jaclaz

Well, English is such a difficult language, as I read (and write) it the sentence: is a "comparative sentence", rather than an "opinion sentence", reference: http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1148...CFTOKEN=6184618 The above is a comparation between: a previous common situation (FAT16 with large cluster size and OS with hundreds of very small files) and a common current situation (NTFS with 512 byte cluster size and OS with smaller number of files relatively big) that does not mean that there is no need for defragmentation, nor that having a good (or better)defragmenter is a bad thing, only that there is less need to defragment as often as it was necessary with other OS and filesystems, or to be even more exact that it is less imperative to do it, intended as meaning #4 here: http://www.bartleby.com/61/63/I0056300.html And of course this applies to average use of the PC, it is quite obvious that a PC used as Web server has different needs than a gaming station or than an Internet Cafè PC. jaclaz

Leo128, I see this is your first post, so welcome. the one about the Eula (license) should be this: and the one about user/Org should be this: And they seem right in your posted list. You really should use the search function of the board however, check info posted here: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=35349 http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=40303 It is possible that you are using an "OEM" version rather that a "Full" one, see these: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?s=&amp...st&p=157482 http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=21230 jaclaz

There are several ones, the easiest is to use a "PDF printer" app: http://www.go2pdf.com/product.html http://www.pdf995.com/ http://www.primopdf.com/ are just three of them, but of course you will need either Word or Word viewer, or any compatible app, like OpenOffice.org. Or maybe what you need is more along the lines of this: http://www.nativewinds.montana.com/software/tpdfplus.html jaclaz

Well, I guess that a real "scientifically" sound comparison test would be needed, user "feeling" may not be a valid parameter IMHO disk fragmentation tends to be smaller lately, mainly for two reasons, superior NTFS capabilities in handling files: http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/file/ntfs/relFrag-c.html and average single file bigger size. Thus defragging a hard disk often is not as imperative as it used to be. However, there are also many freeware/low cost alternatives, I'll list those I know of: http://www.dirms.com/ (Dirms and buzzsaw, defraggers) http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sysintern...ies/Contig.mspx (single file defragmenter) http://www.excessive-software.eu.tt/ (GUI for Contig) http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sysintern...PageDefrag.mspx (pagefile defragmenter) http://www.vcsoftwares.com/SpeeDefrag.html (another approach to speed up standard defrag) http://www.auslogics.com/disk-defrag/index.php (defragger) http://defragmentor.com/dmlcl/en/home.asp (CL file defragger) http://www.flexomizer.com/PermaLink,guid,c...2145cc1957.aspx (defragger) http://www.kessels.com/defrag/index.html (defragger) http://www.iobit.com/SmartDefrag/index.html (defragger) http://free.pages.at/blumetools/toolsen.html (defragger) Some other similar or related tools: http://www.unitypro.com/diskidleoptimizer.htm (not a defragmenter, but nonetheless useful) http://www.larshederer.homepage.t-online.de/erunt/ (Registry defragger) http://www.registry-clean.net/free-registry-defrag.htm (Registry defragger) http://www.download.com/WinASO-RegDefrag/3...&tag=button (Registry defragger) (Registry defragger) Of the "Commercial" ones, I have found very good opinions on the somewhat less known MST one: http://www.mstsoftware.com/c_mst_defrag_we_mx2.aspx (but never had an occasion to test it) jaclaz

If anyone is interested in more "NORTON RANTS", here is a good place to go: http://www.computergripes.com/symantec.html http://www.computergripes.com/nortonantivirus2005.html jaclaz

I'tell you how I manage that problem, my way is not necessarily the one you want or the best one. I use Grub4DOS as a boot manager. Read this: http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?sho...c=18045&hl= AND search on the 911cd forums for threads with "Grub4DOS", AND read them. Basically I boot from the stick into grldr and have a menu.lst similar to the one posted here: http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?s=&...st&p=118196 of which the relevant part is: Latest version of Grub4DOS is here: http://grub4dos.jot.com/WikiHome jaclaz

