Trouble cloning XP with Ghost 2003

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

The boot disk for my XP system has been having a number of bad sector
problems lately, so I decided to try to clone it to a new drive. I
installed a 2nd drive, formatted it, and used Norton Ghost 2003 to do a
clone of the boot (C:) drive to it.

When the clone is complete, I power off, swap the cable and set the jumpers,
but get a "boot failure from previous device" error on startup (after BIOS
screen but before Windows).

I can verify that the clone worked by booting off the original drive with
the clone as a slave-- all the files seem to be there.

What might I be doing wrong?

Thanks,
Kevin
24 answers Last reply
More about trouble cloning ghost 2003
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Did you boot XP after you have installed a 2nd drive, before using Ghost
    2003 (booted from DOS/floppy)?

    "Kevin" <kevin@wxREMOVE4SPAM3.com> wrote in message
    news:-5CdnUXpY-TdhXbcRVn-rA@comcast.com...
    > The boot disk for my XP system has been having a number of bad sector
    > problems lately, so I decided to try to clone it to a new drive. I
    > installed a 2nd drive, formatted it, and used Norton Ghost 2003 to do a
    > clone of the boot (C:) drive to it.
    >
    > When the clone is complete, I power off, swap the cable and set the
    jumpers,
    > but get a "boot failure from previous device" error on startup (after BIOS
    > screen but before Windows).
    >
    > I can verify that the clone worked by booting off the original drive with
    > the clone as a slave-- all the files seem to be there.
    >
    > What might I be doing wrong?
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Kevin
    >
    >
  2. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Yes, I drive was installed prior to installing ghost.

    I followed the directions in Ghost's readme, and have tried using both -FDSZ
    and -FDSP.

    - Kevin

    "Peter" <peterfoxghost@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
    news:350l2rF4f8ajqU1@individual.net...
    > Did you boot XP after you have installed a 2nd drive, before using Ghost
    > 2003 (booted from DOS/floppy)?
    >
    > "Kevin" <kevin@wxREMOVE4SPAM3.com> wrote in message
    > news:-5CdnUXpY-TdhXbcRVn-rA@comcast.com...
    >> The boot disk for my XP system has been having a number of bad sector
    >> problems lately, so I decided to try to clone it to a new drive. I
    >> installed a 2nd drive, formatted it, and used Norton Ghost 2003 to do a
    >> clone of the boot (C:) drive to it.
    >>
    >> When the clone is complete, I power off, swap the cable and set the
    > jumpers,
    >> but get a "boot failure from previous device" error on startup (after
    >> BIOS
    >> screen but before Windows).
    >>
    >> I can verify that the clone worked by booting off the original drive with
    >> the clone as a slave-- all the files seem to be there.
    >>
    >> What might I be doing wrong?
    >>
    >> Thanks,
    >> Kevin
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
  3. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Kevin" <kevin@wxREMOVE4SPAM3.com> wrote in message
    news:-5CdnUXpY-TdhXbcRVn-rA@comcast.com...
    > The boot disk for my XP system has been having a number of bad sector problems
    > lately, so I decided to try to clone it to a new drive. I installed a 2nd
    > drive, formatted it, and used Norton Ghost 2003 to do a clone of the boot (C:)
    > drive to it.
    >
    > When the clone is complete, I power off, swap the cable and set the jumpers,
    > but get a "boot failure from previous device" error on startup (after BIOS
    > screen but before Windows).
    >
    > I can verify that the clone worked by booting off the original drive with the
    > clone as a slave-- all the files seem to be there.
    >
    > What might I be doing wrong?

    You basically have to unplug the original drive for the first
    boot after the drive has been cloned and boot off the copy.

    XP will claim to have detected new hardware and ask to
    be allowed to reboot. Once you have allowed that, you
    can put the original drive back in the system if you want,
    if you say want to use it for video capture etc.

    If XP can see both the original and the copy during
    the first boot after the original has been cloned, it
    gets seriously confused, even if you boot off the
    copy and it uses files off the original for the boot.
  4. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    I don't give XP a chance to see the clone-- I've been powering off and
    removing the original drive as soon as Ghost completes.

    "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:350scgF4f9bdrU1@individual.net...
    >
    > "Kevin" <kevin@wxREMOVE4SPAM3.com> wrote in message
    > news:-5CdnUXpY-TdhXbcRVn-rA@comcast.com...
    >> The boot disk for my XP system has been having a number of bad sector
    >> problems lately, so I decided to try to clone it to a new drive. I
    >> installed a 2nd drive, formatted it, and used Norton Ghost 2003 to do a
    >> clone of the boot (C:) drive to it.
    >>
    >> When the clone is complete, I power off, swap the cable and set the
    >> jumpers, but get a "boot failure from previous device" error on startup
    >> (after BIOS screen but before Windows).
    >>
    >> I can verify that the clone worked by booting off the original drive with
    >> the clone as a slave-- all the files seem to be there.
    >>
    >> What might I be doing wrong?
    >
    > You basically have to unplug the original drive for the first
    > boot after the drive has been cloned and boot off the copy.
    >
    > XP will claim to have detected new hardware and ask to
    > be allowed to reboot. Once you have allowed that, you
    > can put the original drive back in the system if you want,
    > if you say want to use it for video capture etc.
    >
    > If XP can see both the original and the copy during
    > the first boot after the original has been cloned, it
    > gets seriously confused, even if you boot off the
    > copy and it uses files off the original for the boot.
    >
  5. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Got it working-- not exactly sure what the problem was. It was either a) I
    needed to run Ghost from floppy, or b) I needed to bring up the boot menu in
    BIOS and explicitly tell it to boot from the IDE drive (even though that was
    the only option).

    Anyway, thanks for the suggestions & ideas.

    - Kevin

    "Kevin" <kevin@wxREMOVE4SPAM3.com> wrote in message
    news:-5CdnUXpY-TdhXbcRVn-rA@comcast.com...
    > The boot disk for my XP system has been having a number of bad sector
    > problems lately, so I decided to try to clone it to a new drive. I
    > installed a 2nd drive, formatted it, and used Norton Ghost 2003 to do a
    > clone of the boot (C:) drive to it.
    >
    > When the clone is complete, I power off, swap the cable and set the
    > jumpers, but get a "boot failure from previous device" error on startup
    > (after BIOS screen but before Windows).
    >
    > I can verify that the clone worked by booting off the original drive with
    > the clone as a slave-- all the files seem to be there.
    >
    > What might I be doing wrong?
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Kevin
    >
  6. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 22:47:39 -0500, "Kevin" <kevin@wxREMOVE4SPAM3.com> wrote:

    >Yes, I drive was installed prior to installing ghost.
    >
    >I followed the directions in Ghost's readme, and have tried using both -FDSZ
    >and -FDSP.
    >
    >- Kevin


    The Boot Sectors are not copied with Ghost..


    >"Peter" <peterfoxghost@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
    >news:350l2rF4f8ajqU1@individual.net...
    >> Did you boot XP after you have installed a 2nd drive, before using Ghost
    >> 2003 (booted from DOS/floppy)?
    >>
    >> "Kevin" <kevin@wxREMOVE4SPAM3.com> wrote in message
    >> news:-5CdnUXpY-TdhXbcRVn-rA@comcast.com...
    >>> The boot disk for my XP system has been having a number of bad sector
    >>> problems lately, so I decided to try to clone it to a new drive. I
    >>> installed a 2nd drive, formatted it, and used Norton Ghost 2003 to do a
    >>> clone of the boot (C:) drive to it.
    >>>
    >>> When the clone is complete, I power off, swap the cable and set the
    >> jumpers,
    >>> but get a "boot failure from previous device" error on startup (after
    >>> BIOS
    >>> screen but before Windows).
    >>>
    >>> I can verify that the clone worked by booting off the original drive with
    >>> the clone as a slave-- all the files seem to be there.
    >>>
    >>> What might I be doing wrong?
    >>>
    >>> Thanks,
    >>> Kevin
    >>>
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >
  7. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Really? I've read messages about people using Ghost to successfully clone
    their aging XP drive.

    How do I copy the boot sectors?

    - Kevin

    <puss@purrpurr.com> wrote in message
    news:k44nu0pnfpb3kgvjnhc9honbrhejab86ud@4ax.com...
    > On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 22:47:39 -0500, "Kevin" <kevin@wxREMOVE4SPAM3.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>Yes, I drive was installed prior to installing ghost.
    >>
    >>I followed the directions in Ghost's readme, and have tried using
    >>both -FDSZ
    >>and -FDSP.
    >>
    >>- Kevin
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > The Boot Sectors are not copied with Ghost..
    >
    >
    >>"Peter" <peterfoxghost@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
    >>news:350l2rF4f8ajqU1@individual.net...
    >>> Did you boot XP after you have installed a 2nd drive, before using Ghost
    >>> 2003 (booted from DOS/floppy)?
    >>>
    >>> "Kevin" <kevin@wxREMOVE4SPAM3.com> wrote in message
    >>> news:-5CdnUXpY-TdhXbcRVn-rA@comcast.com...
    >>>> The boot disk for my XP system has been having a number of bad sector
    >>>> problems lately, so I decided to try to clone it to a new drive. I
    >>>> installed a 2nd drive, formatted it, and used Norton Ghost 2003 to do a
    >>>> clone of the boot (C:) drive to it.
    >>>>
    >>>> When the clone is complete, I power off, swap the cable and set the
    >>> jumpers,
    >>>> but get a "boot failure from previous device" error on startup (after
    >>>> BIOS
    >>>> screen but before Windows).
    >>>>
    >>>> I can verify that the clone worked by booting off the original drive
    >>>> with
    >>>> the clone as a slave-- all the files seem to be there.
    >>>>
    >>>> What might I be doing wrong?
    >>>>
    >>>> Thanks,
    >>>> Kevin
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>
    >
  8. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Kevin <kevin@wxREMOVE4SPAM3.com> wrote in message
    news:c-adnR63PYjNKnbcRVn-3A@comcast.com...

