dencorso

@MAXtoriX: Consider that "liberating" the work of one of the few programmers able to creatively modify/customize/set right MS's impositions on the users at large is a great incentive for that programmer to move on to greener fields and let users fend for themselves... the more so, since he's already given so much to the community, for free. No pilfering can be ever condoned, but Pwned is doing more than just pilfering, he/she is also helping the big software houses have their way unimpeded, by showing any programmer interested in giving the users options that their hard work can never be rewarded. At the end of the day, who is getting actually pwned?

While I do think you're right and security should be the subject of another thread, I'd like to say two things about it, before moving on: A good hardware router, nowadays normally part of a wireless&wired router, usually comes with a firewall, which should be carefully set-up, because it is the first line-of-defense, just as the internet signal reaches your home. It's quite useful and it shouldn't be either neglected or omited. Probably the most secure machines among all those owned by MSFN's are those owned by herbalist, who uses Win 98SE in a default-deny security setup. So, in what regards security, perhaps Win 7 may be the most secure out-of-the-box. But here, too, YMMV.

Win7 (either x86 or x64) is not actually needed at all. XP can be installed normally and run without any issues on FAT-32. That said, I agree with loblo:

Welcome to MSFN!

It being one of the forum's stickies (notice that there are just three of 'em) isn't good enough for you?

So, 1600 vs 1333 means: Copy 0.9 % faster Read 6.9 % faster Write 1.4 % slower Latency 2.8 % less My replies to your questions: 1) None at all. 2) Since "faster" is almost imperceptible (see above: 7 % at most!), "more" is better (in the sense that there may be some rare occasion where all that memory may be actually filled, perhaps by running numerous virtual machines or the like). The benchmark above confirms it, but common sense alone should suffice to conclude that "more" is better than "faster", in this context, IMO.

That tells one that Windows Memory Control is tighter than the one done by the BIOS, but that's just what's expected, anyway. The only way to know for sure is by testing.

Memory remapping = memory hoisting. Your BIOS has it or else you'd never see the 16 GiB as usable, whatever the frequency. I bet your machine got nothing wrong but, despite the manufacturer's claims, it's northbridge simply cannot control that much RAM that fast, so it skips part of it. When you set the RAM a little less fast, however, then it's able to cope with all of it. Set it again to 1600 MHz... do 4 GiB diappear? Return it to 1600 MHz... do all 16 GiB get detected once again?

Well, up to where you reported, everything happened as it was supposed to happen... But, at this point, you should still have to issue this command: C:\windows\system32\runassystem_x64 "C:\windows\system32\runfromtoken_x64 trustedinstaller.exe 1 cmd" in order to get TrustedInstaller rights. What happens when you do?

Had you read Post #2, you'd know that already... Here, I've quoted it for you and highlighted in red the relevant part...

In any case, as time goes on and MS does nothing, I do get more and more sympathetic with the position that to have a working GenuineCheck, to allow the use of any browser other than IE, is a right MS recognized their users to have way back when, and confirmed at the agreement with the EU. So, reading every MS representative at the MS forums say "you've got to use IE" strikes me as insensitive to say the least. While I, myself do use IE8, besides Palemoon, that's my personal choice. The GenuineCheck.exe tool worked without fail for a long time, up to last month. When I 1st saw the "This version of Genuine Advantage Validation Tool is no longer supported", I imagined soon MS would release a newer version to replace it, as it has done many times before... in fact I cannot figure why in the world, at this point in time, would MS discontinue that tool at all.

tomasz86 used my 2NDIMA.IMA as the starting image, because I actually asked him to do so. While it's not exactly what you asked, after reviewing the image tomasz86 attached, I'm confident the result is equivalent. And, from tomasz86's attached image you can confirm, as I just did, that the quirck you found out first appeared on Win XP (or: after Win 2k).

Well, since I never used an Intel board with 9x/ME (it's been a long time since I moved on to AMD and VIA/SIS/nVidia), I hadn't realised that to be the case, but if the package is just a bunch of .INFs and .CATs, then it's simpler still: while editing to make it compatible with 9x/ME, remove all mentions to the .CABs, and they may be left out alltogether, too. That would create an easy-to-extend-and-to-maintain .INF-only generic package for Intel chipsets.

This topic has been updated! What's New? on post #2: ragnargd's machine configuration has been added. 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!

Of course it's worth the time to put the file in SP3! If one does not need Xeno86's fixed VCache.VxD, the file is harmless and causes no issue at all. When it is, in fact, needed, then it's already there.

No. There's really no reason to set such small values for the general case. Offler's results from that time, just as mine own as well, suffered from the fact we were both using XMSDSK, which also takes RAM out of the same pool of addresses as the VCache and the DOS Boxes do. My take is: Xeno86's fixed VCache is *all* one needs, for 1 GiB RAM or less. Due to how Xeno86 wrote the patch, if there's no MaxFileCache directive, it'll limit the VCache to 384 MiB, which is really good enough for most purposes. But if a MaxFileCache directive is present, Xeno86's fixed VCache will accept it, even if it's more than 384 MiB.

Happy Birthday, puntoMX

Good news! The old link for TweakUI 2.10, for XP SP1-SP3 and 2k3 is working once again. They've put it back.

Ditto!

With all due respect, the problem is Murphy's Law! All your tests will always work OK, ever: they should, since they're not mission-critical and you have nothing to loose. Now, this does *not* mean it's safe to use unattended procedures with unbacked-up precious content present in the machine, because then things become mission-critical and you've got *a lot* to loose, and this means things will go wrong at this point: that is what Murphy's Law is all about. Sorry! You should have at least opened the box and physically disconnected the HDD where you had unbacked-up precious data, before proceeding unattended. Or created a pair of full, known-good, off-line backups, which would be the best course to take. Sorry, my intention is not at all to lecture on you, just to get the matter in the right light (or focus, or whatever such metaphor you like most).

For now, go to the movies, or do anything else, but keep your hands out of the machine and wait. Give people at least 24h for posting and suggestions, before deciding what to do. Cool heads and good planning are always a sound strategy. And Murphy's Law, one's worst enemy.

Perfect, we missed this also http://grammarist.com/spelling/disc-disk/ I, myself, use "disc" for optical media and "disk" for any other case. While the grammarist is right in saying that the form "disk" is the preferable one for almost all cases, for optical media alone, there's a strong case for "disc" in the trademaks themselves, and their conventional logos, such as: ............ ............