pointertovoid

Sh*tstorm also existed in French newspapers of best reputation and got severely reduced , which at first thought I wouldn't complain about... BUT the problem is always who defines what should be censored. To pass through in France presently, a reader's message must be favourable to the glorious action of the valient policemen, of the secret services whose aim is to defend the population, of the armed forces sent to Syria to fight against Daech (and who cares about the reversed chronology), favourable to nuclear energy, and allege that renewables can't replace oil. That's very far from the laws against racial hatred, and very far too from an attempt to avoid racial or religious tensions in the country. The kind of selection corresponds well with the traditional propaganda by the French secret services. Whether they operate censorship by themselves or define it for private companies working in countries of cheaper labour changes little. Some phrases suggest that the journalists know the contents of some cut reader messages, so censorship would operate at the newspaper, not prior. That would be consistent with my older observations, where my name let censor my messages containing certain keywords at one newspaper only, and later all my messages, followed by my IP address blocking me when I used pseudonyms, and now Tor Browser blocked.

Hello everybody! Can the language of a Seven Pro Oem be changed after installation? I've read things against "installing language packs" after the convenience rollup. Thank you!

I should have told: one pimary and one extended volumes because I defined four volumes. On the first attempt, the partitions had been made by GPartEd, aligned on MiB I believe, and used succesfully by W2k for installations and months of use, but bricked by the Xp install disk - so I'd suppose that Xp's installation does something worse than W2k's installation, possibly not placing the boot sector where the preexisting partition tells.

Meanwhile France's censorship is about complete. Tor Browser doesn't help any more, or very scarcely - I still get an "error 503" from the remote host from time to time, which is the antique excuse for automatic censorship at a late stage, but on most attempts the automatic censorship acts in an earlier stage. Maybe the French spooks, possibly aided by their European accomplices, have spotted out all Tor nodes. Or they have found a generic means to distinguish a request sent by a Tor server. In addition, humans suppress messages inconvenient for the French state. Screening had been made mandatory under the excuse of child pronography, terrorism and so on, but of course any message putting in doubt the goals and efficiency of the secret services is suppressed now. Or against nuclear energy. Or or or... That's not all. In France, and apparently increasingly so in Belgium too, hate messages like "these terrorists were Muslims" are wiped out now. Which corresponds to the French law, may help avoid a dictatorship (or not), but goes obviously against the freedom of speech. The family names of terrorists aren't made public any more and the first names are apparently modified, possibly in an attempt to avoid Muslim hatred, but goes obviously against the freedom of information. The unavoidable consequence is that opinions perfectly legal and plain informative, like "terrorist attacks are a retailation for France's war against Daech", are suppressed too, just because the possibility exists. I claim that this is worse than reading tons of sh*t messages about Muslims. Add new laws to that, which have let condemn on man for alleging that terrorists willing to die were courageous, and may let condemn an other because he said that we must combat but respect people willing to die for their ideas, and you get a dire picture of France's freedom of speech. But the state propagandists in favour of the secret services, of nuclear energy, of war in Syria, of oil rather than wind, have full access to the media. Time for a successor to Tor maybe ?

Hope to have understood the question properly... The drivers for "IDE" mode (which uses to mean mean P-ata, since every HDD is IDE for >30years) and for AHCI mode are nor compatible. Installing one driver and setting the Bios to the other mode raises an "inaccessible boot device" or a BSOD. The W2k and Xp install Cd seem to make few checks on the drivers supplied by F6, so errors when choosing the driver, or writing or reading the diskette, crashes the install process in a later step. The drivers by Intel for Xp can't run on W2k (BSOD), but BWC has ported some that I thankfully use on ich10r - H61 too? The latest Intel disk host (southbridge) with Ahci drivers by Intel for W2k is the ich6 approximately. Definitely none for the H61. The P-ata mode is really slower than Ahci and should be avoided. Switching between the modes in the Bios at each OS change is unbearable. W2k's Ntldr and Ntdetect.com (which I believe must go together) can't start Xp. Xp's do start W2k as long as the register has not grown too much, which uses to take a few years. Which means that a dual-boot W2k+Xp can't work eternally by standard Microsoft means - a curse on their moustache! The W2k and Xp install Cd put their own Ntldr and Ntdetect.com whatever is already present on a disk, so the user of W2k and Xp should better have copies of the files at hand and some independent means to boot the machine and access the boot volume. This can be a Linux live Cd, not too archaic so it knows to write on Ntfs.

