jaclaz

As a generic tip, not necessarily applying to your case, using Ultraiso the way you are using it is likely to be part of the problem. We old dinosaurs like to create a disk or diskette image, then mount it and add to it the files. It is very possible that creating it "on the fly" with Ultraiso (and particularly editing/resizing it) makes the filesystem invalid or non bootable or however conflicting with some BIOSes. It is also possible that the image has grown to a size that (for whatever reason) your BIOS does not "like" as a floppy (but this is unprobable, given the geometry/size you report, which is seemingly "not bad"). As cdob pointed out you are reinventing the wheel (which BTW is a very nice activity in itself ) BUT without having first checked that the result might be a rounder wheel than existing ones , maybe you need to learn from the words of two great inventors: Now, be nice, and before further attempts to "twist" the install method that Usbmuitiboot_10 uses into an image based one, take some time and examine/experiment with two alternate methods: It is likely that once you will be also familiar with those you will find inspiration for "your way".... jaclaz

I beg your pardon? What is the "CD key"? jaclaz

Well, those are LIP's, what about MUI's? http://unattended.msfn.org/unattended.xp/view/web/82/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multilingual_User_Interface Whether they are still available from MS, it's another thing. jaclaz

What do you think that this lines does EXACTLY? Try with: and: Whether it will work or not is another thing. jaclaz

It greatly depends on what you want to do/run. That lifehacker article is the usual "introductory mumble jumble" clearly written by someone that has (maybe) tried to play once with a VM (and IF he actually played with it never went beyond showing his friends "Look I can boot UBUNTU !" nor far beyond the Ubuntu bootscreen). Anyone that can write this sentence : should not be allowed to write technical articles . The article completely misses the one which is the most convenient for testing booting (but slower than other VM's) which is one of the QEMU port for Windows, that comes with a nice GUI that makes the thingy stay on the same level of usability of the mentioned VM's, Qemu Manager: http://www.sorted-systems.com/qemu_manager.html Since it was moved form it's original page at http://www.davereyn.co.uk/ it seems like Google cannot find it anymore . Qemu (and conversely the Qemu Manager) allows to experiment with different architecture and processors, something that the other VM's cannot do. VirtualBox is more than decent , but FAR from "easy" (if you want to go beyond the basic things) and has more than one "quirks" in it's emulated BIOS. jaclaz

Good , that's already a form of success. Those is usually the behaviour of a "slow" disk (i.e. a disk that is going to fail soon), sometimes after the unbricking only a part of the disk is accessible, but that means that we are once again fundamentally "outside the scope" of this thread, i.e. your disk bricked itself for reasons different from the original firmware issue and only by pure coincidence the procedure, which is basically a "general reset" revived it. Now tha tis not anymore bricked the issue becomes data recovery. No. Firmware has nothing to do with partitions, they are simply on a completely different "level", firmware is the lowest possible "physical" layer, on top of it there is the PC/OS "Physical layer" and on top of it there is the "logical layer" (to which volumes/partitions/filesystems belong). What may happen is that there is a "limit" to the accessible sectors (but this is improbable that it is connected to firmware and more likely to be connected to hardware ). NO. http://homepage.ntlworld.com./jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/questions-with-yes-or-no-answers.html (at least not in the DIY "club", professionals may) The only thing that you can try doing is to image the disk (using any of the variously mentioned "suitable" tools, such as DMDE, DATARESCUEDD, etc.) and perform data recovery on the image (NOT on the original disk). It is possible that this way you can recover more data than what you have till now, if you need help start a NEW thread, as that would go largely outside the scope of this one. jaclaz

Sure, once it is booted, it is booted, of course if you make errors in the editing of the MBR (about the active partition) you may have the system unbootable at next reboot. I don't think so, the issue seemingly only applies to *any* disk that is not cylinder aligned, so if you access/modify a disk which is aligned you are not going to create issues with that disk (whilst the non-aligned one is not accessed at all). But I find it unneededly risky, once the partitioning is "valid" (but not cylinder aligned) and thus gparted can re-access properly the disk, it would be easy to slightly resize/move the partitions to have them properly aligned. The theoretical advantage in speed on a fully aligned filesystem (which you don't have anyway for FAT 16 or 32 if you just align the partitions to the cluster multiple), see these: is only noticeable on very slow devices (USB sticks) and/or in case or really intensive Disk I/O (think of the database server use that initiated it all). Peeking in the files you posted maybe I found an explanation for why the issue arose (or however something that may be involved in it), it seems like Gparted already made the "sectors before" the "right value" (i.e. absolute offset from start of the disk) instead of the (wrong, but defacto standard) MS way that puts there the offset from the previous EMBR. Compare with: http://www.goodells.net/multiboot/ http://www.goodells.net/multiboot/ptable.shtml This may have *somehow* tricked the MS tools in believeing that the partition was primary and deciding to "fix" it. Do you need assistance for the editing of the EMBR's? (or you want to try by yourself first) jaclaz

