jaclaz

Look, the general idea is to solve issue (if possible), not to solve them AND solve them in the way you thing "nice" or "easy" or simply "fancy". This may be "hard" , but works: Dukem.cmd @eduke32.exe -nologo -D%~nx1 In file association, "open" command: "nircmd.exe" exec hide Dukem.cmd "%1" jaclaz

Then WHY are you asking if it is a bug of a software (which BTW you didn't specify initially). Please do provide the standard litany: http://homepage.ntlworld.com./jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/problem-report-standard-litany.html Till now you provided not enough data to even guess what the issue may be. jaclaz

Yes/No. I just checked the file in the Czech 2K SP4 and it is NOT the same file (different size and checksum) though the patch, as guessed initially is confirmed to work (the offset remains the same 0x3887). It is definitely a "different" build, though thee differences are trifling at first sight. jaclaz

DO NOT use Google Search to support anything, siimply don't! http://homepage.ntlworld.com./jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/google-result-counts-are-a-meaningless-metric.html IMHO it would be more practical to make a list of what WILL NOT be affected, I already made an EXHAUSTIVE list of these apps : Notepad Paint Solitaire This won't in any way affect the productivity of the average user. Just in case : Bart's chalkboard jaclaz

Yes, I got that, but we don't know if anything like this: actually happened (and remained "sticky") . Maybe there is a way to re-install the NTbackup and/or to reset correctly the permissions. Which specific permission error are you getting? jaclaz

Sure, there are Rules (and personally I tend to comply with them) the whole point being that you have NO way to know WHICH specific Rules is Brando569 subject to. If instead of the "scary tactic" implied in: you had used a plainer : I wouldn't have commented on it. jaclaz

I guess that there has been a misunderstanding. I have no idea if the patch to setupapi.dll that FDV posted about works on a czech system. As said FDV has tested the patch on the English version and I remember having used it on the Italian Win2K SP4 years ago. You cannot take for granted that the patch will work on *any* setupapi.dll, I was telling you four things: the patch was intended for En systems ONLY the patch has worked for lots of people FDV was not in any way "wrong" in connection with this the patching process is not a "challenge", and the instructions are seemingly very clear to follow but since the patch (though at different location within the files) is the same for several versions of the setupapi.dll, I am lead to believe that it should work also on "localized" versions, though you never know with anything "MS". It is perfectly possible that the patch does not work on Czech source, I have no way to know, if it doesn't work, you may *try* to patch an English setupapi.dll and replace the Czech version. AFAICR there is no need of the patched .dll to edit TXTSETUP.SIF. jaclaz

Winoutreach5, When looking at your replies I have to wonder if you are actually providing any specific solution to specific problems or only some general pushing towards using only MS tools and upgrading to latest MS Operating System versions, and the generic notion that MDT based deployments can fix *everything*. The case at hand is - seemingly - an issue originated by the "wrong" behaviour of some MS original updates, connected with "localized versions". Does MDT deployment "automagically" fix such problematic "localized version" updates? jaclaz

You can add one or more parameter to the file association command, see: http://www.la-solutions.co.uk/content/fileassociations.htm http://www.vbaccelerator.com/home/VB/Code/Libraries/Shell_Projects/Registering_File_Associations/article.asp If this command works for you in a command line: eduke32 -nologo -Ddemo8.dmo and you make an association to (say) file type .dmo, you will have in it something like: "C:\whatever_path\eduke32" -nologo -D"%1" or "C:\whatever_path\eduke32" -nologo -D%1 or "C:\whatever_path\eduke32" -nologo "-D%1" If it doesn't work, you can use an indirect way, by using cmd.exe (but you will have an open "cmd window") or Nirsoft nicmd.exe (that can be run in "hidden mode") and have them call the eduke32 as if it was done on command line. http://www.nirsoft.net/utils/nircmd.html jaclaz

