jaclaz

I guess that you are finding, the hard way, that your thought might not be completely true. I was suggesting that the problem might not really be WinPE as opposed to bartPE, but rather later release of core OS files vs. previous ones. WinPE 1.x, as well as bartPE's and XP/2003 based winbuilder projects can use the SAME OS files as the build you are trying to install, thus you won't have compatibility problems. If I had suggested you VistaPE: http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?showforum=51 or http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?...ic=4431&hl= http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?...ic=7053&hl= as a replacement to WinPE 2.1, your concerns might (but they do not actually ) be justified. Completely unrelated, actually the opposite, but FYI: http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2280 If you try building a "simple" 2003 based PE, like one using the "preconfigured" LiveXP: http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=4111 using the same source as the one you are installing/deploying, you can easily find out if using the 2003 diskpart and format solves the issue or not (and then maybe it could be something hardware specific ) However, you can use MBRFIX or MBRWIZ to check/change the MBR CODE or DATA: http://www.sysint.no/nedlasting/mbrfix.htm http://mbrwizard.com/ jaclaz

Let's first thing "separate" the issues. The "error messages" in the MBR and PBR are (usually): http://www.msfn.org/board/error-0xc000000e...90120&st=25 And Vista MBR has not changed AFAIK: http://www.multibooters.co.uk/mbr.html Thus we need to find out from where comes. Or maybe you reported it not EXACTLY ? Bootsect.exe "fixes" the bootsector or PBR, you can run it all the times you want and using all the parameters in the world , but it WON'T touch the MBR (Master Boot Record). Since using the "FAT32 first"/"convert after" worked, could it be some form of problems between the "normal" XP/2003 NTFS filesystem and the "enhanced" Vista/2008 one? Is there a reason why you need to use PE 2.1 to deploy/install Server 2003 instead of using a PE 1.x or a bartPE/WinbuilderPE based on the same 2003? jaclaz

...but there are several third party GUI's for it Just as an example: http://www.msfn.org/board/QEMU_98_ME_dummies_t61389.html http://www.davereyn.co.uk/ http://qemu-forum.ipi.fi/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=4803 http://www.brain-dump.org/projects/qemu-gui/doku.php/ jaclaz

Oldish versions of Virtual PC do work on 9x systems. As well there are Qemu versions that work from DOS/W9x/Me. Info that you could have found by searching : http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=120495 jaclaz

@Patchworks As much as I like Freeware/Opensource, Commercial programs (if properly licensed) cannot be in any way considered to be NOT "LEGAL", even *hinting* it seems to me inappropriate. It may be not the "smartest" (economically speaking) choice, but it's a choice, valid as any other one. On the other hand, particularly, installing .NET and paint.NET on 9x/Me seems to me "queer". @All Maybe something that you might try for the %~dp0 (UNTESTED by me ) is the almost-like-NT command processor for 9x/Me: http://www.boot-land.net/forums/?showtopic=2392 http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=100861 jaclaz

Syslinux installs to the bootsector (or PBR) of the active partition. You can simply install Syslinux to the device partition, test that the device works, then use any disk editor (or more conveniently maybe HDHACKER: http://dimio.altervista.org/eng/ to copy the bootsector to a file. (you are looking for first sector of Logical Drive, NOT PhysicalDrive) Then you can install to it a "normal" bootsector or a grub4dos one, or whatever, then place the file somewhere on the device and from grub4dos chainload it. This method is NOT recommended, however, since the bootsector file is "linked" to that particular volume. In other words it has "hardcoded" in it specific values, like volume serial, size, start address, etc. that WILL NOT work again when you re-format the volume or use it on another device. Or you can use syslinux as your "main" bootloader and only load grub4dos for the items for which you "need" or "like" it, see method 2: http://diddy.boot-land.net/grub4dos/files/...all.htm#method2 Though it may resolve in a bit more work for you, I suggest, once you "choose" a loader/bootmanager to "stick" to it. Within limits, ANY Syslinux/Isolinux/memdisk .cfg can be "translated" or "converted" to an equivalent grub4dos one. Read this thread: http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=6119 most if not all the possible conversion "syntax" is listed. jaclaz

@Bigbrit You do not "burn" to USB. @HowdyDoody If you just "copy files", it won't work to install from USB. Further tricks are needed. And there is already an automated program to do that, actually two, one batch based and one with GUI: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showforum=157 http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=111406 http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=120444 jaclaz

