7tools Partition Manager 2005 problem

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"John Doe" <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns96509054411ADwisdomfolly@207.115.63.158...
> "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:Xns96505C2A591C0wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158...
>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote
>>
>>>>>>> Reading the article referenced in someone elses earlier
> thread.
>>
>>>
> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/setup/learnmore/multiboot.m
> spx
>>
>>>>>>> Could my problems be resolved by switching
>>>>>>> away from NTFS and back to FAT32?
>>
>>>>>> Nope. FAT32 is only relevant for OSs which
>>>>>> dont support NTFS like Win98 and ME.
>>
>>>>> Is that code for "NTFS is better than FAT32"?
>>
>>>> Nope, just recognising the basics, that Win9x and ME cant see
>>>> the contents of NTFS formatted partitons and so if you setting
>>>> up a dual boot system, thats an important consideration.
>>
>>> I thought your reply had something to do with my problem,
>>> which doesn't have anything to do with Win9x and ME.
>>
>> Nope, I was commenting on why that
>> article you cited mentions FAT32 format.

> That article cited by someone else in this group says that FAT32
> is not only for Windows 9x, but also important for windows NT.

That particular MS article says nothing like that.

And you arent running NT anyway even if he is right.

>>>>> It sounds oversimple.
>>
>>>> It might if that was what was being said. It isnt.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> "John Doe" <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
> news:Xns96509054411ADwisdomfolly@207.115.63.158...
>> "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns96505C2A591C0wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158...
>>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>>> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote
>>>
>>>>>>>> Reading the article referenced in someone elses earlier
>> thread.
>>>
>>>>
>>
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/setup/learnmore/multiboot.m
>> spx
>>>
>>>>>>>> Could my problems be resolved by switching
>>>>>>>> away from NTFS and back to FAT32?
>>>
>>>>>>> Nope. FAT32 is only relevant for OSs which
>>>>>>> dont support NTFS like Win98 and ME.
>>>
>>>>>> Is that code for "NTFS is better than FAT32"?
>>>
>>>>> Nope, just recognising the basics, that Win9x and ME cant see
>>>>> the contents of NTFS formatted partitons and so if you setting
>>>>> up a dual boot system, thats an important consideration.
>>>
>>>> I thought your reply had something to do with my problem,
>>>> which doesn't have anything to do with Win9x and ME.
>>>
>>> Nope, I was commenting on why that
>>> article you cited mentions FAT32 format.
>
>> That article cited by someone else in this group says that FAT32
>> is not only for Windows 9x, but also important for windows NT.
>
> That particular MS article says nothing like that.

It most certainly does.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/setup/learnmore/nt4xp.mspx

"However, using NTFS as the only file system on a computer that
contains both Windows XP and Windows NT is not recommended. On these
computers, a FAT partition containing the Windows NT 4.0 operating
system ensures that when started with Windows NT 4.0, the computer
will have access to needed files. In addition, if Windows NT is not
installed on the system partition, which is almost always the first
partition on the disk, the system partition should also be formatted
with FAT."












>
> And you arent running NT anyway even if he is right.
>
>>>>>> It sounds oversimple.
>>>
>>>>> It might if that was what was being said. It isnt.
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9650917CE2CD1wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158...
> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote

>>>>>> Why are you making a copy of the XP system partition ?

>>>>> Because doing so is extremely useful, for
>>>>> incremental installation backups and troubleshooting.

>>>> Its better to use images for that, not copying the partition.
>>>> That allows you to keep more than one image file
>>>> because the image is quite a bit smaller than a copy
>>>> which copys the free space as well as the used space.

>>> Saving disk space might help, but (at least here) troubleshooting
>>> would be easier being able to boot to a backup copy.

>> Maybe, if you need to swap between the two installs.

> Absolutely, I need to swap between the two installs.

Why ?

>> I dont find that I do that much at all,

> When you do, you unpack and image?

Yep.

>> basically I image the OS and apps partition before
>> installing anything except trivial stuff, so I can just
>> restore the image if the install goes pear shaped
>> and thats usually obvious quite soon into the install.

> I get more use out of it than that.

So do I, that was just the main use.

The only situation I can think of where there is much point
in swapping between two XP installs much is when you
want to pin down exactly how something has made one
of the XPs go pear shaped, checking details in one and
the other to see where its got screwed etc.

>>>>> It's the main function of my disk manager (PartitionMagic,
>>>>> Partition Manager, whatever). Can't live without them.

>>>> You can, actually, use an imager instead.

>>> I guess you mean like Ghost.

>> Yep.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
> news:Xns9650917CE2CD1wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158...
>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>>> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>>>>>>> Why are you making a copy of the XP system partition ?
>
>>>>>> Because doing so is extremely useful, for
>>>>>> incremental installation backups and troubleshooting.
>
>>>>> Its better to use images for that, not copying the partition.
>>>>> That allows you to keep more than one image file
>>>>> because the image is quite a bit smaller than a copy
>>>>> which copys the free space as well as the used space.
>
>>>> Saving disk space might help, but (at least here)
troubleshooting
>>>> would be easier being able to boot to a backup copy.
>
>>> Maybe, if you need to swap between the two installs.
>
>> Absolutely, I need to swap between the two installs.
>
> Why ?

Because.

>>> I dont find that I do that much at all,
>
>> When you do, you unpack and image?
>
> Yep.
>
>>> basically I image the OS and apps partition before
>>> installing anything except trivial stuff, so I can just
>>> restore the image if the install goes pear shaped
>>> and thats usually obvious quite soon into the install.
>
>> I get more use out of it than that.
>
> So do I, that was just the main use.
>
> The only situation I can think of where there is much point
> in swapping between two XP installs much is when you
> want to pin down exactly how something has made one
> of the XPs go pear shaped, checking details in one and
> the other to see where its got screwed etc.

I've never booted to more than one operating system on a regular
basis, but the copy is useful for troubleshooting.







>>>>>> It's the main function of my disk manager (PartitionMagic,
>>>>>> Partition Manager, whatever). Can't live without them.
>
>>>>> You can, actually, use an imager instead.
>
>>>> I guess you mean like Ghost.
>
>>> Yep.
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9650942421945wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158...
> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message

>>>>> In Windows XP: ... make a hidden backup copy of the C drive
>>>>> Windows partition, making the copy partition 2 ... install some
>>>>> programs in partition 1 ... hide partition 1 and switch to
>>>>> partition 2 ... registry information from partition 1 shows up
>>>>> in partition 2, the newly installed programs from partition 1
>>>>> show up in partition 2's Add or Remove Programs and in MSconfig
>>>>> Startup tab Anybody know why that is happening?

>>>> Presumably the usual problem with cloning an XP system
>>>> partition and allowing the clone and original to be visible
>>>> to XP on the first boot after the clone has been made.

>>> Tried that, didn't last. Here, apparently the problem
>>> has to do with deleting the contents of BOOT.INI.