Not exactly. To be fair, there are NO issues whatsoever with XP and non-cilynder aligned partitions, the only issue is with XP's Disk Management. The thread I pointed you about is evidence that in order to do a very trifling thing (set a single byte in the MBR to either 80 or 00) the tool re-checks/re-calculates/attempts to fix/whatever the EMBR's. If you NEVER use Disk Management (and probably also the Diskpart for XP) you won't have any issue, additionally it is possible (actually very probable) that among the (few) actions you can carry in XPìs Disk Management, only a subset will cause the corruption. Still this may be satisfactory enough on (example) dual-boot system with Vista or 7, you only have to remember to use the Disk Manager from the more recent OS, but in a single boot to XP is what I call "asking for troubles". Well if you actually "clone" it it will have EXACTLY the SAME issue, there is "clone" and "clone" : page__p__974798__hl__clone__fromsearch__1#entry974798 That doesn't come "unexpected", but good to know for sure. Not necessarily, "automatic" drive letter assignment is (slightly) different between DOS (and coversely Win9x/Me) and NT based systems. I haven't checked your particular setup, if you want the info is here: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/51978/en-us http://support.microsoft.com/kb/234048/EN-US most probably the TWO primary partitions are the origin of the drive lettering difference. Naah, the MBR you posted has "correct" data. Yes, this is very possible, but it's like counting cows , counting horns and dividing by two is unneededly more complex .... Not really (in the sense that is "alternative". There is NO "real" overlapping, only the addresses have been overlapped. The /sdb1 is primary (and OK, apart the alignment) <0 sectors in between> The /sdb2 is the Extended partition (and is OK, apart the alignment) <64 sectors in between, not compatible with cylinder alignment, should be 63, but OK> The sdb5 is the first volume inside extended (and is OK, apart the alignment) <The empty space here is actually empty space> The /sdb3 is (WRONGLY) a primary but it occupies a valid area of the extended partition <64 sectors in between, not compatible with cylinder alignment, should be 63, but OK> The /sdb6 is the last volume in extended (and is OK, apart the alignment) The issue here is the EMBR chain. The EMBR of the extended may point directly to the "sdb5" and the EMBR of the "sdb5" may point directly to the "sdb6". Now if you (after having backed up the "Programs" contents) simply delete the sdb3 entry in the MBR and create a new volume in the extended partition (covering the area of the current sdb3+the "empty space") it is likely that it will be added at the end of the chain (i.e. it will become sdb7 in Linux), I really cannot say if partitioning tools like Gparted re-analyze the volumes in Extended and make a "normal" sequential EMBR chain, as a matter of fact I suspect that the issue was originated *somehow* by a non sequential EMBR chain It is also possible that the current situation is what "throws off" gparted. Good. You should make a copy of: the MBR - 1st sector/LBA0 (which you already did, but please instead of changing file extension compreess all the sectors into a .zip file) LBA 2048 <- not really-really needed, but while you are at it... LBA 8386560 <- EMBR extended LBA 8388608 <- PBR sdb5 LBA 10502144 <- (hopefully) EMBR LBA 20980953 <- PBR sdb3 LBA 225793574<- EMBR sdb6 LBA 225793638<- PBR sdb6 and post the .zip. jaclaz

The menu.lst seems OK. What are the contents of the XP.ima ? How big it is? How did you create the .ima? It is strange that you are asked for disk #5 (I mean, if the issue is the diskette, then it would be logical that it would have protested for #2, #3 and #4 first ) jaclaz

