GaryMX

Microsoft Backup and file permissions

32 posts in this topic

jaclaz -- too bad you don't do your research. I am sure that I am not a "newbie." I have been using computers since 1983. Were you even born then? And, XXClone "clones" drives -- I don't want to clone a drive, I wanted to back it up! There is a substantial difference; when you "clone" a drive, everything on the target source is erased. I have a 600 GB Seagate drive with all kinds of goodies on it and I certainly don't want to erase all of that data! I think that you are (to use one of your emoticons) "whistling out of the top of your head." :whistle:

By the way -- XXClone works only on XP and up -- that wouldn't do me much good anyway, would it? :lol:

XXClone isn't even in the top 10 of CNET's downloads for backup solutions. The latest CNET review of XXClone: "It destroyed my C: drive. None of the installed programs are working anymore. All executables (.exe files) have been removed by the cloning procedure. It looks like I have to re-install all the programs I have accumulated over the years. Thank goodness the data files are still there. What good is a cloning/backup software if it trashes the original drive? Use at your own peril."

The "incremental" feature that you mentioned? Only available in the paid version for $40.

So, that's all, folks! No more comments here! See you in another forum.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jaclaz -- too bad you don't do your research. I am sure that I am not a "newbie." I have been using computers since 1983. Were you even born then?

Unfortunately yes, in the sense that I was not only born, but was already using (very simple) computers, since a few years in 1983.

And, XXClone "clones" drives -- I don't want to clone a drive, I wanted to back it up! There is a substantial difference; when you "clone" a drive, everything on the target source is erased. I have a 600 GB Seagate drive with all kinds of goodies on it and I certainly don't want to erase all of that data! I think that you are (to use one of your emoticons) "whistling out of the top of your head." :whistle:

Ah well, that means that you may need the Commercial US $ 60 version.

BTW we never limited the discussion to freeware solutions, didn't we? :unsure:

By the way -- XXClone works only on XP and up -- that wouldn't do me much good anyway, would it? :lol:

Well, you already used a WAREZ to make use of DriveImageXML, which also is "XP and up" only, though last time I checked it, it did work on 2K alright:

http://www.xxclone.com/ixcman56.htm

XXClone isn't even in the top 10 of CNET's downloads for backup solutions. The latest CNET review of XXClone: "It destroyed my C: drive. None of the installed programs are working anymore. All executables (.exe files) have been removed by the cloning procedure. It looks like I have to re-install all the programs I have accumulated over the years. Thank goodness the data files are still there. What good is a cloning/backup software if it trashes the original drive? Use at your own peril."

Ah, well if it's not in the top 10 in CNET and has a bad review, that settles it..

The "incremental" feature that you mentioned? Only available in the paid version for $40.

As a matter of fact the one that might be of use could be the even higher priced version, that can also use a folder as target, though one could well use a virtual disk as target....

So, that's all, folks! No more comments here! See you in another forum.

See you, have fun :)

jaclaz

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting read! :w00t:

http://www.techsupportalert.com/content/file-backup-terminology-what-do-terms-differential-incremental-mean-and-how-will-they-help-m

Now for the "backup" - should have google'd harder

differential file backup freeware

Not that I care about using any, but there ya go. That is, if you stray back this way. BTW, you flubbed up when you "created" that second OS - there's a Topic on creating a GOOD "clone" that would have save you the initial problems you had. ;)

Jeez, I love it when someone verbally spars with you, jaclaz! Reminds me of back when we sparred! :thumbup

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK -- here we go again ... jaclaz -- I used the version of DriveImage XML that I downloaded and installed from the runtime.org web site. Not "warez." It does work with Win 2K, but it won't back anything up that is "locked" by the system. Hence, running XP virtual; there is nothing locked by the system.

