jaclaz

A failure of teh internets? jaclaz

I have seen experiments involving a resublimated thiotimoline approach: http://asimov.info/the-endochronic-properties-of-resublimated-thiotimoline aiming to install XP in -22 seconds.... jaclaz

More than "narrowed" we have found how the general rule applies. The good guys at IPB have evidently decided - changing them at every other release and thus messing up half existing boards of the net, to add a kind of "overlay" of "friendly" syntax to the board software "native" one. So that, just like happened for threads friendly names, more than once, there is a on-the-fly translation, which - besides most probably adding senselessly load to the server - often fails. As soon as you find a way to provide a "more direct" link (i.e. bypassing the - often, as in this case, botched - "translation overlay") you get where you wanted to go. The accident that happened to them, unfortunately, is of a kind that it is improbable that it's consequences can be cured, more details on the (loosely) related "botched reboot.pro CODE converter page": http://pastehtml.com/view/b4t99xk89.html A (nice) experiment is the following: If you want a link to this thread, you would have: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/163472-ipb-update-july-2013-to-version-345-bugs-only/ but (say) this will resolve as well): http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/163472-ipb- and also this: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/163472- but not this: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/163472 Of course the "right" way is: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=163472 that will always "get you" here. jaclaz

I am not sure to understand the situation, I am not familiar with DDO's. The issue with the size bigger than 32 Gb is with which value? I mean once the XP has booted (from the partition contained into the first 32 GB) can it access the "\\.\phisicaldrive" beyond the 32 GB? jaclaz

Good jaclaz

Currently the easiest solution - as I see it - is Serva: http://www.vercot.com/~serva/ jaclaz

Well, no. The idea is that once you have the "right" file association set you remove from the key the privileges to edit/access the key, leaving access to the key ONLY allowed to a given "named" user account (of course NOT the one you use and you might need to remove also "SYSTEM"). Though everything is possible, I doubt that that program will be able to find and impersonate another user. Once the program will not be able to write anymore to that key (or wipe it) there are two possibilities: this will cause a crash/malfunctioning of the program this will be ignored and the program will continue working alright.What I forgot to mention (my bad, I gave it for already known fact) is that HKEY_Classes_Root doesn't really "exists" , it is an on-the-fly "mirror" of HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Classes, you might need to set the permissions there instead. jaclaz

Are you sure that setup is involved in any way in the project? jaclaz

You are sitting apparently on a small fortune. jaclaz

Well, yes and no, IMHO. Meaning yes , it is logical (and practical) to use "native" tools to do "native" work, but no , in some cases it is needed to use an "alien" tool. I will even go further, affirming that when you access a NTFS (or more generally *any* filesystem) with "external" tools you usually have the possibilities to access things/parts that would be otherwise inaccessible. (this is more about filesystem/files recovery than actual antivirus) To "clean" an infected system, the "common" and "logical" (and easier) choice is to run a "full scan" from the antivirus installed on the actual system, but you will have a number of things "running in the background" that may prevent you from completely cleaning/repairing it. The next "common" and "logical" thing would be to scan the disk from a PE of some kind, that already gives an added degree of freedom. Still, the possibility to do a scan from a "completely alien" OS guarantees that *nothing* on th einfected machine can be executed, not even by chance or by mistake. I do agree that it is not the "first" thing to do as the other two mentioned ways will work in - say - 98.34% of case - but still it is something that should not be considered as "last chance", but rather like a concrete possibility. jaclaz

Because the Linux NTFS drivers via FUSE that all the world senselessly uses since several years do not see Alternate Data Streams, right? http://www.tuxera.com/community/ntfs-3g-manual/ http://www.tuxera.com/community/ntfs-3g-manual/#5 http://www.tuxera.com/community/ntfs-3g-faq/ jaclaz

Consider it done! Here on MSFN we simply love to deliver e-mails to unknown people on behalf of other unknown people. Seriously, now, go to this page: can you see the "Download preset: ultimate_relaxing.bwg"? can you see that it creates a link like: try making out of it a link like: jaclaz

Who knows? You do it, and you have the answer, you fail at it and you have as well an answer. Who knows? In theory nothing is impossible. jaclaz

Most probably, yes. jaclaz

Why don't you ask for help to Steve6375, which is the Author of that tutorial/guide? He's usually active on Reboot.pro, which is the SEMI-official support forum for RMPREPUSB and related. http://reboot.pro/ BTW, the tutorial you linked to is #02 and IT IS CLEARLY STATED on that page how it is SUPERSEDED/REPLACED by tutorial #43 AND on the linked page it CLEARLY refers to bootland (now reboot.pro): http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=8043&view=findpost&p=68050 for discussion about that method You may to want to try the updated #43, first: http://www.rmprepusb.com/tutorials/firawiniso jaclaz

Good news :. I am DYING of the curiosity of looking at ハイドン's profile! : http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/163472-ipb-update-july-2013-to-version-345-bugs-only/?p=1046789 @dencorso jaclaz P.S.: What would happen if you click here?

