From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On Sat, 8/9/2025 7:39 PM, T wrote:

Hi W10 and W11 folks,

I just updated my first customer under Payment Card
Industry (PCI) requirements to have a support operating
system from Windows 11.-a And, of curse, it was a perfectly
good computer that did not meet M$ ridiculous hardware
requirements.

I was so uneventful that I almost fell asleep.

First I created an ISO of the latest Windows 11
-a-a https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/software-download/windows11
with Rufus, removing the silly hardware and account requirements
-a-a https://rufus.ie/
-a-a https://rufus.akeo.ie/

Then I copied the ISO to the user's data drive.
From the file manager, I doubled clicked on the ISO and
mounted it as a read only drive.-a Then clicked on
setup.

The rest was boring.

After completion, I check and network mounting of file shared
and printers till worked.-a Even QuickBooks networked fine.
How about that!

Some clean up I did have to do was:
[1] restored the classic right click context menu

-a https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/all/restore-legacy-right-click-menu-for-file-explorer/a62e797c-eaf3-411b-aeec-e460e6e5a82a

-a-a-a reg.exe add "HKCU\Software\Classes\CLSID\{86ca1aa0-34aa-4e8b-a509-50c905bae2a2}\InprocServer32" /f /ve

Note: you have to reboot for it to take

[2] restore the missing Cascade Windows function:

<context.reg>
REGEDIT4

; place C:\NtUtil\cascade.exe into the right click context menu
; reference: https://helpdeskgeek.com/how-to-customize-the-right-click-context-menu-in-windows-11/

; Note: you have to reboot for it to take

[HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\Directory\Background\shell\Cascade Windows\Command] @="C:\\NtUtil\\cascade.exe"
</context.reg>

I also made a short cut to cascade.exe on the task bar

[3] updated Shutup 10 to re-remove most telemetry
-a-a-a https://www.oo-software.com/en/shutup10

[4] rerun debloader.-a Left M$'s pdf writer in place (sorry
I forgot the name), which is unfortunately required by Quickbooks
-a-a-a https://github.com/builtbybel/Winpilot/releases

[5] updated Open Shell
-a-a-a https://github.com/Open-Shell/Open-Shell-Menu/releases

[6] re-removed Microsoft Edge and Web View (they are a pain-in
the ass, especially Web View, to constantly update was required
by PCI).
-a-a https://github.com/ShadowWhisperer/Remove-MS-Edge

[7] configured the task bar.-a Shut off widgets, shifted
to the right, removed the search bar.

-a-a note: Open shell have a local search at the bottom.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a And M$'s search bar is spyware

Happy upgrading for those that choose to do so (it
has its pluses and minuses)!

-T

Did you really remove WebView2 ?

Won't that affect some Metro.Apps ?

MSEdge and WebView2 should be constantly updating themselves anyway.
The tough part, is finding a decent quality .log which records
this properly. It's not clear why the MSEdge updating activity is
not a listed activity in the Reliability Monitor. The claim is that
MSEdge is a UWP (which is why at one time it ran in Windows 7), but
I don't know if that is a factor or not. There should be a version
for Linux, a version for MacOS, the one for Windows 7 would no
longer be available (because Chrome/Chromium doesn't support Win7 either).

Looking at some files and dates using Agent Ransack, these are
some sample dates on the files. It kinda looks like a monthly update
pattern at a guess. The software is likely checking for updates
at a higher frequency than that (it has to be checking daily, as
part of being a Startup item in the likes of Task Scheduler or something).

5/13 90 MB msedge.dll (webview2 package in WinSxS)
6/10 91 MB msedge.dll (webview2 package in WinSxS)
7/8 271 MB msedge.dll (webview2 package in WinSxS)
8/7 275 MB msedge.dll (webview2 package in WinSxS)

Paul
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Hi W10 and W11 folks,

I just updated my first customer under Payment Card
Industry (PCI) requirements to have a support operating
system from Windows 11. And, of curse, it was a perfectly
good computer that did not meet M$ ridiculous hardware
requirements.

I was so uneventful that I almost fell asleep.

First I created an ISO of the latest Windows 11
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/software-download/windows11
with Rufus, removing the silly hardware and account requirements
https://rufus.ie/
https://rufus.akeo.ie/

Then I copied the ISO to the user's data drive.
From the file manager, I doubled clicked on the ISO and
mounted it as a read only drive. Then clicked on
setup.

The rest was boring.

After completion, I check and network mounting of file shared
and printers till worked. Even QuickBooks networked fine.
How about that!

Some clean up I did have to do was:
[1] restored the classic right click context menu


https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/all/restore-legacy-right-click-menu-for-file-explorer/a62e797c-eaf3-411b-aeec-e460e6e5a82a

reg.exe add "HKCU\Software\Classes\CLSID\{86ca1aa0-34aa-4e8b-a509-50c905bae2a2}\InprocServer32"
/f /ve

Note: you have to reboot for it to take

[2] restore the missing Cascade Windows function:

<context.reg>
REGEDIT4

; place C:\NtUtil\cascade.exe into the right click context menu
; reference: https://helpdeskgeek.com/how-to-customize-the-right-click-context-menu-in-windows-11/

; Note: you have to reboot for it to take

[HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\Directory\Background\shell\Cascade Windows\Command] @="C:\\NtUtil\\cascade.exe"
</context.reg>

I also made a short cut to cascade.exe on the task bar

[3] updated Shutup 10 to re-remove most telemetry
https://www.oo-software.com/en/shutup10

[4] rerun debloader. Left M$'s pdf writer in place (sorry
I forgot the name), which is unfortunately required by Quickbooks
https://github.com/builtbybel/Winpilot/releases

[5] updated Open Shell
https://github.com/Open-Shell/Open-Shell-Menu/releases

[6] re-removed Microsoft Edge and Web View (they are a pain-in
the ass, especially Web View, to constantly update was required
by PCI).
https://github.com/ShadowWhisperer/Remove-MS-Edge

[7] configured the task bar. Shut off widgets, shifted
to the right, removed the search bar.

note: Open shell have a local search at the bottom.
And M$'s search bar is spyware

Well done for making your client non-compliant. I hope your liability
insurance premiums are up-to-date.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On Sun, 10 Aug 2025 08:52:39 -0500, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

On Sat, 8/9/2025 7:39 PM, T wrote:

Hi W10 and W11 folks,

I just updated my first customer under Payment Card
Industry (PCI) requirements to have a support operating
system from Windows 11. And, of curse, it was a perfectly
good computer that did not meet M$ ridiculous hardware
requirements.

I was so uneventful that I almost fell asleep.

First I created an ISO of the latest Windows 11
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/software-download/windows11
with Rufus, removing the silly hardware and account requirements
https://rufus.ie/
https://rufus.akeo.ie/

Then I copied the ISO to the user's data drive.
From the file manager, I doubled clicked on the ISO and
mounted it as a read only drive. Then clicked on
setup.

The rest was boring.

After completion, I check and network mounting of file shared
and printers till worked. Even QuickBooks networked fine.
How about that!

Some clean up I did have to do was:
[1] restored the classic right click context menu

https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/all/restore-legacy-right-click-menu-for-file-explorer/a62e797c-eaf3-411b-aeec-e460e6e5a82a

reg.exe add "HKCU\Software\Classes\CLSID\{86ca1aa0-34aa-4e8b-a509-50c905bae2a2}\InprocServer32" /f /ve

Note: you have to reboot for it to take


[2] restore the missing Cascade Windows function:

<context.reg>
REGEDIT4

; place C:\NtUtil\cascade.exe into the right click context menu
; reference: https://helpdeskgeek.com/how-to-customize-the-right-click-context-menu-in-windows-11/

; Note: you have to reboot for it to take

[HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\Directory\Background\shell\Cascade Windows\Command]
@="C:\\NtUtil\\cascade.exe"
</context.reg>

I also made a short cut to cascade.exe on the task bar


[3] updated Shutup 10 to re-remove most telemetry
https://www.oo-software.com/en/shutup10

[4] rerun debloader. Left M$'s pdf writer in place (sorry
I forgot the name), which is unfortunately required by Quickbooks
https://github.com/builtbybel/Winpilot/releases

[5] updated Open Shell
https://github.com/Open-Shell/Open-Shell-Menu/releases

[6] re-removed Microsoft Edge and Web View (they are a pain-in
the ass, especially Web View, to constantly update was required
by PCI).
https://github.com/ShadowWhisperer/Remove-MS-Edge

[7] configured the task bar. Shut off widgets, shifted
to the right, removed the search bar.

note: Open shell have a local search at the bottom.
And M$'s search bar is spyware


Happy upgrading for those that choose to do so (it
has its pluses and minuses)!

-T

Did you really remove WebView2 ?

Won't that affect some Metro.Apps ?

According to the Remove-MS-Edge Web site that T posted, https://github.com/ShadowWhisperer/Remove-MS-Edge
these require WebView2

- Eclipse IDEs
- Gmpublisher (Garry's Mod)
- ImageGlass
- Lenovo USB Recovery Creator Tool
- Microsoft Photos App (Edit)
- PowerToys File Explorer add-ons utility
- Quicken
- Windows Mail
- Xbox App

I remove WebView2 myself, since my upgrade to Windows 11 in May.
It hasn't affected me in the least.

