jaclaz

I thought that the good ReactOS guys were "slow" and (sometimes) a tad bit fixated on the minutiae (said in a friendly way , I know that their resources are scarce), but compared to this Open VMS people here, they definitely seem kids. Of course I am perfectly ignorant of the difficulties involved , and definitely a "hairy reasoner" (and a grumpy one, while at it), but more than two years and the thingy doesn't even boot to print on the screen "Hello, world" Cannot say why exactly, but the apparent pride with which they enthusiastically announce their first two "proof points" somehow makes me cringe. Don't get me wrong, I hope that the remaining difficulties will soon be overcome and that the road map will be respected, but even if everything goes according to plans, we have a full year before the start of the (maybe) availability of the new OS. jaclaz P.S. I am not sure which is the latest-latest roadmap, but I believe it is this one, instead: http://www.vmssoftware.com/pdfs/VSI_Roadmap_20180605.pdf

Sure , but that wouldn't be "MS style". Sometimes I wonder if they have some internal competitions where employers/programmers that manage to (slightly) harass users/customers in the most subtle ways win a prize. There is no doubt whatsoever that the "slightest&subtlest" prize is won every year by the people that write their documentation (or that mantain it) as it is invariably almost accurate while still vague or fragmented enough to lead to misinterpretation. The guys that write the new error messages since 8 (you know the type "An error occurred" or "Something didn't work as expected") try every year to win but surely they are always disqualified for not having understood the "subtle" part in the title of the competition. Programmers sometimes are friends of the documentation guys, a recent example (JFYI ): https://www.forensicfocus.com/Forums/viewtopic/t=16852/ https://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/fc85630e-5684-4df6-ad2f-5a128de3deef/260-character-explorer-path-length-limit?forum=windowsgeneraldevelopmentissues jaclaz

Unfortunately on this specific topic, and notwithstanding the carelessness with which the good MS guys manage the information, they are not entirely wrong. 32 GB is an artificial limit, and was imposed when RAM availability actually meant something, but it is not a very good idea to go for large FAT32 filesystems, unless there are very good reasons for them. 64 GB? Ok. 128 GB? Ok. 256 GB? Hmmm. More than that? Naaah. jaclaz

The issue - as often happens - is the lack of memory (not RAM, actual historical memory). When XP came out it did not offer to the user *anything* more than Windows 2000 (in practice) exception made for bells and whistles, and - as a matter of fact - until SP1 (or SP1a) arrived it was not even fully suitable for professional use. The enhancements (compared to Windows 2000) under the hood were not appreciated initially (in the business/enterprise), essentially because of the need for much more powerful machines, the requirement on disk was almost tripled ( from 650 MB to over 1500 MB) and the requirement for RAM was almost doubled (to actually work on the machines, 128 MB of RAM was more than reasonable for 2000, but you had to have 256 MB for XP). On the home side, just as it will later happen for Vista, the new OS was proposed by OEM's on seriously underpowered machines and home users (who had never even seen 2000 and all had 95 and 98) had new, shining, machines that were much slower than their counterparts and introduced a lot of little nuisances in common use (such as user management) no more "real" DOS, etc. Of course a very little amount of programs, for several years, took advantage of the "enhancements" introduced in Windows XP Also remember how untiil at very least late 2003, all the servers were (and remained) Windows 2000, so for three years or more until Server 2003 came into use, most enterprise "backbones" were using 2000 technology. And if I had 25 cents for each time a user asked me to get back Kodak Imaging (from 2000) instead of the new "fax viewer" and 50 cents for all the machines where I installed the files (coming from NT4) to fix the issues with "Simple File Sharing" : ftp://www.bf.lu.lv/pub/Service_Pack/WinXP/droshiiba/Security_Tab.html on corporate networks I wouldn't be rich, but surely much more well off. The basic issue was the "paradigm shift" of unifying (with XP) a "same" OS both for professionals and home users, managing obviously to make both categories somehow unhappy. You want an example of the non-enhancements in XP? Take the FAT32 drivers on USB: https://msfn.org/board/topic/125116-fat16-vs-fat32-vs-ntfs-speed-on-usb-stick/ Now, if you compare (on relatively modern hardware) an updated XP (SP 2 or later) against a (necessarily outdated) Windows 2000 (SP4) you can find quite a few improvements in XP when compared to Windows 2000 SP4, but it would be not a "fair" comparison. jaclaz

