jaclaz

Xper, please , don't be like the IPB developers .The syntax for linking to a specific post has been since the very early days that of: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=137119&st=20http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php? <- base addressshowtopic=137119 <- topic/thread number&st=20 <- offset to post #This syntax does not work properly anymore.ALREADY POSTED LINKS in that form (that has always been valid) even at the time of the previous Board update (for which at the time I wrote temporarily the converter, which obviously now doesn't work anymore because of the newish "page" syntax): http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/137119-broken-links-or-forum-issue/ are now "botched". jaclaz

Could you re-write it in "omgrofl"? I find it easier to follow than mainframe . http://esolangs.org/wiki/omgrofl jaclaz

@xper The "default posts per page" has changed from 20 to 25. This is not normally an issue, but it will create some minor quirk where the page where a post was is mentioned (like in the "monster 7200.11 thread" often happens) and has a serious issue with rounding (or whatever ). A post link (which was perfectly "legal" and working) such as: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=128807&st=2352 which point(ed) evidently to post #2353 now resolves to: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/128807-the-solution-for-seagate-720011-hdds/page-96 i.e. to post #2376 Cannot say if it can be solved, at the times of the reboot.pro update, the IPB guys didn't even manage to understand (or want to understand) the issue. JFYI: http://reboot.pro/topic/16746-a-new-issue-with-the-board/ http://community.invisionpower.com/resources/bugs.html/_/ip-board/post-offset-disabled-on-new-version-r37167 Easy way to reproduce. The post by bphlt just above is #51 in this thread. I would refer to it (and it has ALWAYS worked like this since the dawn of time) as: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=163450&st=50 while last post on previous page by tomasz86, which is #50 would be referred to as: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=163450&st=49 Now BOTH links lead you on http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/163450-ipb-update-july-2013/page-3 jaclaz

What I think happened is that since yesterday the default # of displayed comments changed from 20 to 25 which should account for missing pages. For me, I had the # of comments per page set to maximum ( I think 150 ) so instead of missing pages, the total for me went from 24 to 141. I don't think any posts have gone missing since the upgrade. You really have to overdo it, don't you? Just imagine how many kilometers your swiping finger would need to cover on a touch tablet to scroll those 150 posts! :rofl: jaclaz

I am pretty sure that JFX can bear this burden allright . Before the edit, there was the name of the WAREZ, so the sense of the sentence has not changed much (please read as "not at all"). Also - and just for your interest, you may want to re-read the Rules, particularly #8. http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules jaclaz

@tordenflesk Be VERY aware of Rule #1a: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules jaclaz

When the update was carried on reboot.pro each and every possible issue happened (and one more), besides the senseless new editor/parser (that still, after months completely fails to wrk properly) all codeboxes, and most of the code ones (in previous posts) were corrupted, some in a way that cannot be repaired if not by manual editing. Let's hope that this happened because of a lack of competence in the upgrade over there and not because of defects in the new Board Software (though I believe that the greatest part is in this latter) or that those problems (at least) have been solved in this update. Go Xper,.GO! jaclaz

I have read it SIX times , and at the most I might be able to provide an (educated ) guess about the original meaning. From that to have it actually make sense, there are still many re-reads in between . jaclaz

Is that guy for real? Contradicting himself thrice in four statements must be a world record. we are after a niche market in selected countries we are global business we are in a challenger position - we are a start-up we have the Xbox and Office and cultivating that Reality check: a startup has a single product, does not even think of doing global business but it's single and only product is designed for and aimed to a niche market and commercialized only in selected countries and is a challenger, and if that product fails, there is no more start up . a global business company has more products and is not after niche markets in selected countries, but it is after global business , it can reach a product placement by using price dumping and overall make leverage on it's other products A company can be one (or the other) but never both. BTW I have been to Poland (Warsaw) not that much time ago (a few months) and haven't seen before the city centre shops all the queues of people willing to fork from some US$ 650 for a Windows Phone, if someone from Poland would confirm my impression.... And of course I suspect that also in Mexico there is not that kind of pressure on poor telephone shops clerks.... jaclaz

