jaclaz

Quick instructions: create a "dummy" (i.e. NOT containing ANY personal/meaningful data) .doc with wordpad under 9x. verify XP worpad "chokes" on it compress the file to a .zip archive and attach it to your next post or upload somewhere and provide a link to it Someone may be able to replicate the issue and hopefully find a solution (or at least a workaround). Call me hairy reasoner as you like , but since a typical Win98 system originally shipped (LATEST ones, year 1999 or 2000) with 64 Mb of RAM and a P-III at 700 Mhz or 1GHz processor or the like, a Windows 98 in a VM machine (even Qemu) will be on average modern hardware at least as fast as the original system you were used to, so, if you don't want to dual boot (to gain speed at the expense of "fixing" the 98 install to new hardware) a VM is a good enough solution, as I see it. On the other hand, if you like to play the game , you need to approach each single issue at a time, one by one, and know that a solution may exist or may not. jaclaz P.S. Small (needed IMHO) correction: Just for the record "people who know what they're doing" usually know also how to disable SFC/WFP.

Just to keep things as together as possible: http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=24719&hl= http://reboot.pro/16164/ jaclaz

Ranish Partition Manager lets you have a backup (and more) at a place of your choice. Drawback is that it's user interface is not intuitive at all, not to say user unfriendly. And as we saw, support for bigger disks is dodgy. Sure, and you can also use dd or any other direct disk access software, to make a copy of a sector and store it on another sector, including DEBUG on DOS/Win9x to make a copy of it. I'll rephrase : Landing or parking zone is - as clearly stated on the given link - a "no-data" zone, it has nothing to do with where data is stored. Additionally a number of disks have a "head parking zone" OUTSIDE the disk platter on a ramp, so called UNLOADING: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_disk_drive#Landing_zones jaclaz

You do understand that you are asking about Installing Windows from USB in the Multi-Boot CD/DVDs forum? Your question should possibly go here: http://www.msfn.org/board/forum/157-install-windows-from-usb/ However, your report is "strange". Windows 7 install from USB cannot normally work like that (from .iso) and you will have the same missing CD/DVD error, most probably the fact that you have (why?) duplicated sources like the "install.swms" may be, creates a sort of hybrid install. You should read this one: http://reboot.pro/9076/ and check among the proposed solutions: http://www.rmprepusb.com/tutorials/how-to-create-a-usb-drive-that-will-install-vista-win7-and-server-2008 http://www.rmprepusb.com/tutorials/winiso http://www.rmprepusb.com/tutorials/firawiniso jaclaz

No . Yes . The basic notion that the $MFT is actually a file. It begins at it's begin and ends some bytes "later" or "on the right". A cluster size is "defined" as part of the filesystem "earlier" than the $MFT, or, if you prefer, you know how much a foot is, but you first need to establish a length (say 1 yard equals 3 feet) and only after you can say that something is 10 yards from you. In the bootsector you first write how big in sectors a cluster is, and only later you can use that unit of measure to actually find the address where to start writing the $MFT. The equation is: y=ax where: $MFT Start Address (in sectors)=y Cluster size (in sectors)=a (Constant) $MFT Start Address (in clusters)=x you cannot find y if you don't know (besides x) the value of the multiplier a (and you can only count sectors until you devine cluster size) You are wrong , see above. You still have some confusion between MBR (which is ALWAYS on LBA sector 0) and bootsector (or PBR or VBR) whiich is first sector of the volume (see below for definitions). On a disk there is only one MBR and as many bootsectors as there are volumes, WHICH of the n bootsectors would you think should be written to sector LBA 1? grub4dos does normally (and IF installed to the MBR+hidden sectors AND IF properly installed) store a copy of the MBR on LBA 1, though. I know of no other software that does the same, let alone MS OS's. NTFS has this feature, when you format a partition (or volume) with NTFS the volume size will be 1 sector less than the actual space in the MBR (or EPBR) partition table, this extra sector, inside the partition or volume but outside of the actual filesystem, holds a copy of the first sector of the NTFS formatted partition/volume, see: http://thestarman.pcministry.com/asm/mbr/NTFSBR.htm http://thestarman.pcministry.com/asm/mbr/NTFSBR.htm#BSback (and you also have another example on how confusing the terms partition, volume and filesystem can be, I use them in a slightly different way from there) To me: filesystem=volume for FAT1x/32/64 (but we can say that filesystem is INSIDE the volume, , actually being EXACTLY the volume, or if you prefer the filesystem and volume start and end at the SAME address) filesystem is INSIDE volume for NTFS, as filesystem and volume start at the SAME address BUT filesystem ends 1 sector before volume if the partition is primary, partition=volume (but we can say that volume is INSIDE partition, actually being EXACTLY the partition, or if you prefer partition and volume start and end at the SAME address) if the partition volume is a logical volume inside extended partition, volume=volume and it is of course inside the (extended) partition, but it starts at a given address that is NEVER the same address as the (extended) partition and ends at an address that may (or may not) be the same as the (extended) partition Yep. Never happened to actually fill a NTFS volume "up to the brim" (or at least I don't remember having studied the "filling area progression"). Logically the MFT area should be eroded "from the right", as to leave as much "reserved" area as possible at each file written, most probably this is done in "chunks", but really cannot say. That's why I said: I'm more like a hex/command line only kind of guy, but you could have a look at ultradefrag: http://ultradefrag.sourceforge.net/ jaclaz

