jaclaz

...while in real world it describes either of: jaclaz

Good , then buyerninety gave you unsolicited advice, that you nonetheless wish to try . My bad , though I am in good company in having misunderstood your post.. jaclaz

@CharlesF Nomen's post has NOTHING to do with large fonts or shifting and a lot to do with incorrect font rendering. You have a (apparently slighter) issue which seems completely UNLIKE the one the OP asked about, compare how you can read in the screenshot you posted the text "The #1 Cloud Business Software Suite" and how the same reads (actually completely fails to) on the screenshot Nomen posted. jaclaz

I am missing your point/reference. Not really, or not necessarily, this is why I am asking. I had the (possibly completely wrong, BTW) impression that this is one of the "if it ain't broke, let's fix it nonetheless" cases. jaclaz

To make it short: Good : http://www.msfn.org/board/forum/23-site-forum-issues/page-51 http://www.msfn.org/board/forum/23-site-forum-issues/page-52 Switch from Good to Bad (last two topics) : http://www.msfn.org/board/forum/23-site-forum-issues/page-53 Bad : http://www.msfn.org/board/forum/23-site-forum-issues/page-54 http://www.msfn.org/board/forum/23-site-forum-issues/page-55 http://www.msfn.org/board/forum/23-site-forum-issues/page-56 Number based (different issue, but still issue): Topics good: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/1- http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/13- http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/101- http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/1000- http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/10000- http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/100001- Topics bad: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/10- We could not determine which forum this topic is in.[1] http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/11- We could not determine which forum this topic is in.[1] http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/12- We could not determine which topic you were attempting to view.[2] http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/100- We could not determine which topic you were attempting to view.[2] http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/100000- We could not determine which topic you were attempting to view.[2] [1]This is likely to be one of the issues at hand. [2]This is more likely to be a deleted or set invisible topic. jaclaz

I will repeat how MANY THINGS (some of which were listed above) are ALREADY EVIDENTLY NOT PROPER on that machine, currently it is a MESS, i.e. it is SEVERELY MISCONFIGURED, you re NEAR to have the filesystem COLLAPSE through filling it up to the brim and you worry about deleting unneeded files being "not proper"? I give up. jaclaz

No , this should not happen. The bootsector of the NTFS volume on the disk (at connection time) is EITHER set to the 512 or to the 4kb. IF it is 512 and the connection is 512 then the label Data_512 is read (and the switcherQE doesn't do anything to it). IF it is 512 and the connection is 4kb then the label is NOT read (as Explorer has no way to read it, for all it knows it is a malformed filesystem) and the switcherQE changes it to Data_4kb. IF it is 4kb and the connection is 4kb then the label Data_4kb is read (and the switcherQE doesn't do anything to it). IF it is 4kb and the connection is 512 then the label is NOT read (as Explorer has no way to read it, for all it knows it is a malformed filesystem) and the switcherQE changes it to Data_512.In cases 2 and 4 at connection time Explorer should show a non-label, i.e. the default "Local Disk" and (hopefully) after the switch either Data_512 or Data_4kb, you should never have a situation in which you have Data_512 and after the switch it becomes Data_4kb or viceversa. If "Local Disk" remains after the switch could be an "update lag" in Explorer, if you close the Explorer Windows and re-open it should be updated. Can you check and find a "repeatable sequence" that causes the issue? Now the batch tells you when it actually switches and issues the LABEL command, if the batch outputs ECHO Assigning Label "Data_%Disk_Connected_As%" to drive %FirstFree%and/or the last line (diskpart output) shows the "right" label the result should be reflected in Explorer immediately, at least this is what happens here in XP, maybe Windows 8.x has (yet another) different behaviour? jaclaz

Done . I made another couple little changes adding a couple empty lines to make the output more readable. jaclaz SwitcherQEVmod5.zip

Depending on how EXACTLY a .zip archive has been created (and on the kind of contents) sometimes it is possible to "fix" the archive or at least extract partially the data. There is no way to know if any of the above is possible without the actual archive. jaclaz

I am clearly missing something , but isn't that a Server 2003 (and later) update, released AFTER the end of support for XP? jaclaz

I don't think that what you want to do - which is if I get it right to make a single install.esd capable of installing BOTH a x86 and a x64 Windows 8.x is doable at all , BUT IF it is possible (which again I doubt) most probably the tool that might be able to do it is Wimlib: http://sourceforge.net/projects/wimlib/ You could try posting a (possibly DETAILED) question on the matter here: http://reboot.pro/topic/18345-wimlib-with-imagex-implementation/ jaclaz

Well, but the whole point is to have the user experience be as "smooth" as possible. Try the attached, let's see if the effect is mitigated by adding a couple lines of output. jaclaz SwitcherQEVmod4.zip

