jaclaz

@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

In order to find a solution, you need to find the cause. If you are happy thinking that it is nlite, and that the solution is to not use nlite, that's good (wrong, but perfectly OK). jaclaz

IMHO largely FUD. The generic idea of a 0-day is that it will work because it is new AND the existing provisions would not catch the exploit or prevent it. A large number if not all of (already issued) MS patches are not against a given exploit, they are against a generic theoretical vulnerability (that a possible, but "fictional" - still not existing - exploit may tale advantage of). The amount of criticity of a patch is given arbitrarily based on the possible effects of the exploit IF and WHEN this exploit WILL exist AND IF it actually reaches the actual OS. If you prefer the patches (besides being "good practice" ) are a way to tell the bad guys "before you even think of using this, I have already patched it", a not so trifling part of them are "psychological" welfare. The other aspect of the "psychological" content of having "patch tuesday" is that the user perceives how much MS cares about his/her security. Another kind of prevention tool the typical Antivirus, updates its "definitions" once (or more) a day. But MS does the patches once a month (or maybe twice) + from time to time what they consider "really" critical updates. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patch_Tuesday Over the last few years, you had usually on *any* MS OS (supported or not) 29 0-days a month. We have no actual data about the number of "real" exploits (0-days) that have been actually prevented through this "security approach", as well we have no idea on how much this has contributed to "Exploit Wednesday". The mentioned thread and article are nothing but a re-post of the blog post by TIm Rains: http://blogs.technet.com/b/security/archive/2013/08/15/the-risk-of-running-windows-xp-after-support-ends.aspx what do you expect that someone who works at MS as Director of Product Management in Microsoft’s Trustworthy Computing group would say? Incidentally, the data/graphic he uses to bring forward the idea that there are not good or not good enough "mitigation techniques" in Windows XP when compared to Vista , 7 or later: and which already at first sight seem to have *something* wrong about them (I won't buy today, nor "ever" that 8 has a fraction of the issues of 7), shows that Windows Server 2003 has a *whatever* rate comparable to the Vista and actually better than 7, less than half of the XP. Since there is no particular "added mitigation factor" AFAIK/AFAICR in Server 2003 when compared to XP, it should mean that a "same" OS managed by someone in a "more responsible" way has less vulnerabilities (which is in a nushell the thesis by Charlotte) jaclaz

Who the he!! ever thought this DMCA takedown crap was a good idea anyway? Google should have said screw you and indexed everything without a ROBOTS.TXT exclusion. In fact, even that is a pretty bad idea. If you don't want someone to see something it shouldn't be placed on a publicly accessible server in the first place. But the DMCA ex post facto nonsense is a bridge too far and is just asking to be abused. If you read the article you will see that Microsoft is just plain lazy, phoning it in with automated takedown requests using anything with the word Office in it. There should be severe penalties for these errors, intentional or not. Because their precious Office gets pirated from time to time people are expected to jump. Either make your software Pirate-proof or stop complaining. They CANNOT be treated as "errors", they are FALSE SWORN STATEMENTS! Check again: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/155290-windows-8-deeper-impressions/page-151#entry1047184 jaclaz

it's call qq download, it's a downloading client. I think many users had reported this issue but they didn't seem to care, i'm suspecting that they are doing that on purpose. Check with which credentials the programs writes to the registry, then either remove those credentials from the relevant Registry key (adding to it a "special" user credential in order to be not "locked out") and see if the program errors out by being denied access to that Registry key, if it doesn't you are set . jaclaz

Yep, but unfortunately there is not enough details in such a copy/paste. Ideally you should: Save existing logs to a backup copy. Delete the "current" logs. Restart the machine (having the machine not connected to *anything* like network, external devices, WiFi, etc.) Wait until the shutdown issue happens again Restart the machine and copy the event logs to (say) a USB stick Compress the logs in a .zip file Attach the zip file to your next post or upload it to *any* file sharing site and post the link to it.A "complete" cycle of the System log should "normally" start with event log 6009 (start of the OS): http://www.microsoft.com/technet/support/ee/transform.aspx?ProdName=Windows+Operating+System&ProdVer=5.2&EvtID=6009&EvtSrc=EventLog&LCID=1033 followed by a 6005 (event log started): http://www.microsoft.com/technet/support/ee/transform.aspx?ProdName=Windows+Operating+System&ProdVer=5.2&EvtID=6005&EvtSrc=EventLog&LCID=1033 and end with eventlog 6006 (event log stopped): http://www.microsoft.com/technet/support/ee/transform.aspx?ProdName=Windows+Operating+System&ProdVer=5.2&EvtID=6006&EvtSrc=EventLog&LCID=1033 Remember that there are three "main" event logs: Application Protection Systemjaclaz