    > I don't give XP a chance to see the clone-- I've been powering off and
    > removing the original drive as soon as Ghost completes.

    Then presumably the clone isnt successful because
    of the state of the original drive, partially failed.

    > "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    > news:350scgF4f9bdrU1@individual.net...
    >>
    >> "Kevin" <kevin@wxREMOVE4SPAM3.com> wrote in message
    >> news:-5CdnUXpY-TdhXbcRVn-rA@comcast.com...
    >>> The boot disk for my XP system has been having a number of bad sector
    >>> problems lately, so I decided to try to clone it to a new drive. I
    >>> installed a 2nd drive, formatted it, and used Norton Ghost 2003 to do a
    >>> clone of the boot (C:) drive to it.
    >>>
    >>> When the clone is complete, I power off, swap the cable and set the jumpers,
    >>> but get a "boot failure from previous device" error on startup (after BIOS
    >>> screen but before Windows).
    >>>
    >>> I can verify that the clone worked by booting off the original drive with
    >>> the clone as a slave-- all the files seem to be there.
    >>>
    >>> What might I be doing wrong?
    >>
    >> You basically have to unplug the original drive for the first
    >> boot after the drive has been cloned and boot off the copy.
    >>
    >> XP will claim to have detected new hardware and ask to
    >> be allowed to reboot. Once you have allowed that, you
    >> can put the original drive back in the system if you want,
    >> if you say want to use it for video capture etc.
    >>
    >> If XP can see both the original and the copy during
    >> the first boot after the original has been cloned, it
    >> gets seriously confused, even if you boot off the
    >> copy and it uses files off the original for the boot.
    >>
    >
    >
  9. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    But the original drive can boot. If the clone is a bitwise copy of the
    original, shouldn't it be able to boot?

    "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:352mekF4hp1r1U1@individual.net...
    >
    > Kevin <kevin@wxREMOVE4SPAM3.com> wrote in message
    > news:c-adnR63PYjNKnbcRVn-3A@comcast.com...
    >
    >> I don't give XP a chance to see the clone-- I've been powering off and
    >> removing the original drive as soon as Ghost completes.
    >
    > Then presumably the clone isnt successful because
    > of the state of the original drive, partially failed.
    >
    >> "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    >> news:350scgF4f9bdrU1@individual.net...
    >>>
    >>> "Kevin" <kevin@wxREMOVE4SPAM3.com> wrote in message
    >>> news:-5CdnUXpY-TdhXbcRVn-rA@comcast.com...
    >>>> The boot disk for my XP system has been having a number of bad sector
    >>>> problems lately, so I decided to try to clone it to a new drive. I
    >>>> installed a 2nd drive, formatted it, and used Norton Ghost 2003 to do a
    >>>> clone of the boot (C:) drive to it.
    >>>>
    >>>> When the clone is complete, I power off, swap the cable and set the
    >>>> jumpers, but get a "boot failure from previous device" error on startup
    >>>> (after BIOS screen but before Windows).
    >>>>
    >>>> I can verify that the clone worked by booting off the original drive
    >>>> with the clone as a slave-- all the files seem to be there.
    >>>>
    >>>> What might I be doing wrong?
    >>>
    >>> You basically have to unplug the original drive for the first
    >>> boot after the drive has been cloned and boot off the copy.
    >>>
    >>> XP will claim to have detected new hardware and ask to
    >>> be allowed to reboot. Once you have allowed that, you
    >>> can put the original drive back in the system if you want,
    >>> if you say want to use it for video capture etc.
    >>>
    >>> If XP can see both the original and the copy during
    >>> the first boot after the original has been cloned, it
    >>> gets seriously confused, even if you boot off the
    >>> copy and it uses files off the original for the boot.
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
  10. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Kevin <kevin@wxREMOVE4SPAM3.com> wrote in
    message news:65CdnYnd27iuoHHcRVn-ow@comcast.com...

    > But the original drive can boot. If the clone is a bitwise copy of the
    > original, shouldn't it be able to boot?

    In theory, yes. In practice the different detail on sector access may
    see the sector contents not copied properly when the clone is made,
    but be good enough on retrys to allow it to boot in the original.

    You did say you got an error message that complained
    about a boot failure before the win screens show up.

    You could also try repairing the bad clone. I wouldnt
    personally because you dont know what else didnt clone
    properly apart from the boot stuff, and that can bit late,
    but its less work that a completely clean reinstall.


    > "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    > news:352mekF4hp1r1U1@individual.net...
    >>
    >> Kevin <kevin@wxREMOVE4SPAM3.com> wrote in message
    >> news:c-adnR63PYjNKnbcRVn-3A@comcast.com...
    >>
    >>> I don't give XP a chance to see the clone-- I've been powering off and
    >>> removing the original drive as soon as Ghost completes.
    >>
    >> Then presumably the clone isnt successful because
    >> of the state of the original drive, partially failed.
    >>
    >>> "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    >>> news:350scgF4f9bdrU1@individual.net...
    >>>>
    >>>> "Kevin" <kevin@wxREMOVE4SPAM3.com> wrote in message
    >>>> news:-5CdnUXpY-TdhXbcRVn-rA@comcast.com...
    >>>>> The boot disk for my XP system has been having a number of bad sector
    >>>>> problems lately, so I decided to try to clone it to a new drive. I
    >>>>> installed a 2nd drive, formatted it, and used Norton Ghost 2003 to do a
    >>>>> clone of the boot (C:) drive to it.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> When the clone is complete, I power off, swap the cable and set the
    >>>>> jumpers, but get a "boot failure from previous device" error on startup
    >>>>> (after BIOS screen but before Windows).
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I can verify that the clone worked by booting off the original drive with
    >>>>> the clone as a slave-- all the files seem to be there.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> What might I be doing wrong?
    >>>>
    >>>> You basically have to unplug the original drive for the first
    >>>> boot after the drive has been cloned and boot off the copy.
    >>>>
    >>>> XP will claim to have detected new hardware and ask to
    >>>> be allowed to reboot. Once you have allowed that, you
    >>>> can put the original drive back in the system if you want,
    >>>> if you say want to use it for video capture etc.
    >>>>
    >>>> If XP can see both the original and the copy during
    >>>> the first boot after the original has been cloned, it
    >>>> gets seriously confused, even if you boot off the
    >>>> copy and it uses files off the original for the boot.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
  11. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Kevin" <kevin@wxREMOVE4SPAM3.com> wrote in message
    news:za2dneZEGLWs-nHcRVn-pg@comcast.com...
    > Got it working-- not exactly sure what the problem was. It was either a) I
    > needed to run Ghost from floppy, or b) I needed to bring up the boot menu in
    > BIOS and explicitly tell it to boot from the IDE drive (even though that was
    > the only option).

    A few bios do get a bit confused when the drive they
    are configured to boot from goes away, is missing. You
    basically just need to specify the drive to boot from again.

    > Anyway, thanks for the suggestions & ideas.
    >
    > - Kevin
    >
    > "Kevin" <kevin@wxREMOVE4SPAM3.com> wrote in message
    > news:-5CdnUXpY-TdhXbcRVn-rA@comcast.com...
    >> The boot disk for my XP system has been having a number of bad sector
    >> problems lately, so I decided to try to clone it to a new drive. I installed
    >> a 2nd drive, formatted it, and used Norton Ghost 2003 to do a clone of the
    >> boot (C:) drive to it.
    >>
    >> When the clone is complete, I power off, swap the cable and set the jumpers,
    >> but get a "boot failure from previous device" error on startup (after BIOS
    >> screen but before Windows).
    >>
    >> I can verify that the clone worked by booting off the original drive with the
    >> clone as a slave-- all the files seem to be there.
    >>
    >> What might I be doing wrong?
    >>
    >> Thanks,
    >> Kevin
    >>
    >
    >
  12. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:350scgF4f9bdrU1@individual.net...
    >
    > "Kevin" <kevin@wxREMOVE4SPAM3.com> wrote in message
    > news:-5CdnUXpY-TdhXbcRVn-rA@comcast.com...
    >> The boot disk for my XP system has been having a number of bad sector
    >> problems lately, so I decided to try to clone it to a new drive. I
    >> installed a 2nd drive, formatted it, and used Norton Ghost 2003 to do a
    >> clone of the boot (C:) drive to it.
    >>
    >> When the clone is complete, I power off, swap the cable and set the
    >> jumpers, but get a "boot failure from previous device" error on startup
    >> (after BIOS screen but before Windows).
    >>
    >> I can verify that the clone worked by booting off the original drive with
    >> the clone as a slave-- all the files seem to be there.
    >>
    >> What might I be doing wrong?
    >
    > You basically have to unplug the original drive for the first
    > boot after the drive has been cloned and boot off the copy.
    >
    > XP will claim to have detected new hardware and ask to
    > be allowed to reboot. Once you have allowed that, you
    > can put the original drive back in the system if you want,
    > if you say want to use it for video capture etc.
    >
    > If XP can see both the original and the copy during
    > the first boot after the original has been cloned, it
    > gets seriously confused, even if you boot off the
    > copy and it uses files off the original for the boot.