Yes/No. Meaning that it is possible NOT to delete a line of text from a "plain txt" file, but it is possible to re-create the text file excluding a given line. There are two basic approaches, using FIND or FINDSTR (possibly with the /V parameter) to filter out some specific content or use MORE and FOR loops with ECHO (but you might need a batch file). There might be issues with "unicode" and with "special characters"including leading spaces, though. JFYI, there is NO real "DOS" in XP, there is it's Command Prompt (which uses a different command processor cmd.exe, than the actual DOS command processor command.com). It's similar, but not exactly the same. In any case the "default" programs are "limited", and you might find more useful adding a third party tool, like SED, see also this: jaclaz P.S.: Oops, cross-posting with allen2

I have "studied" the behaviour of business users since years . Everyone - as always - can be categorized in no more than 5 categories: the "dumb" - aka "trained monkeys" these are people that will only learn the very basics of the (usually very vertical) program(s) they use, nothing more, nothing less, they will change nothing in the setup the IT guy/gal prepares the "artistic dumb" - aka "trained monkeys who fancy colours" these are the people that know nothing more than the first category BUT (since Windows 3.x times) like to change each and every icon in the system AND place ALL of them on the desktop, the result is a system that noone can use easily but them (yes, on all systems "my PC" is an icon representing more or less a computer, tendentially first icon on the top left, but on their computers it will be in fourth row, third column, with an icon representing the sun or the Apollo 11 . They tend to think that they are "smart" or anyway much smarter than the first category, but remain "within the limits" of the basic settings of the OS GUI. the "flat user" - aka the "productive kind", these people will leave, like the category #1 above, everything as setup initially, but will add no more than 5 or 6 icons (actually connected with the 5 or 6 programs they use) with a meaningful icon the "curious jerk" - these people are the "dangerous ones", they are similar to category #2, BUT they will experiment, they will change extensions, move programs and data here and there, install (or attempt to install) any kind of crappy programs, etc. a noticeable part of the time they spend in front of computers is about experimenting (BTW without any actual knowledge of what they are doing), a sub-category of these will not only ruin their own installs/PCs, but they will also change (or induce to change) their coworkers installs and add any kind of "nice" app. the "knowledgeable chap" these people are into two sub-categories, those that use their knowledge to actually customize (very slightly) their system in a way that easens or make faster their work experience (a super-set of the flat user) and those that use their knowledge to customize and add any kind of visual crap to the interface because it's nice or good looking (a super-set of both the "artistic dumb" and "curious jerks") while still doing "properly" (i.e. without damaging the normal use of the system, only bettering it's visual appearance). All MS Operating systems (till now) would allow each of the above categories to have "their" way (right or wrong as it might be). The advent of the NT systems (as compared to the Win3.x/Win9x/Me series) somewhat limited (thanks goodness ) the possibilities of category #4, leaving the possibilities open to the other ones. Windows 8 seems to largely cut out of the play also people belonging to category #5 and seriously limit the productivity of category #3 (because you can't even do those changes that are actually useful to suit your own way of working) but also frustrates the "artistic efforts" of category #2. I believe that there are some common traits between Aero7x64's opinions and mines because we both belong (hopefully) to category #5, only each of us belongs to one of the two sub-categories . BTW, I have already seen people in category #2 drool at "live tiles" . jaclaz

Sure, but the whole point is that the good MS guys are providing more and more "bells and whistles" in order to hide the removal of NEEDED features and/or the overcomplicating the life of the business (or anyway professional) user. The feature of changing desktop or logon screen (or both) is a feature (optional), not a "main, needed, cannot-live-without" sort of thing. The possibility (if one has the time and will) to change the look (or if you prefer to "skin" an OS) is a good thing , but not something that someone actually needing the PC to do some real world work will actually drool about. jaclaz

Well, someone has to say this: The idea (if you use the PC for actual work), is that you don't spend much time looking at the desktop, 99.99% of the time you will be looking into one or more programs. This desktop background is very good : and the corresponding login page does what it is supposed to do (logging on): jaclaz

A small step for a company, a giant leap for society (BOTH in the wrong direction). This however settles the issue about it being compulsory, the stupid online account is compulsory but it is possible to workaround it. jaclaz

I would add that (last time I checked) a plain 100 Mb Ethernet was at least twice or thrice as fast as a (fast) Wlan connection and if you go for the 1 Gb Ethernet it obviously blows wi-fi away (talking of 802.11g, but the 802.11n is still - at least here - not very common). Still, if you are going (in the perverted mind of the good MS guys geniuses) to work on the cloud ("their" cloud of course) you are anyway seriously capped by your DSL speed. Even a very fast/wide connection to your ISP will of course clog if every computer in an office is dumbed down to a "terminal" and you use this not to transmit plain or compressed "textual" data, but instead to transmit "feature rich" contents, comeon, nowadays the stupidest file you can make is - say - 1 Mb and if you transmit this same file forth and back on 100 computers you need a faast connection. jaclaz

