jaclaz

Sure . Here: jaclaz

Exactly , but the tricky part is obviously to miss getting caught in doing it . It's just like flying: jaclaz

A (rhetorical) question being : Here: http://www.askvg.com/get-windows-8-metro-style-start-screen-in-windows-vista-and-7-using-newgen/ http://www.nsapps.net/Apps/Newgen/ http://www.hackinguniversity.in/2012/06/install-windows-8-metro-ui-on-windows.html O tempora, o mores .... jaclaz

If I get it right, the issue is about this thread: which RFComptech started on the 23rd June and to which there were no answers till today, after he "bumped" it. Part of the reasons why noone answered (besides the likely possibility that simply it was not noticed by anyone) might be that there is not enough info to give advice. With reference to this: http://homepage.ntlworld.com./jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/problem-report-standard-litany.html The: seems to me like completely missing , the "I tried something else" and "I made the unattended disk in Windows 7 and not Windows XP" being IMHO not enough to understand what has been done , whilst the: are there allright. jaclaz

Sure . Sorry I didn't make myself clear enough, I was thinking of somethng like this : http://www.amazon.com/Coby-MP977-8G-Inch-Video-Player/dp/B0047Q4F4U/ref=pd_sxp_grid_pt_0_0 If you thought of Windows Media Player, then you would have been right ! jaclaz

Yep, point being WHICH operation.... http://www.techtalkz.com/microsoft-device-drivers/250757-all-possible-return-values-rundll32-printui-dll-printuient.html http://support.microsoft.com/kb/164787/en-us Mind you, I am clearly out of my field of knowledge here , but : http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2004/01/15/58973.aspx Maybe http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa768006(v=vs.85).aspx jaclaz

I thought that they had learned by now to just create a .mpg video and simply play it on the tablet during presentations (it's not that difficult to tap on the screen at the right moment ). jaclaz

I have NO idea of what you are talking about , BUT does 0 mean "True" or "False"? http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms679279(v=vs.85).aspx jaclaz

A better set of test batches, dosquares.cmd and doHlines.cmd + results of first test. Provided that the nircmdc actually sends what it is supposed to to the mouse buffer (or whatever), it seems that there is in reality a not-so-trifling difference between what should happen and what really happens. It is not a "timing" problem, I did a few more experiments and the timing is almost "right", it may possibly account for max 5% difference, but I have measured around 20% differences AND they are not "linear". Tests have been made with a system using a (I assume 400 dpi) PS/2 Mouse polling at 100 Hz. It is possible that the issues are related to the actual bus, and that a system with a USB mouse behaves differerently, but it would be "queer". To measure length of lines I found this old version of Caliper very handy: http://web.archive.org/web/20010424021827/http://www.iconico.com/caliper/ (thanks to tinyapps.org for the pointer ): http://tinyapps.org/graphics.html jaclaz experiments1.zip

What will be next? How can I add x and y? And z? And then? What do you think a guide is for? Does it contain the info you are asking for? Yes : http://diddy.boot-land.net/grub4dos/files/splash.htm http://diddy.boot-land.net/grub4dos/files/gfxmenu.htm jaclaz

Sure , and if you smooth a little bit the race track , you are nowhere to be seen .... What gives? jaclaz

OT , but not much , and about shooting one's feet, seemingly MS decided to shoot it's parrtner's feet: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/microsoft/9348986/Microsoft-Windows-Phone-8-leaves-Nokia-in-fragments.html Guess WHICH part of Windows 8 will be anyway available to users of the "old" (on average less than one year old) Lumia's? : http://www.phonesreview.co.uk/2012/06/21/windows-phone-7-8-hitting-nokia-lumia-710-and-800-next-week/ jaclaz

How EXACTLY did you build your PE? Like with BartPE, manually, with Winbuilder, UBCD4WIN, and HOW (which settings/plugins/chooices, whatever)? Which is the EXACT source? XP pro source is not enough, which SP? "fairly low" is not a defined quantity of RAM . Is it 128, 256, 512 Mb of RAM or how much exactly? JFYI: PE 1.x <-Source XP or Server 2003 PE 2.x <-Source Vista or Server 2008 PE 3.x <- Sounce Windows 7 or Server 2008 R2 PE 4.x <- Source Windows 8 jaclaz

