Vista and ME, 98, XP on System Commander 8 problems...

[markm75]

We have one harddrive split into 3 drive letters.. C, D, E

C is the "dirty" os, where we can copy the contents of say E:\win98
onto D:\ (root), thus making D a virgin copy of any OS at any time.

In the boot menu for system commander we have all options listed..
ie: WinXP (dirty) -ie: c drive.. WinXP Virgin -ie: d , same
thing for win98 etc.

The issue is that win98 has to have fat32 on the C, D.. E is not so
bad, as this just stores the good images.

Now enter a new issue.. Vista.. I've added a 200gb harddrive for
installing vista and using NTFS.. call these drive letters G, H under
Win98 or XP..

So I installed Vista to the first partition of drive G (the 200gb
harddrive)..

Vista then takes over the MBR and loads (c drive is the sys drive,
really wanted this to be "d" though)..

I then reinstalled Sys Commander, got my menu back, added the Vista
entries (which do work fine btw)... Now the other entries for 98, XP,
XP dirty etc do not work.

I cant seem to figure out how to do this with Vista and a second
harddrive involved...

Anyone dealt with this as of yet?

Any better alternatives to Sys Commander.. here the idea is that we
can boot to the dirty C, restore any OS to that virgin D drive from
the storage on E, in minutes.. VS say using Acronis which may take
longer to restore these images.

Thanks

 

[Rock]

We have one harddrive split into 3 drive letters.. C, D, E

C is the "dirty" os, where we can copy the contents of say E:\win98
onto D:\ (root), thus making D a virgin copy of any OS at any time.

In the boot menu for system commander we have all options listed..
ie: WinXP (dirty) -ie: c drive.. WinXP Virgin -ie: d , same
thing for win98 etc.

The issue is that win98 has to have fat32 on the C, D.. E is not so
bad, as this just stores the good images.

Now enter a new issue.. Vista.. I've added a 200gb harddrive for
installing vista and using NTFS.. call these drive letters G, H under
Win98 or XP..

So I installed Vista to the first partition of drive G (the 200gb
harddrive)..

Vista then takes over the MBR and loads (c drive is the sys drive,
really wanted this to be "d" though)..

I then reinstalled Sys Commander, got my menu back, added the Vista
entries (which do work fine btw)... Now the other entries for 98, XP,
XP dirty etc do not work.

I cant seem to figure out how to do this with Vista and a second
harddrive involved...

Anyone dealt with this as of yet?

Any better alternatives to Sys Commander.. here the idea is that we
can boot to the dirty C, restore any OS to that virgin D drive from
the storage on E, in minutes.. VS say using Acronis which may take
longer to restore these images.

Remove the old drive, install Vista on the new drive, then reinstall the old
drive and use a 3rd party boot manager to select which to boot from, or set
the boot drive in the BIOS before each boot up.

There are Vista specific newsgroups for Vista questions. You should be
posting to one of those.

microsoft.public.windows.vista.administration_accounts_password
microsoft.public.windows.vista.file_management
microsoft.public.windows.vista.games
microsoft.public.windows.vista.general
microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices
microsoft.public.windows.vista.installation_setup
microsoft.public.windows.vista.mail
microsoft.public.windows.vista.music_pictures_video
microsoft.public.windows.vista.networking_sharing
microsoft.public.windows.vista.performance_maintenance
microsoft.public.windows.vista.print_fax_scan
microsoft.public.windows.vista.security

 

[Gerry Cornell]

Mark

I would have some doubt regarding System Commander and Vista. You do
not say what version of System Commander!
http://www.v-com.com/support/faqWinVista.html

--

Hope this helps.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[jim]

vista is another animal.. its an elephant...

you should not put it on your computer...
its better to soak it with gasoline and throw a match on it

 

[Rock]

vista is another animal.. its an elephant...

you should not put it on your computer...
its better to soak it with gasoline and throw a match on it

My experience with Vista has been very positive. I prefer it to XP which
feels dated by comparison. I tested it through TechBeta and have been
running the Ultimate RTM since November on an almost 5 year old PC with the
original hardware. The only thing this hardware doesn't support is Aero,
there is no WDDM driver for the AGP card. Other than that all features work
fine, and there are some very nice improvements.

As with any new OS there are issues with lack of driver support, legacy
hardware, and software incompatibilities. But that is the responsibility of
the hardware and software vendors, who are continuously releasing drivers
and Vista compatible versions of their software.

 

[DanS]

My experience with Vista has been very positive. I prefer it to XP
which feels dated by comparison. I tested it through TechBeta and
have been running the Ultimate RTM since November on an almost 5 year
old PC with the original hardware. The only thing this hardware
doesn't support is Aero, there is no WDDM driver for the AGP card.
Other than that all features work fine, and there are some very nice
improvements.

So, not running Aero, what makes it look more 'up-to-date' than XP ? I'm
assuming that w/o Aero, it's just another skin.

I'm wondering what improvements would make it worth upgrading.

 

[nick]

vista is below my standards.. sorry...

Its far less than what I expected after 5 years.. and has more problems than
you imply...
you want to throw the "rock" on 3rd party.....

yet this is not totally true...

 

[Jack.*Dildo]

My experience with Vista has been very positive. I prefer it to XP which
feels dated by comparison. I tested it through TechBeta and have been
running the Ultimate RTM since November on an almost 5 year old PC with the
original hardware. The only thing this hardware doesn't support is Aero,
there is no WDDM driver for the AGP card. Other than that all features work
fine, and there are some very nice improvements.

As with any new OS there are issues with lack of driver support, legacy
hardware, and software incompatibilities. But that is the responsibility of
the hardware and software vendors, who are continuously releasing drivers
and Vista compatible versions of their software.

