jaclaz

Well, the path is resolved fine as it can be seen in the posted screenshot: %SystemRoot%\ERDNT\AutoBackup\#Date# becomes: C:\WINDOWS\ERDNT\Autobackup\2-22-2016\ERDNT.INF that first error is usually connected to NTFS permissions, whilst the second is likely due to an already existing file. jaclaz

Actually it seems to me the same angle as: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/174208-windows-10-deeper-impressions/page-68#entry1119653 jaclaz

It depends on the exact version of the malware, some older version can be unencrypted a few more modern variants can also be "worked around", for many versions there is no known solution AFAIK. For the record - however - there must be a number of concurring events (often but not always including a not secured setup, the lack of a working antivirus, and a PEBCAK) to actually be infected, it is not "the end of the internet" in itself. jaclaz

Only theoretical advantage (and there is not even consensus of its validity as a theory) to be proved (or disproved) by actual tests/benchmarks. We are talking of a browser here, not of a 3D rendering software! jaclaz

Sure , and you have it right , you only used the "wrong" example with the RAM requirements. Noone uses Excel or Word over - maybe 30% - of their possibilities, and - if you can put aside the stupid .docx and .xlsx compatibility, Office 95 or 97 are more than what most people will ever need. And while I am at it, let me make a (small) plug for Spread32: http://www.byedesign.co.uk/ (if a single guy can replicate the almost full working of Excel 4/5 in 1.5 Mbytes what could have the good MS guys done)? An old graph about office (abnormal) growth: http://www.oooninja.com/2008/05/openofficeorg-microsoft-office-moores.html jaclaz jaclaz

Sorry to say so, but your memory is fading away: Minimum RAM WIndows 95 4/8 Mb (in practice no less than 16 Mb): https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/138349 Minimum RAM Windows NT 4.00 12/16 Mb (in practice no less than 32 or 64 Mb) https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/126690 Minimum RAM Windows 98 16/24 Mb (in practice no less than 48 Mb): https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/182751 Minimum RAM Windows Me 32 Mb (in practice no less than 64 Mb): https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/253695 Minimum RAM Windows 2000 32/128 Mb (in practice no less than 128 Mb): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_2000 Minimum RAM Windows XP 64/128 Mb (in practice no less than 256 Mb): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP Minimum RAM Windows Vista 512 Mb (in practice no less than 1 Gb): https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/919183 Minimum RAM Windows 7 1 Gb (in practice no less than 2 Gb): http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows7/products/system-requirements All in all 1 Gb/64 Mb over a 8 years period (2009-2001) is not as bad a ratio as 64 Mb/4 Mb over a 6 year period (2001-1995). jaclaz

No need to assume what the key means, the key is there since the dawn of tme: http://www.pctools.com/guides/registry/detail/1135/ What actually NoelC meant is another thing, of course. jaclaz

Bruce Schneier on IoT: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/03/02/sleepwalking_towards_digital_disaster/ jaclaz

Meanwhile Tim Sweeney (Epic Games) take on UWP: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/mar/04/microsoft-monopolise-pc-games-development-epic-games-gears-of-war ... and more ... jaclaz

Kel, you cannot really use "WiFi" and "only you access" in a same sentence jaclaz

Still, peculiar disk blocks or pagefile fragmentation that cause no issues whatsoever as soon as the system is booted and only create problems when booting in safe mode. A good idea could be to also make a magic spell on the whole system (it may not work, but it won't do anyway much harm). jaclaz

Generally speaking, .wim booting consumes a lot more ram than a "flat" boot, see this (JFYI, not necessarily a solution to your issue, which as said would probably be a simple PE 1.x): http://mistype.reboot.pro/documents/WinPE.RAM/winpe.ram.usage.htm jaclaz

...a particular kind of virus that only activates itself when booted in safe mode? I would say peculiar more than severe. jaclaz