Unfortunately I didn't take detailed information of the partition schemes (...1 full day of reboot, reinstall). What I know for sure: The Xp install Cd makes, on an empty disk, one primary volume and one secondary volume with logical volumes in it (3 in my case) - much like the Ms-Dos diskettes and Win95 boot diskettes do. With every version of GPartEd, I defined everytime 4 primary volumes, with "boot" flag on the lowest one defined first. Definitely sure. The physical disk (X25-E) is 64GB big, so the big Lba shouldn't hopefully interfere. And my uncertain hypothesis relying on a vague supposition: that the Xp install Cd makes assumptions that do not belong to the partition standard, while W2k and GPartEd stick to the flexibility of the standard. For instance, that nothing imposes the sector 63.

Which doesn't change the question: Is there a way to integrate the SP, updates, language packs in the installers for dotnet 1.1sp1 and 2.0sp2?

A tired hello to everybody... After many failures, trials and angryness, it seems that: The XP installation doesn't work on a disk that has been formatted with its volumes aligned on MiB boundaries. But W2k installs and repairs under the same conditions when XP is absent. Adding XP on a preexisting MiB-aligned volume prevents W2k already installed on other volumes to boot. Once the XP installer has bricked something, the W2k installer can't repair it easily (or I didn't find how). It's even possible that XP or its installer damages the MiB-aligned volumes. I didn't try if only the boot volume has alignment conditions, nor if it's a matter of alignment or of distance to the disk's beginning. Conditions of observation: X25-E 64GB disks on ich10r on Ga-ep45-ud3r mobo. Ahci mode. Intel XP drivers v8.7, BWC's improved drivers for W2k. ich10r drivers provided by F6 floppy mostly, but sometimes nLited in an install CD. Tried original (pressed) CD, improved burnt CD and DVD, several diskettes that had worked the day before. Partition table and volume formatting by GPartEd 0.8.0.5, but also 0.12.0.2, 0.5.1.1 and by the XP install disk. Four volumes of 10GB, 10GB, 10GB and 34GB. All volumes were main if created by GPartEd - Windows does it differently. XP installation succeeded when creating all the volumes by The XP install CD GPartEd 0.5.1.1 with the option "align on cylinders" and zero (0) MB before Even as the (MS-DOS) partition table had been created by GPartEd 0.8.0.5 It failed when creating all the volumes By GPartEd 0.8.0.5 with the option "align on MiB" and one (1) MB before By GPartEd 0.12.0.2 with the option "align on MiB" and one (1) MB before. Note that 0.12.0.2 can align on cylinders but imposes 1MB before while 0.5.1.1 permits 0MB. Even if booting on the install CD, the XP part already on the HDD can't start. <rant> W2k didn't fail on that, but the more recent XP even bricks what W2k does well. Trying several disks, diskettes, Windows and CDs, formatting tools, checking the Ram, Cpu, host, disks... took me one day, and I sacrificed an installation that had cost me an other day on an other disk to check if the hardware was sound. </rant> Maybe this serves to someone else, at least.

1.1sp1 and 2.0sp2 on W2k. I seek to reduce the number of file to install, so I would like to integrate the updates in the dotnet installers if that's possible. 3.5 and 4.0 suffice on Xp, as 1.1 and 2.0 are included in the 3.5 installer.

Yes, but 3.5 doesn't install on vanilla W2k.

Hello everyone and everybody! Installing dotnet on W2k (but also Xp) takes some time: the initial installers would be bearable, but then I must add the language packs, the service packs, the updates, all that for v1.1sp1 and v2.0sp2 (or v3.5 and v4.0). So (independently of Hfslip and nLite): is there a known means, preferably provided and blessed by Microsoft, to /integrate all these packs to the installers, so I'd just install the upgraded v1.1 and v2.0? [MS didn't do it for Internet Explorer nor DirectX, but for DotNet maybe...?] Thank you!

Your Windows takes 17s to start. That's not brilliant, but it's not 32s neither. On the first 15s, the latency and throughput of the SSD has no effect. The 12s black screen is too long, and from the hardware I know, it results from the graphics card. Some take a long time before they display anything. Apparently, they check their Ram for that long, which is sort of annoying because the Bios works meanwhile and would display interesting information. You could try an other, preferably much older graphics card with a small Ram and observe if the black screen gets shorter (which won't make Windows boot sooner, but let you see more messages from the Bios). Maybe you can modify the options in the graphics card's microcode (and risk a destruction) to avoid completely the Ram check, or find an other graphics card. Some mobo's Bios can be instructed not to test the main Ram, which takes time, but was a habit years ago. The rest uses to be the response time by the hardware attached to the mobo; some are faster than others, and also, some mobo Bios take longer when they see a new piece of hardware or a known one connected to an unusual port. Some mobo's Bios are slower. A typical reason is (was) when they integrate microcode parts written by Intel or Amd for Sata or Raid functions. Intel mobos have a faster Bios because these functions integrate better in the startup (and their logic is also simpler for the user). The same holds for added on-board disk hosts (you know, Lsi / Promise / etc.), but these can often be disabled. As for Win boot time, I have no firm opinion, for having made unexpected observations. It seems that hardware detection is lengthy, more so than software loading, and the culprit would be the attached hardware itself. But in case you access the disks in Pata mode, don't look for other explanations. "His older Ssd is faster", well, they don't improve linearly. My stone-old X25-E are still among the fastest. I had also seen early Mlc Ssd get slow over time, before Vista brought answers. But to my experience, the measurable performance of Ssd has very little effect on boot time. Only mechanical disks were a serious brake. For instance, a perfectly optimized Raid-0 of two or four X25-E, which explodes the MB/s and the transactions/s, boots exactly as quickly as one X25-E does.

