jaclaz

Get it from SQL 2000 SP3 (sql2ksp3.exe): http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=17155 jaclaz EDIT: I am getting old , tomasz86 was faster than me....

In case of need: jaclaz

Please provide some details on the drivers you used. If I recall correctly NT 4.0 doesn't support PCMCIA "natively" and needs some "third party" drivers, besides the actual drivers for the PCMCIA card, and BTW (to be picky) that card seems a CardBus one: http://www.digiconcepts.com/linksys_networkwireless_14.htm see: jaclaz

UNfortunately the Microsoft WAIK files, to the best of my knowledge, are not redistributable and you must download them from MS (or from a licensed third party). But your idea/approach is very nice , maybe you could expand on the instructions on how to build it and we could make use of httpdisk, see: http://reboot.pro/13049/ and/or of the nice tool by JFX (which may possibly be "adapted" to the specific chore) : jaclaz

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834230240 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834215380 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16875561020 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822510010 For a total amount of US$ 796.96 (+shipping) jaclaz

If I may, it is like having an used car with the hood locked. If you have not BIOS access and something goes wrong there is no way you can fix it. There are chip replacements to unlock, and for some models (with CMI) there are also unlocking programs/procedures, or at least - seemingly - a way, using HP original security tools to access most of the BIOS settings from the booted OS. (though I don't think we will talk of this on MSFN). Your best option is still - as I see it - a fully integrated drivers pack. jaclaz

Sure , as said it is the attempt to make a "one-size-fits-all OS for both "networked enterprise" and "home user". As an example, it makes no sense whatsoever to have user access to a personal laptop or notebook, or if you prefer, it makes as sense as it does to have several users on your cellular phone (you may have a PIN to access it, but you don't log in to your phone as member of groups like "Administrator", "Backup Operator" or "Can receive but not call", "Can call but not receive", "Can call and receive BUT not send MMS" etc. ) Now, raise your hand you that have used the NTFS quotas at home..... jaclaz

Let's start with some data, OK? There are as many ways to setup a RAID as stars in the sky. HOW exactly was the RAID setup? Is it a hardware or a software raid? (if hardware which make/model of the controller?) WHICH OS are you running? If your disk failed and it was in one of the "good" ways to setup a RAID, you shouldn't have lost data. If the disk was not intitialized you definitely have partitioned it before attempting quickly formattting it. (HOW exactly, with which program, etc.)? Please describe EXACTLY what you saw when you re-connected the drive and the EXACT sequesnce of operations you alreadyperformed. Right now your priorities should be: procure a new, surely working, slightly bigger hard disk, 1 Tb in your case, hard disk create on it a single partition, NTFS (or EXT3FS if you are running Linux) use a suitable copying tool, typically under windows DataRescuedd http://www.datarescue.com/photorescue/v3/drdd.htm or bb_recover http://alter.org.ua/en/soft/win/bb_recover/ or ddrescue under Linux make an image of the whole disk as is. Depending on the exact type of RAID setup you had, the recovery (provided that the data is still actually there ) may range from "easy/peasy" to impossible", going through "extremely difficult" and/or "impossible without using Commercial software". Until you have a valid image of the disk, every single byte you change on it through any way/program/test/whatever is lessening the chances of recovering data. jaclaz

Yes/no, (cannot say). As said I would try a "plain" install with the SATA in BIOS set to "IDE compatibility mode", first thing (i.e. "vanilla" source). jaclaz

A lot of time passed since, really cannot remember the details, I will have to look in VERY old backups. Anyway, this should help: http://www.infdump.com/inffiles/U/usb2.inf jaclaz

