A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows XP » Windows XP Help and Support
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Undeletable file. I'm stumped.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #46  
Old September 10th 12, 11:32 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
BillW50
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,556
Default Undeletable file. I'm stumped.

In ,
glee typed:
"BillW50" wrote in message
...

I haven't used any Linux Live on any Windows system since that day
except I started today. And I tried 8.04, 9.10, and 12.04.1 so far of
Ubuntu Live and every one of them were accessing the Windows drive a
number of times while Linux was booting. Philo says that doesn't
happen.
Yet I bet it happens for everybody on any system. Why? What is Linux
doing with the Windows drive?

I tried the same with BartPE. And BartPE booted completely and the
Windows drive light never lit up even once. So there is no way
anybody is going to tell me that Linux Live doesn't touch your
Windows drive. As
the drive's access light is saying otherwise.
snip


While loading, a Linux Live CD checks if any hard drives are attached
to the system, so it can list them in the Linux GUI if the user wants
to mount them later. That's why the hard drive light flashes.... it
has nothing to do with "accessing" or writing to the hard drive, or
executing anything on the hard drive.


I could understand a small amount of drive light flicker, but have you
actually watched it? As there is a huge amount of drive flicker as
Ubuntu Live boots. BartPE also checks what is attached to the system and
I never see the drive lights even flash once. No Ubuntu Live is doing a
lot more than that. And also didn't you read Paul's post? He too has
noticed it is doing a lot more to the drive.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2


Ads
  #47  
Old September 10th 12, 12:39 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
BillW50
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,556
Default Undeletable file. I'm stumped.

In ,
glee typed:
"BillW50" wrote in message
...
In ,
glee wrote:
"BillW50" wrote in message
...
In ,
glee wrote:
Bill, in this scenario you describe, are you saying you attribute
running the Linux Live CD to causing the Windows Installer pop-up
when you started Windows? Are you implying that the Linux CD boot
caused the execution of a Windows Installer executable, even
though Linux can't run a Windows Installer file? How do you
figure that?

Windows Installer pop-ups like that are due to an incomplete or
faulty install of a program that uses Windows Installer. How do
you reconcile that with your claim?

No Glen... what I am saying that this Windows XP runs fine and
dandy for years. No problems whatsoever. I don't know if iband.dll
involves the Windows Installer every time it boots? I might, but
you never see the window. Anyway no problems whatsoever.

Now you just boot up Ubuntu Live and do nothing with it. Don't peek
into the Windows partition or anything. And just shut Linux down.
Totally harmless I would think.

Now if you boot Windows XP, it locks up. What gives? It was Linux
Live, plain and simple. I have demonstrated this a number of times
and it happened every single time. There is no excuse, Linux is
doing something to Windows. Sure whatever it is doing, most users
wouldn't know a thing. I truly believe that. But whatever it is
doing it can make some Windows unbootable.

As far as I am concern, whether Linux Live leaves Windows bootable
or not. That isn't the point. The most important point is that it
shouldn't be doing anything to Windows at all without your
permission. But it does and I caught it with my XP system (and it
is reproducible).

...yet no one else seems to have repro'd it or documented it. That
tends to point to an issue on your system, not with Linux Live CD.
As I said, we'll have to agree to disagree.


You can't be serious? It is documented for one. It is documented when
you compile the source. And how do you explain it is my system? You
can't come up with one single working theory how it can be my system!
This isn't rocket science. Any five year old can figure this out. But
you can't? Why is that?


You apparently don't understand the meaning of "documented" in this
dialog. It has nothing to do with compiling, that statement doesn't
make sense. I stated no one else has reproduced your issue, it is not
documented as being an issue anywhere I have seen other than in your
posts about it.


The people who you claim has never seen my issue, also has never
compiled Linux either. People who has compiled Linux before knows
exactly what I am talking about. You can compile it many different ways.
If it can use the Windows swapfile or not, how much RAM can it use,
whether it uses a swapfile at all, etc.

I already gave you a working theory... it's some issue with your
system. How can I explain what, when I am not on your system? As you
seem to be the only person in the world reporting this, on one
computer, that points pretty clearly to it being that system's issue,
not the Linux Live CD boot. I say once again, we will have to agree
to disagree on this.


Look Glen. I get that a lot, that it is just your system and nobody else
sees it. But what always happen later? Here is one. While running OS/2,
I noticed that OS/2 was locking up about twice a week. I reported it on
the newsgroups. Yes I got it's just your system, you are the only one
that sees it, etc. Being an engineer, I know my system was just fine.
But nobody believed me still.

