jaclaz

The word I meant to say was "democracy". Democracy is a good thing, but it is based on TWO assumptions: everyone has the right to vote everyone voting knows enough on the whatever is subject to voteIn this case #1 does not apply as - as said - you have to pay for getting the privilege of voting and the more you pay the more "weight" your vote is. But, unfortunately, also #2 does not apply, IF the audience is a casual enough sample of the internet, what will be added to ReactOS first will be Facebook, Twitter and Angry Birds. On the other hand, IF the audience is a narrow enough target of "geeks", we will have new drivers for the Commodore Vic20 Tape recorder, a midi driver for Yamaha keyboards and for a I/O interface for stepper motors. jaclaz

For NO apparent reason : jaclaz

See if this answers the OP: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/170810-ok-ok-well-support-it-lol/?p=1067031 this part: can be easily extended to Windows 9x/Me user and be valid for it, as well as it does for NT 4.00/Windows 2000 and - from today - XP/2003 use. jaclaz

Oh my ... ! A "democratic" OS based on "popularity" (though a queer form of democracy where you pay $ to have the privilege of voting ) Let's hope that this new funding campaign works better than the last one : http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/170988-news-reactos-0316-released/ jaclaz

I can hardly confirm that, and in any case this specific topic has been already discussed at length, like here (examples): http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/170810-ok-ok-well-support-it-lol/ http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/163539-are-ms-updates-for-xp-really-necessary/ jaclaz

Yep , but what i find senseless is talking over and over about this, some starting months (or years) before this deadline, now on the day of the deadline and possibly for many weeks/months/years after today. I mean, I personally went through both Windows NT 4.0 and Windows 2000 EOL's/End of support, and I continue to use a few machines with them fine, like many other members do, and like as well many members running 9x/Me's systems do, but there was not all this chatting about "what if","what are will you do when" "what will happen" "do you plan to", etc., etc.. And the world did not end on any of those occasions. People that wanted (or could) upgrade (now in the case of Vista or 8 one could use more properly the verb downgrade instead ) to the new version of the MS OS, did that. People that did not want (or could not) upgrade continued using the "previous" OS and learned to either solve or workaround the issues caused by new hardware and new software incompatibilities and/or learned to live with the few (or many) inconveniences that this caused. A third category entered (like myself) a "mixed mode" running whatever OS he/she sees fit, depending on machines, use and what not. But there wasn't all this talking, AFAICR. jaclaz

It is very possible that the Explorer copy/paste is not sequential or not strictly sequential (like multithreading or something like that), which may cause higher fragmentation in the target. In any case with that such large amount of free space defragmentation should not be a problem. Can you try running on that single 1200 extents file Wincontig (and report what happens)?: http://wincontig.mdtzone.it/en/ jaclaz

Planning to go on holiday next week doesn't actually mean that I will actually be away next week. For NO apparent reason: though of course: jaclaz

Though when it comes to design reliable disk drives the good engineers at Seagate do suck a bit and the way this particular model issues were mis-managed by the technical support sucks BIG, but they actually know what is inside their hard disks (I mean, they designed and manufactured them, they anyway know more - and very, very often won't tell - than anyone else on the specific topic). The Seatools are for Seagate a "key" app, if either the short or long test fails, it will produce a code that will entitle you (if the disk drive is still under warranty) to have a replacement unit. Though it is of course possible that because of the above the tool is maliciously tuned to make drives appear more healthy than they really are , I doubt that this is the case, as a matter of fact the common experience on this thread shows that disks that did not pass the test were anyway largely accessible and functional. HD sentinel is a third party "generic" tool that uses the monitoring of the SMART attributes of the disk to "predict" failure. While the approach: http://www.hdsentinel.com/smart/index.php is seemingly more "sound" than the "plain" check for SMART thresholds, but it is anyway a "theoretical model", seemingly nice, but only assertedly and theoretically more accurate than "plain" check. The SMART in itself is not accurate at all, and to all practical effects it has not any relevant increase in accuracy than flippism, see: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/170237-which-drive-sould-i-get/ http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/153191-does-copying-several-giga-bytes-on-a-daily-base-screw-the-hard-drive/ There is not any evidence (AFAIK) that the HDsentinel method is accurate or "more accurate" than anything else, the only thing that you can say for sure of the results is that it is "more conservative", .i.e. it will start crying (sometimes crying Wolf! ) much earlier than a "plain" SMART monitoring tool, in their own words (same source as above): jaclaz

