jaclaz

You can have only one entry in BOOT.INI like (if I remember correctly two of them will "confuse" the loader): C:\grldr.mbr="Grub4Dos" then an entry like this: Default=C:\grldr.mbr will work. Also, if you want to get grub4dos as default, you can change the invoked loader in the bootsector of the active partition to GRLDR: http://www.boot-land.net/forums/?showtopic=2362 and then add to grub4dos menu.lst an entry chainloading NTLDR. jaclaz

My first advice would be to give the customer the telephone number of the Symantec Support. My second one would be to behave like plumbers do since the dawn of time: http://www.cascademech.com/Larson-EarlyPlumbing.jpg and start working on the solution. And yes, I would (temporarily) remove complete the Norton System Protection, and reinstall the drivers. It is however queer that the machine started "acting" when you did something else (on the printer side), so it is may possible that there is some connection to that as well. jaclaz

I guess everyone is free to change his/her mind: Though I do understand the base reasons behind the idea, and partially agree with it, I cannot see any progress. I mean, when this thread started: it was more than two years ago, if there was any real interest in this, someone would have taken the challenge, or patchworks could have well learned how to write a program . So, I am a pragmatist, but all this represents, in my opinion, some very good intentions , but very few facts, just a way to spend some time exchanging ideas on Operating System, how they are and how they should be. Believe me, I don't want to put anyone down , but I really cannot see any actual results of threads like this or this other one: http://www.msfn.org/board/UniATA-9x-ME-port-t114217.html exception made for some discussions, just for the sake of it . jaclaz

It's a pleasure to see a grateful and happy "customer". It may, or it may NOT be possible, see this thread: http://www.msfn.org/board/Substitute-unatt...if-t113217.html RE-re-read the documentation, do browse the "historical" thread: http://www.msfn.org/board/boot-install-USB...84.html&hl= feel free to suggest enhancement and clarifications to the docs, none of the partecipating members are mother tongue English, and maybe some ideas/info that came out during the development of the method are given as implied, so it is very possible that the readme.txt can be greatly improved. jaclaz

I already replied you on the other thread: http://www.msfn.org/board/Install-Multiple...ve-t114523.html there is NO need to DOUBLE POST. Read Rules: http://www.msfn.org/board/Forum-Rules-Upda...ead-t18408.html (bolding is mine) I pointed you here to make you read what is already done, and to give you a starting point, I don't think anyone is going to do your homework, as said, start with the known-to-be-working method: http://www.msfn.org/board/install-XP-USB-t111406.html http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=20089 (just one flavour of XP install), add a PE, when you have ONE install working, try with a second one. Always do one thing at the time, otherways it will be impossible to troubleshoot the problems. jaclaz

Hmmm, wrong method. Next time you should remember to partition the drive properly: http://members.aol.com/spoons1000/break/ jaclaz

Start from here: http://www.msfn.org/board/Install-XP-USB-f157.html (Use grub4dos instead of bcdw) Start first with plain project, test it, then add another item.... Edit setupldr.bin: http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?sho...c=21312&hl= jaclaz

Gantlett, take a deep breath. Noone is accusing you of using illegally XP. Everyone is accusing you to use nlite illegally. The license of nlite seems clear enough to me: http://www.msfn.org/board/usb-drivers-prob...te-t112812.html Which is the part that you do not understand?: Are you using nlite in any company or business purpose? If yes, you are using it illegally. Although I don't think that you will be prosecuted or sued for this, this is non-ethical, unfair and overall against netiquette and the scope of this board. Besides, you are clearly breaking rules of the board, by needlessly attacking another member : jaclaz

Yes, the point is that you will need to use only the "root" directory. I mean, say that there is a way to "join" virtually these several harddisks, if you have a file "test.txt" on hard disk #1 in folder "\mytest" harddisk, you can have as well the same file "test.txt" on hard disk #1 or on hard disk #2 in folder "\my_test". Now, if you use 2K/XP there is also software RAID: http://www.msfn.org/board/before-t52012.html http://www.techimo.com/articles/index.pl?photo=149 http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?...kb;en-us;308424 http://www.articles-database.com/viewartic...?articleid=4060 What you are trying to achieve can be done setting up Dynamic disks as spanned volumes, but that won't help about duplicate files in different folders. jaclaz

Here: http://cygutils.fruitbat.org/consize/ jaclaz

If you have a Windows 95 or 98 (not sure about ME) you can re-build a minimal (Standard mode only) Win3.x, using some base files included in the Win9x release, alternative freeware, and freely available patches from MS. It is NOT the "real" thing, but enough for some experiments. Read these: http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=16754 http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=623 jaclaz

Yes, you can. You can use grub4dos to "exchange" floppies. Example (to be TESTED): title Flip floppies and boot from B: map --mem (fd0)/Floppy.img.gz (fd1) map (fd0) (fd1) map (fd1) (fd0) map --hook root (fd0) chainloader /IO.SYS or something like that. Get latest grub4dos here: http://grub4dos.jot.com/WikiHome Browse here: http://www.boot-land.net/forums/Grub4dos-f66.html Start from this one: http://www.boot-land.net/forums/Jaclaz-A-F...mine-t3963.html jaclaz

