bphlpt

While your request is logical and reasonable, you're just now complaining about a post he made over a year ago? LOL Just sayin' ... Cheers and Regards

@Dibya, Rather than posting your file as an attachment here on the board, could you please post your file on one of the free file servers, and post a link to the file here? That should be a more reliable way to share files. [It would also help the board by removing some of the bandwidth and file storage requirements. ] Cheers and Regards

Have you checked the registry to be sure that the key "[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\WPA\PosReady]" still has the value "Installed"=dword:00000001 and that the key "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\WindowsEmbedded" does not exist? Correct that if necessary and try to search WU/MU again and see if it made a difference. Cheers and Regards

@kdg, (1) Thank you for your change in attitude. You are being less defensive and confrontational, which is appreciated. (2) Again, no disrespect to you is meant in any way, however, you did not listen to what the moderator kindly asked you to do. Please, please, please do not make multiple, consecutive posts like the three above. To show that you understand what you have been asked to do, please edit the three posts above, NOW. Simply copy the content of the second and third post above into the first one above, and delete the content of the second and third post, replacing them with <deleted>. You will then end up with one post like this: (if you want to clean up the post that would be fine as well), and two posts like this: IF you can do that, perhaps we can continue our conversation. (3) It is much easier to have a conversation if we are better organized. It makes it easier to understand. The points you just raised have nothing to do with the subject of this thread - "Quality of OSes" - and should have been put in a different thread. (4) With the exception of your "apology", you didn't address the points I raised in either my first post, nor my last. If you want to have a conversation it requires give and take. If you want us to respond to your questions and comments, you have to respond to ours. Otherwise, you will quickly be ignored. So let's try and conclude the original point of this thread before we move onto another. So, first things first. Before we go further, please do what I asked in (2) and (4) above. I won't respond to this thread again until you do. Go ahead, I'll wait. Cheers and Regards

Apology accepted, I think? "fraud" = ???????? "insulting" - I don't think anyone made any intentional insults, we're all just confused. "horrid to read replies too precisely" - I don't know what that means, so ... "others in this thread have this same kind of problem" - I don't know what this means either. What problem? Please try again. Cheers and Regards

Hey, Tommy, Thanks for trying to keep some sense of order on the board. To clean things up a bit, and give kdg some examples of what you mean about just editing instead of consecutive posting, might I suggest that you merge the two threads, keeping it the title of this one, and merge any consecutive posts where you think it appropriate, and then see if this thread goes anywhere from there, ... or not. As to locking threads, my personal opinion is to just let almost all threads die a natural death by abandonment. There are many, many threads on this board that have been reinvigorated years after the "last" post. Some for just a comment or two, and some of those were a mistake, but occasionally for a worthwhile conversation. I think, and again just my own opinion, that threads should only be locked when they have devolved into flame wars or personal insults AND the responsible parties have refused to curtail their behavior after being publicly warned. But, that's just me. Cheers and Regards

@kdg, We really are not trying to disrespect you at all, we either just don't understand what you are trying to talk about, or we might not want to participate even if we do (think) we understand, or there are already several other threads on the board discussing the same thing and we don't see a need to start another thread. If you are saying by this: that Win 2K/XP was the best OS that MS produced and that all of MS's efforts since then have gone downhill from there in efficiency, performance, GUI effectiveness, etc, (with the exception of a very, very few performance improvements and feature additions), then many members here will agree with you, but as jaclaz explained: And as sdfox7 further clarified: not only has this subject been, and is still being, covered in many other threads on the board, but the claim is very subjective and other people's needs might not be the same as yours. If your comment - "This thread is about how this can become how it is." - is trying to start a discussion of how to modify a newer MS OS to be more like Win 2K/XP, that has also been, and continues to be, discussed in many other threads on the board. On the other hand, if you are trying to start a discussion to influence MS to modify newer versions of their OS to be more like Win 2K/XP, well, (1) that result is just not going to happen, and (2) those efforts have already been tried, and are continuing, in the "deeper-impressions" threads, among others on the board. So, while we welcome you to MSFN and are glad you want to be an active participant on the board, my suggestion would be to make your comments in an existing thread that is already discussing the subject you want to talk about. We don't need another thread about the same thing. Of course, if I have misunderstood your intention, then you can ignore all of my above comments except for using them as proof that we are not understanding what you are trying to say, and try again to express yourself simply and clearly so that we can better appreciate your contributions to MSFN. Cheers and Regards

He knows. Cheers and Regards

Warning about what, exactly? Cheers and Regards

And as Tommy and Jaclaz, and others will agree, this is not xper's fault directly, but rather the good IPB folks, as Jaclaz like to say. Personally, I think they are blooming id*** that don't care a bit about their users, and I don't know why MSFN, WinCert, and others continue to use them. There are other board software options out there. I'm sure xper did not intend this thread to become a bash the IPB folks thread, but I had to rant. Sorry. Cheers and Regards

Our opinions about how MS should be operating are the the ones that MS should have been having all along, so it's easy to see how Jan had gotten confused. LOL Cheers and Regards

