Glenn9999

I've been trying to update my boot disks to be more general and work for modern hardware. I have had few real victories (admist all the USB device headaches, namely keyboard and mouse), but I thought I'd share what I found: GCDROM - a CD/DVD driver for DOS that works with SATA drives. Worked pretty well the 2 minor times I tested it. http://www.freedos.org/cgi-bin/lsm.cgi?mod...base/gcdrom.lsm And while these are pretty raw in development they show much more promise than the USBASPI/DI1000DD combo (one was even made to have an open API it seems). Hopefully one of them will eventually be reasonably complete and stable: DOSUSB - http://www.georgpotthast.de/usb/ and USBDOS - http://bretjohnson.us/

Microsoft Security Essentials blacklisted the site (and the software, I can't install it with MSE enabled) pretty soon after release of 1.8.8, because of the bundled e-bay stuff. Norton Internet Security seems to have as well for the same reason. http://forums.pcworld.com/index.php?/topic...s-unlocker-188/ The site 403's as well, if I turn off SmartScreen in IE. Page 2 of the thread posted has someone interpreting the French, which basically translates to "Access refused." So it seems to have been blown off the net by his provider because of these reports.

Vista is nice in the sense that even if you go standard API (and not WMI), that all it takes is one call to get all you need. Unfortunately that's not the case with XP/2003/2000 and below. To that point, I ended up splitting my code when I did it. That was because it took so many calls and tests, which was indicated in my research. I'm sure it could be simplified a lot, but the key is first to get it correct. Unfortunately, Windows wasn't very standardized, so it's hard to tell that. Unless you have access to all of them. Given that, I should go ahead and ask if people would test and see if I'm right or wrong on my code. I tested it against Windows XP Home, Windows XP Professional, Windows ME, and all the compatibility modes in XP (which return the proper OSes). There are two execs in this ZIP, Winmain and prodmain (both command-line). Winmain is a generic version id code, Prodmain is a SKU specific one ("Windows XP Professional" instead of simply "Windows XP"), and also tests my 32-bit/64-bit OS detection code. Hopefully, they are right, but if not, hopefully they can be corrected and I can post the source (I hate to post something I haven't fully tested). NOTE: What I posted doesn't work on Vista or above

I find that OS ID code is definitely tough, simply for the number of variations to check for and the inability (by yourself) to see whether you got it working right or not. For the time I tried it, I found the code for Vista and above to be much easier than the code for anything else. Speaking of which (if I remember what I did right), you might as well go for "all windows", since about 90% of the checks are for Windows versions that are >= 5.00

http://www.msfn.org/board/batch-patcher-1-...54-page-21.html

This is likely OS-dependent more than browser-dependent, since 10 is specifically stated to be for XP/Vista/probably 7. I find most sites (Adobe included, but the biggest offender I've found is the Chrome site) tend to lock you out of installing/downloading software for those if they can't detect that is what you are running.

Actually I just looked and they have a new Flash player in beta, so this is likely going to come to pass very soon. http://blogs.adobe.com/flashplatform/2009/...a_2_availa.html

Most of this has been true for a very long time. This is just an example of the facts of life regarding software development. It's prohibitive to support all your old versions infinitely, so you have to cut off supporting them sometime. For example, Microsoft will just laugh at you if you go to them for Windows 95 (or 98 or ME or NT4 or 2000) support. That is what is being announced - that Adobe does not license Flash 9 for distribution with other apps. Again, nothing new. As for Adobe's download distribution, Adobe has not offered Flash 9 in any other way than the archival packages you mention in a very long time. As for your last sentence, there are no conspiracy theories like this. Tech moves on, and people generally move on with it. However, any company in tech can't stay in business if it hamstrings itself to satisfy the minority that refuses to move on.

The AVG anti-rootkit has been folded into their paid anti-virus product, and consequently, any updates to it have been done there..

