jaclaz

And the "solution" (if needed) is to "pad" numbers on the left with 0's to the max number. I.e. 1->01 2>02 etc. should give you same order from 01 to 99 on both devices. jaclaz

Well, it may be one of those rare "by pure chance" mistakes that open a new way, you know, something like: http://www.rsc.org/chemsoc/timeline/pages/1928.html jaclaz

Trip, as a side-side note, there is now an entirely new (third party/Free) working approach for .wim managing, which in the tests done till now performed exceptionally well: http://reboot.pro/topic/18345-wimlib-with-imagex-implementation/ I will cross-link the above with your news about *something* changed in 8.1, to make the Author aware of the possible need to update the tool. jaclaz

I simply LOVE understatements http://community.norton.com/t5/Norton-Protection-Blog/Myth-Busting-Windows-8-Security-Part-Four/ba-p/833024 I would personally would like to have a look at the tests that can lead anyone to believe that the absurd amount of bloat that constitutes a current Norton Antivirus or "protection solution" can make Windows 8 (or any other OS for that matters) faster. jaclaz

@Torchizard Again, there are several possible ways to accomplish the "final goal", by using different setups and/or using different tools (and/or tolerating some minor inconveniences when booting to "another" OS). The "hide" from other OS is one of the possible approaches. I personally believe it to be inconvenient and prone to errors, and have always set multiboot systems in such a way that everyone sees everyone else (within the limits of filesystems supported). In the case of the mentioned OS's the setup "I see you all" is perfectly possible, but in practice the limitations of each OS (without using particular third party tools where available) will lead to a "telescopic" view. DOS 6.22 can access only FAT12/16 filesystems and only within a range on a largish hard diskDOS 7.x (and Win9x/Me) can acces only FAT12/16 AND FAT32 (still within a range on a largish hard disk)NT 4.0 (not cited) can access FAT12/16 AND NTFS, BUT NOT FAT32 (I know it was not listed, putting this just for the record) also with limitations in sizes/addresses of partitions2K (not cited) can access FAT12/16 AND FAT32 AND NTFS, (BUT NOT exFAT)XP can access FAT12/16 AND FAT32 AND NTFS (AND exFAT)The "traditional" way I personally used for a long time on my systems (single disk 30 or 40 Gb, "Win2K centered") has been (JFYI): C: 1 Gb or less DOS6.22 and DOS 7.x and NT 4.0 (Primary - FAT16) + Win2K "minimal recovery" + Later OS loaders (NTLDR+NTDETECT.COM+BOOT.INI) D: 2 Gb or so Windows 95 or Windows 98 or Windows Me (Volume inside extended - FAT32) E: 2 Gb or so "Common DOS Data" (Volume inside Extended - FAT32) <- but I had the Sysinternals FAT32 driver for NT 4.0 G: 5 Gb or so Win2K "Main" (Volume inside extended - NTFS) H: 5 Gb or so Win2K or WinXP "Test System" (Volume inside extended - NTFS) S: 1 Gb or so "Common Swap" (Volume inside Extended - FAT32) F: 5 Gb or so "Common NT data" (Volume inside extended - NTFS) I: 5 Gb or so "Temporary data" (Volume inside extended - NTFS) copy of data ready to be backed up *: (variable) the rest, to be mapped as one or two Primary partition to try strange, new, OS's The above - which is seemingly complex - can (could) be achieved without particularly complex procedures or sophisticated tools/bootmanagers/etc. I personally find that having the same volume always having (if accessible/mounted/mapped) the SAME drive letter prevents (actually makes less probable) that by mistake you do on a given volume something that you may later regret thinking that you are operating on "another" volume because you are booted on "another" OS with a different drive letter assignment. But this is just me. Such a configuration (if properly setup) is stable, and - anecdotal evidence at it's best - it has been running for several years without a hitch. jaclaz

