jaclaz

Ah well, that is an interesting piece of news. An image is worth a thousand words, a loooong image should be worth some more. jaclaz

Well, but you are (still) in the "wrong" attitude You should trust NOONE and verify yourself how a tool behaves, this is not about -say - a text editor, it is about a program to which you are entrusting all your data, something that should an emergence occur may make the difference between a minor hassle and a catastrophic disaster. Additionally saving a bunch of sectors (normally between 63 and 1024) takes less than 1 (one) second on a modern machine and even on the slowest hardware or storage subsystem it can take at the most a few seconds. Consider it an additional (hopefully redundant) safety. jaclaz

For *some* reason either your DHCP server (usually on the Router) does not work properly or your new XP install does not get properly an IP address. Usually (but not always) a Router with IP of 192.168.1.1 will provide 254 addresses from 192.168.1.2 up to 192.168.1.254 with a subnet mask of 255.255.255.0. (if you can access the router configuration page these data are visible), if, by any chance, the DHCP on the router is set to assign addresses in a more limited range (say from 192.168.1.2 to 192.168.1.31) use below the first available IP outside that range below. Smaller networks might be configured with a more limited Subnet mask, as an example 255.255.255.240, the sunbet mask you input manually MUST be the same as the one in the Router. So, try opening the TCP/IP properties of your cabled network interface, like here: and try assigning the values: IP address: 192.168.1.32 <- you can try other values instead of 32, if there is another computer with the same address you will get a notification once you will have applied the settings. Subnet Mask: 255.255.255.0 Default Gateway: 192.168.1.1 Preferred DNS server: 8.8.8.8 <- this is the Google free DNS server and see if you have the connection to the Internet. If this succeeds, the issue may be either on the Router's DHCP Server or in the DHCP Client Service on your machine, see also: https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc757164(v=ws.10).aspx jaclaz

There is a "modified package", see here: http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_8-winapps/how-to-install-microsoft-agent-in-windows-8-x64/97737a87-510d-4043-9048-b2cc562a872f?page=1 And, possibly better, an Open Source replacement that is reported (see above) to work on 8.1: http://doubleagent.sourceforge.net/ But seemingly there is no trace of "Links" (the cat). Most probably it is possible to use it if you get a copy of the .exe or of the .acs file, but you'll have to find yourself if it works, instructions are here: http://bellcraft.com/mash/chars.aspx#InstallingCharacters jaclaz .

Just for the record, there are some notable differences between "root" in Linux and Administrator in Windows NT. Generically they are all "superusers": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superuser but "root" is more like being at the same time Administrator and System on NT (and also TrustedInstaller in later versions). If you prefer, you can drill BIG holes in a NT system while being Administrator, but the holes you can drill in Linux as root can be BIGGER. jaclaz

To be fair, Candy Crush Saga is an addictive, popular game, the only little drawback is that it only makes sense (because it is designed for that) on a fairly smallish touch enabled screen, you wouldn't go anywhere with a mouse and on (say ) a 27" (vertical) touch screen it would be an excellent way to work out, as your arm will travel kilometers while playing. Maybe we should all get a Microsoft Surface (no, not a Surface, a Surface ) just to show how the good MS guys lack of fantasy when choosing names, they re-use old ones and rename the old thing, now PixelSense: https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee692162(v=surface.10).aspx https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/pixelsense/default.aspx Not bad info here: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/pixelsense/purchaseprocess.aspx for something that reportedly retired in 2013: http://ideum.com/2013/12/sur40-no-longer-no-problem/ jaclaz

Well, then, according to CamTron's post just above yours, you are doing it wrong , which allows me to introduce (actually for no apparent reason ) this nice image: jaclaz

Depending on the OS you are running suitable tools are usually HijackThis: http://sourceforge.net/projects/hjt/ and ComboFix: http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/download/combofix/ But wouldn't this (specific) set of (manual) instructions do? http://www.anvisoft.com/resources/how-to-remove-za-zeroredirect1-com-popups-adware-removal-guide/ Adwcleaner is said to be detecting and removing it: https://toolslib.net/downloads/viewdownload/1-adwcleaner/ http://malwaretips.com/blogs/zeroredirect1-com-removal/ However make sure (as always) to have a valid backup/recovery solution tested, you never know. As a side not there are quite a few reports about the Spyhunter thingy to be what I would call a "dangerous" tool, that in more then one case has managed to additionally make a system unbootable, make sure that you have properly removed/uninstalled it. jaclaz

