Jump to content

Welcome to MSFN Forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Login to Account Create an Account



Photo

Installing Vista x64 Ultimate on FAT32

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
51 replies to this topic

#1
JodyT

JodyT

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 283 posts
  • Joined 05-April 11
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

I understand that Vista/7/8 cannot install to a FAT32 partition, so I was going to convert the installation afterwards with PartitionMagic.  Supposing I can get this done, I am concerned that FAT32 limitations will damage the WinSxS folder because of folder entry limits.  Is this the case, or am I stewing over nothing?  Will Windows Update work properly?

 

I have found that on XPx64, my 80 gb SCSI drive takes a performance hit with NTFS (4k clusters), whereas it's faster with the simpler FAT32 system.  I assume this would be the same case for Vista, no?

 




How to remove advertisement from MSFN

#2
Ffin

Ffin
  • Member
  • 8 posts
  • Joined 28-March 11
  • OS:XP Pro x64
  • Country: Country Flag

Converting the partition after installation might be possible, but I've never tried, and I don't know if the Vista/7/8 bootloader is compatible with FAT32. Also, I assume you mean Powerquest PartitionMagic? If so, I remember that it didn't like partitions created by Vista, try something like Minitool Partition Wizard instead.

 

Edited to add:

 

According to this thread, running Vista from a FAT32 partition is possible but far from simple.


Edited by Ffin, 30 November 2013 - 11:07 AM.


#3
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developer
  • 15,477 posts
  • Joined 23-July 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

May I ask you what is the original reason why you would not have it on NTFS?

The speed of that SCSI disk?

Which SCSI is it? (I mean 1/2/3 or Ultra160/320)

Which exact disk model is it?

 

How (EXACTLY) it is currently partitioned? (I mean is it using the good ol' cylinder alignment or the newish Mb alignment)?

It is possible that aligning it to Mb you gain something, but it would be the first time that someone ever reports a noticeable (which does not mean "measurable") overall difference on speed NTFS vs. FAT32 on a relatively fastish bus.

 

jaclaz



#4
JodyT

JodyT

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 283 posts
  • Joined 05-April 11
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

It's a U320 Drive and it's a Fijitsu Disk (I'm not home so I can't check).  It's 10,000 rpm.  Whether it NTFS or FAT32, XP smokes on it.  Vista was installed last year on it for a couple weeks test run, and it ran well too.  By the way, the partition takes up the entire disk.

 

My reason for doing it is for the slight performance improvement gained on smaller partitions.  In every instance I've tried, I find XP and Win2KPro ran better on FAT32 on partition sizes smaller than 120 GB.  So on larger partitions and servers, I use NTFS.  On smaller fast disks, I prefer FAT32 without the overhead of NTFS.

 

Sometimes the added features and stability of NTFS aren't needed.  I'd rather the simplicity of speed of FAT32 on smaller disks.



#5
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developer
  • 15,477 posts
  • Joined 23-July 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

Well,

there is the usual risk of starting a FAT32 vs. NTFS flamewar :ph34r:, I never did benchmarks comparing them on newer OS's, but the noticeable difference should be on 2K and not that much on XP, or at least this was the case for (slowish) USB devices:

http://www.msfn.org/...d-on-usb-stick/

 

Traditionally the difference in speed is connected with filesize, cache, and fragmentation level, this article is still valid:

http://technet.micro...y/cc938440.aspx

you could turn off (but this is a "global" setting) Last access time:

http://msdn.microsof...mbedded.5).aspx

and as said try with Mb aligned partition (which might produce a slight improvement).

 

Personally, you will need to pry NTFS out of my dead hand :w00t:, if not for anything else (like sparse files and hard links/mountpoints :)), for the speed of filesearching through the $MFT :yes:, but of course you are very welcome to use FAT32, though as in the source of the already linked to "method" to have Vista installed on a FAT32 filesystem:

http://www.911cd.net...ndpost&p=119093

it is not that bad, after all.