@submix8c -- I know the difference between a "differential" and "incremental" backup. Differential backs up all files with the archive bit set (that have changed since the last full backup, which turns the archive bit off). Incremental is trickier and mostly used in server situations; to restore a "trashed" server drive you would restore the full backup, then restore the incremental backups, from the oldest to the newest. If you have been reading this thread, you would know that I decided to reinstall the W2K system, from scratch, on my second drive. It was an interesting exercise, as the 10-year-old PC didn't have all the driver files available. I grabbed what I could from Dell, but the hardest was the NetMOS 9835 multi-I/O controller. I finally found the setup files for it from Syba USA, not a useless link to the MOSChip web site.

I would install Macrium Reflect, which really is the top backup solution currently, but it doesn't run on Win 2K.

I don't know what topic you are talking about (creating a "good" clone,) but it doesn't matter. A clone is a clone -- it copies everything from one drive to another. I have never heard of cloning a system and changing the Registry, which has many "hard coded" references to files on C: drive. Unfortunately, all references to files in the registry weren't %WINDIR% or %HOMEDRIVE% or other symbolics. So, how would this "clone" modify the registry to change these hard coded references in the Registry? For installed software with references to C: it would have to change them to D:.

That's it for this topic -- can we just quit this ping pong of comments? I came to this forum for useful help, not disparaging comments. Thanks.

Edited by GaryMX
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to add my 2¢, since backups, cloning and images are mentioned in this thread.

Well, I've already said most of what I think about this matter in various posts scattered around MSFN. So I took the liberty to collect those I think more relevant to answer your question and collect them here. While each unity is coherent in itself, and the subjact remains the same, I do not claim the particular order in which I now present them is the best one possible, nor did I try to edit them (except minimally) to better concatenate them nor to remove repeated ideas. Bear in mind this became long-winded, but that is the inevitable result of such a joining of quotations. HTH

[...] there are as many solutions for this as the proverbial stars on the night sky, so any attempt at being exhaustive is futile. So I'll tell you something about those I use (but even of those there are many variants and I'll be focusing in the ones I use, too).

An Image may be thought of as an exact, sector by sector copy of a whole disk or of a single partition, regardless of any higher-level organization, and of these we have:

  • A Forensic-quality Disk Image contains all sectors in the disk, and permits the re-creation of a truly identical image, including all the otherwise irrelevant unaccessible sectors created by partitioning (such as the last 62 sectors in the MBR track of a common HDD and all sectors in any leftover unpartitioned space at the end of the disk). Such an image requires , to be deployed on a diferent HDD than the one it was made from, that the second HDD be of the same brand, model and size, but will result in a truly exact copy, that is a true clone.
  • A Common Disk Image may be thought as similar to the Forensic-quality one, but omitting those otherwise irrelevant secftors, and, maybe the free sectors also. When deployed it'll result in something near a true clone, but not identical. Depending on what was considered irrelevant at image acquisition time, it may result in an almost perfect copy of a disk, yet be imperfect enough to render it unbootable, or even completely unusable, in the worst case.
  • An Exact Partition Image (my favorite) would be like the Forensic-quality Disk Image, but restricted to a single partition.
  • A Common Partition Image would be like the Common Disk Image, but restricted to a single partition.

To create such images one may use a "dumb" imaging program or an adaptive imaging program. The "dumb" one will acquire the image as-is and deploy it "as-is". The adaptive one can do much more interesting tricks, such as deploying a partition image to a bigger partitition (thus serving to grow a partition in a safe way), or even deploying a partition image to a smaller partition, provided it's big enough to contain all but the free sectors in the image (thus serving, in a limited way, to shrink a partition safely). The same kind of tricks can also be played with full disk images.

The best imaging programs, besides being adaptive, are also capable of compressing the images they create, so that one has no need of compressing them with another program for storage purposes, and also provide one with an image browser, so that one can extract individual files from the (compressed or not) image without having to deploy it somewhere just to do so.

That much having been said, the bottom-line is: in principle, imaging is based in sectors, and should be independent of the underlying OS.