I feel such a general statement would be unfair to Windows. I have run Win95 and W2k for years without degradation. But I do define user sessions that are not administrators (and used Ntfs instead of Fat32 as soon as possible).

So will you develop us one?

Resource Hacker v4.0.0 seems to run properly on W2k. v4.2.5 installs but crashes when opening a document. v4.3.20 installs but crashes at launch. On extended W2k, v4.2.5 displays icons badly but might run (experimented shortly) and it offers functions that don't work properly on v4.0.

It works nicely. Now I have it in a .bat file for future use: REGSVR32 /u C:\Windows\System32\zipfldr.dll (sure, %path% would be more flexible). Grazie Jaclaz!

Maybe someone would be wiling to program it if Microsoft doesn't? If it's only a matter of the application fiddling with [HKLocalMachine], maybe a dll added near the application could intercept the calls by the application and redirect them to a local equivalent of [HKLM] where the application finds its data back and 7-64 doesn't complain? Runasdate succeeds in a similar function on 7-64 too.

Thanks! Apparently it's just a Visual Studio runtime that installs this mess, so I won't worry about it. I just felt bizarre that a runtime puts its dirty fingers on an OS dll and redirects all calls by the applications to its own new version of the dll. Legitimate OK, but it looked suspicious, and for sure unexpected. A runtime modifying the OS, this reminds me of MS Office on Win95. After installing an English Word and a German Excel on the French Win95, the actions at all applications looked like Fermer le programme Do you want to save the file? Ja - Nein which is fun the first two times and boring from the third time on.

I tried shortly to add the extra dll of several wrappers in the FreeCad folder (and all subfolder) and it improved nothing. But meanwhile KernelEx v1.8g installed with limited effort and lets FreeCad (3D) and LibreCad (2D) run, so I'll put my time on that option.

I've tried SearchMonkey. It installs and runs nicely on Xp and W2k, kudos. It does its job without needing to learn nor disable anything, how comfortable. One back side: it is much slower than Windows' built-in F3 search.

I'll paraphrase Jaclaz, just in case someone still had doubts. W2k and Xp are different OSes. Their Application Program Interface differs: Kernel32.dll, Comdlg32.dll and the like offer over 100 entry points more at Xp than W2k. As soon as someone compiled with a less old Visual Studio and didn't check the option "compile for W2k", the executable calls these entry points and does fail on W2k. Even if you successfully edit the OS-checking information in the driver installation files, the installing program fails, and if not, the driver itself fails. There are very few exceptions, and a driver failure can be painful for real, more so than an application failure. There are more differences. For instance the stack of USB drivers has been reorganized at Xp. Your chances to port easily a Usb driver from Xp to W2k aren't very good. So running W2k on hardware that has no official drivers is a BIG effort. Admirable work has been done by some fine forum members here for some pieces of hardware - but you have to check each piece of hardware individually for an existing ported driver, and this needs time. Understanding what ported driver to install and how takes time too. Don't hope to compress it below several weeks.

Hello the experts! On my (probably infested) Xp, most applications call a Comctl32.dll ubiquated in C:\Windows\WinSxS instead of the usual one. I had not noticed that up to now, but the excellent Faber Toys shows it with the full file path, see the appended screenshot. Hence I ask you: Is this normal, safe and sound? Or shall I consider that a malware has replaced the normal Comctl32.dll by a fake one, say in order to observe the activity on my computer? If it's normal, would you know which update or application installs the modified dll? Thank you!

