jaclaz

... and you have a broken Google Here : http://www.softpedia.com/get/System/OS-Enhancements/Change-File-Extension-Shell-Menu.shtml Obtained through : http://bit.ly/1yW41GG jaclaz

Which system is it? It is probable/possible that you are using a USB keyboard (ad mouse), the mouse should cause no issues, but it has happened that USB keyboards behaved "queerly" in the early parts of booting, if you have available (or can borrow) a PS/2 keyboard (and provided that the machine actually has a PS/2 port) you may try with it. And I wouldn't completely rule out a defective keyboard, so I would try with another one anyway. The fact that your system has now a BIOS password protection is not "good news", you may have accidentally set one, again, depending on which exact system (make/model) it is, it may be possible to clear that BIOS password or recover it. But this right now is not the "main" issue. jaclaz

There are two aspects on IDE vs. SATA. ALL of them depend mainly on the BUS/controller and on the actual hard disk. A "IDE" (actually ATA 133) has more or less the same speed as a SATA 1 (which tops at 150). Both normally "saturate" the speed of a rotational hard disk, particularly on a laptop where usually disks are "not that fast", SATA 2 being faster will surely saturate the HD speed, SATA 3 in practice makes only sense for SSD's or maybe for very high end disks, like 15,000 RPM ones, very unlikely to be on a laptop. BUT if the disk has NCQ, the SATA will become noticeably faster. See: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/120444-how-to-install-windows-from-usb-winsetupfromusb-with-gui/page-24#entry884409 jaclaz

How EXACTLY did you partition the disk? jaclaz

Well, the result will be slightly different each time, and of course "afolder" will be listed before "xfolder". Hint: If you have any control on the first level directory, you'd better name it starting with "a" than with "z". The "hope" is that, on average, there are far more files on a system than directories and that this will speed up (a little bit) the execution, and that a "higher" level such as "\OEM\" will be reached faster than a "lower" one. You can try also with : :NEXT5ECHO %TIME%FOR /F %%A IN ('DIR /B/S/OG %drive%\%rootfolder%') DO IF EXIST %%A\%partfolder%\%file% ECHO !TIME! FOUND %%A\%partfolder%\%file%& GOTO :NEXT5jaclaz

Which version of the command is faster? (they should ALL work). In my quick tests ":NEXT4" seemed slightly faster, or, if you prefer, I tentatively set in a "slower to faster" order in the batch. Using the IF EXIST should also represent an added "check", if the .cmd file will end up named with a rather common name, to avoid "false positives" or "filename collisions". jaclaz

What about "porting back" the info that the good FreeDOS guys have put together? http://www.freedos.org/wiki/index.php/Networking_FreeDOS_-_NDIS_driver_installation I would also look here: http://toogam.com/software/archive/drivers/network/network.htm maybe (just maybe) the Windows for Workgroup thingy helps in configuring/fixing... jaclaz

This more or less amount to "Enable automatic logon" http://support.microsoft.com/kb/315231/en-us but you seem to have followed oNLY PARTIALLY "Method 2" This is "strange". Maybe it is a timing problem, but pressing (sometimes tapping insistently) F8 should bring you to this: it is possible that the F8 key is also used by your BIOS to change boot device selection, if this is the case you should try again, starting pressing/tapping F8 only after the initial BIOS bootscreen. Try again, after having read this page: http://www.playtool.com/pages/safemode/safemode.html If you get to that screenshot, try selecting "Safe Mode". jaclaz