A Backup may be thought of as an exact, file by file copy of a whole disk or of a single partition, so it involves interpretation of the existing structure by the OS, and of these we have:

  • A Full Backup
  • An Incremental Backup

Taking the partition backup as the example, the full backup would be a file-by-file copy of all the contents of a partition to another empty partition or a directory (a somewhat worse alternative), while the incremental backup would be to add or update just the new and/or modified files to an already existing backup. So one always starts doing a full backup, but then can switch to incremental backups, which are much faster (at least when based solely on date-stamps and file sizes). The de-facto standard program to do backups is the freeware xxcopy, IMHO, and if we're thinking Win 9x/ME, one should use XXCOPY FREEWARE v.2.96.5 - xxfw2965.zip, which is the last version that works in 9x/ME.

I tend to favor using images for the system partitions (on a weekly to fortnightly basis) and incremental backing-up for data partitions, on a daily basis, because data partitions change much faster than system partitions. YMMV, though.

Usually the drive makers provide imaging tools. Seagate, for instance, provides Acronis, which is quite good. Then, there is the free Partition Saving, which can do full disks also, despite its name. I've been discussing imaging on some unrelated threads, the latest which is this (and there are pointers on it for the older posts in other threads). There's also a sticky thread about imaging programs. In any case, the bullet-proof backup is a full-disk, sector-by-sector "dumb" cold image, which must be acquired (= collected) while booted from a bootable CD (or DVD or diskette or other device), since the disk containing the OS must be passive during the imaging (that's what the "cold" part means). The "dumb" part means that the imaging program should make no assumptions and just copy all the disk sectors, without skiping any of them.

Now, you have and use Ghost. Ghost is not for free, but it's the best of its kind. So, with Ghost, and with XXCopy, you should be able to cover all your back-up needs pretty comprehensively.

I just put the the System Commander HDD, cloned with Ghost sector-by-sector with the "-ir"switch from a .gho file, into the original computer: it works fine :thumbup

Great! When in doubt, this is the way to go! This kind of image (-z9 -ir) can be called a compressed "True Image" or "Dumb Image", or "Raw Image" (hence "ir" = image-mode: raw), because it makes no assumptions whasoever and, instead, just copies sector-by-sector. You can get it somewhat smaller, by zeroing-out the unused areas. And ghost can restore it to any HDD bigger or equal to the original one the image was acquired of. It's as near fool-proof as you can get and quite a good backup, but it's time-consuming.

For saving and recovering the state of my system partitions, I usually do single partition images. Once you have the full true image backup optimized, do a partition backup of one of your system partitons, reformat that partition, sdelete -c that partition and restore that single partition image back to its place, and test to see whether everything is working OK. If so, that's the best way to create snapshots of a system being tuned or debugged. Repeat the test for your other system partitions and, all going well, start a library of backups for them. Before doing major experiments, always create a new image of the partition you're gonna mess with, so, no matter what you do, you remain less than 1h away from having it back as it was when you started (compared with full-disk operations, single partition operations are quite fast).

What we want is a sector-by-sector image from the *full* disk, omitting nothing. Since this process is dumb-as-a-doorbell, almost any imaging software can do it satisfactorily. But not all software will be able to test it afterwards, so testing ability is needed, and since we cannot afford to go wrong, a well reputed software like Acronis is preferable. If the imaging software can compress the image, too, that also helps, although it makes the already long and tedious process of acquiring the image even longer, but helps with storing the image afterwards, and does not cause a very big penalty on redeploying. So, I'd have to read the manual again, looking for how to do these things with Acronis, which is not the software I'm used to (I use Norton Ghost, but it's not for free, nor do you need it). So, to me, it will be a refresh course in Acronis, which I've not used for some time already. And since I own 4 Seagate disks, I'm entitled to it, too. Now, if we can compress the image, we should make the best of it, by zeroing-out all free space in the disk, because long sequences of zeroes compresses best. And Sysinternals (now MS) offers a free program called sdelete, to do just this, among some other possible uses for it. This is necessary because, since it's a blind sector-by-sector image, we're bound to copy the free sectors, too.
1) It's not possible to make a sound full-disk "dumb" sector-by-sector image of one HDD while running the OS from it, at the same time. While the OS is running, it's changing files, so the image is doomed to be unsound. It's a physical impossibility.