    This is very interesting. For years I've heard that you can't/shouldn't
    have a clone of XP running together with the normal boot drive housing the
    OS, although I've booted many times with a clone attached with no adverse
    effects.

    What you've said hear makes it more clear that if booted with a new clone
    with the original boot drive attached, as described above, the OS may think
    the old drive is the boot device since the ID matches. However, after the
    new drive is booted, new hardware installed, and the drive's ID established
    as the proper boot device, all is well. Thus, once this first boot with a
    new copy is accomplished without the original attached, this original can be
    subsequently run in the system with no ill effects.

    With my old Win98SE machine I cloned C: to D: once per week and left D: in
    the system at all times. It would then seem that you could still do this
    with XP since the hardware configuration will not have changed. Does this
    make sense?
  13. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Bob Davis" <iclicknix@cox.net> wrote:
    > "Rod Speed" wrote :
    >> You basically have to unplug the original drive for the first
    >> boot after the drive has been cloned and boot off the copy.
    >>
    >> XP will claim to have detected new hardware and ask to
    >> be allowed to reboot. Once you have allowed that, you
    >> can put the original drive back in the system if you want,
    >> if you say want to use it for video capture etc.
    >>
    >> If XP can see both the original and the copy during
    >> the first boot after the original has been cloned, it
    >> gets seriously confused, even if you boot off the
    >> copy and it uses files off the original for the boot.
    >
    > This is very interesting. For years I've heard that you
    > can't/shouldn't have a clone of XP running together with
    > the normal boot drive housing the OS, although I've booted
    > many times with a clone attached with no adverse effects.
    >
    > What you've said hear makes it more clear that if booted
    > with a new clone with the original boot drive attached, as
    > described above, the OS may think the old drive is the
    > boot device since the ID matches. However, after the new
    > drive is booted, new hardware installed, and the drive's ID
    > established as the proper boot device, all is well. Thus,
    > once this first boot with a new copy is accomplished without
    > the original attached, this original can be subsequently run
    > in the system with no ill effects.


    It's more complicated than that. The "proper boot device"
    is established by the BIOS's boot sequence and the
    "active" partition on the 1st HD in that boot sequence, not
    by having successfully booted for the 1st time in isolation.
    A clone booted for the 1st time with the "parent" in view
    continues to function (in my experience), but it needs the
    continued presence of its "parent" to do so. This seems
    to be a feature added my Microsoft to thwart copying of
    it OSes, starting with the WinNT/Win2K/WinXP family of
    OSes.


    > With my old Win98SE machine I cloned C: to D: once per week
    > and left D: in the system at all times. It would then seem that you
    > could still do this with XP since the hardware configuration will
    > not have changed. Does this make sense?


    No. Under WinXP, you can do this with no problem as long
    as the new OS (the one in drive D:) hasn't been loaded and
    started. You can start up the old OS all you want, and it can
    see the files in drive D: with no problem. The problem appears
    when the new clone OS in drive D: is started up with the old
    OS in drive C: visible to it. Somehow the new clone recognizes
    its "parent" and that it's a "child" in this world. But if it starts up
    in isolation for the 1st time that it's started, it decides it's a
    different beast and becomes an "adult".

    Microsoft doesn't document this behavior and it offers no
    method (such as initial isolation) to get around it, and the
    MS Professional Volunteers in the MS newsgroups don't
    know much if anything about it. At least they seem to avoid
    writing about it. The MVPs even get quite abusive and hostile
    if you so much as say that running two installations of one OS
    CD in *the same machine* is legal. Obviously, MS has them
    toeing the company line when it comes to gray areas in its
    EULA. I expect that cloning Longhorn will be even more
    difficult.

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

    "Timothy Daniels" <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote in message
    news:5YqdnY_ntpWHm2vcRVn-3w@comcast.com...
    > "Bob Davis" <iclicknix@cox.net> wrote:
    >> "Rod Speed" wrote :
    >>> You basically have to unplug the original drive for the first
    >>> boot after the drive has been cloned and boot off the copy.
    >>>
    >>> XP will claim to have detected new hardware and ask to
    >>> be allowed to reboot. Once you have allowed that, you
    >>> can put the original drive back in the system if you want,
    >>> if you say want to use it for video capture etc.
    >>>
    >>> If XP can see both the original and the copy during
    >>> the first boot after the original has been cloned, it
    >>> gets seriously confused, even if you boot off the
    >>> copy and it uses files off the original for the boot.
    >>
    >> This is very interesting. For years I've heard that you
    >> can't/shouldn't have a clone of XP running together with
    >> the normal boot drive housing the OS, although I've booted
    >> many times with a clone attached with no adverse effects.
    >>
    >> What you've said hear makes it more clear that if booted
    >> with a new clone with the original boot drive attached, as
    >> described above, the OS may think the old drive is the
    >> boot device since the ID matches. However, after the new
    >> drive is booted, new hardware installed, and the drive's ID
    >> established as the proper boot device, all is well. Thus,
    >> once this first boot with a new copy is accomplished without
    >> the original attached, this original can be subsequently run
    >> in the system with no ill effects.
    >
    >
    > It's more complicated than that. The "proper boot device"
    > is established by the BIOS's boot sequence and the
    > "active" partition on the 1st HD in that boot sequence, not
    > by having successfully booted for the 1st time in isolation.
    > A clone booted for the 1st time with the "parent" in view
    > continues to function (in my experience), but it needs the
    > continued presence of its "parent" to do so. This seems
    > to be a feature added my Microsoft to thwart copying of
    > it OSes, starting with the WinNT/Win2K/WinXP family of
    > OSes.

    I've booted XP successfully with a clone in the mobile rack, marked by XP as
    drive G:, both with SATA and PATA drives as the main boot device. The
    reason I'm apparently avoiding trouble is that I always boot with C:
    (system) as the drive that made the clone (G:). The actual cloned drive
    (G:) is never used to boot from.

    I assume, therefore, that the crux of the issue is to make sure the new
    clone isn't the new C: and the "parent" (source of the clone) isn't in the
    system when booted.


    >> With my old Win98SE machine I cloned C: to D: once per week
    >> and left D: in the system at all times. It would then seem that you
    >> could still do this with XP since the hardware configuration will
    >> not have changed. Does this make sense?
    >
    > No. Under WinXP, you can do this with no problem as long
    > as the new OS (the one in drive D:) hasn't been loaded and
    > started. You can start up the old OS all you want, and it can
    > see the files in drive D: with no problem. The problem appears
    > when the new clone OS in drive D: is started up with the old
    > OS in drive C: visible to it. Somehow the new clone recognizes
    > its "parent" and that it's a "child" in this world. But if it
    > starts up
    > in isolation for the 1st time that it's started, it decides it's a
    > different beast and becomes an "adult".

    This is a bit confusing. By this description, my situation should be
    problematic (see above), but I've never had a problem. If the drive in the
    mobile rack (clone) is in the system, it will boot as any other drive
    attached to the system unless it is the first time the OS has seen that
    particular device, in which case XP sees it as new hardware and "installs"
    it. From then on, even after a new cloning, XP sees that drive as G: and
    the system boots normally.

    I only boot with the clone in the system if I need to retreive specific
    files, as when I delete something accidentally from C: and have no backup
    elsewhere, which I usually do. Now that I've installed a USB mobile rack I
    can insert the cloned drive (G:) and it is instantly recognized, something I
    couldn't do before with the old IDE-type interface, which needed to be
    inserted when powered down and rebooted. I assume the USB type of
    arrangement would never be a problem since it isn't in the system when
    booted.

    > Microsoft doesn't document this behavior and it offers no
    > method (such as initial isolation) to get around it, and the
    > MS Professional Volunteers in the MS newsgroups don't
    > know much if anything about it. At least they seem to avoid
    > writing about it. The MVPs even get quite abusive and hostile
    > if you so much as say that running two installations of one OS
    > CD in *the same machine* is legal. Obviously, MS has them
    > toeing the company line when it comes to gray areas in its
    > EULA. I expect that cloning Longhorn will be even more
    > difficult.

