jaclaz

Well, the idea is that you: choose one (and one only) among the programs if it works, good if it does not, report EXACT errors, COMPLETE description of what happens, etc., etc. it is possible - mind you - that the error comes from your (modified/nlited extremely/non-original/whatever) source, or from an actual issue of the actual hardwareFrom your posts I cannot even understand if what is not working is Rufus or WinntsetupfromUSB Try describing what EXACTLY you did and what EXACTLY you get (and please also some data bout the actual hardware you are using). Sometimes even only writing down the steps performed is enough to understand which one causes the issue. The 0X000000C8 BSOD is "not common", and usually is connected to *some* driver, what else can you read on the Blue Screen? jaclaz

And possibly it can even be a hardlink/graft-point. Added: If both are uncompressed, as JFX suggested, not if compressed, as Atari800XL "alternate solution" posted on RyanVM. http://www.ryanvm.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6438&start=2920 jaclaz

This might help: wmic DISKDRIVE GET SerialNumberjaclaz

Well, besides being "old news", if I were the FBI and I was actually capable of breaking the truecrypt encryption, I would never admit it. JFYI, some recent possible "enhancements": http://reboot.pro/topic/19690-truecrypt-patched-for-supporting-arbitrary-offsets/ and, if you change the three letter agency name, remember the XKCD's approach to the problem : http://xkcd.com/538/ jaclaz

@Evilgoku There are several different ways to install XP from a USB (stick or hard disk). None of them AFAIK require (or suggest) the use of UltraISO. Why don' t you do like everyone else and just use either among WinsetupFromUSB: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/120444-how-to-install-windows-from-usb-winsetupfromusb-with-gui/ http://www.winsetupfromusb.com/ or Akeo's Rufus: http://reboot.pro/topic/17902-rufus-v130-has-been-released/ http://rufus.akeo.ie/?locale=en_US or any of the other methods/tools posted here: http://www.msfn.org/board/forum/157-install-windows-from-usb/ as "sticky"? I mean, sometimes re-inventing the wheel or hot water is a nice thing , but the reinvented wheel needs to be rounder and the reinvented hot water hotter.... . jaclaz

Nice . Though I *need* to say something about this: JFYI: http://www.robvanderwoude.com/prompt.php jaclaz

There are a whole bunch of "DOS replacements", some are listed here: http://reboot.pro/forum/13-freedos-and-dos/ one of the "most promising" is (IMHO) nx-dos: http://reboot.pro/topic/4755-nx-dos/ which is still in active development: http://sourceforge.net/projects/nxdos/ http://digitalatoll.com:8080/tawhakisoft/nxdos.html The DR-DOS/NOvell/Caldera/OPENDOS/Devicelogics saga is IMHO way too complex to understand the exact licensing terms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DR-DOS though it has it's followers : http://www.drdos.net/ http://drdosprojects.de/ But nothing "win9x-like" AFAICR/AFAIK. Some GUI alternatives (for Dos) were talked/discussed/hinted about in these seemingly unrelated threads: http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=16754 http://reboot.pro/topic/623-minibox-rides-again/ and of course MCshell: http://reboot.pro/topic/752-mcshell-a-shell-look-a-like-to-mac-and-win31/ What I personally liked the most was the NewDeal/Breadbox Ensemble: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NewDeal#NDO OT , but not that much , what you should really-really have on your 9x/Me setups, however, would IMHO be the Win9x CMD.EXE: http://reboot.pro/topic/2392-nice-find-cmdexe-for-win9x/ jaclaz

@Rosen88 Let me understand this. You followed TO THE LETTER the set of instructions that ace2 kindly posted here: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/170850-aero-glass-for-win81-121/page-37#entry1073548 http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/163570-aero-glass-for-win81-rtm-rc3/page-16#entry1058721 which worked for several users, including kupapiachu,raiden89, dhjohns: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/170850-aero-glass-for-win81-121/?p=1073684 (same exact info, updated), Soukyuu: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/170850-aero-glass-for-win81-121/?p=1074635 sberdes, and most probably a large number of other peeps that didn't post here, and it fails for you? WHAT is (EXACTLY) the error you get? jaclaz

