jaclaz

Well, no, it depends on the actual License, there can be allright a legit XP on a hard drive, what you are saying only applies to OEM versions, and only to some of them. jaclaz

What do you mean? Copy the .iso you download to the SAME place (and filename) you use in menu.lst entry. The example assumes that you copy the .iso to a folder called "images" in root of the USB stick and rename it to "ubcd5.iso". If you have it in root of the stick, named "Mickey_Mouse.iso" your entry should be: title Ultimate Boot CD map /Mickey_Mouse.iso (hd32) map --hook chainloader (hd32) If you have it in a folder called "goofy", your entry should be: title Ultimate Boot CD map /goofy/Mickey_Mouse.iso (hd32) map --hook chainloader (hd32) You should actually: jaclaz

Do I smell some good ol' conspiracy theory? There may be "good" and "bad" companies: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/18/1434229 http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/17/199223&tid=158 http://news.cnet.com/Will-security-firms-detect-police-spyware/2100-7348_3-6197020.html http://news.cnet.com/Security-firms-on-police-spyware,-in-their-own-words/2100-7348_3-6196990.html jaclaz

A DR (Data Recovery) professional won't fix it. He/she will Recover the Data. The disk in itself has NO value. The point is if data in it is valuable. If it is, you'd better go to a DR professional. If it is, but not enough to justify the expense, you can try a DIY job, but the chances you will succeed at first attempt (and you usually have just one or a few attempts available) are very, very scarce. WIth that kind of drive, provided that you know how to do it, PCB swap is possible, but you will need anyway to find the "right" PCB (rest assured, NOT easy at all) and to have the "right" software, and learn how to use it. This Commercial site contains anyway some info that you might be interested in: http://www.harddrive-repair.com/index.html Another "introductory" article: http://www.hdd.ji2.com/blog/2008/08/performing-a-printed-circuit-board-pcb-swap/ This may be of interest to you: http://forum.hddguru.com/what-the-necessary-critieria-for-maxtor-pcb-replacement-t7695.html jaclaz

I'd like to undermine , at least partially , your certainties about "safety" of hidden partitions. Please read this: http://homepages.tesco.net/J.deBoynePollard/FGA/determining-filesystem-type.html and this: http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=10169 In NT based systems a hidden partition is not much different from having a partition with no letter attached. jaclaz

NAAAHHH: http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=1106 UUUHHH... XOSL: http://sourceforge.net/projects/xosl/ UUUUHHHH... XOSL 2: http://sourceforge.net/projects/xosl2/ Help: http://www.allensmith.net/OS/XOSL/index.htm Wayback machine: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http:///home.wanadoo.nl/geurt/ http://web.archive.org/web/20020203085427/home.wanadoo.nl/geurt/faqhow/faq.html jaclaz

It's NOT clear at all, at least for me. What the scrrenshot shows is a Disk Management view of a hard disk (Disk 0) that has been partitioned as follows: First Active Primary partition 20 Gb FAT32 Label "Sys98" assigned Letter C: Extended Partition containing: Logical Volume 32 Gb NTFS Label "Sys2K" assigned Letter F: Logical Volume 44 Gb NTFS Label "SysXP" assigned Letter G: Logical Volume 53,05 Gb NTFS Label "SysW7" assigned Letter H: [*]Unallocated space 53,05 Gb There is nothing "strange" or "wrong" in it that I can see. Which is the problem? If you want to create a primary partition in the unallocated space, just right click on it and choose to do so. If you want to create a Logical Volume in it you will need first to extend the Extended Partition to enclose the unallocated space. This is not possible from XP (without using third party tools) but should be possible under Vista or 7. The other disk (Disk 1) is partitioned as follows: First Primary partition 6 Gb FAT32 Label "SysSwap" assigned Letter M: Primary partition (Active)10 Gb NTFS Label "MintSys" assigned Letter N: Extended Partition containing: Logical Volume 2 Gb NTFS Label "MintSwap" assigned Letter F: Logical Volume 34 Gb NTFS Label "MintData" assigned Letter P: [*]Primary partition 97.05 Gb NTFS Label "AllStors" assigned Letter Q: Hint : Dark Blue is Primary Light Blue is Logical Volume Green surrounding is Extended Partition Black is Unallocated jaclaz

