jaclaz

It depends. In 1997 I could blame the stupid camera for the poor quality of the pictures, now they suck as well (at a higher resolution, though ) and I have no excuses ... jaclaz

Sure , but the VM's do not contain (say) DOS 6.22 or FreeDOS or even Win2k/XP's, they are likely to be more instances of the same "biggish" recent OS's. jaclaz

No (meaning BOTH that I do not code and certainly do not using Visual Studio ). But you raised another very good point. That feature is exactly the same (which I turn off ) as the auto-correction/grammar correction/spelling/whatever in Word (or similar word processing software), it is very appropriate and useful when writing code[1] and for *anything* that has a definite, defined and "not negotiable" syntax or for a limited number of characters substitutions (like - as an example ( R ) to ® ) but it soon becomes a nightmare when it tries to changes Capital initials, quotes to double quotes, rounded quotes, etc. and attempts (at least in Italian, but I believe that American vs. British English is even worse) changing what you type into what it thinks to be the right form/spelling. I find the feature similar to the good ol' T9 madness (that however did have it's use). You can count me among the [who?] 's here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spell_checker#Criticism Particularly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammar_checker http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/005061.html Very appropriate and useful in some contexts (like writing code) and one of the causes of the progressive decaying of civilization in other contexts. jaclaz [1] As an example I find it very useful for formulas in Excel, or even some VBA scripts.

Interesting point. Still, in my perverted mind, less bytes still mean less time, and less probability of an issue (of any kind). And while I will gladly concur that the increased power allows for things that were unthinkable of only a few years ago (think of real-time or near real time rendering or compiling a complex software) the effect on more "normal" activities (which I believe are what are "normally" carried by "normal" users on "normal" PC's in "normal" offices) have seen not *any* noticeable bettering, the "weak" part is of course the "human" side of the equation, I cannot type a letter or create an Excel spreadsheet faster than I can think what I am typing, and the processors outperformed me already many, many years ago . Personally, having a 20 page-per-minute printer and/or the increase in speed over data transmission actually made faster my workflow much more than the increase in processing power (in the good ol' days you had to turn auto-calculation off and press a few times F9 with complex spreadsheets, but all in all that was the least of the problems). jaclaz

@bhplt The trend for OS size increase has somehow stopped with Vista (possibly a good "size effect" of wanting to push the OS on smaller/more portable devices) Default install sizes (per MS requirements) of the "sheer" OS: Windows 2000 http://support.microsoft.com/kb/304297/EN-US Windows XP http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314865/en-us Windows Vista http://support.microsoft.com/kb/919183/en-us Windows 7 http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows7/products/system-requirements http://windows.microsoft.com/En-us/windows-8/system-requirements So, the OS growth trend is "flat" since several years , still, once you take into account the updates there is some increase, but less than the rest of what can be normally on a hard disk, which is more preoccupying, even the actual file formats have (with the obvious exceptions) grown. Sometimes this latter is not really-really a direct fault of the programmers/software houses, it is only indirect. I will give you a recent "real life" example. I was doing some consulting with a small construction company and asked them to send me via e-mail the "integral" copy of a set of documents (a bid) that they had submitted for the tender. It failed, and failed badly. So I had a CD (rectius DVD) sent to me, size of files in it amounting to more than 3 Gb. Besides some really huge Autocad drawings (which once purged/DXFed and reimported became between 1/5th and 1/20 of the "original") I was puzzled by the size of all the administrative paperwork (mainly .doc files, one or two pages "standard" forms or statements), each of which more than 10 Mb in size . It turned out that some time ago an "IT guy" managed to create a template for all correspondence (headed paper) by plainly embedding a very, very large JPG of the firm logo in the header of the .dot template. (instead of reducing the image size, the original was embedded and scaled down to 5% or so). They had recently upgraded some ten hard disks (+ their backup storage on local server) because they couldn't deal with the sheer amount of data. Now, this is clearly a case of "computing illiteracy", but think about all the times wasted transferring useless bytes.... jaclaz