Let's try reading these data: First partition (primary) STARTS on 2048 and ENDS on 8386559 <- this partition does NOT respect cylinder boundary BUT respects head one. Of course it contains 8386559+1-2048=8384512 sectors (or 512 bytes blocks). Second partition (extended) STARTS on 8386560 (i.e. END of previous +1, OK) and ENDS on 488392703 <- this partition does NOT respect cylinder boundary BUT respects head one. Of course it contains 488392703+1-8386560=480006144 sectors (or 512 bytes blocks). Since the WHOLE disk is 488395055 sectors there is an unallocated space of 488395055 - 488392703 = 2352 sectors. 2048+8384512+480006144=488392704 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 30401 cylinders, total 488395055 sectors 488395055-488392704=2351 sectors unallocated. There must be an error in the above 488395055 as 30401*255*63=488392065 Let's see the contents of the Extended partition (they are what we highly specialized technicians call "a complete mess, a monkey throwing dices would have come out with far more sensible numbers" ) they simply make NO sense: /dev/sdb3 20980953 225793574 102406311 b W95 FAT32 /dev/sdb5 8388608 10502143 1056768 b W95 FAT32 /dev/sdb6 225793638 488392064 131299213+ b W95 FAT32 The missing /dev/sd4 is corresponding to an empty EMBR and to the space that Disk management sees as 102.66 Gb. The first volume inside extended should be one head (63 sectors) after the beginning of the extended, in this case 8386560+63=8386623, BUT you have instead one volume starting at a 2048 offset 8386560+2048=8388608 (this should be /dev/sdb3 and NOT /dev/sdb5)..... IF that partition starts at 8388608 and ends at 10502143 it is 10502143+1-8388608=2,113,536 sectors *512=1,082,130,432 which sounds exactly the size of the "Swap" partition as seen in the disk management. Since after it we have the "hole" created by the missing /dev/sd4 there is no way to carry n the analysis sequentially. The "next" partition (the one before last) is /dev/sdb3 which starts at 20980953 and ends at 225793574, 225793574+1-20980953=204,812,622*512=104,864,062,464 which sounds a lot like the "Programs" one. Last partition is dev/sdb6 that starts at 225793638 and ends at 488392064 (it should start at 225793574+63 but seemingly starts at 225793574+64), 488392064+1-225793638=262,598,427*512=134,450,394,624 which sounds a lot like the "FILES" partition. First issue is that you used different tools (and Operating Systems ) to fiddle with that partitioning. NO XP will ever create a partition starting at 2048 (Vista and later may) and any XP will also respect cylinder boundary for End of partition. Gparted can use any of the above (and it is particularly easy to make confusion as it's interface is FAR from intuitive when it comes to "details" like this one). The real issue here is that you are risking GREATLY , if you ever use XP disk manager to do a trifling thing such as changing the active status of the primary, to loose volumes in the Extended, see: http://reboot.pro/topic/9897-vistawin7-versus-xp-partitioning-issue/ How exactly you managed to "cross-link" the EMBR chain is a mistery, I never saw that happening with "automated" tools like gparted. It is possible that the obsolete version of Gparted you used "GParted v0.13" right now we are at 0.16 (BUT DO NOT EVEN THINK of using it or 0.15): http://gparted.sourceforge.net/download.php as there are NEW, SERIOUS issues with them. So, be nice and get 0.14.1-6 instead: http://sourceforge.net/projects/gparted/files/gparted-live-stable/0.14.1-6/ There are no issues in solving that mess but you need to confirm that you are familiar with using a hex editor, the intended procedure is: correct the EMBR chain WITHOUT moving/resizing anything (by manually hexediting entries in the various EMBR's) once the above is done (and verified to be done correctly) use 0.14.1-6 to adjust size and position of the Extended partition and all volumes inside it (this time respecting partition cylinder boundaries) Though there should be NO issues whatsoever in keeping the primary parittion "as is" , to have an entirely "kosher" partitioning you will also need a PE of some kind (or an alternate XP install or anyway *some* way to edit the Registry "offline") because if we move/resize the primary the already installed Windows XP won't likely boot due to the invalid offset in \DosDevices\ Let me know if you want to proceed and I'll give you instructions. jaclaz

No. You want to have a clear root AND you assumed that the only way is to start doing strange things inside the files, renaming paths etc. (it's not exactly the same thing). One of the possible answer to the simpler question: is: Since you are anyway using grub4dos (and if you are not now is the right moment to start using it), make a bootable NT floppy image and map it in grub4dos. IMHO this is simpler than anything else. See: http://www.xxcopy.com/xxcopy33.htm I can see no issues with doing the same with SETUPLDR.BIN, actually that is how the setup works when started from Floppy (yes, probably you need to go to a museum to see an actual floppy, but when XP came out in 2001 almost any PC would have had a floppy drive). MS still provides the floppy images: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q310994 (check the first floppy of the 6-floppy set ) jaclaz

The given thread is about a sub-folder. Maybe it is not possible in a sub-subfolder, or maybe the "second part" must be \I386, but if Victor888 edited setupdd.sys, maybe there was a reason for that edit. I tried vainly at the time to get more details/have the results of some other tests. BTW, you did not answer to the WHY you would want to do that. jaclaz

WHY? Setupldr.bin may be not the only place where $WIN_NT$.~BT is referenced, setupdd.sys could be another place to look for it ..... See : jaclaz