Two years later IBM stumbled on the bug. Not only did it affect systems
like mine, but all machines. It had to do with pasting between OS/2
applications and DOS applications. And the bug would leave the whole OS
in an unstable condition and the whole thing could lockup at any time.
So did anybody apologize for harassing me for two years? Nope. Did
anybody mention that I found it two years earlier? Nope! It doesn't
matter, just so it got fixed is all I cared about.

I've been investigating computer problems since the 70's. And I know the
difference between user error, hardware fault, and something much bigger
than either. And I am usually right every time. And there is something
big here going on that needs to be investigated. We can do this as a
group or I can do it solo and report my findings. It really doesn't
matter to me.

Casting aspersions on those who doubt your conclusion is just
silly.... your disparaging comments about "any five year old", "not
rocket science" and so forth, are just examples of using insults when
evidence is not available. It's a very sorry way to discuss something.


You bet! And so is the harassment I often receive that it is just you
and nobody else, it's just your machine, etc. when I know far better
than that. People rather harass others instead of doing the logical and
right thing.

"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." ~
Albert Einstein

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2




  #48  
Old September 10th 12, 12:46 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
glee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,794
Default Undeletable file. I'm stumped.

"BillW50" wrote in message
...
In ,
glee typed:
"BillW50" wrote in message
...

I haven't used any Linux Live on any Windows system since that day
except I started today. And I tried 8.04, 9.10, and 12.04.1 so far
of
Ubuntu Live and every one of them were accessing the Windows drive a
number of times while Linux was booting. Philo says that doesn't
happen.
Yet I bet it happens for everybody on any system. Why? What is Linux
doing with the Windows drive?

I tried the same with BartPE. And BartPE booted completely and the
Windows drive light never lit up even once. So there is no way
anybody is going to tell me that Linux Live doesn't touch your
Windows drive. As
the drive's access light is saying otherwise.
snip


While loading, a Linux Live CD checks if any hard drives are attached
to the system, so it can list them in the Linux GUI if the user wants
to mount them later. That's why the hard drive light flashes.... it
has nothing to do with "accessing" or writing to the hard drive, or
executing anything on the hard drive.


I could understand a small amount of drive light flicker, but have you
actually watched it? As there is a huge amount of drive flicker as
Ubuntu Live boots. BartPE also checks what is attached to the system
and I never see the drive lights even flash once. No Ubuntu Live is
doing a lot more than that. And also didn't you read Paul's post? He
too has noticed it is doing a lot more to the drive.


"huge amount of drive light flicker" is a subjective and unscientific
criteria and is not concrete evidence that anything is being done other
than checking the drive. Live CD enumerates the partitions so they can
be displayed for mounting. Bart's may do it differently or not at all
at boot. Irrelevant.

I already read and responded to the comment you related being made by
Paul.... he was referring in that comment to modified specialized Live
CDs like Kaspersky's rescue CD, which as I already stated is NOT a
standard Linux Live CD.

I note that while you give a quote you say is from Paul, I have not
found that post online... do you have a link to his actual full post in
an archive such as Google Groups? I also note that the last time you
posted about this "issue" a few months ago in this group, Paul's only
contribution to the conversation did not corroborate what you were
saying then.
--
Glen Ventura
MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009
CompTIA A+

  #49  
Old September 10th 12, 02:26 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Zaphod Beeblebrox
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 868
Default Undeletable file. I'm stumped.

On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 15:43:51 -0500, "BillW50" wrote in
article ...

In ,
Char Jackson typed:
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 07:54:53 -0400, Zaphod Beeblebrox
wrote:

On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 15:55:12 -0500, "BillW50" wrote
in article ...

Careful, I have been burned by Linux Live before. My Windows didn't
have a swapfile because I was running it on a SSD. And Ubuntu Live
doesn't care and makes it's own in the Windows partition. I have no
idea why Linux needs to touch anything it shouldn't, but it does.
And when I booted Windows after Ubuntu Live it popped up a window
saying Windows Installer and froze. I much prefer WinPE or BartPE.
As they don't play games with your partition like Linux does.

rant

As with many other anecdotes and instances of failure from you, this
reeks of user error. I've been using various Linux Live CDs,
including Ubuntu, extensively for system recovery for better than a
decade and what you describe just doesn't happen and I'll wager has
never happened. First, Linux Live CDs don't auto-mount hard drive
partitions, they must be manually mounted by the user. Second, Linux
Live CDs don't use swap. Third, Linux doesn't use a swap *file* by
default it uses a swap *partition* so it would have completely
flattened the partition had it somehow gone off the deep end and
decided to use your drive as swap on its own. Fourth, even if it did
use a swap file, that file would have been just that, a file on the
file system separate from anything else and Windows wouldn't have
cared a whit.

