jaclaz

... try using SHIFT+ENTER to go to a new paragraph [1] ... jaclaz [1] Not that I approve of the changes, until the good site admin won't find a way to tame this new release of the IP board software and make it usable it will be a nightmare, the new editor has all the defects an editor can have+one more, and since the "BBCode" option is seemingly altogether missing we can simply forget to have nicely quoted/tidy looking posts until hopefully it is restored.

Not really IOT related, still : http://jacquesmattheij.com/trackers Trackers jaclaz

Well, no. You did not address the main issue, which is the letters used by the Windows 7 systems conflicting with the ones that Windows 8 assigns by default at install time. Re-installing in MBR-CMS mode will maybe solve the issues with the EasyBCD you use, and possibly will allow some other tricks, see below, but not what should be (IMHO) the right way to have a system configured. The real issue is the conflict in drive letter assignment. Now that everything is MBR-CSM, you could install grub4dos and freely chainload the Windows 7 boot manager, and/or hide other partitions when booting, but though it will probably work nicely it remains a non optimal setting. You must understand that the drive letter assigned inside the OS to the "system" volume (what the good MS guys call - backwards - "boot" ) is almost like "carved in stone", it cannot be changed after install. You have already "taken" in the two installs of Windows 8.1 the drive letter C:(assigned to volume 3 when booting W811 and to volume 4 when booting W812) so you will have a conflict with _X647 that will get anyway a different drive letter (instead of it's own C:), as said this is usually not a good idea, as you have already noticed on just the new partitioning, most of the volumes get different drive letters when you boot the one or the other Windows 8.1 installs Volume 3 C: or E: Volume 4 D: or C: Volume 5 G: or D: What happened. You installed your first Windows 8.1. When setup started it detected an unpartitioned device and proceeded to automagically create a 350 mb "reserved" partition (that you don't really-really want) and a huge NTFS partition with the rest of the disk. Then Windows was installed having PERMANENTLY set that first partition as drive letter C:. Then you shrinked that partition and installed the second Windows 8.1. When setup started for the second install it automagically assigned to "itself", again the drive letter C:, and this is PERMANENT. You have already created a PERMANENT conflict between the two new installs. Mind you there are two theories on "proper" drive letter assignment, "mine" (which is the right one BTW ) that says that no matter which OS you boot ALL volumes must appear with the SAME drive letter and the "other" one (wrong but still having some merit) of having the "system" partition being always C: (this makes things easier, as an example, with programs that insist on installing on C:\ ). From the way you had partitioned/installed your Windows 7 systems it seems like you used "my" approach, i.e. first partition (primary) on that disk (that is now second) is always C:, second (logical volume) is always D:, third (logical volume) is always E:, fourth (logical volume) is always F:, my guess is that you want to maintain the same approach. If this is the case, what you should do would be to: connect the "old" disk as "first disk" boot the Windows 7 _X647 delete all partitions on the new 1 Tb disk create a new partition (primary, NTFS) on it sized 80 Gb <- this will become your new W811 <- it will probably be drive letter G: create a new partition (primary, NTFS) on it sized 80 Gb <- this will become your new W812 <- it will probably be drive letter H: boot from the stick and BEFORE running the setup/install [*] CHECK which letter the WinPE has assigned to the four partitions on the old disk (they need to be C:, D:, E:, F: but they likely won't be those) AND CHECK which drive letter has the W811 partition, it needs to be G: but likely it would be D: ), change drive letter assignment in DSKPART so that they are what they should be. test that the installed W811 boots and gets drive letter G: if everything is OK, repeat for the W812 install, checking that the C:, D:, E:, F: and G: are properly assigned and that the W812 gets drive letter H: Please note that at this point the BOOTMGR and \boot\BCD that actually boots all the OS's (two win8.1's and four win7's) wll be on first partition on first disk (the _X647), the net effect being that should you remove the first disk neither of the Windows 8.1's will be able boot anymore, but if you succeed till here we will later see how to make this second (new, 1 Tb) disk capable of booting the Windows 8.1's by itself. jaclaz [*] this means that when you are prompted to either install or repair, etc. you should press SHIFT+F10, which will open a command prompt form which you can run DISKPART

You need to detect if the running OS is 32 bit or 64 bit, then - when needed - use the "virtual" Sysnative folder: http://www.samlogic.net/articles/sysnative-folder-64-bit-windows.htm Of course while (AGAIN) you should use .cmd and not .bat as extension, how exactly you "convert" the batch file to an executable may matter. jaclaz

It is a - if not common - frequent enough issue, the stickl controller "decides" to turn itself into "read only". There are some speculations about this being a form of "safety" when there is an error of some kind in the working, when writing files to it, possibly the idea is "better to keep accessible though read-only what has been written successfully". Basically once the sticks are (mass) produced they are formatted/tested with this special software that more or less should find defective areas of the memory and exclude them from the area accessible to the user or allow to mark the stick as "bad", it is very possible that an area of the stick memory went bad after that test and "low level format" or that for *any* reason a defective area was included in the accessible area. In some cases it is possible to "reset" the stick to factory settings using some special manufacturer software, and there are reports of sticks that once reset successfully continue to work OK for years and of stick that re-lock themselves as soon as something is written to them or however very soon after having been reset. For a 1 Gb stick, probably it isn't worth the hassle to find (if available) the Manufacturer's Tool and to attempt the reset. jaclaz

Which will be the nth thread with exactly the same content, posted by the same people. Heck, you started this one: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/175265-windows-xp-is-still-king/ just a few days ago, in which way the present one should be different? jaclaz

And now, for NO apparent reason : http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/03/epic-uptime-achievement-can-you-beat-16-years/ jaclaz

No, it is not , no missile was ever fired during the cold war, otherwise it would have become pretty fast a hot one. Microsoft is actually firing their missiles (in the form of senseless resetting updates) and you (and the other good people) fire back with your tweaking tools, none of the fighting parties moving forward or backwards a single inch, it is more like Trench Warfare: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trench_warfare jaclaz

But comeon, how many people in the real world will actually list and/or copy files on a PC? Most of them are busy reading ads, making witty tweets and watching funny youtube videos or commenting on some other people's facebook.... 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