jaclaz

Just for the record: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2908279 Misses : jaclaz

Well, you see, if you use "happily running Windows 8" in a sentence , all the following comments, even if otherwise senceful, loose each and every possible validity. If you go to a car show and while talking with other car enthusiasts by mistake you utter "I actually liked the Ford Pinto" (in the US) or "I actually love driving my Fiat Duna" (in Europe) you instantly loose your credibility and everything you say after (and before) is discredited. "running Windows 8" is acceptable, using the adverb "happily" it is not . And ME was not that bad, after all. (I know, it's hard to say this, but still it cannot be compared to the 8.1 abomination ... ) And Windows 8.1 is NOT a "major" Windows upgrade, it is a very minor one. jaclaz

This is interesting. Define "more stable". Like "in the same period I also used a comparable XP 32 bit machine, doing on it the same things and running the same programs and it once BSOD'ed, whilst the 64 bit version never did that, hence XP64 is definitely more stable". At least the statement will change status from apodictical to anecdotal. jaclaz

UDC-10.08.13 And it was mildly fast. jaclaz

Then use UDC-10.08.13 instead. And this was also extremely fast! Is it safe? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074860/quotes?item=qt0247572 jaclaz

You have been already told how to workaround that issue, here: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/163670-bwgen-website-is-down/ I attempted - evidently vainly - to explain you in extreme detail why the issue most probably happens and how to workaround it. It's not like if you ask the same question over and over you will get different answers. Is there any problem/issue/anything you don't understand in the reply I made? If yes, you are welcome to ask for clarifications. jaclaz

WUD250B1002 Hey, that was fast! jaclaz

Well, this is "fresh": http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/nov/06/google-nsa-gchq-spying-judicial-process https://plus.google.com/+MikeHearn/posts/LW1DXJ2BK8k jaclaz

Yes, it normally asks it at first setup, at least Samsung's do, example: http://www.knowyourmobile.com/samsung/samsung-galaxy-s4/20099/how-set-your-samsung-galaxy-s4-first-time jaclaz

The accent was not on "crossing the Rubicon" it was on what was said while doing it. Alea jacta esto has many points in common with "to be or not to be", the latter is a doubt, the former is the plain declaration that what will happen (which is "to be or not to be" or "to win or loose" or "live or die") largely depends on the Fates, and the probabilities were actually very near 50%. There are two meanings of that sentence, one is "once you have thrown the dice, you are playing" or "no way back", but this comes from the common translation "The die is cast", coming from the elision of the o in Alea jacta esto, the other comes from the more correct philological translation from the original greek (yes, in Cesar's times they spoke mainly Greek and not yet Latin) that translates more correctly as "Let the die be cast!", or "Let the game be ventured!". Flippism is about randomness and probabilities, as the cast of the die is. Hamlet's doubts as well as the Matrix's RED pill are about choosing between two options (and the decision is made without the intervention of probabilities). jaclaz

OW, comeon, everyone knows that chimps don't use the keyboard, gorillas do : http://www.koko.org/world/kokopix.php?page=837 Orangutans are more about the Apple iPad, though: http://redapes.org/multimedia/apps-for-apes/ I don't know why, but I see a Rule #34 hiding somewhere.... jaclaz

Sure , but you cannot expect to find an existing tutorial titled "How to dual boot XP and Windows 98 on an Acer Aspire 5738Z, including all the drivers you will need for both OS's, the BIOS upgrades and a complimentary list of all programs and add-ons that a typical Windows 98 user from Bulgaria may find useful". jaclaz

Welcome Georgi. First thing you should do should be to go through this "sticky": http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/95815-important-stickified-pinned-959898-seme-topics/ which lists more all less all we have avaialble regarding your questions. Once you will have read that (and the relevant topics linked to in it) you will have a fair idea of what has already been done and probably find between 90 and 99% of the answers to your questions. As well, about installing, take your time on this thread (also sticky): http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/118623-how-to-create-easily-a-second-win98xp-in-the-same-computer/ Then, do come back with the questions to which you haven't found a suitable answer in the above. jaclaz

Well, if you think a bit about it is "only too logical". The tasks that traditionally the bootsector (or PBR or VBR) code should perform is: set/check some parameters (the BPB or Bios Parameter Block) call/invoke the loader or system file (possibly passing to it some of these parameters)it is evident that the bootsector code for each Operating System that uses a different loader or system file will be different: all DOS bootsectors invoke IO.SYSall FreeDOS bootsectors invoke KERNEL.SYSall Windows NT up to XP/Server 2003 invoke NTLDRall Windows NT starting from Vista invoke BOOTMGRIf you check the comparison here: http://thestarman.pcministry.com/asm/mbr/FAT32xp7comp.htm attentively you will see that the main "human readable difference" is that one has the string "NTLDR" and the other the string "BOOTMGR", there are other few differences in the BPB, and this is "normal", and as well there are some little differences in the CODE, but it is clear that one is an adaptation of the other pointing to a different system file. The "problem" is that many years ago (with NT 3.x) the good MS guys decided that the TWO different operations that were required to make a bootable FileSystem in DOS: FORMAT <- create the filesystem bootsector, including the BPB BUT without writing any CODE SYS <- write the CODE to the bootsector AND transfer to the filesystem the system files (historically, i.e. up to DOS 6.22 in a given order)which were already "merged" into the single "FORMAT /S" command somehow *needed* to be merged into the single FORMAT command . Of course they didn't really merged all of the SYS command functions , but only the writing of the CODE to the bootsector. So, any filesystem created with the FORMAT command under any DOS has NOT any CODE in the bootsector, whilst the FORMAT command under any NT based system includes some code, which is different in different versions of the NT OS. jaclaz

