jaclaz

@JedMeister Happy it was useful @All The general idea that I was trying to convey is that you can add (within limits) more than one line to boot.ini and simply try them until you find the one that works. 1C=1st controller=multi(0) 1D=1st disk=rdisk(0) 1P=1st partition=partition(1) 2C=2nd controller=multi(1) etc. i.e. add these to boot.ini and check which one works: multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\Windows="XP Pro 1C1D1P " /fastdetect multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(2)\Windows="XP Pro 1C1D2P " /fastdetect multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(1)partition(1)\Windows="XP Pro 1C2D1P " /fastdetect multi(1)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\Windows="XP Pro 2C1D1P " /fastdetect multi(2)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\Windows="XP Pro 3C1D1P " /fastdetect jaclaz

Most probably NOT connected to the report by Zoinkity but generally speaking, Win9x does "weird" things to floppies, see here: http://mirror.href.com/thestarman/asm/mbr/WIN98FDB.htm http://mirror.href.com/thestarman/asm/debug/debug2.htm#IHC Could it be a problem with the floppy driver or corrupted VMM32.VXD? http://drscriptt.riverviewtech.net/docs/vmm32.html @Zoinkity What happens in a DOS box within Windows 98? jaclaz

Two minutes worth of googling for ".pdf protect freeware" : http://www.sheelapps.com/ http://www.sheelapps.com/index.php?p=PDFTo...amp;action=view Another two for ".pdf encrypt freeware": http://pdfill.com/pdf_tools_free.html jaclaz

@dencorso The actual stance of people that posted on this board are as I see it: Lilas: do not know. Sfor: I know and it can be done ONLY through RAM booting. jaclaz: I know, it can be done ONLY through RAM booting and it's easy as it is already documented, an alternative could be a "splitted" RAM disk booting (hinted a possible way). dencorso: I know, it can be done through RAM booting and it's difficult, because one needs a "splitted" RAM disk booting approach, that I think it should work (described a possible way), I INSISTing that it is possible (through RAM booting) So, we are saying exactly the same things , with different degrees of optimism or pessimism and different ways to describe the solution, in a nutshell: 1) it is NOT possible without some form of RAM disk booting 2) it is possible with documented "integral" RAM disk booting 3) may work with some form of "splitted" RAM disk booting jaclaz

Happy problem was solved. jaclaz

Well, the idea of posting a link is that people should read what's in it. :whistling: http://www.msfn.org/board/BOOTINI-and-diff...ive-t25365.html Since you want to boot first partition on your second disk, the syntax is: multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(1)partition(1)\ if second drive is on the same controller or: multi(1)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\ if it's first disk on a second controller as CLEARLY mentioned in the said thread, with examples and links to the appropriate MS KB, best way is to add some lines to BOOT.INI and experiment with them. jaclaz

Cannot say. Best bet is chainloading a grub4dos bootsector (read a normal NTLDR one hexedited to GRLDR) from syslinux? Batch to create and edit bootsector invoked loader: http://www.boot-land.net/forums/?showtopic=2362 How to chainload a bootsector from syslinux: http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?sho...0806&st=228 jaclaz

Yep, which brings us exactly where Sfor left us: Since there are already a few ways to run Win9x in RAM, there is no need to discuss this at length, most links are in the "old" thread here: http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=12326 and on boot-land here: http://www.boot-land.net/forums/?showforum=53 Now, it would be interesting if we could use something similar to the "Xp Kansas city shuffle": http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?sho...c=21242&hl= to reduce the amount of data transferred between the USB stick and RAM or reduce Ramdisk size, though on modern machines a "huge" ramdisk of 64 or 128 Mb would be just a fraction of total RAM. In other words, can we find a minimal set of Win9x files (for example to be loaded through DOS-HMLOAD-grub4dos on internal grub4dos rd), "disconnect" the BIOS access to the USB stick then start loading a miniwindows from the rd and load the rest through Windows USB drivers? Any taker? jaclaz

I think there is some mixing of terms, lilas is referring to the Windows 9x drivers, i.e. the ones packed by Maximus Decim, while Chozo4 and dencorso are referring to DOS USB drivers. @dencorso Yep, it's pretty newish, here: http://www.computing.net/answers/dos/usbas...ased/16587.html jaclaz

Maybe not what you asked for, but you can try editing directly the Registry: http://www.pctools.com/guides/registry/detail/1007/ to flip the setting and this should restore the checkbox : http://www.softwaretipsandtricks.com/windo...f-it-is-Missing The above has been around from a lot before XP SP3, I doubt that it was caused by the SP3, but cannot say. jaclaz

There is a patch for Windows 3.1 here: http://wiki.fdos.org/Main/Windows http://www.fdos.org/kernel/test/ Since the install routine is actually a reduced windows 3.1 (mini.cab) it could work, maybe with a bit of tweaking. Some info is here: http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=16754 http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?sho...16754&st=43 Or are you meaning install (and run) Win9x on Freedos? jaclaz

Just for the record, there is a newish editor (still not with all the features I would like, but working really nicely) here: http://www.boot-land.net/forums/?showtopic=3960 which is very handy for .inf/.ini and .sif files. jaclaz

Start from here: http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=18846 jaclaz

FYI, some details on how NTLDR+BOOT.INI work are given here: http://www.msfn.org/board/Discovery-of-an-...0.html&st=2 Syntax of BOOT.INI: http://www.msfn.org/board/BOOTINI-and-diff...ive-t25365.html jaclaz

