jaclaz

There is also the IE VPC test platform, here: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=11575&ppud=4 that has a IE6 testing environment XP based. jaclaz

Most TV's nowadays have the one or the other version of Linux, why do you think they - unlike good ol' TV's - take a few seconds to switch on (actually boot), it is years that there is modified software for some of them, *like*: http://samygo.tv/ And (JFYI), not exactly *news*, already been there: http://reboot.pro/topic/9915-the-good-thing-is-that-engineers-never-stop-to-surprise-me/ jaclaz

These factors do not really "add up" to "cannot reinstall windows", but right now it wouldn' t anyway be the best of ideas. You could run a PE of some kind, possibly running a few tests with it just to understand if the abnormal slowing down is "hardware related" or "OS/drivers related". Or some live Linux distro, just to understand what is happening. The usual troubleshooting path is removing drivers (and possibly physically removing hardware) and stop all not really-really needed services to make the system "as naked as possible" (and possibly back to "normal" performance) then re-add the hardware and drivers. jaclaz

Look at the bright side , your next one will be the 1001st (which sounds better ): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1001_(number) jaclaz

Well, with all due respect it is not like it seems particularly useful (to me). A "Command Prompt here" solution is IMHO much more useful in Windows. I use this since the dawn of time (unlike most similar solutions it opens the command prompt where you right click, i.e. you do not need to select the parent directory): http://www.roggel.com/NGNeer/BackgroundCMD/index.shtml This (more recent) should also do on systems that have elevation/UAC: http://code.kliu.org/cmdopen/ If you like your "open on C:\temp" solution, maybe it would be better if you used a PUSHD command (so that by running POPD you could go back - if needed - to C:\Windows\System32\cmd.exe): http://ss64.com/nt/pushd.html jaclaz

@NoelC RE:Secureboot I am not too sure about the matter. The issue is (thank goodness) not "generalized" though there are some reports of PC's (AFAICR only tablets or "small screen" laptops) without the "Secureboot" toggling option or with it really well hidden or where a BIOS UEFI firmware upgrade was needed to have the option. The secureboot is mandatory (and cannot be disabled) on ARM devices (think "Windows RT" or non-pro Surface) but given the diffusion of this kind of devices is a really minor problem. However and in any case there are third party bootloaders (or boot shims) that are certified so it is overall only a nuisance, let's call it a failed attempt to monopolize the market (while AFAIK the certification process is still a monopoly). In this secureboot mess however - though the good MS guys certainly had their relevance in the decision - the root cause is IMHO overall a flaw (among the many) in either the UEFI specifications or in the way the firmware has been implemented (or badly modified by the OEM) or in the way the signing was setup, or a combination of all these, if I were to look for something to blame I would choose primarily the UEFI (please read as "Intel") guys, actually the good MS guys required that secureboot should be switchable on/off when Windows 8 came out, though they made every possible attempt to make the signing procedure "inaccessible" or at least very, very, "unfriendly". The "news" at the time being that this is (possibly) not anymore required for Windows 10 and this could allow OEM's to remove the toggle, see: http://www.pcworld.com/article/2900536/windows-10s-secure-boot-requirement-could-make-installing-linux-a-big-headache.html http://www.pcworld.com/article/2901262/microsoft-tightens-windows-10s-secure-boot-screws-where-does-that-leave-linux.html But of course IF they do that it is THEIR responsibility. jaclaz

Don't forget to mention how the stupid Windows 8.1 update did not update the recovery image, thus making the original Windows 8 based recovery partition either a non-recovery or a botched-recovery. jaclaz

SE traditionally means "Second Edition", it became popular many years ago with the second release of Windows98, and in the case of Winbuilder it did exist a Win7PE which later was updated and modified becoming Win7PE_SE (project lately lead by ChrisR), when Windows 8 came out, the corresponding project to Win7PE_SE based on Windows 8 files became (still largely authored by ChrisR) Win8PE_SE. Little by little the "SE" lost its original meaning, basically becoming the "distinctive mark" of ChrisR's Winbuilder based projects, and when 8.1 came out, the PE part was simply dropped, leading to Win8.1 SE. Check the "history" parts on the project pages: http://w7pese.cwcodes.net/ http://w8pese.cwcodes.net/ http://win81se.cwcodes.net/ jaclaz

...talking of the Windows 10 App Store , it seemingly exists but you cannot find apps in it : http://www.irrlicht3d.org/pivot/entry.php?id=1485 jaclaz ...meanwhile in Australia ( Off Topic, but dealing with lamb chops, hence interesting ): http://www.zdnet.com/article/61-agencies-after-warrantless-access-to-australian-telecommunications-metadata/ http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/19/lamb-chop-weight-enforcers-want-warrantless-access-to-australians-metadata

Naah you are completely unaffected because noone is after you . But the exploit/theoretical vulnerability is not connected to a "Windows Domain", any Windows OS connected to a network is vulnerable in theory. Generically, WPAD based attacks are reknown since years, see also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Proxy_Autodiscovery_Protocol http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/web-browser-auto-proxy-configuration.html In practice for this particular vulnerability to be used the attacker would need physical access to the network. If they were after you, they would have probably like 257 better/easier ways to pwn you. jaclaz

And now that everyone is happy allow me to introduce some uncertainty and doubt , the WPAD proxy server and automatic CTL downloading: http://foxglovesecurity.com/2016/01/16/hot-potato/ jaclaz

"ok", ... but still usually slower than an XP on a same low power machine ... jaclaz

A good idea would be to first check your choice against what has been already reported as working: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/97588-modern-motherboards-which-are-working-with-windows-98/ jaclaz

