jaclaz

Well, to be fair, Dybia replied with some wrong info (78 as opposed to 7B, which should be actually 0x0000007b) and never replied properly when i raised the doubt about that piece of info. No need to be sorry, it's OK , it happens everyday in life, sometimes you win (some respect) sometimes you lose it . jaclaz

Some news on telemetry we have now at least some data (hoiw much reliable it's a whole different thing): https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/06/microsoft_windows_10_creators_update/ jaclaz

For the loopback test you don't even need a hard disk, what has the presence or not of the card under the PCB to do with it? The loopback test is made by connecting the Rx and Tx together and sending some data to the (virtual) COM port and see if these data is echoed back correctly in terminal, to make sure that the adapter and the setup is correct BEFORE even touching the hard disk. It is a rare occasion (but it can happen) that the adapter is simply not working (DOA or Dead On Arrival), and as well even if the setup is usually very simple, it can happen that the device driver or however *soomething* in the OS is improperly set and makes it not functional. In your profile you state you are using a Windows 10, mybe that is part of the problem, ideally these instructions are (were) intended for a computer running XP (that has somehow a more direct/less complicated access to hardware) though it has also been used successfully with 7 (using a Terminal tool and - I believe - with no UAC and/or with Administrator credentials) so it may work fine in 10 or it may not. jaclaz

No, they are NOT, right now they are ONLY a bunch of senseless, unreferenced strings, that most probably you can (although I seriously doubt it) use as some form of mnemonics to make a number of modifications to system files. Try doing this mental experiment, imagine that your computer and all your data including files and notes are not available, let's say you are on a trip abroad and you cannot reach your computer nor anything in India, the only thing you have is a pristine (perfectly working) unpatched XP install on a computer and access to Github and to the public internet. Do you believe that in the above condition you can re-create EXACTLY the patches and apply them? If Yes, then your *whatever* is sufficiently self-contained and replicable, at least by you, good. , now try pointing a friend of yours, an average experience low-level programmer to that Github page, give him a reasonable amount of time, let's say 5 to 10 hours, to recreate from the contents of Github the SAME, EXACT results contained in the installer. Do you believe he will manage to do it? If Yes, then your *whatever* can be considered some sort of replicable source code, otherwise it remains a bunch of senseless, unreferenced strings. jaclaz

The drivers for XP and the drivers for 9x/Me are very different, it is entirely possible that for *whatever reasons* the XP version of a same release is crappy and the 9x/Me version of the same works fine, the Nvidia drivers are AFAICR a huge PITA, but they should have at least basic ffunctionalities (even in versions that are otherwise crappy). The 77.72 havng issues with XP SP2 is strange (in the sense that the driver is 2005 whilst SP2 is 2004). In any case do try the 77.72 driver in Windows 98 as ragnarol suggested, and see what happens. jaclaz

Well, tripredacus asked you the actual blue screen message and error code, perfecthog05 asked you which OS's were involved, Dibya answered that it is a dual booting XP-XP situation, posting a code (most probably wrong), I asked him (who stated being a friend of yours) to double check the error code and I got back "it seems kinda ahci driver issue", then you posted a piece of info that Dibya already posted. It doesn't seem like a conversation between people that can understand each other, being deaf was just a possible explanation, of course an absurd one since this exchange happened in writing. jaclaz

It is such a rare occasion to have these conversations between[1] deaf people .... jaclaz [1] should be "among"

Interesting,"Non-compilable source code", your personal dictionary has "queer" entries, I just however added it to mine with definition: "a bunch of mostly senseless random strings, sometimes used to show to some what one is doing while pretending it being a computer project source code" jaclaz

