edborg Posted June 30, 2014 Author Share Posted June 30, 2014 (edited) Why 0, 1, 2, 4? Grub4dos numbers partitions as follows:1st partition (meaning Primary partition in first "slot" in partition table) (hdn, 0)2nd partition (meaning Primary partition in second "slot" in partition table) (hdn, 1)3rd partition (meaning Primary partition in third "slot" in partition table) (hdn, 2)4th partition (meaning Primary partition in fourth "slot" in partition table) (hdn, 3) Any Extended partition (NO matter in which slot in partition table is) is NOT numbered (as a matter of fact it is not a "real partition/volume", it is a container for volumes). The volumes inside extended partitions are numbered (hdn,4), (hdn,5) ... etc. following their order in the EMBR's chain. If you prefer, in a MBR you can have either max 4 primary partitions or max 3 primaries and one Extended, the Primaries (please read as "volumes" are numbered 0,1,2,3 according to the entry they occupy in the MBR, the Extended (which is not a "volume) will NOT be numbered and the first volume in Extended will always be #4 (no matter how many primary partitions are in th epartition table) When you run the geometry command grub4dos tries to read (and verify consistency) of all volumes, so (because of the LBA28/48 issue) it will analyze (without errors) *anything* below the limit and throw an error about *anything* (i.e. including logical volumes inside extended) beyond that limit. jaclaz OK, not an error then, even if it looked strange at first sight.Actually I can't have (hdn,3) if I have an extended partition. But what about the risk of loosing data in the logical partitions?My reasoning is that BIOS only has to access primary partitions, if they are bootable. If these are all inside the 128 GB limit even a limited BIOS (not LBA48) won't make confusion.On the other hand, after booting the OS will take control and, provided it is LBA48 compliant (and even XP SP1+ is), it won't make confusion either. So it should be safe.But this is theory.How you once said in theory there'e no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is (or something like that) edborg Right now I'm keeping fingers crossed as I'm reinstalling Win8.1 on partition2 on my repartitioned USB HD P.S.The application of install.wim completed (as before) and reboot to partition 2 succeeded! Congratulations for spotting it right and thanks for your help and guidance Edited June 30, 2014 by edborg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edborg Posted June 30, 2014 Author Share Posted June 30, 2014 (edited) However, we go back now to the Win 8.1 32b Enterprise specific problems!Official ISO made available from Microsoft to IT developers. Immediately after the first (successful) reboot there is a progress bar at the bottom of the screen and: Windows could not start because of an error in the software.Please report this problem as :load needed DLLs for kernel.Please contact your support person to report this problem. Hardware incompatibility? edborg P.S. Fortunately, I don't really need Win 8.1. it's just for experimenting! Edited June 30, 2014 by edborg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaclaz Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 Actually I can't have (hdn,3) if I have an extended partition.Not really. As long as you have a primary partition entry in 4th slot in the partition table you can have one (but the Extended will need to take any of the first three slots). If you prefere there isn't actually a "Law" saying that: 1) Partition entries in the parittion table should be in the SAME order as their physical placement on disk 2) That the Extended partition should be on the 4th slot 3) That the Extended partition should be the "last one" on disk But what about the risk of loosing data in the logical partitions? My reasoning is that BIOS only has to access primary partitions, if they are bootable. If these are all inside the 128 GB limit even a limited BIOS (not LBA48) won't make confusion. On the other hand, after booting the OS will take control and, provided it is LBA48 compliant (and even XP SP1+ is), it won't make confusion either. So it should be safe. But this is theory.The other time the issue was pinned down to XP disk management when you used it to change active partitions, and this only happened when you had the partitions "aligned to the Mb" (i.e. somthing that form an XP point of view is "crazy" or misaligned). You could use grub4dos (easier) at boot time or *any* (as plain as possible) partition editor, as the ones you named. I can confirm you that there won't be issues of any kind in normal operation on a large disk in a situation like yours, anything beyond the LBA28 will simply be ignored as you switch the active partition between the first three active ones that are all three entirely within the limit. As soon as a Linux or Windows driver (that do not rely on BIOS services) will "kick in" in the boot process everything will be available "normally" and will function "normally". DOS (or Windows 9x/Me) that do use BIOS will instead be limited. As well grub4dos will have the same limitations, what is strange is that the usb --init in grub4dos does not work for you. Or maybe I just assumed (wrongly) that it provided a LBA48 extension. How you once said in theory there'e no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is (or something like that) And I confirm it now. jaclaz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edborg Posted July 1, 2014 Author Share Posted July 1, 2014 (edited) Does anybody has a clue on what this could mean? Win 8.1 32b EnterpriseOfficial ISO made available from Microsoft to IT developers. Immediately after the first (successful) reboot there is a progress bar at the bottom of the screen and: Windows could not start because of an error in the software.Please report this problem as :load needed DLLs for kernel.Please contact your support person to report this problem. Hardware incompatibility? edborg Edited July 1, 2014 by edborg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaclaz Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 HIstorically that was a hal mismatching :http://support.microsoft.com/kb/164448/en-us(just to give an idea on how "new" is Windows 8.1 codebase ) Which PC (exact model/make) are you using?Have you checked it to be compatible with Windows 8.1 requirements? jaclaz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edborg Posted July 1, 2014 Author Share Posted July 1, 2014 HIstorically that was a hal mismatching :http://support.microsoft.com/kb/164448/en-us(just to give an idea on how "new" is Windows 8.1 codebase ) Which PC (exact model/make) are you using?Have you checked it to be compatible with Windows 8.1 requirements? jaclazWhat a mess!!!!I have used an ASUS eee 900 that may well NOT be compatible with Win 8.1.It