jaclaz

Well, no. I did "read the price in Euro, which is € 23.75 (+22% taxes), corresponding to US$ 29.95 (+22% taxes)." Never said that they were not applied on a region basis. The mistake I made was to confuse Euro with US dollars, which I corrected soon after you made me notice it, and I quoted those as "net prices" adding in "curved brackets" the percentage of taxes I actually read. You might want to study some common punctuation to understand what is the use of parentheses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bracket#Parentheses jaclaz

The first (image on the left) attempt makes no sense. The one on the right seems like fine at first sight. But maybe you are trying to do too many things at once, try to ONLY follow the given example, EXACTLY: https://helgeklein.com/blog/2010/04/active-setup-explained/ I.e., see if you can succeed to run notepad as in the example. Just for the record, batch files on NT systems should really have .cmd extension (and not .bat). About the example batch I posted, what do you mean by "it is not working"? jaclaz

On other news, the (presumably Nokia originated) project that never was (thanks MS) will hopefully come to light: https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/jolla-tablet-world-s-first-crowdsourced-tablet Sailfish: https://sailfishos.org/about-architecture.html is an OS derived from MeeGo, which was sponsored by Nokia before MS acquisition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MeeGo jaclaz

This is a very good question. Maybe they shouldn't , but I believe they all-in-all could provide, at least to the most common/known anti virus makers, let's say the ones listed on VirusTotal, a pre-release of the update (let's say one week in advance) so that the anti virus makers themselves could test those and/or *somehow* whitelist the update. No matter if (in this specific case or in the previous ones[1]) the "fault" is not of MS but rather of the Anti virus maker, what most people will perceive will be that "Stupid MS update borked my system" (which actually is what happens ). Facts (and not in any way "news"): A large user base uses Windows in some versionMost of this large user base uses the one or the other third party anti virusThe majority (I would say) of these users have not the technical abilities to solve themselves (if possible) this kind of issuesA large part of these people use the computer (and conversely Windows) as a work tool, and have more or less serious inconveniences when this tool for whatever reasons does not work or does not work properly.These people will perceive issues with their work tool as a failure originated from Microsoft and will grow - even if only subliminally - a form of disaffection to the company and it's products, deeming them unreliable to say the least.What was supposed to be the solution (Automatic Windows Updates) has over the years shown it's limits, and more often than not caused serious issues, and while it is understandable how extremely rare hardware or software combinations may not have been tested it has become obvious that, given the wideness of issues (when the issues are created) lately, it is clear how the "model" itself is a failed one and something should be done to make it better which at the moment (waiting for a brand new idea/method/whatever) cannot but be represented to double (and triple) check updates and their effects before releasing them, something that seemingly is not done or done properly. jaclaz [1] Someone may still remember when the SP3 for XP put all Norton Antivirus installed machines (again no matter who's was the actual fault) on their knees, just for the record: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/118290-sp3-registry-corruption-bandaid-solution/

Well, you want to do something "advanced" and it is rather obvious that in order to do that you will need to get "advanced" knowledge, but the procedure is simple enough. From the description in the given link: http://www.itninja.com/blog/view/appdeploy-articles-activesetup? When an user logs on, a "common to all" key: HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Active Setup\Installed Components\<UID> is compared to a corresponding "per user" key: HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Active Setup\Installed Components\<UID> If the HKCU key is not found the contents of the string value StubPath is executed. The HKLM key is then copied to HKCU. See if this makes it simple enough (it includes an example that you can easily replicate for testing purpose): https://helgeklein.com/blog/2010/04/active-setup-explained/ In your case you would add something like: [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Active Setup\Installed Components\KaliOmicronLab] @="Kali's OmicronLab Avro Keyboard" "StubPath"="avro.cmd" When each user logs in for the first time (and for the first time only) the file avro.cmd will be executed, of course under the current user credentials, so all you need is to make a .cmd that adds those Registry entries to HKCU and make sure it is in the PATH or provide a path to it in the above key. The avro.cmd could be something *like*: @ECHO OFFSETLOCAL ENABLEEXTENSIONSSET My_Reg_hive=HKCU\Software\OmicronLab\Avro KeyboardFOR %%A IN ("ChangeInputLocale=YES""PrefferedLocale=BANGLADESH""AvroUpdateCheck=NO""DontShowComplexLNotification=NO""DontShowStartupWizard=NO""StartWithWindows=YES""ShowSplash=NO""DefaultUIMode=ICON""LastUIMode=ICON""ModeSwitchKey=F11""EnableJoNukta=NO""OldStyleReph=YES""VowelFormating=YES""NumPadBangla=YES""AutomaticallyFixChandra=YES""FullOldStyleTyping=YES""DefaultLayout=Bijoy2003""OutputIsBijoy=NO") DO FOR /F "tokens=1,2 delims==" %%B IN (%%A) DO (ECHO REG ADD "%My_Reg_hive%" /V %%B /D %%C /F)jaclaz