You should try using the syntax posted here: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=77526&hl= using the /makelocalsource should be the "missing" step. jaclaz

Cannot really say, but that error should come out if the "root" files on CD are not found:WIN51 WIN51IP WIN51IP.SP1 WIN51IP.SP2 See these threads here: http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=16381 http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?sho...c=17425&hl= Putting those files in the root of the stick should make no harm. No, it should not be needed to hexedit SETUPLDR.BIN, but is it possible that the version you are using has a CHECKSUM ? : http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=58410&st=0 jaclaz

Maybe this is useful for tweaking/modifying VMM32.VXD: http://www.tbcnet.com/~clive/vcomwinp.html#VXDLIB jaclaz

jaclaz

Look here: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=81537 http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=81788 jaclaz

...but maybe you can re-create a CD from the files you already have: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=63258 http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=83998 http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=16381 jaclaz

hmmm, it looks like I missed most of the fun... jaclaz

Yep, as long as it is a "real" coke, as john newbigin put it: http://uranus.it.swin.edu.au/~jn/coke.htm B) jaclaz

Can you be more specific? Look at the link I posted in reply on the other thread: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showto...85729&st=15 The general reference for everything MBR/Bootsector related is the Starman's realm: http://thestarman.pcministry.com/ Some info on geometry and bootsectors can be found on my page: http://home.graffiti.net/jaclaz:graffiti.n...B/USBstick.html jaclaz

It is possible that it is a kind of hard disk emulation. There are THREE ways to make bootable .ISO 1) El-Torito or "floppy emulation" mode, where you use a floppy image emulation of either a 1.44 or 2.88 Mb floppy 2) The no-emulation mode, where you use a "special" bootrecord, like Win2K/XP original install 3) The "Hard disk" emulation mode, where you use a hard disk emulation mode I have not have that product, but all reference indicates that everything is in the boot file, see this:http://www.bootcd.us/BartPE_Plugin_Details/326/ It is possible that Acronis uses some undocumented format, the feature to open it has been added to UltraISO just a few weeks ago: http://www.ezbsystems.com/ultraiso/history.htm jaclaz

@All FYI, what I have ALWAYS done since the times of dual booting MS-DOS 6.22 and Windows NT4 is to follow the (good) advice from Gilles Vollant, the author of Winimage and Bootpart, i.e. to always make a SMALL FAT16 Primary partition at the beginning of each drive, this partition can be as small as a few Megabytes, all you need to have in it is: NTLDR NTDETECT.COM BOOT.INI IO.SYS MSDOS.SYS COMMAND.COM AUTOEXEC.BAT CONFIG.SYS and all the DOS utilities one might need. Of course the DOS files can be of the release that better suite you, nowadays 7.1 (Win98) or 8.0 (ME/XP). With today's large hard disks, space taken is not really a problem, so lately I typically make this partition a little less than 1 Gbyte, as to have still a sufficiently efficient FAT16 filesystem and with enough space to install if needed a copy of Win2K or "reduced" XP for emergency purposes. I do that on ALL drives, regardless if they will be first or second hard disks. Then ALL operating systems go into their own Logical Volume inside extended partition, as said installing NT based systems into logical volumes is "normal", as well as any kind of Linux (yes, though a bit tricky Win98 CAN be installed on a Logical partition). On drives that go as 2nd or 3rd, I simply hide the first (and only) Primary partition by setting it's identity in the Partition Table as 16 (Hidden DOS 16-bit FAT >=32M) instead of 06 (DOS 3.31+ 16-bit FAT >=32M). If I have the need to use a hard disk that was set as 2nd or 3rd, as the 1st one, I simply unhide the Primary Partition wgen booted from the other system or from a floppy and it is already bootable to DOS. As said here: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showto...mp;#entry233078 using Logical Volumes is in my opinion also a bit safer. Since I found out about Grub4Dos, that can hide and unhide partitions at boot time and that can boot most operating systems by directly chainloading bootfiles rather than bootsectors, I don't even need any external program ike XFDISK. @Petr FYI, it is also possible to actually BOOT from a logical volume inside Extended partition, if you correct the "hidden sectors" value in first sector (boot record) of the volume. More info here: http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?sho...=17144&st=0 Depending on OS, your mileage may vary. jaclaz

