jaclaz

Forget about Excel 2013. This is "basic" spreadsheet use. Post an example of the contents of first and second sheet. Basically you want to use the VLookUp function on the third sheet: http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/excel-help/vlookup-HP005209335.aspx jaclaz

JFY, I find this handy: http://www.abelhadigital.com/hostsman OT have a look at how Windows 8 (actually Defender) manages Hosts file : http://www.ghacks.net/2012/08/19/you-cant-block-facebook-using-windows-8s-hosts-file/ jaclaz

... but much more (needlessly) colourful jaclaz

I guess the point is about TPM 2.0 and BIOSes (or EFI/UEFI crap) where the TPM chip cannot be disabled. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/08/23/nsa_germany_windows_8/ However, as a side note, let's say that hypothetically I find a way to attempt accessing the TPM chip (with totally incorrect/random credentials/password/whatever), I can seemingly lock you out of your system for 20/24 hours: http://www.wave.com/support/trusted-platform-module-tpm-disabled-unavailable-or-locked-1 Raise your hand if you never managed to lock yourself (or someone else) out of a handy by mistyping thrice the PIN (and needed to find the PUK, that has a known tendency to hide amid a zillion pieces of papers in the back of never used drawers ). There is now an official BSI statement: https://www.bsi.bund.de/DE/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/Presse2013/Windows_TPM_Pl_21082013.html translated as: http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2013-08-26/german-government-confirms-key-entities-not-use-windows-8-tpm-20-fearing-cont jaclaz

And so should "in theory" the XP (with or without Kansas City Shuffle is to be determined) or any other "non -real mode" OS, as long as you manage to NOT use BIOS to access the hard disk and "jump" to protected mode (and dedicated OS drivers). Please consider how we don't have any actual results from tests on the specific machines, but only the results of cdob's nice experiments with "comparable" but not "same" motherboards. Another interesting approach would be to use KEXEC (or similar) to pre-boot in Linux and then switch to XP (though I am afraid you have to "go through" grub4dos or similar and that would vanify the whole thing ) or try kexec-loader: http://www.solemnwarning.net/kexec-loader/ (this should allow to stay within the 32 Mb DOM alright, if the "switch" to Linux is decided) There are a lot of possibilities or experiments to carry and seemingly so little time.... jaclaz

I also feel very sorry for the actual users . Seriously, now: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/26/opinion/krugman-the-decline-of-e-empires.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0 jaclaz

If I may, that effect is more often provoked by cheap booze, not cognac. They were most probably high on moonshine . From http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_blog/archive/2013/08/27/on-dickens-rashomon-and-twitter.aspx The blog post seems to me like a very polite way to say: we know better than you do you are - by definition - demented or at least narrow minded/incapable of analyzing the specific situation (or actually *any* situation) all genius and intelligence, and creativity and knowledge ARE BELONG TO US!Hey, Mr.Shaw, noone asked to have N.C.I. OR a good non-touch interface, everyone is asking to have ALSO (AND or additionally) the possibility to choose the whatever he/she likes better. jaclaz

Good , personally , I would use QNX or BSD, what gives? The problem here is seemingly that the BIOS "as is" does NOT boot from the bigger than 32 Gb "standard" hard disk, it is not that Linux (or any other OS) has an ESP DDO working around the issue, AFAIK. If you prefer a DDO is OS agnostic. As cdob verified if you manage - one way or the other - to initiate the boot from *something* else, a "protected mode" OS loads alright. jaclaz

OT , maybe it is one of the false pairs with Italian , but I rarely find a device "exciting" , unless of course it is specifically aimed to sex or cybersex . IMHO the adjective is being over- and mis- used. Not unlike "cyber", just for the record: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=cyber jaclaz

