jaclaz

But you got the wrong link , in this case jaclaz would have most probably earlier used the Standard Litany one (which is introductory to the chocolate covered banana issue) : http://homepage.ntlworld.com./jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/problem-report-standard-litany.html jaclaz

No need to speculate, it's another form of Apple-envy If Apple can have no idea of what it has sold (and thus provide not detailed information, and actually sort of get away with it): http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/155290-windows-8-deeper-impressions/?p=1050032 then so will do MS. jaclaz

Yep , and they came totally unexpected! (which was actually the general idea ) jaclaz

Something like: http://reboot.pro/topic/18744-quickpe/ jaclaz

That's exactly the point. The Spanish Inquisition did not record videos, and this is among the reasons why no videos of similar "interviews" ever leaked . They also did not make (lousy) Powerpoint slides to illustrate to the apprentices/newbies how to carry an interview or listing what they could do through the use of the tools they had available. jaclaz

Well, the contrary of "announced" is "secret", which the Beta9 and/or rc4 (and later versions, be it beta, rc or *whatever*) are seemingly not, since you actually published a link to download them. Adding to the filename a date, possibly in iso-like format yyyymmdd or yyyy-mm-dd is just a way to know easily which version is more recent, without trying to "decode" the otherwise complex naming convention that the developer uses (and that of course is never publicly disclosed). More generally, there are a lot of sites with completely unuseful/unneeded/not working programs, and when we happen to have an actually useful/working program, it has not a site. Life is tough! If you are nice , I could consider your nomination for the "developer that makes good tools AND actually talks with the other peeps, BUT manages nonetheless to fail in publishing properly his/her works 2014 Award". You have good chances to get the 1st prize for that. jaclaz

I would say that you are lucky in not being particularly interested in entomology (just sayin'), JFYI : http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=358 jaclaz

The sheer fact that TWO DIFFERENT versions of something with the same filename of "Win Setup_1-0RC4.7z" exist would be enough to allow some (heavy) calling names at you . However you have just been awarded 2nd prize for the "2013 Developer that makes his/her products less easily available and/or that uses the least reliable hosting service on Earth and/or incoorectly naming files Award". You could have got 1st prize , if it was not for al-jo over at reboot.pro, who clearly deserves it. . (and beware that Olof Lagerkvist is currently in the race for the 2014 award. and seemingly well placed with his newish released tool) For no apparent reason, I just downloaded a copy of your "less older" version, renamed it to: Win Setup_1-0RC4_20130930.7z and uploaded it to zshare: http://www2.zshares.net/5gs5428liw79 jaclaz

I wouldn't be so sure. The whole point of the Spanish Inquisition coherence was that they NEVER proclaimed to be "defenders of freedom", nor that the *whatever* they did was in the interest of the general public, they simply had the power and exercised is they way they see fit. They claimed to be defenders of faith and of the Roman Church, which is something different from freedom. They may have been bad guys, but at least they didn't try to be loved. As I see it, the real issue with *whatever* the secret agencies do is that it is not secret enough (they fail at keeping it a secret) and that they try to justify it. On the other hand, given the nature and size of the known leaks, it is preoccupying that they could have happened at all (it means that they also fail at running their surveillance programs), so seemingly not only a zillion dollars are spent into what can be seen as a breach of rights of the citizens (and of constitutional rights) but also they seem to be quite ineffective (the Spanish Inquisition had a surprisingly high success rate, something like 99.99999% of suspects being found guilty ). If you prefer, the Spanish Inquisition guys appear to have been more professional in their activities, and protected their correspondence/reports/meeting drafts/whatever with higher efficiency. jaclaz

Try using the one I uploaded to zshare a couple of posts above. jaclaz

Actually it could be a form of advertisement (or to have full legal compliance with some Lawyers only know obscure US Defense/NSA regulations). Of course if I were a some-non-US-country war lord or a terrorist or more simply Dr. Evil (or a top villain from SPECTRE ) and I wanted to play a little with chemical or nuclear weapons my first thought would be to call my IT guy and order him to make sure that all software has the proper license and is respecting the EULA's beforehand. You see, if by chance you survive my nuclear or chemical attack and manage to get your hands on me, I don't want (besides being processed as a War Criminal) to be charged for breaking a software license and risk being fined for it, or even have, say, two years added to my infinite prison sentence (or death sentence) . jaclaz

Sure, and it is much faster, but we have also a new kid on the block : http://reboot.pro/topic/18855-windows-file-search-utility-that-is-fast/ jaclaz

I guess that those are for US customers only, between US $50 and US $65 (besides import taxes) to get them to (say) Italy or France seems to me like a nice show-stopper for EU people. jaclaz

Well, you can use a "flag" file. If before the reboot you create a new file and have the batch check for it's existence, that's all you need. Example ....IF EXIST reboot.txt GOTO :after_reboot....::Before the rebootECHO Reboot>reboot.txt....::Imagine that here is a reboot commandGOTO :EOF::Code ONLY executed after the reboot:after_rebootDEL reboot.txt:: Insert here any code that needs to be executed after the rebootjaclaz

You mean smart users that still use XP, don't you? jaclaz

Well, if you haven't ever fixed/reworked/re-soldered tiny SMD components or reflowed (or reballed ) a BGA component, with cheap, common tools, you are missing the satisfaction in the (actually rare ) case that you manage to do it successfully :. jaclaz

Yep,IF the issue is not having power (or enough power) on a single port. What happens by attaching a keyboard (do the numlock/CAPS LOCK leds light briefly? Do they switch on off when pressing the corresponding keys? No, they are SMD. They are soldered. Scrap motherboard. Sorry, did not notice this piece of info earlier, but maybe with this feature you could try re-flashing the BIOS. Well, the fun is sometimes when there is no reason or worth.... . jaclaz

i.e. (extension on the bet) 98.9% through Internet Explorer and Outlook (or Outlook Express) and 0.1% through all other web-browsers and e-mail programs combined. jaclaz