For reinstalls, the latest version can always be downloaded with this direct link.
https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=2124701

MSEdge and WebView2 should be constantly updating themselves anyway.
The tough part, is finding a decent quality .log which records
this properly. It's not clear why the MSEdge updating activity is
not a listed activity in the Reliability Monitor. The claim is that
MSEdge is a UWP (which is why at one time it ran in Windows 7), but
I don't know if that is a factor or not. There should be a version
for Linux, a version for MacOS, the one for Windows 7 would no
longer be available (because Chrome/Chromium doesn't support Win7 either).

Looking at some files and dates using Agent Ransack, these are
some sample dates on the files. It kinda looks like a monthly update
pattern at a guess. The software is likely checking for updates
at a higher frequency than that (it has to be checking daily, as
part of being a Startup item in the likes of Task Scheduler or something).

5/13 90 MB msedge.dll (webview2 package in WinSxS)
6/10 91 MB msedge.dll (webview2 package in WinSxS)
7/8 271 MB msedge.dll (webview2 package in WinSxS)
8/7 275 MB msedge.dll (webview2 package in WinSxS)

Paul

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On 2025/8/10 14:52:39, Paul wrote:
[]

pattern at a guess. The software is likely checking for updates
at a higher frequency than that (it has to be checking daily, as
part of being a Startup item in the likes of Task Scheduler or something).

[]

That assumes you restart daily, of course.--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

When I'm good, I'm very good. But when I'm bad - I'm better! (Mae West)
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On Sun, 10 Aug 2025 14:35:53 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

Well done for making your client non-compliant. I hope your liability insurance premiums are up-to-date.

Wait, what?
--
s|b
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On Sat, 9 Aug 2025 16:39:48 -0700, T wrote:

First I created an ISO of the latest Windows 11
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/software-download/windows11
with Rufus, removing the silly hardware and account requirements
https://rufus.ie/
https://rufus.akeo.ie/

Then I copied the ISO to the user's data drive.
From the file manager, I doubled clicked on the ISO and
mounted it as a read only drive. Then clicked on
setup.

The rest was boring.

Didn't you get a warning about not receiving any updates? I followed the
same procedure in the past and the laptop in fact did get security
updates. But when I recently tried it I got a pop up window telling me
the device wouldn't get any updates.

The screenshot is in Dutch, but it basically says: '(hardware not
supported) if you continue your PC won't be supported any longer and
you're not entitled to updates'

<https://i.postimg.cc/YC3ffhS6/w11-noupdates.png>

Is it possible there would still be security updates, but not the
"bigger" updates, for instance 24H2 to 25H2?
--
s|b
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On Sun, 8/10/2025 2:50 PM, s|b wrote:

On Sat, 9 Aug 2025 16:39:48 -0700, T wrote:

First I created an ISO of the latest Windows 11
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/software-download/windows11
with Rufus, removing the silly hardware and account requirements
https://rufus.ie/
https://rufus.akeo.ie/

Then I copied the ISO to the user's data drive.
From the file manager, I doubled clicked on the ISO and
mounted it as a read only drive. Then clicked on
setup.

The rest was boring.

Didn't you get a warning about not receiving any updates? I followed the
same procedure in the past and the laptop in fact did get security
updates. But when I recently tried it I got a pop up window telling me
the device wouldn't get any updates.

The screenshot is in Dutch, but it basically says: '(hardware not
supported) if you continue your PC won't be supported any longer and
you're not entitled to updates'

<https://i.postimg.cc/YC3ffhS6/w11-noupdates.png>

Is it possible there would still be security updates, but not the
"bigger" updates, for instance 24H2 to 25H2?

You must be new here :-)

Since when do you take scary dialog boxes as sincere efforts ???

[Picture]

https://i.postimg.cc/j58pQDSY/W10-not-ready.gif

Paul
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On 8/10/25 6:52 AM, Paul wrote:

Did you really remove WebView2 ?

Yes

Won't that affect some Metro.Apps ?

Not used

MSEdge and WebView2 should be constantly updating themselves anyway.

Edge, most of the time.

WebView, only a couple of times, then you have to do it manually.
It is "suppose" to upgrade along with Edge. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
And it is not straight forward. It is a an absolute pain in
the ass.

I use VulnDetect for identifying critical updates https://secteer.com/vulndetect/

I do not rely on M$.

Speaking of pain-in-the-ass, here is my keeper on upgrading WebView:


Uninstall/Reinstall M$ Web View:

Reference(s): https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/answers/questions/1194589/uninstalling-webview2-version-111-0-1661-54-on-win

Product Home Page:
https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/webview2/

If reinstalling, download the above first (Evergreen Standalone
Installer, usually x86)


** Shortcut: just run the reg below and then reinstall **

To uninstall WebView2 version 111.0.1661.54 and install an older version:

Uninstall via Settings: Go to Settings > Apps > Apps & features,
find Microsoft Edge WebView2 Runtime, and click Uninstall.

Use Command Line: Try running the command as an admin if the
setup.exe command doesnrCOt work:

Cmd as admin:
remove msedgeveiw entries from the registry (regedit, search)
reg delete HKLM\SOFTWARE\WOW6432Node\Microsoft\EdgeUpdate\Clients\{F3017226-FE2A-4295-8BDF-00C3A9A7E4C5}

cd "C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft\EdgeWebView\Application\1*\Installer" if 32 bit
setup.exe --uninstall --msedgewebview --system-level
--verbose-logging --force-uninstall

Clean Up Residual Files: Check and delete any leftover folders in:

del /s /q "C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft\EdgeWebView"
del /s /q "C:\Program Files\Microsoft\EdgeWebView"



To Reinstall:

https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/webview2/?form=MA13LH#download-section


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On 8/10/25 11:44 AM, s|b wrote:

On Sun, 10 Aug 2025 14:35:53 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

Well done for making your client non-compliant. I hope your liability
insurance premiums are up-to-date.

Wait, what?

Chris does not know what he is talking about. PCI
"REQUIRES" you remove unused application.

Edge and WebView have nothing to do with security
anymore than all those stupid games M$ installs.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On 8/10/25 11:50 AM, s|b wrote:

On Sat, 9 Aug 2025 16:39:48 -0700, T wrote:

First I created an ISO of the latest Windows 11
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/software-download/windows11
with Rufus, removing the silly hardware and account requirements
https://rufus.ie/
https://rufus.akeo.ie/

Then I copied the ISO to the user's data drive.
From the file manager, I doubled clicked on the ISO and
mounted it as a read only drive. Then clicked on
setup.

The rest was boring.

Didn't you get a warning about not receiving any updates? I followed the
same procedure in the past and the laptop in fact did get security
updates. But when I recently tried it I got a pop up window telling me
the device wouldn't get any updates.

The screenshot is in Dutch, but it basically says: '(hardware not
supported) if you continue your PC won't be supported any longer and
you're not entitled to updates'

<https://i.postimg.cc/YC3ffhS6/w11-noupdates.png>

Is it possible there would still be security updates, but not the
"bigger" updates, for instance 24H2 to 25H2?

Last thing I did before leaving was to start all the
M$ updates. M$ installed three of them. One was
pretty big too.

Made me wonder why during the upgrade it took so long
checking for updates.

I am not sure what happened to yours.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On Sun, 8/10/2025 9:11 PM, T wrote:

On 8/10/25 11:50 AM, s|b wrote:

On Sat, 9 Aug 2025 16:39:48 -0700, T wrote:

First I created an ISO of the latest Windows 11
-a-a-a-a https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/software-download/windows11
with Rufus, removing the silly hardware and account requirements
-a-a-a-a https://rufus.ie/
-a-a-a-a https://rufus.akeo.ie/

Then I copied the ISO to the user's data drive.
-a From the file manager, I doubled clicked on the ISO and
mounted it as a read only drive.-a Then clicked on
setup.

The rest was boring.

Didn't you get a warning about not receiving any updates? I followed the
same procedure in the past and the laptop in fact did get security
updates. But when I recently tried it I got a pop up window telling me
the device wouldn't get any updates.

The screenshot is in Dutch, but it basically says: '(hardware not
supported) if you continue your PC won't be supported any longer and
you're not entitled to updates'

<https://i.postimg.cc/YC3ffhS6/w11-noupdates.png>

Is it possible there would still be security updates, but not the
"bigger" updates, for instance 24H2 to 25H2?

Last thing I did before leaving was to start all the
M$ updates.-a M$ installed three of them.-a One was
pretty big too.

Made me wonder why during the upgrade it took so long
checking for updates.

I am not sure what happened to yours.

Each Upgrade install can be blocked by not meeting the "minimum" requirements. It just means using a Rufus stick, once a year, to move to the next version.

In the middle of an Upgrade Install, it "checks for updates".
This might include looking for a new graphics driver, but
there is no way to be sure what it is doing at that point in time.

