Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.comp.microsoft.windows > #2955 > unrolled thread

Is it possible to dual-boot both MBR & GPT without changing BIOS settings on laptop

Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.microsoft.windows

Contents

  Is it possible to dual-boot both MBR & GPT without changing BIOS settings on laptop Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2025-10-31 12:56 +0000
    Re: Is it possible to dual-boot both MBR & GPT without changing BIOS settings on laptop "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-10-31 14:26 +0100
    Re: Is it possible to dual-boot both MBR & GPT without changing BIOS settings on laptop Windows Elf <windows.elf@outlook.com.invalid> - 2025-10-31 14:57 +0000
    Re: Is it possible to dual-boot both MBR & GPT without changing BIOS settings on laptop Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-10-31 12:04 -0400
    Re: Is it possible to dual-boot both MBR & GPT without changing BIOS settings on laptop Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2025-10-31 16:06 +0000
    Re: Is it possible to dual-boot both MBR & GPT without changing BIOS settings on laptop Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2025-11-02 14:12 +0000
      Beware 32-Bit Ghost v11.5 on GPT Disk (was: Is it possible to dual-boot both MBR & GPT without changing BIOS settings on laptop) Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2025-11-04 14:40 +0000
        Re: Beware 32-Bit Ghost v11.5 on GPT Disk (was: Is it possible to dual-boot both MBR & GPT without changing BIOS settings on laptop) Windows Elf <windows.elf@outlook.com.invalid> - 2025-11-04 16:46 +0000
          Re: Beware 32-Bit Ghost v11.5 on GPT Disk Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-11-04 15:18 -0500
        Re: Beware 32-Bit Ghost v11.5 on GPT Disk Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2025-11-10 18:03 +0000
          Re: Beware 32-Bit Ghost v11.5 on GPT Disk Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-11-10 14:20 -0500
    Re: Is it possible to dual-boot both MBR & GPT without changing BIOS settings on laptop Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2025-11-11 00:27 +0000
      Re: Is it possible to dual-boot both MBR & GPT without changing BIOS settings on laptop Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-11-10 22:45 -0500
        Re: Is it possible to dual-boot both MBR & GPT without changing BIOS settings on laptop Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2025-11-11 13:19 +0000
          Re: Is it possible to dual-boot both MBR & GPT without changing BIOS settings on laptop Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-11-11 10:13 -0500
            Re: Is it possible to dual-boot both MBR & GPT without changing BIOS settings on laptop "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-11-14 13:24 +0100
              Re: Is it possible to dual-boot both MBR & GPT without changing BIOS settings on laptop Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-11-14 13:03 -0500
                Re: scanners. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-11-14 20:31 +0100
                  Re: scanners. Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-11-14 17:52 -0500
                    Re: scanners. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-11-15 04:06 +0100
          Re: Is it possible to dual-boot both MBR & GPT without changing BIOS settings on laptop Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2025-11-15 01:57 +0000
            Re: Is it possible to dual-boot both MBR & GPT without changing BIOS settings on laptop "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-11-15 14:51 +0100
              Re: Is it possible to dual-boot both MBR & GPT without changing BIOS settings on laptop Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2025-11-15 15:01 +0000
                Re: Is it possible to dual-boot both MBR & GPT without changing BIOS settings on laptop Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-11-15 11:54 -0500
          Re: Is it possible to dual-boot both MBR & GPT without changing BIOS settings on laptop Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2026-02-20 17:44 +0000
            Re: Is it possible to dual-boot both MBR & GPT without changing BIOS settings on laptop Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2026-02-20 13:46 -0500
              Re: Is it possible to dual-boot both MBR & GPT without changing BIOS settings on laptop Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2026-02-20 20:01 +0000
                Re: Is it possible to dual-boot both MBR & GPT without changing BIOS settings on laptop Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2026-02-20 23:29 +0000
      Re: Is it possible to dual-boot both MBR & GPT without changing BIOS settings on laptop TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2025-11-16 13:58 -0500
      Re: Is it possible to dual-boot both MBR & GPT without changing BIOS settings on laptop Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2025-12-16 17:04 +0000
        Re: Is it possible to dual-boot both MBR & GPT without changing BIOS settings on laptop "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-12-16 21:27 +0100

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#2955 — Is it possible to dual-boot both MBR & GPT without changing BIOS settings on laptop

As per subject, as I now have on the same PC some OSs  -  Ubuntu24, 
Windows7/10  -  installed on an MBR disk and Windows 11 installed on a 
GPT/UEFI disk, I'd like if possible to find a way of booting any of 
them, and MBR/GPT USB sticks, without constantly having to change the 
BIOS settings on the PC.

Research into whether this is possible seems to produce mixed results, 
mostly not, but a few suggesting it's possible, but I haven't yet found 
anything with clear and understandable instructions on how to achieve it.

My own gut feeling is that it should be possible, but, while I have a 
good understanding of how a PC boots an MBR disk, I have less 
understanding how one boots a GPT/UEFI disk.

Has anyone here been able to achieve this?  Does anyone know of good 
reliable sources of information about this?

-- 

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website: 
www.macfh.co.uk

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#2956

On 2025-10-31 13:56, Java Jive wrote:
> As per subject, as I now have on the same PC some OSs  -  Ubuntu24, 
> Windows7/10  -  installed on an MBR disk and Windows 11 installed on a 
> GPT/UEFI disk, I'd like if possible to find a way of booting any of 
> them, and MBR/GPT USB sticks, without constantly having to change the 
> BIOS settings on the PC.
> 
> Research into whether this is possible seems to produce mixed results, 
> mostly not, but a few suggesting it's possible, but I haven't yet found 
> anything with clear and understandable instructions on how to achieve it.
> 
> My own gut feeling is that it should be possible, but, while I have a 
> good understanding of how a PC boots an MBR disk, I have less 
> understanding how one boots a GPT/UEFI disk.
> 
> Has anyone here been able to achieve this?  Does anyone know of good 
> reliable sources of information about this?

