CharlotteTheHarlot

AdDuplex: Surface RT still the most popular Windows 8/RT product ( NeoWin 2013-02-21 ) I wonder if our dear friends over there realize what it is they are actually saying? If Surface ReTard Edition only sold between 500,000 and 750,000 ( definitely less than a million ), and you subtract out the 100,000 dogfood units for Microsoft employees, we are left with a guesstimate of 400,000 and 650,000 total units of the "most popular Windows 8/RT product" in the wild. All other units are, by definition, less popular. I'm not sure what to make of the pie chart at the link, what "other" means is not clear to me. But all-in-all this story is NOT something Microsoft really wants to brag about. Microsoft celebrates 20 year anniversary of its MVP program ( NeoWin 2013-02-21 ) This is fine and all, and no disrespect to any volunteers, but when do they thank the rest of us? You know, the millions of techs that have actually kept Windows afloat for all these years. Microsoft has been the huge beneficiary of a world-wide phenomena of nameless, non-employee tech support that has solved almost every problem they have created and let persist through a generation. If this non-employee support force suddenly went on strike and stopped fixing Windows problems for their friends, relatives, and strangers ( by means of countless unaffiliated tech forums ), and all support questions were redirected to Redmond, Windows would collapse like a house of cards. This is indisputable truth. MVPs have certainly been around for a while, but unfortunately many of them suffer from a weird Stockholm Syndrome picking up on and spreading Microsoft propaganda and spending more time arguing on their behalf than solving actual technical problems. If you Google for an answer to something wrong with Windows, 90% of the time you will wind up in a forum like this one where people solve the allegedly unsolvable. 5% of the time it will be to a MSKB article that likely offers little help in as many words as possible, and a small part of the remainder will be MVPs solving such important things as changing themes or writing a macro. Dear Microsoft: You're Welcome!

Oh rats, they're updating to Spambots:TNG? And I was just really warming up to those out-of-place rotating-variable templates: "Claire. I can see what your saying... Nicole`s bl0g is incredible... on saturday I bought a top of the range Alfa Romeo from having made $4971 this - four weeks past and more than ten thousand this past month. without a doubt its the most rewarding I've had. I began this 8-months ago and right away began to bring in over $73, per hour. I went to this website........ SPAMSITE.COM". I'm gonna miss them. NB: Above spambot typical of those that get into this otherwise fine site ... Steve Ballmer is "Super-Glad" Microsoft Built Surface, Thinks Windows 8 Adoption is "Perfect" ( Maximum PC 2013-02-21 ) BTW, that's one of the nice things about MSFN, they have excellent troll and spam hunting skillz here. The few that still get through get mopped up by the members. None taken. But who or what is SJVN? I found an author at ComputerWorld by those initials. Must be him I guess. And yes, sources can be a bit gray and vague these days, and I'm not excusing the sloppiness you describe, but I have come to embrace the forum comments as the balancing or equalizing factor in a pretty complicated world ( which btw directly relates to why the UK Register is no longer a rag in my opinion as they now allow comments and it is more informative, self-correcting and fun than years ago, and their wariness to all things Microsoft doesn't hurt either ) . So many tech sites are simply compromised by either paid advertising, financial stake or other behind-the-scenes machinations that we never really know the whole story behind it. The more independent the site appears to me, the more interesting and useful it is, but YMMV. If people would be more honest, disclose their vested interest, we would be better off no doubt, but I guess human nature precludes that. I am even less optimistic about this than ever thanks to the obvious Microsoft astroturfing we have identified since at least the Vista fiasco ( and probably seen in the above-mentioned anti-Google campaign ). It sets people on their heels. Speaking for myself, a product should stand or fall on its merits, the worse possible scenario is something that is killed ( e.g., Start Menu telemetry ) or propped-up ( Windows 8 "sales" ) by misleading numbers. Again speaking for myself, it is grossly dishonest and reeks of Orwellian manipulation. The day that these things successfully fly under the radar is the day freedom dies. I guess because of the physical presence of big-corporate in the discussion space we are naturally evolving right back to where we started, coming full-circle back to a form of the self-governance of early USENET ( comp.sys.ibm.pc.* FTW. ). Those that remember when ads started to become "officially" accepted or later when Deja News sold its huge newsgroup archives to the early proto-Google will understand the constant threat that opinions and freedom endure. I guess what I am saying is that we are simply managing the best we can under difficult circumstances these days ( and all days ). Hopefully the wheat gets separated from the chaff in lightly-moderated peer-to-peer review. One thing is pretty much for certain MIHO, considering the events around Microsoft over the past few years, no rumor should ever be discounted because it is a rumor. Not a thing that has actually occurred recently would have been believed years ago. The naturally granted "benefit-of-the-doubt" has left the building, at least for me.

Yep! Check out this later exchange of 3 comments, including Thurrott himself ... I think they call that "a moment of clarity". He has described the antithesis of the cynical Microsoft Plan A Windows 8 OS unification. Does he even understand that he just admitted we have all been right from the git go and he has been wrong?

Quite the story! Could it possibly get more ironic than that? If you don't mind I'll excerpt it ... Amazon Secretly Removes “1984” From the Kindle Somehow I missed that one at the time ( 2009 ). Simply amazing! EDIT: typos, clarity

Going Pro: Post-PC vs. PC-Plus ( Thurrott 2013-02-20 ) Another installment in the milking Surface Pro series. Just some tepid remarks of the "transition" phase we find ourselves in thanks to Microsoft and their ceaseless chasing of fads and trends as they succumb to envy of their successful competitors. He does repeat something he has said in the past, a clear description of the cynical strategy Microsoft has undertaken ... This no doubt mirrors what his Microsoft contacts also feel. Let's summarize: Standalone Microsoft Tiles for mobile devices would have failed. Therefore, shoehorning it into "Windows for Everyone" was a sensible strategy. Left unsaid is the ethics of this cynical plan, exemplified by removing the Start Menu and routing bootstrap straight into Metro which just happens to host the gateway to the Microsoft Store. For good measure make the remaining desktop so friggin' ugly by removing Aero Glass, smoothed corners and flattening 3D shadow and chrome effects reverting the experience back to Windows 1.0x ( with a lame HTML+CSS facsimile of same ). This destruction of the Windows desktop GUI, again left unsaid by Thurrott, is to get the Windows veteran to more readily accept the Playskool Metro nightmare. If there is still doubt that Microsoft could be this manipulative, just look at the Office fiasco of the past few days which used precisely the same strategy ( make the licensing terms for Office 2013 so sour that the customer will instead jump to the sweet deal in the cloud with Office 364 ). They're doing it even as we speak, no conspiracy theories are necessary. MicroZealots and Softies, you may now stop making believe you are unfairly under siege, you are doing it to yourselves. The lack of ethics is what burns me up, both from these "journalists" and of course the geniuses up in Redmond. Letting the product fend for itself in the market is not even an option ( and they admit it ), and few "journalists" even consider this a problem. Shoehorning it into another product which billions of people require also doesn't raise any red flags of ethics and responsibility, and even fewer "journalists" apparently consider this a problem. This isn't just any other product being corrupted here. This is critical infrastructure of the 21st century, presently affecting over 90% of computers. In a more sane world the "Windows" product would be declared a public utility and be removed from them. They've made enough cash off this coercive monopoly already, and the current plan underway to monetize it further by assimilating these monopoly victims into the new Microsoft walled-garden is beyond all bounds of ethics. Thurrott also gives us with some quaint prose ... ... well that's one thing that can happen to Bambi. There is another outcome as well ... EDIT: typos

