jaclaz

@Dibya You wrote: I can install xp with out csm even . It would be interesting to know how exactly, and on which specific machine/motherboard you performed that since without a CSM there is no BIOS and thus no BIOS services/interrupts, and without BIOS services/interrupts there is no booting of non-UEFI operating systems, at least last time I checked. @RLoew I see, it's a pity you don't remember make/model. It is entirely possible that the CSM looked for something *out of spec* like an active partition or a given partition ID or even some initial jump bytes in the MBR code and was not satisfied by the contents of the protective entry in the MBR partition table. jaclaz

Well, since the PAE was disabled in XP SP2 EXACTLY BECAUSE there were tons of buggy drivers this is again not news. The PAE feature was left in 2003 Server because (besides being actually *needed*) on that platform the amount of buggy drivers was much smaller and people actually buying/using Server 2003 had more possibilities/capabilities to use only certified (or however "better") hardware and drivers. Let's see if citing directly the reference page by Mark Russinovich helps: https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/markrussinovich/2008/07/21/pushing-the-limits-of-windows-physical-memory/ Of course the decision (right or wrong) was made in or around late 2003/first half of 2004 and reflects the state of hardware (and drivers) at the time. Later hardware (and drivers) may (or may not) be "better" or "worse", but given that next iteration of the Server line was Server 2008 (that came out early 2008, at a time where everyone was already on the 64 bit bandwagon) noone would have later extensively tested newer hardware (and drivers) with Server 2003 32 bit (of which BTW only Enterprise and Datacenter edition were licensed for more than 4 Gb via PAE), simply because *any* new Server install (be it 2003 or 2008) would have been on 64 bit hardware, and using the 64-bit version of the OS. jaclaz

Do you actually know what CSM is? jaclaz

Rest assured that a lot of people will think anyway that, the concept that "sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't" is written on almost any other post on this thread and on the "other" big one, some info that probably you missed, since you found needed to re-iterate it. jaclaz

Check the card in device manager, maybe it has an error code for the driver. The "I found a Windows XP supported driver" is very vague, if you found it on the board manufacturer site (which I doubt) you can be 99% (never 100%) sure that the driver is suitable and works on that motherboard, if you found it *anywhere else* the reliability of the "XP supported" part might be as low as 0% . jaclaz

And are you going to tell us make/model of that laptop ? And not connected with the internal hard disk being partitioned "GPT style", right? The hard disk not recognized in BIOS (CSM of UEFI) as if it was not any device connected to the port? jaclaz

And NoelC will probably love these : https://randomascii.wordpress.com/2017/07/09/24-core-cpu-and-i-cant-move-my-mouse/ https://randomascii.wordpress.com/2017/07/27/what-is-windows-doing-while-hogging-that-lock/ jaclaz

What is the difficult part in: Not available publicly, I believe. The "I believe"? Please read the "I believe" as "definitely, and even if it was available, providing a link to it would be a violation of MSFN Rules". jaclaz

Vista Beta 1, assertedly: http://rec.games.computer.ultima.dragons.narkive.com/Xie6IQf5/windows-vista-beta-1 Not available publicly, I believe. 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