Just for the record, the reference thread is XP SP3 RC1 specific. nlite uses a different method, that was first "discovered" by Damian Bakowsky, was introduced to Fdv filesets, perfectioned for win2k, then made it's way into HFSLIP and nlite for XP: http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?sho...181&st=1111 Basically with this method you create an empty list of files to be checked, which equates to having nothing checked while having the WFP running "normally", some details are here: http://www.vorck.com/windows/2ksp5.html And here: http://www.msfn.org/board/re-enable-file-p...ion-t71256.html Cannot say whether WFPswitch.exe uses the same approach, here is it's homepage: http://www.techconnect.info/ http://www.tcmagazine.com/modules.php?modi...show&id=424 jaclaz

Don't take it the wrong way , but it seems to me that you simply ran the app without first trying to understand how it works and probably making a "wrong" choice somewhere during the building. Rather obviously the error from grub4dos is due to an incorrect format of the drive and/or to a wrong drive. I would suggest you to read attentively the help files then try again a new build, taking note of the choices you made exactly, and report them if the new build should not work as well. To insert a quote: Copy and paste in your post the text you want to quote. Select it. Press the small Icon with the small balloon, 9th button from left, on the line where b i u are. OR: Write: [quote] [/quote] and write your text in between, this: [quote]This is some quoted text[/quote] will result in: jaclaz

It is perfectly clear, thanks, when you quote, you should quote integrally: It's all a matter of definitions, I will call this (or whatever other project) Open Source only when and if it will be INTEGRALLY composed of Open Source components (and NO, Public Domain, Freeware, Freeware for personal use, freely available is NOT Open Source). This project, by your own definition, is aimed to "assemble" a number of alternative software to sustitute, replace or integrate original components, and needs to be run on a fullly licensed OS. Until even one single file will be under the MS license, this will not be Open Source, even if only 0,01% is from MS you need to have a valid (commercial) license to use it. All the point about Open Source is having the right to see what is inside the program you are going to compile and execute, and, if needed, modify it to suit your particular needs. The fact that most Open Source software is available for free is incidental, as well as the fact that generally, but not always, Open Source software is "better" than Commercial or more generally Closed Source one. So, I appreciate your effort, and as said partly agree with it's reasons and aims, but I like to call things with their names. jaclaz

Agreed. Actually it is MUCH different, as the scope is completely different. The idea here: http://www.jankie.net/soedesh/20.htm is very similar to PatchWorks one, i.e. re-creating an OS, though what this thread essentially represents is simply an attempt to updating/bettering of Win9x, not unlike much of the other projects here on MSFN with a similar scope and with a less deceiving title. The idea behind minibox is just that of creating a MINIMAL system to boot to and copy/move/rescue some files in a friendlier environment than pure DOS command line, using files included in any win9x install CD and freeware/public domain/open source alternatives for the original files from Win3.x, you could see it more as a very basic "Win 3.x/9.x BartPE" rescue bootdisc. There is NO ambition whatsoever to recreate a "real" operating system : http://www.boot-land.net/forums/?showtopic=623&st=6 Minibox needs NO additional files if a DOS box is not needed, and only 1 (one) file is missing: WIN386.EXE, if a DOS box is needed, a file, mind you, that it is composed by several "bricks" of which we already have a few. In other words currently to run a dos app you need to exit the GUI, run the command line utility from pure DOS, then re-start the GUI, a method that, though easily scriptable is FAR from being handy. :whistling: The fact that in two years: http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=16754 http://www.boot-land.net/forums/?showtopic=623 noone with the "right" knowledge came out with a solution should mean that the project, while being fun and useful to learn quite a lot of "old" tricks, has no future and a very limited "geekish" audience. jaclaz

Something that you may also want to try is to use memdisk instead of direct grub4dos mapping: http://www.boot-land.net/forums/?showtopic=3963 but if the program uses direct access of some kind, it won't work as well. jaclaz P.S.: by the way, what has this got to do with "Install XP from USB"?

The menu.lst must have a wrong entry. (fd0) means first floppy disk Try editing the menu.lst file and add this entry: title Start Windows Vista Installation setroot find --set-root /BOOTMGR chainloader /BOOTMGR Better yet, try this pre-made solution: http://www.msfn.org/board/Install-XP-from-USB-f157.html http://www.msfn.org/board/Install-Vista-fr...SB-t111506.html jaclaz

Is your post intended for visually impaired members? If not, you are (virtually) yelling! Why? jaclaz

Actually there is some mixing of terms/notions, BartPE is NOT XP, it is a Pre-install Environment BASED on XP (or Server 2003). Having a FULL (not PE) Windows 2K/XP/2003 from USB stick or USB HD is perfectly possible, once again after Microsoft denied that it could be : http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=14181 http://www.ngine.de/article/id/8/ http://www.usboot.org/tiki-index.php Vista based PE's, including MS's own WinPE 2.0 and the current "amateur" VistaPE project: http://www.vistape.net/ http://www.boot-land.net/forums/?showforum=51 have no problems in working from USB device. grub4dos, which is being actively developed ALREADY can do anything you may think of, and maybe something more, BOTH on CD and USB device: http://www.boot-land.net/forums/?showforum=71 http://www.boot-land.net/forums/?showforum=66 http://www.boot-land.net/forums/?showtopic=14&st=1 And yes, you are wrong , multibooting from a USB stick is perfectly possible: http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?sho...c=18846&hl= http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=20089 jaclaz

Happy to know it works. jaclaz

Another candidate: SVISTA (NO it is not a typo) Image tool: http://www.os2site.com/sw/apps/virtual/ http://www.os2site.com/sw/apps/virtual/it-svista.txt http://www.os2site.com/sw/apps/virtual/it-win-bin-1.1.zip jaclaz

I would try the 7403 at 1EE9 - 1EEA. Mind you, completely and utterly UNTESTED. jaclaz