I was suggesting something a bit different, sorry if I was not clear. I meant, remove "generic" drivers from TXTSETUP.SIF and create an F6 floppy with them. Test on a normal, not-affected by the bug machine. Install the "normal" CD. Make an image of the install. Start a new VM, install the "hacked" CD + the F6 floppy with the generic drivers. Compare the new install with the previous "normal" one. This way you can be sure that you managed to create a "good" F6 floppy disk. Once you are sure that this work, we will talk about something else, like using the (4 for win2K, 6 for XP) floppies set to install, it should be possible to thus avoid "changing" the install CD. jaclaz

None. Use nlite normally. If, for any reason, it doesn't work, then you might think about using mkisofs manually. If ain't broken don't fix it! jaclaz

Then you have to do this in two steps. First remove from TXTSETUP.SIF the "generic" drivers. (thus producing an unbootable without F6 files install CD) Then create the F6 floppy. The info in the referenced threads should be enough. But yet, and I know I may seem a bit tough, it seems to me like you are beating a dead horse, kb254769 has been fixed seven years ago. If you experience the same or a similar bug, it would be a good reason for this experiment , but if you are going to try installing a "gold" Win2K on a particular motherboard and HD combo that "gives" 15 heads, and that you know suffers form this - normally extremely rare - bug, you are looking for trouble , unneededly, as I see it. jaclaz

Wouldn't this be it : http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=22483 This one: you can (and should) remove the striken part. BTW, Syslinux cannot be chainloaded directly, but you can install it, then copy the bootsector to a file and chainload that file. jaclaz

I mean an oldish bug, meaning an oldish bug: SP1 for Win2K was released in december 2000 or january 2001 Now, if you are still using a non SP3 or SP4 source, you do have far greater problems than that bug. @pointertovoid Bonjour , Monsieur de La Palice : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_de_la_Palice @Ninho Still, I don't get fully what the problem is. Drivers usually come with their own TXTSETUP.OEM and instructions on how to make a F6 floppy. Maybe reading between the lines of this: http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=1543 will help you : TXTSETUP.OEM is a file with the .inf structure: http://www.wd-3.com/archive/InfFiles.htm http://www.osronline.com/ddkx/install/txtsetup_1wmq.htm A practical example: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=81659 jaclaz

To be picky "after running this removal tool" (or any other one) successfully, you won't have the warning again. (at least until you re-doenload the virus somehow) But you should not need to run the removal tool at all, AVira already fixed that, did you try re-scanning system after the log you posted? The two warnings you had are different: in the first a Trojan was detected in the second a file could not be opened Avira reported to have actually fixed the problem, by renaming the offending file. It is possible that Avira detected a "false positive", you should recheck the renamed file 49e9d68b.qua on an online scan, like: http://www.kaspersky.com/scanforvirus There is a warning about SafeBoot.sys because the AV could not open the file, that does not mean that it is a problem. Safeboot.sys appears to bee part of "HP security tools" or soemthing like that, it is well possible that it is "in use" and cannot be accessed by the AV. More generally You should never run/install two antivirus concurrently. If you use Avira it's OK, if you use AVG, OK if you use Avira and AVG conflicts may occur. jaclaz

First thing welcome. You may want to give a meaningful title to your post, compare with Rule #12: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=18408 Check this: http://www.scanforfree.com/06/tr.crypt.xpa...en-removal.html jaclaz

Well NO, at least unless Windows 7 (and just Windows 7) has dramatically changed. Windows NT/2K/XP/2003 boot files (NTLDR/NTDETECT.COM/BOOT.INI) or Vista/2008 (BOOTMGR/BCD) need normally to be on a Primary partition (unless a boot manager is used) but OS can be installed to a Logical Volume inside Extended allright. Besides, it is also possible to make a Logical Volume inside Extended "behave" as a Primary partition, by fixing the bootsector. FYI: http://www.multibooters.co.uk/ http://www.multibooters.co.uk/system.html http://www.goodells.net/multiboot/ http://www.goodells.net/multiboot/ptedit.htm jaclaz

The referenced KB is an oldish one, (possibly a remnant of NT 4.00 HD detection in Win2K) and it involved ATAPI.SYS. Intelide.sys is a "controller driver", intelide.sys is a "replacement" for pciide.sys: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/322359/en-us Intelide.sys, pciide.sys, pciidex.sys are in the Registry "System Bus Extender" atapi.sys is the ATA/IDE miniport driver, and is in the Registry "SCSI miniport" Which one do you want to change/replace, and for what actual reason? Maybe unrelated, but FYI: http://alter.org.ua/en/soft/win/uni_ata/ jaclaz P.S.: sometyhing still seemingly unrelated, but that may be useful : http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=22313 http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=21867 http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?sho...c=22523&hl=