>> Thats the problem I was talking about, allowing XP to see
>> both copys of XP on the first boot of the clone after the
>> clone has been made

> Keeping Windows XP from seeing both copies on the first boot of
> the clone after the clone has been made didn't do anything for me.

Yeah, must admit that I havent actually tried it with two partitons
on the one drive. And its never been that clear how you are making
the copy either, clearly the boot.ini will be way out if its just
copied intact when the XP is in a different partition to the one
that it was created for.

>> sees XP stuff up the contents of BOOT.INI and you can fix that by
> manually editing BOOT.INI

> I don't think that's related to the Registry corruption problem.

Bet it is. And it aint corruption, you are getting a bleed from
the XP install you THINK you are running into the the registry
of the XP install you are ACTUALLY running.

You're just getting confused about which one you are actually
running. And it isnt that easy to guarantee that with the two
copys of XP in different partitions on the one physical drive.

When they are on separate drives, you can always physically
disconnect the drive you dont want boot off and then you will be
completely sure which particular copy you are actually booting.

Bet you dont get a bleed in that particular situation.

>>> Using FAT32, after deleting the contents of BOOT.INI, the
>>> system didn't hang when switching from the original to the
>>> copy of Windows XP (just an observation, not promoting
>>> FAT32), but registry information started to leak again.

>> Yes, more than just BOOT.INI is affected by
>> allowing XP to see both copys of XP on the first
>> boot of the clone after the clone has been made.

> Like the Registry? In any case, I have made sure that
> Windows XP did not see the other copy at any time.

How ? The XP boot is more complicated than it superfically looks.

The only real way to be completely sure that you
arent using any of the partition you dont want to
use is to image it and write zeros thru that partition
to ensure that XP cant decide that there is any
part of XP in that partition. I bet if you do it that
way there wont be any leak and in fact you will find
that you cant actually boot the copy at all, because
the bits of the original it uses aint there anymore.

> The Registry information still leaked.

>>> I delete the contents of BOOT.INI so the
>>> Windows XP startup menu doesn't show.

>>> Anybody know how to get Windows XP to
>>> automatically follow the boot manager choice?

>> Just edit boot.ini so you get the same detail in there
>> as you have in the boot manager choice. The format
>> is a tad cryptic, but its not as bad as it looks.

> That doesn't work either.

It does if you do the copy properly and do
the other very early XP boot phase stuff too.

Its perfectly feasible to have two installs of XP selectable in
a boot menu and to not have any registry bleed between them.

> The BOOT.INI file is not cryptic to me.

Maybe its not as clear as you assume it is.

> But, as far as I know, it's not programmable either.

Corse it is.

> Yes, I know it can be edited.

And you can see the editing working if you do it right.

>> Thats not going to help with the alleged 'registry info leak' tho,

> I have been making copies of the operating-system
> partition for backup and troubleshooting since before
> PartitionMagic 4 was published.

The problem is that the NT/2K/XP family have a
more complex boot than the Win9x and ME family do.

That can and does bite countless in the arse.

> The registry information leaks somehow.
> It is a problem I can easily reproduce.

Yep, and so can the failure to boot the
copy when the original is removed too.

> Your suggestion of ensuring that Windows XP cannot see
> the copy on the first boot of the copy simply does not work.

It does with physical drives. You can find quite a few saying
that doing the copy properly on the first boot has worked for
them after I have suggested that using groups.google

>> the fix for that is to clone the copy of XP again
>> and then ensure that XP cant see both copys
>> during the first boot of the clone of XP.

> You have said that a dozen times in excitefull replies

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.

> scattered throughout this thread. What you're saying is easy to
> understand after the first or second iteration, but it just doesn't work.

It does with separate physical drives, as
even you can check using groups.google.

You must not be hiding the original partition effectively enough.

And thats easy to prove by actually erasing the original
partition. Bet you will find that the copy wont boot anymore
and thats the proof that you arent actually booting JUST
the copy, you're actually using whats in the original too.

AND it must be doable, because its perfectly feasible to
have two bootable copys of XP on a single hard drive
and that MS article tells you one way of achieving that.

>> Best by hiding the original XP partition with a boot
>> manager if they are both on one drive. Best by unplugging
>> the original drive if they are on different drives.
>>
>> Still nothing to do with the format of the drive, FAT32 or NTFS.
>>
>>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote:
> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote

>>> the fix for that is to clone the copy of XP again
>>> and then ensure that XP cant see both copys
>>> during the first boot of the clone of XP.
>
>> You have said that a dozen times in excitefull replies
>
> Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.

Message-ID: <3e1phrFoshqU1@individual.net>
"on the first boot after creating the clone"
"for the first boot of the clone"
"for the first boot of the cloned XP"

Message-ID: <3e1p9hFp6t6U1@individual.net>
"on the first boot after the clone"
"on the first boot after the clone"
"on the first boot after the clone"
"during the first boot of the clone"
"on the first boot after the clone"
"during the first boot after the clone"

Message-ID: <3e704cF1gfbbU1@individual.net>
"on the first boot of the clone"
"on the first boot of the clone"
"during the first boot of the clone"





>
>
>
> Path: newssvr33.news.prodigy.com!newssvr19.news.prodigy.com!newscon03.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
> From: "Rod Speed" <rod_speed yahoo.com>
> Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage
> Subject: Re: 7tools Partition Manager 2005 problem
> Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 06:24:17 +1000
> Lines: 169
> Message-ID: <3e7arkF1i8l5U1 individual.net>
> References: <Xns964E3D5475535wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158> <3e1p9hFp6t6U1@individual.net> <Xns96504C10CE14Awisdomfolly@207.115.63.158> <3e704cF1gfbbU1@individual.net> <Xns9650942421945wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158>
> X-Trace: individual.net RquxZRdkdMmg8Z2PqqDcYQ08tfb+h4/xQTGi7mK8ULiDdUTAo=
> X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
> X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
> Xref: newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage:349908
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"John Doe" <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns96509C6BC9035wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158...
> "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9650917CE2CD1wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158...
>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>>
>>>>>>>> Why are you making a copy of the XP system partition ?
>>
>>>>>>> Because doing so is extremely useful, for
>>>>>>> incremental installation backups and troubleshooting.
>>
>>>>>> Its better to use images for that, not copying the partition.
>>>>>> That allows you to keep more than one image file
>>>>>> because the image is quite a bit smaller than a copy
>>>>>> which copys the free space as well as the used space.
>>
>>>>> Saving disk space might help, but (at least here)
> troubleshooting
>>>>> would be easier being able to boot to a backup copy.
>>
>>>> Maybe, if you need to swap between the two installs.
>>
>>> Absolutely, I need to swap between the two installs.
>>
>> Why ?

> Because.

How juvenile.