was with Win 8 though, unless for screen resolution that was low in Win 8 (800x600) due to lack of specific drivers. Ok, i will live without Windows 8.1, at least on this PC. Apparently MS have intentionally increased the (already significant) incompatibilities with earlier OSes, just to force users to abandon them.For instance you noticed that bootsect.exe from 8.1 does exactly the same as that from 8, unless it can't run on XP. edborg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaclaz Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 For instance you noticed that bootsect.exe from 8.1 does exactly the same as that from 8, unless it can't run on XP. Yep , that was exactly the reason why I studied and documented the various versions available:http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/171749-bootsectexe-various-versions-compared/ There are I believe more versions/models of the "ASUS eee 900" then stars in the sky, can you post please the EXACT model?Have you checked the requirements of Windows 8.1?http://windows.microsoft.com/it-it/windows-8/system-requirements There is a video on installing the Win 8.1 upgrade to a running Windwos 8 on a eeepc 900: it is possible that the issue is with just the "direct install" of the 8.1 and can be worked around. jaclaz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edborg Posted July 1, 2014 Author Share Posted July 1, 2014 (edited) Nice video, but it is for an Asus eee PC 1001 HA, whereas mine is Asus eee PC 900.It's the version with two faster but small SSD (not the traditional HD) that came with Linux Xandros on sda (4GB on 4 partitions!) plus sdb (16 GB). Never conceived for a Win8 (or Win7) install..I managed to install WinXP on sdb, coexisting with Linux, and I'm happy with it.I've also managed to install Win 7 and Win 8, obviously on external USB HD, just for fun and for testing newer OSes that, as said, I don't use in every day operations.Apart from obvious HD limitations that prevent installing to internal HD, all my previous USB installs made with this netbook have always worked well, with Win7 and also with Win8 (Developer Preview, Consumer Preview, and pro), if not for the screen limitations (not hardware, capable of much higher resolutions, but due to lack of drivers) that prevent the use of the "metro" GUI and limit the use to the "desktop" GUI (that for me is more than enough!). My tests with Win 8.1, that evidently has different requirements than Win8, were mainly due to curiosity and aimed to decide whether or not upgrade a Win8 pro internal install on another more performant PC, or to stay with it.Before you ask why I don't use that other more performant PC for my tests I'll say that it's not available right now. So, in the end, I'll postpone my further tests to when i have that better hardware available, rather than going crazy to solve hardware incompatibility issues for a temporary install. edborg Edited July 1, 2014 by edborg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve6375 Posted July 26, 2014 Share Posted July 26, 2014 Not sure if it helps, but Win 8.1 To Go will not boot from a USB Removable drive (win 8 would!).See my blog post here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaclaz Posted July 26, 2014 Share Posted July 26, 2014 Not sure if it helps, but Win 8.1 To Go will not boot from a USB Removable drive (win 8 would!).See my blog post hereOn the other hand I am pretty sure that 1 Tb USB hard disk drive: I have installed three instances of Win8.x 32b to three primary partitions of an USB HD with the WinNTSetup 3.6.1 utility. Whilst Win8 pro on partition1 works fine, Win8.1 Enterprise on partitions 2 and 3 do not.Installations reported success but reboot looped to a blinking underscore. All installations were made from the same laptop (2 GB RAM) from WinXP (the working one) and from WinXP and Win8 (the other two). The USB HD is a Toshiba 1 TB with three primary partitions NTFS and a few logical volumes.MBR and bootsectors of the primary partitions (read with HDHacker) are enclosed.is marked as Fixed device. jaclaz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve6375 Posted July 26, 2014 Share Posted July 26, 2014 I wasn't sure if the 'experiments' were all done on the USB HDD, which is why I started with 'Not sure if it helps...' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaclaz Posted July 26, 2014 Share Posted July 26, 2014 (edited) Well, edborg posted about an issue on this USB hard disk, the issues were (partially) troubleshot on this same USB hard disk and were found being related to a LBA28/48 addressing limit (on the USB bus) for this 1 Tb hard disk on the specific machine/model BIOS.Also, please bear with me , noone talked of "Windows to Go", I believed (and still believe) that "Windows to Go" is more or less a MS original "marketing name" of something that is - more or less - an "install of Windows on USB" BUT that has a different usage paradigm and also different "features". I also believe that you arbitrarily and improperly "ported it back" and "enlarged it's definition" as "Windows to go" also for 7 (which of course, since it pre-dates the actual name, is a "normal" install of Windows 7 on USB) , see:http://rmprepusb.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/add-windows-78-to-go-images-to-your.htmlwhile the "real" thing called "Windows to Go" is *something else* (and BTW reserved to Windows 8 and 8.1 "Enterprise"), more like a "workspace" and - at least in the intentions - with no access to "internal mass storage devices":http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/enterprise/products-and-technologies/devices/windowstogo.aspxhttp://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh831833.aspxhttp://social.technet.microsoft.com/wiki/contents/articles/6991.windows-to-go-step-by-step.aspx All in all (and with all due respect), it is yet another case of misnaming something (entropy and misunderstandings consequently increasing ), "yours" projects/tutorials are about installing Vista/7/8 etc. on USB devices, i..e. something different from (actually IMHO "better" than ) MS's own "Windows to Go", which BTW is a "Registered Trademark":http://trademarks.justia.com/855/21/windows-to-go-85521865.htmlbut the good Redmond guys don't talk about it:http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/legal/IntellectualProperty/Trademarks/EN-US.aspx#W_Titleas they cannot guarantee that their list (as well as a large part of their products) is actually accurate:To the extent a name or logo does not appear on this list does not constitute a waiver of any and all intellectual property rights that Microsoft Corporation or its subsidiaries has established in any of its product, feature, or service names or logos. jaclaz Edited July 26, 2014 by jaclaz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now