Skip to main content
Final review and case closed.
Source Link
user109256
user109256

TL;DR What I might wanted to post was "What makes Windows installation media bootable?" and not Linux and not a how-to. The original intention (see Apr 16) will behas been reviewed again sometime laterand I have decided not to pursue this anymore. Not sure yetCase closed.

TL;DR What I might wanted to post was "What makes Windows installation media bootable?" and not Linux and not a how-to. The original intention (see Apr 16) will be reviewed again sometime later. Not sure yet.

TL;DR What I might wanted to post was "What makes Windows installation media bootable?" and not Linux and not a how-to. The original intention (see Apr 16) has been reviewed again and I have decided not to pursue this anymore. Case closed.

Post post-feedback clarification. Include TL;DR and to be reviewed again.
Source Link
user109256
user109256

PostJan 23: Post-feedback clarification:

Apr 16: Post post-feedback clarification

Looking back at this meta post I had created three months ago, what have been explained here remained true to this date. Even without the canonical post, end users only need to find the "right" post (by spending some time to search on SU or elsewhere on web) for a working solution.

One thing that I understand better today: I might not actually want to post about "how to create a bootable Windows 10 installation media". Given that SU did not have such canonical post, I might have attempted to solve two different things at one time and overshadowing my original intention.

What makes bootable media bootable? (asked 2010, 11 votes, 2,937 views) seems to be the closest to my original intention. Both question and answers however, are quite generic and mainly explained for hard disks and floppies, not quite relevant for CDs and USB flash drives, and neither specific to Windows nor Linux.

At the moment, I thought of creating a new pair of question and answer similar to "What makes bootable media bootable?" that is specific to Windows. That will be applicable Windows 10, as well as Windows 7 and perhaps Windows 8.1. The Linux counterpart is not exactly same as Windows, so I rather post Linux counterpart at Unix.SE instead.

This part is merely a post post clarification to revisit my original intention. The proposed canonical post, which I have had given up, shall remain true and will not be pursued by me.


Sorry, I really give up on SU this time.

At least I managed to bring awareness; however, no changes to my decision. Should anyone else willing to spend their precious time and energy to create the canonical post, feel free to do so.


TL;DR What I might wanted to post was "What makes Windows installation media bootable?" and not Linux and not a how-to. The original intention (see Apr 16) will be reviewed again sometime later. Not sure yet.

Post-feedback clarification:

Sorry, I really give up on SU this time.

At least I managed to bring awareness; however, no changes to my decision. Should anyone else willing to spend their precious time and energy to create the canonical post, feel free to do so.

Jan 23: Post-feedback clarification

Apr 16: Post post-feedback clarification

Looking back at this meta post I had created three months ago, what have been explained here remained true to this date. Even without the canonical post, end users only need to find the "right" post (by spending some time to search on SU or elsewhere on web) for a working solution.

One thing that I understand better today: I might not actually want to post about "how to create a bootable Windows 10 installation media". Given that SU did not have such canonical post, I might have attempted to solve two different things at one time and overshadowing my original intention.

What makes bootable media bootable? (asked 2010, 11 votes, 2,937 views) seems to be the closest to my original intention. Both question and answers however, are quite generic and mainly explained for hard disks and floppies, not quite relevant for CDs and USB flash drives, and neither specific to Windows nor Linux.

At the moment, I thought of creating a new pair of question and answer similar to "What makes bootable media bootable?" that is specific to Windows. That will be applicable Windows 10, as well as Windows 7 and perhaps Windows 8.1. The Linux counterpart is not exactly same as Windows, so I rather post Linux counterpart at Unix.SE instead.

This part is merely a post post clarification to revisit my original intention. The proposed canonical post, which I have had given up, shall remain true and will not be pursued by me.


Sorry, I really give up on SU this time.

At least I managed to bring awareness; however, no changes to my decision. Should anyone else willing to spend their precious time and energy to create the canonical post, feel free to do so.


TL;DR What I might wanted to post was "What makes Windows installation media bootable?" and not Linux and not a how-to. The original intention (see Apr 16) will be reviewed again sometime later. Not sure yet.

Include post-feedback clarification to reply comment by fixer1234. Some additional text. No changes to my decision.
Source Link
user109256
user109256

Even before I brought this matter to meta SU, this was no longer a problem for me. I already found my own solution (so far only for 32-bit BIOS) after wasting few days of trials and errors, I documented in my notebook, and I am satisfied.

