719 replies to this topic

[Robbin]

Steve i wanted to first say thank you for this great utility, worked for me at first try, no problems what so ever using a 4GB fat32 partition on a moody (USB wise) Gigabyte board.

I have two suggestions and one question...
I suggest you edit the first post of this thread to give a general description of RMPREPUSB, since the thread is a split, it takes bit of reading to get what it is all about.
Secondly could you add some kind of boot remark, along the lines of "USB booting".

Lastly did i get it right that formating wise RMPREPUSB is deferent from the HP format tool in that is has correct partition table and an updated bootsector? are there any other deferences?

[Nuno Brito]

Hello!

I subscribe Robbin's request for a first topic that clearly explain what these tools are capable of doing along with a few screenshots.

Then it would be a good candidate to add on the FAQ page of Boot Land.

Keep up the excellent work!

[steve6375]

Steve i wanted to first say thank you for this great utility, worked for me at first try, no problems what so ever using a 4GB fat32 partition on a moody (USB wise) Gigabyte board.

I have two suggestions and one question...
I suggest you edit the first post of this thread to give a general description of RMPREPUSB, since the thread is a split, it takes bit of reading to get what it is all about.
Secondly could you add some kind of boot remark, along the lines of "USB booting".

Lastly did i get it right that formating wise RMPREPUSB is deferent from the HP format tool in that is has correct partition table and an updated bootsector? are there any other deferences?

Hi Robbin
I have updated the first post as you suggested - hope this is better. Some of the boot code I use is tweaked to use LBA booting (Extended BIOS int 13h calls) rather than the older CHS Int13 standard calls.

As for your Q, I have been experimenting with many different BIOSes over the years and USB booting. I have found that it is difficult to make some BIOSes boot. My work mainly involves getting systems to boot as a ZIP drive to MSDOS (UFD=Drive A:) and getting them to boot to WinPE v2 (Vista version).
RMPartUSB thus contains various options to try to create a USB pen that will boot on most systems. However, one type of UFD may boot fine on 70% of systems, but not on the other 30%.

In some cases, a BIOS just will not boot to WinPE v2 (as WinPE v2 does not support booting from a 'floppy' device) and I have had to resort to such tricks as formatting the UFD as a super-floppy (ZIP) drive and then using Grub4Dos to boot a WinPE ISO that is present on the UFD (see my other posts for details).

I am working on yet another idea for RMPartUSB at the moment. Some BIOSes are confused about how to use LBA translation and can crash when booting from a UFD that has non-standard CHS values. If I use CHS values of FE FF FF (maximum) then the boot code will always use Extended Int13h calls (LBA addressing). So if I set FE FF FF for ALL start and End CHS values in the MBR partition table, it may mean it boots on more systems. As USB booting was introduced after LBA addressing came in (drives were over 8GB in size when USB booting) then this should work on any system that supports USB booting. Thats the theory anyway...

cheers
Steve

[was_jaclaz]

As USB booting was introduced after LBA addressing came in (drives were over 8GB in size when USB booting) then this should work on any system that supports USB booting. Thats the theory anyway...

I can testify how the theory is - at least in some cases - proved as wrong.

There are motherboards that simply WON'T boot from USB sticks bigger than 512 Mb, which means that the BIOS code has a definite FIRST CHS limit!
http://www.pcguide.c...izeMB504-c.html

My guess is that most BIOS programmers did the right thing and implemented a "correct" USB stack.

A few lazy ones recycled some old code they had laying around.

One must realize that no longer than three or four years ago a VERY LARGE size for a USB stick was 256 Mb.

At the time I wrote my old pages, my 128 Mb stick was a "medium-large" one.

jaclaz

[Robbin]

Steve can you also relate to my request for adding some sort of a "Now booting USB" messgae?

[Nuno Brito]

Hi,

Thank you for improving the first topic.

I've added a link to this tool at the forum FAQ - http://www.boot-land...?showtopic=8195

[steve6375]

Steve can you also relate to my request for adding some sort of a "Now booting USB" messgae?

