jaclaz

Hmmm. I like this one! :

For the record BOTH drivers .sys and .pdr are EXACTLY the same, there are only some (it seems to me like very marginal, i.e. related to the driver name in the GUI ) differences in the .inf install file, not really "an alternative", but rather "another copy". And still for the record, these are "plain" and "language independent" USB drivers for 98, while NUSB is a more complete (and complex) set of files including a full USB stack, and - at least last time I tested it - seemed like "language dependent". jaclaz

And, should it not we even have an alternative for it : http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/99220-generic-98-usb-driver-for-memory-sticks-on-98se-works/ jaclaz

Naah, having survived (as well as the Internet and all the rest of people ) the Christmas of Death : http://radsoft.net/news/roundups/grc/20011223,00.shtml http://radsoft.net/news/roundups/grc/20011224,00.shtml https://web.archive.org/web/20011128173700/http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/19332.html https://web.archive.org/web/20011206001238/http://grc.com/dos/grcdos.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20011211112259/http://grc.com/dos/winxp.htm you'll need something more "substantial" to hack me off . jaclaz P.S. : and before anyone asks, yes, I survived (just like all the rest of the world) also the end of Antivirus effectiveness in 1992: https://web.archive.org/web/20010805135801/http://vmyths.com/rant.cfm?id=348&page=4 http://spth.virii.lu/40hex7/40HEX-7.005.txt

Are you a Customer of Verizon (yes/no). If Yes, go here: http://my.verizon.com/micro/whitelist/ http://my.verizon.com/micro/whitelist/RequestForm.aspx?id=member and tell them that you are not receiving e-mails... jaclaz

Let's see if I can sum up the experience till now, I miss bit and pieces of the procedure you followed. 1. You have a "main" (normally working) Windows, let's call it the "C:\Windows". The BOOTMGR and \boot\BCD reside in the "hidden" 100 Mb partition. 2. Then you have another instance of Windows, let's call it the "D:\Windows" on another partition, also working. 3. Somehow you must have added this "D:\Windows" booting option to the \boot\BCD to test that it works and boots. 4.Then you use Paragon *whatever* to "clone" (actually image) the D:\Windows install to a .vhd, let's call this "ParagonWindows.vhd". 5. Somehow you must have added this "ParagonWindows.vhd" booting option to the \boot\BCD to test that it works and boots. 6.Then you create with your own tools, with a procedure that you don't want to disclose, a new .vhd with EXACTLY the same contents (according to you) of BOTH the "D:\Windows" and of the "ParagonWindows.vhd", let's call this "MyOwnWindows.vhd". 7. Somehow you must have added this "MyOwnWindows.vhd" booting option to the \boot\BCD to test that it works BUT find out that it does not boot I have more or less clear points 1.,2., 4. and 6. above (but feel free to correct those points also), I have NO idea of what you did in points 3., 5. and 7. (and not even if they exist at all or if the "vague" descripton I made is in any way accurate. About DIsk Signature, you have right now the "ParagonWindows.vhd" working, try: AFTER having made a backup of it's MBR (first sector) hex edit it to change the Disk Signature in it to a "random" oneTry booting from the "ParagonWindows.vhd"If it fails, try again after having completely cleared the MountedDevices in the Registry of the "ParagonWindows.vhd"What happens? Try restoring the backed up MBR and repeat. What happens? If you prefer try "negative" troubleshooting, i.e. instead of changing things (always one by one) to the .vhd that is not working, try changing things (still one at the time) to the .vhd that is working, until it fails to work, then last thing you changed will be the one that "s different " and probably causes the issue: jaclaz

Which is OK , as there is not such a function built-in, but it can be added. Like: http://www.outlookcode.com/d/code/sendreminder.htm http://www.slipstick.com/developer/send-email-outlook-reminders-fires/ http://stackoverflow.com/questions/21554448/outlook-2010-create-email-from-appointment-reminder-multiple-categories or get one of the many (Commercial) add-ons. jaclaz

Good, but what to compare it with? Also, try setting the Disk Signature of your "created" image to the SAME Disk Signature the Paragon made image has, same for offset, same for volume label and serial. Or, do the reverse, i.e. change the Paragon made image, changing one at the time these things (Disk Signature, Volume Label, Volume Serial). Check for any other difference in the actual filesystem between the Paragon created image and yours. jaclaz