Has by any chance some magic happened and your USB stick has become a (unattended) Multiboot CD/DVD? You are here: MSFN Forum > Unattended Windows Discussion & Support > Multi-Boot CD/DVDs Probably you wanted to be here: MSFN Forum > Member Contributed Projects > Install Windows from USB http://www.msfn.org/board/forum/157-install-windows-from-usb/ In any case among the file you posted there are two settings files: menu.lst winsetup.lst Leave menu.lst alone for the moment, it simply loads winsetup.lst. Open winsetup.lst in notepad. Save it to winsetup2.lst. Open winsetup.lst again. Save it to winsetup3.lst. Change all occurrences of winsetup.lst in file winsetup2.lst. to winsetup2.lst. Change all occurrences of winsetup.lst in file winsetup3.lst. to winsetup3.lst. Delete from winsetup2.lst the two menu entries related to XP SP3. Delete from winsetup3.lst the two menu entries related to XP SP2. Now open menu.lst and replace: With: It is a simple text based set of menues, you may want to learn something about grub4dos reading here: http://diddy.boot-land.net/grub4dos/Grub4dos.htm The above is simply changing the target of the configfile command: http://diddy.boot-land.net/grub4dos/files/commands.htm#configfile without changing any of the actula "booting related" commands. jaclaz

See if - by any chance - it is connected with settings of the "section": "Lotus Compatibility Settings for:" http://www.pcreview.co.uk/forums/excel-2003-array-formula-excel-2007-a-t3560251.html JFYI, it really seems like Excel 2007 is a bettered Excel 2000, only worse : jaclaz

Yep :, "doing nothing" is an excellent way to keep out of troubles, but actually the "preferred" way (IMNSHO) is: plan accurately a partitioning scheme, in such a way that it is "the most compatible" or "the most suited" for the intended use of the disk partition using the "most compatible" partitioning tool leave partitions/volumes alone: do not move/resize/change active status <- i.e. do nothing after having done "the right thing" if any modification is needed, think a lot about it, then use a suitable tool AND verify it's results carefully, and ONLY attempt the modifications after a complete, full, verified backup (that you should have anyway) jaclaz

...and just in order to make you worry a bit (before doing nothing ), remember that if you create/move/resize partitions from Windows 7 and later you try to change the active status of a primary one through XP disk management, you are likely to fall into this nicely set trap : http://reboot.pro/9897/ jaclaz

NOT really "necessarily", tools like Mydefrag (there may be others ): http://www.mydefrag.com/ use similar techniques and - more than that - allow to experiment with different approaches thorugh a scripting-like language: http://www.mydefrag.com/Manual-Scripts.html As always, tests need to be conducted but I wouldn't swear that the MS built-in strategy (whatever it is) is actually the "best possible", there may be room for further optimizations. jaclaz

I presume you are talking of two version of the SETUP to be run FROM USB. If yes, there is an ongoing thread here: with pointers to already known to be working ways (the object of the thread is a bit more "narrow", as it requires to have not "double" files. If you have not this requisite, this will do: http://www.rmprepusb.com/tutorials/firawiniso jaclaz

Yep , two different steps, using two different tools/approaches: taking my 2003 CD's and adding Service Pack 2 to the installation and then to append the PERC 6/i controller driver to the installation->nlite making it one ISO in a dvd format.->http://flyakite.msfn.org/ An intermediate step of testing each nlited/integrated SINGLE .iso's/CD's BEFORE attempting to make an AIO out of them is however strongly suggested. jaclaz

Good. And mind you, NOT to be the bearer of bad news, as it is a remote possibility, but let's say - only an example - that you (or your younger brother, etc.) find an old PE CD made out of XP before SP1: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/303013/en-us and inadvertedly you decide to do some partition/disk operation (like an innocuous defrag or chkdsk) from it.... Or you decide to try a Windows 2000 wiithout SP3 integrated: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/305098/en-us What could happen? No, there are several versions of it, and some only differ in "the other" sectors of it. Yep, a 2K/XP MBR (and FAT32 PBR) should have no problem in getting to NTLDR/NTDETECT.COM/BOOT.INI with the Partition Type set to 0B (as long as geometry in the PBP is correct, which in your case is). Reason being (JFYI) connected to this: http://homepage.ntlworld.com./jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/determining-filesystem-type.html what a BIOS or a (oldish) version of grub4dos may do is another thing. Let's first see what happens "as is" and with the 0B set to 0E. jaclaz

It's a common kind of "misunderstanding" . You want to make X. You think that to make X you need Y. You then ask: "How do I use Y to make X?" or (worse) "How do I use Y?" Whilst the actual question should be: "How do I make X?" Put down the chocolate-covered banana and step away from the European currency systems! http://homepage.ntlworld.com./jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/put-down-the-chocolate-covered-banana.html If tthe actual question is "how do I make an AIO?", then a good answer is here : http://flyakite.msfn.org/ jaclaz