I am not sure what you mean? Are you asking for modified boot code?
The boot code added to the UFD is standard code for xp and vista and MS-DOS and FreeDos - in different versions for different Filesystems. If I added any code to print a message it would make the code non-standard (besides taking great effort to do it!).

S

[steve6375]

I can testify how the theory is - at least in some cases - proved as wrong.

There are motherboards that simply WON'T boot from USB sticks bigger than 512 Mb, which means that the BIOS code has a definite FIRST CHS limit!
http://www.pcguide.c...izeMB504-c.html


jaclaz

Hi jaclaz

I have seen BIOSes that will not boot from a 1GB stick but will boot from a 512MB stick, but this had nothing to do with the partition table as far as I can ascertain. I have proved this as follows:

1. Make a 512MB DOS bootable USB stick
2. Check it boots on target system
3. Use dd.exe to make a byte for byte copy of the entire 512MB contents to a 1GB stick of same make and model
4. --> the target system does not even try to read any sectors from it and does not list it on the POST info screen or boot from it

So, I think that these BIOSes look at the physical device size rather than the partition table info (which is obviously identical on both sticks).
As you say, there may be others that do look at the CHS values, but in the few BIOSes I have seen that won't boot from 1GB pens, the above test proves that it must be the physical device size that it must be looking at.

RMPrepUSB has a special option for 512mb but this is only a convenience to keep the CHS values to 63/32 and use FAT16 for best USB DOS super-floppy emulation chance.

S

[was_jaclaz]

So, I think that these BIOSes look at the physical device size rather than the partition table info (which is obviously identical on both sticks).

Correct.

As you say, there may be others that do look at the CHS values, but in the few BIOSes I have seen that won't boot from 1GB pens, the above test proves that it must be the physical device size that it must be looking at.

Yep, what actually prevents the booting is definitely related to the physical device size.

I was one step beyond that , assuming that the reason why the above limits exists (and it doesn't exist, say, between 1 Gb and 2 Gb) is probably due to the programmer "thinking along a CHS way of reasoning".

See the "direct consequence" of the given link:
http://www.pcguide.c...Handling-c.html

• Truncation
  
• Wrap-Around
  
• "Ignorance"
  
• Failure

(possibility #4)

I was/am also assuming that since the amount of code in a EPROM/EEPROM is fairly limited, the said lazy programmers would try to use the smallest possible code.

A couple of lines like (pseudo-code):

IF %TOTAL_REPORTED_HEADS% GTR 16 GOTO :SLEEP

IF %TOTAL_REPORTED_CYLINDERS% GTR 1024 GOTO :SLEEP

should take very small space when compared to those needed to handle "bigger numbers"

Judging from the total, utter and absurd mess hardware and software engineers managed to make in 8 years, let's say from late 1994 for the 512 Mb hit, up to September 9, 2002 (Release of XP SP1) or July 2002 (Release of Windows 2000 SP3), totaling more than 10 (no, it's not binary, it is TEN hd barriers):
http://www.pcguide.c...d/bios/size.htm
http://www.48bitlba.com/overview.htm
most of them due to to a generic and diffused shortsightness in the evolution of hard disk technology (and sizes), I personally find the above assumptions/guesses to be credible.

FYI :
http://www.boot-land...?...c=2362&st=7

I do like to guess what happened in the "secret rooms".



jaclaz

[steve6375]

Yep - I agree that the CHS - LBA saga has been a total disaster, brought about by programmers who have had little foresight or common sense.
It does not help that MS decided that they could throw away the Fdisk -type partition boundary rules for partitions with Vista/WinPE v2.
The 2TB limit we have already met as the max size for a hdd partition (4 bytes for LBA).

The same is true about MAC addresses and IP addresses. Little thought there either. Hardware designers may want to economise on the number of registers they use, but that is no reason for software engineers to use the same limitations just for the sake of a few bytes.

In a world where every packet bought in a shop, every pallet, every tin, bag and box and even in the future, every nut and bolt may have an IP address, limiting the address by just adding a few bytes shows a lack of forward thinking to say the least!

