jaclaz

Start here: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=128592 AND given links. A suitable bootmanager is the terabyte free one or OS-BS mbldr: http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=6893 jaclaz

UBCD version 5b11 use can use BOTH "standard" isolinux and grub4dos (hd32) .iso mapping. jaclaz

Oh, noes! Again. What is the problem? The Windows 98 will overwrite the bootsector with one invoking IO.SYS. You boot to windows 98 DOS, run bootpart, BOOTPART WINXP BOOT:C: bootpart restores the bootsector invoking NTLDR. Then you run: BOOTPART WIN98 C:\BOOTSECT.W98 "Windows 98" bootpart creates a bootsector invoking IO.SYS as C:\bootsect.w98 and adds a line fo it in BOOT.INI. At next boot you will boot to NTLDR, get to boot.ini and be able to choose between XP and 98. OF COURSE the C: drive (First Active Primary partition) must use a FAT filesystem. Read this: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=64978 AND linked to site: http://thpc.info/dualboot.html which covers almost ANY possible scenario. jaclaz

Yep, sure , but WHEN were your Rules established? WHERE are they published? jaclaz

johnc, take it easy. Last two posts do not need to follow your "standard" rules, they are made in the hope to try and clarify the matter. Original problem was (hopefully) solved since May 2007, long before you even joined MSFN. jaclaz

Yep, the catch is that noone creates the recovery media before he/she actually needs it, often after a Virus has stricken and made the system unbootable. HP was sued (and lost) on a similar basis: http://web.archive.org/web/20060218141400/...settlement.com/ http://www.engadget.com/2005/08/03/hp-sett...partition-suit/ For recent "Vista based" SONY's, it is possible to recreate a Vistra install cd from the recovery partition too: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=127624 it is possible that the same or a similar approach can be used for other brand/makes. Oldish "Xp related" SONY threads here: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=120423 http://www.msfn.org/board/Cannot-access-CD...P-i-t91907.html jaclaz

You actually should be using grub4dos NOT GRUB. However, if either GRUB or grub4dos tell you that there is a problem in the partition table, it is likely .... ....that there is a problem in your partition table. Without knowing what EXACT error you are having in grub4dos and without seeing your partition table it is hard to say. Use beeblebrox: http://students.cs.byu.edu/~codyb/ and post a screenshot of your partition table in it, or the values you see in the 4 partition entries. Are you using Primary partitions or Primary+Volumes in Extended Partition? Post exact error message you get in grub4dos and WHICH grub4dos command "triggers" it. Another thing that might be useful would be the output of a geometry (hdx) command: http://diddy.boot-land.net/grub4dos/files/...ds.htm#geometry jaclaz

Sure. Best site around, specific to your question: http://www.multibooters.co.uk/ This oldish thread may also interest you: http://www.msfn.org/board/How-to-Install-X...th-t100672.html for it's link to these: http://apcmag.com/how_to_dual_boot_vista_a...ystep_guide.htm http://apcmag.com/how_to_dualboot_vista_wi...screenshots.htm jaclaz

You joking? Typical bootpart use: Will: create a bootsector file (with Windows 98 CODE and current DATA) in C:\, naming it "BOOTSECT.W98" add a line in boot.ini: C:\BOOTSECT.W98="Windows 98" In other term, the syntax is (for this example): BOOTPART <bootsectortype> <destination> [text to add to boot.ini] If you do not specify the optional third parameter, only the bootsector file is created and BOOT.INI is left untouched. The other "main" use is: BOOTPART WINXP BOOT:C: where "BOOT:C:" is the destination, i.e. the bootsector of the currently booted drive. This is maybe not very clear in the now almost 15 years old bootpart.txt coming with the app, but the procedure and bootpart.exe dates back to NT 3.1 times, I would have guessed that it's use for multibooting between NT/2K/XP/2003 and DOS/Win9x/Me and other OS was clear by now. The only changes made over the years were the adding of new bootsectors for Win 98, Me, 2K, XP and Vista, and some polishing, see here: http://forum.winimage.com/viewtopic.php?t=276 This is still valid: http://home.earthlink.net/~jdbryan/directboot.html As well as this: http://www.tburke.net/info/ntldr/ntldr_hacking_guide.htm Bootpart use is now made partially obsolete by the development of grub4dos, but it can be still useful at times. FYI, this is release 1.0: http://cd.textfiles.com/cream/cream10/crea...s2/bootpa10.zip February 1996, I seem to remember a 0.7 version in early days of 1995.. Those were the good ol'times of BBS and 14.4 K modems..., and disconnections, and re-dialing, not these fancy .htm pages and flash animations you have nowadays. Why in my day.... http://www.boot-land.net/forums/?showtopic=1908 jaclaz

@cdob Problem is that both of us are guessing due to incomplete/missing reports. christianmusicvr asked about UBCD, then he "switched" to UBCD4WIN.... ...with all due respect , technicians usually have more "organized" mental schemes.... ...I was suggesting to engage on a single challenge at the time, as this is the usual approach I use. jaclaz

Well, not entirely accurate. The "old" rule, was: WIN51 -> contains "Windows" (without quotes) WIN51IP -> contains "Windows" (without quotes) - BUT it can be empty as well WIN51IP.SP1 -> is empty WIN51IP.SP2 -> is empty http://www.msfn.org/board/XP-SP2-bootable-...in-t111302.html http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=13265 Thus, normally: WIN51IP.SP3 -> is empty cdob additionally reports: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showto...129399&st=6 that using "nul" files is possible and works. There is no need for "previous" WIN51IP.SPx files, only the one appropriate to the SP slipstreamed is needed. Maybe it is something that Setupstudio requires? jaclaz

