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.

Naaah, you also need to have the active thingy in the tray (or whatever it is called now), it's the OS that automagically reports (via telemetry) usage to MS servers. Now, on other (but still same ) news, you won't be able to call people on SkyPE till September (maybe), at the same time when all the people currently using in their work/profession a USB Camera will be able to go back to work . This is serious, apart the considerable number of people using a webcam to videochat, there are a number of people that actually use them in their work and quite a few of them had to go back to previous version of Windows 10 (if within the very limited 10 days timeframe) or re-install: The actual explanation by a good guy from MS here: https://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/windowsdesktop/en-US/9d6a8704-764f-46df-a41c-8e9d84f7f0f3/mjpg-encoded-media-type-is-not-available-for-usbuvc-webcameras-after-windows-10-version-1607-os?forum=mediafoundationdevelopment https://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/windowsdesktop/en-US/9d6a8704-764f-46df-a41c-8e9d84f7f0f3/mjpg-encoded-media-type-is-not-available-for-usbuvc-webcameras-after-windows-10-version-1607-os?forum=mediafoundationdevelopment#fc5c100a-c661-43cd-9540-bb4591e3d1fe is "appalling", it is clear how they "meant good" but through the usual miscommunication they managed to poorly test the feature, the seriousness - bedsides the specific issue - is that (shouldn't it have been already clear enough) the Insider program is demonstrated clearly as being a (mismanaged) joke. While they think (with calm) how to correct the problem giving a tentative "vague" September as deadline for MJPEG and "some time later" for H264, seemingly a number of setups can be corrected by a small Registry edit: but it is unclear if it workarounds the issue generally or just in a few specific cases. BTW, the new "framework" seemingly worsens the "quality" of captured video stream anyway (besides not working), so a few posters on that thread that make software for video diagnosis and postprocessing are (justly) really mad at MS. jaclaz

@NoelC As a developer, you CANNOT miss this opportunity: https://www.microsoft.com/microsoft-hololens/en-us/commercial-suite https://www.microsoft.com/microsoft-hololens/en-us/development-edition Only 3,000 bucks, a steal... jaclaz

And now, "paid browsing" Those not in the US might need to use a US based proxy: https://www.bing.com/explore/rewards-browse-and-earn The combination of Edge and Bing is so successful that the good MS guys need to "bribe" users in order to have them use the new wonderful browser and search engine ... jaclaz

Then try the previous suggestion, try installing IE4 first, I found this video in the meantime: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TknqR-CZ4n8 jaclaz

If I remember correctly (on normal NT 4.00, this may not apply to Terminal Server) you cannot install IE6 directly, you need a configured browser(IE 3 or 4?) to install, or (again cannot say specifically for TS) use a "special" set of switches: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/257249 https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/223371 Anyway try the ones our friend sdfox7 made available: http://sdfox7.com/ie.htm they should be "self-standing" and self-contained" (though whether Terminal Server is in any way different is another story). jaclaz

And now ... drum roll ... after having been delighted by having BASH on Wndows, we have (or will have) Powershell on Linux : http://www.hanselman.com/blog/AnnouncingPowerShellOnLinuxPowerShellIsOpenSource.aspx jaclaz

Yep, but it's the usual propaganda article/opinion piece, by the EFF (their goal/ideas are good, BTW, but it is not like they are nor will be any time soon of any real, practical use) they also write: As a matter of fact I seriously doubt that there is any noticeable security improvement (NO proofs whatsoever of being in any way more secure have been actually provided/pulished and verified) and SURELY the chattiness of the OS is an INCREASED surface that can be possibly attacked AND it represents EXACTLY the same side of the coin. jaclaz

I have no idea of what the Office 365 program (or its installer) does. It should normally - being from MS, digitally signed, whadda/whadda, etc. - have already the appropriate permissions/whatever. What I was telling you was that if have 10 (or 100, or 1000, it's the same) Registry keys that have TrustedInstaller ownership/permissions and you *need* to modify them, you will need to: 1) change the ownership/permission of each key, modify the key, then optionally restore the ownership/permission to what it was before <- this is what you asked a script for 2) impersonate TrustedInstaller, modify the key <- this is an alternative, simpler way I suggested I am not in any way suggesting to run the installer through an "elevated to Trustedinstaller" prompt, only pointing you to "previous art" on the matter, so that you can write yourself the script. jaclaz

Well, you can get TrustedInstaller privileges, if you really want to : https://github.com/jschicht/RunAsTI or: http://reboot.pro/topic/21211-powerrun-v10-run-as-trustedinstaller/ jaclaz