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

Or how much transparent the feedback gathering process is.... jaclaz

I'll just bookmark this as an antonym to "in a timely fashion". jaclaz

Well, there is a slight nuance that you may have missed. MagicAndre1981's statement may allow the reader to believe that "Microsoft forums are terrible UNLIKE other Microsoft managed things", while my statement flatly excludes that, while at the same time not explicitly stating how terribly those forums are (mis-)managed, i.e. leaving terribleness (like beauty) in the eye of the beholder. It is not a language barrier, however, being intelligent or bright is not an exclusivity of English speaking people (nor - for that matters - to citizens of non-third world countries). Now, pretending to be intelligent, bright and English speaking, and taking part to "high level" discussions adding to them some of their ignorance (which is what a number of people do there just because they have a MVP "badge") is another thing . jaclaz

Now that is a pretty strong statement , I would rather say that those forums are managed in EXACTLY the same way Microsoft nowadays is . jaclaz

The only issue with this being that no such particular assertion has been made on this thread. Sure , the multi-core is the "last and least" of the issues with software not designed with Windows 9x compatibility in mind. List: software that was written to be compatible with single core ONLY AND compatible Windows 9x OSsoftware that was written to be compatible with single core AND multi-core BUT NOT with Windows 9x OSsoftware that was written to be compatible with single core AND multi-core AND THAT (by pure chance) is also compatible with Windows 9x OSsoftware that was written to be compatible with single core BUT NOT with Windows 9x OSsoftware that was written to be compatible with single core AND multi-core AND Windows 9x OSsoftware that was written to be compatible multi-core ONLY AND ( implicitly) NOT Windows 9x OS)#1-2 Common #3-4 Fairly common #5-6 Less common jaclaz

The issue may come if the update is a "forced one" and does NOT work as it should, this one JFYI is a nice one, check at the end of the page the report by Jim5506: http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_8-windows_update/forced-windows-81-update/73e135af-4566-4e9f-a001-686b1b2fe75c?page=2 jaclaz

Does it work (if you have an occasion to test it) on machines with media card readers or suffers from the same issue as the "IF EXIST"? See around here: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/137714-install-xp-from-a-ram-loaded-iso-image/page-5#entry895361 and here: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/144069-batch-find-file-on-the-cd-roms/ jaclaz

Yep, the latter (failed) auto update issue has provoked more than a little (justified BTW) resentment towards MS. A few interesting related stories have been posted here: http://www.eightforums.com/windows-updates-activation/53755-forced-upgrade-windows-8-1-a.html jaclaz

Now you tell me ... Sure jaclaz

Yes/No. There is a completely empty SFCFILES.DLL (which is STIILL available here on FdV's site: http://www.vorck.com/windows/software.html http://www.vorck.com/windows/data/sfcfiles.zip ) mukke made reference to a (supposedly newer) SFCFILES.DLL version, that is seemingly missing. The link on this page: http://www.vorck.com/windows/xpsp4.html does point to: http://www.vorck.com/data/sfcfiles.zip which is 404 What I suspect is that there is simply a "wrong" link above (typo by FdV or "moved file") and that only exists a single version of SFCFILES.DLL, that the "new version" that mukke used is still that same file and that it is still the same good ol' one completely empty derived from Damian's initial implementation. Guess WHO at the time (ten years ago! ) provided "critical insights" pointing FdV at Damian Bakowsky work? https://web.archive.org/web/20080120145002/http://www.vorck.com/windows/about.html http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=18556 jaclaz

You can add 32 bit support (WOW64 subsystem) to your 64 bit PE. See: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/167983-how-to-add-wow64-to-simple-win8pe/ But maybe you can use *something* else. Wouldn't the output of a "normal" DIR /S be enough for your uses? (though it is not "as accurate" as diruse or diskuse are, the difference is usually very little and surely you don't want to "fill up to the brim" the target) jaclaz

Conversations: Program: Hey, OS are you there? OS: Sure I am here, ready. Program: Which OS are you? OS: You should be smart enough to discover it by yourself, shouldn't you? Program: Hmmm, OK, but are you multi-core aware? OS: Probe me and you will see. Program: I see that you are Windows 98 and not multicore-aware, which is a pity as I have been written with multi-core support. OS: Well, but surely you have single core capability, don't you? Program: Sure, now that you tell me this I could have it, but I was compiled without support for it, I need a multicore-aware OS. OS: Sorry but you cannot run, then. jaclaz

No special discount for resellers? jaclaz

@mukke The link you posted to the "new" SFCFILES.DLL is dead, if you have a copy of it, post it, please. jaclaz

I guess this will take a few more posts... jaclaz

@MHz Should you by any chance need a torch/pocket light, have a look a this one: http://www.hexbright.com/ http://blog.amber.org/post/64781966869/overengineering-a-flashlight jaclaz