jaclaz

Well, if you are using anything but Opera (Mini) on Android, you simply have the "wrong" browser . http://www.opera.com/mobile/mini/android jaclaz

But on which OS? Some Linux? And why necessarily using dd? What you want, more loosely, is to make each file one byte longer than what it is (the added byte will be a 0x00) i.e. to extend it's size, which is normally done with the (not particularly intuitively named ) truncate command: http://linux.die.net/man/1/truncate truncate --size=+1 <filename> or truncate --s +1 <filename> should do. Should be faster than dd. jaclaz

LIkely (but wait for a second opinion by someone more familiar with that thingy) the related settings are in M.I.T. (whatever that means) under: Advanced Memory Settings and under: DRAM Timing Selectable and only IF Quick or Expert modes are selected: Channel Interleaving Rank Interleaving http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/answers/id-2629982/enabling-dual-channel-gigabyte-970a-d3p-mobo-8gb-ram.html All in all, my advice is to leave the whole thing on Auto and experiment with just the: jaclaz

Very likely you get to the UEFI firmware (which is not the BIOS). I know it is confusing , but to clarify (hopefully ) any motherboard has a firmware. Traditionally this firmware was a BIOS. Nowadays the firmware is more likely to be a UEFI. Most UEFI's also a have a CSM (Compatibility Support Mode) which is actually a BIOS . Gigabyte (and it's trademarks 3D BIOS and DualBIOS) is adding to the confusion. In a nutshell it is not that you missed anything in the last few years , UEFI (and the specific Gigabyte's 3D BIOS and DualBIOS approach) are relatively recent. jaclaz

Well, but neither will *any* other tool, when you select multiple files in a GUI program like 7-zip you are simply piping sequentially the filenames list to the tool. The difference (in command line usage) may be that 7-zip allows wildcards, and uniextract doesn't. On the other hand uniextract has the (nice) /sub parameter that in some cases is very convenient. A one-liner *like* (say): FOR %A IN (*.zip) DO uniextract %A /subcan hardly be called "a batch file", but uniextract would anyway use the command line version of 7-zip for .zip files, so normally the "right" way is to use 7-zip (either GUI or command line). jaclaz

The issue is not with AMI, it is with your motherboard manufacturer. You are not a customer of American Megatrends, you are a customer of the guys from which you bought the product, i.e. the motherboard manufacturer, Gigabyte in your case. It would not be the first (nor the last) time that a board manufacturer has modified the AMI Bios to adapt it to a given motherboard, sometimes removing whole sets of customizations from the menu. If you specify/detail the EXACT specific model of your motherboard, maybe it is possible to provide you some more targeted assistance. jaclaz

Now I see. My bad , I somehow missed the "server" in your post . The .cab's are 2 Mb each of course (2048000 bytes) and seemingly the contents are the same as the original Windows 95 iso, the ones with timestamp 1995-07-11 09:50:00: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/135540 ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/MISC1/peropsys/WINDOWS/KB/Q135/5/40.TXT as the "normal" .iso, in practice you have WIN95_02.CAB to WIN95_17.CAB instead of the WIN95_02.CAB to WIN95_28.CAB that was used for the later OEM2/OSR2 release, the around 1680 Kb cab size: ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/misc1/PEROPSYS/WINDOWS/KB/Q158/1/90.TXT derived, if I recall correctly, by the use of the floppy install version that used the non-standard floppy filesystem (the infamous DMF format): http://www.winimage.com/wimushlp/wini1a1y.htm jaclaz

All these years wasted in the belief that command line/batch would allow using a tool like UniExtract on multiple files easily.... http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/173484-command-line/ jaclaz

If you are talking of the (otherwise very nice and much beloved) family dog that kept us (my wife and me) all night awake because there was a thunderstorm *somewhere nearby* ("nearby" here, as defined by the mentioned dog means approximately *anything within 200 Km radius*[1]) I wonder how I can actually enforce the contract provision and have the nice F-Secure guys take her with them. I may even give them a monthly fee for this service. Today I could have actually signed that agreement after having read it very accurately. :angrym: jaclaz [1] I quickly checked and it seems there was mild raining in an area no less than 150 Km from home.

Which motherboard make/model? The setting could be labeled "DRAM Bus selection" on AMI Bios, as an example check the Asrock 775 Dual VSTA manual (a rather "old" board) : http://www.asrock.com/mb/VIA/775Dual-VSTA/ http://www.asrock.com/mb/VIA/775Dual-VSTA/?cat=Manual jaclaz

You do understand that you are describing NT 4 or Windows 2000 before it "evolved" into XP, don't you? jaclaz

Had what? Any doc/detail about this? jaclaz

Still OT, but not much, it seems that after all also good ol' XP is becoming SAAS (at least for the time being and for a few people) : http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2015/06/25/navy_pays_microsoft_9_1_million_to_continue_supporting_windows_xp.html Besides the "Navy" news, I find this interesting: since in about a month time (or a little bit more) we will have no more 8/8.1 meaningful/relevant data (I forecast something like maybe the current around 2% Vista has right now ) and most probably a sensible reduction of 7 installs (all the pople that will have been tricked into the Windows 10 free upgrade transformation ). I expect that by the end of August (or as soon as the data for it will be available on netmarketshare and similar) a lot of people will tag Windows 10 as "the OS that overtook XP" (instead of "the OS that definitely killed 8/8.1"). jaclaz

