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

Naah, I won't shout at you for this , but maybe you could insert additionally a USB to IDE and a IDE to SATA converter and use GPT, just to increase the probabilities that the thingy won't work More seriously, try it on a "normal" hard disk (NOT USB, NOT bigger than 128 Gb, IDE) and/or in a VM (on a smallish virtual disk) it is well possible that any of the various "non-standard-at-windows-98-times" may play a role in this (or one among the zillion tweaks, unofficial updates, modified kernels and drivers that you are surely running). jaclaz

Sure, thousands or hundreds of thousands of people play that game on hardware EXACTLY identical to yours, with EXACTLY the same OS (and it's updates and tweaks and EXACTLY the SAME services running in background) using EXACTLY the SAME (outdated) videocard drivers , it would be very improbable that they don't suffer form EXACTLY the SAME issue. jaclaz

Cannot say, it's a lot of time since I tested it (but I am pretty sure that at the time it worked read/write alright) if you compare the current file (which is the SAME as pntfs.exe) with the actual "demo" that can be still retrieved from here: http://download.cnet.com/Paragon-NTFS-for-Win-98/3000-2122_4-10501034.html?tag=rb_content;contentBody you will see that there is an added .dll and that the .vxd is much bigger. I have not handy a Win98 VM right now, so I cannot actually test the install. jaclaz

Guess why exactly this thread exists? http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/158252-trace-why-windows-8-boots-shutsdown-or-hibernates-slowly/ jaclaz

BTW, noone talked of two instances of 7-zip, rather of a single instance of it in dual pane mode. What do you mean by the "favourite bar folder"? Isn't it like described in the "Note" here: http://www.eightforums.com/tutorials/25190-internet-explorer-favorites-bar-customize-title-widths.html or here: http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r25853423-IE-Location-of-Favorites-Bar-in-IE8 jaclaz

Sure , just kidding , though of course it might have been affected by the malware in 2008, before you did burn it to CD/DVD, for all you know. jaclaz

No "new" ones, always the same, old, ones check the file here: https://www.virustotal.com/ And see what the "consensus" is, it won't be the first time that a tool detects a false positive, but better double check anyway. Knowing which EXACT version and WHERE EXACTLY/HOW you got the file might also give some further (either reassuring or preoccupying ) insight on the probabilities it is actually a false positive or not. jaclaz

That's actually the least of a cat's problems: Suspect? jaclaz

Yep, EXACTLY like the one was referenced earlier: AND like the one that you can now download from paragon's site. (yes , I also verified the checksum of that one against mine which ws downloaded on 27/11/2008, JFYI). Noone actually cares where exactly you did store it BTW . jaclaz