I like to have my partitions "look" good . You have two partitions using for start CHS address 1023/0/1 and ending on 1023/254/63 (which is one of the two conventions to say "don't look for CHS" - the "old" one) and one that use for start CHS address 1023/254/63 and ending on 1023/254/63 (which is the other convention to say "don't look for CHS" -the "new" one). In theory, there is no problem whatsoever. In reality it is possible that some BIOSes or partition related tools ONLY know about the "old" convention and don't "like" the "new" one or viceversa. Since the partitioning has evidently been made with the "old" approach of respecting cylinder boundary, it would make sense to have also partition #2 to have the "old" style 1023/0/1 as start address. Additionally (and this greatly depends on the actual OS you are running or plan to run on that system), the "P5" is crossing the 128 Gb LBA28 boundary, and this may provoke issues if - for any reason - the BIOS or an OS you try on it doesn't fully comply with LBA48. Finally - in my simplicity - the sheer thought of a single 873 Gb partition makes me shiver, besides some of the possible issues above listed, how looooong does it take to defrag or CHKDSK that partition? Or, the latter seen in another way, let's analyze probabilities of a (very limited) software or hardware failure, that wipes or makes unreadable (for any reason) 200 sectors. MBR and each single PBR, if affected by such an issue can normally be recovered in no time, using information gathered here and there from other parts of the disk. The various $MFT's are another matter, and the amount of recoverability of data with a failed or missing $MFT depends on too many factors (BTW a complete defragging does make a difference) Please follow me, this is just theory, but you never know. Out of the whole disk, you have more than 90% of it's capacity "in the hands" of a single $MFT. In total you have 5 $MFT's. Chances that the "200 sectors" hole will happen on this particular $MFT are pretty much low, to simplify we can divide the hard disk in 100 sectors "parts" and we can say that if any of two "parts" covering the beginning of a $MFT are "hit", then you lose a $MFT, so 2*5/2,178,815,688/100=1/217,881,568.8=4,5896493471548750845968757316934e-9 If you divide the huge partition in (say) 8 smaller partitions, the probability is obviously (5-1+8=12): 2*12/2,178,815,688/100=24/217,881,568.8=1,1015158433171700203032501756064e-7 this is obviously far more probable, actually 24/5=almost 5 times more probable, but only apparently so in terms of data. IF disaster happens with your current partitioning, you have on average (rounded data): (2,1%+1,6%+2,1%+0.3%+94%)=100 and 100/5=20% but if (once every five disasters ) you hit the last partition, you have a peak of 94%. With a more segmented partitioning scheme, you would have: (2,1%+1,6%+2,1%+0.3%+11,75%+11,75%+11,75%+11,75%+11,75%+11,75%+11,75%+11,75%)=100 and 100/12=8,34% In the worst case, you would lose only -at the most -11,75% of the data. Which strategy would you choose? Do you like better to have 1/5 probabilities but risk the peak or to have 5 more times the probability but risk less than 1/10 in size? If you prefer, there are NO real issues , BUT there are the "seeds" for a possible future disaster . Back to topic. Both the MBR partiition table and the bootsectors look "ok" for a 16/63 geometry . The partition type is 0B that means FAT32 CHS mapped, due to a number of reasons too long to list here, it is possible that there is a conflict about this partition type. The partition in itself is NOT accessible through CHS addressing (the boundary for CHS addressing on a 16/63 geometry being 1024*16*63*512=528,482,304 bytes). So first thing I would try would be to change the 0B at 0x01C2 in the MBR to 0E 0C (FAT 32 LBA mapped) and see what happens. The report of the grub4dos 0.4.4 you posted clearly shows how it is "confused": you see, 1024*16*63 is actually 1032192, but 1032192*512 is the 528,482,304 bytes, whilst we know how your disk contains at least 63+7,831,089=7,831,152*512=4,009,549,824 bytes. The MBR CODE is the grub4dos one, so you are expecting it to load directly the grldr and have it load menu.lst, right? This is normally allright (but I personally find it not advised with "pesky" BIOSes), using a more "tested" MBR CODE (and having it "self contained" in the MBR and not - like the grub4dos one spread over the first few sectors) would be IMHO "better", at least initially. So, right now you have just grldr and menu.lst inside the partition, right? Try booting "as is" and report EXACTLY what happens. Then try changing just the 0B to 0E 0C, try booting and report EXACTLY what happens (if different form the previous). jaclaz

Try again . The *whatever* MBR you posted is of a (badly ) multipartitioned 1 TB hard disk, with a first NTFS "hidden partition": Entry Type Boot bCyl bHead bSect eCyl eHead eSec StartSector NumSectors #0 17 0 0 1 1 1023 254 63 63 40965687 #1 7 0 1023 0 1 1023 254 63 40965750 30716280 #2 7 80 1023 254 63 1023 254 63 71682030 40965750 #3 5 0 1023 0 1 1023 254 63 120840930 1832679135 two additional NTFS primary partition and a (huge) Extended partition. The bootsector *seems* like it. jaclaz

No prob, I do , here: jaclaz