Thanks for that old link! ( and the true sentiments ). I remember the early days of the industry very well. At the place where I was he was definitely considered legendary by all coders during the BASIC / Assembler and later C era on x86 processors. While we were still seeking some modicum of respect ( what is this programming thing anyway? ) , icons like Gates and Allen ( and Ritchie, Wozniak, etc ) tended to rally like-minded souls. Needless to say, Microsoft was NOT yet considered a monopolistic threat during those first couple of years of DOS, so we were still able to consider them a pure source of programming languages who just happened to sell a few vaguely interesting regular applications on the side. Ignorance was bliss among geeky computer science purists. The link I found upthread ( #1960 ) is to a 3rd party biography, so it is at best 2nd hand, but from what I can tell is likely 3rd hand ( Gates or Allen not directly interviewed or quoted on the exact circumstances ). I have searched so many times for a 1st hand account of the Altair incident from either of the two, but so far no luck. The "Yellow Legal Pad" story has persisted throughout the years but I still would love just for the sake of curiosity, to hear the exact feat he accomplished under a wicked deadline, the bane of all programmers, especially when a contract is on the line. I'm not sure if either Gates or Allen wrote autobiographies, but maybe they addressed this particular story / fable? One would hope so. Anything focusing on the Albuquerque years, their golden age for hardcore programming, would be a great read. The Bellevue years are probably interesting because of the PC and DOS growth era but I bet Gates and Allen spent less time with each passing moment slinging bits. The Redmond years, well we know where that has led. 100,000 employees and many many layers of blubber separating them from the meat of software code. ADDED: I used to dislike the Register also, but not these days. The general article focus is certainly more pro-Open Source and articles about Microsoft have a decidedly biased or slanted approach, but that is fine by me. They can't all be swooning groupies for Ballmer and Gates lest we get no other points of view. They are probably my favorite source for tech stories when considering the compromised, bought-and-paid-for alternatives elsewhere. The commenters are very good, and there are many veterans in there who sometimes contribute more substance than a given article author. ADDED2: following the stories from HalloweenDocument12 I finally found something apparently directly from Gates. See Transcript of a Video History Interview with Mr. William "Bill" Gates in which he does get into nitty gritty coding details and BASIC on the Altair. He does NOT specifically confirm the "Yellow Legal Pad" story though. So the quest continues.

The whole concept of runtime "loaders", previously only used for rare and expensive top-tier applications with sophisticated license management, is completely successful according to those that use them. They essentially simulate a license server or do other tricks to satisfy the DRM. In the old days it was key generators that created working install codes for things like Office and other suites. Perhaps I should have said it simply did nothing to thwart piracy which was the whole purpose of "Activation" in the first place. But IMHO it re-invigorated piracy because the "Loader" technique allows them to get updates as if they were legitimate. Previously the serial number they used would be found out and blacklisted. so the move to Activation was beyond self-defeating for Microsoft and others. However, there are those out there that argue that it is better this way ( Activation ) because a patched pirate system is better than an unpatched one for overall security purposes. Disclaimer: I do not support piracy! I hope that general description didn't violate forum rules. But the cat and mouse game is an incredibly fascinating subject to follow.

Important note from the Oracle-Sun website ... "This is the last public release of Java 6. No new public updates of Java 6 will be available after February 2013." Just downloaded these packages ... jre-6u41-windows-i586.exe ... Webpage ... Direct Download ( for now ) jre-6u41-windows-x64.exe .... Webpage ... Direct Download ( maybe! ) jre-7u15-windows-i586.exe ... Webpage ... Direct Download ( for now ) jre-7u15-windows-x64.exe .... Webpage ... Direct Download ( maybe! ) Note: There does not seem to have been a jre-6u40. Note: There does not seem to have been a jre-7u14.

Microsoft's Mark Penn Mistake. The tech giant is treating Google like a political rival ( New Republic 2013-02-15 ) Saw this article mentioned at The Verge. Lots of details about the ant-Google campaign. I can't believe this was green-lit from management. Seems like a huge waste of company resources running a campaign that generates controversy, as if they don't already have enough of that already. From what I have read, as many people dislike these ads as those that are angry of Windows 8 or the Office license fiasco. I swear, Microsoft cannot do anything without screwing it up. Disclaimer: I am NOT on Team Google ( or Apple ). No way, no how.

Good one! And so true. Perfect way to kick off your blog Do you think the MetroTards even vaguely understand the problem?

Q+A Steve Ballmer. The Microsoft CEO explains the strategy behind his company’s most ambitious and strangest major product. ( Technology Review 2013-02-20 ) Steve Ballmer talks Surface, Windows 8 and the future of Microsoft ( NeoWin 2013-02-20 ) Steve Ballmer says Surface is a real business but won't dominate sales ( TechSpot 2013-02-20 ) Short Q&A with Ballmer. Clearly there must be some reason for all these recent interviews and sudden press from Gates and Ballmer. He doesn't really say much, in fact here is a perfect example of saying nothing at all, or rather, less than nothing, more like withholding, or not answering, okay, dodging. ... Blah Blah Blah. The not-so-artful dodger in action. And there's that "Super" nonsense again. Ironically, he didn't need to avoid it at all. The guy asked "Are you pleased" which is just asking for an opinion, Ballmer could just say "yes" and still not be lying. Strange, it makes you wonder just how ticked off he is at the sales which explains why he just won't say anything. It's worth a read, even though the interviewer clearly is either a Ballmer groupie or biased for Windows 8 as seen by these words: "the operating system’s gorgeous graphic design" and "Seeing the same graphical user interface across platforms is a wondrous thing". A little like Thurrott there. What on Earth has happened to journalism. ~sigh~ I wish I could have an hour each with these two clowns, Gates and Ballmer. I'll get some answers to real questions. EDIT: added another link

