jaclaz

NOT what you aslked, but maybe this: http://www.msfn.org/board/win-nt-bt-can-omitted-t131103.html http://www.msfn.org/board/win-nt-bt-can-om...03-page-11.html might be of interest to you (malformed names), it could solve partially some of your problems. jaclaz

NO, it won't let you create multiple partitions as well, (I mean with Disk Management), it behaves EXACTLY like XP in this regards, but it may behave slightly differently during textmode setup or even GUI setup, I cannot swear by it. Hmm, I don't know. The mui "road" is reserved to particular builds of XP, I never happened to see any reference to an "alternative" way, even because SYSTEM folder change names in "normal" different languages installs. Everything is possible (probably). Once and if you have more details we would be happy to know more on the topic. About Windows 7, a possible way is going along the path wimb suggests here: http://www.msfn.org/board/install-xp-usb-a...sb-t121446.html (point 5.) basically INSTEAD of "running CD/DVD like", you install the OS from an already booted Preinstallation Environment jaclaz

Point is that REDISTRIBUTION of files is PROHIBITED, or at least it was last time I checked EULA's. In other words, and please more experienced in this sector members do correct me if I am wrong, there is not anything wrong in you USING "other" files as long as you use an original licensed key, BUT the one GIVING you the files is breaking the EULA. jaclaz

To expand on the above: Besides VFD.EXE by Ken Kato: http://chitchat.at.infoseek.co.jp/vmware/vfd.html there are several other "virtual disk drivers" capable of loading a floppy image, most noticeably IMDISK: http://www.ltr-data.se/opencode.html http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?showforum=59 More drivers can be found here: http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=1507 Point is if they will be loaded EARLY ENOUGH during the boot process of the GUI setup to be available when the setup asks for drivers in A:\ and HOW to install/setup them to achieve this (hypothetical at the moment) result. As I see it you have five possible choices right now: integrate the source with the drivers buy a USB floppy drive start fiddling/experimenting with the mentioned drivers start fiddling/experimenting with the HIGHLY EXPERIMENTAL drivers: http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?...ic=8168&hl= http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?...ic=8804&hl= wait for either of the above two drivers to be developed/tested (and hopefully be working). <-since they re-hook the grub4dos virtual drive they will be very handy #1 is guaranteed to work and it is relatively easy, as it is well documented Easier would probably be #2, but you have to part from a few bucks. #3,#4 and #5 may work in a few minutes, a few hours or a few days/weeks/months So, all in all, and being cheap, I would go for #1, as cdob suggested. jaclaz

I tho h cou ge hal answ .... jac

Been notoriously cheap , I guess I can comment about this one. I don't remember Microsoft giving away Xp or Vista licenses for FREE, nor they are probably going to do it now for Windows 7. The above should be rectified in something like : the money you previously gave MS for the privilege of using one of their OS (directly by buying a license or indirectly buying a PC with included XP or Vista) now buys less "accessories". as you can see the word "FREE" has disappeared completely , the sentence keeping more or less the same meaning. Now a personal opinion, I have NOT any definitive one on Windows 7, as I haven't had the occasion to test it accurately, but while I tend to believe the opinion of a few chaps here that have a record of being objective and knowledgeable, and thus support this new OS for a (or more than one) REASON(s) I have the instinctive feeling that a large number are all for Windows 7 for the exact same reasons they were favourable to XP over 2K (and NO, you cannot use as a comparison term nowadays XP SP3 on modern hardware, you have to compare XP "GOLD" with the hardware that was common in 2001) and later to Vista over XP (just following the lead). Have you ever tried running "GOLD" XP on a machine with DOUBLE the minimum recommended by MS RAM and TWICE the minimum processor speed?: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314865/en-us 256 Mb and 600 Mhz processor and on the same machine 2K? For the record minimum requirements for 2K: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/304297/en-us Have you ever tried running Vista http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-v...quirements.aspx on one of the PC's it was initially shipped with, typically with 1 Ghz processor and 1 Gb of RAM? Windows 7 has the same theoretical requirements of Vista (which is a VERY good thing ): http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/systemrequirements and everyone reports that is faster than Vista on same hardware, this, as I see it, is an important change in the direction of the development, expecially because modern "common" hardware is around 3 Ghz and 2 to 4 Gb of RAM. If I were malicious, I could hypotize that it all was a conspiracy to "push" the installed base, exasperated by the sluggishness of Vista, to update hardware, and once this has been done forcibly, get out of the hat an efficient rabbit OS. jaclaz

An ice cream sandwich! Yes, a thiiin slice of bread between two conspicuous slabs of icecream.... jaclaz

I thought the "zealots" were saying 7 is the best thing since the invention of icecream. Which of course creates the foundations for a good ol' sliced bread vs. icecream discussion. jaclaz

