jaclaz

The accent was not on "crossing the Rubicon" it was on what was said while doing it. Alea jacta esto has many points in common with "to be or not to be", the latter is a doubt, the former is the plain declaration that what will happen (which is "to be or not to be" or "to win or loose" or "live or die") largely depends on the Fates, and the probabilities were actually very near 50%. There are two meanings of that sentence, one is "once you have thrown the dice, you are playing" or "no way back", but this comes from the common translation "The die is cast", coming from the elision of the o in Alea jacta esto, the other comes from the more correct philological translation from the original greek (yes, in Cesar's times they spoke mainly Greek and not yet Latin) that translates more correctly as "Let the die be cast!", or "Let the game be ventured!". Flippism is about randomness and probabilities, as the cast of the die is. Hamlet's doubts as well as the Matrix's RED pill are about choosing between two options (and the decision is made without the intervention of probabilities). jaclaz

OW, comeon, everyone knows that chimps don't use the keyboard, gorillas do : http://www.koko.org/world/kokopix.php?page=837 Orangutans are more about the Apple iPad, though: http://redapes.org/multimedia/apps-for-apes/ I don't know why, but I see a Rule #34 hiding somewhere.... jaclaz

Sure , but you cannot expect to find an existing tutorial titled "How to dual boot XP and Windows 98 on an Acer Aspire 5738Z, including all the drivers you will need for both OS's, the BIOS upgrades and a complimentary list of all programs and add-ons that a typical Windows 98 user from Bulgaria may find useful". jaclaz

Welcome Georgi. First thing you should do should be to go through this "sticky": http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/95815-important-stickified-pinned-959898-seme-topics/ which lists more all less all we have avaialble regarding your questions. Once you will have read that (and the relevant topics linked to in it) you will have a fair idea of what has already been done and probably find between 90 and 99% of the answers to your questions. As well, about installing, take your time on this thread (also sticky): http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/118623-how-to-create-easily-a-second-win98xp-in-the-same-computer/ Then, do come back with the questions to which you haven't found a suitable answer in the above. jaclaz

Well, if you think a bit about it is "only too logical". The tasks that traditionally the bootsector (or PBR or VBR) code should perform is: set/check some parameters (the BPB or Bios Parameter Block) call/invoke the loader or system file (possibly passing to it some of these parameters)it is evident that the bootsector code for each Operating System that uses a different loader or system file will be different: all DOS bootsectors invoke IO.SYSall FreeDOS bootsectors invoke KERNEL.SYSall Windows NT up to XP/Server 2003 invoke NTLDRall Windows NT starting from Vista invoke BOOTMGRIf you check the comparison here: http://thestarman.pcministry.com/asm/mbr/FAT32xp7comp.htm attentively you will see that the main "human readable difference" is that one has the string "NTLDR" and the other the string "BOOTMGR", there are other few differences in the BPB, and this is "normal", and as well there are some little differences in the CODE, but it is clear that one is an adaptation of the other pointing to a different system file. The "problem" is that many years ago (with NT 3.x) the good MS guys decided that the TWO different operations that were required to make a bootable FileSystem in DOS: FORMAT <- create the filesystem bootsector, including the BPB BUT without writing any CODE SYS <- write the CODE to the bootsector AND transfer to the filesystem the system files (historically, i.e. up to DOS 6.22 in a given order)which were already "merged" into the single "FORMAT /S" command somehow *needed* to be merged into the single FORMAT command . Of course they didn't really merged all of the SYS command functions , but only the writing of the CODE to the bootsector. So, any filesystem created with the FORMAT command under any DOS has NOT any CODE in the bootsector, whilst the FORMAT command under any NT based system includes some code, which is different in different versions of the NT OS. jaclaz

Monkeys do keep their documents users folder on C: , if they don't they cannot upgrade to 8.1: http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows8_1-windows_install/sorry-it-looks-like-this-pc-cant-run-windows-81/84310e8a-edd3-48d7-af31-0b09666b0c74 Sometimes I wonder what a cyberarcheologist from year 2513 (or *any* alien of a more advanced race) might think of this early computer civilization, if they find about this issue. A solution was given on page 10, by user "TSoftware": http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows8_1-windows_install/sorry-it-looks-like-this-pc-cant-run-windows-81/84310e8a-edd3-48d7-af31-0b09666b0c74?page=10 And of course Ed Bott's opinion is that MS is correct , because it supports a stupid workaround approach and has determined that the simple, right, logical one (btw elsewhere considered "best practice" is not supported: http://www.zdnet.com/dont-move-your-windows-user-profiles-folder-to-another-drive-7000022142/ jaclaz

mariella, really I cannot understand you. If you have a question, ask it , but it has to be a definite question, my ESP powers are at a very low level, and my crystal ball is AGAIN in the shop for maintenance and tuning. What is "this"? What is "what is described in the following pages"? jaclaz

