CoffeeFiend

The installer WINNT32 does (technically speaking, the code is inside one of the DLLs used by it i.e. winnt32u.dll for the unicode version). Why does it use numbered directories? No idea, never really looked or cared. May I ask why you worry so much over such a tiny part of the install process, of a now obsolete installer? I can't really think of a reason why someone would waste time over this.

Yeah, CEO of a 1 or 2 guy "spare time scripting project". As far as I know, there is no company even (even the domain name is registered to an individual's name), no product for sale, there's no official executive board, and it's not exactly publicly traded (no shareholders)... I dunno, perhaps it's meat as some sort of funny title... (no offense) Lots of micro-ISV guys give themselves that title to feel self-important though (I've seen so much talk about things like that, e.g. joelonsoftware), but often comes across as amateur-ish rather. CEO sounds like you're the big boss at the top of an big place like IBM, talking to the board of directors and such. I don't think there really was 2 different design teams. Just different ways to get different tasks done, perhaps some added in a "ugly hack" way... Why exactly they did things precisely this way? I don't think we'll ever find out. Either ways, that ancient installer is now history, thanks god for that.

In fact, there's probably more than 2... Different ways to get different things done. And why things are done like this? (as in design decisions) You'd pretty much have to ask the team that made the installer for Windows NT 3.1 to know for sure. XP's installer is the same, they made it prettier and all, added some screens and what not, but it's essentially the same (just look at the blue screen where it copies files, F6 to load mass storage adapter drivers, etc -- hasn't changed at all). Either ways, they got rid of that crusty old outdated installer altogether as of Windows Vista & 2008.

As of WinME, windows has used WinSxS -- side by side assemblies. This way you can have multiple version of the very same assembly at the same time, and apps can load the specific version they need to work (updating to the latest would sometimes break some apps, or apps would often overwrite the newer ones with older dll's and break a lot of stuff -- the old DLL hell problem) I don't use Miranda (don't think I even heard of it actually), but I never had to replace/add GDI+ DLL's myself. If it badly needs a specific version of it, and doesn't ship with it, then you can blame the devs of that app pretty much.

There's no need to be rude like this towards forum members. It's not exactly the best way to get help. ASMS = assemblies assemblies like GDI+ (a graphic API), ComCtl32 (common controls used by GUI apps), the very old MC Visual C++ 7 runtime (we're up to v9, which is actually the 10th version), various Real Time Comms assemblies, etc .CAT files are catalog files (signed), and the .MAN files are the manifests. Nope

Update your storage drivers (Intel's) Edit: mind you, if you tried to restore it from somewhere else and it failed, it's probably screwed up now. The OEM version wouldn't do you any good, as MS won't activate it with that key, they'll tell you to use the recovery discs instead.

SOME of it was. The minimum specs stated were too low, but they always have been as far as I can remember. Installing Win95 from floppies on a 386 took what seemed like forever and a day. But it would run on it indeed. My boss at the time asked me to upgrade 3 puters in his office to win95... Eternity later, it was up and running, but at ridiculously slow speeds. A few days later, he handed me a CC, and I was on my way to buy new shiny Pentium 1's to replace them. But on reasonable hardware, the speed was just fine (again, same for any version I can remember -- and that even applies to other OS'es). As for being required, it wasn't. Even Win 3.11 wasn't technically speaking. Most people just used it as a pretty app launcher for their DOS apps anyways (besides minesweeper and solitaire), so DOS by itself was sufficient back then for most needs. Windows apps were far and few between, MS Office 4.3 being the main one. And Win 3.11 didn't really run too great on 286'es either (no fancy 386 enhanced mode). Whining might be a good thing sometimes. But people are ALWAYS whining about Windows -- every version of it. They always have, and always will be. It gets old after 10 to 15 years. Actually, there were even people whining about DOS (how it was a set back from other computers' environments, etc), so more than 15 years. TOTALLY agreed on that one. 64 bit Windows support to this day is still quite bad, especially when you consider they had NT4 working in 64 bit on the old Alpha architecture. And I still have hardware that has no x64 drivers, 99% of the apps I use have no x64 version so I'd be running basically everything under WOW64, lots of codecs I use everyday don't have x64 versions, etc. It's quite sad really. I WANT to use x64, but it's just not ready for use just yet. And yes, most hardware makers have long been using us as beta testers of their drivers. That's always been a serious problem. Actually, most of the included apps, I don't want of either. IE? YUCK!!! No way in hell! OE? Are you kidding me? MSN junk? eww! Windows Media Player? LOL, good one! MCE? Not a chance! ... But, most people WANT more than just a plain OS, they WANT an OS that comes with a browser and such things, no matter how much they suck (I mean, just look at all the IE users out there, if that's not a sign...)