Few things I hate more than attempting to defend the good M$ guys, but I fail to see how they (or their policies) can be held responsible for (or connected to) the paltalk developers using in their code (knowingly or unknowingly) a dll function that is not present in Windows 2000 (and AFAICU not one of those "essential" or even "needed" ones). Since you are a paltalk user you could tell them how they broke Windows 2000 compatibility and how much this (BTW senseless) move affected you. jaclaz

If I may, there is a "side issue" (that may represent a good or a bad thing, beauty is always in the eye of the beholder). AFAIK if you edit a post, no notification is sent. When you make a new post a notification is sent (or should be sent) to people that subscribed to that topic or that chose to be notified about new posts generally. On one hand, an edit may pass "unseen", on the other two or more posts by the same user may annoy the recipient of the notification. In a nutshell, you never do the right thing , though it is generally accepted that there should never be two consecutive posts by the same user on the same post, there may well be exceptions, as an example when replying to different previous posts, and you quote the one or the other in separate posts, to reply to each of them separately or when, though on the same thread the contents of the posts are related to different things that are better kept separated, as this will help later to reference the "right" post, but using the board (with several posts one after the other in a short period of time) like it was a notes book to jolt down experiences in real time or so is maybe a tadbit stretching the "normal", "intended" use. Imagine that instead of a board it was a blog. Would you add information editing the blog "main" article or post your new findings in the "comments" section? In this particular case, however, it seems to me more like a "twitter use" of the board jaclaz

BUT seemingly not "all" ways. Reminder: jaclaz

You are right , but actually I was attributing it to evil stupidity. jaclaz

To be fair, by attempting to block Classic Shell install and completely failing at it, MS gave us a good topic for discussion, maybe it is just a strategy to keep people busy with trivialities while they go on with their evil plan for world domination and stuff .... jaclaz

Be aware that on a German system, there is the risk that it may do something, at least Nada 0.9 (which shares most of the same code) has mixed reports when used on German systems , you may want to use the new 0.5 version: http://www.bernardbelanger.com/computing/NaDa/index.php jaclaz

@Nexes MIcrosoft acquired Sysinternals on July 18, 2006, you ONLY *need* previous versions of the Sysinternals utilities to "fix" a Windows 9x system, most of them are available through the Wayback Machine: https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.sysinternals.com/ Which you will probably need to use anyway as most of the times the relevant page contains needed or interesting info. Each specific utility (before the MS takeover) may (or may not) be redistributable, example (readme.txt for PortMon9x): jaclaz

I see now , like if the value in HKEY_CURRENT_USER\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Avalon.Graphics\<displayName>\ClearTypeLevel was totally ignored or however assumed/rendered as "100" no matters which value you actually have in it? My previous doubt was about the fact that the mentioned article as well as this: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa970267(v=vs.110).aspx talk of that Registry key when related to "WPF applications" (*whatever* they are ) and not as a "generic" Windows rendering engine . See also this: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/tmancini/archive/2008/02/07/do-you-find-the-wpf-editor-to-be-too-fuzzy.aspx jaclaz

I am not understanding. The second "magnifier lens" seems to me like using a scale of grays, while the first uses colours. What is the point/question/doubt/relevance/whatever? That the setting does not apply to a "system" info window or that it only applies in the "preview" of the Clear Type tuner(and not anywhere else)? This latter would imply that MS is lying (or at the very least mis-representing features), and you know how this never happens. jaclaz

