On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 18:36:24 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>In message <b475cil7qf7nrlf4udsu3mpmq9r9tfv4v7@4ax.com> at Thu, 27 Jul
>2023 09:49:55, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> writes
>>On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 21:29:03 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
>><G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>In message <XnsB04D83919A24Dauricauricauricauric@135.181.20.170> at Wed,
>>>26 Jul 2023 19:55:38, Auric__ <not.my.real@email.address> writes
>>>[]
>>>>> (IOW: MicroSoft is only concerned with their bottom line, and not what
>>>>> the "customer" might desire.)
>>>>
>>>>Indeed.
>>
>>There's a lot of truth in that, but I don't completely agree.
>>Microsoft *does* do a lot of research on what customers want and
>>like.
>>
>And then totally ignore it!

Maybe sometimes, but rarely. If that were even close to universally
true, they wouldn't do any research.

>(Sorry, couldn't resist. They do _sometimes_
>pay attention - but implement what we want in a way that's very
>convoluted.)

Sometimes. If they were to do more research, it might happen less
often.

>>>>10 may very well be the last version I use.
>>>>
>>>I've heard that said since at least '98,
>>
>>Me too, It's a very common statement, but it rarely turns out to be
>>true for anyone.
>>
>>
>>> and said it myself for at least
>>>98SE, XP, and now 7.
>>
>>But I've never said it. I always try to use the latest version, for
>>two reasons (I've probably said this here before):
>>
>>1. I know that it won't be too long before I'll need or desire a new
>>piece of hardware or software that won't run on the older version.
>
>I can't imagine _desiring_ any hardware I haven't got.

I can imagine lots of things:

a much better, cheaper, faster printer.

a faster CPU

a faster SSD

some new vehicle for installing software--something like a better,
faster thumb drive, and one that all software manufacturers have
switched to

a new kind of better, bigger monitor--perhaps with 3d

etc.

And many other things that neither I nor anyone else has thought of
yet.

Technology changes all the time. As new technology becomes available,
our desires, along with our needs, changes.

>I may _need_, if
>something fails. And as for software, I don't think I've even wanted -
>let alone needed - anything I don't already have, for some years.

New software always becomes available. Sometimes a completely new
program, sometimes a new much better version of an old program. Again,
I can't predict what will come, or what I will want, but I know it
will happen.

If your old version of some program is new longer supported, you may
well need a newer version.

As a couple of examples of what I mean, I use Quicken. Several
(important to me) features always stop working in older versions. So I
need to frequently change to a newer version.

I no long do it, but I used to use Turbo Tax. That *always* requires
the latest version.
..
>>2. If I eventually upgrade to a newer version, but skip a version of
>>two. the changes from what I'm used to are likely to be significantly
>>bigger and take longer to learn and adapt to.
>
>It pays to remain _aware_ of the later versions. Whether you allocate a
>significant amount of time to this, or just accept you'll have a big
>lump of effort if/when you change, is a matter for personal choice ...

OK, but being aware of it and having experience using it are two
completely different things, as far as I'm concerned.

>>So I'm running Windows 11, and with a couple of third-party
>>interface-improving utilities (mostly Start11 and WinAeroTweaker), I'm
>
>... especially if you can find some UI tweakers that get you back to (or
>close to) where you were.

Yes. But to me, not so much as where I was, but to where I prefer it
to be.

>>happy with it. If you have to use a new version out of the box, some
>>versions (going from 7 to 8, for example) can be very difficult to
>>adapt to.
>>
>8 was (initially) horrible.

We completely agree on that. But many other people don't and liked it.

It got a little better with 8.1, but I still hated it.

>Probably fine for new users; most existing
>users stayed with their XP at that point, with a few staying at 7.

Most? I have no statistics, but I doubt it. Certainly some, but I
don't think it was most.

>If MS
>(it's a monopoly in all but name) bring out a version that's
>sufficiently bad, they _have_ to fix it.