I think it might work if the system is UEFI with GPT disks, if you put 
the other system in a partition, with boot code in the start record of 
that partition. You would then need "something" in /boot/EFI to load 
that boot code in that partition.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2957

On 31/10/2025 12:56, Java Jive wrote:
> As per subject, as I now have on the same PC some OSs  -  Ubuntu24, 
> Windows7/10  -  installed on an MBR disk and Windows 11 installed on a 
> GPT/UEFI disk, I'd like if possible to find a way of booting any of 
> them, and MBR/GPT USB sticks, without constantly having to change the 
> BIOS settings on the PC.



Have you considered running Windows 10 and Ubuntu in UEFI mode to 
achieve the desired result? It's time to abandon Windows 7. There's 
nothing you can do in Windows 7 that you can't do in Windows 10 or 11. I 
know I am talking to a concrete wall which can't b

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2958

On Fri, 10/31/2025 8:56 AM, Java Jive wrote:
> As per subject, as I now have on the same PC some OSs  -  Ubuntu24, Windows7/10  -  installed on an MBR disk and Windows 11 installed on a GPT/UEFI disk, I'd like if possible to find a way of booting any of them, and MBR/GPT USB sticks, without constantly having to change the BIOS settings on the PC.
> 
> Research into whether this is possible seems to produce mixed results, mostly not, but a few suggesting it's possible, but I haven't yet found anything with clear and understandable instructions on how to achieve it.
> 
> My own gut feeling is that it should be possible, but, while I have a good understanding of how a PC boots an MBR disk, I have less understanding how one boots a GPT/UEFI disk.
> 
> Has anyone here been able to achieve this?  Does anyone know of good reliable sources of information about this?
> 

It depends on whether this is a BIOS-mediated plan or a Pop-Up Boot
mediated plan.

The BIOS has a list of hard drives. If a drive
was not plugged in, maybe the BIOS moves on to
a new disk menu entry and considers it. But this does not
give much in the way of control, except if the user
is very confident that they know which disk
would be selected by the automation.

Whereas the Popup boot key, offers everything, on a UEFI/CSM BIOS.
The menu contents are determined by the ~25 second scan (for an HGST boot drive which is slow).

I press F11 on this MSI motherboard computer, to access PopUp Boot. When the scan is finished.
I press F8  on the Asus motherboqrd computer, to access PopUp Boot. When the scan is finished.

    CSM  First disk

    UEFI Second disk    # This could be a hybrid entry, or a hybrid DVD
    CSM  Second disk

    UEFI Third disk

    Windows Boot Manager # That's a UEFI, and it lists some sort of disk identifier
                         # The BIOS does not like multiple Windows Boot Managers, and
                         # it especially does not like them, if on TWO IDENTICAL DISKS :-)
                         # You can cursor one drive, and it selects the other drive.

    UEFI USB stick

I don't know if Secure Boot can be enabled, without forcing the menu
to only consider UEFI disks. UEFI/CSM mode might be with no Secure Boot.
Once Secure Boot is enabled, only the UEFI disks should be listed (two entries in example).

In the PopUp Boot, you can cursor down to the item desired, and hit <Enter>

This situation is most likely to occur, when the disks don't
know anything about one another, and you have slid the drive in
as desired to achieve a result. The BIOS scans the drive set it finds at
startup and puts entries for everything it finds. An entry that
hides a multiboot GRUB or Windows menu, would only occupy
one slot at this level, and once in a Windows tile menu, you could
select from a set of Windows OS partitions. Some of the partitions,
could even be on the other disk drives. If a disk drive is missing
and a Windows multiboot has entries, it is not fussed about a disk
drive gone missing... unless you hit <Enter> there and there is
no disk fitting that description present. The boot sub-menu in that
case is not validated on the fly.

I could see a boot sequence, using as many as three levels of menu.
For those of us who must be different.  BIOS --> GRUB --> WindowsTiles
I think I accidentally did that at least once (not intentional).

*******

If you have a "control disk" that directs all booting on subtending
disks, then GRUB would be best for that, as it handles both its
own kind of OS, plus using OS-Prober it can include Windows OSes.
That's why the last paragraph has that example. I know I can get
an additional menu level, but putting the GRUB in the middle
of the sandwich.

*******

Ubuntu24, Windows7/10  -  installed on an MBR disk
Windows 11                GPT/UEFI disk

USB Stick                 ???

OK, how I'd do that, is I make the first disk the "control disk".
As you likely installed Ubuntu24043 as a GRUB item and it was
installed second and GRUB now shows this when we perpetually
select the first disk so it steers the boot of other disks.

     Ubuntu2404
     Windows7
     Windows10

If I do a    sudo update-grub   and OS-Prober is present while
Ubuntu2404 is running, and the Windows 11 disk drive is present,
then the GRUB may add the Windows to the menu during the update-grub run.
Now my control disk (the first disk) controls two disk drives.

     Ubuntu2404
     Windows7
     Windows10
     Windows11

In the BIOS, I set the BIOS to boot from the first (MBR) disk.
The GRUB comes up, I cursor down and select one of the four targets.

To launch the USB stick, I use the PopUp Boot key, and I select

     UEFI USB           # some of mine are showing up without the namestring
        USB             # for the USB hardware. The second one is CSM.

     <ControlDisk1>     # I would select this to get to the four entry GRUB menu

Some BIOS designs are just plain nasty, and follow no rules at all.
I've even had one report of a BIOS "that went nuts". I could not
make any sense whatsoever, out of the symptom description. The description
makes as much sense as my mall elevator (I pressed "5" yesterday, the door
closed, the elevator didn't move -- I pressed the "5" again, even though the
"5" was already lit, and... off we went).

While you can wave hands about these things, YMMV.

Just a guess,
   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2959

In uk.comp.os.linux Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> As per subject, as I now have on the same PC some OSs  -  Ubuntu24, 
> Windows7/10  -  installed on an MBR disk and Windows 11 installed on a 
> GPT/UEFI disk, I'd like if possible to find a way of booting any of 
> them, and MBR/GPT USB sticks, without constantly having to change the 
> BIOS settings on the PC.

I think that should work without changing settings, although I haven't tried
it.