Very useful to keep a historical set of files, in case the latest mod/update has issues. jaclaz

Well, maybe that tutorial said something slightly different and you don't remember it exactly. This behaviour of BOOTMGR is not among the "most known" things, and as a matter of fact it has been AFAICR hinted for the first time here: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/140412-release-siginets-plop-usb-boot-manager-installer/ till then everyone was convinced that BOOTMGR loaded NTLDR (i.e. that an entry in \boot\BCD for the "previous OS" was needed) and that NTLDR loaded the BOOT.INI choices. Further experiments confirmed that instead BOOTMGR reads directly BOOT.INI but selectively "chooses" only non-arcpath entries. jaclaz

Actually Julius Cesar did the same some 2000 years earlier, the alea iacta est is not that much different: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alea_iacta_est by crossing the Rubicon he (and all his army) had a 50% probability of winning (and surviving) and a 50% of losing (and thus dying) the battle to gain the control of Rome. And I suspect it wasn't even then much original, as long before that it had been already stated, Ecclesiastes 1:9: jaclaz

I am not sure to have understood your question (actually I am pretty sure I have not understood it ). See if this helps: The behaviour of a BOOTMGR is the following: start booting look for a file \boot\BCD in the SAME partition the BOOTMGR is booted from parse it's contents look for a file \BOOT.INI in the SAME partition the BOOTMGR is booted from parse it's contents and discard each and every entry that is an arcpath and consider ONLY those that are direct links to a bootsector file display as user boot menu options the entries found in the \boot\BCD and the ones not discarded found in \BOOT.INI boot/chainload the *whatever* the user choseArc path reference: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc977184.aspx Direct bootsector entry reference: http://thestarman.pcministry.com/asm/mbr/bootini.htm#BP jaclaz

BTW flippism is a term duly registered (and explained) in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flipism Seriously, whenever chances near (like in 40% or 60%) the 50% mark, i.e. there is not a definite or reliable enough answer, flipping a coin is as accurate as actually choosing, with the not-so-trifling advantage that on average (i.e. roughly 50% of times ) when you get what reveals itself as the "wrong" choice, you don't have to blame yourself , but you can blame bad luck, or the Devil for it. This helps in living a better life . @Ponch If you choose the RED PILL (coincidentally a 50% probability ), you should be aware that the rabbit hole may be deeper than expected: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_pill_and_blue_pill jaclaz

Easy. Get TWO of the cheapest ones you can find. You are not looking for "top performers" in speed, cache, access times or whatever, actually the slower they are the lower is the probability they will break, also, the smaller they are the more chances you have they won't break soon. The issue with Seagate drives (the one that "made the numbers") was/is limited to a specific model, the 7200.11, and similar issues affected only a much smaller amount of the later 7200.12 model. Seagate did a terrible job, both in the engineering/firmware AND in the support (particularly this latter), but no disk manufacturer is immune from this. Since the 2011 "big merge": http://www.seagate.com/about/newsroom/press-releases/seagate-completes-aquisition-samsungs-hdd-business-pr/ it is not like you have that many choices: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/163189-hard-drive-controller-errors-abound-atapi-event-11/ http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/163189-hard-drive-controller-errors-abound-atapi-event-11/?p=1041845 If you set aside Toshiba, you can use flippism alright (an approach that has proved being very accurate whenever a hard disk is involved): http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/153191-does-copying-several-giga-bytes-on-a-daily-base-screw-the-hard-drive/ to choose between Seagate and Western Digital. Redundancy is the only solution. Redundancy is the only solution. Redundancy is the only solution. jaclaz

It should be about "location platform": http://www.adilhindistan.com/2013/04/change-location-settings-via-powershell.html http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/apps/hh768219.aspx jaclaz

The trend is to reach version: 8.1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 by summer of 2027. At that time, all computers will crash as the name of an update file and particularly that in the WinSxS folder will be longer than the whole available space on disk. The global crash will result on skynet getting self-awareness ..... jaclaz P.S.: this post was made to show how the board software deals with looong strings

