|
Quote: I'll be sure to follow this thread up.
I look forward to it!
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
Put your original hard drive back in and boot into Windows. Then open Windows Defender and navigate to the 'Device Security' tab and disable Secure Boot. You should also probably disable 'Fast Boot'. Go into the UEFI BIOS and disable 'Secure Boot' there too. Now clone the drive.
Then put the cloned drive into your workstation and it should boot. Go back and re-enable Secure Boot.
UEFI Spec is here[^].
Good luck,
-David Delaune
|
|
|
|
|
Well, damn!
I should have figured that out for myself.
Nice one.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Secure boot has caused me a lot of grief with windows updates.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
|
|
|
|
|
I understand the reason for UEFI and SecureBoot. But I believe there is deeper MS bs going on...
I base this on the total fluff I read on MS forums.
Charlie Gilley
<italic>Stuck in a dysfunctional matrix from which I must escape...
"Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
|
|
|
|
|
I have little doubt of that.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
your info is great and helps me...
diligent hands rule....
|
|
|
|
|
Well that's some heavy reading, thanks for the link.
Now, it sounds like you have done this before, so I'll ask you. I have read numerous articles from various windows 10 support sites as well as Microsoft suggesting that disabling SecureBoot may result in a complete OS re-install. Any thoughts on this?
I don't have a booting replacement disk as a backup yet, so I'm not at liberty to play.
Charlie Gilley
<italic>Stuck in a dysfunctional matrix from which I must escape...
"Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
|
|
|
|
|
charlieg wrote: disabling SecureBoot may result in a complete OS re-install. Any thoughts on this?
Well, I can't think of any scenario that cannot be fixed. Although there are some UEFI BIOS that don't even have an option for disabling Secure Boot. Maybe that's what you are referring to. But even that shound be fixable from a WinPE boot source.
If your goal is to have a secure operating system then you'll want to keep Secure Boot enabled. If your goal is a honeypot then leave it disabled.
Best Wishes,
-David Delaune
|
|
|
|
|
This will probably show my lack of experience with UEFI, but here goes:
As I understand it, most systems still let you turn off UEFI. What would happen if you turned it off and you tried to boot from the original drive? Windows might configure itself so it works without expecting UEFI to be there and functional. Once the drive is cloned (in that state), nobody along the chain should care that (perhaps) some UEFI bits don't get carried over during the cloning process (since it was disabled). Assuming that's the case, you should then be able to boot from the drive, providing you leave UEFI turned off in the BIOS. If you're in a position to do anything with the original drive in the first place - I'm not sure what the full background story is.
That's my wild-ass theory, and I don't have much else to suggest for now, unfortunately. My only "real" (?) experience with UEFI consists of having it turned off temporarily a few years ago on my Surface tablet, and it complaining on a screen with a screaming red background (I don't remember why I had to turn it off - maybe a firmware update)...but it got turned back on after that, so that went away.
I don't think I've ever used UEFI in its "fully turned on" mode after that on any of my machines. Or at least have tried to clone a drive while UEFI was enabled...
[Edit]
Randor, just above me, put it way more succinctly than I apparently have the ability to express. I knew there was a setting in Windows itself for that, but couldn't remember. I have a good feeling about his suggestion.
|
|
|
|
|
Family IT work is the pits...all that pain for nothing! I'm watching this thread as I'm planning on cloning this laptop's drive to a larger SSD with the added challenge that I need to resize partitions.
I'm currently running out of space in the OS partition mostly as a result of ever growing number of offline files. (it only shows red when it's offline) The current SSD in it was cloned from the original spinner. It definitely made it much better machine, but at the expense of disk space. This was also before I began living with a portable data drive which means I could actually just delete/resize partitions...but I already bought the new drive so I might as well use it. 
Good luck and let us know if you get it working. 
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
|
|
|
|
|
Well, if you're using the old style of booting - MBR - the clone is trivial.
I'll be sure to update this thread once I have a solution.
Charlie Gilley
<italic>Stuck in a dysfunctional matrix from which I must escape...
"Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
|
|
|
|
|
Elephant it.
Dell support was useless; two backup companies were useless; and the general summary I could make on the situation is that no one really understands what is going on. For example, Acronis swears their s/w will clone a drive, but they cannot tell me why mine doesn't boot. Then they suggest making a bootable usb drive using their tools (with minimal instruction) and *that* won't boot.
Near as I can tell, people just randomly change $hit until they give up.
My beef is if Microsoft says, "Changing this setting may require a Windows re-install..." they should back that up with WHY. It's total BS.
In the end, I installed Windows 10 on the fresh SSD and gave up. I even asked my development laptop support group their take on UEFI: "Yeah, no, we don't enable that, causes too much trouble."
Half baked I say, half baked.
Charlie Gilley
<italic>Stuck in a dysfunctional matrix from which I must escape...
"Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
|
|
|
|
|
My latest experience was mostly a bad one. The code was a zoo, with scarcely any encapsulation or overarching design. It had clearly never been factored, nor had it been maintained in six years. Who was it that said "software rusts?" They're right.
But still, Rolex is done and posted, sooner than I expected. It's rough around the edges but I don't care because everything important works. It's an interim release anyway until I finish my own engine.