I know, I was kidding about the "offence" . JFYI, a number of features/commands are not even documented in Chinese , some of the latest development is *somehow* (actually "sparsely") documented by either extorting info from the current maintainer Chenall or from the (unfortunately rare) occasions when previous maintainer Tinybit intervenes on English forums. BUT Steve6375 has done some excellent work in documenting new features, often by downright examine the source code AND providing examples, though - as said - and till today - the diddy's guide and the README_GRUB4DOS.txt + a couple pages on RMPREPUSB (Steve's) site cover ENTIRELY the "basic" usage (such as the one needed here by the OP) and up to a very noticeable extent "advanced" use. No real need to whine about the lack of documentation. Sure, but it is not - let us be frank at least among us - "rocket science" nor "brain surgery". What I was trying to point out was that long before grub4dos development was even started, *somehow* with much less powerful tools, no more than the "standard" MS NTLDR, and bootpart: http://www.winimage.com/bootpart.htm and - say - partita: http://www.pedrofreire.com/crea1_en.htm (and also with much less knowledge about the booting mechanisms and OS behaviour) we managed to double, triple (and more) boot DOS, Windows 9x and Windows NT (and later 2K and XP) alright (obviously with some added limitations/inconveniences, but nothing too much serious). I mean, Why, in my day ..... http://reboot.pro/topic/1908-why-in-my-day/ .... and we LIKED it! jaclaz

Well, in the specific case you mention, the moment the user realizes that the product has some limits may be a bit late. BTW, anyone knows how many "current" members Technet has/had? The number of subscriptions to the petition cited by Thurrot in the article FormFiller mentioned: http://windowsitpro.com/cloud/does-microsoft-hate-it-pros around 11,000: http://www.change.org/petitions/continue-technet-or-create-an-affordable-alternative-to-msdn may mean "something" or "nothing at all" depending on th enumber of original Technet subscribers, As a side note, taken from: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/subscriptions/ms772427.aspx Let me get this straight, we are in AD 2013, the most powerful software corporation on Earth, that makes business (or tries to) selling/providing online storage and database solutions to multinational industries/ will need a few weeks to merge/order/whatever the data related to Asia Pacific region subscribers because the data is "stored in different database and the process to extend eligible subscriptions is more complicated" ? Oww, come off it! jaclaz

Sure but the "base" DOS 7 will be "shared" or "in common" (actually "same") with the Win9x/Me install. As a matter of fact, if this is the case you can setup to boot normally to DOS 7 and then run "Win", unless my memory is fading, there are only issues - easily solvable - with CD support. @dencorso Maybe you are going a bit further than usual "loving" a tool. A tool is something useful to do something, if you can manage to get that something, the tool you used is "good enough" or "convenient" or "valid". As an example our friend LoneCrusader believes that "MSCDEX" is a "better" tool than "SHSUCDX" and related programs, and "loves" it, the fact that he is wrong on this does not mean anything, the tool he chose does effectively what he wishes to do with it and that is more than enough: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/157065-cddvd-usb-in-msdos-mode/ It is incorrect to say that grub4dos is not well documented, and also vaguely offending for the work that diddy and - to a much lesser extent - yours truly put into assembling The grub4dos guide: http://diddy.boot-land.net/grub4dos/Grub4dos.htm which while being not updated-to-the-latest-development of grub4dos, is IMNSHO very well written/assembled, very clear, and covers WHOLLY the "basic" use of the tool and to a certain extent also "advanced" uses. Multibooting is anyway part of the "advanced" computing, IMHO besides learning the syntax/commands to setup/use any given tool, one needs to have some more than basic knowledge of how each OS boots, which behaviour (either by "design" or as "bug") it sports, which limitations it may have, etc., etc., in other words in some cases the issue is not with the lack of proper documentation but with the lack of specific knowledge on the procedures (independent from the tool(s) used) to reach the desired goal. jaclaz