I particularly like the: I would dare to say that the late Douglas Adams could have used this (as opposed to toothpick instructions) as exemplification of the reasons why humanity is gone insane. , or more aptly it is a good, modernized version of : http://www.planetclaire.org/quotes/hitchhikers/#Beware_the_Leopard jaclaz

Yep , that was the point of the experiment suggested in post #9. Now, what about "Active Setup"? http://www.itninja.com/blog/view/appdeploy-articles-activesetup? http://wpkg.org/Adding_Registry_Settings#Active_Setup jaclaz

Let's see if you can (without opening the spoiler of course), guess to WHAT EXACTLY these Intellectual Property License Terms are referring: jaclaz

More recently than that a whole bunch of HP and Lenovo machines "forced" a "queer" CHS geometry with 240 heads, and this, summed to the poor way MS designed some bootsector code (for both FAT32 and NTFS) has caused much grievance when imaging or restoring (or exchanging) disks... And seemingly (at least for the moment) it is not like UEFI is going to be as painless/foolproof as it is advertised. jaclaz

WHEN it works just fine . WHEN it does NOT work just fine, people try to disable it. jaclaz

Not really: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107290/quotes?item=qt0463056 jaclaz

Here is where learning a little about batch files and understanding the snippet Yzöwl posted may become useful. Provided that when you run your batch you have access to WMI interface, if not, you will need to run the batch related to the Registry post install or find another way to "pair" users with their SID's, like (example) experiment with PsGetSid: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb897417.aspx Basically you need to replace in your batch (in the line to add to the Registry) the HKCU with HKU\<SID> and you need to calculate the <SID> value dinamycally when the batch is run. Alternatively , you could try assigning at install time to the "standard" User "KAMRUL" Administration privileges and later demote it to "Standard user". If you are asking how to find out which user is currently logged in?, try issuing the whoamicommand in a Command window prompt . jaclaz

Good. Now login as Admin. Open Regedit. Navigate to HKEY_USERS/ Can you see the SID S-1-5-21-3912419492-1565357640-1409004406-1003? Can you see the SID S-1-5-21-3912419492-1565357640-1409004406-1001? Log off, re-login as KAMRUL. Open Regedit. Navigate to HKEY_USERS/ Can you see the SID S-1-5-21-3912419492-1565357640-1409004406-1003? Can you see the SID S-1-5-21-3912419492-1565357640-1409004406-1001? jaclaz

Have you tried the "NoSetTaskbar" Registry key/Group Policy? (cannot really say if it locks the taskbar, I don't think it will, but it is worth a try): http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc938272.aspx http://www.tweaklibrary.com/Display/Control-Panel/41/Prohibit-access-to-“Taskbar-and-Start-Menu”-dialog-(Current-User)/10274/ Try checking/observing changes (if any) of 13th byte of HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\StuckRects2, see: http://serverfault.com/questions/508607/how-can-i-change-the-task-bar-position-when-manipulating-the-task-bar-is-disable?noredirect=1#comment572932_508613 http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/23512-how-to-set-2-line-taskbar-have-had-no-success/ when you move the taskbar. Possibly removing Authorization to that key would "lock" the taskbar (buit it may als make your system unbootable/crash, so make sure you have a "way out" plan before fiddling with it. jaclaz

Let's try to clear this. Say you have two users on a system: UserAdmin <- with administration privileges UserStandard <- with "standard" privileges HKCU will be connected to the UserAdmin's profile when UserAdmin is logged on, and connected to the UserStandard's profile when UserStandard is logged on. On the test machine, open a command Window and execute in it: wmic useraccount get name,sidand post results. Then, log in with the one and the other user and check with regedit the HKEY_USERS/<Security ID>/Software you find in the Registry and which permissions/restrictions they have. Read also this: http://pcsupport.about.com/od/termshm/g/hkey_users.htm You should get the hang of the mechanism. jaclaz

HKEY_CURRENT_USER: 1) does NOT exist 2) it is CURRENT user . See: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc976337.aspx There are as many "Current Users" as many accounts there are, maybe (as it seems like you are trying to change the settings of another user) you need to find out the SID of the user and access the "real" thing, i.e. the HKEY_USERS\ Security ID , can you try explaining the context? Which OS is that? jaclaz