Problems (as you may read between the lines or outside of them ;)), are - as I see it:

  1. that tutorial was made with Vista 32 bit (and NOT 64 bit) so even if that is tested and confirmed, may (or may not) appy to the 64 bit version
  2. a Vista install uses hardlinks, which are probably part of the issues in point #4.) of that tutorial
  3. you are basically using a 64 bit system in order to gain access to more RAM (or there are other reasons that I am no aware of?) BUT you won't be able to have hyberfil.sys and pagefile.sys bigger than 4 Gb (unless you place them on another volume, NTFS formatted)
  4. the final scope of that experiment was to produce a smallish (limited) Vista to be installed on USB flash
  5. 7 (seven) years have passed since, and there is no evidence that any later SP or KB/update has not introduced some further limitations and/or that a number of programs won't "like" to be on FAT32

So - and I know you didn't ask for my opinion (but I will provide it nonetheless), if you do that as an experiment, it is a nice one, if you do that as a "solution" for increasing disk speed on a "production system" it is "pure folly" .

 

jaclaz



#6
JodyT

JodyT

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 283 posts
  • Joined 05-April 11
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

Well,

there is the usual risk of starting a FAT32 vs. NTFS flamewar :ph34r:, I never did benchmarks comparing them on newer OS's, but the noticeable difference should be on 2K and not that much on XP, or at least this was the case for (slowish) USB devices:

http://www.msfn.org/...d-on-usb-stick/

 

Traditionally the difference in speed is connected with filesize, cache, and fragmentation level, this article is still valid:

http://technet.micro...y/cc938440.aspx

you could turn off (but this is a "global" setting) Last access time:

http://msdn.microsof...mbedded.5).aspx

and as said try with Mb aligned partition (which might produce a slight improvement).

 

Personally, you will need to pry NTFS out of my dead hand :w00t:, if not for anything else (like sparse files and hard links/mountpoints :)), for the speed of filesearching through the $MFT :yes:, but of course you are very welcome to use FAT32, though as in the source of the already linked to "method" to have Vista installed on a FAT32 filesystem:

http://www.911cd.net...ndpost&p=119093

it is not that bad, after all.

Problems (as you may read between the lines or outside of them ;)), are - as I see it:

  1. that tutorial was made with Vista 32 bit (and NOT 64 bit) so even if that is tested and confirmed, may (or may not) appy to the 64 bit version
  2. a Vista install uses hardlinks, which are probably part of the issues in point #4.) of that tutorial
  3. you are basically using a 64 bit system in order to gain access to more RAM (or there are other reasons that I am no aware of?) BUT you won't be able to have hyberfil.sys and pagefile.sys bigger than 4 Gb (unless you place them on another volume, NTFS formatted)
  4. the final scope of that experiment was to produce a smallish (limited) Vista to be installed on USB flash
  5. 7 (seven) years have passed since, and there is no evidence that any later SP or KB/update has not introduced some further limitations and/or that a number of programs won't "like" to be on FAT32

So - and I know you didn't ask for my opinion (but I will provide it nonetheless), if you do that as an experiment, it is a nice one, if you do that as a "solution" for increasing disk speed on a "production system" it is "pure folly" .

 

jaclaz

I certainly appreciate your opinion.  I'm not one of those who acts like, "Who Asked You?"  I hate that when people say that; it's second place to when you ask someone a question and they say, "Google is your friend!"  I hate that!  LOL.

 

( a ) First off I always disable Indexing.  I know Vista onwards makes more use of it in the start menu for that "Search Here" feature, but I don't mind slower searching (since my mindset is already set to "searching for something").  I would rather have the Indexing off and have those resources for unadultered speed of disk access or caching.  I'd rather not have my system slower so that occasional searches are faster.

 

( b ) Next, with as much as 7 GB of RAM in my system, I turn paging off with XPx64, so I hope to do the same with Vista.  Also I run an HP Workstation so I do not utilize Hibernation.or power saving features that store images to the HDD.

 

( c ) I would have to disagree (albeit with anecdotal evidence) that FAT32 performance benefits are nothing more than "pure folly".  There is documentation supporting better speed of FAT32 on small drives < 120 GB.  I will have to find that for you, but the speed increase is quite real I assure you.

 

( d ) The NTFS features that you cite not being able to live without (ie. sparse files and hard links/mountpoints) are not features I want.  I just want to have a straight ahead file system.  I don't even need permissions.

 

Just a couple partially unrelated things, but they do illuminate my mindset towards operating systems.  I hate this idea that for new OS interfaces to be popular, it's believed that I have to be able to hover my mouse pointer over an icon, and have it tell me five things at once via tool tips (ie, author, filesize, size on disk, version number, blah, blah, blah!).  If I want the filesize, or any other info, I will right-click and choose Properties.