Monkeys do keep their documents users folder on C: , if they don't they cannot upgrade to 8.1: http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows8_1-windows_install/sorry-it-looks-like-this-pc-cant-run-windows-81/84310e8a-edd3-48d7-af31-0b09666b0c74 Sometimes I wonder what a cyberarcheologist from year 2513 (or *any* alien of a more advanced race) might think of this early computer civilization, if they find about this issue. A solution was given on page 10, by user "TSoftware": http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows8_1-windows_install/sorry-it-looks-like-this-pc-cant-run-windows-81/84310e8a-edd3-48d7-af31-0b09666b0c74?page=10 And of course Ed Bott's opinion is that MS is correct , because it supports a stupid workaround approach and has determined that the simple, right, logical one (btw elsewhere considered "best practice" is not supported: http://www.zdnet.com/dont-move-your-windows-user-profiles-folder-to-another-drive-7000022142/ jaclaz

mariella, really I cannot understand you. If you have a question, ask it , but it has to be a definite question, my ESP powers are at a very low level, and my crystal ball is AGAIN in the shop for maintenance and tuning. What is "this"? What is "what is described in the following pages"? jaclaz

Very useful to keep a historical set of files, in case the latest mod/update has issues. jaclaz

Well, maybe that tutorial said something slightly different and you don't remember it exactly. This behaviour of BOOTMGR is not among the "most known" things, and as a matter of fact it has been AFAICR hinted for the first time here: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/140412-release-siginets-plop-usb-boot-manager-installer/ till then everyone was convinced that BOOTMGR loaded NTLDR (i.e. that an entry in \boot\BCD for the "previous OS" was needed) and that NTLDR loaded the BOOT.INI choices. Further experiments confirmed that instead BOOTMGR reads directly BOOT.INI but selectively "chooses" only non-arcpath entries. jaclaz

Actually Julius Cesar did the same some 2000 years earlier, the alea iacta est is not that much different: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alea_iacta_est by crossing the Rubicon he (and all his army) had a 50% probability of winning (and surviving) and a 50% of losing (and thus dying) the battle to gain the control of Rome. And I suspect it wasn't even then much original, as long before that it had been already stated, Ecclesiastes 1:9: jaclaz

I am not sure to have understood your question (actually I am pretty sure I have not understood it ). See if this helps: The behaviour of a BOOTMGR is the following: start booting look for a file \boot\BCD in the SAME partition the BOOTMGR is booted from parse it's contents look for a file \BOOT.INI in the SAME partition the BOOTMGR is booted from parse it's contents and discard each and every entry that is an arcpath and consider ONLY those that are direct links to a bootsector file display as user boot menu options the entries found in the \boot\BCD and the ones not discarded found in \BOOT.INI boot/chainload the *whatever* the user choseArc path reference: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc977184.aspx Direct bootsector entry reference: http://thestarman.pcministry.com/asm/mbr/bootini.htm#BP jaclaz

BTW flippism is a term duly registered (and explained) in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flipism Seriously, whenever chances near (like in 40% or 60%) the 50% mark, i.e. there is not a definite or reliable enough answer, flipping a coin is as accurate as actually choosing, with the not-so-trifling advantage that on average (i.e. roughly 50% of times ) when you get what reveals itself as the "wrong" choice, you don't have to blame yourself , but you can blame bad luck, or the Devil for it. This helps in living a better life . @Ponch If you choose the RED PILL (coincidentally a 50% probability ), you should be aware that the rabbit hole may be deeper than expected: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_pill_and_blue_pill jaclaz

Easy. Get TWO of the cheapest ones you can find. You are not looking for "top performers" in speed, cache, access times or whatever, actually the slower they are the lower is the probability they will break, also, the smaller they are the more chances you have they won't break soon. The issue with Seagate drives (the one that "made the numbers") was/is limited to a specific model, the 7200.11, and similar issues affected only a much smaller amount of the later 7200.12 model. Seagate did a terrible job, both in the engineering/firmware AND in the support (particularly this latter), but no disk manufacturer is immune from this. Since the 2011 "big merge": http://www.seagate.com/about/newsroom/press-releases/seagate-completes-aquisition-samsungs-hdd-business-pr/ it is not like you have that many choices: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/163189-hard-drive-controller-errors-abound-atapi-event-11/ http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/163189-hard-drive-controller-errors-abound-atapi-event-11/?p=1041845 If you set aside Toshiba, you can use flippism alright (an approach that has proved being very accurate whenever a hard disk is involved): http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/153191-does-copying-several-giga-bytes-on-a-daily-base-screw-the-hard-drive/ to choose between Seagate and Western Digital. Redundancy is the only solution. Redundancy is the only solution. Redundancy is the only solution. jaclaz

It should be about "location platform": http://www.adilhindistan.com/2013/04/change-location-settings-via-powershell.html http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/apps/hh768219.aspx jaclaz

The trend is to reach version: 8.1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 by summer of 2027. At that time, all computers will crash as the name of an update file and particularly that in the WinSxS folder will be longer than the whole available space on disk. The global crash will result on skynet getting self-awareness ..... jaclaz P.S.: this post was made to show how the board software deals with looong strings

There are a number of variables. The specific virtual machine, the availability of dedicated accelerators/system tools, etc. may play a role in this. Generically speaking, you can expect the OS inside the VM to run at a speed (processor/CPU) between 33% and 70% of what it would run on the "real" machine (provided that you have the drivers for the latter). The storage subsystem is usually very fast, and the memory usage only depends on how much memory you assign to the VM. Speaking of say a 2K, that normally ran on (say) a 600 Mhz CPU with 128 Mb or 256 Mb of Ram, it will run in a VM on a modern machine with a 2 Ghz processor at the same speed or better that what it ran at the time on the hardware available at the time. jaclaz