Crawl back under your bridge, troll.

/rant


+1

You nailed it.


Nope you both are wrong


Without corroborated evidence to the contrary, I'd say it is you that
are wrong, not the thousands of other users who have had none of the
issues you do with Ubuntu (or other) Live CDs.

and owe us an apology.


If you are ever able to produce any evidence that an Ubuntu Live CD has
trashed any system other than yours by using a Windows swap file when
it wasn't manually configured to do so, I will. Otherwise, my
assertion and characterization stands.

--
Zaphod

Arthur: All my life I've had this strange feeling that there's
something big and sinister going on in the world.
Slartibartfast: No, that's perfectly normal paranoia. Everyone in the
universe gets that.
  #50  
Old September 10th 12, 03:53 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
glee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,794
Default Undeletable file. I'm stumped.

"BillW50" wrote in message
...
In ,
glee typed:
"BillW50" wrote in message
...
In ,
glee wrote:
"BillW50" wrote in message
...
In ,
glee wrote:
Bill, in this scenario you describe, are you saying you attribute
running the Linux Live CD to causing the Windows Installer pop-up
when you started Windows? Are you implying that the Linux CD
boot
caused the execution of a Windows Installer executable, even
though Linux can't run a Windows Installer file? How do you
figure that?

Windows Installer pop-ups like that are due to an incomplete or
faulty install of a program that uses Windows Installer. How do
you reconcile that with your claim?

No Glen... what I am saying that this Windows XP runs fine and
dandy for years. No problems whatsoever. I don't know if iband.dll
involves the Windows Installer every time it boots? I might, but
you never see the window. Anyway no problems whatsoever.

Now you just boot up Ubuntu Live and do nothing with it. Don't
peek
into the Windows partition or anything. And just shut Linux down.
Totally harmless I would think.

Now if you boot Windows XP, it locks up. What gives? It was Linux
Live, plain and simple. I have demonstrated this a number of times
and it happened every single time. There is no excuse, Linux is
doing something to Windows. Sure whatever it is doing, most users
wouldn't know a thing. I truly believe that. But whatever it is
doing it can make some Windows unbootable.

As far as I am concern, whether Linux Live leaves Windows bootable
or not. That isn't the point. The most important point is that it
shouldn't be doing anything to Windows at all without your
permission. But it does and I caught it with my XP system (and it
is reproducible).

...yet no one else seems to have repro'd it or documented it. That
tends to point to an issue on your system, not with Linux Live CD.
As I said, we'll have to agree to disagree.

You can't be serious? It is documented for one. It is documented
when
you compile the source. And how do you explain it is my system? You
can't come up with one single working theory how it can be my
system!
This isn't rocket science. Any five year old can figure this out.
But
you can't? Why is that?


You apparently don't understand the meaning of "documented" in this
dialog. It has nothing to do with compiling, that statement doesn't
make sense. I stated no one else has reproduced your issue, it is
not
documented as being an issue anywhere I have seen other than in your
posts about it.


The people who you claim has never seen my issue, also has never
compiled Linux either. People who has compiled Linux before knows
exactly what I am talking about. You can compile it many different
ways.
If it can use the Windows swapfile or not, how much RAM can it use,
whether it uses a swapfile at all, etc.
snip


There you go with "compiling" again.
If you made your Ubuntu Live CD from the downloaded ISO they made
available, it is already compiled, you didn't compile it..... and it
does not by default use the swap file or mount the hard drive when the
CD is made from the ISO available from Ubuntu's site.

If you compiled it yourself from source, then it is no longer the
standard Live CD, you modified it.

You claim you used the standard ISO, so you didn't compile it. If you
compiled it, you didn't use the standard ISO. So which is it?

--
Glen Ventura
MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009
CompTIA A+

  #51  
Old September 10th 12, 04:11 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
philo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,807
Default Undeletable file. I'm stumped.

On 09/10/2012 09:53 AM, glee wrote:
"BillW50" wrote in message
...
In ,
glee typed:
"BillW50" wrote in message
...
In news:k2ink.


There you go with "compiling" again.
If you made your Ubuntu Live CD from the downloaded ISO they made
available, it is already compiled, you didn't compile it..... and it
does not by default use the swap file or mount the hard drive when the
CD is made from the ISO available from Ubuntu's site.

