OSS won't recognize copied XP partition on USB HD

Discussion in 'Acronis Disk Director Suite' started by Rick_, Mar 6, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Rick_

    Rick_ Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2008
    Posts:
    2
    I want to boot from a copied XP partition on my USB hard drive but OSS won't recognize it as a bootable partition even when I use the detect bootable OS partition wizard.
    The OSS documentation seems to indicate you can do this, but I haven't been able to do it so far. Does anyone here know how to do this, or if you can do this with OSS?
     
  2. MudCrab

    MudCrab Imaging Specialist

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2006
    Posts:
    6,482
    Location:
    California
    Unless you have modified XP so that it will boot from a USB hard drive, there's not much point in trying to get OSS to recognize it. XP will not normally boot and run from a USB device.
     
  3. Rick_

    Rick_ Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2008
    Posts:
    2
    Oh, I wasn't aware XP wouldn't boot from an external USB HD. Thanks for answering my question.
     
  4. cortez

    cortez Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2006
    Posts:
    444
    Location:
    Chicago
    It does seem extremely unintuitive that XP will not boot from an external USB drive without modification. I imagine many people buy one for just this purpose (common sense seems to "dictate" that this would be an easy way to connect an extra hard drive).
     
  5. K0LO

    K0LO Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    Posts:
    2,591
    Location:
    State College, Pennsylvania
    It is counterintuitive only if you're thinking like a user. But if you think of this from an OS vendor's viewpoint, do you think that Microsoft would include anti-piracy measures to make sure that the OS gets installed on only one PC? Why would they make installation on a USB external disk easy?
     
  6. Beto

    Beto Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Posts:
    47
    I have thought about this statement you made and I (a law student) find it
    irksome, as I know now that what is right is not always legal (this regards your statement only and is not intended to be a personal aspersion of any kind).

    My professors are quick to point out that illegality and immorality are not to be confused and we (as future lawyers) are to convince others of legalities only. What is legal today may be in fact illegal tomorrow, or visa-versa (this day-to-day knowledge of the law is our bread and butter).

    I must be an idiot but I think that it is in the best interest of the vendors to be as generous as possible and make up for their flawed products by making them work with hardware that is connected to the same computer.

    I am not talking about breaking any EULAs. Windows is often not up to the task of handling conflicting software and the only solution is multi-booting. I for one, would like to boot up a USB Windows OS without having a freakin' degree in computer science.

    I think other 'users' would also like to take their USB drive to a friend's house to show them and 'share' their setups much like we do with music cds. Eventually music cds I am turned onto are purchased as the quality is so much better.

    What ultimate harm can come of it as most people are willing to pay for their software rather than get it free (from fanactical anti-monopolists) or 'corrected' by Senior classmates selling them for $50. On this campus pirates run rampant and are fervent enough to give away perfectly "corrected' and up-dateable Microsoft OS's just to stick it to 'Uncle Bill'.

    After all we know that Uncle Sam protects the monopolies ( see the law reviews) and we may eventually get a letter in the mail to pay for the software in addition to penalties and possibly a minor legal charge of some sort.

    These entrenched corruptions prompted Thomas Jefferson to advocate a --if need be-- bloody revolution every two hundred years (or so) to bring back the government to it's intended state of un-corruption. This indicates we are long overdue in this regard.

    My professors say that any illegalities on my part (even misdemeanors) may keep me from getting my license to practice law (yes I know they can be purged but this costs money -- much more than what Microsoft charges for any OS).

    So over all I think it is best (in the long run) if Microsoft and others (Acronis included) to put the 'users' first and this would guarantee their profits better than any anti-piracy measures- or threats- that only make 'users' furious enough to seek relief elsewhere ('revenge' for many is a more powerful instinct than even eating).

    And if the prevalence of piracy on this campus is any indication, any software can be got 'corrected' and above all 'free' for the asking.

    Multiply this campus' pirating with thousands of others around the world and we are talking hundreds of millions of dollars lost due to bad 'user' relations.

    They (software companies) are making their own beds and will have to sleep in them sooner or later.

    Many profitable monopolies have been killed off by those companies who better treat the lowly end 'user' and thus insure their profitability long term.
     
  7. K0LO

    K0LO Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    Posts:
    2,591
    Location:
    State College, Pennsylvania
    Beto:

    Points well taken.

    I did not mean for my original statement to come across as flippant. What I really wanted to do was answer the question(s) posed by people who were expressing disbelief that Windows cannot boot from an external USB drive. I only wanted to point out that this was deliberate on the part of Microsoft - a conscious business decision to design Windows to make this impossible. From their perspective they are only trying to protect their intellectual property.

    Whether you agree with them or not is entirely up to you, but that is the reason for the design decision as far as I can tell.
     
  8. Beto

    Beto Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Posts:
    47
    KOlo:
    I did not interpret your statement as flippant and I believe that your assessment of Microsoft's intentions are completely correct.

    I hope my not-so-well-thought-out post (rant) did not take anything away from your message (protection of intellectual property).

    Your posts are well thought out and I have benefited from them (and I think many others have as well). For this I thank you.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.