jaclaz

@dencorso Well, just for the record, even the current FAT article on Wikipedia has more than one issues. I will cite, not to make it too technical a couple sentences in the exFAT part: Someone that writes: "exFAT is an incompatible file system" <- incompatible with WHAT? "Storage devices formatted as exFAT cannot exchange data with equipment not supporting the format." <- Really? Good moorning, Mr. de La Palice! I have rarely seen a storage device actually "willing" to "exchange" data, BUT all those that were formatted with *any* filesystem not supported by the equipment, no matter what filesystem it was, had on them data that was not readily accessible by the equipment. should IMNSHO be slapped (hard) in the face to have him/her wake up! BUT, I still think that WIkipedia is nonetheless a VERY GOOD resource for the "base info" You have nailed down the real issue - which now is, in an attempt to avoid incorrect articles, an excessive, indiscriminate (and often plainly wrong) use of rules, the worst of which is "citationism", which is one of the ways to verify the contents that makes lots of sense about "established" topics, but make NONE WHATSOEVER when it comes to "news", "research" and "new development". Basically if you don't have two or three "reputable" sources to backup *any* statement, one of the "strict" Wikipedians will soon edit them (BTW without understanding them or actually verifying them). And the "English" Wikipedia is not that bad . Cannot say the other languages, but I have recently read (with HORROR ) the discussion on the Italian one about CAINE, a (BTW IMHO very good) completely Open Source, linux based, Forensic Distro, whose author, Nanni Bassetti, had the page first suspended and then deleted. I - for one - won't have anything to do with people that have that attitude ,. Since I am after all a nice guy , I will limit myself to define those guys as "a bunch of presumptuos, arrogant, good-for-nothing and useless lazy bums". Since I believe you can understand enough Italian, if you want to have a look at it, it is here: http://www.nannibassetti.com/dblog/articolo.asp?articolo=182 http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pagine_da_cancellare/Caine/2 jaclaz

Strange results. I mean it is obvious that going through a FOR /F loop in batch should eat some time, but while 7-zip (as expected ) is prolly faster than both EXPAND and CABARC, when using the wildcard specification, it is greatly slower through the loop. This should mean that *somehow* 7-zip is very "slow" at initializing or that cabarc (that you have necessarily timed only in the FOR loop) is d@mn fast at it. Which version of cabarc.exe did you test ? There could be some differences, I have an oldish: Microsoft ® Cabinet Tool - Version 1.00.0601 (03/18/97) <- 114.688 byte And: Microsoft ® Cabinet Tool - Version 5.00.2134.1 <- 65.808 byte Microsoft ® Cabinet Tool - Version 5.1.2600.0 <- 62.976 byte Same goes for Expand.exe and for 7-zip (actually I think there are probably more versions of it that stars in the sky) But can you try also 7za.exe? I suspect that the extra time is because 7z is not "standalone" whilost 7za is BTW (and as a side note) 7zip may have (actually has) issues with CASE of filenames. jaclaz

Have you tried that on a CZECH Windows 2000 source? jaclaz

And how would 7-zip compare? jaclaz

Look, you originally posted that you downloaded a known warez release in order to run "Drive image". If you want to deny that, it's perfectly OK with me, though . Later it was cleared that "Drive image" meant DriveIMageXML (which of course you can legitimately download from Runtime Software site, as it is a freeware for "Private" or personal use only). Just for the record, DriveImageXML appears like being NOT a "backup" solution, but rather an "imaging" one, and it is also NOT within the first 10 results on CNET for "backup". Which right now: http://download.cnet.com/windows/backup-software/?tag=mncol%3Bsort&rpp=10&sort=downloadCount+asc are: FullDataBackup DAEMON Tools Pro EaseUS Todo Backup Free Macrium Reflect Free EaseUS Disk Copy Home Edition Paragon Backup & Recovery Free Recuva Acronis True Image Home SyncBackFree Second Copy which are largely NOT strictly "backup" solutions, some are "cloning", some are "imaging", or however "something in between", and a couple like DAEMON Tools and Recuva are completely unrelated programs. Yep, that happens to a lot of people . Many others manage to boot from USB, using one or more tricks. That's good , you have no idea how many people I manage to trick into clicking on them , it is refreshing to find someone who wouldn't . I thought we already had this exchange, see you, have fun . jaclaz