If you compiled it yourself from source, then it is no longer the
standard Live CD, you modified it.

You claim you used the standard ISO, so you didn't compile it. If you
compiled it, you didn't use the standard ISO. So which is it?


Pretty sure Bill is a troll
I had to killfile him
--
https://www.createspace.com/3707686
  #52  
Old September 10th 12, 07:19 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
BillW50
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,556
Default Undeletable file. I'm stumped.

In ,
glee typed:
"BillW50" wrote in message
...
In ,
glee typed:
"BillW50" wrote in message
...

I haven't used any Linux Live on any Windows system since that day
except I started today. And I tried 8.04, 9.10, and 12.04.1 so far
of Ubuntu Live and every one of them were accessing the Windows
drive a number of times while Linux was booting. Philo says that
doesn't happen. Yet I bet it happens for everybody on any system.
Why? What is Linux doing with the Windows drive?

I tried the same with BartPE. And BartPE booted completely and the
Windows drive light never lit up even once. So there is no way
anybody is going to tell me that Linux Live doesn't touch your
Windows drive. As the drive's access light is saying otherwise.

snip

While loading, a Linux Live CD checks if any hard drives are
attached to the system, so it can list them in the Linux GUI if the
user wants to mount them later. That's why the hard drive light
flashes.... it has nothing to do with "accessing" or writing to the
hard drive, or executing anything on the hard drive.


I could understand a small amount of drive light flicker, but have
you actually watched it? As there is a huge amount of drive flicker
as Ubuntu Live boots. BartPE also checks what is attached to the
system and I never see the drive lights even flash once. No Ubuntu
Live is doing a lot more than that. And also didn't you read Paul's
post? He too has noticed it is doing a lot more to the drive.


"huge amount of drive light flicker" is a subjective and unscientific
criteria and is not concrete evidence that anything is being done
other than checking the drive. Live CD enumerates the partitions so
they can be displayed for mounting. Bart's may do it differently or
not at all at boot. Irrelevant.


Subjective and unscientific. yes sort of. I could run some more tests,
but the amount of light flicker was on the order of what I would expect
is something was reading 200MB or more of information. And just checking
volumes for mounting I wouldn't expect more than just a quick flash or
two. BartPE also checks what drives are available and it never flashes
the hard drive light while it is booting. There is a huge
difference here.

I just booted up Puppy Live. And only when the screen showed loading
drive drivers and the Windows drive flashed for about 0.2 second and
that is all. That too is perfectly normal. Although Ubuntu hits the
Windows drive very aggressively. Totally not normal!

I already read and responded to the comment you related being made by
Paul.... he was referring in that comment to modified specialized Live
CDs like Kaspersky's rescue CD, which as I already stated is NOT a
standard Linux Live CD.


Paul did talk about that. But he also talked about this from the get-go:

[Thursday, March 24, 2011 8:48 PM]
The only practice I don't approve on, from the Linux community,
is "scanning" of drives as part of the startup sequence. Some
LiveCD distros, are known to "search" for a copy of the image
you're booting from. Presumably the purpose, is to do a
loopback mount of the image, as a replacement for accessing the
CD itself. But I still don't approve of monkey-business. A
LiveCD should just mind its own business. ~ Paul

I note that while you give a quote you say is from Paul, I have not
found that post online... do you have a link to his actual full post
in an archive such as Google Groups?


I have the actual post in my archive complete with headers and all. My
personal reference for that post is:

C:\My Documents\Posts Backup\Microsoft\
Ubuntu Live Re_ Windows not load 001.nws

Under Google News, it led me here. It's the second from the end.

http://www.pcreview.co.uk/forums/win...4036245p2.html

I also note that the last time you posted about this "issue" a few
months ago in this group, Paul's only contribution to the conversation
did not corroborate what you were saying then.


Well I don't know which one that you are referring too. Can you give me
part of the post, or date or something to go by so I can see what you
are referring too?

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2



  #53  
Old September 10th 12, 07:20 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
BillW50
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,556
Default Undeletable file. I'm stumped.

In ,
glee typed:
"BillW50" wrote in message
...
In ,
glee typed:
"BillW50" wrote in message
...
In ,
glee wrote:
"BillW50" wrote in message
...
In ,
glee wrote:
Bill, in this scenario you describe, are you saying you
attribute running the Linux Live CD to causing the Windows
Installer pop-up when you started Windows? Are you implying that
the Linux CD boot caused the execution of a Windows Installer
executable, even though Linux can't run a Windows Installer
file? How do you figure that?

