jaclaz

Not in the explorer shell, but replacement existed, JFYI: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/174201-windows-10-first-impressions/page-3#entry1088850 As a side note, you really should not use "nice" and "Unity" in a same sentence , and even using "Gnome" is debatable . jaclaz

Not really-really . First thing such a contract may well be null ab initio or ex lege. Beside that, the opt-out (as opposed to opt-in) form of the proposal could well be in many countries a violation of Law in itself. In any case - in the hypothesis that the agreement is actually valid and binding - what the users allow is MS to collect and use (for a number of vague scopes) the data they manage to collect. As I see it, too bad for them if they cannot collect the data they would like to have. jaclaz

My bad, the matter is discussed in more depth on that link, but it is in an area of the board reserved to developers/mods/etc. The original issue happened here: http://totally_fake_url.com EDIT: no it is just the underscore that does it. Subdomain doesn't seem to matter. Well, NO. In the sense that a URL (hostname) containing underscore is "illegal" according to RFC 952/1123: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostname#Restrictions_on_valid_host_names As often happens with standards (I love standards , there are so many of 'em ) is that allowing the minus sign and saying that "no distinction is made between upper and lower case" can easily be read as "underscore" (i.e. SHIFT+ minus) is allowed, an unrelated but similar issue happens with UPPERCASING file/directory names in some ISO9660 standard "ISO levels" (OT but JFYI): http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=25612 But really NO domain name can contain an underscore (while it is perfectly allowable for both subdomains and subfolders). Most probably the good IPB guys (or some of the more lower level libraries/whatever they use) assume that the thing after the http:// is (with prepended www. or without it) a domain name and check that it is made out of only "(A-Z), digits (0-9), minus sign (-), and period (.)" until a / (forward slash) is found. jaclaz

Yep . Though not really-really news , issues with SXS are re-known since day one or so (example): http://blogs.msdn.com/b/rchiodo/archive/2007/04/09/the-next-level-of-dll-hell-sxs.aspx BUT, JFYI, be aware that many of these files are hard links (ans more can be made as such): http://reboot.pro/topic/19643-winsxs-hardlinked-files/ (and as a side bonus, the reason why you cannot - normally - install 7 to a FAT32 volume ) jaclaz

Yep, it is (JFYI) a glitch in the parsing engine of the board: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/174184-this-link-only-goes-to-msfn/ jaclaz

Well, that one is easy, is any device (keyboard/mouse) connceted to a PS/2 port? If yes, you need them (and since USB is a no-no at least officially on NT 4.00 it may be a good idea to NOT remove them as you wouldn't have any way to interact with the OS, though maybe a SERIAL mouse may still work ) jaclaz

Well, I can confirm that you are wrong, no hassle at all . Seriously , FAT 32 has several limitations, of which some are "actual" limitations, whilst some other were introduced by Microsoft. The 4 Gb size of the single file is an actual limit and is NOT avoidable. One of the fields (file size) in the FAT32 structure (directory entry) is 32 bit in size and as such cannot hold any value above 2^32 -1=4,294,967,295 bytes. The size limit for the volume is due to the maximum number of clusters which is 2^28-1=268,435,445, which corresponds to a minimum of (for 512 bytes clusters) 137,438,952,960 bytes up to (for 32 Kb clusters) 8,796,092,989,440. There is the possibility (discouraged) to use 64 Kb clusters, in which case max volume size doubles to 17,592,185,978,880. Please note how on BIOS/MBR there is however a roughly 2.2 Tb size limit ("artificial" but effective) for the whole addressable disk space, and anyway disks 8 Tb or larger are not common yet so these volume size limits (which are NOT avoidable) are non-problems as they are never encountered in real life. The added limit is the 32 Gb size of the volume which is entirely "artificial" i.e. imposed by Microsoft by preventing to create/format such largish volumes with FAT32 in all recent OS's, this limit can obviously be worked around by using a third party tool. The idea is that since a 32 Kb cluster is needed for a larger than 32 Gb volume, the filesystem will have an excessive slack, which is true for a "generic" (let alone "system") use, but may not be accurate for a volume used to store only (say) videos. jaclaz