>>>> I dont find that I do that much at all,
>>
>>> When you do, you unpack and image?
>>
>> Yep.
>>
>>>> basically I image the OS and apps partition before
>>>> installing anything except trivial stuff, so I can just
>>>> restore the image if the install goes pear shaped
>>>> and thats usually obvious quite soon into the install.
>>
>>> I get more use out of it than that.
>>
>> So do I, that was just the main use.
>>
>> The only situation I can think of where there is much point
>> in swapping between two XP installs much is when you
>> want to pin down exactly how something has made one
>> of the XPs go pear shaped, checking details in one and
>> the other to see where its got screwed etc.

> I've never booted to more than one operating system on
> a regular basis, but the copy is useful for troubleshooting.

Easy to claim.


>>>>>>> It's the main function of my disk manager (PartitionMagic,
>>>>>>> Partition Manager, whatever). Can't live without them.
>>
>>>>>> You can, actually, use an imager instead.
>>
>>>>> I guess you mean like Ghost.
>>
>>>> Yep.
>>
>>
>>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Troll

"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Path: newssvr17.news.prodigy.com!newscon07.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
> From: "Rod Speed" <rod_speed yahoo.com>
> Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage
> Subject: Re: 7tools Partition Manager 2005 problem
> Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 06:27:56 +1000
> Lines: 79
> Message-ID: <3e7b2fF1jejkU1 individual.net>
> References: <Xns964E3D5475535wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158> <hlKee.22799$3U.1145884@news20.bellglobal.com> <Xns964E62516D520wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158> <3e1ot2Fp03lU1@individual.net> <Xns964EE9BDE83A7wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158> <3e2vgbFv0i2U1@individual.net> <Xns964F6F67A9DEwisdomfolly@207.115.63.158> <3e345bFvha8U1@individual.net> <Xns9650917CE2CD1wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158> <3e79q7F1isa1U1@individual.net> <Xns96509C6BC9035wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158>
> X-Trace: individual.net YT0fATg028pdn/5RSNEMvwtQbVeQ0kknHSCe0Ws0Zu6NbOL14=
> X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
> X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
> Xref: newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage:349909
>
>
> "John Doe" <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
> news:Xns96509C6BC9035wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158...
>> "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9650917CE2CD1wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158...
>>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>>> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why are you making a copy of the XP system partition ?
>>>
>>>>>>>> Because doing so is extremely useful, for
>>>>>>>> incremental installation backups and troubleshooting.
>>>
>>>>>>> Its better to use images for that, not copying the partition.
>>>>>>> That allows you to keep more than one image file
>>>>>>> because the image is quite a bit smaller than a copy
>>>>>>> which copys the free space as well as the used space.
>>>
>>>>>> Saving disk space might help, but (at least here)
>> troubleshooting
>>>>>> would be easier being able to boot to a backup copy.
>>>
>>>>> Maybe, if you need to swap between the two installs.
>>>
>>>> Absolutely, I need to swap between the two installs.
>>>
>>> Why ?
>
>> Because.
>
> How juvenile.
>
>>>>> I dont find that I do that much at all,
>>>
>>>> When you do, you unpack and image?
>>>
>>> Yep.
>>>
>>>>> basically I image the OS and apps partition before
>>>>> installing anything except trivial stuff, so I can just
>>>>> restore the image if the install goes pear shaped
>>>>> and thats usually obvious quite soon into the install.
>>>
>>>> I get more use out of it than that.
>>>
>>> So do I, that was just the main use.
>>>
>>> The only situation I can think of where there is much point
>>> in swapping between two XP installs much is when you
>>> want to pin down exactly how something has made one
>>> of the XPs go pear shaped, checking details in one and
>>> the other to see where its got screwed etc.
>
>> I've never booted to more than one operating system on
>> a regular basis, but the copy is useful for troubleshooting.
>
> Easy to claim.
>
>
>>>>>>>> It's the main function of my disk manager (PartitionMagic,
>>>>>>>> Partition Manager, whatever). Can't live without them.
>>>
>>>>>>> You can, actually, use an imager instead.
>>>
>>>>>> I guess you mean like Ghost.
>>>
>>>>> Yep.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"John Doe" <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns96509A393F6A7wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158...
> da_test <davexnet02NO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 06 May 2005 11:01:38 GMT, John Doe
> <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Besides some obvious and difficult bugs in 7tools Partition
>>>Manager 2005, there is one which puzzles me.
>>>
>>>In Windows XP:
>>>
>>>... make a hidden backup copy of the C drive Windows partition,
>>>making the copy partition 2
>>>
>>>... install some programs in partition 1
>>>
>>>... hide partition 1 and switch to partition 2
>>>
>>>... registry information from partition 1 shows up in partition
>>>2, the newly installed programs from partition 1 show up in
>>>partition 2's Add or Remove Programs and in MSconfig Startup
>>>tab
>>>
>>>Anybody know why that is happening? Apparently Windows XP puts
>>>registry information somewhere on the disk that disk managers
>>>cannot correctly copy? That information is sharred throughout
>>>the drive? Could it have something to do with the system
>>>folders labeled "System Volume Information"?
>>>
>>>I was using PartitionMagic, now trying 7tools Partition Manager
>>>2005, I guess Ghost is next?
>>>
>>>Should I make the Windows partition backup copies to another
>>>physical disk? Only one per disk?
>>>
>>>Copying Windows partitions used to be easy.
>>>
>> It doesn't sound right. The registry is just a bunch of files,
>> they're treated the same by partition managers.
>> Verify that you actually are booting the second partition.
>> Use diskmgmt.msc from the run box to view
>> the partition info.
>
> I know how to use Windows XP disk management. The programs do not
> exist in the other installation but the registry information exists.
> Apparently, somehow the Registry gets corrupted. I'm not suggesting
> that partition managers do the corrupting, apparently Windows
> changes the registry information in the other installation.
>
> The problem is easy enough to reproduce, given the time. This last
> effort, among other things I did this:
>
> ... everything below was done from my PartitionMagic 8 boot CD,
> including switching from one partition to the other, making sure
> that one or the other partition was hidden and inactive before
> booting to the active partition
>
> ... reinstalled Windows XP on a FAT32 partition
>
> ... made a copy
>
> ... install a program in the original Windows XP
>
> ... switched to the copy, there was no registry information of the
> newly installed program
>
> ... repeated that in the copy to see if program information would
> show up in the original, it didn't, all was fine

So why did you originally see any registry bleed at all ?

I bet that if you erase the original partition, the copy wont boot.
Because the boot of the copy is using stuff in the original partition.

And the boot.ini in the copy has wrong data in it.

How are you specifying which partition to boot ?

> ... deleted the contents of BOOT.INI in the original and switched to
> the copy
>
> ... deleted the contents of BOOT.INI in the copy
>
> ... the registry information began to leak
>
> Deleting the contents of BOOT.INI caused the malfunction. Maybe
> Windows XP depends on BOOT.INI information to somehow point to the
> registry files. I guess when BOOT.INI is empty, Windows XP uses a
> default location.