Well, it seems like the Weather App is not among the worst things around, check here: http://thedailywtf.com/articles/you-re-welcome- scroll down to the Samsung related snippet. ph34r: jaclaz

Some news: http://azure.microsoft.com/blog/2015/06/23/docker-and-microsoft-announce-more-innovation-to-cross-platforms-and-win-hearts jaclaz

Interesting way to depict the situation , though I have to object on the use of "needed", it should be more like "limit" in the sense of "maximum possible at the level of our knowledge" we could use "tested" in your case where you threw at the thingies the more you could, which is very good but that possibly is not "enough" in the sense that you have still some little things that you would like to better but that have no means to implement to get closer to your perfection ideal. Then by extension, let's see what happens if NO tweaks are applied (i.e. the experience of the common, average, user/customer): XP - Tweak effort needed tested: 0, resultant value: 5.9 Vista - Tweak effort needed tested: 0, resultant value 4 <- This is Vista "as released" and on the (crappy) hardware it was released initially. Win 7 - Tweak effort needed tested:0, resultant value 6.5 <- This also apply to Vista SP2, which BTW for some aspects is even better than 7 Win 8.1 - Tweak effort needed tested: 0, resultant value 5 Win 10 - Tweak effort needed tested: 0, resultant value 4 <- this applies to the beta's it is entirely possible that the final release will get a much better rating, like 4.1 jaclaz

OT , but not much , someone has discovered that visually differentiating (optionally) the program window in focus from the other windows opened in the background helps in "getting rid of distractions and focus on current task": https://hazeover.com/ jaclaz

Yep , though maybe now a tadbit "dated". JFYI there were some news on the topic: http://reboot.pro/topic/19929-make-ramdisks-even-faster/ And, though IMDISK is not among the faster ones, through the IMDISK Toolkit: http://reboot.pro/topic/18324-imdisk-toolkit/ the issue of automatically backing up contents at shutdown have been recently solved (among other features, more image formats. etc.) jaclaz

And, just for the record: http://reboot.pro/topic/5497-ms-dos-71/ jaclaz

Heck , more, much more than that! I am an old, grumpy and cheap bastard, but not that cheap. I still have (some remnants of) a dignity Sorry, but IMHO you are mis-perceiving the reality: they did not. The fact that they implemented anything that you suggested is a mere coincidence, whenever something appeared to have gone through it was just because it overlapped with the contents of their (immutable) agenda. jaclaz

Happy you found those useful, and now, for no apparent reason: http://sourceforge.net/projects/vdos/ jaclaz

Let's clear this aspect , you get payed ONLY AFTER I have been paid , provided that MS has any money left . jaclaz

7.1 is 7.10 as much as 7.0 is 7.00, both do not "exist" the 7.00 (or 7.0 is the same) is the DOS underlying the first release of Windows 95 or Windows 95 A, the 7.1 (or 7.10 is the same) is the DOS underlying the later windows 95 and 98 releases. Wiindows ME has underlying a DOS 8.0 (or 8.00 is the same). No version of DOS past 6.22 were ever releases by MS as a "self standing" OS: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=MS-DOS try running VER at the command prompt: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ver_(command) http://www.robvanderwoude.com/ver.php You could not at the time buy a box like this one: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Microsoft-MS-DOS-6-22-Upgrade-PC-1994-Factory-Sealed-/400936061362?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item5d59a6c9b2 but with DOS 7.0 or 7.1 in/on it. jaclaz

I really cannot see how and where I have insulted you. Should I have done so or should you perceive anything I wrote on this thread as an insult to you , I wish to assure you that it was unintentional and I apologize for it. My intention was to jokingly remark about the "tradition" where on *any* question BATCH related on MSFN usually Gunsmokingman provides a (usually very good) Visual Basic Script alternative, and how in this case where it was not possible because the DOS (7.1 or otherwise) does not have VBS, you (nicely) provided a Quick Basic (valid) alternative, effectively taking the role that Gunsmokingman has in the "tradition". jaclaz

Sure , and most probably, at a confidence level of (IMHO) 95% (i.e. very high) this represents the actual truth , the point I was raising was on the methodology, not on the results. You have a 21 to 23 ratio (which in statistics means 50%, not "most" or "some") situation in which at least one relevant part of the sample is inherently prone to be biased and this part (IF it is actually biased) is so relevant to undermine the whole procedure and results, 9 out of 23 is almost 40%. If you apply a wrong methodology and by pure chance you get a correct result, the result remains correct and the method remains incorrect. AND, JFYI, coffee does help in NOT lying : http://www.kenan-flagler.unc.edu/news/2014/04/Sleep-study-release jaclaz