jaclaz

You already answered yourself: For the record even *after* you actually asked for help, you started doing something that was NOT suggested to you INSTEAD of what was actually suggested. Noone suggested you to use DBAN, or to wipe the disk, what was suggested was to have a look at the disk from a Linux Live CD FIRST, and obviously report what happens with it. jaclaz

No need whatsoever to "DBAN" anything! You need (at the most) to write 512 bytes, NOT to wipe a whole disk . Wiping a disk takes TIME and DBAN is not faster than other solutions (actually it is slower than the internal SATA Erase) and it is a 3 TB drive, it would mean several hours (and no it is not very good for a disk to be in full use for hours). Most probably you could do with just the two bytes of the Magic Number 55AA, Of course the whole idea is to start form scratch (and losing any data currently on the disk). jaclaz

Yep , OK, but the issue is that that one is about a (known) issue with certain versions of the Intel Storage drivers. There are similar reports about nvidia drivers, but not anyone (that I can find) about the Asmedia controller/drivers that your motherboard seemingly has. Here is a link to the Nvidia link: https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/482988/pc-components/nforce-3tb-hdd-support-a-hdd-62-2-18tb-doesn-t-work-33-/1 in this case it seems more like an issue with having the Windows re-detect the hardware. About the Asrock 3Tb+ thingy it should be "irrelevant" and "out of the scope" as it is intended for 32 bit systems for all that I can get (and probably listed by mistake on the 7 x64 page by Asrock). What I would personally do would be to try booting a Linux LiveCD, such as PartedMagic: http://partedmagic.com/doku.php and verify that the disk is seen in it's entirety. In the case of the mentioned site it was the actual driver, by testing it under parted magic we can verify if this is the case, or if it is something else (like a "botched" or however not fully correct GPT partitioning "from factory" - possibly additionally combined with a "queer" driver). Not necessarily what is happening to you, but if the disk has been partitioned (as mostly seemingly happens) as 2.2 Tb GPT with an unallocated 746 Gb space, it is possible that somehow the "protective" MBR creates the mess (or part of it). Then (still what I personally would do) would be to simply 00 out first sector of the disk, reboot and see what happens when Disk Manager re-accesses it (it should prompt a request to "Initialize the disk"). Besides the above, do check that you have this hotfix in your installed 7: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/982018/en-us It may (or may not) be part of the story. jaclaz

The "queer" thing is the "746 Gb" which doesn't sound as any of the "common" or "known" values, like the 2.2 Tb or 2.199 Tb barrier. BUT, this: http://www.anandtech.com/show/3981/western-digital-caviar-green-3tb-and-my-book-essential-3tb-drives-reviewed/2 actually has a 746.52 Gb screenshot being the difference between the whole 3 Tb and the above mentioned 2.2 Tb barrier. Can you post a screenshot of Disk Manager on your machine? jaclaz

So that WHEN one of those will fail you will have even LESS chances to recover data from them? We add here to the existing "internal translation" and "G-list" possible issues also the SSD brand new ones, such as "wear leveling" and "garbage collecting". jaclaz

I guess it's a matter of meanings. Windows 8 in itself is nothing but a (hopefully bettered) Windows 7. The issue is it's NCI which is INCONVENIENT: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/inconvenient NOT particularly in meaning a., but in meanings b. and c. Additionally it is CUMBERSOME: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cumbersome in the sense of: In this case a new and cumbersome computer system. jaclaz

Before this thread becomes the usual Firefox vs. Opera, a couple words of warning to duffy98: The world is made of two kinds of people: those who use Opera (and SRware Iron from time to time ) all the others (using *any* other browser) The second kind (by far the larger majority, more than 95% of the people using a browser) will endless try to convince the very few in the first group that their Opera browser is inferior (for whatever reasons). The first kind will simply and silently keep on using Opera (and do things much faster and in a more secure way than the second group ). jaclaz

Casually a device that is engineered to actually cut fingers (not really, but similar enough) actually exists, it has a finely sharpened steel blade and it is powered by 4 AA batteries, so logically is in the same power range of less than 10 W. And (SCOOP! ) we have a movie of it! Watch attentively the movie and time the rate at which cuts are performed, and note ( around 0:59 ) the number of gears needed to transform the relatively high speed (and very low torque) of the motor to enough (slow) torque actually needed to cut the (boneless) "finger". Just in case: http://science.howstuffworks.com/transport/engines-equipment/gear.htm jaclaz

jaclaz

I guess I could use the probabilities of bhplt having a DC at home to make a few trips around the universe with the Heart of Gold. jaclaz

In my experience I have seen people watching videos and people looking at end results, but noone ever learning or understanding anything from them (or from them alone, i.e. without additionally reading, studying, experimenting) You can replicate the examples shown in a video alright, and a video can well be a support for learning , but understanding principles or learning a computer language syntax from a video? jaclaz