You need to ensure CSM is turned on, that's support for legacy BIOS boot.
Then select which disc to boot from at boot time and it'll use UEFI if
available and BIOS if not.  You probably want Secure Boot turned off as that
only works in UEFI mode.

Theo

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2960

On 2025-10-31 12:56, Java Jive wrote:
>
> As per subject, as I now have on the same PC some OSs  -  Ubuntu24, 
> Windows7/10  -  installed on an MBR disk and Windows 11 installed on a 
> GPT/UEFI disk, I'd like if possible to find a way of booting any of 
> them, and MBR/GPT USB sticks, without constantly having to change the 
> BIOS settings on the PC.
> 
> Research into whether this is possible seems to produce mixed results, 
> mostly not, but a few suggesting it's possible, but I haven't yet found 
> anything with clear and understandable instructions on how to achieve it.
> 
> My own gut feeling is that it should be possible, but, while I have a 
> good understanding of how a PC boots an MBR disk, I have less 
> understanding how one boots a GPT/UEFI disk.
> 
> Has anyone here been able to achieve this?  Does anyone know of good 
> reliable sources of information about this?

Please all respondents accept my apologies for not replying sooner. 
I've read all the replies and am trying some things, but being delayed 
by problems with the Win11 image I have, so am constantly having to 
retrace steps to remake, all of which is wasting a great deal of time. 
I'll report back after I'm in a position to try some things out, in the 
meantime, the answer given here seems quite a good, and encouraging, 
summary:

https://superuser.com/questions/1165557/how-grub2-works-on-a-mbr-partitioned-disk-and-gpt-partitioned-disk

-- 

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website: 
www.macfh.co.uk

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2962 — Beware 32-Bit Ghost v11.5 on GPT Disk (was: Is it possible to dual-boot both MBR & GPT without changing BIOS settings on laptop)

On 2025-11-02 14:12, Java Jive wrote:
> 
> [...] being delayed by 
> problems with the Win11 image I have, so am constantly having to retrace 
> steps to remake, all of which is wasting a great deal of time.

I was using Ghost v11.5 32-bit in a 32-bit Win PE environment to make 
the backup images, and it was failing.  Sometimes it would fail actually 
when writing the images, once on the very last sector having waited 
nearly an hour for it to get there :-(, mostly on trying to restore the 
image back onto a disk.  It would get about half-way through the restore 
and then complain about bad blocks, ask me whether I wanted to continue 
anyway, and regardless of the answer would abort to the command console 
with an error message.

My first guess was that  -  as the two identical SSDs came from a laptop 
purchased used/second-hand which I had replaced with larger capacity 
ones  -  that probably they were getting near the end of their useful 
life, so I tried a third, but it happened again.

So then I began to wonder about Ghost.  As a reality check I put the two 
identical SSDs in a USB dock and used dd in Linux to copy the entire 
disk containing the W11 image to the other.  I had to leave it overnight 
as it took about 6 hours, but the disk was copied perfectly with no 
errors whatsoever.

I then tried the same thing in Windows by downloading the last free 
version of Macrium Reflect, v8.0.7783, and using that to copy the image 
first to the third SSD, and then to a mini SSD in a fourth PC, again no 
errors whatsoever.

So I'm forced to conclude that, while that version of Ghost has been 
fine with MBR disks, there is something about GPT disks that it doesn't 
understand, causing errors.  Seems a bit strange, as, apart from the 
interpretation of the disk layout which would dictate WHICH sectors 
should be read and written, the actual process of reading and writing 
them should be unchanged between the two layouts.  My best guess is that 
the routines that work out the GPT layout are causing a memory leak, 
which over time causes the process to fail through lack of usable 
memory, or something similar to that.

Anyway, that was the problem.  I now have the Win11 build running on my 
four principal PCs and on them all can boot either it or the older OSs 
on the MBR disk by changing the BIOS settings, so can now return to 
researching the original topic of the thread.  Thus far, I've still not 
had any success booting the GPT Win11 via GRUB, which is installed on 
the MBR disk.

Note:  Have removed the two Linux ngs from this subthread as Ghost 
doesn't really seem to backup or copy Linux partitions very well anyway, 
I get better results just using tar from a boot USB to back up and clone 
my Linux images.

-- 

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website: 
www.macfh.co.uk

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2963 — Re: Beware 32-Bit Ghost v11.5 on GPT Disk (was: Is it possible to dual-boot both MBR & GPT without changing BIOS settings on laptop)

On 04/11/2025 14:40, Java Jive wrote:
> I was using Ghost v11.5 32-bit in a 32-bit Win PE environment to make 
> the backup images,


Did you mention this important fact in any of your previous posts? Had I 
seen it, I would have told you in no uncertain terms that you need to 
have your head examined for using an outdated application on modern 
machines.

This would have saved all the time wasting. You spent days on this but 
as you are now retired it doesn't matter.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2964 — Re: Beware 32-Bit Ghost v11.5 on GPT Disk

On Tue, 11/4/2025 11:46 AM, Windows Elf wrote:
> On 04/11/2025 14:40, Java Jive wrote:
>> I was using Ghost v11.5 32-bit in a 32-bit Win PE environment to make 
>> the backup images,
> 
> 
> Did you mention this important fact in any of your previous posts? Had I 
> seen it, I would have told you in no uncertain terms that you need to 
> have your head examined for using an outdated application on modern 
> machines.
> 
> This would have saved all the time wasting. You spent days on this but 
> as you are now retired it doesn't matter.
> 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_%28disk_utility%29

   "The GHOST software for enterprise, including GHOST 11.5, was released in May 2008"

While there was some activity on GPT in 2006, it's quite possible the
Ghost software wasn't keeping up.

The Macrium version, like a 7.x or greater, should be good enough for handling
Windows partitions (with disambiguation) and Linux EXT (without disambiguation).

windows drives prepare by Macrium should have the identifiers changed so two disks
are not "confused" with one another. When EXT4 partitions are smart copied,
you might have to change the block IDs manually for best results (so a GRUB boot,
boots with the correct disk drive or partition).

