jaclaz

Surely an external firewall would do nicely, I don't think that a DNS service in it is actually *needed*. From what NoelC reports: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/174264-experimenting-with-windows-firewall-to-block-by-default/ http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/174417-sphinx-windows-er-10-firewall-control/ the "internal" firewall seems to work fine (i.e. it is seemingly not bypassed), still an external one would be IMHO more reliable. The real issue is that apart the (incomplete) data we have about the exact nature of all the "phoning home" whatever is or will be (finally) discovered is anyway subject to changes that the good MS guys can trigger remotely through an update or some other means, while the internal firewall (and each and every policy/registry setting/etc.) may be subject to changes the external firewall should be exempt from it (of course it needs anyway need to be attentively monitored as the actual list of "contact IP" may change anytime) but in theory one would need to have some form of packet detection and filtering. Now, one could imagine (fictional, hypothetic) that MS acquires 365 IP's in *random* countries and that each morning provides an "update" that changes the IP that the Windows 10 OS connects to, it would become a nightmare to keep the firewall rules "current". jaclaz

Well, that seems like not related to the actual OS but rather some kind of "queer" behaviour of the firmware (BIOS or UEFI), I mean a partition is ether active (0x80 in the boot field in partition table) or it is not (0x00 in that same field). Though the BIOS you change the "boot from" disk, and it should read whatever is actually written in the partition table of the selected disk. You could try to add to the Windows 10 a BOOT.INI invoking grub4dos (and of course add grldr on the SSD) and try if by booting through it (without changing anything in BIOS) the problem remains (since the actual "Active" flag in the MBR is bypassed entirely it shouldn't). jaclaz

Sure, on sunday they are unlikely, buit you can still access a recap of the week and you could have watched the new MS commercials for Windows 10 instead of TV: http://www.winbeta.org/news/windows-10-news-recap-threshold-2-ui-refinements-new-ads-and-more Meet Tadala, Patrick, Leena and another bunch of nice kids . jaclaz

Meanwhile Mozilla has much more attention to privacy (or maybe not ), old article (WARNING: Ed Bott ): http://www.zdnet.com/article/mozilla-abandons-firefox-tracking-protection-initiative/ ... some older news: http://www.zdnet.com/article/mozilla-to-deliver-ads-in-its-firefox-browser/ actual news: http://www.zdnet.com/article/mozilla-gets-built-in-firebox-advertising-rolling/ jaclaz

I am not sure to understand. The good ol' 2K either boots or it doesn't. WHAT problem did you find? HOW exactly are you booting it (in your dual boot setup)? If "NTLDR entry" in \boot\BCD then maybe you can use a bootsector loading directly NTLDR instead of going through BOOTMGR to chainload NTLDR. jaclaz

Well, someone needs to explicit the calculation, let's see if the math is correct: XP (please read as 2K with some added bells and whistles) functionality=100 effort=100 Vista (roughly after 1 to 2 - ONE to TWO years later) functionality= 100*1.50= 150 effort=100*1.50= 150 7 (please read as Vista SP3) functionality=150*1.20= 180 effort=150*1.00= 150 8 N/A 8.1 (one year later) functionality=180*1.05= 189 effort=150*1.50= 225 10 (another year later) functionality=189*1.00= 189 effort=225*1.50= 337.50 Now if we call overall efficiency the ratio between functionality and effort we have: XP 100/100=1 Vista 150/150=1 (but after a LOT of time since release) 7 180/150= 1.20 8 N/A 8.1 189/225=0.84 10 189/337.50= 0.56 Now besides NoelC's requirements (that may be "niche") are the "bunch of things" he doesn't want or need increase functionality enough to reach the 1.20 (or even the 1.00) efficiency ratio of 7 or XP? jaclaz

Maybe you were meaning "a decent machine for running Windows 10"? jaclaz

To be fair , dhjohns did not actually call your post "funny", he expressed the concept that you are "a very funny man". And yes , I could have made a career as appeaser.... jaclaz

Yes and no. Meaning that in theory the mechanism that bypasses the hosts file is (seemingly) limited to a handful of MS addresses connected or related to Windows Update. If you see it objectively, there are some grounds for thinking that the maker of the OS has made a provision that in case a malware compromising the hosts file would not affect the possibility to connect to a trusted source (that may actually contain a hotfix/update capable of recovering from the issue that malware caused). Now the point might be that noone has any idea what exactly is transmitted to (and received from) any of these servers (both those that can be "stopped" through the hosts file and those that are hardcoded) and whether the *whatever* that "phones home" will not be changed in any moment, remotely and with or without user consent, there is a precedent also for this: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/174412-looks-to-me-like-win-10-will-top-out-at-about-10-adoption/#entry1107817 jaclaz

The second you said. A certain number of domains/web addresses are hardcoded in Windows binaries and by-pass the hosts file, this is a known fact since 2006 or so (embedded in DNSAPI.DLL): http://reboot.pro/topic/20622-windows-10-enterprise-ltsb-mother-of-all-tweak-scripts/?p=194235 If and where there are other DLL's or other files including more "hardcoded" addresses specifically in Windows 10 is not (yet) clear AFAIK. jaclaz

... and not so surprisingly.... http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2015/09/10/california_gov_jerry_brown_vetoes_bill_to_stop_drones_from_flying_over_private.html jaclaz

... quoting myself : Well, what can possibly go wrong? http://privacysos.org/node/1813 Original article: https://digboston.com/license-to-connive-boston-still-tracks-vehicles-lies-about-it-and-leaves-sensitive-resident-data-exposed-online/ I like it's closing words. jaclaz

