jaclaz

Sure, to each his/her own . jaclaz

Maybe you are yourself the Magician? The real (good?) question might be "Does it make sense to use a top-performing SSD on a SATA II bus?" Or would using an el-cheapo "normal" SSD be more than enough? And do you really-really *need* a 500 GB SSD (on an old laptop)? jaclaz

Personally I don't think you will notice a difference among any of those proposed settings, though most probably this (or that) largely senseless benchmark might evidence something. jaclaz

Well, you have 3 (three) options (I mean, NOT 3,333,333 ones). It takes what? Ten to fifteen minutes (I mean NOT 4 weeks) to try each of them. In less than one hour you can test all three and see what happens. But how will options #2 and #3 affect your aesthetic sense? (even if they are the same colour, most probably the 4GB do look somewhat different from the 2 GB ones, particularly if seen from the top) Personally I would go for option #1 and call it a day, though I would have to suppress my symmetry sense, the thought of a slot of a pair empty is damning. Graphical explanation (if needed): http://www.marriedtothesea.com/102107/symmetrical.gif jaclaz

Well, you miss the history then (you are either too young or too old - and forgetful ). Back in the good ol'days you had DOS (MS-DOS 6.22) on C: FAT16 (and this was *needed*) then you *added* NT 3.5 or NT 4.00 in dual boot, usually on a second volume (to be able to use the NTFS and a larger volume). The Win9x changed this because it was mainly a shell over DOS, so you needed anyway the DOS boot files on C:, and at that point it was smarter to have also the Win9x on the same volume, but in the meantime you has (with second release of Windows 95) also FAT32 available that allowed to have a much larger volume (but that was then inaccessible from NT). Also, remember how the original Windows 95 was intended (or at least allowed) to dual boot with MS-DOS 6.22, at the time we had lots of fun on multiboot systems, filesystem limitations of the various OS's and the limitations of the *only* bootmanager we had available, i.e. NTLDR, heck, Gilles Vollant wrote Bootpart in 1993: https://www.winimage.com/bootpart.htm At the time Microsoft had actual smart people working for them and provided the means to make transitions from an OS (that was working just fine, MS-DOS 6.x+Windows 3.11) to the new one (Either NT 3.5/4.0 or Windows 95 that - particularly the latter - while much more capable were initially far from being "production ready", particularly with the existing tools/programs, that were all DOS-centric) , I believe that anyone in 1993/1994/1995 had similar setups, it was only later (more or less with Win95 second release) that there was a huge turnover of machines (think of 386 and 486) to the new Pentium ones, because - simply put - the new OS's were bloated and needed a lot more resources (history repeats itself, lower end machines that ran just fine with 7 are now largely NOT working smoothly with Windows 10). But the "core" feature of NT based systems (possibility to divide "boot" and "system" volumes) remained unchanged, to the point that starting with Vista (but the trend was more evident with 7) the "default" install would have two volumes (one with no letter assigned with the boot files and one with the actual system with drive letter C: assigned) and this has remained unchanged even now and on UEFI systems. jaclaz

For no apparent reason , some related literature: https://mascotbooks.com/mascot-marketplace/buy-books/childrens/picture-books/do-you-like-blue-like-i-like-blue/ jaclaz

No, there is not any such limitation for Vista+. There is the need of a "boot" (what the MS guys call "system") volume, i.e. an active, primary partition (which normally would get a C: drive letter) where the boot files must reside (i.e. namely) NTLDR, NTDETECT.COM and BOOT.INI for XP and BOOTMGR and \boot\BCD for Vista, then you can have (say) XP on another volume, let's say D: and Vista in yet another volume, let's say E: (or viceversa, XP on E: and Vista on D:) these other volumes can be either primary partitions or .logical voluems inside extended As an example, I have (or have had) machines with DOS on C: (this is non-negotiable) Windows 98 on D: (and yes, it is possible, though complex to install it this way), NT or 2K or XP on H: and Vista or 7 on G:. jaclaz

Whether odd or not, it depends on the point of view (beauty is always in the eyes of the beholder) While I can well understand how a "special/custom" case (which is in open view) may be sometimes *needed* and while I can well understand the "modders" (yeah, those that have windowed cases that actually show the inside) I find more difficult to understand how the colours that you can see only when opening the case (which for cleaning/maintenance may happen when? once every six months or so) can actually affect your aesthetic taste to the point to prefer a brand of Ram over another only because of a matching or contrasting colour. But of course to each his own . jaclaz

I thought I had seen everything on the internet, but I was evidently wrong, very interesting. Could be an idea for the manufacturers, offering motherboards (and their connectors), Ram sticks, etc. in a limited number of RAL colours. jaclaz

Yep, but the other thread is also started by the same Joaquim and apparently on exactly the same topic. jaclaz