It's easy to get the Wayback Machine to save any page from the forum so it won't be lost. But is there any way to get it to make a snapshot of the entire site as it looks today so all the info on the site will be able to be searched and easily accessed? Cheers and Regards

Thanks den! Cheers and Regards

Problem is, if I try to download the file I get: "Page cannot be displayed due to robots.txt." I'm probably doing something stupid, but I've tried various browsers, and different dates through the Wayback Machine, and always got the same failure. So, what am I doing wrong? Cheers and Regards

The above action does NOT crash Explorer for my Windows 7 x64, so I cannot replicate this issue. Cheers and Regards

Sure. Hold "Shift" while you hit "Enter" and you won't get the "extra" line. Like this- while if you hit "Enter" on its own you get the "extra" line, like this- I believe the intention is that "Enter" on it's own is for a new paragraph, which usually gets a blank line. Cheers and Regards

RyanVM is up for me. Cheers and Regards

I'm neither an admin or mod, but I'm afraid that I can't replicate your problem. My situation is the same as Jumper/NoelC. I can't imagine that it's your MSFN account, and it doesn't appear to be a fault, surprisingly this time, of IPS, so it is most likely some setting or issue on your end. I know that you have said that you have tried both IE and Firefox, but have you also tried any of the various Chrome browsers? How about creating a new user account and trying the different browsers from there? If all of those have the same behavior, then it doesn't seem to be a browser setting, but must be a system setting or issue. The only way to verify that is see if you can log into MSFN using a different computer and see if the behavior is still the same. A few months back I had some very weird behavior that only affected certain versions of certain browsers and only when trying to access very particular pages - the settings pages. I was convinced that it was a browser issue, but it wasn't. The problem only went away by doing an OS reinstall. Then, using the exact same browsers and settings I had no more problems. Sometimes there are just weird problems. Good luck! Cheers and Regards

Hello indeed Kiki! It has been quite awhile, my friend. I hope you are doing well. Cheers and Regards

Well, besides thinking that RT7 is the problem if you did any tweaks or removals with it whatsoever, unless you were absolutely positive that you knew from personal experience exactly what each one did and it has worked successfully for you in the recent past, you could try the following: Download a portable version of yet another browser, maybe either one of the Chrome variants or Pale Moon, or whatever, completely stock with absolutely no extensions installed. Make sure you don't have any other browser open at all and see if you can get to SourceForge using the portable browser. If you can, then the problem is a browser setting or extension. If not, then it has nothing to do with the browser, but instead it's an OS issue. This is assuming that your Win98 machine is on the same home network, which should eliminate a router or external problem. If all systems use the same DNS provider, then it's not that. If you have all extensions disabled in both IE and FF, then it's not those. Do you use the same AV for both OS with the same settings and both updated the same? If so then it's not that. That pretty much narrows it down to a HOST or maybe a service setting? That's what comes to mind to test. If you still have a problem, then I'm probably missing something simple to tell you which someone else will immediately think of. [Or it's something that RT7 did. ] Good Luck! Cheers and Regards

Since you run all these tests in a VM of each OS, I wonder if there would be any differences if the host OS was different. I mean since your tests seem to favor 8.1, with a host of 8.1 running a VM of 8.1, I wonder if the overall results would be the same if the host was 7, or 10? Maybe it would be the most fair if Linux was used as the host? I realize that ideally the host OS shouldn't matter, but this has been nagging at me so I figured I'd throw it out there for consideration. Another option would be if the three OS were separately installed on their own SSD that could be swapped out to run the tests. No method would be absolutely perfect, and I really do appreciate that you are trying to compare apples-to-apples the best you can. I also very much realize that the setups and tests for each system take time that take away from your real work, and I thank you for putting forth the effort and sharing the results. Cheers and Regards

Indeed! LOL

Something to consider as a way to get around the buggy KB3172605 is this. abbodi1406 has made a possible fix: And if you're not comfortable using someone else's file, in the next post in that thread he explains how he created the file from the KB3172605 so you can download the file from MS yourself and make your own version. Just a thought. Cheers and Regards

Dibya, we all like you, we really do, and we really admire that someone as young as you are has such an interest in modifying computer software and not just playing computer games and chatting on Facebook. But please, please, please NEVER use the term "Dude" here ever again -- EVER. You are really irritating some of our members to the point that some of them are probably tempted to ban you for the use of this somewhat disrespectful term in this environment when they have repeatedly asked you nicely over and over again not to use it. So please STOP IT! Cheers and Regards my friend

WHAT!!! $595 in 1992!!! According to this, that's the equivalent to over $!000 today! Well, that answers that, then. Especially since they also said: And again, that was back in 1992. I think I'll pass. Then again, looking at page 93, I see that in 1992 a 33MHz 486 EISA Gateway2000 [ 80486, 8 MB RAM, 5.25" and 3.5" floppy, 340 MB HDD, 16-Bit VGA, a 14" monitor, and Windows 3.0 ] sold for $3895 (almost $6700 today), so I guess value is relative. But I still think I'll pass. Cheers and Regards