JFYI : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2905953.stm jaclaz

NO, that was BEFORE you managed to get the SETUPAPI.DLL "hacked". It is assumed that once you had it hacked you already tried to install with a NON modified TXTSETUP.SIF and that you were successful AND that you already tried to install with only a single, trivial, non-show-stopper edit of TXTSETUP.SIF and that you were successful. This would excludde that ti s anything wrong in the patch. Now you should have different symptoms or a different "crash" (namely a BSOD of some kind, most probably) than: When reporting a problem, do always follow the standard litany: http://homepage.ntlworld.com./jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/problem-report-standard-litany.html it will be easier for everyone . (and no, "install crashes" is NOT a description - or an accurate enough one - of what happens and that you see, remember how we cannot see what is happening on your PC and we have to base any suggestion on your descriptions of what happens). jaclaz

Hmmm. http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=216892 http://web.archive.org/web/20060215171504/http://blog.netwarriors.org/articles/2003/11/11/shieldsup-analyzed http://web.archive.org/web/20011110083055/http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/19332.html Be aware that nanoprobes are similar to worms, once you open the can they can go anywhere.... jaclaz

Which exact kind of "crash" do you get? Can you describe what actually happens? At first sight you are editing the file in a "semi-random" way , in the sense that you are removing just an occurrence of *something* without thoroughly checking the whole file for other occurrences of the "same" *something* (IF and how this will affect the result cannot say) Still at first sight, removing ksecdd.sys may be not a smart idea. I guess you would find interesting info and useful tools here /which you may want to re-read): http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/106964-forgotten-setup-secrets-revealed/ and: http://reboot.pro/topic/3951-forgotten-setup-secrets-revealed/ http://reboot.pro/topic/3960-ninf/ ninf is not that bad , and AFAICR once the modified setupapi.dll issue has been finally solved: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/162523-winxp-sp10a-czech-setupapidll-hack/ http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/139018-setupapidll-and-winxp-sp10a/ there is no particular difference between SP1.0a and later servicepacks (or original "Gold" release) jaclaz

Really . But: http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2012/05/how-to-stop-windows-update-from-automatically-restarting-your-computer/ http://www.wikihow.com/Disable-Automatic-Reboot-After-Windows-Update some of these should be able to work even on 8. And yes, this is windows 8 specific: http://www.redmondpie.com/how-to-stop-windows-8-updates-from-force-restarting-your-pc/ Another provision that the good guys at MS removed (that of asking the user if a reboot is allowed/doable before doing it and/or that of preventing it) and that should have AT THE VERY LEAST an "opt-in" choice and not an "opt-out". Anyway the intended usage paradigm has been "twisted": the probabilities that a sentient being is doing something actually sentient on Windows 8 are very low, the 5 year old will probably loose their current Angry Birds level , or loose a couple LOLZ, GREETZ and COOLZ in a IM or the like, but that's about it. jaclaz

Seemingly still available: http://www.lina24.com/go/product_info.php?&products_id=20754 You can seemingly also manage to pay 999 Euros for it, though : http://www.amazon.it/Book-4TB-Hard-Disk-Esterno-USB/dp/B0099PFNV8/ref=sr_1_2?m=A1VKB71997SZAR&s=merchant-items&ie=UTF8&qid=1377441587&sr=1-2&keywords=Western+4Tb Getting 2x2Tb each seems somewhat more realistic : http://www.pixmania.com/it/it/7318103/art/western-digital/hard-disk-esterno-my-book.html?tduid=7e027a3258c9183c1545b6a1df03f237 http://www.ebay.it/itm/HARD-DISK-ESTERNO-2TB-WESTERN-DIGITAL-USB-3-0-WD-MyBook-Essential-HD-2-TB-/281148362763?pt=Unit%C3%A0_di_backup_Zip_Jaz_ed_Hard_Disk_esterni&hash=item4175bf900b jaclaz

