jaclaz

Maybe this is what you were looking for: http://www.esreality.com/index.php?a=post&id=1945096 http://www.kotiposti.net/~d636961/WinAccel/tuto/CustomAccel-Tutorial-English.txt http://www.kotiposti.net/~d636961/WinAccel/DefaultCurves.zip Now the "math" is seemingly all there, time to do the experiments. jaclaz

Very good , everything is back to normality : Now that the OP issue is solved, can we go a step ahead (or aside )? The WMIC thingie I posted is seemingly "absurd" (using the "containing folder and "Installdate" ), but I got to it because I had issues with: @ECHO OFF SETLOCAL ENABLEEXTENSIONS ENABLEDELAYEDEXPANSION SET TargetDir="%*" SET Targetdir PUSHD CD /D %TargetDir% REM DIR Pause FOR /F "tokens=*" %%A IN ('DIR /A:-D /B %TargetDir%') DO CALL :getCreationDate "%%A" POPD goto :eof :getCreationDate set FILE=%~f1 set FILE="%FILE:\=\\%" FOR /F "skip=1 tokens=*" %%B IN ( '"wmic datafile where (name=%FILE%) get creationdate, name"' ) DO ( SET Line=%%B SET Line=!Line:~6,2!/!Line:~4,2!/!Line:~0,4! !Line:~26! ECHO !LINE! ) goto :eof Namely the batch is "borked" if a name conataining brackets is found. I tried a few alternative things in the FOR loop, including attempting using the usebackq parameter, but could not find any solution. jaclaz

You see , no need to make Coffefiend UNemployed And now, for NO apparent reason, an unneededly complex script using WMIC! @ECHO OFF SETLOCAL ENABLEEXTENSIONS PUSHD CD /D %1 set "thisfolder=%CD:~2%" for /F "skip=1 tokens=*" %%A in ( '"wmic datafile where (path='%thisfolder:\=\\%\\') get InstallDate, Name"' ) do ( SET Line=%%A CALL :parse_date ) POPD :parse_date SET Y=%Line:~0,4% SET M=%Line:~4,2% SET D=%Line:~6,2% SET Name=%Line:~27% ECHO %D%/%M%/%Y% - %Name% GOTO :EOF jaclaz

Well, you could have bettered it nonetheless, like: jaclaz

Good. (though I would add a "<Extend>False</Extend>" to 1st partition, as a placeholder as it won't do any harm or - to be coherent - remove the "<Extend>False</Extend>" from 2nd partition) jaclaz

Not really. We don't know HOW exactly NATO has setup his system . He may have done the RIGHT thing (or at least the one I do ) which is to have ALWAYS, on *any* OS booted the SAME lettering scheme (any given dirve ALWAYS gets SAME given drive letter). (i.e. when he boots his second instance of XP the drive is D:\ or if you prefer D:\ is the Boot drive - along the WRONG MS terminology - see http://www.multibooters.co.uk/system.html ) OR he may have done what kids multi-booting usually do , install the second instance after having hidden the first one, and have a same drive getting a different drive letter according to the currently booted OS. Compare with (among others): http://reboot.pro/8052/ jaclaz

For NO apparent reason , something actually new, "The Leap": http://reboot.pro/16922/ http://leapmotion.com/ at least you won't have all those ugly dirty fingerprints on your touchscreen.... jaclaz

Yep, but I would guess that you cannot EXTEND BOTH partition 2 and 3.... What happens with : In this case I guess that the "<Size>1000</Size>" is unneeded.. jaclaz

For the record: http://www.itlisting.org/5-windows/9a87b563686a2140.aspx Would that work in 9x through LMHOSTS/whatever? BTW the linked to Win2K thingy seems like being taken from this: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb726981.aspx http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb726981.aspx#EHAA jaclaz

Which SIZE is that partiion? jaclaz

Are you really sure he is a friend? Seriously, UBCD4WIN has a dedicated Forum, chances are that you will find a "higher density" of UBCD4WIN experts there : http://ubcd4win.com/forum/index.php?act=idx The Eric Phelps article you mentioned is about BartPE. BartPE is the "generic" result of running Bart's PE builder. UBCD4WIN is a "specialized" and "pre-configured" set that also uses Bart's PE builder as "building engine". If you want to create "your own" customized BartPE, then the reference is instead the 911CD Forum: http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php? jaclaz

If I may, this looks more like logical: C: [C_XP_PRO_1] D: [D_XP_PRO_2] E: [E_Documents] F: [F_Videos] and, actually for NO apparent reason , a nice related thingy: http://www.novell.com/coolsolutions/trench/11597.html and some variations of the idea (both cool and uncool): http://www.sevenforums.com/customization/17838-show-drive-letter-drive-icon.html http://rubenerd.com/scrabble-drive-icons/ http://www.pauahtun.org/DesktopIcons/DriveLetter.html and (should it be needed) remember that Explorer can use somethig different from actual Label of the drive: http://www.tweaklibrary.com/Display/Files-and-Folders/40/Changing-Drive-Labels-in-Explorer/11102/ I guess that disk management (and the chkdsk) use the Label value and not the Explorer Registry one, so you can have a Label of C_drive, D_drive, etc. BUT an Explorer name XP PRO, Documents, etc. jaclaz