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2965 — Re: Beware 32-Bit Ghost v11.5 on GPT Disk

On 2025-11-04 14:40, Java Jive wrote:
> 
> I was using Ghost v11.5 32-bit in a 32-bit Win PE environment to make 
> the backup images, and it was failing.

And, JFTR, I've now proved that the 64-bit version fails in the same 
way.  Both seem fine with MBR partitioned disks, but with GPT 
partitioned disks both fail in the same sort of way that was previously 
described.

-- 

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website: 
www.macfh.co.uk

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2966 — Re: Beware 32-Bit Ghost v11.5 on GPT Disk

On Mon, 11/10/2025 1:03 PM, Java Jive wrote:
> On 2025-11-04 14:40, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> I was using Ghost v11.5 32-bit in a 32-bit Win PE environment to make the backup images, and it was failing.
> 
> And, JFTR, I've now proved that the 64-bit version fails in the same way.  
> Both seem fine with MBR partitioned disks, but with GPT partitioned disks
> both fail in the same sort of way that was previously described.

The AI could find a web page (AOMEI) that claimed Ghost could
not handle GPT but AOMEI could. A Google couldn't even dig up that
much info.

Absolutely no result, looked like a spec sheet for Ghost.
Whatever properties Ghost had, they have gone to the grave with it.

The Macrium idea should work. It can do some basic things like
back up NTFS, FAT32, and EXT4. And it can do that in smart mode
(does not copy white space).

*******

If you use "dd" to do the backup, that copies white space.

White space can be cleaned with this, prior to a "dd" run.
The zerofree utility can be used to clean an EXT4 (check
ubuntu synaptic package manager).

 https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/downloads/sdelete

    sdelete64 -z C:       # Does not affect C: files, zeroes out white space.
                          # This makes a "dd" of C: easier to compress.
                          # (Would need Administrator to mess with the MFT.)

To clean an EXT4, you boot your Linux LiveDVD so the partition
needing the treatment is at rest and not mounted. We don't know
if this is absolutely the best method, but it is the method on offer.

    sudo zerofree -v /dev/sdb1    # clean white space with zeroes
                                  # /dev/sdb1 must not be mounted for this to work
                                  # On a GPT disk, the slash might be /dev/sdb2

After you have wasted a lot of time "conditioning" a disk, you can
waste more time doing a dd of it. The advantage of the method, is that
the method is so simple, it cannot fail to restore to the same disk later.

Here are my notes when I was puttering around. To show some amount of savings.

laptop2014Apr.dd      raw backup            320,072,933,376 bytes
laptop2014Apr.dd.gz   gzip -1                80,343,060,250 bytes    about 30MB/sec
laptop2014Apr.dd.7z   -maximum, 2 core       64,102,244,206 bytes    26hr 48min (~4.5MB/sec ?)

new.c                 RLE block compression 123,862,960,640 bytes    90MB/sec roughly, 0:50:21
laptop2014Apr.dd.sparse  zero block removal  64,057,409,123 bytes    9hr 50min
laptop2014Apr.dd.rle.7z  true RLE removal    64,905,359,074 bytes    10hr 12min

The marvel here, isn't the result, it's how patient I was to be doing this :-)

That's because the compression was done on my old Core2Duo 3GHz.

Macrium seems easier somehow. Make a Macrium Rescue CD when it prompts you.

    Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2967

On 2025-10-31 12:56, Java Jive wrote:
>
> As per subject, as I now have on the same PC some OSs  -  Ubuntu24, 
> Windows7/10  -  installed on an MBR disk and Windows 11 installed on a 
> GPT/UEFI disk, I'd like if possible to find a way of booting any of 
> them, and MBR/GPT USB sticks, without constantly having to change the 
> BIOS settings on the PC.
> 
> Research into whether this is possible seems to produce mixed results, 
> mostly not, but a few suggesting it's possible, but I haven't yet found 
> anything with clear and understandable instructions on how to achieve it.
> 
> My own gut feeling is that it should be possible, but, while I have a 
> good understanding of how a PC boots an MBR disk, I have less 
> understanding how one boots a GPT/UEFI disk.
> 
> Has anyone here been able to achieve this?  Does anyone know of good 
> reliable sources of information about this?

Thanks for the earlier responses, I have now some success to report ...

You may recall the disk layout I was trying to achieve success with:

Disk 1:  256GB (nominal) SSD - MBR partitioning
     P1:  Win  7 Pro, NTFS
     P2:  Win 10 Pro, NTFS
     P3:  Win  7 32-Bit Pro, NTFS
             (for old scanner with only 32-bit drivers)
     P4:  Ubuntu 24, ext4

Disk 2:  2TB (nominal) HD - MBR partitioning
     P1:  Windows Data, NTFS
     P2:  Linux Data, ext4

Disk 3:  128GB (nominal) MiniSSD - GPT partitioning
     P1:  128MB UEFI Boot, FAT32
     P2:  Win 11 Pro, NTFS

Before I started this work, when booted via MBR and Disk 1, Grub gave 
access to all the OSs except W11P, while when booted via UEFI/GPT and 
Disk 3, only W11P could be booted, whereas obviously I wanted to have 
just one method of booting every OS.

Therefore the question was, should I try to find a way of booting W11P 
via UEFI from the legacy Grub installation on D1, which would have 
required some sort of forward compatibility of the legacy MBR 
installation, or should I attempt to load all the other OSs via UEFI via 
a new Grub installation on D3, which would require backward 
compatibility?  I felt the chances of forward compatibility were less 
than the chances of backward compatibility, so, despite the extra work 
involved, and certainly it was a great deal of work, I chose the latter.

However, as it has turned out, I've only been able to achieve partial 
backward compatibility in that all the 64-bit OSs can now be booted from 
D3, but not the 32-bit OS, I've not been able to find a way of booting 
Win 7 Pro 32-Bit from UEFI.  Further, I have not been able to find a way 
of booting *ANY* 32-Bit OS, not even a UEFI boot Win 8 Pro 32-Bit 
installation USB, when using UEFI on that particular PC (so probably 
none of the others either, because they're all identical or nearly so), 
so I suspect that this is a firmware limitation with this range of PCs.

