jaclaz

Well, the point is that they are allowed (by you) to use one. Whether it is there and can be remotely activated, or it can be downloaded automagically (and as well activated) does not change the authorization you gave them to use one. It is entirely possible that the provision is the result of some retarded MS engineer mis-explaining the "feature" to a retarded MS attorney (or that the latter mis-understood the former), or it could be just a "preventive", "demonstrative" provision, just a social experiment to see how much retarded are the final users, still it represents one of the reasons why I put to use my good ol'sticks (the 10 feet ones that were too d@mn heavy for NOT touching Vista ) for NOT touching the stupid new OS: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/125258-nlite-and-microxp/#entry807225 Let's put this into perspective. When you want to track usage of a product, you ask (possibly politely) your customers (final users) to provide feedback, usually by asking them to fill a questionnaire or poll. When you want to beta test something, you find a number of beta testers that usually are a restricted number of "advanced" users asking them to report bugs, inconsistencies, provide suggestions, etc. In any case BOTH approaches have two key characteristics: 1. it is done on a voluntary basis 2. the user knows EXACTLY the information that he/she provides No issues with #1. Many about #2. Now, IF the data gathered and collected was in the form of a plain .txt file (or a .xls, or a .mdb or the awful .xml, etc. or the format was OPEN and a viewer for it was provided) AND the feedback would consist of a limited (human readable) amount of data (say compressed into an archive) and sent to MS - say - once a week AND there would be an explicit consent required to send the data AND the data was collected in a public searchable/accessible database (in an anonymous form) THEN MAYBE I could THINK of sending them some detail on the usage I make of the OS. That is a generic issue with any kind of statistical result, if no RAW data is public, the results may well be wrong or manipulated. Remember that Windows 8/8.1 is (according to them) the result of telemetry/users feedback, so, someone, somewhere and en masse must have made them think that it was a good idea. OR they lied to us, inventing the consensus that never was (and this is not a good precedent record). jaclaz This is connected with oligarchy AND NOT democracy, the process implies that there are a number of people that have a certain number of working neurons and use them when providing feedback.

Sure and clearly they are FAILing at it. If you think a bit about it, there is nothing really "new" in the "workflow" or "interface" of either 8/8.1 or 10, only some (IMHO hideous) graphical changes to the UI (some of which you are trying to revert through the use of Aero Glass) and the perfectly unuseful "global" search. The only "new" thing in the 10 UI is maybe the multiple switchable desktops, something that I have in Litestep/blackbox since several years. jaclaz

Sure , especiallly if it has a single 1 Gb RAM stick that would be a nice solution. Seriously , there are normally no particular issues, BUT some tweaking may be needed: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/118097-day-to-day-running-win-9xme-with-more-than-1-gib-ram/ Typically a couple of settings in system.ini are needed: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/79756-512-mb-ram-and-above/?p=578205 jaclaz

You are welcome . Another happy bunny in the basket: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/128727-cant-access-repair-my-pc-option-via-f8-startup/?p=828512 jaclaz

Well, NO. That article, like a zillion other similar articles, points out how by accepting their privacy policy you allow them to keylog, which does not mean that there is (at the moment) a keylogger, nor that it is activated. What Trip is asking is actual proof that such keylogger: a. exists b. is active jaclaz

Not really-really, a RAW (or non-native VHD) booting actually has the disk drive image mapped BEFORE the bootloader gets control and is "hooked" by the suitable driver (say Firadisk or WinVblock) just like a "real" hard disk is "hooked" by the controller driver. As a matter of fact a "fixed" VHD is ALREADY a RAW image (with a sector appended to it). Which BTW does not mean that hibernate work (or does not work) with RAW image booting. Which actually (the header for monolithic, fixed, non-sparse, non-growing non-differential VHD's) is NOT a header but rather a footer, i.e. a single sector "appended" to the RAW image, JFYI: http://reboot.pro/topic/9715-firadisk-and-vhd-img-images/?p=83781 http://reboot.pro/topic/8480-clonedisk/ jaclaz

An image is worth a thousand words. jaclaz

Just in case, an alternative strategy : http://www.holytaco.com/25-awsome-homeless-guy-signs/ http://www.images-graphics-pics.com/signs/sign-generator/simple.asp?text=A+few+bucks+for+an+Aeroglass+license%3F&align=center&align2=Middle&fontsize=20&font=headache&color=red&transparency=255&color2=orange&watermark=&move=0&move2=&parody=&rotate=&allow=5611&left=&right=&up=&down=&pic=HomelessGuy&x=31&y=182&w=220&h=137 jaclaz

Last time I provided someone with 01 March 1927 I was flooded with ads for denture adhesives and some horoscopes for Pisces. While the former were pretty much uninteresting to me, the latter were actually more accurate than the average ones for my actual astrological sign. jaclaz

I don' tget it. Where does that script come from? Have you written it? What does it does? (I mean does it actually, even minimally, work?) If you set a variable inside a FOR loop, it's "%" value won't be altered, you need to use the expanded "!" value. Example: @ECHO OFFSETLOCAL ENABLEEXTENSIONS ENABLEDELAYEDEXPANSIONSET Variable=A suffusion of yellowFOR /L %%A IN (1,1,10) DO (SET Variable=%%AECHO %Variable%ECHO !Variable!)jaclaz

Send a PM to Mim0 and ask him directly: http://hfslip.altervista.org/contact.htm jaclaz

