jaclaz

Are we supposed to know WHICH 7z file you downloaded from WHERE? jaclaz

Setup /p, the undocumented switch. JFYI : http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/45373-new-ideas-for-the-next-version/?p=321473 Actually documented: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/186111 You want to try setup /p i ... but maybe (who knows) even j might work in your case jaclaz

As expected Though the new twist to an indirect reference is interesting. And at least the Mark Avrelius fake name shows some more creativity/is less evident than (say) Rodneylex45 or BaldricRace666 jaclaz

No. it's difficult to follow you this way. You should try running the batch I posted and post the whole thing, including the command line you issued. What you posted seems like an error because the system cannot find the file mynicecmd.cmd, it is possible that you need to specify a full path to it, *like*: @dencorso Maybe you could split the topic to a new thread, so that we can go through assisting simonetaddei without taking the original trustedinstaller topic too OT. jaclaz

A lot of time has passed, and I don't think (or cannot remember) if attempts with RTM were made at the time, but the whole stuff began (and was tested) with XP SP1 AFAICR. Anyway the "right" place is here (if you are talking of "installing from"): http://www.msfn.org/board/forum/157-install-windows-from-usb/ and this thread (if you are talking of "install to"): http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=14181 It is entirely possible that the USB CD-ROM is a "special case" though all experiments/tests/whatever were made with USB sticks or hard disks but -at least on this topic of USB booting - the good MS guys have often published deceiving, incorrect or plainly wrong information, so I wouldn't trust them at face value. The BSOD 0x0000007b is often generated by the "standard" NTDETECT.COM on some systems, so using the "modified" one is always suggested, see also FAQ #3 here: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/116766-faqs/ jaclaz

There are a few imprecisions in the definitions you used. A clone is a clone, i.e. something usually NOT DISTINGUISHABLE from the original. The sheer moment that you change a single byte, that will NOT be a "clone" anymore. If you use an actual "cloning" program the result will (or should be) invariably an EXACT copy of the original. What you actually want to do is to make a (working, bootable) copy of the original disk CONTENTS, with some optimizations (i.e. alignment, resizing, etc.). The "cloning" operation needs NOT to be preceded by any form of "cleaning" since what happens during a "real cloning" operation is the integral copy of every single sector from the source to the target, thus overwriting *whatever* was in the target before, while since what you will be doing is not "cloning" - though it is not actually "necessary" - "cleaning" the target (at least partially) before copying the contents of the source to it may be a good idea. Another thing that you may not be fully accurate on is the sector size/alignement. A "normal" hard disk (or other mass storage device) will have INTERNALLY 512 bytes sector and will expose 512 bytes externally. A "native 4Kb hard disk will have internally 4 kb sectors and will esxpose 4 kb externally. A "advanced format" device will have internally 4 Kb sectors BUT expose 512 bytes externally. You can do "nothing" regarding "Advanced Format", a device either uses 512 bytes sector externally ("traditional" or "advanced format") or it uses 4 kb sectors externally ("native 4kb"), *whatever* is used internally is what the manufacturer implemented and you cannot change it. Alignment is ONLY the offset at which the filesystem starts. Traditionally alignment was on the device geometry, i.e. typically with multiples of 63 sectors before, starting with Vista alignment was set to multiples of 4 Kb, which was said (on "normal", "modern" hard disks) to provide some faster operations. A SSD is not much different, it internally uses 4 kb sectors (maybe) but externally exposes 512 bytes sectors, the difference is that here it is strongly recommended to align to 4kb because the operations will definitely be faster. BUT be VERY aware that XP (specifically Disk Manager in XP) should NEVER be used on disks containing 4 Kb aligned Extended partition/Logical volumes, see here why: http://reboot.pro/topic/9897-vistawin7-versus-xp-partitioning-issue/ The Windows NT letter assignment (and conversely a large part of the way the OS boots and accesses files) depends on the starting offset of the partition. Drive letters are encoded in the Registry coupled with Disk Signature and Partition Starting Offset, see (only seemingly unrelated): http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=19663&hl= This info - if absent - is regenerated when the OS is booted, so if you change alignment (i.e. partition start offset) you need to delete this info from the Registry before attempting to boot from the OS n the new device (or you need to manually coorect this info). Another thing that you need to know is that the Disk Signature is such an important ID for the Windows NT system that you can NEVER have two disks with the same Disk Signature connected to a same Windows OS, as one of the two will be (immediately and silently) changed to avoid a conflict with the other disk. Now that hopefully you have these things more clear, please do take some time to read this thread: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/157634-hard-disk-cloningimaging-from-inside-windows/ that should provide you with further info. Then we will talk of the details and of possible exact procedures. jaclaz

