60 replies to this topic

[maanu]

thanks jaclaz for correcting me , i completely forgot to check ur batch file from cmd line although i know about this procedure .

now, thing is i dont have any test machine where i can test online's dual partition tech . my flash drive was booting fine as single partitoned on my system , and it is working just fine after the above mentioned procedure .

but if online is saying that this dual partition procedure DOES make the difference in real testing then i guess i should get stick to it.

@ steve , mate i dont know what is the problem , but ur uploaded tool is not running on my server 2003 / it just hangs in task manager and report as " not responding "

ps have u tested that bootit.exe's prepared multipartitioned usb is MORE bootable then the online's " format and forget it " method ? i mean did u compare both on real systems ?

[was_jaclaz]

I don't see for me a possibility to create such a program with AutoIt3 ... Otherwise I would have done it already.

Well, if it is possible in batch, it should be possible in Auto-It as well, if you keep using the "low level" utilities such as dsfo/dsfi, mksparse/fsz and VDK. (the latter three only needed for images)

I guess that the functions of gsar and dumphex can be recreated by AutoIt, but I don't think that AutoIt has direct disk access (i.e. access to \\.\Physicaldriven).

Besides the batches, that are however quite readable (I presume ) I can offer to anyone wishing to take the challenge all the needed support, as said:
http://www.boot-land...?...429&st=1078

now, thing is i dont have any test machine where i can test online's dual partition tech . my flash drive was booting fine as single partitoned on my system , and it is working just fine after the above mentioned procedure .

but if online is saying that this dual partition procedure DOES make the difference in real testing then i guess i should get stick to it.

As said before, the dual partition has been reported to be booting "better" on 1 (one) machine, and thus, though it won't make ANY harm it cannot be called a "requisite" or "needed", but rather (unless you have other needs for multiple partitions, that, as said, is the "right" way , but for a number of other reasons, not strictly related to bootability) as a further attempt if a "plain" "single partitioned" stick does not boot on a given machine.

I have uploaded current version RMPrepUSB v1.8. (not sure how to include the link in this post).
It only makes a single partition.

P.S. I forgot to mention that using Bootit.exe to make your UFD a 'Fixed disk' rather than a 'Removable Disk' also increases your chances of it booting as a hard disk for WinPE/XP/Vista. This also makes it partitionable in XP.

Nice.

Just for the record, and to avoid possible misunderstanding, BootIt.exe is a specific Lexar utility, and it may work on other Brands, if they use the same controller, for other Brands, you will need another appropriate utility to "flip the removable bit":
http://www.911cd.net...o...=22874&st=8

jaclaz

[wimb]

For me the best and easiest way to obtain NTFS formatted USB-stick with two partitions,
having MBR and NTFS BootSector compatible with XP, and where partitions end on cylinder boundary is:

1. In XP use HP Format Tool to format USB-stick with NTFS FileSystem
2. Boot with LiveXP BootSDI.img from HD into RAMDISK and start Acronis Disk Director 10
3. Resize Partition on USB-stick and Create (small) second Partition

Acronis is taking cylinder boundary into account and makes in LiveXP NTLDR-type Bootsectors and allows to make multiple partions on USB-stick.

@jaclaz
I will study again the possibilities of making GUI program based on your (well readable) MBRbatch/MKIMG batch programs.

[online]

well we dont have to make secondry partiton of 250 MB , i made 47 MB. and it is working fine ,
reporting to online,
made first partition as fat32 of 1.8 GB , mark as active ./ second partiton with 47 MB ,
grub4dos working ( multiboot)
syslinux working . (multiboot)

Many thanks for your report.

pending test .
make a clone of existing usb , then clone back on same usb after deleting both partitions . (in morning )

By the way, if you perform the preparation of your UFD how I suggested you some post above there is no reason that your image backups will not work.

