jaclaz

Correction : jaclaz

NO. That is still CHS 06. And a partition table entry is still 16 bytes, not 11, not 13 not any other value but 16, and they are not a "line", it is actually 2 bytes on one line (in the default view of a hex editor) +14 bytes on next one. I doubt I could find a better way to represent it. But stll you are not yet "completely out of the issues", it is "queer" that you needed the 0C partition ID, but it could well be a combination of the BIOS with that particular CF-card... While you were playing with yours, I was fighting again a "particular" Linux distro that used GRUB 0.97 installed to MBR with an invalid partition scheme and no active partition. That would have normally worked, but on a Thin client with the stupid Insyde Bios (that has a "special" provision to prevent GRUB from booting ) there was NO way to have it booted if not by using the NTLDR+BOOT.INI trick. The queer thing was that once I had the CF card partitions modified, and worked perfectly on the specific machine, I tried that same CF card on another machine and it would have problems in BIOS recognizing the actual device. (and it wasn't the ususal no-name cheap one, it was a "respectable" Adata one. Same contents dd-ed to another CF-card, this time a "Maxflash" brand, et voilà: BIOS of the other machine (a Via Epia) recognized it allright (and BTW on this other machine the "new" Cf-card worked allright even with the original image. Sometimes it is just voodoo.... jaclaz

No offence whatever intended, mind you , but both the "they" and the "we", appear - at least from a distance and from the way you describe the whole thing - a lot like having some very good stuff available.... jaclaz

The grldr needs to be on the Boot drive (normally "C:\"), along with NTLDR and BOOT.INI. Get the bootable floppy image of the thingy (or make one yourself with MS-DOS instead of Freedos). http://damien.guibouret.free.fr/en/spartbdk.html http://damien.guibouret.free.fr/en/telechargement.html Assuming that you are trying the original image, put the file spartbdk.img wherever you like on your disk, let's say in C:\partsave\ Boot and at BOOT.INI choices choose grub4dos. At the grub> prompt type: (issuing [ENTER] at each line). If everything boots OK, create a new file in notepad, save it as C:\menu.lst. Contents of the file: so that next time you don't need to type commands at the grub4dos prompt. jaclaz

It would be my first choice, too. However, since jaclaz figured it out, let's wait for his instructions. jaclaz has not that "in mind" he plainly stated that it is probably the "easiest" one among the several ones linsted on the thread where PROBLEMCHYLD originally posted: For THREE reasons: it has a DOS based version and PROBLEMCHYLD is familiar with it it fits in a single floppy disk (image) so it is among the most footprint saving it is already documented in detail Additionally jaclaz has not particular instructions to give, IF PROBLEMCHYLD thinks to give it a shot, jaclaz will gladly explain how, once in grub4dos, the floppy image can be loaded, to be more exact, he will be able to provide the set of grub4dos commands needed to mount the floppy disk image and attempt booting from it. But in the mentioned thread there are tens of suitable programs listed, and everyone will have it's "tastes" and possibly less restrictions than those that were stated here. BTW, and just for the record, it should be possible to directly clone the disk by using grub4dos internal dd command, though I suspect that it will be slowish. jaclaz

That's good, as it is UNrelated to "copying the drive". Loading from BOOT.INI grub4dos is a way to load it without installing anything. Once you are in grub4dos you can load *any* image, i.e. you can have another OS, INCLUDING a suitable imaging tool, that you can use to clone/image the disk, and this without "installing". As said this could be DOS based (very small in size), or Linux based (a little larger) or a PE of some kind, it all depends on which tool you find more practical/like. If you prefer the added line to the boot.ini and the grldr file are nothing but some means to give you an almost unlimited freedom of choice among the many "third party" tools available without the need to "install" any of them. jaclaz

Good. This translated should mean that the "image" (which is not an image) worked and booted allright, right? Naah. The Win98 bootsector that mbrfix writes is definitely capable of booting Win95. For DOS 5 or 6.x there are other switches DOS5 and DOS6, so it is "compatible" down to at least 5.0, but this would be SENSELESS on a FAT32 volume (as FAT32 is a filesystem that real DOS pre-7.x cannot access). jaclaz

Ok, I am losing my patience. All you have to do is to add a single line to your BOOT.INI and add to the root of the volume where NTLDR and BOOT.INI are three files: grldr <- between 220 and 270 Kb depending on versions menu.lst <- optional, normally no more than 512 bytes an image <- this can be as little as a floppy image (1440 Kb) or as big as a few hundreds of Mb (a .iso CD image), depending on the tool you choose NOTHING is "installed", you can add the line in BOOT.INI by hand or use a small batch to do that and re-add it (if needed) manually or by using another batch. The line amounts to: If even this is not acceptable along your (IMNSHO senseless) restrictions, then yes, you are stuck . jaclaz