Cannot really say, without knowing in detail your exact setup and the exact error you are getting. It is very probable that /I386 is hardcoded somewhere else, like in a needed plugin or the like. Please note that UBCD: http://www.ultimatebootcd.com/ is one thing, and UBCD4WIN: http://www.ubcd4win.com/ is another. Up to your last post we (at least myself ) were talking about UBCD, NOT UBCD4WIN. As a general rule of thumb, when building a multiboot "anything" based on XP/2003 source files, the "proper" way to experiment is: use "normal" /I386 or /minint path test the build by itself try changing the path loop to 1. for each "item" leave the (hopefully just ) one "item" that you cannot make working with a different path, with it's default /I386 or /minint and change all the other ones UBCD4WIN has an active Forum: http://ubcd4win.com/forum/index.php? UBCD4WIN specific problems should be searched for or posted there. However, if your build contains isolinux, you should have at least an isolinux.cfg and most probably a main.cfg, which need probably to be edited to reflect your paths. jaclaz

The link is "right". The "way" also. You might want to ask help to a friend that better knows English or ask for help in a forum in your native language. The given thread illustrates step by step how to integrate Intel SATA drivers to a XP source, which is what you need in order to install XP on that PC. Please STOP using CAPITAL LETTERS, it seems like you are SHOUTING at me! jaclaz

It's a common "tag" file, see here AND given links: http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?...c=3392&st=7 jaclaz

Just for the record, and to cheer up a bit ilko_t , read what Cedrick "Nitch" Collomb (Author of unlocker) : http://ccollomb.free.fr/unlocker/ has to say about WinsetupfromUSB: http://ccollomb.free.fr/blog/?p=59 And also this : http://ccollomb.free.fr/blog/?p=61 jaclaz

Something is here: http://safemanuals.com/brand-user-guide-in...anual/CONNECTIX And something here: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.co...pc5w_51_faq.pdf http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.co...feature_faq.pdf http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.co...5_userguide.pdf jaclaz

READ the given thread: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=107504 jaclaz

At least the Vectra needs a lot less gas.... jaclaz

Of course overwritten data CANNOT be recovered, and the CANNOT applies also to data recovery companies. What you can try is using PHOTOREC, the accompanying app to TESTDISK: http://www.cgsecurity.org/wiki/TestDisk http://www.cgsecurity.org/wiki/PhotoRec DON'T EVEN THINK of using it from your booted XP on the laptop, every hour, minute, second, that the XP on it is running, something else may be overwritten. You can try using it from a bootCD, like the good UBCD: http://www.ultimatebootcd.com/ use latest beta: http://www.ultimatebootcd.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1786 that includes partedmagic, which includes photorec. Booting it from a USB stick is also possible. You will also need ANOTHER drive to store whatever PHOTOREC will be able to retrieve. Ideally you should remove the HD from your laptop and connect it through a USB interface or as slave with an IDE 2.5" to 3.5" to a working PC, and use the "other" PC's HD to store the recovered files. Even better, you should create a complete clone of the laptop HD on an external drive, (UBCD has several tools for this) and then attempt the recovery from the image on another PC. Please understand that Photorec tries to recover files bypassing the (overwritten) filesystem thus you WILL NOT be able to recover filenames. jaclaz

Apparently, YES. If your disks had developed the LBA0 or BSY you wouldn't be able to access the disks at all, thus, if you can access them and low-level format them, you are NOT in such a condition and you simply have "bad" drives. RMA them if you are still within warranty terms. jaclaz

Also, instead of listing a number of things that you haven't done, you might want to link to the one you've used, so that we know which one you attempted. jaclaz

Well, like "Doc" Brown in Back to the future: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088763/quotes jaclaz

I can't argue with that, I just can't see what you refer to in my post. Maybe I'm not clear enough. No need to argue , I was trying (failing ) to clear a possible misunderstanding. This: was what I was referring to. From what you report here and on the other thread, and from what Luca's is reporting on the thread on bootland it seems that when the drive is seen as "Removable" it ONLY "sees as "mountable" 1st entry in partition table, i.e. entry #0 for beeblebrox or #1 for Ranish. On the other hand, if the drive is seens as "Fixed" (by flipping the "Removable" bit or using a Filter Driver), all partition entries will be seen "normally". Thus your three conditions: unexistant empty hidden seem to me just two: unexistant or empty (which is the same thing ) hidden Of which the first ONLY applies to drives seen as "Removable", whilst the second applies to BOTH cases of drive seen as "Removable" or "Fixed", this was what I meant: Hope that the above is both clearer and accurate. jaclaz

Yep. ....manually editing the partition table. In the linked to thread we are experimenting to have these changes made automatically from grub4dos at boot time. Only thing user needs to remember doing is to chose the right menu.lst entry when booting, then, after install, re-boot and choose again the right menu.lst entry to revert.... jaclaz

For the record, unlocker should be able to delete such files/folders: http://ccollomb.free.fr/unlocker/ even "empty name" ones: http://www.computing.net/answers/windows-x...der/144718.html jaclaz