jaclaz

@JorgeA That article is made out mostly of truisms (unneeded) such as "technology evolves and so does counter-techology" and of FUD "since a single german hacker managed to workaround Apple touchID then all biometrics technology is compromised". Remember if "they" are after you, "they" ALREADY pwn you. @NoelC In case of a second mag, I would have 30 rounds more, just because moar! ... and you wouldn't even need basic math skills ... jaclaz

I don't want to seem more grumpy than usual but what (the heck) is the problem? IF your modified kernel32.dll is tested, stable, verified to be working, etc. you can report the fact to the anti-virus vendors and - unless there is actually something malicious - they will normally whitelist the file. IF instead it is a half-@§§ed, temporary, untested, only partially working version (let's call it Alpha or Beta) the (I presume restricted number of ) testers will know that it is a false positive and trust you more than the antivirus detection heuristics. jaclaz

Version 2.34 of Atto Disk Benchmark has been reported as working in Windows 95 : https://www.vogons.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=44820 https://www.vogons.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=44820#p477064 Here is another download of 2.34 (mislabeled as version 2.32): http://ht4u.net/download-details/234/1355/ jaclaz

I don't know. Meaning that - besides the obvious patriotic preference for Beretta - till now one of the very good things is (was) amount of shots available. I recently casually saw a (seemingly also rather el-cheapo BTW) "newish" handgun made in Florida with an astonishing 30 rounds in the magazine (.22 WMR). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kel-Tec_PMR-30 It seems like recent modes have evolved and are reliable and very handy (light, little recoil, etc.). jaclaz

... and - as a side note - in XP (and 2K) it was (and still is) very easy to replace the shell with a much less "heavy" one (such as bblean or similar blackbox derived one) ... jaclaz

Hmmm, tricky. Of course the app being Microsoft they may well be using the secret seven : https://web.archive.org/web/20151204024041/http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jonathan.deboynepollard/Humour/microsoft-monopoly.html Get this Registry viewer/editor: https://web.archive.org/web/20051101101104/http://www.resplendence.com/downloads https://web.archive.org/web/20051101101104/http://www.resplendence.com/download/reglite.exe and use it to search for pi.exe in the Registry. (unlike "normal" Regedit it will make a list of all occurrences found). Check also what is in the "Version" properties tab of the actual pi.exe file. jaclaz EDIT: maybe it uses some of the (devilish) other ways to start. like a .dll or *something like that*, search the registry also for "Starter".

If the biometric reader/sensor/whatever has a given method to identify (for the sake of the discussion let's say my left thumb fingerprint) you cannot "change" it (if conceptually it is - wrongly - "a password"), you may "change" it (at the most 9 times, considering inconvenient to take one's shoes off) by "shifting" to a different finger. But once "they" will have collected all my fingerprints (and made perfect replicas, capable of tricking the sensors), "they" will be able to log in/enter/whatever. jaclaz

Sorry , I didn't notice that it was in the "Open With" context menu and that you wanted to change the name only. I sent you on a wild goose chase with the previous suggestion . Loosely there is a "translation table" in the Registry that - when a program is started - is created, linking a "description" (in your case "Microsoft Digital Image starter Edition 2006 Editor") to a given executable (including path), this translation table is kept in the Registry as MUIcache, in XP it is HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\ShellNoRoam\MUICache. The "description" is extracted by Explorer from some data in the Version metadata of the executable. Most probably the old description remained sticky (or if you prefer the new executable has the same path and name as the old one and the info wasn't refreshed). Again you can edit the Registry, but there is again a nice, easy tool for that, Nirsoft MuiCacheView: http://www.nirsoft.net/utils/muicache_view.html Just run it, find on the right the description you want to edit or on the left the executable filename, double click on the line and change the description. The operation is safe, it won't affect anything else. jaclaz

@JorgeA Besides the usual FUD of which this kind of articles is full, there is ONLY a basic "conceptual" issue: Biometrics is ID/username, NOT a password/authentication. Your looks, fingerprints, eye iris and veins patterns, etc. do exist in the real world, they are used to identify you. Of course - one way or the other - they can (or will be) be reproduced (possibly with a level of accuracy sufficient to trick this or that sensor) the point is about the misuse of these as an authentication method. A password (in theory) is something secret that - as long and until you do not reveal it - does not "exist" and thus cannot be reproduced. A password can be BOTH revoked or changed, a biometric pattern can be revoked but NOT changed, you are born with it. jaclaz

NOT what you asked, but why don't you try ATTO and/or CrystalDiskMark to compare/verify results? jaclaz

Very likely it is just the "name" in the "file association". On XP you can use this nice little tool Wassociate: http://wstudios.home.xs4all.nl/Associate/index.html You can do the same manually editing the Registry, and if needed using the built-in command line tools ASSOC and FTYPE: http://ss64.com/nt/assoc.html http://ss64.com/nt/ftype.html but the previously mentioned tool is easier and comprehensive and has a very well written documentation on how the file associations work. jaclaz

