jaclaz

Yes. jaclaz

NOT as fun as Tay's or Zo's ones, namely last documented Zo's one: http://uk.businessinsider.com/microsoft-ai-chatbot-zo-windows-spyware-tay-2017-7 jaclaz

In other words, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Extremely useful feedback, thanks . jaclaz

I see. I just retired a NT 4.00 that was running 24/7 since 2003 and a Windows 2000 that was running 8/5 since the same time. On the NT 4.00 machine the stretches were as long as I wanted them to be, basically the only downtime was for hardware maintenance (cleaning and replacing of parts, namely I changed two or three disks and a couple power supplies) plus the occasional blackouts. The NT 4.00 machine, until I found an obscure Registry setting (that I now completely forgot) had initially an issue with something like a mouse movement buffer getting saturated and needing a reboot every 3 or 4 months, but after that it has always been fine. Neither OS was ever reinstalled, to be exact the 2K machine was migrated some time in 2009 or 2010 to a new motherboard, but without reinstalling, just some "sorcery" with device drivers. Both machines have been replaced with new machines with Windows 7 in March or April 2017. Till now nothing of note. Admittedly these machine are very "static", i.e. once configured[1] it is not likely - unless there is a problem of some kind - that they have new programs installed or zillion Gbytes of crap downloaded, so they may not be a good "reference". A common "user" machine is surely subject to much heavier impact from user actions. jaclaz [1] And making some of the old software that needs to run on those machine working in Windows 7 has been NOT easy at all, had to use several tricks and some small freeware tools to have it behave how it should have, but all in all it wasn't as bad as I feared.

Impressive? Maybe impressive for "recent" or "modern" windows. And reinstalling because of "software rot" [1]? Seriously, what do you consider in your experience a "normal" period between "wiping the slate clean and clean reinstall"? (to understand what is the "base reference"). jaclaz [1] i.e. something that most probably does not even exist?

Well, in the UK Government and NHS have - like many other British well established traditions - a long history of data leaks, at the time of the BIG one at least they saved a lot on cloud infrastructure and managed to do it with just a couple DVD's: https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Discgate but they are seemingly quickly evolving https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/02/28/health_firm_fined_over_data_leak/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/17/security-breach-fears-26-million-nhs-patients/ https://medconfidential.org/about/ jaclaz

Well, you never know. Until a short time ago I would have pointed out the Swedish (oops, only a coincidence) as being (both as a people and as a government) among the most serious, rigorous and attentive people of the EU, with an advanced and diffused culture, especially related to modern technology, and they partnered with IBM (I mean, not a new startup founded by you and me to disrupt something), still: https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2017/07/swedish-transport-agency-worst-known-governmental-leak-ever-is-slowly-coming-to-light/ I don't like the idea of anyone taking care of any data at all .... jaclaz

qualified does not necessarily mean capable. jaclaz

Try here: https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://download.juniper.net/software/aaa_802/public/oac/452/OdysseyClient9x.exe https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://download.juniper.net/software/aaa_802/public/oac/* Also there could be something of use here Also, this: http://w1.fi/wpa_supplicant/ may (or may not) work for you. jaclaz

Maybe you are a little weird or maybe not , however the comparison does not hold. The idea about not giving the car keys to kids is that they (the kids) are not qualified to drive the car and - possibly - will anyway recklessly attempt to drive it, with the risk of damaging the car and/or harm themselves. The idea of handing administrative account information (and data, etc.) to the good MS guys is different, they are qualified and not-so-reckless. It is more like the idea of having your precious documents in a bank safety deposit box. The guys from the bank are qualified (actually they are pretty good at it) to keep their safe really safe, still they don't have BOTH needed keys to open that box. You keep your key, and they cannot open the box at their will and go through whatever it contains. They (the guys from the bank) are pretty accurate in checking the identity of anyone that - holding the key - wants access to the safety box, and only you know what actually is the whatever you put in it. Imagine if they (the guys from the bank) came instead to your house (while you are away), going through each and every document then took away with them everything they believed being of value replacing them with perfect copies ( and then put in your safe deposit box only what they think might be useful to you, keeping BTW also a copy of your key) . jaclaz

No, sorry , but you have this wrong . A "normal" Windows 10 is connected to a server (a Microsoft one, of which you know nothing about[1]) 24/7, so nothing really-really new that the password can be reset remotely. jaclaz [1] due to the asymmetric nature of the connection, rest assured that while you know nothing about that, "they" know EVERYTHING about you

Yes. (or maybe No). https://web.archive.org/web/20150727010704/http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/questions-with-yes-or-no-answers.html And while you are at it, check: https://web.archive.org/web/20150620072510/http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/problem-report-standard-litany.html How can anyone possibly know what you are after if you don't post any meaningful detail? jaclaz

