jaclaz

Sfor used an EeePC with some degrees of success, see the dedicated thread here: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/122401-asus-eee-pc-and-windows-9x/ though a 900 not a 1000, but maybe you can find something of use there. jaclaz

We do have a thread where reports about this kind of bridges/adapters/converters are given, I don' think that any (older) BIOS or OS (2K or XP) have any way to "distinguish" a SSD from a "normal" hard disk, at least for "normal" 2.5" SSD's: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/152483-sata-to-ide-adapters-whichwhatwhy/ See particularly this report of success from Tomasz86 http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/152483-sata-to-ide-adapters-whichwhatwhy/?p=982862 Unless the mSATA ones have something different. @Comos If I were you I would try the 44 pin to SATA adapter with a conventional 2.5" SATA hard disk first. This way you take out of the equation - temporarily - the SATA to mSATA adapter, though that should be I believe a totally passive adapter, and the SSD. Still just like it is unfortunately common enough with SATA cables, the SATA/msata adapter may be part of the problem. About the IDE interface, it is entirely possible that Pin 34 for *whatever* reasons is intended to be (as originally was) not connected, and the problem is due to that. The Pin 34 is connected to ground (but not connected to any wire) inside the BLUE connector of a 80 wire cable (the connector that is inserted on the motherboard) : http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/if/ide/confCable80-c.html it is used as a sort of "enabler" for any Ultra DMA mode above 2. As well it is possible that the IDE 44 pin cable you are using has simply not the "quality" needed for faster Ultra Dma. If there is the space , you could try something like this: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Sintech-SATA-to-44pin-mini-IDE-adapter-5CM-44pin-IDE-cable-SATA-22pin-cable-M-F-/320999150606?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4abd0a540e where the 44 pin cable is very short. Check also the IDE/SATA adapter settings (if any) to those apply the same kind of issues about master/slave vs. cable select that have populated our nightmares in the good ol' times of IDE.... jaclaz

@submix8c The one you post is partially unreadable, but on the orignal registration page: http://www.wincert.net/forum/index.php?app=core&module=global&section=register if you try a few times to refresh clicking on this button: you can usually get two readable words in a few attempts. (but I don't see the large B/W dots like in your image, maybe it is a browser difference?) Example of one image: http://www.google.com/recaptcha/api/image?c=03AHJ_Vuvx0kgr3DfkD8fw9eYuh3sSgRifbSWI8U-PcsyzbhT3gKcaTR4N7h6RyVjAOGCEiQsLZEoGmITMf4ilSV0X46smJEWO68MzKT_klCUzX7IDyP90qCoP5pWpGBWjZmaumwSCAgNMXuOPYuJGuXyRTcV_nkfqdrVt5zg-6roToDouEtiBJnIOeUNnsTYmrqfeDxbaCza6tc3GbIx6w7Umh4CGQ-4TWa2isYgLZbGEq9jdNlZkfWXdX_w6M5ptSsRLScfkcorb&th=,rl-wC5J7j9XFV5u22rgzod7OqTPwAAAAKaAAAAAG2AC4qHU_qgfHHNH1RTjjaJ8EmrGN6cVUGOWz7b7_pgaN1ZrT7vqbl4dS5DDAvKNiBh64laCPVaElsa1swkQfWqGMWL9MC7GhT1lKtg-mX4G68jsWOMsNZq8iqfWlyfpFlFC14N3jeaZu2D1dB6vMVUDD8hkmoZSIjiu7Lfsimlk-XCTctiWkmyA5Bt4uoyHkVrcXVGepeizNc5DJMJON92DU8hQvkx62wjHGrfsXT3_QIHtl0s8YYsXrWA.jpg for nAversb jaclaz

No. Meaning that the switch between internal and external monitor is at BIOS level, so there is surely a way to set the laptop to boot outputting to the external monitor. The keys to switch between internal and external (like Fn+F6 or similar) should work anyway. There are several ways (to edit an offline registry manually), the point is that they won't likely be of any use (if the scope is to use a malware analyzer that - usually - only works properly from the "live", "booted" system). If you intend to use an anti-malware tool capable of "offline" scanning, then of course you can remove the disk drive physically and connect it to another computer directly (I am assuming SATA) or through an USB adapter. Or, if you boot this other computer from a PE, there are tools like Runscanner designed to automate the mounting of the offline Registry hives. jaclaz

