jaclaz

Only seemingly OT: https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2015/12/09/firefox-os-pivot-to-connected-devices/ Basically translates (as I read it) to "the next Revolution will be made out of IoT, we tried leveraging on the previous one and we failed at it, let us try the same people and approach with the second". Or if you prefer : in a modernized version, more similar to: http://nfs.sparknotes.com/lear/page_138.html jaclaz

I wouldn't be so sure that the *whatever* data recovery software recovered the files correctly, however, what I would do would be to try TriD on them and see if it can identify a file format and also try them in VLC that usually can play *almost anything*: http://mark0.net/soft-trid-e.html http://www.videolan.org/vlc/ Still personally I would try the recovery through "manual" means (after having made an image of the SD card) as it is very possible that the carver in the (unknown) file recovery software you used failed in "properly" recovering files. jaclaz

OT and definitely NOT something you guys will actually like , however JFYI: https://blogs.windows.com/windowsexperience/2015/12/09/cortana-now-available-here-and-when-you-need-her-no-matter-what-smartphone-you-choose/ jaclaz

Maybe one could put the contents of the "script" into the clipboard: http://www.tech-recipes.com/rx/14770/copy-text-file-or-directory-into-clipboard-from-command-line/ and then paste it into the command prompt: http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/25590/how-to-enable-ctrlv-for-pasting-in-the-windows-command-prompt/ jaclaz

No. The motivation was and is seamless integration of advertising into everything, confusing users and luring them into clicking at random, thus rising the chances of getting more revenue by means of click count, referred purchases or whatever. OT, but FYI: http://au.idigitaltimes.com/study-children-cannot-distinguish-between-google-search-result-and-ads-111014 jaclaz

Neither would jaclaz, rest assured, but the alternative ENTECH stuff: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/174263-strange-mouse-behavior-on-an-lcd-monitor/ seemingly doesn't work properly with Intel boards. However nothing prevents anyone to manually calculate the Registry values: https://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/custom-resolutions-on-intel-graphics jaclaz

Or - more simply - compress them into an archive (such as a .zip file) and attach the .zip. jaclaz

Try using DTD Calculator. It can be found here: http://www.clevertec.co.uk/productsfree.htm Make SURE you read and understand the instructions/howto: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/26-home-theater-computers/947830-custom-resolution-tool-intel-graphics-easier-overscan-correction.html jaclaz

No. Meaning that a LCD monitor has no "max resolution", it has only a "native resolution" or "recommended resolution", which sometimes is improperly referred to as "max resolution". Any "display mode" but that one will be an "interpolated/calculated" one, in practice it will be less sharp and very likely (unless you keep a resolution with the same 1600:900 or 16:9 ratio) it will be "stretched" or "deformed". See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_resolution http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/159029-monitors-for-win98se/ http://www.cnet.com/products/asus-vh202t-p-lcd-monitor-20/specs/ You can use dumpedid: http://www.nirsoft.net/utils/dump_edid.html to check the resolutions your monitor supports (still there will only be a "native" one, 1600x900 in your case that dumpedid calls "Maximum Resolution" ) jaclaz

Well, I guess that if they can invent the "mickey": http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/155923-any-way-to-cannibalize-the-windows-2000-mouse-driver/page-2#entry999823 and also "special" conversions of unit of measures: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/189826 they can also invent a new English grammar, JFYI. jaclaz

Seriously, maybe - just maybe - "Packages" and "PackagesPending" are NOT exactly the same thing (and the second run is needed for the latter ones). jaclaz

Even? I am doubtful about either your social skills or your English. jaclaz

... *like* running a VM inside - say - Linux? jaclaz

USB or PS/2 (or both)? Anyway, sometimes it's a good idea to stand on the shoulders of giants... : http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/146199-which-optical-mouse-for-windows-98-se/ Usually - with a bit of tinkering sometimes - *anything* can be done (see - slightly OT but JFYI): http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/143253-windows-98se-with-98se2me-and-a-recent-usb-composite-device/ Yes, most modern mice have either two thumb buttons or none at all, what would be interesting would be to know if this "Windows 8" mouse: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA0ZX2MV8870 which does have a single "thumb button" is recognized/mappable in the MouseWorks software. This one (example): http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16826132027 is specifically "98 compatible" (but as said almost *any* mouse will be, the issue may only be with "queer" non-standard buttons) jaclaz

Well, it's just a linguistic nuance, SXS was introduced as a cure for DLL hell, but clearly it resulted as a largely ineffective cure, a lot *like*: jaclaz

... to the extent that Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeo_Danaos_et_dona_ferentes has become a common proverbial saying in many languages. jaclaz

Well, if you still have your tinfoil hat on , what makes you think that they couldn't deliver SGX kernel support to 7 through Windows Update? jaclaz

You should see the half full glass, you buy a Skylake and you have no easy way to know if the actual specimen in your hands has (or has not) SGX, this could become a nice game for betting.... http://www.anandtech.com/show/9687/software-guard-extensions-on-specific-skylake-cpus-only However, JFYI: https://t.co/1bzuFxBJtZ jaclaz

Well, the point I was raising was more about the: Actually in Windows NT systems Desktop OS and Server OS are historically EXACTLY THE SAME with just a bunch of very minor changes, mostly due to Commercial/Licensing reasons. This is true at least until 8/Server 2012: http://www.computerweekly.com/photostory/2240162611/Windows-Server-2012-inside-Microsofts-Enterprise-Server-OS/1/Windows-Server-2012-Its-Windows-8-with-bells-and-whistles It is entirely possible that the yet to be released Server 2016: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Server_2016 will be not remotely similar to Windows 10, but allow me to doubt it. Maybe if instead of opening random motherboards pages you searched for some you might have found (say) this page: http://www.supermicro.com/support/resources/OS/C602_listing2.cfm Just one of the many listed here: http://www.supermicro.com/support/faqs/os.cfm jaclaz

Sure you did but you weren't particularly original . jaclaz

Out of curiosity, did you actually read the page you linked to? A few snippets from it (colouring/bolding/underlining by me): Maybe this only applies to servers (that allegedly run different operating systems on different hardware) http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/174676-difference-between-home-and-core/?p=1113018 jaclaz

BTW and OT , but JFYI, a recent study on the matter (though restricted to the pseudo-profound subset): http://journal.sjdm.org/15/15923a/jdm15923a.html Actual .pdf (and the interesting "supplement") here: http://journal.sjdm.org/15/15923a/jdm15923a.pdf http://journal.sjdm.org/15/15923a/supp.pdf jaclaz

... and once upon a time someone took the time to write a detailed howto, which curiously enough is hosted on MSFN : http://win2k3.msfn.org/ and in the good ol' times making a Windows NT 4.0 Workstation into a Windows NT 4.0 Server was just a matter of a couple Registry edits and possibly a few patches .... as the good Mark Russinovich (before going to the Dark Side ) at the time discovered: http://archive.oreilly.com/pub/a/oreilly//news/differences_nt.html For the record the "Web Tax" concept in the conclusion of the article has still (some 20 years later) some merits: jaclaz

In a batch script the percentage % sign is escaped by doubling it. Example: on command line: FOR /L %A IN (1,1,10) ECHO %Awill work, in a batch this needs to become: FOR /L %%A IN (1,1,10) ECHO %%Ajaclaz

Ah well, if they said that in an extremely specific statement, then it must be true, of course. jaclaz