The problem is that so many things have overlapping functions, or some are better than others. Anyway what I'm using on the malware/virus front: MalwareBytes Anti-Malware (scanning purposes) Spywareblaster (an immunize function) Spybot (the immunize function, mainly) Hijackthis (it's for looking at what is loading and killing what doesn't look right) Microsoft Security Essentials (virus/antispyware scanner) Comodo if I want a firewall different than the standard one. I've also used AVG, AntiVir, SuperAntispyware, Zonealarm & Avast at one time or another, along with several little anti-rootkit scanners.

I noticed that you could do that in the reading I did right after I made this post, and found the HP USB Disk Storage Format Tool. But I was thinking CD, because I reasonably know how to archive those (create the ISOs, store them until needed). How would you archive USB so the boot image & capability would be there? And on another topic, I notice a lot of topics regarding "installing from USB", but I'm wondering how easy it would be to get a live system on USB, like for virus scanning purposes? And on another thought, how would you create boot images, for DOS, but for XP as well (possibly)? Evidently I'm not knowing the proper terms to search for on this one...

I'm looking into getting some boot CDs together for my needs so I could get away from having a working floppy drive around. While I have the boot disks in floppy form and I can get that process done, I'm wondering if there are any big concerns that I would need to address in making the move? Like is there anything that I would need to do that involves introducing new files for every once in a while (like flashing a BIOS)? Or does most of that get done without booting off a disk now? As well, what is the best way to store the images (CD, but maybe floppy as well, depending on what is needed) so they can be restored into bootable disks? Or will ISO tend to take care of that? Any other big concerns I would need to address?

1) Give it time. 7 hrs really isn't a long time for any board to have a post garner replies. 24 hrs is my rule before I even worry about responses to a post I make, anywhere. 2) This is primarily a software/hardware support site (and primarily unattended things) with some scripting mixed in. Most people are just going to say nothing at all if there is a topic that they're unsure about. You might consider posting this question to a place that has more of a bent towards web design and site implementation. 3) Personally, I don't even know WHY anyone would blog, myspace, facebook, twitter, or any of the other things. No one can seem to answer that question, either. (perhaps I need to find such a site myself on that one, if I really wanted a solid answer on it)

That is about all it provides, though I believe this "insurance" won't pay for Google in the end. All the reading that I've done indicates that Chrome Frame is a site-specific plugin and only will work on sites specifically enabled for it. A copy of IE6 with Chrome Frame will still be using the IE6 engine on other sites, but will be using Chrome Frame on the specific site that has asked for its installation. This fragmentation is what Mozilla is going after in their comments. No one truly wants site-specific plug-ins, not only for the inconvienence, but for the bloat and the increased possibility of malware through such plugins. Odds are high that few corporate entities will accept installation of this plugin.

I notice as of late that there's an auto hyperlinking behavior on this message board. Specifically, anytime the word Google is mentioned, a hyperlink is generated to the site. Now I can understand in a certain way if Google is paying out advertising money to MSFN to do this. But the behavior is trashing URL linkages that include that word. See http://www.msfn.org/board/google-chrome-fr...86.html&hl= for an illustration of what I'm talking about. Anyhow, is there an intention to change this hyperlinking behavior all together? Or at least fix this particular problem?

I did a little more research. Microsoft slammed Chrome Frame, which was to be expected. Their reasoning was funny in a lot of ways. Google responded. Mozilla also slammed Chrome Frame, but for some other reasons that make more sense, most notably that the concept fragments rendering into specific sites. In other words, functionally there is no stopping each site from coming up with their custom rendering interface. Oddly enough for all the fuss Opera has put up, I'm surprised they haven't said anything regarding this. FWIW, I figured out in reading that Google likely did this to try to facilitate acceptance of Google Wave, which uses a lot of web tech that most all browsers do not support. With IE being 60-70% of the market, I guess that's what they think are getting out of doing this - so they can get IE users into Wave. Personally, I don't think they're going to get too much ROI given the target customer base for Google Wave. Either people will not be able to install Chrome Frame due to IT security constraints, or there will not be much call to do something so extensive for the return that using something like Wave would bring. Ultimately, though, I just don't think too many are going to care. * I hyper-linked "Google Wave", but the auto-replace thing that seems to be going (most all my Google references as well as in the previous post are hyperlinked), and ruining it. Here's the URL: http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Messaging-and-Col...K-Users-114726/ ** Now this would be news if someone decided to retrofit something like this for IE6SP1 or Firefox 2 in Windows 9X, especially if they did the whole Firefox 3 or Chrome browser. *** I just noticed that another hyperlink got trashed in reading this: "Google responded" should equate to http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/913...rity?source=toc instead of the Google site.