If the network cable is disconnected, the "checking for updates"
in the middle of an Upgrade, is a lot shorter.

Paul
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On 8/10/25 7:37 AM, Allan Higdon wrote:

According to the Remove-MS-Edge Web site that T posted, https://github.com/ShadowWhisperer/Remove-MS-Edge
these require WebView2

- Eclipse IDEs
- Gmpublisher (Garry's Mod)
- ImageGlass
- Lenovo USB Recovery Creator Tool
- Microsoft Photos App (Edit)
- PowerToys File Explorer add-ons utility
- Quicken
- Windows Mail
- Xbox App

Add Storables' "Site Link" to the pile.

I will be forever pissed at them for doing that.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On 8/10/25 8:08 PM, Paul wrote:

Each Upgrade install can be blocked by not meeting the "minimum" requirements.

I have not seen that on my two qemu-kvm virtual machines.
Sound like an M$'s FUD threat machine.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On Sun, 8/10/2025 11:37 PM, T wrote:

On 8/10/25 8:08 PM, Paul wrote:

Each Upgrade install can be blocked by not meeting the "minimum" requirements.

I have not seen that on my two qemu-kvm virtual machines.
Sound like an M$'s FUD threat machine.

They know they are inside a VM.

They can adjust policy in cases like that.

Paul

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On 8/10/25 8:08 PM, Paul wrote:

Each Upgrade install can be blocked by not meeting the "minimum" requirements.
It just means using a Rufus stick, once a year, to move to the next version.

Rufus to the rescue!
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On Sun, 10 Aug 2025 20:56:35 -0400, Paul wrote:

You must be new here :-)

I sometimes practice the art of diagonal reading, but it isn't all that.

Since when do you take scary dialog boxes as sincere efforts ???

[Picture]

https://i.postimg.cc/j58pQDSY/W10-not-ready.gif

I can't really read what those windows say, but I'm pretty sure it's not
the same as what I got. Like I said: I upgraded a laptop from W10 to W11
and it got security updates. Tried to do the same for a PC not so long
ago and then got a window about updates not working. Found a site that
stated 'M$ changed something so it doesn't work anymore'.

I made a backup image of C:, but I don't want to go through all the
effort, just to restore the backup image.
--
s|b
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On Sun, 10 Aug 2025 18:11:43 -0700, T wrote:

Last thing I did before leaving was to start all the
M$ updates. M$ installed three of them. One was
pretty big too.

Made me wonder why during the upgrade it took so long
checking for updates.

I am not sure what happened to yours.

Looks like I'm going to have to find out myself. I can make a backup
image that I can restore if it turns out I can not install security
updates. I just don't look forward to possibly wasting my time.
--
s|b
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On Mon, 8/11/2025 9:10 AM, s|b wrote:

On Sun, 10 Aug 2025 20:56:35 -0400, Paul wrote:

You must be new here :-)

I sometimes practice the art of diagonal reading, but it isn't all that.

Since when do you take scary dialog boxes as sincere efforts ???

[Picture]

https://i.postimg.cc/j58pQDSY/W10-not-ready.gif

I can't really read what those windows say, but I'm pretty sure it's not
the same as what I got. Like I said: I upgraded a laptop from W10 to W11
and it got security updates. Tried to do the same for a PC not so long
ago and then got a window about updates not working. Found a site that
stated 'M$ changed something so it doesn't work anymore'.

I made a backup image of C:, but I don't want to go through all the
effort, just to restore the backup image.

You can use the "Download Original Image" button at the top of the page.
That may allow you to zoom in, using an image tool.

*******

You can attempt to use the Rufus.ie stick and run the Setup.exe on it
and do a Repair Install. There is a dialog with tick boxes, for switching
off the "dependencies" that Microsoft likes.

I have both licensed and unlicensed installs here, but I have not
done a "full matrix" test of all possible combinations. The machine used
in that picture, has no TPM, and the UEFI BIOS has code for a TPM 1.4
but not for a TPM 2.0 (and the manufacturer did not make a TPM 2.0 module
that plugs into that motherboard)

My Optiplex 780 refurb won't take Windows 11, because the E8400
processor does not have the POPCNT (population count) instruction
in SSE4. Rufus cannot fix that and the OS would crash if the
install were to be done. That is a technique used for crude AI implementations or something.
It's not exactly all that necessary for a computer to use.

My laptop doesn't have enough RAM any more, to do W10 Windows Update!
And that's one reason I haven't tried using the Rufus installer
on that machine. There isn't nearly enough RAM.

Paul
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On Mon, 8/11/2025 9:13 AM, s|b wrote:

On Sun, 10 Aug 2025 18:11:43 -0700, T wrote:

Last thing I did before leaving was to start all the
M$ updates. M$ installed three of them. One was
pretty big too.

Made me wonder why during the upgrade it took so long
checking for updates.

I am not sure what happened to yours.

Looks like I'm going to have to find out myself. I can make a backup
image that I can restore if it turns out I can not install security
updates. I just don't look forward to possibly wasting my time.

You should have a backup image, anyway. Right ? :-)

Having a backup is a good computer practice, as is using
a separate external drive to store the backup.

As long as your "excess materials" are in a separate partition,
it should not take long to back up C: . Maybe ten minutes is enough
time to do that. It takes an entire day, to back up everything in my room.
But to protect an OS install, that should be about ten minutes.

The Download folder on this OS, might be 30GB. The separate partition
with the majority of files, is over 600GB, and backing that up takes
a bit longer. I do not store backups in that partition either, the
backups are on another drive (a drive not normally connected to the PC).
I have more than 35 hard drives (but the vast majority, are "junk").

And please please, do not use Windows 7 Backup for this task.
That's about the worst product possible, as we're not sure that
restores ever work when using that! I have no positive reports of success.
Your files are stored in VHD or VHDX containers, but it would be
a rather lengthy process to manually put the materials back on a hard
drive later (convert VHD to physical, transfer physical with "dd.exe).

Paul
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

s|b <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

On Sun, 10 Aug 2025 14:35:53 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

Well done for making your client non-compliant. I hope your liability
insurance premiums are up-to-date.

Wait, what?

T has updated win11 on unsupported and incompatible hardware using third
party unsupported tools which manipulate windows 11 functionality. Any of
those steps could introduce vulnerabilities (i.e. no TPM) and could be
vectors for compromising the system. An external audit of this system
would flag this and any financial loss could mean the bank comes after T.

Of course he could and likely get away with it, but that doesn't mean this isn't a risky practice for live financial systems.

There are many examples where malware has of these types of gaps in the security envelope.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On Tue, 8/12/2025 3:03 AM, Chris wrote:

s|b <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

On Sun, 10 Aug 2025 14:35:53 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

Well done for making your client non-compliant. I hope your liability
insurance premiums are up-to-date.

Wait, what?

T has updated win11 on unsupported and incompatible hardware using third party unsupported tools which manipulate windows 11 functionality. Any of those steps could introduce vulnerabilities (i.e. no TPM) and could be vectors for compromising the system. An external audit of this system
would flag this and any financial loss could mean the bank comes after T.

Of course he could and likely get away with it, but that doesn't mean this isn't a risky practice for live financial systems.

There are many examples where malware has of these types of gaps in the security envelope.

There's a security envelope ?

*******

Being serious for a moment, the contractors at work who worked
for my company, they took refresher courses to make sure they
were up to speed on topics like this.

That's how they made sure, as a contractor, you were "getting
a quality job", is by taking refreshers.

If there is a topic with compliance issues, a course will
help keep you on the straight and narrow.

And my company, to encourage this practice, would also pay to have
them educated ($2K reimbursement for a recognized course, that's a typical amount for a five day course). We had one employee who was a former RFT,
that came back as a contractor, and that's what they did for him. Even
though he was a contractor and "all he was worth was $XX per hour", they
still paid extra to keep him educated.

Because they would rather have an educated employee than an uneducated one.

The RFTs like me, were also taking course work. In some cases,
all the hardware engineers had to take the same course, so that
management could know we all had the same baseline on signal integrity issues and emissions.

Education is important in every profession.

We also had fun courses. One of the guys in a support group for computers,
he took a course on "how to hack PCs", and in the lab, they would practice tipping over PCs of adjacent students in the same room (over the network). That's why I have the question about "security envelope". With that course,
it wasn't a matter of finding *a* way to tip over a computer, the lab
practice was to see "who could do it faster". That gives you some
idea just how "seecure" your computer is.

Paul
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On 8/12/25 11:31 AM, Paul wrote:

On Tue, 8/12/2025 3:03 AM, Chris wrote:

s|b <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

On Sun, 10 Aug 2025 14:35:53 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

Well done for making your client non-compliant. I hope your liability
insurance premiums are up-to-date.

Wait, what?

T has updated win11 on unsupported and incompatible hardware using third
party unsupported tools which manipulate windows 11 functionality. Any of
those steps could introduce vulnerabilities (i.e. no TPM) and could be
vectors for compromising the system. An external audit of this system
would flag this and any financial loss could mean the bank comes after T.