    I do clones for backup purposes only, and I see no more ethical problem
    approaching backups in this manner than using MS's own backup program. The
    fact that I have four or five clones with the OS in each that I rotate for
    cloning shouldn't violate the spirit of the EULA, if perhaps the letter
    thereof. All cloning activity is performed on one machine, which is the one
    for which the OS is licensed, and none are ever run on any other computers.
    So what could possibly be wrong with that practice?
  15. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Bob Davis" wrote:
    > "Timothy Daniels" wrote:
    >> "Bob Davis" wrote:
    >>> "Rod Speed" wrote :
    >>>> You basically have to unplug the original drive for the first
    >>>> boot after the drive has been cloned and boot off the copy.
    >>>>
    >>>> XP will claim to have detected new hardware and ask to
    >>>> be allowed to reboot. Once you have allowed that, you
    >>>> can put the original drive back in the system if you want,
    >>>> if you say want to use it for video capture etc.
    >>>>
    >>>> If XP can see both the original and the copy during
    >>>> the first boot after the original has been cloned, it
    >>>> gets seriously confused, even if you boot off the
    >>>> copy and it uses files off the original for the boot.
    >>>
    >>> This is very interesting. For years I've heard that you
    >>> can't/shouldn't have a clone of XP running together with
    >>> the normal boot drive housing the OS, although I've booted
    >>> many times with a clone attached with no adverse effects.
    >>>
    >>> What you've said hear makes it more clear that if booted
    >>> with a new clone with the original boot drive attached, as
    >>> described above, the OS may think the old drive is the
    >>> boot device since the ID matches. However, after the new
    >>> drive is booted, new hardware installed, and the drive's ID
    >>> established as the proper boot device, all is well. Thus,
    >>> once this first boot with a new copy is accomplished without
    >>> the original attached, this original can be subsequently run
    >>> in the system with no ill effects.
    >>
    >>
    >> It's more complicated than that. The "proper boot device"
    >> is established by the BIOS's boot sequence and the
    >> "active" partition on the 1st HD in that boot sequence, not
    >> by having successfully booted for the 1st time in isolation.
    >> A clone booted for the 1st time with the "parent" in view
    >> continues to function (in my experience), but it needs the
    >> continued presence of its "parent" to do so. This seems
    >> to be a feature added my Microsoft to thwart copying of
    >> it OSes, starting with the WinNT/Win2K/WinXP family of
    >> OSes.
    >
    > I've booted XP successfully with a clone in the mobile rack,
    > marked by XP as drive G:, both with SATA and PATA drives
    > as the main boot device. The reason I'm apparently avoiding
    > trouble is that I always boot with C: (system) as the drive that
    > made the clone (G:). The actual cloned drive (G:) is never used
    > to boot from.


    Yes.


    > I assume, therefore, that the crux of the issue is to make sure
    > the new clone isn't the new C: and the "parent" (source of the clone)
    > isn't in the system when booted.


    I'm not sure what "the issue" is, but the crux of cloning a
    system and assuring that the clone will be bootable in the
    future alone (such as when it is used as a replacement for
    a failed hard disk) is to boot it alone when it is booted for
    the 1st time. Note that "booted" does not mean "recognized
    and included in part of the system as a file structure". "Booted"
    here means having a Master Boot Record that takes control
    from the BIOS and which then passes control on to the boot
    sector of the "active" partition where the ntldr program loads
    the system that resides there. If the old system was drive C:,
    the clone system will also call itself C: if it is loaded. As drive
    C: it will find and name other drives in the system with other
    letters. The old Local Disk C: may become Local Disk D:,
    but as long as no shortcuts in the loaded system refer drive
    letters other than C:, it doesn't matter.


    >>> With my old Win98SE machine I cloned C: to D: once per week
    >>> and left D: in the system at all times. It would then seem that you
    >>> could still do this with XP since the hardware configuration will
    >>> not have changed. Does this make sense?
    >>
    >> No. Under WinXP, you can do this with no problem as long
    >> as the new OS (the one in drive D:) hasn't been loaded and
    >> started. You can start up the old OS all you want, and it can
    >> see the files in drive D: with no problem. The problem appears
    >> when the new clone OS in drive D: is started up with the old
    >> OS in drive C: visible to it. Somehow the new clone recognizes
    >> its "parent" and that it's a "child" in this world. But if it starts up
    >> in isolation for the 1st time that it's started, it decides it's a
    >> different beast and becomes an "adult".
    >
    > This is a bit confusing. By this description, my situation should be
    > problematic (see above), but I've never had a problem.


    No. In your system, you start up the cloned system, not the clone
    system. The clone system does not "boot" - it merely sits there
    and becomes part of the old cloned system as an added file structure
    in the form of another "Local Disk".


    > If the drive in the mobile rack (clone) is in the system, it will boot
    > as any other drive attached to the system unless it is the first time
    > the OS has seen that particular device, in which case XP sees it
    > as new hardware and "installs" it. From then on, even after a new
    > cloning, XP sees that drive as G: and the system boots normally.


    You misunderstand the term "boot". "Boot" does not mean
    being included in a loaded system as another Local Disk having
    an accessible file structure (e.g. D: drive). "Boot" means to "load
    itself in stages, starting from practically nothing". A "booted"
    system is a system which has loaded itself, starting with the exe-
    cution of its own partition's boot sector. A "booted" hard drive is
    a hard drive which has had control passed to its Master Boot
    Record by the BIOS and which in turn passes control to the boot
    sector of the its "active" partition. Since this "active" partition's
    boot.ini file might designate that its ntldr program load a system
    on some other partition on any hard drive in the system, the loading
    of that system is not "booting" per se, but its loading is part of the
    process which began with "booting", so sloppy terminology includes
    that loading as part of the "boot" process - which began with the
    CPU passing control to the BIOS when the CPU felt the power
    come on. Since the clone system (e.g. D: drive) does not get
    loaded nor partiticipate in the boot process in your scenario, it is
    not "booted" nor is it "loaded". It just become accessible as a
    file structure that contains data.


    > I only boot with the clone in the system if I need to retreive specific
    > files, as when I delete something accidentally from C: and have no
    > backup elsewhere, which I usually do. Now that I've installed a
    > USB mobile rack I can insert the cloned drive (G:) and it is instantly
    > recognized, something I couldn't do before with the old IDE-type
    > interface, which needed to be inserted when powered down and
    > rebooted.


    Be careful with your terminology. "Booted" does not mean
    "accessible". You have only booted the old (i.e. cloned) system,
    not the (new) clone system.


    > I assume the USB type of arrangement would never be a problem
    > since it isn't in the system when booted.


    The external USB drive does not contain a bootable system,
    i.e. it cannot be booted, it cannot be used as the system drive.
    It can only act as another Local Disk with a file structure. If you
    have been using an IDE drive in a mobile rack in the same way,
    you have not ever booted from the drive containing the clone.


    >> Microsoft doesn't document this behavior and it offers no
    >> method (such as initial isolation) to get around it, and the
    >> MS Professional Volunteers in the MS newsgroups don't
    >> know much if anything about it. At least they seem to avoid
    >> writing about it. The MVPs even get quite abusive and hostile
    >> if you so much as say that running two installations of one OS
    >> CD in *the same machine* is legal. Obviously, MS has them
    >> toeing the company line when it comes to gray areas in its
    >> EULA. I expect that cloning Longhorn will be even more
    >> difficult.
    >
    > I do clones for backup purposes only, and I see no more ethical
    > problem approaching backups in this manner than using MS's
    > own backup program.


    It is not the cloning of a system as an archive that MS seems
    to object to. It's the cloning of a system with a Master Boot Record
    and boot sector and its boot files (e.g. ntldr, boot.ini, NTDETECT.com,
    etc.) on an IDE hard drive so that it is bootable as a system drive
    that MS doesn't like.


    > The fact that I have four or five clones with the OS in each that
    > I rotate for cloning shouldn't violate the spirit of the EULA, if perhaps
    > the letter thereof.


    In public, MS argues that the letter of the EULA is the spirit
    of the EULA. Privately, I doubt that it cares about multiple
    installations derived from a single installation CD existing on
    a single PC. After all, WinXP won't work on another PC unless
    that PC is identical in hardware, and only one copy can work at
    any one time, anyway.


    > All cloning activity is performed on one machine, which is the one
    > for which the OS is licensed, and none are ever run on any other
    > computers. So what could possibly be wrong with that practice?


    Don't ask that question in a microsoft.* newsgroup unless
    you're prepared to argue with half a dozen Microsoft MVPs
    and their shills for a week.

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

    "Bob Davis" <iclicknix@cox.net> wrote in message
    news:GejJd.209$1X.95@lakeread07...
    >
    > "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    > news:350scgF4f9bdrU1@individual.net...
    >>
    >> "Kevin" <kevin@wxREMOVE4SPAM3.com> wrote in message
    >> news:-5CdnUXpY-TdhXbcRVn-rA@comcast.com...
    >>> The boot disk for my XP system has been having a number of bad sector
    >>> problems lately, so I decided to try to clone it to a new drive. I
    >>> installed a 2nd drive, formatted it, and used Norton Ghost 2003 to do a
    >>> clone of the boot (C:) drive to it.
    >>>
    >>> When the clone is complete, I power off, swap the cable and set the jumpers,
    >>> but get a "boot failure from previous device" error on startup (after BIOS
    >>> screen but before Windows).
    >>>
    >>> I can verify that the clone worked by booting off the original drive with
    >>> the clone as a slave-- all the files seem to be there.
    >>>
    >>> What might I be doing wrong?
    >>
    >> You basically have to unplug the original drive for the first
    >> boot after the drive has been cloned and boot off the copy.
    >>
    >> XP will claim to have detected new hardware and ask to
    >> be allowed to reboot. Once you have allowed that, you
    >> can put the original drive back in the system if you want,
    >> if you say want to use it for video capture etc.
    >>
    >> If XP can see both the original and the copy during
    >> the first boot after the original has been cloned, it
    >> gets seriously confused, even if you boot off the
    >> copy and it uses files off the original for the boot.
    >
    > This is very interesting. For years I've heard that you can't/shouldn't have
    > a clone of XP running together with the normal boot drive housing the OS,
    > although I've booted many times with a clone attached with no adverse effects.
    >
    > What you've said hear makes it more clear that if booted with a new clone with
    > the original boot drive attached, as described above, the OS may think the old
    > drive is the boot device since the ID matches. However, after the new drive
    > is booted, new hardware installed, and the drive's ID established as the
    > proper boot device, all is well. Thus, once this first boot with a new copy
    > is accomplished without the original attached, this original can be
    > subsequently run in the system with no ill effects.
    >
    > With my old Win98SE machine I cloned C: to D: once per week and left D: in the
    > system at all times. It would then seem that you could still do this with XP
    > since the hardware configuration will not have changed. Does this make sense?