Well, it does not work like that. If the hardware is SATA, the BIOS of the machine may (or may not) provide a IDE compatibility option, particularly on Large OEM machines, the "XP does not support SATA natively" is irrelevant, XP has the possibility to integrate additional drivers, so the fact that "as it was released from MS it's drivers database did not contain SATA drivers"does not imply that the BIOS has this mode. As a matter of fact a largish number of "large OEM" laptops do have this issue of having a very limited choices BIOSes. jaclaz

Again, there is NO such thing as "specific" USB flash sticks "compatible" with 98 or Me. If the OS has USB drivers (for mass storage class) *any* will work (talking of "base" features, i.e. set aside encryption, particular partitioning/formatting, etc.). jaclaz

Well, I wonder how you can check if you have the "right" MountedDevices entries without knowing the Disk Signature as the former is made out of the latter. However JFYI: http://thestarman.pcministry.com/asm/mbr/Win2kmbr.htm http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?s=&showtopic=19663&view=findpost&p=130963 http://www.multibooters.com/tutorials/view-and-change-disk-signature-in-mbr.html Also, the \boot\BCD entries, as said, may be relevant. jaclaz

Cannot say. Your BCD has this entry: Windows Boot Loader-------------------identifier {267d66e7-cac6-11e3-bf61-fbecbf5a7db4}device ramdisk=[C:]\Recovery\WindowsRE\Winre.wim,{267d66e8-cac6-11e3-bf61-fbecbf5a7db4}path \windows\system32\winload.efidescription Windows Recovery Environmentlocale en-USinherit {bootloadersettings}displaymessage Recoveryosdevice ramdisk=[C:]\Recovery\WindowsRE\Winre.wim,{267d66e8-cac6-11e3-bf61-fbecbf5a7db4}systemroot \windowsnx OptInbootmenupolicy Standardwinpe YesWhich seems very similar to the one the ASUS AIrecovery appears to make (check the .cmd files in the ASUS.ZIP in the reference). Looking at the names of the other files in it, and peeking in the "plain text" ones, it seems like the Asus AI recovery creates (or uses or both) a "normal" WinRE, but with a \GHOST\Winperestore.exe, which may (or may not) be connected with the good ol' Symantec Ghost. It is VERY likely that this is the cause of the issue: but I am surprised (and deluded , as I usually hold the good Asus guys in the highest esteem) that they do not provide the tools to re-create the Recovery partition after the 8.1 Update (which according to the MS peeps is a sort of "compulsory" upgrade, not a "normal" update/Service Pack). jaclaz

Sure , and if my grandpa had 5 (steel ) balls he would have been a pinball. jaclaz

One of the two (the one that fails seemingly) has 128 sectors before (unusual but that should not create any issue) and is active whilst the one that works has 2048 (normal alignment nowadays) and is not active (but since the BOOTMGR and \boot\BCD are "elsewhere" it's fine). But you failed to post info about the Disk Signature and the Mounteddevices data you have in the Registry, and the *whatever* you have in your \boot\BCD for the two .vhd's. jaclaz

Just in case: jaclaz

This has nothing to do with "supporting" XP, it's all about hardware, NOT OS. jaclaz

Things to check are/can be: Disk signature.Offset to active partition (if you prefer partition alignment) and active statusVolume serial.Volume label.CHS geometry (but that should not be anympore an issue with Windows Vista and later boot code)Basically all you have to compare are the MBR's and the VBR's of the two .vhd's for any difference, *everything else* is within the "normally accessible" areas of the filesystem and won't make a difference. jaclaz

Still, nothing tells me which actual advantages you expect from this approach. But it's not my business at all, anyway. What I would do right now if I were you would be to (temporarily) forget about your approach and see if you can find the *whatever* you are missing into the procedures used for native or non-native VHD booting, like: http://reboot.pro/topic/16557-vhd-based-windows-to-go/ http://reboot.pro/topic/18467-vhd-w8-compact-make-mini-8/ Maybe the step you are missing is correcting/updating the MountedDevices key? Or *somehow* your procedure changes the Disk Signature of the .vhd? Maybe if instead of "directly" on the Surface2 you try your test inside a "more normal" VM, you can get a BSOD or however an error that could give hint of what is the actual problem. jaclaz

