jaclaz

Possibly you need to start the VBS by using cscript.exe or wscript.exe in the command line : http://ss64.com/vb/cscript.html https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb490816.aspx jaclaz

Related: http://www.viola-notes.com/why-resistance-to-ad-blocking-is-futile-and-whats-next-for-digital-advertising/ jaclaz

Good , though I have a friend of a second cousin that told to me how in his experience NTFS was faster. The point I was trying to make was that there are a large number of settings and conditions that may make the one (or the other) filesystem a little faster than the other, there are no real "absolute" winners on small sized volumes, there is a 32 GB FAT32 size limit imposed by MS on XP that may (or may not) have its reasons but talking about 20 Gb or less that one does not apply. Only as an example, disabling Last Access writes on NTFS: https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc959914.aspx will speed up a number of operations sensibly. As well, properly aligning the data may give benefits to both NTFS (as under XP the data is by default unaligned to cluster size) and FAT32 (which normally has data never aligned to cluster size, though it may happen by pure chance that the default partitioning/formatting create the filesystem "aligned") but this speed increase (or lack thereof) depends also on the actual hard disk and controller and driver used. jaclaz

One does it "properly". http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/moving_xp.html More or less the general idea is to "force" the "existing" install (on a working machine) to be as "generic" as possible (and this in some cases is not even possible because of this or that BIOS or hardware limitation). If you think a bit about it when deploying the "key" step is the syprep or "generalizing" step (which apply both to good ol' XP and to the new .wim based OS's), the good news (actually not really news) being that a tool to do "ofline sysprepping" exists: http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showforum=43 Mind you far form being "perfect" or "really universal" but working flawlessly in most cases. jaclaz

There is no real overhead (actually there is, but it is nullified by the slowness of the FAT32 filesystem driver - or if you prefer by the efficiency of the NTFS drivers) and a whole lot of other factors (actual disk make/model, i.e. onboard cache size, actual bus type, actual disk driver used, filesystem offset, and a number of other settings in the OS) may affect the performance of either the FAT32 or NTFS filesystem, as hopefully explained here: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/156829-hdd-performance-allocation-unit-size/?p=999050 (and given links) Usually NONE of these can be appreciated in real world usage (whilst they may be measurable through benchmarks or other specific testing tools). jaclaz

Well, this may depend on WHAT (exactly) you tried and HOW (exactly) you tried them. If you used any of the seemingly easy "automagic" apps that promise to recover everything, it is very possible that they simply did not work because the "whatever" happened to your disk(s) is "outside" the scope/ability of the tool. On the other hand, if you made attempts with actuall "good" tools like TESTDISK or DMDE what exactly you did with them (or how exactly you used them) makes a difference between total failure and complete success. Start again with the Standard Litany: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/problem-report-standard-litany.html Describe in detail your environment (running OS) how the disk(s) were partitioned (as far as you can remember) the exact make/model of the disks, etc. It is extremely rare that a NTFS filesystem (particularly one that was used as a backup media, which usually tend to provoke little or no fragmentation) cannot be recovered, if needed at least with a file based recovery. A good idea (if you can do this) is to rule out the USB controller/converter/case and directly connect the hard disk to the (I have to guess SATA) bus of a machine. jaclaz

Well still a line should be drawn. One thing is the (evident) fact that the "monster" released on july 29th is far from being a "finished" product. In due time surely the good MS guys will fix the issues, most probably not at first try, but eventually everything will work as designed/intended. The other thing (the real issue) is the design/project. This latter won't change and is (and will remain) terrible . jaclaz

Oh, noes , NOT AGAIN. Maybe, just maybe, you are starting to make this a tad bit (please read as largely) repetitive: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/174440-primary-os-as-a-portable-windows-windowstogo-on-vhd-–-doing-it-the-right-way/ (besides all the posts on the Wintsetup thread and other threads here and on other boards) Try doing a few builds at random and compare them, then choose one that provides you the "best" result (according to you), and then IF you find in one of them a flaw (or something that similarly you do not like) then you may well ask for support for that specific build. There is NOT a "best" way or a "best" tool, and anyway suggestions will largely be by people that have NOT tested all the ways/tools you listed, most people wanting to build a "portable Windows" of some kind try just one method and if it works won't test other ones, and the final result will be the same or mostly the same whatever tool/builder you use: it is the final result that either satisfies your requirements or that does not. Just do it. jaclaz

In the meantime XKCD found a nice solution for drone regulation issues : http://xkcd.com/1523/ 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