jaclaz

How did you partition (before formattng the partition) the CF card? I suspect that you may have not partitioned the card (or having not partitioned it properly), CF card normally come from factory formatted but not partitioned (i.e. as superfloppies). jaclaz

Ah, so you are trying to install windows XP BOTH "from" a USB flash drive, AND "to" another USB flash drive? If you are using Winsetopfromusb it should manage itself any possible issue with "removable" vs. "fixed" related to the "from" device (the "source" one) as it includes both a filter driver that can make a "removable" drive become fixed (if needed) and a filter driver to do the opposite (if needed), but last time I checked (quite a bit of time ago, so this may well be inaccurate nowadats) it was NOT suitable/aimed to install "to" a USB device. As said this procedure needs some particular methods and need some specific Registry modification (and on most system also an added "watch service" for the USB stack drivers). Generally speaking, anything that happens in DOS, remains in DOS, as soon as the NTLDR switches to protected mode, the HAL (Hardware Abstraction Layer) kicks in, and everything is re-scanned and managed by Windows drivers. I don't think anyone experimented with two USB source and target devices. This would explain why WinsetupfromUSB gets confused. You really cannot have/use a more "common" setup? jaclaz

what is "your" "windows xp usb drive installer"? The Hitachi microdrive filter driver is a filter driver it only changes the way a device is seen from "removable" to "fixed", you don't use it "instead" of another driver, you may use it "in addition to" the normal mass storage driver. To give you some background, the procedure to install a Windows XP on a USB stick originally dates back to several years ago, unfortunately the place where it was started is lost in the mist of the internet, some pages can be retrieved via Wayback Machine: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=14181* You want to look at the "tutorial" links in Dietmar's signature. Nowadays there are simpler ways/tools to obtain the same result, but different hardware might still need a few additional tricks, the usual reference is: https://www.usboot.org/tiki-index.php but it needs a (free) registration and it might not be suitable to some newish hardware, see also: http://reboot.pro/topic/18107-integratedrv-install-xp-2003-to-a-usb-30-disk-and-boot-from-it/ if you look on reboot.pro, you will find many related topics, including using an XP inside a VHD (saved on a USB device), example: http://reboot.pro/topic/18182-uefi-multi-make-multi-boot-usb-drive/ Depending on the specific USB stick it might be possible to "flip the bit" in the controller and make it a "fixed" device. jaclaz

Are you looking for a solution/workaround or it is just a rant against Excel being (stupidly) "smart"? I have not an Excel 2003 handy to test it, but in earlier versions if you DO NOT use .csv as extension, Excel should open an "import" wizard where you manually select whether the data field are fixed or use a separator, you can choose the separator and you can tell excel to interpret columns as text. Is there a reason why you want the data in csv format? jaclaz

The only thing I can say is that IF I wanted to make a personal attack, it would have been worded as an attack, not as a friendly hint that maybe you were a tad bit too brisk in your reply to cdob, rest assured that I am not attacking anyone , let alone you. jaclaz

Maybe - just maybe - you didn't explain yourself fully. jaclaz

No. THIS thread is ALREADY enough and enough confusing, contradicting itself, etc. WHEN/IF you will have something that is working, documented (even partially) installable by everyone, etc. THEN it will be the time to make a new "release" thread, as you were just told the present one is good enough for the early experimenters, but until you don't have at least most of the 5 points listed in my previous post the project will look like a h@lf-@§§ed set of semi-random hacks and it is unlikely to attract more users. jaclaz

Well, if you haven't read The Cathedral and the Bazaar, it is a very interesting read (actually a "classic" by now): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cathedral_and_the_Bazaar http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/ jaclaz

Maybe the issue is in the actual way the thingy is presented, very few people will have the guts to test this kind of things on their machines until there isn't some definite documentation, howto's etc. (and there is not every two days or so a post saying that current version is unstable and that next will be better). Not that I am going to test it any soon, but IF I was going to test it, I would expect: 1) a project homepage 2) some - even minimal - documentation 3) a list of compatible/not compatible programs 4) a very extensive documentation on the source (and legality or lack of it) of every file included 5) a basic howto on how to implement testing Right now I can see only a thread here where everything (and the contrary of it) is stated every few days by members reporting or completely failing to properly report apparently random tests. All of this is of course good and fine in the early stages of development , but if you want to gain some "traction" in the community you will IMHO need to make things easier for the less experienced users (and for the ol' dinosaurs). jaclaz

Well, you can surely script the disconnection and maybe also script the re-connection, have a look at Uwe Sieber tools: http://www.uwe-sieber.de/english.html http://www.uwe-sieber.de/drivetools_e.html jaclaz

Good, if you have actually checked each and every file (everything) against possible redistribution limitations, copyright infringements and/or IP violations of the "provided resources", we will take your motivated opinion, given also the vast experience you have in these matters as a green light. Dibya said it's fine. jaclaz

Without instructions, and with a catch all ReactOS (outdated) README (and more docs from the same source): I am probably getting too old for this kind of things , but all I can see is a large number of nice screenshots and a bunch of files largely (probably) an outdated fork of ReactOS. The probability that anyone, exception made for a handful of top-level programmers/hackers, already very familiar with ReactOS code and with Windows NT, can actually compile anything working from that is - in my personal estimation - so low that the Improbability Drive of the Heart of Gold could use it to go to both ends of the known Universe, twice. As said, nice screenshots . jaclaz

