jaclaz

Well, it has been released as Freeware (for DOS): http://www.3drealms.com/news/2007/05/alien_carnage_freeware.html so everyone (in plain DOD or using dosbox) can try it. jaclaz

Of course they can, point is what will be the consequences of such a stupid move? Please choose one: everyone using an activation crackeveryone suing MS (and most probably winning) The user base of "real" Windows 2000 users was much smaller, AND there was no particular "shock" in the transition to XP (or to a later MS OS). You have to understand how the "user base" of Windows 2000 was (and is) a "professional" one, that tends - generally speaking - to whine or brag about it a lot less than "end customers", i.e. of a "more advanced" kind than the "average" XP user. At the time there was a neat separation: Professional=Windows NT 4.00 and later 2000 Home=Windows 98 and later Me In the (unfortunately short) time of Windows 2000 success, say 95% of the people came from Windows NT 4.00, and Windows 2000 is by definition "a bettered Windows NT 4.0 with plug n' play support". The transition from NT 4.00 to Windows 2000 was actually more painful than the one from Windows 2000 to Windows XP, which is, still by definition "a bettered Windows 2000, that works the same but that has some added, unneeded, bells and whistles". The real "shock" was from Windows 98 or Me to XP. , almost as much as it was the one from XP to Vista or 7. With XP MS has senselessly "pushed" on common users "professional features", and with Vista and now with 8 has pushed on professional users nonsensical features that may be suited - perhaps - to common users. It is still the same one-OS-fits-all absolutely wrong approach, which has touched it's peak with 8 . You might want to take note of the current definitions of later MS OS : Vista is a bettered XP, only much worse (original Vista, before SP's)7 is a bettered Vista , that works the same but that has some added unneeded bells and whistles"8 is a bettered 7, only much worse and with a completely wrong UIjaclaz

As an example, you could start by READing the stickies in the appropriate sections of the board, you know, like : http://www.msfn.org/board/forum/8-windows-9x-me/ http://www.msfn.org/board/forum/35-windows-nt4-2000-2003/ jaclaz

What I don't know is the actual difference between the two files on the given Gigabyte page: mb_driver_amd_sataraid_bootdisk_hseries_xp.exe <- this can be opened with 7-zip, is 376 Kb, and is a "plain" F6 SATA driver mb_driver_chipset_fm2+_xp.exe <- this I won't download, as it is a whopping 460 Mb Now, generally speaking, the only driver needed to install and "boot first time" on a SATA only PC is the F6 Sata driver, #1 above, as all the other drivers (defaulting to "standard" ones, like "plain" VGA, or not really needed such as LAN card, etc.) are not "vital" and can be installed later. It is however possible that this "Trinity" stuff behaves differently. So, as Ponch suggested above, what I would try first would be to add ONLY the "F6 drivers" in #1 with nlite and try installing, it will probably take less than one hour time to integrate with nlite, burn the CD and try the install, you could use a CDRW to avoid (in the worst case) a coaster. jaclaz

This: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/120444-how-to-install-windows-from-usb-winsetupfromusb-with-gui/page-24#entry884409 http://forums.pcper.com/showthread.php?444831-HOWTO-enable-AHCI-mode-after-installing-Windows may also be of interest to you. jaclaz

Good. jaclaz

Two notes (not necessarily useful/solving the issue). 1. Some versions of Nero have been reported in some peculiar cases to create issues, I would personally suggest that you use instead the FREE ImgBurn: http://www.imgburn.com/ to burn the .iso, as this will reduce the possibility of a burning issue. Alternatively, you could think of using a USB stick instead of the CD/DVD. 2. JFYI, it is not really "vital" to have SATA drivers integrated (if the BIOS allows IDE Compatibility mode) as it is usually possible to update the OS with SATA/AHCI drivers later (with the OS booted and working). It is not clear (to me at least) how your actual hardware corresponds to the drivers page you mentioned: http://www.gigabyte.us/products/product-page.aspx?pid=4709#dl the chipset (and SATA) drivers are reported to be "Only for FM2 Trinity APU" (whatever it means), while there is a "plain" F6 driver with no particular note attached. Which hardware do you have? (i.e. is it the one that has "FM2 Trinity APU" or not)? Which driver did you try to slipstream? Finally, at least when installing from USB, it is possible to use a "virtual floppy" to use a F6 floppy image (without needing to integrate it). jaclaz

