jaclaz

Not really-really as the phone can be disassembled and re-assembled after having replaced the battery, though it is not something that I would ever advise someone without a lot of experience in disassembling, repairing and reassembling tiny/delicate electronic devices to even think about . Last Apple thingy I replaced a battery, an IPhone 3GS (clearly well outside any warranty and otherwise worth virtually nothing) has been - believe me - a nightmare (and I am told that newer devices are worse ), I would say that it was the first device EVER that I actually needed a series of instructions with pictures because otherwise I would have not been able to disassemble and reassemble, still it is doable. However, you are perfectly right , a non replaceable battery makes no sense whatsoever and I wouldn't ever want to pay good money for a device with such a "wrong" design. jaclaz

Good, thanks. The issue here (BTW it is perfectly normal as the related info is scarce and very often "vague", incorrect or unverified/not repeatable), is that the only *somehow* related post/info we have: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/150475-st2000dl003-seagate-barracuda-lp-green-2000gb-suddenly-ceases/?p=990707 explictly says to NOT run the "m0,2,2,,,,,22" (or similar) commands, on these drives, exactly because the result will be an "unrecoverable" (at least for the scarce knowledge we have on these specific drives' firmware) "No HOST FIS-ReadyStatusFlags " Status. So, I understand the "The hell with it!"" part, but in the end you entered yourself voluntarily in the No Way Out alley explicitly marked with a "No Way Out" sign. Somehow (by recklessly doing what you were suggested NOT to do) you made the disk enter a new (and uncommon since seemingly it enters that state only as a result of issuing the command you should have NOT issued) disk state. Now you have nothing (really nothing) to loose, as likely (according to these info here): http://forum.hddguru.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=27731 (provided that - as I suspect - applies to the "green" drives as they are more similar to the 7200.12 than to the 7200.11) even if somehow you can regain use of the drive, very likely you will have a reduced area usage, you can try any of the "diagnostics" command like the V1, V2, V3, V4, V40, etc. that you can find googling for "Seagate Init Smart Fail", but I don't think that without special hardware you will ever get the drive back . It seems like the "right" command (for the 7200.12 and cannot say if it applies to a LP Green ) to regenerate the translator when a "NRG-LIST sector" (whatever it is) exists: http://forum.hddguru.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=29885 is: m0,6,3,,,,,22but probably/possibly it is too late since you already ran the "m0,2,2,,,,,22" one. jaclaz

Well, with all due respect your reports are either "vague" or meaningless (or BOTH). The only (BTW completely unreferenced/untested/unconfirmed) related post says to NOT run "all commands" (WHICH ones?), so I wonder what you did/have been following. It seems to me clear that: a. your drives EITHER did not suffer from the same illness OR you cured them somehow differently b. you completely fail to DETAIL which cure(s) you applied to which drive EXACTLY Don't take it as an offence , but if you posted the above in order to hopefully help someone with a disk suffering from the same issue, your post is not useful as it misses a lot of information on WHAT EXACTLY you did successfully on the first disk drive, on the other hand, if it is to look for help, it is as well not clear WHAT EXACTLY you did unsuccessfully on the second disk drive. It would be nice if you could (no matter what is the reason of your post) report in more detail what happened and the symptoms they have (I presume that they are/were "BSY") and as well EXACTLY what you did on the one (and on the other). jaclaz

To be fair, *someone*, most probably seeing that they had already milked all the possible money from users over the years by saying that you should only have ink cartridges (because they are better) and only new ink cartridges (because they are better) and that by the clever replacement of the cartridge you have always a new item (it is better) and that you should never refill a cartridge (because the quality of ink may be sub-standard and contamination in the process and bla-bla, etc.) and after hving attempted to milk even some more by progressively reducing the amount of actual ink into a cartridge: http://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/feb/23/printer-ink-cartridges-paying-more-getting-less have come out with what should have been the "normality" since day one. Consider a common tablet, laptop or cellular phone. You don't (every day or so) replace the battery with a new one , you have a device that you use to recharge the battery . Consider a common car. You don't (every 600 Km or so) replace the engine with a new one. , you have a tank an you refill it with fuel . Consider what (hopefully) will become a common inkjet printer: You don't (every 5000 printed pages or so) replace anything , you have §@ç#ing tanks and you simply refill them with ink : http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/oct/02/printers-refillable-tanks-revolution-home-printing https://www.epson.co.uk/gb/en/viewcon/corporatesite/cms/index/11409 jaclaz