Just for the record, there are at least two freeware programs that work fine for that purpose:
"SelfImage"
http://selfimage.excelcia.org/
useful most of all for RAW image backups of encrypted partition
and
"ODIN (Open Disk Imager in a Nutshell)" (not yet tried by me; for the record in all my tests I have used Symantec Ghost under DOS). http://sourceforge.n...jects/odin-win/
From my tutorial here http://www.boot-land...?...&qpid=62682

thanks again for ur efforts..

You're welcome.

ps have u tested that bootit.exe's prepared multipartitioned usb is MORE bootable then the online's " format and forget it " method ? i mean did u compare both on real systems ?

In order to detail the argument: from my tutorial here http://www.boot-land...?...ost&p=63162 , you can also read "The Known Background" paragraph "only".

One of the most effective, if not absolutely the most effective practice in order to walk-up the best possible booting from USB Flash Drives is related to the flipping of the "removable bit" in your physical drive (really in the dedicated controller within your drive) that will be capable to transform your USB Flash Drive just in a physical Basic Disk (that's exactly as a Hard Disk).
Then, it is a solution.
Unfortunely the results of that practice are "randomized" and limited-in-number due to a missing universal-tool capable to do that job on every UFD (although some different utilities are specifically dedicated to some different UFD controllers).

[maanu]

@ online

u r welcome sir , well i have also use ghost in dos for CLONING my usb . and i can see 2 partitions in it . so i guess on a system having a 2 GB removable drive and no driver installed , this CLONE should be restored as it is .

@ steve
well mate i already have those runtimes and i have also tried by using my current file but again the same problem . cant say anything about pe . but i ll test it too as i have vbrun plug in added in my pe.

[online]

So it is quite possible that having two or more partitions increased a UFDs chance of booting in hard disk emulation mode.

Hi, steve6375!

Thank you so much for your very instructive post!

[was_jaclaz]

@online

Why do you want to further beat this horse to death?

Why do you insist on pretending that I should state that the "dual partition" is NEEDED?

I won't, at least not as long as I have some better evidence about it.

And by evidence I mean something more than your 1 (one) machine that behaves like that.

I tried to state my opinion on the matter in the most plain way I could find:

To sum up I would rate, from my experience, the levels of compatibility in booting as follows:

• 100,00% flipping removable bit
• 90,01% Properly partitioning AND two (or more) partitions (maybe)
• 90,00% Properly partitioning (which includes XP Disk Management, PeTOUSB - up to 2 or 4 Gb - MBRbatch and manually creating a partition table)
• 80,00% HP format tool

As said before, the dual partition has been reported to be booting "better" on 1 (one) machine, and thus, though it won't make ANY harm it cannot be called a "requisite" or "needed", but rather (unless you have other needs for multiple partitions, that, as said, is the "right" way , but for a number of other reasons, not strictly related to bootability) as a further attempt if a "plain" "single partitioned" stick does not boot on a given machine.

It is my opinion and you cannot insist that I should change it because you think so.

I have to remind you that you already posted a nice boo-boo on this thread, and completely failed to focus on the important part, as I see it, i.e. finding out what is the thing that makes your particular machine boot not from a single partitioned USB stick and booting from a dual partitioned one.

I cannot of course try experimenting directly as I never had a machine that behaves like that, nor I know anyone that has one.

Thus you are the only one that can, if you wish to do so, to delve deeper in this behaviour and find out the reason for that behaviour.

maanu's experiment with the 47 Mb partition does not count, as he can possibly boot with one partition only.

I would appreciate if you could, when you have time and if you wish to do so, to make some experiments in the direction of the open questions I posted, that only you can answer, and that you ignored two times.

No problem whatsoever if you don't wish to, of course.

Please do not , and I mean do not reply to this with some more obvious remarks or lame conspiracy accuses, please bring forward some facts.

Your insistency on this topic is becoming really border line with stalking, it's time to put a stop to it. I am serious.

Now, just for fun, let's imagine what would happen if user jaclaz would report your behaviour to an Admin of the board (jaclaz ) as annoying/bothering/irritating....
...what would happen?


jaclaz

[online]

well we dont have to make secondry partiton of 250 MB , i made 47 MB. and it is working fine

Then you can also try simply deleting it, and see if the stick continues booting.

it appears quite obvious that if your UFD with one single partition already boots from your machine, then the 2nd partition will NOT improve the related bootability on the same machine!

