jaclaz

Which graphic card do you have? Blackwingcat's site is here: http://blog.livedoor.jp/blackwingcat/ You will need to search on it for your graphic card, example: http://en.lmgtfy.com/?q=ATI+Radeon+site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fblog.livedoor.jp%2Fblackwingcat%2F (LMGTFY used only for visual explanation ) jaclaz

There are different ways to get access to the Recovery partition, see: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/128727-cant-access-repair-my-pc-option-via-f8-startup/ HP traditionally used a "special" MBR (which a good 2/3 to 3/4 of self-appointed "advanced users" traditionally botched by reinstalling some OS ): http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/131620-hp-notebook-the-recovery-partition-could-not-be-found/ but it is entirely possible that they have later added it to (say) BIOS, basically when you press F11 the original MBR CODE is re-written (and that would explain why your GRUB was gone), or is it possible that they dropped the approach completely and what the F11 press does is simply to make the Recovery partition the Active one, cannot say or that they are using (though using the F11 key) the built-in recovery provisions of Vista, the WinRE Sure you can reuse (as I already hinted earlier) the Netrunner repair utility, what you have to understand is that it is possible that it can work or not. What I mean is that you have three two choices now: 1. MBR->GRUB->grub.cfg->Linux 2. MBR->GRUB->grub.cfg->BOOTMGR->\boot\BCD this latter (in the \boot\BCD) duplicates as: 2.1 ->WINLOAD.EXE->Vista 2.2 ->NTLDR->BOOT.INI->NTDETECT.COM->XP When you exited the recovery partition "fiddling" you were presented with the: 1. MBR->PBR->BOOTMGR->\boot\BCD which later duplicates as 2.1 ->WINLOAD.EXE->Vista 2.2 ->NTLDR->BOOT.INI->NTDETECT.COM->XP The Netrunner repair utility found then an existing "main" bootmanager (which was the BOOTMGR) and added it to the GRUB together with it's own booting provision. If you prefer, the Netrunner repair utility found the system in the same exact situation as when you installed Netrunner the first time. But after you will have reinstalled the XP, the NTLDR will be the pre-existing, "main" bootmanager that the Netrunner utility will find, which is a different situation: 1. MBR->PBR->NTLDR->BOOT.INI->NTDETECT.COM->XP Whether it will anyway "keep" the already existing entries in the grub.cfg or not cannot say, but if it doesn't and simply reinstates it's own provision and "previous main" bootmanager the result may be a dual boot between Linux and XP (with no provision to boot Vista). 1. MBR->GRUB->grub.cfg->Linux 2. MBR->GRUB->grub.cfg->NTLDR->BOOT.INI->NTDETECT.COM->XP Of course you can also "repair" this latter situation by later "fixing" the Vista install (which will "Import" in the \boot\BCD the NTLDR/XP provision and make again BOOTMGR the "main" bootmanager). In theory your setup is "wrong" because you have an "intermediate passage", once you have decided that your "main" bootmanager is GRUB2, you could use it as such, i.e. have it with three choices in the same single screen as it would be more "clean" and "direct": 1. MBR->GRUB->grub.cfg->Linux 2. MBR->GRUB->grub.cfg->BOOTMGR->\boot\BCD->WINLOAD.EXE->Vista 3. MBR->GRUB->grub.cfg->NTLDR->BOOT.INI->NTDETECT.COM->XP jaclaz

If I may, the issue you just pointed out (ordinal vs. name) is only one of the causes of the so called "DLL hell", but it cannot be underestimated how a large part of it is to be attributed to sloth and "unneeded complexity" (and in some cases plain stupidity) on behalf of the actual programmers. Some reference: http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/4896/The-DLL-Hell-Problems-and-Solutions Please note how this has been removed: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms811694.aspx but we can have it through the WayBack Machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20100305054645/http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms811694.aspx Part of it is due to "abuse of DLL's" however. What I mean is, if you have to make 2+2 you normally have a mental table for it and you know that it makes up 4. You do not search for an algorithm capable of doing addition on integers, real, fractional, and imaginary numbers with precision up to 2^31 and 25 decimal places. What a number of programmers abuse is the use of such external, often overcomplicated (because they are meant for some non-trivial scope) code when there is in the programming language already the provisions to make a smaller, simpler, more suitable and faster algorithm. The use of some "programming studios" is another culprit, when examining a program for dependencies (let's say with Dependency Walker) you will find how there are often completely unneeded dependencies to functions that also exist in another .dll which is actually needed or dependencies created "automagically" by the CASE tool that have no real meaning/use. What is IMHO absurd is that the good MS guys (who have had "full control" on them since the very beginning) in all these years did not manage to keep at least the so-called "known" DLL's and the small bunch of VCC redistributables under control and their way out (supposed "solution" in their perverted minds) is the total folly that Windows Side-by-Side (WinSxS) "assemblies" represents (including their crazy folder/file names). jaclaz