Once set aside the bias and the pre-made thesis and conclusions (obvious since it was a commissioned study and not an independent one - should such thing as an independent survey/statistic exists), the issue is actually with numbers. Base is 113 people (too small to have any significance), but the actual "key" results are formed on the base of only 51 replies. Please note how in figure 3, 96% of the 113 have standardized on a "single web browser". Logically the 51% that DO NOT allow an alternative browser have NO way to know the costs connected on having it on the enterprise. As well the 13% that do allow for it but provide NO support for it have NO costs related to the support which is not provided. The 32% that do allow for it and provide support on a best-effort basis can be divided in two groups: the ones that are complete morons, offer support for this, have no idea of the costs of this "best-effort" basis and continue offering this support notwithstanding the possible financial damage (of unknown entity) they are making to the company the ones that are not complete morons, offer support for this, bear the costs of this "best-effort" basis and continue offering this support and allowing multi-browser as they found that these supplemental costs are trifling So we have from a minimum of (51%+13%+0%=64%) to a maximum of (51%+13%+32%=96%) of the interviewed people that cannot possibly know the costs involved in supporting multiple web browsers, leaving us with a range between 4% and 36% of people that might know these costs. But 51/113=45.13% replied to question 7, of these 10% replied "don't know" which reduces the actual "informed" base from 51 to 46. Still 46/113=40.7% (i.e. higher than the possible amount of people that might actually know these costs) Now let's read the Figure 7. We have 7 values in it, you can try to sum them every which way you want, but you can never get a total of 86%. If you sum the first five you get 4%+2%+14%+12%+45%=77% To get 87% (NOT 86% and yes, the overall total makes 101%) you have to sum to the above the last value of 10% (the few honest people that replied "I don't know") So we have that when you reply "Don't know" you are actually saying that your multi-browser strategy added significant costs. It is to note how the relative majority, 45%, actually replied "Less than 20% higher" while the next alternative voted by 14% was "No change". This swiftly means that if you actually had a multi-browser strategy AND you knew the attached costs AND you could express them in a percentage (of WHAT) of 1% or 2%, your vote would be taken as saying multi-browser strategy added significant costs. Please note how the question is worded "If you were to estimate ...." (this actually allows the large majority of people that as seen has no ways to know the actual costs to produce their estimation or guesses ). Figure 8 makes no sense whatsoever, as said only a part of the 51 people replying could have possibly these data, noone can possibly have them divided into the categories, and the actual unit of measure makes no sense. People were asked what were the costs related to internal web applications as a result of their multi-browser strategy (that 96% of the people have NOT, since they standardized on a single web browser) but how this relates to actual real word units of measure? If you spend additional US$ 10.000,00 to test a web app as a result of your firm multi-browser strategy, and this app is used by 10 (ten) people, you are actually spending US$ 1,000,00 per app per seat (and you are a complete moron ), if the app is used by your 10,000 employees, it makes a nice round US$1.00 per app per seat. They are not exactly the same "kind" of money . Whilst the question #7 had that "vague" wording, the question in #8 allows NOT estimates or guesses, it represents actual spent money (and as said at the very maximum only 36% - more likely much less than that - of the 113 interviewed, i.e. 40 people may have had spent any money on this) jaclaz

Does this mean that you hadn't the guts to inset a finger near the outer edge? jaclaz

You missed the part where Silverlight was the best way .... http://blogs.msdn.com/b/silverlight/archive/2010/09/01/the-future-of-silverlight.aspx jaclaz

Well you gave up : You need to pay double to enter the game again jaclaz

In an OTbOT (On Topic but Off Topic or Off Topic but On Topic, you choose) I would like to have some comments on this research, on it's accuracy and overall on the fact that Forrester research was actually paid for this: http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=36051 Particularly check Figures #7 and #8 on page 9 of the report (Figure #8 has to be read at the light of Figure #3 on page 5) Then check how people can read it: http://blogs.windows.com/ie/b/ie/archive/2012/12/13/ten-reasons-why-internet-explorer-10-is-best-for-business.aspx jaclaz

When you have BOTH networks connected, can you run an IPCONFIG /ALL>C:\mynicconfig.txt and post the result? (edit/redact sensible data, obviously) jaclaz

Besides what you expect people to actually want , it would not be possible most likely (and besides the issues with UEFI) because of the lack of drivers compatible with 2K or XP. jaclaz

