jaclaz

No. You need to stop panicking and start again from scratch using a known to be working approach with some calm and attention. Which is your original source (the original Windows XP CD you use as source)? I mean is it "untouched"? Something like 90% of the issues when installing from USB are due to "bad" sources, i.e. something that has been (badly) nlited or with "queer" modifications/additions/integrated drivers and what not. Which SP it is? Which specific hardware are you trying to install it to? Are you sure (in the sense that have you tested it with RMPREPUSB testing features) that the USB stick is OK? Are you sure you used the latest Winsetupfromusb program version AND that you followed to the letter the instructions? Under which OS have you run Winsetupfromusb? Essentially what the WinsetupfromUSB program does is to make a bootable USB stick (that boots to grub4dos) and to prepare on it a suitable install source. If you set aside the install XP part for a moment your USB stick remains a bootable USB stick to grub4dos, if now you cannot start your PC from it (and get at least to the grub4dos) it means that somehow the stick got corrupted or that you are having hardware issues on the PC or that you haven't properly set the BIOS to boot from USB. jaclaz

Point here is HOW EXACTLY the specific bootable usb device was prepared/made. Why didn't you use one of the more common automated tools, most of which are stickies in the Forum: http://www.msfn.org/board/forum/157-install-windows-from-usb/ Like: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/120444-how-to-install-windows-from-usb-winsetupfromusb-with-gui/ http://www.winsetupfromusb.com/ However, your issue should be the same as this one, simply add the needed files: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/46129-cwindowssystem32presetupcmd-file-not-found/ jaclaz

You are welcome, I am sure . What you should NEVER do is to add to: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\Ntfs a key named "ResublimatedThiotimoline" with value of "1" as this, whilst allowing to serve files before they are requested, thus with a very sensible speed enhancement on NTFS volumes , also writes files before they are created which results in filling volumes with gibberish files in a very short time. You can however add that key to: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\Cdfs as - being the filesystem RO - it won't create issues. jaclaz

Sure, and to be picky (as I actually am ) tcp/ip is a "generic" network data transmission protocol, whilst http is just one one of the application layer protocols supported by it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_protocol or, if you prefer, it is only a very small subset of possible tcp/ip "traffic". The "fluffy" article initially mentioned is related to hardware compression: and is essentially a collection of truisms, of course compressing data means that less packets are sent through the network to transmit the same amount of data, and this means that more data can pass through the same connection, same goes for optimizing protocols and employ effective caching measures. In any case the article mentions explicitly: how web applications (please read as http) are considered only a small fraction of the actual tcp/ip traffic. jaclaz

Certainly not, and noone accused you of having said that , however you are wrong anyway Best I can tell, what that is describing is an app, or software "layer" that is installed at both ends of the transmission to compress/expand the "data", sort of like the way that encryption or file compression (.zip, .rar, .7z, etc) works. Of the nice links provided by krt47, BOTH completely void of any relevance when it comes to Registry tweaking, only the second is about a software layer, the first being some specialized hardware : http://www.f5.com/products/hardware/ We could make a quick reality check: if *something* (*anything*) is available through a simple Registry tweak HOW EXACTLY can two companies make money sellimg (respectively) hardware or software that delivers that same *something*? jaclaz

of course. In the Registry there is also: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\Fastfat and of course it is just a matter to add in it a key "superturbomode" giving it a value of 1 to have any file access/copy operation on FAT12,16 and 32 speed up by 127%. jaclaz

Expect by end of 2019/early 2020 the same statement applied to Metro/NCI, it seems like 7 to 8 years are needed to Steve Ballmer to exit denial mode about what are self-evident truths to the rest of the world. jaclaz

I am not the bearer of good news . I had a quick look at the BIOSes. I expected that the BIOS "blocks" were easily distinguishable, like being "fixed length" or "character/signature delimited". They are instead (I presume) "start/length" indexed and though with some work it is still possible to find the various "similar" or "patterned" blocks, they are not (in the two dirvers, the MSI and the "slimline HP") in the same order, and it seems like some addresses are "cross blocks". Plainly this means that besides the work needed to identify the blocks, unless the actual indexing schene is decoded, it will likely be impossible to "transplant" a module from one firmware to the other, as some addresses/offsets/whatever do change. As soon as I have some more spare time I'll have a further look to the issue, but I am much less optimistic than before. You could try again to ask (particularly here and on the HP forum) for someone with that card willing to dump the contents of the card BIOS, possibly being a bit more "proactive", i.e. listing explicitly the HP models that use that card and providing a step by step set of instructions to make the dump. Right now you are looking for: a good guy/gal willing to help you AND that ALSO knows which card his/her computer has AND that ALSO knows how to dump a Nvidia firmwareMaybe if you start looking for: a good guy/gal willing to help you, capable of following an easy set of instructionsyou have more probabilities to find one. jaclaz

There are quite a few reports of that error in conjunction with Office 2003 upgrades, not with Office 2K, but there are also various different "sources" reported, including a Nero "Scout" and it's NMBGmonitor program: http://www.inetnj.com/?page_id=404 and vague references to Outlook. BUT it could also be "Windows Desktop Search": http://www.outlookbanter.com/outlook-general-queries/54027-winxp-pro-shutdown-message-end.html Can you check in Task Manager (or similar) which programs are actually running when you get that error? jaclaz

