jaclaz

And now, if you think that your conventional SATA SSD's are fast enough, it's time to get PciE ones that can seemingly run circles around them: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/28/review_kingston_hyperx_predator_hhhl_480gb_pcie_ssd/ These numbers are crazy: Here are the corresponding numbers for the Kingston Savage (said to be among the fastest "conventional SATA" SSD's around: jaclaz

And yet another (though this isn't going to affect the consumer, it is still worth of note): http://www.eweek.com/security/defcon-hackers-tell-how-they-cracked-brinks-safe-in-60-seconds.html jaclaz

This seems like a nice place to post a brand new fake cover. jaclaz

I wasn't meaning "them" as the good MS guys (which obviously have the greatest respect for users preferences/choices ), I was referring to "them" as the intelligence agencies. jaclaz

... I thought that it was about calves and lions.... http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/w/woodyallen136697.html jaclaz

You got it wrong : -Uploader tool: It automagically uploads your documents to an intelligency agency of your their choice, that way bandwidth will be saved. jaclaz @all Let us not mix in the same bag Windows 98/Me with Windows 2K, ok? http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/118097-day-to-day-running-win-9xme-with-more-than-1-gib-ram/?p=1091646 http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/118097-day-to-day-running-win-9xme-with-more-than-1-gib-ram/?p=1091652

MTTF, you keep using that word ... http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/you-keep-using-that-word-i-do-not-think-it-means-what-you-think-it-means Seriously , MTTF is one of the usual meaningless metrics, specifically it tends to be the mean time to failure of something in continuous operation, that may (or may not be) connected to "intermittent operation". Which is very good. ....hoping that tyou first partition and only later format .... Yep, this is exactly what I do the second time my car doesn't start in the morning. Come on , there may be tens of reasons why the issue happened, not necessarily the thingy deserves to be trashed ... jaclaz

Yes, should be the same. You can also try to remove the device and then rescan. jaclaz

Well, to be fair, it had ALREADY been figured out, and found not sounding good: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/172826-windows-10-first-impressions/?p=1102138 http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/06/30/windows_10_wi_fi_sense/ jaclaz

Well, just for the record XP has the same support for "Compressed folders" as Me: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/272996 https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/306531 since the Dunzip32.dll, Dzip32.dll and Zipfldr.dll have the same functionalities in Me and XP. and just for the record, that's the basic idea (mounting to a virtual folder) behind Pismo File Mount : http://www.pismotechnic.com/pfm/ap/ but the mounted zip is read only and anyway it will work fine on XP but not on previous OS's . Also (warning, maybe .Net ): https://mountziplibrary.codeplex.com/ An experiment might be to see if Diskinternals NTFS reader might do (with compressed NTFS): http://www.diskinternals.com/ntfs-reader/ it has a "search feature" for mounted images, but still you need *something* to actually create/write/populate the NTFS (compressed) image(s). Compatible to 98/me there is a Commercial tool: http://www.winarchiver.com/index.htm More loosely what the OP is asking for is a form of Fuse, but the Windows ports (dokan and similar) are AFAIK/AFAICR for 2K/XP and later: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filesystem_in_Userspace jaclaz

Somethign that helps (which you may like or dislike) is to allow Word to show "hidden characters" (this is my default setting, but I am old and used to it). This way you know when to stop selecting. But the real "trick" is to use the keyboard. You start selecting from the end (just before the little circle like character) backwards, actually if you single click on a cell the cursor should get right there. And then you press Shift+Home and select just the text in the cell. On the other hand if you get to the cell using the cursor up/down/left/right you may get to the beginning of the text in the cell, in which case you press Shift+End (and you select the whole cell) then press the Shift+left cursor to select just the text. jaclaz

Well, dismissed or not, it remains the floppy drive. https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/ff544746(v=vs.85).aspx https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/ff544746(v=vs.85).aspx#ddk_example_19_display_the_status_of_related_devices_on_a_remote_compu You can run : devcon disable *PNP0700 jaclaz

ACPI\PNP0700 isn't it the floppy drive? jaclaz

The physicaldrive is seen in Disk Management as Disk #2, but is not seen at all in the batch, most probably because it is "not initialized" . Generally speaking this can be due to two different reasons, an issue of some kind in the USB to SATA bridge inside the enclosure (but that usually should result in showing "no disk") or by a corruption of the disk itself. The disk is actually seen, but it is seen as: 1) Not initialized 2) Not partitioned (unallocated) #1 basically means that the "Magic Bytes" 55AA are missing at the end of the MBR, #2 could be both a consequence of the missing magic bytes or be an additional issue (emptied partition table), both may mean either a minor issue (simply a botched or overwritten MBR) or a hardware issue (disk drive actually failing ). Your next step should be to make a copy of the MBR, a handy tool for this is HdHacker: http://dimio.altervista.org/eng/ you want to copy/backup first sector of the Physicaldrive #2, then compress it in a .zip archive and attach it to your next post, so that I cna have a look at it. Generally speaking, particularly if the partitions were NTFS formatted it should be easy if it's just a corruption issue to re-index them in the MBR. You can also try directly this tool (don't worry, unless you tell it so explicitly it is read-only): http://dmde.com/ Again you want to open the PhysicalDrive #2 and if all the issue is in the MBR corrupted or missing some data, you should be able to see the volumes as in this screenshot: jaclaz

