Kenji has had both Windows XP and Windows 7 on his computer for several months.  However, because he hasn’t booted into Win7 for over a month, he decided that he’d rather just delete the operating system and free up some hard disk space.  His solution was to go in to WinXP’s Device Manager and simply delete the Windows 7 partition, then resize his existing C: drive.  I’m sure this seemed like a good idea at the time, but it came with an unexpected result … he still had the Windows 7 Boot loader.

Worried that he would never again have a computer that automatically booted into its only installed OS, he called me and (practically) begged for the answer.  Luckily, it was an easy one that I’ve had the opportunity to use a few times in the past.

FixNTFS

In order to resolve the matter, Kenji needed a little tool called “fixntfs.exe”.  This is usually put into a “Boot” folder on the WinXP partition when you install Windows 7, but he didn’t have it.  I quickly sent it to him and gave him the following directions:

1. download the fixntfs file (you can download it from here if you need it)
2. put the file somewhere easy to find, like your c:\ directory
3. open your command prompt to that directory
4. type this: fixntfs -xp

Done.

Not believing it could be that easy, Kenji restarted his computer only to find that his system was now booting into XP without showing the Windows 7 Boot Manager, and I’ve once again saved him from his own mistakes.

That said, I learned about this shortly after the beta version of Windows Vista was released because of my own foolish mistakes, so it was nice to spread the knowledge.

Disclaimer: This process will work best if you have purchased Windows 7 through the Online Microsoft Store and downloaded the .iso file.

So, without further delay, here’s how you can make your .iso file into something a little more usable.

1. The first thing you’ll need to do is download the USB/DVD Tool from Microsoft here, and install it on your system.  The tool will run without a hitch on WinXP, Vista, and Windows 7.
2. Once the software is installed, it’ll place an icon on your Desktop.  Open the application and select the source .iso file.
3. Next, select the destination.  This can be either a DVD drive, or a USB stick.  If you’re using a USB stick, it will need to be at least 4 Gig in size.  Anything less and the application will reject it.
4. If you’re using a USB stick, the system will confirm it’s okay to format the memory, otherwise you’ll be asked to enter a blank DVD into your DVD burner.
5. Finally, the application will copy the files.  The USB stick or DVD will be bootable.

That’s all there is to it.  Now you can have your system boot from the drive, and you can install Windows 7 on your netbook … or any other computer that’ll boot from DVD/USB-stick.

Some people have mentioned some concerns about running Microsoft’s latest and greatest OS on something as tiny as a netbook, and I’ll admit it takes a little tweaking in order to make the system snappy.  That said, so long as you have at least a Gig of RAM, you can install Windows 7 without too many hassles.  Naturally, the more RAM you have, the better.  As for the CPU performance, I’ve been able to run Photoshop CS and Visual Studio .NET 2005 without too much lag. That said, Excel 2003 seems to have some trouble when working with files containing a lot of calculations, VLOOKUPs, or Pivot tables.

Note: The USB/DVD Tool does not limit us to Windows 7′s iso file. If you have an Ubuntu, Vista, WinXP, or OS X iso file, you can make it bootable with this tool.

This is a topic that I’ve wanted to write about for months but have been unmotivated to do until reading a post from TechCrunch that I have since been unable to find on the site. Was it the level of idiocy behind the post that struck a nerve with me? Was it simply the straw that broke the camel’s back? Don’t know. Either way, after reading such a pile of drivel, I felt it was time to mount my own soap box and shout like a raving lunatic that the world has had enough of the “Platform X vs. Everyone Else” idiocy that has filled way too many forums (and now this site, too) with endless pages of pointless foolishness. Heck, visit any blog or forum that worships one platform over another and replace the name of the platform with Scientology, and the inventor of that platform with Lord Xenu, and you’ll have yet another site for 4chan to openly mock and hack.

OS X Is Not Better Than Windows, Nor Is the Inverse True

The author of the (now vanished) article on TechCrunch had started out by saying how he was supposed to write an article talking about a camera but, once he neared the end of the piece, his computer Blue Screened and he lost all of that work. First off, what kind of (supposedly) computer-literate person working with Windows software for more than five years has not yet learned that Auto-Save is your friend? Secondly, even with Auto-Save off, most word processors developed since 2000 have had some kind of temporary cache storage in place so that some of the work can be recovered in the event of a system crash.

Interestingly enough, after bitching and moaning about having lost his article and all the time spent trying to recover it, he grabs his trusty MacBook Pro from the next room and hammers out a rather lengthy negative article on Windows XP and everything Microsoft while simultaneously singing the praises of Apple, OS X, and The Steve. I think this is interesting because, despite having a MacBook Pro in the other room, he grabs a Windows-based notebook first to do work. What does that say about his MacBook Pro?

