jaclaz

Also, you can simply COUNT the spaces (including the one after the colon) and use SPACE as a delimiter. Something like: for /f "tokens=12 delims= " %%a in ('ipconfig /all ^| find "DHCP Server"') do set dhcpserver=%%a Change the 12 to the number of actual SPACES. jaclaz

Still it makes no sense to me. The output of the FOR loop you posted will get in %%a everything to the right of the colon so what is the problem? jaclaz

I don't get it. Why 12 characters? Isn't the line that you get something like: or also (example): I.e. an IP address can be anything between 7 (4x1 number+ 3 dots) and 15 (4x3 numbers + 3 dots). Copy and paste the output of IPCONFIG /ALL | FIND "DHCP Server" and the actual thing that you want %dhcpserver% value to be.... jaclaz

See here first: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=120444&st=803 Try re-partitioning/formatting with RMPREPUSB, try installing grub4dos from it, eject and re-insert USB stick, try again WinSetupfromUSB, if you have the same error post the .log jaclaz

JFYI: Rawreg: http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=4684 (UNfinished/experimental) MS's own Offline Registry accessing DLL and new program to make use of it: http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=11212 http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=11312 jaclaz

@Coffefiend Sure, memory and CPU cycles hungry apps like Photoshop and Autocad/Solidworks, rendering apps, etc., i.e. most high-end graphical apps do clearly benefit from the new architecture as well as complex calculus related apps , but Office? I already find absurd that say (just faked number ) 83.7% of all Word users use it to write a letter (rarely since now everything is done via e-mail) or a max 10 page report, Word 6.0 on a 486 DX2 already outperformed largely the typing speed of a fast writer, not to count the time needed to think what you have to write down. Same goes for Excel, in the large majority of cases it is used as a simple spreadsheet for things like checking your expenses or listing the petty cash of the office. I consider myself a "demanding" user of spreadsheets (i.e. Excel is the program that runs the most on my machine) and I find no actually difference in response time even on rather complex worksheets between my "normal" table PC with Excel 2000 and a newish x64 Toshiba laptop with Windows 7/Office 2010 I have been working on last week. Obviously it's just my personal view on the matter, but it seems to me like we have already the needed power for most "normal" use of a PC in any netbook, and that the *need* for more speed/memory is only for people that use professionally high-end apps (and possibly gamers). Like there is/will be a "fork", "normal" users still using 32 bit for a long time and a few people actually needing 64 bit power + a large number not needing it (but convinced they do) spending the extra money to have 64 bit computing, the former justified by their needs, the latter just because it is cool. jaclaz

That is the particular "converter" that need 3.3V, 5V won't work with his one. Does loopback work? CTRL +z is NOT CTRL +Z. Did you try insulating the head contacts? If yes try with the motor ones: http://www.mapleleafmountain.com/seagatebrick.html If you tried the motor, try with the head ones: Try getting a PC with a built-in serial (to avoid the intermediate USB-to-RS232 conversion) and try again. jaclaz

OT , but I wonder (exception made for you and a few other blocks here on MSFN, that I would define "advanced users" ) what is the actual *need* for 64 bit. As often happens MS own articles and numbers within them are deceiving: http://windowsteamblog.com/windows/b/bloggingwindows/archive/2010/07/08/64-bit-momentum-surges-with-windows-7.aspx Percentage do not make much sense if you don't multiply them by actual quantities: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems Rough numbers (Windows market share only, covering about 86%÷90% of the market and conversely 100% of MSFN members): 7-64 bit 46%x16%= 7% Vista 64 bit 11%x20%= 2% XP 64 bit 0.8%x50%= 4% Total 64 bit= 13% 7-32 bit 54%x16%= 9% Vista 32 bit 89%x20%=18% XP 32 bit 99.2%x50%=50% Total 32 bit= 87% So, in the rest of the world the large majority is using 32 bit computing and I presume that had not MS pushed it so much (conveyong the idea that 64 bit is "cool") even the very high percentage - almost 1/2 of the Windows 7 users - could do with 32 bit allright. AFAIK the large majority of apps available/in use are 32 bit, or has this changed lately? jaclaz

@wsxedcrfv Usually printers that have BOTH A4 and A3 (corresponding your 8.5 x 11 and 11 x 17) default to the smaller size. There should be a setting to set the A3 as default, if this is the problem, if this feature is not available you may try using setprinter.exe: http://www.windowsitpro.com/article/tips/jsi-tip-9675-setprinter-exe-is-a-command-line-tool-to-set-configurations-or-states-of-local-or-remote-printers-.aspx http://www.ureader.com/msg/16771767.aspx jaclaz