No, they have to fix it if it doesn't sell. Whether you or I think
it's sufficiently bad is irrelevant.

>>>Thinking back, I can't now _really_ remember what - from the actual user
>>>point of view - made me eventually change. Looking forward, the only
>>>thing I can think of is hardware wearout, combined with the inability to
>>>find old-compatible replacement
>>
>>
>>Yes, a major factor for most people.
>
>Well, for unusual reasons, I had to get a computer earlier this year. I
>didn't have a _great_ deal of trouble finding a 7-32 machine (and I'm
>still actually enjoying using it: it's responsive, and better in some
>respects than my previous 7-32 machine).

Wait a few more years. If your new machine dies, you'll have much more
trouble finding one.

>>>- but I'm sure I've thought and said
>>>that before.
>>>
>>>The only other thing is web site "development" that means they won't
>>>work with older browsers, and newer browsers won't work with older OSs.
>>>It's not reached that stage for 7-32 yet, but presumably will.
>>
>>
>>It always does. It's like "do I need a backup?" It's a question of
>>when, not whether.
>
>We don't have to _like_ it, though.

Right.

>(Do you change your car every 3
>years or less, too? [That's a viable approach, just not the one I
>follow.])

I don't follow it either. But If I were much richer than I am, I'd
probably do it every year or two. I'd do the same with my computer, so
I could always have the faster computer available.

Your views and mine on this subject are clearly very different. That's
fine. I'm not trying to convince you of anything--just pointing out
why I have the views I do.

pyotr filipivich wrote:

> For me, the issue was the software I needed to use for class was
> 64 bit, and XP was the 32 bit version. Fastest way to upgrade was new
> box.
> Then the XP box croaked, and I didn't have the time to fix it.

My old XP box was an early AMD64 machine. I tried XP64 but didn't really need
it back then, and didn't like the inability to run DOS programs without
emulation.

> "Somewhere" I have a Win 95 box.

Mine is in a box, sitting unused. (No hard drive and I don't feel like the
hassle of getting a machine from 1997 working right now.)

--
"Vegetarian" is an old Indian word meaning "I don't hunt so good."

In message <2el7cilirh2luvo9b4nvd42f32rh5a97hr@4ax.com> at Fri, 28 Jul
2023 08:21:00, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> writes
>On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 18:36:24 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
><G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
[]
>And many other things that neither I nor anyone else has thought of
>yet.
>
>Technology changes all the time. As new technology becomes available,
>our desires, along with our needs, changes.

Indeed.

_Could_ be that I can envisage running two machines: one old and
familiar, one new _just_ to run some new hardware - or _possibly_ new
software; with gradual moving over of stuff as I get used to the new. I
think I've considered doing this in the past - there have certainly been
times when I was running two machines (e. g. '98SElite and XP), but I
think the transition period was mostly quite short. I genuinely can't
remember now.
[]
>If your old version of some program is new longer supported, you may
>well need a newer version.
>
>As a couple of examples of what I mean, I use Quicken. Several
>(important to me) features always stop working in older versions. So I
>need to frequently change to a newer version.

I'm intrigued by "stop working". Is this rentalware like Office 365? Or
by "stop working", do you mean "won't work on a newer OS"?
>
>I no long do it, but I used to use Turbo Tax. That *always* requires
>the latest version.
>.
I am aware that many (is it most? nearly all?) US citizens have to do
annual tax returns, and that seems to be a significant driver in the
need to buy new software, and thus new hardware. The majority of UK
_employees_ never do a tax return (the self-employed or small businesses
of course do have to).