Sector 63 is seemingly fine (that text you see is the "normal" - though "French" - set of error messages that may be displayed when attempting to boot), nothing "weird" . The data in it confirms the $MFT starting at LCN 786432 and the "sectors before (63) and the disk geometry (255/63), and cluster size is 8 sectors (all "normal" values). The "new" info is that the $MFTMirr is at LCN 122095000 (in case of need). The $MFTMirr is (should be) an Exact copy of the first few records (4 of them) of the $MFT. If you extract 8 sectors starting on LCN 786432 (i.e. 786432*8+63=LBA 6291519) and 8 sectors starting from LCN 122095000 (i.e. 122095000*8+63=LBA 976760063) the resulting files should be identical. Since both the MBR and the PBR are OK, once verified that $MFT and $MFTMirr are identical, everything leads to a filesystem (NTFS) specific error. Testdisk has a provision to compare the $MFT with the $MFTMirr allowing the user to overwrite the $MFT with the $MFTMirr if they are different. This kind of errors (normally) can be fixed from Windows by running the CHKDSK utility, in any case DMDE can normally recover the files. Once you have the image made, the fixing procedure to attempt is (assuming that the partition gets drive letter F: in windows, change it to suit your situation), open a command prompt and in it type: [ENTER] it will print some data and end saying something like "cannot proceed in Read ONly mode as no /F parameter was specified" Redo as: [ENTER] this time you will likely have a number of error reports and correspondent "fixes". Once it has finished, redo as: [ENTER] this last run is likely to last a lot more time and report a bigger number of errors and fixes. If the above is what happens, run a last time the simple: and this time the run should end with something like "Windows has checked the file system and found no problems". Of course it is possible (though rare) that CHKDSK cannot repair a NTFS filesystem, in which case the only way to recover the files is to use specific tools (like the mentioned DMDE, which often can rebuild a "faked" filesystem to get the files or PHOTOREC or other "file oriented" file recovery tools), but let's first see if CHKDSK succeeds. jaclaz

I was addressing the comment by Ponch about the apparently low resolution of the screenshot (of the 2k) you posted, pointing out how most probably to fit in 124 Mb that build used a "standard" VGA video driver. jaclaz

39/124=0,31451612903225806451612903225806 1/3=0,33333333333333333333333333333333 jaclaz

Sure , but even your 39 Mb are about one third of the whole system footprint . Faq/Fga : Q. Are the Nvidia drivers (and connected programs/tools) an insanely huge mass of bloat? A. Yes. jaclaz

A "current" Nvidia driver (for XP): http://www.nvidia.com/download/driverResults.aspx/57493/en-us GeForce 307.83 Driver Version: 307.83 WHQL Release Date: 2013.2.26 Operating System: Windows XP Language: English (US) File Size: 155.00 MB jaclaz

@Ponch Considering that the mentioned 2K install takes MUCH LESS SPACE than a current (say) nVidia set of drivers need today I guess you have to put things into perspective. A "plain" (no tweaks/removals) install of 2K is (was) around 650 Mb. A "plain" (no tweals/removal) install of XP is (was) around 1.5 Gb. If someone will be so kind to explain to me some valid reasons about the correlation between making the stupid OS 2.5 x the size of the previous one and the (supposedly) added "features", I would be happy. Just for the record, I was able at the time to fit a "good enough" basic 2K OS in , but still with a "fair" 1024x768 resolution , into 86 Mb: http://reboot.pro/topic/5679-a-mini-build-of-win2k/ http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/41208-reducing-bartpe/?p=287518 in 124 Mb you can have a fairly "complete" OS. Still for the record, NT 4.00, needed around 115 Mb for a "full install" and it was easy by removing only a few help files to fit it on a ZIp 100 Mb disk. jaclaz

Here is a suitable command line (when run from the XP install): Please make sure that the disk is the first one (disk 0 in disk management) \\.\PhysicalDrive0 = source 0 = offset from the beginning of the source 32256= 63*512 length to be copied C:\myfirsttrack.dat = destination jaclaz

Well, I get it with Opera but not with (say) Srware Iron, that lets me access the pages fine . But I will reiterate how a misconfiguration or more generally "issues" can happen to everyone , anytime, whilst crafting a message like: is intentional and plain stupid. jaclaz