XOSL screenshots: http://www.techtree.com/India/Reviews/Five_of_the_Best_Freeware_Disk_Utilities/551-48488-577.html Please be careful NOT to mix splashimage with gfxmenu, here are two examples, first one is splashimage, and second one is gfxmenu: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=129399&st=5 which is the kind of gfxmenu you probably had in mind, but these are also gfxmenu: http://www2.apebox.org/wordpress/linux/228/ http://grub.gibibit.com/Themes there is no problem whatsoever AFAIK in adding to grub4dos the enhanced graphical capabilities, but noone (I talk about those actually interested in boot managers) is usually interested in the graphical design, and the way a gfxmenu is created is daunting even for a long time expert of Linux thingies, let alone those nice guys that know how to use Photoshop or The Gimp and actually have good taste and graphical capacities (but usually very small experience with the OS underlying) Anyway, we already have Aerostudio for those that really like the eye-candy: http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?showforum=72 http://aerostudio.boot-land.net/ Yep, life is tough , BUT : jaclaz

It's something that it is difficult to explain, the good guys at Avanquest/V-COM thought to be(and maybe they are/were) the one and only Gods of multibooting and created those sets of wizards (the ones that you carefully avoid ) that could hose a system in no time. I personally like to understand what is happening under the hood, and with System Commander it isn't/wasn't so easy. At the time I tested it, it quickly hosed (no problem I know my way around to recover partitions ) a couple of test systems. another TWO: XOSL and grub4dos another TWO: XOSL and grub4dos another TWO: XOSL and grub4dos You can make a "theme" for Xosl (though the default one is nice enough) or use a gfxmenu with grub4dos, though there are few things I care less about a boot manager than the graphical aspect of it. The advantages I see currently with grub4dos is that the same loader (and same syntax) can be used on any media, floppy, HD, CD/DVD it can be started from the MBR, from a bootsector and even after having loaded DOS or Linux (with kexec), it can boot disk images (both floppy-like and HD-like), there is even firadisk that can hook a NT image loaded form it, it has command line support, so that you can manually check and correct a number of thigs connected to booting... jaclaz

Yes, to clarify hopefully: When windows 7 is installed to an UNPARTITIONED disk, it's install creates a hidden 100Mb (was 200 Mb) partition "automagically". This DOES NOT happen if you install it on an already set up partition. So it CANNOT be the reason. jaclaz

Hmmm. What happens with =SUM((D1-G2))? What happens with =D1-G2 ? jaclaz

Here you may be wrong. LoneCrusader uses both System Commander (which I personally think was one of the "most intrusive and unfriendly" boot manager ever produced) and BootIT NG (which I personally find one of the best ones). jaclaz has probably tested in his lifetime ALL (or nearly ALL) bootmanagers available, including Commercial ones, and still continues testing each and everyone of them as soon as he gets to know about any "new kid on the block". I have used on production systems ONLY those that I found "safe", "reliable" and "recoverable", with an eye for easy setups, flexibility and unobtrusiveness. For years the tools of choice for me were XOSL and OS-MBR (now MBLDR), now they are grub4dos (alone or with MBLDR). If I am allowed some bladerunnerish publicity : jaclaz

Just for the record and FYI: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=142710 I presume (but haven't tested it) that it should work on Vista/7 as well. The good thing is that you don't need the WAIK, but only the Win7 source. jaclaz

Just for the record: UNIATA Windows 9x version: http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2384 http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=114217 Whether it will work or not, is another thing. jaclaz

jaclaz

Winimage is NOT an imaging/cloning program, it is an image manipulating program, and besides, it is more "partition oriented" than "hard disk oriented". ANY "real" cloning solution will work. LOTS of them . As said any "real" cloning/imaging (dd-like) program will do. Under Windows XP, if you are sure the source disk is "kosher" (with no errors) you can use dsfo (part of the dsfok toolkit): http://members.ozemail.com.au/~nulifetv/freezip/freeware/ allright. If you have an error with it, I can recommend this one: http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=7783 http://www.datarescue.com/photorescue/v3/drdd.htm A possible caveat: since OS/2 is a bit "old" it is possible that the original disk is also very old and it may, expecially if it is a small one use a disk geometry different from the "new" disk. How big is the "original" disk? (besides size, check it's geometry) How big is the "new" disk? (besides size, check it's geometry) jaclaz