>>>2. If I eventually upgrade to a newer version, but skip a version of
>>>two. the changes from what I'm used to are likely to be significantly
>>>bigger and take longer to learn and adapt to.
>>
>>It pays to remain _aware_ of the later versions. Whether you allocate a
>>significant amount of time to this, or just accept you'll have a big
>>lump of effort if/when you change, is a matter for personal choice ...
>
>
>OK, but being aware of it and having experience using it are two
>completely different things, as far as I'm concerned.
>
It may also be affected by employment. When I was employed, my employer
(a large technology firm) used _mostly_ the second-latest version of
Windows, so I had to be familiar with that; when until about a year ago
I was in the lowest (unpaid) tier of local government here (called
parish council, though has nothing to do with the church), I was issued
with a Windows 10/Outlook/Office 365 laptop, which I used, so was
familiar with the quirks of those.
[]
>>8 was (initially) horrible.
>
>We completely agree on that. But many other people don't and liked it.
>
>It got a little better with 8.1, but I still hated it.
>
I think even the original 8 _had_ a conventional desktop, it's just that
it didn't appear by default.
>
>>Probably fine for new users; most existing
>>users stayed with their XP at that point, with a few staying at 7.
>
>
>Most? I have no statistics, but I doubt it. Certainly some, but I
>don't think it was most.
>
Well, most users aren't like us here, and just take what they're given -
and almost never upgrade their OS, they just buy a new computer. (Though
this is beginning to change with the 7/8 to 10 and 10 to 11 changes
being automated unless you opted out - but only if the hardware was
suited.)
[]
>>Well, for unusual reasons, I had to get a computer earlier this year. I
>>didn't have a _great_ deal of trouble finding a 7-32 machine (and I'm
>>still actually enjoying using it: it's responsive, and better in some
>>respects than my previous 7-32 machine).
>
>Wait a few more years. If your new machine dies, you'll have much more
>trouble finding one.
>
True. I might consider getting one and storing it. But more likely,
would indeed just move on. (With consideration of VMs.)
[]
>>(Do you change your car every 3
>>years or less, too? [That's a viable approach, just not the one I
>>follow.])
>
>I don't follow it either. But If I were much richer than I am, I'd
>probably do it every year or two. I'd do the same with my computer, so

Going to be shaken up here with the change to electric vehicles; I see
no way they're going to have the infrastructure in place, and I know
(partly due to the greater distances, but only partly that) that the USA
is nowhere near ready. The dates here are still - no _new_ petrol/diesel
only cars after 2030, no _new_ hybrids after 2035. I can see the
second-hand market - and that for new p/d-only ones just before the
cutoff dates - going crazy.
[]
>Your views and mine on this subject are clearly very different. That's
>fine. I'm not trying to convince you of anything--just pointing out
>why I have the views I do.

We're probably not as different as it may seem. I think mine is just a
resentment of the decision being made by others, rather than me. And in
perfectly-well-working kit being made obsolete by changes that _don't_
benefit me.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I admire you British: when things get tough, you reach for humour. Not
firearms. - Sigourney (Susan) Weaver, RT 2017/11/4-10

On Sat, 29 Jul 2023 03:33:19 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>In message <2el7cilirh2luvo9b4nvd42f32rh5a97hr@4ax.com> at Fri, 28 Jul
>2023 08:21:00, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> writes
>>On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 18:36:24 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
>><G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>[]
>>And many other things that neither I nor anyone else has thought of
>>yet.
>>
>>Technology changes all the time. As new technology becomes available,
>>our desires, along with our needs, changes.
>
>Indeed.
>
>_Could_ be that I can envisage running two machines: one old and
>familiar, one new _just_ to run some new hardware - or _possibly_ new
>software; with gradual moving over of stuff as I get used to the new. I
>think I've considered doing this in the past - there have certainly been
>times when I was running two machines (e. g. '98SElite and XP), but I
>think the transition period was mostly quite short. I genuinely can't
>remember now.
>[]
>>If your old version of some program is new longer supported, you may
>>well need a newer version.
>>
>>As a couple of examples of what I mean, I use Quicken. Several
>>(important to me) features always stop working in older versions. So I
>>need to frequently change to a newer version.
>
>I'm intrigued by "stop working". Is this rentalware like Office 365?

Yes, that's sort of what it's become in recent years, but that's not
what I meant.

>Or
>by "stop working", do you mean "won't work on a newer OS"?

