bphlpt

And the "upgrade" is non-reversible unless the user specifically and manually made and maintained an up-to-date backup image, unless they want to re-install from scratch. Cheers and Regards

Don't worry Noel, you're not alone. I just have not jumped on the Win 8.x+ bandwagon, I'm still happily on Win 7, so I haven't had to use a MS account to log onto my PC. The only reason I have an account is that I set up a hotmail email account back in 2001. I rarely use it, but the account is still viable. Cheers and Regards

Well, that is what defrag does, isn't it? Not that I agree that the procedure should be necessary or helpful for a device that is inherently more random access than a spinning hard disk is, but I'm just playing devil's advocate. Cheers and Regards

Sounds like a plan. The next time you are "in a bored moment", if you have a spare disk drive to use, and it wouldn't need to be a large one at all, it really shouldn't take all that long to pull everything out of your system, put the spare drive in, and do a simple XP install. It then shouldn't take very long to reverse the process and get your system back to the way it is now after the experiment is completed. It would probably take less time in total than your other investigations and experiments. But by all means proceed in the manner that is most comfortable to you. It is your system after all. I do realize that some folks enjoy the "what if" and "I wonder what would happen if" and "I wonder why it does or doesn't" type speculation as an end to itself. Have a great day my friend. Cheers and Regards

Dave, since you admit that hibernation or standby in XP has never worked on this particular motherboard, regardless of which graphics card you have used with this motherboard, and you have used several over the years, and I believe you said that you have tried more than one driver with a few if not all of the graphics cards, I think that you might be asking the wrong question. Instead of asking why standby does not work with XP, maybe you should ask why standby does work with Windows 8.1 x64. As to XP, I'm guessing that something might be missing on this particular motherboard, either in the required hardware or in the BIOS, that XP needs in order to invoke standby, and nothing you try to copy over from a different XP system where standby works is going to change that. So why/how does Windows 8.1 x64 get standby to work? Since I don't use Windows 8.x, and I have no desire to, I have no idea of the answer to that question or how to find it. But someone else might. If you still want to pursue the question from the XP angle, then I have to agree with Ponch that you have nothing to lose by trying older drivers for your graphics boards. I know you "don't see why installing an earlier version would fix it though", but then are you saying that everything computer related makes sense? This wouldn't be the first time that older versions of a driver or app worked better than later ones for a particular situation. Have you found any comments on the web from other users of this motherboard that have complained that they couldn't get standby to work? Surely others would have mentioned that at some time unless the manufacturer specified from the beginning that feature was not available on that motherboard. Seriously, if you want to truly verify that standby just will not work in XP with this motherboard, I think you'll need to strip your system down to it's very basics, such as minimal number of drives, only one graphics card, minimal number of extra hardware, ie remove cameras, printers, etc, and do a very basic XP install and see if standby will work. I would even try older drivers for both the motherboard and graphics card that date back to when the boards first came out, assuming that both the motherboard and graphics cards were originally rated for use with each other and with XP. With a simplified install setup, if you try drivers from the original ones up to the latest you can find and nothing works to enable XP to use standby, then you might have to resign yourself to knowing that it just won't work. But at least then you can know that you tried everything you could. If you can get it to work, then you can start adding things back until it quits working. Then you just have to figure out what is causing the incompatibility and go from there. I realize that the simplified XP system is a far cry from the system you want to use, but surely you agree that your system, multiple graphics cards from different manufacturers, multi-boot 98SE, XP and Win 8.1, etc., can make troubleshooting problematic, to say the least. Just my two cents. Cheers and Regards Edit: Added 98SE to the list of your multi-boot OS

And the problem was??? It would be nice to know in order to possibly help others in the same situation. Cheers and Regards

That is very odd, since you seem to think you can defrag it separately, and they are not combined for me. But if that is true for you, then use a SD card to USB adapter to plug the card directly into the computer for formatting. Cheers and Regards

Thanks for putting this summary together, dencorso! Cheers and Regards

Welcome to MSFN! Cheers and Regards

And if registering the fonts is the issue, then this might be of interest - [Tool] FontReg 2.1.3 - Font install and registration repair. Cheers and Regards

While I'm glad that you have made progress, I'm curious. Why have you not answered my questions? (3) And what does "not work" mean? Anything at all happen? Any error message? Are the fonts moved and just not registered, or are they not moved at all? If nothing happens, how do you know that the script was even called? Your lack of response, and the escalating requirements you are adding, is making me suspicious. What is your true end goal? What exactly are you trying to do, when are you trying to do it, and why? Specifying these things will only help us provide a better solution for you. Rather than continuing to fine tune you original approach, we might have a completely different idea that might work even better for you if we understood what you were trying to accomplish and why. Just a thought. Cheers and Regards

Welcome to MSFN! Cheers and Regards

Not that I will necessarily be able to help directly, but It seems these things might be important. And what does "not work" mean? Anything at all happen? Any error message? Are the fonts moved and just not registered, or are they not moved at all? If nothing happens, how do you know that the script was even called? Have you tried adding "echo" statements to verify that the script is run? Cheers and Regards

