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

Starting when? jaclaz

Loosely, something *like* this?: https://www.cartft.com/catalog/il/1587 t seems like the good guys over there have drivers for 9x/Me and NT 4.00 too (at least for some TFT displays) : https://www.cartft.com/support/drivers/TFT/ jaclaz

Actually you are not communicating anything to MS (and in any case you faked to install Warez, you just claimed that you had just discovered that someone had done that), you are just buying from an Authorized reseller a GGK. If the Windows 7 GGK is available for sale, it is available for sale, you buy it, the seller gets the money, everything is cool and dandy. What you buy is a license and the proof of it being legal is (besides the original media you will be given) the sticker that you have to put on your PC. When (if) the MS police SWAT will break into your house at dawn they won't find any Warez installed on your PC. If at the time of the break-in you will have already installed the GGK there will be no traces of the (previously faked) Warez install, if you haven't yet they will find you with a PC with no OS installed and you might claim that you already wiped the hard disk . Of course there is a concrete possibility that they are monitoring this thread and watching every move you make (and also every breath you take) but the most they will be able to do would be to sue you for falsely confessing a crime that noone ever committed. There is a remote possibility that you will be subjected to an "extraordinary rendition", but as the name implies it would be "extraordinary". jaclaz

Well, it's easy. On day one: You get a new PC. You (fake to) install a Warez release to it. The next day: the PC is not new anymore (it's one day old, and it's existing ) you (claim to) discover that on the PC there is non-genuine Windows install you can (re-)install the Windows 7 through the GGK The note you cited is probably because you cannot have the GGK accompanying a new PC, i.e. the seller of a new PC can only accompany it with an OEM license (thus taking the responsibility of support) or with a "full" license, which - if available is way costlier than OEM (but allows for transferring the OS to a new system), whilst the GGK is more similar to a "full" license (i.e. MS has the responsibility for support) though it keeps the limitation of non-transferability. Of course in the real world neither the OEM nor MS will ever provide any meaningful support anyway. jaclaz

A) No (but maybe Yes, meaning that some of them do use "under the cover" grub4dos which is to all practical effects a minimal CLI Operating System (think of DOS) including the possibility of running batch scripts and even "native" executables, but No, it has not the capability to connect to the internet and downloading anything) B) No (none of them are *Linux*) but Yes a Windows 7 based PE (i.e. a PE 3.x) can be made practically indistinguishable from a Windows 7 "installed", but nothing really prevents you (if not - possibly - licensing issues) to have a "real", "installed" Windows 7 on a USB stick. jaclaz

I don't know. At first sight it seems (to me) more complex than needed. Maybe you could try starting from a "simpler" base *like*: On Error Resume NextConst wbemFlagReturnImmediately = &h10Const wbemFlagForwardOnly = &h20strComputer = "."WScript.EchoWScript.Echo "=========================================="WScript.Echo "Computer: " & strComputerWScript.Echo "=========================================="Set objWMIService = GetObject("winmgmts:\\" & strComputer & "\root\CIMV2")Set colItems = objWMIService.ExecQuery("SELECT * FROM Win32_DiskPartition", "WQL", _wbemFlagReturnImmediately + wbemFlagForwardOnly)For Each objItem In colItemsWScript.Echo "DeviceID: " & objItem.DeviceIDStartLBA = Int(objItem.StartingOffset/objItem.BlockSize)NumSectors=Int(objItem.Size/objItem.BlockSize)WScript.Echo "StartLBA: " & StartLBAWScript.Echo "NumSectors: " & NumSectorsWScript.EchoNextjaclaz

Well, again, if you explain WHAT you actually *need* and WHY you *need* it, there may be "better" ways. Also, what you posted is a snippet, as asked before, can you post the actual .vbs EXACTLY as you run it (AND post information on how exactly are you running it)? However this: strStartLBA = strNumberBlocks/strBlockSize doesn't sound right. You get the StartingOffset (in bytes) and divide it by blocksize to get StartingLBA (in sectors or blocks) and of course you get size (in bytes) and divide it by blocksize to get size (in blocks). jaclaz

No. The disk signature is an almost binary problem, it is either valid or is it not, if it is not the drive letters assigned to partitions might change, making invalid a number of links/hardcoded paths and (if this happens on the system disk) the OS won't boot (or won't boot properly) while if a disk signature change happens on any non-system disk it will just be a matter of re-assigning drive letters manually. Anyway it costs you nothing to uninstall the USB devices and reinstall them and their drivers, what I would do would be to additionally "clean" the USB stack related keys in the Registry, you are nor the first one (nor will you be the last one) to experiment "queer" behaviour with USB devices (and this sometimes can be solved by simply "refreshing"), see here for some suggestions/tools: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/157408-usb-connectdisconnect-delay/ jaclaz

Not really . That is - more or less - an application of Pareto's Principle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle it does have it merits. The point is not at all about what they removed or changed, it is A LOT about the incredible number of preventive measure, unneeded complications (and what not) they included to force every user to experience a sub-standard environment, making it extremely difficult for them to change the looks (which is IMHO a more marginal part) and the actual ergonomics of each and every tool, making a number of useful tools not working anymore, effectively changing some consolidated usage paradigms and re-setting users settings to a (stupid and in some ways also "dangerous") default they believe is a "one-size-fits-all" for every user. I mean - and I know I will probably be flamed for this - I never liked the way the default Windows shell worked in 2K or XP, but that was (is) not a problem, there were quite a few alternative shells available and I soon found out that blackbox was perfect for my use of a system, and installing and configuring it was a piece of cake. Then there is the issue of the calculator, I use RPN. (RPN is way better and faster if you do calculations so I use a third party RPN calculator). More generally I have configured my system in such a way that it is perfectly configured for my needs (and it cost me very little time created very little issues), BUT if I have to use any other MS OS (up to 7) with its "standard" shell and built-in tools (as an example when I am visiting some customer and using theur computers) - while "losing" some "speed" and "convenience" - I can do the same things that I can do on my "custom configured" system. This - with "stock" windows 8 and later - is simply not possible. Of course someone will come out stating how I am old (which is true) and grumpy (which is also true) and that this is the reason why I cannot do even the simpler tasks on 8 and later without the greatest effort and waste of time, but really this is not the case, in all these years I have used (and sometimes still use) almost *any* OS that ever saw the light, including all versions of DOS, all versions of Windows, many different releases of Linux, even OS/2 and BeOS, and I never experienced the same sense of being forcefully led into a wrong usage paradigm as I experienced in the (admittedly brief) tests I made with 8/8.1 (and 10 seems like not any different in this). Now I can understand that for *some reasons* I won't be able anymore to use other people's PC's , but at the very least I expect to be able to configure my own system the way I like it and it is more productive for me , without the risk of having all my settings and third party apps being reset/removed overnight : and without going through numberless loopholes to actually make a proper configuration . jaclaz