As I see it, removing/overwriting an existing post (and one of so much "relevance" is a way to hide history (adding to it a strongly highlighted notice pointing to a new forum is another thing of course ). For those that are curious about what was here, courtesy of the Wayback Machine: http://web.archive.org/web/20130412071751/http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/107504-integration-of-intels-sata-ahci-and-raid-drivers/ jaclaz

I am not going to get mad at you , and from the beginning I declared how probably it would have been too complex, yet, the current usage paradigm is IMHO counterintuitive, and even once you get used to it (nothing particularly difficult, but still not very "user friendly") managing the pre-sets is a bit complex/prone to errors. Let's see if I can "convince" you to think about a slightly different approach. A completely separated tool, that can parse an existing preset in a more convenient display, let's say a "spreadsheet like" view, and that allows comparing two pre-sets and "merge them" in a new one. jaclaz

NOT what you asked , but I have seen more reports of "strange" issues with "Green" WD drives then I would ever had expected, fully functional disk drives that on certain setups behave "strangely", only a confirmation, but no specific solution or work around, unfortunately. However, see if anything here works for you : http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/1367904 It seems like in addition to the WDIDLE, using WDTLER: https://jackkb.net/western-digital-raid-issues-tler-is-the-culprit/ can solve some issues also in non-RAID setups. Remember YMMGV. Have you tried to set WDIDLE to /s0 (infinite) instead of /D (disabled)? jaclaz

Cannot say if possible at all (possibly it is not or it is so mindboggingly complex that it is not worth the time to change this ), but the one thing that IMHO sucks big at nlite is the non-progressive approach, but since it is "wish day", I'll mention it anyway. I mean, we have been taught that Rule #1 of nlite is that you never use nlite on an already nlited source. This is highly counter-intuitive, as I see it. The usual carpenter example, if you want to fit a plank into a given space, you roughly cut it to the given length (always with a little excess) and then you use a rasp or some sandpaper to finely shorten it until it fits perfectly. With nlite is just like you have to use one single circular saw cut and if it doesn't fit you throw away the piece of wood and start again from a new longer plank. MInd you I am not asking to re-add something that was already removed (which would be BTW another nice feature, given the amount of people that removed too much and then came here whining that something was amiss and that it as really really needed and how to re-add it) I am talking of the possibility of starting form "less aggressively" reduced sources to experiment with "fine tuning". jaclaz

Possibly, but you are clearly missing my point. Windows 8 was evidently designed by the morons that designed it with an intended target. That intended target is that of 5 years old (or grown up adults still with the reading abilities of a 5 years old), play-school like. The people that were chosen by Lenovo to "remove the start screen" have evidently (from the kind of graphics - still VERY play-school like they use) the SAME 5 years old target AND they cannot even care to check what they write on one of the main pages of their site (and their pre-existing users who should have read that page evidently never did). Hence, we can divide the intended target between: 5 years old that cannot read and are actually a bit retarded and actually like or are gullible enough to be induced to like the NCI 5 years old that also cannot read yet but are normally gifted of intelligence and don't like the NCI and weren't convinced to like itStill 100% of intended target is that of 5 years old (or grown-ups with the same level of knowledge and capability to read). Humanity is doomed. jaclaz

ON a "normal" 512 bytes sectored disk the difference (talking of modern, fastish disks with NCI and largish cache) is NOT noticeable at all, unless you are going to do a benchmark comparison, which does not on any way represent "real usage". My guess is that on 4 Kb sectored drive the difference may possibly be noticeable, but I won't buy the 40% figures . Somethign like 4% sounds like a much more "possible" max value (and I still personally doubt that it can be as much as that). On the already given thread there are related references and considerations: http://reboot.pro/topic/9897-vistawin7-versus-xp-partitioning-issue/?p=85960 and remember that partition alignment only works for NTFS (which is normally "internally" already aligned to 4 Kb), it won't - wiithout special provisions - work for FAT16 and FAT32. I am not familiarwith/haven't looked into exFAT to say if this latter would be affected or not by filesystem misalignement like FAT16 and 32 are. Which disk model? The Seagate ones (still 3.5"): http://rml527.blogspot.it/2010/10/hdd-platter-database-seagate-35.html are seemingly: ST4000DM000 4 platters x 1 Gb each ST4000DX000 5 platters x 800 Gb each jaclaz