It's one of the known nuisances introduced by Windows XP that all long time NT and 2K users (at the time) reported as being a senseless change. Since the dawn of time any NT 3/4 and 2K users have logged in with the name "Administrator". The "intended use" on a NT system of the user "Administrator" has always been that of being used ONLY in exceptional occasions and have a more "normal" account for everyday use (not unlike "root" is on a Linux system). So, the "canonical" way has always been that of having at least two accounts one called "Administrator" with administrator powers and another one (with whatever powers/privileges one sees fit). This is because the "intended" target was "enterprise". The fact that a number of users - normally NOT "enterprise" ones, liked to have one account only (the "Administrator" one) is marginal as it is outside the WHOLE concept of security and permissions. But, unless you knew that an "Administrator" account existed, you were NOT prompted to login with one, as the login in NT and 2K shows only "last user logged", most people in an enterprise setup only knew it existed because they saw the "IT guy" accessing it. XP, as I like to say, is 2K with added a toyish look but it was intended to be the one-size-fits-all for everyone, form the large company to the home user. Among the "toyish look" added is the new login screen that actually lists all the users on the machine (together with a senseless icon). So, instead of plainly documenting (in a proper way) WHY there should be only one (the "Administrator") account with Administrator powers and another one with lesser powers to be used everyday, the good MS guys made the choice of: make the Administrator account "hidden" in XP Pro <-so that the user in an "enterprise" doesn't even know that it exists, and the IT guy makes for the user "another" account make the Administrator account "hidden" in XP Home AND make it only accessible in Safe mode <- the actual reason for this is still to be AFAICR guessed properly The actual issue being that the "classes" or "groups" of users in XP are still the same as the good ol' NT ones, as said aimed EXCLUSIVELY to the "enterprise" world. Raise your hand you that have been elected "backup operator" or "replicator" in your house and thus have an acoount with those provileges. Raise your hand you that have thought that "Power user" was too high a rank for your knowledge of the OS (BTW that is the "right" setting for "everyday use" of an "advanced" user) http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/windows/xp/all/proddocs/en-us/lsm_local_groups.mspx?mfr=true Besides some being, like "backup operator" and "replicator" absolutely senseless, the "default" groups have not sufficient "granularity" of the "privileges" by default accompanying these groups http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/windows/xp/all/proddocs/en-us/windows_security_default_settings.mspx?mfr=true and creating a new group and checking all the "right" permissions is on of the biggest PITA ever invented by MS. Obviously the "other" account was made with "very limited" privileges in the actual "enterprises" and as "full privileges" (i.e. same powers of the "Administrator") one on all the rest of the PC's (thus COMPLETELY vanifying the whole idea of "limited privileges" security in the large majority of installs). Even in most enterprises, once the IT guy has been called n times to solve an issue or install a program by an user that had been given the plain "user" privileges, he/she got fed up and decided that it is much easier to give full power to the user and when and if the install gets screwed, re-deploy the OS form a backup or outright install it from scratch (who in IT ever cared about user's data outside the strictly complying to company policies ones?) Since it was a complete fail, when Vista came out, MS, again INSTEAD of properly documenting the reasons why, tried to enforce the idea with the UAC. And obviously, again everyone found a way to diasable UAC and going on as before. jaclaz

Yes/No. The contents of AccountsTrim.txt after the: set oldName=%%a set newName=!oldName:~3! should be: But as Yzöwl posted it is easier/better to change the actual code/method. If I get it right, you are using the for loop to "post process" the "integral" output of the dsquery command, you should be able to directly go to "GroupMemberTrim.txt" without having to pass through the "GroupMemberExtract.txt". There might be the need to add more than a efw ESCAPE characters but including the: dsquery * domainroot -filter "(&(objectClass=group)(name=""%groupname%""))" -l -d DomainName -attr member inside a for loop seems to me like possible and "better". Let's say that (once having the special character being escaped properly) the above code is just "%Command%" FOR /F "tokens=2 delims=,=" %%A IN ('%Command%') DO ECHO %%A it should work, see this as an example (working for me): @ECHO OFF SETLOCAL ENABLEEXTENSIONS ECHO CN=Joe Bloggs,OU=Accounts,OU=User Accounts,DC=DomainName,DC=company,DC=co,DC=uk>test.txt TYPE test.txt FOR /F "tokens=2 delims=,=" %%A IN ('TYPE test.txt') DO ECHO %%A SET dsquery=CN=Joe Bloggs,OU=Accounts,OU=User Accounts,DC=DomainName,DC=company,DC=co,DC=uk>test.txt FOR /F "tokens=3 delims=,=" %%A IN ('SET dsquery') DO ECHO %%A jaclaz

