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

The topic "patch XP to use more than roughly 3.5 Gb of RAM " is not new, the topic "How can I integrate these changes/patches with nlite" seems to me like a new one, instead. Personally I would not even think of replacing the kernel and hal, but I would rather use the alternative BOOT.INI load method, as such, there is no need of anything "particular", it is just a matter of copying the files where appropriate and add a line to BOOT.INI, all in all something that could be well done "outside" (and after) nlite and possibly more suited to WPI or more simply to a batch file In RunOnceEx or similar. jaclaz

Define "best". It is the most radical one, hardly the most convenient one, rarely the fastest one, and never the most proper solution, fundamentally it is not a solution at all, but rather a work-around to delay the re-occurrence of the same issue, before or later. Which does not mean that in some situations can actually represent a valid choice. jaclaz

Well, knowing that it is *a* product branded McAfee helps a bit (but not much). I mean: is slightly better than: but still a lot of info is missing. Which McAfee product is it? Which specific version? jaclaz

Well, it wouldn't be "fair", if we were to delete anything that was not relevant from all books, news and forums we would have pretty much few things remaining. Actually the sheer irrelevance of that specific piece of news makes them relevant IMHO, at least to teach us to distinguish between guesses, hypothesis and (later) reality . jaclaz

I would vote for "Aero Glass Reloaded", removing any reference to the Windows version (this is how most tools are named, nothing actually "new"). jaclaz

Windows 9 does not (and never existed and will not) exist, it is , if not "ancient", "recent" history, but anyway belongs to the past. The experimental "new" (please note the double quotes) Operating System from Microsoft called (internal name or "codename") "Threshold" that was expected to be called "Windows 9" has been officially announced as "Windows 10". This should also tell you something on how reliable is the source you posted here: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/172795-windows-9-to-be-free-for-everybody-who-can-say/ There is nothing particularly complex, for months people guessed that the name of the thing would have been Windows 9 (should have been 8.2) and these guesses were wrong and the thing was called Windows 10 (should still have been 8.2). jaclaz

Maybe it's OWA that you are talking of? It is confusing, I know. http://www.msoutlook.info/question/780 But yes, it is normally possible to use Outlook Express on these e-mail servers: http://help.outlook.com/en-ca/140/cc188651.aspx Whether this is a smart move or not lies mostly in the eye of the beholder, though. jaclaz

That's one of the best explanation so far! What saddens me is the Dedoimedo article you linked before: http://www.dedoimedo.com/computers/windows-10-preview.html Dedoimedo (by definition) is ALWAYS right, but I guess there must be the exception that confirms the Rule. So, windows 10 is "better" than Windows 8/8.1. <- I wonder HOW the heck they could have made it "worse" . But the point on how much it is better, and I believe that Dedoimedo is overestimating this, at the light of the satisfaction for it remembers me good ol' school days where another kid got a better vote grade on a paper than what he actually deserved because he "improved so much from the previous one, and this needs to be appreciated" (while you got a slightly worse one than what would have been fair, only because "you are not doing as much as you can"). jaclaz

Hmmm, I see it a little differently, more like BORG/Platonic solids. jaclaz

Sure, this is expected. The point is that the message box should come up ONLY if the text "alarm" is found in the log, and only as many times as the word "alarm" is found in it. Hence the need to test the script with 3 (three) different logs: containing the word "alarm" only once NOT cotaining the word "alarm" containing the word "alarm" more than once (on different lines)and check if the result is what is expected, i.e. the message box appears once only the message box does NOT appear the message box appears as many times as the word "alarm" is in the logThis is "standard procedure" when developing *any* program/script, you write the code, then test it against "dummy" data, specially crafted to hopefully covering all possibilities, and verify that it works as expected, if it doesn't you go back to the writing and correct/change the code. jaclaz

More simply, aquatic creatures are strange.... jaclaz

There must be something lost in translation. This method: ; First we read the text file$Log = FileRead($TextFileName); Put the contents into an array$pageArray = StringSplit($Log, @CRLF); Now go through the array and look for the word alarm if its found send and emailGlobal $oMyRet[2]Global $oMyError = ObjEvent("AutoIt.Error", "MyErrFunc")For $i = 1 To $pageArray[0]If StringInStr($pageArray[$i], "alarm") Then $Response = _INetSmtpMailCom($SmtpServer, $FromName, $FromAddress, $ToAddress, $Subject, $Body, $AttachFiles, $CcAddress, $BccAddress, $Importance, $Username, $Password, $IPPort, $ssl)NextIf @error ThenMsgBox(0, "Error sending message", "Error code:" & @error & " Description:" & $rc)EndIfis possibly wrong (and however it seems to me like not needed/prone to issues as soon as the log grows in size). Simply try replacing: with something *like*: and see which lines in the log trigger the e-mail sending. (use a short log, with only a few lines, once without any "alarm" in it, once with a single instance of "alarm" in it and one with two or more instances). jaclaz

Well, allegedly that (listening) is what they did till now (and Windows 8.1 is the result ): http://news.softpedia.com/news/Steve-Ballmer-Windows-8-1-Is-Proof-That-We-Listened-and-We-Learned-366551.shtml You missed (see above link) "replatforming". And I would not be so sure that Mr.Nadella has changed the company's attitude. jaclaz