Of course he could and likely get away with it, but that doesn't mean this >> isn't a risky practice for live financial systems.

There are many examples where malware has of these types of gaps in the
security envelope.

There's a security envelope ?

*******

Being serious for a moment, the contractors at work who worked
for my company, they took refresher courses to make sure they
were up to speed on topics like this.

That's how they made sure, as a contractor, you were "getting
a quality job", is by taking refreshers.

If there is a topic with compliance issues, a course will
help keep you on the straight and narrow.

And my company, to encourage this practice, would also pay to have
them educated ($2K reimbursement for a recognized course, that's a typical amount for a five day course). We had one employee who was a former RFT,
that came back as a contractor, and that's what they did for him. Even
though he was a contractor and "all he was worth was $XX per hour", they still paid extra to keep him educated.

Because they would rather have an educated employee than an uneducated one.

The RFTs like me, were also taking course work. In some cases,
all the hardware engineers had to take the same course, so that
management could know we all had the same baseline on signal integrity issues and emissions.

Education is important in every profession.

We also had fun courses. One of the guys in a support group for computers,
he took a course on "how to hack PCs", and in the lab, they would practice tipping over PCs of adjacent students in the same room (over the network). That's why I have the question about "security envelope". With that course, it wasn't a matter of finding *a* way to tip over a computer, the lab practice was to see "who could do it faster". That gives you some
idea just how "seecure" your computer is.

Paul

The FUD surrounding Chris' response is saddening.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

On Tue, 8/12/2025 3:03 AM, Chris wrote:

s|b <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

On Sun, 10 Aug 2025 14:35:53 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

Well done for making your client non-compliant. I hope your liability
insurance premiums are up-to-date.

Wait, what?

T has updated win11 on unsupported and incompatible hardware using third
party unsupported tools which manipulate windows 11 functionality. Any of
those steps could introduce vulnerabilities (i.e. no TPM) and could be
vectors for compromising the system. An external audit of this system
would flag this and any financial loss could mean the bank comes after T. >>
Of course he could and likely get away with it, but that doesn't mean this >> isn't a risky practice for live financial systems.

There are many examples where malware has of these types of gaps in the
security envelope.

There's a security envelope ?

*******

Being serious for a moment, the contractors at work who worked
for my company, they took refresher courses to make sure they
were up to speed on topics like this.

That's how they made sure, as a contractor, you were "getting
a quality job", is by taking refreshers.

Correct.

If there is a topic with compliance issues, a course will
help keep you on the straight and narrow.

And my company, to encourage this practice, would also pay to have
them educated ($2K reimbursement for a recognized course, that's a typical amount for a five day course). We had one employee who was a former RFT,

What's an RFT?

that came back as a contractor, and that's what they did for him. Even
though he was a contractor and "all he was worth was $XX per hour", they still paid extra to keep him educated.

Because they would rather have an educated employee than an uneducated one.

The RFTs like me, were also taking course work. In some cases,
all the hardware engineers had to take the same course, so that
management could know we all had the same baseline on signal integrity issues and emissions.

Education is important in every profession.

Yup.

We also had fun courses. One of the guys in a support group for computers,
he took a course on "how to hack PCs", and in the lab, they would practice tipping over PCs of adjacent students in the same room (over the network). That's why I have the question about "security envelope".

It is simply any and all aspects which impact on overall security. From hardware/software support to UAC and audit. All parts need to documented, managed and maintained. You don't ignore one part because you don't like
it.

In my industry you don't fuck around if you want to stay visible.


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 8/12/25 11:31 AM, Paul wrote:

On Tue, 8/12/2025 3:03 AM, Chris wrote:

s|b <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

On Sun, 10 Aug 2025 14:35:53 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

Well done for making your client non-compliant. I hope your liability >>>>> insurance premiums are up-to-date.

Wait, what?

T has updated win11 on unsupported and incompatible hardware using third >>> party unsupported tools which manipulate windows 11 functionality. Any of >>> those steps could introduce vulnerabilities (i.e. no TPM) and could be
vectors for compromising the system. An external audit of this system
would flag this and any financial loss could mean the bank comes after T. >>>
Of course he could and likely get away with it, but that doesn't mean this >>> isn't a risky practice for live financial systems.

There are many examples where malware has of these types of gaps in the
security envelope.

There's a security envelope ?

*******

Being serious for a moment, the contractors at work who worked
for my company, they took refresher courses to make sure they
were up to speed on topics like this.

That's how they made sure, as a contractor, you were "getting
a quality job", is by taking refreshers.

If there is a topic with compliance issues, a course will
help keep you on the straight and narrow.

And my company, to encourage this practice, would also pay to have
them educated ($2K reimbursement for a recognized course, that's a typical >> amount for a five day course). We had one employee who was a former RFT,
that came back as a contractor, and that's what they did for him. Even
though he was a contractor and "all he was worth was $XX per hour", they
still paid extra to keep him educated.

Because they would rather have an educated employee than an uneducated one. >>
The RFTs like me, were also taking course work. In some cases,
all the hardware engineers had to take the same course, so that
management could know we all had the same baseline on signal integrity issues
and emissions.

Education is important in every profession.

We also had fun courses. One of the guys in a support group for computers, >> he took a course on "how to hack PCs", and in the lab, they would practice >> tipping over PCs of adjacent students in the same room (over the network). >> That's why I have the question about "security envelope". With that course, >> it wasn't a matter of finding *a* way to tip over a computer, the lab
practice was to see "who could do it faster". That gives you some
idea just how "seecure" your computer is.

Paul

The FUD surrounding Chris' response is saddening.

There's no FUD. Regulated industries are regulated for a reason.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On Wed, 8/13/2025 2:47 AM, Chris wrote:

What's an RFT?

RFT is regular full time
PT is part time (1 to 20 hours per week)

At some places of employment, nobody at a low level
in the company is an RFT. By hiring as PT, there are
no benefits. Just your hourly pay.

Contractors are similar, in that there is no pension
or medical.

Paul

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On Mon, 11 Aug 2025 17:34:40 -0400, Paul wrote:

You can use the "Download Original Image" button at the top of the page.
That may allow you to zoom in, using an image tool.

Got it!

You can attempt to use the Rufus.ie stick and run the Setup.exe on it
and do a Repair Install. There is a dialog with tick boxes, for switching
off the "dependencies" that Microsoft likes.

I might give it a go. My mother enjoys the company, so it's a win-win
actually. (-:
--
s|b
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On Mon, 11 Aug 2025 17:46:04 -0400, Paul wrote:

You should have a backup image, anyway. Right ? :-)

I regularly make backup images using Macrium Reflect.

Having a backup is a good computer practice, as is using
a separate external drive to store the backup.

I have two external drives and one somewhere else (in case the house
burns down).

As long as your "excess materials" are in a separate partition,
it should not take long to back up C: . Maybe ten minutes is enough
time to do that. It takes an entire day, to back up everything in my room. But to protect an OS install, that should be about ten minutes.

10 minutes to make the backup image, an hour or so to install W11 and
then maybe restore the backup image. I used Rufus to upgrade a laptop (refurbished, older type) and the process took more than an hour and
then it started to download and install updates.

The Download folder on this OS, might be 30GB. The separate partition
with the majority of files, is over 600GB, and backing that up takes
a bit longer. I do not store backups in that partition either, the
backups are on another drive (a drive not normally connected to the PC).
I have more than 35 hard drives (but the vast majority, are "junk").

And here I was, bragging I have _three_. (-:

And please please, do not use Windows 7 Backup for this task.
That's about the worst product possible, as we're not sure that
restores ever work when using that! I have no positive reports of success. Your files are stored in VHD or VHDX containers, but it would be
a rather lengthy process to manually put the materials back on a hard
drive later (convert VHD to physical, transfer physical with "dd.exe).

Macrium Reflect FTW.
--
s|b
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

In alt.comp.os.windows-10 Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
...

And please please, do not use Windows 7 Backup for this task.
That's about the worst product possible, as we're not sure that
restores ever work when using that! I have no positive reports of success. Your files are stored in VHD or VHDX containers, but it would be
a rather lengthy process to manually put the materials back on a hard
drive later (convert VHD to physical, transfer physical with "dd.exe).

Even PC World agrees since the reviewer said it awful with its recovery: https://www.pcworld.com/article/2812239/backup-and-restore-windows-7-review.html
--
"For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, 'Abba, Father.' The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children." --Romans 8:15-16. Crappy Th. mawny due 2 out(r)ages, sprinklers, etc.
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On Fri, 8/15/2025 5:38 PM, Ant wrote:

In alt.comp.os.windows-10 Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
...

And please please, do not use Windows 7 Backup for this task.
That's about the worst product possible, as we're not sure that
restores ever work when using that! I have no positive reports of success. >> Your files are stored in VHD or VHDX containers, but it would be
a rather lengthy process to manually put the materials back on a hard
drive later (convert VHD to physical, transfer physical with "dd.exe).