Admittedly a different "branch" of MS, but (as well as a rhetorical question): How long does it take to re-add a pre-existing feature that was senseless removed? At least in one case TWO YEARS were not enough to "react" : jaclaz

First thing: DON'T PANIC (assume the above to be written in large, friendly letters ) Wintoflash has it's own forum, here: http://wintoflash.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=3 If the issue is with wintoflash, you might get better asistance there, but from what you write the issue is with installing the SATA/AHCI drivers, right? If you have a setting in the BIOS for "IDE compatibility mode" (or something like that, try installing without the SATA/AHCI drivers, this way you will have a way to check if *something else* is missing/wrong in the procedure. There are ways to install the SATA/AHCI drivers later, see: http://forums.pcper.com/showthread.php?t=444831 The USB 3.0 port should not be an issue, if you can acceess the USB floppy and the USB stick and you actually installed the XP, but on reboot you had the 0x000007b If you have a Windows 7 (or any other windows NT) already installed, you can use it (from a fully integrated with drivers source) to make a "local" install with WINNT32.EXE, this would exclude any use of the USB bus during install. Generally speaking SATA driver versioning can be confusing, is it possible that you supplied the "wrong" drivers by mistake? When EXACTLY are you getting the 0x0000007b STOP ERROR? You can use this thread (and linked to video) as reference: Consider also the idea, also suggested in the mentioned thread, to integrate the drivers pack. jaclaz

http://www.dougknox.com/xp/scripts_desc/xp_admin_ok.htm jaclaz

Also, an ATA Secure Erase may reset the device http://www.iishacks.com/2009/06/30/how-to-secure-erase-reset-an-intel-solid-state-drive-ssd/ (on linux hdparm can do the same) The "power cycle procedure" is reported verbatim (and "generically") at newegg: http://www.newegg.ca/Product/CategoryIntelligenceArticle.aspx?articleId=292 At first sight it does not make much sense, but there are several reports that it worked. jaclaz

Yes. http://homepage.ntlworld.com./jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/questions-with-yes-or-no-answers.html I am not sure to have understood the issue (actually I am sure to have it not understood) Please post the .cmd that work and the one that doesn't and an example of the file to be parsed (GroupMemberExtract.txt). What is this?: !%newName! jaclaz

I don't buy the "revenge against Seagate hence Samsung. I am more puzzled by the statement (page 24 of the èdf transcript here: http://www.groklaw.net/pdf4/ApplevSamsung-1991Ex1.pdf ) and (page 22): Source for pdf link here: http://www.androidpolice.com/2012/10/03/jury-foreman-vel-hogan-on-samsung-vs-apple-case-failed-to-disclose-hed-been-sued-by-seagate-partially-owned-by-samsung/ When compared with: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/aug/28/apple-samsung-foreman-explains And: http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_21400423/jury-foreman-apple-v-samsung-verdict-message-that I have somehow the feeling that there was some bias but not connected with the old Seagate issue, but rather with not being able to keep outside the decision his own "strong opinions" on the Law, how it should have been changed and how it should have been applied and with personal specific experience, and some sort of "personal revenge" against the "experts" the two parties brought to the trial. jaclaz

If you have successfully solved the BSY issue but you need assistance in recovering the partitions, please start a new thread. If you search the forum, you will find a few examples of successful recoveries and a few failed or abandoned ones, that should however give you an idea of the suggested procedures. As a general rule it is NEVER a good idea to fiddle with a hard disk bfore having made a dd-like image of it. jaclaz

Well, that should make you a 76 US$ poorer, BUT 0.5 Tb richer , thus nonetheless happy bunny! http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=128727&st=10 jaclaz

Also there is BIG difference between "been thoroughly tested", "been thoroughly tested with success" and "been thoroughly tested with success and user satisfaction"..... jaclaz