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

    "Rod Speed" wrote:
    > "Bob Davis" wrote:>>
    > .........if booted with a new clone with
    >> the original boot drive attached, as described above,
    >> the OS may think the old drive is the boot device since
    >> the ID matches. However, after the new drive is booted,
    >> new hardware installed, and the drive's ID established
    >> as the proper boot device, all is well. Thus, once this
    >> first boot with a new copy is accomplished without the
    >> original attached, this original can be subsequently run
    >> in the system with no ill effects.


    Ignoring the term "proper boot device", and assuming
    that the "new hardware installed" is the new HD itself,
    it doesn't explain what causes the apparent "binding"
    of the 2 OSes if the clone sees the "parent" on 1st boot.

    In trying that very scenario, I got inconsistent results, but
    on one occasion, I found that the clone that had been
    started for the 1st time with the "parent" visible had its
    My Documents folder pointing to files in its "parent".
    The clone ran OK, but if I removed the "parent", I
    could no longer access the files in My Documents.
    At that point, I concluded that Rod Speed's warning
    about not starting the clone for the 1st time in the
    presence of its "parent" had some truth. But neither
    of us knows what the mechanism is that causes it and
    how making the "parent" absent avoids it.

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

    "Timothy Daniels" <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote in message
    news:5YqdnY_ntpWHm2vcRVn-3w@comcast.com...
    > "Bob Davis" <iclicknix@cox.net> wrote:
    >> "Rod Speed" wrote :
    >>> You basically have to unplug the original drive for the first
    >>> boot after the drive has been cloned and boot off the copy.
    >>>
    >>> XP will claim to have detected new hardware and ask to
    >>> be allowed to reboot. Once you have allowed that, you
    >>> can put the original drive back in the system if you want,
    >>> if you say want to use it for video capture etc.
    >>>
    >>> If XP can see both the original and the copy during
    >>> the first boot after the original has been cloned, it
    >>> gets seriously confused, even if you boot off the
    >>> copy and it uses files off the original for the boot.
    >>
    >> This is very interesting. For years I've heard that you
    >> can't/shouldn't have a clone of XP running together with
    >> the normal boot drive housing the OS, although I've booted
    >> many times with a clone attached with no adverse effects.
    >>
    >> What you've said hear makes it more clear that if booted
    >> with a new clone with the original boot drive attached, as
    >> described above, the OS may think the old drive is the
    >> boot device since the ID matches. However, after the new
    >> drive is booted, new hardware installed, and the drive's ID
    >> established as the proper boot device, all is well. Thus,
    >> once this first boot with a new copy is accomplished without
    >> the original attached, this original can be subsequently run
    >> in the system with no ill effects.

    > It's more complicated than that.

    Nope, he's right on the reason it gets its tiny little 'brain' scambled.

    > The "proper boot device" is established by the BIOS's boot sequence and the
    > "active" partition on the 1st HD in that boot sequence, not by having
    > successfully booted for the 1st time in isolation.

    Thats just plain wrong with the boot after XP has got involved in the boot.

    If your story was correct, you wouldnt be able to boot the clone
    by ensuring that the original wasnt visible on the first boot after
    the clone, and be able to plug the original back in again after
    XP has claimed to detect new hardware and been allowed to
    reboot, and have it still boot off the clone entirely in the sense
    that you can unplug the original again and have it still boot fine.

    > A clone booted for the 1st time with the "parent" in view continues to
    > function (in my experience), but it needs the continued presence of its
    > "parent" to do so.

    Not if the original isnt visible on the first boot of the clone.

    > This seems to be a feature added my Microsoft to thwart copying of it OSes,
    > starting with the WinNT/Win2K/WinXP family of OSes.

    Nope, its just a quirk of the way that family keeps track of
    drives, so you can still boot from a particular physical drive
    after you have moved it around on the controllers etc.

    Thats essentially what the drive's ID is for and that process has
    a problem with a clone of the drive when the ID is also cloned
    and so there are now two physical drives with the same ID.

    It can sort that out if it cant see the original on the first boot
    after the clone has been done, and so it cant be a deliberate
    attempt at preventing cloning, because it wouldnt be hard to
    keep track of the physical drive detail like the hardware
    serial number as well so it would be obvious that the XP
    drive ID is on a different physical drive because the drive
    hardware serial number has changed etc.

    >> With my old Win98SE machine I cloned C: to D: once per week and left D: in
    >> the system at all times. It would then seem that you could still do this
    >> with XP since the hardware configuration will not have changed. Does this
    >> make sense?

    > No. Under WinXP, you can do this with no problem as long
    > as the new OS (the one in drive D:) hasn't been loaded and
    > started. You can start up the old OS all you want, and it can
    > see the files in drive D: with no problem. The problem appears
    > when the new clone OS in drive D: is started up with the old
    > OS in drive C: visible to it. Somehow the new clone recognizes
    > its "parent" and that it's a "child" in this world. But if it starts
    > up
    > in isolation for the 1st time that it's started, it decides it's a
    > different beast and becomes an "adult".

    > Microsoft doesn't document this behavior and it offers no
    > method (such as initial isolation) to get around it, and the
    > MS Professional Volunteers in the MS newsgroups don't
    > know much if anything about it. At least they seem to avoid
    > writing about it. The MVPs even get quite abusive and hostile
    > if you so much as say that running two installations of one OS
    > CD in *the same machine* is legal. Obviously, MS has them
    > toeing the company line when it comes to gray areas in its EULA.

    Mindless conspiracy theory.

    > I expect that cloning Longhorn will be even more difficult.

    Wanna bet ? It hasnt changed over the NT/2K/XP sequence
    while MS did introduce the validation system with XP.
  19. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Rod Speed" wrote:
    > "Timothy Daniels" wrote:
    >> "Bob Davis" wrote:
    >>> This is very interesting. For years I've heard that you
    >>> can't/shouldn't have a clone of XP running together with
    >>> the normal boot drive housing the OS, although I've booted
    >>> many times with a clone attached with no adverse effects.
    >>>
    >>> What you've said hear makes it more clear that if booted
    >>> with a new clone with the original boot drive attached, as
    >>> described above, the OS may think the old drive is the
    >>> boot device since the ID matches. However, after the new
    >>> drive is booted, new hardware installed, and the drive's ID
    >>> established as the proper boot device, all is well. Thus,
    >>> once this first boot with a new copy is accomplished without
    >>> the original attached, this original can be subsequently run
    >>> in the system with no ill effects.
    >
    >> It's more complicated than that.
    >
    > Nope, he's right on the reason it gets its tiny little 'brain'
    > scambled.


    Bob Davis said:
    "you can't/shouldn't have a clone of XP running together with
    the normal boot drive housing the OS, although I've booted
    many times with a clone attached with no adverse effects."

    One can certainly continue to boot the old OS with the new OS
    in the system and visible to the old OS - and do it indefinitely -
    with no advers effects. The problem arises when the new OS
    (the clone) is booted for the 1st time and the old OS (the "parent")
    is visible to it during that 1st boot. IOW, it's when the clone
    is loaded and started for the 1st time that is critical, not just
    being visible as a file structure (as it would be if the "parent"
    were always the OS that was booted). This you and I know,
    but it was not what the OP wrote.


    >> The "proper boot device" is established by the BIOS's boot
    >> sequence and the "active" partition on the 1st HD in that boot
    >> sequence, not by having successfully booted for the 1st time
    >> in isolation.
    >
    > Thats just plain wrong with the boot after XP has got involved
    > in the boot.


    This was a comment on the term "proper boot device".
    The "boot device" is, indeed, established by the boot
    order in the BIOS and the 1st device in that order that
    is capable of booting. In the case of hard drives, the
    "active" partition on the selected HD is expected to have
    a boot sector and the files boot.ini, ntldr, ntdetect.com,
    and perhaps others. The boot.ini contains the menu of
    partitions from which ntldr is to load the OS from. In a
    clone, the boot.ini will be exactly as it was in the "parent",
    and when booted in isolation, the clone will behave exactly
    like the parent did because its boot.ini is exactly like its
    "parent's" boot.ini . Presumably, the "parent's" boot.ini
    had as a default an instruction like "boot from the 1st HD
    in the boot order, and look in its 1st partition for the OS".
    This boot.ini would be coded something like this:

    [boot loader]
    timeout=0
    default=multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS
    [operating systems]
    multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS="Windows XP" /fastdetect

    This says that the only optional OS is the same as the default,
    and both are to be found on the 1st HD in the HD boot order
    (i.e. at relative position 0), and the OS is in the 1st partition of
    that HD. Since the timeout is set to 0, no menu will appear
    on the screen and ntldr will attempt to load the default OS.