The above info provided by TELVM, if you read between the lines, seems to me a lot like: jaclaz

Yes and no "real love" is blind. and it is more or less the condition of the talked about peep (apart the arrogance that has little to do with love ). jaclaz

I have the guts but I try to be adult and forum rules say no . You chose ...wisely. jaclaz

As well, but aside of that, semantically, it makes no sense at all! There is no word about "hardware". We all understand what he says only because we make a connection with obvious things that have been said so many times before (again here by bphlpt and you), but read it with the eyes of a child and it makes no sense at all. I just wanted to point that because of the "don't waste my time" bit. I'm wasting our time as much as he was. I'm not even sure I'm doing it in a funnier way. I'll move on. Well, but you are going OT , we were explicitly allowed to waste our time by calling him a "blankety blank":. while seemingly you are wasting our time WITHOUT calling him a blankety blank, i.e. as well outside the initial statement. Now, be nice , and if you want to waste our time within the limits of the topic, do call him "blankety blank" (if you have the guts for it ). jaclaz

Well, but sometimes one needs to draw a line somewhere, one thing is the UI (like it or not) and the "looks" of the OS and another one is it's performance when compared to a previous version. NoelC is dedicated to solve problems (or better the OS) on both these aspects, but they have (to me) different relevance. Personally, I usually run my XP with a GUI that is very, very minimal (blackbox/bblean) and there are few things that I could care less about than the graphical looks of the things like (say) Aero or transparence/glow/whatever, but I do appreciate (even if I will probably never make us of them) the dedication that a lot of members are putting into making these choices available. This is (as I see it) a form of freedom , not entirely different from the idea behind the light blue ribbon for freedom of skin, there are people that like (and actually use ) the LCARS interface: http://reboot.pro/files/file/539-lcars-library-computer-access-and-retrieval-system/ which is something that only few (non Earthly) races in the galaxy can actually believe to be "pleasing the eye" . Still, it is within the right of everyone to have his/her/its desktop and UI set the way they like better. This whole stuff pertains to "beauty" (which is obviously in the eye of the beholder) whilst performance is something "objective" that can be measured. Yet another aspect is "ergonomics" of the interface, which is a separate aspect from beauty, but still largely connected to subjective user preference or habits. ZortMcGort11's comment makes little sense because it is outside the initial statement, this thread is about performance of different OS on EXACTLY THE SAME hardware, it is rather obvious that on new, faster hardware a new OS will seem faster than the previous one on an old, slower hardware. So, let's draw this line explicitly. This thread is NOT about the looks of the UI (highly subjective). This thread is NOT about the convenience of the UI usage (mostly subjective) This thread is ONLY about performance (objective/measurable) and on comparing performance of different OS's ONLY on SAME hardware and it is also implied that it is a "fresh install" compared to "fresh install", and an "as optimized as possible" install vs. "as optimized as possible" install.jaclaz

It's all a matter of the amount of "power" you have (when compared to the amount of "power" the site owner and the demented kid professional team of web designers he hired has) and more than that on how many people (like you and me) are on our side. As an example, if you write a nice letter to (say) a small hotel in the country telling them how you were not able to read much of their site because it uses a stupid *whatever* setup (including but not limited to webfonts) and that you regret having decided to book for the weekend some other hotel nearby because their site was at least §@ç#ing readable, and the hotel owner receives just 1 (one) other similar letter, you might obtain (not a benefit to you, but as a benefit for all the following customers) a decent, normal site. Now, if you try the same with (say) Mega.co.nz that insists that my Opera is "a bit outdated" (and "Please update to the latest version or switch to a recommended browser:") while a newer Opera is "supported" and that either Firefox (I believe very latish versions only) or Chrome are "Recommended!" (while Safari and IE are "partial support" -sic!) you should know that you (and myself) have no chances whatsoever . jaclaz

OS trends: http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=11&qpcustomb=0&qpsp=189&qpnp=5&qptimeframe=M&qpstick=1 A cyberarcheologist from future might only read the above data as follows: In November 2014 1/4th of all XP users worldwide decided to upgrade to either Windows 7 or 8.1. Those that upgraded to 7 stayed with it, while those that upgraded to 8.1 immediately (in December 2014) returned to XP, often convincing friends and relatives who were already on 8 or 8.1 to go back to either Windows XP or 7. From October 2014 to February 2015 the combination of XP+7 grew from around 70% to more than 75% whilst at the same time the combination of 8+8.1 was reduced from almost 17% to around 14%, while Mac OSx users tripled in number and a lot of people usng "other" OS migrated from them (to either XP or Mac OSx or 7). jaclaz