Not at all. It's about problem solving, in a reasonable time frame and on budget. It's a business. It's about shipping on time/on budget, NOT about optimizing it to no end. Well, you DID say MS did it and not Apple... Sounds to me like you were doing that precisely. BS, pure and simple. Vista could run with ALL of the features enabled in my 5 year old P4 if I put a new vid card in it (it wouldn't be fast, but hey, it's a 5yo box) Either you don't know, or don't understand what a hardware architecture means/is. It still runs on x86 and x64 (and even IA64). Whereas Apple was for PPC, and they're not releasing PPC versions anymore. Again, it doesn't even compare, but hey, anything to bash Vista eh? Actually most people were, and were criticizing Windows because they had to buy this/it wasn't included, even though it was "necessary"... LOL. Much the inverse. MS has never been "a series of disappointments" -- the only deceiving version was WinME. They've ALL been great improvements besides that one. You're the pessimistic one here. Nah, it changes NOTHING. MS will release what they want, no matter how much you whine. It just annoys the hell out of everyone -- that's ALL it accomplishes.

Already posted 2 years ago

Nope, never heard of Google! Packard Bell essentially disappeared from every store everywhere 10 years ago in all of North America so I thought they must have died (nobody wanted to buy their junk at any price). I was just expressing my surprise, I didn't need a course on how to use a search engine, heh.

I can remember them saying the EXACT same thing back from when Win95 came out even. From "Runs like crap on my 486", to "the minimum requirements are unrealistic" (it WOULD install and work on a 386 -- if you were the most patient person in the world), to "it's just Win 3.11 with a new look", "It's bloated", "nobody needs this", "the old one does what I need just fine", "I have no reason to upgrade", etc. And they'll be whining just the same when Windows 7 comes out, and the following, and the next and so on. In fact, I can't wait for Windows v7 to come out, just so they change their song to "Windows 7 sucks" while they run Vista happily. It's only a matter of time. They'll be calling Windows 7 users fanboys and such for a year or 2, while they bash it to no end. Meanwhile, everybody else is gonna install it and use it everyday without any real issues. And by the time Windows 8 is out, they'll all be happily running Windows 7 too, and saying "Windows 8 sucks"... It's a vicious circle or sorts. Whiners are whiners. Some things just don't change. In fact, I think they LOVE to whine and complain. @MrCobra: totally.

They pretty much always did this. Only Vista took so long. They're going back to their 2 to 3 years or so release cycle instead. Every version of Windows is supported for at least 10 years. Exactly No no... They heard from someone on the internet it sucks, so it must be true! (most of the bashers never tried it). It's not like WinME at all.

I don't see why not. They're competitors, Mac OS X is the main alternative. I think it does make a LOT of sense. Simpler as in dumbed down, and with very little choices. No thanks! No, Zxian was totally right. You wanna run Snow Leopard? Then you can throw that 2 year old $3000 dual CPU G5 computer right in the trash. It won't run it, at any speed, ever. However, Vista will run just fine on a 2 year old Athlon64 X2 with a reasonable amount of RAM, that only cost a tiny fraction of the price of that G5. Apple totally discontinued their very own hardware architecture. Abandoning people who paid large sums of money for a fancy computer only 2 years after. That's like if Microsoft ditched Intel/AMD altogether for Sparc, 2 years after selling you a proprietary box to run their software. No more updates on a $3000 product they sold you merely 2 years ago. It's the end of the line for those machines now. Vista not running at stellar speeds on a 5 year old P4 doesn't even compare, but then again, you're always looking for an opportunity to bash Vista. People were ASKING for those things. "Waah! Waah! We need a sudo-like mechanism for Windows to be secure!" they were saying. MS delivers, and they keep whining as always. People didn't wanna have to buy a firewall and all that, so they made the built-in one better, and added Windows defender. I think it was a good idea. The only gadget they added is the sidebar, and most people actually like it. Criticisms of any new version of Windows ever are widely visible on the internet. There's always been people whining, and there will always be. It doesn't matter what they do, there will always be a tiny minority of people unhappy about it (usually they're the kind that likes to complain a lot too).

Packard Bell is still around? I was convinced they went under like 10 years ago...

Strange. That board uses a plain old ICH9 controller. My very similar board (main diff is, it uses ICH9R) works just fine, with the stock Vista installer (haven't tried x64 though). No drivers or anything necessary (running overclocked and all too). Strange for sure.

Wireshark is hands down the best network tool, but it might not be the most user friendly (you have to know how to draw conclusions from the captured packets). A firewall that controls outbound connections would work I guess (not a big fan of them myself). Another option would be MS' own Network Monitor, v3.2 (on the connect site) will let you see what processes are making the traffic too. It's a LOT nicer than v3.1 (it can even open pcap captures)

Happy Birthday! puntoMX: flowers? How 'bout a cake then? Preferably, a nerdy cake like this one of course!

Today's his last day in his day job at Microsoft. He's leaving to work on his foundation. He's clearly changed the computing world a lot over the years. I won't link to any particular story, there's just too many of them, but click here for all the Bill Gates related news on Google news. Also, Microsoft founders, group pic 30 years ago, and now: See list of people's names here And is last Keynote speech ever, at CES 2008 Farewell, Mr Gates. Edit: forgot a word mid-sentence...