Sorry, but no , you haven't then fully got the technical (please read as "practical") point I was trying to make (besides the "commercial" one of managing to sell something at 5x it's market value). A cellular phone is BOTH transmitting and receiving. The "transmitting" part is normally VERY LOW power (otherwise it would fry your brain) in operation and even lower in "stand-by" and cells antenna are VERY "sensitive", but when it cannot reach a cell antenna the intensity of transmission from the phone is raised noticeably (it tries "desperately" to make contact to a cell). This means that the power consumption (battery drain) will raise noticeably. A phone whose battery (fully charged) would normally last 24 hours in standby, may be drained in as low as 4 hours (yes, up to x6 factor roughly, of course greatly depending on model and firmware/telecom provider) if isolated from network. The "need" for a "insulating container" for forensic scopes is of course different from that hinted in the mentioned article (mainly it is to avoid that anything inside the phone is altered and that there is no risk of having it switched off because th ePIN or access password may be not known), but the experience using similar "Faraday bags" devices since years has led to a whole set of "externally powered" containers, using large capacity batteries to guarantee that the power to the phone is maintained for long periods. So the advertised thingy, besides not being particularly new (and since db are on a logarithmic scale the claimed "leap" between 80 and 100 db is really hard to be trusted at "face value" - and BTW very few "forensic Faraday bags do reach 80 db attenuation): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decibel is of very little practical use, as after a few hours inside a perfectly shielded container the phone will switch itself off because of the battery going to 0. A "normal" user (which does have his/her own PIN/password) would have a much easier way to isolate the phone by simply switching it off/removing the battery. Since the "new" bag has no "window" it is not like some of the forensic bags with which the "offline" functions of the phone can be used. So, the only advantage (provided that the shielding is actually effective) would be that taking the phone off the bag is faster than re-inserting the battery/switching it on when you want/need to use it (a handful of seconds), what I was pointing out is that there is a not-so-little drawback, which is the concrete risk of finding - when you take the phone out of the bag - that the phone has switched itself off and/or that there is no power left in the battery. With all due respect to the good guys/gals at the Daily Mail, they (as well as a number of other UK and non UK newspapers) also publish articles like this one: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2388811/Beware-testicle-biting-fish-Swedish-men-told-relative-piranha-appears-Nordic-waters.html what they "see fit" to make their readers aware of can be of greatly variable nature, and they did not seemingly care to clarify it was a joke/hoax, like - as an example - the Telegraph felt compelled to: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/sweden/10234986/Swedish-men-told-to-beware-testicle-munching-fish.html jaclaz

JFYI, "better" conversation pieces: http://www.trendhunter.com/slideshow/disguised-usb-drives http://www.everythingusb.com/novelty-flash-drives.html I still personally: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/98909-usb-fill-in-the-blank/ like the "thumb drive" : http://www.kahsoon.com/2005/06/22/new-thumb-shape-usb-stick/ jaclaz

But if the issue is "have more OS on the same disk and hide partitions", a much simpler thing can be used, OS-BS/mbldr, as an example, would do nicely: http://sourceforge.net/projects/mbldr/files/ As a matter of fact, if the scope is to have on a "same" disk: a DOS 6.22 a DOS 7.x+Win9x any number of NT based systemsit is perfectly achievable through the "standard" MS tools and without any particular "hiding". Having multiple disks introduces the need to change disk order for some OS, and the "need" of a "plain" DOS 7.x separated from a DOS 7.x+Win9x introduces a further complication. grub4dos can surely solve all of these, but it is may be overkill for these, these issues were "common" in the good ol' times and there are good ol' tools capable of solving them. I will repeat how nowadays it makes much more sense (it is easier, more practical, etc.) to have DOS (any version) inside disk images. jaclaz

Strange that noone has published anything "verified" about it. Since it is in CDVSD.vxd, this hypothesis may have some grounds: http://www.pctools.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-20326.html The idea (also found *somewhere*) that it is an acronym connected to Make RANdom ENIA or similar connected to the ENIA Laws or anyways to some form of encryption may also be logical, but then why in CDVSD.vxd. A good idea would be to run regmon and see if and when that key is accessed and by what (possibly only when reading CD's or possibly only with a given type of CD - like data but not music or viceversa). :usnure: jaclaz

Ow, come on. You probably didn't read fully what I posted. Or you really like paying more money for something that you can have for much less and that will anyway drain your battery? Interesting idea of "competition" and "evolution". Humanity is doomed. jaclaz

Really? Also a USB A male connector is roughly that size, only both are not flash drives jaclaz.

