jaclaz

At first sight, it seems NOT like a "good" done-from-scratch VISTA format, as the string "GRLDR" is present at offset 604. On the other hand, it seems like the string "BOOTMGR" is at offset 514 (where in the "old" bootsector NTLDR was). So, it seems that the previous: 000000512 05 00 4E 00 54 00 4C 00 44 00 52 00 04 00 24 00 ..N.T.L.D.R...$. 000000528 49 00 33 00 30 00 00 E0 00 00 00 30 00 00 00 00 I.3.0..à...0.... has become: Offset 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 00000512 07 00 42 00 4F 00 4F 00 54 00 4D 00 47 00 52 00 ..B.O.O.T.M.G.R. 00000528 04 00 24 00 49 00 33 00 30 00 00 E0 00 00 00 30 ..$.I.3.0..à...0 i.e. it seems like the bootloader name is "terminated" by a 04 00 24 00 49 00 33 00 30 00 00 E0 00 00 00 30 sequence. If this is confirmed, this would open the possibility of overcoming the current "5 letter length" limit for the name of the loader in the MakeBS batch. The leading "05" in my example above comes from a NTFS sector done under Windows 2000, the new "07" is Vista, would it be possible that a XP NTFS bootsector has "06"? Iìll need to do some tests... jaclaz

I would check for the existing of D:\nul.ext : http://msmvps.com/blogs/martinzugec/archiv...-same-name.aspx http://xset.tripod.com/tip5.htm it works with mounted drives too. However, as always best method is Yzöwl's one, I may add that what I would do is to also try "probing" destination drive, using a "tagfile" like in: @ECHO OFF IF %1.==. ECHO NO PARAMETER SUPPLIED&GOTO :EOF SET Targetdrive=%1 ECHO tagfile > %~d0\tagfile.tag copy /y %~d0\tagfile.tag %~d1>nul 2>&1 IF %ERRORLEVEL% NEQ 0 ( ECHO ERROR DRIVE %~d1 NOT RESPONDING, ERROR! ) ELSE ( ECHO ERROR DRIVE %~d1 IS RESPONDING, OK! ) IF EXIST %~d1\tagfile.tag del %~d1\tagfile.tag IF EXIST %~d0\tagfile.tag del %~d0\tagfile.tag (this example must be run from a R/W enabled drive ) jaclaz

To try and bring it back to topic , are we not talking of EWF ? The idea of preventing writes to system volume on a CF card it does reminds me of the S.Fiorito experiences: http://web.archive.org/web/20061115014814/.../eXPinstall.htm jaclaz

Having just recently increased the length (for the record from 5' to 7 1/2' ) of the stick with which I won't touch Vista , I have no idea how a VISTA-made NTFS bootsector invokes bootmgr. If anyone is kind enough to post or however send me a complete NTFS bootsector (8.192 bytes) made natively under VISTA, I will gladly try and find the differences as compared to a normal 2K/XP-made one and hopefully find a way to avoid the renaming of bootmgr. jaclaz

Thanks Zxian, it's a honour being part of the "developers" in such a high level technical board as MSFN is , though it does sound a bit funny, considering that ALL my developing is limited to some small batch files. Moreover, there was a time when I thought to be a good batch programmer, then I saw here some of the work by Yzöwl and understood how much I still needed to learn. jaclaz

You need to search into Mdgx's Update/Patches thread: http://www.msfn.org/board/98-FE-98-SE-upda...xes-t46581.html Start here: http://www.msfn.org/board/98-FE-98-SE-upda...html&st=300 jaclaz

Thanks for clarifying. Still not exactly the needed app, but maybe of interest: http://www.roggel.com/NGNeer/BackgroundCMD/index.shtml UNLIKE the "DOS Here" registry trick, this one is a .dll that opens a CMD prompt IN current OPENED folder, VERY,VERY handier! And after much searching, most probably Console could be the solution, with a bit of tweaking version 1.5 beta can be set in very convenient ways: http://sourceforge.net/projects/console/ Version 2 has many added features, all nice, but maybe too much of them. jaclaz

