jaclaz

This is "almost" good, but unless and until you don' t actually use "write" or "destructive" commands, you can experiment on command line, which is one of the reasons why grub4dos is so convenient, it is a sort of mini-command line OS, similar to good ol' DOS: http://diddy.boot-land.net/grub4dos/files/basics.htm http://diddy.boot-land.net/grub4dos/files/cli.htm Once you have established root (plainly with root or with rootnoverify) you can use "relative paths". In your example you use "absolute paths": rootnoverify (hd2,0) <- here you set root to (hd2,0) BOTH: chainloader (hd2,0)+1 <- this is an "absolute path" and chainloader +1 <- this is a "relative path" with implied root and: chainloader ()+1 <- this is a "relative path" with explicit root will have the same result. As a matter of fact when you write chainloader +1 grub4dos "reads" it as chainloader ()+1, where () is "current root". The "find --set-root /bootmgr" is not suitable in your case because the disks and volumes are scanned in order, like: (hd0,0) ... (hd0,n) (hd1,0) .... (hd1,n) (hd2,0) etc. so, as soon as the /bootmgr on (hd0,1) is found, that one becomes root and it's bootsector is then chainloaded. Generally speaking choosing to root is (IMHO) better than rootnoverify which is (or should be) reserved to "particular" settings. To use find --set-root, normally a "tag file" is used, i.e. you create a "uniquely named" file (it can be a 0 byte file created with - say - Notepad) like "myniceoldwin7.tag" on your third disk, then you can have: find --set-root /myniceoldwin7.tag chainloader +1 or find --set-root /myniceoldwin7.tag chainloader /bootmgr jaclaz

Those two settings together sure do work, and are enough because Win XP is case insensitive while interpreting the registry. Thanks jaclaz, you do rock! Good . But It is not clear (to me at least ) the relevance/connection/whatever with the AppliedDPI in WindowsMetrics cited both by allen2 and by tomasz86 (this latter on the 2K thread linked) . Another thing that I don't understand/don't know is *why* the need to re-boot? I mean, I can understand on 2K where seemingly also "Hardware Profiles" are involved, but on XP? Unless I am mistaken, setting apart the "theme" issue when you change the font ratio through the control panel is it still needed to reboot? Finally, I am not sure that the referenced post is connected with CaSeSeNsItIvEnEsS and not with a "sequence" somehow *needed*? I.e. the success of the result with only the two key may depend n the pre-existing values? jaclaz

Yeah, sure noone ever looks at them The 1960's projects seemingly failed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_Kitty but that's more than 40 years ago.... https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/2163792128/h5885FBD3/ We are like at the 10th generation.... https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/2623868672/h41C02CA8/ jaclaz

Cannot say if it is , but : http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/os_fileservices/thread/f6283fee-af4c-4b1a-9024-96426c586f0a You should put your ACT together! http://support.microsoft.com/kb/317510/en-us It's years I'm having this one ready for the right occasion jaclaz

The NTFS support in Isolinux/syslinux is still experimental. You can try with grub4dos, (re: the NTFS problem) The (as usual MS generated) confusion is that you CAN span a .wim to multiple DVD's, BUT (for no apparent reason if not to expressly bother you ) the Windows 8 Setup does NOT support .wim's spanned into .swm's . Like, you see: (almost as confusing as the original MS reference ) If you prefer the SETUP supporting split .wim's is a nice added feature of Windows 7 that was removed in Windows 8. The good MS guys would normally then add: jaclaz

Just for the record, and in case someone else besides dencorso has a broken google http://www.pcreview.co.uk/forums/large-fonts-registry-exactly-t2695627.html How this is connected with "themes" is to be found, however. Could it be that there is an additional key somewhere connected with "themes"? Edit: Before someone links to this for Windows 2000 , here it is: It is possible that also in XP the "AppliedDPI" is used... jaclaz