FTR, this is how I got the other 64-Bit OSs to boot from Grub on the GPT 
disk, even though they themselves are on an MBR disk ...

1)  I renamed MS' D3P1:/Boot folder to 'boot', ie all lower case.

2)  I copied the previous MBR grub installation from D1P4:/boot/grub to 
D3P1:/boot/grub.

3)  Similarly, I copied the UEFI grub installation from an Ubuntu 24 
installation USB over the previously copied files in D3P1:/boot/grub.

4)  In the PC's firmware, I set up a new boot option named 'Grub' to 
boot ...
	D3P1:/EFI/Boot/grubx64.efi

As as result I was now able to boot into Grub displaying the previous 
menu from the MBR disk (because in step 2 I'd copied the grub.cfg across 
with everything else and taken steps to prevent it being lost in step 
3), but of course most of the options didn't work.

However, the existing Ubuntu 24 installation was able to boot from this 
new Grub menu, the only discernible difference being that an additional 
initial message is displayed briefly, it reads ...

EFI stub: Loaded initrd from LINUX_EFI_INITRD_MEDIA_GUID device path

... and thereafter the boot proceeds apparently as normal.

5) Next, I thought it should be possible somehow to boot via UEFI into 
Ubuntu and simply run 'update-grub' to complete the setup, as per this 
advice ...

https://askubuntu.com/questions/831216/how-can-i-reinstall-grub-to-the-efi-partition

... but this proved a complete waste of time.  First I tried doing it 
from the existing Ubuntu 24 installation; when booted via UEFI, the EFI 
system is available, but when doing a chroot to perform update-grub, the 
EFI subsystem and its associated variables were lost.  So next I tried 
booting via EFI from an Ubuntu 24 installation USB, but the same thing 
happened.  Finally, after much machination I installed a separate UEFI 
Ubuntu 24 on a spare disk and booted from that, and finally succeeded in 
getting the EFI subsystem available within the chroot, but update-grub 
didn't find the other OSs on the MBR disk anyway, although it did now 
complete without error and so create a working entry for the W11P 
installation on the GPT disk, which reads (beware unintended line-wrap):

5a) menuentry 'Windows Boot Manager (on /dev/sdc1)' --class windows 
--class os $menuentry_id_option 'osprober-efi-1043-DB71' {
	savedefault
	insmod part_gpt
	insmod fat
	set root='hd2,gpt1'
	if [ x$feature_platform_search_hint = xy ]; then
	  search --no-floppy --fs-uuid --set=root --hint-bios=hd2,gpt1 
--hint-efi=hd2,gpt1 --hint-baremetal=ahci2,gpt1 1043-DB71
	else
	  search --no-floppy --fs-uuid --set=root 1043-DB71
	fi
	chainloader /EFI/Microsoft/Boot/bootmgfw.efi
}

But for the others I had to wing it, using little clues from various 
researches online, none of which gave a complete template or revealed a 
crucial extra step to get Windows 7 & 10 to boot, which is that you need 
to load the module 'ntfscomp'  -  I guess comp is short for 'compatible' 
or some related word.  Also, you can't use drivemap but anyway don't 
need to, and you have to change the 'chainloader' command, like so ...

6)  Change a current MBR menu item of this form ...

menuentry "Windows ... {
     ...
     insmod ntfs
     ...
     drivemap ...
     chainloader +1
}

... to a GPT equivalent of this form ...

menuentry "Windows ... {
     ...
     insmod ntfs
     insmod ntfscomp
     ...
     chainloader /Windows/Boot/EFI/bootmgfw.efi
}

7)  The next thing to be done is to create the BCD files within the 
relevant Windows installation(s).  This can be done by booting into a PE 
environment, most probably from an installation media and then choosing 
Repair ... Command Console.

7a) First check the drive letters associated with the various partitions 
on the various disks, and adjust the one you want to work with to be C:

     DISKPART
     LIST VOL

If a different volume than the one you want to work with is C:, first 
temporarily assign it a different letter, say T:, then assign the volume 
you want to work with, here assumed to be 2, to C: ...

     SELECT VOL 1
     ASSIGN LETTER=T:
     SELECT VOL 2
     ASSIGN LETTER=C:
     EXIT

7b) Then, back in the console, give the following command ...

     BCDBoot C:\Windows /s C: /f ALL

... the 'ALL' parameter of which instructs BCDBoot to copy new BCD files 
into both ...

     C:\Boot\

... and (you might have to create the following parent directory chains 
before running the above command) ...

     C:\EFI\Microsoft\Boot\
     C:\EFI\Microsoft\Recovery\

Repeat 7a and 7b for any other Windows installations.

When complete, though I'm not sure that it's actually necessary, on the 
principle of being better safe than sorry I use DISKPART to reassign the 
drive letters back to what originally they were.

Then reboot, and it all works.

It's annoying about the 32-Bit problem, though of course I can still 
boot it via MBR  -  I need to use that for one particular old scanner 
for which I cannot get 64-bit drivers; it's useful to keep it going 
because it's quite suited to old gritty material which might scratch the 
glass of the new one, and also it's the only one I have with an 
Automatic Document Feeder.

Perhaps next I might try seeing if I can boot W11P from the original MBR 
menu, which would achieve the desired state of only needing one boot menu.