OK, now I understand better, still I miss why exactly you want to "install to C:\" and later "move" this install "to Z:\" (but leaving the "program files, users, etc. folders" on C:\). I mean (just an idea) why not installing to the VHD and later move the "program files, users, etc. folders" to C:\? And, if I get this right, the "final goal" is to have (besides the "boot" partition with the BOOTMGR and the \boot\BCD which may be either a separate one or being your same "C:\") all the actual Operating System, exception made for "program files, users, etc. folders" inside the .vhd while having the "program files, users, etc. folders" still resifding on C:\. But I am still failing to uinderstand what would be the advantage use of such a setup. Saving hard disk space? Allow for a (better) multibooting? As a side note, if you are into Windows 8.1, the new Wimboot approach may interest you (if the scope is to save hard disk space). Also, more generally, if you capture a Wim image of the C:\ and apply it ot the .vhd, what happens? (without any third party tool and rather simple). jaclaz

Well, you can say the same about "Windows Operating Systems" and "Computer technology" (and almost anything else). jaclaz

3. This is important to know, post this info when you are back. 6. but you have an available USB stick, right? How big in size? How big do you want to make the NT 4.00 install? 7. This will be easily fixed, get it from links posted here: http://reboot.pro/topic/18163-memdisk-limit-creating-bootable-dos-image/?p=167861 and play a bit with it. The reason I am suggesting to you Qemu is that it uses a "most plain" virtual hardware and can use directly dd-like images (without the complication of .pln or .vmdk descriptor files, thus avoiding th eneed of *any* conversion). 8.not relevant, if the USB stick is big enough to contain a plain dd-like image (as-is or gzipped) as we can use grub4dos dd to restore it to the laptop hard disk. jaclaz

Good , but we still don't know if the "original" mechanism was (it can be anything of the following): "custom" Asus BIOS that provides F9 option (if a given set of conditions are met) before the hard disk is even accessed "custom" Asus MBR code that provides the F9 option before passing control to the VBR "custom" Asus change in the "standard" Microsoft Windows Recovery providing F9 option instead of the more common F8 (and this happens in the \boot\BCD, i.e. well after the MBR and VBR code have done what they are supposed to do.Searching a bit for your issue I have seen - among the usual bunch of completely unuseful or plainly wrong threads on the matter - a couple ones hinting that the recovery partition is a bootable partition and that all is needed is to make it active and boot from it (to start the factory recovery process), but cannot say how reliable they are. In any case, even if that works, it would mean to restore the thingy (at least the "C:\" drive) to factory settings (and most probably the F9 thingy will be back), but if the mechanism is in the MBR or elsewhere, it is very possible that only through a "full factory restore" you can get back the option. Also it seems that pressing the F9 is particularly tricky (due to timing problems with the fastish booting machines), how exactly did you get to the: ? Also I am not following you with the reagent.xml file. Where did you find it? How/why do you believe that it needed editing/adding that line? Another of the threads I found talks of a AI (whatver it is) program and of a "changehd.exe" program that should re-connect the recovery disc making utility with the recovery image, see: (but have no idea if this is what you are missing and/or if it is suitable to your specific model) jaclaz

Maybe you could expand a little on: Why exactly you want or need this particular setup (i.e. what is the intended final goal)What exactly you have tried, exact meaning exact, as opposed to "vague", i.e. "I used program xy wit this specific command line w z as opposed to a program that preserves security and hard links on files, so everything is "original"Right now I cannot understand what is your expected final result . jaclaz

Well, without ANY conspiracy approach, you will have to admit that: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2952664/en-us and the "tagging" of it as "Update type: Recommended" could have been better rendered as: and tagged as "Update type: Unneeded for normal functioning of the OS". "make improvements to the current operating system in order to ease the upgrade experience" Let's call things with their names: "preventively fix possible errors during the upgrade" Gotta go, I have to "ease my wife's driving experience in the morning" <- I must replace her car battery because it does not start if it's cold in the morning . jaclaz

A number of people would call that "looking backwards", JFYI . jaclaz