Sure , noone will ever notice small holes in their floors or walls or strange bulges on their carpets. Come on, you don' t really-really believe that "they" put an awful amount of money and human resources to actually explore the substrate of Mars, do you? http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/programmissions/missions/missiontypes/subsurface/ jaclaz

Replies go to the "other" thread: jaclaz

Good, rightful choice. Is it detected "normally" in BIOS? (i.e. with it's full size?) We can try to. Possibly nothing, there may be partial corruption, it may be (if you cleared it) the MBR being part of the G-list, *whatever*) Who knows? Yes and no. In the sense of "DO NOT DO IT" but only the "initialize" is not "entirely destructive", (the following partitioning/formatting may). Basically when you open Disk Management the last two bytes of MBR (first sector of the hard disk) are checked and if they are not 0X55AA (so-called "Magic Bytes") the user is prompted to initialize the disk. Initializing will write to the MBR the MBR CODE and wipe partition table entries (if any). Still recoverable, but not the best idea one can have. In real world it is unlikely that the two bytes were changed from 0x55AA to something else without already affecting the partition table data, but it makes little sense risking even remotely to make things more difficult. The "standard" procedure is to make a "dd-like" or "forensic sound" disk image before anything else. To do so you will need a slightly larger disk (let's say a 640 Gb for a "botched" 500 Gb disk image, a 1.5 Tb for a 1 TB, etc.). Or, alternatively, instead of the image you could make a clone (still "real" clone, i.e. dd-like), for this you need a disk drive of the same size. It is of course possible to attempt recovery on the original unbricked disk, but there may be "NO way back" if doing that (i.e. you could risk losing data that it is actually recoverable now by making something wrong). Please, besides replying to my initial question, describe how the disk was partitioned "before" (with as much detail as you can remember), and let me know how you want to proceed. jaclaz

Naah, the electron is licensed, NOT sold. jaclaz

Naah, they had them, and they were flying alright in DOS , but then the project passed to the Office division, which added to them ribbon interface and then again to the Metro division who removed remote control in favour of touch and the project stalled, they are now experimenting in genetics on how to grow people with longer arms.... .... if the project had gone to the Xbox/Kinect division, that would have probably made a BIG difference.... There are rumours that they have an unauthorized project ongoing, the drone would need however to be constantly connected to the cloud, and if it looses connection for more than 1 nanosecond it comes down. And BTW, you cannot sell the wreck unless you pay a fee to them . jaclaz

No. Not meaning that you don't think that it is , meaning that it doesn't work this way with LCD monitors . LCD monitors have a "native" resolution, the image provided at that resolution is the best possible one (all other resolutions are "artificial" or "interpolated" or "whatever", in any case "worse"). The idea is to use native resolution and then change settings in the graphical system to have a "clear" view. More here: Additionally the 1280/960 is a 4:3 form factor, while the screen is a 1920/1080= 16:9 form factor. If you cannot manage to get a suitable result at 1920*1080, at least try other lower resolutiions still in the 16:9 form factor (or "nearly" 16:9) such as 1366*768 or 1600*900 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_resolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_resolution#Computer_monitors Often drivers have "hidden" settings (because they are thought to be not a "good idea" by the manufacturer, for one reason or the other) and there may be versions of the drivers "unlocked", post the exact version (and possibly even a link to the files) of the drivers you are testing. jaclaz