-- 

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website: 
www.macfh.co.uk

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2968

On Mon, 11/10/2025 7:27 PM, Java Jive wrote:
> On 2025-10-31 12:56, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> As per subject, as I now have on the same PC some OSs  -  Ubuntu24, Windows7/10  -  installed on an MBR disk and Windows 11 installed on a GPT/UEFI disk, I'd like if possible to find a way of booting any of them, and MBR/GPT USB sticks, without constantly having to change the BIOS settings on the PC.
>>
>> Research into whether this is possible seems to produce mixed results, mostly not, but a few suggesting it's possible, but I haven't yet found anything with clear and understandable instructions on how to achieve it.
>>
>> My own gut feeling is that it should be possible, but, while I have a good understanding of how a PC boots an MBR disk, I have less understanding how one boots a GPT/UEFI disk.
>>
>> Has anyone here been able to achieve this?  Does anyone know of good reliable sources of information about this?
> 
> Thanks for the earlier responses, I have now some success to report ...
> 
> You may recall the disk layout I was trying to achieve success with:
> 
> Disk 1:  256GB (nominal) SSD - MBR partitioning
>     P1:  Win  7 Pro, NTFS
>     P2:  Win 10 Pro, NTFS
>     P3:  Win  7 32-Bit Pro, NTFS
>             (for old scanner with only 32-bit drivers)
>     P4:  Ubuntu 24, ext4
> 
> Disk 2:  2TB (nominal) HD - MBR partitioning
>     P1:  Windows Data, NTFS
>     P2:  Linux Data, ext4
> 
> Disk 3:  128GB (nominal) MiniSSD - GPT partitioning
>     P1:  128MB UEFI Boot, FAT32
>     P2:  Win 11 Pro, NTFS
> 
> Before I started this work, when booted via MBR and Disk 1, Grub gave access to all the OSs except W11P, while when booted via UEFI/GPT and Disk 3, only W11P could be booted, whereas obviously I wanted to have just one method of booting every OS.
> 
> Therefore the question was, should I try to find a way of booting W11P via UEFI from the legacy Grub installation on D1, which would have required some sort of forward compatibility of the legacy MBR installation, or should I attempt to load all the other OSs via UEFI via a new Grub installation on D3, which would require backward compatibility?  I felt the chances of forward compatibility were less than the chances of backward compatibility, so, despite the extra work involved, and certainly it was a great deal of work, I chose the latter.
> 
> However, as it has turned out, I've only been able to achieve partial backward compatibility in that all the 64-bit OSs can now be booted from D3, but not the 32-bit OS, I've not been able to find a way of booting Win 7 Pro 32-Bit from UEFI.  Further, I have not been able to find a way of booting *ANY* 32-Bit OS, not even a UEFI boot Win 8 Pro 32-Bit installation USB, when using UEFI on that particular PC (so probably none of the others either, because they're all identical or nearly so), so I suspect that this is a firmware limitation with this range of PCs.
> 
> FTR, this is how I got the other 64-Bit OSs to boot from Grub on the GPT disk, even though they themselves are on an MBR disk ...
> 
> 1)  I renamed MS' D3P1:/Boot folder to 'boot', ie all lower case.
> 
> 2)  I copied the previous MBR grub installation from D1P4:/boot/grub to D3P1:/boot/grub.
> 
> 3)  Similarly, I copied the UEFI grub installation from an Ubuntu 24 installation USB over the previously copied files in D3P1:/boot/grub.
> 
> 4)  In the PC's firmware, I set up a new boot option named 'Grub' to boot ...
>     D3P1:/EFI/Boot/grubx64.efi
> 
> As as result I was now able to boot into Grub displaying the previous menu from the MBR disk (because in step 2 I'd copied the grub.cfg across with everything else and taken steps to prevent it being lost in step 3), but of course most of the options didn't work.
> 
> However, the existing Ubuntu 24 installation was able to boot from this new Grub menu, the only discernible difference being that an additional initial message is displayed briefly, it reads ...
> 
> EFI stub: Loaded initrd from LINUX_EFI_INITRD_MEDIA_GUID device path
> 
> ... and thereafter the boot proceeds apparently as normal.
> 
> 5) Next, I thought it should be possible somehow to boot via UEFI into Ubuntu and simply run 'update-grub' to complete the setup, as per this advice ...
> 
> https://askubuntu.com/questions/831216/how-can-i-reinstall-grub-to-the-efi-partition
> 
> ... but this proved a complete waste of time.  First I tried doing it from the existing Ubuntu 24 installation; when booted via UEFI, the EFI system is available, but when doing a chroot to perform update-grub, the EFI subsystem and its associated variables were lost.  So next I tried booting via EFI from an Ubuntu 24 installation USB, but the same thing happened.  Finally, after much machination I installed a separate UEFI Ubuntu 24 on a spare disk and booted from that, and finally succeeded in getting the EFI subsystem available within the chroot, but update-grub didn't find the other OSs on the MBR disk anyway, although it did now complete without error and so create a working entry for the W11P installation on the GPT disk, which reads (beware unintended line-wrap):
> 
> 5a) menuentry 'Windows Boot Manager (on /dev/sdc1)' --class windows --class os $menuentry_id_option 'osprober-efi-1043-DB71' {
>     savedefault
>     insmod part_gpt
>     insmod fat
>     set root='hd2,gpt1'
>     if [ x$feature_platform_search_hint = xy ]; then
>       search --no-floppy --fs-uuid --set=root --hint-bios=hd2,gpt1 --hint-efi=hd2,gpt1 --hint-baremetal=ahci2,gpt1 1043-DB71
>     else
>       search --no-floppy --fs-uuid --set=root 1043-DB71
>     fi
>     chainloader /EFI/Microsoft/Boot/bootmgfw.efi
> }
> 
> But for the others I had to wing it, using little clues from various researches online, none of which gave a complete template or revealed a crucial extra step to get Windows 7 & 10 to boot, which is that you need to load the module 'ntfscomp'  -  I guess comp is short for 'compatible' or some related word.  Also, you can't use drivemap but anyway don't need to, and you have to change the 'chainloader' command, like so ...
> 
> 6)  Change a current MBR menu item of this form ...
> 
> menuentry "Windows ... {
>     ...
>     insmod ntfs
>     ...
>     drivemap ...
>     chainloader +1
> }
> 
> ... to a GPT equivalent of this form ...
> 
> menuentry "Windows ... {
>     ...
>     insmod ntfs
>     insmod ntfscomp
>     ...
>     chainloader /Windows/Boot/EFI/bootmgfw.efi
> }
> 
> 7)  The next thing to be done is to create the BCD files within the relevant Windows installation(s).  This can be done by booting into a PE environment, most probably from an installation media and then choosing Repair ... Command Console.
> 
> 7a) First check the drive letters associated with the various partitions on the various disks, and adjust the one you want to work with to be C:
> 
>     DISKPART
>     LIST VOL
> 
> If a different volume than the one you want to work with is C:, first temporarily assign it a different letter, say T:, then assign the volume you want to work with, here assumed to be 2, to C: ...
> 
>     SELECT VOL 1
>     ASSIGN LETTER=T:
>     SELECT VOL 2
>     ASSIGN LETTER=C:
>     EXIT
> 
> 7b) Then, back in the console, give the following command ...
> 
>     BCDBoot C:\Windows /s C: /f ALL
> 
> ... the 'ALL' parameter of which instructs BCDBoot to copy new BCD files into both ...
> 
>     C:\Boot\
> 
> ... and (you might have to create the following parent directory chains before running the above command) ...
> 
>     C:\EFI\Microsoft\Boot\
>     C:\EFI\Microsoft\Recovery\
> 
> Repeat 7a and 7b for any other Windows installations.
> 
> When complete, though I'm not sure that it's actually necessary, on the principle of being better safe than sorry I use DISKPART to reassign the drive letters back to what originally they were.
> 
> Then reboot, and it all works.
> 
> It's annoying about the 32-Bit problem, though of course I can still boot it via MBR  -  I need to use that for one particular old scanner for which I cannot get 64-bit drivers; it's useful to keep it going because it's quite suited to old gritty material which might scratch the glass of the new one, and also it's the only one I have with an Automatic Document Feeder.
> 
> Perhaps next I might try seeing if I can boot W11P from the original MBR menu, which would achieve the desired state of only needing one boot menu.
> 