Inspired by dencorso's: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/171174-from-the-ad-section-of-programmers-journal-julago-1990-issue/ http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/171210-what-11-years-means-in-technology/ here is my little contribution : and - not computer, but still technology related - a nice instructional from the 1950's: jaclaz

http://windowsitpro.com/windows-81/windows-81-update-1-leaked-early-whispers-early-bug-reports jaclaz

Saying something intelligent and accurate is a nice twist , but does not anyway make up for the past. JFYI: http://attrition.org/errata/charlatan/steve_gibson/ jaclaz

Newsweek news: http://mag.newsweek.com/2014/03/14/bitcoin-satoshi-nakamoto.html maybe the actual Nakoshi Sakamoto has been found (or maybe not) AP news: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ap-exclusive-man-denies-hes-bitcoin-founder http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/forum/topics/bitcoin-open-source?xg_source=activity&id=2003008%3ATopic%3A9402&page=2#comments jaclaz

See if this helps/can workaround the issue : Custom Resolution Utility (CRU) http://www.monitortests.com/forum/Thread-Custom-Resolution-Utility-CRU?page=1 jaclaz

Yep. I "coded" my reply to that message in 44 bytes (program and screenshot attached). jaclaz j.vbs.txt

I am not offended at all . My sticks work fine, I can zap them when I want/if I need to, you have a problem, I attempted to help you on it, this turned out to be not possible, and I simply stated what was evident. As said, no prob whatsoever , but I can find better uses for my spare time, rest assured. jaclaz

Good . I see how you don't need or want assistance/help, no prob whatever. jaclaz

Sure , only AND, OR, NOT are boolean operators, and to be picky, algebra is nowhere to be seen around this thread, let alone Boolean algebra. jaclaz

Naah, it is a rewritten tool, it is not like command switches are subject to copyright. And, of course there are more really free tools that offer the same (or better) capabilities of corresponding non-redistributable MS command line tools. A few are here: http://fstaal01.home.xs4all.nl/downloads-us.html As a replacement for SRVANY I like this nice tool: http://nssm.cc/ jaclaz

I guess everyone is familiar with MS/Sysinternals PSExec: http://technet.microsoft.com/it-it/sysinternals/bb897553.aspx but not many are aware of the existence of PAExec: http://www.poweradmin.com/paexec/ And : jaclaz

There are several versions of such tools on the given page, you may want to try with another one, but these are undocumented, complex and potentially "dangerous" tools, a report like: makes very little sense. Which EXACT file did you try? HOW EXACTLY did you run it (which EXACT settings)? What about the "MPALL"? In any case get the "Getinfo" program GetInfo v3.8.8.2: http://www.usbdev.ru/?wpfb_dl=119 and run it, it is a Phison specific "information gatherer" that will provide additional info. Also read (through google translate) the actual "main page", there are a number of "suggestions", "tricks" and "what not's" that may apply to your case. Finally, cannot say speciifically, but these utilities usually tend to work fine on XP and to have issues on Windows Vista or 7. jaclaz

Yesterday I wanted to show to a developer the behaviour of a tool of his, so, to make a small "video" of how the program behaved I got Camstudio, which is seemingly a nice program, BUT that comes as a "online installer", with (optional) programs (adware), and that nice as it might be is a huge piece of bloat, the stupid 650 Kb installer downloaded and installed some 40 Mb or so. Then I proceeded to record the behaviour of the program, just a few seconds of "screenshot video", which turned out as a .avi file some 262 Mb in size . Being the smart guy I am , I quickly fired up good ol' virtualdub : and quickly converted the .avi to an animated .gif, which resulted in some 1 Mb file, perfectly clear and visible. Problem solved. Today I checked a bit around if there was a simpler solution, and found in no time the nice Licecap B) : http://www.cockos.com/licecap/ which plainly and simply and directly records screenshots to animated ,gif. Don't be (too) fooled by the: LICEcap v1.24 for Windows (12/29/13) (300kb installer) the file \licecap124-install.exe opens allright with 7-zip and contains licecap.exe 145.484 bytes in size which works fine even if double clicked from within 7-zip. (the installer file also contains the source) I tried replicating the same actions I had recorded yesterday and, including a "title screenshot" I obtained a similarly sized (actually a tidbit smaller) 1 Mb file, also perfectly clear and with the added bonus of highlighting with a circle mouse clicks. The morals of the story are: small is beautiful, and small and fully portable is even better. you don't need a cannon to shoot a flyjaclaz