No way to know, if it a modified OEM source it may be not your fault (though honestly and with all due respect, it could also be just you). Let's see if another couple questions (actually your answers to them) provide some more useful info: Do you have a physical CD disc? If yes, what is written on it? jaclaz

It makes sense BUT does NOT answer the "original" (pardon me the pun ) question: There are several versions of "original": original XP ("full") <-the "where" is Microsoft, directly or through a dealer original XP ("generic OEM") <-the "where" is Microsoft, directly or through a dealer, and it came together with your hardware original XP ("OEM" AND modified by the OEM, i.e. HP, DELL, etc.) <-the "where" is the OEM, directly or through a dealer, and it came together with your hardware #3 may have been (even deeply) modified by the OEM. jaclaz

I had this deja-vu feeling jaclaz

As often happens, I beg to differ. Command line is very functional in any NT/2K/XP OS, and it's command line interpreter CMD.EXE actually has a rather extended command set/functionalities. Besides the referenced SS64 site, Rob van der Woude's one is an excellent source: http://www.robvanderwoude.com/ The issues are most probably not at all related to cmd.exe, but rather to the HAL layer (or if you prefer the NTVDM ) combined with the common use in "real DOS" days of undocumented functions/direct access to hardware and what not). If the OP, instead of a general ranting would provide an EXACT, DETAILed list of the issues, maybe someone could try and help him in mitigating them. jaclaz

Good news. Unfortunately (as it always happen in these cases) one has to throw to the stoopid thingy everything AND the kitchen sink, so it is difficult to later understand which exact step/change(s) were "needed" and "vital" and which one(s) were unneeded/redundant.... jaclaz

Random ideas : Is it by any chance an ES.2 drive? http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?client=opera&rls=it&oe=utf-8&hl=it&q=cache:iEQnPXk5Ij8J:http://www.forum.salvationdata.com/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=900+LED%3A000000CE+FAddr%3A00280569&ct=clnk Did you try the Heads contacts OR the Motor ones? http://www.mapleleafmountain.com/seagatebrick.html jaclaz

Yep . I personally tend to think that this is actually "kosher": http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=24100&st=38 Would coffee be OK as well? I have some problems with my Nutrimatic machine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_in_The_Hitchhiker's_Guide_to_the_Galaxy#Nutrimatic_Drinks_Dispenser it is still delivering something almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_entirely_unlike#Not_entirely_unlike Seriously, at least the few actual server hardware I had occasion to deal with (mainly HP's and Dell's - and admittedly OLDish models) had a rather complex way to forcibly power off and to re-power on. It doesn't sound to me like "good advice" )in the sense of "practical", I mean it may work , but it also may take ages/several attempts, with the risk, of powering down too early and create a mess . NIce little batch, BTW. jaclaz

