jaclaz

OK, let's see if this version works. (0.06 09 February 2015) Please do re-read ATTENTIVELY the readme.txt AND any output/feedback given by the batches. jaclaz mkprilog.zip

Possibly you can find here something of use in your case: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/127790-silent-net-maker-synthesized-20100118-w2kxp2k3-x86/ jaclaz

Well, post the FULL error, AND the specifications of BOTH the OS (I presume Windows 7 and have to guess that it is a 64 bit version of it) AND of the hardware, SPECIFIC make/model, etc. Usually that error is connected to EITHER a "bad" device driver OR the one or the other Antivirus (but of course it may be a defective peripheral, like - say - the network card or the video card). Until you provide the needed, basic, info and details, as per Standard Litany: http://homepage.ntlworld.com./jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/problem-report-standard-litany.html be my guest : jaclaz jaclaz

...and it wouldn' t even be that much a completely "new" idea, that is more or less what the good Apple guys have done in recent years for IOS (but not for OSx, which they keep as two completely different and separated OSes/platforms/whatever) A decision that seems to me like slightly more intelligent than the "Thou shalt have a same OS on ALL devices" the good MS guys are trying to inscribe on the tables (tablets ? ) of the Law as 11th Commandment. jaclaz

Which is good , as another confirmation how stupid the stupid Windows 10 (which at the moment of this writing is a NON-released new, experimental OS) actually is. When (if) it will be released, then - maybe - we will be able to see what are the results in that stupid environment of the "base" commands used in the batch and hopefully there will be some official documentation about the stupid changes that are/will be implemented in it. If you could post the output of running the VER and of the WHOMAI /groups commands in it, I could add a few lines *like* : VER | FINDSTR /i "6\.[4]\." > nulIF %ERRORLEVEL% EQU 0 (ECHO You are running a stupid OS, we cannot cure that, sorry .GOTO :EOF)More seriously, add just before the ":just_do_it" label a line *like*: ECHO NOT Xp/2003, NOR Vista up to 8.1, this must be a crappy new OS...exiting...&PAUSE&GOTO :EOFAnd experiment with adding something *like*: VER | FINDSTR /i "6\.[4]\." > nulIF %ERRORLEVEL% EQU 0 (ECHO Windows 10 or whatever, ...whoami /groups | find "S-1-5-32-544" >nul && ECHO OK, I am a local admin ...whoami /groups | find "S-1-16-12288" >nul || ECHO I am NOT running elevated, BAD.&&GOTO :do_elevateFSUTIL DIRTY QUERY %systemdrive% >nul || ECHO ... wait a minute, I need elevation anyway&&GOTO :do_elevateECHO ... and I am running elevated, good.PAUSEGOTO :just_do_it)in the same place, before the added "ECHO NOT Xp/2003, ...". I am assuming in the above that the windows version reported is 6.4 and that the whoami/groups output has not changed, but have no way to check these assumptions. jaclaz

Like the ones I have in blackbox since - still say - 2005 or 2006? http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/172826-windows-10-first-impressions/page-3#entry1088850 Though I personally find them a very nice feature , it's hard to sell them as "new"... jaclaz

Yes and no. Coming from someone that still runs a couple NT4.00 and 2K machines (connected to the internet) 24/7 365 days a year and whose "main" PC, also connected to the internet runs XP Service Pack 2 (with a bunch of selected updates - but not that many), yes traditionally a large number of updates are not really-really *needed*, but no , there is the actual need of a properly configured setup (like a good firewall (hardware) and similar) and that would IMHO count as "safety nets". As I see it is more about responsibility, if (when or if and when or when and if ) I will get some nasty malware (or *whatever*) I will blame myself (and noone else) for having being not capable of preventing/filtering it, whilst most people would prefer in the same situation to blame someone else, like, you know : jaclaz

No prob, with these (lately) few hiccups of the board it is easy to get "out of sync" . So, it seems like the thingy - at least in 8.1 - is working fine. jaclaz

Yep beauty is - as always - in the eye of the beholder, to me 200 Mb for a stupid program, half-way between a database/library and a backup/restore tool is like 199 Mb too much. , but you will find a lot of people calling that crazy amount of bloat "only". jaclaz