No. One of Quicken's features is that it enables me to download the
latest prices for the stocks I own, and thereby updates the value of
my holdings. That feature works on the current year's version, and
maybe the versions a year or two old, but it stops working when the
version gets older.

Why does it do this? Clearly so they can force its users to buy a new
version.

>>I no long do it, but I used to use Turbo Tax. That *always* requires
>>the latest version.
>>.
>I am aware that many (is it most? nearly all?) US citizens have to do
>annual tax returns, and that seems to be a significant driver in the
>need to buy new software,

Yes, for those who use TurboTax. Not everyone does.

>and thus new hardware.

Not necessarily.

> The majority of UK
>_employees_ never do a tax return

Interesting. I didn't know that,

Over the years, my taxes have become more complicated, and I no longer
do them myself. I now use a professional to do them for me.

>(the self-employed or small businesses
>of course do have to).
>
>>>>2. If I eventually upgrade to a newer version, but skip a version of
>>>>two. the changes from what I'm used to are likely to be significantly
>>>>bigger and take longer to learn and adapt to.
>>>
>>>It pays to remain _aware_ of the later versions. Whether you allocate a
>>>significant amount of time to this, or just accept you'll have a big
>>>lump of effort if/when you change, is a matter for personal choice ...
>>
>>
>>OK, but being aware of it and having experience using it are two
>>completely different things, as far as I'm concerned.
>>
>It may also be affected by employment. When I was employed, my employer
>(a large technology firm) used _mostly_ the second-latest version of
>Windows, so I had to be familiar with that; when until about a year ago
>I was in the lowest (unpaid) tier of local government here (called
>parish council, though has nothing to do with the church), I was issued
>with a Windows 10/Outlook/Office 365 laptop, which I used, so was
>familiar with the quirks of those.

Yes, good point.

>>>8 was (initially) horrible.
>>
>>We completely agree on that. But many other people don't and liked it.
>>
>>It got a little better with 8.1, but I still hated it.
>>
>I think even the original 8 _had_ a conventional desktop, it's just that
>it didn't appear by default.

Conventional in a sense, but still very different and much worse than
earlier versions, in my opinion.

>>>Probably fine for new users; most existing
>>>users stayed with their XP at that point, with a few staying at 7.
>>
>>
>>Most? I have no statistics, but I doubt it. Certainly some, but I
>>don't think it was most.
>>
>Well, most users aren't like us here, and just take what they're given -

Yes.

>and almost never upgrade their OS,

Yes.

>they just buy a new computer. (Though

Yes.

>this is beginning to change with the 7/8 to 10 and 10 to 11 changes
>being automated unless you opted out - but only if the hardware was
>suited.)
>[]
>>>Well, for unusual reasons, I had to get a computer earlier this year. I
>>>didn't have a _great_ deal of trouble finding a 7-32 machine (and I'm
>>>still actually enjoying using it: it's responsive, and better in some
>>>respects than my previous 7-32 machine).
>>
>>Wait a few more years. If your new machine dies, you'll have much more
>>trouble finding one.
>>
>True. I might consider getting one and storing it. But more likely,
>would indeed just move on.

Yes, that's my guess. Almost everyone does so, sooner or later.

>(With consideration of VMs.)
>[]
>>>(Do you change your car every 3
>>>years or less, too? [That's a viable approach, just not the one I
>>>follow.])
>>
>>I don't follow it either. But If I were much richer than I am, I'd
>>probably do it every year or two. I'd do the same with my computer, so
>
>Going to be shaken up here with the change to electric vehicles; I see
>no way they're going to have the infrastructure in place, and I know

My car was just severely damaged in an accident (fortunately just the
car, not me), and I don't yet know whether it wilt be repaired or the
insurance company will deem it a total loss and I'll have to buy a new
one. If I do buy a new car, I'd like to buy an electric one, or at
least a hybrid, but they're too expensive for me, so I'll stick with
gas (petrol). At my age (85), I hope that this will be the last car I
ever need to buy, but who knows. If I have to buy another one in the
future, I hope that electric cars will make more economic sense to me
then.