Review this: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/119748-howto-integrate-raid-drivers-into-txtsetupsif/ maybe you missed one of the steps. jaclaz

Are you really sure that .reg files do not support them? All this time believing that the REG_EXPAND_SZ type was about using those kind of (environment) variables.... ...did it change with 7? https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms724884(v=vs.85).aspx Look for any existing key with an environment variable in it's value and export it to a .reg file, you will find that it will come out in .reg as "hex(2)" and the value will be in a set of hex values. and of course there are suitable converters: https://www.raymond.cc/blog/convert-windows-registry-hex-to-text/ jaclaz

Administrator is not TrustedInstaller. http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/155910-taking-back-the-registry-from-trustedinstaller/ Psexec does not provide TrustedInstaller credentials AFAICT, the mentioned devxexec.exe instead can do it,though seemingly with a slightly different set of permissions, at least this is what was reported on the thread related to the precursors of runAsTI64: http://reboot.pro/topic/17501-runassystem-and-runfromtoken/ You can try with the "original" RunasSystem and RunFromToken in the above. It is entirely possble that the good MS guys have changed *something* in Windows 10 and all the tools mentioned need to be upgraded/modified to work on it , historically Error 142 means that some dependency is not fulfilled, but specifically for devx-exec: http://developex.com/custom-software/devx-exec.html it may be caused by failed access to "WinSta0" jaclaz

Try it this other way, running a batch instead: Contents of mynicecmd.cmd: ::This file runs reg.exe to import a .reg fileECHO OFFECHO This is a batch fileECHO Next command will be reg.exe import C:\users\d.regPAUSEreg.exe import C:\Users\d.regPAUSEIt is possible that RunasTI does not pass all parameters correctly (or only accepts a single parameter, i.e. the name of the executable), the error you are experiencing is most probably in the third screenshot (syntax of reg.exe) which is the same you get if running reg.exe with no parameters. jaclaz

Dropping XP support is a (perfectly respectable) choice of each developer, you took it that way and it's fine, but there is no need that you try to convince us that it was the "right" choice, or that there is something inherently "wrong" or potentially devastating the future of software development worldwide in taking the opposite choice and continuing to support it. jaclaz

Yes , "RunAsTI64" is the "evolution" of the programs talked here, joakim (Joakim Shicht) released it on github: https://github.com/jschicht/RunAsTI So what is the question? Which program to use as parameter? A batch with REG.EXE command(s) should do nicely, maybe even directly a REG.EXE ADD command . https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc732643.aspx https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc742162.aspx#BKMK_examples jaclaz

It is working right now BOTH with LeechFTP AND CoreFTP. Logs in the spoiler, I repeat, Anonymous access and NO PASV as settings. CoreFTP: jaclaz

The risk with an upfront price is that it may be - for obvious reasons - much higher than the actual cost of the *whatever* is needed. I mean, let's bring this to another field, medicine/surgery . Do you usually try to be visited by a MD (that will provide a diagnosis for a price, say UK£ 100) and only later - and only if really needed - go to a surgeon/clinic and pay (say) UK£ 10,000 for an operation and hospitalization? Or you prefer a flat rate of (say) UK£ 9,000 for something that can be cured with a couple of aspirins? Sure you can buy excellent recovery software for that money, point might be IF that *automagical* software will be able (in your hands) to recover the same amount of data a data recovery expert might be able to (possibly using some of his experience, some other tool, manual hex editing and what not). Of course in many cases there is no real difference as the form of data corruption is either trivial to fix or the amount of data recovered is "enough". But one of the issues with data recovery (broadly speaking) is that in "positive" cases (i.e. when you or the "automagical" program can recover the WHOLE lost data) everything is fine and dandy , but when no or only partial data can be recovered there is (and there always be) a doubt, would another software be able to recover "more"?, would an expert be able to recover "more than the automated software(s)"?, would another expert be able to recover "more than the former expert"? ... In my little experience (and as a hobbyist, with limited tools and knowledge/experience) I happened to manually recover data that some experts (either real ones or self-proclaimed ones) had missed or deemed to be impossible to retrieve (or re-build, this latter possibly *somehow* "out of the scope" of their job), so you never really know. jaclaz

I am not sure to understand. As long as you use a FTP program (such as good ol' LeechFTP or CoreFTP) without PASV, and FTP anonymous mode it connects fine. (there is no need to provide an e-mail address - real or not - but you can also use "normal" login with username "anonymous" and "guest" - or whatever you like - for password) It seems like it's "traditionally" compliant according the RFC1635 memo: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1635 Maybe the only thing changed is access from a browser? jaclaz P.S.: Edit: I did a couple checks and it seems like most browsers use PASV (and cannot seemingly be turned off), so the two things are probably connected.