Well they are apparently not aware that the English language words have a meaning: http://support.pokki.com/customer/portal/articles/517824-what-is-pokki- What is Pokki? Last Updated: Jan 30, 2013 And this confirms that at least a large parts of their customers either cannot or won't READ (which is typical of pre-school age) . The above is the FIRST page any sentient being would READ on their site. jaclaz

The issue is not common. The "standard" that MS itself established until XP/2003 was that a partition had to respect given boundaries, namely Cylinder and Heads, to comply with the oldish CHS method. Considering how the CHS limit was around 8 Gb, you can well understand how the issue was already common in NT 4.0 times. Notwithstanding this, 2000 and later systems (up - as said - to XP/2003) default to use this approach when creating partitions, whilst later SO, starting from Vista default to use a "round to 1 Mbyte" (usually) alignment. This should in theory be of NO relevance whatsoever, but the Disk Management in XP does a lot of things that shouldn't really do (more generally a lot of MS apps do a lot of things that they either shouldn't be done or that are done in a sort of "hidden" and often completely UNlike documented way). In order to make a partition (primary) active the ONLY thing needed is to write hex 80 in the appropriate field in the partition table and make sure that all other partitions have NOT that same field set to 80 (if it is, then it needs to be set to hex 00). It sounds simple enough, but unfortunately the Disk Management does a lot of (completely unneeded calculations) and when it finds on the disk Logical Volumes inside Extended partition NOT aligned to CH values (like the one that normally Vista amd any later OS would create) it "panics" and botches the partition tables in the EPBR's. Now, any normal program when it finds something "queer" or that cannot deal with correctly should throw an error or ask the user for confirmation, whilst Disk Management, when you try to change the active status of a partition will simply and silently break the EPBR chain in the Extended partition. The most detailed explanation/story on this bug is here: http://reboot.pro/topic/9897-vistawin7-versus-xp-partitioning-issue/ (link already provided on the already mentioned topic http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/154633-partition-boundary-alignment-in-4096-byte-physical-sector-drives/ ) If you have specific questions/doubts about something in there that you don't understand I will try my best (IF I can) to answer them. No, it is a matter of data density, information on a 250 Gb platter is already too "dense" for my likings. A typical 500 Gb 3.5" hard disk will have actually 2 platters 250 Gb each: http://rml527.blogspot.it/2010/09/hdd-platter-capacity-database.html Anything else will have either more platters or higher density platters. In both cases there are more probabilities of issues, IMHO. I think it depends on the specific model, the "AF" is not a standard and different manufacturers (and even the same manufacturer on the same model) may have made "simple" provisions for dong that (like a "jumper") or complex ones (like a "modified firmware") or none. jaclaz

Too much successes do wear prematurely their makers. jaclaz

A nonscoop, but have a look at what these guys are up to (FUD^2!): http://www.xpmigrations.com/ Some interesting, well phrased, and authoritatively supported statements: I mean, EVEN USA today! The article is here: and is nothing but a repost from minyanville.com: http://www.minyanville.com/sectors/technology/articles/Catalysts-for-Google-Inc-Apple-Inc/8/9/2013/id/51230#ixzz2bTffBBaR?refresh=1 I mean, Carol Kopp at minyanville.com said that, wow! The original article has however (unlike the re-post on USA today) the link to ZDnet story about the non-profit that made the switch (or is making it): http://www.zdnet.com/how-a-windows-xp-migration-became-a-journey-of-discovery-7000019039/ This article has interesting insights, here are a couple ones: I am officially proposing Mr.Wakefield for the 2013 Captain Obvious Award. jaclaz