I bet its not actually booting just the copy when you think you
are booting the copy and the proof is to erase the original.
Bet the copy wont boot anymore. With the copy boot.ini unmolested.

The result you are getting with empty boot.ini files is likely just an artifact.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "John Doe" <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
> news:Xns96509A393F6A7wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158...
>> da_test <davexnet02NO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 06 May 2005 11:01:38 GMT, John Doe
>> <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Besides some obvious and difficult bugs in 7tools Partition
>>>>Manager 2005, there is one which puzzles me.
>>>>
>>>>In Windows XP:
>>>>
>>>>... make a hidden backup copy of the C drive Windows
>>>>partition, making the copy partition 2
>>>>
>>>>... install some programs in partition 1
>>>>
>>>>... hide partition 1 and switch to partition 2
>>>>
>>>>... registry information from partition 1 shows up in
>>>>partition 2, the newly installed programs from partition 1
>>>>show up in partition 2's Add or Remove Programs and in
>>>>MSconfig Startup tab
>>>>
>>>>Anybody know why that is happening? Apparently Windows XP puts
>>>>registry information somewhere on the disk that disk managers
>>>>cannot correctly copy? That information is sharred throughout
>>>>the drive? Could it have something to do with the system
>>>>folders labeled "System Volume Information"?
>>>>
>>>>I was using PartitionMagic, now trying 7tools Partition
>>>>Manager 2005, I guess Ghost is next?
>>>>
>>>>Should I make the Windows partition backup copies to another
>>>>physical disk? Only one per disk?
>>>>
>>>>Copying Windows partitions used to be easy.
>>>>
>>> It doesn't sound right. The registry is just a bunch of
>>> files, they're treated the same by partition managers.
>>> Verify that you actually are booting the second partition.
>>> Use diskmgmt.msc from the run box to view
>>> the partition info.
>>
>> I know how to use Windows XP disk management. The programs do
>> not exist in the other installation but the registry
>> information exists. Apparently, somehow the Registry gets
>> corrupted. I'm not suggesting that partition managers do the
>> corrupting, apparently Windows changes the registry information
>> in the other installation.
>>
>> The problem is easy enough to reproduce, given the time. This
>> last effort, among other things I did this:
>>
>> ... everything below was done from my PartitionMagic 8 boot CD,
>> including switching from one partition to the other, making
>> sure that one or the other partition was hidden and inactive
>> before booting to the active partition
>>
>> ... reinstalled Windows XP on a FAT32 partition
>>
>> ... made a copy
>>
>> ... install a program in the original Windows XP
>>
>> ... switched to the copy, there was no registry information of
>> the newly installed program
>>
>> ... repeated that in the copy to see if program information
>> would show up in the original, it didn't, all was fine
>
> So why did you originally see any registry bleed at all ?
>
> I bet that if you erase the original partition, the copy wont
> boot. Because the boot of the copy is using stuff in the
> original partition.

In the post you are replying to, that is more or less what I said.
But it's only using the registry information, definitely not
accessing program files.

> And the boot.ini in the copy has wrong data in it.

Actually, Windows XP enters correct information. As I explained,
Windows XP probably defaults to the wrong registry location for
reading and writing if the BOOT.INI contents are deleted.

> How are you specifying which partition to boot ?

The boot managers that come with PartitionMagic and Partition
Manager.

>> ... deleted the contents of BOOT.INI in the original and
>> switched to the copy
>>
>> ... deleted the contents of BOOT.INI in the copy
>>
>> ... the registry information began to leak
>>
>> Deleting the contents of BOOT.INI caused the malfunction. Maybe
>> Windows XP depends on BOOT.INI information to somehow point to
>> the registry files. I guess when BOOT.INI is empty, Windows XP
>> uses a default location.
>
> I bet its not actually booting just the copy when you think you
> are booting the copy and the proof is to erase the original.
> Bet the copy wont boot anymore. With the copy boot.ini
> unmolested.

It will if I choose the second copy in the Windows XP boot menu.

> The result you are getting with empty boot.ini files is likely
> just an artifact.

Nope.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3e7bigF1intrU1@individual.net...
>
> "John Doe" <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
> news:Xns96509A393F6A7wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158...
>> da_test <davexnet02NO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 06 May 2005 11:01:38 GMT, John Doe
>> <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Besides some obvious and difficult bugs in 7tools Partition
>>>>Manager 2005, there is one which puzzles me.
>>>>
>>>>In Windows XP:
>>>>
>>>>... make a hidden backup copy of the C drive Windows partition,
>>>>making the copy partition 2
>>>>
>>>>... install some programs in partition 1
>>>>
>>>>... hide partition 1 and switch to partition 2
>>>>
>>>>... registry information from partition 1 shows up in partition
>>>>2, the newly installed programs from partition 1 show up in
>>>>partition 2's Add or Remove Programs and in MSconfig Startup
>>>>tab
>>>>
>>>>Anybody know why that is happening? Apparently Windows XP puts
>>>>registry information somewhere on the disk that disk managers
>>>>cannot correctly copy? That information is sharred throughout
>>>>the drive? Could it have something to do with the system
>>>>folders labeled "System Volume Information"?
>>>>
>>>>I was using PartitionMagic, now trying 7tools Partition Manager
>>>>2005, I guess Ghost is next?
>>>>
>>>>Should I make the Windows partition backup copies to another
>>>>physical disk? Only one per disk?
>>>>
>>>>Copying Windows partitions used to be easy.
>>>>
>>> It doesn't sound right. The registry is just a bunch of files,
>>> they're treated the same by partition managers.
>>> Verify that you actually are booting the second partition.
>>> Use diskmgmt.msc from the run box to view
>>> the partition info.
>>
>> I know how to use Windows XP disk management. The programs do not
>> exist in the other installation but the registry information exists.
>> Apparently, somehow the Registry gets corrupted. I'm not suggesting
>> that partition managers do the corrupting, apparently Windows
>> changes the registry information in the other installation.
>>
>> The problem is easy enough to reproduce, given the time. This last
>> effort, among other things I did this:
>>
>> ... everything below was done from my PartitionMagic 8 boot CD,
>> including switching from one partition to the other, making sure
>> that one or the other partition was hidden and inactive before
>> booting to the active partition
>>
>> ... reinstalled Windows XP on a FAT32 partition
>>
>> ... made a copy
>>
>> ... install a program in the original Windows XP
>>
>> ... switched to the copy, there was no registry information of the
>> newly installed program
>>
>> ... repeated that in the copy to see if program information would
>> show up in the original, it didn't, all was fine
>
> So why did you originally see any registry bleed at all ?
>
> I bet that if you erase the original partition, the copy wont boot.
> Because the boot of the copy is using stuff in the original partition.
>
> And the boot.ini in the copy has wrong data in it.
>
> How are you specifying which partition to boot ?
>
>> ... deleted the contents of BOOT.INI in the original and switched to
>> the copy

>> ... deleted the contents of BOOT.INI in the copy

>> ... the registry information began to leak

Why are you deleting the contents of boot.ini and not editing
the boot.ini to have the correct entrys in it for the two XP installs ?

