jaclaz

Yep. That's meaning that your BOOT.INI is corrupt, or missing. By default the NTLDR, when it cannot find a BOOT.INI (or cannot find a valid entry in it) tries nonetheless to boot the system from the "default" path (hardcoded) C:\windows. (to be more accurate from directory "windows" on first active primary partition of first hard disk) Since most probably you have your windows installed as above, the PC boots nonetheless. If you had used a non-standard install directory (like "\mywin" as an example) that error would have been critical and your PC would have failed booting. Recreate a "normal" BOOT.INI file on C:\: [boot loader] timeout=30 default=multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS [operating systems] multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS="Microsoft Windows XP Professional" /noexecute=optin /fastdetect to solve the problem. FYI: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=25365 Updated link to sysinternals BOOT.INI options list: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinte...s/bb963892.aspx jaclaz

Good one! jaclaz

jaclaz

Why you cannot have a partitioned drive? This: should come from "somewhere", probably the bootsector or MBR. I am not familiar with Vista's ones, but these may put you on the "right path": http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showto...121391&st=0 http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?...=5736&st=24 Otherwise it comes from the BIOS. Right now, it seems to me like you have a "badly" partitioned/formatted HD. If I were you, I would clear first, say 100 or 200 sectors and re-partition/re-format the drive: http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?...=4015&st=21 jaclaz

I will do. But first, I would try to run WinSetup from XP and see if it is a Vista-related issue. I would also try on another PC, or double check the BIOS, some (few) BIOS have a setting that to avoid Viruses tampering with MBR disable writings to it, as well some antivirus softwares have this feature. Maybe this is the case. jaclaz

ilko_t already replied to you a couple posts above. jaclaz

Which error? A BIOS may have several limitations when it comes to booting from USB, typically the first CHS HD barrier (÷ 528 Mb) or the "normal" CHS one (÷8 Gb). Read FAQ's: http://home.graffiti.net/jaclaz:graffiti.n...SB/USBfaqs.html FAQ #10. If you use Diskpart, check that cylinder/head boundaries are set correctly: http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=21186 With an actual description of the exact steps you followed for partitioning/formatting the drive AND a detailed description of the "error", I may be able to help you. jaclaz

I don't get it. You need to repair your laptop install? Do you have a CD working on the laptop? If yes, use it, if no, how can you say that the build works from CD on the specific laptop? Can you change in BIOS the settings for SATA to "IDE compatibility mode" or the like? Or is it a "philosophical" kind of questions, and you are testing it "just in case"? jaclaz

Yep, and in the other 80% of the times someone will tell you. Now, you know. B) jaclaz

If I may, .iso sizes: gparted 0.3.7-7 94,947,328 gparted 0.3.9-4 98,347,008 gparted 0.4.1.2 100,026,368 (latest) partedmagic 3.1 50,345,984 partedmagic 3.2 50,653,184 partedmagic 3.4 55,412,736 partedmagic 3.5 78,800,896 (latest) the good thing about partedmagic is that can also be mapped as (hd32) with grub4dos , but while not having become as big as gparted, latest released is BIG. Maybe someone could suggest a slimmer Linux Distro with just the needed functionalities of partitioning/re-partitioning? jaclaz

Would "Small number of drives" be a valid alternative to "only some percentage"? FYI : http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showto...092&st=1034 jaclaz

No, it is not. There are three main programs/methods in the given thread: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showforum=157 Choose the one that you think better suits you: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=111406 http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=120444 http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=121446 Read the FAQ's before, EXPECIALLY if you are nliting, and EXPECIALLY FAQ #2: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=116766 Though sticks tend to be less sensitive to surface scratches.... jaclaz

This is working for me: http://www.nokia.ca/NOKIA_CANADA_ENGLISH_6...81_1_eng_us.msi jaclaz

FYI: http://www.msfn.org/board/Petition-Nuhi-t119463.html jaclaz

This quote describes IMHO very well the path one has to take: That would be very nice of you. Sometimes it is hard for "veterans" to explain to "newbies" the steps involved, as it is easy to overlook info unwantingly assumed as already known. A report or guide written from a "new perspective" may help a lot. jaclaz

Browse the thread one or two pages back. Sometimes it is needed to connect the GROUND too. EDIT: Here: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showto...mp;#entry833372 http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?s=&amp...st&p=833454 jaclaz

Are you using a SD card through a USB adapter? Most (read ALL ) USB card adapters are set as "Removable". Thus creating a MBR on them it's not that easy. I cannot say if the HP USB utility or PEtoUSB can "work" with SD cards through USB. , that would be the first thing to try. You may want to try an indirect approach: http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=5000 not easy, not straightforward, but it should work. jaclaz

Try with Photorec. Part of testdisk: http://www.cgsecurity.org/wiki/TestDisk .doc and .xls are in the list of supported files. jaclaz