    Now if you have multiple clones in multiple HDs, such as I
    have, you can have the boot.ini file in partition 2 of HD 1
    specify the OS in partition 4 of HD 3 to load. IOW, the boot.ini
    doesn't have to be in the partition that contains the OS. It can
    specify *any* partition on *any* HD in the system.


    > If your story was correct, you wouldnt be able to boot the clone
    > by ensuring that the original wasnt visible on the first boot after
    > the clone, and be able to plug the original back in again after
    > XP has claimed to detect new hardware and been allowed to
    > reboot, and have it still boot off the clone entirely in the sense
    > that you can unplug the original again and have it still boot fine.
    >
    >> A clone booted for the 1st time with the "parent" in view
    >> continues to function (in my experience), but it needs the
    >> continued presence of its "parent" to do so.
    >
    > Not if the original isnt visible on the first boot of the clone.


    Of course! That's the point of the entire discussion.

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

    "Timothy Daniels" <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote in message
    news:F_6dndkR4JrZdmTcRVn-iQ@comcast.com...
    > "Bob Davis" wrote:
    >> "Timothy Daniels" wrote:
    >>> "Bob Davis" wrote:
    >>>> "Rod Speed" wrote :
    >>>>> You basically have to unplug the original drive for the first
    >>>>> boot after the drive has been cloned and boot off the copy.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> XP will claim to have detected new hardware and ask to
    >>>>> be allowed to reboot. Once you have allowed that, you
    >>>>> can put the original drive back in the system if you want,
    >>>>> if you say want to use it for video capture etc.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> If XP can see both the original and the copy during
    >>>>> the first boot after the original has been cloned, it
    >>>>> gets seriously confused, even if you boot off the
    >>>>> copy and it uses files off the original for the boot.
    >>>>
    >>>> This is very interesting. For years I've heard that you
    >>>> can't/shouldn't have a clone of XP running together with
    >>>> the normal boot drive housing the OS, although I've booted
    >>>> many times with a clone attached with no adverse effects.
    >>>>
    >>>> What you've said hear makes it more clear that if booted
    >>>> with a new clone with the original boot drive attached, as
    >>>> described above, the OS may think the old drive is the
    >>>> boot device since the ID matches. However, after the new
    >>>> drive is booted, new hardware installed, and the drive's ID
    >>>> established as the proper boot device, all is well. Thus,
    >>>> once this first boot with a new copy is accomplished without
    >>>> the original attached, this original can be subsequently run
    >>>> in the system with no ill effects.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> It's more complicated than that. The "proper boot device"
    >>> is established by the BIOS's boot sequence and the
    >>> "active" partition on the 1st HD in that boot sequence, not
    >>> by having successfully booted for the 1st time in isolation.
    >>> A clone booted for the 1st time with the "parent" in view
    >>> continues to function (in my experience), but it needs the
    >>> continued presence of its "parent" to do so. This seems
    >>> to be a feature added my Microsoft to thwart copying of
    >>> it OSes, starting with the WinNT/Win2K/WinXP family of
    >>> OSes.
    >>
    >> I've booted XP successfully with a clone in the mobile rack,
    >> marked by XP as drive G:, both with SATA and PATA drives
    >> as the main boot device. The reason I'm apparently avoiding
    >> trouble is that I always boot with C: (system) as the drive that
    >> made the clone (G:). The actual cloned drive (G:) is never used
    >> to boot from.
    >
    >
    > Yes.
    >
    >
    >> I assume, therefore, that the crux of the issue is to make sure
    >> the new clone isn't the new C: and the "parent" (source of the clone)
    >> isn't in the system when booted.
    >
    >
    > I'm not sure what "the issue" is, but the crux of cloning a
    > system and assuring that the clone will be bootable in the
    > future alone (such as when it is used as a replacement for
    > a failed hard disk) is to boot it alone when it is booted for
    > the 1st time. Note that "booted" does not mean "recognized
    > and included in part of the system as a file structure". "Booted"
    > here means having a Master Boot Record that takes control
    > from the BIOS and which then passes control on to the boot
    > sector of the "active" partition where the ntldr program loads
    > the system that resides there. If the old system was drive C:,
    > the clone system will also call itself C: if it is loaded. As drive
    > C: it will find and name other drives in the system with other
    > letters. The old Local Disk C: may become Local Disk D:,
    > but as long as no shortcuts in the loaded system refer drive
    > letters other than C:, it doesn't matter.
    >
    >
    >>>> With my old Win98SE machine I cloned C: to D: once per week
    >>>> and left D: in the system at all times. It would then seem that you
    >>>> could still do this with XP since the hardware configuration will
    >>>> not have changed. Does this make sense?
    >>>
    >>> No. Under WinXP, you can do this with no problem as long
    >>> as the new OS (the one in drive D:) hasn't been loaded and
    >>> started. You can start up the old OS all you want, and it can
    >>> see the files in drive D: with no problem. The problem appears
    >>> when the new clone OS in drive D: is started up with the old
    >>> OS in drive C: visible to it. Somehow the new clone recognizes
    >>> its "parent" and that it's a "child" in this world. But if it starts
    >>> up
    >>> in isolation for the 1st time that it's started, it decides it's a
    >>> different beast and becomes an "adult".
    >>
    >> This is a bit confusing. By this description, my situation should be
    >> problematic (see above), but I've never had a problem.
    >
    >
    > No. In your system, you start up the cloned system, not the clone
    > system. The clone system does not "boot" - it merely sits there
    > and becomes part of the old cloned system as an added file structure
    > in the form of another "Local Disk".
    >
    >
    >> If the drive in the mobile rack (clone) is in the system, it will boot
    >> as any other drive attached to the system unless it is the first time
    >> the OS has seen that particular device, in which case XP sees it
    >> as new hardware and "installs" it. From then on, even after a new
    >> cloning, XP sees that drive as G: and the system boots normally.
    >
    >
    > You misunderstand the term "boot". "Boot" does not mean
    > being included in a loaded system as another Local Disk having
    > an accessible file structure (e.g. D: drive). "Boot" means to "load
    > itself in stages, starting from practically nothing". A "booted"
    > system is a system which has loaded itself, starting with the exe-
    > cution of its own partition's boot sector. A "booted" hard drive is
    > a hard drive which has had control passed to its Master Boot
    > Record by the BIOS and which in turn passes control to the boot
    > sector of the its "active" partition. Since this "active" partition's
    > boot.ini file might designate that its ntldr program load a system
    > on some other partition on any hard drive in the system, the loading
    > of that system is not "booting" per se, but its loading is part of the
    > process which began with "booting", so sloppy terminology includes
    > that loading as part of the "boot" process - which began with the
    > CPU passing control to the BIOS when the CPU felt the power
    > come on. Since the clone system (e.g. D: drive) does not get
    > loaded nor partiticipate in the boot process in your scenario, it is
    > not "booted" nor is it "loaded". It just become accessible as a
    > file structure that contains data.
    >
    >
    >> I only boot with the clone in the system if I need to retreive specific
    >> files, as when I delete something accidentally from C: and have no
    >> backup elsewhere, which I usually do. Now that I've installed a
    >> USB mobile rack I can insert the cloned drive (G:) and it is instantly
    >> recognized, something I couldn't do before with the old IDE-type
    >> interface, which needed to be inserted when powered down and
    >> rebooted.
    >
    >
    > Be careful with your terminology. "Booted" does not mean
    > "accessible". You have only booted the old (i.e. cloned) system,
    > not the (new) clone system.
    >
    >
    >> I assume the USB type of arrangement would never be a problem
    >> since it isn't in the system when booted.
    >
    >
    > The external USB drive does not contain a bootable system,
    > i.e. it cannot be booted, it cannot be used as the system drive.
    > It can only act as another Local Disk with a file structure. If you
    > have been using an IDE drive in a mobile rack in the same way,
    > you have not ever booted from the drive containing the clone.
    >
    >
    >
    >>> Microsoft doesn't document this behavior and it offers no
    >>> method (such as initial isolation) to get around it, and the
    >>> MS Professional Volunteers in the MS newsgroups don't
    >>> know much if anything about it. At least they seem to avoid
    >>> writing about it. The MVPs even get quite abusive and hostile
    >>> if you so much as say that running two installations of one OS
    >>> CD in *the same machine* is legal. Obviously, MS has them
    >>> toeing the company line when it comes to gray areas in its
    >>> EULA. I expect that cloning Longhorn will be even more
    >>> difficult.
    >>
    >> I do clones for backup purposes only, and I see no more ethical
    >> problem approaching backups in this manner than using MS's
    >> own backup program.
    >
    >
    > It is not the cloning of a system as an archive that MS seems
    > to object to. It's the cloning of a system with a Master Boot Record
    > and boot sector and its boot files (e.g. ntldr, boot.ini, NTDETECT.com,
    > etc.) on an IDE hard drive so that it is bootable as a system drive
    > that MS doesn't like.
    >
    >
    >> The fact that I have four or five clones with the OS in each that
    >> I rotate for cloning shouldn't violate the spirit of the EULA, if perhaps
    >> the letter thereof.