I am not sure to understand, the function parses directly the file, i.e. as clearly explained in the given link it is intended as a correspondent to the command line FINDSTR: http://ss64.com/nt/findstr.html An example of use is given here: http://www.autoitscript.com/forum/topic/136407-search-for-string-in-txt-files/ jaclaz

That is part of the problem. As I see it, the real problem is that they often answer to either question that were never asked or downright to a completely different question from the one that was asked. While it is common that people slip on a chocolate covered banana (or more generally in the xyz fallacy): http://homepage.ntlworld.com./jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/put-down-the-chocolate-covered-banana.html i.e. there are issues in the actual question, they never try to get hold or what the actual problem/issue is and they simply spurt a pre-made answer that may or may not (usually not) apply to the asked question or to the intended question. Just like Call Center support people do, and this is also derived by the "form based" approach, they completely miss the sensibility to understand (between the lines or downright asking) "who" (in the sense of "at which knowledge level he/she is") is on the other end. I claim that one thing is providing support to "average Joe's" (or Mary's) and another thing is giving support to someone that possibly (excluded the specific question) may know more (often much more) than you do. Additionally, there is a profound difference in how in the typical call center support the situation is one-to-one, i.e. a customer calls to have from the specific guy/gal that answers the call a solution, a forum is different, you post there a question, and another user feels like wanting to help AND thinks to have a good suggestions, posts it. If you don't have (what you think is) a good suggestion you don't really-really have to reply. Now if you peek on (say) https://social.technet.microsoft.com/ you will find hundreds or thousands of replies by MVP's (or whatever badge they got) that are simply answering *something else*, surely not the asked question nor anything actually related to the issue of the OP or suggesting as a one-cure-for-all-illnesses a drive format and re-install of the OS. As long as this kind of non-replies come on a voluntary basis from some enthusiast, good-willing people (who, even if "badged", are "unofficial"), it is OK and part of the game, when the same non-reply comes from an official Microsoft representative which is actually paid for this, it is is IMHO more disturbing. Or maybe the scope (i.e. what these otherwise good guys/gals are paid for) is not that of helping the actual posters with the issue at hand but rather to be a sort of MS evangelist : http://microsoftjobsblog.com/what-is-a-technical-evangelist/ i.e. an essentially marketing/promoting one. (as a side note, IF I had any influence in the Vatican the Apple guys that invented this - appalling - use of the word and the MS guys that still insist on using it would have been excommunicated in NO time) jaclaz

I am failing to see the reason to put a whole log file into an array to look for a string in it. You can use FindInFile UDF: http://www.autoitscript.com/forum/topic/132159-findinfile-search-for-a-string-within-files-located-in-a-specific-directory/ jaclaz

And now, for no apparent reason, underwater drones: http://hackaday.com/2014/10/03/robotic-octopus-to-take-over-the-seas/ jaclaz

I believe you didn't really want to make this statement jaclaz

I guess we could make a list of "ignore priorities" . I would put Windows Out Reach as the ones to be most ignored or ignored more thoroughly: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/156549-hello-there/ http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/jj129629.aspx though they are seemingly not outsourced. The answer is: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/162404-many-log-errors-on-install/?p=1034363 The good thing is that it applies to almost any question, or at least Jessica is specialized in this specific answer... jaclaz

Let's make some random percentages DELL's "deals": http://www.dell.com/us/business/p/desktop-all-in-one-deals 1/10 offers only 8.1, all the other offer 7 AND 8.1 http://www.dell.com/us/business/p/laptop-tablet-deals 2/10 offer only 8.1 all the other offer 7 AND 8.1 3/20 = 15% Windows 8.1 17/20= 85% Windows 7 HP ones: http://shopping1.hp.com/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/WFS/WW-USSMBPublicStore-Site/en_US/-/USD/ViewStandardCatalog-Browse?CatalogCategoryID=cYgQ7hab2LMAAAFB.lpn4Tx6&jumpid=in_r11662_Inventory_Clearance_DealsSpot/psgpromo/atlas_homepage/heasmith Out of 14 items only the two tablets and one desktop has 8.1, all the other have 7 (as downgrade from 8.1): 3/14 = 21% 11/14 = 79% I would say that DELL and HP are not doing much to push Windows 8/8.1 ... jaclaz

Also, I would like to underline how there are good things in these newish releases of Vista . OS major version 6, minor 1, 2, 3 or 4 mean that these are all Vista flavours, in my simplicity . Curiously all the new, nice things are relegated to command line interface (and often with mindboggingly complex sintax). At this point it would be more intelligent to make the whole OS command line only (think of Server 2012 Core) create two similar "standard" GUI shells (one touch/swipe/tap enabled and one mouse/keyboard suitable one) and allow the use of specially crafted shells/GUI apps/ Themes making use of this underlying command line core. Not exactly a "new" concept, though. jaclaz

It is rare that CHKDSK cannot fix a NTFS filesystem. What can happen is that a number of files (for whatever reasons) are not indexed properly anymore, and as such will "disappear" (and you can copy them back from the backup/recovery you made). There might be reasons to rebuild/fix a filesystem, but starting from scratch (formatting the volume) usually is - if not faster - less error prone. I would be more preoccupied about understanding what exactly caused the corruption. More or less the only thing that you can do is to change the data cables of the SSD's, make triple sure they are connected properly and run some manufacturer test in the SSD's themselves. jaclaz