Can you tell us more on what you want to achieve? The common way to do that is to use a duplicate finder to "clean" the base: http://www.filetransit.com/freeware.php?name=Duplicate_File and then use a backup or a "sync" program. Maybe something like this: http://www.flexense.com/flextk/ will do. jaclaz

Try analyzing it here: http://www.hijackthis.de/ jaclaz

Comeon, stop the whining , get the WAIK, a HUGE download: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details...;displaylang=en And optionally, a GUI tool: http://www.msfn.org/board/GImageX-v201-Bet...UI-t108083.html http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=3001 jaclaz

That's queer, I have never seen a VIA EPIA motherboard not being able to boot from USB. Or is it one of those third-party motherboards that use VIA C3? What BIOS (Award or Ami) and version do the machines have? jaclaz

There is my alternative take on the problem: http://www.boot-land.net/forums/DOCX-conve...more-t3378.html Basically telling people to use NOT proprietary formats, if they want to "talk" with me. jaclaz

NO, there is NO law against writing a program able to read and write a "patented" filesystem, on the contrary, the recent EU anti-trust sentence states exactly the opposite, the more methods to access a given protocol the better. Point is whether Microsoft is entitled to require a fee for USING the "patented" filesystem. The validity of the patent has been denied in Germany: http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS9467496750.html which will be most probably provoke it to be judged NOT VALID in all the EU. As everyone knows, the release of the patent by the US office has been MUCH controversial: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/04/15/fat_patent_review/ http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/01/11/...tpatents_1.html I find the idea of asking a fee to software producers absolutely queer, but, should the patent be proved to be valid, asking the fee for hardware items sold pre-formatted as FAT (like USB sticks, MP2 players or the like) might have it's merit. jaclaz

...thus OVERWRITING the old ones.... if this is the case, files may be gone forever... jaclaz

[maybe off-topic] I guess that we can anyway agree that between NT4.00 (without explorer) and Vista there is a x10 factor. That should mean that having (instead of the 64 Mb of RAM that made a NT 4.00 machine decently running), 640 Mb on a Vista machine, would make it as well decently running, but actually 1 Gb is what I see as the bare minimum to run Vista (almost, but not quite, unlike ) decently. A "bare" NT 4.00 would fit on a 100 Mb Iomega zip, if I remember correctly a "standard" install was about 150 Mb, 2K about 600 Mb, XP around 1.5 Gb. Now, a "standard" Vista install is about 5Gb, with a multiplying factor of x33! And all "newish" apps tend to be larger and larger. So, besides the sheer memory requirements/occupation, I would like to see how the peaks go when doing on the two systems comparable everyday tasks like: checking e-mail writing a letter using a spreadsheet to check your bank account balance save some data on a CDR Everyone has his theory, mine is that the key to swift computing is to downgrade, i.e. using yesterday software on today's hardware, as Microsoft have this tendency to add lots of (nice, mind you ) "bell and whistles" to their software in such a way that at the time of it's release it will behave "fast" only on existing "top grade" (read MUCH expensive) hardware. [end possible off-topic] jaclaz

Nothing connected with downgrade rights. You might have heard that you need a valid license for each installed/running Operating System, though. jaclaz

Here: http://www.reasonco.com/vista/vistadowngraderights.htm http://download.microsoft.com/download/d/2...grade_chart.doc http://forums.microsoft.com/genuine/showpo...6&siteid=25 jaclaz

Yep, what I meant was that "re-writing" a 9x driver from a NT kernel source, is not "porting" something, us re-writing it and there are very few people with the right knowledge for doing such a difficult task, the only ones I know are exactly Alter (main author of UNIATA) and bearwindows/KtP (Author of UNIVBE), besides some of the good guys at ReactOS/Tinykrnl, which are definitely not interested in 9x/Me. More generally, testing and using a read/write disk driver is VERY, VERY dangerous (much more than a video one). So I think we have to wait for Alter to succeed in the items listed before 9x/Me support: jaclaz

Well, no, I am afraid you are presuming wrong. Most probably the first partition data (and structure) is beyond recovery, maybe the logical one can be fully recovered. You can nonetheless have a try with TESTDISK: http://www.cgsecurity.org/wiki/TestDisk and/or with Tokiwa Partition Recovery: http://tokiwa.qee.jp/EN/PartitionRecovery and/or ScroungeNTFS: http://memberwebs.com/nielsen/software/scrounge/ But most probably you will need a file based (as opposed to partition based) recovery program, the good news is that only a very little amount of files can be deleted in a few seconds, so most of the data should be recoverable. Among the Freeware ones I can recommend PHOTOREC (same author as TESTDISK). Read also this: http://www.msfn.org/board/Data-recovery-tool-t84345.html http://www.msfn.org/board/Data-recovery-to...5.html&st=7 jaclaz

You don't need "specific" drivers under 2K/XP, they are built into system. Just format it again from Windows XP, it is possible that gparted partitioned/formatted it with "wrong" or however "wrong for XP" partition data/bootsector data. If it still does not work, use the HP formatting tool, see FAQ #4 here: http://home.graffiti.net/jaclaz:graffiti.n...SB/USBfaqs.html Independently from the fact that it will also be made bootable, the stick will be partitioned/formatted properly (single partitions). If you need two or more partitions on it, you will need to install a filter driver (either Hitachi Microdrive Filter cfadisk.sys or Anton Bassov's dummydisk.sys), otherwise only first partition will be visible/accessible from XP. jaclaz