Really? Are you saying that unexpectedly adding any number of largely useless processes and have them running at all times does not speed things up? I will then also surprise you with the fact that (generally speaking) the less bytes you juggle around (from disk to RAM, from RAM to disk, etc.) the faster the overall performance of the system is , no matter the speed of the involved subsystems, smaller is faster (whether this will be noticeable in every day use, outside a benchmark test, is another thing). "They" (the good guys at MS, but also many of the OEM's and hardware makers) are trying their best to make this kind of fair (same hardware different OS) comparisons more difficult, by removing (or not providing) suitable drivers for the actually faster/better hardware. As a matter of fact software development has since a long time leveraged on the ever increasing performance of hardware to produce more bloated and insanely slower software when compared to a previous version of the same program. And yes , most people are either opinionated when they report of a new (more bloated) OS being faster than the previous ones (for the same activities) or they make the comparison on incomparable different hardware or between their (half botched) "old" install vs a fresh, new, pristine install, or they are simply plainly wrong (i.e. they fail in making correct tests). @bphlpt The point is - I guess - on the "meets the user's needs", given as established that a newer, more bloated, OS with a zillion added processes is slower than a previous, leaner one, we need to define the "user's needs", even if some of them make no sense whatever these added processes and stuff have the scope to offer to the user "added features". Now, which of these features (the ones that make sense) are actually a "need" and which are just "cool" or are just "what everyone else is usng then I must have it as well"? There is not I believe a one-size-fits-all answer, even because some of the "needs" may arise by stupid or senseless choices of third parties, like (say) sites refusing to work on your not-the -latest-version of a browser, or someone sending you a document in a needlessly changed/updated file format (as an example AutoDesk has been known to change the Autocad file format every year or so for several years). jaclaz

Actually on a properly configured dual boot there are NO issues whatever for a dual boot between 2K and XP, and as well there are none with any of 2k or XP with Vista or 7 (or even 8...), by "properly configured" dual boot I mean one in which there is a "boot" partition/volume (what the good MS guys call "system") and a separate "system" partition/volume (what the good MS guys call "boot") for each of the Operating Systems installed. The first one must be a primary partition and active (and can be very small as the only *needed* things on it are NTLDR+NTDETECT.COM+BOOT.INI and, if you want to add a newish NT6 OS also BOOTMGR and the \boot\ folder and it's \boot\BCD, a 32 Mb FAT12 volume would be enough, but making it a FAT 16 100 Mb or so would allow ot add - say - FreeDOS or another DOS flavour and leave plenty of space), the other ones can be either primary or logical volumes inside extended (personally I prefer the choice of logical volume inside extended, because allows for using only one of the 4 available MBR partition table slot for n added Operating Systems, so that two entries are kept free in case of need, but in the case of just a 2K and a XP two primaries would do as well). jaclaz

The 400 and 800 connectors are different (Alpha vs. Beta) but worse than that, since there are adapters for the different connectors, the issue is that a Firewire 800 port (on the PC) can manage a Firewire 400 device (backward compatibility) but a Firewire 400 port cannot make use of a 800 device. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_1394 There is little around about these readers, because they are almost exclusively used in the Macintosh world, you have to go more about "brand name" or reputation, Lexar, Sandisk or DeLock are "known" names (though I believe DeLock only made a Firewire 800 version), but as often happens with these kind of devices, it is more a hit and miss game than anything else. There are "multireaders" that can use both CF cards and SD cards but they are all AFAIK/AFAICR USB. There is however (JFYI) another option (example): http://www.amazon.com/SD-CF-II-Type-Adapter-Supports/dp/B000YZGCIU http://www.wired.com/2009/06/compact-flash-to-sd-adapters-provide-unneeded-solution/ jaclaz