Maybe you want the first (or first two) characters of the contents of variable %software_path%, like: SET Path_letter=%software_path:~0,1% or SET Path_letter=%software_path:~0,2% Or: ECHO %software_path:~0,1% etc... jaclaz

A possibly related thread : http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=8092 jaclaz

Maybe right question, but WRONG place to ask it. This is the "generic": MSFN Forums > Microsoft Software Products - Discussion & Support > Windows XP section There is a specific section here about "Install Windows from USB": http://www.msfn.org/board/forum/157-install-windows-from-usb/ BEFORE anything else do use the Search function of the Forum use "\i386\biosinfo.inf " in the "Find words" and select "install Windows form USB" in "Find in Forum". Read the resulting topics. There may be several reasons for that error, most notably an uncorrect use of the app or a "strange" source. Hopefully a Moderator will move this thread there. jaclaz

I guess it is a "trail" of NT 4.00 CD's. The 8.3 was originally a limit with the .iso standard used for the install cd. The iso-level used needed 8.3 names and CAPITAL letters (no joliet, etc.). It is also possible that the textmode part of the setup doesn't understand them, once in GUI mode there should be no problems. Different source media may result in different behaviour, there is no "Upper Case" requirement for source on HD-like media, for example. Another possible font of troubles may be CAB compressed files. I guess that you can now (meaning XP/2003, I wouldn't be so sure about Win2K) deviate from this old standard, but obviously your mileage may vary, meaning that if you don't have a real *need* for it, you may be asking for troubles without a valid reason (if not the sake of experimenting ) For the record, when talking of .iso images, the Win2k loader only got as far as understanding iso-level 3 whilst XP and 2003 do understand iso-level 4. jaclaz

NAAH, that's mainly Rule #1: You don't talk about fight club. You don't talk about fight club. When someone says stop, or goes limp, even if he's just faking it, the fight is over. Only two guys to a fight. One fight at a time. They fight without shirts or shoes. The fights go on as long as they have to. If this is your first night at fight club, you have to fight. Rule #2 is there only for people that are too dumb to undertstand Rule #1, anyway: If you are game, we have periodically some nice "Win98 vs. WinNT" and "FAT32 vs. NTFS" fights as well as a few of "What's the best defragging tool?", "What's the best Antivirus?" and "What's the best Registry cleaning app?" wars, (I won't count the "XP is better that Vista " ones since truisms are not up to debate ). @dencorso I told you I was cheap. jaclaz

Only too happy you managed to get it done. jaclaz

Yes, the dd format is simply a RAW format, i.e. a byte-by-byte (actually sector by sector) copy of the source. The general idea (in theory - it depends if you can "afford" it) is to make a whole dd image. Then make a copy of it. Then attempt to fix the copy. To simplify, lets say that you have a (rather smallish ) disk drive with just 100 sectors and imagine that - for any reason - sectors 49 ,52 and 53 cannot be read/accessed. With most imaging programs the image is taken sequentially starting from sector 1. When the program "hits" sectors 49 cannot access it and freaks out and stops working/responding. With DRDD you start imaging forward and as soon as sector 49 is reached, it stops, giving you a "from1to48.dd" kind of file. Then you start imaging backwards from 100 downwards and as soon as sector 53 is reached it stops, giving you a "from54to100.dd" kind of file. At this point you try jumping over a number of sectors, in this case you try with just 1 and try a forward image from 50 onwards, you will have a "from50to51.dd" kind of file. So: from1to48.dd -> <-you create a 1 sector file filled with 00 (from49to49.dd) from50to51.dd -> <-you create a 2 sector file filled with 00 (from52to53.dd) from54to100.dd You join together the files and you have an image with some "holes" that you CANNOT recover, but all the rest is OK. Now you throw at the joined image (or, better at a copy of it) all the recovery software you have access to and see what can be done in the directions of both filesystem oriented recover ( Testdisk, chkdsk, etc. ) and of file recovery (Photorec, ScroungeNTFS, etc.). The idea is that a failing drive should be in use only for the shortest possible amount of time as it may well develop larger areas of errors. Using DR DD you may want to image the drive in "sections", in order to (for example if there is a heating problem) be able to image a "section" and then let it cool before taking a snapshot of next section. TESTDISK (and any other recovery program) should be run on the image AND NOT on the failing drive. How big was the "ST31000340AS SD15"? If it was a 500 Gb drive, possibly partitioned in a single HUGE partition, to work "comfortably" you will need temporarily two (or, better, three) 750 Gb disks to store the partial and "full" images. If it was a 1 Tb drive, you may be "short of space" with another two 1 Tb drives, and you will need two 1.5 Tb ones. (this may be of use to learn why it is usually NOT a good idea to have disks with a single "huge" partition) Testdisk can analize the image "offline". The image can be mounted with drivers like Ken Kato's VDK or MS VSS ones in order to run on them other utilities, like chkdsk. jaclaz

