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

Let's say that switchable desktops/workplaces is the poor man's (or the cheap man's ) way of having multiple monitors, beside the cost of more monitors, there is the need for some space for them (which may or may not be available). Yep. And - to restate the obvious - I have a hardware device that I call "window" which is an exceptionally accurate way to check the weather by simply looking through it, and another couple small hardware devices called "thermometer" and "barometer" devised more than 500 (five hundred) years ago and that have historically always worked, needing NO batteries, nor to be "plugged" or "connected" to anything. The combined effect of these three devices is to have a "good enough" representation of current weather and also a "reliable enough" forecast of it in the immediate future. I also sport (on my wrist) a device called "watch" that is seemingly very accurate in telling me the time, and while I do use a Windows calculator you will have to pry out of my dead hand my (now some 25 years old ) HP pocket calculator. I am old fashioned, I know , but I do have as well Weather, Clock and Calc apps on my phone and having yet another of these apps on my desktop, possibly constantly updating (and thus distracting me from what I am doing on it) is around place 1.256.784th :whistling: in my priority list of things I would like to have. jaclaz

Why are you using ^^ before redirection symbols? Wouldn't you want to make sure that you do not overwrite an existing "command.log"? What is that you want to accomplish, i.e. what do you actually want to have written to the "command.log" file? Are you sure you want to use "relative" paths such as the ones you used? WHAT (EXACTLY) does not work? Apart from the above, maybe what you really want/need is a "TEE" command. http://code.google.com/p/wintee/ http://code.google.com/p/wintee/wiki/FAQ See if this: http://www.robvanderwoude.com/battech_redirection.php helps you. The code you posted works fine, in the sense that it produces: a logfiles directory a command.log file in it with contents:PING www.google.com^IPCONFIG /ALL^Is this not what you expected? jaclaz

Just for the record, if you want to run a batch "invisible" (outside the SCHTASKS/Task Scheduler) there are several dedicated tools (that "hide" the command window), but all in all I find that *anyone* should have among the "base" tools the Nirsoft NIRCMD (that has these feature among a ton of other very useful ones): http://www.nirsoft.net/utils/nircmd.html jaclaz

Cannot say. By instinct, I tend to "hate" *anything* that is "fixed" or "unmovable" or "not customizable". 2/3 to 3/4 of the way I personally setup my desktop/environment is aimed to NOT use (or use the least possible) the mouse[1], I do *almost* anything via keyboard, and thus I use "hot-keys" to switch between workspaces. jaclaz [1] to make it clear, if there is a "wrong" usage paradigm in *any* graphical interface is the "move your hand from the keyboard to get the mouse (to click on a stupid button) and then get it back on the keyboard", when you are using (say) a graphical/design program, i.e. you use "only" or "mostly" the mouse, it is if course perfectly OK, but when you are using a mainly keyboard driven application (let's say Excel or any other program where you massively input data or formulas) it is a nuisance this mouse/keyboard/mouse/keyboard alternation. As well, once you have typed the data, using the mouse to change fonts/formats/applying highlights, etc. is very convenient, again it is a matter of personal habits, I tend to create any document in a "unformatted" way and only once the data input is over, I "switch" to "graphical" mode and apply formats/make it "pretty".

I have NO idea how exactly multiple desktops are implemented in Windows 10, but I have used them for years in blackbox/bb4win. I have 4 desktops, Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta and I can switch between them easily through a hot key. Practical use depends greatly on the use someone makes of a computer. I am particularly prone to make a mess of the desktop (in the sense that I tend to have any number of windows opened at the same time). Right now I have running: On Alpha: an Excel workbook (almost full screen) 1 "Calculator" Window 1 7-zip window In the background: 1 "Explorer" (it is not really MS Explorer, but it is the same "folder" view) The Excel, Calculator an 7-zip tiled so that I can view and access all of them. On Beta: A word document (about halfscreen) An Opera Window (about halfscreen) which I use to browse online for synonyms and dictionary/translations The two apps are tiled so that I can view and access both of them. On Delta: An Opera window (fullscreen) where I am typing In the back ground: 1 "Explorer" window (it is not really Explorer, but it is the same kind of "folder" view) 1 7-zip window On Gamma: 1 Tiny Hexer window (about half screen). 1 Qemu Manager window (about 1/4 of the screen) 1 IMDISK control panel window (about 1/8 of the screen) 1 7-zip window (the remaining 1/8 of the screen) In the background: 1 "Explorer" window (it is not really Explorer, but it is the same "folder" view) Now you may like (or completely dislike) the idea of having switchable desktops (as a "replacement" for minimizing windows to the taskbar and re-open other ones and/or use alt-tab switching or the like) but for me it is a handy way to keep things easily accessible and "organized". jaclaz

The generic idea is that the "main" parts of WFP/SFC are two files: SFC.DLLSFCFILES.DLLThe first one is the "engine" that compares the actual files with the "list of protected ones" which is the second file. Traditionally one or the other can be "hacked" to completely disable WFP/SFC, i.e.: IF SFC.DLL modification is used, it is a "hack" to make it do "nothing"IF SFCFILES.DLL modification is used, it is a "hack" that simply is an "empty" file, i.e. it makes a completely empty list of protected filesThe latter method allows however (as explained in the thread by ElTorqiro you referenced) for selectively remove one or more files from the list of protected files. You do not really-really need to use an hex editor (though it would be convenient for a single filename removal from the list), you can use gsar (or any other suitable binary search/replace tool): http://home.online.no/~tjaberg/ Inside SFCFILES.DLL you will find: 25 00 73 00 79 00 73 00 74 00 65 00 6D 00 72 00 6F 00 6F 00 74 00 25 00 5C 00 73 00 79 00 73 00 74 00 65 00 6D 00 33 00 32 00 5C 00 64 00 72 00 69 00 76 00 65 00 72 00 73 00 5C 00 74 00 63 00 70 00 69 00 70 00 2E 00 73 00 79 00 73 00 00 00 i.e. Unicode for "%systemroot%\system32\drivers\tcpip.sys" jaclaz

