Jump to content











Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

[testers needed] System Drive


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1 pscEx

pscEx

    Platinum Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 12,309 posts
  • Location:Korschenbroich, Germany
  • Interests:What somebody else cannot do.
  •  
    European Union

Posted 03 May 2007 - 05:32 PM

I think that most of you at least know the troubles we have with Phox's Vista host.
Unfortunatelly the situation with Phox brings two new conditions at a time:
  • He has a Vista host
  • His system drive is D:
To exclude the influence of D: to the troubles, I need your help:

If anybody has access to a XP system drive different from C:, please install WinBuilder in this host and build a pure nativeEx_barebone on this host.

I need the results:
  • Does the 'Welcome' come up?
  • Do you see the RAM icon in the QL bar?
Thanks!

Peter

#2 MedEvil

MedEvil

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 7,754 posts

Posted 03 May 2007 - 06:00 PM

Why do you think the drive letter, XP is installed to, could have any influence?
If that would be the case, we all should find C: in our PE, shouldn't we?

:confused1:

#3 pscEx

pscEx

    Platinum Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 12,309 posts
  • Location:Korschenbroich, Germany
  • Interests:What somebody else cannot do.
  •  
    European Union

Posted 03 May 2007 - 06:15 PM

Why do you think the drive letter, XP is installed to, could have any influence?
If that would be the case, we all should find C: in our PE, shouldn't we?

:confused1:


It is just my trouble shooting experience of many years.

If an issue is appearing after more than 1 condition is changed, all changed conditions must be checked separatelly.

Your 'logical solution' is strictly forbidden!

Peter

#4 was_jaclaz

was_jaclaz

    Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 7,098 posts
  • Location:Gone in the mist
  •  
    Italy

Posted 03 May 2007 - 06:29 PM

@Medevil

You never know, if you read "C:" with some "creativeness", i.e. how undoubtedly the MS guys have made us to look at it in the years, it could mean:
1) First Active Primary Partition on First Drive (128hex)
2) multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\
3) \\.\PHYSICALDRIVE0 (first partition on)
4) \\?\Volume{c13e09f1-fd33-11c4-9f0a-806d6144696f} (numbers are just an example)
5) \Device\HarddiskVolume1
6) 30153015007e000000000000 (numbers are just an example) or, in other terms:
[Disk Signature][Offset]

and God only knows if Vista has introduced some new ways..... :confused1:

jaclaz

#5 MedEvil

MedEvil

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 7,754 posts

Posted 03 May 2007 - 06:30 PM

Your 'logical solution' is strictly forbidden!

:confused1:

#6 Nuno Brito

Nuno Brito

    Platinum Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 10,122 posts
  • Location:boot.wim
  • Interests:I'm just a quiet simple person with a very quiet simple life living one day at a time..
  •  
    European Union

Posted 03 May 2007 - 06:49 PM

...
You never know, if you read "C:" with some "creativeness", i.e. how undoubtedly the MS guys have made us to look at it in the years, it could mean:
....


:confused1: :confused1:


It do makes you think doesn't it? :confused1:

I agree with your opinion and NTFS itself is a good code example of this "mistery" along with Vista's restrictions - who knows what really goes on with all the newer security policies and file system behavior?

Also worth remembering the troublesome it was to modify files inside c:\windows under Vista just to replace winhlp32.exe and restore back the old help system.. :confused1:

#7 pscEx

pscEx

    Platinum Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 12,309 posts
  • Location:Korschenbroich, Germany
  • Interests:What somebody else cannot do.
  •  
    European Union

Posted 03 May 2007 - 07:28 PM

@MedEvil, Jaclaz, Nuno
This discussion may be very interesting but it shadows my primary intention.
Many users (maybe one beeing able to do the test) read the latest post, but rarely the first one. :confused1:

@All:

Please read the first post and consider whether you can help.

To hold this topic clear in the future I'll delete replies not relative to the test questions. :confused1:

Peter

#8 amalux

amalux

    Platinum Member

  • Tutorial Writer
  • 2,813 posts
  •  
    United States

Posted 29 July 2007 - 04:43 AM

@MedEvil, Jaclaz, Nuno
This discussion may be very interesting but it shadows my primary intention.
Many users (maybe one beeing able to do the test) read the latest post, but rarely the first one. :)

@All:

Please read the first post and consider whether you can help.