Peruse the advice/instructions in this (vain) existing thread (which shows us how even something that fails may be of use for something else ): http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/163616-hard-disks-drop-out-randomly-cant-be-accessed/ jaclaz

Well, define in this (accurate ) scale: warm hottish very hot d@mn hot scoldinghow you would describe the feeling when you feel the underside of the laptop immediately after the shut down occurs? Also observe if it shuts down when it is "idle" (say with just the screensaver running) or if it happens only (or quicker) when the CPU or GPU are heavily in use. Normally any "software" induced (and most of the "hardware" induced) faults would result in a BSOD, and/or a "freeze" and not in a shut down. Do check anyway the event logs to see if there is anything "strange" in them. Check also thoroughfully the zillion settings for "hybernation", "sleep", "power saving", etc. Still along the idea that it is a "thermal shutdown", I have seen more than one laptop where in factory some "low cost" thermal pads are used (as opposed to good thermal paste) on the processor and *somehow* these thermal pads, aging, seem to loose some of their heat conductive capabilities. jaclaz

I really don't think that PLoP has any support for VMDK. (though there is a - very limited at the moment - VHD loader): http://www.plop.at/en/vhdloader.html https://forum.plop.at/index.php/topic,448.0/ Sure , but still you have a relatively easy "universal" solution at hand, and before risking to kill *any* machine, I would try that one. BTW, given the "age" of that motherboard it will likely have the BIOS on a socket (cannot be sure from the photo), if it has you should be able of doing a "hot-swap" of the BIOS, i.e. to be able to easily recover the (accidentally) "killed" machine. Nice little machines, and it seems like they do have some commercial value: http://www.ebay.com/itm/SYMBOL-MOTOROLA-DLOG-D-LOG-HPC-5-TERMINAL-HPC-K6-2-266-/321145428374?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4ac5c25996 jaclaz

I am not aware of a similar DDO and of it can work on that particular machine, the "right" way has been already suggested (BIOS patching) but again it might be non-trivial. PLoP : could also be an alternative to the "XP Kansas City Shuffle" but AFAIK/AFAICR it extends ONLY the USB (and the CD-ROM IDE) part of the BIOS, so I don't believe it can be of use (but I may well be wrong on this). PLoP has been vastly (and successfully) used (together or without the "XP Kansas City Shuffle") on whole families of machines which hardware included a USB 2.0 controller but the BIOS only provided USB 1.1. support at boot time, but I dont' see "USB" anywhere in your question. I don't understand what you mean by "Plop aslo reads vmk files." jaclaz

WHICH path do you input in that window? You should be EXACTLY in this situation: http://jonatan.nilsson.is/?p=106〈=en I.e. by uninstalling and re-installing the CD/DVD driver (if needed) then input D:\I386 (or E; or whatever drive letter the CD/DVD has) you should get to the next file. I cannot remember if now the D:\I386 that was typed will be in the "drop down list" in the dialog, but you can use copy/paste anyway. You will need to input that some 20 to 30 times (again if I recall correctly). Obviously this is just a workaround, and the actual cause needs to be found (for next install). jaclaz

I will argue that *somewhere* a line must be drawn (as a matter of fact has been traditionally drawn) between scripting and programming. Scripting (like batch, basic, vbs, javascript, etc.) are IMHO a (more convenient) way to learn about the concepts of algorithms and structuring a program. A program (as well as a script) is nothing but a (well) designed set of instructions in a given order and with some internal logic to issue (or avoid to issue) some other set of instructions in a conditional way. Most of the "programmers" (or "self declared ones") think that scripting is an "inferior" activity (for reasons that are "fluff" in most cases, like - to mention a few - "scripted is slow, compiled is faster" or "you cannot have a zillion dimensional array in <whatever interpreted language> while I can have it in C #^2" <- this doesn't exist, is "C very, very sharp, i.e. something that it is so "smart" and "sharp" that you will fail creating anything of use with it in a decent time/filesize without two zillions - mostly unuseful - dependencies) and have a kind of superiority complex. The "superiority" scale is more or less this one: C# .Net>C#>C++>C>[any other compiled language]>[any interpreted language]>[any form of Basic]>[any other form of scripting language]>batch/bash Being personally on the very right of the scale , I need to spend some words in defense of scripting and more generally "interpreted languages". There is no doubt that if you are going to re-write from scratch (say) Autocad, you will need to use a fastish compiled language, but in everyday use, and with todays fastish processors/machines, you can do most of your programs in *any* interpreted language. Since the basics are the same IMHO if you want to learn about programming you should also start from scripting/interpreted languages as they are definitely easier to start working with and to troubleshoot. Typical workflow of a (simple) scripting language: write the commands run the script if it doesn't work as you wish introduce some pauses, and screen output of variables and loop to #2 a few times until it works remove the added "check points"Typical workflow of a (not-so-simple) compiled language write the code compile link run find out that you missed to include some library compile link run add some lines to show variables, pause, etc. compile link run since you cannot find why it doesn't work, start a debugger run in the debugger since you cannot find why it doesn't work add a zillion breakpoints and trace manually a few hundreds instructions find the issue read a few tens pages on cryptic API/DLL functions to find one that would solve the issue rewrite the code compile link run try the .exe on another machine/other version of OS and find that a dependence is missing rewrite the code compile link run hopefully everything works, BUT in the meantime you changed (for whatever reasons) your compiler and your source doesn't compile anymore on this new compiler an you have to find out why.Of course I exaggerated it a bit but it is more similar to "reality" than you would normally imagine . jaclaz