No, you got it completely wrong. The "final" thing will be called "W" (easier to remember and takes only one byte space in RAM / one neuron in brain, more suited for the limited resources of the intended users) and will come in a single edition, one size fits all (this allows for reducing developers/branches) from crappy phone to top-notch enterprise servers, instead of having an original idea stolen from "The Matrix", they will use an original idea stolen this time from "Men in Black" (go to 0:54): The real issue being that there is a secret department in Redmond working on a neuralyzer app. (one that works, not one of the joke apps for Android and similar) They will finally be able to erase your memory (beside your hard disk and all the data you have on the cloud) remotely.... On the cited Thurrot's site, there is an interesting comment by user John Galt: http://winsupersite.com/windows-8/what-blue-leak-tells-us-about-microsoft-s-strategy do read the whole comment, it raises very good points, maybe it's "us", not "them". We will neededly all migrate eventually to Linux (or any other "working" OS) and let "them" fight senseless Surface vs.iPad wars. jaclaz

No , "delims" interprets consecutive separators as a single one. There is more than one way to skin a cat (the cat won't be happy anyway about it ), but the "real" issue as I see it is the comma inside the last field. You dont' need to use gsar for doing something *like*: FOR /F "tokens=*" %%A IN ('TYPE 1.txt') DO SET Line=%%A SET Line=%Line:,,=,"",% and then go on with processing "Line" instead of "1.txt", but the script you posted (at first sight) seem to me a rather complex one. If I get it right the idea should be to "ignore" the comma when it is inside a double quoted field.... I'll see which trick I can find to get that result in a simpler way (if I can find one) . jaclaz

No (not only "collisions"), which JFYI are normally automatically "solved" at boot time. (on XP/2003 and earlier, the article you cited is for Vista or later which use a slightly different boot approach), The Disk Signature affects Drive letter assignments. There are simple procedures to re-assign (within the OS on second disk) the SAME C:\ drive letter to the copy/clone. Changing the drive letter of an installed 2K/XP OS is doable, but it requires a number of steps/modifications that are so many and so complex that it simply makes attempting it foolish as you have NO guarantee whatsoever to have fixed "everything". As suspected : you managed to run that system in "mixed mode" with some (most of ) files used actually residing on "D:\" and some residing on "C:\". This does matter and can cause ANY kind of issues. Running a system in this "mixed mode" can additionally (and probably this is what happened/is happening) "corrupt" pemissions/links/Registry paths and what not, as the OS will try to "fix itself" some inconsistencies. Of course you won't notice anything particular for most "basic" programs/operations, but as soon as you use a complex tool (like NTbackup) you will probably (actually it is what you just reported) hit a brick wall. jaclaz

... and all these years I thought that DIR /X was made for that ... jaclaz

Capsbuster, with all due respect , it's the second time today that you post about something (that has worked for hundred or thousands or more people) being "wrong" (because *somehow* it doesn't work for you) You might want to be more cautious and check and re-check everything twice before saying other people or their contributions are "wrong". If you look attentively at this image: http://www.vorck.com/windows/edit-setupapi.html you may notice that it has superimposed TWO RED ARROWS, one highlighting the hex string and the second (left bottom) highlighting the address (3887). No actual challenge: Of course any info you will find of FDV's site is tested on English source files, BUT if you found the same bytes at the same location the SETUPAPI.DL_/SETUPAPI.DLL is most probably exactly the same file in the English and Czech versions of 2K SP4 (and, as a mere anecdotal reference, the hexediting did work at the time on my Italian version) jaclaz

Well, it's your files, but it seems to me a "queer" way to manage a project (or versioning). Basically you have not on that page the "stable" 0.2.3 (which would be the "logical" thing to use if you come here the first time), you have the 1.0beta8 (which, comeon , is Beta since more than one year, has contributed to install more XP's than you might ever think ), but you go around: suggesting the beta9 (which is experimental BUT not listed by default). IMHO a project should have: last "previous" versions (just in case) <- let's say 0.2.3 <-Marked as "Previous stable" "current" version <- the 1.0Beta8, aptly renamed to 1.0 <- Marked as "current" "experimental" version <- the 1.0Beta9, aptly renamed to 1.0Beta <- Marked as "experimental" these three versions should be available on the "default list", while all the versions but the three above should be not listed by default, but available in the advanced list: "previous" versions (just in case) <- let's say anything before 0.2.3 and all the 1.0beta's <-Marked as "Deprecated" jaclaz

Sure, and depending on what sites you access from the non firewall filtered connection you may have the g-men break into your house at 4:00 AM , taking you to Gitmo, without the possibility of any legal assistance. Come on . jaclaz

Well, then just take care when you use MBR/partition table/partitioning/formatting related tools . Just in case of need (only seemingly unrelated): http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=24392 Good , then it is solved. jaclaz

