jaclaz

It was just a diagnostic test. The "right" answer would have been #7 <- "Realist" #5 is "Optimist", border line with "Dreamer". #8 is "Pessimist" #11 is "Depressed" jaclaz

Strange, it works here. The link JFX gave is to: https://sites.google.com/site/vmwarethewiki/Create-WIM-images-of-Windows-XP-for-system-deployment Which is wiki that begins with the text: How to create a hardware independent sysprepped WIM image which is the link I posted to the "base" document: http://www.jerryblogger.com/2010/08/create-wim-image-of-windows-xp-for.html jaclaz

@ Agent47 Possibly easier, you can use Offline Sysprep: http://www.911cd.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=19397 to prepare the XP install, and then start on the given tutorial from point #60: http://www.jerryblogger.com/2010/08/create-wim-image-of-windows-xp-for.html jaclaz

Hmmm. @Flasche What does the sentence (example): mean to you? On January 1st 2015 I will start planning to travel to China. On January 1st 2015 I will leave for a trip to China. During 2015 I will surely plan to travel to China. During 2015 I will surely travel to China. Sometime in the future I will plan to travel to China. Sometime in the future I will travel to China. I don't plan to travel to China before next year. I don't plan to travel to China before next year, as a matter of fact I may never start planning a trip there. I don't plan to travel to China before next year, as a matter of fact I may never start planning a trip anywhere. I don't plan to travel to China before next year, as a matter of fact I may never get to travel to there. I don't plan to travel to China before next year, as a matter of fact I may never travel anywhere.Please choose one. jaclaz

Well, not really, or "yes and no" but it's OK. When you compare a file like this, you need to go "beyond" the mere differences. A large part of the code in the bootsector code are jump instructions, or however references - as offsets - to a "later part" of the code. Thus, if you "move" a "block" of code, a number of references to it will change (by the amount of bytes you move the code). These latter changes are not "actual differences, IMNSHO. Not entirely unlike DENCORSO and dencorso being 8 different bytes. jaclaz A better example is this snippet (from NT62_FAT32_72024.VBR) compared with this one (from None_FAT32_75096.VBR)

I don't know. Mine is 6.1.7600.16385 (win7_rtm.090713-1255) is dated 14/07/2009 and it is 103,312 bytes in size (and it comes as explained in the footnote from the KB3AIK_EN.iso). To be more exact, it is the file inside: D:\Windows7\KB3AIK_EN.iso\wAIKX86.msi\x86AIK.cab\ F1_BOOTSECT.EXE extracted with 7-zip and renamed to BOOTSECT.EXE. I am attaching a screenshot. Could it be that 7-zip somehow miscomputes the size of the file? And then it extract it with this "false" size? I would find this improbable, but it is of course possible. In any case the point was not about a particular version being "better" or "worse" it was about the fact that different versions, using the SAME command write different code. Well, here it is NOT similar to "type NT60" \031_Windows7.SP1_AIK_3.1\NT60_FAT32_55808.VBR but it is similar to \040_Windows8.0_ADK4\NT62_FAT32_72024.VBR jaclaz

Open each of them in a hex editor, comparing with the ones "recognized". They may be "very similar" to the other versions found (like one or two bytes difference). Edit: I quickly checked, and they seem very similar to the 6.2.9200.16384 (and to the 6.2.8400.0) version, only with the (presumably an error message) text: missing. All in all a very good thing that they are not anymore available, IMHO. jaclaz

I seem to remember that - unlike on XP - on 2K a pagefile is created anyway at next boot (even if it is "disabled"), and I seem to remember it was 2 Mb in size. On the other hand, besides "proving a point" (whatever the point is) which is (nice) theory, in practice it just amounts to "bearing with" a 2 Mb file. An interesting experiment would be IMHO however (given that there is enough memory on the system and that as such the pagefile is not actually *needed*) to create a 2 Mb (or whatever is the minimum size that 2K wants) file, but make it a "sparse" file, and then check if it is actually "hit" and thus if it "grows" . jaclaz

Well, if you could run the batch on those "other" ones (even if not available anymore) and post the "log", we could see if they contain "different" MBR's or PBR's code, though I believe that they would fall in the categorization you made of them. Anyway, everyone can run the batch and find him/herself if there is any difference. jaclaz