Look, you asked for advice, I gave some to you. You do not follow this advice, I cannot provide you with further ones. I need an example actually a sample of the EXACT, SAME data you are working with, to be able to provide quickly (and hopefully) a solution to your issue. Please do cooperate in taking the §@ç#ing guessing out of the equation: http://homepage.ntlworld.com./jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/problem-report-standard-litany.html Remember that is you that have the problem and someone else, in his/her spare time and for free, is trying to help you, why not making the life of this someone a little bit easier? jaclaz

@duffy98 Define "smallest". That one is short, but "chunky", this other rather common design is probably a bit "longer" but much "flatter": http://oliviatech.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/verbatim-400x300.jpg still http://www.andrewbirkel.com/6-8-13disassemble-a-mini-flash-drive-sandisk-cruzer-fit/ @JorgeA JFYI: http://www.itechnews.net/2008/11/27/buffalo-rmum-series-smallest-micro-usb-drive/ If you are interested, some completely faked data assembled in a few simple graphs: http://reboot.pro/topic/18748-unreliable-and-almost-useless/#entry175178 http://reboot.pro/topic/18056-the-universal-pe/?p=166593 jaclaz

Well, for the record there are several freeware bootmanagers capable of hiding partitions (and a few capable of exchanging disks if needed). jaclaz

@JorgeA Nice find about the guy, but you should be aware that he re-invented hot-water (and not particularly hotter than common hot water): http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2405855/OFF-Pocket-privacy-pouch-blocks-mobile-phone-signals-stops--including-government--finding-are.html These things are called "Faraday bags", are on the market since years, are not 100% effective in a number of cases, BUT - if they work - they will bring the battery of the phone down in a VERY SHORT period of time. See: http://www.forensicfocus.com/Forums/viewtopic/t=10657/ http://www.forensicfocus.com/Forums/viewtopic/t=9890/ "Inventing" some that already exists, it is actually better tested, and it's already sold for less than US $ 60 (very expensive because of the transparent window, plainer models cost much less, anything between US$ 10 and $25 is available) and selling it for the US$ 85 apiece is pure genius . BTW, wrapping the handy in three or four layers of common kitchen aluminum foil has EXACTLY the same (if not better) results. jaclaz

Oh, yes it can . Whether it will win or not, that's another thing . I find strangely "queer" that someone joins a board only to mention how a specific Commercial tool is "better". Particularly because nothing but a bootable PE of *any kind* (with no added tool of any kind) is needed to reset a Windows password. Needing (or supporting) a 30 Mb+ piece of bloat (payed for - additionally) to do something that can be done with a tool that anyone should have (a suitable bootable PE or the OS install CD/DVD/USB) seems to me like overkill. And I won' t even touch the topic of re-distributing non-redistributable MS files or distributing GNU licensed software (Syslinux/Memdisk) without providing the License nor the source code. And BTW, a minimal PE will have quite a few issues in booting and accessing a largish number of SATA hard disks equipped PC's. Will do, rest assured. jaclaz

Also (JFYI): http://www.prestosoft.com/edp_examdiff.asp jaclaz

OW, comeon. Whenever I find someone who is MS MVP or "Software Architect" I wonder about the whole academic (as they often hold a BSc in Computer Science and similar) and certification business, I may have been particularly unlucky, but I rarely happened to find anyone with those certifications that actually knows where his/her towel is. jaclaz

So, after all, the driver wasn't the "wrong" one. jaclaz

I advise you to provide the example that I requested earlier. jaclaz

No. I mean first disk. As in "Boot device order" (in BIOS) first (internal) disk. If you prefer, it must be disk 0x80 or 128. http://pcsupport.about.com/od/fixtheproblem/ss/bootorderchange.htm More modern BIOSes allow having a number of (internal) hard disks selected in a given order, like HDD-1, HDD-2, etc. jaclaz

Maybe it's time to introduce the idea (for which I will be flamed, I know) that there is a better (faster, more stable, better working) OS than Win98SE (which is not Windows Me) but is 98SE2Me (though it may cause any number of EULA breaking ) : http://www.mdgx.com/ http://www.mdgx.com/98-5.htm#KRM9S jaclaz