to the "official" MS one in the case of a working "old" or "from" motherboard, but you can also "fake" that the "old" motherboard is dead and use the second method : http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;824125 Among the alternatives, there is OfflineSysprep: http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showforum=43 http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=22064 Though there could be an issue with HAL's coming from updates/hotfixes: http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=23350 A clone (or image) has nothing to do with the BUS the mass storage device uses, it is simply a sector-by-sector copy of the device of course you can clone a SCSI disk to a (same size or larger) PATA/IDE or SATA disk, though nowadays it is usually more convenient to make an image instead. jaclaz