You seemed to imply (you actually explicitly said ) that: NT based OS cannot be installed on non-first disk NT based OS cannot be installed on Logical Volumes inside Extended partition The first is probably due to the assumption that the two parts of the NT OS (Loader files and kernel files/install) have to go on same partition/disk (the Loader files have to go normally on first disk Active Primary anyway). The second is completely inaccurate, as, as said NT was designed to be installed on Logical Volumes inside Extended partition (and again in "MS way" the Loader files have to go on first disk Active Primary anyway) I will try to clear the matter. #1 is of course solved if you have the loader files on the Active Primary on first disk, or, since you need anyway a third party bootmanager to hide/unhide partitions, you can well use one that can re-map the drives or boot the actual loader files from an image. #2: DOS (and consequently Windows 9x/Me) has this boot sequence: BIOS->MBR->Bootsector or PBR of Active Primary Partition->IO.SYS (System file, actual OS "kernel") Which is common to most "old school OS", including FreeDOS: BIOS->MBR->Bootsector or PBR of Active Primary Partition->KERNEL.SYS (System file, actual OS "kernel") or IBM PC-DOS: BIOS->MBR->Bootsector or PBR of Active Primary Partition->IBMBIO.COM (System file, actual OS "kernel") When MS developed NT (which as you may remember was a "fork" from OS/2) changed the way the OS boots for two main reasons: the kernel wasn't anymore "monolithic" there was a need - for the first time - to "dual boot" between NT and DOS (remember that at the time "normal" widows was Windows 3.10 or 3.11). So they developed this different boot sequence: BIOS->MBR->Bootsector or PBR of Active Primary Partition->NTLDR (Loader)->BOOT.INI->Choice->EITHER: arcpath to actual Windows NT install OR copy of a bootsector loading another OS (like DOS) AND since, for the first time they separated the OS loader from the actual kernel, the new NT system could be installed on ANY kind of partition (Primary or Logical Volume inside Extended) on ANY disk. Let's compare the two sequences: BIOS->MBR->Bootsector or PBR of Active Primary Partition->IO.SYS BIOS->MBR->Bootsector or PBR of Active Primary Partition->NTLDR (Loader)->BOOT.INI->Choice->arcpath to NT Install The common part: The BIOS looks on the MBR of first disk. The MBR code looks for the MBR of Active Primary Partition. The bootsector or PBR looks for a file inside this partition. This approach gives the limitation that the system file(s) NEED to reside on Active Primary partition of first disk, the difference is that whilst in DOS Loader AND Kernel are the same file, in NT they are separate, thus ONLY the Loader HAS to be on Active Primary partition of first disk, the Kernel (i.e. the OS install) can be on any partition on any disk. So, since the beginning, and because an already "unmovable" OS was common, the recommended way to install NT was to install it on a logical volume inside extended, putting in the Active partition, where a DOS usually was, only the loader files, that were capable to boot the DOS system files. Also remember that at the time MS DID NOT provide for the use of more than one primary partition, FDISK did NOT allow more than one primary. Since the Red and Green parts in the above sequence cannot be changed, third parties started to modify the Blue part, and created bootmanagers that either replaced or were "inserted" in the Blue part of the booting sequence. What Dan Goodels nicely documents here : http://www.goodells.net/multiboot/ is dependent on this initial assumption/goal: which clearly DOES NOT apply to the case at hand where the OP wants to SEE ALL partitions from the XP and ALL partitions but the XP NTFS one from Windows 98. In any case, as Dan himself says: There are quicker (and easier) ways to install various versions of NT family systems to different partitions without needing to install/hide/unhide/make an image/wipe, the latter two operations taking quite a lot of time. Basically, as you pointed out previously, NT keep drive letter assignment in the Registry, so the "trick" is simply to "pre-assign" the correct drive letter during install, which can be easily made through the use of migrate.inf file during installation: http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=19663 The correction to PBR "Sectors before" of Logical Volumes that Dan describes here: http://www.goodells.net/multiboot/ptedit.htm would of course be needed anyway, but some bootmanagers can also do it "on-the-fly" (example grub4dos) Unlike DOS/Win9x, where to have a partition bootable (in the sense of having a valid PBR booting code) you needed to either use the /S switch with FORMAT or use the SYS command, a partition FORMATted under NT systems ALWAYS has the PBR booting code. If you want to have this particular kind of setup in which every partition is "self-standing" and when one is booted all the others are hidden from it, all you need to do is having a Primary partition, let's say the DOS one, and one of the Logical Volumes visible, then install the NT to the Logical Volume, pre-assigning to it letter "C:\" (or whatever letter you like), then copy to the latter the files NTLDR, NTDETECT.COM,BOOT.INI (and possibly NTBOOTDD.SYS and BOOTFONT.BIN). Repeat for each NT OS, every time hiding the Logical Volume to which you already installed and unhiding another one, finally install DOS/Win9x to the Primary and you have your system set up just like Dan Goodel's theory, but without any need to image/wipe anything. Vista and later are/maybe different, and since right now I won't touch'em, cannot say, though if anyone is interested in them I am pretty sure that reading here: http://www.multibooters.co.uk/ a similar approach can be used. BTW, the above site has this rather nice graphical explanation of the boot sequence: http://www.multibooters.co.uk/multiboot.html When it comes to Windows 9x, which was NOT designed to be installed on a Logical Volume, there is no other practical way than that of imaging it, due to the "SU103 error": http://www.allensmith.net/OS/XOSL/II.htm#II1 but this is a limitations of the actual Install routine, not of the OS itself. Hope now things are clearer. jaclaz