2) A sound, known-good image is guaranteed to boot from exactly the same disk as it was acquired from.

It'll also most probably boot OK from a similar or bigger HDD of the same type, used to replace the physical HDD in case of hardware failure. The more similar the replacement HDD is to the one it is replacing, the more probable one gets a good result.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, I've been following/reading this Topic since its inception.

Second, the link I gave about "backups" was simply an FYI, and not an implication you are "stupid" (touchy, aren't you).

Third, the "google" was also an FYI.

Fourth, the topic in question is here. You COULD have "cloned" the Original to the second rather than a complete reinstall. Your choice...

Fifth, there's this nifty tool called Grub4DOS that can "flip" a drive designation, be it on the same HDD or a different one. I can "flip" between Server, XP, and 98 SE with just a reboot. There's also something called "LiveXP" and willing to bet the same method can be used to make a 2K one since they're in the same "family". Voila! No problemo!

Finally, I'd say that you've flung a couple of disparaging remarks yourself - see posts#14 (bragging)->#16(getting "touchy"). AAAAND before you make any remarks about "1983" better stop - been handling computers since WAAAY before that. ;) "Why in MY time we had to use CARDS..."

Summary - Want help? You got it. Want to argue when help is given? No-go. Simple as that. We've had MANY a "leap to conclusions and do the wrong thing and then complain" folks. How could we know otherwise with you?

Does that clear it up?

Addendum - This ain't our first rodeo with your types of scenarios.

HTH...

( Oh, and WTH are you talking about "Archive Bits"? Where? Oh and those "drivers" you had a hard time finding - did you know there are free Driver Finder/Backup softwares? Guess not. :unsure: )

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK -- here we go again ... jaclaz -- I used the version of DriveImage XML that I downloaded and installed from the runtime.org web site. Not "warez." It does work with Win 2K, but it won't back anything up that is "locked" by the system. Hence, running XP virtual; there is nothing locked by the system.

And you used it through a boot CD which is a known warez release, whose name you edited from your OP, but that remains well understandable in my first reply.

@submix8c

JFYI ;):

http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=21702&st=122

WHY, in MY day ....

http://reboot.pro/topic/1908-why-in-my-day/

jaclaz

Edited by jaclaz
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@dencorso -- your post was intelligent and very informative, explaining the different kinds of disk images. Thank you for your deeply detailed information! I have read some of your related posts on that issue. The imaging software that I use does have "raw" as an option, also compression. The recovery process is, however, as you had said in your posts -- that the drive image must be restored to a drive that is bigger or equal in capacity. The software works great as far as restoring; I can also "browse the image" and restore individual files. I have no complaint with it at all. I will have to keep in mind what you said about forum members having problems with Windows 7. I know that W7 has security features that make it a different animal to backup. It's too bad that I'll never have an answer for the "permissions" issue -- maybe there is a M$ MVP genius that could explain it; but I haven't gotten good or clear answers from M$ in the past.

@submix8c -- Yes, I did clone to a different drive. It booted with no problem. There were minor issues which is why I started this thread, one being M$ Backup. I don't care about it now, I'll use something else. It was a simple curiosity as to why it wouldn't work on the new drive after the clone. That was the only answer I wanted; not testing my knowledge or questioning it; just an answer about permissions. I already know about Grub4DOS -- I used it to create a bootable flash drive with XP that I use at home. Works great. I wouldn't want a "generic" W2K bootable anyway, because, for one, (as I have discovered with my reinstall to the new drive) there are many drivers that this computer needs to function properly. I have equipment attached to this PC for my business and can't afford to have the whole process die because of an install problem. Hence, I decided to clone the install to the new drive (since the computer is 10 years old.)