Even PC World agrees since the reviewer said it awful with its recovery: https://www.pcworld.com/article/2812239/backup-and-restore-windows-7-review.html

"There was a problem recovering your PC" :-) <come on Microsoft, snicker a little bit>

https://b2c-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Windows-Recovery-disk-1.jpg?quality=50&strip=all&w=1200

And the article says it had erased the target drive at that point,
then it discovers it can't restore. Couldn't it at least do a little
"simulate" first ? Some softwares, they do a simulate to pretend
they are doing something, to cause fewer disasters.

And the article was written Aug 12, 2025 6:00 am PDT .
Only 3 days ago!!!

One reason it's not going to be interested in backing up multiple
drives, is I don't think it is necessarily designed for identifying
multiple restore targets for later. You're doing your bare metal
restore from a WinPE environment, which is hardly ideal as a place
for software (Macrium handles this fine - I have not tested multidrive
restore from Macrium, but since multi-drives fit into one MRIMG,
the capability is there. Macrium has a back-up-whole-machine option.).

*******

In a Powershell window, try

wbadmin -?

In a Command Prompt window, try

wbadmin /?

and that gives a command line equivalent for some of the Win7 Backup capability.

From my notes file, this could be me backing up C: and a hidden System Recovery partition or something, to the F: drive.

Wbadmin start backup -backupTarget:F: -include:\\?\Volume{C38A95FE-9261-11E1-92E9-806E6F6E6963}\,C: -quiet

The following one backs up C,D,F plus System Recovery and the ESP partition, to the partition E: .
You might be able to get identifiers for rogue partitions, by using "mountvol" command.

(The allCritical by itself, would do C, System Recovery, ESP partition)

wbAdmin start backup -backupTarget:E: -include:C:,D:,F: -allCritical -quiet

On GPT disks, a certain number of partitions have a GPT Attribute set
(might be 0000000000000001), and that is how the software figures out
what the "critical" partitions are. It's not an analysis done via the partition names, and if your other software has meddled with the GPT attribute and
busted that, the allCritical is in danger of missing a partition not properly marked.

If your backup specifically names a partition twice (as my example did in this case on purpose), no harm is done. The software backs up C: only once,
even though C: was named and I also used allCritical as well (I have named
C twice in my sample command then, it is backed up just once).

The backup should be able to go fast. However, the first stage of the operation, may be collecting file names, the second stage could be
actual sequential cluster backup. Macrium does the first phase rather
quickly (might take 30 seconds to 1 minute for a large partition).
The Windows 7 Backup takes considerably longer during the sniffing phase.

Paul
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On 2025/8/15 16:26:47, s|b wrote:

On Mon, 11 Aug 2025 17:46:04 -0400, Paul wrote:

You should have a backup image, anyway. Right ? :-)

I regularly make backup images using Macrium Reflect.

You do, of course, have a Macrium boot disc (or boot USB) from which to
_use_ your image ...>

Having a backup is a good computer practice, as is using
a separate external drive to store the backup.

I have two external drives and one somewhere else (in case the house
burns down).

I should do that. I have USB sticks for frequent backup of my more irreplaceable data (currently, my genealogy stuff and my Thunderbird
profiles), and an HD for my C:-plus-hiddens image, and my D: backup.

[]

10 minutes to make the backup image, an hour or so to install W11 and
then maybe restore the backup image. I used Rufus to upgrade a laptop

This is the bit often described that I don't "get": if you have an
image, presumably of a working system, why do you need to install an OS
before using the image?
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

B T Plusnet, a bit kinda like P T Barnum ...
... but quite often appears to feature more clowns - "mikeb", 2024-4
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

J. P. Gilliver wrote on 8/15/2025 6:21 PM:

This is the bit often described that I don't "get": if you have an
image, presumably of a working system, why do you need to install an OS before using the image?

You don't have to. If you have a bootable USB drive with macrium
reflect on it, and your image file on it (or on any other USB drive you
can plug in), then you can run macrium reflect and restore that image.
Even if you have replaced the bad drive with a new blank drive.

Just this week I had to do exactly that, and it worked perfectly.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On 2025/8/16 1:29:38, Hank Rogers wrote:

J. P. Gilliver wrote on 8/15/2025 6:21 PM:

This is the bit often described that I don't "get": if you have an
image, presumably of a working system, why do you need to install an OS
before using the image?

You don't have to. If you have a bootable USB drive with macrium
reflect on it, and your image file on it (or on any other USB drive you
can plug in), then you can run macrium reflect and restore that image.
Even if you have replaced the bad drive with a new blank drive.

Just this week I had to do exactly that, and it worked perfectly.

That was my point! It was s|b saying "10 minutes to make the backup
image, an hour or so to install W11 and then maybe restore the backup
image." that puzzled me; sounds like what _he_ means by a "backup image"
is different from what you and I mean (we mean _including_ the installed
OS).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"... four Oscars, and two further nominations ... On these criteria,
he's Britain's most successful film director." Powell or Pressburger?
no; Richard Attenborough? no; Nick Park!
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2025/8/16 1:29:38, Hank Rogers wrote:

J. P. Gilliver wrote on 8/15/2025 6:21 PM:

This is the bit often described that I don't "get": if you have an
image, presumably of a working system, why do you need to install an OS
before using the image?

You don't have to. If you have a bootable USB drive with macrium
reflect on it, and your image file on it (or on any other USB drive you
can plug in), then you can run macrium reflect and restore that image.
Even if you have replaced the bad drive with a new blank drive.

Just this week I had to do exactly that, and it worked perfectly.

That was my point! It was s|b saying "10 minutes to make the backup
image, an hour or so to install W11 and then maybe restore the backup
image." that puzzled me; sounds like what _he_ means by a "backup image"
is different from what you and I mean (we mean _including_ the installed
OS).

He also said "then maybe restore the backup image".
- which indicates the possibility of not restoring the bu image.

Also, that same response was written in reply to his earlier post's
content regarding a Windows installation that "can not install security updates"

The context of the 'maybe restore bu image' does not necessarily apply
to resolving an issue if the bu image was also incapable of installing
updates or something else(not mentioned).

The latter comment using Rufus to upgrade a reburbished device may or
may not be related('maybe' more likely 'may not') to the device that
has/had the failing security update issue.

i.e. it appears at least 3 or more different scenarios involved than
just restoring an image(a good one) to the same device.
--
...w-i|#-o-#-n|#
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On 2025/8/17 4:44:46, ...winston wrote:

J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2025/8/16 1:29:38, Hank Rogers wrote:

J. P. Gilliver wrote on 8/15/2025 6:21 PM:

This is the bit often described that I don't "get": if you have an
image, presumably of a working system, why do you need to install an OS >>>> before using the image?

You don't have to. If you have a bootable USB drive with macrium
reflect on it, and your image file on it (or on any other USB drive you
can plug in), then you can run macrium reflect and restore that image.
Even if you have replaced the bad drive with a new blank drive.

Just this week I had to do exactly that, and it worked perfectly.

That was my point! It was s|b saying "10 minutes to make the backup
image, an hour or so to install W11 and then maybe restore the backup
image." that puzzled me; sounds like what _he_ means by a "backup image"
is different from what you and I mean (we mean _including_ the installed
OS).

He also said "then maybe restore the backup image".
- which indicates the possibility of not restoring the bu image.

Also, that same response was written in reply to his earlier post's
content regarding a Windows installation that "can not install security updates"

The context of the 'maybe restore bu image' does not necessarily apply
to resolving an issue if the bu image was also incapable of installing updates or something else(not mentioned).

The latter comment using Rufus to upgrade a reburbished device may or
may not be related('maybe' more likely 'may not') to the device that
has/had the failing security update issue.

i.e. it appears at least 3 or more different scenarios involved than
just restoring an image(a good one) to the same device.

Good point. So the image-making was really a sort of current-snapshot belt-and-braces exercise.

In that position, i. e. thinking that a reinstall might enable updates
again, I'd probably try restoring from an _earlier_ backup image, from a
time when updates were still working, _before_ trying a reinstall from
scratch - because that's _easier_ than a restore-OS-from-scratch, and
probably quicker. This does assume he _has_ such an earlier backup, and
_knows_ when updating stopped working (so he can pick which older image
to use).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

He who prides himself on giving what he thinks the public wants is often creating a fictitious demand for low standards which he will then
satisfy. - Lord Reith
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On Sat, 16 Aug 2025 00:21:57 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

You do, of course, have a Macrium boot disc (or boot USB) from which to
_use_ your image ...>

My main PC doesn't have a CD/DVD, so I have a boot USB. Two actually.
And if they fail I can create a new one with a backup PC.

10 minutes to make the backup image, an hour or so to install W11 and
then maybe restore the backup image. I used Rufus to upgrade a laptop

This is the bit often described that I don't "get": if you have an
image, presumably of a working system, why do you need to install an OS before using the image?

You don't.
--
s|b
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On Sat, 16 Aug 2025 15:27:11 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

That was my point! It was s|b saying "10 minutes to make the backup
image, an hour or so to install W11 and then maybe restore the backup
image." that puzzled me; sounds like what _he_ means by a "backup image"
is different from what you and I mean (we mean _including_ the installed
OS).

