Technology Tales

Restoring the MBR for Windows 7

During my explorations of dual-booting of Windows 7 and Ubuntu 10.10, I ended up restoring the master boot record (MBR) so that Windows 7 could load again or to find out if it wouldn't start for me. The first hint that came to me when I went searching was the bootsect command, but this only updates the master boot code on the partition, so it did nothing for me. What got things going again was the bootrec command.

To use either of these, I needed to boot from a Windows 7 installation DVD. With my Toshiba Equium laptop, I needed to hold down the F12 key until I was presented with a menu that allowed me to choose from what drive I wanted to boot the machine, the DVD drive in this case. Then, the disk started and gave me a screen where I selected my location and moved to the next one where I selected the Repair option. After that, I got a screen where my Windows 7 installation was located. Once that was selected, I moved on to another screen from I started a command line session. Then, I could issue the commands that I needed.

bootsect /nt60 C:

This would repair the boot sector on the C: drive in a way that is compatible with BOOTMGR. Though this wasn't enough for me, it was something worth trying anyway in case there was some corruption.

bootrec /fixmbr
bootrec /fixboot

The first of these restores the MBR, and the second sorts out the boot sector on the system drive (where the Windows directory resides on your system). In the event, I ran both of these and Windows restarted again, proving that it had come through disk partition changes without a glitch, though CHKDISK did run in the process, but that's understandable. There's another option for those wanting to get back their boot menu, and here it is:

bootrec /rebuildbcd

Though I didn't need to do so, I ran that too, but later used EasyBCD to remove the boot menu from the start-up process because it was surplus to my requirements. That's a graphical tool that has gained something of a reputation since Microsoft dispensed with the boot.ini file that came with Windows XP for later versions of the operating system.

Sometimes it's a small change that matters...

Firefox 3.6 is now available and others are going on about more striking features, but it's a small change that I have noticed, which happens to be a good one too. Middle-clicking on a link in a tab used to open a new one on the right hand of the tab bar. Now, the new tab opens next to the one where the click was clicked, which is a good thing if you are previewing blog posts. It was something that Internet Explorer already did, so it's good to see cross-fertilisation of useful features; yes, Microsoft can come up with good ones too from time to time. Though not likely to make major headlines, this is the type of thing that makes for a better user experience, and a few of them together can be more beneficial than some big shiny new feature. In life, it's often the little things that make all the difference.

Understanding Outlook's 32 KB rule limit: What happens when you upgrade from Outlook 2000 to Outlook 2007

A move from Outlook 2000 to Outlook 2007 at work before Christmas resulted in deactivated Outlook rules and messages like the following when I tried reactivating them:

One or more rules could not be uploaded to Exchange server and have been deactivated. This could be because some of the parameters are not supported or there is insufficient space to store all your rules.

The cause is a 32 KB size limitation for all rules associated with your Exchange server account before Exchange 2007. With the latter, the default size increases to 64 KB and can be increased further to 256 KB by manual intervention. Though this wouldn't be a big issue if you had the option to store rules locally on your own PC, but that was removed after Outlook 2000, therefore explaining why I first encountered it when I did.

Microsoft has a useful article on their support website containing suggested remedies which aren't all as extreme as deleting some rules either. Consolidation and shortening of rule names are other suggestions, and you should never discount how much space the "run on this machine only" parameter takes up either. Still, Microsoft made an odd design decision that caused this issue, not that it is their first or even last such choice.

So you just need a web browser?

When Google announced that it was working on an operating system, it was bound to result in a frisson of excitement. However, a peek at the preview edition that has been doing the rounds confirms that Chrome OS is a very different beast from those operating systems to which we are accustomed. The first thing that you notice is that it only starts up the Chrome web browser. In this, it is like a Windows terminal server session that opens just one application. Of course, in Google's case, that one piece of software is the gateway to its usual collection of productivity software like Gmail, Calendar, Docs & Spreadsheets and more. Then, there are offerings from others too, with Microsoft just beginning to come into the fray to join Adobe and many more. As far as I can tell, all files are stored remotely, so I reckon that adding the possibility of local storage and management of those local files would be a useful enhancement.

With Chrome OS, Google's general strategy starts to make sense. First create a raft of web applications, follow them up with a browser and then knock up an operating system. It just goes to show that Google Labs doesn't simply churn out stuff for fun, but that there is a serious point to their endeavours. In fact, you could say that they sucked us in to a point along the way. Speaking for myself, I may not entrust all of my files to storage in the cloud, yet I am perfectly happy to entrust all of my personal email activity to Gmail. It's the widespread availability and platform independence that has done it for me. For others spread between one place and another, the attractions of Google's other web apps cannot be understated. Maybe, that's why they are not the only players in the field either.