Great example photo there. It really sums up the problem. Honestly though, when I look at Windows 8 I cannot bring myself to get the slightest bit interested. Seeing those GUI elements is just plain offensive to my eyes. It is like using HTML+CSS to simulate Windows 1.0x. I tolerate webpages when I must, and the last thing I want to do is see them 24/7/365 as part of the Windows GUI. In all seriousness, I would much rather be in a plain text-mode DOS environment with colorful ANSI enhancements. If I had the urge to tweak it I would be hacking the sh!t outta the registry and probably the only project I would like to see is one we talked about here way back ( see around #458 ), substituting all system and dialog font references to Comic Sans ( yep, that's why I do that ). That is clearly the one thing Sinofsky forgot to do because that font was clearly designed for Metro If you want to know how Microsoft's PR will behave in the future, read those two linked threads. Short version: Expect even more obfuscation. I definitely buy that as their thinking process: 'We might as well destroy Windows anyway because they are haterz and will say bad stuff no matter what we do', it fits the available evidence, they are MicroTards. It never enters their mind that the customer is who they serve, not themselves. Note the patented and now-institutionalized bunker mentality. It dovetails nicely with their other notable metal disorders like paranoia and envy. It makes them do stupid things. I wonder if this 'Tard will be one of the first on the chopping block when the layoffs begin. We'll look for his mea culpa at Mini-Microsoft when the hammer falls. "If you refuse to give Microsoft credit for the stuff they do right, they'll not pay attention to you when you complain when stuff is wrong. That's human nature. If you complain constantly, people tune you out." is patently self-serving. It means: Do not complain constantly ( even if warranted ) because it makes us not listen. Wouldn't that be convenient for you! Sorry. We're not letting you off the hook. You own this fail. Also, I would like to see the entire list of what they have "done right". Where is it? It doesn't exist. They have never done anything "right" since Windows 95 really, which was 95% right overall, especially when compared to its predecessor. They have been slipping up worse each time since. Their "rightness" trends 90% 85% 75% 60% ... until now at maybe 5-10% max because of the team of destroyers attacking and ruining everything in sight, Windows, Server, Office, Studio, EULAs and Consumer Rights, pretty much the whole nine yards. Crash and burn baby. No-one deserves it more.

Bill Gates discusses Steve Ballmer's leadership role, mobile mistake ( TechSpot 2013-02-18 ) Bill Gates 'Not Satisfied' With Microsoft's Innovations ( Tom's Hardware 2013-02-19 ) Bill Gates calls for more innovation at Microsoft after past mobile 'mistake' ( The Verge 2013-02-18 ) Bill Gates admits Microsoft made "a mistake" in the smartphone business ( NeoWin 2013-02-18 ) Bill Gates Rips Microsoft’s Mobile Strategy, Not Windows Phone (Thurrott 2013-02-19 ) The Internet is once again flooded with stories of a softball interview by pretend journalists complete with jolly publicity photos ... I pretty much stopped the reading at this highly publicized quote, which is obviously easy to nitpick ... ... especially the bolded part, what lead would that be? But why bother. The interview is another publicity stunt, to paint a happy face on the tumult that surrounds Microsoft, an alleged Wall Street behemoth. Amazingly, Thurrott is the only tech journalist that takes him on, criticizing him more than usual in his article. Most of the other sites give him way to much deference as some kind of pioneer. Yes, Gates was a pioneer all right, but it is pretty much limited to being a business pioneer, the youngest billionaire at that time. I'm embarrassed now to think back to the early 1980's when us techies were the only people that knew his name and we often retold the legend of Gates herculean programming feat of writing out BASIC for the Altair on a yellow legal pad in his hotel room while Allen waited and then finally entered it in via toggle switches and it immediately worked. These days I'm starting to think we were had, that the story is apocryphal ( although here is one possible confirmation ), and that he never really was one of us ( programmers ) at all. How could he be while watching the core Microsoft developer tools and Windows itself morph into a childish Playskool pale reflection of their former selves? This is not to say that Microsoft has no business creating and selling childish Playskool products in their own right, of course they should do this, they have always done this. But who on Earth would obliterate their non-Playskool products intentionally? ~sigh~ So you get a chance to interview one of the richest and most powerful people on Earth who just happens to be the founder of Microsoft, so what do you ask him? Anything of consequence? No. Just fluff. Just softballs. Ridiculous! The guy is Chairman of the Board at Microsoft and has responsibilities to at least the shareholders ( but much more than that in reality ), their company is NASDAQ listed, it is a DJIA and S&P 500 and NASDAQ-100 component. It is present in countless stock funds and trusts and is capable of moving the markets through success and mistakes alike. For a decade the company has had controversy surrounding it and most importantly, it is responsible for the operating system for 700 million or 1.3 billion or whatever computers on planet Earth. If it were up to me he would be waterboarded for answers, not given a cozy interview like a movie star. So, just in case there are any real journalists left out there, here are a list of admittedly loaded questions for the next time the Pope grants you an audience ... Exactly who are the people responsible for radical changes to the Windows GUI? Who green-lit the removal of the 17 year old Start Menu and making the default GUI the Metro Start Screen? Why was it not left as an option? Are you Bill Gates even vaguely aware of the controversy of the past year and a half? Was this a plan to force the people into the Metro interface and assimilate them into the "reimagined" Microsoft ecosystem? Is this ethical in your opinion or is it a monopolistic attempt at converting the captive Windows user base into a future Apple-esque locked-down walled-garden business model? Does Microsoft have the right to do this without having any real competition on the field as an alternative? Would Microsoft agree to spin-off the Windows division, ( who allegedly produce a neutral platform available to all developers ) to a firewalled separate entity? Would Microsoft ever consider simply releasing the "legacy" x86 Windows source code and related patents to the community to prevent further accusations of anti-competitive behavior? Is Microsoft, which has supplied the operating system for 90% or more of the all the computers on Earth now modifying and capitalizing on this allegedly neutral business? Is it ethical to first monopolize such a huge percentage of the core component in all computers, eliminating all competition, clearing the playing field and then suddenly switch gears converting that platform into a facilitator for a Microsoft eco-system? How is it possible for the Windows "platform" to obsolete software that worked in previous versions of the Windows "platform"? Does this not defeat the entire concept of a software platform or an operating system? Who specifically decided that backwards compatibility can be sacrificed? Is planned obsolescence now the de facto business plan? Do you have a separate definition for an operating system and for software, or are they now interchangeable? What significance to you Bill Gates place on backward compatibility? Is Microsoft officially transitioning to an exit of the retail software business and moving to subscription based services? Over twelve years ago you introduced "Activation" in Microsoft products, which instead of reducing privacy has popularized and reinvigorated it. Meanwhile legitimate owners rarely if ever get actual install media and are usually stuck with recovery partitions that obviously die along with a dead HDD and have no legal way to download replacement ISOs to this very day. Why do you not maintain a server open to all customers that archives setup distributions for all products? Since they are "Activation" based what could possibly be the harm in this? Is it because you have anticipated that some customers will just say "Screw It" and buy another copy instead of finding a setup distribution? Do you consider it ethical to leave paying customers in a lurch when their computer dies or gets stolen? Bill, just what is it with this childish, petty and very public feud with Google? Was this authorized by you or the board of directors? Do you support it or disagree with it? Who hired that DC political hack to run this operation? Is financing a controversial attack campaign a wise use of company resources? What do you have to say about Ballmer's famous Google outburst: "He threw a chair against the wall. “F*cking Eric Schmidt is a f*cking p*ssy!” Ballmer yelled, according to the court document. “I’m going to f*cking bury that guy! I have done it before and I will do it again. I’m going to f*cking kill Google.” ? Are you looking forward to the inevitable retaliation where Google might mention Bing was using Google search results or criticize Microsoft for simply copying-pasting every single thing that Apple and Google does? What's with all the sudden Draconian anti-consumer EULA changes on so many different Microsoft products? Changes that thwart class-action lawsuits, reduce privileges for developers on MSDN and Technet, and severely restrict use of purchased software to as few as one given computer even if it dies or gets stolen? Are you looking forward to yet another round of FTC and Court scrutiny and heavy fines and penalization? How exactly do you Bill Gates, and Microsoft itself actually view your customers? Do they own the software that they spend so much money on? Do you really want to force them to buy another expensive copy if their computer dies or gets stolen? Do consumers have any rights in your opinion? Why was Steven Sinofsky fired? Was this authorized by you Bill Gates and the board of directors? Sinofsky was absolute head of Windows and the main driver for the reimagining of the company's most important software products so there must have been a very good reason. Was he in conflict with Ballmer? Did he do something wrong? Did he destroy Windows too badly or not enough? Do you think that stockholders deserve an explanation when something of this magnitude occurs at such a high-profile public company? Do you believe Steve Ballmer is an adequate CEO and public face for Microsoft? Does he ever embarrass you or other Board members? Is it true that Board of Directors at Microsoft are a hand-picked rubber-stamp committee subordinate to the the CEO and Chairman? Who actually has final say on controversial issues? Is there a vote? Do any controversial issues ever reach the Boardroom? Did they get to vote on the radical changes to the Windows GUI? Are they aware of the worldwide controversy? Did the Board approve of the $45 billion offer to acquire Yahoo? Did you approve this? Do you now feel lucky that Yahoo rejected it? Is Microsoft planning a stock buyback or a move to go private again? Are there any plans to return the many tens of billions in cash to shareholders in bonus dividends? Well those are the questions that I would ask I'm sure there are many more others will think of, those just happened to flood right out once I started writing them. EDIT: typos