This sentence: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/27/gchq-interception-storage-webcam-images-condemned (bolding/underlining/colouring is mine) is one of the best I have seen lately on the matter. jaclaz

Maybe because we have funnier little pics ... jaclaz

Hmmm. See if this is of any use (it allows to modify the menues if pressing SHIFT): http://winaero.com/comment.php?comment.news.214 jaclaz

Fixing non-problems before they maybe actually exist. Let's call it "proactive prevention" instead of the more common used term "lost time". You may want to take note of the feeble line that is usually drawn between "leaked build" and "beta channel". Particularly the latter is interactive, i.e. the developer of the Firefox extension can claim that a bug is in the beta of Firefox and the developing team may correct it, while in the case of the leaked build (to which you should have no access whatsoever) I doubt that you can tell the good MS guys that they messed up the update (or actually you can, but they won't likely listen to you). In the specific case, the possibility of a "black out" (not that "professional" software actually provides you with any guarantee)is IMHO implied in: jaclaz

Sure, just strip off of it BOTH Dalvik and Java, and you have a relatively secure Linux. Just totally faked research data : Mobile Malware 2013: Other platforms: 3% Android: 97% of these to be connected to: base (heavily modified and forked) Linux kernel: 0.00% Dalvik VM: 12.45% Java: 88.54% Other:0.01% (and yes, the total makes 101% as I am keeping in line with Forrester Research quality standards) To re-connect with (supposedly) real data, 75% of the Android malware in the world (3/4) belong to: Saudi Arabia 42% India 33% Now while India may have a relevant number of Android phones in use, the amount in Saudi Arabia cannot but be trifling (even if you consider a 188% penetration rate) and consequently the 40%, 50% or even 60% of Android share of it is "nothing". This plainly means that each Android phone in Saudi Arabia has (or has had) at lest 238 malware apps concurrently, or that - with the only exception of Indians and Arabs (and only the arabs from Saudi Arabia) - all the rest of the world population has the same malware but also the good habit of not telling anyone about it. Comeon, that data is either failed or wrong or both, it makes no sense whatsoever. Let's say that ALL the estimated mobile phones in Saudi Arabia (46,000,000): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_mobile_phones_in_use are actually Smartphones and that 60% of them 60%*46,000,000=27,600,000 use Android and that each and everyone of them has at least one malware. Logically the total amount of malware affected phones in the world is 27,600,000/42%=65,714,286 Out of an estimated amount of active android devices worldwide of more than 1 billion at the beginning of September 2013: http://techcrunch.com/2013/09/03/google-announces-1b-total-android-activations-names-next-version-kitkat/ and adding to it between 1 and 1.5 million activation per day since, we have at the end of 2013: 3*30*1,250,000+1,000,000,000=1,112,500,000 65,714,286/1,112,500,000=5.9% infection rate But we know that 75% of those infected phones: 65,714,286*75%=49,285,714 are in either Saudi Arabia or India, so we can approximate to: (65,714,286-49,285,714)/(1,112,500,000-49,285,714)=16,428,572/1,063,214,286= 1.54% So we can actually say that unless you are in Saudi Arabia or India your chances of getting a malware are below 1.5% and that is an average, since the malware will affect before you those that think that the gigabyte is a south american insect , your actual "virus surviving" chances are much higher than that (and of course not every single Android phone in Saudi Arabia is affected, the end result will be "insignificant risk") IMHO random numbers, again. jaclaz