jaclaz

Usual disambiguation needed. DOS is an operating system (command line only). It has a scripting language that uses the .bat extension for its scripts to trigger the command interpreter which is command.com Windows 9x/Me is essentially DOS (see above) with added a GUI shell (this is intentionally simplified, let's not have the usual "no Windows 9x/Me is a full 32 bit OS" type of objection), it still uses .bat files and the command.com command interpreter. Windows NT and later DO NOT HAVE DOS, they have a command interpreter (which is cmd.exe and not command.com) that runs script files, similar but NOT identical to DOS batches, with the .cmd extension, but also a .bat file will run in NT and later. It is recommended in NT and later to use the .cmd extension because this way a batch file written for cmd.exe but having the .bat extension won't be accidentally run on a DOS or Windows 9x/Me system, personally I remove the association to .bat from NT systems in order to avoid the reverse. We are talking here of COMMAND EXTENSIONS, they are a feature of the command interpreter (cmd.exe) not FILE EXTENSIONS (in Explorer). By default AFAICR these are turned on, but they are user configurable, so it is good practice to always start a .cmd batch eith either: @ECHO OFF SETLOCAL ENABLEEXTENSIONS or @ECHO OFF SETLOCAL DISABLEEXTENSIONS in order to know for sure if locally (i.e. within the batch) they are ON or OFF. jaclaz

Yep : http://www.coolergarbedge.com/ how can one make a picnic without one? Also otherwise trademarked: https://trademarks.justia.com/owners/garbedge-llc-1503379/ jaclaz

Well, until similar tests are done independently, the manufacturer will always test its own browser in an "optimized" setup comparing it against the other ones with "default" settings. With all due respect for the good Opera guys the 22% or so increase in battery life is almost as unbelievable as the more than the (reversed) 50% Microsoft published, still it sounds more reasonable. BUT the big difference may lie in the OS. MS tested Edge on Windows 10 (obviously), so it is well possible that Edge is optimized for Windows 10 and Windows 10 is optimized for Edge, or even that the Surface Book )or it's drivers/whatever) are optimized for both Windows 10 and Edge. I wouldn't go as far as proposing that Windows 10 (or the Surface Book) specifically makes non MS browsers burn more battery power, but it is a possibility , in any case it is just like (say) Shell stating that their fuel allows for more mileage after having tested it on a self-manufactured car specially designed for the specific fuel, it makes little sense until the same fuel is tested on other cars, the only problem being that the other cars (with - say - the more common Windows 7 engine) cannot run with that fuel... jaclaz

Would these two images infer something? First one is lab results by MS: Second one is what they got from telemetry on BILLIONS data point: Source is here: https://blogs.windows.com/windowsexperience/2016/06/20/more-battery-with-edge/ To me it seems like their laboratory testing provides results COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from the BILLIONS datapoints. This might mean that they suck (big) at designing lab experiments OR that the Surface burns LOTS of mW! And they do have the guts to write that "The billions of data points from these devices are consistent with the lab results," jaclaz

Just for the record, the "short version" is here: jaclaz

Possibly you have EXTENSIONS ENABLED. Use Start /Wait "PUT A TITLE HERE" REGSVR32.EXE /s MpaDecFilter.ax etc.. See: http://ss64.com/nt/start.html Does it make a difference? Side notes: What is the point of using %Windir$\System32\cmd.exe? IF the batch runs, a cmd.exe has been already started. You normally use .cmd for batch files intended to be run under NT and .bat for batch files intended to be run under DOS and 9x/Me. In theory .bat is associated to command.com, whilst .cmd is associated to cmd.exe. jaclaz

... or any other scripting language, since it is an installation, I would rather use the NSIS (which is IMHO simpler than AutoIt): http://nsis.sourceforge.net/Features Anyway, attached is a "decent" (IMHO) batch progress bar . jaclaz myprogbar.zip

Well, the point is still that having a progress bar (or similar) in batch is not really possible/smart (that is the essence of the thread I pointed you to, the "digital watch" there is equivalent to a progress bar), since essentially you are using an installer you might want to use an external program to show a "decent" progress bar, still (as in the given thread) it will be grossly approximated as you don't know how long will the actual install take. As an example you can use the good ol' Wizard Apprentice: http://wizapp.sourceforge.net/ it has a PB option that creates a progress bar: http://wizapp.sourceforge.net/manual.html jaclaz

You CLEARLY copied that part from another script, and that is NOT a "status bar" it is a "fake" status bar, it only increments itself every 1 second or so using timeout /t 1. This should work, but it will still (probably) suck big: @ECHO OFF SETLOCAL ENABLEEXTENSIONS ENABLEDELAYEDEXPANSION ::Initialize Status bar color 0f set load= set/a loadnum=0 :: BatchGotAdmin .... .... FOR /F "TOKENS=*" %%F IN ('dir /b *.msu') DO ( REM ECHO ABOVE IS echo %%F rem MY COMMAND´S IS HERE REM WUSA.EXE %%F /norestart /quiet CALL :_update_statusbar ) ECHO Out of For loop ECHO. PAUSE >nul GOTO :EOF :_update_statusbar set load=%load%Û cls ECHO. ECHO. ECHO. ECHO ÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ echo Û Û echo Û Installation Progress Û echo Û 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Û echo Û ÃÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄ´ Û echo Û %load% echo Û %load% echo Û echo Û Û ECHO ÛÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÛ set/a loadnum+=1 if %loadnum%==52 SET /A loadnum=0&&SET load= GOTO :EOF jaclaz

Have you checked the EDID? (cannot say if it applies to win 9x/Me), anyway some reference: jaclaz

Attached WHERE? In your original post there is an image, in your second post there is nothing. How difficult is to post a link or at least name the program (or script or *whatever*) that creates that status bar? jaclaz

