dencorso

Just in case, please do read from this post up to here. Then read post #1 again and decide what to do.

Great, WildBill! You do rock!

Yeah. And you also read this, I presume?

Well, in any case, y'all know "RTM" can also mean: "return to manufacturer," right?

With all due respect, of course, but: RAID 1 should always offer doubled read times and non-doubled write times, isn't it? And RAID 0 only doubles the performance when the relevant stripes are on different disks, but in any case, just for reads, too, isn't it? The main advantage of RAID 0 should be size, when that can make a difference, right?

Fact is you only get posts increase if you post in the "technical" sections. Then again, this section is not a tech section, and the current discussion is about the ontologic nature of a constructive post. Or is metaphysics a technical discipline? IMO, and with all due respect, better let sleeping dogs lie...

This topic has been updated! What's New? on post #2: ragnargd's new machines have been added, the old one removed. Also: post #2 has been divided in two, to avoid problems with post size limits. Let's keep the list up-to-date: If you are using 9x/ME with more than 1 GiB RAM, do PM me your info and you shall be added to the list!

Hi, Tomasz86! Great to see you around! Welcome back! Later edit: Have you perchance read this thread, already? Do you perhaps have a guess as to which file(s) cause the issue described therein?

Of course it does! I use the selfsame spoof on XPSP3! Yeah! Do that and you'll be prompted to upgrade your IE almost whenwver you go. Wake-up to reality: IE8 is too old, already!

@loblo: Try adding this to the registry (it's the good old IE9 spoof): Then reboot. Afterwards verify this site and/or this site identiefies your browser as IE9. Then let's see how google and yahoo! react to your browser (AFAIK, trying to spoof IE7 or IE8 is not useful anymore, nowadays).

@eGo®Z: Thanks for the heads up! I had missed that one... You rock!

The more I read, the more a reflect on it, more sure I get about my forecast: Win 10 will have 35-40% of the user share when the numbers for August get released. Soon we'll know whether I'm right or not. And none of this through real product improving and added value!

Skank - Jackie Tequila https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBYC57daudw

Yes, of course! But only info I consider trustworthy (and not misleading, even if from MS) will be added. The aim of this thread is to really prevent getting 10, and all available info that can help should find its way to the 1st post. But my policy here is really "Trust no one." And, to my undestanding, that registry setting prevents the offer from appearing, but it's far from clear whether it prevents the actual morphing into 10, when MS decides it's time. Now, the absence of the "updates" listed is the surest way we know of that ought to really avoid 10.

Very true. But, then again, quite a lot has been undone, already!

Keep updates set to manual and revise them, each patch Tuesday, before accepting them. I see no alternative.

I can confirm that. Had to hide both again. Yes, that means that MS unhid them silently in machines in which they were already hidden.

No. It works as intended.

Microsoft lost a ton of money in the second quarter...

In case you're using the x64 version, NoelC has kindly compiled and made available the latest version, which the author presented only as a diff and file but hasn't still released in compiled form. You can get it from this post...

I think you're grumpier today than usual, jaclaz...

@Jody: You might like this: VersInfoEx. It brings back the much more complete Version info (XP style). Works on 8.x all right, and in case you use the x64 version, NoelC has kindly compiled and made available the latest version, which the author presented only as a diff and hasn't still released in compiled form. You can get it from this post. Enjoy!

Thanks for the heads up, Dave! You rock!

Thank you very much! You do rock! Later addition: Tested on 7 SP1 x64 (Ultimate, ENU): works perfectly!

With all due respect, and meaning absolutely no offense, the reason you've got no answer is that your questions are unanswerable. Some time ago I posted elsewhere the following definition for such questions: Fortunately, in your case, most, if not all, your questions are answerable. So: Acquire full, byte-by-byte, known-good, backups of the current state of the machines in question. Then experiment in order to answer the yet unanswered questions you posed. The only answer I can provide without knowing minute details of the case is the following: Provided you do create full, byte-by-byte, known-good, backups of the current state of the machines in question, there's no risk at all, because anything you do can be undone by re-deploying the backup. That said, let me try to be more specific: I have no idea. But surely there must be some. I think not. But nobody can say for sure. Better remove the leftovers. I think so. Provided you do create full, byte-by-byte, known-good, backups of the current state of the machines in question, there's no risk at all, because anything you do can be undone by re-deploying the backup. ---- Questions you did not pose, but I will --- Q: What about the three other machines? A: Hiding or not KB3035583, we've seen it being re-offered... so keep eyes wide open. Q: What if I just go ahead with no backup, and just hope for the best? A: Then there may be risk, but, anyway, you're fully aware you could have avoided all risk by backing up, and chose not to.