It was a joke , a (friendly) retaliation for this: http://www.msfn.org/board/needing-help-xp-...303-page-5.html Everyone should be free to use whatever OS and programs he likes, no matter what other people think it is "better" or "faster" or "safer" or "whatever". jaclaz

Since I happen to have a surplus attribute in my first drawer: http://www.msfn.org/board/needing-help-xp-...303-page-5.html , I will call the above "ambiguous". Do you mean that: Or you mean that you think that: Or you mean that you know that: Also, how big is "a lot"? Does it include USB and Firewire Mass Storage devices? And eSata? Or only HID devices? ....ambiguous.... Hey, it didn't have time enough for even cooling down a bit in my drawer, it came back as hot as it was received.... jaclaz

2. and 3. are NOT really "needed", partitions can be primary/primary or primary/logical_volume_inside_extended Actually two primaries will be easier to setup. But it is also possible to have logical_volume_inside_extended/logical_volume_inside_extended or logical_volume_inside_extended/primary Each of the combinations above may have some limitations/need for some "tricks" however. If you want to have each OS get C: you simply need to hide other partitions when you run the install program. And of course yes, you need something else to partition the drive, but diskpart from a PE is allright, no need to buy additional software just for this. And 1. would seem to me "counterproductive", unless there is a misunderstanding , if you: Install XP on first primary partition, lets call' it FIRST partition later install Vista on first logical volume inside extended, lets call it SECOND partition the "normal" result should be: Under XP: FIRST = C: SECOND = D: Under Vista: FIRST = C: SECOND = D: I.e. same drive gets same letter no matter which OS is booted. I thought you wanted the opposite. Or is this a "special" feature of Vista? At least OS up to server 2003 would behave as I described. jaclaz

Yep. jaclaz

"1" means "original XP", "100" means service pack 1 (or later): http://www.msfn.org/board/switches-txtsetu...852-page-3.html Thus the ones to be commented should be the ones with "1" (pardon me the pun ). What makes me a bit dubious is the different "target" (Destination Directory) of these two couple of lines : I would anyway try commenting the "1"'s. jaclaz

You miss some history. . Basically the "Install XP from USB" that started it all: http://www.msfn.org/board/install-xp-usb-f157.html and that was, as the name implies, initially aimed at XP only, was more or less originated by this: http://www.msfn.org/board/installing-unatt...ive-t81788.html http://www.msfn.org/board/installing-unatt...788-page-6.html Of the 5 "hinted" methods, #1 was already documented/possible (with a few limitations) #2 was as well known/reknown, and all efforts went in #3 and #4, here: http://www.msfn.org/board/boot-install-usb-key-t61384.html The #5 was set aside, and it has been found a solution for it only very recently, thanks to cdob: http://www.msfn.org/board/install-xp-lite-...pid-876839.html Once found a possible solution for XP, which actually resulted in something somewhat midway between #3 and #4, wimb "went back" to #2 (which, though reknown, was not easily replicable by people not familiar with BartPE or Winbuilder - please read familiar with PE 1.x) and provided an easy way (using the LiveXP project of Winbuilder) to implement it. Later the problem of Vista (and Windows 7 which is very similar in this respect to Vista) was put on the table. After finding a solution conceptually similar to the already seen #3/#4 above, something correspondent to #2 above was devised: boot a PE (2.x or 3.x this time) and from it install Vista/7. The given thread: http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=5306 Explains in detail how to use a PE 2.x to achieve that. You need to follow the given links and get familiar with the WAIK and Winbuilder to be able to create either a PE 2.x: http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=7053 or a VistaPE: http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?showforum=51 or a PE 3.x: http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?showforum=91 Explanation of numbers: Microsoft released initially WinPE versions 1.2 (XP based) then WinPE 1.5 and 1.6 (XP or Server 2003 based) since originally the use of WinPE was reserved to an "elite", Bart Lagerwej developed PEbuilder, an app to create a PE from XP or Server 2003 sources. Later Nuno Brito wrote batcher openbuilder Winbuilder a more "generic" engine capable to replicate the needed functions, and a number of projects based on XP and Server 2003 files were developed. Everything built taking as Source XP or 2003 files is "generally speaking" a PE 1.x. Together with Vista, Microsoft released a ne version of WinPE, PE 2.x ??, a Pre-installation Environment similar to the above but based on Vista/Server 2008 files. Projects were made for winbuilder to replicate this environment. Everything built taking Vista or Server 2008 files is "generally speaking" a PE 2.x. With the advent of Windows 7, Microsoft released a new version of WinPE, PE 3.x ??, a Pre-installation Environment based on Windows 7 files. Projects were made for Winbuilder to make use of the latter. Everything built taking Windows 7 files is "generally speaking" a PE 3.x. You will need some time to get familiar with the building of a PE, being it a 1.x, a 2.x or a 3.x. jaclaz

