[FIXED] Advanced settings grayed out

Discussion in 'BugCentral' started by ptr727, Sep 19, 2011.

  1. ptr727

    ptr727 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hi, I am having trouble getting advanced settings to work.

    I have a commercial license.
    I installed 2.1.0.148 on Win7 x64 SP1.
    I open a BCD file store, containing several boot entries.
    I want to edit advanced settings for the entries.
    For all entries the advanced settings are grayed out.

    I downloaded 2.1.1.148 Beta.
    Help about of this build still says 2.1.0.148, so I don't know if it really is the Beta build?
    Same as in 2.1.0.148, advanced settings are grayed out.

    Here is the BCD file I am trying to edit:
    http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2182768/EasyBCD.bcd

    Any advice on how to enable editing of the advanced settings?

    P.
     
  2. mqudsi

    mqudsi Mostly Harmless Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2006
    Messages:
    13,476
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Chicago
    Wow, that's a lot of entries for one menu - I see you're getting the most bang for the buck there with EasyBCD ;-)

    I've loaded your BCD and I'm seeing the same thing. Turns out there is a bug in the code that identifies the entry as being BCD-native or not. BCD-native is basically only Windows Vista/7/Server 2008/8... but I had entirely forgotten about those same in PE images.

    Filed as [EBCD-478], and I'll try to upload a beta 2.1.1 build to address this.

    Addendum:

    OK, I was able to fix this one quickly.
    You'll want to download build 149 from EasyBCD 2.1.1 Beta Builds

    Don't worry about it being a non-commercial build, your commercial license covers you for beta builds.
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2011
  3. ptr727

    ptr727 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thx, advanced menu is now active :)

    Btw, the help about still says 2.1.0.149, instead of 2.1.1.149, this is a bit confusing, is it intentional, or a bug?

    P.
     
  4. mqudsi

    mqudsi Mostly Harmless Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2006
    Messages:
    13,476
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Chicago
    It's intentional.... 2.1.0 was build 146 (2.1.0.146) and these are the beta builds preceding the official 2.1.1 release, and are numbered 2.1.0.x where x is more than 146.

    Confusing, right?

    Glad to hear the last build did the trick though, and thanks for making it easy by uploading your BCD file - almost no one ever does. Thanks for the quick confirmation as well.
     
  5. ptr727

    ptr727 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes a bit confusing since I don't know what the 2.1.0 RTM build number was, and dare I say not quite industry standard ;)
     
  6. mqudsi

    mqudsi Mostly Harmless Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2006
    Messages:
    13,476
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Chicago
    Unfortunately, this is the one thing where there is no industry standard. Keep in mind that you rarely see the build numbers for beta products - you're only seeing the final incremental version numbers.
    Typically when we reach either actual number betas (i.e. Beta 1, Beta 2) or more likely RC (RC1, RC2) we will switch to 2.1.1.x, but as right now this product could be said to be closer to 2.1.0 than it is to 2.1.1 then the numbers are 2.1.0.x

    It's major.minor.bugfix.build

    :)
     

Share This Page