jaclaz

Maybe it is just a corrupted file. In any case it does open in 7-zip (enough to see it's contents, and there are just a Win2K and a WinXP folders, not really much of use, even if it was not corrupted and/or protected/whatever). That file is seemingly a driver for the Sager NP2885 and can be found here (directly on the support page): http://www.sagernotebook.com/index.php?page=driver_download http://www.sagernotebook.com/index.php?page=driver_download2# http://www2.sagernotebook.com/pages/notebooks/download.cfm?ProductType=2885 jaclaz

@juzzie About the Mini-XP it greatly depends on how much "mini" you want it. See this: http://minixp.reboot.pro/docs/files/index.html and the old thread starting from around here: http://reboot.pro/topic/3717-xpsp1-with-full-commandline-and-ntfs-below-10-mb/?p=152819 I personally tend to read "mini" as "micro", wimb reads it as "midi", most probably the MiniXP and/or the XPCLI projects are actually "too reduced" for your uses, and wimb's mini midi compact XP is the "right size": http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?s=&showtopic=23553&view=findpost&p=171411 make sure to get the latest version of the tool, it is "cumulative", right now it should be IMG_XP_78 jaclaz

Yes. http://homepage.ntlworld.com./jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/questions-with-yes-or-no-answers.html In your own (cited) words: JFYI, if there is someone on this board that knows where his towel is regarding Vista and specifically it's possible performance enhancements, that person is MagicAndre1981 , be aware that you are currently riscking to slip on a chocolate covered banana : http://homepage.ntlworld.com./jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/put-down-the-chocolate-covered-banana.html jaclaz

@Jayman JFYI (re: by design): http://reboot.pro/topic/3541-how-many-microsoft-programmers-does-it-take-to-screw-in-a-light-bulb/ jaclaz

Essentially: That kb must have been written by the people that became developers of Windows 8. jaclaz

But that is a valid alternative theory/way of operation , it doesn't matter whether right or wrong, the point is whether the one or the other is more dangerous/causes the most problems. Among the reasons why NOT having the Windows system on C: is advised (by me) and the approach I personally use are: a whole range of badly coded programs and/or malware may have the C: hard coded and operate on system files on C: a whole range of badly coded programs and/or malware may delete the MBR partition table or the whole MBR (and having the system on a volume inside extended makes it much more easy to restore it. on a multiboot system I have the "same" partition/volume with the "same" drive letter no matter the OS in which I am bootedHaving the currently booted OS always as C: and the data partition always as a "fixed, high" drive letter is a good strategy when multibooting, but limited to the "data" partitions volumes. Usually the people using this approach also "hide" other partitions in normal operation, which also may be a good choice. If you multiboot between DOS and a Windows NT system is more than enough. When you start multibooting between, say Windows 9x and more than one NT based system, it starts to be a complication, and in any case normally in this kind of setup if you want to copy a file from the Windows NT partition to the DOS one, you have to copy it to the "data" partition, then reboot and "take it" from there or you need to (temporarily) unhide the DOS partition to write directly to it, and when you have more than one instance of the same NT based OS, sometimes (if all of them use C: ) it can be difficult (or prone to errors) to remember which system you are booted in (at least for me this has been an issue). But of course everyone is perfectly free to choose the setup that he/she likes the better. jaclaz