You see, the point is not bigmuscle telling lies (according to you), the main point is all the other users posting how it works flawlessly for them. Of course it is possible that, bigmuscle AND all the users that reported success are liars , but statistically it is more probable that a PBCAK exists in the cases of the people for which it does not work (and that additionally have your same negative, unrespectful and impolite attitude). jaclaz

Sure , without providing a reference to it. I filled this "gap", and my post was a reply to oldskool's one, sorry for having made it not clear. jaclaz

Sure , but, just to give you an example, on the very first non-test-only install of Wndows 2000, I wanted - after having fully configured it - to change it's system drive letter (something that was if not "common", quite easy to do on NT 4.00) and got as a result an unbootable system (and had to re-start from scratch). And, as said, the NTFS "glitch" was something that upset lots of people at the time (it was and it remains, sneaky, stupid and dangerous). jaclaz

Just for the record, there is a thread here to the same effect: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/77019-windows-me-iosys-winbootsys-format/ Rloew provides a decompressor (see above), look here: http://rloew.x10host.com/prerel.htm for "IO8DCOMP". jaclaz

That should be connected with ShadowStorage: http://indrajitc.wordpress.com/2008/03/25/reclaiming-disk-space-from-system-volume-information/ http://blogs.technet.com/b/filecab/archive/2006/11/16/identifying-how-much-disk-space-is-used-for-restore-points-in-windows-vista.aspx http://bertk.mvps.org/html/diskspacev.html jaclaz

You can download a copy from DigialRiver, I believe: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/157021-win-7-64-sp1-updates-3rd-party-slipstream-tools/ Also, is the actual "boot.wim" or the "install.wim" that has the scratch? You should still be able to install via WINNTSETUP (or manually) if the latter is "sound": http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/149612-winntsetup-v33-v34-beta-1/ http://reboot.pro/topic/10126-nt-6x-fast-installer-install-win7-directly-to-usb-external-drive/ jaclaz

Den, you have evidently NOT read the given link : http://reboot.pro/topic/19643-winsxs-hardlinked-files/ There is NOT (anymore) the need to pre-install to NTFS and later copy the install to FAT32. <- tested with Windows 7 7-zip is OK to copy directly from the .wim the files to a FAT32 volume. <- no need for *anything else*, including the otherwise nice XXCOPY The issue (with 7 32 bit) is the sheer number of Manifest files (and their stupidly looooong filenames) that exceeds the capabilities of the FAT32 filesystem. I have NOT available/handy a Vista install DVD, it is well possible that a Vista has a "less populated" WinSxS directory and thus works fine, if you prefer the actual "news" are that seemingly there is no need for a pre-install of the system on NTFS. jaclaz

Just for the record (and strangely enough), there has been a short period of "overlapping" of NT 4.00 and 2K. Remember that we are talking of the good ol'times where businesses/professionals used NT based OS (at leaqst on "important" workstations) and "common people" (and "lower level" workstations) used Dos based OS's. I have had a HP desktop, it was a Vectra, in 2001, if I recall correctly, that came with BOTH NT 4.00 and 2K (OEM/Custom) install CD's as initially a lot of people in the business, did not trust much the newish Windows 2000. jaclaz

I experienced a problem with one scanner driver (don't remember the model now) which completely refused to work in Windows 2003 Server. I tried to install both the 2000 and XP version but the driver just wouldn't initialise at all. As a result, the scanner wasn't detected properly and didn't work. My advice is to always check for sure whether all devices work in Windows 2003 before making a switch from XP. Sure , that's why i said "most drivers" and not "all drivers" or "every single driver" . To be fair, it is not like "probable" that a Server will have a scanner connected and - from my general experience with scanners - I would say that usually their drivers (or the Windows imaging subsystem and/or Twain and or "whatever" in it) are often a PITA, even on "desktop" OS's. JFYI : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Princess_and_the_Pea jaclaz