As a side note (philosophical/historical ) don't you feel like all this web stuff is becoming increasingly similar to the Tower of Babel ?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_Babel jaclaz

Your best bet would be to copy the driver.cab from another installation or backup (or another CD) and recreate a new CD. What you see when you "open" a .cab file (which is nothing much different from a .zip archive, i.e. a compressed archive) you are seeing an index f it's contents, most probably the index is fine and only some of the actual files - actually the extents on which the correspondent compressed data is stored - are corrupted. If the CD has a physical damage (scratch) in some cases it can be recovered by "simply" polishing the surface, you may also want to try some dedicated CD recovery programs and try on a burner (CD/DVD drives capable of burning CD/DVD's tend to be slightly more accurate than no-name, el-cheapo readers and possibly even better, if you have an old reader or burner - i.e. a "slow" one - it is more likely to recover the file). Maybe even attempting to read the CD at a slow speed using a "speed limiter" such as: http://www.softpedia.com/get/CD-DVD-Tools/CD-DVD-Rip-Other-Tools/Nero-DriveSpeed.shtml http://www.softpedia.com/get/System/System-Miscellaneous/Rimhill.shtml might be enough to get a "good copy". jaclaz

I cannot give you any recommendation on this, but you may want to make a post on hddguru forum and ask there (members on there being mostly in the field of data recovery are probably better suited for this - though they are usually *somehow* not particularly friendly with newbies ) at least it is worth a shot. The only advice I can give you is be very careful in choosing, there are - I believe - a large number of firms/people - hmmm - let's call them a little optimistic in advertising their abilities/capabilities, or have a not-so-clear approach, just an example: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/170773-xbstart-219-stable-navigate-windows-81-with-an-xbox-controller/?p=1081791 jaclaz

The info we have comes from the MVPS site: http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm If you read it "backwards" it states (more or less). From a theoretical point of view 127.0.0.1 means "home" or "loopback", whilst 0.0.0.0 is "an invalid address": http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/174160-guide-disable-data-collection-in-windows-10/?p=1103871 https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc958823.aspx http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1743902&cid=33147664 In a nutshell, try using 0.0.0.0, it should be faster anyway and it does not interfere with a local web server (if any). jaclaz

Ah well, the 11 clicks are in jargon called "click of death". There is simply nothing that you can do with a simple converter, nor through PCB swapping, which SHOULD NOT EVEN BE THOUGHT OF (unless you transplant or backup and restore the firmware) see: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/150215-dont-even-think-of-swapping-pcbs-on-720011/ In a case of the "click of death" it is difficult even to estimate the probabilities that someone with the "right" tools (PC-3000 or similar) would be capable of "fixing" it (at the most recovering the data) or if more complex operations involving doing some hard disk surgery (such as heads or platters transplant) would be needed. JFYI, more or less a modern hard disk behaves like a "full PC", on power on some "boot" firmware (on the PCB ROM - actually Eprom or Flash) is read and executed, and the idea is that the "booting" of the disk drive continues reading some more code and data from a specific area on the platters. The 11 clicks may mean both that the contents of the firmware are somehow corrupted (and for a pro it is relatively easy to restore them) i.e. they point to a "wrong" area of the platters or that the given area is correct but for *some reasons* cannot be read correctly. This again bifurcates in a "simpler" corrupted area on the platter (that in some cases can be bypassed, reading anyway the actual "user" data on the platters) or in a "more complex" issue caused by a hardware problem with the actual arm or heads or motor. jaclaz

Surprisingly (or maybe not) it depends on the OS: http://reboot.pro/topic/20622-windows-10-enterprise-ltsb-mother-of-all-tweak-scripts/?p=194235 jaclaz

You can now get it here: https://vivaldi.com/?lang=en_US It comes from some ex-Opera people (Jon S. von Tetzchner), it may be (or become) the new Opera. http://gadgets.ndtv.com/apps/features/10-months-and-2-million-downloads-later-vivaldi-browser-hits-beta-760681 jaclaz

... meanwhile, elsewhere... http://techscience.org/a/2015103001/index.php jaclaz

Usually READing a thread helps: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/174668-experimental-builds/?p=1111138 jaclaz

Fair enough. But you have to split the final vote in who/what contributes to it. I.e. (IMHO): Win 7: MS contribution 7.5+ NoelC's efforts/time 0.5=8 Win 8.1: MS contribution 7.0+ NoelC's efforts/time 2.0=9 Win 10: MS contribution 3.5+ NoelC's efforts/time 2.5=6 jaclaz