>> Deleting the contents of BOOT.INI caused the malfunction. Maybe
>> Windows XP depends on BOOT.INI information to somehow point to the
>> registry files. I guess when BOOT.INI is empty, Windows XP uses a
>> default location.
>
> I bet its not actually booting just the copy when you think you
> are booting the copy and the proof is to erase the original.
> Bet the copy wont boot anymore. With the copy boot.ini unmolested.
>
> The result you are getting with empty boot.ini files is likely just an
> artifact.
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9650A82FBC2ECwisdomfolly@207.115.63.158...

> Troll

Even you should be able to bullshit your way out of your
predicament better than that pathetic effort, child.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9650A4F17A34Bwisdomfolly@207.115.63.158...
> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote

>>>> the fix for that is to clone the copy of XP again
>>>> and then ensure that XP cant see both copys
>>>> during the first boot of the clone of XP.

>>> You have said that a dozen times in excitefull replies

>> Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.

<reams of quoting flushed where it belongs>

I didnt say I didnt say it a dozen times, just that it wasnt anything
even remotely resembling anything like 'excitefull replies', child.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote:
> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
> news:Xns9650A4F17A34Bwisdomfolly@207.115.63.158...
>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>>> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>>>>> the fix for that is to clone the copy of XP again
>>>>> and then ensure that XP cant see both copys
>>>>> during the first boot of the clone of XP.
>
>>>> You have said that a dozen times in excitefull replies
>
>>> Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.

>> Message-ID: <3e1phrFoshqU1@individual.net>
>> "on the first boot after creating the clone"
>> "for the first boot of the clone"
>> "for the first boot of the cloned XP"
>>
>> Message-ID: <3e1p9hFp6t6U1@individual.net>
>> "on the first boot after the clone"
>> "on the first boot after the clone"
>> "on the first boot after the clone"
>> "during the first boot of the clone"
>> "on the first boot after the clone"
>> "during the first boot after the clone"
>>
>> Message-ID: <3e704cF1gfbbU1@individual.net>
>> "on the first boot of the clone"
>> "on the first boot of the clone"
>> "during the first boot of the clone"

> I didnt say I didnt say it a dozen times, just that it wasnt
> anything even remotely resembling anything like 'excitefull
> replies', child.

You are just a big ego, tough guy wanna-be, big mouth in cyberspace.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9650AC085D043wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158...
> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote
>>> da_test <davexnet02NO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote

>>>>> Besides some obvious and difficult bugs in 7tools
>>>>> Partition Manager 2005, there is one which puzzles me.

>>>>> In Windows XP:

>>>>> ... make a hidden backup copy of the C drive
>>>>> Windows partition, making the copy partition 2

>>>>>... install some programs in partition 1

>>>>>... hide partition 1 and switch to partition 2

>>>>> ... registry information from partition 1 shows up
>>>>> in partition 2, the newly installed programs from
>>>>> partition 1 show up in partition 2's Add or Remove
>>>>> Programs and in MSconfig Startup tab

>>>>> Anybody know why that is happening? Apparently Windows
>>>>> XP puts registry information somewhere on the disk that disk
>>>>> managers cannot correctly copy? That information is sharred
>>>>> throughout the drive? Could it have something to do with the
>>>>> system folders labeled "System Volume Information"?

>>>>> I was using PartitionMagic, now trying 7tools
>>>>> Partition Manager 2005, I guess Ghost is next?

>>>>> Should I make the Windows partition backup copies
>>>>> to another physical disk? Only one per disk?

>>>>> Copying Windows partitions used to be easy.

>>>> It doesn't sound right. The registry is just a bunch of files,
>>>> they're treated the same by partition managers. Verify
>>>> that you actually are booting the second partition. Use
>>>> diskmgmt.msc from the run box to view the partition info.

>>> I know how to use Windows XP disk management.
>>> The programs do not exist in the other installation but
>>> the registry information exists. Apparently, somehow
>>> the Registry gets corrupted. I'm not suggesting that
>>> partition managers do the corrupting, apparently Windows
>>> changes the registry information in the other installation.

>>> The problem is easy enough to reproduce, given the
>>> time. This last effort, among other things I did this:

>>> ... everything below was done from my PartitionMagic 8
>>> boot CD, including switching from one partition to the other,
>>> making sure that one or the other partition was hidden
>>> and inactive before booting to the active partition

>>> ... reinstalled Windows XP on a FAT32 partition

>>> ... made a copy

>>> ... install a program in the original Windows XP

>>> ... switched to the copy, there was no registry
>>> information of the newly installed program

>>> ... repeated that in the copy to see if program information
>>> would show up in the original, it didn't, all was fine

>> So why did you originally see any registry bleed at all ?

Why didnt you answer this ?

>> I bet that if you erase the original partition, the copy wont boot.
>> Because the boot of the copy is using stuff in the original partition.

> In the post you are replying to, that is more or less what I said.

No it isnt. You say nothing about failing to boot.

> But it's only using the registry information,
> definitely not accessing program files.

And as was pointed out to you by da_test, the registry is
just files in partitions, nothing special about the registry there.

>> And the boot.ini in the copy has wrong data in it.

> Actually, Windows XP enters correct information.

When you boot the copy, it corrects the contents of boot.ini ?

> As I explained, Windows XP probably defaults to the wrong registry
> location for reading and writing if the BOOT.INI contents are deleted.

Why are you deleting the contents of boot.ini at all if the boot.ini
contents are corrected automatically by XP when you boot the copy ?

>> How are you specifying which partition to boot ?

> The boot managers that come with PartitionMagic and Partition Manager.

>>> ... deleted the contents of BOOT.INI in
>>> the original and switched to the copy

>>> ... deleted the contents of BOOT.INI in the copy

>>> ... the registry information began to leak

>>> Deleting the contents of BOOT.INI caused the malfunction.
>>> Maybe Windows XP depends on BOOT.INI information to
>>> somehow point to the registry files. I guess when BOOT.INI
>>> is empty, Windows XP uses a default location.

>> I bet its not actually booting just the copy when you think you
>> are booting the copy and the proof is to erase the original.
>> Bet the copy wont boot anymore. With the copy boot.ini
>> unmolested.

> It will if I choose the second copy in the Windows XP boot menu.

Dont believe it. If you didnt get any registry bleed initially,
with the boot.ini file unmolested by you, why did you molest it ?

>> The result you are getting with empty boot.ini files is likely just an
>> artifact.

> Nope.