NOT really: http://www.dedoimedo.com/computers/windows-8-1-beta.html The specific matter has NOT been tested properly/thoroughfully. jaclaz

Is it a bird? Is it a plane? Is it a drone? Naah , it's the "Orbit"! http://brainstorms.puzzlebox.info/ http://orbit.puzzlebox.info/ The actual news are that it is Brain-controlled..... If you get to challenge Professor Xavier ....: jaclaz

Well, I beg to differ. Set aside the "niche" needs of audio producing, those were the times when (a VERY brief period, UNfortunately) I had ALL Windows NT 4.00 machines, with data saved on a separate partition (casually around 650 Mb in size) and a single SCSI external CD burner. Backup meant that every day of the week a different user would get the SCSI burner, and simply burn to a CD the WHOLE set of DATA out of his/her machine before going at home. When the need arose for tape backup, then the headaches started. Till today there is NOT such a simple way (short of replicating/duplicating on other hard disks) way to backup, of course the reason is to be attributed to industry that failed to deliver a storage media (optical, Magneto-optical, holographic, *whatever*) capable of enough capacity AND to the good MS guys (and ALL or almost ALL the programmers that followed and still follow their stupid "guidelines/approaches") and spread meaningful info *anywhere* (the Program Files, the Registry, the actual place where DATA is, the User folder(s), etc.). jaclaz

Just for the record, on the "enterprise" side I remember no particular "wows" at Windows 95 (let alone at FAT32). The .pif vs. .lnk argument is simply senseless. The "desktop paradigm" was already common in Windows 3.x (at least in my experience). Remember that any DOS user (in his right mind) would have had at the time two "compulsory" third party softwares: Norton Utilities Norton Commander and most of them would have had (as soon as it came out) the Norton Desktop, see: FAT32 came later than 95, it was first in OSR 2 (which was an OEM only release, i.e. you couldn't have it without having it bundled with new hardware): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_95#Editions That means (flatly) that FAT32 was NOT available in enterprise before August 1996 and ONLY on new machines. Again *any* enterprise would have been running NT 3.51 since one year and the real "break through" for them would have been the new interface of NT 4.00. I remember at the time how the enterprise was (correctly) "forked", "real" machines would be expensive "work PC's" with NT 4.00 and "secretary machines" would be cheap PC's with the bundled Windows 95. jaclaz

Sure. Yep , BUT NOT a "good idea" when the disk drive or the filesystem on it is presumed to be needing a CHKDSK to be fixed. jaclaz

You mean like in: http://usefulwindows.com/2012/10/fix-for-the-screen-resolution-is-too-low-for-this-app-to-run/ and: http://mobileoffice.about.com/od/netbooks/a/How-To-Change-Your-Netbooks-Screen-Resolution.htm It depends on the video driver: http://forums.mydigitallife.info/threads/37861-display1_downscalingsupported jaclaz

To get a "surely working" recovery console you can use this approach: http://reboot.pro/?showtopic=2254 OR this one: http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=20983 OR this one: http://reboot.pro/topic/11393-recovery-console-xp2003-builder/ For the intended use, you will need anyway to check for the existence of autochk.exe on the built media, but different SP versions, at least limited to checking the filesystem (i.e. unless possibly if you run some other programs) should not be relevant at all (i.e. you can run the chkdsk of a - say - SP1a Recovery Console on a disk on which an XP SP2 or SP3 is installed). jaclaz

Formfiller forgot bolding/underlining/highlighting a sentence in his quote jaclaz

The thing that is most likely to burn is the motor controller (often called SMOOTH chip), but normally it is evident by visual inspection (if that happened because of "too much current + bad contacts"). Example: http://forum.hddguru.com/viewtopic.php?t=16737&start= The usual procedure is however to find a "donor drive" with the EXACT SAME PCB and transfer the ROM chip from the old one to the "new" one. jaclaz

Or to think having greater security. Deemed by whom/where? Mind you I have NO idea about the actual reliability of the specific thingy, it is very possible that it actually is the third best thing in life (after ice cream and sliced bread) but anyway tagging it outright as "best" is IMHO a bit "uphill". jaclaz