Jump to content


Photo

Xboxhdm For Dummies


  • Please log in to reply
2105 replies to this topic

#46 jayson2k4

jayson2k4

    X-S Enthusiast

  • Members
  • 22 posts

Posted 25 July 2004 - 05:50 PM

are the linux locking tools really messed up?

#47 ldots

ldots

    X-S Freak

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,496 posts

Posted 25 July 2004 - 06:12 PM

No. They aren't and never have been. Then problem was something else.
There was a problem with the code decrypting the eeprom, but I fixed that (hopefully) and will update xboxhdm soon. The official linux locking tool (from xbox-linux) still have this bug.

#48 batman00

batman00

    X-S Enthusiast

  • Members
  • 19 posts

Posted 26 July 2004 - 01:52 AM

is this programs locking tools are valid?

#49 kingroach

kingroach

    X-S Hacker

  • Dev/Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,741 posts
  • Xbox Version:v1.4
  • 360 version:v5.0 (360S - trinity)

Posted 26 July 2004 - 01:58 AM

what do u mean by valid? do u mean legal.. then they are legal cz they dont contain any MS code and the linux is opensource.

#50 batman00

batman00

    X-S Enthusiast

  • Members
  • 19 posts

Posted 26 July 2004 - 02:02 AM

i mean do they work?

#51 kingroach

kingroach

    X-S Hacker

  • Dev/Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,741 posts
  • Xbox Version:v1.4
  • 360 version:v5.0 (360S - trinity)

Posted 26 July 2004 - 05:06 AM

yes they works.. at least as far I tried them.

#52 ddkore

ddkore

    X-S Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 80 posts
  • Xbox Version:v1.1

Posted 29 July 2004 - 11:10 AM

I've got a question on cloning cause the tutorial doesn't really go into detail. does it support lba48 drives for cloning? Specifically, will it clone a full 120GB to a 200GB? would it be faster then ftp?

#53 adil786

adil786

    X-S Freak

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,088 posts
  • Xbox Version:unk
  • 360 version:unknown

Posted 29 July 2004 - 11:35 AM

QUOTE (ddkore @ Jul 29 2004, 12:13 PM)
I've got a question on cloning cause the tutorial doesn't really go into detail. does it support lba48 drives for cloning? Specifically, will it clone a full 120GB to a 200GB? would it be faster then ftp?

i dont see why not.

#54 Voodoo Child

Voodoo Child

    X-S X-perience

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 318 posts

Posted 29 July 2004 - 11:37 AM

how big is the eeprom.bin file?

#55 adil786

adil786

    X-S Freak

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,088 posts
  • Xbox Version:unk
  • 360 version:unknown

Posted 29 July 2004 - 11:41 AM

QUOTE (Voodoo Child @ Jul 29 2004, 12:40 PM)
how big is the eeprom.bin file?

256 bytes

#56 Voodoo Child

Voodoo Child

    X-S X-perience

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 318 posts

Posted 29 July 2004 - 11:46 AM

Why does mine say 1kb?

#57 chimpanzee

chimpanzee

    X-S Freak

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,020 posts

Posted 29 July 2004 - 12:04 PM

QUOTE (adil786 @ Jul 29 2004, 12:38 PM)
i dont see why not.

I don't have a definitive answer on this and would like to know.

Say if the original F: is only 80G but the new one(use to the extend of 137G) is 100G, would that affect the FAT ? If yes, would it be all wrong if I just clone it from old to new ?

#58 ldots

ldots

    X-S Freak

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,496 posts

Posted 29 July 2004 - 12:09 PM

If you just do a simple clone this way the F: on the new drive will also be 80 Gb. The FAT filesystem is transferred also - I guess cloning is a good name smile.gif

To get access to the rest of the drive you would have to reformat F: (data will be lost) to let it take up the rest of the drive or define a G: partition (F: will be left intact).

Edited by ldots, 29 July 2004 - 12:10 PM.


#59 chimpanzee

chimpanzee

    X-S Freak

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,020 posts

Posted 29 July 2004 - 12:28 PM

QUOTE (ldots @ Jul 29 2004, 01:12 PM)
If you just do a simple clone this way the F: on the new drive will also be 80 Gb. The FAT filesystem is transferred also - I guess cloning is a good name smile.gif

To get access to the rest of the drive you would have to reformat F: (data will be lost) to let it take up the rest of the drive or define a G: partition (F: will be left intact).

thanks.

This would mean the current linux partition table scheme(in the cvs, for supporting G) would be dead wrong. I think I would make some patches to it.



#60 ldots

ldots

    X-S Freak

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,496 posts

Posted 29 July 2004 - 12:38 PM

Come to think of it I believe the current hacked bioses only allow the F+G scheme to let F take up to 137Gb and G the rest or to let F take it all. Dont think you can let F be 80 Gb and G the rest.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users