best cloning method?

[Rod Speed]

WOW - this thread has really gotten some legs.

You aint seen a thread with real legs yet |-)

Thanks to all for the advice and
guidance - I may try the Ghost route,

It isnt going to make any difference, I bet.

but now using True Image seems like a personal challenge.

And its better to get TI working, Ghost 2003 is a
real dinosaur thats way past its useby date now.

I'll lay out what I did as specifically as possible - maybe
that will point a red flag as to what I did wrong.

Yes, it has.

1)Old drive jumpered as slave
2)New drive jumpered as master
3)Bios set to boot old drive

Does the bios see both drives, are they both
visible on the black bios screen at boot time ?

4)Run True Image
5)When it says 'clone complete.....press
any key to shut down computer', I did so.
6)I unplugged the old HD
7)New drive is still jumpered as master
8)Set bios to boot new HD, but shouldn't
even matter since only one drive in system

Some bios are so stupid that they just whine about
the old drive not being a system disk and dont even
notice that its not plugged in anymore.

9)No boot, although the NVIDIA boot agent
comes up and twiddles around for a little bit

You need to concentrate on that bit, why it wont
boot the new drive when its the only one plugged in.

10) Rehook up old drive and start again
11) Screen comes up during boot saying that Acronis
finished doing somethingorother and boots into XP

Its likely that you did manage to boot the new drive in
that config and that XP gets royally confused when the
old drive and the new drive are both visible for the first
boot of the new drive.

12) C drive (old drive) and F drive
(new drive) visible in windows explorer

Thats what you get when both are visible for
the first boot of the new drive with both visible.

13) shut down and unplug old drive
14) boot fails again

Because XP has both drives involved in the boot now.
Thats a different issue to what the bios boots, and
happens after the bios has booted a physical drive.

15) change bios to boot new drive
16) Screen comes up again during boot saying Acronis
finished some process again and boots into XP
17) C drive (new drive - I know by checking the properties and
the size gives it away) is the only visible hard drive in system

Thats not necessarily the drive you
actually booted at the XP level tho.

XP is quite happy to boot the F drive. You cant check that by the size.

18) shut off computer and unplug old drive
19) gave it another try and boot failure again

I guess I'm missing the concept of exactly what I should do when
Acronis says that the clone is complete (even though it obviously
isn't done because it does more things when rebooted.)

That must have been the cloning done from the installed TI,
not from the rescue CD. When you clone from the rescue CD,
you dont get TI saying anything when you boot the hard drive.

When I shut down the computer, should I jumper the
new drive differently, or set the bios to boot differently?

You should check why 9 doesnt boot.

Have you got the drives on the raid controller on the motherboard ?

Try cloning using the rescue CD instead of from within XP.

I don't even know if it's copied the MBR at this point.

You are cloning the physical drive arent you ?

Before performing the clone the program lays out what it's
going to do in 3 steps. Step 1 is clear the drive (ending in
reboot), Step 2 is clone the drive (ending in reboot)

You dont get that when cloning from the rescue CD.

and Step 3 is copy the Master Boot Record. I don't know
if I'm unplugging the old drive before it copies the MBR

In theory you might be, but you do appear to
be able to boot the new drive when the old drive
is plugged in, so it should have a viable MBR.

- but if I don't it'll go right into XP with both drives connected
and mess it all up again. What the heck am I missing?

See above.

 

[Beemer Biker]

WOW - this thread has really gotten some legs. Thanks to all for the
advice and guidance - I may try the Ghost route, but now using True
Image seems like a personal challenge. I'll lay out what I did as

true image is much easier to use as rod suggested.

I have cloned a number of disks over the years using true image. There are
a number of pitfalls that can cause problems. Number one is haveing the new
disk already formatted and on your system. If the disk is in an external
box then you are ok, but if it is on the pata cable then there is a good
chance that xp will put its swap file on it and that is where problems
start. After cloning the swap file is not present. If you boot your "new
disk" it cannot find the swap file as the original disk no longer has it (it
was automatically put on it because XP does not know what you are about to
do and it sees a new disk that has plenty of contiguous space and puts the
swap file there). Usually you see a message "zero length swap file" but not
always. Sometimes is just wont boot and no message. One solution is to use
a dos or win98 floppy and rewrite the mbr. This causes any swap file
information to be deleted and on reboot the OS will find a new place for the
swap file. Just make sure after it boots that the swap file is on the "C"
drive or you will get stuck in a loop.