S

[Robbin]

Steve could you please add an option to use a non included boot sector, i just came across an issue where freedos kernel was updated, and using the built in one gives a wrong version error, this could be useful for future boot sectors.

[steve6375]

Steve could you please add an option to use a non included boot sector, i just came across an issue where freedos kernel was updated, and using the built in one gives a wrong version error, this could be useful for future boot sectors.

Hi Robbin
I don't quite understand what you mean by non-included. Also can you give details of what you did in such detail that I can reproduce it.
Thanks
Steve

[Robbin]

I completely take it back Steve, it was a freedos issue not your great utils, sorry for that.

As for not included, i mean boot sectors that may change over time, like maybe anew one to come with win 7 and so on, and the ability to have an option to select custom bootsecotor provided by me, and not one already included in the utility itself.

[steve6375]

I completely take it back Steve, it was a freedos issue not your great utils, sorry for that.

As for not included, i mean boot sectors that may change over time, like maybe anew one to come with win 7 and so on, and the ability to have an option to select custom bootsecotor provided by me, and not one already included in the utility itself.

Hi Robbin
I will look into it, but a boot sector is often between 1 and 12+ sectors long...
cheers
S

[steve6375]

Hi Robbin
I will look into it, but a boot sector is often between 1 and 12+ sectors long...
cheers
S

Still looking into it...

[maanu]

ok , now this is driving me crazy ..

i can not find any download link for it , the post edited by Jaclaz returns me to the same first post .

steve6375 can u plz link the latest version in ur signature ?

[Lancelot]

steve6375 can u plz link the latest version in ur signature ?

another idea: to the top or end of post 1 and giving link to this topic on your signature

[was_jaclaz]

the post edited by Jaclaz returns me to the same first post .

This link, which I put on first post:
http://www.boot-land...?...=7739&st=94

Takes EXACTLY where it is MEANT to, i.e. post #95 of this thread, where you can find this link to download:
http://www.boot-land...?...ost&id=8301

WHAT is the problem?

jaclaz

[online]

This link, which I put on first post:
http://www.boot-land...?...=7739&st=94

Takes EXACTLY where it is MEANT to, i.e. post #95 of this thread, where you can find this link to download:
http://www.boot-land...?...ost&id=8301

WHAT is the problem?

jaclaz

If I can intervene: there is (almost) no problem.

But... really your link http://www.boot-land...?...=7739&st=94 does NOT point to the wanted post, but to the related page.
And if you note that the Poll-result is existing in every page of the thread, maybe you can "comprehend" the fail of maanu (that probably, seeing hastily the poll-results at the top had wrongly assumed that it was again the 1st post of the 1st page of the topic ).

The working link to the 95th post of that related page is really the following

http://www.boot-land...?...ost&p=66775






Btw: I still wonder why the 1st post of the 1st page (or of course, as already requested, the steve6375's signature) is not pointed to the direct download as "typically" expected...

[maanu]

another idea: to the top or end of post 1 and giving link to this topic on your signature

yes the best is to link the attachment directly to the first topic ..

online , ur last link also returned me to the 1st topic .

does the link even exists anywhere ?

[online]

online , ur last link also returned me to the 1st topic .

Very strange.

Please, try to empty your (browser) cache: here that link perfectly works (and regularly points to the post #95).

[maanu]

online , thanks for the advice . i did it before u said .

bt anyhow i have found that rare post now , by reading every post back words to that post.

downloaded

it is here for someone like me ( direct link ) v 1.9.70

http://www.boot-land...?...ost&id=8301

[online]

( direct link ) v 1.9.70

http://www.boot-land...?...ost&id=8301

Please, note that link was already posted by jaclaz...

to download:
http://www.boot-land...?...ost&id=8301

Btw: you really read carefully the posts, right?

[maanu]

Please, note that link was already posted by jaclaz...


Btw: you really read carefully the posts, right?

oooops , my bad . i did not read this post .

[steve6375]

oooops , my bad . i did not read this post .

I cannot add a link to the download on the first post because it only seems to allow one attachment per post and I already have the screenshot attached.

There is actually a later version at www.rm.com/support which I was planning to upload some time.