Replied there. Doubtful whether it will actually "help". My personal theory is that noone ever used that command in the last, say, 10 years, or the very few that actually did did not bother to post anything about their experience, exception made for this: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/grub/+bug/220543 The point I try to raise is WHAT is a "real" situation where the command is useful/used? jaclaz

What the "minwin guy" said is slightly different, a substitute for winlogon.exe, called minlogon.exe actually exists, and it is 100% usable on a "normal" XP. So, THERE IS A WAY, using minlogon.exe to do this on XP. The "minlogon.exe" component is part of XP embedded, for which you can buy a License. XP embedded is also available as a trial download, so you may also try it. It does not exist AFAIK a similar Freeware/Open Source/Redistributable substitute for Winlogon.exe, though. jaclaz

I actually liked a lot my Macbook with System 7. Hey, wait a minute, the good Apple guys used the word "7" years before Microsoft! It was some 17 years ago, it seems like MS is a bit late? Quick question: Q.:Will Apple sue MS (for the use of "7")? A.:No, they won't, last time they did they ended up being partly bought by MS..... However, can't we have a HFS vs. NTFS? ( I do like filesystem wars better). jaclaz

I guess that what you mean is something like Autoplay. (Autoplaying the app for the transfer, not the actual music files)<- this sentence added to avoid being called ambiguous http://dailycupoftech.com/usb-drive-autoruninf-tweaking/ The use of Autoplay is strongly UNADVISED, as it is a possible way to infect computers. There is also a small app made exactly to AVOID this potentially dangerous behaviour: http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=4350 http://nunobrito.eu/ninja/ The alternative being a service running in background checking the contents of the USB stick at insertion time (by polling periodically the USB bus), some examples: http://www.winu.cn/space-14160-do-blog-id-1737.html http://www.codeproject.com/KB/system/DriveDetector.aspx This is a "ready made" solution: http://mattcollinge.wordpress.com/software...ect-and-launch/ Of course the latter kind of solution need to be installed on the machine (as opposed to the Autoplay that is - mainly - on the stick) jaclaz

You mean this thread : http://translate.google.it/translate?u=htt...en&ie=UTF-8 Try checking point #16. of the "Let's start from clean:" on the page you linked to: http://home.graffiti.net/jaclaz:graffiti.n...B/USBstick.html jaclaz

Well, NO. I started "flipping the bit" on my sticks BECAUSE Windows 2000 couldn't see multiple partitions: http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?sho...4181&st=378 http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=15776 Dietmar found cfadisk approximately in the same period: http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=14292 while we were trying to find a "general" solution, as opposed to the "hardware" and specific "Mass Production Tool" dependent one. after some time I was able to find the "alternative" dummydisk.sys. http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?sho...181&st=1954 Still, I personally do prefer flipping the bit via hardware and be done with it. jaclaz

Instead of SHOUTING: http://www.msfn.org/board/forum-rules-upda...ead-t18408.html simply READ the thread: your post is this one: http://www.msfn.org/board/batch-patcher-1-...54-page-27.html just scroll up 6 posts or click here: http://www.msfn.org/board/batch-patcher-1-...54-page-21.html the program is in the attachment. jaclaz

Just for the record and FYI, you can also "embed" diskpart commands inside the batch: http://www.msfn.org/board/updated-aug-6-20...69-page-19.html jaclaz

Some reference: http://diddy.boot-land.net/grub4dos/Grub4dos.htm http://diddy.boot-land.net/grub4dos/files/map.htm ...or use map --mem i.e. Direct mapping: http://diddy.boot-land.net/grub4dos/files/map.htm#direct vs. memory mapping or "indirect" mapping: http://diddy.boot-land.net/grub4dos/files/map.htm#indirect jaclaz

I'll throw this in, just for the fun of it : http://www.wings3d.com/ http://erlang.org/ jaclaz

No. You can have a single partition allright, but NOT using WinSetupfromUSB "automagically". There are some quirks that have not yet been solved. You can boot to another OS, like DOS or a mini-PE and change the name of the files\directories involved, choosing to install each time EITHER Vista OR Windows 7. I don't understand the question. If you want a non-partitioned device, it can be seen the same on ANY OS. If you want a partitioned device, it will be seen differently on different OS's, IF the device is set as "removable". 2K and XP/2003 DO NOT allow access to anything but one active partition on a device seen as "removable". As said before, you need to either change the firmware of the controller of the device so that it is seen as "fixed", this way any OS will see it the same. OR install to the 2K/XP/2003 a filter driver, in order to have the second (and third, fourth, etc.) partition accessible. jaclaz