I assume you have the latest TI that can clone the disk, not the older one
that required a TIB file to be booted up.
I would delete the partition from the new disk, reboot and *ENSURE* that
the swap file is back on the "C" drive, then clone the "C" drive to the
unpartitioned new drive. This should require a cd boot.

After cloning remove the original C and boot the new drive. If you want
both disks to be on the system you probably should change the volume serial
number of the older "C" drive. If you change the VSN of the new boot drive
that will count against your legit (???) copy of XP and you might have to
re-activate. You may want to go to the "D" drive (your old C one) and
delete the swap file to make sure it is never used "pagefile.sys" it is a
hidden file.

I suspect your problems are caused by the swap file being used on the new
disk before it was cloned and on subsequent reboot the OS cant find it.

....HTH...

 

[Rod Speed]

true image is much easier to use as rod suggested.

I have cloned a number of disks over the years using true image.
There are a number of pitfalls that can cause problems. Number
one is haveing the new disk already formatted and on your system.

Nope, wont make any difference at all.

If the disk is in an external box then you are ok,
but if it is on the pata cable then there is a good
chance that xp will put its swap file on it

Nope, it will never do that.

and that is where problems start.
Nope.

After cloning the swap file is not present. If you boot your
"new disk" it cannot find the swap file as the original disk no
longer has it (it was automatically put on it because XP does
not know what you are about to do and it sees a new disk that
has plenty of contiguous space and puts the swap file there).

That last never happens.

Usually you see a message "zero length swap file"

Neither does that.

but not always. Sometimes is just wont boot and no message.

Neither does that.

One solution is to use a dos or win98 floppy and rewrite the
mbr. This causes any swap file information to be deleted

No it doesnt.

and on reboot the OS will find a new place for the
swap file. Just make sure after it boots that the swap
file is on the "C" drive or you will get stuck in a loop.

XP does NOT put its swap file on the drive with the most free space.

I assume you have the latest TI that can clone the disk,
not the older one that required a TIB file to be booted up.

God knows what this is about.

I would delete the partition from the new disk, reboot
and *ENSURE* that the swap file is back on the "C" drive,

XP does NOT put its swap file on the drive with the most free space.

then clone the "C" drive to the unpartitioned
new drive. This should require a cd boot.

After cloning remove the original C and boot the new drive.
If you want both disks to be on the system you probably
should change the volume serial number of the older "C" drive.

No need, XP does that auto when you put the original
drive back in the system again after booting the clone.

If you change the VSN of the new boot drive that will count against
your legit (???) copy of XP and you might have to re-activate.
You may want to go to the "D" drive (your old C one) and delete the
swap file to make sure it is never used "pagefile.sys" it is a hidden
file.

XP does NOT put its swap file on the drive with the most free space.

I suspect your problems are caused by the swap
file being used on the new disk before it was cloned

XP does NOT put its swap file on the drive with the most free space.

 

[Bob Davis]

This leaves me with the possibility of Ghost- I actually have a copy of
2003 that I just installed, but have no idea how to use it yet. I am
still looking for the simple way to clone a hd and have the damn thing
boot up and have all the programs work on it. Believe me - I'm still
listening with both ears if anyone has any other suggestions. I'll
post back about how Ghost works out. If anyone has any tips for using
Ghost I'd love to hear that as well. Thanks all for the continued help
in this nightmare.

I've used Ghost at least as far back as 2002, probably earlier if it existed
before that point. It has a perfect record with me using disk clones, and I
trust it totally to deliver in an emergency. Sure, it's DOS-based and must
boot from a floppy or CD, and the USB2 drivers have been useless for me--but
it does work and has been very popular for years with many. Firewire
drivers work fine, but I usually use IDE drives, and since the system must
be powered down to connect them (thru mobile racks in my case), then powered
down again to disconnect, it is a minor hassle to operate.