With the rise of mobile computing, that kine of portability is the opportunity that Google is trying to use to its advantage. For example, mobile phones are being used for things now that would have been unthinkable a few years back. Then, there's the netbook revolution started by Asus with its Eee PC. All of this is creating an ever internet connected bunch of people, so having devices that connect straight to the web like they would with Chrome OS has to be a smart move. Some may decry the idea that Chrome OS will be available on a device only basis, but I suppose they have to make money from this too; search can only pay for so much, and they have experience with Android too.

There have been some who wondered about Google's activities killing off Linux and giving Windows a good run for its money; Chrome OS seems to be a very different animal to either of these. It looks as if it is a tool for those on the move, an appliance, rather than the pure multipurpose tools that operating systems usually are. If there is a symbol of what an operating system usually means for me, it's the ability to start with a bare desktop and decide what to do next. Transparency is another plus point, with the Linux command line having that in spades. For those who view PC's purely as means to get things done, such interests are peripheral, and it is for these that the likes of Chrome OS has been created. In other words, the Linux community need to keep an eye on what Google is doing but should not take fright because there are other things that Linux always will have as unique selling points. Even though the same sort of thing applies to Windows too, Microsoft's near stranglehold on the enterprise market will take a lot of loosening, perhaps keeping Chrome OS in the consumer arena. Counterpoints to that include the use GMail for enterprise email by some companies and the increasing footprint of web-based applications, even bespoke ones, in business computing. In fact, it's the latter that can be blamed for any tardiness in Internet Explorer development. In summary, Chrome OS is a new type of thing rather than a replacement for what's already there. We may find that co-existence is how things turn out, but what it means for Linux in the netbook market is another matter. Only time will tell on that one.

Consolidation

For a while, the Windows computing side of my life has been spread across far too many versions of the pervasive operating systems with the list including 2000 (desktop and server), XP, 2003 Server, Vista and 7; 9x hasn't been part of my life for what feels like an age. At home, XP has been the mainstay for my Windows computing needs, with Vista Home Premium loaded on my Toshiba laptop. The latter variant came in for more use during that period of home computing "homelessness" and, despite a cacophony of complaints from some, it seemed to work well enough. Since the start of the year, 7 has also been in my sights with beta and release candidate instances in virtual machines, leaving me impressed enough to go popping the final version onto both the laptop and in a VM on my main PC. Microsoft finally has got around to checking product keys over the net, so that meant a licence purchase for each installation using the same downloaded 32-bit ISO image. 7 is still doing well for me, so I am beginning to wonder whether having an XP VM is becoming pointless. The reason for that train of thought is that 7 is becoming the only version that I really need for anything that takes me into the world of Windows.

Work is a different matter, with a recent move away from Windows 2000 to Vista heavily reducing my exposure to the venerable old stager (businesses usually take longer to migrate, and any good IT manager usually delays any migration by a year anyway). 2000 is sufficiently outmoded by now that even my brother was considering a move to 7 for his work because of all the Office 2007 files that have been coming his way. While he may be no technical user, the bad press gained by Vista hasn't passed him by, so a certain wariness is understandable. Saying that, my experiences with Vista haven't been unpleasant, and it always worked well on the laptop, while the same also can be said for its corporate desktop counterpart. Much of the noise centred around issues of hardware and software compatibility, and that certainly is apparent at work with my having some creases left to straighten.

With all of this general forward heaving, you might think that IE6 would be shuffling its mortal coil by now, but a recent check on visitor statistics for this website places it at about 13% share, tantalisingly close to oblivion but still too large to ignore it completely. All in all, it is lingering like that earlier blight of web design, Netscape 4.x. If I was planning a big change to the site design, setting up a Win2K VM would be in order, not to completely put off those labouring with the old curmudgeon. For smaller changes, the temptation is not to bother checking, but that is questionable when XP is set to live on for a while yet. That came with IE6 and there must be users labouring with the old curmudgeon, and that's ironic with IE8 being available for SP2 since its original launch a while back. Where all this is leading me is towards the idea of waiting for IE6 share to decrease further before tackling any major site changes. After all, I can wait with the general downward trend in market share; there has to be a point when its awkwardness makes it no longer viable to support the thing. That would be a happy day.