Windows Installer pop-ups like that are due to an incomplete or
faulty install of a program that uses Windows Installer. How do
you reconcile that with your claim?

No Glen... what I am saying that this Windows XP runs fine and
dandy for years. No problems whatsoever. I don't know if
iband.dll involves the Windows Installer every time it boots? I
might, but you never see the window. Anyway no problems
whatsoever. Now you just boot up Ubuntu Live and do nothing with
it. Don't peek into the Windows partition or anything. And just
shut Linux down. Totally harmless I would think.

Now if you boot Windows XP, it locks up. What gives? It was Linux
Live, plain and simple. I have demonstrated this a number of
times and it happened every single time. There is no excuse,
Linux is doing something to Windows. Sure whatever it is doing,
most users wouldn't know a thing. I truly believe that. But
whatever it is doing it can make some Windows unbootable.

As far as I am concern, whether Linux Live leaves Windows
bootable or not. That isn't the point. The most important point
is that it shouldn't be doing anything to Windows at all without
your permission. But it does and I caught it with my XP system
(and it is reproducible).

...yet no one else seems to have repro'd it or documented it. That
tends to point to an issue on your system, not with Linux
Live CD. As I said, we'll have to agree to disagree.

You can't be serious? It is documented for one. It is documented
when you compile the source. And how do you explain it is my
system? You can't come up with one single working theory how it can
be my system! This isn't rocket science. Any five year old can
figure this out. But you can't? Why is that?

You apparently don't understand the meaning of "documented" in this
dialog. It has nothing to do with compiling, that statement doesn't
make sense. I stated no one else has reproduced your issue, it is
not documented as being an issue anywhere I have seen other than in
your posts about it.


The people who you claim has never seen my issue, also has never
compiled Linux either. People who has compiled Linux before knows
exactly what I am talking about. You can compile it many different
ways. If it can use the Windows swapfile or not, how much RAM can it
use, whether it uses a swapfile at all, etc.
snip


There you go with "compiling" again.
If you made your Ubuntu Live CD from the downloaded ISO they made
available, it is already compiled, you didn't compile it.....


Yes I used the same ISO and no I didn't compile it myself. But somebody
else did it for us. Presumably someone from Ubuntu.

and it does not by default use the swap file or mount the hard drive
when the CD is made from the ISO available from Ubuntu's site.


If you say so. But I have my doubts about that. As you don't know what
the person who compiled it actually did. Or do you?

If you compiled it yourself from source, then it is no longer the
standard Live CD, you modified it.


Yes, and those I don't have a single problem with. As I tell Linux to
leave Windows alone and it does.

You claim you used the standard ISO, so you didn't compile it. If you
compiled it, you didn't use the standard ISO. So which is it?


I only compiled Xandros. I never compiled any Ubuntu ones and those are
the one that I have had problems with.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2



  #54  
Old September 10th 12, 07:20 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
BillW50
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,556
Default Undeletable file. I'm stumped.

In ,
Zaphod Beeblebrox typed:
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 15:43:51 -0500, "BillW50" wrote
in article ...

In ,
Char Jackson typed:
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 07:54:53 -0400, Zaphod Beeblebrox
wrote:

On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 15:55:12 -0500, "BillW50"
wrote in article ...

Careful, I have been burned by Linux Live before. My Windows
didn't have a swapfile because I was running it on a SSD. And
Ubuntu Live doesn't care and makes it's own in the Windows
partition. I have no idea why Linux needs to touch anything it
shouldn't, but it does. And when I booted Windows after Ubuntu
Live it popped up a window saying Windows Installer and froze. I
much prefer WinPE or BartPE. As they don't play games with your
partition like Linux does.

rant

As with many other anecdotes and instances of failure from you,
this reeks of user error. I've been using various Linux Live CDs,
including Ubuntu, extensively for system recovery for better than a
decade and what you describe just doesn't happen and I'll wager has
never happened. First, Linux Live CDs don't auto-mount hard drive
partitions, they must be manually mounted by the user. Second,
Linux Live CDs don't use swap. Third, Linux doesn't use a swap
*file* by default it uses a swap *partition* so it would have
completely flattened the partition had it somehow gone off the
deep end and decided to use your drive as swap on its own.
Fourth, even if it did use a swap file, that file would have been
just that, a file on the file system separate from anything else
and Windows wouldn't have cared a whit.

Crawl back under your bridge, troll.

/rant

+1

You nailed it.