I have also handled punch cards. I programmed with them at U of M (and fed them through a card reader, with many a fail.) I punched them at work for a while on an old 1620.

You want to know what an "archive bit" is? Here is the description: "The archive bit is a file attribute used by Microsoft operating systems, by OS/2 and by the Amiga OS. Typically its state indicates whether or not the file has been backed up." Source here.

Free "driver finder softwares? Why would I use that when I can get it direct from the manufacturer (Dell, Intel, MOSChip, HP, etc.)? Many of the web sites that offer them to you for download will only do so if you pay a subscription fee.

@jaclaz --

No, I did not run it from the boot CD -- I had obtained it from Runtime Software. Have you read my previous comments? I installed it on my computer and ran it from the hard drive. Even in a virtual environment, if you have a "standalone" software product that runs from any device (such as USB drive or another hard drive,) the software will run!

Big deal -- you keep mentioning the boot CD. I have also created a USB flash drive install of XP (done legally, I might add.) I can't use it on my W2K PC because the BIOS won't boot from a USB flash drive inserted in the port. NO, the BIOS won't let it. I've tried.

By the way, I don't click on your links.

Adios.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I did not run it from the boot CD -- I had obtained it from Runtime Software. Have you read my previous comments? I installed it on my computer and ran it from the hard drive. Even in a virtual environment, if you have a "standalone" software product that runs from any device (such as USB drive or another hard drive,) the software will run!

Look, you originally posted that you downloaded a known warez release in order to run "Drive image".

If you want to deny that, it's perfectly OK with me, though :thumbup .

Later it was cleared that "Drive image" meant DriveIMageXML (which of course you can legitimately download from Runtime Software site, as it is a freeware for "Private" or personal use only).

Just for the record, DriveImageXML appears like being NOT a "backup" solution, but rather an "imaging" one, and it is also NOT within the first 10 results on CNET for "backup".

Which right now:

http://download.cnet.com/windows/backup-software/?tag=mncol%3Bsort&rpp=10&sort=downloadCount+asc

are:

  1. FullDataBackup
  2. DAEMON Tools Pro
  3. EaseUS Todo Backup Free
  4. Macrium Reflect Free
  5. EaseUS Disk Copy Home Edition
  6. Paragon Backup & Recovery Free
  7. Recuva
  8. Acronis True Image Home
  9. SyncBackFree
  10. Second Copy

which are largely NOT strictly "backup" solutions, some are "cloning", some are "imaging", or however "something in between", and a couple like DAEMON Tools and Recuva are completely unrelated programs.

Big deal -- you keep mentioning the boot CD. I have also created a USB flash drive install of XP (done legally, I might add.) I can't use it on my W2K PC because the BIOS won't boot from a USB flash drive inserted in the port. NO, the BIOS won't let it. I've tried.

Yep, that happens to a lot of people :( .

Many others manage to boot from USB, using one or more tricks.

By the way, I don't click on your links.

That's good :), you have no idea how many people I manage to trick into clicking on them :ph34r: , it is refreshing to find someone who wouldn't .

Adios.

I thought we already had this exchange, see you, have fun :).

jaclaz

Edited by jaclaz
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did a query on CNET like you and got a slightly different (but similar in order) list of "backup solutions." I noticed Acronis and Macrium Reflect didn't make it on mine, probably because I entered "Windows 2000" in the search box. Either of those would work great for me, if only they would install and run on W2K. EaseUS Todo Backup Free would be a good choice, except that I think it is developed by a Chinese software company (Chengdu Yiwo Tech Development.) Of course, some claim to be a "full backup solution" when they are really just copying files from point A to point B (can do that without software,) some only image copy, etc. The best ones would be those that do it all: image copy (clone drives), full / differential / incremental backups, command-line driven scheduled backups, etc.