Which - unless I am mistaken - brings up back to this: jaclaz

IMHO DHL is much better. jaclaz

No, not a good idea IMHO. My advice is don't do it, as it is pretty much unneeded. You see why I had to specify the no ifs/no buts? I mean, my original points #1 to #2 cost nothing or next to nothing in terms of money and nothing (like 1/2 hour or so) in terms of time, should they actually work and solve the issue, from #3 on they start costing both in money and time, a Windows repair on hardware that is presumably intermittently faulty (or on a filesystem that for *some reason* cannot be fixed by CHKDSK) is unlikely to be anything more than some wasted time (but of course it could also be resolutive, no way to know). jaclaz

The no ifs/no buts was in point #2 about replacing the SATA cable, not the disk/ssd (which is conditional in point #3). But there are no problems (normally) in cloning the disk to a new one or - better - making an image of it and then deploy the image to a new device, the result will be the old os/install running on a brand new device,no need to reinstalll, of course, unlike the SATA cables that has a trifling cost, the new device will have a cost. The fact that you have CHKDSK autorunning means that you are experiencing some kind of filesystem corruption that could be due to any of: 1) some bad RAM contacts 2) a bad (SATA) cable (again contacts) 3) a bad disk/ssd (for whatever reason, be it "weak" sectors on rotating media or bad cells on a SSD) 4) really bad RAM stick There is of course a 5th possibility, a virus, some other form of malware (but you already scanned your system with no such evidence) or even a driver that from time to time"goes astray". And - only for the record - a 6th one, which I didn't mention assuming that it was already excluded, that is thermal management (the processor, the graphic card and even the SSD or the RAM may overheat and create these semi-random issues). In these latter cases the CHKDSK running is not due to mass storage devices, but rather to the forced reboot after the BSOD (unclean shutdown). jaclaz

More than RAM, at first sight they seem more like disk issues. What I would do: 1) remove all RAM modules and clean the contacts (with compressed air on the motherboard and with a rubber eraser on the actual modules), rest them. 2) replace the disk (SATA) cable (no, buts, no whys, no perhaps, no what if instead, no nothing, just replace it with a new one) 3) if the errors/problems continue to happen test the hard disk (or SSD) with the manufacturer's diagnostics and if these show anything different from "passed" or "no errors" replace it 4) test the memory with memtest, as well if anything is different from "perfect", try one stick at the time until you find the one(s) that do not pass the test and replace them jaclaz

But IF it was a phone, it would have had sleep working .... jaclaz

WHICH software/driver? Afaik it does exist logitech drivers version 13.51.823.0 that should be Windows 2000 compatible (even if listed as XP and later). https://webcamtests.com/drivers/logitech/logitech-all_13.51.823.0-camera-driver-for-windows-xp-vista-7-8-8.1-10-x86 The above is a "plain" .zip, no installer, no idea if it will work for you. There is also an earlier version: https://webcamtests.com/drivers/logitech/logitech-all_13.1.1021.0-camera-driver-for-windows-xp-vista-7-8-8.1-10-x86 jaclaz

Perhaps suddenly lumping (together) pinned and unpinned threads ? Reference/inspiration : https://www.mamalisa.com/?t=es&p=1658 jaclaz P.S. I am usually half-serious, which can also be seen as half-funny, depending on the point of view ...

Pinning, unpinning, my head is spinning ... jaclaz

Home -> Microsoft Software Products -> Older Windows NT-Family OSes -> Windows XP -> Pinned Topics regarding Windows XP jaclaz

As a matter of fact, exception made for browsing, that with recent browser and crappy bloated internet sites means senselessly using heaps of memory, the difference between 2 GB and 4 GB (of which as said only 3.2 to 3.5 will likely be visible) won't be very relevant/noticeable, that was the point I was trying to make, and it is confirmed by the "a little better" experienced by OP. Switching to a SSD should be "more better", i.e. more noticeable. jaclaz

Only to endorse the suggestion by bphlt and Gansangriff, 7 tends to use the hard disk for "background" (mostly unneeded) activities a lot more than previous Operating Systems, a number of services can be disabled to regain some of the lost performance, but the change to a SSD is what usually gives the install a speed boost without the complexity. About RAM, 2 GB is definitely a bit tight, upgrading to 4 GB (of which you will probably be able to "see" only 3.2 to 3.5 GB) will also make a difference, and - optionally - you can usually (but it depends on the specific hardware) use Gavotte Ramdisk to use some of the "invisible" memory for - say - a small swap file or for the browsers temp folder. jaclaz

Yeah, sure. jaclaz P.S.: graphical representation, just in case: http://www.marriedtothesea.com/110410/put-the-cart.gif

You mean you stole it? jaclaz P.S.: I guess that with this I will enter the list of people not allowed to quote your posts

Should you go for the (very correct) thin client suggestion, this is an extremely good resource (useful to find what specs/features various el-cheapo machines have): https://www.parkytowers.me.u k/thin/ (though I never used one as NAS, I do have a few good ol' Transmeta Crusoe based thin clients - FujitsuSiemens Futro S220/300 - used as router, going strong since 2012, 24/7, I am on the second one as a power supply blew during a storm due to spikes). jaclaz