Microsoft offers clarity on Office 2013 and Office 365 install rights ( NeoWin 2013-02-19 ) Microsoft: Office 2013 license is for just one PC, FOREVER. Can't be transferred, even to yourself ( UK Register 2013-02-20 ) Microsoft says Office 2013 licensing is nothing new, but it's a price hike in disguise ( TechSpot 2013-02-20 ) And yet another amazingly arrogant and insulting stunt! Do you believe this? Microsoft responds to the criticism by saying: "Office 2010 had the same limitations" That's an answer? "We screwed you in the past and you didn't complain then so why are you complaining now? Shut up and let us screw you some more!" Sounds almost political. But get this, if you read the article and look at the chart they are comparing it to Office 2010 PKC Edition ( Wait, what? ), this PKC Edition is apparently a low-budget media-less distribution that no-one is even thinking about. These guys cannot even admit or acknowledge any mistake, ever! Deception and Obfuscation, that's the new paradigm. Welcome to our .Going Pro: Surface Pen. With Surface Pen, it's 2002 all over again ( Thurrott 2013-02-19 ) Paul Thurrott with another installment in his ongoing milking of the Surface Pro release. He confirms something I noticed a while back ( Post #1746 ), a really silly compromise where Microsoft chose to simply let the pen attach magnetically to the side, rather then build in a simple slot so that the thing cannot possibly get lost. I hate that kind of compromise. It is the little things that signify quality, paying attention to details. Tsk Tsk. Rumor: Google Preparing to Open Retail Stores ( Tom's Hardware 2013-02-19 ) For First Time Ever, Google Stock Surpasses $800 ( Tom's Hardware 2013-02-19 ) These two stories should do wonders for MicroZealot self-esteem Now we might see some shopping malls with all three stores side-by-side, Apple, Google, and Microsoft, with a wonderful opportunity for real journalism with video recordings of customer demand. iPad vs Nexus vs Surface. Apple-eny and Google-envy FTW. EDIT: clarity, added more links

Absolutely spot on. I was reminiscing about this very thing in the Happy Birthday XP thread. You are exactly right about RAM. With 128 MB SDRAM it was torture. Lots of machines had 3 DIMM slots so they might get 128, 256, or 384. If you could afford a couple of matched 256 SDRAM DIMMs ( once they became available ) it was worth it. In my opinion, at that time Windows XP needed 512 just to be able to manage the interface and themes while staying out of disk swapping. If you left disk indexing on and system restore it ate up whatever headroom you had left. Add in the 3rd party AV and assorted crapware and things could not possibly have been worse in 2001. In a sense, this is what gave Win9x a 2nd wind because it positively flew on computers from 2001-2004. I see Windows XP as having three distinct eras or lifetimes. The RTM era on the horrible hardware of 2001 ( a nightmare ), then another around 2004 when we got well into 3+ GHz single-core processors and DDR-1 and SATA I and USB 2 ( brute force horsepower ), and the "Golden Era" of 2006-present era when the Core2 gave those of us using them a huge boost. XP could be maxed out with 4 GB DDR-2 and 3+GHz Core2 and SATA II on pretty amazing motherboards. While it has always been true that using the previous Microsoft Windows was much better performance than whatever was currently released ( that is until 7 and 8 ), it was never clearer than in the Windows XP days. What that writer says about Windows 8 being restrained by hardware is beyond nonsensical. He has no idea what under-powered means. EDIT: typos

Vista also had the original UAC and the promptless black screen windows update at reboot ( can't remember if they were fixed in the service packs ). If you had Vista RTM on a plain dual-core or celeron you were already going mad from the interminable sluggishness, but after getting hit with UACs, arrrgh! Add in the realtime AV and you wanted to smash it into little pieces. I just use administrator accounts on mine of course, but working on others, they can never really pay enough to compensate for the pain.