 

I am somewhat saddened to move to Vista and upwards, because I am going to miss how lightweight Windows XP was (my truue favourite was Windows 2000).  But to stay up to date, there are no "lightweight" options.  Why can't Microsoft make an OS revision that will complement older hardware or even simpler hardware?

 

Thanks for listening.

:)


Edited by JodyThornton, 30 November 2013 - 02:36 PM.


#7
JodyT

JodyT

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 283 posts
  • Joined 05-April 11
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

The item of interest here was whether or not, FAT32 could support all of the folders and links in WinSxS without issue.  I hate the bloat that seems to occur with WinSxS, but I know that over time there will be a LOT of folders.



#8
dencorso

dencorso

    Iuvat plus qui nihil obstat

  • Supervisor
  • 5,838 posts
  • Joined 07-April 07
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

[...] hyberfil.sys and pagefile.sys bigger than 4 Gb (unless you place them on another volume, NTFS formatted) [...]


Is that at all possible? I mean, moving pagefile.sys is well established even to places it clearly wasn't meant to be moved to, like removable disks (the latter, mainly thanks to Karyonix worship.gif ). Now, moving hyberfil.sys (as opposed to disabling it, which is trivial) is said to be impossible, but so was putting pagefile.sys on removable disks, until Karyonix solved it. I've never pursued that seriously, because I like my machines turned off, not hybernating... but since you talked about it, are there any reliable reports it has been done, and, better still, descriptions of how to do it?



#9
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developer
  • 15,477 posts
  • Joined 23-July 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

( c ) I would have to disagree (albeit with anecdotal evidence) that FAT32 performance benefits are nothing more than "pure folly".  There is documentation supporting better speed of FAT32 on small drives < 120 GB.  I will have to find that for you, but the speed increase is quite real I assure you.

 

We are not disagreeing at all :), I was not saying that FAT32 per se does not provide speed benefits, I merely stated that your report (anecdotal or otherwise) is the first one I ever saw about these benefits being "noticeable" (which - again - does not mean "measurable").

The "pure folly" was not connected to "FAT32" in itself was connected to the WHOLE "experimental install of Vista, and of a 64 bit version of it, and on FAT32 and on a production system".

 

@dencorso

I have no idea about hyberfil.sys :unsure:, I personally find the whole idea of "hybernating" a "feature that has NO practical use" (at least on desktops).

Personally I tend to switch on a computer and never switch it off unless there is a need for doing so (which means usually once every several weeks/months), but the common usage in *any* normal business use of a desktop is to switch it on, work on it for some 8 hours or so (actually about 4 hours of "work" once you subtract the watching of Youtube videos or p0rn :ph34r:, some twitting, some Skype, some needless instant messaging and a huge amount of irrelevant emails, both sent and received ;)) then switch it off AFAIK.

 

jaclaz



#10
JodyT

JodyT

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 283 posts
  • Joined 05-April 11
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
jaclaz, on 01 Dec 2013 - 06:56 AM, said:jaclaz, on 01 Dec 2013 - 06:56 AM, said:

@dencorso

I have no idea about hyberfil.sys :unsure:, I personally find the whole idea of "hybernating" a "feature that has NO practical use" (at least on desktops).

Personally I tend to switch on a computer and never switch it off unless there is a need for doing so (which means usually once every several weeks/months), but the common usage in *any* normal business use of a desktop is to switch it on, work on it for some 8 hours or so (actually about 4 hours of "work" once you subtract the watching of Youtube videos or p0rn :ph34r:, some twitting, some Skype, some needless instant messaging and a huge amount of irrelevant emails, both sent and received ;)) then switch it off AFAIK.

 

jaclaz

 

That's how I am with my system.  After a full cleanup and defragmentation once every two months, I boot it up, and simply log off the system when I am not using it.  I only need to restart after Windows Updates.


Edited by JodyThornton, 01 December 2013 - 05:33 PM.


#11
JodyT

JodyT

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 283 posts
  • Joined 05-April 11
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

Aside from all of that, will the proper working of the WinSxS folder be ensured under FAT32?  Or will the absence of links (hard/symbolic) cause problems here?