I use it strictly interactively, and the menu items should be
self-explanatory. Basically, I can hit <enter> three times and get the
drive list, whence I pick the source and destination, then make damn sure it
is the right choice, and finally start the cloning. It does about 1gb/min.
for me using a RAID0 array and several run-of-the-mill HD's from old 20gb
IBM's to more modern drives. One criticism of Ghost 2003 has been that
there is a point of no return, and if you pick the wrong drives for source
and destination you're in big trouble. I haven't tried it, but I assume
interrupting the process at any point renders the destination drive useless.
Before hitting that final button to go, I stare at it and make damn sure it
is what I want.

Another problem is that if you have two like-sized drives in the system, it
may be difficult to determine which is which. In my system, the first drive
has always been the boot drive, the second the next in the boot order (D:
for me), and the third the drive in the mobile rack (not in the boot order).
Perhaps this is the convention, but I don't know for sure. Thus I always
clone from #1 to #3, but I never assume it to be the case and do a
double-take to make sure.

 

[Bob Davis]

a. Select the USB 2.0 Support option (assuming you have that capability).

I have never been able to get USB2 drives to work with the supplied
driver(s). As the drivers are loaded it will hang at the prompt every time.
Firewire drivers do work, however. Have you ever run across this problem?

DO NOT BOOT IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE CLONING OPERATION WITH BOTH DRIVES
CONNECTED.

It might be worth noting that you can leave both drives connected in the
Win98SE environment. I did it weekly for years without any trouble, but no
longer use this method in XP.

 

[Beemer Biker]

Nope, wont make any difference at all.


Nope, it will never do that.

The swap file can get on there. How it happens I am not sure. When it
*DOES* get on there, that is one of the things can really go wrong. A more
likely scenero is that the GUID's of the disk are the same and when he
booted with the both drives attached, settings on the boot drive point to
the second disk. A side symptom is that it is looking for a swap file in
the wrong place.

Granted, windows does not look for a disk with the most amount of space
and put the swap file there. If, for some reason, there is not enough space
on the primary partition for the swap file, it will find space available
somewhere else or balk. I am guessing that should that happen, then you
will end up with a swap file on a drive other than the boot drive. I know I
have put on an SATA and found the swap file unaccountably on that disk. But
then I had run out of space and the disk was a disaster to start with.

I got on this thread late and do now know what the story is. Maybe it is
a laptop with a hidden partiton that cant be copied and that is the real
problem.

I do know that acronis does not copy any swap file or hibernate files. A
clone of the boot drive will contain information as to where the swap file
is.

I think his problem was caused by first booting the new drive with the old
one there. I think you have mentioned a number of times that "bad things can
happen" but you never say what it is. So do you know? It is one thing to
complain acount a problem and another to help out. One of the things that
can go wrong is discussed here:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;249321


On three occasions I have had the error message "Your system has no paging
file, or the paging file is too small" that is what I meant by zero length
page file. While trying to debug this, occassionally it would not boot at
all. These all occured after using acronis to clone a disk and I failed to
remove the old disk after swapping master and slave. This is not a problem
with acronis, and i first saw a complaint like this on Drive Image 7 (later
Norton Ghost 9). In at least one case i did find the swap file not on the
"C" drive like I thought.

I do not claim to be and expert on this, but the symptom the poster
represented seemed exactly like the one I ran into that left me with a
system that would no longer boot, and when it did I would that that pagefile
error.

more discussion here
http://www.murraymoffatt.com/software-problem-0007.html

That last never happens.


Neither does that.


Neither does that.

in a round-about way: the GUID gets rewritten and windows can find the swap
file since it now know the correct disk to use.
http://www.murraymoffatt.com/software-problem-0007.html

No it doesnt.


XP does NOT put its swap file on the drive with the most free space.


God knows what this is about.

acronis sold true image and easy migrate way back. If you only had true
image (this would be version 6 I am thinking of) then to clone your disk you
make a backup and store it as a backup.tib file. Then, to create a clone,
you run the true image restore and give it the name of the .tib file and
have it look for a new drive. The best way to backup the "C" drive is to
boot the recovery CD rather than run the backup within windows. If he has
the latest then he doesnt need to do that.