Well then you posted earlier (on post #4) *something* else from what was asked, i.e. you posted the output of the earlier version Maybe we "lost sync" or cross-posted. The version attached to post #1 does have redirection to nul, so it shouldn't have created the output you posted on #4. But also bhplt posted the same (is it possible that he also went "out-of-sync"? ) Can you please re-download and re-test? jaclaz

Which EXACT DISM commands you used? Is that an iso /DVD? If yes, which EXACT commands you gave to mkisofs or OSCDIMG (or other .iso making tool you used)? Which size is the resulting install.wim? Is that the COMPLETE error or you are somehow in a case similar to this one? http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/143421-errors-with-large-installwim-4gb-for-w7/ jaclaz

Sure, though not really-really "news" , like, you know : http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/159099-vbs-script-for-manage-windows-xp-service-and-registry/ Though - JFYI - personally (on 2K/XP) I am still using the good ol' pserv 2.x :thumbsup: (but I believe that newer version 4.x may be fine on newer OS's) : http://p-nand-q.com/download/pserv_cpl.html jaclaz

Do you want to move the whole thing (i.e. installation also) or just the actual files? If the second, easiest would be making a link, *like*: http://www.copytrans.net/support/how-to-change-itunes-backup-location/ http://www.howtogeek.com/164275/how-to-change-the-backup-location-of-itunes-or-any-windows-app/ (though this is not exactly "move", more like "relocating" ) jaclaz

Yep, and by having bug reports and feedback sent to the cloud, they can shred them directly (actually vaporize them ) as they are "virtual" complains/ideas and "virtual" bug reports, not really existing in their altered perception reality. Moreover - notwithstanding how convenient and fast the cloud is - they belong already to the past, while they are looking at now: jaclaz

Oh, yes, you do want it, namely you want to pay but do not want to pay in a way/through a method which is the one the Author chose and that ALL other people that payed used and that ALL other people that will pay will use, this is essentially the definition of "special", you are plainly asking for a "special treatment", consisting specifically in using an alternative method of payment. You see , if you had not made that poor child cry (by needlessly showing off your wealth/pricey gadget) you could have asked her mother or your friend to make the donation on your name through paypal ... When I put my cell phone on the table (of which I have two, a Sony Ericsson P900i and currently a "reserve" Nokia 1280) my friends' children all gather around the table asking how I can still use such outdated technology (if they spot the Sony) or how can I use at all the thingy (if they spot the Nokia) and it is fun, a good topic of conversation, explaining to them that a telephone is something designed mainly to make and receive phone calls, that you can actually write with a pen or on a keyboard without tapping anywhere with your dirty fat fingers, that one should be able to get the result of 2+2 even without starting the calculator app and can even remember a few telephone numbers without using contacts, etc... Usually - since they are really good kids and pity me - they end up offering to me their iPhone 3 or 4 that they consider obsolete... jaclaz

Naah, they do it programmatically: http://www.toodarkpark.org/computers/humor/shoot-self-in-foot.html and seemingly they do it by using XAML, a bettered XML, only worse . http://blog.pluralsight.com/future-of-xaml jaclaz

Do the videos include grammar/spelling training ones? You had a "false start" ( and dencorso was faster than me in pointing you to the futility of your question), this can happen to everyone of course (not so casually they are FGA's), so you may want to start again (lets fake that this conversation never happened ) with the Standard Litany: http://homepage.ntlworld.com./jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/problem-report-standard-litany.html right now, you are unfortunately still in the "I'm ill, doctor. Help!" phase: with the additional (possibly ) issue of the risk of slipping on a chocolate covered banana: http://homepage.ntlworld.com./jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/put-down-the-chocolate-covered-banana.html Namely, if your goal is to SINGLE boot an Operating System from a USB stick, using the (nice BTW) Easy2boot (which is an extremely complex solution to make it simpler to make MULTI booot USB devices) may not be the "right" choice. Also, why (the heck) would you want to use a WINDOWS SERVER OS (BTW 2008R1, 2008R2 OR 2012) to act as Media Server and why do you think that you need a Media Server (at all) is needed for the ACTUAL FINAL GOAL you have? (and that though unspecified sounds more like "viewing remotely a bunch of videos and uploading new ones, etc." than anything else? ) And why (the heck) would you want it to be on a USB stick? Please try to describe what EXACTLY you are trying to achieve (ACTUAL FINAL GOAL) considering how the more details you provide the more it is likely that you will get useful suggestions/help. jaclaz