The opening bracket NEEDS to be on the same line of the IF, example: IF NOT EXIST "C:\Users" (ECHO Doing something) ELSE (ECHO Doing something else.)Usually, the "safe" way to check for the existence of a directory is to use a final backslash, i.e. because if a file "users" for any reason exists it may "trigger" the batch wrongly. Also, the "usual" way of writing: Is: Because this way the Y or N is case insensitive and if nothing is provided, i.e. the user just presses Enter, it is assumed a "default" (of N in this example). jaclaz

Ahhh, the good ol' times when the difference between success or failure was as little as pressing F5 or pressing F8 by mistake.... jaclaz

My interest in the matter was started by the need to restore a corrupted disk (originally running Windows 7) and I initially thought that I could quickly use JFX's nice GetWaikTools program to get the bootsect.exe, but wasn't successful to get the actual one I *wanted*, no actual problem as anyway the filesystem had other issues, so that even if would have managed to get the thingy it would have not solved the actual issue at hand. However, once fixed the problem (using other tools) and having restored the bootsector using a bootsect.exe from a "full" copy of the Windows 7 AIK I had at home, I posted this: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/156869-get-waik-tools-wo-downloading-the-huge-isos/?p=1076121 And dencorso pointed out: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/156869-get-waik-tools-wo-downloading-the-huge-isos/?p=1076145 how there are even two versions of the WAIK (actualy ADK along the new naming) "5.x" i.e. correspondent to the Windows 8.1 release. Though irrational, the official numbering of PE's is given here: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dn293271.aspx and thus I will use that numbering: XP/2003 -> PE 1.x Vista /2008 -> PE 2.x 7/2008R2 -> PE 3.x 8-> PE 4.x 8.1->PE 5.x (though it should have been logically called 4.1) Anyway, since I am picky I wanted to make sure what the various versions do. I have tested a few versions of the MS bootsect.exe program. Versions tested: A.1 Vista/Waik2/PE2.x->6.0.6000.16386->02/11/2006->87,552 bytes A.2 VistaSP1/Waik2.1/PE2.1->6.0.6001.18000->19/01/2008->102,400 bytes B.1 7/Waik3/PE3.x->6.1.7600.16385->14/07/2009->103,312 bytes B.2 7SP1/Waik3/PE3.1->6.1.7601.17514->20/11/2010->97,280 bytes C.1 8/Waik4/PE4.x->6.2.9200.16384->25/07/2012->117,688 bytes D.1 8.1/Waik5/PE5.0->6.3.9431.0->15/06/2013->119.912 bytes D.2 8.1/Waik5/PE5.1->6.3.9600.16384->21/08/2013->100.968 bytes The A.1 version has NOT the /mbr switch, thus it can only change the bootsector of a volume (and NOT the MBR of the disk). Version A.1: The boot code written with the /NT60 option to the bootsector/VBR for NTFS volumes ($Boot) is the Vista one (type NT60). The boot code written with the /NT60 option to the bootsector/VBR of FAT12/16/32 volumes is the Vista one (type NT60). Starting with the A.2 release, the tool has the /mbr switch, thus it can change BOTH the bootsector of the volume AND the MBR of the disk that hosts it. Version A.2: The boot code written with the /NT60 option to the bootsector/VBR for NTFS volumes ($Boot) is the Vista one BUT with 2 bytes different from the A.1 version (type NT60x). The boot code written with the /NT60 option to the bootsector/VBR of FAT12/16/32 volumes is the Vista one (type NT60). The boot code written with the /NT60 /mbr options to the MBR is the Vista one (type NT60). Versions B: The boot code written with the /NT60 option to the bootsector/VBR for NTFS volumes ($Boot) is the 7 one (type NT61). The boot code written with the /NT60 option to the bootsector/VBR of FAT12/16/32 volumes is the Vista one (type NT60). The boot code written with the /NT60 /mbr options to the MBR is the 7 one (type NT61). Versions C: The boot code written with the /NT60 option to the bootsector/VBR for NTFS volumes ($Boot) is the 8 one (type NT62). The boot code written with the /NT60 option to the bootsector/VBR of FAT12/16 volumes is the Vista one (type NT60). The boot code written with the /NT60 option to the bootsector/VBR of FAT32 volumes is the 8 one (type NT62). The boot code written with the /NT60 /mbr options to the MBR is the 7 one (type NT61). Versions D: The boot code written with the /NT60 option to the bootsector/VBR for NTFS volumes ($Boot) is the 8 one (type NT62). The boot code written with the /NT60 option to the bootsector/VBR of FAT12/16 volumes is the Vista one (type NT60). The boot code written with the /NT60 option to the bootsector/VBR of FAT32 volumes is the 8 one (type NT62). The boot code written with the /NT60 /mbr options to the MBR is the 7 one (type NT61). The boot code written with the /NT52 option is the SAME for ALL the above versions, and it is actually the 2K/XP one (type NT52). Each version of the bootcode *should* be fully compatible with previous OS versions (i.e., as an example, you can use bootsect.exe 6.3.9431.0 to fix the MBR or bootsector of a Vista install, BUT you won't have recreated the original bootsector or MBR code). The known tool MBRFIX: http://www.sysint.no/nedlasting/mbrfix.htm can supplement the version A.1 providing a way to write the original Vista (or 7) MBR code. The tool contains the NT52/NT60/NT61 versions of the MBR code and the DOS6 and DOS7/8 VBR code. Attached is the usual half-@§§ed batch, the idea is that you have in the same "root" directory the batch and the needed files, i.e. dsfo (part of the DSFOK toolkit): http://members.ozemail.com.au/~nulifetv/freezip/freeware/ and gsar: http://home.online.no/~tjaberg/ and a number of subdirectories, each with a separate version of bootsector.exe or mbrfix.exe, then you run the batch and it will extract the MBR's and VBR's and will attempt to "classify" them. Also in the attachment is the result of running the batch in my setup. Sources/References: A.1 https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=10333 vista_6000.16386.061101-2205-LRMAIK_EN.img A.2 http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=9085 6001.18000.080118-1840-kb3aikl_en.iso B.1 http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=5753 KB3AIK_EN.iso B.2 http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=5188 waik_supplement_en-us.iso C.1 Not available as .iso, use the "current" version of GetWAIKtools D.1 Not available as .iso, use the "old" version of GetWAIKtools 150 in dencorso's post D.2 Not available as .iso, use the "current" version of GetWAIKtools bootsect_test.zip