Thanks for the recommendation, but unsure what I should be looking for. Attached is a screenshot of it. Just for the record what zamarac suggested was Victoria for DOS. What you got is Victoria for Windows. With the former you need to attach the drive DIRECTLY (no USB adapter in between) to the IDE/PATA bus. With the second you can use a KNOWN TO BE FUNCTIONAL USB converter, BUT the amount of "access" you will have to the drive is limited when compared to directly attaching it. A (rather skimpy) help file for Victoria for Windows is here: http://forum.hddguru.com/victoria-for-windows-detailed-english-manual-release-t6902.html jaclaz

Something like these? http://www.addonics.com/products/adsacf.php http://www.addonics.com/products/ad25cfd.php jaclaz

With all due respect , the probabilities that a cable like that get damaged during freight could be IMHO feeded to the Heart of Gold Improbability Drive and let it travel for a good 2/3 of the known universe . It is also the first time in my life I hear about different wave forms on serial/ttl lines. Have you ever seen anything different from a standard (almost) square wave form on any such line? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_signal Sure transitions may be a little steeper or flatter, but no chip intended for sending this kind of signals ever emitted (to my knowledge) a different waveform, and standards allow for more than reasonable tolerance on peaks. jaclaz

What do the good Acronis guys suggest, pressing CTRL+ALT+DEL on the non functional keyboard? Or are they assuming that everything is compliant with initiating a proper shutdown when the power button is pressed. (I don't think that actually powering down the system would do ) jaclaz

There are IMHO SEVERAL problems with the contents of the file you supplied, including distribution/redistribution issues. Please, remove (temporarily) the file from public distribution, as is it contains NON-REDISTRIBUTABLE software, before some of the Mods/Admins ban you for infringement of Rules . Be VERY AWARE of Rule #1a: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules You may want to go through the licenses of the various software you included. You can PM me if you want some assistance in replacing the software with something redistributable (if possible). Also the grub4dos version you are distributing is an obsolete (and also actually deprecated) one. jaclaz

Well, you could well link to the actual source: http://www.windowslifestyle.com/eye-balls-movement-control-mouse-pointer-windows-8/ instead of making people go to the "generic" blog and find the specific post. This sentence makes NO sense however: You won't touch anything with your eye-balls, hopefully The "new, innovative eye-tracking technology" can be obviously applied to any OS, not necessarily Windows 8, and as a matter of fact the company that makes them aims also to embedded/custom systems, including industry and automotive. jaclaz

Yet another happy bunny : http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=128727&st=10 No prob, that's why we are here (to try and help newbies) among other things. Actually the final goal is to make them step away from their n00b status . jaclaz

Should we stick this as "most useful advice of 2012"? Or could we submit to the "most gratuitious generic non-advice 2012 award" contest? jaclaz