Dear Mr.krt47, we took note of the site you mentioned. Unfortunately it does not in any way represent a valid source, being it a single article, very vague, made mostly of "fluff" and never mentioning any Microsoft Operating System, let alone more specifically Windows 7 or it's Registry and/or tweaks for it. Due to the time it took to ascertain that the resource you proposed provides not anything connected with the original question, nor provides any meaningful additional info to it, your request has been downgraded to #4874 in the queue. Considering the upcoming holidays, an answer is expected no earlier than February 13, 2014. Thank you again for using our search services. Best regards, jaclaz P.S.: Should you be not current with the definition of the word "fluff", here is a dictionary entry for it: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fluff meaning #3

Dear Mr.krt47, your request is currently #3478 in the queue, please allow 15 to 40 working days to get a reply. While waiting, you could use the time to post some relevant info about WHAT THE HECK are you looking for, like what exactly you are talking about, where did you learn that such a thing exist, etc., etc., remember that the more details you can provide the more relevant the answer will be. Thank you for using our search services. Best regards, jaclaz

Would that mean that you are aging badly? jaclaz

The disk cannot read the part of the firmware on disk. Normally this indicates mechanical issue that only can be solved opening the disk and transplanting heads. Nothing DIY, and definitely nothing that can be done with a simple USB to TTL adapter. It is also possible that something in the firmware (address table of sectors on disk) is gone beserk but it is unlikely. jaclaz

Naaah. They had sundials, and two hours hours .... http://allmesopotamia.tumblr.com/post/7757242292/the-sumerian-clock-the-sumerians-used-sundials ... they needed no friggin' time zones nor Daylight saving times .... ... and they liked it! http://tinyapps.org/blog/misc/200702250700_why_in_my_day.html jaclaz

I am not sure to understand, WHICH version of CPU-Z was "fixed"? AFAIK the 1.57 version works fine on 9x: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/105936-last-versions-of-software-for-windows-98se/?p=971060 jaclaz

Duly noted. JFYI: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/163539-are-ms-updates-for-xp-really-necessary/ And, for NO apparent reason: http://www.dedoimedo.com/computers/experts.html jaclaz

No matter how much our good friend Dencorso is trying to stretch it's meaning , "cumulative" still means "cumulative" and Microsoft is slightly misdefining it, possibly by only 6% : http://support.microsoft.com/kb/189826/en-us jaclaz

Why would you want to backup the pagefile? Traditionally, the pagefile should go, among others for the reason you mention, on another volume (better if on another disk). In any case, if you are doing an image of the disk, it would be more logical to disable pagefile (it is normally possible with enough RAM, in 2K 1 Gb would be enough) and then zero just the pagefile.sys or zero the whole unused/unindexed space. (but then it would make more sense to do a backup and not an image ). See also: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/156944-delete-not-clear-pagefile-at-shutdown/ jaclaz

Maybe it is, but you shouldn't count me as a developer/programmer , and I am not actually going to reverse engineer anything _ph34r:, I am simply aware that "normal" BIOSes have "blocks" and maybe - just maybe - the same happens with the Nvidia ones, and IF this is the case, and IF the missing feature of the "external" connector is a dedicated block, since the BIOS you found is 1532 (or 3*512) bytes shorter than the other ones, it is maybe possible that such a block can be "transplanted". (more IF's and maybe's then what I normally like to have in a sentence ). Well, I did a simple test, got the MSI BIOS, chnaged last byte (which is C2) to 00 opened it in Nibiitor and it told me: Calculated Checksum: C2 Actual Checksum: 00 so I am not "preoccupied" bu the checksum . jaclaz

My bad actually , I meant MSFN (this very board) as hinted in the previous post, the FN remained in the tips of my fingers , corrected the post to avoid future misundrstandings. jaclaz

The non-repairs also affected your google? http://www.scambook.com/company/view/59191/Omni-Tech-Support http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/OmniTech-support/internet/OmniTech-support-Passed-themselves-off-as-Microsoft-Support-and-ruined-my-computer-Inter-728719 http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/office/forum/office_2010-outlook/is-omnitech-support-connected-to-microsoft/f95196a2-2d31-4f32-9f07-e5df62c06adf http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?p=1369142 http://www.scamgroup.com/155/omni-tech-support BTW, sorry for your misadventure . Be very aware that the whole thing is sponsored by astroturfing on "companion sites". jaclaz

Good, I'll have a look if I can spot a pattern. Well, since it is one byte checksum, at the most one has to try 256 times . More seriously Nibitor can calculate the checksum accurately (checksum is last byte of the file). jaclaz

There are only a bunch of bytes different from the MSI to the XFX. Where did you get the .rom for the "slimline" HP card? Can you share it? (possibly a "whole section" of the .rom will be missing or however i will be possible to understand which are the different bytes related to the fan speed. Also, the Gainward.G210.512.090915.rom and the Galaxy.G210.512.090829.rom are VERY similar to both the XFX and MSI, have you tested them? jaclaz

I still do not understand. If a thread/post is indexed in Google or Bing (or whatever search engine) it can be found by anyone (both humans and robots/spiders/whatever), so what has "Funny Farm" different? In this case the OP is a spammer for a given software firm and the one that replied (with nick "jacobjackson408" and which post was deleted) was a known spammer for ANOTHER software firm (both are form India, just for the record). BOTH the OP and the other spammer anyway needed to register to post. And I have seen similar spamming post in each and every sub-forum, not just "Funny Farm". jaclaz

What do you mean? AFAIK the whole board is indexed by Google and friends. jaclaz