dencorso

Good to see you around, Joe! Cheers!

Right! Image nightly backups to External USB 3.0 TB-sized HDDs is the way to go (And WDC the best choice ATM, IMO, too!).

MSVS 6.0 is the ideal programing environment for 9x/ME. While .NET 2.0 installs on 98+, most of the users avoid .NET completely on 9x/ME, because they're huge and add very little. OTOH, if one can program in C#, going down to C++ or even pure C, should be relatively easy (and quite worth the effort). These, of course, are just my 2¢... and, of course again, YMMV.

I do love XP, but I do think what's not broken ought not to be fixed. Until you find a specific chore XP allows you to do, while 7 x86 doesn't, so that you do have a real motive to install XP, keep things as they are. And in case you really want XP, do create a third boot option, do not remove anything. Those're my 2¢, of course.

Would you mind listing exactly which 3rd and giving a more detailed how-to? It seems you've come up with an already mature (well enough tested) procedure... I'm certain this will interest many and, then again, some of the feed-back may help improve details of your original procedure, too.

Regretably, also SATA to IDE or IDE to SATA adapters often present similar issues.

However, if all you want is just the file "ultimate_relaxing.bwg", jaclaz had already told you how to get it. Why didn't you? Of course, I've added the "click here" markers to the quotation for the sake of clarity.

Inspect the 15 .INF files and see which refers to the Photosmart 7960 or to Photosmarts in general (as a family). Then use that one to install from the Device Manager. It should just work.

tbh this sucks why don't you make normal win32 app ? Jeez, I thought I was being nice by releasing this at all. Silly me. Of course it's quite nice of you to release it as it is! That goes without saying! And I, for one, thank you very much for it. Now, while I don't think anyone should be complaining, I do think you might perhaps consider recompiling it with VC# 2005 instead (if at all possible), because that would reduce the .NET framework version required to 2.0, making it much lighter. The Visual C# 2005 Express Edition ISO continues to be available for free from MS, although they don't advertise it. Of course, VC# 2008 would do nicely as well, since the product is intended for Win 7, but when thinking about lighting a .NET application, VC# 2005 is perhaps the best option in what regards the funcionality to overall size ratio.

A more colloquial translation of alea jacta esto is simply "game on!" (which keeps the probabilistic aspect undertone quite nicely)...

Since you're at it, xper, please do take a look at this issue:

And, bearing in view that such updates should be each time more minor, the next instalment shall be called Win 8.11, and the one following it 8.111...

jaclazUhhh! Something is really very amiss, here! So, please do bear with me and do some experimenting: You get "You can upload up to Uploading is not allowed of files" ... just in this single threadjust in this sub-forumboth in this sub-forum and in its container forumthroughout all the forumsTIA for your patience!

[Off-Topic] Sorry to interrupt, but... both of you are not being able to attach to this thread, because the full editor in not offering the "Attach Files" interface? If so, let me know and I'll try to get it fixed fast, because that sure is serious... [/Off-Topic]

Are you sure the mouse is OK? Can you try another, just in case?

Wow! Welcome to MSFN, Mike! Thanks a whole lot! As for whether it still works, I'm sure we'll have news about it really soon.

The Wayback Machine still has the original English KB258797 as it was in 2009, for what it's worth. As for why did MS remove the English version of this page? They've been trimming the KB for some time, but that may be just at the English KB, or whatever... Do you have a true PS/2 mouse (or is it a USB one) attached?

Sage words!

I confirm those versions are the current, all right. The latest MSO7ENU.DLL is v. 8.0.0.5318, AFAIK.

No. Windows NT (and all NT based systems) were designed to NOT reside on C:. One of the innovations was that the C: "remained" the active primary partition (for DOS and other real mode OS) and that Windows NT could be installed in a logical volume inside extended partition. Since NT 3.51 times (that is 1993, i.e. 20 - twenty - years ago) I never had any of my systems have C: as the windows NT system drive letter, and I always installed any flavour of the NT faily inside a volume inside extended. There is NO actual issue with any NT based system NOT being at C:, the issue is installing to C: and later change the drive letter associated to that volume. I, on the other hand, build all my multiboot systems so that the currently booted OS always gets C:, and the rest of the bootable partitions rearrange their letters accordingly, while the data partitions always keep the same (higher) letters constant. Ciao, jaclaz! It's always refreshing to see your <"No."> reply below my most recent post on a thread... it tells me reality's hinges are holding strong, and that's a great way to start one's day!

I'm sure jaclaz can point you not to one but to several procedures to do so. But be warned you're in for a lot of grief. At the end of the day, it's your choice, of course. But I cannot simply read your thread and go away, without adding my warning to jaclaz's: Windows loves to be at C: ... and is best left that way! There's simply too many things that presume Windows actually * is at C: * and proceed accordingly without any checking... You take it elsewhere, even if you do it right, it's bound to bite your hand someday in the future.

Mark4NTFS.ZIP, afaik, has really tumbled itself down the memory hole (or jumped head-on into /dev/null ...), as far as the internet is concerned. jaclaz is right, the only chance to get it is if someone has a backup copy and kindly makes it available again.

With USB 2.0 disabled in BIOS, when in BIOS you'll have just USB 1.x (usually 1.1), which is plenty for the keyboard and mouse. This makes the overall installation process slower, but if it allows that process to complete, that's the intended outcome. Now, on day-to-day use, after Windows is fully booted you'll have USB 2.0 support regardless of what you set in BIOS, because Windows substitutes that part of BIOS by its own drivers.

Rest assured that a Scientific American piece on drones is sure to elicit further drone news shortly... And fact is they're here to stay (there's no avoiding them, so to say). I mean... I remain as skeptic as ever about the feasibility of a mosquito-sized (or smaller) drone being an issue, because there seem to be no way to keep such a thing powered (because any viable power-source ought to be much bigger than that and on-board -- hence the tethered solutions we've been seeing so far, around those scales). But fuller drones are a reality, for a long time already... it's their crossing over to civilian uses and affordable prices -- leading to easy availability -- that may end up being a problem, as you know.