Blue Screens are a bitch. There’s no denying it. However, I can actually count the number of Blue Screens that I’ve received in the last six years on one hand, and they all happened on a Dell. So long as someone has a quality computer, proper drivers for their devices, and don’t load their systems up with crap software (a.k.a. most freeware), the odds of receiving a Blue Screen of Death will become virtually nil. I’ve never received a Blue Screen on either of the two HP notebooks I’ve owned since 2002, nor have I had one on my Acer AspireOne, which is coming up to its first year of operation. These computers (including the AspireOne) are used for everything from games to programming in .NET, Java, PHP, and Ruby, and typically see over five hours of usage a day depending on my schedule.

They Should “Just Work”

The biggest complaint that I hear when people bitch and moan about Windows over OS X is the simplicity factor. OS X is incredibly simple to use and lets people do what they want to do while staying out of the way. Hey, that’s great. I won’t deny that OS X has a remarkably intuitive interface that is easy to learn and inconspicuous, but is this all the operating system has to offer? “It just works” is usually the response to this question.

Hmm … for an operating system that “just works”, there sure are an awful lot of people dependant on Time Machine. I can’t even count the number of times that colleagues and friends have told me this year alone that they’d be up Shit Creek without a paddle if it hadn’t been for Time Machine. Huge media files seem to be corrupted quite often, and (not surprisingly) Adobe’s products eat up data as though it was dinner. The common theme that I’ve picked up from these complaints is this: Apple computers are great for talented artists and media professionals, but they’re about as reliable as computers running Windows98.

Don’t get me wrong. Windows is hardly the ultimate operating system. It’s nearly the same ridiculous size as OS X, has constraints out the yin-yang, is incredibly convoluted in many places, and doesn’t like freeing up memory locked by piss-poor applications that have crashed, but at least it’s consistent. If Windows refuses to let me run an application one day, I know it won’t let me run it the next. If an application is eating massive media files on me today, I know it’ll do it every single time that I run that program. This is not always the case with OS X.

Both OS X and Windows are powerful tools that enable us to do remarkable things with digital devices, and the same can be said about any of the other operating systems out there. Ubuntu will “just work” so long as it’s configured properly. Android, even as an alpha release, will “just work” so long as it’s properly configured. The same can be said for almost any other system on the market; past, present, or future.

We Shouldn’t Have To Configure or Maintain It

I hate this argument. It isn’t even an argument; it’s a sign that the person using the computer shouldn’t be using the darned thing. Most of us won’t drive a car until we configure it (mirrors, seat height, steering wheel position, etc.), so why is a computer any different? It’s incredibly important to perform routine maintenance on our cars to ensure they get us from A to B without incident so why is this a bone of contention with computers? The number of people that operate a computer for a few years without much problem who then complain about its responsiveness (or lack thereof) will never cease to amaze me. How many of us can run a car for 3 or 4 years without checking the oil, the tires, the overall engine, or any other component? How many people have a car for 3 or 4 years and never think to clean out the glove compartment or the back seats of all the crap that’s accumulated over the years? Well … I know quite a few people who are guilty of hoarding refuse in their cars, but still; it’s the principle of the matter. People who use something should know how to maintain it or, at the very least, understand that maintenance is necessary to ensure the machine remains “healthy”.

Don’t Look Down Your Nose At Me While You Live Under That Rock

When die-hard Mac users hear that I love programming Enterprise-level software for Windows, the reaction is often one of incredulity. How could any sane person enjoy using an OS inspired by Bill Gates? When I tell them that I prefer developing web applications in Windows the reaction is the same. Heck, unless I talk about the availability of games, a lot of the Apple fan boys that go out of their way to recruit people into their cult will react as though I’ve spontaneously grown a second head. It only gets worse when they hear that all of my servers run not Windows, but a Linux variant. Why all the hate?

I’ve met some remarkably talented graphic designers who use Mac exclusively and produce some really stunning works. I’ve met many others who prefer using Windows for the same task. I’ve met some incredibly talented programmers who create the most intuitive and responsive programs under OS X, but I’ve also met people that can offer the same for Windows, Linux, and any other platform you might desire. I’ve met people who do nothing but use a browser who swear by Windows, but OS X, Ubuntu, Symbian, Solaris, and just about any other operating system released since 2000 will do the same thing with similar results (although Solaris might be quite a bit of overkill). A computer is a tool, a means to an end, no different than a hammer or a screw driver. Most of us would never prevent someone from building my house because they’re not using Stanley-brand hammers, nor should we dissuade someone from using a particular platform for doing whatever it is they need to do. If the job is done well, the tool is irrelevant.

[Steps off the soap box]

So there’s my bit on the subject. I’ve already promised myself not to read any more emotionally-charged Platform X vs. Platform Y arguments as it’s just a waste of time and bad for the blood pressure, but I’d love to know what you think of these silly arguments. Do you take part in them? Should the whole world really make the switch to one of the several thousand OSes that are currently being used? I’d love to know your thoughts on the matter.