Ditto. indeed! Also, I'd MUCH rather deal with 1 virus or spyware infection every 5 years or so, than buying a overpriced computer that's not compatible with ~99% of apps out there (unless you put Windows on it...) Exactly. If you never patch your system, use IE, visit every shady site, and click yes on everything and open email attachments blindly, you WILL get malware. But even my daughter's XP machines never caught anything ever (they're running as admins, no AV, no firewall, fully patched, FF as a browser). So it's not like your average user can't pull this off. Antiviruses and software firewalls mostly give users a false sense of security. Keep your stuff patched, ditch IE, be just a little bit cautious (don't just open any .exe from anywhere, or click "yes" on everything blindly) and spyware will be a thing of the past. Spyware scanners won't ever find anything more than cookies, and soon you'll be thinking they're useless and just wasting your time. The last time we got any spyware was circa 2004 (coolwebsearch iirc) -- right before we switched to Firefox 0.8 (SP2 for XP came out shortly after too).

Long story short: you don't really... It comes down to trust. Same for any application you install on your computer. You have to trust them to not do anything malicious. For all you know, IE7 could be sending your browsing history to the FBI The thing is, extensions aren't compiled, so you can look at the source code. Anything suspicious in any popular extension would quickly be found. And you can look at the web traffic it generates too (using a debugging proxy, or a network capture tool). So if some app/extension was stealing data, someone would quickly find out.

It doesn't encrypt it. The point was, all the songs from iTunes were DRM'ed (DRM which works with only players, both software and hardware, from a single vendor). And the limitations imposed for those (max amount of shared computers, max amount of times it'll let you burn them, etc), the lack of a choice for quality/format (AAC 128kbps only), etc. But, I very much dislike that player too. The interface, how it works, the resource usage, the extra and totally pointless services it adds, the way it forces that quicktime trash on you -- and even offering Safari (Yuck! I'd sooner go back to IE) as an "update" to iTunes. Winamp works great (plays everything, no nonsense, does everything I expect out of a player), and rockbox on my (non-Apple) mp3 player.

Paste this in notepad: Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00 [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Setup] "LogLevel"=dword:00000000 save as setLogLevel.reg or such, double click it, done! (Ok, I lied. It was only 4 lines) As for the installers, they will all be logging stuff anyways, unless you create separate entries for every single of of them by hand.

You just create or set the registry entries to have the amount of logging you want. By default, LogLevel is set to 0x2000ffff, i.e. 0x20000000 + 0x0000ff00 + 0x000000ff. Set it to 0, and it won't log anything. By default, AppLogLevels isn't created, so create it, and set it to 0 too. Then it won't log anything at all (a 6 line .reg tweak could do this easily).

That was generally true in the 70's. We've been using ANSI (8 bits) for many, MANY years (20 perhaps), and unicode for quite some time even, which can take up to 32 bits per char depending on the encoding, and varies in length. Edit: and no, 7 bit mode transfers like ftp changes NOTHING to this. That's not "text" anyways, that's ASCII, and it's done for the extra bit of parity. That's totally irrelevant when talking about text files. A text file is NOT 7 bit (restricted to ASCII), by any modern definition. It was true in the 70's, and it most definitely isn't the case nowadays (it's just too bloody limited/restrictive). Even 8 bit ANSI isn't quite cutting it anymore for a LOT of things, hence unicode, where a single character from another code page can take up to 4 bytes (again, depending on encoding and code page). They even had to update text parsers to account for variable length characters... Don't believe me? Fine. Open notepad, type this: ~!@#$%^&*()_+ in it (13 chars total). File > save as > any name, pick unicode. Go see the size, yep, 28 bytes for 13 chars (2 bytes for the big endian byte order mark, then 26 bytes left for the 13 chars used -- using 16 bit words for each of these fairly common chars, as it's UTF-16 encoded. Had we picked "strange" characters, it would be even bigger). You're simply plain wrong here, whether you're willing to admit it or not. I certainly wouldn't call memory dumps "mostly useless" either.

That got me wondering. So I just compared 2 passes of HDTach 3, on each the original exe in compat mode and the byte patched one (still no word from mods about the pic and/or patch), and the results were virtually identical (peak speed varied by about 5, random access is the exact same, average read varied by 0.2). The curves look much the same too, peaks as high/low, and it drops just the same near the end of the disk. So I don't think it really changes anything. Edit: Oh well. No one says anything, so I'll just risk it then! Hopefully it doesn't say "Group: banned" by my username tomorrow morning Again, NOT illegal: it does NOT bypass any protection code/licensing/serial checks or such, it's merely for interoperability/to circumvent restrictions for use, which is deemed as acceptable by US Judges Pic (version check in WinMain): So either @ 0x1139 change 0x05 for 0x06 (makes it work with NT 5.x and 6.x), or @ 0x113A change 0x76 for 0xEB (makes it work with NT 5.x and over). Then it'll run on Vista & Win 2008 not in compat mode (and you can see it basically makes no difference in speed)