jaclaz

Very good The listed procedure looks fine, the only thing that may need to be carefully checked is the "alternate" use of CurrentControlSet vs. ControlSet001. Though most, say 99% of cases, will actually use Controlset001 as CurrentControlSet when booted, checking the HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\Select key is always advised. The "exact" name for the controller you "replaced" should be "Microsoft Standard Dual channel PCI IDE Controller". jaclaz

OT , but not much , another good recent example is Intel. They bragged a lot at CES2014 about their Edison and how good the Quark was and how tiny (SD card size) the whole thingy was, and in less than three months later: http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2014/03/31/intel-edison-atom/1 they announced that everything is OK, but an Atom will be used instead, and the thingy will be bigger in size. jaclaz

CD.>4 (four) bytes saved http://www.robvanderwoude.com/useless.php But you need to create the folder structure too. What about using XCOPY source destination /T/E ? I.e. @ECHO OFFSETLOCAL ENABLEEXTENSIONSSET Source=M:SET Target=C:\testXCOPY %Source% %Target%\ /T/EFOR /F %%A "tokens=*" IN ('DIR %Source% /S /B /A-D') DO CD.>"%Target%%%~pnxA"jaclaz

Good to know. Still as a note, the "OS independent" tool/library by synchronicity http://reboot.pro/topic/18345-wimlib-with-imagex-implementation/ has been updated - in an experimental version - to support WOF: http://reboot.pro/topic/18345-wimlib-with-imagex-implementation/?p=183521 Hopefully, before or later, we will be able to not need the WAIK tools at all . jaclaz

http://shishtpal.blogspot.com/2013/10/a-small-tutorial-for-bootice-users.html http://www.rmprepusb.com/tutorials/multipartufd jaclaz

Oh, yes , it is perfectly possible to fight the progress alright, winning the war is another thing. jaclaz

You mean something *like* detours? http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/detours/ jaclaz

Yep , point #4 is what I meant, to be sure that it is bootable, you have to test it *somehow*. Instead of using Virtualbox, use Qemu, for two reasons: it has a "strict" kind of BIOS when it comes to CHS (if involved at all)it has "simpler" virtual hardware (when compared to Virtualbox or similar)If you are running Windows, I suggest you to use Qemu Manager: https://web.archive.org/web/20110829020746/http://www.davereyn.co.uk/qem/setupqemuk70.exe Usually what can be booted in Qemu can be booted on real machine (sometimes the reverse is not true), but you never know. Also you should inspect with appropriate tools the MBR to see what actually the "automagic" Pen Driver Linux's USB Installer wrote to it. You have to understand how SDcard bootability (as feature in the BIOS) is very rare, and, I believe, usually "primitive", i.e. not "mature" or "documented" or experimented as USB one. You may find of interest this oldish thread (unfinalized ) where some attempts were made, evidencing some of the difficulties that may apply to your case also: http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=20314 jaclaz

Let's put it this other way (anecdotal ), I have never seen in my whole life an actual vulnerability actually being taken advantage of by a "hacker" on a non-business installment. Anything I ever came across was introduced in the affected machine(s): by senselessly clicking on a link on a received e-mail (or with Outlook/Outlook Express just opening a received e-mail) by getting a virus/malware as "strings attached" to a downloaded file, usually "border line" with legality or beyond it (warez, pirated movies, etc.) by browsing on a malicious site (often connected with the above) by physical insertion in the machine of a USB stick (previously and separately affected because of one of the reasons above)The whole point is that someone that writes a malware/virus etc. would do this mainly for one of these three reasons: sheer fun/show off/brag about how clever he/she is <- no profit create havoc on large scale <- no profit get money (lots of it) <- profitNow: the first one is just a "kid" and has no interest in targeting specifically you, as it wouldn't produce the kind of publicity wished for. the second one is someone that is against all humanity (or technology or MS or all of them) and also has no interest in targeting you. the third one is someone that wants money and since you have not enough of it and it would cost him/her much more time and effort to target individuals (to get only a little money) than trying to collect money by infecting the largest possible number of machines, also has no particular interest on you.What remains are just two possibilities: you have (personally) offended the "hacker" or however made the "hacker" willing to take a personal revenge against you you have (personally) offended someone and this someone has enough money (and the capabilities) to find and hire a "hacker" to have him/her take the revengeAll in all, if you behave nicely enough with all people , you should be safe from these. You are however a target, but just one target in the mass of other targets, there is nothing particularly "safe" to do, but you will have to adopt a strategy similar to the one in the old bear joke: http://www.forensicfocus.com/Forums/viewtopic/p=6567580/#6567580 you don't have to be "better than the hacker is", you need to be "better than a large enough number of possible victims". jaclaz

