jaclaz

BUT the expressway is teeming with eighteen-wheelers! As a side note, at least here , trains on the expressway are quite rare, on both sides of the green glass door.... Meanwhile, in Canada .... jaclaz

UNneeded, but JFYI: @echo off SETLOCAL ENABLEEXTENSIONS CLS ::PUSHD network Path to be filled in later ECHO Geef alfabetische letter en druk op enter! CHOICE /C:abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz /N >NUL SET /A CharNum= %errorlevel% + 96 CMD /C EXIT /B %CharNum% SET "Char=%=ExitCodeAscii%" ECHO copy offerte.doc %Char% ^& copy factuur.vbs %Char% ^& cd %Char% ^& Set directory=%Char% More details: http://reboot.pro/topic/2986-yacbfc-dec2hexcmd-and-hex2deccmd/?p=136708 jaclaz

I would like to see the actual Forrester Research report. They are the same guys that produced this one: But not everyone there is seemingly on the Windows 8 tablet bandwagon: http://blogs.forrester.com/david_johnson/13-01-29-the_coming_pc_management_crisis_a_hypothesis jaclaz

I am starting to understand the requirement (about right click). If I get it right what you need is a shell extension (and not a contextual menu entry). If this is correct, I doubt you can have it. Do the following: get http://www.nirsoft.net/utils/shexview.html check which shell extensions you have on your system post info about one that is present on your right click menu (where/when you would like to see this script entry) Before the above, try actually reading the initially given: http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/windows-vista/add-any-application-to-the-desktop-right-click-menu-in-vista/ AND test it jaclaz

Good . The reg file posted here: will do that alright (to add to a folder context menu) AGAIN, to WHICH context menu do you want to add the .hta? Context means "contextual to something" (or "linked" to something), usually an object that is selected, (like as said examples, folder, file, desktop, etc.) to WHICH of these objects do you want to "link" the right click menu entry? jaclaz

And - AGAIN - can you post a link to THAT thread (so that possibly we can see if THAT sollution may be adapted to your issue? Generic "context shell" advice: http://wstudios.home.xs4all.nl/Associate/index.html BTW "conttext" of WHAT ? (like folder, file, desktop, etc. ) I.e. are you looking to add it to right click when WHAT is selected/in focus? Example for Desktop: http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/windows-vista/add-any-application-to-the-desktop-right-click-menu-in-vista/ JFYI : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML_Application jaclaz

No ipso facto. I would look more for probabilities, and coincidences, like you know : read as: jaclaz

buyerninety, There has been obviously a misunderstanding. What the OP stated is: Evidently he is talking of files "belonging" to the Windows 98 system (and they won't be "in use" by the booted XP). A defragmenter has no reason to treat a .pst file differently from ANY other file, .pst files are not in any way "system" or "special" files. There is no reason to believe that the currently booted XP or any of the running processes access these files, if not by "sheer magic", consequently your remark #1 seems largely unjustified. jaclaz

Which are either non-free as well or warez . As well as a number of other tools, both Commercial and Free/Open Source. A list is given here: jaclaz

@vinifera The dictionary you are using must have a different meaning for "easy". Easier would be defrag the system in the original system/OS, something that the OP - for any reason - is not wanting to do. Your "solution" won't work BTW, the issue here is not fragmentation of files, it is fragmentation of the filesystem BEFORE the files are copied to it. If you write a large contiguous file to a "fragmented enough" filesystem, the result is a fragmented file. jaclaz

Good, then everything is explained . jaclaz

Nomen, please re-read (possibly slowly) my previous post. Any defragger using the Windows 2K/XP defrag API will NOT be capable of consolidating directories, which seemingly is the issue you are having AND I gave you a link to a possible way to work around this limitation. (still provided that the residual current fragmentation prevents Wincontig to operate successfully). @buyerninety The FAT32 partition we are talking about is the "system" partition used by the WIn9x system on a disk used in ANOTHER PC Nomen's has, which is temporarily connected as "slave" to an XP system. If he has his Outlook 2000 .pst files (from the running XP) saved on that disk more than anything else he is a magician . jaclaz