Sure, if you want to "share" a compressed file with the "rest of the world", the most popular format is still ZIP, which is much less tight. Second comes 7-zip, who got a lot of popularity being Free and Open Source and cross-OS, as it is available - in command line form - for *nixes and it is compatible (can decompress) WinRar files (up to the previous version, but probably will be updated soon to take care of the newish release too). WinRAR has the limits of being Commercial (but a Free command line UNrar exists for almost any OS on Earth): http://www.rarlab.com/rar_add.htm The not-so-trifling difference is that a number of organizations/people that do respect intellectual property and Commercial licensing schemes won't use WinRAR, because you have to get a license for it (the fact that most people consider the use of the trial after it's expiration as just a "nag" is another thing). As said, besides Unrar, you can use 7-zip to decompress a .rar file, but if you want to make one you need the "full" Winrar or rar.exe (licensed). It seems to me like the "more relevant" News about the new format is not the tighter compression, but rather some other of the nice new features, like preserving hard links, added solidity about the file structure and password protection. -X-, can you try checking what happens when you open a WinRar 5.x file with a previous version? Which error/message/warning does it come out with? jaclaz

See also here: http://www.mdgx.com/newtip1.htm#CDROM4 http://www.mdgx.com/drv.htm XGCDROM, UIDE and ODDCDROM should also do. jaclaz

Hmmm. If you are looking for "tight" compression, try a few "tight" compressors (command line only), like those PAQ8 based or Nanozip. http://dhost.info/paq8/ http://www.nanozip.net/ Or, if you *need* the GUI the (Commercial) WinRK is still the tighter compression available: http://www.msoftware.biz/products/winrk Comparison: http://www.maximumcompression.com/data/summary_mf.php but do check also compression and decompression times, overall I do use 7-zip because it is Free and it doubles as an (almost) orthodox dual pane file manager, but if I had to make a choice today it would probably be FreeArc: http://freearc.org/Default.aspx http://www.maximumcompression.com/data/summary_mf2.php We will need to wait some time for those comparisons to take into account WinRAR5, but since it has some better compression, I doubt that it has become also faster. jaclaz

Which brings us here: ftp://ftp.cs.tu-berlin.de/pub/aminet/ jaclaz

I see no reason to guess. When there was ONLY a Windows RT (version 8) "windows RT" and "Windows 8 RT" were synonyms and the latest a pleonasm. Now that there are Windows 8 RT and Windows 8.1 RT adding the 8.1 seems like intelligent to avoid confusion. What you may have not noticed in the linked to comparison chart, is that the concept of pleonasm is not very clear at MS. If you title a comparison chart "Compare Windows 8.1 Editions", it means that on tabular data each column represents an "edition", and you DO NOT add "edition" to the column title OR you don't know what pleonasm means and add without need "edition" to EACH column title, and OF COURSE if you do not have another attribute for the edition it looks "queer", but the only thing you cannot do is use "mixed mode": Windows 8.1 RT<- this is then NOT an "edition", BUT ONLY a "RT" Windows 8.1 Edition <- this is an "edition" BUT NOT "qualified", maybe it should be read "none Edition"? Windows 8.1 Pro Edition <- this is "Pro" edition. OK Windows 8.1 Enterprise Edition <- this is "Enterprise" edition, OKThis is like lesson #1 (or maybe #2) at comparison charting elementary school, and like lesson #3 at "naming your product properly" seminaries. jaclaz

Can you remember how in the good ol'times a software feature comparison chart had and ? Well, forget about it: http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/enterprise/products-and-technologies/windows-8-1/compare/default.aspx If you cannot see a small grey cross on a dirty white background, it is essentially your problem. Older Cats Lack Focus, unfortunately : http://www.nngroup.com/articles/mobile-usability-cats/ EDIT, BTW, a flashback from 2009: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2009/07/oh-you-wanted-awesome-edition.html leading to a flashback from 2007: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2007/02/02/ jaclaz

But I was not referring to "generic" Wayback Machine, but rather to the specific CD collection. As an example, this: http://archive.org/details/cdrom-aminetcdnumber101996 is Aminet CD #10 1996 Which does contain (one that I found): 22677 39 -rw-rw-rw- 1 root root 39270 Dec 20 1995 /Aminet/gfx/board/OptimusView14.lha22681 5 -rw-rw-rw- 1 root root 4126 Jan 5 1996 /Aminet/gfx/board/OptimusView14.readmeMaybe, just maybe there are some of these including the source code (if it was "use at the time" to distribute the source code also). Now searching on the aminet.net on the Wayback MAchine, I can find in /gfx/board/ version 1.5: http://web.archive.org/web/20000618143725/http://www.aminet.net/~aminet/dirs/gfx_board.html http://web.archive.org/web/20030507152723/http://www.aminet.net/gfx/board/OptimusView.readme (but not the actual .lha file - and I have no idea if it actually contains the source ) A number of Gold Fish Cd's are available (but again I have no idea if they contained your programs or the sources): http://archive.org/details/cdrom-goldfish-1cd1 http://archive.org/details/cdrom-goldfish-1cd2 http://archive.org/details/cdrom-goldfish-2cd1 http://archive.org/details/cdrom-goldfish-2cd2 http://archive.org/details/cdrom-goldfish-3 AND there is an online memorial archive to Fred Fish: http://fish.back2roots.org/ where some of the files are available.... jaclaz