Well, you READ my reply to it, there are only two possible cases (after all you are not disagreeing ) jaclaz

Sure, this is a possibly preoccupying issue, but the real issues are: WHY hasn't Yzöwl posted a better batch snippet than mine? but, much more than that: WHERE THE HECK is gunsmokingman? Why hasn't he yet posted a vbs snippet for this? jaclaz

It's not that easy, but the "theory of operation" is not particularly complex, some parsing is needed, biut it shouldn't be that bad. I don't want to hijack (too much) this thread, I will PM you some data. jaclaz

That's good , as it means that we can play a bit on the "still unknown" . As I see it there are two possibilities,either the Enterprise and "end user" versions will be VERY similar (and this would be logical and consequent with the trend I attempted to highlight: "same size fits all") or the Enterprise and "end user" versions will be VERY UNlike (and this could mean either a return to the duality between DOS and NT of the past or to the need of "different training" for personnel, that will have in the office a "different" OS - actually just the interface to it - from what they are used to and familiar with at home) In both cases it sounds to me like a no-win/no-win situation for the actual customers, no matter if "Corporate" or "Home" . jaclaz

Yep. Try this instead: @ECHO OFF SETLOCAL ENABLEEXTENSIONS PUSHD C:\Users\myusername\mydirectory FOR /F "tokens=* delims=" %%A IN ('DIR /B /A:-D') DO ECHO "%%~nxA" %%~tA POPD The "created" date is not "available" normally (the one expanded by ~t is the "last modified" one). BUT, try this: @ECHO OFF SETLOCAL ENABLEEXTENSIONS SETLOCAL ENABLEDELAYEDEXPANSION FOR /F "tokens=1,* delims= " %%A IN ('DIR /T:C /A:-D C:\Users\myusername\mydirectory ^|FIND "/"') DO ( SET Cdate=%%A SET Fname=%%B SET Fname=!Fname:~24! ECHO !FnamE!@!CDate! ) (the above assumes that your date settings use "/" as separator) jaclaz

Confirmed working on XP too. : What I intended was something slightly different than having the actually used command line (but thanks anyway for that ), I was hinting how, using the same "codebase" we could have a more "generalistic" approach, i.e. something that could accept user parameters for *other* files and *other* .iso's. As a side note (and not actually specifically needed for this) one of my semi-random thoughts : Could we get the "initial" part of *any* .iso and analyze it with isoinfo or a similar tool (to get a specific file address/offset/etc.)? In other words this nice app is "very vertical" (UNlike the httpdisk approach that can potentially get *anything* from *any* .iso), you analyzed a set of specific "full" downloads and created this thingy that is able to replicate the very specific "relevant" part. Maybe something more "wide scoped" could be of use.... As an only seemingly UNrelated example, see how a little, very specific tool/approach was later made into a more "general" approach: http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=16745 jaclaz

Not really, as it distributes Curl without the required COPYING text: but this is easily correctable . I am much more puzzled by the fact that his nice : idea has been implemented as a 650 kb .exe that seemingly does the same as chosing between a set of three one liners similar to this: curl.exe <some options> <some http address> and a few "bells and whistles" around them. Maybe, it would be nice if the <some options> were explicited and the same approach could be re-used easily for other tools/files, etc. In a first test after having a nice looking green progress bar across the screen showing the download progress, I got "Checksum mismatch" and no files were downloaded (actually they were most probably downloaded but immediately deleted). Is there any particular trick involved in using the thingy or it only works if you run Vista or later, or what? jaclaz

What happens with: FOR /F %%A IN ('DIR /B /A:-D C:\Users\myusername\mydirectory') DO ECHO %%~nxA %%~tA >>ListofFiles.txt jaclaz

Hey, it wasn't me suggesting hdparm as a benchmark tool, was I? Most Linux distro's will have hdparm included, BUT (isn't there always a "but") probably it won't get you much nearer to your goal. You can try parted magic (which is a fairly "light" LiveCD): http://partedmagic.com/doku.php JFYI: http://www.linuxinsight.com/how_fast_is_your_disk.html http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ and (for NO apparent reason - if not to scare you some more after the "equipment price shock" ): http://etbe.coker.com.au/2009/04/22/vibration-strange-sata-performance/ jaclaz