Yes. In which way this piece of info may be of any use to you, it remains a mistery for me. jaclaz

... or use the last Virtualbox version that works fine... jaclaz

There is most probably a way to re-add the feature, though it wont' be easy. See if "reading between the lines" of these: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/40866-pin-to-start-menu-solved/ http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/142521-i-solved-default-user-all-user-start-menu-task-bar-customizat/ helps. I believe that there are not much differences (if any) between 32 bit and 64 bit when it comes to this. jaclaz

The actual EXACT method you used to copy the files may be involved in the fragmentation level in the target. More than that, the effectiveness of defragmenting a drive may be affected by how much it is "full". jaclaz

well, I can...because with wifi-hdds they are served "magically" through a network. It just seems there's just no (TSR-) loader being able installing from them. It's not your fault jaclaz. It just didn't get developed up to now. I of course also can't expect tools like grub4d0s or firadisk. Nevertheless they do exist, hence my question. But again, most probably they do exist, in the form of a (minimal) OS, i.e. a PE or a Linux that can boot locally and access the (wi-fi) network. If you think about it (and supposing you are by now familiar with recent grub4dos releases), grub4dos is now a (very minimal) OS that can even run batch files and specific programs, and even NTLDR or BOOTMGR are in themselves a (still minimal and additionally non-interactive) mini-OS. So, the whole point only becomes the size of such minimal OS. I would estimate it in around 30 Mb or so for a PE 1.x and in around 150 Mb or so for a PE 2.x/3.x/4.x/5.x, and possibly below the 30 Mb for a Linux. jaclaz

No. Meaning that here is nothing (known) that prevents a HP machine to boot from a non-HP XP install disc. (though I wonder what you expected to do - as repair - with a XP install disc, all you have available is Recovery Console which is a rather "limited" environment). The booting issue must be *something else*. However, in theory, there are no particular issue in making an AIO (All In One) disk with several versions of the "same" XP install files, each specifically targeted to a given machine, and using a "flat" directory layout and -duplicates-once (i.e. CDFS hard-links), the amount of data in the actual CD would be only slightly larger than a "single" install disc. If you post some details on the actual HP machine and on the disc that did not boot, most probably we can try and help you solve the issue. But wait a minute, you were talking about disk (not disc) are you meaning instead of a CD that you pulled a hard disk drive from a working machine, connected it to another machine and attempted to boot from it? If yes , the hard disk did boot, but very likely stopped dead in it's tracks with a 0x0000007b Blye Screen of Death Error. This is normal, each hard disk installation is "hardware" specific and won't normally work on a machine using different hardware (most commonly - but not only the SATA disk controller). BTW it is possible to "adapt" an existing install of XP on hard disk in such a way that it can be booted on another machine, but the install will be changed (and will need to be adapted/changed again to work again on the "original" machine), and will need to be activated anyway. There are also ways to make (say on a USB stick) a "universal" install of XP, capable of booting different machines, but for troubleshooting/recovering a machine one normally uses a PE (Pre-installation Environment)which is perfectly "portable". jaclaz

Link broken (misses a "l" in .html) this one works: http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/HDD/Seagate_SER_RRER_HEC.html jaclaz

Wait a minute. If BOTH the Seagate (and NOT any other tool) Diagnostic tools (Seatools) run the short and long test successfully, then your disk is fine and HD sentinel is wrong. jaclaz