As long as you are now a happy bunny: that's fine with me . jaclaz

Next gadget Idea! A very small muppet theatre, to be placed in front of the Kinect camera, with a single figure moving from time to time (battery powered), coming together with a special correction lens that will let the Kinect think it is a single human staring at the screen from an armchair placed at approximately 2.50 m distance. Before anyone complains , the idea is not entirely original, it was inspired by : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1081607/Speeding-puppet-seat-British-car-makes-muppets-German-police.html jaclaz

Just for the record, traditionally 6.21 (in the good ol' days) didn't last a lot, it was a "quick fix" (strangely enough connected with a patent infringement) before the 6.22 was released: http://www.oldcomputermuseum.com/os/msdos_6.21.html jaclaz

WHICH mklink method? (you know like in "you mentioned it, there isn't any mklink method that I know of"). But we can try installing grub4dos to the thingy and try understanding which is the specific issue (it could also be a peculiar problem of that particular specimen of transcend, like a timing issue of some kind, since another stick works fine). If this is the case, we are back to square one the next step would be to attempt using the MP tool to "re-condition" the stick. jaclaz

And you used it through a boot CD which is a known warez release, whose name you edited from your OP, but that remains well understandable in my first reply. @submix8c JFYI : http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=21702&st=122 WHY, in MY day .... http://reboot.pro/topic/1908-why-in-my-day/ jaclaz

Unfortunately yes, in the sense that I was not only born, but was already using (very simple) computers, since a few years in 1983. Ah well, that means that you may need the Commercial US $ 60 version. BTW we never limited the discussion to freeware solutions, didn't we? Well, you already used a WAREZ to make use of DriveImageXML, which also is "XP and up" only, though last time I checked it, it did work on 2K alright: http://www.xxclone.com/ixcman56.htm Ah, well if it's not in the top 10 in CNET and has a bad review, that settles it.. As a matter of fact the one that might be of use could be the even higher priced version, that can also use a folder as target, though one could well use a virtual disk as target.... See you, have fun jaclaz

Maybe stupid suggestion, but why don't you build instead a PE with Make_PE3 or a win7PE_SE project? AFAICR there is full support on both for USB disks/devices. jaclaz

Naaah, next I would try flipping the bit (of course if you the guts for it ). Start reading here: http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http://www.usbdev.ru/files/alcor/ A suitable tool should be this one: http://yadi.sk/d/95HEgbZl3-ZTR If you have by any chance an USB hard disk (and it is NTFS formatted) have you ever checked if it's bootable on that PC? (it would be of some psychological support to know if a "fixed" device - NTFS - is bootable) jaclaz

First thing .chm are "standard" files alright, if your hlp/chm/help sub-system, for any reason, does not work, use xchm (or a similar .chm reader), like all the rest of the world has done for YEARS . http://xchm.sourceforge.net/ Second thing, yes, evidently you are doing something wrong , but let's wait until you have fully read the REF.CHM . jaclaz

Good, let's see if it changes something, before attempting anything else. Good, it uses an Alcor chip for which an "easy enough" tool to "flip the bit" (if needed) is available. Flipping the removable bit would make the device appear as "fixed" and thus allow to have more partitions accessible, we could then make a small FAT16 or FAT32 partition with just the boot files and the rest NTFS to hold the install "monolithic" wim, if we cannot find a way to have that thingy boot using any of the plainer approaches. jaclaz

Well, they could name it Windows Blues, was it not ready for another copyright infringement: http://www.justsomelyrics.com/704053/band-of-horses-windows-blues-lyrics.html though it has some "common points" : jaclaz

There could be several different issues. First one could be the size of the stick (but if it works with FAT32 this is not possible). Second could be some "strange" incompatibility of the BIOS with the NTFS bootsector (or with the partition ID of 07 in the partition table). Are you familiar with using a disk/hex editor? (I need to know this if further tests are to be made= Get this thingy here Clonedisk: http://labalec.fr/erwan/?page_id=42 Click on the Tool tab, then Partition Table Editor, choose the USB stick (if you have a SSD and a HD it will be most probably \\.\PhysicalDrive2), you should see the first two lines filled with partition data, and the last two empty/all 00's. The first line will have 07 as type, change it to 0C. Save the edited partition table and reboot. Try connecting the USB stick to a port "on the back" of the PC (i.e. one of those directly soldered to the motherboard) and NOT on one of the "front" ones, and try booting again. Your motherboard most probably has a "hot key" to change boot order, you should try booting form the USB stick BOTH with USB set as primary boot device (in BIOS settings) and by changing the normal boot order "on the fly" through the hot-key. Report the exact wording that you see in the error message (if it fails booting). Another thing, get Chipgenius: http://reboot.pro/topic/4661-chipgenius/ and run it against the USB stick, post the results. jaclaz