Why are you now switching from a position based key to a function based key? It seems more likely to me that the chipset has support for 7 slots, and only 6 are actually physically installed. Well its not really me switching ( and note all my hedging of "to the best of my knowledge" ) it's the Windows PnP architects. A certain bus like IDE is clearly position based. The PCI looks a little more complicated, especially because so many things are considered part of it ( see the list the OP has made in #5 ). I think we can fairly use both concepts when describing the methodology for the Win9x PnP strategy. To make sure we are talking about the same thing, note that the 6 digit hex number is thus far only in reference to PCI devices, the IDE hard drives were done differently. IDE encodes the both device and position right into the root key name ... [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Enum\Esdi\Generic_IDE__Disk_Type80_\Mf&Child0000&Pci&Ven_8086&Dev_24db&SubSys_101e147b&Rev_02&Bus_00&Dev_1f&Func_0100] [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Enum\Esdi\Generic_IDE__Disk_Type80_\Mf&Child0000&Pci&Ven_8086&Dev_24db&SubSys_101e147b&Rev_02&Bus_00&Dev_1f&Func_0110] [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Enum\Esdi\Generic_IDE__Disk_Type80_\Mf&Child0001&Pci&Ven_8086&Dev_24db&SubSys_101e147b&Rev_02&Bus_00&Dev_1f&Func_0100] [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Enum\Esdi\Generic_IDE__Disk_Type80_\Mf&Child0001&Pci&Ven_8086&Dev_24db&SubSys_101e147b&Rev_02&Bus_00&Dev_1f&Func_0110] For PCI devices in real slots CfgMgr first encodes the device as a root key and then hang subkeys off of them to allow for its use in different slots ... [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Enum\Pci\Ven_11c1&Dev_0441&SubSys_041013e0&Rev_01] [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Enum\Pci\Ven_11c1&Dev_0441&SubSys_041013e0&Rev_01\00f000] [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Enum\Pci\Ven_11c1&Dev_0441&SubSys_041013e0&Rev_01\08f000] [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Enum\Pci\Ven_11c1&Dev_0441&SubSys_041013e0&Rev_01\10f000] But it still all means the same thing because the entire key is entered as a value name under the ASD keys and is "called" from there as a whole. When it is "called" like this ... [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Control\Asd\Prob\{cf2524c0-29ae-11cf-97ea-00aa0034319d}] "Pci\\Ven_11c1&Dev_0441&SubSys_041013e0&Rev_01\\08f000"=hex:00 ... it is actually calling Device\Position to be "Enumerated" or "Started". The Device portion of the key name could just as easily have been anything at all, or the hex digit subkeys could just as easily have been part of the root key using the &Child and/or &Func nomenclature of the IDE keys. It's just an arbitrary decision they made, but probably for good reason because of the complexity of the PCI space. I am guessing that there is a table of hex numbers used to assign positions in the PCI space, which includes both real slots and virtual locations. The real locations on PCI ( at least in my testing ) definitely have positional identification. They appear to have subdivided the virtual locations by function ( Video, Sound, NIC, etc ). It makes sense from a human standpoint, there are humans creating these tables and it would be natural to group them as best as possible. It's not surprising that there are arbitrary conventions really because this whole "Plug and Pray" thing dates directly back to 1994 with ICM ( Intel Configuration Manager ) and ICU ( ISA Configuration Utility ) which themselves were an evolution of the old PS/2 reference disks ( external 3.5" floppies which held the resource tables used to assign the onboard CMOS ). ICM and later PnP moved all the resource tables onboard the motherboard ( or somewhere in Windows ) and perfected the logic of the CfgMgr32. There was amazing progress made from the 1994 ICM and ICU proto-PnP to the 1995 PnP ( note that the CfgMgr was updated later I believe in every Windows version ). Somewhere in that 1993-1994 timeframe while Chicago was in beta they must have sat down and assigned all these mappings that we still use on Win9x here in 2013, fully 20 years later! Pretty amazing that they foresaw so many different things that far back.. EDIT: clarity

Just to quickly add to what I said about IRQs above, Win9x does have its own built-in mapping table, and has several other ones, note this picture from Device Manager ( I found in Google Images and note it is sourced from right here at MSFN ) ... ... but I stand by what I said, the facility for controlling them is practically useless, the BIOS seems to have absolute priority and the ability to select them from Windows just sucks. If you have a Win9x machine loaded with PCI cards and every other onboard function enabled you are in a world of hurt unless the motherboard gives you really granular control over IRQ, Memory and I/O address settings. Noting what I said above, with Windows having built-in tables of mappings, I imagine that also includes a table for this use. So it is likely that those hex values we have noted for identification in registry key names are not arbitrary at all. Consequently I wouldn't be surprised that one is missing ( or out of sequence ) I would surmise that it is reserved for a specific device that either you don't have, or for something disabled. For example 40F000 might be for USB 1.0 or some other variant of another device ( existing or not ). I do have access to it, but it's running under WinXP now. To ensure I was right in my interpretation, I could place devices in the order I deduced, install WinME and see it the results are the same. If you ever do the experiment, try to remember to grab a registry export as early as possible before adding any hardware. I got into the habit of installing Windows to a bare metal system whenever possible ( just the C: drive, no opticals, modems, etc ). Then I would add the parts later with registry snapshots and review the differences to see how the hardware tree grows. EDIT: updated image URL, and again

Can Microsoft bring BI to the masses if the Excel 2013 masses can't get BI? ( Mary Jo Foley ZDNet 2013-02-18 ) Another Office jaw-dropping shaft of the stick into your nether regions from Microsoft. Really good article. They've clearly declared war on the customer and make no pretense anymore. The MicroZealots have their hands full trying to defend them, because it's pretty much impossible. This is beyond cynical, they have a collection of petulant children in charge that matches their peanut gallery of MetroTards. Microsoft quietly raises prices of Mac Office by up to 17% ( ComputerWorld 2013-02-18 ) Microsoft sneakily increases Office 2011 for Mac price by $20 ( NeoWin 2013-02-19 ) Microsoft raises Mac Office prices, ends multi-license packs ( TechSpot 2013-02-19 ) Microsoft: You want Office for Mac, fanboi? You'll pay Windows prices ( UK Register 2013-02-19 ) And the hit parade continues. Alienate absolutely everyone! EDIT: added more links