> But for the others I had to wing it, using little clues from various researches online,
> none of which gave a complete template or revealed a crucial extra step to get
> Windows 7 & 10 to boot, which is that you need to load the module 'ntfscomp'

  "ntfscomp - GRUB is able to support the compression commonly used in NTFS with this module"

That could be Old Compression (an ATTRIB applied to a file), versus New Compression
(a custom Reparse Point invented by Microsoft to annoy Linux users).

Regarding scanners, there is the commercial scanner driver package for old scanners.
That could allow you to access the old scanner from a 64-bit OS, for a price.
(hamrick.com VueScan). The main concern for old scanner users, is whether all
the capabilities of the scanner are available, when a novel driver is used.

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2969

On 2025-11-11 03:45, Paul wrote:
>
> On Mon, 11/10/2025 7:27 PM, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> Then reboot, and it all works.

Except, I've discovered, OSs won't hibernate, all that happens is that 
the screen locks, the PC doesn't even sleep, let alone hibernate.

>> It's annoying about the 32-Bit problem, though of course I can still boot it via MBR  -  I need to use that for one particular old scanner for which I cannot get 64-bit drivers; it's useful to keep it going because it's quite suited to old gritty material which might scratch the glass of the new one, and also it's the only one I have with an Automatic Document Feeder.
>>
>> Perhaps next I might try seeing if I can boot W11P from the original MBR menu, which would achieve the desired state of only needing one boot menu.

Had a go at that meantime, couldn't get it to work.

>> But for the others I had to wing it, using little clues from various researches online,
>> none of which gave a complete template or revealed a crucial extra step to get
>> Windows 7 & 10 to boot, which is that you need to load the module 'ntfscomp'
> 
>    "ntfscomp - GRUB is able to support the compression commonly used in NTFS with this module"

Ah!  So 'comp' is 'compression', not 'compatibility'.

> That could be Old Compression (an ATTRIB applied to a file), versus New Compression
> (a custom Reparse Point invented by Microsoft to annoy Linux users).

Some folders are compressed in my setups  -  Recycle Bins, foreign 
language subdirs ar-SA to zh-TW, etc.

> Regarding scanners, there is the commercial scanner driver package for old scanners.
> That could allow you to access the old scanner from a 64-bit OS, for a price.
> (hamrick.com VueScan). The main concern for old scanner users, is whether all
> the capabilities of the scanner are available, when a novel driver is used.

Yes, I've heard that mentioned before.

Tx.

-- 

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website: 
www.macfh.co.uk

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2970

On Tue, 11/11/2025 8:19 AM, Java Jive wrote:
> On 2025-11-11 03:45, Paul wrote:

> 
>> Regarding scanners, there is the commercial scanner driver package for old scanners.
>> That could allow you to access the old scanner from a 64-bit OS, for a price.
>> (hamrick.com VueScan). The main concern for old scanner users, is whether all
>> the capabilities of the scanner are available, when a novel driver is used.
> 
> Yes, I've heard that mentioned before.
> 
> Tx.
> 

See if there is a Trial Version.

One of the main benefits of old scanners, is the CCD based
ones (instead of CMOS sensor) have better depth of field
and most of the scans done on them will be in focus.
I have trouble on my CMOS based scanner, getting
the paper pressed hard enough to the screen for
a focused copy.

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2971

On 2025-11-11 16:13, Paul wrote:
> On Tue, 11/11/2025 8:19 AM, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 2025-11-11 03:45, Paul wrote:
> 
>>
>>> Regarding scanners, there is the commercial scanner driver package for old scanners.
>>> That could allow you to access the old scanner from a 64-bit OS, for a price.
>>> (hamrick.com VueScan). The main concern for old scanner users, is whether all
>>> the capabilities of the scanner are available, when a novel driver is used.
>>
>> Yes, I've heard that mentioned before.
>>
>> Tx.
>>
> 
> See if there is a Trial Version.
> 
> One of the main benefits of old scanners, is the CCD based
> ones (instead of CMOS sensor) have better depth of field
> and most of the scans done on them will be in focus.
> I have trouble on my CMOS based scanner, getting
> the paper pressed hard enough to the screen for
> a focused copy.