You have no basis for saying that. Bet you will find
that the copy wont actually boot if you erase the
original partition, with the boot.ini file unmolested.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

I carefully laid out the process, anyone who has a computer and
some skill can verify my conclusions. You've got lots of theories,
if you can work the keyboard for anything except posting to
Usenet, go for it.

"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Path: newssvr33.news.prodigy.com!newssvr19.news.prodigy.com!newscon03.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
> From: "Rod Speed" <rod_speed yahoo.com>
> Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage
> Subject: Re: 7tools Partition Manager 2005 problem
> Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 08:17:35 +1000
> Lines: 136
> Message-ID: <3e7hg2F1koa4U1 individual.net>
> References: <Xns964E3D5475535wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158> <67fo7195p7eaek1ip4m48d5j6402bfsq86@4ax.com> <Xns96509A393F6A7wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158> <3e7bigF1intrU1@individual.net> <Xns9650AC085D043wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158>
> X-Trace: individual.net kYyR10U72SmPxERgL9FxagE0iVSFywUmfujySh1g890hIjso4=
> X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
> X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
> Xref: newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage:349921
>
>
> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
> news:Xns9650AC085D043wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158...
>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>>> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote
>>>> da_test <davexnet02NO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote
>
>>>>>> Besides some obvious and difficult bugs in 7tools
>>>>>> Partition Manager 2005, there is one which puzzles me.
>
>>>>>> In Windows XP:
>
>>>>>> ... make a hidden backup copy of the C drive
>>>>>> Windows partition, making the copy partition 2
>
>>>>>>... install some programs in partition 1
>
>>>>>>... hide partition 1 and switch to partition 2
>
>>>>>> ... registry information from partition 1 shows up
>>>>>> in partition 2, the newly installed programs from
>>>>>> partition 1 show up in partition 2's Add or Remove
>>>>>> Programs and in MSconfig Startup tab
>
>>>>>> Anybody know why that is happening? Apparently Windows
>>>>>> XP puts registry information somewhere on the disk that disk
>>>>>> managers cannot correctly copy? That information is sharred
>>>>>> throughout the drive? Could it have something to do with the
>>>>>> system folders labeled "System Volume Information"?
>
>>>>>> I was using PartitionMagic, now trying 7tools
>>>>>> Partition Manager 2005, I guess Ghost is next?
>
>>>>>> Should I make the Windows partition backup copies
>>>>>> to another physical disk? Only one per disk?
>
>>>>>> Copying Windows partitions used to be easy.
>
>>>>> It doesn't sound right. The registry is just a bunch of files,
>>>>> they're treated the same by partition managers. Verify
>>>>> that you actually are booting the second partition. Use
>>>>> diskmgmt.msc from the run box to view the partition info.
>
>>>> I know how to use Windows XP disk management.
>>>> The programs do not exist in the other installation but
>>>> the registry information exists. Apparently, somehow
>>>> the Registry gets corrupted. I'm not suggesting that
>>>> partition managers do the corrupting, apparently Windows
>>>> changes the registry information in the other installation.
>
>>>> The problem is easy enough to reproduce, given the
>>>> time. This last effort, among other things I did this:
>
>>>> ... everything below was done from my PartitionMagic 8
>>>> boot CD, including switching from one partition to the other,
>>>> making sure that one or the other partition was hidden
>>>> and inactive before booting to the active partition
>
>>>> ... reinstalled Windows XP on a FAT32 partition
>
>>>> ... made a copy
>
>>>> ... install a program in the original Windows XP
>
>>>> ... switched to the copy, there was no registry
>>>> information of the newly installed program
>
>>>> ... repeated that in the copy to see if program information
>>>> would show up in the original, it didn't, all was fine
>
>>> So why did you originally see any registry bleed at all ?
>
> Why didnt you answer this ?
>
>>> I bet that if you erase the original partition, the copy wont boot.
>>> Because the boot of the copy is using stuff in the original partition.
>
>> In the post you are replying to, that is more or less what I said.
>
> No it isnt. You say nothing about failing to boot.
>
>> But it's only using the registry information,
>> definitely not accessing program files.
>
> And as was pointed out to you by da_test, the registry is
> just files in partitions, nothing special about the registry there.
>
>>> And the boot.ini in the copy has wrong data in it.
>
>> Actually, Windows XP enters correct information.
>
> When you boot the copy, it corrects the contents of boot.ini ?
>
>> As I explained, Windows XP probably defaults to the wrong registry
>> location for reading and writing if the BOOT.INI contents are deleted.
>
> Why are you deleting the contents of boot.ini at all if the boot.ini
> contents are corrected automatically by XP when you boot the copy ?
>
>>> How are you specifying which partition to boot ?
>
>> The boot managers that come with PartitionMagic and Partition Manager.
>
>>>> ... deleted the contents of BOOT.INI in
>>>> the original and switched to the copy
>
>>>> ... deleted the contents of BOOT.INI in the copy
>
>>>> ... the registry information began to leak
>
>>>> Deleting the contents of BOOT.INI caused the malfunction.
>>>> Maybe Windows XP depends on BOOT.INI information to
>>>> somehow point to the registry files. I guess when BOOT.INI
>>>> is empty, Windows XP uses a default location.
>
>>> I bet its not actually booting just the copy when you think you
>>> are booting the copy and the proof is to erase the original.
>>> Bet the copy wont boot anymore. With the copy boot.ini
>>> unmolested.
>
>> It will if I choose the second copy in the Windows XP boot menu.
>
> Dont believe it. If you didnt get any registry bleed initially,
> with the boot.ini file unmolested by you, why did you molest it ?
>
>>> The result you are getting with empty boot.ini files is likely just an
>>> artifact.
>
>> Nope.
>
> You have no basis for saying that. Bet you will find
> that the copy wont actually boot if you erase the
> original partition, with the boot.ini file unmolested.
>
>
>
>

 

[peter]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

> Besides some obvious and difficult bugs in 7tools Partition
> Manager 2005, there is one which puzzles me.
>
> In Windows XP:
>
> ... make a hidden backup copy of the C drive Windows partition,
> making the copy partition 2
>
> ... install some programs in partition 1
>
> ... hide partition 1 and switch to partition 2
>
> ... registry information from partition 1 shows up in partition
> 2, the newly installed programs from partition 1 show up in
> partition 2's Add or Remove Programs and in MSconfig Startup
> tab
>
> Anybody know why that is happening? Apparently Windows XP puts
> registry information somewhere on the disk that disk managers
> cannot correctly copy? That information is sharred throughout
> the drive? Could it have something to do with the system
> folders labeled "System Volume Information"?
>
> I was using PartitionMagic, now trying 7tools Partition Manager
> 2005, I guess Ghost is next?
>
> Should I make the Windows partition backup copies to another
> physical disk? Only one per disk?
>
> Copying Windows partitions used to be easy.