No. Windows NT (and all NT based systems) were designed to NOT reside on C:. One of the innovations was that the C: "remained" the active primary partition (for DOS and other real mode OS) and that Windows NT could be installed in a logical volume inside extended partition. Since NT 3.51 times (that is 1993, i.e. 20 - twenty - years ago) I never had any of my systems have C: as the windows NT system drive letter, and I always installed any flavour of the NT faily inside a volume inside extended. There is NO actual issue with any NT based system NOT being at C:, the issue is installing to C: and later change the drive letter associated to that volume. @aurgathor Really, it is not something that makes sense to change drive lettering of a system. However, basically, you need to: change the bootmgr drive lettering <- this is specific to Vista and later and may not be needed, it would probably be better to re-build a \boot\BCD from scratch change the Dosdevices drive lettering in the Registry change each and every reference in the Registry to C:\ to (say) E: (or whatever letter)In the good ol' times of 2K, I would make a copy of the whole "system" drive (an additional volume, made by shrinking the current system volume and creating a new one, to which each and every file is copied, while the system is offline, like through a further install or a PE), and have it mounted as (say) E:, then I would exchange in MountedDevices C: with E:, then I would run COA2 on the Registry changing all references from C:\ to E:\. The second copy is because for some time during the operations the Windows may run "partly on C: and partly on E:". Then I would have checked everything twice or thrice, reboot, make the "new copy" hidden and with crossed fingers, hope that everything worked. With a "freshly installed" system it worked alright, never thought to do that on a "old, used a lot, with a zillion apps installed" one. With Windows 7 I would expect all kind of issues with permissions, UAC, privileges, and something more. jaclaz

May I add "unsurprisingly"? jaclaz

Which is bad , both because of the non-detection and because you posted in the wrong place, yours is a 7200.4. Is there a difficult part in "7200.11" that confused you? Which is bad , both because it didn't work and because it means you did not take some time to research before attempting it. Hardly surprising. Maybe this hints that you weren't capable (no offence intended ) to properly swap them. The probability of someone that attempts a PCB SWAP to be capable of doing a platter swap are so low that the Heart of Gold Improbability Drive could run a couple years on that math. If ALSO the "donor" disk, once re-transplanted it's original parts is not working anymore it means that your procedure is incorrect or that you have not the suitable tools or both. Maybe had you read BEFORE the READ-ME-FIRST: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/143880-seagate-barracuda-720011-read-me-first/ and the FGA's: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/147532-fga-for-the-seagate-720011-drives/ You would have already learned that: a BSY or LBA0 has to be diagnosedthis thread is for the 7200.11 ONLYthat a PCB SWAP won't workthat even THINKING of doing a platter swap will ruin the drive for goodthat even IF the commands for the 7200.4 were known, the idea is to fiddle with the RS232/TTL thingy and attempt diagnosing the issue BEFORE disassembling a disk drive.What isn't written there is that besides a platter exchange being one of the most difficult things to perform (in controlled environment only) when it comes to multi-platter disk is a nearly impossible task for a non-professional without all the needed tools, but more than that without the specific experience and knowledge. Unless I am mistaken that disk has two platters. The diagnosis of your disk is thus currently: no matter what was the original cause of failure, you have now a disk with platters that may be contaminated but that are SURELY misaligned .Of the several professional data recovery companies out there, only a few are actually capable (and have the tools) to do a platter swap on a multi-platter drive, and none or next to none will be able to re-align two platters. I could name you two firms, i365 (which is Seagate's own data recovery firm) and Kroll Ontrack that may be able to do that. We are talking anyway of something that IF possible at all, will be in the several (many) hundred dollars, possibly thousands. Sorry being a bearer of bad news, but your chances with DIY are 0 (zero) and possibly even for a professional they are very near to that. jaclaz

For no apparent reason: http://dynamics.org/Altenberg/CURRENT_AFFAIRS/CHINA_PLASTIC/ jaclaz

Yep, this is a known issue. When the 120 day trial of Windows 2000 came out, everyone tested it on their NT 4.00 machine and everyone had the filesystem changed silently. At the time I had to help more people workaround the issue that I would have ever imagined (everyone that had not already updated to SP4). See: http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=11383 A NT 4.00 with SP 4 or later won't have issues with the volume if not for CHKDSK, and that needs to be worked around by using the 2K version through the Mark Russinovich mentioned tool NTFSCHK: http://web.archive.org/web/20060819014420/www.sysinternals.com/Utilities/NtfsChk.html I have never used the vamos.de tool, the page can be found through the Wayback Machine as well: https://web.archive.org/web/20021102155538/http://vamos.de/english/bootman2.html#zu_w2 but the tool, having been hosted on ftp, is not. Maybe if you make a thread asking for it, you can find someone that has a backup copy somewhere. jaclaz