Basically that would be: @ECHO OFF FOR /F "TOKENS=*" %%F IN (Patchs.TXT) DO ( DISM /online /add-package /packagepath:%%F /quiet /norestart CALL :_update_statusbar ) eCHO finished PAUSE >NUL GOTO :EOF :_update_statusbar REM Put here whatever statusbar update command GOTO :EOF But which "status bar" are you talking about? The generic issue with status bars or similar is that there is no way to have them being "accurate", as you don't know how much time/how many items/etc. you are going to process, how many you already processed and how many will need to be processed. Only seemingly unrelated, a recent thread: jaclaz

Ok, perfectly usable for anything but top-end graphics and games. You know, quite a few people use computers to write text, make calculations on spreadsheets, and similar activities in which the 64 bits are totally irrelevant, and the SSE2, GDI+ and a number of other new technologies are even less relevant . You (and your software thingies) are surely on the "cutting edge", but the rest of the world is less advanced than that. jaclaz

Well, I have a few Via Epia's (ITX small motherboards) running NT 4.00 or 2000 since 2003 or so with IDE/PATA disk drives (and still running fine), and never had once a single instance of data corruption (a hard disk or two failed, of course, a well as more than a few Power Supplies, but nothing ever connected with the IDE bus), I guess that what you report depends on specific chips or chipsets or possibly even with drivers, but to generalize it so widely as you did seems to me excessive ... jaclaz

And (just in case) RDPRA: https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/johnromsft/2016/06/14/why-you-should-use-rdp-restrictedadmin/ jaclaz

Yep things tend to escalate, but people were warned : https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/3qqva1/windows_10_upgrade_notices_are_getting_out_of_hand/ jaclaz

Nice , though personally I am not going to believe that ALL the updates listed in your point #5 are actually needed to have Windows Update working. It would make no sense whatever and - no matter how stupid is the update system and how much lazy and demented have the good MS guys become - it would be IMHO just too much that (say) KB3064209 (Intel CPU microcode update) is connected to slow Windows Update (I mean, what if I have an AMD processor?). Seemingly the actual cause (and the corresponding fixes/updates needed) is still to be found , it is however good to know that by integrating that long list of MSU's Windows Update works again . jaclaz

And of course you don't cite the references to what you found. No problem, though, the batch is in this topic here: and (but this is just a guess) you got the %userprofilepath% variable from here: http://superuser.com/questions/832681/batch-delete-temporary-windows-files-system-browsers-cache-etc-for-all-user but it is seemingly undefined in your "sketch". The very simplified batch was posted to answer a specific question and to show the OP a possible way to do what he asked which may (or may not) be the right thing to do and to show a (hopefully clear) "skeleton" for the batch Namely the procedure of counting (why?) the number of files deleted will slow down the procedure (if there are many directories and files) and if the scope is to actually clean *everything* it doesn't take into account (as an example) hidden files and folders (or read only files). If you prefer, one thing is a "half-@§§ed" quick, simple example batch, but to go from that to a "safe" (or reasonably safe), "foolproof" (at least to the extent something can be foolproof) and "working" (or reasonably working) on different systems batch there is a huuuge gap, and this gap should be filled by your learning the language (as opposed to have someone else writing the batch for you). Really , if you have issues in understanding where to insert in that batch the command to "show message when the task get done, one by one" you will need to study some more the basics of the scripting language and exercise yourself with something less (potentially) dangerous. Mind you it is not about "not helping you", it is actually about attempting to help you. Try figuring out the sequence of commands in that batch where the command to show the message should be put, try finding some example of user interaction routines (prompting the user for the Y and later for the R or L), etc. In other words try writing the batch yourself, if there are mistakes or if you have a specific issue/doubt I am pretty sure everyone will try and help you, but right now you are essentially asking other people to write the batch along some "guidelines" you devised, this way you won't likely learn anything and it is improbable that someone will write the whole thing for you). jaclaz

I often wonder why exactly there is this thread made a sticky here: http://www.msfn.org/board/forum/169-hard-drive-and-removable-media/ jaclaz

EXCLUSIVELY for the record (and hopefully to not go through the same things again) Previous discussion here: starting from around here:

JFYI, this is "by design", and - according to the good IPB guys - all the world has been wrong for all these years using just "Enter", when they should have used "Shift+Enter", so they made the stupid software configured to enforce this (totally invented out of the blue) "rule" (please note how xper - just like all of us - is a "victim" of the stupidity of the board software): jaclaz

Maybe , but - as you have just stated - not suitable for multi-choice polls (not that such polls would make any real sense anyway). jaclaz

Yes, that is nowadays a very common issue, though there is not a "universal" or "proofed" solution , the root cause seems to be the overcomplexity of past updates with new ones superseding the old and *what not*. See these threads: and this one: I would try using the "convenience rollup package" and then try again. jaclaz

I would say that without any disk, it is very likely that you have a BSOD during setup. Please STOP USING ALL CAPITAL LETTERS AND COLOURED FONTS, it seems like you are SHOUTING AT US and will ONLY annoy most people, Rule #11: http://www.msfn.org/board/guidelines/ UNIATA can be both integrated or used with a "F6 floppy" (which nowadays would be simulated by a grub4dos virtual floppy), but - as said - t seems like anyway that driver does not support your specific controller. Page 43 of the manual: http://download1.gigabyte.eu/Files/Manual/motherboard_manual_ga-p35-ds3p_2.0_e.pdf Try with: SATA RAID/AHCI Mode (Intel ICH9R Southbridge) <- Disabled SATA Port0-3 Native Mode (Intel ICH9R Southbridge) <-Enabled jaclaz

Allowing to use Twitter? jaclaz