Maybe, but still that screenshot sounds more like a timing problem. Some External USB's and particularly WD "Green" drives have been reported to be "slow" at booting. The traditional solution (for 3.5" disks) was to power the disk before the computer, for 2.5" disks to use an external power supply and power the disk before the computer and/or do a warm boot, or enter BIOS and add boot time RAM check, anything that could provide a few seconds of "advantage", but usually that timing problem made the external disk not bootable, not "unavailable" after the setup has started . However, JFYI and as side note as it is not related to the issue at hand, you may want to correct the partition table on that disk, a number of softwares may NOT "like" partition entries in an order different from what is on disk. jaclaz

Well, you could sue Hiren for providing some WAREZ that didn't work (or maybe - besides the use of a Warez release - you additionally used an improper procedure/method ). Drive Image? You maybe mean DriveImage XML? Or R-Drive Image? However you must have somehow omitted to report at lest one step (changing the Disk Signature) otherwise you might have been (and maybe possibly still) using a "mixed-mode" setup, where your "system drive" (partition on second disk) gets D:\ drive letter BUT you are using *anything* that is "hardcoded" in Registry and all over the machine to C:\ from the C:\ drive, i.e. the partition on first disk. jaclaz

JFYI: http://www.forensicfocus.com/Forums/viewtopic/p=6562822/#6562822 The good guys @Tom's hardware made a nice spider graph: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/momentus-xt-750gb-review,3223-7.html BUT if you want "real" speed, you must pay for it, get a PCI-Express SSD drive! jaclaz

I know , that's why it "tagged" the report as "unusual", I have never seen a "flat" asking for cd/dvd, I thought that beta 8 already was "fixed", my bad. With all due respect , you could change the description of WinSetupFromUSB_1-0-beta9_rc4.7z to "Experimental", instead of "Deprecated", that of WinSetupFromUSB 1.0 Beta8 from "nothing" to "Current", and post a link to: http://code.google.com/p/winsetupfromusb/downloads/list?can=1&q=&colspec=Filename+Summary+Uploaded+ReleaseDate+Size+DownloadCount jaclaz

Try again this time using latest Beta, 1.0 beta8. This is a known issue when the 7 is used as ".iso", but from what you write you are using a "flat" setup : jaclaz

They are (supposedly) "smart" drives. They learn by experience . The most used/needed files will little by little become resident on the SSD part (actually a copy of them). See: http://www.mydefrag.com/forum/index.php?topic=3958.0 Dual boot is "pure folly" on these disk drives (the disk will need some time to re-learn usage, and as soon as it does, you will allready be booting the "other" OS and the poor little controller needs to start again from square #1 ). The SSD parts works exclusively as a cache, basically the most used files (that ANYWAY reside on hard disk) are copied to the SSD and when a file is required by the OS, there is a sort of look-up table and if a copy of the file is found on the SSD that file is "served" instead of the one on HD. You have NO control whatsoever on what happens inside the thingy. (this is what "transparent" means, "completely obfuscated" ) jaclaz

Hey, guys, with all due respect those nice packages are completely UNlike the answer to the question if it is ONLY "How to add LBA 48-bit support to 2k?". The source needs to be at least slipstreamed to SP3 (better to SP4). http://support.microsoft.com/kb/305098/en-us Then you need to edit setupreg.hiv to add the EnableBigLBA: page__st__17 jaclaz

Yes "my" 200 take care of the ones just dropped on the hd (without needing install). What I wanted to say is that given a n number of applications on one's hard disk, that in the case of a long time PC user are/were selected out of (say) n*10 tested apps (over several years) what you actually "use commonly" is 0,20*n and those that you actually couldn't do without (i.e. whose functions/features are NOT replaceable through another similar app that you already have on the disk) are maybe 0,10*n. So, 1,000,000 US$ / 100 would in theory produce 10,000 apps. This makes no sense. After having examined the apps, they would result (in a perfect world) at the most in 1,000 "original" apps and 9,000 clones/copies/same, whilst most probably in the real world (and being optimistic) they would more likely be 500 "original" and 9,500 (bad) copies or unneeded duplicates. I would say even less than that as, objectively, there are quite a few things that you (or the average tablet user) won't do on it. jaclaz