The redirection to nul of the Whoami seems like not happening. can you try on a plain cmd prompt (in windows 8.x) these commnds?: whoami /Groups | FIND "S-1-5-32-544" whoami /Groups | FIND "S-1-5-32-544" >nul whoami /Groups | FIND "S-1-5-32-544" >nul 2>&1#1 should output the BUILTIN\Administrators ... #2 should output nothing (as it is redirected to nul, but seemingly it still does output the same) #3 maybe actually outputs nothing as also the error is redirected to standard @bhplt With reference to #7, Maybe it is possible to set a counter of some kind in such a way that it detects the second loop and exits throwing a message like "Your stupid antivirus or something else is conflicting with this script, re-run it under FULL Admin credentials (Elevated command prompt)." jaclaz

And, just for the record, getting a coldish, roundish, flattish piece of badly cooked bread with some pseudo cheese on it which invariably tastes almost - but not quite - completely unlike pizza... ...right idea, wrong example. jaclaz

Good. Os detection and credential levels detection seem to be accurate. THOUGH these: Are actually non-reports, I mean, guess WHAT EXACTLY the batch is trying to tell you ? : (and that you are kindly required to comply with before re-running the batch) Corrected the typo "th esame" into "the same" and added redirection to nul to the Whoami commands in the attached, no version number change, please re-download and re-test (once having added the elevate.exe) just on Windows 8.1 (the XP is OK, and I can test it myself), thanks. jaclaz

More exactly (yes, I do know I am picky) the difference is more between LAN and WAN. Internet or Intranet is more about world wide or local connection that use a protocol such as http or ftp and similar. If you prefer, I suspect that the change is more related to the Windows XP built-in Firewall and IPSEC than on "internet zones" as configured in Internet Explorer and similar . BUT with stupid integration/mixup between Windows Explorer/Internet Explorer/Control Panel/Firewall settings, you can NEVER say for sure which is which, most probably the issue is due to having a dot (yes a dot, or period/full stop) in the address see: http://serverfault.com/questions/176874/why-is-my-file-server-in-the-internet-zone http://support.microsoft.com/kb/303650/en-us jaclaz

As a side note, can you test this: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/173445-release-testelevcmd/ and report there? jaclaz

I am trying to put together a simple (or as simple as possible) set of batch commands to be run on both XP/2003 and Vista /7/8/8.x/Server 2008R1/2008R2/2012/*possibly whatever later* that DO NEED Admin credentials (on XP/2003) and REAL Admin (elevated) credentials on the later OS's. At the end of the day, I have come out with the attached testelev.cmd. Everything should be "language/locale independent", but you never know. until actually tested. Description from within the batch: I have little chances to test the batch in all conditions, i.e. when run: as non Admin from command promptas above but by double clicking the batchas Admin from command promptas above but by double clicking the batchas Admin ELEVATED from command promptas above but by double clicking the batchin any other way on all the (hopefully) supported OS, so, if any member would be so kind to test it in the *whatever* OS he/she is running and post a report *like* (example): it would greatly help to improve or change it (if needed) or to confirm it's good/working *everywhere*. Thanks in advance for reports/feedback/comments. jaclaz P.S.: Batch updated, please re-download if you got it before the time of this EDIT. testelev.zip

Just like the good MS guys are ignoring - maybe not safely - but surely and completely each and every bug report and feedback (unless they already fit in their agenda, of course ). jaclaz

Yep, but if my guess is correct then we will need to limit the size of the FAT12 partition, judging from the screenshot you posted on #133, I see a FAT12 partition of 32 Mb and a NTFS (though temporarily seen as RAW) 116.41 GB volume. But I believe that here is something that is simply not right. It is possible that you really need the modified batches. IF the FAT12 partition is seen as 32 Mb in size, then it means that the screenshot is taken when the disk is mounted as 512 bytes/sector. (as if the disk was properly configured and mounted as 4Kb while the size of the volume would still be 32 Mb in reality, it would be seen as a partitioned space sized around 8 times that size, before the NTFS partition, while the size of the NTFS partition will be "constant"). I am attaching a couple screenshots of my current results using a 7 Mb FAT12 partition. Sorry for the teasing , it is not meant as such, but I still have to run a few more checks before posting the modified batches. jaclaz