Just out of curiosity, WHICH "terms of use", and HOW can you be "pretty sure"? jaclaz

@bledd No, rest assured, nothing personal or against anyone in particular, just expressing my feelings about recent experiences on the forii. (please, do notice the elegance of the Latin form of the plural ) jaclaz

No, it does not, it is a (enhanced) version of FDISK, with a GNU license. @Petr VERY good work , downloading file and bookmarking this and Mdgx link, thanks! I don't understand however the problem about the it is covered by "standard" GNU GPL, of which this should be the interesting part: There is no need to "ask for permission" to anybody, but you MUST cite original author, give the source code of your modifications and keep the "Open source" license. jaclaz

And before anyone says: Here is the reason why it is better to use nul.ext: http://xset.tripod.com/tip5.htm jaclaz

Yep , as Douglas Adams put it: but on the other hand, curiosity is what keeps people alive: and as mr. De La Palice http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_de_la_Palice death must found one alive! jaclaz

If you are referring to the "boot install from USB", as said: I won't do it all by myself, besides the reasons expressed in the referenced post because: 1) Generally speaking, I tend to be really lazy if not adequately stimulated and supported 2) From experience coming from previously written tutorials I tend to be either extremely verbose, boring to death people who already have a good knowledge of the working of Operating Systems, or too much concise, assuming as obvious and thus omitting intermediate steps, creating "blanks" that a newbie won't be able to fill in by himself If you are referring to the "boot XP from USB stick", the matter is not yet enough consolidated, some new ideas come out of that thread on a daily or weekly base and though there are in this moment several tutorials, check this: http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?sho...181&st=1988 noone yet has proven to be the "universal" solution one would expect Besides, I lack at the moment the time to perform alone such a task, being involved in several other projects, that have a higher priority in my mental schedule, like the evolution of Grub4dos and Openbuilder and this one: http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?sho...view=getnewpost and [sTART RANT] I have lately found that the amount of "leechers" between members, both here and on the 911CD forum is increasing or however so it is the lack of appropriate reports and feedback from people. On a project like this where most of the "tricky" part is supporting and testing on different hardware, reports and feedback, besides (possibly constructive) criticism, is essential. [/END RANT] jaclaz

With all due respect to Petr and all others, the topic has already been "talked to death" in the threads I referenced in my previous post, in which you can find links to the MS knowledge article for DOS lettering: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/51978/en-us that remains the same also for DOS 7.1 (Win98) The idea of having multiple primary partitions did not even "touch" the minds of MS programmers at the time, and this is why the original fdisk won't allow the making of any primary partitions besides first one. Starting from NT, the possibility of having multiple primary partitions was taken into account, and lettering works as detailed here: http://www.jsifaq.com:80/SF/Tips/Tip.aspx?id=0288 http://www.dewassoc.com/support/win2000/driveletters.htm Due to the different way letters are assigned, the possibility of creating a "tower of babel" in drive lettering when dual-booting between DOS/WIN98 and NT/2K/XP is concrete if you have multiple primary partitions with filesystems recognized by DOS/WIN98. Finally, with XP there is also this possible (though not really common) problem: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?...kb;en-us;307079 I completely fail to see the reason of the need of having TWO extended partitions on the same disk, and thus increasing the complexity of the problem. Can someone explain WHY one should want such a setup? jaclaz

No prob, Jeremy, it happens from time to time to all people. jaclaz