:hello:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(huh-bo-ee...) Per the Wiki (WIKI-WIKI????) link

This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (August 2009)
You ARE aware that Wiki is a "user-contributed" information source (maybe NOT so trustworthy for ACCURATE information). That same Wiki does NOT state WHAT "backup software" doe the "reset archive bit". I wouldn't trust that so much if I were you as there have been many a "technical article" there that have been erroneous.

I like jaclaz' links - they're funny and sometimes informative, especially when they're intended to be!

Yes, softwareS. Some folks use that to denote that usage for "plural". See this (start at post#5) -

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=231221

Have you ever used CPUID (note the text)?

http://www.cpuid.com/softwares.html

Seriously, you have a slight insulting nature yourself. :whistle: (Yes, had straight A's in all English-oriented classes.)

I suppose if you really wanted to then a solution to fit your needs could be "collaboratively developed" from tools and softwares on hand. :unsure: After all, you're an Ex-programmer as well (did I mention that you've been communicating with a couple?)... :yes:

:hello:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I will have to keep in mind what you said about forum members having problems with Windows 7. I know that W7 has security features that make it a different animal to backup. It's too bad that I'll never have an answer for the "permissions" issue -- maybe there is a M$ MVP genius that could explain it; but I haven't gotten good or clear answers from M$ in the past.

Well, I fear I cannot be of much help on MS' newest OSes, since my personal experience with 7 is *very* limited (read: used - here and there, mainly at work - but am not forced to use it, own one copy which I've never come around to install yet) and with 8 is actually nil.

You want to know what an "archive bit" is? Here is the description: "The archive bit is a file attribute used by Microsoft operating systems, by OS/2 and by the Amiga OS. Typically its state indicates whether or not the file has been backed up." Source here.

Yet the archive bit has been straightforwardly disregarded by everybody & their cousins almost since incept time (or, at least, from very early DOS times), so that it's just about obsolete, because of being unreliable, although it was a great idea, to begin with.

(huh-bo-ee...) Per the Wiki (WIKI-WIKI????) link

This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (August 2009)
You ARE aware that Wiki is a "user-contributed" information source (maybe NOT so trustworthy for ACCURATE information). That same Wiki does NOT state WHAT "backup software" does the "reset archive bit". I wouldn't trust that so much if I were you as there have been many a "technical article" there that have been erroneous.

Yet, the same English Wikipedia, which I'm also fond of quoting, has (or, sometimes, has had) great entries on a variety op computer-related subjects, although not always, IMO, the best version is the extant (see, for instance, FAT, as opposed to the current version), due to the current predominance of a strictist view on the application of their own rules. Such a view also is conducting to the elimination a kind of entry that provided approximate facts for things about which truth cannot possibly be known (at least by scientific methods alone, afaics), as is the case of the usage share of OSes... in which a single set of numbers, generated by a rather difficult to justify median procedure, had the quality of being comparable to one another, and, with passing time, of thus providing a very welcome (even if somewhat distorted, but by non-partisan bias, afaics) view on what was happening. The current entry is much less useful, and is being considered for complete removal, which now perhaps may really be the case, unfortunately.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@dencorso

Well, just for the record, even the current FAT article on Wikipedia has more than one issues.

I will cite, not to make it too technical a couple sentences in the exFAT part:

exFAT

Main article: exFAT

exFAT is an incompatible file system, that was introduced with Windows Embedded CE 6.0 in November 2006. It is loosely based on the File Allocation Table architecture, but proprietary and protected by patents.

...

Storage devices formatted as exFAT cannot exchange data with equipment not supporting the format. Much equipment does not support exFAT, which requires acquisition of a license from Microsoft[citation needed]. This involves a cost, and is also against the policy of open source operating systems.

...