#12
dencorso

dencorso

    Iuvat plus qui nihil obstat

  • Supervisor
  • 5,838 posts
  • Joined 07-April 07
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

{...} will the proper working of the WinSxS folder be ensured under FAT32?  Or will the absence of links (hard/symbolic) cause problems here?

 
Who knows? The only way of knowing the answer to that and many other equally abstruse questions any of us may go on inventing, is to stop talking, and proceed to experimentation, with all due respect. I, personally, do not care for Vista x86 at all, much less for Vista x64, but I'm interested in trying to coax (or maybe coerce) Win 7 x86 into working from FAT32, along the lines of Dietmar's work on Vista x86, so your results, if you decide to pass on to experimentation, do interest me deeply. With all due respect, in the immortal words of Jan van de Snepscheut (or, maybe, Yogi Berra): "In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is"... so I do think it's time to proceed to experimentation. IMO, all you need is any good Live Linux distro or, even better, a Windows PE (as a bootable pendrive or CD/DVD), the latest xxcopy.exe, fat32format.exe and bootsect.exe (preferably v. 6.3.9431.0)... plenty of time... and patience galore! A good plan also helps, but with image backups one can recover from almost any mistake, so even a lousy plan is a good way to start.



#13
Tripredacus

Tripredacus

    K-Mart-ian Legend

  • Super Moderator
  • 9,925 posts
  • Joined 28-April 06
  • OS:Windows 7 x86
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

First, maybe it should be determined how you would get the OS onto that kind of volume. I just tried to deploy Windows 7 x64 to a FAT32 partition and it gives me errors.

 

DISM:

 

[1724] [0x80070001] EnableShortnamesOnApplyTarget:(785): Incorrect function.
[1724] [0x80070001] WIMSetFileShortName:(844): Incorrect function.
[1724] [0x80070052] WimCreateDirectory:(3459): The directory or file cannot be created.
[1724] [0xc144012e]
2013-12-02 13:23:45, Error                 DISM   DISM WIM Provider: PID=1724 c:\Windows\winsxs\x86_microsoft-windows-a..managerui.resources_31bf3856ad364e35_6.1.7600.16385_en-us_443db5647679d4a2 (HRESULT=0x80070052) - CWimManager::WimProviderMsgLogCallback
[1724] [0x80070052] RestoreDirTree:(3748): The directory or file cannot be created.
[1724] [0x80070052] WIMApplyImageInternal:(685): The directory or file cannot be created.

 

Imagex:

 

[   0% ] Applying progress
[ ERROR ] c:\Windows\winsxs\x86_microsoft-windows-a..managerui.resources_31bf385
6ad364e35_6.1.7600.16385_en-us_443db5647679d4a2 (Error = 82)

Error restoring image.

The directory or file cannot be created.

MSFN RULES | GimageX HTA for PE 3-5 | lol probloms
tpxmsfn1_zps393339c1.jpg


#14
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developer
  • 15,477 posts
  • Joined 23-July 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

I just tried to deploy Windows 7 x64 to a FAT32 partition and it gives me errors.


Maybe you could add to your report the adverb "unexpectedly", or maybe even "surprisingly". :unsure: :whistle:



jaclaz

#15
JodyT

JodyT

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 283 posts
  • Joined 05-April 11
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

 

{...} will the proper working of the WinSxS folder be ensured under FAT32?  Or will the absence of links (hard/symbolic) cause problems here?

 
Who knows? The only way of knowing the answer to that and many other equally abstruse questions any of us may go on inventing, is to stop talking, and proceed to experimentation, with all due respect. I, personally, do not care for Vista x86 at all.

 

**** When I proof read this; it sounds mean, but it's not meant to be (just matter of fact) ****

 

With all due respect jaclaz, I have a plan to experiment, but there's nothing wrong with asking others to see if they have had issues first.  Why would someone go and blindly repeat history, when someone else knows all of the caveats I'll encounter.  So no; I will not "stop talking".  It amazes me how people have that "Google is your freind" mentality.  Nobody wants to converse or exchange ideas any more, and that's what this forum should be about.

 

Besides jaclaz, if you're not interested in what I'm doing with Vista, you don't have to be the one to answer.  Maybe others have an opinion on this.



#16
Tripredacus

Tripredacus

    K-Mart-ian Legend

  • Super Moderator
  • 9,925 posts
  • Joined 28-April 06
  • OS:Windows 7 x86
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

I only have Partition Magic 8 (DOS) here, and it does not give me an option to convert. It may be because it detects error 105: Partition starts on wrong boundary.