The home page of the program is now here (softpedia has the old geocities address) : http://myfreewares.weebly.com/file-extension-changer.html It seems like it has been used (and tested) for years, so I find it improbable that it suffers from the issue you think is caused by the folder read only tick. But at first sight it is actually poorly coded. Namely an error message should always be specific and actually tell you what the issue is. I cannot add a file via Add Files button (ActiveX error) and - depending on the settings - I can have your same error or a success message (whilst it did NOTHING OR it actually changed the extension). With the installed version it *somehow* works[1]. You need in the SAME directory where the "File Extension Changer.exe" is the following sub-directories: Backup Logs Redo If you have not them (and you select the features Backup and/or Log and/or Redo) the thingy will throw that error. With those directories in place even the Portable version works. jaclaz [1] but there is NO connection whatever with the "read only" directory tick, now, for no apparent reason: https://www.exploratorium.edu/brain_explorer/images/jumping2.gif

Can you explain? What do you mean "small visiting relatives"? Evil gnomes that changed the password? Or the sheer presence near the laptop of someone that is not the owner did that? jaclaz

No, the issue is that (as explained on the thread you posted a link to), the "read only" tick is not a "read only" tick (when it comes to directories). It is not "news", it is like 16 (sixteen) years or more that it behaves like that and IF it was a problem no program would have been able to write or rename any file in the last 16 years or so. The file extension changer (if it doesn't work and if it doesn't work because of that) could be badly written. (or maybe - since you mentioned a "portable app" it has been modified to be made portable in such a way that it doesn't work anymore), BUT it is improbable that the reason why it doesn't work for you is that "read only" tick, as if it is that, it would have not worked for anyone, ever, but of course it is possible. Get yourself another program that actually works, there should be tens of them. OR provide a link to the program, so that someone can check if it works. jaclaz

OH, yes, it means exactly that. You are falling in the usual (common enough) mistake to think that the Windows 10 that you tweaked, bettered, changed, tuned, modified is Windows 10. It is not. Windows 10 is what MS deliver to you UNmodified, and it sucks (BIG). Once you have done all your tweakings, and spent countless hours to modify it, then it becomes another thing (most probably bearable and even "working"). jaclaz

Here: anyway you should look for NDIS and NDIS2 instead of "dos-LAN". jaclaz

The point is that we don't know much about how the whole thing works. Updating the firmware is not "to be avoided at all costs", in the "normal" "common" BSY/LBA0 issue is simply NOT useful and unneeded, but being anyway a risky operation (always, but particularly when the disk drive is not working properly for *unknown* reason) it is only advised after having recovered data, when, in the worst case, it will re-brick the drive (possibly in such a way that it is not recoverable) but since the priority (recovering the data) went fine, it wouldn't matter. In case of a LBA0 issue it won't probably do anything, in case of BSY the disk is not recognized so the update cannot be performed. That "strange" condition of a SX15 firmware on a drive marked SD15 (and 12CC4 error) you have is seemingly not a common one, so we don't have any other report that I can remember. jaclaz

Ooops sorry of course reading something would have reduced your precious gaming time, I had missed that, my bad . jaclaz

MS backpedaling (sort of): http://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-agrees-to-extend-support-deadline-for-clover-trail-pcs/ jaclaz

Well, allow me to doubt that it is "effective" (on the large scale), you see the problem is that you actually come here to find some jacks of all trades, if everyone would do like you there would be very little knowledge, let alone sharing of it. Or, if you prefer, you gain best time/performance/whatever a the cost of someone else's time/work. The idea of writing something down and making it easily available is on the contrary that of saving the time needed to point someone to it and telling him what is already written. If "that" attitude slows mankind, yours (if adopted by the masses) will downright stop it. As well nobody forces anyone to be polite or grateful, but usually this helps in motivating the jacks of all trades that actually try to help. jaclaz

And of course you disregarded the trifling detail that maybe making me tell you things that you can easily read yourself is not worth my time. The fact that you are honest (besides lazy) is a good thing however. jaclaz

Yes , it is very likely that it is a "H" mis-typed instead of the "normal" "U", as Step 13 is referring to "Spin Up complete". jaclaz

And you really think that you *need* the stpboot.bin? The posts are still all there in that thread, including one by os2fan2: https://www.betaarchive.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5880 https://www.betaarchive.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=130532#p130532 Which explains how the "mythical" stpboot.bin is just some bytes that pre-pended to osloader.exe make NTLDR. If you prefer NTLDR contains some 16 bit header loader code and osloader.exe. If you have both a NTLDR and the corresponding osloader.exe, you can extract the initial part of NTLDR untlil the beginning of osloader.exe and call it sptboot.bin or whatever you like (I call mine Andrew ). jaclaz

Maybe there is a misunderstanding. I know perfectly what nlite is and where to find it. I don't know where to find the "tweak set" for nlite you are referring to, presuming that you are not referring to the generic list of available tweaks in nlite, but rather to a "pre-set" where each option is set or unset. BTW - this is a long time pet peeve of mine - nlite has so many options and settings (some not fully documented or easily understandable) that is almost impossible to create two times a "same" build without using a saved configuration, every time someone posts "I did it with nlite" the question is not about the tool used (nlite) but rather about the "it". jaclaz