Besides the small contributions by yours truly (jaclaz), which mostly tried to put together some "loose ends" and ideas developed by other people and found anywhere on the 'net, and supplied a couple of his "quick and dirty" batch scripts, this project has come to life as a group effort to which many members partecipated. Although the "main" authors are: ilko_t and wimb this project would never have seen the light without (in chronological order): the precious and sometimes vital contributions by : porear for believing in this and for the initial testing and troubleshooting cdob for sharing his knowledge on NT based systems and providing key ideas Anton Bassov for kindly adapting his dummydisk.sys driver to rdummy.sys and minor, but still important suggestions/hints/feedback by: AlexTitov silacomalley lilas effgee signal64 and all other people who supported the project by posting on the thread their "thank you". (should I have forgotten anyone by accident, please PM me and i'll fix the list) jaclaz

UPDATE! In one of the fastest and swiftest move I've ever witnessed , THERE IS NOW A NEW SUB-FORUM DEDICATED TO THIS PROJECT Here: http://www.msfn.org/board/Install-XP-USB-f157.html Please, from now on, leave this thread, which will be maintained for historical reasons, alone and start posting on the new subforum. jaclaz

Thanks to you and XPer and Martin L. jaclaz

Most probably NOT the answer you seek, but did you try a "universal" boot disk, like this very good one: http://www.netbootdisk.com/ This usually covers 99% of NIC's jaclaz

@djzn Being actually more like a "Win2k-guy" I do not feel offended at all , but, if I may, you started the question in a rather "queer" way. Actual question "should" have been: And I actually gave you the answer to that question. Your post sounded more something like: And, as I see it, this is not the most "friendly" way to access a technical board. You see, it is quite normal that posting a question on a technical board will produce a number of "wrong" or "out of topic" replies, but a good alternative exists, called "Technical Consultant". Unfortunately it has the slight drawback that it costs some $50 per hour or per call, but since you pay for it, you are allowed, within limits, to ask for ONLY the exact answers you want to hear. The main thing on a board like this is in my opinion to exchange ideas and informations, and possibly have fun while doing it, and a more "plain" approach surely helps. jaclaz

[begin sarcasm] Of course not. We like to suggest random and senseless ideas and see if other members actually have the guts to try them and mess up their systems. [end sarcasm] jaclaz

@lqs_lfzz Interesting. Just a "general" question, is there any difference between %windir% and %SystemRoot% (which is normally used in this kind of things)? BTW one could also add the "DosHere" to Drive and Directory objects: Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00 [HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\Drive\shell] @="none" [HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\Drive\shell\DosHere] @="DOS &Prompt Here" [HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\Drive\shell\DosHere\command] @=hex(2):25,00,53,00,79,00,73,00,74,00,65,00,6d,00,52,00,6f,00,6f,00,74,00,25,\ 00,5c,00,53,00,79,00,73,00,74,00,65,00,6d,00,33,00,32,00,5c,00,63,00,6d,00,\ 64,00,2e,00,65,00,78,00,65,00,20,00,2f,00,6b,00,20,00,70,00,75,00,73,00,68,\ 00,64,00,20,00,25,00,31,00,00,00 [HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\Directory\shell] @="none" [HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\Directory\shell\DosHere] @="DOS &Prompt Here" [HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\Directory\shell\DosHere\command] @=hex(2):25,00,53,00,79,00,73,00,74,00,65,00,6d,00,52,00,6f,00,6f,00,74,00,25,\ 00,5c,00,53,00,79,00,73,00,74,00,65,00,6d,00,33,00,32,00,5c,00,63,00,6d,00,\ 64,00,2e,00,65,00,78,00,65,00,20,00,2f,00,6b,00,20,00,70,00,75,00,73,00,68,\ 00,64,00,20,00,25,00,31,00,00,00 (i.e. %SystemRoot%\System32\cmd.exe /k pushd %1) @Leeoniya I am also right now searching for something like it. The "closest" I found to what we both are looking for is this thingy here: http://www.koma-code.de/index.php?option=c...8&Itemid=88 I'll let you know if I find something else. jaclaz

On the contrary, I was commenting EXACTLY the tone he used and the extreme lack of any kind of gracefulness in the posts this guy made. Noone is required to read the entire thread, everyone is kindly asked to act politely, and give the required info to: 1) make us be able to help him/her 2) possibly find and fix any flaw in the procedure (for everyone) That's the whole idea of developing and beta testing something, interactive feedback until problem is solved. I tried to somehow "code" this in "Common Sense Advice" given here: http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?act=boardrules but more generally the idea is that you shouldn't ever post on a board something that, if said in "real life", as an example at the pub, would probably get you a punch in the mouth. Now, is this way (posting on a single thread on a board) the ideal situation for developing an app and to support it? Surely not, it would be much better if this thingy here had it's own Homepage, Online Help and dedicated Forum, but life is tough, you have to live with some shortcomings. The good news is that, little by little and thanks to the efforts of wimb and the cooperation of several users, there is some help and usability and dependability has vastly increased. Maybe it's time to ask some Admin/Mods of MSFN if they think this project be worth it's own sub-forum in "Member Contributed Projects", or in "Member Contributed Projects\Other Member Contributed Projects"; that would surely better the quality of the support. jaclaz