WHY? WHY? WHICH .esd files? jaclaz

Well, in the good ol*times, years before there were all these graduated IT technicians and all these powerful hardwares we were forced to use common sense® when dealing with computers, trying to tailor their setups to what the actual needs were. From what has been posted till now, that particular server is misconfigured with an excessive amount of RAM when compared to the available hard disk space, a senseless pagefile setting and with an OS that is too d@mn bloated to reside on such a small hard disk device, to which there is seemingly the issue of an awful (if the actual data resides on another machine) amount of data per user, additionally seemingly unmanaged. What would make sense IMHO (and of course it depends on a number of factors that only you can know) are only two things: 1) get a pair of suitable larger hard disks and restore to them the current OS data and settings unmodified (though they will remain absurd with a couple of 500 Gb disks it will go on a long time 2) check and correct the settings, slim down the unneeded data, the obsolete parts of the OS, reduce the pagefile size to a decent value, you don't anyway really want to ever analyze a 16 Gb crash dump. Personally, I would also trace actual memory usage as - as a guess - it is unlikely that you ever hit more than 6 Gb, in which case it would make sense to remove some RAM an leave the thingy with 8 Gb of Ram. Consider how in normal operation when a NTFS filesystem is filled up to 85% it starts to be an issue and rule of the thumb is to make it so that at most 80% is used. jaclaz

Well, it is one of the strangest server setups I have ever heard of. I mean: 16 Gb of RAM is what we old people call in jargon "an awful lot of memory"120 Gb Hard disk space is instead what we old people call in jargon "nice large size for the OS disk only, now where is the actual storage?"It simply doesn't make sense (to me) as a configuration, if it's scope is to be a file server it has not a suitable storage size and way too more RAM than needed (and particularly a pagefile eating up what 15% of available storage is "crazy"), if it is *something else* (let's say a mail or http server) the user files should not be there at all (and still 16 Gb are way more than needed). From it's specs: Consider how a fully installed 2003 R2 x64 should be something like less than 5 Gb. If you use a Server 2008 R2 and 2x36 Gb Mirrored SAS drives you have -18 Gb available for anything else jaclaz

Also, for those that are concerned about a conspiracy theory (or the other ) let's not forget the not-so-trifling issue of ...the small yellow dots.... (if you cannot see anything after the "of" above, you are getting the point just right ) https://www.eff.org/pages/list-printers-which-do-or-do-not-display-tracking-dots http://seeingyellow.com/ jaclaz

Which is a nice - though vague - absolute metrics whilst in this particualr case it would be interesting to use relative metrics.... I mean, it shaved one minute out of the 1:18 it took before means "wow! ", it shaved one minute out of the 32:43 it took before means "meh. ".... jaclaz

That seems more like a more "system wide" font related issue, that page renders fine in my Opera 12.15 in XP. Possibly (but not necessarily) connected with this "font-family: "proximaNova", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; " Typically, if you select the "strange characters", copy them and paste them in Notepad (thus striping away font info) they are readable fine. jaclaz

Let me guess. That Server has 8 Gb of RAM and the Pagefile is set manually to 2x i.e. 16 Gb? Or has it 16 Gb of RAM and the pagefile is system managed? I find it unlikely that it System Managed, hit 90%commit and it has 5.3333333 Gb of RAM... What about the idea of having a dedicated dump file? http://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/2860880 Or maybe introducing user quotas.... jaclaz

But it seems more like a philosophical standpoint than anything else. I mean, good ol' Opera was (actually is, at least for me) blazing fast, very handy, etc., etc. AND used it's own Presto engine. This newish Otter thingy seems like being (at this preliminary stage) as well blazing fast, very handy etc. etc. just like good ol' Opera BUT it uses QT and QTWebkit. What is the problem? As long in it's final version Otter will behave similar to good ol' Opera in terms of speed, customization, disk occupation, memory footprint and *what not* I am not really interested to know what is under the hood. More loosely if tomorrow a new browser comes out of nowhere involving the creation of - say - a VM on the fly, running a Linux kernel which runs a QNX image which runs a browser, and the final result is similar to good ol* Opera in terms of speed, customization, disk occupation, memory footprint and *what not*, I would as well be not that much interested to know what is under the hood. Or am I missing something? jaclaz

.. and thus here goes yet another demonstration of the futility of falling in the xyz issue, if Outbreaker had since the beginning explained what his ACTUAL GOAL was and provided the needed context information, not only he would have had a valid solution faster, but it would have been better and simpler. jaclaz

Ok, this is another release of SwitcherQEV, now it should be as simple as possible while still working fine and be "quick", when you have time/occasion test it, and if everything seems fine I will promote it to final and release the whole stuff. jaclaz SwitcherQEVmod3.zip

I don't know. Personally I try all I can to have NOT WMP at all, which BTW I find to be one of the crappiest softwares around, and went VLC a looong time ago, but it is rare (well no, actually not-so-rare ) to find such a "narrow" and "insignificant to almost all practical purposes" hotfix: http://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/928788/en-us Unless you actually plan to use the Media Sharing feature of WMP11 to stream videos (in MWM format, whatever it is) across a home network, it seems to me like you are pretty safe even without it, you know, like: jaclaz

@bestibnu The meta-subsonic bandwidth buffer of an AMD CPU if connected to a Domain through a parahyperthreading connection could well create a cloaking layer temporarily hiding the users growth until it is too late and cause a RAID 1 to implode by physically allocating sparse files. Hey, the devil made me write it , but you actually started it! jaclaz

So - as expected - you don't really need to set the variable at all and additionally you have no particular limitation in the complexity or length of the command string. jaclaz