jaclaz

Well, format.com is NOT redistributable, so what is the point in "integrating" it? (it will make your app UNredistributable and breaking the MS EULA). OT, but not much, and with all due respect to your program and effort, are you really sure that your app is *needed*? I mean we have now a number of well tested USB stick partitioning/formatting utilities: http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=9460 jaclaz

If it's a bootsector virus of some kind you wouldn't get as far as the MUP.SYS. Anyway nothing prevents you from booting from another device (CD, USB stick, etc.) grub4dos or Syslinux/Isolinux and chainload the loader (or use a "real" or "mapped to memory" floppy image with NTLDR+BOOT.INI+NTDETECT.COM). Before doing anything else, I would rather try "virtualizing" a copy of the install in a VM, like Qemu, using something like OfflineSysprep to uninstall "standard" drivers and HAL. jaclaz

It isn't. I gave a you a number of links to a few Freeware/Open Source programs. As said they tend to be less "smart" than their corresponding Commercial counterparts, but this is a good thing as it gives you more control. Of course TESTDISK can't do anything on your type of corruption, that's why I gave you a couple of suggestions about possible programs to try (that are more "filesystem oriented" than PHOTOREC). You should also consider ANYWAY, to recover the RAW files and - since most probably those e-bay pages have some "pattern" - write your own script to parse the .html and find the corresponding linked files to be renamed, in these cases (with repetitive "parts" of the page, usually most files can be identified by their size, once you have rebuilt manually a few pages+directories. I am not saying it will work or that it is "easy", mind you, only that it is an attempt worth trying anyway. In other words, I'm trying to shift your attention from the whining about how much Commercial Data Recovery programs suck (and some of them really do ), bringing you back to your actual problem (recovering the data by trying to use each and every tool available +1) before giving up. jaclaz

If I may, you seem to see the world a bit too "black and white". Data recovery is an "art", and UNLIKE a lot of other fields there is a "base uncertainty". I'll explain myself. If you want to write a program that converts (say) .bmp into .jpg, you don't have any problem, you have a documented input format and a documented output format, you can write a program for it allright and if you are a good programmer, results are BOTH correct and repeatable. Data recovery starts from an UNKNOWN status of the corrupted input (media, filesystem, data) and TRIES to convert it into a CORRECT output. Procedure is repeatable 100% if the EXACT SAME kind of corruption happened, percentage of success and repeatability of the procedure decrease quickly if you alter the source in some different ways. Most programs ATTEMPT to recover data, based on some ASSUMPTIONS about the kind of corruptuon that happened. In this field you have to keep in mind that: there is no "law" that 100% success is certain (and not even probable) there are high probabilities that a given program "X" will perform far better on "corruption type A" and VERY badly on "corruption type B", but it is also likely that program "Y" (that failed miserably on "corruption type A") will do wonders on "corruption type B". Once you have attempted using ALL the mentioned programs on a few tens or hundred cases, THEN you will be able to find which ones performs "usually" better. "General Rules" are given here: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=84345 http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=84345&st=7 This said, we must draw a neat line about the two "main" kinds (or phylosophical approaches)of tools available: I know better than you type - so called "smart" programs (including wizards, automagically chosen settings and detection and what not) I am just a tool, it's in your hands what I can do. Obviously type #1 above are spectacular (when they work), can be used by everyone, and require no or very little background knowledge. Type #2 can - as well obviously (and in the hands of people that know where their towel is ) - do miracles and succeed where no program of type #1 worked (but the merit is not in the tool, but rather in the experience and knowledge of the user). In your specific case, I would think that something more "specific" should be used - or at least attempted. Two resources: http://dmitrybrant.com/fatwalker http://www.partitionsupport.com/utilities.htm There is also this rather lesser-known tool: http://softdm.com/ DMDE is an excellent disk editor with a number of features aimed to data recovery. Please remember that is very possible that the actual filesystem structure is beyond possible recovery, and you need to try a file based recovery, in this PHOTOREC (companion app of TESTDISK) excels. jaclaz

Sometimes decisions are not actually *taken*, they just *happen*: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109830/quotes?qt0373705 (and usually in MS - no matter if "right" or "wrong" - perpetuated mindlessly ). Just for your entertainment , a wholly fictional (unrelated) story: http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2362 http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2362&st=7 jaclaz