Never undercutting the reseller: Pondering options for buying Windows 7 licenses in light of Microsoft pricing

Quite possibly, THE big technology news of the week has been the launch of Windows 7. Regular readers may be aware that I have been having a play with the beta and release candidate versions of the thing since the start of the year. In summary, I have found to work both well and unobtrusively. While there have been some rough edges when accessing files through VirtualBox's means of accessing the host file system from a VM, that's the only perturbation to be reported and, even then, it only seemed to affect my use of Photoshop Elements.

Therefore, I had it in mind to get my hands on a copy of the final release after it came out. Of course, there was the option of pre-ordering, but that isn't for everyone, so there are others. A trip down to the local branch of PC World will allow you to satisfy your needs with different editions: full, upgrade (if you already have a copy of XP or Vista, it might be worth trying out the Windows Secrets double installation trick to get it loaded on a clean system) and family packs. The last of these is very tempting: three Home Premium licences for around £130.

Though wandering around to your local PC components emporium is an alternative, you have to remember that OEM versions of the operating system are locked to the first (self-built) system on which they are installed. Apart from that restriction, the good value compared with retail editions makes them worth considering as long as you realise the commitment that you are making.

The last option that I wish to bring to your attention is buying directly from Microsoft themselves. You would think that this may be cheaper than going to a reseller, but that's not the case with the Family Pack costing around £150 in comparison to PC World's pricing, and it doesn't end there. That they only accept Maestro debit cards along with credit cards from the likes of Visa and Mastercard perhaps is another sign that Microsoft is new to the whole idea of selling online.

In contrast, Tesco is no stranger to online selling, yet they also have Windows 7 on offer though they aren't noted for computer sales; PC World may be forgiven for wondering what that means, but who would buy an operating system along with their groceries? I suppose that the answer to that would be that people who are accustomed to delivering one's essentials at a convenient time should be able to do the same with computer goods too. That convenience of timing is another feature of downloading an OS from the web, and many a Linux fan should know what that means. While Microsoft may have discovered this of late, that's better than never.

Because of my positive experience with the pre-release variants of Windows 7, I am very tempted to get my hands on the commercial release. Because I have until early next year with the release candidate and XP works sufficiently well (it ultimately has given Vista something of a soaking), I will be able to bide my time. When I do make the jump, it'll probably be Home Premium that I'll choose because it seems difficult to justify the extra cost of Professional. It was different in the days of XP, when its Professional edition did have something to offer technically minded home users like me. With 7, XP Mode might be a draw, but with virtualisation packages like VirtualBox available for no cost, it's difficult to justify spending extra. In any case, I have Vista Home Premium loaded on my Toshiba laptop and that seems to work fine, despite all the bad press that Vista has got itself.

Installing MS TrueType Core Fonts on Fedora

Once you have enabled the appropriate software repository, you can install the msttcorefonts (Microsoft TrueType core fonts like Arial, Times Roman, Verdana, Georgia, etc.) package on Debian and Ubuntu. With Fedora, it surprisingly isn't so straightforward. There is a recipe using the command line that worked for me, and I'm not going to repeat it here, so I'll leave you to go where I found it. In fact, it forms part of a wider unofficial Fedora FAQ that may be of more interest to you than solving this.

Update for Fedora 12 (2009-11-24):

You also need chkfontpath so the following needs doing before the final part of the command sequence, changing the filename as appropriate for your situation:

yum install xfs
rpm -ivh http://dl.atrpms.net/all/chkfontpath-1.10.1-2.fc12.i686.rpm

On keyboards

While there cannot be too many Linux users who go out and partner a Microsoft keyboard with their system, my recent cable-induced mishap has resulted in exactly that outcome. Keyboards are such standard items that it is not so possible to generate any excitement about them, apart from RSI-related concerns. While I wasn't about to go for something cheap and nasty that would do me an injury, going for something too elaborate wasn't part of the plan either, even if examples of that ilk from Microsoft and Logitech were sorely tempting.

Shopping in a bricks and mortar store, like I was, has its pluses and its minuses. The main plus points are that you see and feel what you are buying, with the main drawback being that the selection on offer isn't likely to be as extensive as you'd find on the web, even if I was in a superstore. Despite the latter, there was still a good deal available. Though there were PS/2 keyboards for anyone needing them, USB ones seemed to be the main offer, with wireless examples showcased too. Strangely, the latter were only available as kits with mice included, further adding to the cost of an already none too cheap item. The result was that I wasn't lured away from the wired option.