Which I would alternatively call "wipe and reinstall from install media or recovery media". jaclaz

Rest assured that (unfortunately or fortunately for you) before you were born they used to make some of the finest software around. The Norton Commander - as an example - was so prominent (and useful/handy) that it even created a new "style", the OFM ("Orthodox File Manager") and an actual common "way of working": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox_file_manager#Orthodox_file_managers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Orthodox_file_managers http://www.softpanorama.org/OFM/index.shtml At the time it was unthinkable to have not the Norton Commander and the Norton Utilities in DOS. And for all the Win 3.x period, anyone in his right mind would have used the Norton Desktop. Then, for years, Ghost has been a reference for imaging programs. I do understand however how you never liked Symantec, as *anything* they produced in the last - say - ten years was either bloated or intrusive (or both ) jaclaz

This may help you take a decision, though the same theme is discussed also in the read-me-first (point 5, to which you were ALREADY pointed to) here it is more explicit: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/128807-the-solution-for-seagate-720011-hdds/page-187#entry1067976 http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/128807-the-solution-for-seagate-720011-hdds/page-119#entry930329 http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/158397-invalid-partition-table-on-my-500gb-hdd/page-2#entry1012499 WHAT is the "difficult part" in those? Let's try again. Question: OK, I have revived a hard disk, <insert here any number of wordy descriptions and considerations>, can the drive be trusted afterwards? <optionally insert here any number of more logical reasons why you think you repaired the disk and how you think it should be blindly trusted, and how it is not possible that the manufacturer built a bad disk> Answer: NO, nein, non, ... More: http://www.freelang.net/expressions/no.php See if these further clears the matter: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/128807-the-solution-for-seagate-720011-hdds/?p=1004448 http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/128807-the-solution-for-seagate-720011-hdds/page-161?p=985254#entry985254 You have applied a "miracle" cure to an UNDIAGNOSED illness, there is NO way on Earth to know WHAT was the problem and HOW it was fixed (IF it was fixed) and how long this UNKNOWN CURE will prevent the SAME (or other) ILLNESS to affect again the disk. I am not at all offended , I am exasperated (which is different) as the SAME, SAME, SAME question that has been answered IN ALL POSSIBLE WAYS is asked AGAIN, and AGAIN and AGAIN. Your disk has been by sheer luck revived, if you managed to get the data you already were very lucky, if I were you I would not bet on it working properly again (which does not mean that it cannot happen, only that I would not bet on this). More: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/158663-problem-during-firmware-update-drive-is-not-detected/?p=1014387 http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/158663-problem-during-firmware-update-drive-is-not-detected/#entry1014421 jaclaz