Self-evident. NOT measurable, still entirely to be proved/tested. jaclaz

And as said, there is, it is called PXE booting, it needs a PXE server, it is not the easiest thing in the world, but nowadays is doable with very little effort. If you boot form a "local" device, you need a "local" device, if you want to boot from network (remotely), you need a server to serve the boot-image, you cannot expect that by sheer magic images are served through the network. Nothing prevents you from making however a USB stick (or even a CD/DVD) to boot a minimal system with just a PXE server (on the "remote" machine), and then normally PXE boot the "local" machine, but again it is overkill. Consider that any "other" machine in the network can be (even temporarily) a PXE server, i.e. you do not need to run a "dedicated" server, just a working TFTP+PXE+BINL setup on *any* machine on the network, you just start the TFTP32+BINL and/or "Serva" and/or (advised) "Tiny PXE Server" program, then go to the machine to which you want to make the new install and PXE boot it. jaclaz

The "Windows installer" is actually WINNER, same approach than PING: http://ping.windowsdream.com/winner.html The procedure is simple enough (and also documented graphically): http://ping.windowsdream.com/winner/doc/using.html http://ping.windowsdream.com/winner/doc/using2.html You can most probably do a "hybrid" between the "local DVD "and the "PXE booting" But, as said, if you don't want to PXE boot (for which a PXE server is needed) you can normally boot to *any* local media, and then run any *environment* - locally capable of downloading the .iso (or the sysprepped disk image or *whatever*) and run the install. Of course this makes no or little sense, if you anyway boot from local, you can boot to *something* that also contains the install sources. The only exception "target" may be an extremely small number of systems, without CD/DVD drive and that cannot boot from USB sticks bigger than 256 or 512 Mb, quite a rare case. jaclaz

Using Tomasz mod? jaclaz

I am not sure to understand fully the question. WorksheetA - Sheet1 has in A1 42 (a number) WorksheetA - Sheet2 has in A1 =100-(Sheet1!A1) and you will see 58 WorksheetB - Sheet100 has WHERE? a cell counting the amount of values in range A2 to A200 OF WHICH Worksheet/sheet? There are three main "counting" functions in Excel: COUNT() <- will count ONLY numbers COUNTA()<- will count BOTH numbers and texts COUNTBLANK() <- will count ONLY empty cells See if the attached example helps. jaclaz Counttest.zip

My bad. The &, && and || operators have been seemingly introduced in OS/2's (please read as NT's) CMD.EXE. http://books.google.it/books?id=CbsaONN5y1IC&pg=RA1-PA306&lpg=RA1-PA306&dq=DOS+command.com+ampersand&source=bl&ots=Cu3a0M5owZ&sig=gPrHuBNKkbGwGVGO5UHZun1trwM&hl=it&sa=X&ei=xHNCU_y4OqX9ywONqoCwBA&ved=0CDQQ6AEwATiqAQ#v=onepage&q=DOS%20command.com%20ampersand&f=false So, your only "limit" seem to be the length of the string. jaclaz

Well, if you take some time on the mentioned reboot.pro sub-forum, you may find out that there are other (faster) transfer protocols than TFTP, like - as an example - like http, or iSCSI or AoE. Since in any case *something* must be "served" of course there must be a *server* running on the LAN. A number of NAS devices/setups can obviously run such servers, though of course most "closed" commercial NAS units need to be modified in order to do so. Your "new" idea: is more similar to the PING project (which is around since years): http://ping.windowsdream.com/ping.html Now, since a very good idea when installing a Windows is to have a local source, one could use a similar approach to download the.iso locally (or to make a local \I386 directory). Alternatively one could "normally" boot a minimal PE from "local" and from it run either WINNT32 or - possibly - WINNTSETUP: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/149612-winntsetup-v33/ Nowadays the limit is only the fantasy, though of course "complex" ways of booting install are "complex" and cannot be "simple". "Simple" is booting from a USB stick and install from it (and it is normally much faster than CD/DVD), though stiil - personally - I like to have the "local" source, which BTW normally avoids (particularly on a machine that has not a CD/DVD drive the "Insert the Windows Install CD" message/show-stopper ). jaclaz

@dhjohns Please check Guideline #11: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules jaclaz