I asked why you suggested to make something looking as illogical.
You threatened me.

Why do you insist on pretending that I should state that the "dual partition" is NEEDED?

I'm not pretending anything neither by you nor by anyone.
I never said double-partitioning is needed; I always said double-partitioning increases bootability.

And by evidence I mean something more than your 1 (one) machine that behaves like that.

1 machine means 1 motherboard-model - 1 motherboard-model means some similar-sub-models.
"In 2003, Asus sold 5,000,000 motherboards which means one out of every 5 desktop computers was built using an Asus motherboard." http://www.cdrinfo.c...ArticleId=12430
If you take any proportion, in any scale, in any period of time then it is more than 1 machine.
I've experienced a bad UFD booting from one of those machines that has prompted me to address in some way.

finding out what is the thing that makes your particular machine boot not from a single partitioned USB stick and booting from a dual partitioned one.

I said many times that I do not know why.
I'm not the kind of person so technical and have not too time to experiment even what I do not like.
I've shared my working way.
I do not have to know why.
When Hewlett-Packard in January 2004 published HP Format Tool nobody knew why it worked.
In 2005, in 2006, in 2007, it was the same: it has been used presumably by hundreds of thousands of people and nobody knew why it worked.
So, please give time to the time.

I would appreciate if you could, when you have time and if you wish to do so, to make some experiments in the direction of the open questions I posted, that only you can answer, and that you ignored two times.

I have not to find interest in what you enjoy.
I found a way, working for me and I shared that way.
A member said very interesting things about double-partitioning, you ignored his statement.

So, to make a UFD stand more chance of booting from any BIOS AS A USB-HDD DEVICE, you may stand a better chance if it has two partition table entries, is FAT32, and if the device size is 1GB+.

If you want a DOS bootable device to boot as A: however, you stand a better chance using a 512MB UFD, FAT16 using H64 S32 drive geometry. In addition certain bytes in the FAT VBR may need to be set to be a 'floppy' (bytes 15h and 24h).

So it is quite possible that having two or more partitions increased a UFDs chance of booting in hard disk emulation mode.

Your insistency on this topic is becoming really border line with stalking, it's time to put a stop to it. I am serious.

I asked why you suggested to make something looking as illogical.

Now, just for fun, let's imagine what would happen if user jaclaz would report your behaviour to an Admin of the board (jaclaz) as annoying/bothering/irritating....
...what would happen?

You're threatening me.

Do you want ban me?
Please, do all what you want: I am not interested in that.
And even less in your authoritarianism.

The authoritarianism does not work, and it has never worked.

[online]

I well know that posting-and-posting then often we can go off topic without realizing it, and I am the first of which it can happen, but please note that now we have two pages of thread almost occupied by an argument that is not too related to the topic, but only to a different and personal project.
Yes, I know that then that project, if realized, could be useful in order to create some useful things about the topic, but let me kindly note that the real topic is rather different.
Thank you.

Btw: please, note that I said the above just for the possible readers and for your probable better discussion in other more specified thread, not for me.
Hoping in an evolution of the real topic also without my further and almost useless partecipation.
Thank you.

[was_jaclaz]

I asked why you suggested to make something looking as illogical.
You threatened me.

No I did not.

You're threatening me.

NO, I am not.

Do re-read this, bolded part to help you:

Now, just for fun, let's imagine what would happen if user jaclaz would report your behaviour to an Admin of the board (jaclaz ) as annoying/bothering/irritating....
...what would happen?

Do you want ban me?

If I wanted to I would have done it, rest assured.


I asked you to stop repeating the same thing over and over, I guess I should have stopped this senseless discussion a lot of time ago.

I will do now.


jaclaz

[was_jaclaz]

SERVICE POST:

This thread is now CLOSED.

Posts related to steve6375's new apps for making USB thingies bootable splitted to here:
http://www.boot-land...?...ic=7739&hl=

jaclaz