The whole point of the thread I pointed you to was that there is no definite answer for that question, there is not a one-size-fits-all solution, because it greatly depends on the individual install and on the programs one runs (a few simply *need* a pagefile, even if of minimal size, in order to run). What everyone can tell you is that once you have more than 4 Gb of RAM it is extremely unlikely that the pagefile will be actually ever "hit". Try thinking the other way round. The minimal specifications for Windows 10: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/windows-10-specifications RAM: 1 gigabyte (GB) for 32-bit or 2 GB for 64-bit So if you go "by the rules" with a 64 bit machine with 2 Gb: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/2860880 You will have (largest setting by the system) an around 3x2=6+1= 7 Gb pagefie https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/2860880 Now you have more than double that size already in RAM, how much do you think that a pagefile will be hit? This older article: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/889654 expands on methods to experimentally determine the best configuration for a given system/usage. jaclaz

Well, I don' think there is a guarantee that in case of crash that page file will be used, then maybe you'd better create a dedicated dump file on the "conventional" hard disk: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ntdebugging/archive/2010/04/02/how-to-use-the-dedicateddumpfile-registry-value-to-overcome-space-limitations-on-the-system-drive-when-capturing-a-system-memory-dump.aspx That may be due to the effect of the "new" (since Windows 8) "Automatic" setting for the crashdump (if you were running in "system managed" and you did have a "bug check" less than 4 weeks ago or so: http://blogs.technet.com/b/askcore/archive/2012/09/12/windows-8-and-windows-server-2012-automatic-memory-dump.aspx jaclaz

See here: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/174002-windows-7-possible-advisable-to-disable-the-page-file/ It's not like there are any (meaningful) changes in the way Vista and later OS behave (and they were not that much different on 2K/XP). Personally I would set it as fixed size (whatever size you see fit, but a smallish one, like 100-200 Mb or so would be enough to "satisfy" the *need* some programs have of a pagefile being set) anyway 1 Gb is more than enough and "next logical step" would be "size of ram+a few hundreds megabytes", i.e. in your case nearly 17 Gb (in order to have a full dump in case of error) and move it to the "conventional" hard disk, only to be on the safe side with SSD wear (if any). But it is easy, once decided a suitable (minimal) size, run your system one wee with the pagefile set on the SSD, then run it another week with the same pagefile set on the "conventional" disk and see if you can see/feel any difference (I believe there won't be any noticeable). jaclaz

Now I see. No , I don't think that such an adapter/converter exists . The SATA port on the motherboard expect a storage device connected to it. And you have also all motherboard USB (3.x) ports on the motherboard taken? (on some motheboards there are USB ports that are not connected "by default", sometimes they may need an adapter) Or does the motherboard only have USB 2.0 ports? jaclaz

I am not sure to understand, if you have one (or more) Sata connectors free on the motherboard what you need is an eSata front panel, something *like* this one: http://www.goodluckbuy.com/unitek-y-6113-3-5-esata-and-hdd-power-front-panel-.html jaclaz

...meanwhile in China ....: http://qz.com/505383/a-first-look-at-the-chinese-operating-system-the-government-wants-to-replace-windows/ jaclaz

For the usual OT (but not much ) post, seemingly a "near miss" just happened: http://hexatomium.github.io/2015/09/22/expires-25h/ jaclaz

Just to confirm how only because you are paranoid it doesn't mean that they are not after you. Sure you have it , but just like the opinions of those participating to the testing of Windows 10 each and every one is either deemed useful or ignored independently from their actual merit, and development follows the original pre-set agenda. In this case the thing to ascertain is just related to Windows Defender being or not being a "resource hog" (and it being *needed*). jaclaz

One thing is truetype (or "odf" or "bitmap" which is the file format of the font) another one is the typographic characteristics of a font. Arial (like most fonts used nowadays) is a "proportional font" (as opposed to "monospace" or "fixed width" ones). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monospaced_font An "i" takes LOTS less space than a "W" in Arial: i W but: An "i" takes the same space as a "W" in Courier: i W Only seemingly unrelated: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/141893-fonts-in-console-window/ The general issue however is that you expect a TAB to be a "fixed size" in Word (or in similar word processors) and this simply is not the way TABs behave in word processors. jaclaz

Hmmm. Maybe you went for "full-fledged" distros, what you actually need may be as simple as Zeroshell: http://www.zeroshell.org/ or similar distro aimed to be a firewall/router/gateway. jaclaz

