jaclaz

Why don't you try IMDISK, which is: supported continuously updated ? BTW, the results of the test with the Softperfect one seem to me like (possibly ) indicating that your RAM isn't really-really "stable" . The gavotte .reg is ONLY for 32 bit (to add PAE access). Still, at least on 32 bit XP, you simply install it running ramdisk.exe, most probably on 7 you will need every trick of the trade +1 (Administrator/UAC/driversigning). jaclaz

I am completely failing to see what has in common "installing Windows 2000 on a CF card" with "installing Office 97 on a WIndows 7 OS" jaclaz

I don't get it. Are you sure you do work in digital forensics? You are not serious about doing the work from the booted laptop, don't you? You IMAGE (forensic sound image) the disk first thing, then working on the IMAGE or on a CLONE of it: You find hidden partition in the MBR and/or EPBR's, then you unhide it, and if you have the key you unencrypt it. If you have not the key, then you need to "crack" it. You will need some dedicated GPU(s) and a lot of patience (and a bit of luck). jaclaz

Well, NO . There are limits, that is dangerously nearing the border with masochism . jaclaz

An interesting use of the adverb accidentally : http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2410718,00.asp A better one : jaclaz

Guess what graph is here ?("full" installs, which are a FATTER joke ) http://www.oooninja.com/2008/05/openofficeorg-microsoft-office-moores.html jaclaz

http://nietzsche.holtof.com/reader/browse-human-all-too-human-quotes-100-date.html Start the install, go take a walk, take it easy... jaclaz

Now everything is clear . So the card you have has not the "gold band" (and thus it is an actual PCMCIA -16 bit - and not CardBus -32 bit, please read as ISA instead of PCI). Now, the: http://download.wireless-driver.com/driver/Linksys/WPC11/Ver_2.5/Windows/wpc11v2.5-9598NT00XP_dr.zip found here: http://www.wireless-driver.com/linksys-wpc11-wireless-b-pc-adapter/ is the driver you are using? The above file does contain a detailed installation manual. How did you install it? (in the sense of EXACTLY along the instructions on pages 15÷36 or you expereinced something different? Or where in the install process what you see is different form the screenshot on the manual?) Please note how on pages 24 and 27 it is stated that re-applying the Service pack is needed after the install of the drivers. With reference to the screenshot of the control panel on page 16 of the manual, do you have a PC Card (PCMCIA) entry? If everything is installed "like in the manual", could it be the issue that the card (seemingly) only support WEP encryption whilst your home network is using WPA? And yes, Windows NT is much less user friendly (please read as NO user friendly at all ), but the good newas are that (once managed to be installed/configured properly) it is rock solid . jaclaz

Yes , but then how the heck did OP boot Linux (if no CD and no USB)? jaclaz

Or install 2K from USB, WinsetupfromUSBwithGUI does support 2000: jaclaz

What happens if you run this batch from the "upper" directory containing the files? @ECHO OFF FOR /F %%A IN ('DIR /S /B *apple*.*') DO ECHO APPLE: ->%%A jaclaz

Casually (today's topic): http://reboot.pro/17610/ jaclaz

It feels intimidated by the size of the OS install? It is most probably some "supporting DLL" and/or Registry setting (and filesystem pemissions) that has changed, it should be possible with some tweak/tricks, but it seems to me like it is an "isolated" problem you are having, there are several reports of success in installing, BUT the issue you should be aware is this: http://news.softpedia.com/news/Windows-7-UAC-Setting-Access-Cut-by-Registry-Change-130365.shtml If I were you I would try in a "fresh" Windows 7 VM, first. The issues with installing seem to come with the SR's: http://www.win7heads.com/software/95984-install-access-97-office-2007-windows-7-a.html jaclaz

Well, the good news (for them) are that the given link does NOT prove: http://www.winsupersite.com/article/paul-thurrotts-wininfo/microsoft-400-million-windows-8-devices-9-months-100000-apps-90-days-144446 that they use drugs on working hours. We have years of medical studies on the effect of drugs so it is easy to find out which is which, and it doesn't sound like LSD (which seems a lot ike the one used by the design team ), but this one sounds more like peyote : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peyote As a comparation, it took Windows 7 : http://techcrunch.com/2011/09/13/microsoft-sold-450-million-copies-of-windows-7/ 23 months to sell 450 million copies, so if the trend (and it doesn't seem to me like the world economical situation is the same) remains the same (and doing an unfair average as initially Windows 7 didn't start that fast) 450/23*9=~176 millions This would leave 450-176=274 millions of the sales relating to either the Surface or to the Nokia phones. (please read to something that doesn't yet exist and to something that doesn't sell) jaclaz

More or less the question is about multi-copy. I.e. the idea is to copy the same source on several targets. If there is no need for "synchronous" operation simpler would be, once determined the command line needed to copy to a single target write a small batch repeating the same line with the other 49 targets. Or maybe something like multicast may be of use: http://www.udpcast.linux.lu/ http://www.theurbanpenguin.com/win7/win7udpcast.html http://www.tcnj.edu/~bush/uftp.html jaclaz