Good. Now, let's remove (temporarily) the looping into various drives, and let's limit the test to a single drive. Try your on your own setup (possibly do this on a "filled" volume). @ECHO OFFSETLOCAL ENABLEEXTENSIONS ENABLEDELAYEDEXPANSIONSET drive=C:SET folder=OEM\RunOnceExSET rootfolder=OEMSET partfolder=RunOnceExSET file=newtest.cmdECHO %TIME%FOR /F %%A IN ('DIR /B/S/AD %drive%\ ^|FIND "%folder%"') DO IF EXIST %%A\%file% ECHO !TIME! FOUND %%A\%file%& GOTO :NEXT1:NEXT1ECHO %TIME%FOR /F %%A IN ('DIR /B/S/A-D %drive%\%file% ^|FIND "%file%"') DO ECHO !TIME! FOUND %%A&GOTO :NEXT2:NEXT2ECHO %TIME%FOR /F %%A IN ('DIR /B/S/A-D %drive%\%file%') DO ECHO !TIME! FOUND %%A&GOTO :NEXT3:NEXT3ECHO %TIME%FOR /F %%A IN ('DIR /B/S/AD %drive%\%partfolder%') DO IF EXIST %%A\%file% ECHO !TIME! FOUND %%A\%file%& GOTO :NEXT4:NEXT4ECHO %TIME%FOR /F %%A IN ('DIR /B/S/AD %drive%\%rootfolder%') DO IF EXIST %%A\%partfolder%\%file% ECHO !TIME! FOUND %%A\%partfolder%\%file%& GOTO :NEXT5:NEXT5:OUTOFHEREECHO %TIME%You get the idea .The point is that (hopefully/maybe) making the list for only directories might be faster and compensate the additional IF exist. It is entirely possible that *somehow* Windows "caches" results of a previous DIR command , so each snippet should probably be tested "separately". jaclaz

Still, it would make IMHO things more "sound". Can you post a practical example of your (intended) setup? Maybe there is some more efficient way to look for the file(s) I mean, would something *like*: be faster than: And (still cannot say if more efficient) have you actually tried FORFILES? jaclaz

@Mike88 Depending on the real use of the batch, it would be much more convenient and "safe" to have the file on *any* drive BUT on a known path, like root or (say) \mytagfiles\ , depending on the number of files/directories/subdirectories on the filesystem the search for it could take a long time. The FOR /L loop assigns all valuee from 90 to 65 step -1. The EXITCODEASCII "translates" them to ASCII, 65 is A and 90 is Z. Some info on EXITCODEASCII is here, JFYI: http://www.robvanderwoude.com/ntset.php and here you can find a simple batch that uses it: http://reboot.pro/topic/2986-yacbfc-dec2hexcmd-and-hex2deccmd/ http://reboot.pro/topic/2986-yacbfc-dec2hexcmd-and-hex2deccmd/?p=136708 jaclaz

Which makes me not alone but rather in good company. Well said . jaclaz

All is well that ends well. Just for the record, as often happens, a "key" piece of info was missing initially (the fact that it was an "install from USB"), and I guess that having posted it here: MSFN Forum Unattended Windows Discussion & Support Device Drivers http://www.msfn.org/board/forum/88-device-drivers/ instead of: MSFN Forum Member Contributed Projects Install Windows from USB http://www.msfn.org/board/forum/157-install-windows-from-usb/ sent people looking for a wild goose chase, at least that happened to me , I was completely deceived by this issue that while it didn't at all look like a X,Y,Z problem, was actually a (slight) form of the X,Y,Z problem: http://homepage.ntlworld.com./jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/put-down-the-chocolate-covered-banana.html jaclaz