Interesting. I have scanned some flat objects in the scanner, with some 
relief, worked really well.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2972

On Fri, 11/14/2025 7:24 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2025-11-11 16:13, Paul wrote:
>> On Tue, 11/11/2025 8:19 AM, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 2025-11-11 03:45, Paul wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> Regarding scanners, there is the commercial scanner driver package for old scanners.
>>>> That could allow you to access the old scanner from a 64-bit OS, for a price.
>>>> (hamrick.com VueScan). The main concern for old scanner users, is whether all
>>>> the capabilities of the scanner are available, when a novel driver is used.
>>>
>>> Yes, I've heard that mentioned before.
>>>
>>> Tx.
>>>
>>
>> See if there is a Trial Version.
>>
>> One of the main benefits of old scanners, is the CCD based
>> ones (instead of CMOS sensor) have better depth of field
>> and most of the scans done on them will be in focus.
>> I have trouble on my CMOS based scanner, getting
>> the paper pressed hard enough to the screen for
>> a focused copy.
> 
> Interesting. I have scanned some flat objects in the scanner, with some relief, worked really well.
> 

I scanned a sheet the other day, that had been folded
in a box. It's a sample sheet for testing scanners.

The text right next to the fold is in focus,
the text further from the fold is not. And it
is an appreciable degradation. It could affect
the accuracy of an OCR done on it. That is a CMOS
sensor, which is cheaper to make as the materials
are not as obscure as CCD sensor materials.

This is why I would recommend finding a scanner
with a CCD (charge-coupled device) sensor. Those don't
have the depth-of-field problem. That's what my old
scanner used.

In the picture here, you can see an "exaggeration"
of the value of a CCD sensor :-) The book shown would
be perfectly reproduced because the spine on the source
there is unrealistically compliant. You couldn't lay
War&Peace on the scanner and get the spine to lay that flat.
This is only 800DPI. But the scan surface is pretty large.

https://www.thescannershop.com/plustek-opticpro-a320e-flatbed-scanner/

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2973 — Re: scanners.

On 2025-11-14 19:03, Paul wrote:
> On Fri, 11/14/2025 7:24 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2025-11-11 16:13, Paul wrote:
>>> On Tue, 11/11/2025 8:19 AM, Java Jive wrote:
>>>> On 2025-11-11 03:45, Paul wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Regarding scanners, there is the commercial scanner driver package for old scanners.
>>>>> That could allow you to access the old scanner from a 64-bit OS, for a price.
>>>>> (hamrick.com VueScan). The main concern for old scanner users, is whether all
>>>>> the capabilities of the scanner are available, when a novel driver is used.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I've heard that mentioned before.
>>>>
>>>> Tx.
>>>>
>>>
>>> See if there is a Trial Version.
>>>
>>> One of the main benefits of old scanners, is the CCD based
>>> ones (instead of CMOS sensor) have better depth of field
>>> and most of the scans done on them will be in focus.
>>> I have trouble on my CMOS based scanner, getting
>>> the paper pressed hard enough to the screen for
>>> a focused copy.
>>
>> Interesting. I have scanned some flat objects in the scanner, with some relief, worked really well.

Or scanned a "page" of on ebook; the display is depressed about 1 mm 
from the edge. It came out perfect.

I know that there was a setting in xsane to change the focus to some 
small distance, or to the glass surface. I can not find it now, though. 
Ah! Show advanced options. "Focus 2.5 mm above glass".

Means that if I buy a scanner, it has to be CCD. Good to know.


>>
> 
> I scanned a sheet the other day, that had been folded
> in a box. It's a sample sheet for testing scanners.
> 
> The text right next to the fold is in focus,
> the text further from the fold is not. And it
> is an appreciable degradation. It could affect
> the accuracy of an OCR done on it. That is a CMOS
> sensor, which is cheaper to make as the materials
> are not as obscure as CCD sensor materials.
> 
> This is why I would recommend finding a scanner
> with a CCD (charge-coupled device) sensor. Those don't
> have the depth-of-field problem. That's what my old
> scanner used.
> 
> In the picture here, you can see an "exaggeration"
> of the value of a CCD sensor :-) The book shown would
> be perfectly reproduced because the spine on the source
> there is unrealistically compliant. You couldn't lay
> War&Peace on the scanner and get the spine to lay that flat.
> This is only 800DPI. But the scan surface is pretty large.
> 
> https://www.thescannershop.com/plustek-opticpro-a320e-flatbed-scanner/

Yeah, that book has been domesticated :-D


I have a low priority project, from an idea I got in one usenet 
conversation, which is scan my magazines and notes, to save space in the 
house. That person used an automatic feed scanner, double side pages, 
coupled with cutting magazines in half first with a big guillotine cutter.


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2974 — Re: scanners.

On Fri, 11/14/2025 2:31 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2025-11-14 19:03, Paul wrote:

>> https://www.thescannershop.com/plustek-opticpro-a320e-flatbed-scanner/
> 
> Yeah, that book has been domesticated :-D
> 
> 
> I have a low priority project, from an idea I got in one usenet conversation, 
> which is scan my magazines and notes, to save space in the house. That person 
> used an automatic feed scanner, double side pages, coupled with cutting magazines
> in half first with a big guillotine cutter.

There are book scanning devices, that flip the pages
on the book, and they use a camera method for capture.
You don't have to cut the binding off to capture.

At least in this one, you can see the cameras used.
(The site is a bit slow, move your mouse around while waiting)

https://diybookscanner.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3125

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2976 — Re: scanners.

On 2025-11-14 23:52, Paul wrote:
> On Fri, 11/14/2025 2:31 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2025-11-14 19:03, Paul wrote:
> 
>>> https://www.thescannershop.com/plustek-opticpro-a320e-flatbed-scanner/
>>
>> Yeah, that book has been domesticated :-D
>>
>>
>> I have a low priority project, from an idea I got in one usenet conversation,
>> which is scan my magazines and notes, to save space in the house. That person
>> used an automatic feed scanner, double side pages, coupled with cutting magazines
>> in half first with a big guillotine cutter.
> 
> There are book scanning devices, that flip the pages
> on the book, and they use a camera method for capture.
> You don't have to cut the binding off to capture.

Yes, I saw a video once, but that will be too big and expensive for a 
home user.

> 
> At least in this one, you can see the cameras used.
> (The site is a bit slow, move your mouse around while waiting)
> 
> https://diybookscanner.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3125

Yes, similar to the one I saw years ago.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.microsoft.windows

csiph-web