How EXACTLY you made sure that the SD Card is bootable? How EXACTLY did you partition and format it and make it bootable? Has it been partitioned or has it been formatted as super-floppy? Which bootmanager/bootloader you installed to it? (Ubuntu should be using GRUB2) BTW "last UBUNTU iso" means "nothing", there are at least 4 versions of Ubuntu currently, I presume you mean Ubuntu Desktop 14.04 LTS. jaclaz

The queer thing is that what are actually "real" improvements are too intelligent to be marketed. Example, the newish WOF: http://reboot.pro/topic/18345-wimlib-with-imagex-implementation/?p=183343 which might be (or become) a feature of incredible utility, was never AFAIK ever (or scarcely) mentioned. I believe (and this is consistent with MS history) there are two sides of the company, the developers (that very often are quite good at writing software, but, understandably know very little about communication) and the designers/marketers (that know nothing about anything and just give people what they think people may want to hear). The link between the two, which is - or should be - the management, is what lately has failed, and failed big (IMHO). Now we have reached "pure folly" with the stupid decision that update 1 is compulsory to have future updates. Even if, on the outcry of all the serious IT people they managed to enlarge the "window" from 1 month to almost 4: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/04/why-the-windows-8-1-update-probably-means-no-more-service-packs-for-windows/ this timeline still does not meet the expectations (and actual needs) of companies where security and uptime is crucial (please read as all those that are in a field where "big money" is). Given the issues that (historically) each and every "major" critical update has introduced in MS OS's the idea of the "new" model of "continuous updates" must be for IT professional a terrible nightmare. The "one size fits for all", that I criticized also in the good ol' times when the user OS (Windows ME) was merged with the professional OS (Windows 2000) to create the Windows XP, had some sense (though forcing upon "home" users features and complexities of the "professional" world), but now forcing upon "professional" users features (and vulnerabilities) to have a "same" OS that can be appealing to the home user is suicidal. jaclaz

Please do READ the read-me first, (that you should have read BEFORE): http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/143880-seagate-barracuda-720011-read-me-first/ Particularly points #1 and #5. You posted on the wrong thread (as this is for 7200.11 ONLY as per point #1) and asked a question that has been answered in the read-me-first point #5 (and in reply to countless other posts by people that also did not manage to read the read-me-first FIRST). jaclaz

Sure, but if you report EXACTLY what you did successfully, this thread may help someone else in your same trouble, otherwise it is of little use. jaclaz

Possibly the one that fits the bill may be Privacyfirewall: http://www.privacyware.com/personal_firewall.html It has a good rating here: http://www.matousec.com/projects/proactive-security-challenge/results.php And it seems not that much bloated/resource intensive, but surely it is larger than that Kerio one, at least it is IMHO worth a try. jaclaz

You can try using either among Mass Storage driver Injector or MSSTMAKE: http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showforum=43 or go through the "full" Offline Sysprep route. Cannot say - speciifcally - if any of the mentioned tools will work with your specific drivers/motherboard, of course. jaclaz

WHICH HP format tool? Be aware of the differences between version 2.00.006 A (6 Feb 04) and version version 2.1.8 A (17 May 04): http://jaclaz.altervista.org/Projects/USB/USBstick.html if I recall correctly the second did not properly set the partition as active, and, JFYI : http://reboot.pro/topic/4902-multiboot-cd-rom-via-grub4dos/?p=38097 http://reboot.pro/topic/6492-virtual-storage-driver/?p=107741 WHY using it at all? I mean , to prepare the USB stick you can use a more recent tool like RMPREPUSB, which offers some added features. jaclaz