What I meant was: if it turns out I'm not getting any security updates
on W11, then I'd have to restore the backup image of W10 to go back to
W10.
--
s|b
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On Mon, 8/18/2025 9:58 AM, s|b wrote:

On Sat, 16 Aug 2025 15:27:11 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

That was my point! It was s|b saying "10 minutes to make the backup
image, an hour or so to install W11 and then maybe restore the backup
image." that puzzled me; sounds like what _he_ means by a "backup image"
is different from what you and I mean (we mean _including_ the installed
OS).

What I meant was: if it turns out I'm not getting any security updates
on W11, then I'd have to restore the backup image of W10 to go back to
W10.

Just yesterday on Windows 11, on Disk#33, I was checking for Patch Tuesday
work not yet done, and it shows one patch not yet done ("2025-08 Cumulative Update").

There is a button to click, labeled "Download and Install". I click it.
The machine sits there. Nothing happens.

So I check catalog.update.microsoft.com and the downloads necessary are
2.5GB for the main one, and 0.5GB for some stale servicing stack one
perhaps (an older patch, I check and that dependency is already installed).
I start downloading the 2.5GB patch. The patch is downloading at line
rate, not throttled rate. This means no bandwidth is being used for
anything other than my web browser talking to catalog.update.microsoft.com .

When I go to run the 2.5GB .msu , suddenly the Windows Update screen
says "100% downloaded!!!" for the item in question. Yet, there was
no visible sign of activity when I clicked the button. Now it has
gone from being a hostage crisis (won't give me my update) to
a knife fight ("I bet I can install this here fucking update
faster than your feeble attempt via WUSA").

It's all the very best engineering that can be afforded.

At one point, to ensure it would not win, I turned off the
PC power while the spinning balls were on the screen. Then
on the next restart, I clicked my 2.5GB .msu and the install
went ahead OK.

Summary: Please be careful to explain by what you mean by
"won't install", because it does have a hostage taking mode,
and the hostage taking mode is a "normal" behavior. You can
click the Download and Install button, and it will refuse to
do anything. At least, the (stale) status indication is that
none of the work has been done yet.

The "competing with my attempt to install" is just
a ladle of extra gravy from our perverse friends at Microsoft.
Imagine turning off a computer using the front power switch,
as a means to control an outcome... <cough> <snicker> <pathetic>

The thing is, when I switch on a computer to raise its status
to "patched for this month", I expect the activity to finish
promptly. As a customer, I do not expect to have to fight a
running gun battle with these idiots to get anything done.
Time on the computer is precious, and "costs money".
Please to be fucking off, Microsoft. I am NOT leaving a 100W idle
computer running for hours on end, on the off chance you will
dispatch the Patch Tuesday job at some randomly selected hour.
Just do the God Damn patch and piss off. CO2, my ass.

Paul
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2025/8/17 4:44:46, ...winston wrote:

J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2025/8/16 1:29:38, Hank Rogers wrote:

J. P. Gilliver wrote on 8/15/2025 6:21 PM:

This is the bit often described that I don't "get": if you have an
image, presumably of a working system, why do you need to install an OS >>>>> before using the image?

You don't have to. If you have a bootable USB drive with macrium
reflect on it, and your image file on it (or on any other USB drive you >>>> can plug in), then you can run macrium reflect and restore that image. >>>> Even if you have replaced the bad drive with a new blank drive.

Just this week I had to do exactly that, and it worked perfectly.

That was my point! It was s|b saying "10 minutes to make the backup
image, an hour or so to install W11 and then maybe restore the backup
image." that puzzled me; sounds like what _he_ means by a "backup image" >>> is different from what you and I mean (we mean _including_ the installed >>> OS).

He also said "then maybe restore the backup image".
- which indicates the possibility of not restoring the bu image.

Also, that same response was written in reply to his earlier post's
content regarding a Windows installation that "can not install security
updates"

The context of the 'maybe restore bu image' does not necessarily apply
to resolving an issue if the bu image was also incapable of installing
updates or something else(not mentioned).

The latter comment using Rufus to upgrade a reburbished device may or
may not be related('maybe' more likely 'may not') to the device that
has/had the failing security update issue.

i.e. it appears at least 3 or more different scenarios involved than
just restoring an image(a good one) to the same device.

Good point. So the image-making was really a sort of current-snapshot belt-and-braces exercise.

In that position, i. e. thinking that a reinstall might enable updates
again, I'd probably try restoring from an _earlier_ backup image, from a
time when updates were still working, _before_ trying a reinstall from scratch - because that's _easier_ than a restore-OS-from-scratch, and probably quicker. This does assume he _has_ such an earlier backup, and _knows_ when updating stopped working (so he can pick which older image
to use).

The op's replies on Aug 18th added more clarity.
-the issue with not getting updates was on a specific and second Win11 device
- restoring to Win10 was for that same Win11 device(the earlier Win10
was getting updates prior to upgrading to Win11)
Also, way back on Aug 10, sjb noted pretty much the same.
<qp>
Like I said: I upgraded a laptop from W10 to W11
and it got security updates. Tried to do the same for a PC not so long
ago and then got a window about updates not working.
I made a backup image of C:, but I don't want to go through all the
effort, just to restore the backup image.
</qp>

i.e. Apparently, the upgraded(Win11 from Win10) device never
successfully received updates(after upgrading), thus no Win11 earlier
image existed for restoration(only a backup or Win10's C:)
--
...w-i|#-o-#-n|#
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On 10/08/2025 00:39, T wrote:

And, of curse, it was a perfectly
good computer that did not meet M$ ridiculous hardware
requirements.

If security isn't a priority for your customers, why not give this a try?

<https://windowsxlite.com/win11/>

You won't encounter any of Microsoft's ridiculous hardware requirements.





--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On 8/18/25 9:50 PM, Windows X-Lite wrote:

On 10/08/2025 00:39, T wrote:

And, of curse, it was a perfectly
good computer that did not meet M$ ridiculous hardware
requirements.

If security isn't a priority for your customers, why not give this a try?

<https://windowsxlite.com/win11/>

You won't encounter any of Microsoft's ridiculous hardware requirements.

Sounds like Tiny-11.

What security issues does xlite have?
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On 19/08/2025 06:21, T wrote:

Sounds like Tiny-11.

What security issues does xlite have?

As far as I know, there aren't any. However, since it's from a third
party, people are usually cautious about installing it on their friends' machines. I recommend third-party operating systems to my neighbours and colleagues with warnings about risks involved.

Having said that, I have installed it in VirtualBox and it runs smoothly.






--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

Windows X-Lite <Windows-X-Lite@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 19/08/2025 06:21, T wrote:

Sounds like Tiny-11.

What security issues does xlite have?

As far as I know, there aren't any. However, since it's from a third
party, people are usually cautious about installing it on their friends' machines. I recommend third-party operating systems to my neighbours and colleagues with warnings about risks involved.

Exactly. These tools are for hobbyists and those happy to not be tied down
by rules.

Having said that, I have installed it in VirtualBox and it runs smoothly.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On 19/08/2025 10:40 pm, Windows X-Lite wrote:

On 19/08/2025 06:21, T wrote:

Sounds like Tiny-11.

What security issues does xlite have?

As far as I know, there aren't any. However, since it's from a third
party, people are usually cautious about installing it on their friends' machines. I recommend third-party operating systems to my neighbours and colleagues with warnings about risks involved.

Having said that, I have installed it in VirtualBox and it runs smoothly.

Back in its day (early 2000's), I used to use 'Windows 98-lite' which
trimmed down Win-98 and fixed some of its restrictions.

I wonder if this 'Windows xlite' (as in Windows-10lite) might be related.
--
Daniel70
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On Fri, 8/15/2025 5:38 PM, Ant wrote:

In alt.comp.os.windows-10 Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
...

And please please, do not use Windows 7 Backup for this task.
That's about the worst product possible, as we're not sure that
restores ever work when using that! I have no positive reports of success. >> Your files are stored in VHD or VHDX containers, but it would be
a rather lengthy process to manually put the materials back on a hard
drive later (convert VHD to physical, transfer physical with "dd.exe).

Even PC World agrees since the reviewer said it awful with its recovery: https://www.pcworld.com/article/2812239/backup-and-restore-windows-7-review.html

I have some test results.

First of all, the Windows 7 Backup has two parts.

a) Ability to back up data folders and store them in ZIP files on a drive.
I fell into this trap on the very first attempt, and had to start over again.
I'm not interested in automating "storage of my Downloads folder".

b) The System Image option, can at a minimum back up OS materials needed to boot.
With a little work, it can be extended to backing up more of the disk drive.
The software dialogs talk of "backing up multiple hard drives" when making the
partition selection(s) for this, but you'd have to be some kind of crazy-person
to take them up on such an offer. Working on doing a good job on just one disk drive,
is challenge enough.

*******

On (b), these are the test results.

