jaclaz

And - allow me to add - that I believe that Roffen deserves anyway some "slack", I think that besides your claims to be "The Old Man" and my much smaller claims about being the resident old (and grumpy) bastard, he is the most senior member of the board. jaclaz

To be fair, not really "news", if you check OSR NTDEV's you will find several references, starting from 2008 or earlier: http://www.osronline.com/showthread.cfm?link=136557 And, according to here: https://threatpost.com/microsoft-programming-error-is-behind-dangerous-kernel-bug-researchers-claim/127858/ I think I will sleep fine tonight, notwithstanding this vulnerability. jaclaz

It is not fear that paralyzes, it is doubt/insecurity. Fear causes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fight-or-flight_response Those you describe seem "known unknowns" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_are_known_knowns which are usually better than "unknown unknowns", and than "unknown knowns". jaclaz

Not only, that is one thing: There is also (for an unpatched 98) a 2 Gb file size issue (JFYI): jaclaz

Well, our friend NoelC has it in production since quite a bit and he seemed like happy about it: But you are right, it is definitely not ready for prime time and the lack of suitable tools make it - to say the least - a risky option when compared to NTFS. jaclaz

Isn't this vaguely offensive to the Pastafarians? Is that Windows 2000, right? Does the feature works (with the GeForce 9800GT) on XP (if you have it in dual boot on that machine)? If you do have an XP, you can also try the Ultramon, just to check if the card works as it is supposed to: http://www.realtimesoft.com/ultramon/ Previous versions did work with 2000, I believe latest 2000 compatible is 3.1 : https://web.archive.org/web/20111101081901/http://www.realtimesoft.com:80/ultramon/download.asp There are no end (generally speaking) of issues with Nvidia drivers, and often one version works when the one before doesn't and the one later has not anymore a given feature or it has it moved/changed/renamed/whatever, example: https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/419319/8400-gs-windows-7-64-bit-no-dual-view-33-windows-7-drivers-do-not-allow-second-screen/ jaclaz

Not really. You can use insubordination when there is a reasonable expectation that whoever/whatever you give an order is subject to your authority. The convention that you are the owner and master of the OS and that the latter should just do (only and exactly) what you order is so Windows 2000. This is not the case with Windows 10, it is not really insubordinate, rather non compliant and stubborn, probably the best adjective is cantankerous. jaclaz

Count me in with that. (also just me) @kdg So it seems that even safety could be better when these futlongs wheeze as if something anyone says here that it is posted and believed coincidentally emphasizing the methods people want. It is complicated when one has the need where to plan next. Who that anyone could? And about what seems it not course enough there same like aspect requires much to believe, even elaborate. jaclaz

Just wondering, should kdg take your posts as a reference for "normal" English? @kdg The general idea of a conversation follows a number of conventions. Among these conventions there is anyone's right to declare he/she doesn't understand what another member of the conversation is saying and at that point the other member should attempt to explain what he/she just said, This procedure is usually repeated when needed in a loop until everyone taking part to the conversation nods meaning that he/she understood, and at this point the conversation continues, usually on the same topic discussed at the time the request for clarification was issued. Now, if you ignore such requests for clarifications, the other people willing to take part to the conversation, since they cannot understand what you are saying, will likely leave. I am leaving. jaclaz

@98SE My nick/member name is jaclaz, it begins with J, as you can BTW clearly see in my avatar. You are kindly requested to STOP misspelling it. It is clearly intentional, it is not particularly fun as a joke or as a pun, and anyway we already got it. jaclaz

I am not sure to understand what the problem is. No (or very few) sites use SPDY anymore, and it has been largey replaced by HTTP/2 according to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPDY The technology is essentially (though not really-really) similar to a compression format, for the sake of reasoning you can think of it as one obscure/not anymore used compression format. So you have NO (say) .sit (Stuffit) compressed files, you have all .zip, .rar and .7z files instead. Your compression utility/tool supports .rar, .zip, .7z and .sit, but every file you can find is any among .rar, .zip, .7z, so the .sit decompression functionality is never used. Or you (your friend) are testing a site that surely uses SPDY but the specific Opera 12.10 installation (provided that it can actually access the site, as there are other reasons why it may not work, namely HTTPS and/or elliptical curve encryption) doesn't work in SPDY mode? It is also possibel that (for whatever reason) the SPDY indicator is not working. You can try opening DaragonFly and check for the added headers: https://dev.opera.com/articles/opera-spdy-build/ But it is easier/better to go here: https://spdycheck.org/ and test any given site with the tool. You can find some sites to test here: https://w3techs.com/technologies/details/ce-spdy/all/all Examples: https://spdycheck.org/#Ensonhaber.com https://spdycheck.org/#Academia.edu The first uses SPDY BUT it cannot be actually used in most cases The second uses it AND it can actually be used. jaclaz