I am not sure to understand what you were trying to say about FAT and Data area). See if a book comparison helps (or completely fails to) clearing the matter (or some other analogy): http://www.forensicfocus.com/Forums/viewtopic/t=5150/ http://www.forensicfocus.com/Forums/viewtopic/p=6536153/#6536153 In FAT a deleted file is simply marked as deleted (and not actually deleted), that's why tools like the good ol' DOS undelete would work. A defragmenting tool, by definition, considers a deleted file (and the sectors where it is physically residing) just if they were "free" or "unallocated". The actual defragging algorithm (and or "strategy") of course may greatly vary from one program and the other, and some may have a "directory consolidation" feature, with some possible caveats, namely for FAT32 filesystem An example of program that has "specific" directory consolidation features is mydefrag: http://www.mydefrag.com/index.html One of it's advantages is it's scripting engine, that allows for "fine-tuning" it's behaviour. BUT, the built-in 2K/XP (and possibly later) defrag API used by these tool misses "consolidating" provisions for directories on FAT32 (and mydefrag uses this API). See: http://www.mydefrag.com/Manual-KnownProblems.html still, poor man's ways do exist: http://www.mydefrag.com/forum/index.php?topic=2303.0 jaclaz

Loosely mail merge is traditionally used to manage "circular letters", i.e. printing a "same" letter in several copies with addresses taken from a database. But in it's essence is a way to insert into a document "variable fields" that are "populated" or assigned values by a lookup in a database (or spreadsheet). This may be suitable to your scopes (or it may be not). jaclaz

Provide a pointer to it, maybe it can be adapted. Rest assured, it is (no offence whatever intended ). Besides some "style" for which everyone has it's preferences (as an example you need not an :END label in NT batch, since the re is the implied :EOF label), this snippet: is WRONG for TWO reasons: it doesn't take into account small and CAPITAL letters and will "continue" execution if *anything* but y, n or c is input This approach is safer/better: The yyyy.mm.dd values are not "initialized/set" anywhere, is this really the wanted result, litterally yyyy.mm.dd? jaclaz

OT , but not much an interesting screen capture of Solitaire Games here: http://www.kotaku.com.au/2012/08/windows-8-is-not-good-for-gamers/ And a nice logo : jaclaz

I would dare t o add that the OP: without further details, normally implies that the replacement hard disk was a brand new, unpartitioned and unformatted one. The evolution of the thread seems to imply - strangely enough - that not only the "replacement" hard disk was an used/recycled one, but also an "untested" one . Additionally, the "replacement" disk evidently had some failure of some kind (of whatever extents/relevance cannot obviously say) as besides being partitioned/formatted it was left with the filesystem in a "dirty" state. If the disk was actually replaced under warranty I would - before anything else - question the provider of the warranty, give them back the "replacement" hard disk and downright require a brand new (in a sealed box) hard disk or a refurbished AND certified one (depending on what the warranty covers, and how it covers it). jaclaz

Maybe, just maybe, this: http://www.mcmaster.ca/ctl/slwebclient.htm happens on 7 also. jaclaz

I will re-write this: http://www.neowin.net/news/microsoft-people-are-quickly-learning-to-use-windows-8 In carpenter's/monkeys experiment terms: jaclaz

When a file-oriented defragging utility fails to make a single contiguous file, besides attempting ot use the other one (Wincontig that also allows analyzing the disk) it is a sign that the filesystem "underneath" is still fragmented. Why not the one that was specifically suggested to you? (ultradefrag, which has such things as the -r switch and "path only" defragging) I love it when people asks for advice and then attempts other things instead . jaclaz

Maybe relevant, maybe not, please consider how a Word document contains some metadata (including name it was last saved with - as an example) which may need to be updated. What you posted seems not like VBS (Visual Basic Script language) but rather VBA (Visual Basic for Applications). Have you considered leveraging on Word built-in features, such as Mail Merge? jaclaz

Summing it up: http://www.windowsitpro.com/article/windows8/windows-8-myths-145173 jaclaz

OT and just out of curiosity, can you name a few? Without having Windows 8 I seemingly cannot access the store to even see what's in it. And Silverlight is needed even to see a demo of it. I am simply lost among all the notes, calculators and calendar/timer/todo's apps in this one: http://www.windows8appstore.com/windows8apps/productivity/36/ Or is it not a real store? Is this list a good one? http://www.pcworld.com/article/2013866/10-killer-windows-8-business-apps-for-real-productivity.html jaclaz

No, actually it is a not-so-slight performance bettering, see (examples): http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1797113/why-does-multithreaded-file-transfer-improve-performance http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/24984/MTCopy-A-Multi-threaded-Single-Multi-File-Copying That the Explorer copy may "switch" to multithread is mentioned here: http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/65158/The-Practical-Guide-to-Multithreading-Part-2 What I don' t know (besides the exact way you are copying back those files - i.e. selecting more than one or one by one) is "when" the multi-thread kicks in (at a given file size, when more than N files are selected for copy, etc.). And still there is the possibility that the target FAT32 is not "consolidated" or not consolidated enough" by the action of MS defrag, as said I would also check the status of the target before copying back the files. jaclaz

Poor little thing , do you need a hug? jaclaz