Sure, if there is NO boot.ini in your C:\ drive, how do you expect it to be opened? No actual "need" to use fixboot. BOOT.INI is a plain text file, it may be marked as System and Hidden. Check the root of your C:\ drive, with options to show hidden and system files checked. If there is NO BOOT.INI file, create a new one. The "default" install directory should be C:\WINNT for NT 4.00 and Windows 2000, and C:\Windows for XP and 2003, but it is possible that: you are using a later NTLDR on 2K the 2K NTLDR actually "looks" for the OS in C:\WINNT but outputs "invalid boot.ini loading from c:\windows" the NTLDR actually searches for a NT based installed OS in C:\, similarly to what Recovery Console does (compare with the report about the "no more CATCH 22" trick with RC): http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?sho...20983&st=25 What is your %Systemroot% directory? C:\windows C:\WINNT (choose one) Open a command prompt and enter in it: SET SystemRoot to make sure. jaclaz

Hmmm, . Your question in this thread seems a lot like referring to drive lettering as well. Whilst the question you posted on the other thread makes a lot of sense , this one completely fails to, besides being in the "Install XP from USB" thread that appears fully unrelated. BOOT.INI settings have nothing to do with drive letter assignment, and it is however fully and utterly irrelevant for Vista installs. To any user with an average understanding of the NT/2K/XP/2003 and of the Vista/2008 (COMPLETELY different) boot process, your questions look a lot like: How long should I cook eggs in order to adjust my car ignition? Let's see if I can explain a bit the matter. BOOT.INI settings are like a kind of "phone book" which lists, instead of phone number and addresses of people, the addresses where your installs(s) of NT, 2K, XP or Server 2003 are located. Just as you do not move a friend's house by changing his address in your phone book , you do not move installs changing the BOOT.INI values. Vista and server 2008 use a different kind of "boot phone book", the BCD store, but basically the working is the same, the file contains the addresses of where the installs were made. In other words, settings in BOOT.INI and in BCD stores are the consequence of where you installed the Operating Systems, not the cause. jaclaz

Basically, he didn't. Read this post: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showto...12630&st=11 and links within it. Dietmar Stoelting found out that the XP SP1 NTDETECT.COM is "more tolerant" than SP2 and (possibly ) later versions. jaclaz

Actually using a .iso is the least "flexible" way. You can rebuild/change/modify the stick instead of the .iso. Why don't you take some time reading the stickies in the sub-forum to see what the "normal" way (when installing from USB) is? However: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=121502 http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=125138 If the .iso image is smaller than 512 Mbyte, it would be possible to use RAMDISK booting, but I doubt that your .iso is that small. jaclaz

Because you posted in two places? I replied on your other thread. In any case, please avoid putting pressure on members, the idea of a board is more or less: someone asks a question someone else, WHEN he has time and IF he wishes to do so, tries and help the OP with his problem OP thanks people that tried helping him There is an alternative, which involves the use of service of professionals and parting from some money. jaclaz

The OP did not specify which OS is on. I assumed 2003, which defaults to C:\windows, and which is confirmed by the OP report, if his install path isn't c:\windows, system won't boot. I gave an example I had handy, which was XP related and links to: an old post 2K related documentation about BOOT.INI switches I wasn't clear enough in specifying that the CODE posted was just an example and needed to be adapted to the actual OS switches and text description, sorry. jaclaz

How much is 79+30? If the answer is 109 you've found the 4th partition. Seriously, a Primary partition is BOTH a partition and a volume. An Extended partition is ONLY a partition and can contain one or more volumes. About partition order and lettering, it depends on which exact method you used to install from USB and if the booted device was (as it should) being remapped to (hd1) through the use of grub4dos or other method. Since you also opened a thread here: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=129900 I guess you should report with some more detail the steps you took while installing XP and the ones you are taking when installing Vista. BOOT.INI has nothing to do with drive lettering. Where is your \Windows\ directory? If on C:\ you can use Disk Management allright to change drive letter from E:\ to D:\ and from F:\ to E:\ If viceversa windows has been installed to either E:\ or F:\ DO NOT try changing letter assignments. jaclaz

No need to. If someone "lands" here after a serch, he can find the solution you found and if needed ask for further help. jaclaz

You joking, right? Everything is done for the sheer satisfaction of doing it, and for fun. You should however comply with Careware License : http://home.graffiti.net/jaclaz:graffiti.net/careware.html jaclaz