jaclaz

<reserved>

Yes, testing the splitter with a multimeter would be wise, to get the contacts in the female sockets you can use a short piece of copper wire, like the one you can get from a CAT5+ cable. There is a very similar cable, with a male Mini Din 6 and two female Mini Din 6 that is used for some kind of S-video connection that has a completely incompatible pinout (though - to be fair - in those plugs and sockets are black and red, not the "standard" green or purple). Being anyway PS/2 ports/device, it is a good idea to NOT hotplug/unplug any device or cable, things should be connected/disconnected with motherboard off, modern motherboards should have electronic fuses, but you never know.. If you look around for this kind of splitters, you will find quite a few "bad" reviews by (presumably clueless) people lamenting that both a keyboard and a mouse work when connect to the green (or purple) socket of the female but that both a keyboard and mouse do not work on the "other" socket blaming the splitter (while I suspect it is simply the 2 and 6 not connected to anything on the motherboard socket). jaclaz

The "common" pinout is also on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PS/2_port On "normal" PS2 port pins 2 and 6 are not connected to anything, on "combo" ports they are connected to a secondary +DATA and +CLK, but it seems like - as always happens - it is not a "proper" standard. AFAICU each manufacturer using these stupid combo ports uses its own design, some use the "normal" 1 and 5 pins for the keyboard, and the 2 and 6 for the mouse, someone the exact opposite, but it should only be a matter of inverting the devices on the female sockets of the Y splitter. BUT some manufacturers intend that double coloured port as keyboard or mouse one meaning that you can connect to it either a mouse or a keyboard, i.e. only the 1 and 5 are connected and 2 and 6 are not connected (as in any normal PS/2 port) in which case the splitter cannot work as there is nothing to split. I suspect that Asus - at least for desktop motherboards - is of this latter kind, the (stupid) idea is that you have only one "old" P/S2 device (mouse or keyboard) and you can connect it to the port, and have the "other" device a new, USB one. jaclaz

As said in the other thread: *any* Windows later than NT 4.00 will update the NTFS filesystem, this shouldn't make it unbootable unless the actual NT 4.00 install is pre-SP4, so - maybe - what you are experiencing is another issue besides the NTFS filesystem version updating, specific to Windows 10 :unsure:. I don't think there is any way to prevent that and surely there is no way to convert the volume back to the old version of the filesystem, at the time (Windows 2000) it caused lots of issues, see also: Using a (windows 8+ based) PE (and possibly also a full install, but I am not sure about the latter) there are Registry settings (Sanpolicy) that can be used to prevent the volume from being mounted (thus allowing as an example to clone it or make a RAW image of it) but the moment the volume is mounted by a later windows the filesystem version will be upgraded: http://reboot.pro/index.php?showtopic=19687 I don't think (but I cannot say for sure) than anything bad can happen with XP and later NTFS, the issue is only connected with the NT 4.00 (for sure) and Win2k (maybe) NTFS versions. The NtfsDisableLfsUpgrade Registry key you mention is only about the upgrading of the Log file format, but this should only - in the worst case, when a volume is not cleanly dismounted - prompt to run chkdsk when the disk is back in the older system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTFS#Journaling it makes sense to have it when mounting an older disk/volume, anyway, I believe it is not only limited to 8, and it still works on later OS, but of course need to be tested: https://social.technet.microsoft.com/wiki/contents/articles/15645.windows-8-volume-compatibility-considerations-with-prior-versions-of-windows.aspx jaclaz

That happened (a lot) when Windows 2000 came out (as 120 days trial). The NTFS filesystem is updated (silently, without warnings or messages) to a higher version, incompatible with NT 4 (some compatibility has been introduced in SP4). A "vanilla" NT 4.00 install CD won't recognize the filesystem, you need an install media with integrated the minimum SP4 that takes into account the changes, see: Here is a reference on how to make a NT 4 install media with integrated SP6, but YMMV: http://reboot.pro/index.php?showtopic=2383 https://bearwindows.zcm.com.au/winnt4.htm jaclaz

It still is the same article, it says nothing about software. jaclaz

Which product? Here we are talking about a software written by Yandex and included into many (mostly VPN related) third party apps (both IOS and Android). The article you linked to is related to the safety of physical products, and actually only applies to some categories.