The order in which you install the two Windows 2000 instances doesn't make any real difference. But normally you would install the "recovery" partition after having installed the main one. Remember that in both NT4.00 and Windows 2000 the "default" name for the "%Windir%" directory is "WINNT", what I personally use is "WINNT" for the NT 4.00 install and and "WIN2K" for the "main" Windows 2000 install (and I actually use "NT911" for the "recovery" install), this helps (for example in BOOT.INI entries) to quickly see which is which. BTW, after the install of the "NT911" recovery 2K install I used to reduce greatly the size by deleting files I did not need, I guess that nowadays it would be easier/smarter to use nlite to make a very small install media. I would not "trust" Easeus partition manager, not that it is not a good tool , but it is simply "too new" to be reliable (in the sense that all three systems use a cylinder aligned partitioning scheme and they are traditionally very picky with CHS addressing, whilst Easeus may decide to "adopt" the newere MB aligned scheme and/or create "queer" CHS addresses). I would rather use the built-in tools (FDISK initially for the Windows 9x install and later the "inside setup" tools) and (if needed) some more low-level (or more "direct" and not "automagic") tools for MBR and VBR manipulation. Typically I would use RPM (the Ranish Partition Manager) and grub4dos, while having handy (you never know) bootpart. Additionally, if you are going down the way of installing Windows 9x to the logical volume inside extended you might need a couple more tools, Letter Assigner and/or COA2. I know that I am flooding you with a load of information , and that you will need to take some time to digest them , don't worry, it seems more difficult than it is in reality, but you need to get a "general idea" of the possible issues (and corresponding solutions/workarounds) and to have a "plan" before getting to the "practical" part (and consider also how my memory might well be fading as these are things I did YEARS ago, so you will need anyway some patience and likely a few attempts). jaclaz

No. (see below) Yes Sure it is possible . Fake that instead of Windows 98 you are installing DOS (which is what you are actually installing), the simpler would be to install in this order: - Windows 98 - Windows NT 4 - Windows 2000Each windows setup will attempt (and succeed) to write to the disk it's own VBR invoking it's own bootloader, the difference being that the NT 4's one was designed in such a way to allow booting DOS (and conversely Windows 98) and that the Windows 2000's one was designed in such a way to allow booting of both NT 4.00 and DOS (please read again as Windows 98) whilst the Windows 98 (yet again DOS) only boots "itself". There are obviously a number of third party utilities that may allow you to install the operating systems in every order you choose (i.e. fix the booting mechanism) but if you are starting from scratch it would be easier to install them in the given order. I have run for years such systems, the point that is worth some time thinking about is how to setup the partitioning scheme. Both NT 4.00 and Windows 2000 were designed to be installed (apart a few boot files) on Logical Volumes inside Extended partition. Windows 98 was designed to be installed ONLY on First Primary partition. Windows NT 4.00 has some limitations on the size of the volume in which it is installed and it's position. Additionally there is an issue with NT 4.00 and Windows 2000 "sharing" a NTFS volume, Windows 2000 will ALWAYS "upgrade" the NTFS filesystem to it's own version and a few NT 4.00 tools will NOT work properly afterwards (namely CHKDSK) and the NT 4.00 NEEDS to be at least updated to SP4 or it won't even boot. There are however a couple of tricks that allow the installing of Windows 98 (again set apart a few boot files) on a Logical Volume inside Extended. My personal way to setup these three OS has always been the following (you will get a lot of different suggestions about this, it has been debated for years): First Primary FAT16 containing all the boot files and an "emergency" Windows 2000 minimal install, size less than 2 Gb Extended partition containing: First Logical volume inside Extended Windows NT 4.00 install, size 1 Gbytes, formatted FAT16 Second Logical volume inside Extended Windows 98 formatted FAT 32 size 2-4 Gbytes formatted FAT32 Third logical volume inside Extended Windows 2000 install, formatted NTFS .... Last logical volume inside Extended "Common Data", formatted FAT16 size 1 Gb The attempt here is to have all volumes get the same drive letter under whatever OS is currently booting, I always suggest this because IMHO it helps in not deleting by mistake a file on the "wrong" volume. The alternative is to have separate Primary volumes (each with an OS installed) and using a third party bootmanager (such as grub4dos or XOSL) to choose which one to boot, in this case each OS will have "it's own volume" as C: drive, and the other volumes may get "different" drive lettering. (the DOS/Windows 98 boot would anyway to be on First Primary unless you would some more advanced re-mapping in grub4dos or similar) Of course *anything* midway is possible. It greatly depends on how much "dignity" you want to give to each OS, and how (or how much) you intend to work on one or the other, I mean if you use (say) NT 4.00 only sometimes You will need some detailed instructions to achieve this triple boot as it is not "easy-peasy", but it is entirely doable . Start by reading (no matter if you will use it or not) the XOSL Faq's, as they contain a number of key informations: http://www2.arnes.si/~fkomar/xosl.org/faqhow/faq.html jaclaz

Start a new thread, you are likely in a situation similar to this one: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/145574-seagate-750gb-one-partition-is-raw-after-bsy-fix/ and there is the need to fix/recreate the MBR partition table or however attempt to recover the data from it, though it is as well possible that there is an underlying physical issue as in here: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/170881-seagate-720011-malediction/ that cannot be fixed DIY. (in any case the drive is NOT anymore "bricked" and it does NOT anymore belong to this thread). jaclaz