Well, as I have told you by now n times, it is perfectly possible that the issue is not in "restoring" the image, but rather in "making" it, particularly if made with the system online, but not only. Rest assured that a properly made "dd-like" image once properly restored will produce something EXACTLY the same as the original at the time the image was created. jaclaz

Well, don't count on me for C, C++ or C# (the one I call C dumb). I am NOT a programmer, I write only (usually half-@§§ed ) batch scripts, usually for CMD.EXE, sometimes for grub4dos. (which doesn't really mean that I cannot put together -if really-really *needed* a C program, or even make it very, very, very small - though admittedly there are people far better than me at it ) Example (completely OT , but JFYI): http://reboot.pro/topic/18792-if-anyone-is-up-for-a-challenge/ jaclaz

There is very little "strange" in a FAT structure, it is by now well documented and with the help of a hex/disk editor it can be navigated rather easily. As a matter of fact Français.ini is an 8.3 name, only with one character not in the "plain" ASCII 7-bit. And - at least in my XP, the "Short Name" for Français.ini is - curiously enough - FRANC€AIS.INI (in the sense that hex character 80 is used). The c with cedilla may be a 231 i.e. E7 or 00E7 in UNicode and could be rendered as "pi", see: http://www.asciitable.com/ but when it comes to special characters and codepages *anything* is really possible, in CP1252 the c with sedilla is also 231 i.e. E7 but it may have been a C with cedilla which would be 199 aka C7, on codepage (say) OEM 850 and on 852 they become 135/87 and 128/80 (same as ASCII extended). On second thought, though I have never used it under 9x/Me, the DMDE (which I like a lot on NT based systems) would be a tool that can easily "find" the actual sector to correct (directory entry), and I have no reason to doubt it can do the same on 9x/Me: http://dmde.com/ It is not particularly difficult to use, but if you are not familiar with it it may take som etime to get used to it. Basically you access the logicaldrive, set the Editor to "Root Directory" (ALT+R), set the mode to FAT directory (F4), if needed, then in the lower left panel you navigate your directory tree (directories are the ones with the > sign) until you find the file entry, then select it and set the mode to hexadecimal (F2). Then you toggle to "edit mode" Edit->Edit Mode or ALT+E and proceed to change the "offending byte" (twice, one for the long and one for the short filename) jaclaz

Actually I cannot actually make heads or tails of it as well (and I am not really-really in the mood for actually testing it). It seems to me like the "client" is free, but you will need to have a server licence (which you pay for). I don't know. jaclaz

Additionally I am told that you will fail to pay for your yearly subscription to the "Clarvoyant Assistance Club", so you won't have support by their specialized technician to fix it. jaclaz

WHICH *whatever solutions*? Holding down CTRL key: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/170850-aero-glass-for-win81-121/page-46#entry1075637 should work fine, 4 second or not. jaclaz

At first sight it seems to me not like "cloud", but rather "local cloud", or if you prefer the good ol' Server/Terminal approach. What this has to do with XP EOS, though, is to be understood, from the.pdf: http://www.2x.com/docs/en/manuals/pdf/2XLifeCyclePlus.pdf I learn now how the real threat are unnecessary services. While it seems to me like the idea is to lock down desktops for users and providing a handy way to manage them (not an entirely new concept). Additionally, it seems to me like "Commercial Only", though seemingly "fairly priced". jaclaz

Just in case : jaclaz

I am sorry to give you these news in such a blunt manner , but the picture is IN COLOURS! As a chipmunk you are obviously seeing it in B&W, or more probably shades of grey. The good news being : http://reboot.pro/topic/15878-world-is-not-black-and-white/ jaclaz

Oww, comeon, it was published in 1999: http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/5/5263/1.html And was already posted (by you): http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/155290-windows-8-deeper-impressions/?p=1046963 And http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/155290-windows-8-deeper-impressions/?p=1046967 (BTW instead of "Quote", I pressed "Like" by mistake, give it back to me!) P.S.: OK, I have found the UNlike button.