osRe

I'm not sure what's indexed inside files, but filenames should be okay. 14 seconds is slow, don't you reckon? Why would the index get corrupted, or if it does, why without the corruption being detected? The greatest problem with the Windows search is the horrible horrible GUI in Explorer. Another case of progress being made backwards. Also Metro isn't good, but at least for the braindead Metro format it fits and makes more sense. In most cases I just use dir ... </s /p>.

An indexed search is obviously faster if you search for an indexed keyword, like the filename.

But it's not a question of EXE compatibility, but of supposed benefits to a x64 build of a program that also exists in x86. That's something the developer of the software would know best. In the case of Registry tools, I think legacy 32-bit builds won't be able to access the 64-bit portion of the registry. But if I'm not mistaken, using newer API functions will let also 32-bit builds access everything.

Yeah, I'm fond of Beyond Compare. And I actually was planning to try RegShot but forgot about its existence. Regshot 2 has a separate 64-bit build. I hate these. Particularly when there's no documentation on the difference. And probably there isn't any difference at all, since why would a simple program need x64 anyway? I always keep just the 32-bit version, but at the same time I'm left wondering, am I missing something?

I'm not clear on what exactly you've tried. Did you install Win81 with one of the setup keys, then tried post-install to activate it with the BIOS/SLIC key? What setup key did you use? Did you try other setup keys (KMS/non-KMS, Core/Pro)? Was the original Windows English or Dutch? (I don't know if it matters.) I suggest either downloading an ISO from a torrent site, searching by known MD5/SHA1 hashes from Microsoft. Or call Microsoft or the laptop manufacturer. Or stop wasting time and use one of those activation server emulator cracks (which don't modify the Windows install in any way, nor stay running in the background).

We talked about the VS docs a few months ago. They suck. The last good viewer/format was the CHM based one used up until 2003. I think it coexisted for a while with the newer, worse, version.

Thanks for the info. What do you use to compare the registry pre/post?

Even if there was a page there, I hate online help. I want offline. But the last time you had anything of the sort was, what, Win98?

Never heard of it.

What/how did you download the install media from Microsoft? Yes, I think you can get the key on Linux. You can just boot a LiveCD, no need to install: http://superuser.com/questions/637971/how-do-i-get-out-my-embedded-windows-8-key-from-a-linux-environment

BTW, text mode stuff during boot is unlikely to be DOS or Win9x nowadays. It's just the BIOS, or Windows 8's bootloader.

There's nothing quite like the interplay of an endless number of 1st and 3rd party subsystems and pieces of software that change behind your back.

Did the laptop come with Windows 8.0? Windows 8.1 doesn't accept 8.0 keys during setup, only later when activating post install. You have to use "setup keys", and activate later with the real key (which you have to extract: http://github.com/christian-korneck/get_win8key ) There are some setup keys listed in Microsoft's site, but I'm not sure they are the correct ones for non-KMS activation. I think there's either a distinction between setup keys for KMS activation and non-KMS, or between Core and Pro. Or maybe both. In my case, whatever the discrepancy was, it would not allow me to activate with my key, probably due to a key type mismatch.

Maybe another variable influenced that 2D score? Or did you also check the score immediately pre-update?

Or maybe just avoid JM20377 unless proven the specific enclosure with it does function the same on both interfaces. The "detailed" JM20337 datasheet I found is just 15 pages and doesn't say much, but maybe there are newer revisions than that 2005 document. There's no mention of AF or 4K. There are just a handful of basic SATA configuration options (SSC, hotplug), and the possibility of defining the USB VID/PID/strings (through the unpopulated U4 on Dave's board). There doesn't seem to be any developer-accessible firmware.

Thanks. A radical change in that Direct2D test. Any other D2D benchmarks? There's also that Disk Mark showing large differences. I think I'll hold off for the time being. I dislike large updates, and this one doesn't seem to bring anything beneficial.

That's a bummer. Nothing like getting not what you ordered. "But it's a higher a number, it's better!", they'll say.

Yes. Looks like this is Win8 SP3. So, now that's out for a while, any benefits or problems?

It is possible some enclosures handle eSATA/USB just fine. Another option is USB3, which isn't much slower than eSATA. Did you ask the enclosure's manufacturer for a fix? Even if they don't bother (likely), making the problem known is one step in the right direction.

No, this is going to corrupt your data.

Or use a different enclosure without the problem. That's a better solution, and more forward looking, than trying to find 512n drives.

No, the jumper just adds +1 sector offset to make XP's partitioning scheme create the first partition starting at sector 64. But this doesn't explain why that mobo didn't boot or recognize the drive otherwise (as reported in a random thread I read). I just checked an AF drive I have, currently in an old eSATA/USB enclosure based around Sunplus SPIF225A. It works the same with both connections. Through USB it appears as 512 bytes/sector physical. Though eSATA, well, I'll have to find a utility to report that on XP.

The WD PDF above lists the drive as AF. See the "Advanced Format" row. The jumper thing probably won't help, but it's easy to try, so why not? It's not like you have a problem formatting the drive, for the time being. And apparently this is a common problem: http://superuser.com/questions/719844/do-hard-disk-drives-turn-on-512e-512byte-emulation-of-4k-sectors-as-needed-dep http://superuser.com/questions/410606/logical-sector-size-changes-depending-on-whether-it-is-attached-via-usb-or-direc http://superuser.com/questions/463952/is-it-possible-to-set-the-logical-sector-size-of-a-usb-hdd Stupid hardware/software/standards.

Didn't look at the MBRs, and quite probably unrelated, but worth a try. Someone reported the drive is not working for him on a motherboard controller, and the solution was to put a jumper on the drive between pins 7 and 8: http://www.techbuy.com.au/p/200204/HDD_INTERNAL_SATA-II_DRIVES/Western_Digital/WD10EZEX.asp As far as I can tell this only offsets the sector alignment to fix performance problems when using XP's default partition alignment, but who knows. jaclaz: What did you see in the MBRs? AF is the general name for 4K physical sector drives. The 512-byte sector emulation is called 512e, and it's not only because of Microsoft but because of software everywhere. It's not a bad idea.

Is that a touchscreen?