Nope you both are wrong


Without corroborated evidence to the contrary, I'd say it is you that
are wrong, not the thousands of other users who have had none of the
issues you do with Ubuntu (or other) Live CDs.

and owe us an apology.


If you are ever able to produce any evidence that an Ubuntu Live CD
has trashed any system other than yours by using a Windows swap file
when it wasn't manually configured to do so, I will. Otherwise, my
assertion and characterization stands.


Yeah I get that a lot. But I am always proved to be right in the end
even if it takes years. Like that OS/2 fiasco. For two years I was
complaining to IBM and on the newsgroups that OS/2 Warp had a stability
problem. As I was getting the OS freeze up about twice per week. I was
losing tons of work because I couldn't save anything.

And all I heard was it was just me, it's your hardware, OS/2 is rock
stable, and blah, blah, blah. Even though I knew everybody was wrong.
Then two years later IBM actually ran into it. And it affected all
machines and users. What set it off was copying and pasting back and
forth between DOS and OS/2. IBM claimed it left the OS in an unstable
state and it was just a matter of time before it would crash. Did
anybody say sorry Bill or anything? Nope! Very typical in my experience.

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second,
it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
~~ Arthur Schopenhauer -- German philosopher (1788 - 1860)

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2





  #55  
Old September 10th 12, 07:20 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
BillW50
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,556
Default Undeletable file. I'm stumped.

In ,
philo typed:
On 09/10/2012 09:53 AM, glee wrote:
"BillW50" wrote in message
...
In ,
glee typed:
"BillW50" wrote in message
...
In news:k2ink.


There you go with "compiling" again.
If you made your Ubuntu Live CD from the downloaded ISO they made
available, it is already compiled, you didn't compile it..... and it
does not by default use the swap file or mount the hard drive when
the CD is made from the ISO available from Ubuntu's site.

If you compiled it yourself from source, then it is no longer the
standard Live CD, you modified it.

You claim you used the standard ISO, so you didn't compile it. If
you compiled it, you didn't use the standard ISO. So which is it?


Pretty sure Bill is a troll
I had to killfile him


No, I am definitely not a troll. I just know there is a problem and you
can help or you can run and hide. But your hit and run tactics is highly
suspicious I must say.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2



  #56  
Old September 11th 12, 01:35 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
glee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,794
Default Undeletable file. I'm stumped.

"BillW50" wrote in message
...
In ,
glee typed:


snip
I already read and responded to the comment you related being made by
Paul.... he was referring in that comment to modified specialized
Live
CDs like Kaspersky's rescue CD, which as I already stated is NOT a
standard Linux Live CD.


Paul did talk about that. But he also talked about this from the
get-go:

[Thursday, March 24, 2011 8:48 PM]
The only practice I don't approve on, from the Linux community,
is "scanning" of drives as part of the startup sequence. Some
LiveCD distros, are known to "search" for a copy of the image
you're booting from. Presumably the purpose, is to do a
loopback mount of the image, as a replacement for accessing the
CD itself. But I still don't approve of monkey-business. A
LiveCD should just mind its own business. ~ Paul

I note that while you give a quote you say is from Paul, I have not
found that post online... do you have a link to his actual full post
in an archive such as Google Groups?



Under Google News, it led me here. It's the second from the end.

http://www.pcreview.co.uk/forums/win...4036245p2.html
snip


Other than the one assertion apparently made by Paul, I have found no
documented evidence that any *standard* Linux Live CD tries to run from
the ISO image if found on the hard drive. Ping Paul and ask him to
provide evidence of this.

Yes, that link shows the quote you've been using. Again, there is no
evidence given. Paul is a very smart guy, but his claim that by using
the Linux 'top' command he is somehow showing that the Windows page file
is being used by the Live CD is an incorrect assumption on his part.
The 'top' command shows CPU processes, kind of like a task manager.
Paul stated he used 'top' to see how much swap was evident (it does NOT
show where the swap file is), and compared it in size to the existing
page file(s) on the Windows and other partitions.... and found similar
sizes. That is in no way evidence that the Linux Live CD is using the
Windows page file. It shows that the Linux Live CD, running on a system
with X amount of RAM, will allocate a certain swap size, similar in size
to what Windows allocates on the same system.