While I didn't emerge with what would have been my first choice because that was out of stock, that's not to say that what I have doesn't do the job for me. The key action is soft and cushioned, which is a change from that to which I am accustomed; some keyboards feel like they belong on a laptop, but not this one. There are other bells and whistles too, with a surprising number of them working. The calculator and email buttons number among these along with the play/pause, back and forward ones for a media player; I am not so convinced about the volume controls though an on-screen indicator does pop up. You'd expect a Microsoft item to be more Windows specific than others, yet mine works as well as anything else in the Ubuntu world and I have no reason to suspect that other Linux distros would spurn it either. Keyboards tend to be one of those "buy-it-and-forget-it" items, and the new arrival should be no different.

Running Windows 7 within VirtualBox

With all the fanfare that surrounded the public beta release of Windows 7, I suppose that the opportunity to give it a whirl was too good to miss. Admittedly, Microsoft bodged the roll-out by underestimating the level of interest and corralling everyone into a 24-hour time slot, with one exacerbating the other. In the event, they did eventually get their act together and even removed the 2.5 million licence limit. Thus, I suppose that they really needed to get 7 right after the unloved offering that was Vista, so they probably worked out that the more testers that they get, the better. After, it might be observed that the cynical view that the era of making people pay to "test" your products might be behind us and that users just want things to work well if not entirely faultlessly these days.

After several abortive raids, I eventually managed to snag myself a licence and started downloading the behemoth using the supplied download manager. I foresaw it taking a long time and so stuck with the 32-bit variant so as not to leave open the possibility of that part of the process using up any more of my time. As it happened, the download did take quite a few hours to complete, but this part of the process was without any incident or fuss.

Once the DVD image was downloaded, it was onto the familiar process of building myself a VirtualBox VM as a sandbox to explore the forthcoming incarnation of Windows. After setting up the ISO file as a virtual DVD, installation itself was an uneventful process, yet subsequent activities weren't without their blemishes. The biggest hurdle to be overcome was to get the virtual network adapter set up and recognised by Windows 7. The trick is to update the driver using the VirtualBox virtual CD as the source because Windows 7 will not recognise it using its own driver repository. Installing the other VirtualBox tools is a matter of going to Compatibility page in the Properties for the relevant executable, the one with x86 in the file name in my case, and setting XP as the Windows version (though Vista apparently works just as well, I played safe and depended on my own experience). While I was at it, I allowed the file to run under the administrator account, too. Right-clicking on executable files will bring you to the compatibility troubleshooter that achieves much the same ends but by a different route. With the Tools installed, all was workable rather than completely satisfactory. Shared folders have not worked for, but that might need a new version of the VirtualBox software or getting to know any changes to networking that come with Windows 7. I plan to stick with using USB drives for file transfer for the moment. Though stretching the screen to fit the VirtualBox window was another thing that would not happen, that's a much more minor irritation.

With those matters out of the way, I added security software from the list offered by Windows with AVG, Norton and Kaspersky being the options on offer. I initially chose the last of these but changed my mind after seeing the screen becoming so corrupted as to make it unusable. That set me to rebuilding the VM and choosing Norton 360 after the second Windows installation had finished. That is working much better, and I plan to continue my tinkering beyond this. I have noticed the inclusion of PowerShell and an IDE for the same, so that could be something that beckons. All in all, there is a certain solidity about Windows 7, though I am not so convinced of the claim of speedy startups at this stage. Time will tell and, being a beta release, it's bound to be full of debugging code that will not make it into the final version that is unleashed on the wider public.

Error: User does not have appropriate authorization level for library xxxx

In a world where write access to a folder or directory is controlled by permission settings at the operating system level, a ready answer for when you get the above message in your log when creating a SAS data set would be to check your access. However, if you are working on Windows and your access seems fine, then SAS' generation of an access error message seems all the more perplexing.

Unlike the more black-and-white world of UNIX and Linux, Windows has other ways to change access that could throw things off from the straight and narrow. One of them, it would appear, is to right-click on the file listing pane in Windows Explorer and select "Customize this folder..." to change how it appears. The strange upshot of this is that a perpetual read-only flag is set for the folder in question, and that flag triggers SAS authorisation errors. The behaviour is very strange and unexpected when you find it, and the quickest and easiest solution sounds drastic. This involves deleting the folder and creating a new one in its place, saving anything that you want to retain in another temporary location. An alternative approach uses the attrib command and is less invasive.

It begs the question as to why Microsoft is re-appropriating a flag used for access purposes to be used to determine whether the HTML components of a folder display have been changed or not. This is very strange stuff and does not look like good software design at all. With all the other problems Microsoft creates for itself, I am not holding my breath until it's fixed, either. There seem to be other things like this waiting to catch you out when using Windows SAS, and a good place to start is SAS' own description of the problem that I have just shared.