jaclaz

Through WHAT? HOW? What do you mean by "I disconnected my RDP key"? WHAT (the heck) is a RDP key? Those should still be connected to : http://code.google.com/p/buncha-toolz/wiki/AUTORUN_DISABLE_Documentation jaclaz

Yes, this latter is the "expected" result. The "vcredist_x64.exe" file has actually a (single - meaning that it is NOT fragmented) extent on disk, (though the 1220 sectors do not sound "right" ), whilst the netcfg-86477109.txt has NONE (because it is self-contained in the $MFT entry). It was only to show you how and why the "4.00 KB (4,096 bytes) is a "lie" (or if you prefer "a glitch in the matrix"). If you have (say) 10,000,000 of such files, the capacity of the disk won't be reduced by 10,000,000*4,096 bytes = ~38 Gb but the $MFT will have some 10,000,000 more entries and probably will be larger by around 10,000,000*1,024 bytes, i.e. your available space will be reduced by about 1/4th of the above, but the $MFT will be HUGE. jaclaz

For NO apparent reason , and clearly OT besides the humour , it is worth to notice the actual date the thingy was published: jaclaz

It's strange. I mean, if you had an evident benefit from clearing the database and now you are back to the same situation (possiby worse as you were talking of 30 seconds ÷3 minutes and now you have 5÷10 minutes ) there must be *somehting else* going on, but then again originally cleaning the device database could not have created a speeding up. Try checking manually the relevant keys listed here: jaclaz

Have you used this program before? It doesn't seem to work for me... C:\Drivers>GetFileExtents c:\windows\system32\netcfg-86477109.txt initFileTranslation: The handle is invalid. Maybe it doesn't work on Windows 8? Try it with some other (bigger in size) file, first . jaclaz

AND don't forget to tell MS how you tried to provide a WIndows 8 but you failed and had to resort to a Windows 7 because the customer thought that the Windows 8 Metro Nameless Crap Interface sucks big.... jaclaz

Yep , if you "proceed" along the lines of this: http://www.cgsecurity.org/wiki/TestDisk_Step_By_Step you should get for each disk the appropriate partition sizes/offsets/etc. The dd.exe --list output confirms that *somehow* the actual disks are seen but are seen as UNpartitioned media (a single partition on each), and that they are not "linked" to any "volume". They are "strange" results. Can you try running MountStorePE and Showdrive? http://reboot.pro/10169/ (though I think they operate at a somewhat "higher" level than the one you are having the issue at) jaclaz

Good, BUT, still, the 4096 bytes is most probably a lie..... Try getting the file extents for those files.... http://www.wd-3.com/archive/luserland.htm jaclaz

JFYI (and for a seemingly needed quick laugh ): page__view__findpost__p__951837 I think there are NO limits to "worse" , but quite frankly, I would be puzzled by a product that not only detects an "own" app as a virus, but additionally affirms that it has deleted it while it hasn't..... jaclaz

...and what about the Developers? jaclaz

Try with "Properties" jaclaz

They should be far less than 1 Kb, which poses another question, such small files don't normally go into the (NTFS) filesystem (they should be written directly into the $MFT). Having thousands of small files is not IMHO as much an issue with actual size occupied (besides making browsing the filesystem with Explorer or other file manager a nightmare) but rather with size (and number of entries) in the $MFT . jaclaz

Sorry I was not clear, ddlist.cmd is just a "wrap around" the dd for windows by John Newbigin: http://www.chrysocome.net/dd what you should attempt running would be: dd.exe --list as it lists several among the ways a device is (normally) named under Windows NT and could give us a hint about what is "missing": jaclaz

The WHY are you posting your different issue here? Seriously, see if anyhting here: helps , but when you have an issue, unless you find a thread with EXACTLY the same issue, it is better if you start your own thread, rather than posting on an existing one dealing with "other kind of problem". jaclaz

Agreed. Done! Would this imply that dencorso is to be considered among the respected mod's (in the sense of NOT among the UNrespected ones)? Seriously, a "semi-random" idea, possibly void of any utility, would the offline registry library work? http://reboot.pro/11212/ http://reboot.pro/11312/ (kernelEx/whatever)? jaclaz

The guy that most probably started it all, Nadim Kobeissi: http://log.nadim.cc/?p=78 Is talking of "download from internet and open the install", so it is likely (but of course needs to be checked/confirmed) that there is a connection with the "Zone.Identifier" alternate data stream, like it was till now, examples: http://www.hanselman.com/blog/RemovingSecurityFromDownloadedPowerShellScriptsWithAlternativeDataStreams.aspx http://thewayeye.net/2012/march/2/bulk-removing-zoneidentifier-alternate-data-streams-downloaded-windows-files http://www.nirsoft.net/utils/alternate_data_streams.html or some similar mechanism. jaclaz P.S.: EDIT: Confirmed: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/08/windows-8-privacy-complaint-misses-the-forest-for-the-trees/ and Chrome seemingly does the same. P.P.S: An old post but seemingly Opera doesn't use this approach (and the Author Christiam Adams seemingly submitted it to Opera as a bug ) http://cristianadam.blogspot.it/2009/09/hidden-stream.html Mozilla/Firefox should be "user selectable": https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=499448 I presume that also SRware Iron is immune from this, but it is not mentioned: http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron_chrome_vs_iron.php I take it back also Iron sets the Alternate Data Strem <- someone should post this as a bug! Also, since Alternate Data Streams are NTFS only, if you store the downloaded programs on a FAT12 /16/32/64 (ex_FAT) there should be no triggering of SmartScreen .