Imgburn CAN burn Images OR files: http://www.imgburn.com/ http://www.imgburn.com/index.php?act=screenshots#isobuild http://www.imgburn.com/index.php?act=screenshots#isowrite jaclaz

Actually the exact opposite of what you're asking, but maybe interesting as well: http://www.grc.com/unpnp/unpnp.htm If you still want to go ahead: http://www.msfn.org/board/Hotfixes-Remaini....html&st=10 http://www.jaredjacobs.com/upnp/index.html jaclaz

If I may, it seems to me that there are some serious problems with the "attitude" of the Company. I seem not able to find ANY reference to the GNU license, not to sources, it is of course very possible that, notwithstanding the fact that it is Linux based, EVERYTHING they provide is their own independent work, but since they also provide a Linux based "Live CD", they must at least provide the sources for that part AND the GNU license. The "general" License Agreement is here: http://userful.com/download/eula/ I have rarely seen such a restrictive EULA, between other things : And just for a quick laugh, compare this Copyright statement: http://userful.com/about/terms to this one: http://support.userful.com/wiki/index.php/Copyright Should I have to publicly "state" that I'm considering purchasing a Userful product to be legally allowed to print this: http://support.userful.com/wiki/index.php/...board_USB_ports I hope that quoting it on a board is not illegal... jaclaz

ANY windows NT based system has problems if a motherboard replacement is carried on WITHOUT using the PROPER procedure: http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/moving_xp.html XP and 2003 are equally "sensible" to this. 2000 is a bit less, and NT 4.00 is yet a bit less. There are minor differences related to Licenses and OEM discs, but nothing really substantial. There are no compromises on this, you either follow the procedure or system won't boot. (and yes, I know all the above for a fact ) jaclaz

Somehow you are missing a needed font. It is of course a bit of time I had a W95 system , but if (as it generally happens) things have not changed that much in later release that should be marlett.ttf. But, as it happened to me just a few days ago working on a seemingly completely unrelated thing: http://www.boot-land.net/forums/XPSP1-with...0-MB-t3717.html if I added marlett.ttf but not tahoma.ttf I had a similar effect to the one you describe. You should try and re-add these two fonts and possibly check if anything else has "gone astray" in the Registry related to fonts. jaclaz

Or you could simply READ the threads linked to, particularly: http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?sho...16381&st=18 These are TEXT files you can make with Notepad: WIN51IP.SP2 should be generated by the slipstreaming process, if it's not, simply make a copy of WIN51IP.SP1 and rename it to WIN51IP.SP2 (that's the idea of giving links) On the other threads are infos on what to change to move them from ROOT of the CD. jaclaz

jeepnut, I replied to your OTHER post here: http://www.msfn.org/board/XP-SP2-bootable-...ve-t111302.html Please note that this thread is 6 (SIX) years old. It would be appreciated if you avoid double posting (Rule #2.a): http://www.msfn.org/board/Forum-Rules-Upda...ead-t18408.html and also bumping old threads without a very good reason is usually not highly considered on technical boards. jaclaz

Usually that error is caused by missing tag or "ident" files. See these: http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=16381 http://www.msfn.org/board/Edit-txtsetupsif...N51-t65541.html http://www.msfn.org/board/multiboot-nlite-t99385.html jaclaz

@perlabsrat At the moment there is NO known way to boot a NT based system off an image file. The only workaround is Ramdisk booting, do read this: http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?...=2692&st=26 Also, this thread is over TWO YEARS old, in these cases it is better to start a new thread instead of "bumping" the old one, if the original poster did not post the code in two years, it is unlikely that he will fulfill (or even read) your request. jaclaz

Sure. I guess the best thing you can do is to use grub4dos' grldr. Change (hexedit) the bootsector to invoke grldr and then put in menu.lst a provision for booting the standard loader on the stick or the one on hard disk. Or use spacesurfer trick of renaming grldr to bootmgr http://www.msfn.org/board/Multiboot-Vista-...enu-t95537.html jaclaz