You are aware of the can of worms you opened through these apparently innocent questions, don't you? Particularly if connected to this other thread? http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/173657-which-fw400-cfcard-reader/ Can you elaborate on the "fixed flag" request? It seems that nowadays most if not all "industrial grade" CF cards are "Fixed" in True Ide mode (and "Removable" in PCMCIA/ATA memory mode), Transcend actually declares it as such: http://www.transcend-info.com/Products/No-524 More or less this should mean that there are no issues with "direct" CF-to-IDE adapters (which should work in True IDE mode, though some of the adapters may need to be modified to get the UDMA speed), though USB card readers tend to operate only in PCMCIA/ATA memory mode, and - though they exist - USB card readers that work in True IDE mode are AFAIK very rare and more than that you will never know (as it seems like all manufacturers/sellers have become allergic to provide proper documentation and data sheets) how they are set. The controller in a USB bridge may well determine (by filtering or inverting) the status of Fixed vs. Removable, no matter what the CF card "says". Personally I would never risk to change the microcode on the (usually 8051 compatible ) processor inside the card, because as I see it more than risky is "almost certain failure". jaclaz

That's exactly what happens if you update Windows 8 to 8.1 from the Store. It downloads the entire OS and then ports everything over. It is not a method I would prefer. I know , but although the good MS guys call that "an update", that one is more like a "service pack" or a "system refresh", and definitely it is not one of the "patch tuesday" or "intermediate" released updates, i.e. it is something that happens - say - once a year or so. I was just kidding of course, but IF the trend of continuously updating the OS takes old, and since the new WIndows 10 thingy will be used on *whatever* device (from POS or Home Automation System Controller to Lumia phones, from desktop high end graphical workstations to more or less lousy TV-mini-PC's) IF the current update strategy continues botching otherwise perfectly working installs, they may decide to reinstall from scratch at every update. Every morning you will wake up to be greeted by a new install of Windows that was automagically installed during the night , but this will need a lot of bandwidth, and so it is only too human to think of making use of the unused one that every home/business with unlimited connection has, if you think about it, you pay a flat rate and large parts of what the cable/telephone company promised you are not actually used (let us put temporarily aside that if everyone drew from the internet the whole bandwidth he/she pays for the whole system would collapse in no time ). While I understand how this would create issues with rn10950's "pay per Gb" mobile connection, all in all NoelC's stance of not wanting to provide updates to his neighbours sounds a little selfish.... jaclaz

Maybe: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/120444-how-to-install-windows-from-usb-winsetupfromusb-with-gui/page-24#entry884409 http://forums.pcper.com/showthread.php?444831-HOWTO-enable-AHCI-mode-after-installing-Windows jaclaz

These are at the same times good and bad news. Should it not be possible to recover data repairing the filesystem, usually the file based approach works fine for pictures (on a non-fragmented filesystem, and "data storage" volumes tend to be incrementally written and thus tend to be little fragmented) while videos or "recorded tv programs" are usually tougher to recover because they tend to be very large files and often they are fragmented. However, it was a single (BIG) volume, right? In the meantime do the following: get the dsfok toolkit: http://members.ozemail.com.au/~nulifetv/freezip/freeware/ extract it's contents in a "simple" path, let's say C:\dsfok\ open a command prompt as administrator in elevated mode and navigate to C:\dsfok extract first 2050 sectors, given that in Disk Manager the disk is Disk 1 run: dsfo \\.\PhysicalDrive1 0 1049600 C:\dsfok\disk1_begin.bin compress the resulting disk1_begin.bin in a .zip archive (it should compress very well, to a bunch of Kb) attach the .zip to your next post (or upload to a hosting site and provide a link to it) jaclaz

And wait until the new Word and it's corrector comes out ... jaclaz

I would define that surprisingly, after some 4 years. However, Wayback Machine to the rescue , here: https://web.archive.org/web/20100523002458/http://www.winprj.net/board/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=216 and with the usual amount of trickery (mostly smoke and mirrrors ) https://web.archive.org/web/20120415000000*/http://damian666.boot-land.net/downloads/UXTender.zip (should be it, though I haven't actually checked the version). jaclaz

Well, when from kbytes or mbytes updates will become gbytes (i.e. at every update the whole OS will be replaced entirely ) they could use some added bandwidth... All in all if the files are more "granular" (i.e. not monolithic packages) digitally signed and tamper-proof, the overall plan/architecture may even work, though probably some serious management should be needed to avoid versioning conflicts due to botched or overcomplex numbering of the things or time zone conflicts and similar? Think global! Think connected! Just imagine if all the files that are now wasting space as simil-duplicate between your System and your WinSXS would actually reside 3/984th on your neighborhood's machine, while 1/1578th of them will be on a Lumia in Lahore, and 2/759th on a POS in Romania and your smart Windows 1n will load them from their location on demand.... What could go wrong? jaclaz