There is no way that we can help you , in the sense that for one reason or the other that archive is corrupted and it may be corrupted in a zillion ways. Your decision to first compress everything into an archive (not a folder , as a folder inside an archive is normally readable/accessible ) and then re-compress it in another archive may well have made single files unrecoverable. The password protection (I have to presume in both layers of compression) is an added obstacle. There are tens of "zip recovery" or "zip fixing" tools (both freeware or free software and Commercial) each one of them may be able to recover the particular corruption your archive was subjected to but there is no way to know in advance if program "x" may work on it (while program "y" fails miserably or viceversa), and it has to be seen which ones can deal with password protected .zip files. A few are listed here: http://www.techradar.com/news/software/how-to-repair-a-broken-zip-file-986146 and here: https://www.raymond.cc/blog/repair-damaged-or-corrupted-zip-archive/ Where it is underlined: I would add to the list the -F and -FF options of Infozip's zip: http://www.info-zip.org/mans/zip.html But really noone can say if the one or the other program can recover that specific archive or if it can be recovered at all. jaclaz

Well, if you believe that you shouldn't be surprised that in order to have a secureboot shim signed/certified you need Silverlight (among another number of "queer" requisites), JFYI and for a quick laugh (actually should make people weep ): https://en.altlinux.org/UEFI_SecureBoot_mini-HOWTO https://en.altlinux.org/UEFI_SecureBoot_mini-HOWTO#Getting_your_shim_signed http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/20303.html?thread=783183#cmt783183 Maybe things have changed in the meantime, but that wasn't anyway a particularly good start ... jaclaz

Generally speaking the CD drives are "tough" in the sense that unless the laser has burned, i.e. if they do not read at all *anything*, the issues - particularly with a device that has not been used for some time - tend to be mechanical, simply the sliding surfaces/rods have dried up over the years and dust/dirt piled up and all is needed is a careful disassembly, cleaning thoroughfully and a little (very little) bit of lubricant where needed. Maybe that is the case of your drive. jaclaz

In my opinion you could well continue running XP as you are not experiencing (or have not described) any issues with it. IF you feel like changing OS, you have no real *need* for Windows 7 Ultimate, any more limited version (please read as cheaper) would do nicely for your "home" uses. In any case your hardware is (from the little you say about it) on the "slow" side, particularly 2 Gb of RAM, which are more than enough for XP, are a tad bit "tight" for Windows 7 (any version) and I have to presume that other hardware components may not be powerful or fast enough to provide you a positive experience with 7. Windows 7 (like Vista before it) has a much greater needs as hardware resources, it will anyway be slower than XP, depending on the specific hardware you have it is possible that this added slowness will be hardly perceivable or enough to make you feel your PC as sluggish. If you post the exact specs of your hardware someone might be able to give you an estimate of how "well" a Windows 7 might run on it. jaclaz

If you like it more, I will gladly rephrase: as: jaclaz

Post the EXACT model of the DELL Latitude, likely the CD-ROM is the "original" one and drivers can be found on some obscure DELL repository of drivers. You can try the "CD-ROM God": http://manmrk.net/tutorials/DOS/cdrom.htm or see if you can find a suitable driver here: http://www.cdrom-drivers.com/ But do you have the hardware to actually write a new floppy? jaclaz

It would seem much simpler to me to copy the e-mails you actually want to keep to a new .dbx and then replace the "inbox" one with the one you made. A suitable procedure is given in this seemingly unrelated thread: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/170986-emails-vanished-from-outlook-express/ Just try copying to the new .dbx a a handful of (let's say yesterday's) e-mails and try connecting to the server, if it starts downloading all old mails, stop (and you'll need to find another way). From what you say your current .dbx is not by itself "corrupted" it is only too d@mn big to be compacted (possibly on that OS or on that machine), it is possible that if you copy the .dbx to another machine it can be compacted "there". Another thing, why do you have 1.5 Gb of old mail on the server? I mean I could understand 900 Mb but 1.5 Gb? jaclaz

Which is more or less expected : http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/17547-changing-text-colorprogress-color-in-winntbbudll/?p=170216 http://unattended.msfn.org/unattended.xp/view/web/16/ jaclaz

Work for what? The general idea is that you provide detailed, exact, symptoms, from those someone may be able to derive a diagnosis, or ask you to perform some additional diagnostic procedures, and, based on the diagnosis suggest a (hopefully resolutive) cure. Then you have to apply the cure suggested (and NOT *something else*) and report, again exactly, what happens. If you: fail to describe as accurately as possible the issue or refuse to apply the suggested cure or do something else and fail to describe what is happening after the whatever you did It is unlikely that you'll progress towards the resolution of the problem. jaclaz

The issue is AFAIK more with the impact of NTFS (if you will be using NTFS) or other journaled or semi-journaled filesystems on duration than with speed, I mean it is not like conventional IDE hard disks were all that fast. The 32 Gb size sounds too d@mn big for 2K or XP and too d@mn small for Vista or later. Typical base install needed space (just as a reminder): 2K 700 MbXP 1.6 GbVista or later 16 GbThough I did have (and still have) a few system running on CF cards they are Linuxes of some kind or the CF card is just storage, if I were you I would consider the use of DOM's (Disk On Module) they are definitely not as cheap as a IDE to CF card adapter + CF card combo, but surely they are IMHO better. jaclaz

Translates to "use the given program, instead": http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/17547-changing-text-colorprogress-color-in-winntbbudll/?p=141263 jaclaz

Why not Windows 7 Home ("Basic" or "Premium"), since it is a Home computer and has 2 Gb RAM even "Starter" would do? jaclaz