To get more help in debugging this issue, you will probably need to provide a little more info, such as: -- OS involved - I assumed Win7 x64, but you mentioned XP as well above, so... -- Please post the VBScript as you ended up modifying it, and specify exactly where you place the script and the fonts you are trying to install. -- Please post the batch script that you are using to call the font-install script, and specify exactly where it is located and when you are trying to run it - at OS install, at every OS boot, on demand, or what? -- Anything else you can think of. Cheers and Regards

Welcome to MSFN! Cheers and Regards

I wonder what inspired today's Dilbert comic. Hmmmm? Cheers and Regards

Welcome to MSFN! Cheers and Regards

Does this make sense to the majority of the readers of this thread? The affirmation and/or its explanation? I read that he was agreeing with jaclaz that in order to run a newer version of Windows you have to have to have a more powerful CPU, RAM, disc speed and space, etc than what was required for ME and 2000, so of course using an app, that would run on both old and new versions of the OS, to do things like loading a JPEG will likely seem faster to you on the newer OS than what you experienced on your older system. But because of all of the code bloat and added "features", the UI of the newer OS can't be as fast as what the older OS could be if it could run on the newer hardware. ie, smaller can move faster than larger. I took his comment that "XP was the beginning of the stupidness" as saying that XP was the beginning of the code bloat, also agreeing with what jaclaz has said elsewhere. I also was a long time Win2K user that has been horrified at the increasing laziness of the programmers of the later OS, but I have made my peace with that at least as far as XP and Win7 is concerned in exchange for the ease of use of being able to open any file, go to any web site and run any app I want and have things just work. So sue me, I'm lazy sometimes. I also do enjoy at least some of the personalization options available in Win 7 even if I do disable many of them. Like Noel said, when you look at a computer for hours and hours you want to enjoy the view. I think the comments from ido1ts that say the reversion of the UI in Win 10 back to Win 1 levels is great because now you can "concentrate better on the content" is total garbage. Do you build a house that looks like junk so you can better appreciate the furniture and the artwork on the walls? Sorry for the rant. The comment about "Naysayers ..." is just a way of saying "Don't confuse me with facts, I don't care. I know what I like and what works for me." There are many folks on this board that prefer one OS or UI over the other, including 95, 98, ME, 2000, XP, etc, even Mac or Linux and the occasional MS fan boy that loves the latest that MS puts out no matter how ridiculous it is, and they are each entitled to their opinion. Like Noel said, I just read it and move on. Cheers and Regards

At least you have identified specific things you actually like better about the new OS. Whether those same capabilities could have been added to Windows 7 through tweaks and/or 3rd party apps, I don't know. As to whether those added values are worth switching OS, I guess we'll agree to disagree, for now. Cheers and Regards my friend

Noel, I truly appreciate your thoughtful response. The only trouble I have with it is trying to understand exactly what "additional value", other than the undefinable value of "staying current", that Windows 8.x+ has provided you over what you were able to achieve with your well tuned installations of Windows 7. It's not performance, given the same hardware, and the main "feature" that the new OS have that Windows 7 doesn't is the "Metro Modern" apps that I know you don't use. I'm not aware of any feature that the new OS have that you didn't already have with Windows 7. Yes, thanks to your experiments and hard work you have learned enough to be able to extend your eBook series, but I believe you could have learned all of that using the OS in a VM while taking advantage of the performance advantages of Windows 7 as your host OS, but just maybe not as quickly as having it installed on metal full time. Is it measurably more stable? Does any of your other software require the newer OS? Hardware compatibility issue? Or what? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just really trying to understand. The fact that you have been able to manipulate the OS and add enough 3rd party apps to make the resulting OS installation meet your needs in a very functional and stable manner is not in question and is not the point. I also realize, as both you and jaclaz have said, that everyone's circumstances and needs are different and the decision of which OS to use is an individual one and often a personal matter. And I also realize that decision can change over time as things change. But, if you don't mind saying, what was the "additional value" you found? That undefinable value of "staying current" is the only thing you have consistently stated that I can't give an argument against or that you haven't measurably disproved yourself. I have seen the various UI changes, continued code bloat, diminishing user control over the update process, etc that I don't like without any value added to the OS at all. Like you, I see absolutely no value to any of the Windows store apps at all. So I have just not seen any reason to change from Windows 7. For now. Cheers and Regards

Noel, you have usually been an early adopter, with the exception of Windows 8.0, and you have maintained that there is value in having a more current OS. You have also been very successful in beating the OS into submission to the point that you are able to work comfortably with it and all the other software that you need/want to use. As you often say, it works for you. And I acknowledge that it can be convenient for a software developer to use the latest OS, at least in a VM, and it might even be required if you are developing apps for Windows Phone and/or the Windows store. But, with that exception, from your post above it seems you are saying that, from a user's standpoint, with the same hardware and assuming that the user has properly tuned their system and kept it up to date, there is no reason from either a performance or features perspective to update from a Windows 7 OS that meets the user's needs. Correct? Cheers and Regards

That link comes up as Error 404 - Not Found Truncate off the " will" from the end of the link, ie the link should end with "/" and it will come up fine. Cheers and Regards

Welcome to MSFN! Cheers and Regards

Welcome to MSFN! Cheers and Regards

Well, once there is a "legitimate ISO from Microsoft", then the situation will be different. Cheers and Regards