    > In public, MS argues that the letter of the EULA is the spirit
    > of the EULA. Privately, I doubt that it cares about multiple
    > installations derived from a single installation CD existing on
    > a single PC. After all, WinXP won't work on another PC unless
    > that PC is identical in hardware,

    Thats not true of the versions of XP that dont require validation.

    > and only one copy can work at any one time, anyway.

    >> All cloning activity is performed on one machine, which is the one for which
    >> the OS is licensed, and none are ever run on any other
    >> computers. So what could possibly be wrong with that practice?
    >
    >
    > Don't ask that question in a microsoft.* newsgroup unless
    > you're prepared to argue with half a dozen Microsoft MVPs
    > and their shills for a week.
  21. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Timothy Daniels <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote in
    message news:Is-dnVG8IIycpJnfRVn-iA@comcast.com...
    > Rod Speed wrote
    >> Timothy Daniels wrote
    >>> Bob Davis wrote

    >>>> This is very interesting. For years I've heard that you
    >>>> can't/shouldn't have a clone of XP running together with
    >>>> the normal boot drive housing the OS, although I've booted
    >>>> many times with a clone attached with no adverse effects.

    >>>> What you've said hear makes it more clear that if booted
    >>>> with a new clone with the original boot drive attached, as
    >>>> described above, the OS may think the old drive is the
    >>>> boot device since the ID matches. However, after the new
    >>>> drive is booted, new hardware installed, and the drive's ID
    >>>> established as the proper boot device, all is well. Thus,
    >>>> once this first boot with a new copy is accomplished without
    >>>> the original attached, this original can be subsequently run
    >>>> in the system with no ill effects.

    >>> It's more complicated than that.

    >> Nope, he's right on the reason it gets its tiny little 'brain' scambled.

    > Bob Davis said:
    > "you can't/shouldn't have a clone of XP running together with
    > the normal boot drive housing the OS, although I've booted
    > many times with a clone attached with no adverse effects."

    Sure, I was just commenting on the last bit of his, not that bit.

    I should have said that more carefully.

    > One can certainly continue to boot the old OS with the new OS
    > in the system and visible to the old OS - and do it indefinitely -
    > with no advers effects. The problem arises when the new OS
    > (the clone) is booted for the 1st time and the old OS (the "parent")
    > is visible to it during that 1st boot. IOW, it's when the clone
    > is loaded and started for the 1st time that is critical, not just
    > being visible as a file structure (as it would be if the "parent"
    > were always the OS that was booted). This you and I know,
    > but it was not what the OP wrote.

    Correct.

    >>> The "proper boot device" is established by the BIOS's boot sequence and the
    >>> "active" partition on the 1st HD in that boot sequence, not by having
    >>> successfully booted for the 1st time in isolation.

    >> Thats just plain wrong with the boot after XP has got involved in the boot.

    > This was a comment on the term "proper boot device".
    > The "boot device" is, indeed, established by the boot
    > order in the BIOS and the 1st device in that order that
    > is capable of booting.

    Not once XP gets involved in the boot. THEN it gets
    complicated if you boot the clone with the original
    still visible to XP in the first boot after the cloning.

    > In the case of hard drives, the "active" partition on the selected HD is
    > expected to have a boot sector and the files boot.ini, ntldr, ntdetect.com,and
    > perhaps others.

    Only if the OS is of the NT/2K/XP family.

    > The boot.ini contains the menu of partitions from which ntldr is to load
    > the OS from. In a clone, the boot.ini will be exactly as it was in the
    > "parent", and when booted in isolation, the clone will behave exactly
    > like the parent did because its boot.ini is exactly like its
    > "parent's" boot.ini .

    Doesnt explain how XP gets royally confused on the
    first boot after a clone has been made, with the original
    still visible to XP, so you cant physically unplug the
    original later and still have it boot properly. Essentially
    because that boot involves the original drive and it goes
    flat on its face if you remove the original later coz its gone.

    > Presumably, the "parent's" boot.ini had as a default an instruction like
    > "boot from the 1st HD in the boot order, and look in its 1st partition for the
    > OS". This boot.ini would be coded something like this:

    > [boot loader]
    > timeout=0
    > default=multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS
    > [operating systems]
    > multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS="Windows XP" /fastdetect

    > This says that the only optional OS is the same as the default,
    > and both are to be found on the 1st HD in the HD boot order
    > (i.e. at relative position 0), and the OS is in the 1st partition of
    > that HD. Since the timeout is set to 0, no menu will appear
    > on the screen and ntldr will attempt to load the default OS.

    In fact a default install with only a single OS on the
    physical drive gets a timeout=30 and you dont see
    any menu at all, it just boots the only OS listed.

    > Now if you have multiple clones in multiple HDs, such as I have, you can
    > have the boot.ini file in partition 2 of HD 1 specify the OS in partition 4 of
    > HD 3 to load. IOW, the boot.ini doesn't have to be in the partition that
    > contains the OS. It can specify *any* partition on *any* HD in the system.

    Sure.

    >> If your story was correct, you wouldnt be able to boot the clone
    >> by ensuring that the original wasnt visible on the first boot after
    >> the clone, and be able to plug the original back in again after
    >> XP has claimed to detect new hardware and been allowed to
    >> reboot, and have it still boot off the clone entirely in the sense
    >> that you can unplug the original again and have it still boot fine.

    >>> A clone booted for the 1st time with the "parent" in view
    >>> continues to function (in my experience), but it needs the
    >>> continued presence of its "parent" to do so.

    >> Not if the original isnt visible on the first boot of the clone.

    > Of course! That's the point of the entire discussion.

    But not with your comments about that being a deliberate
    attempt by MS to prevent cloning of a physical drive.
  22. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Rod Speed" wrote:
    > Timothy Daniels wrote:
    >> This was a comment on the term "proper boot device".
    >> The "boot device" is, indeed, established by the boot
    >> order in the BIOS and the 1st device in that order that
    >> is capable of booting.
    >
    > Not once XP gets involved in the boot. THEN it gets
    > complicated if you boot the clone with the original
    > still visible to XP in the first boot after the cloning.


    Yes. The above comment was not an explanation of
    how the clone gets bolloxed, but merely an explanation
    on how the "boot device" is chosen.


    >> In the case of hard drives, the "active" partition on the
    >> selected HD is expected to have a boot sector and the
    >> files boot.ini, ntldr, ntdetect.com,and perhaps others.
    >
    > Only if the OS is of the NT/2K/XP family.


    Yes, and I believe only that family experiences the
    phonomenon of bolloxed clones when the clones
    are started up for the 1st with the "parent" OS
    visible to it.


    >> The boot.ini contains the menu of partitions from which
    >> ntldr is to load the OS from. In a clone, the boot.ini will be
    >> exactly as it was in the "parent", and when booted in isolation,
    >> the clone will behave exactly like the parent did because its
    >> boot.ini is exactly like its "parent's" boot.ini .
    >
    > Doesnt explain how XP gets royally confused on the
    > first boot after a clone has been made, with the original
    > still visible to XP, so you cant physically unplug the
    > original later and still have it boot properly. Essentially
    > because that boot involves the original drive and it goes
    > flat on its face if you remove the original later coz its gone.


    It wasn't meant to be an explanation of how the clone
    "gets confused". It's an explanation of why the clone
    can boot up at all when the "parent" is absent.

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

    "Timothy Daniels" <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote in message
    news:AMqdnaIf9bpXppnfRVn-2w@comcast.com...
    > "Rod Speed" wrote:
    >> "Bob Davis" wrote:>>
    >> .........if booted with a new clone with
    >>> the original boot drive attached, as described above,
    >>> the OS may think the old drive is the boot device since
    >>> the ID matches. However, after the new drive is booted,
    >>> new hardware installed, and the drive's ID established
    >>> as the proper boot device, all is well. Thus, once this
    >>> first boot with a new copy is accomplished without the
    >>> original attached, this original can be subsequently run
    >>> in the system with no ill effects.
    >
    >
    > Ignoring the term "proper boot device", and assuming
    > that the "new hardware installed" is the new HD itself,
    > it doesn't explain what causes the apparent "binding"
    > of the 2 OSes if the clone sees the "parent" on 1st boot.

    > In trying that very scenario, I got inconsistent results, but
    > on one occasion, I found that the clone that had been
    > started for the 1st time with the "parent" visible had its
    > My Documents folder pointing to files in its "parent".

    That doesnt really make much sense, the english doesnt.

    Wanna try that again ?

    > The clone ran OK, but if I removed the "parent", I
    > could no longer access the files in My Documents.
    > At that point, I concluded that Rod Speed's warning
    > about not starting the clone for the 1st time in the
    > presence of its "parent" had some truth. But neither
    > of us knows what the mechanism is that causes it and
    > how making the "parent" absent avoids it.

