Glenn9999

Probably ASM that calls the Windows API functions that will obtain a MD5 hash. But with storage and memory what it is, why quibble over a handful of bytes? Speaking of which, if you can do those in VBScript that's probably the best course.

This is how testing hash functions usually goes. You have to pick out a number of cases of files of different sizes and then test test and retest (and eliminate all potential of garbage, too). From looking at the script in #1 it seems like the way it's written it only works right if files are presented to it that are in multiples of 4 bytes. The MD5Decode function sticks out in this regard.

Me too, but I will tell you from experience in implementing it in other things (and reading that VBScript) that it will work as long as you present the entire data at once to the function. The problem is you really can't do that, so what you have to do is write multiple functions to process a limited buffer based on current state data that you save outside of the function and then finishes up the MD5 once you hit the end of the data. It would be a change of moderate complexity to someone who knows VBScript (I'm sure), but the problem for me is while I have done this in another language, my knowledge of VBScript is zero, so I couldn't say I could write the change there.

Since I've already done MD5, SHA-1, and CRC-32 (and could rig more through the Windows API), would it be fruitful to cook up a quick exec for this (command-line and free to distribute of course)? Or at least post the proper API calls (i.e. source example) to get the MD5 out of them (assuming those can be done in VBScript - i.e. the source can be adapted)? If so, how should the MD5 be reported?

I believe IExpress is the tool involved - if you can get an older version of it. Sufficient details should be on the page I linked to.

FWIW, the answer that seems to exist for Windows (most all of this stuff has to have an API somewhere) in reading the API, is as follows: function CallNtPowerInformation(InformationLeveL: POWER_INFORMATION_LEVEL; lpInputBuffer: PVOID; nInputBufferSize: ULONG; lpOutputBuffer: PVOID; nOutputBufferSize: ULONG): NTSTATUS; stdcall; external powrproflib name 'CallNtPowerInformation'; I have code calling this which seems to work in that it identifies that all the stuff I have as not supporting the feature (which is true). The problem for me is in having known good code which will do the job. Calling this using SystemPowerCapabilities brings back or sends a structure, which seems to have the following interesting parts: BOOLEAN ProcessorThrottle; BYTE ProcessorMinThrottle; BYTE ProcessorMaxThrottle; From the documentation: Of course it looks promising (set some number to the later two where they are equal would effectively "disable" the feature), but really no way to be sure. What I thought was it would be nice to find some code sample on the Internet where someone has done this already and use that, but I really haven't found any code samples either that claim to do the task. Odd thing being that I see it mentioned enough that it would be a useful enough task to more than just a few. Hope that helps explain where I'm at with the research on things (since I have a little more time now than when I first posted that).

One thing I've been looking to do (actually requested by someone - and I'm handicapped because of no way to test it, personally), is how to disable dynamic frequency scaling on CPUs via CODE. The problem I'm having is that the search engine really hasn't revealed a good way to do it. Lots on OS settings for both Windows and Linux but nothing that will shut the feature off and let you run something (and maybe let you turn it back on). Does anyone have any clues as to how to do it? Sample source would be great, too, if possible.

Twins. Hot ones. They play harps. They redo rock songs. They don't sound half bad either.

FWIW, I don't know if this helps any, but when I did the interfaces for the Update Downloader I posted once upon a time, I did functionality for Automatic Updates settings too. When I did that, I found that it's controlled through the IAutomaticUpdates interface, specifically the Settings property which is a IAutomaticUpdatesSettings interface. Specifically, you would want the NotificationLevel property to satisfy the OP's request. I don't know if any of that could be useful for the scripters out there (or if it can be done in this context with Windows 7, it probably can), but hopefully it can provide a pointer towards doing it with the API if trying it with the registry doesn't work out.

The real question is if they will allow activation past 2015 or 2019 or whenever. Bricking new installs of XP from the media that's out there will be more of a scandal than not making security updates.

More Yes showing why they deserve the respect they do. And Steve Howe playing something (once again) that would make just about every Guitar Hero player cry if they had to duplicate it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HbQlsk8lus

My latest pickup. Perhaps one of the more underrated bands of the 80's in general:

Yeah I was about 90% certain it was 2707511, but now I'm 100% certain. I went ahead and double-checked the UPHClean thing and didn't have it installed. But I got so many Microsoft-made addons now I really am not too sure whether they are all useful or not. So I usually don't install them or keep them installed. Anyhow, no one is aware of any fix in the works for that one?

