jaclaz

Well, NO, you need also to change lots of registry entries..... ...though feasible, it is probable that you will have problems: http://www.msfn.org/board/Change-Boot-Driv...art-t90495.html The "right" way is to create a migrate.inf file: http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=19663 The drawback is that the migrat.inf will be "tailored" for a certain hard disk signature, thus the SETUP disk will only work the intended way on that particular machine and if you do not change the HD signature. jaclaz

Since you managed to create a 16Gb FAT volume (being the limit of FAT 2 Gb) you are a magician! mkbt works allright on hard disk type of media as well, ONCE it has already been properly fdisked/formatted. You NEED to use either FAT32 or NTFS. Can we assume that what you want to do is just to make a 32 Gb USB stick bootable, and that this has NOTHING to do with Hiren's or more generally with WAREZ? @geek for the record, the named WAREZ release, ALREADY uses the HP formatting utility. jaclaz

As said, making a USB stick bootable can be tricky business in some instances. Something that has proved to be working is to "wipe" the first, say 100 sectors by writing 00's to them, see here: http://www.msfn.org/board/USB-MultiBoot-8-...4.html&st=8 before re-running the HP utility. Alternatively or additionally try using the batch by fuwi referenced before. Alternatively or additionally, you can try my "indirect" way through batch: http://www.boot-land.net/forums/?showtopic=5000 Alternatively or additionally, do try once again formatting it with the HP utility as FAT (yes it is FAT16), then use hdhacker: http://dimio.altervista.org/eng/ make a copy of BOTH MBR (physicaldrive) AND bootsector (logicaldrive) of your USB stick, compress them in a .zip archive and post the .zip file as attachment, and I'll have a look at them. jaclaz

@mikesw Don't take this the wrong way but what you posted does not make much sense. The "1 meg" limit for MS-DOS has NOTHING to do with USB booting, I assure you. Why don't you start a new thread, this here is about ANOTHER topic ( XP install from USB), detailing what your problem is, and what you actually would like to do? Maybe there are solutions for it. jaclaz

As a rule of thumb, NTFS is NOT advised on flash based memory, if some precautions are not implemented, and unless it is really needed for any reason, as it is a semi-journaled filesystem and the excessive number of reads (irrelevant) and writes (VERY relevant) on the stick may cause a premature failure of the device. FAT32 poses not the above problems, but as said might be trickier to be made bootable. Since your stick is 2 Gb, i.e. within the limits of FAT16, I suggest you to use FAT16, as it proved to be the "most compatible" filesystem when it comes to booting. jaclaz

The problem seems to me in the way the USB stick is formatted. You SHOULD NOT let the XP install (nlited or not) format the USB stick. Stick needs to be formatted BEFORE and TESTED for actually booting. The tool that proved to be the "most practical" is the HP USB formatting utility. What size is the stick? Are you trying formatting it as FAT16, FAT32 or NTFS? Read this oldish page: http://home.graffiti.net/jaclaz:graffiti.n...SB/USBfaqs.html with particular reference to FAQ #4 and #10 Then read this thread: http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=19594 where some checks and howto's are suggested- And check this newish .cmd by fuwi: http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?sho...c=21702&hl= that appears to have found a couple of "missing" steps Set aside for the moment the "XP install" part. Just partition and format the stick properly, add to it's root a NTLDR, a NTDETECT.COM and any BOOT.INI with at least two entries. Once you can see the choices in boot.ini, it means that the initial booting (partitioning/formatting/MBR/bootsector) is OK and then you can try installing to it the XP. jaclaz

There are two different limits. First one is that of the actual no-emulation bootsector. Second one is in NTLDR. Read here: http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=20248 http://www.boot-land.net/forums/?showtopic=4503 You seem to be suffering from the second. Checking the .iso with an utility to check the actual LBA position of the files might confirm this. jaclaz

It very much depends on the technology used on the batteries. The procedure is called "reconditioning", but was (is) applicable to Ni-CD and in a very limted way to NiMh batteries, the new Li-Ion appear to be not affected. Read here: http://www.msfn.org/board/Battery-Recalibration-t89924.html http://www.msfn.org/board/Battery-Recalibr....html&st=12 As well, actually repairing a battery of the newish generation is rather complex: http://www.electronics-lab.com/articles/Li...ct/index_1.html as compared to oldish ones: http://www.fonerbooks.com/laptop_3.htm jaclaz

WHAT CD? Till now you were talking of a USB stick.... Why don't you start again describing in more details what you are up to/trying to do? jaclaz

Try using, AS IN THE GIVEN EXAMPLE, ControlSet001, most probably when migrate.inf is parsed the "reg-link" between ControlSet001 and CurrentControlSet is not yet established. CurrentControlSet is a "mirror" or either ControlSet001, or ControlSet002, .....ControlSetnnn, in other words when you open an offline Registry, there is NO CurrentControlSet, it is created on-the-fly by Windows when booting. When windows is running, using CurrentControlSet is advised, but otherwise you need to use ControlSet001. jaclaz

Rest assured, it is NOT. Abandonware means, from a legal standpoint, NOTHING. To be picky a product whose maker and copyright holder has defaulted and ceased activities AND did not sell the copyright to anyone else, can be considered "safe" as noone will ever sue you. A product from a Company that is still alive (and well alive) like MS is, may present more risks of being sued. Depending on the Laws that apply in your country, you may be prosecuted nonetheless by the Local Authorities, even without any copyright holder suing you. But there are several "alternate" DOSes that are either freeware or free for personal use. jaclaz