No, thanks anyway. Is it possible to use something like a command line tool. I just don't want to install any software. Since you have no CD, would you have either among: a floppy a USB stick/hd PXE booting Otherwise you will need to "install" (actually there is NO NEED to "install" but you will have to accept that a third party tool exists on your hard disk or OS volume) a boot manager like grub4dos (and from it load *any* other third party tool in the form of either a floppy disk image, a CD image or a (small) hard disk image). Most probably the easiest tool would be partition saving: http://www.partition-saving.com/ jaclaz

Well, you CANNOT (within the limits of the self - limitations you imposed yourself). You need to boot the machine to ANOTHER OS (that contains the needed tools), this can also be a "dual boot" with a "hidden, recovery like" partition on the main hard disk. So, in any case you NEED a "third party tool", whether this needs to be "installed" or not, is another thing. Please spend some time reading here: http://homepage.ntlworld.com./jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/put-down-the-chocolate-covered-banana.html as right now you are slipping on a chocolate covered banana . jaclaz

If I get it right you used successfully the tool on the MBR - Master boot record (which is NOT "locked" by Vista / 7) and from this experience you derived that it also works in the same way on the PBR - partition boot record or VBR - Volume boot record or bootsector (which IS "locked" on a mounted volume/disk). BTW the MBRfix tool has NO provisions to change or write to the bootsector if not this particular function "fixbootsector". Carpenter's example : jaclaz

Please define "install". Many of the solutions provided are about boot-CD's or bootable USB sticks or floppy. You NEVER, and I mean NEVER image a disk/volume that is in use (unless you use Shadow Copy services). jaclaz

Good , though you haven't a "right" (in the sense of "identical to what a normal pre-Vista utility would have done), you have now a correctly aligned partition! Allow me to doubt about this. Naah, the thingy talks about 1536 bytes, which is three sectors, and casually the FAT32 bootsector is three sectors long (sectors 0, 1 and 2) whilst the FAT 12 and 16 one is only one sector long (sector 0). There could be a "queer" issue, the DOS FAT32 bootsector is three sectors long and resides on sectors 0, 1 and 2. BUT the NT (from 2K onwards) is still made of three sectors BUT resides on sectors 0,1 and 12. I would suspect an actual malfunctioning of MBRFIX, cannot say if by itself, combined with stoopid Windows 7 (please read as PE 3.0) or with the stupid 64 bit version of the afore mentioned stupid Windows 7 (please read as PE 3.0). And no, stupid+stupid doesn't make a double negation, the result is 2*stupid! It is likely that the feature added for "real" NT OS use was not re-checked/tested/fixed*whatever for Vista and later use. You might need to lock the disk and/or the volume Compare with: http://reboot.pro/12413/ http://reboot.pro/15069/ You could try putting the disk offline with diskpart: http://reboot.pro/8200/page__st__25#entry73620 but cannot say what will happen with MBRfix. jaclaz

No need to use grub4dos (not much sense in using it), as you would (besides being even less an "image") introduce an unneeded level of complexity, as you are using a 64 bit environment, whilst most of the tools/utilities are 32 bit and won't run in your environment (there are still ways, though , in this you are right grub4dos has "magic" possibilites). You THIINK to have solved one issue (the alignment) but you ignored the other ones (besides actually failing at solving the alignment issue ). Issue #1: Your "VDS image" is still NOT correctly aligned. Entry Type Boot bCyl bHead bSect eCyl eHead eSec StartSector NumSectors #0 0C 80 0 2 3 1023 254 63 128 63488000 You should get something *like*: Entry Type Boot bCyl bHead bSect eCyl eHead eSec StartSector NumSectors #0 0C 80 0 1 1 1023 254 63 63 63488817 Of course if you change the Registry settings BUT issue the parameter: strangely enough you will get a partition aligned to 64 Kb (i.e. to 128 sectors or 0/2/3). Issue #2: When you use diskpart in a PE 3.0 it will (obviously) write the Windows 7 MBR CODE. This is not an issue in itself as any MS MBR CODE will do the same thing: chainload the bootsector of the Active (Primary) partition in the Partition Table (but is is not anymore an "image"). Issue #3: The real issue (once solved issue #1) is the Bootsector. Since you use diskpart in WinPE 3.0 it will (obviously) write the Windows 7 PBR CODE. (i.e. the one invoking BOOTMGR). BUT you want to have a PBR that invokes IO.SYS/MSDOS.SYS (or WINBOOT.SYS) like the one you have in the "original". If you wanted a NT/2K/XP bootsector invoking NTLDR, you would use bootsect.exe /nt52 (and /nt60 to get back to the one invoking BOOTMGR) BUT MBRfix has an option: The text: misses a part that would read something *like*: Try again , run the diskpart without the "align=" parameter AND run MBRfix as detailed and post results.... jaclaz