Yes, the outermost track are normally the left side, but you cannot swear by it in every case, that was the point. A modern hard disk is a "box" which you CANNOT look inside, and that you can inspect only by trusting what the "box" says about itself. The MBR is FIRST absolute sector of a disk, CHS 0/0/1 LBA 0. So it is (theoretically) the first sector of the outermost track (but again for all what you - or we - know it could well reside on sector - say 17489 - and being remapped by the integrated device controller to sector 0). So yes, normally left=beginning=faster but never assume that this info is "universal" for all devices. The $MFT is "tricky business". It's start location is connected to size of the volume, but, as said, it is not a linear function of it, once you reach something like 8 Gb (if I recall correctly) it places itself at cluster #786432 and remains there up to at least 500 or 750 Gb. It's size is an alltogether different thing, it is normally expressed in percentage of the volume size and there are switcheds in the Registry to set this percentage to either: 12.5% 25.0% 37.5% 50.0% http://support.microsoft.com/kb/174619/en-us http://www.ntfs.com/ntfs_optimization.htm Please be aware that info about NTFS (as well as other filesystems) that you can find, including (actually EXPECIALLY) the ones on MS sites is often incorrect, partial, misleading or plainly wrong, you have to be VERY careful with whatever you find and always verify what is written. As an example according to MS the example I posted above would not be true as per here: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/140365/en-us the default NTFS cluster size on a volume in the range 7 MB–512 MB is given as 4 KB, whilst in real word it is 512 byte. Correct info is given here: http://www.ntfs.com/ntfs_optimization.htm Please keep in mind that what the filesystem (and the mentioned Registry settings) do is NOT (as it may seem semantically) to "reserve" that size to the $MFT, it actually sets a given amount of space to be "preferred". To clear the concept, if you start filling a volume, at a given point the "reserved" $MFT area will be used to store files allright . The $MFT is nothing but a "special" file, organized as a database index, so when you actually simply format a volume it will be very small and will grow in time. Newish NT systems (since 2k, if I recall correctly) defrag operation will also defrag the $MFT. The $MFT will also CONTAIN directly any file up to (around) 900 bytes in size! The given "standard" address of cluster #786432 represents the BEGINNING of the $MFT, it will always expand "on the right" when it grows. I am not sure to understand this one correctly, it seems to me you are getting it exactly the other way round. If you expand a partition "on the right side" (given that the $MFT is already in it's standard position) it WILL NOT be moved, as well as any data in the volume. The only practical difference will be that the bootsector mirror will be moved to last sector of the partition slot (or first sector outside the filesystem, at the end or "on the right"). If you expand the partition "on the left" what you are actually doing is normally "moving" or "shiftng" the whole partition (and the $MFT and all data in the volume) "to the left" AND expand it "on the right". Cannot really say if some software will instead leave the $MFT in it's place and update it's offset in the bootsector(s) changing it from the the "standard", but I doubt it. I guess some experiments are needed. Just for the record, if you think how "queer" is number #786432, try writing it in Hex: 0xC0000 . jaclaz

OWWW, comeon , that's a BOOT.INI. JFYI: jaclaz

Seemingly nice , but also Opera cannot seemingly download it . If you can, you should provide an alternate download. Additionally, you may want to start a NEW thread here: http://www.msfn.org/board/forum/157-install-windows-from-usb/ where it is likely it would get more visibility. jaclaz

Remember, you asked for it (you are WRONG! ) Mainly you are assuming that the visual representation of Disk Management (and it's left or right) has actually any direct connection with inner or outer tracks of the disk drive and that *somehow* inner tracks are slower and and outer tracks are faster. On modern hard disks this may (or may not be) the case. Where is "sector 0" (i.e. first sector of a disk)? Please choose one: innermost track outermost track Any you choose might be either right or wrong. Are you really sure that the hard disk you are actually using is organized like here? http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/geom/tracks-c.html (and following) So, assumed that the sector 0 is on the outermost track and that each track is one after the other the disk management representation is nothing but that of a spiral UNreeled into a line. Whether the left means "outermost" and the right "innermost" or that "outermost" means "faster" and "innermost" means "slower" are just "opinions" or, better "guesses". The $MFT is a LOGICAL index/structure (peculiar to NTFS ONLY) part of the filesystem and it's position can vary (and for the record it is NEVER at the beginning of a volume). Everything inside a filesystem or volume is relative to the begginning (and end) of the filesystem or volume. When you move a filesystem/partition/volume "to the right" (or "to the left") the indexing structure contents are left as they are and the whole content is shifted. Example: You have a disk with three (primary, to keep this simple) small partitions. 1st partitions starts at CHS 0/1/1 LBA 63 and ends at CHS 0/254/63 LBA 16064 2nd partitions starts at CHS 1/0/1 LBA 16065 and ends at CHS 1/254/63 LBA 32129 3rd partition starts at CHS 2/0/1 LBA 32130 and ends at CHS 2/254/63 LBA 48194 2nd and 3rd partition are identical in size, 8,225,280 bytes. If they are formatted with NTFS they will get (under XP) the $MFT at (relative) offset Dec 5355 (cluster), i.e. since the cluster size will be 1 (512 bytes) sector the $MFT beginning will be 5355 sectors from the beginning of the volume. So, if you access the PHYSICALDRIVE (i.e. the disk), you will find the beginning of the $MFT of second partiion at sector 16065+5355=21420 and the $MFT of third partition at sector 32130+5355=37485 In this particular case, since 2nd and third partitions are identical, the $MFT offset is the same. So, if you delete second partition and "move to the left" the third partition, it's filesystem structures will occupy the same absolute position of the previous ones. If you delete both partitions, and recreate a single "second" one that starts at CHS 1/0/1 LBA 16065 and ends at CHS 2/254/63 LBA 48194 and format it, you will see how the $MFT offset will be 10710, i.e. the $MFT will begin at sector 16065+10710=26775 And no, when you move/shift partitions, the WHOLE partition (and thus also data in them) is moved, WHILST when you enlarge partitions, normally data remains where it is and simply UNallocated sectors are added to the filesystem, the example above with the very small image was given to teach you how to never assume anything, when partitions grow bigger the $MFT offset tend to get to cluster #786432 (with 8 sectors per cluster) and remain there for a very wide range of sizes. But filesystem structures have nothing to do with actual disk/partition management. jaclaz