Some "random" considerations. Once upon a time the good MS guys made available DOS (and Windows 3.x). Then time passed and at a certain point they did understand that DOS (and Windows 3.x) was not suitable anymore for some corporate uses, and made NT (3.1/3.5 and finally 4.0). Then came WIn95. The idea at the time was clear: have the NT family for the "business". have the DOS/WIn9x family for "home users". Windows 2000 was a bettered NT 4.0, actually better, reserved to "business use", Windows ME a bettered WIn98, only worse, reserved to "home users". The "deviation" came with XP (a bettered Win2K, only worse ). For the first time EXACTLY (please let's not discuss the senseless and very minor differences between XP Professional and Home edition, whih are much more "commercial" than "technical", like the various editions of NT 4 an 2K were before, tweakNT being the living proof of this) the same OS was "pushed" to both kinds of "end users" (and BTW Server 2003 is a bettered 2000, actually better): business users were "forced" to have a somehow "less-secure-than-2K" OS home users were "forced" to have completely meaningless for them "features" such as authorized login, NTFS with ACL, Quotas and what not The decision, like it or not, makes a lot of sense from a business standpoint, instead of needing to support and develop two largely different "codebases", you had to support only one (though they failed to have this fully implemented, and there were some issues of "portability" from the "base XP" to the "Server 2003" OS). No need to talk about Vista . Windows 7 is/was another step in the same direction, though I am far less familiar with this OS and it's Server 2008 R2 counterpart then I am with earlier versions, from what I can see the differences between the two are reduced when compared to previous corresponding versions. (talking about the numberless and senseless versions of Windows 7 - all evidently motivated by commercial reasons would be a digresssion). So, in the "old days" there were two completely different kinds of users which were little by little forced to use the "same" OS. Until, say, XP, the hardware available to each group was substantially the same as well as the software (meaning not so much the actual programs, but rather the "scope" of the programs) and the usage paradigm was also very similar. At the office, you used a word processor, a spreadsheet, and one or more very vertical app (possibly written in FORTRAN or COBOL), later some e-mail program and a browser were added. A reduced subset of the "corporate users" might have used a graphical program, let's say conventionally either of Photoshop or AutoCAD. At home, you used a word processor to write (completely useless) letters complaining to the municipality for this or that, a spreadsheet to keep your bank account balance, a graphical app to remove red eyes from the poorly shot photos you took, later an e-mail program and a browser were added (and the municipality saved a lot of money by directly deleting your protests from the server without producing the huge amount of waste paper as before, and you lost a lot of sleep hours by browsing the internet in the night). Then came the "broadband" internet and the multimedia, so you spent most time at the office trying to download through your employer's faster connection all kind of software you won't ever need and sending to all you ever increasing e-mail contacts funny (mostly actually NOT funny) videos you got from the internet. At home you spent all your time looking for more NOT funny videos, to get some (usually LOTS) of free p0rn, and the like. Then you started converting all your VHS and Vynil to digital (and this kept you busy for some time), and downloading all the MP3's and moviesyou could get your hands on. For the record most of the above were lost forever in a hard disk crash, those that survived you cannot anyway find anymore as they are backed up "somewhere" and you cannot find anymore those CD0s, DVD's, disks, whatever where you surely have them (a situation NOT much different from all the other stuff you have in your basement or attic or your lost during your last move). Now, you have different devices: A desktop at the office. A laptop at home. A smartphone that -between ringing for incoming calls - keeps beeping and senselessly forwarding you all e-mails. A tablet. The idea (completely senseless of course) is that you should be able to do the "same" things on all these different devices, and eventually have only one: a tablet. Yes, I have seen the "tablet" version of AutoCAD on the iPad, I won't comment on the usability, set apart "pure browsing" of .dwg's..... To do the same things on all these devices, the way the good MS guys chose was to "dumb down" the "better working" ones so that your "experience" will be the same on each of those. For a very large part of the user base (those that passively use whatever they can get from the internet - made/produced by the minority of the "active users") this is an advantage. For the very smaller part of the user base (those that actually "work" and create things) it is a big nuisance. But again, from a purely business standpoint, it makes sense. If you have a product that is (in theory) suited to (say) 95% of the target and is a big PITA for the remaining (say) 5%, would you discard it in favour of continuing your old product that suited the minority but was increasingly - no matter if rightfully or wrongly - frowned upon by the majority that wowed at the iPhone first and then is now wowing at the iPad? Same kind of people that would say "Isn't it cute?" So, the point is, what will the "active" 5% (if you prefer the very few that actually "work") do ? : keep hang to the "old" OS and continue producing *something* change OS to another one and continue producing *something* stop being active (what the heck, I'm done with this) ... jaclaz

It's all a matter of preferences, Syslinux or grub4dos. The latter has different GUI modes, see (as an example): And check also @ded-lego@ thingies: http://reboot.pro/15689/ current projects to "install windows from USB" use grub4dos, so choosing it might prove to be easier for you. *any* you like. jaclaz

Good . Just for the record, when using a heat gun, it is quite easy to make a "protection mask" out of a piece of cardboard covered with some aluminium foil, with a hole in it slightly bigger than the chip+pins. jaclaz

Possibly , there are several ones, the issue is that "real" compilers usually do not understand "properly", batch that use complex syntax or some (working) "strange syntaxes" here is one that claims to keep the actual batch encrypted: http://www.battoexeconverter.com/ The PRO version (that allows redistributability of the "compiled" .exe) is NOT free (so most probably I never actually tested it) I have *somewhere* a folder where I stacked a few that I actually tried, but cannot remember one that worked "as it should" (at least with my batches). I'll let you know if I can find that folder and (hopefully) some notes about th tests.... jaclaz