The fact is, a Live CD allocates a virtual swap file in RAM.... that is
what he is seeing with the 'top' command. The Live CD boot divides the
RAM into segments, and creates a virtual swap file in RAM from one
segment. The another segment created from RAM is used as "storage" like
a virtual hard drive, the remaining RAM is used like standard RAM for
loading programs, etc. Those Live CDs (Gentoo included) use squashfs to
accomplish this.
--
Glen Ventura
MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009
CompTIA A+

  #57  
Old September 11th 12, 02:08 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
glee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,794
Default Undeletable file. I'm stumped.

....and just to be clear, as a P.S. to my other reply, if you have an
actual Linux installation on the hard drive, in addition to Windows or
instead of Windows, some distros of LIve CD *may* use the existing swap
partiton of the installed Linux system. This is not the same as using
the Windows page file, which the Live CDs do *not* do.

In this discussion, we're not talking about a computer that has a Linux
installation on the hard dirve, though.... we are talking about systems
with Windows only. The hard drive is not mounted without specific input
from the user, when using the defaults of the Live CD.
--
Glen Ventura
MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009
CompTIA A+

  #58  
Old September 11th 12, 03:01 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Char Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,449
Default Undeletable file. I'm stumped.

On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:08:18 -0400, "glee"
wrote:

...and just to be clear, as a P.S. to my other reply, if you have an
actual Linux installation on the hard drive, in addition to Windows or
instead of Windows, some distros of LIve CD *may* use the existing swap
partiton of the installed Linux system. This is not the same as using
the Windows page file, which the Live CDs do *not* do.

In this discussion, we're not talking about a computer that has a Linux
installation on the hard dirve, though.... we are talking about systems
with Windows only. The hard drive is not mounted without specific input
from the user, when using the defaults of the Live CD.


IMHO, Bill's pretty much pi**ing into the wind with his claims until
he steps up and provides some actual technical information. A blinking
HD activity LED doesn't tell a convincing story.

How about something like, a complete set of file CRCs from before and
after running the live CD. Compare the CRCs to see which, if any,
files have changed. A second step could be a DIFF to see how the
affected file(s), if any, have changed.

I suggest doing this by booting a live CD twice, with CRC snapshots
taken before, after, and after, since booting Windows will absolutely
cause changes that will skew the test results. We could discuss the
finer points until everyone's satisfied that it's a valid test, but in
the meantime we've basically got the resident nut job making a claim
and not being able to back it up. It's a stalemate until someone steps
up and does some *actual* testing, rather than watching a flickering
LED.

  #59  
Old September 11th 12, 03:58 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Zaphod Beeblebrox
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 868
Default Undeletable file. I'm stumped.

On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 13:20:18 -0500, "BillW50" wrote
in article ...

In ,
Zaphod Beeblebrox typed:
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 15:43:51 -0500, "BillW50" wrote
in article ...

In ,
Char Jackson typed:
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 07:54:53 -0400, Zaphod Beeblebrox
wrote:

On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 15:55:12 -0500, "BillW50"
wrote in article ...

Careful, I have been burned by Linux Live before. My Windows
didn't have a swapfile because I was running it on a SSD. And
Ubuntu Live doesn't care and makes it's own in the Windows
partition. I have no idea why Linux needs to touch anything it
shouldn't, but it does. And when I booted Windows after Ubuntu
Live it popped up a window saying Windows Installer and froze. I
much prefer WinPE or BartPE. As they don't play games with your
partition like Linux does.

rant

As with many other anecdotes and instances of failure from you,
this reeks of user error. I've been using various Linux Live CDs,
including Ubuntu, extensively for system recovery for better than a
decade and what you describe just doesn't happen and I'll wager has
never happened. First, Linux Live CDs don't auto-mount hard drive
partitions, they must be manually mounted by the user. Second,
Linux Live CDs don't use swap. Third, Linux doesn't use a swap
*file* by default it uses a swap *partition* so it would have
completely flattened the partition had it somehow gone off the
deep end and decided to use your drive as swap on its own.
Fourth, even if it did use a swap file, that file would have been
just that, a file on the file system separate from anything else
and Windows wouldn't have cared a whit.

Crawl back under your bridge, troll.

/rant

+1

You nailed it.

Nope you both are wrong


Without corroborated evidence to the contrary, I'd say it is you that
are wrong, not the thousands of other users who have had none of the
issues you do with Ubuntu (or other) Live CDs.

and owe us an apology.


If you are ever able to produce any evidence that an Ubuntu Live CD
has trashed any system other than yours by using a Windows swap file
when it wasn't manually configured to do so, I will. Otherwise, my
assertion and characterization stands.