Not really "funny". I mean, imagine that Proxomitron parses an URL for the presence of the string "http://" and set's that as the beginning of the URL discarding anything before it.... it suddenly becomes "pretty much normal".... http://web.archive.org/web/20050212215255/http://www.utdallas.edu/~jeremy.bryan.smith/articles/explorer_spy.html http://web.archive.org/web/20050212215255/http://www.utdallas.edu/~jeremy.bryan.smith/articles/explorer_spy.html'>http://web.archive.org/web/20050212215255/http://www.utdallas.edu/~jeremy.bryan.smith/articles/explorer_spy.html becomes: http://web.archive.org/web/20050212215255/http://www.utdallas.edu/~jeremy.bryan.smith/articles/explorer_spy.html and lands nicely here: http://www.utdallas.edu/~jeremy.bryan.smith/articles/explorer_spy.html jaclaz

@Charlotte You see even the (good ) little creatures from outer space do have (among others ) a sign: And not: jaclaz

OT , but not much , that pink Cluster sign reminds me halfway of Richard Hammond's (winner) attempt to create a cheap Police car in Top Gear: and the other half of V-Visitors (as seen through the special glasses): jaclaz

Naah , our highly reliable sources tell us that you need THREE of them (and a control ring) in order to have some benefits (you know, like unlimited powers ): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_skull#Crystal_skulls_in_popular_culture jaclaz

Cannot say the specific version compatible, it works on the one I am using right now: 12.10.1652 However the script is available here: https://github.com/ABHIJEET-MUNESHWAR/Remove-Google-Redirects/blob/master/ and it seems to me "plain enough" javascript, so it should be fairly "version independent". Yes, I find it extremely well working. Just try it, if you don' t like the "effect" you can disable it (or remove it) in no time. jaclaz

Oh, yes, there is. The assuming by duffy98 that other members do have a crystal ball AND that it is tuned properly. While this applies to a few of us, sometimes, he should assume that crystal balls do not exist or that are not at all accurate and try and be as clear and precise as possible, so that there are no (or less) possible misunderstanding. Sorry to say so, but that was yesterday, you still have to prove it is still tuned today. BTW, and JFYI, bhplt is claiming here: to also have one , though I checked and he is not in the lists at RCBUA (Registered Crystal Ball Users Association). He must be using one of those cheap no-name plastic ones .... jaclaz

JFYI, it's not Opera , it's google . See: http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=169093 (the fact that it needs .Net 4.0, while being of unprecedented gravity , does not undermine the goodness of the idea beneath, it's just the tool - and the architecture it is written in - that sucks) Better: http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/rid-unwanted-redirects-google-search-results/ Best (for Opera) : https://addons.opera.com/en/extensions/details/remove-google-redirects/ Whatever Peter Gutmann writes is either far too alarmistic, void of practical relevance or both Mind you his theories are mostly (but NOT entirely) right, but they are in the best case nothing more than that and he is responsible (indirectly) of so many hard disk deaths (caused by senseless wiping) that he should get a bonus from Seagate and WD. I will quote Linus Torvalds (out of context, but it applies to most of Mr. Gutmann essays): BTW I already awarded Mr. Gutmann the 1996 Award for best use of "palimpsestuous" in a technical paper. BUT I want to repeat a concept that it seems like it slipped by in the thread. You seem like upset because these guys do not listen to you. The point is not that one. They are perfectly free to not listen to you (or me, or their customer base), the point is that they pretend that they are actually listening, and try to misrepresent feedback (as opposed to ignoring it which I see as stupid but perfectly legit) in an arrogant attempt to twist reality into their (wrong) expectations. jaclaz

The misunderstanding goes on .... duffy , go up a few posts until you see post #45. Try ckicking on the links dencorso posted in THAT post (#45): IF they don't take you to the site THROUGH the Wayback Machine, THEN your machine/internet connection/whatever have some (serious ) issues. jaclaz

Another case of failing at google? http://brianbikezen.blogspot.it/2012/07/hp-laptop-issue-restartexe-takes-focus.html http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_7-performance/when-i-open-a-program-i-see-blinking-colors-around/c9e70f2f-ab04-4776-8454-c8c6a9d300a4?msgId=41152abf-9c31-4dc3-9637-4c694868372b I wold check the "HP Internet Sharing" (whatever it is ) first thing. jaclaz

Specifically for Windows 8: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_(epidemiology) I guess that the release of Windows 8 is comparable in size, and seriousness, think at all the people that won't get anymore CTS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpal_tunnel_syndrome but will start developing the new "GAS" (Gorilla Arm Syndrome) : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touchscreen#.22Gorilla_arm.22 jaclaz

There has been a misunderstanding. dencorso (on post #45, right above your post #46 where you were whining about the lost page) had ALREADY posted the links through the Wayback Machine. I thought you were referring to those ones..... Anyway, the main thing is that you got what you were looking for . jaclaz

Naah , Vista cannot be part of the "competition", the ONLY thing that can compete with Vista is Windows Me (and Windows ME would win anyway ) jaclaz