Well the actual point is that EVEN IF such handy little button will be showcased in many situation it is VERY likely to fail to restore the previous OS properly, particularly, consider all the people that had originally 8 and that later upgraded to 8.1, a restore from (say) the OEM recovery partition (which surely was not updated) will bring back 8 (and not 8.1) a "system backup" whilst it may restore to a 8.1, will need a lot of space (that most people won't have), those with one of the small tablets with 8.1 and Wimboot have actually Wimboot systems because they have no storage, etc., etc. Add to this all the possible conflicts with user installed software or partially "botched" systems (imagine as an example that a "common user" has currently deactivated partially - unwantingly - the WMI subsystem though his/her system is running fine in day to day operation and the handy little button actually needs a particular WMI query to succeed...). So, personally I would not trust (as I never do) any such automagic tools (even IF they will be provided) and I would go for a "bare metal recovery" capable solution, imaging the current OS as is before starting the update (but his will require some storage space, some knowledge and also some patience, somwthing that many people do not have). I would like to re-state how: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/172826-windows-10-first-impressions/page-36#entry1100580 the numbers are so big that even a teeny-tiny unsuccessful rate of this hypothetical handy little button may bring down millions of machines (and Myrphy's Law is ALWAYS around to prove itself right once again). While I sincerely wish everyone to have a successful upgrade I would strongly suggest everyone to use the remaining days to prepare a "Plan B" of some kind. jaclaz

You have to understand that a PE is NOT a "full OS" (and as a matter of fact it is not licensed to run as one and additionally it will by default reboot after 72 hours). Among the differences between a "full OS" and a PE is the automatic assignment of X: as a drive letter to the volume that hosts the PE. It can be changed, see: http://reboot.pro/topic/15199-how-to-change-default-boot-drive-letter-x/ http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/149173-winpe-with-systemroot-on-c-or-anything/ see also: http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=24365 though there will be more paths to be changed in the Registry. jaclaz

More generally when doing computer archeology, you must always think at the exact time context. Example: Did (say) quake 2 run well under Windows 98 on (say) 15th January 2001? If yes, *anything* published after the 15th January 2001 (every single patch, program or "update") is NOT necessary to run it (and while it may be absolutely OK it may well create an issue or conflict of some kind). jaclaz

Just for the record, Paint Shop Pro is exactly one of those programs that (senselessly) fiddle with something they shouldn't (namely some areas of the Registry) the same issue happens on XP if the user has not Administrator credentials: http://www.realmtech.net/forum/164 different version may need further "fixes", see also: http://www.sevenforums.com/system-security/59871-giving-up-uac-2.html#post540567 Set aside the discussion on UAC (which is mostly a nuisance IMHO and BTW) over the years third party programmers have (sometimes induced by the poor, incomplete and sometimes deceiving documentation by MS, sometimes by sheer stupidity or by excess of self-esteem/mania of grandeur) abused of the Registry contributing to making it the mess it often becomes. jaclaz

Good , to be picky, personally I wouldn't trust much hardcoded paths, particularly the "C:\Program Files (x86)" one, del "%~dpnx0"should be more "flexible". jaclaz

OT (but not much) interesting article: http://techcrunch.com/2015/06/06/the-online-privacy-lie-is-unraveling/ and original study in .pdf: https://www.asc.upenn.edu/sites/default/files/TradeoffFallacy_1.pdf jaclaz

Well, then you might enjoy this .pdf about hacking an Iodd/Zalman Ve-400 encryption: https://www.sstic.org/media/SSTIC2015/SSTIC-actes/hardware_re_for_software_reversers/SSTIC2015-Article-hardware_re_for_software_reversers-czarny_rigo.pdf I guess the moral is that sometimes it is not important where you go but rather the path that you choose to get there ... jaclaz

I am failing to see the interesting part. Nothing has seemingly changed, there was only a hiccup in interpreting the logs, soon reviewed, corrected and explained. Or am I missing something? jaclaz

OT , shameless plug , and only to show how great minds often think alike : http://reboot.pro/topic/18544-release-dll-verg4b-grub4dos-batch-to-find-dll-version/ as used in PassPass: http://reboot.pro/topic/18588-passpass-bypass-the-password/ jaclaz

