jaclaz

Yep and BTW there is an unwritten "standard" by watchmakers along which photos of watches and clocks (for advertisements, catalogs, etc) are always taken with the hands on ten minutes past ten. jaclaz

The good thing about different points of view is all in this . All I can see is a L (does it stand for "Loser"? ) inside a circle (not properly centered/aligned, but this is I believe pretty much normal with Windows fonts and rendering ). jaclaz

Usually I open the window and appreciate the outside temperature through my factory built-in (thanks mom/dad ) sensors, it takes only a few milliseconds using fuzzy logic , ultimately classifying the climate along human readable tags, you know,something like, windy, cold, warm, hot, freezing, etc. and in case of need getting an analog accessory (such as a jacket or a raincoat) with me BEFORE going for the walk outside. Surprisingly to do all the above I don't really need an internet connection, nor being connected to mains, and not even a battery. jaclaz

A visit to weather.com seems to do it for me. More traditionally, I just look outside the window . It's raining right now and I need not to send to some unknown server on the internet my approximate geolocation to have back a lousy picture of a cloud with some drops and possibly a lightning, I can observe those instantly, in real time and in a 1:1 scale. jaclaz

Yep , but on simple setup (and as well on extremely complex one) you can well simply format the volume before or however MANUALLY select it. More or less it is a generic point about "responsability", if you manually select a "wrong" disk or volume, it's your fault, while if - for any reason, even in an extremely rare or "queer" setup - the program automatically chooses a "wrong" disk or volume everyone will be after JFX. jaclaz

Sure , what could possibly go wrong on a multi-disk and/or multi-partitioned system? jaclaz

Well, graphs are nice , but what really counts is comments about them . It is clear that for the first time on 27 th September Windows 10 (briefly) surpassed XP in use. It cannot be underestimated the relevance of this information , it tells us how great this success is , in only two months the new, groundbreaking modern OS has managed to overtake the deprecated, unsupported since 1 and a half years, OS that MS attempted to kill in every possible way (+1) and all this through only gently pushing to every 7 and 8/8.1 user the new OS for free. jaclaz

I like the concept of "vague dread of a malicious world" : http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/rinesi20150925 The price of the Internet of Things will be a vague dread of a malicious world jaclaz

As a side note, what could go wrong with automatic updates? Of course nothing, as the updates are carefully managed and pushed/made available to Windows Update by the good MS guys, there is no way that could become an issue. Or maybe not http://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-accidentally-issued-a-test-windows-update-patch/ And - to be fair - it is impossible that someone apart the good Google guys can legitimately buy and possess the google.com domain, even if for a minute only, right? http://finance.yahoo.com/news/guy-bought-google-com-google-230510405.html Given that a mistake can be made by anyone, and apart from (possible but most probably unfounded) suspects of "evil" intentions, would you really trust these guys with all your personal data? 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