jaclaz

I guess you will need to provide far more details on how you have the *whatever* you have setup, including actual OS and devices involved and actual IP/subnets involved, besides a "wider" description of your setup and actual needs, hopefully with those someone may be able to suggest you something. AFAIK a "computer name" is associated to one (and one only) IP. jaclaz

Well, from here, it is NOT blocked by the FBI (and I would presume that the FBI has more important things to do than blocking that site) http://xdot.tk/updates.html works fine for me, as well as the file: http://xdot.tk/files/UDC-01.14.14.zip jaclaz EDIT: removed links as they are obsolete

Running NSLOOKUP from "where"? Are BOTH the IP's on the target computer on the same subnet? Maybe what you want/need to do is more along the lines of a "remote" IPCONFIG /ALL : http://blogs.technet.com/b/brad_rutkowski/archive/2007/12/15/need-to-get-ipconfig-all-from-a-computer-remotely.aspx jaclaz

Surprisingly, the topic has been tackled on married the sea in September 2013 : jaclaz

For NO apparent reason , married to the sea! : jaclaz

The guy himself provides a more extended explanation here: http://www.spambotsecurity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=2373 The word for today is "syncookies": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SYN_cookies Though I can understand how a Windows 95 user agent string may be nowadays be more likely connected to a bot of some kind than to a real user, using this only parameter to permanently block an IP makes clearly no sense whatsoever, at the most it could be used to "raise a flag" for monitoring the behaviour of that connection and ONLY when suspicious activity is actually detected, then block (and in any case TEMPORARILY and NEVER permanently) an IP. (if enough people using Dynamic IP actually connect to these stupid sites through a Windows 95 computer, before or later a whole ISP address range will be blocked ). jaclaz

That's why toll booth jumping has been invented, AFAIK : jaclaz

Well, 2/3 up to 4/5 of what is written on the mentioned page is "pure bull§hit ©", the amount of FUD or more simply idiocy is so relevant that it cannot but be MS sponsored scare tactics, it is not even worth the time highlighting how much do they have wrong in that page, which is mostly (if not entirely) undocumented hearsay, and the actual source is most probably not even Microsoft itself, but rather an article where a couple of analysts from Gartner and an "anonymous IT Manager" are the actual sources: http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9241912/Microsoft_will_craft_XP_patches_after_April_14_but_not_for_you http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9237019/Microsoft_gooses_Windows_XP_s_custom_support_prices_as_deadline_nears? (which IMNSHO also cannot but be part of the same scare tactics campaign) jaclaz

Milking the cow till it's dead.... (in this case AFTER it's dead ) jaclaz

The actual NYT article, from which the above posted by duffy98 was taken: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/15/us/nsa-effort-pries-open-computers-not-connected-to-internet.html?hp&_r=1 Expect the definition of extreme to be widened to comprise any form of electronic communication in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 .... jaclaz

Good , can you name any program (please do list all the ones you know) that has the same (or similar features) to CHKDSK (which, JFYI does NOT check the disk, but rather checks the filesystem of a volume and attempts to repair it - again the filesystem, NOT the disk). Particularly I would be interested in one that can analyze and repair NTFS filesystems. jaclaz

I would also ask the "reputable retailer" (the one who actually got your money and that should be - if not responsible for the issue - at least willing to help you in fixing it). jaclaz

On other news, the EU DRAFT about NSA is not very tender with our overseas friends. Document available here: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/dv/moraes_1014703_/moraes_1014703_en.pdf jaclaz

Well, they could release an official "local" crack , there are several ones they could use should they be incapable of coding one jaclaz

More interesting would be another aspect, IMHO. What if after April 2014 a large number of XP (and/or Server 2003) installs are brought to their knees by some malware/0day that later results as making use of a vulnerability of which MS was made well aware BEFORE April 2014? (and that did not patch in a timely fashion?) jaclaz

As a side note, I would be interested in "third party" software that is intended to replace CHKDSK (i.e. that can fix NTFS filesystem errors). jaclaz

NO. Leave the disk alone, DO NOT DO anything in Disk Management with it, DO NOT EVEN THINK of re-formatting or initializing it. You need to go on it with some partition recovery tool, please start a new, specific thread, here: http://www.msfn.org/board/forum/169-hard-drive-and-removable-media-issues/ with as much details as you can remember on how the disk was partitioned, and I will try and suggest you a proper recovery procedure. jaclaz

I was only highlighting how till now the result of your experiments confirmed that Windows XP and Windows 7 behave differently, aka they are different beasts. Till now you confirmed in practice that something that can be done in XP unattended cannot seemingly be done in 7, which was exactly submix8c's theory proposed two weeks ago. jaclaz

--JorgeA In my day that would have read as: jaclaz.

Let me see . According to your experiments: Windows XP uses WINNT.SIF for unattended settings and allows through it to move profiles to (say) "\Profiles\Documents and Settings (XP)". Windows 7 uses unattended.xml for unattended settings and DOES NOT allow through it to move profiles to (say) "\Profiles\Documents and Settings (7)".I would say they are different beasts. jaclaz

Oopd, I didn't notice the "opposed side" of the contacts. From this: and also from this: http://www.datapro.net/techinfo/usb_3_explained.html it seemed like they would work the same, but you raised an interesting point. According to the actual datasheets: http://www.mouser.com/pdfdocs/HiroseZX62Datasheet24200011.pdf http://www.mouser.com/pdfdocs/ZX360Flyer.pdf it is however confirmed that one half of the micro-USB B 3.0 socket/receptacle is compatible with the micro-USB B 2.0 plug. jaclaz

Does sync.exe work on Win9x? The text says "all windows" but the "client" is specified as "XP and above". Usual MS crappy info? http://technet.microsoft.com/it-it/sysinternals/bb897438.aspx jaclaz

It could actually be a "write cache" activated on USB devices, see (though NOT Win9x related) the page here: http://www.uwe-sieber.de/usbstick_e.html the part titled "cache or not". jaclaz

The "uppercase" vs."lowercase" is "queer", unless it is related to Swedish language. Which version of 7-zip are you running? Can you try again with some other files/folders? Maybe it's some stupid setting of the stupid OS, there was something like that in the good ol' times, and possibly it is still there, those names are not "lowercase", but rather "mixed case" with uppercase initial, they appear to be the effect of the "missing" DontPrettyPath in the Registry: http://www.pctools.com/guides/registry/detail/768/ or some other obscure setting related to the specific folder. jaclaz

Since you have a *somewhat working* XP, you don't actually *need* to boot from the CD/DVD. As a matter of fact the "best" way to install a NT system has been traditionally that of initiating the install from harddisk. Basically you copy the CD contents to a directory in root of a drive, with a nice, short name, let's say D:\xpsource, then from the booted XP you open a command prompt and run WINNT32.EXE, (with the wanted parameters). See: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/163184-my-plan-to-preinstall-xp-on-a-drive-will-this-work/ http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/windows/xp/all/proddocs/en-us/winnt32.mspx?mfr=true The files needed for booting and that are in ROOT of the active primary partition are: NTLDRNTDETECT.COMBOOT.ININTBOOTDD.SYS (this ONLY if you have "special" hardware like SCSI/RAID/SATA hard disks)There is no actual differences between the BOOT.INI's of different versions of Windows (except of course the text in the entry). But it would be an additional safety if you can actually boot from CD/DVD. It is possible that your CD, for whatever reasons, is not bootable because it is an "upgrade" (though I doubt it), but you can make a new CD from the files on it and have it bootable alright. jaclaz