Well, maybe originally version 2.27 was not used (but rather some other "really internal" version). At least for the single Windows 2000 .iso I tested, I was able to recreate it EXACTLY with a hexedited 2.39, as posted. It is entirely possible that you need some more esoteric command switches in order to make use of the CDIMAGE v2.39 (hexedited) to recreate 9x iso's. jaclaz

https://www.wireshark.org/ https://www.wireshark.org/about.html http://www.howtogeek.com/104278/how-to-use-wireshark-to-capture-filter-and-inspect-packets/ jaclaz

I consider it a "turnpoint". Wasting 2.5 Gb of RAM is "waste". Still, it is IMHO "not enough" to completely justify the *switch* to 64 bit, which has a number of strings attached, including more space on hard disk needed. In my perverted mind 6 Gb corresponds to what in the good ol'times was 96 Mb, more than 64 Mb, but sensibly less than 128 , if you do "normal" things, 4 Gb (or 3.5 Gb) are "enough", if you need more juice, go for 8 Gb. jaclaz

It is not beeping , it is chirping . Sounds a lot like it cannot spin up and produces that chirp instead. Of course there is NO way to exchange the PCB (unless you also desolder and re-solder, transferring it) the chip containing the firmware. The reasons why a disk won't spin up (besides an actual electronic component hardware damage) can be *any* among: sticky bearing stuck head bad contact between PCB and motor <- this can happen if the PCB was removed and not refitted with tightened screws or if contacts are dirt/not cleanIn practice, all you can do is to remove the PCB, clean contacts/check "spring effect" of them and reassemble tightening correctly the screws. (which may work if situation is #3 above). If it is #2, there is *nothing* you can do. If it is #1 there are some cases where, holding the disk vertically (and using some very light percussive maintenance) the motor can just make it to spin up. jaclaz

There is NO difference whatever that you can actually appreciate (not even through benchmarks) between running a 32 bit or a 64 bit OS. There is also NO actual noticeable difference between a 3.5 Gb and a 4 Gb system. (if you need a lot of RAM for the specific use you do of the PC, then you need A LOT of it). IMHO: If you have 4 Gb, run a "normal" 32-bit 7 (no need to "risk" a patch for no practical gain). If you have 4 Gb a 64 bit OS may result as actually being slower/worse as it will likely use MORE RAM than the corresponding 32 bit one, vanifying the 0.5 Gb "more accessible RAM" you have. If you have sensibly more than 4 Gb RAM (let's say from 8 Gb, up) then it would make sense to use the 64 bit version. jaclaz

Sure it does , the note about dencorso's statement was only related to the missing reference to the need for SP2. To recap (and IMHO): Vista January 30, 2007-February 14, 2008 did not work decently Vista February 15, 2008 (2nd release of SP1) - May 25, 2009 started working well enoughVista May 26, 2009 (SP2) - present works really fine jaclaz

Hmmm. http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2008/hr/hr/downgrade-rights.aspx Click on: You'll get: So the question is WHERE/HOW to order today a Server 2008 media downgrade kit. (IF still provided) The linked site is inactive since 2012, apparently (possibly following the launch of Server 2012 ): https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2008/en/us/downgrade-TC.aspx https://web.archive.org/web/20120810231134/http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2008/en/us/downgrade-TC.aspx jaclaz

In which form do you have those licenses (since you have no media nor keys)? jaclaz

Well, just to put things in perspective, news in July 2013 may not represent "news" anymore a year and a half later. Current reality may be even worse , JFYI: http://advertising.microsoft.com/en/xbox http://advertising.microsoft.com/en/campaigns?TagID=87 jaclaz

I guess there might be a need to set explorer to show hidden/system folders . jaclaz

No, video card RAM is video card RAM and System RAM is system RAM. You may have been confused by the fact that ONBOARD (not PCI/SGP/PCI-E) video cards may operate using part of the System RAM. As always, before writing a batch, it would be logical to test the setup manually. Rename all files adding (say) a "4" to the name, keeping the extension. Example: hal.dll->hal4.dll To be on the safe side, make sure you do not exceed the 8.3 naming convention, i.e. in the case of halmacpi.dll rename it to halmacp4.dll Add to your BOOT.INI a line, by copying your current "booting Windows XP entry" line, pasting it as last line of the BOOT.INI and adding the hal and kernel switches: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/170950-windows-2000-on-haswell/?p=1085774 Copy the chosen hal/kernel to %Windir%\Sytem32 Or add all files and add all lines (and later delete the ones not used), do check the given links, particularly this one: http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=23553 Point: "6. Universal XP - Support in boot.ini menu for Multiple Hal and Kernel" jaclaz

I am not sure to understand what you are asking for. Do you want your window 95 shell/GUI to look "similar" to Vista ? Maybe you should go for LiteStep: http://www.lsdev.org/doku.php http://www.litestep.net/ and look for a suitable pre-made theme: http://customize.org/litestep/themes http://www.deviantart.com/customization/skins/themes/litestep/ http://www.wincustomize.com/explore/litestep then (if needed) customize it. jaclaz

I know , but someone may have taken that as serious . jaclaz

Did you simply uninstall it and reinstall it or used the appropriate "cleaning tool" after uninstall and before re-install? The procedure (recommended by McAfee) is the following: uninstall it run the cleaning tool http://service.mcafee.com/FAQDocument.aspx?lc=1033&id=TS101331 re-install it The procedure I personally suggest is slightly different : uninstall run the cleaning tool http://service.mcafee.com/FAQDocument.aspx?lc=1033&id=TS101331 NEVER reinstall that crappy thingy and get something else that actually worksjaclaz