To be picky, Apple Insider does not confirm anything, it simply reports what the Financial Times has published: The actual article on the Financial Times is linked as hypertext in the "a new report" in the above quote (from which I stripped it) and links to : https://www.ft.com/content/c02083b5-8a0a-48e5-b850-831a3e6406bb but it is behind their paywall and you need an account on the FT to be able to access it (at least this is what is happening to me right now), but it has been republished by arstechnica: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2022/03/data-harvesting-code-in-mobile-apps-sends-user-data-to-russias-google/ In any case the whole stuff is hardly "news" as it is March 2022. The research was made for the Me2B Alliance, that in the meantime changed name: https://internetsafetylabs.org/blog/news-press/the-me2b-alliance-is-now-internet-safety-labs/ https://internetsafetylabs.org/blog/news-press/financial-times-highlights-me2b-alliance-research-questions-remain-about-vpns-with-the-yandex-appmetrica-sdk-installed/ I couldn't actually find a link to the actual research/report jaclaz

The 0x7b on devices with SATA devices usually translates to: The setting in the BIOS is NOT for CSM (or IDE support mode) and the needed SATA driver is missing. It is likely that you have the Windows 2000 install made in CSM and the Vista one in SATA mode. Cannot say if a suitable Windows 2000 SATA driver is available, if there is one, you need to re-install the 2000 with it (AHCI mode) or add it manually (not easy), otherwise, it is likely that you will have to go to the BIOS and change the setting every time you boot to the other OS. jaclaz

I didn't know that starting a thread gave any particular privilege, I would say that a similar request would be granted or denied depending on its contents, not on who proposes it. jaclaz

Well the whole registry is made of them. What you see in the Registry editor is a sort of NTFS filesystem with mountpoints and symlinks (to hives), but the one you found likely was a REG_LINK type, see: List of standard registry value types here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Registry#Keys_and_values Check also this nice tool: https://helgeklein.com/blog/free-tool-list-registry-links-reg_link/ jaclaz

My bad, I meant member reboot12. He mentioned a problem with a file residing in the $MFT, and I posted the actual size limits (he must have tested the trim with a very small file). jaclaz

@LiveXP Sorry, I meant @reboot12 JFYI and for the record, the limit in size for $MFT resident files is around 740 bytes on normal 512 bytes/sector device ($MFT entry size 1024 bytes) and around 3770 for 4k sector device ($MFT entry size 4096 bytes): https://www.forensicfocus.com/forums/general/mft-resident-data/ jaclaz

@Dibya I am pretty sure that FranceBB can answer any question by himself (again if he wants to), no need for your intervention, and of course whether I have watched anything he encoded fiddled with you cannot say. @FranceBB Yep (as expected BTW) you are trying to do it because you (believe you) can , which is an excellent reason. An XP running in a VM like Virtualbox is unlikely to be used as a high speed router or NAS, there are probably so many bottlenecks, either in the VM or in the communication interface with the devices (that I now know are RS232) that the advantage of 10 GB over 1 GB network transfer is unlikely to be in practice a limit. Historically the original reason why XP was dumbed down (including the PAE limitation in later service packs) when compared to Server 2003 was - beside some limitations connected to license (please read as "milking more money from professional users") - the poor quality of hardware and related drivers, it is not surprising that they rate limited mindboggingly fast (at the time) network cards. What is more perplexing is the blue screen, if it was properly written the driver (or the OS) could have well (silently) self-limit the transfer to 2.5 Gb/s (or whatever). jaclaz

Only out of curiosity, and of course only if you want to share this piece of info, what is the actual reason to have a 10G ethernet connection? jaclaz