Yep. And please do understand how the "timing" was - to say the least - peculiar. In the good ol' days, Windows 3.1 or 3.11 or "Windows for Workgroups" was basically indifferentiated between "home" and "professional" users. When NT 3.1 came out (july 1993) it was "professional use only" (and was adopted anyway by a little part only of the market) , whilst soon its evolutions NT 3.51 (may 1995) and NT 4.00 (july 1996) were used by practically all businesses. The "revolution" was Windows 95 (august 1995) which was "home only", no businesses even thought of using it, they had just bought (at a high price BTW) a license for NT 3.51 and it just worked, there was (at the time) no need for multimedia and all enterprises/businesses waited to upgrade to the soon to be released NT 4.00. BTW the original 4.00.950 version of Windows 95 only had FAT 16 (and its limits with partition and files sizes) and until the 2nd release or 4.00.950 B, which came out one year later (august 1996) no FAT32, whilst NT had already NTFS. All the professional users continued to use NT 4.00 for the following four years, whilst on the "home side" Windows 98 came out (4.10.1998 june 1998) followed one year later by the second edition (4.10.2222 april 1999). Windows 2000 was made available in early 2000 and though it had some nice improvements over NT 4.00 it required by comparison awfully powerful machines, in the very first times it was not a hit, its adoption started later in 2000, likely just after release of SP1 (August 2000). The "natural" evolution for home users was Windows ME (september 2000) which was largely (somehow - and hard as it may seem to say so - not entirely for actual reasons) a total flop. It is in this climate (with all businesses happily working on their NT 4.00 or very recently upgraded to 2000 systems and all home users happily using Windows 98 and much less happily using the more recent ME) that - out of the blue - came Windows XP (october 2001). Besides the nonsense about the licences Home and Pro had very little differences, but both were too "advanced" for the "home" users and too d@mn colourful/playful for business users and initially (yet another time) they required much more powerful hardware than what was common at the time. The first lamented that a lot of (DOS/Win9X) games wouldn't work on the new platform, the second lamented the need to update not only the OS but also the hardware (without any measurable benefit when compared to 2000). It is in the two years between (roughly) 2000 and 2002 that a "normal" amount of RAM (I would say an average 64 Mbytes for 9x and NT 4.00 users and and average of 128 Mb for ME and 2K users) needed instantly to be doubled or multiplied by 4 . Of course new machines started to ship with 256 or 512 Mb "standard" (besides faster processors) and this allowed the use of XP, which still, until SP2 (august 2004) was not exactly "first choice" in the professional world, whilst the home users, somehow "orphaned" by the failure of their ME's drove its widespread adoption. In a nutshell, XP "killed" 2000 in its infancy, whilst it revived ME (that was dead having already committed suicide). jaclaz

Seemingly it has been a hot weekend in the UK (not everwhere but in spots ): http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3466982/Smart-heating-app-Hive-lets-control-boiler-phone-hit-glitch-sends-users-homes-soaring-32C.html jaclaz

@dibya I think - no offence whatever intended - that you are not old enough to be able to comment on the evolution of old 9x or NT systems, most probably you weren't even born at the time they were "current", and you evidently miss some of the nuances in the evolution of those systems. XP is 2000 with an added set of mostly useless eye candy and a very few little betterings, it was forced down the throat of unwilling home users and it was a tragedy in the very early times (for the usual reasons, mainly OEM putting it on underpowered machines). You need to compare 2000 against a "gold" XP , not against a XP SP3+all the patches since 2008. Bluetooth has been "natively" implemented in XP only with SP2 (2004)[*]. Wi-Fi as well was "primitive" (to say the least) until SP2. Multimedia support (if we are talking of video playback) has been for years a nightmare (codec hell). At the time of the release there was nothing, really nothing exception made for the themes, looks, etc. making XP in any way "better" or even "different" from 2000, but obviously in later years Microsoft updated it while leaving the 2000 largely unchanged. jaclaz [*]Please note how with the same SP2 the good MS guys introduced the infamous 4 Gb RAM limitation patch

