jaclaz

I wouldn't be so pessimistic. Many things depend on the type of the recovery partition and on what files are in it, in other words which brand/make/model is the actual PC. An example of success : http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=127624 jaclaz

This is news to me. Care to expand on this? @Dave_H Something that you may want to try is to move the various NTLDR's to different partitions/directories or put them inside floppy images. It's abit complex, but may prove a working workaround. Basically you can use grub4dos' grldr as your "main" loader (or load it through a "base", NOT corrupting SYSTEM hive, NTLDR), then chainload from it a floppy image with the actual NTLDR, NTDETECT.COM and BOOT.INI, an image simialr to the one depicted here: http://www.xxcopy.com/xxcopy33.htm It is less difficult than what it may seem at first sight , but undoubtedly not "straightforward". If you need help/more details, just ask. jaclaz

As well not at all my intention to cause an argument. @HowdyDoody Sorry if I sounded nasty , just trying to make things as clear and as accurate as possible, if in any way you feel offended by my posts, accept my apologies. But, again just for the record, you can make also a non-RW CD bootable. @Bigbrit Mind you, not wanting in any way to promote or "push" the work made by wimb and ilko_t, but they do work perfectly, AFAIK the unattended part is FULLY working for XP but not yet for Vista, ONLY when installed from USB HD: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=120631 A number of users already "jumped on this wagon", lately siginet: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=128323&hl= who already produced some very good contributions: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=129049&hl= jaclaz

It seems to exist only in ZDNET file library nowadays... However, since 5.0.2167.1 is the release version for pcmcia.sys from Win 2k Pro, it seems to me that this driver pack may not be for Win 9x/ME, regardless of claims galore to the contrary floating around google... Mind you, completely and utterly unrelated, and possibly irrelevant, but FYI: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=9922 Win2K drivers might be "nearer" to Win9x ones than one might expect. jaclaz

No, I read it. Once you have properly partitioned/formatted a USB stick and copied to it the system files, the stick will be bootable, but it WILL NOT work to install a 2K/XP/2003: as said, further tricks are needed. The procedure took a few months of development and is available in different turorials/accompanying apps in the given threads. BTW, you cannot "format a CD", you can create a bootable ISO9660/CDFS filesystem (.iso image) conforming to one of the three boot standards: El-Torito floppy emulation El-Torito No Emulation Hard Disk Emulation Right. Though the procedure is not as straightforward as it would be advisable. That's the point. If you really don't know, why did you reply to Bigbrit? If you are curious about your questions, why not starting a thread with them? jaclaz

Some good ol' DOS assembly programs: http://bellsouthpwp.net/c/m/cmech617/flist.htm most notably IPL.COM and DTRBOOT, among lots of other ones. More things, DASD vision worth a look: http://bellsouthpwp.net/c/m/cmech617/ jaclaz

Completely (but not much ) out of topic , have you benchmarked the FAT32 on USB sticks before and after the updates? FYI: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=125116 jaclaz

You need a bootmanager capable of changing at boot time the Hidden/unhidden status of the partitions. There are several ones. What I recommend is: OS-BS mbldr: http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=334 as it fits entirely in the MBR (512 bytes) thus assuring maximum compatibility. Or you can use grub4dos: http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?showforum=66 method #6 or #7 http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=5187 http://diddy.boot-land.net/grub4dos/Grub4dos.htm http://diddy.boot-land.net/grub4dos/files/...all.htm#method6 More simply, you can use THREE partitions: Active, Primary, smallish, FAT16, containing ONLY the bootfiles (NTLDR+NTDETECT.COM+BOOT.INI) for 2K/XP/2003 and BOOTMGR+BCD for Vista/2008 Extended Partition containing: Logical Volume (Partition) for XP Logical Volume (Partition) for Vista You only need to hide the "other" logical volume during each install. Then you can have both visible, and simply from Disk Management "remove" the letter assigned to the "other" Logical Volume. jaclaz

In other words, if I am allowed a little joke this: should become: 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=