There are a number of variables. The specific virtual machine, the availability of dedicated accelerators/system tools, etc. may play a role in this. Generically speaking, you can expect the OS inside the VM to run at a speed (processor/CPU) between 33% and 70% of what it would run on the "real" machine (provided that you have the drivers for the latter). The storage subsystem is usually very fast, and the memory usage only depends on how much memory you assign to the VM. Speaking of say a 2K, that normally ran on (say) a 600 Mhz CPU with 128 Mb or 256 Mb of Ram, it will run in a VM on a modern machine with a 2 Ghz processor at the same speed or better that what it ran at the time on the hardware available at the time. jaclaz

Well, I am not particularly familiar with Linux disk/hex editors, I would probably try using: http://www.wxhexeditor.org/home.php but here you are in a "subset" of the original issue, we now know, with very good approximation where to look. So you can simply dd the two sectors to file with dd and have a look at them with *any* hex editor. Let's assume that your disk is sdc: dd if=/dev/sdc of=mymft.bin bs=4096 skip=788480 count=1 should extract the first sector of the $MFT to mymft.bin and dd if /dev/sdc of=myboot.bin bs=4096 skip=732567551 count=1 should do the same for the first sector of the bootsector. This said, what I personally use (and recommend) in similar cases (for Windows) is DMDE: http://dmde.com/ which is a nice tool with a number of useful function, tools, very friendly licensed (Free for almost all functions and for recovery of single items, pay a very fair amount of money for recovery of multiple items). There is for it a Linux (console) version which I have never personally used but that I expect to have same or similar functions to the GUI Windows version I normally use. At least the windows version is fastish/very good at searching/finding the $MFT and at navigating on a disk or image. jaclaz

About Badbios, see here: http://reboot.pro/topic/19111-badbios/ About Windows Phone success in Italy, see here: http://gadget.wired.it/news/cellulari/2013/11/05/windows-phone-ios-italia-643782.html (the actual data is in English) In Germany +6%, in UK +7.2%, in France +5.5%, in Italy +2.9% and it has success in Italy? Please consider that *anyone* in Italy interested in a Smartphone has already one or two of them, and typically 90% will have an iPhone and 9.9% a Samsung and (maybe) 0.1% *something else*. I just faked the above percentages, but really noone here is going to buy a new phone, not in year 2013/first half of 2014, unless the one they already have breaks, the crisis is biting, and, still anecdotal evidence at it's best I have never seen a Nokia Lumia in the hands of someone I know, I have only seen them in the shops and in the hands of "corporate" people and that is the Nokia Lumia 520: http://www.tim.it/prodotti?Marca=NOKIA which is offered at 150 €, whilst an iPhone: http://www.tim.it/prodotti?Marca=APPLE starts at 350 and Samsungs are roughly around that price: http://www.tim.it/prodotti?Marca=SAMSUNG (TIM is the largest mobile carrier in Italy, AFAIK) jaclaz P.S.: Also, for NO apparent reason : http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=lumia%2C%20Windows%20Phone&cmpt=q http://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=lego#q=iphone%2C%20lumia%2C%20galaxy&geo=IT&cmpt=q

No, the point is more about putting things together (making each of them contiguous), heavily fragmented files may well "confuse" the shrinking/moving calculations (and in any case slow down the operation). Think again at the house moving. You have a set of 24 crystal glasses (12 water, 12 wine). Do you put all of them packaged into a single box or do you put them into 24 little boxes that you scatter all around your current home ? Which strategy makes more likely that once in the new home you will be able to find the whole 24 pieces set? No. It is not like defragmenting is bad in itself, like many things it is bad if you overdo it, if you defragment that SSD once it won't be the end of the world. Wear leveling is altogether different thing and happens at a much lower level than the filesystem. Imagine that you have 10 boxes (still on the move example). You can decide to write on each of them what's inside, or you may decide to only write a number on each of them and then, on a piece of paper create a (very small) database with the number and beside it the list of the contents. Now imagine that the movers find that box #3 has it's bottom weared out, if they take a new box, move in it the contents of the box #3 AND write on the new box the number 3, you (the filesystem ) have no way to know, nor any reason to whine, your "database" is still correct even if the box is new and you can still find the right contents in box #3. This is good, as it means that the filesystem is now "sound". : jaclaz