Post-feedback clarification:

fixer1234: You gave up too soon. Sometimes Meta questions take awhile for people to see them. Already at +9 (+10/-1), there have been no more downvotes after the initial one, and now at zero close votes.

Based on my quick lookup for canonical-answer on meta SU, some meta posts with targeted topics were addressed within several days. So I assumed several days is enough; turned out not really.

Vote count did not really matter. I am most concerned with guideline to create canonical post; I have a strong impression that SU has a strict or high expectation on what kind of posts are allowed, despite being on-topic. Hence the meta question.

fixer1234: You didn't ask for advice in the question on structuring a canonical thread, [...]

I noted from the beginning:

I am not sure if I should proceed to create a new question, or leave to a more experienced user on SU to formulate the question to address all matters above.

And I also added in Revision 4:

P.S.: I was expecting the answer is something like: "Yes, we can create one; what you need to do is [...]" or "No, we do not need one because [...]"...

I could have asked directly "where should I start", but wouldn't such direct question be seen too broad? So I worded like "should I do A or B" approach.

fixer1234: [...] and you seemed to have the topic well in hand.

No. My knowledge is limited to how much I have done through trials and errors (or how many hours I have wasted to reach that knowledge).

fixer1234: Outline what you envision in the question and each planned answer in separate posts here [...]

Given that my knowledge is limited, I hesitated to create the pair of question and answer. So I was hoping the outcome of this meta discussion is either:

  • meta answer that gives a brief guideline on how should a first-time contributor write a canonical question, or
  • meta answer that simply ask to follow format like so and so

That would have saved much time, without any redudant comment. Again, this is because I have a strong impression that SU has a strict or high expectation on what kind of posts are allowed, despite being on-topic. So I rather follow the guideline than simply creating my own.


Sorry, I really give up on SU this time.

At least I managed to bring awareness; however, no changes to my decision. Should anyone else willing to spend their precious time and energy to create the canonical post, feel free to do so.

Even before I brought this matter to meta SU, this was no longer a problem for me. I already found my own solution after wasting few days of trials and errors, I documented in my notebook, and I am satisfied.

Sorry, I really give up on SU this time.

Should anyone else willing to spend their precious time and energy to create the canonical post, feel free to do so.

Even before I brought this matter to meta SU, this was no longer a problem for me. I already found my own solution (so far only for 32-bit BIOS) after wasting few days of trials and errors, I documented in my notebook, and I am satisfied.

Post-feedback clarification:

fixer1234: You gave up too soon. Sometimes Meta questions take awhile for people to see them. Already at +9 (+10/-1), there have been no more downvotes after the initial one, and now at zero close votes.

Based on my quick lookup for canonical-answer on meta SU, some meta posts with targeted topics were addressed within several days. So I assumed several days is enough; turned out not really.

Vote count did not really matter. I am most concerned with guideline to create canonical post; I have a strong impression that SU has a strict or high expectation on what kind of posts are allowed, despite being on-topic. Hence the meta question.

fixer1234: You didn't ask for advice in the question on structuring a canonical thread, [...]

I noted from the beginning:

I am not sure if I should proceed to create a new question, or leave to a more experienced user on SU to formulate the question to address all matters above.

And I also added in Revision 4:

P.S.: I was expecting the answer is something like: "Yes, we can create one; what you need to do is [...]" or "No, we do not need one because [...]"...

I could have asked directly "where should I start", but wouldn't such direct question be seen too broad? So I worded like "should I do A or B" approach.

fixer1234: [...] and you seemed to have the topic well in hand.

No. My knowledge is limited to how much I have done through trials and errors (or how many hours I have wasted to reach that knowledge).

fixer1234: Outline what you envision in the question and each planned answer in separate posts here [...]

Given that my knowledge is limited, I hesitated to create the pair of question and answer. So I was hoping the outcome of this meta discussion is either:

  • meta answer that gives a brief guideline on how should a first-time contributor write a canonical question, or
  • meta answer that simply ask to follow format like so and so

That would have saved much time, without any redudant comment. Again, this is because I have a strong impression that SU has a strict or high expectation on what kind of posts are allowed, despite being on-topic. So I rather follow the guideline than simply creating my own.


Sorry, I really give up on SU this time.

At least I managed to bring awareness; however, no changes to my decision. Should anyone else willing to spend their precious time and energy to create the canonical post, feel free to do so.

Source Link
user109256
user109256
Loading