Yeah, sure, as if the good Nvidia guys haven't botched enough systems with their crazy drivers experience. I do understand how since a few years a graphic card is more similar to a "complete" computer than to anything else and that managing the firmware and drivers for it while attemtong to squeeze all the juice from the hardware must be complex, but raise your hand those that have never experienced an issue with Nvidia cards because of the crappy drivers or because they were updated or because they failed to update or updated but removed 1/ to 3/4th if your settings. jaclaz

If the disk is visible in disk manager and you can see in it one or more partition but you cannot access the partition/volume through a drive letter it means that a drive letter has not been assigned to it (for whatever reasons, this could also be a "glitch" in the Registry). Run Mountvol.exe and see if there is any volume to which a letter is not assigned. Drive letters for Explorer use are maintained in a different place than the normal "DosDevices" keys and there are cases where a conflict between a local volume drive letter and network drive letter make the first not visible in Explorer, but id the thingy has not been networked this is not the case. A good idea in order to help troubleshoot the issue would be if you could run my little ddlistw batch here: http://reboot.pro/topic/8219-ddlist-and-ddlistw/ http://reboot.pro/topic/8219-ddlist-and-ddlistw/?p=173100 (which I am also attaching this post) which makes use of dd for windows: http://www.chrysocome.net/dd included in the .zip) and post the output, as this will give us a clear view of partition/volumes/drive letters. Example of output: ddlistwDrives by drive letter:c: 0,1 FIX \Volume{83092730-6bfc-11df-b90c-806d6172696f} \HarddiskVolume1d: 1,1 FIX \Volume{b0b284c4-8a33-11dd-8781-806d6172696f} \HarddiskVolume2e: 3,1 REM \Volume{dcb7316e-341c-11e3-b06c-001fc6bb76ce} \Harddisk3\DP(1)0-0+af: x,x CDR \Volume{c930f56b-520e-11e4-b08b-001fc6bb76ce} \CdRom1g: 4,1 REM \Volume{dcb7316f-341c-11e3-b06c-001fc6bb76ce} \Harddisk4\DP(1)0-0+bh: 5,1 REM \Volume{dcb73170-341c-11e3-b06c-001fc6bb76ce} \Harddisk5\DP(1)0-0+ci: x,x CDR \Volume{80cf88c2-8a34-11dd-813c-806d6172696f} \CdRom0j: 6,1 REM \Volume{dcb73171-341c-11e3-b06c-001fc6bb76ce} \Harddisk6\DP(1)0-0+dk: 2,1 REM \Volume{4ae75ea9-cbde-11e4-b099-001fc6bb76ce} \Harddisk2\DP(1)0-0+9Premere un tasto per continuare . . .Drives by connection:c: 0,1 FIX \Volume{83092730-6bfc-11df-b90c-806d6172696f} \HarddiskVolume1d: 1,1 FIX \Volume{b0b284c4-8a33-11dd-8781-806d6172696f} \HarddiskVolume2k: 2,1 REM \Volume{4ae75ea9-cbde-11e4-b099-001fc6bb76ce} \Harddisk2\DP(1)0-0+9e: 3,1 REM \Volume{dcb7316e-341c-11e3-b06c-001fc6bb76ce} \Harddisk3\DP(1)0-0+ag: 4,1 REM \Volume{dcb7316f-341c-11e3-b06c-001fc6bb76ce} \Harddisk4\DP(1)0-0+bh: 5,1 REM \Volume{dcb73170-341c-11e3-b06c-001fc6bb76ce} \Harddisk5\DP(1)0-0+cj: 6,1 REM \Volume{dcb73171-341c-11e3-b06c-001fc6bb76ce} \Harddisk6\DP(1)0-0+di: x,x CDR \Volume{80cf88c2-8a34-11dd-813c-806d6172696f} \CdRom0f: x,x CDR \Volume{c930f56b-520e-11e4-b08b-001fc6bb76ce} \CdRom1jaclaz ddlistbatch.zip

OT (On Topic ) but OT (Off Topic ) I like this: http://www.infoworld.com/article/2952401/microsoft-windows/windows-10-gets-two-more-patches-kb-3074679-and-kb-3074686.html jaclaz