No, it was intended as a quick and dirty workaround for this SPECIFIC case of this SPECIFIC user on the SPECIFIC combo of hardware+missing software+missing experience. If you re-read the thread you will see how OP had a "shaky at best" usb support in Windows Me, strange (I would say "queer") behaviour of RPM under DOs, so I throwed in the Partition Logic as an "independent tool". BTW, at least on my hardware, partition logic detects external USB hard disks with the "right" 255 heads geometry. About using "correct", or "standard", or "better be safe than sorry" settings, it usually pays. There are more "queer" BIOSes than stars in the sky, and to it you add the awful number of mis-programming or "non-standard" programming a number of apps related to partitioning and formatting show (mind you mostly due by the actual lack of a "real" standard). For a strange paradox, usually people with less experience usually want to have disks partitioned in the most extravagant ways, and since the ONLY value you have is the actual data you store on a device, I tend to be very, very strict (and cautious) expecially when other people's data is at risk. Just to have an idea of what can happen - this is a "by design" feature of XP ("strict" approach) that can easily turn a disk partitioned under Vista /7 ("loose" approach) into a meaningless sequence of bytes : http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=9897 In other words until you are positive that there is NO way that a "strict" utility/app will ever be used on the "loosely" partitioned, you'd better be "strict". Also remember that NT based OS bootsectors are "sensible" to CHS values, in the FAT32 and NTFS versions: http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=21702&st=129 jaclaz

Yep , you are correct. 255x16x63=16x255x63 allright, and that's about 128 Mb. But, stricly speaking, the 255x16=4080, when in the 16 Heads geometry, it is beyond the 1024 Cylinder limit, thus the OS is "forced" to use LBA type partition ID's. It is true that this would only be needed for first partition, but since the idea was to partition a big disk in 4 partitions, where it was likely that each partition was biggish, and judging from the fact that notwithstanding the spreadsheet I posted final user was unable to replicate the experiments I suggested, the "simplified" approach wasn't even simplified enough . jaclaz

It's strange the "165" is it a "0165"? It "sounds" like a "diesel": http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/forum/showthread.php?66575-OCZ-Diesel-8G-very-slow-write-speed-4MB-s WHICH among these tools did you try? http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/forum/showthread.php?58797-MPtool-for-ATV-Rally-2-Diesel-drives Or something else? The 1307/0165 is associated with USBest UT165: http://flashboot.ru/index.php?name=iflash But cannot say about specific settings (IF the actual OCZ given tool does not work). jaclaz

Maybe XPCLI? http://www.911cd.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=21157&st=20 http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=3717 jaclaz

You are still missing some info . You DO NOT want "grub" you want grub4dos (it is NOT the same). First thing read these two threads: http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=8944 http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=5041 (both stickies in the grub4dos forum): http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?showforum=66 Then read here on MSFN (in this same MSFN Forums » Member Contributed Projects » Install Windows from USB forum): http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=137714 http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=120444 (also both stickies) Then re-read: http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=8944 once again, the XP .iso works in a different way from the 7 .iso and another .iso may work the same way as one of the said two or in a third (or nth) different way. In a nutshell, a 7 .iso should work "as is", an XP one needs to be specially crafted/modified. jaclaz

Exactly. By convention Red means +Vcc and Black means -Vcc or 0V or Ground. If you check the photos, you will see in top photo that connections are (from left to right:Rx-I/Tx-D/GND/VCC) In the second photo you can see that the Red wire goes to last connection (VCC) and that the black one goes to the one next to it (GND). Please do read the read-me-first, particularly point 7.: jaclaz

This is a recurrent question. Some, more than solutions, workarounds: http://www.dostips.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=602 http://www.ericphelps.com/batch/samples/samples.htm http://www.robvanderwoude.com/vbstech_ui_password.php http://www.computing.net/answers/dos/how-do-i-hide-keyboard-input-in-a-batch-/7152.html http://stackoverflow.com/questions/664957/can-i-mask-an-input-text-in-a-bat-file http://www.devproconnections.com/article/jscript/scripting-password-prompts-.aspx http://www.westmesatech.com/editv.html Amazing what a simple google seach can find.... jaclaz

I had thought that usbstor.sys ONLY dealt with usb (mass) storage devices .... A possible alternate solution is using a migrate.inf file: http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=19663 jaclaz

NOT bad , two posts and managing to double post AND use unneeded bolding/fonts, a 100% hit, two posts:two broken Rules guidelines! http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules Maybe some Mod may want to merge your other post: with this one. Isn't your controller part of the ones detailed in this sticky : MSFN Forums» Member Contributed Projects» nLite http://www.msfn.org/board/forum/89-nlite/ Integration of Intel's SATA AHCI and RAID drivers jaclaz

Isn't it easier to just get the link to the "final" page ? : http://pdfreaders.org/index.en.html jaclaz

To expand on it : http://homepages.tesco.net/J.deBoynePollard/FGA/questions-with-yes-or-no-answers.html The theory is simple. A "normal" XP install CD has a "database" of drivers. During install, the setup detects hardware and tries to find in this "database" the "right" driver. So, when you add a driver to an XP CD, all you do is to add an entry in this "database", the resulting CD will work EXACTLY as before BUT will be able to install ALSO the particular driver you added. Check also the BTS driverpacks: http://driverpacks.net/ jaclaz

Well, you try it, then decide yourself : User State Migration in Windows XP http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb457090.aspx jaclaz

Doing BEFORE connecting the hard disk, a LOOPBACK test, as explained in point #8 of the read-me-first: in order to make sure that: the converter is functional the orange and yellow wires (on your partular adapter) are actually Tx/Rx the PC can actually communicate with the converter jaclaz