XP does NOT put its swap file on the drive with the most free space.



No need, XP does that auto when you put the original
drive back in the system again after booting the clone.

He needs to make sure the new boot drive has the old VSN so it wont count
against him for a reactivation. If XP does that automatically that is fine.
I suggest he record the VSN of the original disk in case either or both of
them get changed. But then, I get tired of calling m$oft explaining I am
not a product key thief.

 

[Rod Speed]

The swap file can get on there.

Nope, not without the user telling XP to put it there it cant.

How it happens I am not sure.

Thats obvious.

When it *DOES* get on there, that is one of the things can really go
wrong.

Nope. If it discovers its gone for whatever reason, it just recreates it.

A more likely scenero is that the GUID's of the disk are the same

They certainly are initially, but wont stay the same for long.

and when he booted with the both drives attached, settings on the boot
drive point to the second disk.

The original drive, anyway.

A side symptom is that it is looking for a swap file in the wrong place.

Nope, when you clone the original, the swap file gets cloned too.

Granted, windows does not look for a disk with the most amount of space
and put the swap file there. If, for some reason, there is not enough
space on the primary partition for the swap file, it will find space
available somewhere else
Nope.

or balk.

Thats all that will happen. You get the usual moan
that there isnt enough space on the boot drive.

I am guessing that should that happen, then you will end up with a swap
file on a drive other than the boot drive.

Yes its a guess. No it doesnt do it like that.

I know I have put on an SATA and found the swap file unaccountably on
that disk.

You stuffed something up rather comprehensively.
Most likely you had already specified that the swap
file should be on other than the boot drive, and then
replaced the drive you told it to put the swap file on
with the sata drive. It noticed that the swap file was
no longer on the drive you told it to put it on, so it
recreated it on that drive, like it always does if you
just deleted it with XP not currently booted etc.

But then I had run out of space and
the disk was a disaster to start with.

I got on this thread late and do now know what the story is.

You presumably meant to say 'do not know what the story is'

Maybe it is a laptop
Nope.

with a hidden partiton that cant be copied and that is the real problem.

Nope. You can clone a drive with a hidden partition fine.
That wont stop XP booting the clone as long as the
original drive is not visible for the first boot of the clone.

I do know that acronis does not copy any swap file or hibernate files.

It does if you CLONE. It doesnt put it in an image file.

A clone of the boot drive will contain information as to where the swap
file is.

And XP will just create one if say you delete the
swap file outside XP, say after having booted
an OS on CD, and then just boot XP again.

I think his problem was caused by first booting the new drive with the
old one there.

Yes, but in this latest detailled list of what he did,
he did try to boot the clone with the old one unplugged.

It isnt yet clear why that didnt boot the clone.

And it appears that it didnt even attempt to boot
the clone in the sense that ntldr was run etc.

I think you have mentioned a number of times that
"bad things can happen" but you never say what it is.

Yes I have.

So do you know?

Yes, the XP boot uses stuff off the old drive and the boot
works fine as long as the old drive is still connected. As
soon as you remove the old drive, you can no longer
boot, because what is on the old drive is no longer there.

It is one thing to complain acount a problem and another to help out.

I've helped out plenty who had that problem
cloning, mostly before you ever showed up.

One of the things that can go wrong is discussed here:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;249321

That isnt the symptom he is getting.

On three occasions I have had the error message "Your system has no
paging file, or the paging file is too small"

Yes, you can get that if the drive is very full.

that is what I meant by zero length page file.

Nothing to do with zero length.

While trying to debug this, occassionally it would not boot at all.
These all occured after using acronis to clone a disk and I failed to
remove the old disk after swapping master and slave. This is not a
problem with acronis, and i first saw a complaint like this on Drive
Image 7 (later Norton Ghost 9).

DI 7 isnt Ghost 9. Ghost 9 is V2i

In at least one case i did find the swap file not on the "C" drive like I
thought.