1) On an MBR (legacy BIOS) boot disk, with three partitions, the restore "just worked".
I may have cleaned the disk (diskpart "clean" command), from Command Prompt,
before doing the System Image restore. I like to do these things, so that there
cannot be any scary prompts like "removing D:, N:, Z:, making C:,X:,Q:, do you agree???".

2) The UEFI boot hard drive backup, now that was a challenge. I had two restores ruined
with error codes blown. For one of the errors, the resulting restored image booted, so
whatever remained to be done, was likely to be a "null" operation.

The backup disk *does not* have to be an external drive. In fact, I got a worse error
when I positioned the backup drive external to the PC using a USB enclosure for the
SATA drive :-) You can put a separate SATA drive inside the PC and back up to that
with the System Image.

One thing that is important for the backup drive, is it can't have an ESP on it.
The backup drive is allowed to have a Microsoft Reserved partition (don't worry, you
can't see that in Disk Management anyway!). The next partition could be your data
partition with WindowsImageBackup folder. I finally got my restoration attempt, to
auto-reboot right after the restoring activity, with hands-off-keyboard. It does not
stop after the restore is done - it reboots, as if that is an appropriate thing
to do when you can't see the results of the operation. The first time I was successful
at a UEFI restore, the computer was sitting in the restored OS, and I could not be sure
exactly how it got there. I had to do another restore, just to see how it does things.

*******

OK, so how do you do a System Image of a hard drive with TWO Windows OSes on it.
The System Image thing is not really prepared for this.
+---- this OS is asleep and cannot play the game
|<------- Covered by "allCritical" command line argument ------->| v
+----------------------+-----------+--------+--------------------+--------+--------------------+-----------+
| EFI System Partition | Microsoft | W11 C: | Recovery Partition | W10 H: | Recovery Partition | SHARED S: |
| No Letter | Reserved | | No Letter | | No Letter | |
+----------------------+-----------+--------+--------------------+--------+--------------------+-----------+
Cannot see ^
Cannot BKP +------- Backup made by THIS OS

First of all, to develop an "identifier" for the backup to use, the two Recovery Partitions
need the following recipe

1) Use diskpart.exe and select partition 4 then assign letter=K (an unused letter).
2) In another administrator window, ask mountvol for the VolumeID of the (now-exposed) partition.

mountvol K: /L # volumeid suited to wbadmin, after the diskpart letter assignment trick (using K)

3) Now, craft your System Image command line invocation.

a) Individual "letters" are self evident. Anything with a letter can be enumerated the usual way.
b) K: won't work as K: does not exist. However step 2 said \\?\Volume{ef618b33-36a8-4861-a549-b8a65dc9ecb9}\
and we use that for one of the Recovery Partitions. Using steps (1) and (2) we can develop
an identifier for any Hidden Partitions we want to back up.
c) The allCritical parameter, says to include all the materials the current booted OS is using.
This covered off the first four partitions, including the first Recovery Partition.
Which is why the K: trick is only needed for the *second* Recovery Partition (used by the Unbooted OS).

wbadmin start backup -backuptarget:F: -include:H:,S:,\\?\Volume{ef618b33-36a8-4861-a549-b8a65dc9ecb9}\ -allCritical -quiet

This is the kind of image I used to test proper restoration of a UEFI dual-boot OS with two Windows on it.
No, you can't back up a dual boot with Windows/Linux because System Image can't handle EXT4 or SWAP partitions :-)
Macrium can do that.

Summary: It does work. Just make sure the backup drive is as "vanilla" as possible, NO ESP.
In the Disk Management window, if one was present, it is labeled

Healthy ("EFI System Partition") <=== don't want that on the Backup drive

and you don't want one of those on your Backup drive (whether inside the PC or outside
the PC in a USB enclosure).

Paul

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On 2025/8/25 12:2:25, Paul wrote:

[]

One thing that is important for the backup drive, is it can't have an ESP on it.

[]

Sounds to me like you need ESP - extra-sensory perception, that is - to
use Windows 7 backup!

(Do 10 and 11 have any sort of similar offering?)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Subtlety is the art of saying what you think and getting out of the way
before it is understood." - Fortunes
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On 2025-08-25, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

No, you can't back up a dual boot with Windows/Linux because System Image
can't handle EXT4 or SWAP partitions :-)
Macrium can do that.

Summary: It does work. Just make sure the backup drive is as "vanilla" as possible, NO ESP.
In the Disk Management window, if one was present, it is labeled

Healthy ("EFI System Partition") <=== don't want that on the Backup drive

and you don't want one of those on your Backup drive (whether inside the PC or outside
the PC in a USB enclosure).

Pardon my ignorance, but ... won't the restored system need an ESP in
order to boot? Where is it going to get that from, if not from the
backup image?
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On Mon, 8/25/2025 3:09 PM, Lars Poulsen wrote:

On 2025-08-25, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

No, you can't back up a dual boot with Windows/Linux because System Image >> can't handle EXT4 or SWAP partitions :-)
Macrium can do that.

Summary: It does work. Just make sure the backup drive is as "vanilla" as possible, NO ESP.
In the Disk Management window, if one was present, it is labeled

Healthy ("EFI System Partition") <=== don't want that on the Backup drive

and you don't want one of those on your Backup drive (whether inside the PC or outside
the PC in a USB enclosure).

Pardon my ignorance, but ... won't the restored system need an ESP in
order to boot? Where is it going to get that from, if not from the
backup image?

Very near to the end of the restore, the two disks (target disk, backup disk) look like this.
What happens when it gets near the end, is the Windows 7 Restore tries to "update" the top
EFI System Partition, it scans the system, locates *two* EFI System Partition, but, because
the software is "multi-disk-restore-aware", it pretends to be confused by the ESP on the
Backup drive.

+----------------------+-----------+--------+--------------------+--------+--------------------+-----------+
| EFI System Partition | Microsoft | W11 C: | Recovery Partition | W10 H: | Recovery Partition | SHARED S: |
| No Letter | Reserved | | No Letter | | No Letter | |
+----------------------+-----------+--------+--------------------+--------+--------------------+-----------+

+----------------------+------------------------------------------------+
| EFI System Partition | Backup Z: |
| No Letter | |
+----------------------+------------------------------------------------+

For successful restoration, you need it to look like this. When it updates the BCD file inside ESP, "there is only one".

+----------------------+-----------+--------+--------------------+--------+--------------------+-----------+
| EFI System Partition | Microsoft | W11 C: | Recovery Partition | W10 H: | Recovery Partition | SHARED S: |
| No Letter | Reserved | | No Letter | | No Letter | |
+----------------------+-----------+--------+--------------------+--------+--------------------+-----------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Backup Z: |
| |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

And I think you can see, in a PC with five disk drives and you attempt to use System Image option
to process all the disks, the odds of getting past the EFI System Partition meddling stage,
are going to be just about zero probability. If you were to attempt to use it for backup of five drives,
it would have to look like this.

+---+----+---+------+----+----+ An attempt to backup these five drives will work.
|ESP| | | | | |
+---+----+---+------+----+----+

+-----------------------------+
| Data2019 M: |
+-----------------------------+

+-----------------------------+
| Data2020 N: |
+-----------------------------+

+-----------------------------+
| Data2019 O: |
+-----------------------------+

+-----------------------------+
| Data2020 P: |
+-----------------------------+

+-----------------------------+
| Backup Z: |
+-----------------------------+

wbadmin start backup -backuptarget:F: -include:M:,N:,O:,P:, ...

It could restore five disks, as long as only one ESP is present in the entire set of disks.

Whereas finding this in a disk set, is not going to work.

+---+----+---+------+----+----+ This backup of two drives with System Image command line, is
|ESP| | | | | | not going to work, as there will be a complaint near the end of restore
+---+----+---+------+----+----+ about uncertainty as to which disk to write. Even though
contextually, it knows EXACTLY how it got there :-/
+---+----+---+------+----+----+
|ESP| | | | | |
+---+----+---+------+----+----+

+-----------------------------+
| Backup Z: |
+-----------------------------+

Paul


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On 2025-08-25, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

Very near to the end of the restore, the two disks (target disk, backup disk) look like this.
What happens when it gets near the end, is the Windows 7 Restore tries to "update" the top
EFI System Partition, it scans the system, locates *two* EFI System Partition, but, because
the software is "multi-disk-restore-aware", it pretends to be confused by the ESP on the
Backup drive.

+----------------------+-----------+--------+--------------------+--------+--------------------+-----------+
| EFI System Partition | Microsoft | W11 C: | Recovery Partition | W10 H: | Recovery Partition | SHARED S: |
| No Letter | Reserved | | No Letter | | No Letter | |
+----------------------+-----------+--------+--------------------+--------+--------------------+-----------+

+----------------------+------------------------------------------------+
| EFI System Partition | Backup Z: |
| No Letter | |
+----------------------+------------------------------------------------+

For successful restoration, you need it to look like this. When it updates the BCD file inside ESP, "there is only one".

I *think* you are saying that it will always put an EFI partition on the
backup disk whether I ask for it or not, and to avoid getting more than
one, I need to explicitly *not* ask for the EFI to be included.

Is that right?