Good, actually I said "seemingly" as I saw at first sight no /S switch in your DIR command, and did not take the time to actually read the batch, as it seemed to me much more complex than needed. Now that I have read it, please allow me to doubt (though it is possible) that a self calling batch sub will be faster that executing the command with a recursive switch. And now that I have, besides read it, it tested it, getting as result a: error on my XP, I can confirm that your approach is *somehow* not the best one. To replicate, try using it (slightly modified to look only on one disk and to provide some feedback) on a disk (say A:\ ) where "test.cmd" is in: root\Afolder\BUT with the actual batch residing in a directory on C:\ containing a number of directories.... @ECHO OFFSETLOCAL ENABLEEXTENSIONS ENABLEDELAYEDEXPANSIONSET /A Counter=0DIR /B /S A:PAUSESET FindFile=mytest.cmdSET FoundFile=NopeCALL :IsItThere "A:" %FindFile% FoundFileIF "!FoundFile!" NEQ "Nope" GOTO :FOUNDECHO ERROR: "%FindFile%" not found.PAUSEEXIT /b:FOUNDECHO File "%FindFile%" found in "%FoundFile%".ENDLOCALPAUSEEXIT /b:IsItThereSET /A Counter+=1SETLOCAL ENABLEEXTENSIONS ENABLEDELAYEDEXPANSIONSET Result=NopeIF EXIST "%~dp1%2" ((SET "Result=%~dp1")&GOTO :DONE)FOR /F "tokens=*" %%G IN ('dir /B /AD "%~dp1"') DO (IF !Counter!==6 GOTO :DONEECHO !Counter! "%~dp1" CALL :IsItThere "%%G" %2 ResultCALL :IsItThere "%%G" %2 ResultIF "!Result!" NEQ "Nope" GOTO :DONE):DONEENDLOCAL&(SET %3=%Result%)&EXIT /B 0This is what I get: If I copy mytest.cmd to root of A;\ I get: jaclaz

Well it is not like a TXTSETUP.OEM is a digitally signed encrypted file stored inside a passwod protected RAR file on a Truecrypt volume it's a plain text file and you can put together one easily. The readme.rtf on the given site talks of F6 floppy install, so seemingly it is just TXTSETUP.OEEM that is missing. See here: http://rmprepusb.blogspot.it/2013/06/txtsetupoem-files-for-f6-floppy-disks.html Use (say) this driver as a "base" reference: http://dlcdnet.asus.com/pub/ASUS/misc/utils/AMD_RAIDAHCIController_V25154039.zip This said, FORGET temporarily the above (it may become useful next time) and follow cdob's suggestion first. jacaz

Yep , the point on the other thread being (besides the nice sample by Yzöwl) that using DIR /S on a largish (possibly filled up to the brim) volume will be slow. If the volume is NTFS formatted, using a search tool parsing just the $MFT will result as waaaay faster. The suggested tool is MIA (but can be obtained through the Wayback Machine): http://web.archive.org/web/20130525223305/http://ndff.hotbox.ru/en/ And there is another nice tool here: http://reboot.pro/topic/18855-windows-file-search-utility-that-is-fast/ Just for the record, the bhplt example seemingly only looks for the file in root (which may or may not be what the OP wants)., and nowadays it makes little sense (unless there is a reason for it) to look for files in the A: or B: drive jaclaz

See: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/145316-batch-search-program/ Which OS is this intended to be run on? If Vista or later check also: http://ss64.com/nt/forfiles.html jaclaz

These ID's: %SATA_TO_IDE% = amdide_Inst,PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4380&CC_0101 ;SB600 %PCI_IDE% = amdide_Inst,PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_438C ;SB600 Are inside this driver: ftp://supermicro.com/CDR-APLUS2_2.02_for_A%2B_AMD_SP5100_platform/AMD_ATI/Catalyst_Install_Manager/03.00.0746/Packages/Drivers/SBDrv/SB6xx/IDEATA133/LH/ Which, though being for the SB700/800 also "covers" the SB600. jaclaz

Good. To that add : jaclaz

Yes and no. Windows 9x/Me wraps around Dos much in the same way as 7 of 9's suit wraps around her body, though the final results is IMHO much better looking in the latter case . jaclaz