Archos to unveil three Android smartphones at Mobile World Congress ( TechSpot 2013-02-18 ) Archos Launching Three Android Smartphones in May ( Tom's Hardware 2013-02-19 ) Samsung goes after Nokia's Asha with new REX smartphones ( NeoWin 2013-02-18 ) Two more strikes against that foolproof Microsoft Plan A, destroy Windows to gain marketshare in the mobile space. The numbers of non-WP users is growing so fast that every company on Earth not producing WP would now need to take a year off in order for them to hold their current 2% or whatever position. Chances of moving up in marketshare? About the same as a series of Asteroid strikes landing only the factories that build mobile devices for Apple, Samsung, Blackberry, and a hundred others ( not to mention somehow wipe out Nokia's Asha also while missing the Lumias ). The mobile low-end marketshare for phones and tablets is going to be eaten alive by a tsunami of competitors while Microsoft believes it can penetrate it through mostly high-end Apple-like boutique gadgets. This is what Windows was sacrificed for. Management and board members should be arrested for corporate incompetence. And now Nokia has to watch its back with Samsung attacking that "other" category. With Windows 8, you need new hardware ( NeoWin 2013-02-18 ) Wrong buddy. For starters, Windows XP was a dog on the average hardware of 2001 ( P3 or P4 Willamette at barely 1 GHz, SDRAM, no SATA, USB 1.x, ugggh! ) so no better example exists for an operating system that cried out for the hardware that came out 3 years later. Vista had a similar problem although the hardware existed ( 2 GB RAM, Core2 CPUs ) but was expensive high-end in 2006. So many computers, especially laptops shipped with low-end P4 Celerons and "dual-core" with less than 2 GB RAM that it had no real chance of performing smoothly. Since Windows 7 ( v6.1 ) was practically the same or improved slightly from Vista ( v6.0 ) the elapsed time of 3 years worked out exactly perfect for performance since the high-end of 2006 was now mainstream in 2009. Windows 8 ( v6.2 ) is probably the only time ( except for 7 ) where hardware was never an issue with respect to performance. When the MetroTards say "Wow, it's so fast on my system" the question really should be: "Why wouldn't it be?" D'oh. Sorry friend, you're gonna need something else for a scapegoat. Sacrilegious: Surface Pro running OS X ( NeoWin 2013-02-18 ) More proof that we are debating a religious cult. Them arguments are hard to win. By the way, the article is about turning the Surface Pro into a Hackintosh. That's gonna leave a mark. EDIT: typos, added another link

Prices are cheap because of everyone jumping on China and others to capitalize on slave labor, allowing them to maintain or lower prices but increase profit ( like Microsoft removing the MPEG decoders from Windows and still charging the same price and pocketing the difference ). This business model proves P.T. Barnum right, there is truly a sucker born every minute. But they are near absolute bottom now because at some point the device costs more to stock, package, advertise and ship than the customer actually pays in cash. Long before we even had this slave labor there was a clear linear or even exponential rise in consumer value over time, mostly due to Moore's law for microprocessors and its relations with HDD density and RAM speed and other things ( while Windows mostly crept forward at a snail's pace ). Pretty much for two and half unbroken decades an average system was like $2000 USA and that price first bought a PC1, then an XT, then an AT, etc right up into the Pentium 4 era. Later they would throw in the printer or something, but the expense was very consistent while the power dramatically increased. As the east opened up and their regimes figured out they could pacify their restless natives by offering them up as minimum wage workers ( but at early 20th century standards ) the race to the bottom quickly began with all of our "patriotic" companies hiring and expanding over there and laying off over here. This IMHO caused the downward price spiral of the past 5 years as they competed with each other but still pocketing most of the difference, which is why we still see huge profitably of these companies in an economy that is in the toilet. If China ever went on strike, and it held for a quarter or two, most of the entire western economies would simply collapse. But this has really nothing to do now with the current price spike since October from Windows 8 however. This I believe is directly from Microsoft still squeezing all their captive monopoly channels for all their worth, and simultaneously urging them to add in touchscreens ( which were at the very least in short supply ) to justify the increase. It is a bit of a Hail Mary pass if you ask me, as the consumers are now getting picky and more frugal. So this is another cash-grab, they are "getting it while the going's good". The problem with wishing for and justifying higher prices ( see Thurrott ) is that the corporate bean counters will never do anything except what is easy, what adds only to profit, and what pleases Wall Street or shareholders. Since their goals are "profitably" and "growth" rather than "quality" or "satisfaction", we know what we can expect. Consumer value and quality are not even on the list anymore. The higher price difference does not go to hire local jobs here or to purchase better parts, in fact they are still only going to buy the cheapest available. It is simply tweaking the spreadsheet to bump of the profit side of the ledger, and there are only a couple of ways to do that, and only the easy ones are on their agenda, and most importantly they are mostly used up now ( well unless factories start going up in rural Africa, and we can literally get back to where we started with slave labor ). We once had what we called the DotCom bubble. We are now in the end-stages of the computer and related bubble, or better yet: the "slave labor prolonged computer and related bubble", and it is going to blow. The companies are just sucking in every drop of cash they can, while they can. Presently there are many premium items being bought for obscene prices, like $800 cellphones, but they are disguised in subsidy and this is the only way it could still happen in the current economy. The carriers buy them by the boatload and then must bleed the cash from somewhere, and here in the USA we see it play out firsthand where only a decade ago a phone bill was $20 a month ( so was cable ) but now people see $100 or more. This model will also collapse as waves of dirt cheap cellphones get shipped and eventually the phony subsidy model gets exposed to Joe Schmo as the scam that it is and he just stops playing ( Microsoft was way late to this scam ). This phony "subsidy" model ( like a "car lease" or home "rent to own" ) which allows devices to be sold at great profit also extends to corporate who also buy boatloads of computers and related devices at ridiculous prices ( considering the bulk ) and if they ever get frugal ( since they pass it along disguised in their products ), every company that drinks at the corporate trough will implode. This will occur precisely because the corporate directors and bean-counters have simply run out of easy ways to boost profit while keeping expenses the same or lower. Watch for layoffs and cut employee benefits as the leading indicator, and ignore the Wall Street talking heads who always cheer these moves. I expect a chain-reaction and who knows, maybe even a depression similar to the 1930's or 1890's or 1870's. Microsoft's cloud Plan A is their only idea to survive by the coming apocalypse, and want to do so by plugging themselves directly into the bank accounts of the sheeple to make periodic withdrawals while the "automatic updates" shift some very minor changes down to their device ( in itself a joke, practically a placebo, add some templates and clipart to Office and tweak a few obvious things so the sheeple says "wow, what a great free update" to justify this phony model ). In short, do the least effort possible to continually get paid. Wait until the sheeple catch on. So to summarize, and to paraphrase Thurrott, "the lower prices are indeed unrealistic", but clearly NOT for the reasons he thinks. In his shallow manner of thinking prices will simply rise and everyone is happy ( except for the careful consumer of course ). But what will actually happen is that the lumbering behemoth Wall Street darlings will once again just pocket the difference. Then we end up with the absolute worse of all worlds - slave labor building cheap devices sold for high prices and the cash goes straight into the profit column of those lumbering behemoths. I'd say 3 to 5 years tops and the DJIA is at 8000 again. Maybe sooner. The cash flushed companies like Apple, Google and Microsoft are gonna need it ( as an aside, just imagine if Microsoft had bought Yahoo for $45 billion, their little party would now be over ).