I can see that the file contains snippets of C and some assembly, thanks , HOW one is supposed to make any use of them was the question, you seem like suggesting now that some one should frobble the mifty through a gnooting, fardetical mawer, most probably the adverb "exactly" belongs to an alien (to you) dictionary. I was asking what was the procedure for getting from point A (the alleged "source" code) to point B (the final, working, program/whatever, byte, by byte identical to the binary version that is nowhere to be found on that Github page and that possibly is still represented by the contents of the queerly named and password protected installer Heinoganda made earlier referenced). The generic idea of source code is that there is a procedure, with a given set of tools, capable of reproducing the compiled code, IMHO the procedure should be documented (even minimally) and as well the set of tools needed should be listed, otherwise the project is irreproducible and thus worth nothing. To me (but I am not a programmer) the kernel32.txt on that github seems like a crappy mishmash of unreferenced, uncommented, semi-random strings (some of which representing known DLL functions) interspersed with snippets of assembly mnemonics and C functions, but most probably it is just me that cannot grab the meaning of that stuff. jaclaz

Are you sure it is 78 (seven eight) and not 7B (seven Bravo)? jaclaz

@perfecthog05 A good, simple, lightweight browser that works just fine in XP is QTweb (JFYI): http://www.qtweb.net/ jaclaz

I am not sure to understand (actually I am pretty sure I don't understand). Are you referring to the "kernel32.txt file? Is it a "source file" of *anything*? How (exactly) one is supposed to be using it? jaclaz

Are you sure of the model ? K8T800 and 8237 are just the chipsets by VIA, the motherboard model from Gigabyte should have a different name, a Gigabyte should be something like GA-K8VT800: http://www.gigabyte.sg/Motherboard/GA-K8VT800-rev-2x#ov anyway the "base" drivers should be the VIA 4 in 1 drivers, but before using them it is better to double check the motherboard model. As well the 6200 is officially supported AFAICT: http://www.nvidia.com/object/win9x_archive.html most probably these would do: http://www.nvidia.com/object/win9x_81.98 jaclaz

I have this feeling that you are *somehow* astroturfing. but I will pretend that there is somehow a language barrier instead. This thread (the WHOLE thread, not any single post in it) is NOT about the ES.2, but ONLY about the 7200.11, and rather obviously it didn't help you. I will repeat, in case you failed to read that it is ONLY for the 7200.11. (this info is written EVERYWHERE) There is another thread with some info about ES.2 drives, which you may have found, and of course the video is about a tool consisting in a few bucks worth USB to TTL adapter, a small piece of plastic and a crappy "user friendly" interface to terminal that these nice greek guys - in their simplicity - sell for a mere EUR 56.99 apiece, without specifying how it won't work with ES.2 drives, simply because you won't have access to terminal, unless you briefly short two pads on the PCB: In a nutshell: 1) the procedures described in this thread are for 7200.11 ONLY (NOT ES.2) 2) the video is about a 7200.11 (NOT ES.2) So, if you decided to buy that tool, but you haven't actually used it to attempt recovery of an ES.2 drive, WHY did you post here? jaclaz

Well, the whole thing revolves around what "computing" is. Many years ago the usage of any computer was reserved to a "niche" of (usually highly skilled) workers that used it to do faster things that were complex or lengthy if done by hand, i.e. the computer came in little numbers AND it was a working tool. Fast forward everyone has a computer (in the form of either a computer or a smartphone, usually both) and uses it for anything, including knowing what the current weather is (personally I open my (glass) window and know what is the local weather even without being connected). So, you have with you at all times this nice shiny little rectangle with rounded corners and you compulsively check news, facebook, mail every 5 minutes or so or - even if you are not an addict - you have a few minutes to wait - say at your doctor's - and instead of reading a stale magazine you find in the waiting room, you go looking for some youtube lol videos ... I have no doubt that "internet usage" of Android is large and is going to increase ... jaclaz