It is refreshing to have this kind of optimism injections on a thread. @billw You may want to try this: http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/office/forum/office_2007-office_install/stdole32tlb-message-and-reconfiguring-every-time/08afbcb2-e3a2-4028-8ec1-0b45f24b76b2 The tool is not available anymore, but it can be retrieved thanks to the Wayback Machine https://web.archive.org/web/20100301160429/http://support.microsoft.com/kb/290301 https://web.archive.org/web/20100531005942/http://download.microsoft.com/download/e/9/d/e9d80355-7ab4-45b8-80e8-983a48d5e1bd/msicuu2.exe The tool was retired for a reason : https://web.archive.org/web/20100831061718/http://support.microsoft.com/kb/290301 But it is still IMHO worth a try. jaclaz

No. http://homepage.ntlworld.com./jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/questions-with-yes-or-no-answers.html Maybe you should first ask (yourself or on the forum if you can't find an answer by your own) the question: WHAT is docker? https://www.docker.com/whatisdocker/ Since noone (except maybe a handful of people) can understand anything in the mumble-jumble that is proposed there as if it was an actual answer to the question, it is unlikely that anyone will be able to answer you. The only snippet on that page that makes some (little) sense to me is the part answering the question: How is this different from Virtual Machines? The interesting page: https://www.docker.com/resources/usecases/ contains pearls such as: and: which - apart the abuse of acronyms - may well be submitted to next Vogon's Poetry Yearly Award. Maybe soon someone will be able to post on their site in plain enough English, thus allowing some more mere mortals to understand what (the heck) they are talking about. All in all however, it seems to me like the idea is NOT to run (say) existing Windows applications in a non-Windows OS, but rather to run "Docker applications" (whatever they are, but seemingly basically Linux originated programs/scripts) by putting them into a container and have the container (and thus the application inside it) run *everywhere*. jaclaz

This thread isn't dead (anymore ) you just revived it by digging through it's grave and bringing it back to life (which is the good thing about not closing thread, sometimes they return ). The screenshot you posted unfortunately does not provide any actually useful information, and certainly not about it being installed (or installed properly) it only says that the file exists (good). But this error has been reported in connection mainly with two distinct issues (causing the same behaviour/error message) one is a permission issue on a Registry hive and the other is related to missing entires in the Registry (not actually connected directly on indirectly with stdole32.tlb). Check if the first case applies to your system, see here: http://andyjwilliams.co.uk/technology/vista-office-2007-installation-problems-stdole32tlb/ or if the second case applies, see here: http://davidoverton.com/blogs/doverton/archive/2007/07/21/how-to-get-rid-of-the-installer-configuration-dialog-when-running-office-2007-and-office-2003-on-the-same-system-for-vista-and-other-versions-of-windows.aspx If neither cases (and relative solutions) apply to your system or if you have troubles in applying the fixes, please let us know, it is well possible that it is *something else* or, if you prefer, the stdole32.tlb issue is *somehow* like a "generic error" that may be triggered by several causes, but let's first see if any of the two known and common ones apply. Just as an example, there are other (fewer) reports about the issue having been solved by completely uninstalling all versions of Office through some of the "third party advanced uninstallers". jaclaz

JFYI, I am instead heavy critical on the good IPB board guys as they not only regularly (at each friggin' board update) make something not work anymore, but they tend to also "botch" previous contents. (it is like they are only interested in people creating new boards, to the hell the long established ones and their contents). When you post about a bug they historically have no idea - besides NOT being interested in the least in solving it - on how to manage the issue, often they are not even able to understand in what the bug consists. On the other hand, one way or the other, the good MSFN Admin(s) *somehow* managed to make all the IPB bugs at least "tolerable" (and believe me this does not happen on other boards), it's not at all their fault if the process, at each board change, takes often a lot of time. jaclaz

Maybe there is the usual communication problem. You should have a "goal" or "expectation". Is this goal ?: prepare an XP source that can be installed in VirtualBox prepare an XP source that can be installed on a specific machine (with a specific SATA controller) prepare an XP source that can be installed on a large number (but not *all*) of machines with various SATA controllersPlease choose one. If your goal is #2 and you wish to test the result in VirtualBox, it is very likely that you will fail. jaclaz