Well, not-so-surprisingly, Microsoft decided to use common terms the other way around from the rest of the world (or from elementary logic), JFYI: http://www.multibooters.co.uk/system.html A partition is marked as "boot" or "active" in the MBR, the way MS calls the partitions is simply one of the other ways they manage to make a mess of otherwise quite simple terminology. Easiest would be to make a copy of : 1.first track (first 63 sectors, the GRUB2 will probably occupy only a bunch of them but it costs nothing to save the whole lot), and a copy of relevant files from the various partitions: 2.from the first one: NTLDR, NTDETECT.COM and BOOT.INI 3.from the second one: BOOTMGR and the \boot\BCD folder 4.from the "linux" one, the whole /boot folder The only item that you will actually need to restore after XP re-install/repair will be #1, but having a copy of the other items allows (in case of some unexpected issue) to fix the whole stuff anyway (or to create a "recovery media" as hinted earlier). I hope you understand that since the time you installed any of those OS's you have most probably lost (possibly in a non recoverable way) boot-time access to the HP recovery partition (as hinted before by submix8c) don't you? I would personally use dsfo from the DSFOK toolkit from the booted XP: http://members.ozemail.com.au/~nulifetv/freezip/freeware/ to save those 63 sectors to a file, but you can well use any tool/utility with direct disk access that you may have handy or are more familiar with. jaclaz

Opera is "Opera" until version 12: http://www.opera.com/docs/history/presto/ Anything after, including Opera Next is what we highly specialized technicians define as "half-@§§ed Chrome" : http://www.opera.com/docs/history/ With Opera v12 accessing the site: http://www.windowsbbs.com/ redirects me to: http://www.helpwithwindows.com/WindowsBBS.html Whether it is by design or by mistake it is anyway stupid, and stupidity must not be hidden. BOTH sites are owned by FDMA Media LLC: http://www.fdma-media.com/ which is seemigly a "one man show" by this guy Arie Slob (MS MVP, MCSA, MCDST, MCP, AWN[1]): http://mvp.microsoft.com/en-us/mvp/Arie%20Slob-9155 jaclaz [1] AWN=And What Not, a complimentary title I award personally to anyone with at least two MC* titles.

Which "fantastic" sequence? There is nothing fantastic in it, everything is very, very "normal". There is also a nice graphical version of it: http://www.multibooters.co.uk/multiboot.html jaclaz

Not really (in detecting if it is GRUB or GRUB2) but it does tell us that your "main" bootmanager is the GRUB or GRUB 2, which has only two entries, one of which chainloads your secondary bootmanager (which is the Vista BOOTMGR). But still you can get to the GRUB (or GRUB2) in two ways: GRUB (or GRUB2) code in the MBR + hidden sectors <- please read as "installed to the disk" "normal" MBR and GRUB (or GRUB2) code in the PBR of the active partition <- please read as "installed to the partition"Now, HOW (EXACTLY) is your hard disk partitioned? WHICH is the active partition? Can you find (likely on the "Linux" partition) files core.img and grub.cfg (possibly in a \boot\ folder? <- this would mean that it is GRUB2 alright jaclaz

Also: http://blogs.technet.com/b/askperf/archive/2007/05/08/slow-large-file-copy-issues.aspx Maybe doing a couple tests with a tool like Killcopy: http://www.killprog.com/killcopye.html with different buffer sizes could help in finding a "good" setting to avoid the "general slowdown" when copying (but still it won't "fix" the actual issue) Also MS Richcopy might be worth a try: http://blogs.technet.com/b/keithcombs/archive/2009/03/22/richcopy-bulk-file-copy-tool-released-get-it-here.aspx jaclaz

Naaah: my little (and possibly bad ) influence has been eradicated from it . jaclaz