Remember to post this under "News". WHERE EXACTLY do you think the NUSB is developed? http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/43605-maximus-decim-native-usb-drivers/ BTW latest are 3.5 and 3.6 versions: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/43605-maximus-decim-native-usb-drivers/?p=1062027 jaclaz

Well, IMHO with the current average very powerful hardware that non-mobiles or non-phones have, it would have made much more sense, it would have been easier, and would not have provoked all this mess to keep the Windows Phone OS as a OS for phones (with Metro/NCI, stupid full screen for everything and low-low screen density, etc. or *whatever*) and write a simple and fast VM-like program to emulate it. Basically you would have had your own stupid Lumia as a physical device and an exact replica of it (virtual) on your desktop screen, the best of both words with little or no annoyance. jaclaz

Yes. http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/questions-with-yes-or-no-answers.html What you asked for is called a "flat" PE: https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh825045.aspx jaclaz

Majorgeeks? Actually it was a project originated here on MSFN.ORG by member Gape and later carried on/updated by ProblemChyld: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/61749-98-se-sp-332/ jaclaz

jaclaz

Mildly interesting that someone not savvy enough to have foreseen Microsoft's moves is now ranting. We have had people around here foreseeing Microsoft doing bad things with Windows Updates for a very long time. -Noel Well, being Dedoimedo the other person that by definition is always right, you may want to check when he introduced his re-known finger salute to MS: http://www.dedoimedo.com/computers/windows-8-1-beta.html He did have a brain fart when he actually *somewhat* liked Windows 10 (october 2014): http://www.dedoimedo.com/computers/windows-10-preview.html but soon he came back to his senses (February 2015): http://www.dedoimedo.com/computers/windows-10-preview-build-9926.html and now everything is back to normal. jaclaz

Missing footnote : [1]order of priorities kindly provided by JorgeA's wife. jaclaz

I don't know. But Andre Da Costa has a record of being extremely confident in what he writes but also rarely accurate (JFYI): http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/173665-a-comment-i-posted-on-w10-tp-forum/ jaclaz

Try to imagine multiplying that handful of hours (subtracted to work) by millions to have an idea of how this flawed approach can affect the world economy... MS is making a large part of their userbase loose time (please read as money or as "amount of alternative fun"). I am pretty sure that your friend will remember this next time he will go shopping for a new device or Operating System.... jaclaz

Well, but AFTER having made experiments (crazy or not) you should clean the mess, that file is a remnant of a 2012 experiment: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/156859-drive-order/?p=1005343 which you reported as having been deleted: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/156859-drive-order/?p=1005499 Maybe you restored a BOOT.INI from a backup copy made at that time before it was removed. jaclaz

And for the record, very often jaclaz uses the attribute "stupid" referred to products and documents Microsoft creates and to decisions they make, and very rarely (if ever at all) to themselves as a whole, as a matter of fact jaclaz believes they are good guys , like anyone else (though when "en masse" definitely stubborn and maybe also sometimes unfriendly or non respectful of the customers). Certainly there are some among the best programmers around working for Microsoft, whose good work is usually ruined (or made far less evident than what would otherwise be it's worth) by wrong decisions of the management or by completely failed perceptions of the marketing guys or by the convolutions of their legal team. Of course there are exceptions to this general rule of "they're all good people", some examples of people: the guy that decided to use a Registry Hive format for the BCDthe lady that pumped up the Office Ribbonthe visionary that decided to go "all in" on touch and one-size-fits-all Windowsthe policy maker that promoted the continuous and forced updates model those must have (or have had) some cognitive disorders or were at the time under the effects of some substance. jaclaz

But can you choose the entries in BOOT.INI? It is likely that the thing that issues the message you reported is the "C:\Windows7.bin", which you really shouldn't need/want, as most probably by re-formatting/reinstalling you made some pointers in that file invalid (and should you need it, it needs to be recreated) but you already have the default: multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS (which points to a windows on first partition of first disk) and the grub4dos entry: C:\grldr (that loads th grldr and than the menu.lst through which you can boot the Windows 7 on second disk, first partition) Check the disk order in BIOS and verify that the Windows XP install is on first partition of first disk or (temporarily) add a few lines to the BOOT.INI to try non first partition, like here (this is for 2K, though the principles are the same): http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/25365-bootini-and-different-hard-drive/?p=173823 or here (this is for XP) http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?s=&showtopic=24649&view=findpost&p=170210 jaclaz