To hold this topic clear in the future I'll delete replies not relative to the test questions. :)

Peter

This is very easy for me to setup, I'll run the test and get you the log and info you requested :yahoo:

#9 MedEvil

MedEvil

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 7,754 posts

Posted 29 July 2007 - 10:08 AM

This is very easy for me to setup, I'll run the test and get you the log and info you requested :)

amalux, the topic is more than 2 months old. Before spending any time on the test, pm psc if he is still interested in one.

:yahoo:

#10 phox

phox

    Silver Member

  • .script developer
  • 764 posts

Posted 29 July 2007 - 10:30 AM

Almost all new computers are coming with installed Vista.
It is very difficult to justify installing additional XP for the sake to run WinBuilder.

Therefore, WB should be made to run under Vista to, with the same results as under XP!

#11 Nuno Brito

Nuno Brito

    Platinum Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 10,122 posts
  • Location:boot.wim
  • Interests:I'm just a quiet simple person with a very quiet simple life living one day at a time..
  •  
    European Union

Posted 29 July 2007 - 11:54 AM

It's already running just fine under Vista but UAC needs to be disabled to properly load the registry hives otherwise this action is not allowed.

I've already dedicated a lot of time to avoid Vista UAC restrictions, will try to continue studying them soon.. :yahoo:

#12 phox

phox

    Silver Member

  • .script developer
  • 764 posts

Posted 29 July 2007 - 02:09 PM

It's already running just fine under Vista but UAC needs to be disabled to properly load the registry hives otherwise this action is not allowed.

I've already dedicated a lot of time to avoid Vista UAC restrictions, will try to continue studying them soon.. :yahoo:


Before I fell of the chair for not knowing that WB is working under Vista,
I have made short WB72 test with LiveXP project and English XPSP2 source:

The problem of missing program icons is still the same: after starting the
program icon appears!?

Processing take much longer time compared with build under XP!

Vista.JPG
Attached File  log.zip   119.79KB   364 downloads
Attached File  Documents_and_Settings.zip   28.1KB   426 downloads
Attached File  ProjectInfo.zip   2.71KB   420 downloads
Attached File  Shortcuts.zip   15.57KB   421 downloads

The same results gives nativeEx!

#13 Nuno Brito

Nuno Brito

    Platinum Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 10,122 posts
  • Location:boot.wim
  • Interests:I'm just a quiet simple person with a very quiet simple life living one day at a time..
  •  
    European Union

Posted 29 July 2007 - 05:22 PM

Maybe Peter can answer better since is knowledge on this area is quite established but couldn't this happen if subst did not created an X:\ drive? :yahoo:

Probably just a silly idea, but if you've disabled the UAC they I'm also a bit clueless on any other reasons.. :)

#14 pscEx

pscEx

    Platinum Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 12,309 posts
  • Location:Korschenbroich, Germany
  • Interests:What somebody else cannot do.
  •  
    European Union

Posted 29 July 2007 - 06:08 PM

Maybe Peter can answer better since is knowledge on this area is quite established but couldn't this happen if subst did not created an X:\ drive? :yahoo:

I looked into the links in 'documents and settings'.
They look exactly like those on my system (%SystemDrive%, no X:)

????

Peter

#15 amalux

amalux

    Platinum Member

  • Tutorial Writer
  • 2,813 posts
  •  
    United States

Posted 29 July 2007 - 06:51 PM

@Peter!

Please advise whether you still need original test from a couple months back; I have XP Pro SP2 setup on an E: NTFS drive :yahoo:

#16 pscEx

pscEx

    Platinum Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 12,309 posts
  • Location:Korschenbroich, Germany
  • Interests:What somebody else cannot do.
  •  
    European Union

Posted 29 July 2007 - 07:47 PM

@Peter!

Please advise whether you still need original test from a couple months back; I have XP Pro SP2 setup on an E: NTFS drive :yahoo:

Yes, try it! :)

Maybe that solves a lot of questions.

Sorry, your first offer got lost because of a couple 'off topics' between.

Peter

#17 amalux

amalux

    Platinum Member

  • Tutorial Writer
  • 2,813 posts
  •  
    United States

Posted 29 July 2007 - 09:01 PM

Yes, try it! :)

Maybe that solves a lot of questions.

Sorry, your first offer got lost because of a couple 'off topics' between.

Peter

Looks good to me, no differant than build on C: :yahoo:


Let me know if you need more info :)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users