Clonezilla is one of one among the many misnamed tools. it is not really really a "cloning" tool. From Linux yes, you want to use good. ol', plain dd. When you do a "dd" image (or byte by byte, or sector by sector, or "forensic sound"), in this case a "dd clone", *nothing* (meaning GPT or MBR) actually matters, dd simply copies *whatever* it finds. From the image you posted, it is confirmed that the values I gave earlier are valid. The difference is that your hard disk has "large" sectors (i.e. 4096 bytes each), so the $MFT still starts at cluster 786,432, but cluster 786,432 corresponds to sector 786,432*1=786,432, and the hidden sectors are 2,048, so the start of the $MFT should be at sector 786,432+2,048=788,480. In any case 786,432*4096=3,221,225,472, i.e. roughly 3 Gb, so, even if the whole 500 Mb were written it should still be there. Same goes for finding the bootsector mirror, now that we know the size of the partition, it is on the last sector of the partition, 732.565.503. Still from the images you posted, the disk is definitely "MBR". There are no problems to manually create the MBR partition entry for the "old" partition, copy back the bootsector mirror to the bootsector, and then the disk should become accessible (though not yet bootable), in this particular case, provided that the presence of the $MFT and of the bootsector mirror is confirmed, and provided that the disk is fully fuinctional, there is actually no real reason to make the image or clone. jaclaz

That seems to me the problem, it should. Basically you want to get a disk editor and go around sector 786432*8=6291456 and start searching for the text string "FILE0". Depending on the amount of "hidden sectors" before (they used to be 63, but nowadays they are more likely to be 2048) you should find it between 6291456+63 and 6291456+2048, if the search flips sectors much beyond, stop it (it is possible than on a 3TB volume the $MFT is moved on a higher address, the 786432 is the "standard" from around 5/6 Gb up, but cannot say if it has a "limit" on such a large hard disk) Try also another thing. Go very near (say 20000 sectors before) the end of the disk (i.e. go to last sector and go back some 20000 sectors), then start searching for text string "NTFS". Post if you can find any of those, and where exactly (the first should be the first sector of the $MFT and the second the backup bootsector) you found them, if they are found (and they are valid), it is possible to rebuild the filesystem (of course anything that was in either the 73 or 500 Mb is anyway lost forever as it has been overwritten - cannot say if the thingy applies the whole 500 Mb or just the "written" sectors, i.e. probably the 73 Mb). jaclaz

Hmmmm. This happens connected through an USB/SATA adapter/converter? What happens when the disk is connected "internally" to the SATA bus? What does the BIOS see? Well, but what you described above are seemingly NOT the symptoms of a BSY, what makes you think that your disk is affected by that problem? (and not by anyone else among the zillon things that may happen to a hard disk?) WHICH "5 V"? You are not by any chance using a 5V TTL interface, do you? Have you already verified that the terminal and adapter are working (loopback test)? I would make sure first that you actually are having the issue for which the fix is proposed AND that you have a suitable TTL adapter/converter. Have you READ (NOT "skimmed, NOT "had a look at", actually READ) the READ-ME-FIRST and the FGA's? Just in case: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/143880-seagate-barracuda-720011-read-me-first/ http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/147532-fga-for-the-seagate-720011-drives/ jaclaz

Basically you need to boot to the "2nd OS" and try running CHKDSK with the option /F and/or /R on the "middle" volume until (hopefully) you have not anymore any message about repairs needed or done. Please consider how it is well possible that *something* that autoruns or is running in the background (and this may also include antiviruses and more or less *anything* scanning the system) does create an issue with CHKDSK (changing something while it is running), you may want to try to do a CHKDSK when running the "main OS", this will (should) prompt you about not being abe to get exclusive access to the volume (or something to the same effect) and ask you if you want to schedule a chkdsk at next reboot, you say yes and reboot. This boot-time chkdsk should take a lot of time to run, but it should be "safer". In any case before shrinking a partition it is (besides "common sense") a good "rule of the thumb" to defragment the filesystem, sometimes the built-in defrag utility is not fully defragging a few files, in which case the use on the specific files of contig.exe or wincontig.exe: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb897428.aspx http://wincontig.mdtzone.it/en/ is advised. Consider that shrinking/moving a parittion is something very similar to moving from one house to another, do you (before calling the movers) pack all your items/furniture or they will manage them directly? Which provides you the more chances to find all your belongings in your new house? Not very high, though you must be very, very careful to NOT divide by zero : jaclaz

Good. Then the drive letter is not an issue anymore. The mountvol output you just attached: Should mean that you have the first 100 Mb partition not mounted (which is normal under Windows 7) then you have the two remaining partitions (the "main" and the "2ndOS" ones) and possibly the CD/DVD drive. jaclaz

Sure , and that is EXACTLY what I want to see. Please, try again, the output of mountvol or mountvol /? is the same and after some "help" it actually lists volumes and their mountpoints: http://ss64.com/nt/mountvol.html If you like it better, run mountvol | FIND "\">mainMV.txtetc. WHAT you weren't allowed to copy after you ran CHKDSK? The resulting file mainCD.txt? jaclaz