Or maybe he understood it all right but found it "not funny" (IMHO it is not only "not funny", but also confusing to many members). jaclaz

In one word, NO. It is simply Windows 2000 with some bells and whistles added on. jaclaz

For the record, it depends on the size of the volume. Microsoft tools won't format anything bigger than 32 GB as FAT32 (even before Windows 8), that's why the Ridgecrop tool (and other similar ones) were made: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/140365/default-cluster-size-for-ntfs-fat-and-exfat Please note how the article sports: and: but in the actual contents only goes up to Windows 7/Server 2008 ... Whether it is "smart" to exceed the MS recommendation depends a lot on the specific usage of the volume. See also: http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/file/partFAT32-c.html Possibly the stupid Windows 8 has removed the possibility also for smaller volumes, but I doubt it. jaclaz

There are (were) two main unattended guides, they are (largely) available via Wayback machine. Since their content has not been updated much (if at all) old archives (like 2008/2009 or even earlier) are the same as more recent ones. you will need a bit of patience but everything (or almost everything) should be retrieveable, start here: https://web.archive.org/web/20080707160900/http://unattended.msfn.org:80/unattended.xp/sitemap The Gosh's site is an issue as it fails to render with *any* browser if not (I believe) Internet Explorer 6 or 7, see: https://msfn.org/board/topic/74166-goshs-homepage/ https://web.archive.org/web/20070911081305/http://gosh.msfn.org:80/ (you might need to search for direct links posted on the board) Still most available (or otherways try the Wayback Machine) threads listed here: https://msfn.org/board/topic/9817-threads-of-interest/ may be of use. jaclaz

It is a very definite "niche", namely only tablets or tablets like devices with less than 4 GB RAM. As an example, I do have an el cheapo (but honestly not too shabby) Chuwi Hi8 Pro tablet that dual boots Windows 10 and Android that is 32-bit UEFI. jaclaz

Should be this one: http://www.triotablets.us/tablets/windows-tablets/pro-book-10-1/ also called "pro-book 10.1" Should have come with Windows 10, not 8.1. Nothing of any use on the above manufacturer's site. Usually (not always but usually) the manufacturer can provide a "factory reset image", on some models (again not always) the device (like a phone) can be put in a state so that if connected to a Windows PC its internal storage is seen as a (USB) Mass Storage device. jaclaz

There are some differences between: Media Center 2002 Media Center 2004 Media Center 2005 that may allow (or may not) to slipstream Service Pack 3 "simply". See here for all the gory details and for some howto's: https://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/77fb57a2-ef4a-4793-8c34-15f3d5a0474a/slipstreaming-sp3-rtm-to-win-mce-2005-results-into-a-corrupted-installation-cd?forum=itproxpsp https://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/8546f297-9781-422b-b53e-4f283e6b13dc/slipstreaming-sp3-with-mce-2005?forum=itproxpsp Bashrat the Sneaky at the time came out with a solution for WMP10 slipstreaming. jaclaz

Check on xda forum, *like*: https://forum.xda-developers.com/note-3-neo/ https://forum.xda-developers.com/note-3-neo/general/recovery-root-root-lollipop-note-3-neo-t3265412/ https://forum.xda-developers.com/note-3-neo/development/twrp-t3317968 jaclaz

And the other party's lawyer won easily .... jaclaz

No prob , but if you list (possibly starting a new thread) the list of the not-working/not-found/not-retrieveable files maybe they can be recovered (from other sources). Some may have been downloaded/archived by some members, some may have been only "mirrors" (and the file is still retrievable from somewhere else), etc. jaclaz

At first sight, /W: means "Working directory". You are seemingly providing to the switch a file (executable BTW): And you may also try both with and without an ending backslash (some tools consider as a path to a directory the full path to the directory name and some consider it if the name is followed by a backslash, and some will work with both notations). The /F: means "shortcut .lnk Filename" (you are providing to it the target (executable) filename instead) and /T: means "Target (executable) filename" (you are providing to it the shortcut filename instead) Try: shortcut /F:"%USERPROFILE%\Start Menu\Programs\folder\file.lnk" /A:C /T:"%PROGRAMFILES%\program\file.exe" /w:"%PROGRAMFILES%\folder" jaclaz