Only seemingly waaaay OT : http://swaldman.dreamwidth.org/352778.html People may not be actually lazy and stupid, but certainly there are marketing geniuses that believe this. How d@mn stupid can it be to provide a USB device that takes control of your machine issuing keyboard commands? Let's put aside the hypothetical security risks involved (in the case of an intentionally maliciously programmed device), how would you like that a stupid USB stick starts your browser and points it to a given page? jaclaz

Well, there is a "large hole" in what can be found on Wayback Machine, oldest version you can find is: https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.sysinternals.com/Files/Autoruns.zip https://web.archive.org/web/20040915000000*/http://www.sysinternals.com/Files/Autoruns.zip Version is 5,01 or 5.10. Here you can find an approximated correspondence of versions with dates: http://www.ilsoftware.it/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=26293 jaclaz

Hmmm. It is seemingly a known issue with a number of HP laptops (not connected only to XP but also to 7) and even - incredibly - also to 8 32 bit version, see: http://h30434.www3.hp.com/t5/Notebook-Operating-Systems-and-Software/Installed-memory-4GB-932MB-Usable/td-p/2552171 http://h30434.www3.hp.com/t5/Notebook-Operating-Systems-and-Software/Hardware-reserved-memory-in-Hp-pavillion-g6-2225tu-in/td-p/2489207 From what I can understand the core issue is a mis-setting *somewhere* in BIOS (or UEFI, *whatever*) that makes a large part of the memory "hardware reserved". It is possible (but you will need to find the specific model updated BIOS download page) that an updated working BIOS exists *like*: http://h30434.www3.hp.com/t5/Notebook-Operating-Systems-and-Software/usable-memory-less-than-physical-memory/td-p/3072179 And of course, even if an updated BIOS exists and you have no issues in flashing it (which is in itself a "risky" operation), there is no real guarantee that it will work with XP also. jaclaz

This should be 8.31: https://web.archive.org/web/20051101093236/http://www.sysinternals.com/Files/Autoruns.zip jaclaz

Option #2 here?: http://www.sevenforums.com/tutorials/91738-windows-update-reset.html https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/971058 jaclaz

I am not sure to understand which problem you found. Where did you get the self-installing executable from? Have you actually installed it (to - say - C:\UBCD4WIN\ ), EXACTLY following the instructions: http://www.ubcd4win.org/howto.htm If I recall correctly the "UBCD4WinBuilder.exe" is generated "dynamically" at install time. Which OS are you running (and where you intend to run the tool)? jaclaz

You need SP4 at least to access a 2K/XP NTFS, there was a change in NTFS structures at the time: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/169500-chkdsk-refuses-to-check-ntfs-volume-under-windows-nt-40/ And if you need to defrag a FAT volume and you are OK with rebooting, this would be a nice project to play with (plug ): http://reboot.pro/topic/17807-release-cosmias-a-new-approach-to-g4d-images/ more or less the only actual COSMIAS project/tool in existence: http://reboot.pro/topic/17807-release-cosmias-a-new-approach-to-g4d-images/?p=168095 jaclaz

I don't get it. What is the problem/doubt/whatever? Are you going to use a domain? Maybe you need to start again from the basics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roaming_user_profile Unless there are valid reasons to use roaming profiles are not "easy" to setup and maintain and usually they end up in issues with this or that tool or program or app, and anyway they may represent a feature on "fixed" installs, not on something that you go around with. jaclaz

Try DIRMS: http://www.dlugosz.com/tools/dirms/ http://wayback.archive.org/web/20051031202246/http://www.dirms.com/home/docs/dirms1.asp Last freeware version should be 1.2.20, included in the UBCD4WIN: http://www.ubcd4win.org/contents.htm Maybe it works on your OS. jaclaz

Hardly "queer", it is actually one of the features of Sysprep. A few links: https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb897418.aspx http://blogs.technet.com/b/markrussinovich/archive/2009/11/03/3291024.aspx http://www.stratesave.com/html/sidchg.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_experiment jaclaz

Well it is seemingly a misconfigured \boot\BCD and most probably the root of it is that you re-installed the Windows 7 on the SSD while the HDD was connected and some "automatic" settings were applied, including (possibly) a "wrong" drive letter assignment and the misconfigured \boot\BCD. Disconnect the HDD. Repair the Windows 7 on SSD (from a DVD installation disk or bootable USB). Everything should return to "normal". Verify that the computer boots form the SSD install fine, then re-add the HDD. jaclaz

Hmmm. said by whom/where? I guess we must draw a line somewhere. Windows 7 "to go" does not exist (as a "product" by MS). ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Windows 8 "to go" does exist (as a "product" by MS) A number of tools/sites/whatever will mix together a "portable" Windows with the "to go". You won' t AFAIK find HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\PortableOperatingSystem in a Windows 7 (or it will be ineffective). All your doubts/questions seem to me revolving around the same one "Will it work as intended?" The differences between WTG creator and "plain" commands can be derived from here, where the two methods are described : http://social.technet.microsoft.com/wiki/contents/articles/6991.windows-to-go-step-by-step.aspx (this is "direct", no VHD involved) Create two of them, one with the WTG creator and one with given set of commands, then compare the result to see if you can find any difference between the two. jaclaz

I am naive, then , as there is very little that should be as private as correspondence. And e-mail is a modern form of correspondence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secrecy_of_correspondence What the good MS guys are trying to do however is not connected with liberty or freedom or privacy but rather with the simple fact that the day they loose on that case (that specifically is related to illegal drug dealings so t could be seen as a "good thing" overall) they (not only MS, also any other US established firm) will also probably loose customers en masse. jaclaz