No, didn't mean to make fun of your post, I was actually serious : the point I was trying to make is slighty different, we must never confuse three things: what "they" really have what "they" say they have ------------------------------------------ <- this is separating line between "they" and "us" what "we" can have As I see it (or at least the way I would conduct "business" if I were part of the "they") it is only too logical that "they" have more than what "they" tell us and can do more things than what "they" tell us. The separating line is what makes drones such an interesting piece of news, *somehow* we can have them and we can have them "affordable" and "reliable" for the first time. More or less "they" are the same guys that managed in 1962 (that is 50 - fifty years ago) to fly an U-2 (and that wasn't news for them) at mindboggingly height and speed and take B/W snapshots of missile sites in Cuba, example: Fifty years ago "we" could maybe afford a Cessna 172. Today "we" simply go to google maps, and have (of course not real-time updated) snapshots better resolution than those, and in colour, example: https://maps.google.com/maps?q=San+Cristobal,+Pinar+del+Rio,+Cuba&hl=en&ll=22.716973,-83.051147&spn=0.001865,0.002419&sll=23.107234,-82.382168&sspn=0.007441,0.009677&oq=San+Cristobal,+Pinar+del+rio,+Cuba&t=h&hnear=San+Cristobal,+Pinar+del+Rio,+Cuba&z=19 A non-military R/C helicopter or model plane equipped with a camera was news maybe some 20 (twenty) years ago. But it was costly, difficult to pilot, had a peculiar tendency to very often come down as if it was a piece of cast iron , had to be "in sight", etc., etc. At the time "they" most probably had already something that was reliable, actually could be remotely (without having it "in sight") controlled and what not. Let's say that "our" budget for the thingy was US$ 10,000 ( a LOT of money at the time, and stil now) and around it there were three or four ordinary guys (all of them more or less "average", with a full-time work, possibly a family, designing and building the flying object in their spare time). At the same time "they" had a limitless budget (or let's say US$ 10,000,000), the very top of scientists, engineers and pilots working full time to a similar project. Guess which of the two resulted as "better"? Now "we" can have for much less than the US $ 10,000 of today, which correspond: http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ roughly to 6,250 $ of 1993, a drone capable of flying slowly at a low quote taking pictures and movies. And (for free or paying a fee) exceptionally good satellite images. What can "they" have? jaclaz

Well, tinfoil is so '90s. We have better materials today, JFYI : http://reboot.pro/topic/13177-an-improved-electromagnetical-shielding-device/ jaclaz

But for the intended use OP would need a lot of cable.... And from real life experience it is not so easy to lay cables along other people's properties, additionally. jaclaz

Here is the direct link to the graph, complete with notes: http://duckduckgo.com/traffic.html jaclaz

Yep , that's surely the case, maybe you can "Procmon" Everest's accesses to the Registry and see where it looks for info (maybe it decodes a binary key or maybe it doesn't get them from Registry but this latter would be also "strange"). jaclaz

Duffy will love this one Attack of the Zombie Drones ( ) http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-07-09/attack-of-the-zombie-drones#r=lr-fst jaclaz

OT , but not much, let's see who knows what this graph represents (without checking the Spoiler or reading the link): jaclaz

Yep, it was only the first reference I found for the 5.0 vs. 5.1, but I wasn't clear enough. In the: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\ CurrentVersion value should be 5.1 on XP and 5.0 for 2K. The result of Everest could be that: Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional 5.0.2600 (WinXP Retail) Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional is "reversed" from 5.0 in HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\CurrentVersion .2600 is taken from HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\CurrentBuildNumber (WinXP Retail) is "reversed" from the key HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\ProductId It does NOT exist a 5.0.2600 version of *anything*. jaclaz

It could be some other string/ID/number/whatever that is "reveresed" to "Windows 2000". Can you check with some other tools (maybe this way it can be understood the source of the issue ): What does winver command return? And WMI? And this? http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/1238/Windows-Version-Numbers If *somewhere* a "5.1" is written as "5.0" that could be the cause. jaclaz

It's really queer though you'll have to admit that there is some truth in: Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional 5.0.2600 (WinXP Retail) Seriously, check the version - related data in the Registry, they are under: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion jaclaz

At least myself, personally I do need it. There are a few reasons for this, if you are interested I can explain them. Now if the point was about re-posting if the last post on a thread is your own (as opposed to editing last post) being not part of common netiquette, that may be a good topic to discuss IMHO. Who knows? , the stupidometer is managed by MS through Forrester Research and other respectable firms, but they release only partial and "aggregated" data. jaclaz

Check the other old thread: jaclaz

I thought that split setup was not supported on 8 http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh825096.aspx jaclaz