 

I had decided to deploy Windows to NTFS then boot Partition Magic before booting Windows. If there is any other tool I should try, let me know.


MSFN RULES | GimageX HTA for PE 3-5 | lol probloms
tpxmsfn1_zps393339c1.jpg


#17
JodyT

JodyT

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 283 posts
  • Joined 05-April 11
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

That's basically my plan.  I would have tried v7 though.  So maybe your saving me some work (exactly the reason I'm posting these questions :)

 

I wonder if you have to remove sparse points/files first.  I remember doing that when converting XP Pro to FAT32.



#18
dencorso

dencorso

    Iuvat plus qui nihil obstat

  • Supervisor
  • 5,838 posts
  • Joined 07-April 07
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

Besides jaclaz, if you're not interested in what I'm doing with Vista, you don't have to be the one to answer.  Maybe others have an opinion on this.

 
@Jody: Well, for starters... I'm dencorso, not jaclaz, and you replied to my post as if I were jaclaz... :w00t:
Now, the fact I couldn't care less for Vista if I tried, does not mean I didn't read *very* carefully *all* of Dietmar's posts, which sometimes require some deep reflection due to the way his German interferes with his English. One of the few who experimented with moving Vista (x86, but Vista nonetheless) to FAT-32 and reported it in very fine detail is Dietmar. And his method consists in:

  • Install Vista normally and confirm it's working.
  • Save a (bit-by-bit) image of it, as backup.
  • Copy all the files in it, except pagefile.sys and hyberfil.sys to another partition (preferably in a different HDD) using copy, robocopy or xcopy (I'm sure xxcopy can do it better than those). Replace the rare files > 4 GiB by 0 byte dummies, if any is found.
  • Format the original partition Vista was installed in with FAT-32 (fat32format is the fastest reliable way to do it).
  • Copy back all the files from the original Vista installation that were copied to that different partition, again with, say, xxcopy.
  • Restore the boot sector to a bootable vista FAT-32 using bootsect.exe (despite what I said above, maybe the one from Vista sp0 may be required).
  • Now Vista should be booting and working from FAT-32

All may other comments, too, were not intended to be mean, just to point out that the questions you were coming with are actually *unanswerable*, unless one actualy checks the answer experimentally. I never even though about Google while writing my reply, because the numerous Dietmar threads across 3 forums are about all that matters in this case, or do contain pointers to any other relevant materials, so once one is aware of them, Google, Yandex, DuckDuckGo, etc. are all useless, even if a German-English dictionary may come in handy. I'm genuinely interested in what you may find out, once you start experimenting. I intend to do so myself with 7 x86, as I said. But, for now I simply don't have time to do it properly, so I didn't start. I really meant no offense at all. Cheers!  cheers.gif



#19
Tripredacus

Tripredacus

    K-Mart-ian Legend

  • Super Moderator
  • 9,925 posts
  • Joined 28-April 06
  • OS:Windows 7 x86
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

I'm wondering if the method of deploying matters. For my test, I had deployed a Windows 7 x64 image with Imagex to a single partition. I can also try using DISM with a System Reserved partition. All my Vista images are archived now and I'm actually using Diskpart from Windows 8. I figured that it would probably be better to attempt to convert the file system prior to booting into Windows for the first time, which is why I did not want to consider doing a manual install from DVD.


MSFN RULES | GimageX HTA for PE 3-5 | lol probloms
tpxmsfn1_zps393339c1.jpg


#20
dencorso

dencorso

    Iuvat plus qui nihil obstat

  • Supervisor
  • 5,838 posts
  • Joined 07-April 07
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

Apparently, Tripredacus, what really matters is the copy (file-by-file) to a 2nd place, then back, with the conversion to FAT-32 in the middle, and then the correction of the bootsector to a FAT-32 bootable one. Whether it was actually booted previously seems not to affect the result. And how does it work over an extended time period has not been reported at all, AFAIK...

#21
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developer
  • 15,477 posts
  • Joined 23-July 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

A good plan also helps, but with image backups one can recover from almost any mistake, so even a lousy plan is a good way to start.