I tried doing web searches on this and haven't found anything. When I did the most recent set of updates (June 2012), I had a computer hang on shutdown. You'd go to the start button and select shutdown and all you'd get is the hourglass cursor. I could subsequently trigger the shutdown through the task manager (CTRL+ALT+DEL), but the machine would hang anyway on the shutdown screen. I could hit the restart button on the machine itself and have it boot up to the user screen and then shut down properly from there. I have a feeling it's caused by KB 2707511, but I'm not too sure since it only happens when the computer is in use a while. Is there any confirmation or any other ideas on this one? Does anyone that's more connected with M$ have any ideas when they'll fix this?

I read a version of 226 on WIndows XP. I even pulled up the site and don't see it come through. My guess is that they've quit *explicitly* supporting Windows XP on this if it's coming through on Vista and Seven. Hopefully they'll at least come up with a stand-alone installer soon if it is a *security* problem.

Yeah... problem is as much finding something that will work, or will work without a sound profile (kind of hard to make one of those for someone else), or doesn't make you have to type it anyway (basically just a glorified sound player). That's kind of the idea. While it's just a "few" MP3 files, it's about 3 hours total worth of audio, and was looking for an easier way than forcing my way through the audio and trying to type it.

I'm in a place where I could use a few spoken-word MP3s transcribed. While I could do it myself by listening/re-listening and typing the best way I can to get it right, I'm thinking that speech-to-text has gotten to a place since I saw it last where it could do this job for me with much less effort. Any suggestions on software that would help do this? I specified free/demo because I really don't want to pay for something that I likely won't ever use again after I got these MP3s transcribed.

Assuming this is the stock boot disk created out of Windows 98, doesn't it usually already have some form of edit that exists somewhere (if not on the floppy drive itself, on the stuff it copies over to the ram drive)? Otherwise, a second floppy drive with the file is useful. I should point out that custom disks with only essential files are usually the best way to go, in the sense that you can get the space to load a lot of other things.

These are all old .NET patches which have been superseded by newer ones and don't show in the current install list for Windows XP. Pay them no mind as the other softwares are doing.

It's been a while since I messed with DX9 on Windows ME so I'm not sure I remember. But can't you do the regular DirectX 9.0 install onto 98/ME and then apply the latest refresh to get it up to date, including this fix?

They've added much to their songs by refinement over the years, but I agree with age they have lost some of what they can do. Yes notably plays some things slower than they did in their prime. Steve Howe is no exception, but even at the time he played in those videos (I tried to match up the Howe video with the same time as the Yes video), he's a much better guitar player than most all of the ones walking the earth today. Regardless, most of the older bands that haven't completely lost it (The Who being a famous exception) play as well as what is on their albums day after day (or better). And is much better than the stuff that passes for music today. The nice thing about Youtube, though, is how many videos you can find of some of these older acts playing back when they released their stuff. Here's one of Yes playing in 1972. I don't think there's anyone alive today (including Steve Howe himself) that could duplicate what Steve Howe did in that video starting about 6:30 or so in. Edit: Here's Rush in their prime.

To continue on the Yes bandwagon (it's easy to do since they are all pretty much masters at what they are doing in the band), it's not many people that can stand before a concert crowd alone, do nothing put play acoustic guitar, hold the crowd and get a loud ovation at the end. Steve Howe (the guitar player for Yes) can. Proof is in the video below:

Another band that ridicules the crap that passes for music today for how good it is compared to it. This will probably be my next music acquisition when I get the money.

Live version of the more popular part of that song (which I posted in its entirety earlier): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWLxT5OFcWg&feature=related

Huey Lewis & The News. One of the major proofs of how music has gotten much worse today than it was then. Very good artists who don't need the second take and sound just as good live as they do on record, because they're good at what they do and don't do the autotune and other crap. Basically what you hear on the record is what they do on the stage. I'll also say this is one of the bands I got the good fortune to see live. The whole show was very awesome. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBI5h5N-Nfo