I guess someone must establish a "common line" , EITHER Windows Defender is a resource hog (as Dedoimedo and Techie007 believe) OR it is not (as NoelC believes). And no , anyone that used on his/her machine *any* version of - say - Norton Antivirus and particularly Norton 360 for more than 1 (one) week in the last 10 years is not admitted to cast his/her vote, let alone someone that actually *liked* it. jaclaz

Yet the Microsoft Disk Defragmenter, "defrag.exe" version 4.70,.belonging to Windows ME but which I use in 98SE, has a Symantec copyright that further references Intel application accelerator, iirc. I was talking of the "NT series", sorry, cannot really say about the "real origin" of non-NT versions , however the 4.70 (actually 4.70.1998) should be belonging to 98, and the Me version should be 4.90.3000, it is entirely possible that either version originated from Norton Utilities (for Windows) or some other Symantec product. jaclaz

Casually: http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/37522.html jaclaz

Well, the document seems OK to me, a Tab by default expands to (usually) up to 8 spaces, and there is a sort of "default hidden" grid (when no explicit Tab stops are set) which Word counts in cm. Example, you have: I've removed the .... For cooking oil use ... This guide illustrates ... "removed" , "cooking" and guide are aligned vertically because before them there is either "I've" or "For" or "This" (i.e. three or four characters long words). The Tab expands in the first and third line to 4 spaces and in the second to 5 spaces and the result is aligned (but actually is much more complicated than that as you are using a proportional font, so different characters may count as either "less than one" space or "more than one"). "removed" is wider than "cooking" and because of this the latter is followed on "second virtual 8 characters stop" by "oil" whilst the former goes beyond that and the following "the" is on "third virtual 8 characters stop". Then "cases", "a" and "the" are again vertically aligned, and later "pertain" "wet" and "that" are again aligned on the same vertical line. I hope to have been clear enough. It is perfectly "normal" . In a nutshell: Spaces are intended to separate words.Tabs are intended to align words to tab stops (implied or explicit)You should use them for what they are intended. And in Word you should use the button with the symbol ¶ to see (and let other people see ) spaces, Tabs and paragraph/new line/line feed. jaclaz

Word makes it a tad bit more complex than needed as tab stops are a property of each paragraph, but if you select the whole document it should work as well, see here: http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/microsoft-office/how-do-i-delete-all-tab-stops-in-a-word-document/ jaclaz

You are not doing anything wrong but you most probably have a number of "TAB stops" in the document (very likely different in different lines). The "feature" of Tabs is that if there are no tab stops a tab will expand to the given size, but if there is a tab marker it will align to that. jaclaz

Diskkeeper was seemingly VAX/VMS originated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskeeper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condusiv_Technologies and of course the product was on the market in 1993, but there was NO defragger shipped with Windows NT 3.x nor 4.00 by MS, the first one came with 2000: http://www.zdnet.com/article/the-utilities-that-nt-4-0-forgot-disk-defragmenter/ jaclaz

Yep, as I see it, one issue is why light bulbs would want (or *need*) to "talk to each other" but once given that this allows for *whatever* enhancement in the life of human beings, the real question is why they should chat between themselves using the same (wireless) network the human beings use to communicate and why to the same network every kind of potentially dangerous (dangerous for integrity or privacy of data, and not only) devices are also connected. It simply makes no sense, just too many things can go wrong in such a design when it comes to practical implementations of it. The hacks about cars are so serious not because of the potential risks about incidents, collisions and the like but because they show that even a "closed" environment, wholly designed by a team of (I presume capable) security oriented engineers, comprising ONLY devices provided by the manufacturer is hackable to some degree, imagine what can happen when a non engineer puts together any kind of devices from different manufacturers, all sharing the same access credentials. And I will re-state how - unlike any other physical hack which is still possible - these are "remote" ones, they can be done while comfortably seated in a car outside the house i.e. virtually undetectable/unnoticeable. On the other hand, until now an office with (say) 128 devices on a (wired) LAN was what I would call a medium/large Lan, something that was assembled with (hopefully high quality) routers and switches and that was maintained by an engineer/IT specialist. Still, it had from time to time some issue and needed to be checked/repaired (besides audited for security). What will happen when you will have 128 devices in your home? Even if they are the best quality ever seen on earth there will be issues, who will fix them? jaclaz