I just might be able to help with this. After some searching in my ancient notes I found some snapshots of an experiment I did ( about 13 years ago! ) moving a modem to different PCI slots on an MSI motherboard using Win98se. But first a digression! ... Let me explain what I deduced about how a motherboard works in concert with the Win9x registry from experimental trial and error. I believe that hardware device information is entered into the registry by CfgMgr32.dll at Windows Install, during the PnP phase at bootstrap, Add/Remove a device, when INF files are executed, when Device Manager or the kernel specifically calls it and perhaps at other times as well Using the IDE bus as an example ( limiting this to "Type80" for brevity but "Type47" seems interchangeable ), moving a HDD among the four possible positions ( PM PS SM SS ) results in four different key names ( subvalues not shown ) ... [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Enum\Esdi\Generic_IDE__Disk_Type80_\Mf&Child0000&Pci&Ven_8086&Dev_24db&SubSys_101e147b&Rev_02&Bus_00&Dev_1f&Func_0100] [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Enum\Esdi\Generic_IDE__Disk_Type80_\Mf&Child0000&Pci&Ven_8086&Dev_24db&SubSys_101e147b&Rev_02&Bus_00&Dev_1f&Func_0110] [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Enum\Esdi\Generic_IDE__Disk_Type80_\Mf&Child0001&Pci&Ven_8086&Dev_24db&SubSys_101e147b&Rev_02&Bus_00&Dev_1f&Func_0100] [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Enum\Esdi\Generic_IDE__Disk_Type80_\Mf&Child0001&Pci&Ven_8086&Dev_24db&SubSys_101e147b&Rev_02&Bus_00&Dev_1f&Func_0110] Which I decode as follows ... ; PM ... Primary Master ..... Child0000 ... Func_0100 ; PS ... Primary Slave ...... Child0000 ... Func_0110 ; SM ... Secondary Master ... Child0001 ... Func_0100 ; SS ... Secondary Slave .... Child0001 ... Func_0110 This is important because Windows is keeping track of the four possible positions as separate entities. Hardware seems to be utilized from a positional basis. Continuing this example, each specific position on either IDE channel is hard-coded into the registry key name, and is necessary because of the way the two "ASD" keys work. These two keys to the best of my knowledge ( which means trial and error because this information is really sparse ) are critical to system startup and I believe the contents are executed directly in sequential order by the kernel in Win9x ( like CONFIG.SYS in plain DOS ). Their purpose ... [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Control\Asd\Prob\{9b4e7760-3196-11cf-97ea-00aa0034319d}] ;;; These devices are Enumerated [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Control\Asd\Prob\{cf2524c0-29ae-11cf-97ea-00aa0034319d}] ;;; These devices are Started Most devices appear in both locations, but some are only seen in the latter ( I can't recall if any were only "Enumerated" ). This is where I did my hardware debugging ( and I learned that I could simply hand-edit the entries myself and import custom settings to "move" hardware around at will and some other tricks ). When a device would not work I would look here to see if the entries were correct and if it "Enumerated" and "Started". There are some more things to the "ASD" keys, and there are more than two, but that's probably beyond the current scope of this thread. Okay, now here are the 4 possible ways a given HDD is later "Enumerated" and "Started" ( again: defined by bus location only, they are not identified by serial like NT is, in other words Win9x starts whatever HDD happens to be in that position ) ... [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Control\Asd\Prob\{9b4e7760-3196-11cf-97ea-00aa0034319d}] ; Enumerate HDD Type 80 on PM ... "Esdi\\Generic_IDE__Disk_Type80_\\Mf&Child0000&Pci&Ven_8086&Dev_24db&SubSys_101e147b&Rev_02&Bus_00&Dev_1f&Func_0100"=hex:00 ; Enumerate HDD Type 80 on PS ... "Esdi\\Generic_IDE__Disk_Type80_\\Mf&Child0000&Pci&Ven_8086&Dev_24db&SubSys_101e147b&Rev_02&Bus_00&Dev_1f&Func_0110"=hex:00 ; Enumerate HDD Type 80 on SM ... "Esdi\\Generic_IDE__Disk_Type80_\\Mf&Child0001&Pci&Ven_8086&Dev_24db&SubSys_101e147b&Rev_02&Bus_00&Dev_1f&Func_0100"=hex:00 ; Enumerate HDD Type 80 on SS ... "Esdi\\Generic_IDE__Disk_Type80_\\Mf&Child0001&Pci&Ven_8086&Dev_24db&SubSys_101e147b&Rev_02&Bus_00&Dev_1f&Func_0110"=hex:00 [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Control\Asd\Prob\{cf2524c0-29ae-11cf-97ea-00aa0034319d}] ; Start HDD Type 80 on PM ... "Esdi\\Generic_IDE__Disk_Type80_\\Mf&Child0000&Pci&Ven_8086&Dev_24db&SubSys_101e147b&Rev_02&Bus_00&Dev_1f&Func_0100"=hex:00 ; Start HDD Type 80 on PS ... "Esdi\\Generic_IDE__Disk_Type80_\\Mf&Child0000&Pci&Ven_8086&Dev_24db&SubSys_101e147b&Rev_02&Bus_00&Dev_1f&Func_0110"=hex:00 ; Start HDD Type 80 on SM ... "Esdi\\Generic_IDE__Disk_Type80_\\Mf&Child0001&Pci&Ven_8086&Dev_24db&SubSys_101e147b&Rev_02&Bus_00&Dev_1f&Func_0100"=hex:00 ; Start HDD Type 80 on SS ... "Esdi\\Generic_IDE__Disk_Type80_\\Mf&Child0001&Pci&Ven_8086&Dev_24db&SubSys_101e147b&Rev_02&Bus_00&Dev_1f&Func_0110"=hex:00 If you look closely you see how incredibly simple the mechanism is that the system uses to "call" those keys, it merely repeats the actual registry key name ( collapse the double "\\" escaped backslashes ) as value names and ends it with "=hex:00" value data, which indicates "okay" and "no problem".. If these were optical drives, the strategy is exactly the same but they appear under different key names, such as \Enum\Scsi\. Important: the official comment for those two keys is actually "Problem"="Enumerating a Device" and "Problem"="Starting a Device", but my trial and error suggests that that is only part of the story. When a device fails, indeed the entry is modified from "hex:00" to something else, but this is long after the fact. These two keys apparently are the Win9x equivalent of CONFIG.SYS where all entries are executed in order. Removing an entry effectively removes the device. Moreover, I noticed that the system bootstrap ( the Windows cloud screen with the animated bar ) is quicker when the entries are deleted for items that do not physically exist, which makes sense because it is trying to handshake an empty location or worse, a non-terminated bus. So when I see a system hang on the "Cloud Screen" I normally would audit the "ASD" keys for dead entries for ones that point to the wrong position. So that ends my rough overview of how I believe the Win9x kernel "CONFIG.SYS procedure" works. There are some major differences in how the NT Windows versions operate and I never really got a clear handle on it. Win9x works relatively simply, almost exactly like