I would rather go in steps, like understandings if that is the problem. Now get grub4dos from here: http://nufans.net/grub4dos/current_release/ http://nufans.net/grub4dos/current_release/grub4dos-0.4.4-2009-10-16.zip Copy to the root of the SATA drive: (from the Win9x DOS) IO.SYS MSDOS.SYS COMMAND.COM (from the grub4dos package) grldr grub.exe Add to boot.ini an entry: C:\grldr="Grub4Dos" Then try booting and choosing the "Grub4Dos" entry? jaclaz

Very, very strange. No, PLoP won't make a difference, it could have if the problem was USB related, but it sounds a lot more like a problem with the internal disk (which does not make much sense if it's an IDE device). Does the motherboard use the "Standard Dual PCI IDE" driver or anyway it uses another one normally? Or, more generally, has your source any integrated drivers? It sounds a lot like a conflict of some kind, but right now I have no ideas on how to check/troubleshoot it. Let's see if Ilko has some. jaclaz

NO. It's binary, ON/OFF, 1/0, EITHER: no matter how much hacked the BIOS needs to be it is capable of reading the MBR of the SATA device at boot OR it is NOT. IF #1 you should try doing the suggested test with NTLDR/NTDETECT.COM/BOOT.INI. IF #2 there is nothing that can be done but initiate the booting from another device. Translation (not in Italian ): in order to boot from a hard disk ANY operating system goes through this steps with BIOS support ONLY: BIOS->MBR->PBR->System kernel (or system loader->System kernel) or AT LEAST: BIOS->MBR->bootloader->whatever else in the middle->System kernel (or system loader->System kernel) Once the kernel is loaded it may use a specific OS driver, not before. Now I want you to make that test because if it works we can from those files - directly or indirectly - load the DOS kernel - and once you are in DOS you are nearer than you may think to Windows 9x. Or in other words, it is possible that the DOS MBR CODE (if currently used) or the DOS PBR CODE are incompatible with the BIOS or the BIOS hack and that the 2K/XP MBR and PBR CODE are not. jaclaz

Good, another happy bunny in the basket: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=128727&st=10 jaclaz

Hmm, you'll have to provide background for both these: 256? @andreainside I can make a great discount offer , I would only ask you, at the most, 64, or, more likely, just the MBR and the bootsector dumped with HDhacker: (respectively first sector of \\.\PhysicalDrive and first sector of \\.\LogicalDrive) http://www.dimio.altervista.org/eng/ 1 or at the most 2 sectors vs. 256, you save FF or FE sectors! may? I would have worded it more cautiously... jaclaz

Stupid question, but what happens with 65.55.21.250 instead of windowsupdate.microsoft.com ? This is NOT "kosher": jaclaz

@andreainside What you describe/depict in the picture is a PC that doesn't load the MBR of the hard disk at all (or has a largely incorrect MBR). Do the following: Partition/Format the SATA drive under a win2K or XP with a single FAT16 Primary Active partition around 1 Gbyte or a larger FAT32 one copy to it: NTLDR NTDETECT.COM BOOT.INI (any will do, as long as there are at least two entries in it) Try booting from the disk on that PC and see if you get past this initial screen and see the choices in boot.ini. Or did I get it wrong and the SATA board/whatever is NOT bootable? And you are using another hard disk as "primary" boot media? jaclaz

"technically" older? I guess that's the reason why it was called New Technology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT "Chronologically" (release dates), yes: Windows 3.1 xx April 1992 NT 3.1 27 July 1993 Windows 3.11 31 December 1993 NT 3.5 21 September 1994 NT 3.51 30 May 1995 Win95 24 August 1995 NT 4.00 31 July 1996 ... But technically? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_95 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_3.1x#Windows_3.11 Be warned, if we go on the chian of things past we may also encounter BOB http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Bob jaclaz

Yes. Here: jaclaz