Sure , only stating how it is not a "general solution" that *anyone* can use. jaclaz

Not exactly. At least here you don't actually purchase the mobile device, you "lease" it or more properly you subscribe to a service with the carrier that includes the use of the device. I believe that the legal issue is not with "rooting" the device, it is about "rooting a device which you do not "own". (and this is not so slightly different). jaclaz

There is something "queer" in the "custom" install. From what you report it seems like the Windows 7 install "decided" that the first partition was it's own "boot" partition (what MS calls "System) , and that the second partition is the windows 7 "System" partition (what MS calls "boot"), see here: http://www.multibooters.co.uk/system.html for the misnaming. If you open Disk Management, you should be able to see the first partition alright, only it will have NOT a drive letter attributed. You can manually assign a drive letter to that first partition, let's say that you assign to it "F:". In theory it is possible to change the drive letter assigned to the second partition from the current "C:" to "D:", but in practice it is extremely complex and very much error prone (besides the procedures needed not having been tested or tested enough). For these reason it is STRONGLY NOT advised to attempt doing it. What you can do, once you have found which of the two partitions (I tend to believe first one) contains the files \BOOTMGR and \boot\BCD, is to create a DOS bootsector file for it and add to it a good ol' BOOT.INI file invoking that file. To create the DOS bootsector (BTW which version of DOS?) there are a couple utilities available, while the BOOT.INI can be written with Notepad alright. Bootpart: http://www.winimage.com/bootpart.htm should be able to create the bootsector in file directly (and run on 7 too). As well MBRFIX will be able to create the bootsector (and surely runs under 7): http://www.sysint.no/nedlasting/mbrfix.htm but it can only update the "real" bootsector, so you will need another tool, like the dsfo of the dsfok toolkit: http://members.ozemail.com.au/~nulifetv/freezip/freeware/index.html to extract it to file (and then re-use MBRFIX to restore the Windows 7 bootsector). The BOOT.INI should be something like: [boot loader]Timeout=20default=C:\DOS\BOOTSECT.DAT[operating systems]C:\DOS\BOOTSECT.DAT="Microsoft DOS version x.xx"This way DOS will become an entry in the BOOTMGR choices. Or you can use a bootmanager like grub4dos. If you wish to always boot to DOS and from it launch Windows 7, you can also use grub.exe (still part of grub4dos). Since DOS is unaffected by the Windows 7 drive lettering (and in any case it won't be able to see/access the Windows 7 partition, which I presume is NTFS), when you boot to DOS you will see only a drive letter/partition (C:\) corresponding to the first partition and when you boot to 7 you will see instead the second partition as C:\ and you can assign to the DOS partition any other letter. jaclaz

All your hard disk space are belong to us! jaclaz

I wonder if anyone correlated the above data with population and income growth (in less-industrialized countries). Basically they are saying that (2014 over 2010) and (trend for 2018 over 2014), the amount of PC's (in different formats) will double in 8 years (and increases by 50% in 4 years) over 2010's sales. Also this should be seen with actual "life" of the devices. Sure in the "normal" home or "normal" office the life of a device has been in the past on average more than 4 years, but - as we have seen with the longevity of XP possibly even more than that. Most devices were in the past shipped anyway with an "OEM" OS pre-installed, but tablets are right now 100% like that, thus the life of the device will be more "likely" to determinate the life of the OS. I mean, any PC with a Windows OEM installed (or like 90% of them) since 2006 shipped with Vista and since 2009 with Windows 7. Same happened for Windows 8 since late 2012/early 2013 (though in this case the amount of "downgrade rights" actually implemented - legally or otherwise - seems much more relevant than before). Now, what could we do to increase the "turnover" of the OS? Idea #1: let's start selling hardware that is either NOT serviceable or economically not convenient to be serviced, let's engineer it in such a way that most devices will fail right after 1 year (in countries where the Law requires one year warranty) or 2 years (in countries - like EU - where the Law requires 2 years for consumer goods). Idea #2: let's convince people to put all their data in the cloud, and as such reachable by *any* device, as this is also a way to make sure that data is not lost in a local device crash/failure. Idea #3: let's give them a small amount of free cloud data storage and let's bloat everything, without any real need, to grow and grow in size so that soon they will exceed the size of the free storage so that we will be able to make them pay for it. Idea #4: since the above device turnover will produce peaks every one or two years, and the amount we will get from cloud data storage won't be much significant as other companies may offer the same service at competitive prices, let's see if we can "regularize" the company's earnings by little by little making customers pay a flat fee every month (after all this is what all telecommunication companies have managed to do everywhere) in order to use our software. Please consider how those ideas are more or less what any villain from SPECTRE is about in James Bond's movies, world domination and stuff. jaclaz