    Wrong. The reason it works if the original isnt visible on the
    first boot of the clone is because XP detects a change to the
    hardware, claims it sees new hardware, asks for a reboot
    to allow the changes it makes on the clone to take effect,
    and that ensures that the files on the original a no longer
    involved in the boot of the clone and so you can safely
    physically remove the original drive and the boot of the
    clone will still work fine.
  24. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Where did you come from 24hoursupport.helpdesk?? 207 lines and you
    don't say anything/

    "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:36i7j6F50erh5U1@individual.net...
    >
    > "Timothy Daniels" <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote in message
    > news:F_6dndkR4JrZdmTcRVn-iQ@comcast.com...
    >> "Bob Davis" wrote:
    >>> "Timothy Daniels" wrote:
    >>>> "Bob Davis" wrote:
    >>>>> "Rod Speed" wrote :
    >>>>>> You basically have to unplug the original drive for the first
    >>>>>> boot after the drive has been cloned and boot off the copy.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> XP will claim to have detected new hardware and ask to
    >>>>>> be allowed to reboot. Once you have allowed that, you
    >>>>>> can put the original drive back in the system if you want,
    >>>>>> if you say want to use it for video capture etc.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> If XP can see both the original and the copy during
    >>>>>> the first boot after the original has been cloned, it
    >>>>>> gets seriously confused, even if you boot off the
    >>>>>> copy and it uses files off the original for the boot.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> This is very interesting. For years I've heard that you
    >>>>> can't/shouldn't have a clone of XP running together with
    >>>>> the normal boot drive housing the OS, although I've booted
    >>>>> many times with a clone attached with no adverse effects.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> What you've said hear makes it more clear that if booted
    >>>>> with a new clone with the original boot drive attached, as
    >>>>> described above, the OS may think the old drive is the
    >>>>> boot device since the ID matches. However, after the new
    >>>>> drive is booted, new hardware installed, and the drive's ID
    >>>>> established as the proper boot device, all is well. Thus,
    >>>>> once this first boot with a new copy is accomplished without
    >>>>> the original attached, this original can be subsequently run
    >>>>> in the system with no ill effects.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> It's more complicated than that. The "proper boot device"
    >>>> is established by the BIOS's boot sequence and the
    >>>> "active" partition on the 1st HD in that boot sequence, not
    >>>> by having successfully booted for the 1st time in isolation.
    >>>> A clone booted for the 1st time with the "parent" in view
    >>>> continues to function (in my experience), but it needs the
    >>>> continued presence of its "parent" to do so. This seems
    >>>> to be a feature added my Microsoft to thwart copying of
    >>>> it OSes, starting with the WinNT/Win2K/WinXP family of
    >>>> OSes.
    >>>
    >>> I've booted XP successfully with a clone in the mobile rack,
    >>> marked by XP as drive G:, both with SATA and PATA drives
    >>> as the main boot device. The reason I'm apparently avoiding
    >>> trouble is that I always boot with C: (system) as the drive that
    >>> made the clone (G:). The actual cloned drive (G:) is never used
    >>> to boot from.
    >>
    >>
    >> Yes.
    >>
    >>
    >>> I assume, therefore, that the crux of the issue is to make sure
    >>> the new clone isn't the new C: and the "parent" (source of the clone)
    >>> isn't in the system when booted.
    >>
    >>
    >> I'm not sure what "the issue" is, but the crux of cloning a
    >> system and assuring that the clone will be bootable in the
    >> future alone (such as when it is used as a replacement for
    >> a failed hard disk) is to boot it alone when it is booted for
    >> the 1st time. Note that "booted" does not mean "recognized
    >> and included in part of the system as a file structure". "Booted"
    >> here means having a Master Boot Record that takes control
    >> from the BIOS and which then passes control on to the boot
    >> sector of the "active" partition where the ntldr program loads
    >> the system that resides there. If the old system was drive C:,
    >> the clone system will also call itself C: if it is loaded. As drive
    >> C: it will find and name other drives in the system with other
    >> letters. The old Local Disk C: may become Local Disk D:,
    >> but as long as no shortcuts in the loaded system refer drive
    >> letters other than C:, it doesn't matter.
    >>
    >>
    >>>>> With my old Win98SE machine I cloned C: to D: once per week
    >>>>> and left D: in the system at all times. It would then seem that you
    >>>>> could still do this with XP since the hardware configuration will
    >>>>> not have changed. Does this make sense?
    >>>>
    >>>> No. Under WinXP, you can do this with no problem as long
    >>>> as the new OS (the one in drive D:) hasn't been loaded and
    >>>> started. You can start up the old OS all you want, and it can
    >>>> see the files in drive D: with no problem. The problem appears
    >>>> when the new clone OS in drive D: is started up with the old
    >>>> OS in drive C: visible to it. Somehow the new clone recognizes
    >>>> its "parent" and that it's a "child" in this world. But if it
    >>>> starts up
    >>>> in isolation for the 1st time that it's started, it decides it's
    >>>> a
    >>>> different beast and becomes an "adult".
    >>>
    >>> This is a bit confusing. By this description, my situation should be
    >>> problematic (see above), but I've never had a problem.
    >>
    >>
    >> No. In your system, you start up the cloned system, not the clone
    >> system. The clone system does not "boot" - it merely sits there
    >> and becomes part of the old cloned system as an added file structure
    >> in the form of another "Local Disk".
    >>
    >>
    >>> If the drive in the mobile rack (clone) is in the system, it will boot
    >>> as any other drive attached to the system unless it is the first time
    >>> the OS has seen that particular device, in which case XP sees it
    >>> as new hardware and "installs" it. From then on, even after a new
    >>> cloning, XP sees that drive as G: and the system boots normally.
    >>
    >>
    >> You misunderstand the term "boot". "Boot" does not mean
    >> being included in a loaded system as another Local Disk having
    >> an accessible file structure (e.g. D: drive). "Boot" means to "load
    >> itself in stages, starting from practically nothing". A "booted"
    >> system is a system which has loaded itself, starting with the exe-
    >> cution of its own partition's boot sector. A "booted" hard drive is
    >> a hard drive which has had control passed to its Master Boot
    >> Record by the BIOS and which in turn passes control to the boot
    >> sector of the its "active" partition. Since this "active" partition's
    >> boot.ini file might designate that its ntldr program load a system
    >> on some other partition on any hard drive in the system, the loading
    >> of that system is not "booting" per se, but its loading is part of the
    >> process which began with "booting", so sloppy terminology includes
    >> that loading as part of the "boot" process - which began with the
    >> CPU passing control to the BIOS when the CPU felt the power
    >> come on. Since the clone system (e.g. D: drive) does not get
    >> loaded nor partiticipate in the boot process in your scenario, it is
    >> not "booted" nor is it "loaded". It just become accessible as a
    >> file structure that contains data.
    >>
    >>
    >>> I only boot with the clone in the system if I need to retreive specific
    >>> files, as when I delete something accidentally from C: and have no
    >>> backup elsewhere, which I usually do. Now that I've installed a
    >>> USB mobile rack I can insert the cloned drive (G:) and it is instantly
    >>> recognized, something I couldn't do before with the old IDE-type
    >>> interface, which needed to be inserted when powered down and
    >>> rebooted.
    >>
    >>
    >> Be careful with your terminology. "Booted" does not mean
    >> "accessible". You have only booted the old (i.e. cloned) system,
    >> not the (new) clone system.
    >>
    >>
    >>> I assume the USB type of arrangement would never be a problem
    >>> since it isn't in the system when booted.
    >>
    >>
    >> The external USB drive does not contain a bootable system,
    >> i.e. it cannot be booted, it cannot be used as the system drive.
    >> It can only act as another Local Disk with a file structure. If you
    >> have been using an IDE drive in a mobile rack in the same way,
    >> you have not ever booted from the drive containing the clone.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>> Microsoft doesn't document this behavior and it offers no
    >>>> method (such as initial isolation) to get around it, and the
    >>>> MS Professional Volunteers in the MS newsgroups don't
    >>>> know much if anything about it. At least they seem to avoid
    >>>> writing about it. The MVPs even get quite abusive and hostile
    >>>> if you so much as say that running two installations of one OS
    >>>> CD in *the same machine* is legal. Obviously, MS has them
    >>>> toeing the company line when it comes to gray areas in its
    >>>> EULA. I expect that cloning Longhorn will be even more
    >>>> difficult.
    >>>
    >>> I do clones for backup purposes only, and I see no more ethical
    >>> problem approaching backups in this manner than using MS's
    >>> own backup program.
    >>
    >>
    >> It is not the cloning of a system as an archive that MS seems
    >> to object to. It's the cloning of a system with a Master Boot Record
    >> and boot sector and its boot files (e.g. ntldr, boot.ini,
    >> NTDETECT.com,
    >> etc.) on an IDE hard drive so that it is bootable as a system drive
    >> that MS doesn't like.
    >>
    >>
    >>> The fact that I have four or five clones with the OS in each that
    >>> I rotate for cloning shouldn't violate the spirit of the EULA, if
    >>> perhaps
    >>> the letter thereof.
    >
    >> In public, MS argues that the letter of the EULA is the spirit
    >> of the EULA. Privately, I doubt that it cares about multiple
    >> installations derived from a single installation CD existing on
    >> a single PC. After all, WinXP won't work on another PC unless
    >> that PC is identical in hardware,
    >
    > Thats not true of the versions of XP that dont require validation.
    >
    >> and only one copy can work at any one time, anyway.
    >
    >>> All cloning activity is performed on one machine, which is the one for
    >>> which the OS is licensed, and none are ever run on any other
    >>> computers. So what could possibly be wrong with that practice?
    >>
    >>
    >> Don't ask that question in a microsoft.* newsgroup unless
    >> you're prepared to argue with half a dozen Microsoft MVPs
    >> and their shills for a week.
    >
    >
Ask a new question

Read More

Windows XP Storage