For NO apparent reason ;):
http://www.imdb.com/...?item=qt0378851
:lol:

@JodyThornton
I will issue this official statement :w00t: :
To the best of my knowledge, the only successful attempt to install Vista on a FAT32 partition was the one Dietmar made in 2006 (and a link to the method he used was given). I listed what - in my experience and opinion - could be the additional issues that you may face in either attempting to replicate that method adapting it to the 64 bit (newer, i.e. with SP's) version of the Vista OS or using a different method, as a way to try and help you. Still as far as I know, noone ever attempted (let alone succeeded at) installing a Vista x64 on a FAT32 partition, so the matter is IMHO very experimental if not "first time ever", hence it is unlikely that you will be able to find a MSFN member (or anyone else :ph34r:) capable of answering to questions like:
 

Aside from all of that, will the proper working of the WinSxS folder be ensured under FAT32?  Or will the absence of links (hard/symbolic) cause problems here?

from direct experience, and I believe that what dencorso meant when he suggested you to start carrying your own experiments was intended as a similar advice.
Forrestreversedisappear_version1.gif
 
 
 
jaclaz

#22
Tripredacus

Tripredacus

    K-Mart-ian Legend

  • Super Moderator
  • 9,925 posts
  • Joined 28-April 06
  • OS:Windows 7 x86
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

Apparently, Tripredacus, what really matters is the copy (file-by-file) to a 2nd place, then back, with the conversion to FAT-32 in the middle, and then the correction of the bootsector to a FAT-32 bootable one. Whether it was actually booted previously seems not to affect the result. And how does it work over an extended time period has not been reported at all, AFAIK...

 

Xcopy won't do it. It blows up when trying to create Documents and Settings directory on the destination. There doesn't seem to be a way to skip errors, although booting Windows without that folder might be some problem. My command was:

 

xcopy q:\*.* c:\*.* /S /E /K /H /N /B

 

It did copy the boot files over tho...


MSFN RULES | GimageX HTA for PE 3-5 | lol probloms
tpxmsfn1_zps393339c1.jpg


#23
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developer
  • 15,477 posts
  • Joined 23-July 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

@Trip

At the time ycopy was developed exactly to allow that kind of "blind copy" and go on notwithstanding the errors (but logging them ;)):

http://www.ruahine.com/download.html

http://www.ruahine.com/faq.html

http://www.ruahine.com/guide.html

 

Really cannot say if it works on newer Windows and/or if it is suitable to the experiment, though :blushing:.

 

jaclaz



#24
Tripredacus

Tripredacus

    K-Mart-ian Legend

  • Super Moderator
  • 9,925 posts
  • Joined 28-April 06
  • OS:Windows 7 x86
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

I found another one with a GUI called FastCopy that has a native 64bit version. yCopy is 32bit only and USB doesn't seem to work on my test PC with my 32bit PE. :\

 

Anyways, see attached for the great list of files that were skipped, which I am guessing is due to 8.3 support. Log file is bigger than what I'd want to upload to MSFN and Pastebin won't let me upload there either. So here is the log file showing the full stats and all the directories that would not copy. The 13,324 "ErrorFiles" are all in WinSxS.

 

TotalRead = 13333.7 MB
TotalWrite = 12024.3 MB
TotalFiles = 58764 (11567)
TotalSkip = 14.2 MB
SkipFiles = 35 (0)
TotalTime= 537.03 sec
TransRate= 22.39 MB/s
FileRate  = 109.42 files/s

Finished. (ErrorFiles : 13324  ErrorDirs : 44)