I am confused, I provided that same link yesterday to you as a later version of the "original" Undercoverdesign.com https://msfn.org/board/topic/177587-what-happened-to-undercoverdesigncom/ and I thought it was clear how (sadly ) it is the latest-latest version of the site, what specifically are you looking for ? The "CD God Disk" (version 5.5) is available allright (via Wayback Machine): https://web.archive.org/web/20061102233436/http://www.devedia.com:80/dosghost/dld/cdgod55.exe jaclaz

Without an exact date when the image was made it is meaningless. If it is BEFORE March 9 2006, then its "Windows Vista Beta 2 will have ..." is just outdated material: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_Windows_Vista if it is after that, it may be accurate or not. Logically, Vista Beta 1 had not such support (otherwise the slide would have said "will improve" instead) Vista Beta 2 - besides - came in three different builds (April 19, 2006 with a build number of 5365, May 1, 2006 with a build number of 5381, May 18, 2006 with a build number of 5384) so, even If it had the EFI/UEFI support, it is possible that one builf had it andf another had it not. To further add to the confusion, it seems like in Vista Beta 1 there are some EFI related files, and seemingly even in some (specific) builds of XP MCE: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/windows-xp-pro-sp2-does-have-efi-support.173183/ http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News/Details.aspx?NewsId=8628 but possibly the EFI files in Vista Beta 1 were a leftover of the experimenting and were not functional or fully functional for booting on EFI/UEFI (and since the change of plans was mainly due to the overlapping of the switch from EFI 1.10 to 2.0 around the same period, it is likely that those files if they work at all, work only on a specific firmware). jaclaz

As a side note, among the many troves in that site, one of the nicest little things is the PeepHole: https://web.archive.org/web/20070403225654/http://www.devedia.com:80/dosghost/dos/ph_w31.htm#top which is a tiny mini-Windows 3.1 on single floppy. Which partly inspired (shameless plug) the minibox: http://reboot.pro/topic/623-minibox-rides-again/ (a tiny Windows 3.1 mainly "extracted" from the Win 9x Setup). jaclaz

The (also archived) site on devedia might have some content that the original might miss, or possibly something after July 2006, anyway, sad news : https://web.archive.org/web/20070403225819/http://www.devedia.com:80/dosghost/ jaclaz

The issue may be that some programs (rightly) check the: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Windows (the ControlSet in use can be found in the HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\Select key) While some check (wrongly) the string at (either): HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Wow6432Node\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion and possibly some check both. So changing the value or the string (or both) may be needed jaclaz

On x86 it is AFAICR : HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Windows CSDVersion=300 (instead of the 200 that SP2 has) No idea what x64 has, but probably - even if it is elsewhere - the REG_DWORD will anyway be called CSDVersion? jaclaz

But how to get the best quality .wav or .mp3? And of course beauty is in the eye of the beholder, OP might be among the 200 people in the word that actually like "The Most Unwanted Song": http://www.ubu.com/sound/komar.html jaclaz

Yep though that is much easier, it is either the red or the green wire ... (it actually depends on the actual EXACT bomb make/model) jaclaz

Not at all, I thought you were (unknowingly) in the "I'm ill, Doctor, Help!" phase described in the standard litany: https://jdebp.eu/FGA/problem-report-standard-litany.html and I tried (failing miserably BTW) to make you aware (jokingly) of the risks connected (having no valid replies, or botched attempts, or incorrect suggestions). Best luck to you as well . jaclaz

Yep , but you see, common or not common, each machine/make/model may have a different way to access the BIOS (not entirely unlike on "normal" PC's the procedure is via DEL or F2 or another F key or ESC) on tablets it is something like "press together volume + and power switch for 4 seconds then release the power switch" (while if a keyboard is connected AND the BIOS "sees" it then one of the mentioned keys may work), example: 0) it is not a Surface. 1) it is not a Dell Venue 11 pro. 2) Is it a Samsung ATIV? https://www.samsung.com/ca/support/computing/how-do-i-access-the-bios-on-a-tablet-pc/ (if you wish to provide it of course) the EXACT brand/make/model would avoid the senseless guessing game, saving o everyone a lot of time and hopefully avoiding botched attempts with incorrect methods. Anyway I now asked you (I presume nicely enough) the EXACT brand/make/model TWICE, I won't ask that info a third time[1]. jaclaz [1] Remember it is you (or your friend) that are having an issue and we are only trying to help/assist you to solve it, though the guessing game could be fun, it will take (maybe, it depends on how many kids want to play it) a loooooong time ....