Well, I produced the opposite effect than what I meant, then. I try as much as I can to have EXACT descriptions of things/tools. Often people tend to use (or recommend) something without really-really understanding (or clearly stating) WHAT it is. I try to do the opposite. There are TWO main approaches (different sources/target): disk based partition (or volume) based Then there are THREE approaches (different HOW/WHAT to save/image/backup) sector based file based mixed mode If you want an "integral" copy/*clone/image you use: disk based AND sector based <- this equates to "forensic sound" this is the SAFER choice (though BOTH slower AND needing more space for the image/backup) If you are dealing with DATA (and not with actual bootable volumes/OS/System volumes) you use: volume based AND file based <. this often equates to "backup" Most apps use EITHER of the above approaches, with different levels of "added info" to the results. XXCLONE (and also Norton Ghost as used by many people) use a "mixed mode" approach, where ALL the needed data is stored/saved/cloned, but NOT whatever is not visible in the filesystems AND the actual physical position of files in the filesystem may (or may not) be kept AND some NOT normally needed files are skipped/excluded (typically the pagefile/swap, just as an example). A typical "forensic sound" disk image will hold each and every sector in the source, thus: MBR (and ALL data in it) hidden sectors (and ALL data in it) PBR's/VBR's (and ALL data in it) pagefile/swap deleted files broken filesystem elements actual physical position of EVERYTHING A typical volume based and file based volume image will hold: NO MBR NO hidden sectors maybe or maybe not PBR's/VBR's (and ALL data in it) <- this depends on the particular app NO pagefile/swap and none of a few more normally unneeded files NO deleted files NO broken filesystem elements NO actual physical position of files A typical file based ONLY image backup will hold: NO MBR NO hidden sectors NO PBR's/VBR's NO pagefile/swap and none of a few more normally unneeded files NO deleted files NO broken filesystem elements NO actual physical position of files A typical "mixed mode approach" image will normally hold: MBR NO hidden sectors PBR's/VBR's (and ALL data in it) NO pagefile/swap and none of a few more normally unneeded files NO deleted files NO broken filesystem elements NO actual physical position of files So, it all boils down on what you need in the resulting image, why you are making it (the scope it will be used later) you should choose an app based on what you need to do with it, knowing EXACTLY what it does and which problems the used approach may lead to and know HOW to solve issues (if ANY) that may arise. As an example a lot of peeps think that using DriveIMageXML (a nice freeware for personal use) they are actually imaging a disk and are surprised when they find out that the app by itself does NOT store all the needed data (namely the MBR - but in some setups hidden sectors are also needed) to restore a disk or that further steps may be needed, like adjusting disk geometry: http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=23408&hl= A disk is NOT a drive, and a drive is NOT a disk: http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=22984 (and you will also find in the above some nice reference to antigravitory cats ) jaclaz