Your experience is not important. You are required to be obedient to
your lordship uncle Bill. The important thing to an ordinary user is
is: is there anything in Vista they can't do in XP? If the answer is no
then one doesn't need vista for at least 12 months. Why on earth would
anyone like to throw away the OS that is still being supported by his
lordship? you must be nuts to throw away your hard earned cash unless
you managed to steal a copy from your employer. Can you prove that you
actually bought the copy you are currently using?

Jack *Dildo
http://www.*dildo.com

 

[Noncompliant]

I read version 8 of System Commander in the subject line. Yours any
different?

 

[Noncompliant]

http://www.v-com.com/support/main_system_commander.html

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

I read version 8 of System Commander in the subject line. Yours any
different?

Although you're correct, of course, I'm with Gerry here. A question, with
all its details, should appear in the body of the message. You can also put
details in the subject line if you want, but that doesn't mean it's OK to
omit them from the message body. It's just too easy to miss the details if
they are just in the subject.

 

[Rock]

So, not running Aero, what makes it look more 'up-to-date' than XP ? I'm
assuming that w/o Aero, it's just another skin.

I'm wondering what improvements would make it worth upgrading.

Aero is just one new feature. There are many significant changes in Vista.
If you are interested, Google search for posts on this, I have written
several, or spend some time in the Vista newsgroups.

Note, I never said, explicatory, that it looks more up to date. Somehow you
are equating fundamental changes to looks only. I said that XP feels dated.

 

[Rock]

vista is below my standards.. sorry...

Its far less than what I expected after 5 years.. and has more problems
than you imply...
you want to throw the "rock" on 3rd party.....

yet this is not totally true...

Responsibility should be placed where it belongs. Device drives and
software comp ability are the responsibility of the device manufactures and
the software authors. Many of the problems that are posted in the Vista
general groups are associated with certain motherboards, chipsets and Raid
controllers. These are all driver issues.

Software compatibility is an issue too. People are installing incompatible
software and then wondering why they are having problems.

I am not saying that there aren't issues in Vista, of course there are, but
you should be careful to make sure responsibility get's placed
appropriately.

 

[Rock]

Your experience is not important. You are required to be obedient to
your lordship uncle Bill. The important thing to an ordinary user is
is: is there anything in Vista they can't do in XP? If the answer is no
then one doesn't need vista for at least 12 months. Why on earth would
anyone like to throw away the OS that is still being supported by his
lordship? you must be nuts to throw away your hard earned cash unless
you managed to steal a copy from your employer. Can you prove that you
actually bought the copy you are currently using?

My experience is just that, my experience, nor am I obedient to any one -
what exactly is your point here? Or are you just trying to start an
argument?

Each person has to assess their own need/desire to upgrade an OS. It is the
next generation OS. Whether it's appropriate to migrate on current hardware
or wait until that hardware will be changed is the decision to make. I
would certainly not get a legacy OS if getting a new computer.

Yes, my experience with it has been very good. I set it up as a dual boot
to keep support for a legacy printer. Recently though, I found using a
Vista driver for a certain HP printer works fine. When I get around to it I
will be removing the dual boot.

 

[Rock]

Aero is just one new feature. There are many significant changes in
Vista. If you are interested, Google search for posts on this, I have
written several, or spend some time in the Vista newsgroups.

Note, I never said, explicatory, that it looks more up to date. Somehow
you are equating fundamental changes to looks only. I said that XP feels
dated.

That should be "explicitly", not "explicatory", lol where did that come
from.

 

[Gerry Cornell]

System Commander v8.21 has basic compatibly in booting Vista. Not
recommend to be install in Vista partition. Look for new SC9 in
Q1-2007.
http://www.v-com.com/support/faqWinVista.html

--

Hope this helps.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Noncompliant]

Agreed. Have seen info only available in subject line extremely pertinent
to the post in the past. Not just here, many newsgroups. And I, like the
person I previously responded to, failed to see an important part that was
in the subject line.

Then there's the subject line with the whole question in it... Sheesh.

 

[Noncompliant]

Responsibility should be placed where it belongs. Device drives and
software comp ability are the responsibility of the device manufactures
and the software authors. Many of the problems that are posted in the
Vista general groups are associated with certain motherboards, chipsets
and Raid controllers. These are all driver issues.

Software compatibility is an issue too. People are installing
incompatible software and then wondering why they are having problems.

I am not saying that there aren't issues in Vista, of course there are,
but you should be careful to make sure responsibility get's placed
appropriately.

Along the same lines, but going backwards in Windows versions. In another
newsgroup, its been noted that hardware doesn't show support or denies
support in some previous MS versions of windows. Yet, if you go to the
manufacturers website for drivers, within the driver package, will be driver
support for that "unsupported" version of windows in a different folder.

Guess what I'm trying to say, as usual, its every person for themselves.
Here, we help each other in the trial and error things that occur in
attempts to make things work. Things aren't always as they seem or are
advertised to be.

 

[Noncompliant]

SC works in 2 phases. The first part resides in the mbr area of the hard
disk. That's where the actual boot partition selection is made. The second
part resides in a bootable primary partition. That's where the eye candy,
GUI, and other optional stuff exist. I keep this in a Windows Millenium
partition. IE, its not necessary to install in Vista partition. Perhaps
not smart to do so either even if its fixed in a subsequent version of SC.

 

[Gerry Cornell]

I was merely passing on what the vendors of System Commander were
advising regarding their programme.

I am not sure I would dual boot Windows ME with Windows Vista. Surely
if a computer was built for Windows ME you are going to encounter all
types of hardware compatibility issues?

--

Hope this helps.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~