Yeah I get that a lot. But I am always proved to be right in the end
even if it takes years. Like that OS/2 fiasco. For two years I was
complaining to IBM and on the newsgroups that OS/2 Warp had a stability
problem. As I was getting the OS freeze up about twice per week. I was
losing tons of work because I couldn't save anything.

And all I heard was it was just me, it's your hardware, OS/2 is rock
stable, and blah, blah, blah. Even though I knew everybody was wrong.
Then two years later IBM actually ran into it. And it affected all
machines and users. What set it off was copying and pasting back and
forth between DOS and OS/2. IBM claimed it left the OS in an unstable
state and it was just a matter of time before it would crash. Did
anybody say sorry Bill or anything? Nope! Very typical in my experience.


IBM rightly ignored your vague declaration that "omg something is
wrong" and again rightly did not give you any credit because you didn't
actually contribute anything that would help identify the problem or
provide a solution.

Among other things, I've done software quality assurance testing and
what you are doing doesn't qualify. Documentation, debug logs, screen
captures, before and after disk images / file CRCs, etc., verification
on multiple systems, systematic elimination of other variables to
determine the actual cause of a problem that was observed - those are
(some of) the things that prove a problem. Until and unless you
provide a repeatable set of steps to duplicate the issue, you are just
waving your hands and proclaiming that the sky is falling. Pick up the
acorn, Henny Penny, and recognize it for what it is. In this case, it
is a consequence of your own actions, not a flaw in the system.

--
Zaphod

"The best Bang since the Big One" - Eccentrica Gallumbits
  #60  
Old September 11th 12, 10:35 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
BillW50
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,556
Default Undeletable file. I'm stumped.

On 09/11/2012 07:35 AM, glee wrote:
"BillW50" wrote in message
...
In ,
glee typed:


snip
I already read and responded to the comment you related being made by
Paul.... he was referring in that comment to modified specialized Live
CDs like Kaspersky's rescue CD, which as I already stated is NOT a
standard Linux Live CD.


Paul did talk about that. But he also talked about this from the get-go:

[Thursday, March 24, 2011 8:48 PM]
The only practice I don't approve on, from the Linux community,
is "scanning" of drives as part of the startup sequence. Some
LiveCD distros, are known to "search" for a copy of the image
you're booting from. Presumably the purpose, is to do a
loopback mount of the image, as a replacement for accessing the
CD itself. But I still don't approve of monkey-business. A
LiveCD should just mind its own business. ~ Paul

I note that while you give a quote you say is from Paul, I have not
found that post online... do you have a link to his actual full post
in an archive such as Google Groups?



Under Google News, it led me here. It's the second from the end.

http://www.pcreview.co.uk/forums/win...4036245p2.html
snip


Other than the one assertion apparently made by Paul, I have found no
documented evidence that any *standard* Linux Live CD tries to run from
the ISO image if found on the hard drive. Ping Paul and ask him to
provide evidence of this.

Yes, that link shows the quote you've been using. Again, there is no
evidence given. Paul is a very smart guy, but his claim that by using
the Linux 'top' command he is somehow showing that the Windows page file
is being used by the Live CD is an incorrect assumption on his part. The
'top' command shows CPU processes, kind of like a task manager. Paul
stated he used 'top' to see how much swap was evident (it does NOT show
where the swap file is), and compared it in size to the existing page
file(s) on the Windows and other partitions.... and found similar sizes.
That is in no way evidence that the Linux Live CD is using the Windows
page file. It shows that the Linux Live CD, running on a system with X
amount of RAM, will allocate a certain swap size, similar in size to
what Windows allocates on the same system.

The fact is, a Live CD allocates a virtual swap file in RAM.... that is
what he is seeing with the 'top' command. The Live CD boot divides the
RAM into segments, and creates a virtual swap file in RAM from one
segment. The another segment created from RAM is used as "storage" like
a virtual hard drive, the remaining RAM is used like standard RAM for
loading programs, etc. Those Live CDs (Gentoo included) use squashfs to
accomplish this.


I've been looking through the archives all day that led me to the
Windows swapfile. Paul wasn't the first who mentioned it. I did find
some posts of this problem from 2009 which I said then that restoring
the registry with ERUNT also corrected the problem. I didn't recall that
part until I read it today.

Anyway the post that I am looking for was by some Linux guru from 2009 I
believe that knew tons about Linux and he stated he thought Ubuntu
creating a swapfile on the Windows drive was the problem. I just haven't
found his post so far. But I'll keep looking.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Lucid Puppy 5.2.5
Centrino Core Duo T2300 1.66GHz - 1GB - ThunderBird 3.1
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.