That would have been because you told XP to put it elsewhere.

I do not claim to be and expert on this,

Just as well.

but the symptom the poster represented seemed exactly like the one I ran
into that left me with a system that would no longer boot,

No its not. You can always boot the clone with the old
drive still visible to XP. The problem is that it will no
longer boot when the old drive is unplugged after you
boot the clone with the old drive visible to XP on the
first boot of the clone.

and when it did I would that that pagefile error.

For a different reason. No one else has reported any pagefile
error when they boot the clone with old drive visible during the
first boot of the clone. And there is no reason why they should,
there will be two pagefiles, one on each drive. And even if the
clone didnt copy the pagefile, XP would just create it on the
first boot with no pagefile. And by definition there must be
enough space for it since it was there on the old drive.

more discussion here
http://www.murraymoffatt.com/software-problem-0007.html

Thats completely mangled. You wont see the drive letters
change if you boot the old drive with the clone visible.

in a round-about way: the GUID gets rewritten and windows can find the
swap file since it now know the correct disk to use.

Utterly mangled. It doesnt work like that.

http://www.murraymoffatt.com/software-problem-0007.html

Thats a steaming turd riddled with errors.

acronis sold true image and easy migrate way back.
Correct.

If you only had true image (this would be version 6 I am thinking of)
then to clone your disk you make a backup and store it as a backup.tib
file. Then, to create a clone, you run the true image restore and give it
the name of the .tib file and have it look for a new drive.

What you mean is that it couldnt clone directly, you had
to create and image file and restore that to the new drive.

Thats nothing like 'required a TIB file to be booted up'

The best way to backup the "C" drive is to boot the recovery CD rather
than run the backup within windows.

And here you mean clone, not backup.
You can backup by cloning or by imaging.

If he has the latest then he doesnt need to do that.

He doesnt if he has 7 or 8 either.

He needs to make sure the new boot drive has the old VSN so it wont count
against him for a reactivation.

Thats automatic if you boot the clone
without the original being visible to XP.

If XP does that automatically that is fine. I suggest he record the VSN
of the original disk in case either or both of them get changed.

No need, just dont allow XP to see the
original on the first boot of the clone.

But then, I get tired of calling m$oft explaining I am not a product key
thief.

Then use Pro with a corp key.

 

[Timothy Daniels]

"Anna"

It might be worth noting that you can leave both drives
connected in the Win98SE environment. I did it weekly
for years without any trouble, but no longer use this
method in XP.

There have been lots of comments on this. This need
to hide the "parent" OS when the clone is first run seems
to have come about with WinXP - the same time activation
reared its smarmy head. I've always suspected that it was
a sneak by Microsoft to discourage cloning of its OSes.
We may get a better idea of how low Microsoft will stoop
when Vista finally surfaces and people try to clone it (for
personal backups, of course).

*TimDaniels*

 

[Rod Speed]

Bob Davis wrote

There have been lots of comments on this. This need to hide the "parent"
OS when the clone is first run seems to have come about with WinXP

Nope, also seen with 2K too.

- the same time activation reared its smarmy head.

Wrong again. And you get the same problem with
corp versions of XP that dont have any activation too.

I've always suspected that it was a sneak by Microsoft to discourage
cloning of its OSes.

Mindless conspiracy theory when its so easy to avoid a problem.

We may get a better idea of how low Microsoft will stoop when Vista
finally surfaces and people try to clone it (for personal backups, of
course).

Doesnt have a damned thing to do with the problem being discussed.

 

[Timothy Daniels]

I didn't say the clone mixing problem had anything to
do with the activation *mechanism*, but rather that it
coincided with Microsoft's new efforts at dicouraging
pirating - which is how Microsoft views clones
that can be multi-booted.

*TimDaniels*

 

[Rod Speed]

I didn't say the clone mixing problem had anything to do with the
activation *mechanism*, but rather that it coincided with Microsoft's new
efforts at dicouraging pirating

No it didnt. 2K has the same problem when
cloning and there is no activation with 2K.

XP Corp has no activation and has the same problem when cloning.

- which is how Microsoft views clones that can be multi-booted.