Well, this way your later drive letters will shift in XP. I would try making the Fat partition after the volume for XP and UNmap it in XP. This way the driveletters on second drive will remain the same. OR, do not create the partition if not after having installed XP. (same result, as you can re-map in XP the drive letters of the volumes on second drive). jaclaz

At least they should. Of course they are to be used in a logical order: first you install the drivers (install.inf or w_install.cmd) second you create/mount the .wim (w_create.cmd/w_mount.cmd) third when you have finished with the .wim you unmount it (w_unmount.cmd) fourth, optionally, you uninstall the drivers (w_uninstall.cmd) As stated there, there is no help, you'll have to do some experiments, but if you run the batches without parameters, a minimal "syntax" is given, example: http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=9658&st=42

Ok, now that you are not anymore confused , let's get back to business. It seems to me like your original post misses the detail on how the first disk is actually partitioned (besides the first Active Primary what kind of partitions are the rest?) However, for the original problem it doesn't matter, you are correct, fifth partition on first hard disk is "found" and assigned the G:\ letter BECAUSE it is formatted as FAT32 (i.e. a filesystem that Windows 98 recognizes natively) as soon as you re-format it to NTFS (or Ext2 or whatever other filesystem NOT recognized by Win 98) all subsequent drive letters will be shifted by one, i.e., as rloew already posted: So, the problem right now is NOT the letters that XP will assign (XP has internally support for static letter assignments during setup that can override the default letter atttribution AND post install static letter assignment - but both these features WON'T be needed in your specific case, as we can say that drive lettering in XP - including the NTFS partition - will be the same as it was on Windows 98 with the FAT32 one), but rather the way to make Windows 98 "keep" the current drive letter assignment. AFAIK, the only solution is the use of Letter Assigner (link already given). Alternatively, you need to either follow the suggestion by rloew (create an additional tiny FAT16 - or even FAT12 - partition to "hook the letter "G:\" under Win98 as last partition on first disk) or live with the fact that you will have to either re-install programs on the second disk or change their settings in all related .ini files and in the Registry of the Win98 install. The smallest partition you can create (whilst being respectful of CHS geometry) is a 1x255x63x512=8,225,280 i.e. roughly 8 Mb. If you are allright with this, go ahead, but remember that XP will see "G:\" as 105 Gb, and Win98 will see "G:\" as 8 Mb (you can remove in XP the drive letter for the smallish FAT partition). jaclaz

I may completely agree with you, or, better, I may be not in total disagreement with you. jaclaz

Nice find. Just for the record, it should possible (from Win98) to use this app: http://www.compuapps.com/download/swissknife/swissknife.htm also, you can add USB support to DOS and should be able to use FDISK normally or RPM or similar DOS tools. jaclaz

Yep, there are some problems on boot-land Board attachments right now. Get Wimcaptex.exe from here: http://nativeex.boot-land.net/Programs/WimCaptEx/WimCaptEx.htm I am attaching the small batches. jaclaz WimMountBatch001.zip

Just in case: A small tool for XP: http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=9765 7-zip can access (read only) .wim's jaclaz

@LoneCrusader No intention whatever to attack you, and I do understand that you are in perfect good faith trying to help the OP. But it's the second time in this very thread that you post inaccurate information, that may confuse OP (or later readers of the thread). I mean, with the AFAIK or "in my experience", one can post almost everything, just imagine this sentence said in 1800, in perfect good faith: It is perfectly right and a consequence of both direct experience of the author AND of commonly available knowledge at the time. The same sentence said in 1900, is still perfectly valid. The same sentence said in 1905, again in perfect good faith, keeps it's validity as "direct experience" only. Said in 1920 it would have sounded absurd. Since the good ol' NT, it is the standard way to dual boot between Dos/9x and NT to have the NT on a logical volume: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/243896/en-us Sure. I am sorry, I was trying to be funny, and I evidently completely failed to. My apologies to all , if feathers were ruffled, it wasn't my intention. jaclaz