Are you sure YOU are connected? (besides the loose cables) ALL connections should be FIRM, ALWAYS, in ANYTHING connected (pardon me the pun) to electricity or electronics. There is NO possible way to exchange Tx and Rx in a loopback test! You connect the Tx with the Rx, and that is the loopback test. Quite obviously if you connect the Rx with the Tx you have EXACTLY the same as the above. jaclaz

Still, this attains to WinsetupfromUSB and has NOTHING to do with "Unattended". Go here: http://www.msfn.org/board/forum/157-install-windows-from-usb/ and search and read, most answers are ALREADY there. Some info on the set of menu.lst can be found in this seemingly UNrelatred thread on boot-land: http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=12449 Mind you, it is assumed that you ALREADY have a more than basic knowledge of grub4dos syntax and "way of working" in order to understand the above topic, you will need to read (and learn) starting from here: http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?showforum=66 AFTER having read the Guide: http://diddy.boot-land.net/grub4dos/Grub4dos.htm jaclaz

If I may, you are trying to do a rather complex (but as seen not impossible ) thing from anothe OS that you know NOTHING (or very little) about. If you really attempted to dd from a .iso to a USB stick, you, no offence whatsoever intended , lack the minimal basic knowledge on how a .iso and a USB stick actually work and boot. I do suspect that this lack of knowledge (again, nothing "bad" in it) extends also to the XP side. ANY knowledgeable Linux user can take the BATCH based USB_multiboot.cmd: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=111406 and "translate" it's contents in to BASH or whatever scripting language. As well, an expert Linux user can read the "historical" thread that contains most (if not all) the needed info: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=61384 In other words all the nice apps/batches/whatever you can find here are nothing but an automated way to repeat the steps you can do manually (and that you can replicate on another running OS). But, all in all, WHAT is the reason WHY you would want to do this from Linux? I mean, you need anyway a Windows XP install CD. You can install XP in a VM under Linux and use the "windows programs" to create the USB stick allright. jaclaz

Traitor! (Just kidding ) It is mostly the same reasons that drove me from NT 4.00 to Win2k a few years ago: lack of new hardware support (but I still have a couple of internal servers running NT4 and going allright. I guess we are doomed. Obviously within a few hours someone will post that using XP is crazy and that you should immediately update to Vista or 7 jaclaz

The general idea about ISO is that they are READ ONLY. .iso editors usually work, BUT, expecially with bootable .iso they often fail. The ONLY workaround you have (short of re-creating the .iso with OSCDIMG or mkisofs, which is what you should normally do) is to create a "padded" .xml file (i.e. a file with a number of spaces at the end) large enough to contain all possible modifications, and use any dd-like program or Winimage (Shareware) that has this feature, to replace this "fattened" UNATTENDED.XML with the edited file with the EXACT SAME size. In other words, supposing that your standard UNATTENDED.XML is 3487 bytes in size, you add to it, say 113 trailing spaces, so that it becomes 3600 bytes, then create your "master" .iso. When you modify the UNATEENDED.XML, you add or remove as many of the trailing spaces so that the size remains EXACTLY 3600 bytes, then you use a dd-like program or a hex editor or winimage to replace the file in the .iso image. jaclaz

Also Adobe Reader, Paint and Excel cannot. Which kind of question is it? A program is either designed to do something or it is not. And yes, our k-martian legend does have some misconceptions.... but it would be too lengthy to do a full immersion course about partition structures and filesystems and most of the related things, default sizes of FATs, etc. are either UNdocumented or misdocumented. Even Partition Magic and Acronis apps in some versions were not reliable, and judging from the amount of versions of the various Linux based partitioning/resizing tools, even them have their quirks. In a nutshell, if you want to be 100% safe DO NOT trust ANY partition resizing/moving program, it is much safer to backup, delete partition, create new partition and restore data. Even a MS original tool like CONVERT may create problems... : http://redmondmag.com/articles/2004/01/01/build-a-better-ntfs-converter.aspx jaclaz

Sure , noone said there was a problem in the hardware, the problem is within the drivers. The point is that most graphic card manufacturers have developed "special" drivers that can workaround the "basic" Windows 2000 limitation, point is if the maker of your graphic card has made these drivers and if they are available. WHICH driver are you currently using under 2K? http://www.thinkwiki.org/wiki/Neomagic_MagicGraph256ZX THe IBM one: http://www-307.ibm.com/pc/support/site.wss/MIGR-4GXLS3.html http://www-307.ibm.com/pc/support/site.wss/MIGR-4GXL5N.html Seems like NOT being able to manage multi monitor properly, and it seems like the promised update was never released. You may try other drivers, but be WARNED: it's tricky business and you may well end up with an unbootable machine. Examples: http://www-307.ibm.com/pc/support/site.wss/migr-4q2klz.html http://search.euro.dell.com/results.aspx?s=gen&c=uk&l=en&cs=&k=neomagic&cat=sup&x=0&y=0 even if they don't make your laptop unbootable they will probably need to be modified/tweaked. jaclaz