WriteReparsePoint(dir)(Incorrect function.1) : D:\Documents and Settings
WriteReparsePoint(dir)(Incorrect function.1) : D:\ProgramData\Application Data
WriteReparsePoint(dir)(Incorrect function.1) : D:\ProgramData\Desktop
WriteReparsePoint(dir)(Incorrect function.1) : D:\ProgramData\Documents
WriteReparsePoint(dir)(Incorrect function.1) : D:\ProgramData\Favorites
WriteReparsePoint(dir)(Incorrect function.1) : D:\ProgramData\Start Menu
WriteReparsePoint(dir)(Incorrect function.1) : D:\ProgramData\Templates
WriteReparsePoint(dir)(Incorrect function.1) : D:\Users\Administrator\AppData\Local\Application Data
WriteReparsePoint(dir)(Incorrect function.1) : D:\Users\Administrator\AppData\Local\History
WriteReparsePoint(dir)(Incorrect function.1) : D:\Users\Administrator\AppData\Local\Temporary Internet Files
WriteReparsePoint(dir)(Incorrect function.1) : D:\Users\Administrator\Application Data
WriteReparsePoint(dir)(Incorrect function.1) : D:\Users\Administrator\Cookies
WriteReparsePoint(dir)(Incorrect function.1) : D:\Users\Administrator\Documents\My Music
WriteReparsePoint(dir)(Incorrect function.1) : D:\Users\Administrator\Documents\My Pictures
WriteReparsePoint(dir)(Incorrect function.1) : D:\Users\Administrator\Documents\My Videos
WriteReparsePoint(dir)(Incorrect function.1) : D:\Users\Administrator\Local Settings
WriteReparsePoint(dir)(Incorrect function.1) : D:\Users\Administrator\My Documents
WriteReparsePoint(dir)(Incorrect function.1) : D:\Users\Administrator\NetHood
WriteReparsePoint(dir)(Incorrect function.1) : D:\Users\Administrator\PrintHood
WriteReparsePoint(dir)(Incorrect function.1) : D:\Users\Administrator\Recent
WriteReparsePoint(dir)(Incorrect function.1) : D:\Users\Administrator\SendTo
WriteReparsePoint(dir)(Incorrect function.1) : D:\Users\Administrator\Start Menu
WriteReparsePoint(dir)(Incorrect function.1) : D:\Users\Administrator\Templates
WriteReparsePoint(dir)(Incorrect function.1) : D:\Users\All Users
WriteReparsePoint(dir)(Incorrect function.1) : D:\Users\Default\AppData\Local\Application Data
WriteReparsePoint(dir)(Incorrect function.1) : D:\Users\Default\AppData\Local\History
WriteReparsePoint(dir)(Incorrect function.1) : D:\Users\Default\AppData\Local\Temporary Internet Files
WriteReparsePoint(dir)(Incorrect function.1) : D:\Users\Default\Application Data
WriteReparsePoint(dir)(Incorrect function.1) : D:\Users\Default\Cookies
WriteReparsePoint(dir)(Incorrect function.1) : D:\Users\Default\Documents\My Music
WriteReparsePoint(dir)(Incorrect function.1) : D:\Users\Default\Documents\My Pictures
WriteReparsePoint(dir)(Incorrect function.1) : D:\Users\Default\Documents\My Videos
WriteReparsePoint(dir)(Incorrect function.1) : D:\Users\Default\Local Settings
WriteReparsePoint(dir)(Incorrect function.1) : D:\Users\Default\My Documents
WriteReparsePoint(dir)(Incorrect function.1) : D:\Users\Default\NetHood
WriteReparsePoint(dir)(Incorrect function.1) : D:\Users\Default\PrintHood
WriteReparsePoint(dir)(Incorrect function.1) : D:\Users\Default\Recent
WriteReparsePoint(dir)(Incorrect function.1) : D:\Users\Default\SendTo
WriteReparsePoint(dir)(Incorrect function.1) : D:\Users\Default\Start Menu
WriteReparsePoint(dir)(Incorrect function.1) : D:\Users\Default\Templates
WriteReparsePoint(dir)(Incorrect function.1) : D:\Users\Default User
WriteReparsePoint(dir)(Incorrect function.1) : D:\Users\Public\Documents\My Music
WriteReparsePoint(dir)(Incorrect function.1) : D:\Users\Public\Documents\My Pictures
WriteReparsePoint(dir)(Incorrect function.1) : D:\Users\Public\Documents\My Videos

 

The OS did actually start to boot. Showing the animation, then a cursor for a moment, then "setting up registry" before ending with a 0x000000F4 STOP error. It wrote a crash dump too, but I would suspect the cause of the BSOD has something to do with those Dirs not existing... :whistle:


MSFN RULES | GimageX HTA for PE 3-5 | lol probloms
tpxmsfn1_zps393339c1.jpg


#25
JodyT

JodyT

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 283 posts
  • Joined 05-April 11
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

First off, I wanted to apologize; I never meant blast anyone.  I think you know where I was coming from, and I'm sorry I misinterpreted the intended tone of resonses.

 

Wow this is getting involved.  I was just hoping to use a partition conversion utility.  I will still try that though.


Edited by JodyThornton, 03 December 2013 - 05:23 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users