No, as said it is a vague reminiscence, but it was not connected to the N version, it was just something (that still completely eludes me ) about some differences between a version coming from MS with the already integrated SP3 and the result of applying SP3 to a previous version. jaclaz

Possibly completely unrelated , but I seem to remember that a MSDN XP (with SP3 already integrated) is slightly different from a Gold, SP1 or SP2 CD with SP3 integrated later. I cannot actually find this reference anywhere. You could ask which specific MSDN release he is using: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/123508-known-part-numbers-of-windows-xp-with-sp3-cds/ jaclaz

WHICH advices? Link, please. HOW exactly did you try to enable those drivers? Adding a AHCI driver to an offline windows is not something easy-peasy, and the method/tool used may make a change. Generically, the manual procedure is this one: http://forums.pcper.com/showthread.php?444831-HOWTO-enable-AHCI-mode-after-installing-Windows But there are tools to be used from a PE or other instance of NT OS. jaclaz

The statement from NSA Here: http://www.csoonline.com/article/2142590/government/nsa-denies-knowing-about-heartbleed-flaw-for-years.html What is written: Seemingly misses a sentence in the middle. Version 1: Version 2, more probable: jaclaz

Right dates , wrong deduction . NT 4.00 does NOT (natively) support FAT32, it was introduced in Windows 2000. At the time there was a Commercial driver (by Sysinternals) to have FAT32 on NT 4.00, the same driver is available (in the free Read only version) and there is also another free driver, see here: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/144026-where-do-i-get-the-sysinternals-fat32-driver-for-nt4/ though their stability/reliability is not well proved, and again, even with them, you simply cannot install to a FAT32 easily. The OP in there never reported any result of the experiments he wanted to do. jaclaz

Well, if you plan to EVER access the NTFS volume from *any* later NT based system you need AT LEAST SP3 (though you should have SP6, strongly advised) installed BEFORE accessing the volume from another later NT based OS or your NT 4.00 system won't be able to boot. You may still want to make a decently small System partition (that can - as said - be FAT16) and have a separate storage one, which can be *anything*, even if it is accidentally converted, it won't prevent form booting (and allow th einstalling of the Service Pack to be able to re-access it). Support for bigger than 4 Gb files on a FAT16 volume is - obviously - not something of use . You might need to refresh your knowledge on filesystems and their maximum sizes : http://support.microsoft.com/kb/140365/en-us jaclaz

OT , @monroe, a book that may interest you is the Memorie (Memoirs) by Lorenzo Da Ponte. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenzo_Da_Ponte I find it a very interesting and entertaining: the original italian is available online: http://www.liberliber.it/libri/d/da_ponte/index.php whilst the English translation seemingly not, however spending a few bucks on it: http://www.nybooks.com/books/imprints/classics/memoirs-of-lorenzo-da-ponte/ is well worth IMHO. jaclaz

To be picky, as I am , the script - as said - is for bash (Linux) and won't (obviously) work on any MS OS. Additionally, I personally doubt that ALL the files on the Win98 CD (or on the NT 4.00 or 2K CD) are actually checked during the install, it is more likely that only one or "a bunch" or "a handful" of files (empty/fake or "real") are actually needed. jaclaz

@roytam Sure , I was pointing out only the obvious, i.e. things that at the time did not exist and could not therefore create issues. A NT 4.00, on the hardware it was designed for was exceptionally stable (compared to later releases) possibly also because: the OS was simpler the hardware was simpler the hardware was costing a lot of money and the manufacturers wrote good, simple, tested drivers, usually "tuned" for stability (being aimed to a professional only audience)I will remind - in case someone not familiar with NT 4.00 - how a whole install of the operating system was smaller than a current video card driver only. In my simplicity: Less bytes=faster Less bytes= (maybe) less functions, but surely less probabilities of conflicts/bugs/etc. It is not a "real" issue if your source has post SP3 integrated, though you will not be able to run CHKDSK "natively" from the NT, but will need to use the workaround (and the Win2K files) mentioned in the already given links. Consider however that a "normal" install of NT needs around 110 Mb of disk space, let's roughly double it to around 250 to stay on the safe side and to allow some space for programs, which is well within the range of FAT16 volumes, and there is no real reason, on a laptop/single user machine to have the complexity of NTFS. jaclaz