Yes. However my guess is that ponch won't like latest corrections : he suggested to use "Primary" instead of "Main", which is correct, where does "Principal" come from? jaclaz

I GUESS that "data recovery" programs try several times to read a given sector and create the lock. "Standard" procedure is the following: have another disk of same of greater capacity (better if two) copy/clone defective hard disk contents on new drive (better if twice) work with recovery programs on the clone This way if you encounter a problem or make a mistake you can simply re-image from original or second copy and start again. Suitable programs for doing the copy are "dd-like" programs that DO NOT attempt copying bad sectors and simply skip them. http://www.garloff.de/kurt/linux/ddrescue/ http://www.forensicswiki.org/wiki/Ddrescue http://wiki.linuxquestions.org/wiki/Dd_rescue Please note that "dd", "ddrescue" and dd_rescue" have different syntax. Some dd version have the option "noerror", which means that it will skip bad sectors. Cannot say if using any of these will "trigger" the HD error nonetheless. Under windows, besides the Cygwin port of the above, one could try: dsfo/dsfi, part of the dsfok package: http://members.ozemail.com.au/~nulifetv/freezip/freeware/ dd for windows (FAU edition): http://gmgsystemsinc.com/fau/ Or maybe some of the programs listed here: http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=16534 http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=100299 Once you have managed, one way or the other, to recover the recoverable, probably you can restore the drive to "normal" operation. According to Seagate , depending on the errors you get, a zero fill (by forcing writes to bad sectors encountered) may re-create the g-list: http://www.seagate.com/ww/v/index.jsp?loca...000dd04090aRCRD It's debatable whether the adjective intelligent is attributed to "operation" or to "drive", if the latter I find it largely inaccurate. It is possible that using a disk editor and forcing the write on single sectors (found as "bad"), will create the g-list entry, but it might be a loooong work, if the bad sectors are not a handful (please note the accuracy of my definition of this amount ) jaclaz

So we could also replace all those "main" partitions used in this thread by "primary" partitions. Yes we could , it would be more accurate, though I have already seen the term "main" as used instead of "primary", as they are synonyms: http://encarta.msn.com/thesaurus_561584400/primary.html http://www.synonyms.net/synonym/primary In any case it won't change the sense of the tutorial, the distinction between "main" (or "primary") and "logical unit of the extended partition" is clear enough , while exchanging MBR with bootsector appears as more confusing, and particularly on a topic where a lot of people appear to have not a deep enough knowledge. FYI: http://neosmart.net/blog/2007/bootsectexe-...or-not-the-mbr/ even the good MS guys sometimes happen to add to the confusion: jaclaz

...or maybe we are around the 8Gb barrier? BIOS/whatever use CHS and the files are beyond that? Seemingly unrelated, but not much : http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?...c=5884&st=0 jaclaz

Maybe "most" would be more accurate than "everything"....or you would have had it working ...which means you were not able to... NO, you did not! Re read, slowly, this (see also below): http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?sho...=10482&st=3 Maybe naming the .iso 8.3 compliant might help. Also, you sure the .iso is smaller than 512 Mb? Menu is correct, you do not need the final boot command when using an entry in menu.lst (but it is needed when you enter commands one by one in command line mode - which is always advised when experimenting) Though this is NOT causing a blue screen, always make sure (or double sure) that the image is contiguous on disk: http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?...c=6985&st=5 http://diddy.boot-land.net/grub4dos/files/map.htm Actually there are tens or hundreds or "BSOD"'s, which exact STOP ERROR are you getting? Without knowing exactly the error you are getting, it would be tough, see if what I guessed solves the probelm. There is not a "copyright" or "trademark" on the word "livexp", mind you, but since it is used to name a specific Winbuilder project (which by the way allows to make a .iso chainloadable by grub4dos when mapped to (hd32) ) : http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?showforum=52 http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=4111 it would be nice if you call your build something else, just to avoid possible confusion to other members. Another thing you might want to try is to actually use the LiveXP project, as per Amalux's tutorial, which is known to be working and "automated", then see which differences there are between it (working build) and the one you made (not-yet-working build). jaclaz

I'll surprise you with yet a new notion : EMBR: (Extended Master Boot Record) http://www.ranish.com/part/primer.htm or EPBR: (Extended Partition Boot Record): http://www.goodells.net/multiboot/ptedit.htm jaclaz

The point was that bootpart does NOT touch the MBR (Master Boot Record), it changes the PBR (Partition Boot Record) or bootsector. The MBR is first sector of the whole hard disk or PHYSICAL DRIVE, CHS 0/0/1, LBA 1 The PBR is first sector of the active partition, usually first one, first sector of LOGICAL DRIVE, usually CHS 0/1/1, LBA 64. You are welcome, just trying to avoid possible misunderstandings of less experienced users. jaclaz