So specifically you won't even get the advantage of the faster image rendering! jaclaz

Well, maybe it is a language issue "in some cases it may exist" here is different from "it exists" (or "it does not exist") and from "it will exist" (or "it will not exist") everywhere or in most cases or in any given case. Sure , but it may happen that someone mis-reads something written (it may happen to everyone): jaclaz

Jaclaz has not actually stated directly nor indirectly that there will be (or that there will not be) performance degradation, he doesn't know nor has personally tested this particular thing (nor he is minimally interested in the specific topic which is - as earlier stated - outside his personal experience and interests), he simply reported what was (and is) written on a given page remarking how it is logically a sign that a performance degradation may happen and has evidently been reported as happening in some cases to that particular site, not necessarily on all machines, and possibly not even on "most" machines. If you prefer jaclaz attempted (failing completely ) to simply highlight how the personal experience by NoelC does not match the experiences reported on the referenced site, which is BTW the actual source of the suggested HOSTS file. This may well mean that the site contents are partially outdated, that the Author of the site is completely wrong on the specific topic or that he got deceiving or incorrect reports by one or more less experienced users (or people running obsolete OS on obsolete hardware) and there could be another thousand possible reasons for this mismatch. Even more specifically and explicitly jaclaz does not endorse, recommend or expresses an own opinion on: whatever is written on the MVPS sitewhatever Tarun stated in this threadwhatever NoelC stated in this threadall of which he declares being a SEP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somebody_Else's_Problem claiming it to be a perfectly legitimate "choice of ignorance by an individual" jaclaz

Sure, data is data (objective), what I was saying was that - say - operation "x" causing a a "lag" of 1.5 ms accurately measured through a benchmark on your "powerful, modern machine" may be less noticeable or not noticeable at all (though still measurable) while the exact same operation "x" on a low-end machine could create a 30 ms lag and become a noticeable sign of sluggishness. There is nothing to agree or disagree, they are simply different method of analysis, IMHO both valid and - ideally - that should be compared to provide a better context. If I measure a "default", "plain", "untouched" install on a plain, common, OEM PC I get an idea of what the good MS guys do and what most people will get and how good the (say) HP or Dell engineers have managed to make a "balanced" machine for a competitive price. If I measure your "fine-tuned" system I get an idea of what the good MS guys do summed together to your fine tuning and to the (comparatively) more expensive hardware you have. It's similar with cars, the model that is tested/reviewed on a car magazine (and that "normal" people can "normally" buy with a "normal" amount of money) is usually the actual "mass product" and not the finely tuned and customized car that a racing team puts together using it as "base" and that actually wins (say) the world rally championship. jaclaz

No, I have no specific experience on this. Sure, Italians do it better , there is simply no match. What is the difficult part or problem in "Only as an historical note"? Text before January 2013: Text (current): in both version of the page follow workarounds to keep DNS Client "normally" enabled by flushing the DNS cache (or limiting the cache duration). From a purely linguistic point of view offering a solution for an issue should mean that at least in some cases the issue may exist. jaclaz

No, WAIT. If you are on Pro, then there is no need of this workaround, I posted the info on your other thread, in Pro you just need to turn "Simple File Sharing" to off: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/173872-admin-identity-on-xp/?p=1099697 see: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/307874 jaclaz

Good, as this would make the other thread hint/workaround superfluous, in Pro you just need to turn "Simple File Sharing" to off: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/173873-file-ownership-and-protection-on-xp/ See: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/307874 Sure you can, as long as you have one (and the "default", hidden or not "Administrator" would do) user account with Admin privileges/powers. jaclaz

