Tripredacus

So is this the same argument from years ago why you weren't supposed to watch TV in the dark?

Post model of Asus tablet and model of wireless router.

It was already checked. I had not considered the NVRAM initially, I only knew about the descriptions in BCD. I knew in the one-time boot menu, the friendly name displayed there was "Windows Boot Manager" and knew that this was a value for {bootmgr} in BCD. So I had gone and changed that friendly name to what it was supposed to be (let's say "test" for these purposes), then rebooted and the one-time boot menu still showed Windows Boot Manager. This was confirmed on an additional run, of running BCDboot, then view UEFI Boot entries with BootIce, then run BCDEdit to change the name, reboot, run BootIce and it showed no change. I then changed the UEFI boot entry manually with BootIce, and then the name was correct in the boot menu. My project was to take an outdated imaging process, totally figure out what was being done and implement it into our existing system. The original process involved Ghost being used to write an MBR and set partition ID, then deploy a Windows DVD based install to a "disk" be able to hide it and get it to boot, etc. Changing what was deployed (booting WinPE instead of a WinPE ISO on SATA) was what allowed me to get rid of Ghost and the requirement of using the MBR. It seems like a short time to change my mind in a forum thread, but to be real I came into here to ask when I had no ideas left, and you know how that often works out. Not sure where the device name comes from. I'm sure it is enumerated by the board firmware itself. Every board gets that from somewhere, even if you boot a USB key on a board, in the boot menu it has some sort of name for it.

You are not really Windows Vista just as I am not really a group of ancient schemers.

The easiest way is for the client to not have an internet connection. I am not aware of an unattend setting for it specifically.

well, as I put "however my requirements have totally changed" Regarding your attachment, BCDBoot writes into the NVRAM as well as creating the BCD, which is a physical file on the disk. BCDEdit only makes changes to the BCD file, and does not make changes to the NVRAM. BCDBoot does not have (at least, documented) switches to write anything other than what it writes by default into the NVRAM. I have found that bcfg from EFI Shell can write/overwrite a friendly name on a boot entry, and remove the device designation. However this is an extra step and it would really be nice if it could be done in WinPE to save a few manual steps. https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Unified_Extensible_Firmware_Interface#bcfg

BCDboot, when used, writes two names by default. They are "Windows Boot Manager" and it writes it into the BCD file and into the NVRAM, which is what BootIce calls EFI Boot Entries. The different locations can show data in different places. In BCD, this is usually only visible if you have multiple boot entries and you have it set to show boot menu. The name of the OS "Windows Boot Manager" is the friendly name and you can use BCDEdit to change it to something nicer. The name in NVRAM is visible in a board's one-time boot menu, or in the boot order section in the "BIOS" setup. This is the name I need to change. This name can partially be changed with BootIce, using the manual steps. In this particular boot menu, it would appear as Windows Boot Manager [firmware device name] Whereas I can change the friendly name to anything, the "firmware device name" is basically what the motherboard shows the device it is sitting on as. Usually a hard drive model number, read during enumeration at POST. When Ghost was used, this entry in the boot menu would have just a name and no device. Doing it without Ghost will result in a boot entry similar to what is in the codebox. I will still look at the MBR of a disk after applying the Ghost image, perhaps that will be the way to solve this issue.

DD Release doesn't seem to work properly in WinPE. It just shows the copyright info in the CMD and doesn't return to a prompt or show error info, nor open a GUI of any sort. Bootice seems to work fine, however my requirements have totally changed. I no longer need to capture/write an MBR, instead now something to change EFI boot entries. Bootice can do this in the GUI but not in the cmdline. :\

What about this? http://www.winsetupfromusb.com/add-multiple-windows-nt6-vista-7-8-sources-ubuntu-usb-disk/

I may know of where this has shown up in television, not movies. In Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, there is an episode where Odo is with some people eating or drinking. And he makes a glass appear in his hand, and liquid in it. He can drink the liquid and refill the glass again at will. It is because he is a Founder / shapeshifter, his body is naturally a liquid. In this instance, the glass and the liquid are both part of his liquid body, so it is just for show and an attempt to appear more normal and fit in.

The usual culprit is that Windows only will look in the last dir it looked for a file, thus when installing anything that requires CD files, it constantly prompts for this. Files are in one of three places, so you constantly have to browse to the other folders to complete this operation. Windows 98 is the same way. Also the files it shows you it is looking for are sometimes (often?) either compressed or inside of a cab file. Unless you mean something else.

I'm working on a project to port an old deployment method to a new one and have run into an issue. The old method would put Windows install media in a single partition disk and boot from it. Ghost was used to put an MBR onto that disk. To eliminate Ghost I would need to recreate the situation without having the install media on the disk (I have an idea) or to get the MBR onto the disk using another method. Terabyte Unlimited's MBRWORK is 32bit only and does not work on modern WinPE. I have not tested their MBR.EXE yet but I am hoping that it will work. For that there is a 64bit binary available. What are some 64bit programs that can capture the MBR from a disk? Requirements are that the program be portable such as not require extra stuff like .net framework or whatever. If there is something different than MBR.EXE to apply MBR to a disk, in 64bit, same requirement but would require command line as well.

No links to whatever that ISO is.

Moved this honey pot back into the the Funny Farm.

UI should be second to the OS itself. That being said, MS should never have gotten around to making a new UI in Windows 8 or Windows 10.

I have read a couple people with Auzen card use this thing called X-Fi Mode Changer. It wasn't designed for your specific hardware or software. https://web.archive.org/web/20080721034415/http://www.freewebs.com/spectra9/xfmc.html

OK then you try to answer this weird question OP posted.

You'd have to look at the Effective Permissions tab to see exactly what rights it has.

I usually prefer to have the OS on a disk all by itself, and use separate disks for other things, rather than use partitions. For desktops anyways, for mobile computers I typically use them for specific purposes and generally have no use for large amount of programs and/or data storage.

Grant SYSTEM modify permissions on those keys.

I would guess, the server closes the connection, but the client doesn't check for the active connection and instead tries to continue issuing requests to it. I would suspect that the client would behave the same way with either the correct or incorrect OS. It might be conflicting information, typically a Socket Error is referring to network communication. A thread exit should give a different error... in the normal world. Since this error is coming from the software, we can't expect it to show exact information we would see from Windows. So the thought would be, what is different in the communication from the "working" and "non-working" installation? You'd have to do a Wireshark (or other network monitoring) capture on your interface during both operations, and compare them to see what might be different. You would think the request from the software would be different in each situation, as the remote server would not be able to make a determination about the client on its own. There is a problem with this approach however. Since it is a product under active support, the developers may not look kindly on this type of information being posted to the public internet.

Has there been any indication that Activation Servers have been disabled for any other products outside of Mac versions?

We can be assured that the laws of the USA (if not the world) are designed to aid current day business operations, and little care is given to "obsolete" products. I'm sure that Microsoft is aware there are sites all over the place with their old files on there and don't really do anything about it because it does not impact their current business. Certainly if we were talking about currently active/supported products it would be a different story. That isn't to say that it is a free pass on those types of things, because you don't get caught or are currrently ignored does not change the legality of it. But if Microsoft decided to go after such file repos, they would be well within their right to do so.

Please read the forum rules, including how to name topics.

I always found it is best to install Windows 10, especially the OOBE phase, with the computer disconnected from the internet.