This might help:
http://www.goodells.net/multiboot/
especially:
http://www.goodells.net/multiboot/editbini.htm
http://www.goodells.net/multiboot/partsigs.htm
"Note that if a partition no longer exists in the system, any drive letter
previously assigned to that partition may be available for reallocation to
new partitions. "No longer exists" means the partition tables no longer show
any partition beginning at the same sector location. Remember that,
commonly, hiding a partition doesn't make it invisible, but really just
disguises it. That means that using a boot or partition manager to hide a
partition won't necessarily result in Windows forgetting that partition had
previously been assigned a drive letter, whether or not XP can access files
on it."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9650B7AB69534wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158...

> You are just a big ego, tough guy wanna-be, big mouth in cyberspace.

Even you should be able to bullshit your way out of
your predicament better than that pathetic effort, child.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9650B99A3A74wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158...

> I carefully laid out the process,

You didnt actually. You STILL havent explained why you got
registry bleed initially WITHOUT deleting the contents of the
boot.ini or why you were stupid enough to delete the contents
of boot.ini and THEN see registry bleed and why it matters
a damn what happens when the contents of boot.ini are deleted.

> anyone who has a computer and some skill can verify my
> conclusions. You've got lots of theories, if you can work the
> keyboard for anything except posting to Usenet, go for it.

You're the one with the problem, child.

I've copied XP successfully many times.


> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote
>>>>> da_test <davexnet02NO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote
>>
>>>>>>> Besides some obvious and difficult bugs in 7tools
>>>>>>> Partition Manager 2005, there is one which puzzles me.
>>
>>>>>>> In Windows XP:
>>
>>>>>>> ... make a hidden backup copy of the C drive
>>>>>>> Windows partition, making the copy partition 2
>>
>>>>>>>... install some programs in partition 1
>>
>>>>>>>... hide partition 1 and switch to partition 2
>>
>>>>>>> ... registry information from partition 1 shows up
>>>>>>> in partition 2, the newly installed programs from
>>>>>>> partition 1 show up in partition 2's Add or Remove
>>>>>>> Programs and in MSconfig Startup tab
>>
>>>>>>> Anybody know why that is happening? Apparently Windows
>>>>>>> XP puts registry information somewhere on the disk that disk
>>>>>>> managers cannot correctly copy? That information is sharred
>>>>>>> throughout the drive? Could it have something to do with the
>>>>>>> system folders labeled "System Volume Information"?
>>
>>>>>>> I was using PartitionMagic, now trying 7tools
>>>>>>> Partition Manager 2005, I guess Ghost is next?
>>
>>>>>>> Should I make the Windows partition backup copies
>>>>>>> to another physical disk? Only one per disk?
>>
>>>>>>> Copying Windows partitions used to be easy.
>>
>>>>>> It doesn't sound right. The registry is just a bunch of files,
>>>>>> they're treated the same by partition managers. Verify
>>>>>> that you actually are booting the second partition. Use
>>>>>> diskmgmt.msc from the run box to view the partition info.
>>
>>>>> I know how to use Windows XP disk management.
>>>>> The programs do not exist in the other installation but
>>>>> the registry information exists. Apparently, somehow
>>>>> the Registry gets corrupted. I'm not suggesting that
>>>>> partition managers do the corrupting, apparently Windows
>>>>> changes the registry information in the other installation.
>>
>>>>> The problem is easy enough to reproduce, given the
>>>>> time. This last effort, among other things I did this:
>>
>>>>> ... everything below was done from my PartitionMagic 8
>>>>> boot CD, including switching from one partition to the other,
>>>>> making sure that one or the other partition was hidden
>>>>> and inactive before booting to the active partition
>>
>>>>> ... reinstalled Windows XP on a FAT32 partition
>>
>>>>> ... made a copy
>>
>>>>> ... install a program in the original Windows XP
>>
>>>>> ... switched to the copy, there was no registry
>>>>> information of the newly installed program
>>
>>>>> ... repeated that in the copy to see if program information
>>>>> would show up in the original, it didn't, all was fine
>>
>>>> So why did you originally see any registry bleed at all ?
>>
>> Why didnt you answer this ?
>>
>>>> I bet that if you erase the original partition, the copy wont boot.
>>>> Because the boot of the copy is using stuff in the original partition.
>>
>>> In the post you are replying to, that is more or less what I said.
>>
>> No it isnt. You say nothing about failing to boot.
>>
>>> But it's only using the registry information,
>>> definitely not accessing program files.
>>
>> And as was pointed out to you by da_test, the registry is
>> just files in partitions, nothing special about the registry there.
>>
>>>> And the boot.ini in the copy has wrong data in it.
>>
>>> Actually, Windows XP enters correct information.
>>
>> When you boot the copy, it corrects the contents of boot.ini ?
>>
>>> As I explained, Windows XP probably defaults to the wrong registry
>>> location for reading and writing if the BOOT.INI contents are deleted.
>>
>> Why are you deleting the contents of boot.ini at all if the boot.ini
>> contents are corrected automatically by XP when you boot the copy ?
>>
>>>> How are you specifying which partition to boot ?
>>
>>> The boot managers that come with PartitionMagic and Partition Manager.
>>
>>>>> ... deleted the contents of BOOT.INI in
>>>>> the original and switched to the copy
>>
>>>>> ... deleted the contents of BOOT.INI in the copy
>>
>>>>> ... the registry information began to leak
>>
>>>>> Deleting the contents of BOOT.INI caused the malfunction.
>>>>> Maybe Windows XP depends on BOOT.INI information to
>>>>> somehow point to the registry files. I guess when BOOT.INI
>>>>> is empty, Windows XP uses a default location.
>>
>>>> I bet its not actually booting just the copy when you think you
>>>> are booting the copy and the proof is to erase the original.
>>>> Bet the copy wont boot anymore. With the copy boot.ini
>>>> unmolested.
>>
>>> It will if I choose the second copy in the Windows XP boot menu.
>>
>> Dont believe it. If you didnt get any registry bleed initially,
>> with the boot.ini file unmolested by you, why did you molest it ?
>>
>>>> The result you are getting with empty boot.ini files is likely just an
>>>> artifact.
>>
>>> Nope.
>>
>> You have no basis for saying that. Bet you will find
>> that the copy wont actually boot if you erase the
>> original partition, with the boot.ini file unmolested.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote:
> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message

>> You are just a big ego, tough guy wanna-be, big mouth in
>> cyberspace.
>
> Even you should be able to bullshit your way out of
> your predicament better than that pathetic effort, child.

What predicament is that, tough guy wanna-be?

Are you talking about your inability to do anything with your
computer except post to Usenet?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote:
> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message

>> I carefully laid out the process,
>
> You didnt actually. You STILL havent explained why you got
> registry bleed initially WITHOUT deleting the contents of the
> boot.ini

I never said that. You could tell by my posts if you wanted to. Are
you going to ask the same question a dozen times?

