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

Well, you cannot really measure anything "correctly" with a multimeter, but everything you report seems like fine. The "sure" way is to have the PCB completely detached from the drive, when you hit CTRL+Z it should give you some feedback, but you also tried that and it doesn't work, it's strange, unless, and this is what I suspect, you are NOT in one of the two "known" cases (LBA0 or BSY), but rather in another, less common case, see: http://forum.hddguru.com/viewtopic.php?t=11403&start= (seemingly no solution for the 7200.11 , before the thread was hijacked to ES2 drives) See also: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/154413-st32000542as-with-st-m13fqbl/ But the adapter should work anyway with the "other" (I presume "good") Seagate drives . jaclaz

I was meaning about the futility of using addressable memory to hold a pagefile, see also: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/174002-windows-7-possible-advisable-to-disable-the-page-file/ A pagefile in non addressable memory might be OK, though, of course. On XP this is possible using Gavotte's Ramdisk, but I am not sure it will run on 2K (possibly it will, but I cannot recall actual tests on 2K) if really-really more RAM is needed, the use of PAE and "Server like" tricks seems like a much better approach anyway. JFYI, some versions of IMDISK do run on 2K and Olof has a swapadd.exe file that allows to create the pagefile in the IMDISK ramdisk: http://reboot.pro/topic/6745-how-would-you-create-a-ramdisk-on-boot/ jaclaz

Sure it is , possibly with one exception : JFYI: http://www.overclock.net/t/1193401/why-it-is-bad-to-store-the-page-file-on-a-ram-disk jaclaz

Yep there is a lot of over-engineering around, or sometimes solutions in search for problems around lately. As a side note (not IoT related but connected to both MS and over-engineering) anyone spotted the new Surface 4 hinge retention mechanism? https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Microsoft+Surface+Book+Teardown/51972 https://d3nevzfk7ii3be.cloudfront.net/igi/huKvGB5OOUGxSrY3.medium http://hackaday.com/2015/11/04/microsoft-surface-book-teardown-reveals-muscle-wire-mechanism/ A normal push release button must have been seen as too d@mn simple and robust. jaclaz

Fliipism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flipism to the rescue: Heads=7 Tails=8.1 (heavily, and I mean heavily tweaked) If the coin lands and stays vertical on the edge, Windows 10. Some reference to results of scientific experiments: http://journals.aps.org/pre/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevE.48.2547 ...and yes, I would personally use this coin http://www.magictricks.com/double-headed-nickel.html jaclaz

... speaking of google, suggested replies are already available (JFYI)... http://googleresearch.blogspot.it/2015/11/computer-respond-to-this-email.html jaclaz

http://www.networkworld.com/article/3000809/software/its-time-to-update-the-software-update-process.html jaclaz

Anti-drone technologies: http://www.theverge.com/2015/10/29/9631208/drone-defender-regulation-iacp or, more simply: http://hackaday.com/2015/11/04/shoot-down-drones-with-pumpkin-cannons/ jaclaz

Define "legit" first. An OEM version is not really-really "legit" if not acquired together with some hardware (and the discussions of what piece of hardware is "enough" to be considered "valid" accompanying the software would need a looong, separated thread). If you read the opinons on the Amazon site (that one as well as many other ones) you will likely see that what you may actually get is often either a "fake" or some used OEM disk (which definitely are not "legit"). Such opinions are "product related" and not "seller related", so you have no real way to know what you will actually get. If you want the "real thing" you'd better ask/look for a GGK: http://www.microsoft.com/it-it/softwareoriginale/genuinekit/default.aspx https://www.microsoft.com/OEM/it/licensing/antipiracy/Pages/get_genuine_kit.aspx WITHOUT ANY ENDORSEMENT whatsoever for the given links, see here (only examples): http://www.senetic.it/product/6PC-00020 http://www.monclick.it/schede/microsoft/6PC-00022/get-genuine-kit-per-win-7-pro-sp1---oem.htm http://computer.milano.it/catalog/product/view/id/146121 In any case you want to look for "GGK" or "Get Genuine Kit" and/or product "6PC-00022". jaclaz