Yes it is possible. Can you post the make/model of the PC that "fails" and the make/model of the USB stick? jaclaz

Try first thing with RMPREPUSB. http://www.rmprepusb.com/home/rmprepusb-manual You want to select "C: 2 PTns" (making a fake second partition seemingly helps with some BIOSes): http://www.rmprepusb.com/home/rmprepusb-manual#TOC-Boot-as-HDD-C:-2PTNS---Recommended- You may also want to test your stick before with the included in RMPREPUSB test utility: jaclaz

Why should they? I mean you have the stupid service tag (or whatever Dell calls it), the thing without which finding anything on Dell site is a nightmare, right? Now let's see how geekish and temerary you can be: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?196821-Dell-Inspirion-530-530S-Vostro-200-400-owner-rejoice http://web.archive.org/web/20101205045157/http://thelostbrain.com/post/2007/12/Raid-0,-1-,-5,-0-1-support-Dell-Vostro-200--400-and-Inspiron-530--530s-machines!-(Finally).aspx jaclaz

A very wild guess, but it could be something connected (pardon the pun ) with the actual device connection, i.e. (probably) with MTP/PTP (the *whatever* makes WPD or WIA) . Some (lousy ) explanation of the acronyms is here: http://www.forensicfocus.com/Forums/viewtopic/p=6563145/#6563145 http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms630343.aspx In other words, it could be something similar to the (senseless) "What do you want to do with this?" kind of popup that may appear when you insert a CD/DVD or connect a USB stick/disk (windows 8, being more user-friendly may have added some), but something very like this has been reported since XP: https://discussions.apple.com/thread/1912571?start=0&tstart=0 http://support.apple.com/kb/ts1500 http://www.kensfi.com/how-to-disable-select-the-program-to-launch-for-this-action-message/ http://windows.microsoft.com/en-id/windows-vista/troubleshoot-camera-connection-problems In your case this seems to happen at startup because you switch the PC on with the camera already connected and while starting up, it senses that the device is connected. If this is correct, try disconnecting the camera, reboot (the popup should not appear) then try to connect the camera (the popup should appear as soon as the device is "sensed"). Is it a USB webcam, right? jaclaz

Let's try and separate the issues, OK ? If for any reason you *need* FAT32 you need "split" files. The .swm files are "relatives" to .wim files but you cannot make a "set" of install .iso's with "partial" .swm files AFAIK. on a USB stick. This is usually the reference: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh825096.aspx What exactly are you doing after having created the .swm files? Are you rebuilding more .iso's? Or where are you placing the various .swm files on the stick? (they should go in \source\) More generally if you could describe with more detail what you did, it would help. Ia m not at all sure to have understood what you tried. If for any reason you cannot boot your stick if it has a single partition NTFS formatted (but you do want to have it NTFS) it could be BOTH an easily solvable problem (re-partition/format with Rufus or RMPREPUSB or some of the other "specific" tools) or a limitation of your specific BIOS (very rare nowadays, but you never know), which may need some manual tweaking. jaclaz

Which is of course VERY different from the sticky here : (which supposedly, being a sticky, congnt92 should have at least already peeked at ) jaclaz

Well, at least jaclaz has nothing to add to what Wonko the Sane posted on reboot.pro. And you'll have to define "big part". If we are going on the way of number of posts, out of the currently 89 posts: popov 29 Wonko the Sane 21 Steve6375 21 Medevil 14 Others 4 Considering that it's you that are having a problem, and that you posted more than once two times consecutively, and that most of your posts are about (correctly ) reporting what happened when following some instructions and a few more on how to perform some instructions received, I would say that you have very little to whine about the kind of support you received/interest your issue raised on reboot.pro, let alone about the number of posts you had to write. jaclaz

Well, the "new" version is actually: If you do a hex compare of the two 2048 bytes files, it is evident that they are actually the "same", most probably compiled with some different switch or on different machines. Most probably user CNexus simply uploaded a couple MD5 tools that he/she had around. Since the existance of two ("same") builds of the same MD5sum.exe exists should mean that the Source Code is *somewhere* around, and it would be probably useful to Glen9999. jaclaz