(maybe this is technology news, maybe software, but I thought I'd get a topic going on it anyway) I came across one of Google's new products (in beta), a derivative of their browser. http://code.google.com/chrome/chromeframe/ It aims to install its own rendering engine over IE 6, 7, or 8 in Windows XP or Vista, so that essentially you would then be running the Chrome renderer with the IE UI. It seems kind of odd that they're doing this to me. I have to wonder, too, what Microsoft has to say about someone (especially Google) doing this. So...the answer to my question in the topic description in my view is no. I'm thinking just go ahead and install the entire browser if you want Chrome and be done with it. But I'm looking to more see what others think. Is this worth anything? What do you all think about them doing this?

Okay, this issue is called key blocking. I knew this was an issue in older technology and I figured that manufacturers would have gotten past it, but it seems that's what I'm encountering with the Logitech keyboard. It seems I got a piece of junk for a keyboard. Even found a video that explains it:

Logitech rolls off old product from their site rather quickly. This was a keyboard that was purchased in 2007 or so. PS/2 style cable. It's just a basic windows style keyboard. See the attachment for the basic "online computer shop" image of this keyboard. Nope, don't have another one. The rest I have all have worse malfunctions than this.

It's the Logitech Deluxe Keyboard Y-SU61. I seem to remember it working without a problem, but I can double-check. Edit: I Double-checked, it did the same thing under XP, the best I could test it. I didn't figure that they would still be putting out keyboards with that functional deficiency still... Anyhow, is there any suggestion on a way to at least mitigate this?

Problem #2 solved. Thanks. I tried the drivers from the Logitech site and I still have problem #1.

I just got done setting up a real (as opposed to virtual) Windows ME partition for gaming and ran into a couple of things that I didn't have much idea on. 1) The keyboard works, but it will exhibit the "stuck key" thing that a lot of keyboards did when it came to DOS games (push a key hold it in, the one next door doesn't work right). The keyboard is Logitech brand, and I didn't add a driver for this, so I'm wondering if a driver change would fix this? If not, what? 2) Then the video kind of panels and artifacts (? I don't know the right word to describe it). It just doesn't draw things right. This is on a widescreen monitor with the last Nvidia 98-ME drivers I could find (71.XX I think), and the monitor driver was what I had that came with the monitor.

Definitely the least intrusive. I can't tell, though, how much it covers. About the only thing I have figured out is that it is a malware scanner as much as an antivirus scanner and functionally upgrades Windows Defender. (if that matters much?) I think the jury is still out on that one.

How do you get it to do as the OP asks (CPU usage for each core on his/her 4 core system)? I notice in my experience that the Performance tab of Task Manager does a better job in that regard....

Good question. I would definitely be interested in knowing how power consumption would change depending on how the CPUs get used. I would think though, as long as both remain powered up & fully available, that both would be consuming power. I wonder, though, if there's a way to throttle down a CPU/core to conserve power if you put load on a certain set of cores more than others (i.e. core 1&2 normally used, core 3&4 seldom used in a 4-core processor). But then again, that scenario I described would almost invite some time in task manager/whatever to set some process affinities to those two cores. I just did read in some MS-connected there would be some benefit to tying an S.-T. app to a single processor in heavy loads, since if a process switches processors it would have to reload all its flags. My guess is that doing that is so negligible in performance cost as to not be a concern, though.