Miktex compiles latex files to dvi, pdf and ps formats. v2.8 installs and runs on W2k, v2.9 fails. Subtlety: the "portable" and "basic" variants install well but the "complete" installation fails with "File name database capacity exceeded", a bug improved on late v2.9. It seems (?) that it's the same installer and executable for "basic" and "complete", with less or more Latex packages installed, fetched from the Web or the disk if preloaded (complete 1GB), knowing that Miktex can also install the missing packages when needed. So for an offline W2k, one can download the "complete" monster, instruct to install the "basic" and to install missing packages from the disk when needed. I also have good hope that all compiler versions are compatible with all packages versions, for which repositories exist on the Web, so the "basic" installer would combine with later download from the repository. Miktex brings Yap to display dvi result files. Yap would uneasily install without a large part of Miktex. TexnicCenter is a text editor for Latex source files that can call a Latex compiler (a preexisting Miktex being recommended) and varied preexisting displayers for the result dvi, ps, pdf files. v1 RC1 installs and runs on W2k, v2.02 fails to start after installation: "Not a valid Win32 application". While TexnicCenter v2.02 offers options for spell dictionaries in varied languages, v1 RC1 doesn't, and pasting the files from v2.02 in a v1 RC1 installation doesn't help. After trying >30 dictionaries: The original English-US seems usable, at least as a foreign language. The original German ignores compound words hence isn't very helpful. Pasted the .dic and .aff for Brazilian Portuguese from this file, seems to work well: verificador_ortografico_para_portugues_do_brasil-2.5-3.2.12-fx+an+sm+fn+tb.xpi The least bad I found for French ignores elisions (or rather, Texnic 1.1 ignores) like jusqu' hence is far from good : myspell-fr-v1.3.2.zip The least bad I found for Italian ignores elisions like dell' hence is far from good : Dizionari.IT_20080927.oxt I've found no decent one for Spanish. Even conjugations, plurals, feminine forms fail. Several of these dictionaries contain descriptions of the elisions, and TexnicCenter v2.02 does all this properly. The shortcomings I mention may well be limitations of TexnicCenter v1 RC1 rather than of the dictionaries nor their adequation to TexnicCenter v1. Lyx lets edit near-Latex source files in a near-compiled display, can call a Latex compiler (a preexisting Miktex being recommended) and varied preexisting displayers for the result dvi and pdf files. The "Bundle" installer brings its own Ghostscript, GSview, imagemagick and needs no CygWin, Gtk+, Python. v1.6.5-1-Bundle installs and runs on W2k, v1.6.6-1-Bundle botches the GUI languages. Lyx would download its Aspell6 spell check dictionaries during installation, and only from the Web, but for my offline W2k machine, I could download from Lyx's website the installers for the necessary languages, pre-install them in C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application Data\Aspell\dictionaries then install Lyx asking to download the languages and let the installer fail on that, and got spell chacking. That's where Lyx 1.6.5 installs Aspell6 inevitably on an online Xp. Pre-installing Aspell6 in one different location had failed. I didn't try to redefine "Documents and Settings" nor to install Lyx without asking for Aspell6. Word cutting at line ends in the compiled files must rely on Miktex rather than Aspell6. Bakoma (this one isn't free) lets edit the standard Latex source in a display very near to the compiled file. v9.05 installs and runs on W2k and is claimed to be the last one, but seems to need a volume where Windows isn't - what if you have a single volume on your disk? The >600MB versions need very little preinstalled software, but I've seen no spell dictionaries for my languages.

That Xp's search function is clumsy, inefficient and plain annoying is clear. It needs heavy tuning before getting half-way usable, and I haven't found up to now how to disable the search within the zip files. I didn't try Search Monkey because something (Firefox, Avast or Comodo) claims the site is a nest of malware, and even after pass-by, it blocks the download. Is there information about the F3 search (of W2k and Xp) skipping the non-displayed metadata when searching for a string? From my observations, only Xp does it with the pdf files. That behaviour would be useful for htm files too, and on W2k too.

Hello everyone and everybody! Many file formats contain information not displayed to the user, say formatting instructions. The search (F3) for a file containing a certain string should better sort out what information is displayed and search for the string only there. Here are my observations: W2k and Xp return nearly every .htm if searching for charset. W2k returns nearly every .pdf if searching for Arial. Xp returns nearly no .pdf if searching for Arial. It also misses fewer .pdf files that do contain the searched string. Installing Sumatra with its "Pdf search filter" changes nothing, Foxit neither. Windows seems to do everything. http://www.sumatrapdfreader.org/download-free-pdf-viewer-fr.html http://www.sumatrapdfreader.org/download-prev.html v1.51 installs on W2k if Gdiplus.dll v5.1.3102.1360 is added near the installer and deinstaller, v1.1 doesn't need it. Though, I experimented on one W2k and one Xp only: I shut off the indexation on W2k and Xp long ago, both as a service and from the volumes. Maybe the "Pdf search filter" acts there? Foxit v2.2 was put on W2k by pasting, v4.3 on Xp by installer, later v4.3 on W2k by installer. I've Firefox 38, ie7 and half a dozen browser on Xp, Ff12 and ie6 on W2k. Maybe you want to compare and share your observations?