A bit of history might be of interest. Dos 6.22 and 7.x/8.0 (read Win9x/ME) had a FORMAT command that did just that, i.e. formatted the filesystem, WITHOUT creating a bootable bootsector. You then ran SYS.COM that did two things, created the bootsector and transferred to the drive the system files. The FORMAT command on NT/2K/XP/2003 (and Vista) does two things, format the filesystem AND create a bootable bootsector invoking the system loader. The bootloader name never changed between NT/2K/XP/2003, but it did on Vista. So, when you use the FORMAT command under Vista (or diskpart) or it's GUI version, you create a bootsector invoking BOOTMGR instead of NTLDR. Vista provides an utility, bootsect.exe which, with the switch /nt52 replaces current (Vista->BOOTMGR) bootsector with an "XP" one, i.e. one invoking NTLDR. Bootsect.exe usage: http://neosmart.net/blog/2007/bootsectexe-...or-not-the-mbr/ http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsVista...3.mspx?mfr=true jaclaz

Well, BOOTMGR is the loader of VISTA. The loader for NT/2K/XP/2003 is NTLDR. Cannot say how you managed to mix the two, but you have a "WRONG" (Vista) bootsector on the stick. You need to run bootsect.exe /nt52 or a similar utility to create a proper NT/2K/XP/2003 bootsector on that partition. But you are not actually expecting XP to boot from USB stick without modifications, do you? Read here: http://www.boot-land.net/forums/?showtopic=4857&st=9 jaclaz

@crahak OK, so are we allowed to say that the bestOSever has Aero Glass that sucks? GOOD. Can we also say that everyone has a right to express his opinion about the bestOSever, or is it considered whining if it touches anything you personally like (or think is superior as compared to ...) in Vista? jaclaz

Yep, I meant that 99% (approximately) of XP users will have it installed on a NTFS partition, and consequently this method won't work for them, just wanted to add this small advice to your guide, in order to avoid possible misunderstandings by some of the less experienced members. jaclaz

Provided that your C:\ drive is FAT16 or FAT32, of course. jaclaz

The English form is "to compare apples with oranges", but it has been scientifically debunked: http://www.improb.com/airchives/paperair/v...1-3-apples.html jaclaz

Just for the sake of the discussion, let's say that Vista is the bestOSever. Can we say that even if it is the best one and has no matches, it could be made even a tiny bit better? Are we allowed to "whine" a little about the, rest assured very very few, things that might have been or that can be made better? jaclaz

Just a guess, but you need to make the USB source "read only". Try using this: http://www.xabersoft.com/ http://www.xabersoft.com/freebies.html http://www.xabersoft.com/download/usbwriteblocker.zip Would it work in BartPE? Cannot say. The only alternatives that come to my mind: 1) Use a RAMDISK loading of a .ISO for booting BartPE (needs files from Server2003 SP1 or R2) 2) Use EWF (needs files from Windows Embedded) jaclaz

Heck, I am not sure either. You asked: Had you asked: I would have replied: jaclaz

Isn't enough as soon as the BIOS starts to press and keep pressed the [DOWN ARROW] key? jaclaz

Most probably you can re-create a XP Home CD from the files within your Recovery CD, or from the \I386 directory on your hard disk (you will need either the said NTF4DOS or a PE of some kind and a USB stick or USB hard disk to get the latter ones). Check this: http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=16381 http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?sho...16381&st=18 jaclaz

I beg your pardon? You're welcome. jaclaz

Yes, I mean it is a possibility. If you look at the "story" of WINNT.EXE and of WINNT32.EXE, and cross it with the traditional way MS guys work (or at least as how it seems like they work, seen from their products) it sounds very, very possible. NT3.51 install CD's were NOT bootable. The everywhere spread OS was DOS, hence the need for WINNT.EXE. NT 4.00 CD's were (actually some of them, I remember seing some that were NOT bootable) bootable, but used the "strict" ISO9660 specifications (no joliet, no iso-level 4 - ISO9660:1999). See here: http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=19948 Until NT 4.00, any PC had as OS either DOS or Windows 95 or NT 3.51 and at the time a vast number of PC's still could NOT boot from CD or could not boot from a no-emulation boot CD, hence the need for WINNT.EXE (to install from DOS) and of WINNT32.EXE to install from Windows 95 or NT 3.51 - and to make the boot floppies if needed. Win2K CD's were bootable, but still a number of people as well used WINNT32.EXE to upgrade from NT to Windows 2000. Off topic, but I've seen people crying for the "small issue" described here :whistling:: http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?sho...=11383&st=3 Though WINNT.EXE and WINNT32.EXE are still used by the few "tweakers at heart" or by some system administrators, since the advent of XP, say 99% of the people use the no-emulation CD or, since XP has been mainly an OEM success, the non-install method that most laptop have ("stupid" recovery partition, image of pre-set drive). It would not surprise me in the least that these "old" methods of installing have not been fully updated to take care of the new filesystems/naming conventions. The packages you are trying to install/integrate, on the other hand, were not "integrated" by MS in an OS release, so it is perfectly possible that they use different "specifications" as they were never possibly tested with WINNT32.EXE, let alone WINNT.EXE. Again off-topic, if you want a quick laugh, check how the Recovery Console is started, and my fictional psychodrama that tries to explain what could have happened : http://www.boot-land.net/forums/?showtopic=2362&st=6 jaclaz

A SATA disk not set as "simulate IDE/ATAPI" or "disabled" or "PATA access" (or whatever the setting is) in BIOS? jaclaz