More than that. Do business users have friends with school accounts @ MS? Will school principals be OK with this use of such school account and hardware/connection? jaclaz

Actually no, even (plastic) coffe cups are a security risk http://www.forensicfocus.com/Forums/viewtopic/t=10944/ but we have better than tinfoil materials nowadays: http://reboot.pro/topic/13177-an-improved-electromagnetical-shielding-device/ jaclaz

Still more practical than flying drones (duffy will love this ) with wi-fi servers! Old news, however : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2117535/The-Pirate-Bay-plans-use-robot-drone-planes-file-sharing-service-running.html jaclaz

JFYI, the original is not even Italian (I mean they are italian words, but they are not Italian they appear to be the result of a google translate or similar). jaclaz

The issue here is not the OS on itself. XP is actually 2000 (with a very few nice things and a full load of bloat and unneeded bells & whistles added to it). I still run several "old" machines with either 2K or XP and the real issue IMHO is amount of RAM needed. With a few tweaks (disabling of not really needed or useful services) the amount of processor and RAM use is comparable BUT as soon as you add an Antivirus (more or less *any* of them) and some of the programs used today, you will soon find yourself in needing to double or triple the RAM. I have a "reference" oldish laptop that multiboots into DOS, Windows Me (yes, I know ), NT 4.00 and Windows 2000 with a Pentium 600Mhz and 128 Mb of RAM that - believe me - has always run smoothly or smoothly enough for doing the things that i needed it for. I tried a "FredDeVorked" (i.e. without IE) XP on it once and it didn't seem that bad either. But I also tried to install on it's 2K system an Antivirus (and not a particularly "resource hungry" one) and use it for some (very "light") internet browsing an BAM! completely unusable, disk swapping at it's best all the time! jaclaz

There is another aspect if we go at car/layman comparisons The point is also like if Ford said in the 1970's: "Ok, our Pinto model has some issues with catching fire in case of relative light collisions, we revised all safety reports, listened what the users said about it's terrible looks and even worse handling/power/speed and thus decided to insist on selling them, with exactly the same defects/issues." Hey wait, this is what they actually did . Quick reminder (this was almost exactly one year ago): http://www.zdnet.com/businesses-cant-use-office-on-windows-rt-tablets-7000005882/ jaclaz

Hmmm... Sh*t happens I thought that Mim0 had mirrored the files too), unfortunately: http://mimo.zxq.net/hfslip-intro.htm Let's wait and see if someone has the file and can upload it. It is possible that some of the thingies tomasz86 made in the meantime make that "extra" unneeded/outdated, though: http://www.windows2000.tk/ jaclaz

https://web.archive.org/web/20131011062749/http://hfslip.org/ https://web.archive.org/web/20100513034907/http://www.hfslip.org/extras.html Actual file can be found here: http://mimo.zxq.net/hfslip-intro.htm http://mimo.zxq.net/yellow/downloads.htm jaclaz

Hmmm, you must be a speed reader or have a slowish machine. Seriously , inserting some kind of loop/delay between the echo and the exit command may be not a totally absurd idea. For the record: http://ss64.com/nt/choice.html so, anyone with XP (or earlier) may have issues with it's use. If an external something is needed/wanted, the choice.exe from FreeDOS should work on those: http://winsupport.org/utilities/freedos-choice.html jaclaz