>(partly due to the greater distances, but only partly that) that the USA
>is nowhere near ready. The dates here are still - no _new_ petrol/diesel
>only cars after 2030, no _new_ hybrids after 2035. I can see the
>second-hand market - and that for new p/d-only ones just before the
>cutoff dates - going crazy.
>[]
>>Your views and mine on this subject are clearly very different. That's
>>fine. I'm not trying to convince you of anything--just pointing out
>>why I have the views I do.
>
>We're probably not as different as it may seem. I think mine is just a
>resentment of the decision being made by others, rather than me. And in
>perfectly-well-working kit being made obsolete by changes that _don't_
>benefit me.

I understand. I don't disagree with those comments

Sailfish graced us with on 7/26/2023 6:30 PM:
>
> While still testing, performing a Win7 dual boot by cloning my existing
> Win7 OS to another installed hardrive and then upgrading the cloned Win7
> to Win10 looks pretty good so far. The nice thing about it is that I
> didn't have to reinstall all my existing programs AND even the
> registered ones I've tested like Office 2016 still wok fine on either
> system.
>
> I was putting this off but, as you said, once Google desupported Win7,
> all the other browsers, and programs that depend on it (such as Steam)
> forced to hasten the dual boot option.
>
> Still, I detest Win10 for a variety of reasons that have been listed on
> these forums by myself and many others, so I will stay with Win7 as my
> GoTo OS as long as I can hold out.
>
> There won't be a Win11 dual boot option for my rig since it doesn't
> support TPM but I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.
>
tl;dr
Some nervousness and re-reading tech sites several times but, in the
end, it worked and was simpler than I'd expected. Also, some computer
BIOSes may not support dual boot option so it would be prudent to
investigate there computer beforehand to insure it does.
//
WARNING! BEFORE STARTING, MAKE SURE YOU DO A FULL BACKUP OF SYSTEM
BEFOREHAND.
//
Prerequisites:
1. Full disk cloning backup and restore program, e.g., Macrium Reflect
2. Spare wiped and formatted disk of equal or larger size

Installing Dual Boot W10 on Win7 Desktop
----------------------------------------
Existing Win7 Installation Drive:
Win7 OS, programs and data C:\

Note: Standard installations OS and data files are generally all
contained on one drive; so there will only need to be one spare drive.

Targeted Win10 Installation Drive:
Win10 OS, programs and data F: <- see Notes

Notes
1. Boot environment (and BCD) should be always on [first disk + active
partition] so, ensure existing Win7 boot drive is before Target
Win10 drive in BIOS order
2. Target drive letters are arbitrary and can be assigned by
C:\Windows\System32\diskmgmt.msc
3. Target Win10 drive can be a hard drive instead of a SSD drive but
have degraded performance

Creating Win7 and Win 10 Dual Boot system
-----------------------------------------
1. Using Macrium Reflect, clone existing Win7 (C:) drive and restore it
to target Win10 drive (F:)
2. Reboot system into existing Win7 system
3. Open CMD window with System Administration privileges and enter
following commands:
bcdboot C:\windows
bcdboot F:\windows
4. Done!

Reboot system and you should be presented with a dual boot option,
having your existing Win7 OS on both the original drive AND the cloned
drive. All that's required then is to reboot and select the cloned Win7
drive and then upgrade it to Win10. Once completed, your Win10 drive
will be upgraded to Win10 and all you existing installed program will
still work (Note: some Win7 intrinsic Microsoft games may not work in
Win10.) However, most of the other previously installed programs should
still work without needing to be reinstalled nor the need to re-register
them AND still work on Win7, as well. Additionally, your Win10 desktop
skeuomorphic icons and theme should still display (mine does) and icon
placement should still be the same; although the Aero desktop will be
replaced with souless Win10 flat design look (no transparency, no
rounded corners).