Only as an historical note, up to roughly January 2013 the MVPS site sported a note: https://web.archive.org/web/20130131065053/http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm and for this case the suggestion was to disable the DNS Client Service, the current page: http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm maintains this recommendation, providing as an alternative the periodical flushing of the DNS cache or altering the settings for the Service in the Registry in order to shorten the life of cached records. It should mean that at least on some systems this may actually cause a slowdown, while on some others (possibly more powerful or with more Ram or *whatever*) this slowdown is so trifling that it is not an issue in practice. Sorry to have interrupted this battle of the experts..., please by all means continue . jaclaz

And you are doing your testing on the "wrong" hardware I mean you have a prolly fastish system with a very fast storage subsystem, I believe heaps of RAM and what not and have the Operating Systems "tuned" and "optimized". If you try testing "default", "untouched" installs on a slower (you would call it outdated) hardware, with only a little more than the minimum requisites MS asks for the given OS, think at a "low-end", or "budget" office machine like - say - a 2011 mini-desktop or in a (slowish) VM like Qemu it is very likely that you won't even need any sophisticated benchmark to see the performance degradation that took place over the years. jaclaz

@submix8c I believe that Terabyte software saves anyway the MBR, however making a separate image of the MBR, and while one is at it of the whole set of "hidden sectors" before first partition is always a good idea , at the most between 63 and 1024 sectors of space will be wasted, much less if you compress the resulting file. jaclaz

Squealer! jaclaz

Well posts on the Funny Farm should be fun, this one seems more like tragic than anything else Maybe when you were sleeping you started snoring very loud and Cortana catched it interpreting it as "enlaaaaarrrrrrgggge myicons" . jaclaz

Which answers my question on the other thread, you have XP home. And you need NT 4.00 No, I am not kidding you seriously you need to get the Security Configuration Editor from NT 4.00: http://en.kioskea.net/faq/3865-windows-xp-home-add-the-missing-security-tab http://www.dougknox.com/xp/tips/xp_home_sectab.htm from here: ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/bussys/winnt/winnt-public/tools/scm/scesp4i.exe jaclaz

Sure , but here we have only one data set, recorded by a reliable, experienced member that evidence the opposite. Of course and as said the data is too little to be meaningful, or "common" or "universal" still the (limited) data available tell another story. If we do (arbitrarily BTW) an average of the three different tools we have: 4k Windows 7PRO x64 minCPU Average 47.33 4k Windows 8.1PRO x64 minCPU Average 47.33 4k Windows 10 10074 x64 minCPU Average 49.33 Which puts the "base" to exactly the same level for 7 and 8.1 and only very slightly higher for 10 as (49.33-47.33)=2/47.33=4.22% But if we do the same on the higher temperatures we have: 4k Windows 7PRO x64 maxCPU Average 73.00 4k Windows 8.1PRO x64 maxCPU Average 66.33 4k Windows 10 10074 x64 maxCPU Average 64.33 so the reduction of temperature is 73.00-66.33=6.67/73=9.14% for Windows 8.1 over 7 and 73.00-64.33=8.67/73=11,87% for 10 over 7. While differences within 5% may well be both "normal" and "random", when they go around 10% they start getting noteworthy. Looking at it in another way, the IE10 on 7 raised the temperature from an "idle" of 44 to a "full throttle" of 70 with an increase of 26 degrees while the IE11 on 10 raised it from the "idle" of 49 (i.e. 10% higher) to a "full throttle" of 58 with an increase of only 9 degrees, almost 1/3 of the raise of temperature in Windows 7. We definitely need more data, but looking at what is available till now and until the above data is disproved or rectified the differences are very noticeable. jaclaz

In XP, by default the user with the name "Administrator" is "hidden" and can only be accessed in safe mode/F8, sure it is a "special identity it is the Administrator. What is the problem? I.e. what would you have expected or what you wish to have? Do you want to unhide the user " Administrator" to be able to log in as it? Is that Home or Pro? http://windowsxp.mvps.org/admins.htm jaclaz

Naah don' t worry when and if you came, come and will come as too much of it rest assured that I made, make and will make you notice it . jaclaz

Well, that what was expected in theory Trip had the opposite experimental results in practice, that is what is perplexing... jaclaz