DOS and CONFIG.SYS. Back to the current topic ... So I set about finding some corresponding snapshots for something in the PCI slots, and I got lucky with a well documented test complete with registry snapshots before and after moving a WinModem to each PCI slot position, and I even noted the corresponding BIOS hardware information as seen by HwInfo ( 3rd party hardcore system information ). Here it is with the changes shown, the duplicate information between tests removed ... ;;; this is from a WinModem in TOP SLOT (#1) ... HWINFO: Irq9 PCI Device Number: Bus: 1, Device: 0, Function: 0 [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Enum\Pci\Ven_11c1&Dev_0441&SubSys_041013e0&Rev_01\00f000] ; dupes under here [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Control\Asd\Prob\{9b4e7760-3196-11cf-97ea-00aa0034319d}] ; Entry under "Enumeration" key not always present ( maybe this modem only needs to be "Started" [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Control\Asd\Prob\{cf2524c0-29ae-11cf-97ea-00aa0034319d}] "Pci\\Ven_11c1&Dev_0441&SubSys_041013e0&Rev_01\\00f000"=hex:00 ;;; this is from a WinModem in MIDDLE SLOT (#2) ... HWINFO: Irq11 PCI Device Number: Bus: 1, Device: 1, Function: 0 [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Enum\Pci\Ven_11c1&Dev_0441&SubSys_041013e0&Rev_01\08f000] ; dupes under here [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Control\Asd\Prob\{9b4e7760-3196-11cf-97ea-00aa0034319d}] ; Entry under "Enumeration" key not always present ( maybe this modem only needs to be "Started" [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Control\Asd\Prob\{cf2524c0-29ae-11cf-97ea-00aa0034319d}] "Pci\\Ven_11c1&Dev_0441&SubSys_041013e0&Rev_01\\08f000"=hex:00 ;;; this is from a WinModem in BOTTOM SLOT (#3) ... HWINFO: Irq3 PCI Device Number: Bus: 1, Device: 2, Function: 0 [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Enum\Pci\Ven_11c1&Dev_0441&SubSys_041013e0&Rev_01\10f000] ; dupes under here [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Control\Asd\Prob\{9b4e7760-3196-11cf-97ea-00aa0034319d}] ; Entry under "Enumeration" key not always present ( maybe this modem only needs to be "Started" [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Control\Asd\Prob\{cf2524c0-29ae-11cf-97ea-00aa0034319d}] "Pci\\Ven_11c1&Dev_0441&SubSys_041013e0&Rev_01\\10f000"=hex:00 Distilled down for easier comparison and readability ... [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Enum\Pci\Ven_11c1&Dev_0441&SubSys_041013e0&Rev_01\00f000] [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Enum\Pci\Ven_11c1&Dev_0441&SubSys_041013e0&Rev_01\08f000] [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Enum\Pci\Ven_11c1&Dev_0441&SubSys_041013e0&Rev_01\10f000] What I would conclude from those tests is that the PCI slots are definitely serialized with that 6-digit hex number added as a registry subkey ( e.g., \00f000] ), and the corresponding mapping is ... 00f000 ...... TOP SLOT (#1) ... PCI Device Number: Bus: 1, Device: 0, Function: 0 08f000 ... MIDDLE SLOT (#2) ... PCI Device Number: Bus: 1, Device: 1, Function: 0 10f000 ... BOTTOM SLOT (#3) ... PCI Device Number: Bus: 1, Device: 2, Function: 0 If there was a 4th, 5th, 6th PCI slot in that motherboard we might assume it would merely increment in the same fashion ... [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Enum\Pci\Ven_11c1&Dev_0441&SubSys_041013e0&Rev_01\00f000] [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Enum\Pci\Ven_11c1&Dev_0441&SubSys_041013e0&Rev_01\08f000] [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Enum\Pci\Ven_11c1&Dev_0441&SubSys_041013e0&Rev_01\10f000] [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Enum\Pci\Ven_11c1&Dev_0441&SubSys_041013e0&Rev_01\18f000] [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Enum\Pci\Ven_11c1&Dev_0441&SubSys_041013e0&Rev_01\20f000] [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Enum\Pci\Ven_11c1&Dev_0441&SubSys_041013e0&Rev_01\28f000] Also note that in the test data above, the ASD key "starts" the associated key depending on which slot the modem was in. To the OP, naaloh ... if you still have access to that machine, you can determine this for yourself by doing full registry exports with the device in different slots. You may want to first remove the device ( although it may not remove all entries ) and take a preliminary snapshot with nothing and then proceed with a separate export after installing it and after each time it is moved. Then WINDIFF can tell you everything you need to know. It's the only sure way to decode the positions with 100% certainty. P.S. Note that I disregarded the IRQs used by the modem. At least in Win9x and as long as the motherboard works correctly the actual IRQs are fungible ( although there are many motherboards with strange designs that only allow certain IRQs to certain slots ). I am disregarding them in this case because they are not noted in the registry, this is one difference I believe in the NT kernel but I really cannot say for sure. For all practical purposes, the IRQs have little to do with Win9x and this can be proven if you ever tried to manage them from Device Manager which has little facility for successfully adjusting them. The BIOS does the juggling and stores them in CMOS ( which can be dumped to a file and examined ). If in a hypothetical BIOS you could simply change the IRQ from 9 to 11 ( assuming free ), the registry wouldn't know and wouldn't care. This is to the best of my knowledge, YMMV, because I obviously haven't seen every possible eventuality. EDIT: clarity, typos

This fits in with the Scroogle theme ... EDIT: updated image URL

Yeah. Sounded just like his "Metro, Metro, Metro!" speech, didn't it? LOL He really hasn't changed at all. EDIT: Well, he had a little more hair then. EDIT2: With that coat and his attitude, I guess he was going for the "humorous" infomercial/used car salesman role. Little did we know that he would keep that role for over 27 years. LOL And here's who he was blatantly copying, badly ... Even way back then they were ripping off everyting in sight

That really is quite the story. The comments are a must read also. Initially a couple of defenders show up planning to throw the discussion off track but they are soon overwhelmed by actual Softies verifying the bulk of the facts. Unbelievable. This is from hiring a DC political hack who adds nothing to the company except controversy. They're actually gonna drum up sympathy for Google, not to mention retaliation. Real dumb. P.S. I didn't quote the Scroogled URL because they don't deserve any clicks.