Conceivably, this procedure could work for a laptop using a bootable
portable exterior USB drive but performance would be quite a bit slower.

--
Sailfish
CDC Covid19 Trends: https://www.facebook.com/groups/624208354841034
Rare Mozilla Stuff: http://tinyurl.com/z86x3sg

On 8/11/2023 5:23 PM, Sailfish wrote:

> 1. Using Macrium Reflect, clone existing Win7 (C:) drive and restore it
>    to target Win10 drive (F:)
> 2. Reboot system into existing Win7 system
> 3. Open CMD window with System Administration privileges and enter
>    following commands:
>      bcdboot C:\windows
>      bcdboot F:\windows
> 4. Done!

Just some minor comments about the topic.

The reason some of this works, is because Macrium changes the partition
identifiers when it clones.

If you were a person who spends part of your time in Linux, in Linux
the identifiers are all preserved ("duplicated") at your peril. You then
have to learn how to change the identifiers, before any next steps can
take place. So what Macrium is doing for you, on a clone, is useful.

When you do that (change identifiers), as a tool maker, you have to
provide a recipe then, to join all those identifiers together and make
a boot menu. Which has a minor level of risk associated with it.
In a few cases, I've done stuff like this, and no amount of
dropping-to-command-line would make the damn boot menu work :-/
I've used multiple third party tools, and still could not fix it.

If you type "bcdedit", you can review the construction of the BCD so far.
And see if any bits of it are missing. You will need to see "a working one",
to know what "a busted one" looks like. And this is purely the menu -- if
the ESP and a folder in there is damaged, you normally cannot easily see
that, and even when you do get a look in there, it may not be apparent
what is broken. At least, I've never looked in there and had an "aha!" moment.

With those bcdboot commands, you could do

bcdboot ...
bcdedit # Review what the first bcdboot has done
bcdboot ...
bcdedit # Review what the second bcdboot has done. Check to see which OS is "Default"

*******

If you see red file entries in the ESP FAT32 file system, there is a good
chance those are deleted, and not really there, and that's what the red
color means. At first I thought that was a permissions thing, but FAT32
does not have permissions, so that theory did not hold water.

Paul

Paul graced us with on 8/11/2023 4:44 PM:
> On 8/11/2023 5:23 PM, Sailfish wrote:
>
>> 1. Using Macrium Reflect, clone existing Win7 (C:) drive and restore it
>> to target Win10 drive (F:)
>> 2. Reboot system into existing Win7 system
>> 3. Open CMD window with System Administration privileges and enter
>> following commands:
>> bcdboot C:\windows
>> bcdboot F:\windows
>> 4. Done!
>
> Just some minor comments about the topic.
>
> The reason some of this works, is because Macrium changes the partition
> identifiers when it clones.
>
> If you were a person who spends part of your time in Linux, in Linux
> the identifiers are all preserved ("duplicated") at your peril. You then
> have to learn how to change the identifiers, before any next steps can
> take place. So what Macrium is doing for you, on a clone, is useful.
>
> When you do that (change identifiers), as a tool maker, you have to
> provide a recipe then, to join all those identifiers together and make
> a boot menu. Which has a minor level of risk associated with it.
> In a few cases, I've done stuff like this, and no amount of
> dropping-to-command-line would make the damn boot menu work :-/
> I've used multiple third party tools, and still could not fix it.
>
> If you type "bcdedit", you can review the construction of the BCD so far.
> And see if any bits of it are missing. You will need to see "a working one",
> to know what "a busted one" looks like. And this is purely the menu -- if
> the ESP and a folder in there is damaged, you normally cannot easily see
> that, and even when you do get a look in there, it may not be apparent
> what is broken. At least, I've never looked in there and had an "aha!" moment.
>
> With those bcdboot commands, you could do
>
> bcdboot ...
> bcdedit # Review what the first bcdboot has done
> bcdboot ...
> bcdedit # Review what the second bcdboot has done. Check to see which OS is "Default"
>
> *******
>
> If you see red file entries in the ESP FAT32 file system, there is a good
> chance those are deleted, and not really there, and that's what the red
> color means. At first I thought that was a permissions thing, but FAT32
> does not have permissions, so that theory did not hold water.
>
First, thanks Paul, I was hoping you might chime in adding clarification
where needed. This is especially true for your insight on dual-booting
Linux installations which I only have on a VirtualBox.