May I ask WHAT is image_it.exe? Whatever it is, it is "strange" that is run in the same way (with no parameters) in each of the available options .... jaclaz

You might want to have an oftalmologist check your eyes . I have RARELY seen in my life two MBR's SO different . Besides (obviously) having different MBR CODE, also the Partition Table data is VERY different (as expected). Entry Type Boot bCyl bHead bSect eCyl eHead eSec StartSector NumSectors #0 0C 80 0 1 1 1022 254 63 63 976768002 <-Original #0 0C 80 0 32 33 1023 254 63 2048 63488000 <-Deployed but with a couple interesting quirks. The "original" disk has been partitioned with a tool that INCORRECTLY set eCyl to 1022 instead of 1023 (or anyway this value has been incorrectly changed). The "original" partition is anyway 976768002*512=500,105,217,024 bytes in size AND using the "old" (appropriate for "DOS") convention of respecting cylinder/head boundaries. The "deployed" is 63,488,000*512=32,505,856,000 and has obviously been partitioned by diskpart using the "new" convention of "cluster alignenment" with no respect of cylinder/head boundaries. The bootsectors reflect in the BPB the same differences, and as well have completely different CODE, the "original" has Win 9x boot code (so it is not really "DOS", in the sense of 6.22, but rather 7.x ). Additionally, and it is normal since the huge difference in size of the partitions, also the cluster size is different (respectively 64 and 32 secots or if you prefer 32K vs. 16K) All in all it is "improper" to call anything in this mess an "image", as you used to create the "deployed" *whatever* using tools that use a different approach and the result is obviously VERY different from the original. MBRfix will be of use only for part of the needed fixes, you will need also MBRWIZ (or other similar tool capable of creating the partition with the "old" alignment and running on x64) or "fix" the Registry keys for partition aliignment if you want to use diskpart: http://reboot.pro/9897/ http://reboot.pro/9897/#entry86021 and will need a FAT32 formatter capable of running under x64: Now, what do you actually want to do? jaclaz

Well, if I wanted you to upload a .rar to Skydrive, I would probably had asked you to do that, INSTEAD I asked you to ATTACH the file to a post as .zip. I don't use Skydrive and cannot access it. (I could, of course, but that would be more work for me) jaclaz

Naah, I suggest often Hdhacker, but just as a tool to backup/restore the sectors. http://dimio.altervista.org/eng/ Normally I use the dsfok tollkit, (command line) to do the same: and I use my own little spreadsheet to calculate values I later carve by hand with TinyHexer, see: jaclaz

Well, before that, just remove the RAM and any card that you may have on it and try booting. It should beep.... jaclaz

Educate customer : http://homepage.ntlworld.com./jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/problem-report-standard-litany.html will lead you (and your customer) nowhere. OT , but not much , you may want to also have Nada 0.5 installed It won't do anything , but it's nice to know it's there : http://web.archive.org/web/20081217072152/http://www.bernardbelanger.com/computing/NaDa/index.php jaclaz

Good , and I avoided it (most probably since long before you "fixed it") by simply not making multiple primary FAT partitions . jaclaz

Are you sure? Device support should be unrelated to actual program. Or maybe that port is very old? But still, if a device is supported, a filesystem driver or tool should work independently, SATA is a form of ATA, it's not like it was a SCSI device. But anyway - as said - it is much better to NOT run something like that on a "live" NT system. jaclaz

And ... since Andrea failed to catch the meaning of the layman's comparison , then I will venture to hypotesize that a PEBCAK may be occurring, additionally http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_error jaclaz

Well, if you reinstall the stupid driver and it is actually the culprit, you will be again in the same situation.... jaclaz

Leave the Registry alone. Do make a backup of it "as is" using ERUNT and leave it "as is", if you edit incorrectly the configurations set you may get an unbootable system. Once thing are fixed, we will talk of resetting the Registry. jaclaz