Those kind of "sudden" blanks can be due to several reasons. First thing it must be checked if the PC actually shuts down or just the screen becomes blank. On (aging) laptops it is quite common that the cooling duct and/or fan is clogged with dirt/hairs/dust, etc. and this can cause some serious scarce cooling that makes thermal protection shut off the thingy. Another common cause (much more serious) if the PC is NOT shut off is overheating of just the Video card, which can cause the video go "blank", the solution here is still that of cleaning the cooling ducts and fan, but there may have been "permanent" damages to the video card BGA A third common cause is the little switch that turns off the LCD when you close the lid (this is easy, it's just a matter of cleaning it with some electrical contacts spray). And a fourth one is the actual inner video cable, it is not so infrequent that by opening and closing the lid for hundreds or thousands of times the connector on the "keyboard side" gets loose and makes false contacts or one of the wires in the cable itself is "stretched". Try to reproduce the issue. Check if the PC is actually shut off or not. Check how hot it is when this happens (and/or if it happens when you use heavily the motherboard CPU and/or graphic card CPU, like - as an example - playing a "heavy demanding" game). See if you add some "extra cooling", like one of those stands with fans, the problem disappears or happens more rarely. Try connecting to it an external monitor screen and verify the behaviour is the same. Inspect the cooling duct and fan, clean them. jaclaz

I am not attempting to persuade you of the opposite at all , I am simply telling you that Linux Antivirus are usually going to scan "files" including (actually mainly targeting) Windows viruses. Their use is mainly to avoid that "infected files" pass through a Linux server. If you prefer, the Linux Antivirus programs that you can find will all look for (and hopefully find) Windows viruses, another example, JFYI: http://www.eset.com/us/home/products/nod32-for-linux/ jaclaz

Something that should be a bit highlighted is the "paradigm shift" between "good enough" and "all or nothing" . With good ol' analogic TV, if your antenna (or TV set or TV antenna amplifier) sucked big (or you were in a rural area with low signal, etc.) you could watch TV programs through some "snow". ("good enough" or "better than nothing") Now with digital TV, is *any* component from the very tip of the antenna to the last micrometer of the plasma/LCD/LED screen connector is even slightly defective (or you are still in the same rural area and the signal is still not good) you see NOTHING. In time of VHS cassettes, you could open the cassette, rewind the tape, cut out the tape that was ruined and rejoin it loosing some 5 seconds of a whole movie, and watch it, admittedly with some flickering or small defects .("good enough" or "better than nothing") In time of DVD's a single scratch and you can watch NOTHING. In time of hard disks a single byte goes poof in the firmware of the disk (or a moderate power surge hits the thingy) and you LOSE ALL your video library (and no , don't come telling me that you made a backup of that disk, as I know that it would be a lie ) jaclaz

Sure , I wonder why exactly it wasn't named "Robin Hood's Boot CD". BTW, you are perfectly entitled to your opinions on the "creator" and on how good that thing is, you are only asked to NOT talk of it and asking help connected with it's use on this board. The internet is very large, there are several boards where this same Rule is not there or is not enforced, and a vast numbers of people that have your same opinion. @Kel OK, you are right , my guess was wrong . Heck! You cannot drop the grumpy mask one moment.... jaclaz

Hey, Kel , my guess is that user999 was in perfect good faith, and needed just some more careful reading, and being convinced of the need of doing so. Everything seems to me cool B) and dandy, now . jaclaz