I was not aware of Macrium Reflect's added cloning feature. Does that
mean that other cloning programs such as Acronis may not or does not
provide this and, as such, may not work if used instead of Reflect?

--
Sailfish
CDC Covid19 Trends: https://www.facebook.com/groups/624208354841034
Rare Mozilla Stuff: http://tinyurl.com/z86x3sg

On 8/11/2023 8:51 PM, Sailfish wrote:
> Paul graced us with on 8/11/2023 4:44 PM:
>> On 8/11/2023 5:23 PM, Sailfish wrote:
>>
>>> 1. Using Macrium Reflect, clone existing Win7 (C:) drive and restore it
>>>    to target Win10 drive (F:)
>>> 2. Reboot system into existing Win7 system
>>> 3. Open CMD window with System Administration privileges and enter
>>>    following commands:
>>>      bcdboot C:\windows
>>>      bcdboot F:\windows
>>> 4. Done!
>>
>> Just some minor comments about the topic.
>>
>> The reason some of this works, is because Macrium changes the partition
>> identifiers when it clones.
>>
>> If you were a person who spends part of your time in Linux, in Linux
>> the identifiers are all preserved ("duplicated") at your peril. You then
>> have to learn how to change the identifiers, before any next steps can
>> take place. So what Macrium is doing for you, on a clone, is useful.
>>
>> When you do that (change identifiers), as a tool maker, you have to
>> provide a recipe then, to join all those identifiers together and make
>> a boot menu. Which has a minor level of risk associated with it.
>> In a few cases, I've done stuff like this, and no amount of
>> dropping-to-command-line would make the damn boot menu work :-/
>> I've used multiple third party tools, and still could not fix it.
>>
>> If you type "bcdedit", you can review the construction of the BCD so far.
>> And see if any bits of it are missing. You will need to see "a working one",
>> to know what "a busted one" looks like. And this is purely the menu -- if
>> the ESP and a folder in there is damaged, you normally cannot easily see
>> that, and even when you do get a look in there, it may not be apparent
>> what is broken. At least, I've never looked in there and had an "aha!" moment.
>>
>> With those bcdboot commands, you could do
>>
>> bcdboot ...
>> bcdedit      # Review what the first bcdboot has done
>> bcdboot ...
>> bcdedit      # Review what the second bcdboot has done. Check to see which OS is "Default"
>>
>> *******
>>
>> If you see red file entries in the ESP FAT32 file system, there is a good
>> chance those are deleted, and not really there, and that's what the red
>> color means. At first I thought that was a permissions thing, but FAT32
>> does not have permissions, so that theory did not hold water.
>>
> First, thanks Paul, I was hoping you might chime in adding clarification where needed. This is especially true for your insight on dual-booting Linux installations which I only have on a VirtualBox.
>
> I was not aware of Macrium Reflect's added cloning feature. Does that mean that other cloning programs such as Acronis may not or does not provide this and, as such, may not work if used instead of Reflect?
>

This is mainly an issue on the Linux side, as the tools there
do not seem to believe in "convenience". I haven't figured out
why "manual control" is a prized property. You would think that at
least Clonezilla would add some software to take care of that.

Using "dd" for cloning for example, doesn't change any identifiers
and then additional steps are required to prevent trouble.

You see, if you present a recipe, the audience may go "hey, I can
substitute X for that step", when perhaps X isn't good enough.