Sure , though we have a somewhat different definition of "draconian", and it is not of course only the matter with the "sheer" OS. Though rather "dated", these graphics show the general trend of what I meant: http://www.oooninja.com/2008/05/openofficeorg-microsoft-office-moores.html You can see a similar trend in each and every of the "mainstream" apps, (another "dated" example): http://suretalent.blogspot.it/2009/03/software-bloat-acrobat-reader.html jaclaz

Would you mind if I add as a corollary that recent OS's are too d@mn big now? jaclaz

Good , so you are in good faith (which is good ) and you were tricked into buying a 9-in-1 by your local PC dealer . (this still accounts for the "that you got *somehow*") Rest assured that MS (nor DELL) produce or sell 9-in-1's, and the original CD's are "printed" (not "burned") and have usually a hologram. There are also around "fakes" that attempt to replicate the "look and feel" of the original , see as an example: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/m.whybrow/The%20fake%20Windows%20XP%20problemFrame1Source1.htm But a "fake" 9-in-1? jaclaz

Though in AU$, graphics like these are nice: http://pricespy.co.nz/product.php?pu=1441713 http://pricespy.co.nz/product.php?pu=2453010 jaclaz

Sure it is. Tools (and support for them) are about ORIGINAL CD/ISO's, not for *some WAREZ* that you got *somehow* In the remote case that you will start whining about the fact that I cannot possibly know if you handcarved yourself the 9-in-1 yourself instead of dowloading a WAREZ, I know because if you had done that, you would also have the original. And yes , the "the dog ate my original CD, and I only have this 9-in-1 left" has already been heard before. Seriously, now, get an original CD (which will work at first try) or find some other place to get assistance/support, here it is expressly forbidden, see #1.a: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules jaclaz

You need one of these : As a side note, I would be happy to translate points #1 and #2 here: http://www.workintelligent.ly/technology/it/2014-3-20-high-tech-tools-workforce/ into the merged #1&2 : 1#2. Get a §@ç#ing laptop with Windows 7 while it lasts, INSTEAD, you dumb@§§! jaclaz

I personally would extend the bar to mid- and low-tech also. Since they are very apt at spreading bull§**t, I would find a career in fertilizing fields (manure spreading) very suitable for them. jaclaz

Sure , and I do believe in your results and do not even think of doubting about your choices, which surely were taken after some good research and thinking , I had however the impression (possibly false) that in that post you attempted to rationalize your choices using as base the MTBF (which is as said IMHO in itself largely a meaningless metric). I.e. it seems to me like you did most probably the right choice, but you did that because of your lifetime experience and (inborn or acquired) common sense and not because of the published MTBF's. or these played however a minor role in your choices. jaclaz

I asked because I initially understood you previously quoted sentence backwards (not understanding at first sight that you meant specifically a RAID 0 setup ), all in all (partially) my bad . If a HD MTBF=1,000,000, and a SSD MTBF=2,000,000, a 4 device RAID 0 of SSD's has approximately 1/4, i.e. 500,000, i.e. 1/2 of the single drive, now that you cleared how you half the MTBF of the hard disk before everything is clear. As a side note there are however IMHO few things as inaccurate (or as wrongly perceived, you choose) as the rated MTBF, I have found flippism as reliable as SMART technology, and I would say that roulette playing should be almost as reliable as trusting the MTBF declared by the manufacturer . http://www.dailytech.com/Study+Hard+Drive+MTBF+Ratings+Highly+Exaggerated/article6404.htm I personally consider MTBF one of the many almost meaningless metrics around (i.e. only useful - maybe - for comparisons but not in any way a method to appreciate a "real life" measure). jaclaz

Hmmm. That may be the reason why "they" do it , but it is NOT a valid reason for "us" to fall for it. And now, for NO apparent reason, a fake Magritte : jaclaz