Let's make a simpler example. Let's say that you have a directory C:\tests and in this directory you have a text file c:\tests\mytest.txt with these contents (copy and paste in a new notepad window and save as c:\tests\test.txt: Line #1: This is first line Line #2: this is second line Line #3: this is third line And let's say that you want to remove the second line, i.e. your expected result is: Line #1: This is first line Line #3: this is third line There is NO command built in in the batch language NOR any tool shipped with any DOS/Windows release capable of removing a line from a text file. Is this clear enough till now? There is a workaround that is to read the WHOLE contents of the file and re-writing a new file filtering out the unwanted line. Open a command prompt window and in it type )or copy/paste): TYPE C:\tests\mytest.txt [ENTER] You will see the three lines. now try: TYPE C:\tests\mytest.txt|FIND /V "#2" [ENTER] You will see your desired result, the line #2 is filtered out by the FIND /V command. now try: TYPE C:\tests\mytest.txt|FIND /V "#2">C:\tests\mynewtest.txt [ENTER] Open in Explorer the folder C:\tests\ and you will find in it a file named mynewtest.txt with the same output you before saw in the command window (i.e. the desired result). What you have done was to "pipe" (or redirect) the output of the command TYPE to the input of FIND command and later redirected this latter's standard output to a file. Is this clear enough? Besides your "dyslexia along with ADHD" troubles, you need ANYWAY to read and study the batch commands syntax and understand it if you want to write a batch file. The given site: http://www.robvanderwoude.com/ http://www.robvanderwoude.com/batchfiles.php contains both "basic" syntax and "advanced" one explanations, examples and what not. Start reading, at the light of this post, these: http://www.robvanderwoude.com/type.php http://www.robvanderwoude.com/find.php http://www.robvanderwoude.com/redirection.php jaclaz

Yep, though the general rule is to never trust an hard disk (NEVER), and never, ever consider SMART data to be reliable in a positive way (i.e. a disk sporting "perfect" SMART data may fail in any instant, no matter what the SMART says) a negative SMART setting may be an alarm signal, that in this case seems like being confirmed by the manufacturer tool . You can still keep using that hard disk, but only if you have a working/checked backup strategy (at least TWO copies of the data on different media) and a sound/tested "recovery from bare metal" method/strategy. It is well possible that the drive will whirl away happily for another few years before actually failing, though. jaclaz

http://www.benchmarkhq.ru/english.html?/be_hdd2.html jaclaz

You will need to find a special carpenter that has "that special size drill bit." . Or you might get away with adhesive stand-offs or with PCB feets (examples): http://www.avtic.com/pcb_accessories/plastic_pcb_spacers/adhesive_pcb_spacers http://www.mikesarcade.com/cgi-bin/store.pl?sku=PCBFEET jaclaz

Yeah , like you need to be a member of the club and learn the secret hand-shake to be able to simply google for it and get this public document : http://www.t13.org/documents/UploadedDocuments/docs2005/e05148r0-ACS-SMARTAttributesAnnex.pdf How EXACTLY have you checked that the drive "however works just fine except for that error, no surface problems or anything" ? Check it with it's manufacturer test tool. If it passes it, it is OK, if it doesn't it is NOT (which does not mean that it will fail tomorrow or the day after, only that it does not meet the requirements it's original manufacturer has set, and I personally believe that the hard disk manufacturer knows more about it's products than anyone else). Since it is a laptop it is more common that "episodes" (falls/hits/whatever) may have triggered an error. jaclaz

Phaenius, if you have a computer with a case fan or a PSU with a 120 mm fan, observe it accurately (with a torch since not only the PC is off but - for safety reasons - you have cut out electricity in your neighbourhood ). That fan is mounted to EXTRACT air from the case. The hypothetically finger cutting blades are on the INNER side. A typical fan (like the one we were talking about) will have 7 (seven) blades. Roughly 2/3 of the circular corona between the central motor and the outer of the fan is "blades" and 1/3 is "air". At the very outer part of the fan, let's assume 110 mm you have a circumference of 110*Pi. Your "target" when you will attempt to insert a finger in it is at the most 1/7*1/3*110*Pi=~16.45 mm wide. The thickness of the fan is 38 mm (i.e. the actual hypothetically cutting edges of the blades are some 35 mm from the exterior). But the blade is rotating by definition at 3.000 RPM, this means that it's speed at 110 mm outer diameter is 110*3000/60=5,500 mm/s Your target is "covered" in 16.45/5,500=~0,00299 seconds, let's say 3/1000 of a second. You finger has to travel linearly "inside" the target for 35 mm in 3/1000 of a second to reach the cutting edge of the blade, i.e. it has to travel at around 11,706 mm/s i.e. 11.7 m/s, i.e. roughly 42 km/h. Presuming that your hand starts from still with the point of your finger at 10 cm from the fan, the tip of your finger will need to accelerate from 0 to 42 km/h in 10 cm. Assuming that acceleration is linear, the 10 cm will be covered at an average speed of 5.85 m/s (or 21 km/h) and will thus take .10/5.85=0,017094 seconds, i.e. roughly 2/100. So we have 11.7/0.02=585 m/s2 or 59.65 G. I guess that if your finger (and hand and arm) can stand that kind of acceleration, it will survive the fan-through experience alright jaclaz

Hmmm. http://www.mrexcel.com/forum/general-excel-discussion-other-questions/654094-windows-automatic-updates-creating-havoc.html I guess SP3 is not considered an "update": http://tech.slashdot.org/story/08/05/09/1258229/windows-xp-sp3-creating-havoc jaclaz