JorgeA You seemingly miss some background. A MBR is made of three main parts: CODE Disk Signature (only on NT based systems) (DATA) Partition Table (DATA)A "normal" MBR has additionally these two characteristics: it is 512 bytes long (i.e. it fits entirely in the first sector) its only scope is to chainload the first sector (PBR) of the Primary partition marked as actiive in the partition table.Booting sequence for a "normal" MBR: BIOS->MBR->PBR of Active Primary partition->loader or system file->OS In XP: BIOS->MBR->PBR of Active Primary partition->NTLDR->BOOT.INI choices->NTDETECT.COM-> XP OS In Vista: BIOS->MBR->PBR of Active Primary partition->BOOTMGR->\boot\BCD choices->WINLOAD.EXE-> Vista OS A Linux behaves differently. The GRUB or GRUB2 can be installed BOTH to the MBR (but in this case it will take more than the first sector) or to the Volume/Partition (PBR). IF the GRUB is installed to the MBR, it will look for it's own files, and then access it's configuration file (either menu.lst or grub.cfg) where the "choices" are. IF the GRUB is installed to the PBR, the MBR may remain a "normal" one, still only chainloading the PBR of the active partition, which will then load GRUB. We have to understand if your MAIN bootmanager is currently the Vista BOOTMGR or either GRUB or GRUB2, and how EXACTLY they are set. TESTDISK (as well as other data recovery oriented tools) will only care about the partition table of a MBR (completely ignoring both the code and the disk signature). Of course any install will NOT change the partition table (nor the Disk Signature, unless it is empty or having a collision with another disk). The XP install will change the CODE of the MBR, replacing it with a "normal" MBR simply chainloading the PBR of the active primary partition. It will also change the CODE in the PBR writing one that will load NTLDR. It will "keep" the contents of BOOT.INI. But if you installed those three Operating Systems in that order, the Vista install will have: replaced the MBR with some slighly different code (but that still chainloads the PBR of the active partition)replaced the PBR code with one loading BOOTMGRadded to the \boot\BCD an entry corresponding to the one(s) you had before in BOOT.INIThe point is then which bootmanager Netrunner uses and HOW EXACTLY it was installed. It could have been installed at least in two ways: to the MBR (and hidden sectors) and become the "main" bootmanager to the PBR (of another partition dedicated to the Linux OS) and added as an entry to the \boot\BCDjaclaz

This is starting to be interesting , believe it or not I was thinking exactly at that good ol' toy when I saw Real Steel first time. But you have it wrong. That was old design, it was simple, it was sturdy, mechanical and it worked. If you would make a new one would have: touch screen and gestures interfaceWi-Fi or anyway wireless connectionAndroid or Java (or both)need to be connected to the Internetno user replaceable batteries (you would need to take it to service to replace them)jaclaz

A "normal" install of any MS system will always try to (and usually succeed ) "take control" of the booting sequence. Particularly an XP setup is made of 2 steps, the first one where the $WIN_NT$.~BT and $WIN_NT$.~LS are created on a hard disk volume and the second where files from it are actually booted from. The usual procedure is: fully understand your current boot sequence save/backup, etc. install the Windows XP restore the previous situationIf you installed Netrunner, it is likely to be using either GRUB (the real. good ol' thing that the good Linux guy senselessly now call "GRUB legacy") or GRUB2 (the new thing that the good Linux guys senselessly now call GRUB, thus creating a lot of confusions/misunderstindings). Procedure to restore/reinstall the one or the other is different, most probably Netrunner installer/.iso does have a "repair" provision, point is that it may not find your old configuration file (menu.lst or grub.cfg) and find only the just reinstalled XP, so that the result will be a dual boot XP/Netrunner and Vista will be inaccessible/unbootable. I would personally make an "external" media (like a USB stick or a floppy, or even a CD) with grub4dos, NTLDR, NTDETECT.COM, BOOT.INI, BOOTMGR and /boot/BCD capable of booting all three systems as they are now, to be on the "safe side" and reinstall the XP only after you have tested and verified working this solution (BTW, I would have made this anyway, even if no reinstall of XP is foreseen/foreseeable). jaclaz

I might add that it is not the first time that I see posts/threads where - in the end - it is a "mismatch", like "retail key" used for OEM disc, or OEM sticker key not valid for supplied media, etc. The "casual" mentioning of "Dell" may be another good sign of possible issues (for whatever reasons both Dell hardware and Dell originated discs have been a PITA for almost anything that works otherwise everywhere else). A quick check in PID string may help to understand if the issue is a mismatch: http://wiki.lunarsoft.net/wiki/Product_IDs see also the note about reported issues with CD labels. And/or check for the screenshots of different version (when you are asked for the key): http://www.thetechguide.com/misc/winxp.html jaclaz

Still, this is a very unofficial way: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/163751-windows-update-trouble/?p=1048617 Possibly the "more official" method summed up by submix8c here: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/163751-windows-update-trouble/?p=1064521 will do as well, without needing to download from mediafire a file from a "stranger" (mind you, the file is "OK" , and - X - is a known and highly reputed member for us that know him since a looong time, but he may appear not like that to a new member of the Forum ). jaclaz

@Balconybar Make sure that you have selected "view installed updates" http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/tutorials/windows-vista-updates-and-extras/ jaclaz

OT, but not much, this site: http://www.windowsbbs.com/ Gets this if accessed from Opera: It's starting to seem more like a "New Highway, no European cars allowed, sorry" or "Due to abuses by taxi drivers no yellow cars allowed to enter the garage"... jaclaz

@Charlotte Sure , and having (say) a Seagate hard disk hardware tester would be even better to test a Seagate disk drive and make sure it has no issues . Your approach is very good , the point was trying to do something with the least effort, or with a simpler approach first, jaclaz