Yep , and that is exactly WHY your report seemed so much "off", we had talked till then about Fernando's drivers, and you quoted a post of mine pointing to a reference on Win-Raid about those possibly needing BkackWingCat's extended core, when - out of the blue - you came out with another error given from another driver... jaclaz

Ed Bott cites an official reply from MS to the (already talked about) EFF "j'accuse": http://www.zdnet.com/article/eff-rips-microsoft-for-blatant-disregard-of-user-choice-and-privacy-in-windows-10/ It is rare to find in a such short statement: a practical example of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics jaclaz

Which plainly means that you either did not reproduce a comparable environment or that the OP lied as he had NO such issue BUT a "iastor.sys is corrupted" error after nlite processing gave him no error. Not explicitly and EXACTLY specifying WHICH driver you used (just like the OP that also failed at it) and having introduced the variation of a (also unspecified version/release) of your HFSLIP2000-FullPack makes the guessing game even more interesting . jaclaz

I sometimes wonder what will be (if any) the published report about the UI design and testing process. Let's make a base reference: http://www.sigchi.org/chi96/proceedings/desbrief/Sullivan/kds_txt.htm My guess is that it will be: Lab Testing We didn't make any, we had millions data points from telemetry and thousands of results form the Insider program, since they were just too many to be analyzed properly, we ignored them altogether and replaced design and testing iterations with some chuckling and a lot of pats on each other shoulders. jaclaz

IMHO you are going on a wild goose chase, the whole "model" of the Windows Update that you like (BTW you are the first System Administrator - old or new - that I ever met actually "liking" it ) is based on the idea of a client (the thingy on your machine) and of a server (run by MS). Unlike manual, self-standing updates (that as we have seen with some difficulties can still be found) the Windows Update model is failed by design, as besides what you have (or may have) locally that you could somehow make working, the "other side" is the problem. AFAIK/AFAICR the good MS guys discontinued the server/service many years ago, and anyway there never was a real "Windows Update Agent" for NT 4.00: http://www.betaarchive.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=35444 jaclaz

Well you will need to learn searching on MSFN, you know, like : http://bfy.tw/7KSB If you want 2.3 version, you will need a later cache, this should be it : http://web.archive.org/web/20071010213632/http://www.boingo.com/downloads/BW1201/boingoinstaller.exe jaclaz

Well, everyone has his/her own approach at the matter, you seem like having a "collector" or "archivist" approach (which may be good) but be warned that a number of these patches are essentially not needed, often useless and possibly even undermining the stability of the operating system. As an example: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/296441 is a largely UNtested "quick" fix that covers a risk that you won't have if you are not using WebDAV and - even if you will be using WebDAV - it "covers" a possibility of attack so trifling and improbable to succeed that it makes no sense to apply it if not on selected, very specific cases/implementations (that may have existed some 15 years ago but do not exist anymore). Another one, 311967 or ms01-017, check: https://technet.microsoft.com/library/security/ms02-017 jaclaz

MY SQL? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MySQL Possibly SQL SERVER 6.5, which - if I may - is really hard (like most databases, relational or not) to consider "cool stuff", they tend to be actually quite boring... . jaclaz

For "Normal" NT 4.0 (not Terminal Server) with SP6a there is a "rollup package" (SRP): https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/299444 The page has also a couple of fixes for posssible issues when you apply the SRP . For Terminal server (which has a SP6, NOT SP6a) a different "rollup pakage (SRP1) exists: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/317636 jaclaz

Which three files are missing? Where did you find that? Are they here? ftp://ftp.dyu.edu.tw/pub/Windows/MsDownload/ntoptionpack/en/x86/ ftp://ftp.uni-rostock.de/pub/tools/microsoft/NTOptionPack/us/ jaclaz

Which site? This one via Wayback Machine works fine here: https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://w2k.flxsrv.org/cgi-bin/dl.cgi?file=W2KHFPKVGD.cab https://web.archive.org/web/20140830211619/http://w2k.flxsrv.org/cgi-bin/dl.cgi?file=W2KHFPKVGD.cab jaclaz

See if this works: https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://w2k.flxsrv.org/cgi-bin/dl.cgi?file=W2KHFPKVGD.cab Please do PM or message Blackwingcat telling him about the missing file. jaclaz

Here: http://download.cnet.com/Dooble-Web-Browser/3000-2356_4-10907223.html jaclaz

Someone having unfortunately his/her webcam botched by the good MS camera guys (and thus prevented from videochatting with friends) may decide to connect a Kindle PaperWhite to get some e-books to read ... ... no, wait : http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_10-performance/plugging-in-kindle-is-crashing-windows-10-after/5db0d867-0822-4512-919e-3d7786353f95?auth=1 jaclaz P.S.: Somehow it must be noted how the affected webcams (besides many more make/models) are among the most common Logitech ones, and as well a Kindle PaperWhite is not exactly "exotic, rare" hardware.