Wrong again. The reactivation is only necessary
when the hardware changes significantly and a
boot drive change isnt enough to require reactivation.

 

[Timothy Daniels]

Timothy Daniels wrote

[............] pirating
- which is how Microsoft views clones that can be multi-booted.

Wrong again. The reactivation is only necessary
when the hardware changes significantly and a
boot drive change isnt enough to require reactivation.

Microsoft's opinion of cloning has nothing to do with
activation. It has to do with its EULA and its view that
multiple "installations" of its Windows OS with only one
license is pirating. Numerous times in the microsoft NGs,
legions of angry MVPs have insisted that the EULA
prohibits bootable clones because a clone is an
runnable "installation" of an OS, and only one
"installation" is allowed by the EULA under one license.
Of course, I don't agree with that opinion for several
legal reasons, but that is apparently what Microsoft
contends until shown otherwise by a court decision.

*TimDaniels*

 

[Beemer Biker]

There have been lots of comments on this. This need
to hide the "parent" OS when the clone is first run seems
to have come about with WinXP - the same time activation
reared its smarmy head. I've always suspected that it was
a sneak by Microsoft to discourage cloning of its OSes.
We may get a better idea of how low Microsoft will stoop
when Vista finally surfaces and people try to clone it (for
personal backups, of course).

*TimDaniels*

Hi Tim...you and I discussed this same crap over a year ago..small
world..only Rod wasnt there..
http://www.mcse.ms/message1367497.html

BTW: I emailed this last night by mistake instead of posting it, sorry.

=======================================================================
Beemer Biker (e-mail address removed)
http://ResearchRiders.org Ask about my 99'R1100RT
http://TipsForTheComputingImpaired.com
=======================================================================

 

[Beemer Biker]

http://www.mcse.ms/message1367497.html

That link is broken, might have been cached when I hit it last night, try
this one
http://www.mcse.ms/archive65-2005-1-1367497.html

I probably should have used google groups for Microsoft.pubic since they
carry it. Maybe one of these days I will learn, it came from googleing
"pagefile mbr".

One thing I am sure of is that at Rod's speed, he has undoubtedly
forgotten more than I have learned.


--
=======================================================================
Beemer Biker (e-mail address removed)
http://ResearchRiders.org Ask about my 99'R1100RT
http://TipsForTheComputingImpaired.com
=======================================================================

 

[Bill]

WOW - this thread has really gotten some legs. Thanks to all for the
advice and guidance - I may try the Ghost route,

<snip>

I've seen this happen with Ghost, too. I doubt it will matter whether you
use Ghost or Acronis.

Now that I think about it, of the last 5 drives I've cloned (a mix of Ghost
2003, Acronis 9.0 and Acronis 8.0 on a Bart PE CD) I've had to "fdisk /mbr"
two of them to get them to boot. Honestly, I didn't pay any attention as to
the order and whether or not "new" drive could "see" old drive at first
boot. I just know that sometimes I had to do an fdisk /mbr to get the new
drive to boot. I originally found the suggestion on the "radified" site:
http://radified.com/cgi-bin/YaBB/YaBB.cgi?board=general;action=display;num=1122608259
But, it was long enough ago that there wasn't an explanation as to why
fdisk /mbr worked. Recently, my son had the same situation and found this
as a possible explanation:
http://www.goodells.net/multiboot/partsigs.htm#method3

And, while I have Acronis True Image Server for Windows 8.0 on our Windows
2003 server, I haven't had opportunity to clone a drive on that yet. And
since it's a RAID configuration, I doubt I will.

BTW, you started this thread asking about the "best cloning method". Then
when you started having booting problems, you started a new thread "Cloned
but FUBAR, help!!!". Then you went back to the original thread to further
discuss your booting problem. It might have been easier to follow this if
you had stuck with one or the other - just a suggestion.

Bill

 

[Timothy Daniels]

Hi Tim...you and I discussed this same crap over a year ago..small
world..only Rod wasnt there..
http://www.mcse.ms/message1367497.html

That's the beautiful and the ugly thing about the Internet -
nothing ever dies or fades away!