Care to expand/detail on this? Like some actual MTBF comparison, detail on the Raid level used, etc? Sure , the three golden Rules (JFYI): http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/128807-the-solution-for-seagate-720011-hdds/?p=930329 jaclaz

Well, at the moment of this waiting 2 (two) days will allow everyone to read the actual Bulletin instead of (IMHO) wasting time in (still IMHO) nonsensical guesses through nitpicking on an "Advance Notification". Do check the But ... then, why? in my signature. jaclaz

Have you actually copied the WHOLE directry structures from CD (or .iso) to the folder on hard disk? Like: jaclaz

Also : http://winaero.com/blog/category/articles/page/2/ http://winaero.com/comment.php?comment.news.213 jaclaz

Well, VirtualPC has also them (they are called "differencing VHD's" and/or "Undo Vhd's" they are two types slightly different): http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc720381(v=ws.10).aspx http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc720325(v=ws.10).aspx Also Virtualbox has "differencing images": http://www.virtualbox.org/manual/ch05.html#diffimages jaclaz

Maybe OT , but JFYI: http://reboot.pro/topic/19846-spencer-add-classic-windows-xp-start-menu-to-your-windows-8/ http://thesz.diecru.eu/content/spencer.php jaclaz

You need - I believe - a special permission to use oximorons on the board. jaclaz

Good. To clear your doubt, there are people that call WinPE *any* PE or Pre-installation Envirtonment created from a Windows source, whilst other (IMHO more correctly) call WinPE only the ones obtained by Microsoft or created only with thools/methods provided by MS. As an example, a BartPE (i.e. a PE built using Bart's PEbuilder) is IMHO *generically* "a" PE and not a "WinPE". As well as all the various projects created through Winbuilder are PE's but not WinPE's. So you have a "normal" Win PE 3.x built from WAIK (actually AIK - the good MS guys have a special attitude to change names to things ). How did you prepare the USB stick? In a PE usually you have more than one drive letter when it boots, which one do you have on the machine you built and where the PE works "right"? Like (example): Internal disk C:, D., E: CD/DVD ROM: F: USB Stick: K: etc. What happens instead on the machine(s) where those changed? As a side note (and NOT what you asked , mind you) the actual "issue" that you tried to solve by using RocketDock was the lack of a graphical shell in your build (as a WinPE created from WAIK normally has CMD.EXE as shell). You might want to try another build through a third party builder that includes a graphical shell. This is a rather recent, simple and rather well documented project: http://mistype.reboot.pro/mistype.docs/readme.html http://reboot.pro/files/file/357-mistype/ http://reboot.pro/topic/18917-mistype/ that uses BBLean as a graphical shell. jaclaz

Hallo CooruptHuman. You need to know something that may help you in better reporting. WinPE does NOT exist WinPE can be BOTH a "generic" term for a PE, or a "specific" term for a PE built using only MS tools. Additionally when talking about a PE, it is advised to always specify the version, based on the source it was used to create it: XP/2003 -> PE 1.x Vista /2008 -> PE 2.x 7/2008R2 -> PE 3.x 8/2012-> PE 4.x 8.1/2012 R2->PE 5.x (though it should have been logically called 4.1)http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dn293271.aspx And specify the tool used to make it (like the original MS WAIK/AIK/ADK or any of the available third party tools) and (if used/relevant) the actual script/project used with the tool. Finally there are mainly two ways to make a PE bootable USB stick a "flat" file/folder structure (nowadays rarely used) or making use of an image (that can be a .iso, a RAW disk image, a .VHD or more commonly a .WIM image). Usually it is possible to either "hardcode" a drive letter for a volume on the USB stick or set it when booting, but you will need to provide the above details in order to get a suitable (hopefully) solution to your issue. jaclaz

Sure, but the really worrying thing is that it is not limited to computing. We are actually going to follow the evolution of Golgafrinchans http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03v379k/profiles/golgafrinchans jaclaz