Well, the KB3061014 https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/3061014 was on revision 3.0 on the 5th of April (or is that the 4th of May?): after (before?) that on April 15 the good MS guys released UPDATE KB2965295 https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/2965295 which is obviously not mentioned and - guess what - botches again the Outlook: https://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/33f220d7-2349-448f-bd2b-a45bf0df0072/updates-break-imap-every-month?forum=outlook I can see how they are actively researching this problem. jaclaz

Just for the record/FYI I had a quick peek at that package (and didn't like what I saw ): http://reboot.pro/topic/20601-win10-downgrade/ jaclaz

JFYI, there are basically three types of .dll's: those that do not need to be registered (and that will throw that error when you attempt to register them) those that should be registered and contain registering info those that should be registered but do not contain registering info (or that contain incomplete registering info as some other setting is needed to have them work as expected, and that I believe may show as well that error, but that anyway won't work rightly if all the settings in Registry are made).Now, still JFYI and only seemingly OT: http://reboot.pro/topic/3717-xpsp1-with-full-commandline-and-ntfs-below-10-mb/?p=154017 jaclaz

@bphlpt Right on the spot. I must have been confusing topics when replying, my bad. The good news being that this is perfectly possible on XP (and Opera with a numebr of tabs open) while it may be a tadbit more complex in a Metro NCI system . jaclaz

Yep that was exactly the point whilst adding to the UEFI NTFS read/write capabilities is IMHO a nice trick, one cannot really-really call the "<drive letter>\Users\[username]\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\Programs\Startup\6To_60S7K_FU06yjEhjh5dpFw96549UU\scout.exe" either "sophisticated", "smart" or "inconspicuous". jaclaz

Well let's not restart the usual flame-war about FAT vs. NTFS , as I see it it is not about which file system is "better" as it doesn't exist a "better" that fits all. NTFS which I personally like and use whenever I can BTW, has a number of features that are simply not needed in a non-corporate, non-multiuser use and is more complex, which on not fast machines often implies a performance penalty. Most probably the *right* file system for non-corporate, non-multiuser, low powered hardware would be exFAT (which not so casually has been "invented" in Windows CE and Windows Phone) particularly in the TexFAT (where the T stands for transactional) version but somehow/for whatever reason the good MS guys seem like having lost interest in it. jaclaz

Well, this could actually be added as a "Pro" here : http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/174112-pros-and-cons-tonight-show-style/ Pro: Norton Antivirus 2014 won't install Con: You will need to find another stupid mass of bloat to slow down your too fast machine and clog your hard disks and Registry jaclaz

%systemDrive% is just an environment variable. The issue is a few layers below, basically the NT OS were initially developed on different hardware (Alpha), and when "ported" to i386 some "over-structures" were needed, as well, most probably, some were added to guarantee pseudo-DOS (and Windows 3.x) compatibility. To these over the years some other over-structures were added and since most of them were not documented properly a lot of third parties used (and still use) some "problematic" ways to address devices/partitions/volumes. Of these the "least reliable" (but "most used") is actually the DosDevice drive letter. Even MS themselves committed the same errors, in NT 4.00 changing drive letter was easy, in Windows 2000 the same methods already did not work anymore, because MS introduced in the Registry a link to an essential file in the early booting phase using the drive letter: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/249321 JFYI: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/90495-change-boot-drive-letter-for-system-partition/ the design "flaws" include the (otherwise plain enough) .lnk files (that make use of drive letters and need attention in case of a drive letter change) and the general lack of a single, definite approach to identifying a device or a partition/voluime, read these: http://reboot.pro/topic/20240-how-to-get-partitions-path-in-command-prompt/ http://reboot.pro/topic/10169-resolvedmount-hidden-partition-command-line-possible/ to understand by example how every subsystem or tool may call the same object in different ways. The mechanism with which Volume ID's are assigned/created is scarcely documented and due to the way it is implemented it is prone to possible errors, the ARC PATH remains a good way to address a partition/volume, but would need to be updated to include the disk signature (since disk order is not anymore as "fixed" or as "predictable" as it was in early NT versions on or old hardware). The drive letter assignment being (senselessly) in the Registry is one of the reasons why even a minor issue with the System hive may make a NT system unbootable and the way devices are addressed as NT objects (try running Winobj and you will see how there is another "layer" of device/partitions/volumes ID's) is still something not entirely/fully documented AFAIK. Still JFYI: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/ff567603(v=vs.85).aspx https://morgansimonsen.wordpress.com/2009/01/26/displaying-the-volume-guid-of-a-volume/ http://stackoverflow.com/questions/39771/is-a-guid-unique-100-of-the-time jaclaz P.S.: @All, while it is perfectly possible that Windows 8/8.1/10 have introduced some added limitations (I strogly doubt that this hapened for Windows 8/8.1, it is more probable that something was introduced - maybe - in Windows 10), I can assure you that up to Windows 7 there are NO ISSUES whatsoever in running on a non-C: drive letter, with the exception - of course - for the need of some added care with (badly written) installers like Tripredacus mentioned.