The good news is, it supports unicode and some additional regex features like anchors (important for things like C# preprocessor directives that must appear at the beginning of a line - not counting whitespace)
I also integrated it with Visual Studio, and I'm pretty proud of my integration.
For starters, I use it as out of process from visual studio so I didn't have to create hooks into the main program. I just pass command line arguments and capture output.
I used a little trick wherein I reference the Rolex.exe as a Referenced assembly (yes, you're allowed - in .net an assembly is an assembly so an exe is just a class lib with an entry point)
That way the binary is "tied" to the devstudio project, and even though it calls it out of proc, it will carry the assembly with it due to the reference. I couldn't have called it in proc, by calling Main() directly because then I couldn't capture output.
I also use a trick wherein i scan the current project to see if the shared library code was already generated so I don't generate it again. It's cool that visual studio lets you do that. I just wish they'd get rid of the grotty COM interfaces and go managed and clean up the API, but oh well.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: Who was it that said "software rusts?" They're right.
That's nonsense; code is static. Your perception of it may change, the code doesn't. You can verify the MD5 over multiple years to confirm that.
honey the codewitch wrote: I just wish they'd get rid of the grotty COM interfaces and go managed and clean up the API, but oh well.
Without COM, a lot of Windows would stop working, wouldn't it?
Others' people code can be a source of education as well as a source of frustration. Depends on who them other people be. As for simply using other peoples codes, well, I didn't write an OS yet.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: That's nonsense; code is static.
I think the point of that quote is that
a) sourcecode lives or dies on how well it can be maintained and no matter how judicious you are, sometimes, code has maintenance issues and after 6 months or a year you may not know what you did.
b) software doesn't age well. demands changes quickly in the industry, with hardware changes and OS changes and the like not to mention just feature adds, the average software to be competitive needs to put out new versions regularly.
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Without COM, a lot of Windows would stop working, wouldn't it?
Yes, but that's not the point of my statement. Visual Studio Extensibility interfaces are not Windows, and they don't need to be COM.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: a) sourcecode lives or dies on how well it can be maintained and no matter how judicious you are, sometimes, code has maintenance issues and after 6 months or a year you may not know what you did.
Than it is bad code. Simple as that.
honey the codewitch wrote: b) software doesn't age well.
It does. A lot of VB6 projects still alive, and my bank was using NT4 for their cash-machines a few years ago, in the age of Win7.
honey the codewitch wrote: average software to be competitive needs to put out new versions regularly.
That's what sales tells you; and it is bullshit; software needs to add value. And often, new versions don't; often they introduce more bugs and incompatibilities than value, causing people to be cautious with upgrading and running outdated software because it is in their benefit.
honey the codewitch wrote: Visual Studio Extensibility interfaces are not Windows, and they don't need to be COM.
There's no longer any need for COM, but that doesn't mean that it will all be replaced within a day. Keep in mind that most of your UI is unchanged from the common controls that were available in Win3.0. Sales made a lot of sexy changes to shading and 3D, but at the heart, they're still the same controls. Proven over years, tested to death, and unbeaten.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
I understand your viewpoint regarding software, but I don't agree with it in broad strokes. The computer industry at large is an obsolescence vortex and software isn't immune. My $0.02. And win7 isn't supported by MS anymore, AFAIK. Neither is VB6, which goes to my point. Something goes wrong, you're out of luck. It's legacy.
Eddy Vluggen wrote: There's no longer any need for COM, but that doesn't mean that it will all be replaced within a day.
We're not talking a day. I worked at Microsoft in the early aughts when Whidbey shipped. I was on that team. Back then they should have started the migration to managed code.
They haven't even begun.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: Something goes wrong, you're out of luck. It's legacy.
Ehr, no, the Dutch government simply buys extended support.
honey the codewitch wrote: They haven't even begun.
That's why they the standard. You don't rewrite and kill your working and selling product.
You build on what you have.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
The could provide managed wrappers instead of forcing you to use the grotty COM interfaces.
And true, there is extended support, I'll grant you that, but it's still legacy. Old software TCO goes up. All of the sudden you're paying more money. Software rusts. 
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: The could provide managed wrappers instead of forcing you to use the grotty COM interfaces.
They could, but they'll focus on what makes sense financially.
honey the codewitch wrote: All of the sudden you're paying more money. Software rusts.
Support rusts, software doesn't.
Windows actually makes a big issue out of that; you can still run some very old software on modern windows. It runs xhack, The Secret of Monkey Island, and a lot more oldies.
That's why they popular. Not because of the new and sexy UI, or because of the improvements. But because what worked yesterday will still work tomorrow.
honey the codewitch wrote: Old software TCO goes up.
Another myth; if you need changes to a program, written in a language that no-one uses anymore, then yes, more expensive then what the current youngsters learn. Lots of old software doesn't change, meaning the TCO for that year is nada. The Secret of Monkey Island hasn't cost me money in years.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Another myth; if you need changes to a program, written in a language that no-one uses anymore, then yes, more expensive then what the current youngsters learn. Lots of old software doesn't change, meaning the TCO for that year is nada.
Not if you suddenly have to pay for support.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
It's never suddenly, and good software hardly needs "support".
Can't remember last time I called MS for support on using Windows, VS, or Sql Server. Nor the Secret of Monkey Island.
Those old games don't require updates either.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Do spiny creatures need a hedgehug?
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