----

In my show, we run Windows on the desktop, Linux on the servers.

Over the last 7 years or so, I have a few times had need to restore a
backup file or a recovery partition after a Windows Update left me with an unbootable system. It has always failed, forcing me to do a reinstallation
from scratch. Through this thread I have learned that I am not the only
one with such an experience. And that the cases where it fails are not
crazy unusual situations ... it seems to be more prone to fail than
to work. The level of dysfunction of the MS QA organization is baffling.

In contrast, the bleeding-edge continuous-update Fedora has been very
reliable in my shop. And if it fails, I can often find the maintainers
and learn how to revert to the previous behavior in a supported way.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On Mon, 8/25/2025 6:23 PM, Lars Poulsen wrote:

On 2025-08-25, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

Very near to the end of the restore, the two disks (target disk, backup disk) look like this.
What happens when it gets near the end, is the Windows 7 Restore tries to "update" the top
EFI System Partition, it scans the system, locates *two* EFI System Partition, but, because
the software is "multi-disk-restore-aware", it pretends to be confused by the ESP on the
Backup drive.

+----------------------+-----------+--------+--------------------+--------+--------------------+-----------+
| EFI System Partition | Microsoft | W11 C: | Recovery Partition | W10 H: | Recovery Partition | SHARED S: |
| No Letter | Reserved | | No Letter | | No Letter | |
+----------------------+-----------+--------+--------------------+--------+--------------------+-----------+

+----------------------+------------------------------------------------+
| EFI System Partition | Backup Z: |
| No Letter | |
+----------------------+------------------------------------------------+

For successful restoration, you need it to look like this. When it updates the BCD file inside ESP, "there is only one".

I *think* you are saying that it will always put an EFI partition on the backup disk whether I ask for it or not, and to avoid getting more than
one, I need to explicitly *not* ask for the EFI to be included.

Is that right?

----

In my show, we run Windows on the desktop, Linux on the servers.

Over the last 7 years or so, I have a few times had need to restore a
backup file or a recovery partition after a Windows Update left me with an unbootable system. It has always failed, forcing me to do a reinstallation from scratch. Through this thread I have learned that I am not the only
one with such an experience. And that the cases where it fails are not
crazy unusual situations ... it seems to be more prone to fail than
to work. The level of dysfunction of the MS QA organization is baffling.

In contrast, the bleeding-edge continuous-update Fedora has been very reliable in my shop. And if it fails, I can often find the maintainers
and learn how to revert to the previous behavior in a supported way.

1) It does a restore. The restore includes the ESP captured during the backup. 2) The next step, is it wants to "update" the BCD file. Now, if Macrium did this
(and Macrium does to this), the reason for updating the BCD, is because the
restoration is supposed to apply new identifiers to each partition. This prevents
a restored disk (Disk#2) from sharing anything with the original disk that was
backed up (Disk#1). Not only can a restore process, overwrite and prep the original
disk drive with the goods, it can also accept a new blank HDD as a Bare Metal Restore
and prepare it. And the easiest way to prevent identifier collisions, is to assign
new identifiers, then edit the BCD file with the new identifier information.

*******

These are my starting materials. I want to do a System Image backup. By using wbadmin, I can identify all the partitions for backup.

+----------------------+-----------+--------+--------------------+--------+--------------------+-----------+
| EFI System Partition | Microsoft | W11 C: | Recovery Partition | W10 H: | Recovery Partition | SHARED S: | WD Black 1TB HDD
| No Letter | Reserved | | No Letter | | No Letter | |
+----------------------+-----------+--------+--------------------+--------+--------------------+-----------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Backup Z: |
| |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

Next step, we unplug WD Black 1TB HDD (because it is "broken" or "not working").
We restore to a Seagate Barracuda drive.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Backup Z: |
| |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------+-----------+--------+--------------------+--------+--------------------+-----------+
| EFI System Partition | Microsoft | W11 C: | Recovery Partition | W10 H: | Recovery Partition | SHARED S: | Seagate Barracuda 1TB HDD
| No Letter | Reserved | | No Letter | | No Letter | |
+----------------------+-----------+--------+--------------------+--------+--------------------+-----------+

Now, if we have changed the identifiers of C: and H: and the other working partitions, if we plug
in both of the drives, no harm is done, because nothing about the two drives overlaps
from a BLKID perspective.

The BIOS boot order, can select either drive. No conflicts will be apparent, as the identifiers on the second drive got changed.
In the example, I happen to have booted the first drive, the second drive has the usage of unassigned letters, to be
made to the remaining visible partitions.

+----------------------+-----------+--------+--------------------+--------+--------------------+-----------+
| EFI System Partition | Microsoft | W11 C: | Recovery Partition | W10 H: | Recovery Partition | SHARED S: | WD Black 1TB HDD
| No Letter | Reserved | | No Letter | | No Letter | |
+----------------------+-----------+--------+--------------------+--------+--------------------+-----------+

+----------------------+-----------+--------+--------------------+--------+--------------------+-----------+
| EFI System Partition | Microsoft | W11 D: | Recovery Partition | W10 E: | Recovery Partition | SHARED F: | Seagate Barracuda 1TB HDD
| No Letter | Reserved | | No Letter | | No Letter | |
+----------------------+-----------+--------+--------------------+--------+--------------------+-----------+

I didn't do a complete analysis of the identifiers, but because one of my restore cases booted,
while claiming it could not update the ESP (BCD), then the most likely explanation is that it
did not change anything.

I had a similar experience with Clonezilla. A large number of messages appeared in the log
(it has a log while MS does not), claiming it was changing the identifiers and reinstalling GRUB
(which would be unnecessary, except in cases where it did as it had claimed). And it hadn't
changed a damn thing, because I verified the original disk and the second disk had the same
identifiers. Which means it would not be safe to put them in the computer together (like the
diagram just above this text), as the wrong partitions can become active, if you have identifiers
that are repeats of one another.

With the Microsoft way of doing things, we can't tell how much of the process got completed,
because even when it blows an error message and stops, in one case, the drive was bootable.
And it looked for all the world. like it was completely restored. Just the treatment of
identifiers and ESP was unclear.

The work I've done so far, is to determine whether the user can get *any* functionality out
of this. It did boot for me. Both OSes on my dual boot, could boot. However, I don't have any
fancy utilities for comparing disks, spotting cloning errors, determining (quickly) what
identifiers are present. I have to do this using little utilities that only do a portion
of the work, or, they do a poor job of what we want them to do. (In Windows, I have no way
to prove two C: drives have the same files!). What I can tell you, is the Macrium file and
the WindowsBackupImage folder, differ by 1GB of bytes, implying one of the methods did not
back up one of the pagefile.sys files (which is no big deal).

For a "superficial success", I need two things. One is "no error message". Two, is the OS drive
boots and "resembles" the OS that was backed up. That's a start at verification, but my plan
lacks the tools to do a really good job.

Paul



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On Mon, 8/25/2025 11:26 PM, Paul wrote:

On Mon, 8/25/2025 6:23 PM, Lars Poulsen wrote:

On 2025-08-25, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

Very near to the end of the restore, the two disks (target disk, backup disk) look like this.
What happens when it gets near the end, is the Windows 7 Restore tries to "update" the top
EFI System Partition, it scans the system, locates *two* EFI System Partition, but, because
the software is "multi-disk-restore-aware", it pretends to be confused by the ESP on the
Backup drive.

+----------------------+-----------+--------+--------------------+--------+--------------------+-----------+
| EFI System Partition | Microsoft | W11 C: | Recovery Partition | W10 H: | Recovery Partition | SHARED S: |
| No Letter | Reserved | | No Letter | | No Letter | |
+----------------------+-----------+--------+--------------------+--------+--------------------+-----------+

+----------------------+------------------------------------------------+
| EFI System Partition | Backup Z: |
| No Letter | |
+----------------------+------------------------------------------------+

For successful restoration, you need it to look like this. When it updates the BCD file inside ESP, "there is only one".

I *think* you are saying that it will always put an EFI partition on the
backup disk whether I ask for it or not, and to avoid getting more than
one, I need to explicitly *not* ask for the EFI to be included.

Is that right?

----

In my show, we run Windows on the desktop, Linux on the servers.

Over the last 7 years or so, I have a few times had need to restore a
backup file or a recovery partition after a Windows Update left me with an >> unbootable system. It has always failed, forcing me to do a reinstallation >> from scratch. Through this thread I have learned that I am not the only
one with such an experience. And that the cases where it fails are not
crazy unusual situations ... it seems to be more prone to fail than
to work. The level of dysfunction of the MS QA organization is baffling.

In contrast, the bleeding-edge continuous-update Fedora has been very
reliable in my shop. And if it fails, I can often find the maintainers
and learn how to revert to the previous behavior in a supported way.

1) It does a restore. The restore includes the ESP captured during the backup.
2) The next step, is it wants to "update" the BCD file.

I re-ran the restore, and the identifiers, the BCD, they don't seem to be changed.
There is nothing magical going on, which means the original drive and the restored drive, should not be in the PC together at boot time.

Paul

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2