Still seemingly among the "types" already listed : "high end" (professional) video or graphical editing (with a few programs only ) From that link you posted (underlined/highlighted by me): Translated: if you are a "professional" user of Photpshop CS 5, and you have not yet updated to 64 bit, run for it . if you are a "common user" that (senselessly ) uses Photoshop CS5 to remove red-eyes from pictures originally taken with your smartphone, you have NO need for 64 bit (and conversely no need for Photoshop either ) jaclaz

I am not sure to get it. This thread is about "Install XP from a RAM loaded ISO image". There is another one: jaclaz P.s.: last post and the present one were originally posted on this other thread:

Actually it is written aimed to programmers and more loosely to anyone that makes a program/tool/app available for others to use. No matter if you are a leader or a follower (or if you are a lion or a gazelle ): http://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/08/05/lion-gazelle/ The point was only to avoid - if possible - to run in circles . jaclaz

Trying to fix non-broken things? http://www.codesimplicity.com/post/if-it-aint-broken/ jaclaz

Yep, and I have understood. The point I was trying to make is slightly different, more around the Occam's Razor approach: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor With a "good" set of chips (8 Gb in total) does the machine work OK? If yes, then do you have any benefit of any kind that you can actually measure/feel with adding to it the other "spare" 8? If yes, then do it. If not, keep the spare ones as "spare" (or give away them, or keep them for another machine you plan to buy). It seems to me like there is NO actual difference (or at least one that you can actually perceive without using a benchmark) between: 8 Gb @1333 <- stable and working OK 8 Gb @1600 <- stable and working OK but we know that: 16 Gb @1333 <- possibly stable and working OK but largely unused 16 Gb @1600 <- found UNstable and NOT working OK besides being largely unused If you prefer, you have proven that 16 Gb@1600 is NOT good on that motherboard and - at the moment - found that by downclocking the RAM the machine works OK with 16 Gb @1333, but what actual practial advnatages do you have with 16GB@1333 over running 8Gb@1600? If, as I presume, the answer is "None", the only use of that additional 8 Gb is to be able to tell your friends how powerful is your machine with 16 Gb and have a slightly increased power consumption and have the "spare" be worn out a bit. jaclaz

A possibly useful tool : Seriously, what actually prompts you to want to update the DBGHELP.DLL? jaclaz

It is clear how we all give a different meaning to the word "simple". FOR /F %%A in (I386\hivedef.inf) DO TYPE temp.txt>>I386\hivedef.inf&GOTO :skip CMD /U /C "TYPE temp.txt>>I386\hivedef.inf" :skip jaclaz

Be aware of the math: (10560/10466)-1=+0.9% (8667/8107)-1=+6.91% (6734/6831)-1=-1.42% @doveman Well no. If you have some "spare" 8 Gb testing them is OK, but nothing actually "prompts" or "forces" you to add it to an otherewise perfectly working machine with already 8 Gb (unless you use the machine with a few high end programs that need heaps of RAM). jaclaz

And unfortunately you fail in the usual "generalizing issue". WHICH specific application? A few apps in which you won't *normally* see any differences ( I believe): Microsoft Word Microsoft Powerpoint Microsoft Excel (exception made for very large databases, that you really shouldn't use Excel for) Outlook/Outlook Express Internet Explorer and more generally internet browsers <- but if you put the cache on ramdisk you will likely appreciate a faster experience, even on 32 bit A few Apps where you might actually appreciate a difference: Mathlab, Mathematica and similar (when dealing with very large calculations) AutoCad (only when working with extremely complex drawings and using in some 3D features) 3dStudio and more generally rendering software "high end" (professional) video or graphical editing (with a few programs only ) Let us be clear on the "testing" environment, same program (in same "powerful" machine) needs to be tested: in it's 32 bit version under a 32 bit OS in it's 32 bit version under a 64 bit OS in it's 64 bit version under a 64 bit OS: Benchmarks may see a difference, but benchmarks are meaningless metrics, what counts is the "feeling" you have (and IMHO you won't find any sensible difference). jaclaz

Well, you have gsar already used in your "standard" set of tools, haven't you? I doubt - no offence intended - that an ANSI file contains hex 00, but you can (better ) use gsar to find the initial FFFE as jumper suggested. In any case, FOR/ F won't "like" Unicode, thus: @ECHO OFF ::ISANSI.CMD - small example batch to check if a file is ANSI or UNICODE FOR /F %%A in (%1) DO ECHO ANSI&GOTO :EOF ECHO UNICODE BUT this won't work the same: @ECHO OFF ::NOANSI.CMD - small example batch that will always return ANSI FOR /F %%A in ('TYPE %1') DO ECHO ANSI&GOTO :EOF ECHO UNICODE jaclaz jaclaz