Someone that writes:

  • "exFAT is an incompatible file system" <- incompatible with WHAT? :w00t:
  • "Storage devices formatted as exFAT cannot exchange data with equipment not supporting the format." <- Really? Good moorning, Mr. de La Palice! I have rarely seen a storage device actually "willing" to "exchange" data, BUT all those that were formatted with *any* filesystem not supported by the equipment, no matter what filesystem it was, had
    on them data that was not readily accessible by the equipment.

should IMNSHO be slapped (hard) in the face to have him/her wake up! :realmad:

BUT, I still think that WIkipedia is nonetheless a VERY GOOD resource for the "base info" :thumbup

You have nailed down the real issue - which now is, in an attempt to avoid incorrect articles, an excessive, indiscriminate (and often plainly wrong) use of rules, the worst of which is "citationism", which is one of the ways to verify the contents that makes lots of sense about "established" topics, but make NONE WHATSOEVER when it comes to "news", "research" and "new development".

Basically if you don't have two or three "reputable" sources to backup *any* statement, one of the "strict" Wikipedians will soon edit them (BTW without understanding them or actually verifying them).

And the "English" Wikipedia is not that bad :).

Cannot say the other languages, but I have recently read (with HORROR :ph34r: ) the discussion on the Italian one about CAINE, a (BTW IMHO very good) completely Open Source, linux based, Forensic Distro, whose author, Nanni Bassetti, had the page first suspended and then deleted.

I - for one - won't have anything to do with people that have that attitude :realmad: ,.

Since I am after all a nice guy ;), I will limit myself to define those guys as "a bunch of presumptuos, arrogant, good-for-nothing and useless lazy bums".

Since I believe you can understand enough Italian, if you want to have a look at it, it is here:

http://www.nannibassetti.com/dblog/articolo.asp?articolo=182

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pagine_da_cancellare/Caine/2

jaclaz

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since I believe you can understand enough Italian, if you want to have a look at it, it is here:

http://www.nannibassetti.com/dblog/articolo.asp?articolo=182

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pagine_da_cancellare/Caine/2

Sure. That's the point. The wholesale application of Wikipedia:No original research (to the point that merely calculating a median is taken to be "original research") and of Verifiability and Reliable Sources equally ferociously may doom Wikipedia in the end, but is already wreaking havok here and there, particularly in fast-moving fields like computer matters. Here is the bizarre full story of the Usage share of OSes (notice it's composed of 5 archival pages plus the current one! :wacko: ) Yet, that said, the English Wikipedia seems to me to have more and better content than its counterparts in any other language I can read, perhaps because it's the one that has, by far, the most contributors, and this ensures the Darwinian survival of good content, no matter what (provided, of course, it's not nipped in the bud by Wikipedia:NOR, WP:V & WP:RS).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On second thought:

There's also something called "LiveXP" and willing to bet the same method can be used to make a 2K one since they're in the same "family". Voila! No problemo!

You lose. :yes:

The /minint parameter was added to the Kernel with XP.

There is NO way to make a PE (which LiveXP is, notwithstanding the name) from Windows 2000 files. :no:

BUT it is (was) possible to make a "full" Windows 2000 run from CD. :yes: (and consequently I presume to have it run from .iso)

Unfortunately the (Commercial) software that allowed to do so (basically a couple of smart drivers) went lost in the midst of time, company acquisitions (and thus re-focusing) and what not.

See:

?hl=2000#entry54885

And YES, I am citing (mostly) myself, so these info are not suitable for Wikipedia ;) and you won't find it among the "most popular" on CNET... :whistle:

XP on Cd is on the other hand possible and documented (JFYI):

BUT, a nice chap made something like that possible with 2K too (besides with XP, different method/approach than ETBOOT) :thumbup :

http://www.resqware.com/

Windows 2000 should work, but it is not officially supported, see FAQ's:

http://www.rescueboot.com/help/FAQ.htm

http://www.resqware.com/faq/faq.htm#6

Of course since less and less people are running "only" Windows 2000 there is very little work done to "better" the thingy, make it more flexible, etc.

jaclaz

Edited by jaclaz
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.