Ah well, then it is better to encrypt data, make no less than 3 random passes and finally destroy hard disks with a sledge hammer, right after having passed them through a degausser and an oven at a temperature above Curie point, in order to have a reasonable amount of security. Please, as soon as someone recovers any meaningful data after a single 00 pass through a STEM (or whatever) don't forget to update this topic with a link to the report or published paper, thank you. jaclaz

Yep, and it is also to be considered how in intelligence, spying, etc., timing is very relevant, maybe these techniques would be more suitable to historians, archaeologists and the like. jaclaz

As a matter of fact if you simply have an ultra high sensitive accelerometer and global positioning system attached to the ankle of the foot you use to kick it AND the kicking and the flying of the pieces is filmed by no less than 36 high speed high resolution cameras suitably placed, you can greatly reduce the amount of time and effort needed. Not only, if you originally solved the puzzle without wearing gloves, a mega-para-magneto-chemical-atomic-diffration-ultra-micro-super-DNAlyzer can scan and analyze each and every piece of the puzzle and by attributing to it the exact time you last touched it can order them pieces in the same sequence you originally put them together (another way to greatly simplify the task), each scan takes roughly 13 days, but if you massively parallelize the task it can be completely in a few months. Let's make another example. Let's say that you shred a (text) paper document in an ordinary paper shredder. The document is now reduced in "tagliatelle" stripes, each as long as the paper was (for the sake of the example let's say A4, 297 mm) and - say - 3 mm wide. You have an implicit orientation given by the length (there are only two positions the stripe can be, and you can recognize whether a stripe is upside down by the orientation of the - partial - characters you can find in it) and with a lot of tries you can match the left border of one stripe with the right border of another one, it's just a matter of patience. Now, let's imagine that you pass each and every stripe crossways through the same shredder. The result is approximately 297*210/3/3=6930 3 mm x 3 mm squares of paper. Re-composing them starts to be challenging. Now imagine that instead of being 3 mm x 3 mm the squares are 30 atoms x 30 atoms in size ... ... it may still be possible, but it will likely take waaay more time, and with the risk that once you have recovered the paper document it turns out to be a photocopy of one of the famous Metterling Lists: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/books/review/1st-chapter-insanity-defense.html jaclaz

Maybe of interest for those using Windows 10 (or maybe not): https://github.com/NathanCastle/BootShellCredentialProvider Seemingly it allows to use a Linux GUI Shell through the Windows Subsystem for Linux. jaclaz

Yeah, sure, but do the math. How many atoms are needed to make a 1? And how many to to make a 0? And how many 0's and 1's are needed to make a single character? And what if you can read with whatever means is not an actual 0 or 1 but rather a probable 0 or a probable 1? jaclaz

http://www.azquotes.com/quote/1148474 jaclaz

So that finally there is some context: http://winaero.com/blog/how-to-uninstall-and-remove-edge-browser-in-windows-10/ jaclaz

Well, some interesting (but bad) news, goodbye System install logs http://az4n6.blogspot.it/2017/02/when-windows-lies.html jaclaz

Redistribution permissions must have changed lately .... jaclaz

And this confirms how each situation/experience/report may well be different ... ... and unfortunately there are no certainties jaclaz

At the time it was debated, as there were contrasting reports, personally I would do it, it is not particularly difficult or problematic (the tricky part is making contact with the board powered on when removing the insulating strip). Compare with what is in the actually recommended guide: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/133387-debricking-the-seagate-drives/ jaclaz

Check also the ReadMeFirst and the FGA's: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/143880-seagate-barracuda-720011-read_me_first/ http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/147532-fga-for-the-seagate-720011-drives/ Basically the BSY is a symptom which - at the time - was caused often by a bug in a given firmware revision, there may be tens of reason why the same symptom appears on that same or another firmware revision. The "fix" is to be considered more as a sort of "generic reset" than anything else, the idea is that - for whatever reasons - at power on the disk drive enters a sort of loop and through the procedure you attempt to force it to exit that loop. It is hard to say what the probabilities of success are in your case (or in any other case), as to actually diagnose what the cause of the BSY is there is the need of tools (and knowledge) well outside the reach of "hobbyists". The good news are that the risk of further reducing the probabilities of recovery by applying the reset are - from the reports - very little, i.e. if the procedure is applied correctly in the worst case it won't solve the problem, but it shouldn't "damage" the disk drive, a professional with the right tools and knowledge should manage to recover the same amount of data (if data is recoverable) no matter if he/she is given the drive now or after a failed attempt to resolve the BSY status. Still data is important, d@mn important, so it is only up to you to judge if the attempt should be made, I can offer no guarantees whatsoever. jaclaz

Oww, come on. What do you think I could have used in 1995-1997? Quick timetable: Windows 3.11 = 1993 Zip disk=1994 Windows 95=1995 NT4.0=1996 Superdisk=1997 (and for whatever reason didn't really come to Italy before late 1998 or so, and they were very expensive, whilst Zip disks were common, relatively cheap and - I believe the SCSI ones at least, the parallel port ones were slow as molasses - much, much faster than superdisks) Both however soon became obsolete by 1999 or so, replaced by CDRW's, though I have used IDE/ATAPI ZIP disks up to 2004 or 2005, as they were just perfect as removable backup solution for a specific setup I had (DOS based) that used between 70 and 90 Mb of data. JFYI: http://www.hardwarecentral.com/showthread.php?42546-Zip-vs-Superdisk-(LS-120) jaclaz