Do you ride a 2-jug or lazy-4 Beemer?

*TimDaniels*

 

[Rod Speed]

- which is how Microsoft views clones that can be multi-booted.

Wrong again. The reactivation is only necessary
when the hardware changes significantly and a
boot drive change isnt enough to require reactivation.

Microsoft's opinion of cloning has nothing to do with activation.

Pity you just pig ignorantly claimed that it does.

It has to do with its EULA and its view that multiple "installations" of
its Windows OS with only one license is pirating.

Wrong, as always. There is nothing contrary to the
EULA with multiple installs on the one system and the
XP validation doesnt even attempt to prevent them.

Numerous times in the microsoft NGs, legions of angry MVPs have insisted
that the EULA prohibits bootable clones because a clone is an runnable
"installation" of an OS, and only one "installation" is allowed by the
EULA under one license.

They're wrong, and MS has never said that
and the XP validation doesnt check for that.

Of course, I don't agree with that opinion for several
legal reasons, but that is apparently what Microsoft
contends until shown otherwise by a court decision.

You dont have a shred of evidence that
that is what MS actually 'contends' at all.

 

[Beemer Biker]

That's the beautiful and the ugly thing about the Internet -
nothing ever dies or fades away!
Do you ride a 2-jug or lazy-4 Beemer?

I have the boxer 1100 http://tinyurl.com/5c7uk and have put 60,000 miles on
it, mostly commuting to work, since '99. I spent the last weekend and this
one looking at new bikes. Spring is starting, and Harley and others dealers
near san antonio are having open houses and freebies. I stopped at two
harley dealers, honda, bad dog, american iron horse, and yamaha. Also
stopped at bmw. I thought that bmw was always overpriced although their
bikes are good, but American Iron horse and Bad Dog start where bmw leaves
off I cant see putting down $25K for something that wont make it past the
first gas station and no room on the seat for the wife.




--
=======================================================================
Beemer Biker (e-mail address removed)
http://ResearchRiders.org Ask about my 99'R1100RT
http://TipsForTheComputingImpaired.com
=======================================================================

 

[J. Clarke]

BETA = no support.

Then get the non-beta payware version. GEEZ, some people will complain
about anything.

What problem?

What part of "no problem" are you having trouble with?

You mean I can run virtual machine with no hardware?

No, you can move a virtual machine from one piece of hardware to another
without having to reconfigure it.

Almost.

Almost? If the hardware supports vmware player you can run the virtual
machine. You can even run a Virtual PC virtual machine under vmware
player. Only limitation you're likely to run into would be if the virtual
machine has a 64-bit OS and you try to run it on 32-bit physical
hardware--that won't work.

And I would not need a license for Windows running on VM? Is that true?

Depends on your definition of "need". Once you have activated XP in a
virtual machine you can move that virtual machine from one physical machine
to another without having to reactivate. Doing this in such a manner that
it is running on two physical machines simultaneously is a violation of the
Microsoft license, but there is nothing in the software that prevents you
from doing it.

 

[Timothy Daniels]

I have the boxer 1100 http://tinyurl.com/5c7uk and have put
60,000 miles on it, mostly commuting to work, since '99. I
spent the last weekend and this one looking at new bikes.
Spring is starting, and Harley and others dealers near
san antonio are having open houses and freebies. I stopped
at two harley dealers, honda, bad dog, american iron horse,
and yamaha. Also stopped at bmw. I thought that bmw was
always overpriced although their bikes are good, but
American Iron horse and Bad Dog start where bmw leaves
off I cant see putting down $25K for something that wont
make it past the first gas station and no room on the seat
for the wife.

The California Highway Patrol and the L.A. Police Dept.
dropped Harleys decades ago because of performance
and reliability problems and went with Honda and Kawasaki.
That still wasn't reliable enough for the CHP, so they
eventually went with BMW. It seems that the Chippers don't
like their ride sitting in the shop or breaking down out on the
road and the Bimmer's higher price was worth it. I for one,
though, dread the congestion of L.A. traffic and the crazies
who try to run you off the road, and I've resigned myself to
driving a cage.

*TimDaniels*