You're very brave to do a dual boot inside VirtualBox -- many rough edges,
easy to get cut etc. It's hard enough to do the key press and get to the
EFI boot menu in there. There's no pressing need to do EFI in there,
but again, a person might be tempted. And VirtualBox isn't really all
that ready for Windows 11. I used VMWare Workstation Player for that, but
discovered a rough edge in there, that destroyed my Guest :-/ (The twits
encrypted the settings file, and once a "bad" setting is asserted in there,
it's all over for your Guest. Most times, a person would hand edit a text
file and fix an issue like that. With the file encrypted, it is Toastios.)
Are we having fun yet ? Hmmm.

And the VMWare thing is a fetish. Whips and chains for the marketing department.
Totally unnecessary evil.

Paul

Paul graced us with on 8/11/2023 8:05 PM:
> On 8/11/2023 8:51 PM, Sailfish wrote:
>> Paul graced us with on 8/11/2023 4:44 PM:

<snip />
>> This is especially true for your insight on dual-booting Linux installations which I only have on a VirtualBox.
>>
<snip />
> You're very brave to do a dual boot inside VirtualBox -- many rough edges,
> easy to get cut etc. It's hard enough to do the key press and get to the
> EFI boot menu in there. There's no pressing need to do EFI in there,
> but again, a person might be tempted. And VirtualBox isn't really all
> that ready for Windows 11. I used VMWare Workstation Player for that, but
> discovered a rough edge in there, that destroyed my Guest :-/ (The twits
> encrypted the settings file, and once a "bad" setting is asserted in there,
> it's all over for your Guest. Most times, a person would hand edit a text
> file and fix an issue like that. With the file encrypted, it is Toastios.)
> Are we having fun yet ? Hmmm.
>
I regret being imprecise regarding my Linux machine. What I should have
stated was that I have VirtualBox installed on my Win7 OS and added a
Linux distro to VirtualBox, since I don't use it that often. One day in
the future when micros~1 forces me to go to a subscription service, I
may look into hosting a Linux distro as a boot option. Hopefully, it'll
be a few years out before that happens.

I didn't want to add more confusion to the dual boot project discussion
than I did but my Win7 system was hosted on 2 drives, the OS on a SSD
and the data and installation files on a 3TB hard drive. I ended cloning
2 drives instead of 1 onto similar 2 drives. To say I was nervous would
be an understatement but, in the end, it worked splendidly. Macrium
Reflect is a godsend!

> And the VMWare thing is a fetish. Whips and chains for the marketing department.
> Totally unnecessary evil.
>

--
Sailfish
CDC Covid19 Trends: https://www.facebook.com/groups/624208354841034
Rare Mozilla Stuff: http://tinyurl.com/z86x3sg

In message <ub73hg$17b1b$2@dont-email.me> at Fri, 11 Aug 2023 21:58:24,
Sailfish <NIXCAPSsailfish@NIXCAPSunforgettable.com> writes
[]
>Linux distro to VirtualBox, since I don't use it that often. One day in
>the future when micros~1 forces me to go to a subscription service, I
[]
It could of course be argued that it's already a subscription "service",
just that the renewal period is a little longer than that of most other
such (-:
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"I'm not against women. Not often enough, anyway." - Groucho Marx

J. P. Gilliver graced us with on 8/12/2023 1:43 AM:
> In message <ub73hg$17b1b$2@dont-email.me> at Fri, 11 Aug 2023 21:58:24,
> Sailfish <NIXCAPSsailfish@NIXCAPSunforgettable.com> writes
> []
>> Linux distro to VirtualBox, since I don't use it that often. One day
>> in the future when micros~1 forces me to go to a subscription service, I
> []
> It could of course be argued that it's already a subscription "service",
> just that the renewal period is a little longer than that of most other
> such (-:

It depends, I suppose. I haven't had to renew by Win7 OS in 14 years and
since Win10 was a free upgrade, I should have a few more years free of
subscriptions on that. Those kinds of subscription time frames I can get
used to :-D

--
Sailfish
CDC Covid19 Trends: https://www.facebook.com/groups/624208354841034
Rare Mozilla Stuff: http://tinyurl.com/z86x3sg