Well, so the issue is probably *something* connected to the MountManager or with the File System Recognizer... the "Free 0 B" in diskpart doesn't look "right". Without knowing which are the changes in the Registry it is hard to help you pin down the culprit. Can you try - out of curiosity - to run in the build TESTDISK? If - as I expect - it will be able to see all partitions it is definitely something at a "higher" level then basic disk related matters/services. Another few things to check, what does Mountvol output looks like? What does dd --list (see here): http://reboot.pro/8219/ show? And dosdev? http://reboot.pro/6492/#entry52470 http://blogs.msdn.com/b/adioltean/archive/2005/10/04/477164.aspx jaclaz

Though this is not somethng that should be put to "votes", IMHO jds request is more than legitimate. In my relatively small (and definitely happened SOME time ago ) experience with NUSB, I did have more than one trouble. And BTW, no offence intended to the very good work byt the Nusb developer and contributors , but possibly because of the nature itself of the thingy (drivers, and drivers for a built-in not fully supported bus, or whatever) I do remember very opposite cases, machines where the thingy installed and worked at first try with no issue whatever and machines where it took a few hours to remove the mess that the NUSB install (I will repeat in perfect "good faith" and "by accident") created. Additionally though I don't normally use 9x machines, the times I need/use one is just to make some "very narrow" system, thus for this use all I need is basic USB Mass Storage support, which normally I get using the "simple" driver here: So, I would venture to say that in a perfect world there would be three possibilities: "full" Nusb leave USB alone basic USB Mass Storage only leaving the final user the choice to do what he/she prefers. jaclaz

I am not sure to understand. You mean that (set apart the drive letters that may be not assigned for other reasons) you cannot see any hard disk in disk management (or in diskpart)? jaclaz

No , but I am also not "toast capable": http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/apps/hh779727.aspx It wouldn't surprise me if there were Special toasts and Short-duration toasts (obviously UNdocumented) and since the Special ones might create a problem with common people and Short-duration ones with people suffering from ejaculatio precox, the new politically correct term will be Non-standard toast and Quick toast. But more probably it's negative logic (engineers do love that): Is this a Special Toast? false. = Is this a Standard Toast? true. Since they weren't really sure, they checked again : Was this a Special Toast? false. = Was this a Standard Toast? true. Also: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/apps/hh465391.aspx a few don't's : it does seem like Toasts should be rarely used..... Of course in the old times there would have been only: where n is the duration in seconds of the thingy (n=7 if omitted ) and no check whatever afterwards, let alone writing in it in the event log.... jaclaz

@CharlotteTheHarlot Really, you are becoming outdated. MS dropped the use of Metro as the name of the interface. The proposed way is (since a few posts) to call it Metro "Nameless Crap Interface", which you can well abbreviate as NCI (the original abbreviation that had a final S in it, shorthand for you know what , has been retired because Jethro Gibbs and all the guys/gals there are nice peeps . jaclaz

(hopefully) some answers. The 7200.11 needs NO shorting. The 7200.11 ES/2 NEEDS the shorting. The 7200.x LP also seemingly needs the shorting. I don't think that 5 V level TTL is needed since 3.3V is normally compatible with 5V (while 5 V is not compatible with 3.3V), I know it sounds "strange", but see this, read, several times if needed, the whole read-me-first: and particularly this link: http://www.interfacebus.com/voltage_threshold.html Read (and re-read if needed) the suggested guide by Carter in Canada (also aimed to 7200.11, BUT "general ideas" are the same): http://www.mapleleafmountain.com/seagatebrick.html Read also this: and this: After having become familar with the above, you will see how this thread will start to make more sense. jaclaz

What possibly Ponch meant is that no matter how much bloat the good MS guys manage to add unneededly to an OS, thanks to Moore's Law: http://www.mooreslaw.org/ and similar trends in hardware development, if you have some "latest" hardware, it is so d@mn powerful that it can run a Windows 7 with no apparent slowing down. Slimming down an OS can be fun , and it may be needed if you have (like it always happens when using oldish hardware with newly released OS) some performance issues, but with latest hardware Windows 7 runs OK even without any "liting". Still, a slimmed down OS would be "snappier", the point being - unless you do it for the sheer fun of it - if it is worth the time involved... when compared with a "normal" 7 with the most "offending" services/whatever simply disabled. jaclaz

Actually I didn't call them toys, I said how they are nice (and useful if used within their usage paradigm) gadgets, in the sense of gadget (which is NOT a toy): http://www.thefreedictionary.com/gadget http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gadget Visual examples : This is a toy: This is a gadget: This is a tool: JFYI, do review this list of (highlighting is mine) http://www.crn.com/slide-shows/applications-os/240005992/the-50-best-apps-for-getting-business-done-part-1.htm http://www.crn.com/slide-shows/applications-os/240006019/the-50-best-apps-for-getting-business-done-part-2.htm and let me know how many out of the 50 are actualy useful for work.... Just for the record, if you want to get my Leatherman Charge tool (example, NOT advertising): you will have to kill me and pry it out of my dead hands, but still it is not a full replacement for a toolbox: and a toolbox full of foldable screwdrivers, files, saws and pliers to have the same "feeling" is plainly stupid. jaclaz

See: jaclaz