Sure , but unless someone tests it (and reports), noone can say whether it will be faster or slower. That's more or less the whole background of "experimenting" . JFYI: jaclaz

Naah, the only real issue is the mentioned NTFS version glitch, and yes, JFYI I have a NT 4.00 running fine since many, many years, more details are here: http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=11383 http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=11383&st=3 http://www.forensicfocus.com/Forums/viewtopic/p=6560882/#6560882 (and as said results will depend greatly on the hardware you have at hand, we have all managed to live happily even without plug'n play support for years , so that is only a minor problem) Happy experimenting. jaclaz

I was just indirectly reminded of this thread, and - in order to keep things as together as possible - here are the results of some experiments with 7 (32 bit) on FAT32: http://reboot.pro/topic/19643-winsxs-hardlinked-files/ The current 7-zip version is fine to "apply" the .wim, but the sheer number of stupid Winsxs Manifest files is the show-stopper (but user ztron has posted a possible way out ). jaclaz

Well, just for the record, right now you can still get it from MS's own "direct links" that - X - posted on the mentioned thread: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/171498-need-microsoft-security-essentials-grab-it-now/ and it is also on the Wayback Machine. jaclaz

And - surprisingly - the answer is "it depends". The biggest issues are always related to hardware and drivers, on the same machine, where proper drivers for the hardware exist or NT 4.0, 2K and XP, you will probably find that NT 4.00 is faster, with 2K closely following but using a lot more RAM BTW NT 4.00 ruins fine on FAT16 filesystem, and remember of the issue of the automatic NTFS conversion when a NT 4.00 NTFS volume is accessed by a booted 2K (which very likely applies also to XP). Just for the record, since the USB topic has been touched, besides alter's one there existed at the time a not-too-bad USB driver for NT 4.00 by Woodhead: https://web.archive.org/web/20090728130436/http://geocities.com/mypublic99/ which I remember having used successfully on a couple machines. and there is the Lenovo driver (which may or may not work on different hardware): http://support.lenovo.com/en_US/detail.page?LegacyDocID=MIGR-4TQVCU jaclaz

Just for the record, the message I was trying to convey was simply that it is futile to "worry" (please replace this with "concern" or any other synonym you might prefer ), since whatever will happen is well outside our sphere of influence, i.e. when (and if) some "news" will be available, then we will talk about the news. When there are no news, I personally see very little coming out talking of them (since they do not - yet -exist). More like in "A watched pot never boils" than anything else . More specifically, in the post that seemingly still offends you, http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/171385-xp64-on-ddr4-is-it-doable/#entry1072674 and for which I repeat my apologies: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/171385-xp64-on-ddr4-is-it-doable/?p=1072856. the proposal was to "suspend" the speculative talking for the short period between March 26, 2014 and April 8, 2014, nothing more. jaclaz

Not in any way to "force" you onto anything, of course , but really preparing an "universal" XP with Offline Sysprep is not at all "difficult", the program takes care of HALs and of mass storage drivers (of course it needs to be used with some attention, i.e. it is not an "automagic" app) but there is nothing particularly complex. Giving up is NEVER an option , and giving up without even trying is even worse jaclaz

Well, should you have not noticed , also here on MSFN you have been told: that Windows XP and 2003 "are in fact two distinctly different operating systems So they are different codebases. " <- Black that Windows XP and 2003 "are IMHO exactly the same OS artificially differentiated" <- Whiteso, you need anyway to make choices , and you will probably find yourself that the real essence will in practice come out as different shades of gray : http://reboot.pro/topic/15878-world-is-not-black-and-white/ jaclaz