Just a word of warning for those not familiar with the site, it is currently down due to a SQL error, there was a server move announced some time ago, so probably this is the reason and it will (hopefully) be back in a few (latin) hours or days. jaclaz

Yep, somehow we were cross-posting. jaclaz

The clear remark (hopefully) is that I cannot understand what you mean, this can be due either to my limited understanding of the English language or by your convoluted and unclear way of writing it. It is not about you writing nonsense, it is about you writing something that - since it cannot be understood (by me) - may appear like nonsense. I am pretty sure that you know what you want to say, and most probably it represents an interesting point of view , but unless somehow we find a way to understand each other a conversation is simply not possible . jaclaz

It's also exactly the same I just paid for dinner (actually 30 Eur, but I also left some tip) and also double your post number, what gives? jaclaz

I suppose this can be tagged as Humpty Dumpty Syndrome: @kdg Seriously, it is difficult to understand what you mean, you are perfectly free to continue of course but if you could try to write in a simpler way, we would have better chances to understand each other: What is "That"? What is "This"? jaclaz

Besides there are probably tens of topics where the idea that the best OS ever has been 2K (followed by XP) has been debated ad nauseam, maybe a pointer to a couple of them would show to the OP that there is not any particular *need* to start a new one? http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/173322-windows-2000-one-of-the-forgotten-best-ms-os/ http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/175265-windows-xp-is-still-king/ Also, some of the celebrations of 2K or Xp are in the threads reated to the new (crappy) OSes, like (again examples): http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/155290-windows-8-deeper-impressions/ http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/174208-windows-10-deeper-impressions/ Shameless plug , but OP may appreciate : jaclaz

Sure. https://www.startech.com/eu/Cards-Adapters/Slot-Extension/PCI-Express-to-PCI-Adapter-Card~PEX1PCI1 http://www.ably.com.tw/main.htm http://amfeltec.com/products/flexible-x1-pci-express-to-pci-adapter/ ...2^4+2 jaclaz

Yep, and this would virtually put non-Microsoft Software (such as "IBM PC-DOS, DR-DOS and possibly FreeDOS") under the Microsoft Software category, As said everyone has his/her own way to classify and organize info, and - again as said - I find yours particularly interesting, though you cannot put periods in "DOS" (this would be an actual mistake). jaclaz

Then is it the subforum of what? Everyone has his/her own idea about catalogs and indexing, but check the top left here: http://www.msfn.org/board/forum/8-windows-9xme/ Can you see?: Home>Microsoft Software Products>Windows 9x/ME That is similar to a DOS\Windows path. Can you translate your proposal in that notation? Is it: Home>Microsoft Software Products>DOS - Disk Operating System as it seemed, or is it something else? jaclaz

Oww, come on , let's say that reproducibility and success rates appear to be below average . jaclaz

So, under "[Microsoft Software Products]" we should put IBM PC-DOS, DR-DOS and possibly FreeDOS? Interesting classification proposal. just in case I do miss a CP/M section, but particularly an OS/2 section, you could also say without OS/2 there wouldn't be Windows. jaclaz

Seriously. Check this: https://web.archive.org/web/20090804025245/http://support.microsoft.com:80/kb/140365 against this: https://web.archive.org/web/20090904210210/http://support.microsoft.com:80/kb/140365 Clearly in August 2009 the good MS guys added retroactively FAT32 support to Windows NT 3.51 and to NT 4.00, but in this latter OS limiting cluster size to 16 Kb , (both OS can anyway use FAT32 filesystems smaller than 32 Mb , but no less than 16 Mb). Also, you cannot have FAT32 on drives smaller than 512 Mb; https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/192322/description-of-default-cluster-sizes-for-fat32-file-system jaclaz

Interrupting a trend just for the fun of it ... 6 jaclaz

Have you tried NTFS4DOS? http://www.softpedia.com/get/System/Hard-Disk-Utils/Avira-NTFS4DOS-Personal.shtml it shoudl work normally in a DOS box in the GUI 9x. For Read Only access, your best option is IMNSHO the Diskinternals NTFS Reader: https://www.diskinternals.com/ntfs-reader/ There is a dedicated thread: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/110814-ntfs-support-in-win-98seme/ where users of Paragon's driver reported successful usage on much larger disks, however, so (surprisingly) it is your machine/setup that has the 8.4 Gb limit. jaclaz