Maybe because there is not a real *anything* to reply, if not expressing a generic sentiment of sympathy for your troubles. Two possibilities: 1) EITHER someone also experienced that same behaviour 2) OR you are the first and only one to experience this in BOTH cases this piece of info is of little or no use to solve the problem. Independently from the two possibilities above, if you describe your setup (hardware and software), possibly other symptoms, etc., etc., i.e. the Standard Litany: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/problem-report-standard-litany.html then maybe someone may be able to assist you in diagnosing/troubleshooting the problem (and hopefully find a solution). Right now you are not even in the ""I'm ill, doctor. Help!", you are in the "I think I'm ill, doctor, do you have other patients with my same illness?" jaclaz

Rather than "if" I wonder about the "why". Yes, OEM "slic" activation works with a code embedded in the BIOS. However: http://reboot.pro/topic/16578-oem-product-activation-clearing-the-crapware/ jaclaz

Most probably far beyond that date , but you have a "wrong" perception, while XP is much less bloated than later systems it is not "light", it's installed size almost tripled (around 1500 Mb vs. 650 Mb) when compared to Windows 2000 (without providing, with the exception of bells an whistles, very few new, useful features). To be fair, even the almost 5x size of Windows 2000 when compared to good ol' NT 4.00 (650 Mb vs. 150/180 Mb) is hardly justified. jaclaz

There should be no problems in adding the entries for Windows 7 to the BCD store it is just a sequence of BCDEDIT commands, *like* here: http://diddy.boot-land.net/bcdedit/files/examples1.htm#vista/7 (in your case you would not use the /store parameter as - from your 8.1 the BCD would be automatically selected, i.e. the <EFISys partition>\EFI\Microsoft\Boot\BCD - but of course before doing any attempt you need to backup the BCD "as is" AND have a tested, alternative way to boot the system - an instal CD/DVD would do nicely) The potential issue (for which I do not have a definite answer ) is about drive letter assignment, since the BCD stores a drive letter I don't know if this is "carried" over to the booted OS or not. Forget for the moment the first and last Windows 7 installs. The two middle ones get respectively: In Windows 8.1 E: (_A647s) and G:(_V647s) In Windows 7 D: (_A647s) and E:(_V647s) Nothing should prevent you from manually assigning (in the two 8.1 installs) the D: letter to the _A647s and the E: drive letter to the _V647s (you will need to assign another drive letter to the _X647s). Then you can run (from the Windows 8.1) the BCDEDIT: In theory this should add an entry "Windows 7 _A647s" to the Windows 8.1 boot menu and at next boot you should be able to boot to the second windows 7 install. It is possible that another couple BCDEDIT commands could be necessary, *like*: If this works, you can repeat the same replacing the drive letter with E: and the string with "Windows 7 _V647s". What I don't have an idea is what will happen with the two other installs that have a conflicting drive letter. Once you have the backup and a verified alternative way of booting, you can also try running bootrec /rebuildbcd See: http://pcsupport.about.com/od/fixtheproblem/ht/rebuild-bcd-store-windows.htm But cannot say if it could automagically add the Windows 7's (but you would anyway need to rename the entries).

jaclaz

If I may, you could put that list inside [spòiler] [/spòiler] tags to make your post not so long to scroll. It is "inside" the third button from left "Special BB code" the result will be: or attach it as a .txt file. jaclaz

Well, it's starting to get interesting, what about a device that autonomously "calls home" when needed ordering (original) spare parts for self? Welcome to the future of hydration : https://www.brita.com/water-pitchers/infinity?locale=us And as a side it is interesting how in the "system requirements" we have proof of the progress that new technology and software brings into our lives: https://infinity.brita.com/system-requirements/ (italics is NOT mine) ... and I guess that the real reason why people will soon abandon good ol' XP will be because of its inability to activate their new water pitcher... jaclaz

The *what not* is particularly hard to find around here. Really Dibya, notwithstanding what you have seen your friends do or what you managed to do yourself in the field of reverse engineering and new windows versions api implementing in XP, you might want to check the dictionary for "easily": http://www.thefreedictionary.com/easily and while you are at it also for impliment, enginearing and kerenal: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/implement http://www.thefreedictionary.com/engineering http://www.thefreedictionary.com/kernel You can easily better your spelling this way. jaclaz

Which gives an entire new meaning to the word "forever", De Beers may well sue you for this . jaclaz