> or why you were stupid enough to delete the contents
> of boot.ini and THEN see registry bleed

Well, tough guy wanna-be, I didn't want the Windows XP boot menu
getting in the way of my boot managers.

> and why it matters
> a damn what happens when the contents of boot.ini are deleted.

A few posts above, in reply to da_test, I proved that and expressed
my theory about why it happens.

Do you do anything with your computer besides post to Usenet? If you
did, you could simply follow my instructions to disprove your
contention.

Do something instead of just talking.

>> anyone who has a computer and some skill can verify my
>> conclusions. You've got lots of theories, if you can work the
>> keyboard for anything except posting to Usenet, go for it.
>
> You're the one with the problem, child.

And yours is a fake solution repeated a dozen times, tough guy
wanna-be.

> I've copied XP successfully many times.

So have I.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Peter" <peterfoxghost@yahoo.ca> wrote:

> This might help:
> http://www.goodells.net/multiboot/
> especially:
> http://www.goodells.net/multiboot/editbini.htm
> http://www.goodells.net/multiboot/partsigs.htm
> "Note that if a partition no longer exists in the system, any
> drive letter previously assigned to that partition may be
> available for reallocation to new partitions. "No longer exists"
> means the partition tables no longer show any partition
> beginning at the same sector location. Remember that, commonly,
> hiding a partition doesn't make it invisible, but really just
> disguises it. That means that using a boot or partition manager
> to hide a partition won't necessarily result in Windows
> forgetting that partition had previously been assigned a drive
> letter, whether or not XP can access files on it."

I was thinking that learning more about BOOT.INI probably is a
good idea. Thanks for providing the links.

Probably still need to also use a boot manager since the Windows
boot menu does not hide the other partitions. The combination might
be the only known way to keep bootable (non-conflicting) Windows XP
partitions on the same disk. It's inconvenient, but it's no big
deal.

Thanks.

 

[peter]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

> > This might help:
> > http://www.goodells.net/multiboot/
> > especially:
> > http://www.goodells.net/multiboot/editbini.htm
> > http://www.goodells.net/multiboot/partsigs.htm
> > "Note that if a partition no longer exists in the system, any
> > drive letter previously assigned to that partition may be
> > available for reallocation to new partitions. "No longer exists"
> > means the partition tables no longer show any partition
> > beginning at the same sector location. Remember that, commonly,
> > hiding a partition doesn't make it invisible, but really just
> > disguises it. That means that using a boot or partition manager
> > to hide a partition won't necessarily result in Windows
> > forgetting that partition had previously been assigned a drive
> > letter, whether or not XP can access files on it."
>
> I was thinking that learning more about BOOT.INI probably is a
> good idea. Thanks for providing the links.
>
> Probably still need to also use a boot manager since the Windows
> boot menu does not hide the other partitions. The combination might
> be the only known way to keep bootable (non-conflicting) Windows XP
> partitions on the same disk. It's inconvenient, but it's no big
> deal.

Yes, you need a "better" boot manager:

"The most rudimentary boot loaders--such as linux LILO and the NT loader
(ntldr) used by Windows 2000 and XP--have little or no control over the
partition tables to hide any partitions. They rely on the principle that if
differing OS's cannot understand partitions in foreign file formats, then
the partitions are as good as hidden anyway. This doesn't help, though, if
you install duplicate or multiple OS's that can read each other's file
formats. Better boot managers can hide/unhide primary partitions depending
on which you want visible. The most versatile can also selectively hide
logical volumes in the extended primary partition.
If the only OS's you've installed can't understand each other's file
formats, or if they can and you don't care about it, then the rudimentary
boot loaders should be fine. If you only have a couple OS's and can put them
in primary partitions, then mid-level boot managers (like BootMagic,
included with PartitionMagic) will allow you to hide them from each other.
Since we've put some OS's in logical partitions that must be hidden when
certain other OS's are booted, we need a good boot manager that is also
capable of hiding logical partitions. BootIt-NG and XOSL fall into this
latter category."

If you plan cloning XP partitions, editing BOOT.INI is a must,
unless you use a sophisticated boot manager as Bootit-ng.

Then you have to deal with disk signatures too (Bootit-ng helps
there also):

"The other issue is that NT-family OS's "remember" drive letters by
recording the signatures of the corresponding partitions in the XP registry.
When you clone partition-1 to partition-2, the registry goes with it. But
then when partition-2 tries to boot it will remember that the partition
signature corresponding to partition-1 is where 'C:' was, and it may assign
partition-2 a different drive letter. That's bad. The solution is to make XP
forget the remembered drive letter assignments. The registry tweak to clear
the partition signatures will do that. Make the registry edit on partition-1
before cloning it to partition-2, then XP won't remember any previous drive
letters and will build the registry partition signatures anew the first time
it boots."

 

[joeP]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"John Doe" <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns96509BB4FFDA9wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158..."However, using NTFS
"However, using NTFS as the only file system on a computer that
contains both Windows XP and Windows NT is not recommended. On these
computers, a FAT partition containing the Windows NT 4.0 operating
system ensures that when started with Windows NT 4.0, the computer
will have access to needed files."

Is for an entirely different issue.

--
Joep

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Joep" <available@request.nl> wrote:
this is > "John Doe" <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
> news:Xns96509BB4FFDA9wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158..."However, using NTFS
> "However, using NTFS as the only file system on a computer that
> contains both Windows XP and Windows NT is not recommended. On these
> computers, a FAT partition containing the Windows NT 4.0 operating
> system ensures that when started with Windows NT 4.0, the computer
> will have access to needed files."
>
> Is for an entirely different issue.

It's for the same issue.



>
> --
> Joep
>
>
>
> Path: newssvr19.news.prodigy.com!newscon03.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newscon02.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!news.glorb.com!feeder.xsnews.nl!feeder.news-service.com!post.news-service.com!nf1.news-service.com!not-for-mail
> From: "Joep" <available request.nl>
> Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage
> References: <Xns964E3D5475535wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158> <Xns964E4F1A8D1B1wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158> <3e1phrFoshqU1@individual.net> <Xns964F5C773BA6Fwisdomfolly@207.115.63.158> <3e4lf5F16og5U1@individual.net> <Xns96505C2A591C0wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158> <3e6vcpF1hn0fU2@individual.net> <Xns96509054411ADwisdomfolly@207.115.63.158> <3e79i0F1ipvhU1@individual.net> <Xns96509BB4FFDA9wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158>
> Subject: Re: 7tools Partition Manager 2005 problem
> Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 23:05:04 +0200
> X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
> Message-ID: <36246$427fd1c2$3eddca68$23331 nf1.news-service.com>
> X-Complaints-To: abuse@news-service.com
> Organization: News-Service.com
> Lines: 14
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 62-221-202-104.dsl.uwadslprovider.nl (62.221.202.104)
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 23:10:26 +0200
> X-Trace: 36246427fd1c29b786fcd23331
> Xref: newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage:349958
>