@Charlotte The end of the internet as we know it is near. I will re-re-re-post a link to some 2017 news (but pre-published - SCOOP! - in 2007 ): http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/127283-experts-say/ And, for NO apparent reason if not the way the NSA (and all related stuff) has been, is and will be mis-managed, a re-re-re-repost of the known message from Her Majesty the Queen to the people of the ex-colonies in North America: http://friday-funny.blogspot.it/2009/07/message-from-queen.html jaclaz

Perhaps? No one ever told that you should use a Linux system to scan a windows partition (though you can ), you stated (twice) that Linux antivirus only look for "linux viruses", you were shown how these statements were inaccurate. jaclaz

Yes, the original project worked (at the time). BeatZero cites WInbuilder version 075.Beta 5j (but possibly that is in order to run the project from within Windows 98). The *new* version of the project, starting from here: http://reboot.pro/topic/10373-winbuilder-running-on-windows-98/?p=130343 has been reported as having some issues. The OP abandoned the game early, but I remember that - compared to the "original" project that was extremely simple - I noticed at the time an overaly of complexity (unneeded) in the new version. Re-reading that thread, it seems to me how half if not all the issues were with drive lettering of the one or other kind. The "old" project is NOT online anymore, but you may be able to get it through the wayback machine: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://win98livecd.winbuilder.net/* If you cannot, just say so, and I'll see if I can find a copy of it and re-post it *somewhere*. jaclaz

No, the source seems like the same SIR 14 cited here: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/163539-are-ms-updates-for-xp-really-necessary/?p=1047286 http://blogs.technet.com/b/security/archive/2013/08/06/the-risk-of-running-windows-xp-after-support-ends.aspx http://www.microsoft.com/security/sir/archive/default.aspx http://download.microsoft.com/download/E/0/F/E0F59BE7-E553-4888-9220-1C79CBD14B4F/Microsoft_Security_Intelligence_Report_Volume_14_Worldwide_Threat_Assessment_English.pdf Which specifies that numbers are expressed on comparable samples (i.e. they are "normalized"). Still, I personally won' t buy that data, there must have been some serious errors in the sampling or gathering of the raw data. BTW, that data is also saying that Vista has lower infection rate than Windows 7, i.e. they are basically telling us that: Vista was a "paradigm shift" when it comes to security Windows 7 - notwithstanding the new mitigation techniques added scores WORSE than Vista (i.e. the added mitigation provisions were not effective) Windows 8 - which adds mainly improvements to the same mitigation techniques added in 7 is another "paradigm shift" in security I will wait the next SIR to see if those data are confirmed. Comparing the data with the SIR 13 we learn that between the semester "january-june 2012" and the semester "july-december 2012" data for 32 bit: The CCM for XP SP3 increased from 9.5 to 11.3 The CCM for Vista decreased from 4.9 to 3.5 The CCM for Windows 7 RTM decreased from 5.3 to 4.8 The CCM for Windows 7 SP1 decreased from 4.9 to 4.5 The CCM for Windows Server 2003 SP2 decreased from 4.2 to 4.0 I will call them "strange" trends, lacking a better word (and an actual logical explanation) What is really worth reading is the "first" part of the SIR 14: http://download.microsoft.com/download/E/0/F/E0F59BE7-E553-4888-9220-1C79CBD14B4F/Microsoft_Security_Intelligence_Report_Volume_14_Running_Unprotected_English.pdf Where you will be able to find this pearl (page 8): Right after a graphic (that I don't have the time/will to rip/reproduce) which gives (still 32 bit): XP SP3 protected 4.2 XP SP3 UNprotected 15.6 AND: Windows 7 RTM protected 2.7 Windows 7 RTM UNprotected 20.4 AND: Windows 7 SP1 protected 1.5 Windows 7 SP1 UNprotected 14.1 Which is later commented as: A protected XP is less secure than a protected 7, but an unprotected XP is more secure than an unprotected Windows 7 RTM and more or less as secure as an unprotected Windows 7 SP1. I wonder what all the mitigation techniques are there for, then? jaclaz

Check also what was published will be published in 2017: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/127283-experts-say/ jaclaz

See if you can use Letter Assigner to give the "resident" Windows 98 install volume a different drive letter from C:\ : http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/152567-ls-120-superdisk-drive-under-win98-and-dos/page-4#entry971912 But it seems to me that there is *something* "wrong" in the way you build your "bootable Windows 98 CD", at the time there were not such issues that I can remember and I doubt - no offence intended - that you managed to build a working 98 from the latest Winbuilder project, as that is seemingly "botched" : The original thread on MSFN: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/140391-windows-98-live-cd-project-update/ Latest version is here (but it has seemingly "issues") http://reboot.pro/topic/10373-winbuilder-running-on-windows-98/ (you'll need some patience to load pages on reboot.pro, since it is a bit hectic, currently). Besides the "casual" reference to WAREZ, you do not provide enough details on the methods you attempted using, if you need help in troubleshooting you will need to better detail what you did, we do need the "standard litany": http://homepage.ntlworld.com./jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/problem-report-standard-litany.html Please consider how summing up in writing the sequence of actions you performed up to smallest detail often helps in making clear to you which steps/actions may be involved in the issue and/or highlight those that you did slightly differently from the guide(s) you were following and/or draw you attention to those steps that you performed just following the guide(s) but that you didn't fully understand the reason for. jaclaz

I wasn't saying it is in any way superior (as a matter of fact I personally believe it is the worst kind of bloat that was ever conceived), I was simply stating how a number of "self declared" programmers often state that, and the exact order how they look at all the rest down their nose . You will see how, when MS will come out with Visual Studio 2031 and it's brand new "C## §!++ mark II .net/java integrated" how a lot of people will believe it will be third best thing in life after ice cream and sliced bread. A "Hello world" program made with that will have a size of a mere 150 Mb, but will need 1 terabyte of libraries and will run only on a OS with a base install size of 2 Tb . jaclaz

Yeah, It's GOOD to have you back! Go, Nuhi, GO! jaclaz

The actual part where file association is. HKEY_Classes_Root begins with them, at first there are file extensions to filetype, and then usually file associations. Check this tool: http://wstudios.home.xs4all.nl/Associate/ it explains quite well the structure of file association. Mind you particular programs may have more complex structures for "right click" contextual menus and the like, but the "base" file association should be "standard". jaclaz