[<<]Message[>>] [<<]Author[>>] [<<]Subject[>>] [<<]Thread[>>]
Number : 4102 Date : 2003-03-22 Author : james sadler Subject : Re: Cloning the WinXP Size(KB) : 4
It might be interesting to study some of the illegal XP bootleg copies from the orient and see if they have found the magic key. They always seem to find ways to pirate and in the case of making a perfectly legal copy the methods may well be usefull. --- Kan Yabumoto wrote: > Hi, All: > > In the past few weeks, I've been working really hard > to figure out the mysteries of the XP cloning. > > So far, all successful techniques are using > the sector-to-sector copying method. That is a dumb > method. XXCOPY should do better than that. The > advantage of file-based cloning is obvious to me. > > The incremental backup with XXCOPY on a daily basis > seems superior to the Ghost/DrvImage technique. > > I have been searching everywhere on the volume for > the magic "key" which seems necessary to let the > cloned drive to take off all by itself. So far, > it is crazy. When, a cloned drive is booted up > with a presence of another bootable drive right > next to it, the XP (with lots of hesitation) will > take off. But in that case, the older drive's > "legitimate" boot status seems to help (and still, > the old "memory" of what was the original drive > letter designation will haunt the situation. > > That is, when you clone from C: to D:, the new > drive will become D: even if you succeed booting > into the new, cloned volume. This drives me nuts. > > I wrote many specialized tools to look for the magic > key. It must be hidden somewhere in the volume. > E.g., the unused sectors immediately after the MBR > (most disks don't use the 62 sectors immediately > after the MBR), or, a few sectors after the boot > sectors (before the FATs), or even some specially > allocated clusters or near the end of the partition. > So far I found "NOTHING"!!! The volume seems > a very clean implementation of the FAT32 as > "advertised". Of course, the remaining place to > study is inside the system registry --- that is very > tough. > > As a response to Bob's message, No. The volume > serial number or the volume label does not seem > to play any role. I can't imagine it is the > "signature" of the hard disk. It is just too > crazy for Microsoft to put their flagship product > on some little hidden thing like that. On the > other hand, The HAL.DLL (the hardware abstraction > stuff) module is always created specifically for > the hardware environment. Therefore, it is > unlikely that when you clone a disk and move it > from one motherboard to another, it won't go. > In this regard, Win9X's adaptability is quite > impressive --- an ultimate form of plug-and-play! > > So far, I have come to a scheme to do it with > the Win2000 volume. In that case, the situation > is a lot more manageable --- if you copy everything > from a drive to another, you can make a bootable > disk. The only hassle with this method is copying > the registry files (a dual-boot system, or an XP > system with a "parallel install" (Microsoft's term > for > installing another XP on the same system)). > > The XP system remains a mystery. But, I have a > hunch that once the mystery is uncovered, it could > be a really simple thing. > > Again, I ask anyone who has come across a disk > clone product for the XP which does not use the > disk imaging technique, please let me know. > I'm very curious. > > Stay tuned... > > Kan Yabumoto > ==================================================== > > >--- In xxcopy@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Weir" > wrote: > > > Have you tried your three disk scheme to clone > XP between two > > > "identical" disks - that is the same > make,size,type etc? I > > > suspect XP may check the volume serial numbers > to prevent such > > > "unauthorised" duplication but I hope it cannot > exclude a slave > > > disk which was present at XP installation time > from being used as > > > master (after cloning) with the original master > re-set as the > > > slave. Glad that someone is trying the third > disk method for a > > > bootable XP clone and hope you are successful. > It won't be too > > > bad if just the initial clone to a bootable disk > needs the third > > > disk, provided that subsequent re-cloning > between just two disks > > > is O.K. The third disk is also a way to avoid > the delays from > > > "always in use" _RESTORE files in ME (&XP?) but, > with a restart > > > included would probably not save time overall. > > > Regards, > > > > > > Bob > > > __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com
This message if part of XXCOPY's message Archive. The archive contains all the messages posted at Yahoo!Groups: XXCOPY.