... in terms of internet usage ... jaclaz

1) Don't worry, Windows 7 by default aligns partitions/volumes "correctly" (provided that 2048 sectors alignment is "correct") 2) to check, peek in the bootsector of each logical volume, the "Sectors Before" field represents the sectors from the EPBR, you may want to use a disk viewer editor with a template for bootsectors or (much easier) use Clonedisk: http://labalec.fr/erwan/?page_id=42 (once you have the "Advanced menu" available there are provisions to read the bootsector data). Please understand how NTFS filesystems are "inherently" aligned to 4096 bytes (good) while non-NTFS are usually not aligned (what may matter is the alignment of the filesystem, not the one of the volume or partition). jaclaz

A good question would be whether on average a PC is kept in use more or less than a game console. I would instinctively say that gamers tend to renew their hardware far more often than "normal" users, but does the same applies to consoles? And - set apart a few kids - how much time is a game console in use (more or less than a "common" PC)? I am pretty sure that a SSD will last more than both, unless an early defect (possibly specific to a make/model) arises, at least I have not seen around a relevant number of reports of SSD's being worn down, and it is several years since they became common enough on new systems... jaclaz

No prob . Good, but don't fill too much. Sure, that would be perfectly fine , but remember that once you played it, that card is gone and cannot be re-played. jaclaz

Good , and then maybe you will have a project comparable to the other ones mentioned. Sorry if I made you cry, but you can't play the "boy of 14" card at will. I tried in every possible way to give you hints and suggestions on the parts that I personally saw as "problematic" in your project in the past, just like you are perfectly free to ignore them (as you did and do) I am also perfectly free to call things with their name. The current file is a set of modified non redistributable files assembled in an installer that is misrepresenting the source and license of the thingy: As said it is not comparable to the other projects mentioned. jaclaz P.S.: @Heinoganda Happy that you took the "comparative" adjective for what it was meant to be

Well this is actually on topic, it seems that some recent Windows 10 KB (and OS releases) broke some VBS (yes, the built-in scripting engine) behaviour, JFYI: http://reboot.pro/topic/21459-mistype-windows-10-pe/?p=203033 https://stackoverflow.com/questions/43043683/vbscript-binary-array-help-wanted-windows-10-1607-bug jaclaz

Nice. And it is good to know that it is developed in FreeBasic. jaclaz

I find it unfair to compare the "extended XP" to the other mentioned projects, these latter ones: 1) do exist 2) have some (at times minimal) functionality 3) they can (at different levels of easiness) tested without disrupting the test OS 4) provide verifiable sources the "extended XP" is more a moving target than anything else, see a few posts starting from around here: basically it is six months or so that a number of patches (most of which undocumented or - to say the least - highly experimental) are collected into something that is undocumented, of extremely complex installation and that implies potentially the corruption of the OS, without any meaningful tests carried (or reported properly) by any of the (few) people experimenting the thingy. The issue is not much about the availability of the source, but rather about the fact that the source does not exist at all. I don't want to be overcritical, but when (if) that project will have the dignity of a project, then it will deserve a mention among the other ones, till then it is just an assembly of experimental (and potentially dangerous) "random" modifications. If you prefer, common sense is enough to stay clear (unless you are in extreme experimenting) of any file that is password protected, particularly if the name of the file is Av6W0km6g3G2U817Fs4xqt5.rar and the password is 9Tr3"yCj6K§vM9Vb1%v2A7eU3BYzI42P&n5D$h9Kh , in my already perverted mind anyone that chose that filename and password has a more perverted mind than mine . jaclaz P.S.: BTW the provenance of the thingy is additionally misrepresented as if it was an original MS supplied extension

To be picky (as I am) not exactly, if you do not throw thousands of photos, games, etc., you can buy a smaller SSD, the problem does not arise when you throw a lot of data on the SSD (that's the actual reason why it is made), it is when you continuously overwrite those data. Even in this case, modern SSD's have a life that will in most cases will largely exceed the life of the PC http://techreport.com/review/24841/introducing-the-ssd-endurance-experiment http://techreport.com/review/27909/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-theyre-all-dead jaclaz

Go to it from the home site: http://www.glass8.eu/ http://www.glass8.eu/download http://www.glass8.eu/files/AeroGlassGUI.7z jaclaz