OT, , but as expected: http://lumiaconversations.microsoft.com/2015/03/18/the-lumia-story-continues/ http://lumiaconversations.microsoft.com/2015/03/19/lumia-430-dual-sim/ jaclaz

Your disk is a 7200.14 series, not a 7200.11. The HDDScan is more or less meaningless (in this context), those are readouts from the S.M.A.R.T. a technology that I personally call D.U.M.B. that was devised to prevent (actually forecast) drive failures and never did so (flippism is approximately as accurate as SMART). The Disk Manager view instead seems to be meaning that the disk is functional (good) but that has lost (partially or totally) the volume informations. What you should do (advised) before anything else is: procure yourself a similar (or bigger ) disk drive "clone" i.e. make a "forensic sound" or "dd-like" copy of the "failed" diskThe above represents the "commonly recommended approach", providing a way out (or way back) if the recovery attempts fail, while it is optional, it is STRONGLY recommended. Since the disk seems fully functional, it should be possible to attempt both a "filesystem" recovery (i.e. recover the indexing informations for the volumes, please read as "TESTDISK" or similar) and a (usually less satisfactorily) "file based" recovery (please read as "PHOTOREC" or similar). A "file based" recovery (IF as it seems the disk is still functional) won't in any way "damage" or change the disk, as it merely consists of reading from it (but you will need anyway enough storage space to store the result of the extraction), whilst a "filesystem" recovery will need to write to key sectors of the disk, and thus the need for a "clone" should something "go bad" in the process. The more information you remember how volumes on the disk were setup (how it was partitioned) the better. Additionally provide these informations: Which OS are you running? Is it an internal or external disk? How exactly (under which OS and with which tool) was it originally partitioned? Which was it's use (i.e. a backup drive, a "main" drive, almost empty, almost full, recently defragged, etc)? jaclaz

In my experience "anything goes". I have seen companies where the user is free to use his/her own devised password (the same BTW that he/she uses for Facebook, Gmail and to access online forums), which is evidently wrong, and that given the user is called John Doe and is born in 1978 ends up in any of "johnny78", "johnnyiscool78", "mabel08202006" (mabel is the daughter of John Doe, born on 20th August 2006), etc. This password is usually asked by the IT Admin for *anything* even when it is not at all needed, and not only it is exchanged by telephone, e-mail, sms or post-it, but it is jolted down, together with the identification of the machine/workstation/terminal to which it belongs and with the login/user on either a blackboard or on a notes on the IT Admin desk, in the IT Admin office (which is accessible by everyone inside the building). I have seen companies where the user passwords are actually issued by the IT Admin and the user CANNOT change them (which is more or less the way the thing should be managed) but among them I have seen *anything*: the password is (given that the user is called John Doe and is born in 1978) "jdoe78". the password is (for the same user) generated by a pseudo-random-hyper-mega-secure-algorithm and is "=)#§rWtGGoo04056-/66xA+"In case #1 there is an Excel Spreadsheet listing all machines/login/users and passwords on the corporate server in a folder open to everyone and a printout of the same worksheet either on the IT Admin desk or pinned to the blackboard in his room. In case #2, since the user cannot possibly remember it, the password can be found neatly handwritten on a post-it in the left-hand folder of the user's desk. Once every three to four months a document accessible exclusively from the given user PC is urgently needed and since the user is on holidays or the like, the password is spelt (spelled ) c-l-e-a-r-l-y and very aloud on the telephone, and jolted down on a post-it that is pinned on the user monitor until he/she comes back and removes it. Of course exist a lot of "security oriented" companies, which manage the matter more properly, usually adding to a good password management some hardware form of authentication, like badges, fingerprints or similar, but they are not usually the "norm". jaclaz

Well, seemingly tomorrow they are going to present a new Lumia: http://lumiaconversations.microsoft.com/2015/03/18/the-lumia-story-continues/ That, according to some interpretations might even be cheaper than the (here in Italy) Lumia 435, sold (in theory) for € 90, but actually obtainable for around € 75, which debuted very recently: http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/new-product/mobile-phone/3593950/lumia-435-release-date-price-specs/ jaclaz