RMPrepUSB - Bootable USB format utility, A new Windows USB tool to replace HP Format Utility External links Rating Options

[steve6375]

@wimb
Thanks - yes, I had missed the extra boot code for FAT32 NTLDR. I have now included it in RMPartUSB and RMPrepUSB new version.
I tried it with BartPE and now it boots on the notebook that did not boot before.

This download has
RMBootSect v1.2.00 + RMPartUSB v1.9.72 + RMPrepUSB v1.9.70 + RMFormat v.1.00

Attached File(s)

 RMPREPUSB_1.9.70.zip ( 869.4K ) Number of downloads: 1844

 

[steve6375]

Forgot to say the fix was also needed for RMBootSect too - hence new version.

[wimb]

@steve6375

Thanks for the new version of RMPREPUSB.exe

NTLDR with FAT32 is Bootable now, thanks to the 3rd sector BootCode in Logical Sector 12

[steve6375]

@steve6375

Thanks for the new version of RMPREPUSB.exe

NTLDR with FAT32 is Bootable now, thanks to the 3rd sector BootCode in Logical Sector 12

Thanks very much for your time and help.

[was_jaclaz]

@steve6375

Good work!

FYI, if a post in the thread is #n, the code to link to it is st=n-1

It behaves like offsets, I guees you know a little bit about 'em.

I already corrected the link in the first post of the thread from 96 to 95.



jaclaz

[steve6375]

Thanks jaclaz for the link correction. I removed all previous versions due to the FAT32+NTLDR bug.
I tested with FreeDos+FAT32 but that does not seem to need the extra boot sector. It boots to FreeDos on FAT32 fine without it. I also performed a SYS under FreeDos on the usb drive and that also did not place any extra boot code on it. No idea why Freedos can do it in less code than MS-DOS ???

[was_jaclaz]

Thanks jaclaz for the link correction. I removed all previous versions due to the FAT32+NTLDR bug.
I tested with FreeDos+FAT32 but that does not seem to need the extra boot sector. It boots to FreeDos on FAT32 fine without it. I also performed a SYS under FreeDos on the usb drive and that also did not place any extra boot code on it. No idea why Freedos can do it in less code than MS-DOS ???

Because it's better written?

But that will introduce the problem that ReactOS uses sector 14, would that mean that it is worse written?

I have no idea, but surely the good guys at MS have their own special way to mess with bootsectors.

FYI (though unrelated to your question):
http://homepages.tesco.net/J.deBoynePollar...fat-widths.html
http://homepages.tesco.net/J.deBoynePollar...eter-block.html
and particularly this one:
http://homepages.tesco.net/J.deBoynePollar...name-field.html



jaclaz

[Robbin]

Steve i wanted to first say thank you for this great utility, worked for me at first try, no problems what so ever using a 4GB fat32 partition on a moody (USB wise) Gigabyte board.

I have two suggestions and one question...
I suggest you edit the first post of this thread to give a general description of RMPREPUSB, since the thread is a split, it takes bit of reading to get what it is all about.
Secondly could you add some kind of boot remark, along the lines of "USB booting".

Lastly did i get it right that formating wise RMPREPUSB is deferent from the HP format tool in that is has correct partition table and an updated bootsector? are there any other deferences?

[Nuno Brito]

Hello!

I subscribe Robbin's request for a first topic that clearly explain what these tools are capable of doing along with a few screenshots.

Then it would be a good candidate to add on the FAQ page of Boot Land.

Keep up the excellent work!

[steve6375]

Steve i wanted to first say thank you for this great utility, worked for me at first try, no problems what so ever using a 4GB fat32 partition on a moody (USB wise) Gigabyte board.

I have two suggestions and one question...
I suggest you edit the first post of this thread to give a general description of RMPREPUSB, since the thread is a split, it takes bit of reading to get what it is all about.
Secondly could you add some kind of boot remark, along the lines of "USB booting".

Lastly did i get it right that formating wise RMPREPUSB is deferent from the HP format tool in that is has correct partition table and an updated bootsector? are there any other deferences?

Hi Robbin
I have updated the first post as you suggested - hope this is better. Some of the boot code I use is tweaked to use LBA booting (Extended BIOS int 13h calls) rather than the older CHS Int13 standard calls.

As for your Q, I have been experimenting with many different BIOSes over the years and USB booting. I have found that it is difficult to make some BIOSes boot. My work mainly involves getting systems to boot as a ZIP drive to MSDOS (UFD=Drive A:) and getting them to boot to WinPE v2 (Vista version).
RMPartUSB thus contains various options to try to create a USB pen that will boot on most systems. However, one type of UFD may boot fine on 70% of systems, but not on the other 30%.

In some cases, a BIOS just will not boot to WinPE v2 (as WinPE v2 does not support booting from a 'floppy' device) and I have had to resort to such tricks as formatting the UFD as a super-floppy (ZIP) drive and then using Grub4Dos to boot a WinPE ISO that is present on the UFD (see my other posts for details).

I am working on yet another idea for RMPartUSB at the moment. Some BIOSes are confused about how to use LBA translation and can crash when booting from a UFD that has non-standard CHS values. If I use CHS values of FE FF FF (maximum) then the boot code will always use Extended Int13h calls (LBA addressing). So if I set FE FF FF for ALL start and End CHS values in the MBR partition table, it may mean it boots on more systems. As USB booting was introduced after LBA addressing came in (drives were over 8GB in size when USB booting) then this should work on any system that supports USB booting. Thats the theory anyway...

cheers
Steve