JFYI: page__view__findpost__p__1013624 jaclaz

Yes, in case I have a purely thoeretical explanation. When the firmware is running "normally", it checks the presence of heads and motors and if it can't find them goes in an "isolation" mode, i.e. if any of heads or motor is not found an instruction is executed that shuts off the serial interface. When a BSY (but not as seen a LBA0) occurs, the firmware "loops" in a more restricted set of instruction that do not comprehend the check for heads and motor, and thus though still running, the procesor never reaches the instructon "shut off the serial". As I like to say however : jaclaz

If I may, things should be put into historical context. When 2K - actually (IMHO) a very good OS - much better than XP for "serious" uses, came out, there was an initial set of issues/problems, which were actually solved with SP1 or SP2, which came out rather quickly. ALL (or nearly all) new users of win2K were actually long time users of NT 4.00 (many coming from NT 3.51) and came from an exceptionally stable OS. When XP came out, most of those that had 2K, in the meantime become "mature", kept using it. and only upgraded to XP when actually "forced" by either the lack of support (drivers) for new hardware or by Commercial strategies. In practice NO Windows 98 user ever used 2K, they went "directly" to XP, often passing through Me. So, the mass of the new XP users came from Me , no surprise they found the XP such a great OS. The mass of new 7 users came from Vista , again not that much surprise that 7 was such a success. Now the situation - as I see it - is not unlike the "shift" from 98SE to Me. BTW, Me was a much better OS than Windows 98 SE (as it had a number of things "migrated" from NT/2K) it was simply "killed as a child" by the MS Commercial policies of pushing XP outside it's intended scope (still XP is far less suitable to single user/"not corporate networked" PC's than 98/Me). And if you remember most of the whining about Me was about the (forced) removal of "pure DOS" (which was a heresy for the 9X users and is actually still a heresy from a technical standpoint). In practice MS had TWO good OS's at the time: Windows 98 Se Windows NT the first perfectly suited for home use and the second for "serious"/business use. Windows NT "naturally evolved" into Win 2K. Windows Me was a (failed, but as said IMHO only because it was abandoned too early) attempt to re-use some of the good technologies developed for Windows 2000 on the still better "home/game" suited Windows 98Se. Not that much of a proof, but remember that (roughly) a Windows 2000 machine needed to work smoothly DOUBLE the RAM of a correspondent Windows 98/Me machine. Casually I have a laptop that was "announced" as having Windows 98 SE, but it was actually delivered with Windows Me (with 64 Mb of Ram). Though the Me worked allright, I had reasons to install 2K and consequently added a 64 Mb stick to the thingy. Then the geniuses at MS had a better thought, since hardware was getting cheaper, instead of adding security/stability coming from the NT "branch" to the "DOS branch", they decided to add playful looks to 2K and force it to BOTH the 9x/Me users and to the 2K users. For the new users, XP was nice, for the old time NT/2K users it was an abomination of unneeded eye-candy wich brought no advantages, for the old time 9x/Me users it was an abomination of complexity and of things they liked (games, mainly) not working anymore..... But it was a success (for MS, mainly because they re-merged together - at the customer expense - two developing branches) and still, though being (as I see it ) a bettered Win2K, only worse , XP has been a good OS, a lot of people have become used to it, and this is why Vista was a shock to them. Now that things have setled down and people is more or less happy about Windows 7 and relative apps (someone has even the courage to say that the "ribbon" is not that bad after all), here comes MS and with the same arrogance and prevarication they had with the Me (unneededly removing the DOS) they are now unneededly removing the "classic" interface replacing it with the NCI . But obviusly the only thing they are doing (AGAIN) is re-merging two development branches (the desktop and the tablet/phone one) into a single one, (AGAIN) at the expense of the customers. jaclaz Edit: corrected a few typos

There are NO issues that I can remember in booting 2K from USB if not that of pagefile not available.. It was done more than 6 years ago. See here: http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=14181 the procedure is suitable (and actually reported as working) to Win2K also: http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=14181&st=420&p=99087entry99087 http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=14181&st=540&p=99781&hl=win2kentry99781 Since there was not much interest in Win2K even then (everyone was already on the XP bandwagon, the topic was never deepened much, but I had it working allright. jaclaz