jaclaz

@Tripredacus I am not getting crazy at all , and definitely not TOW crazy..... ....speaking of which : http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1007283/craz...towing_trailer/ ..and also speaking of "blind faith" . The point I was trying to make is that one thing is posting some "news" read somewhere and another thing is to make them appear as your own, besides the point you made about possible "resentment" of the original authors, is that when gosh, I mean gosh, not a JohnDoe42 at his first post on the board, posts something, it automatically (at least in my mind) get a patent of "dependability/reliability", and it is a synonym of "tested". In other words, and with all due respect for gosh, I was pointing out how he has to be, as reknown Windows tweaker/expert and MSFN Patron, very accurate, as his words do have a weight. But it seems to me that everything is now clear and cool B) , let's see if we can actually have WiFi working on PE 2.x/3.x..... jaclaz

Just for the record: http://www.marriedtothesea.com/072309/orig...ter-machine.gif jaclaz

JFYI, and for the record : http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=131103 http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showto...31103&st=11 jaclaz

@gosh By omitting initially that it was a verbatim copy and paste from someone else's blog, you did give the impression : that the works was done partly by a colleague of yours that one of your customers had a wired problem now solved by wireless that you were substantially familiar with the thingies and somehow "endorsed" them or their use @Eagle710 You plainly stated that you were able to enable wireless connections in a PE 2.1 or 3.0, or at least this is the only way your post can be read. Since I didn't believe you much , in order to try and understand what was it all about, I posted here: http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=10250 reporting the news. The phishing worked, and wimb got hooked. Now, it seems like turning out that: gosh believes blindly in whatever MS writes (which does surprise me ) and never actually tested the thingies Eagle710 has never had this working as well IMHO the misunderstandings could have been easily avoided if what is coming out now was stated initially, by taking a bit more care in the wording and quoting the sources/adding details. Thanks to wimb for having taken the time to start the actual testing. jaclaz

The video is one of the greatest peace of humour I've seen in several weeks! jaclaz

Happy there is yet another happy bunny around : http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showto...28727&st=10 Please do understand that you were EXTREMELY LUCKY, in the sense that your new partitioning scheme had second partition beginning well before the old one and that the latter wasn't overwritten . The message is: be very careful when playing with partitioning/formatting BACKUP your data jaclaz

Yep, it's a known issue. The feature is called "friendly names" and it seems that all the Owners and Admins of all the boards in the world like to (actually I believe it's due to a stoopid setting when the board software is updated, not an actual fault of the good guys) switch it of and on every other day. JFYI: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=137119 where some details and explanations are given jaclaz

Then, being the title of this thread "New support for wifi", and seeing what Eagle710 posted, does it means that BOTH gosh and Eagle710 are lieing? @Eagle710 Care to post some details on the topic and your success? jaclaz

zs6155749, maybe you didn't notice it, but your post looks like Chinese to me (maybe because it is Chinese ) jaclaz

Yep. Sorry for the mis-naming . jaclaz

Well, as MOST of the things around: it was very easy with Win2K it is relatively easy with XP: http://michaelstevenstech.com/moving_xp.html is much worse/difficult with Vista jaclaz

Well, almost "anything". SETUPREG.HIV is nothing but an initial canvas on which the "base" registry of the OS to be installed will be created upon. If you are into experimenting, here are some ideas: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showto...125116&st=0 And some related examples: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=122505&hl= http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=8798 http://ubcd4win.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=5398 The technique is widely used on PE's. jaclaz

No, the file is in the "stable" release 0.2.3. At the moment the Beta is, well, Beta . You need to follow the evolution of it on the board. The general idea is that you should get familiar with latest "stable" BEFORE attempting using the Beta. jaclaz

Well, you need to study a bit more the concepts behind the use of the two apps. The GOOD news are that IF the 138 Gb partition is the right one, it strted on Cylinder 2677, whilst your "new" partitioning scheme appears like starting at Cyl 1912: this means that you have 2677-1912=765 Cyl x 255 Heads x 63 Sects=12,289,725 Sectors x 512=6,292,339,200 bytes (roughly 6 Gb) to allow for the filesystem structures and data of the "new" partition, which gives you (depending of course on the amount of data you copied to that new partition) reasonable hope that the "old" partition filesystem and data has NOT been overwritten. Put aside PHOTOREC for the moment. In TESTDISK, get to the same point where you took the scrrenshot. Use the down key until you highlight the "269554572" partition and press ENTER. What happens? jaclaz

Hard to say, it does seems like a well messed up drive.... A likely candidate is the one sized 269554572 sectors ( marked as [D] ), but since 269554572*512/1024/1024/1024=÷128 Gb either you remember wrong about the 110 gb size or it isn't it. jaclaz

DYI reballing!? Welcome to the club. jaclaz

I guess that all credits should go to os2fan2 that wrote the batch snippet that you just posted almost verbatim. (or at least I seem to fail noticing any difference worth mentioning) : jaclaz

Well, Fernando has is own thread right here (he has an undercover nick of Fernando 1 here on MSFN ): http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=107504&hl= jaclaz

On the contrary I seem to be the only one making a distinction. In my personal judgement not only the guys at i365 , but also the Seagate engineers are good guys after all, as said an hiccup can happen to everyone, they made a mistake, ok, but they made several other drive models working fine, if they would simply make some public excuses I would forgive them allright. What I find simply awful are the behaviours of (in no particular order) : Seagate Marketing and Company Executives (for trying to deny the evidence for months and later trying to severely underestimate the phenomenon) Seagate Assistance and Customer Care (for simply lying to Customers for a considerable amount of time and for often giving deceiving and incorrect information - and this behaviour has not yet ceased) Seagate Forum Administrator and Mods (for applying senseless censorship deleting reports in the desperate effort to minimize or hide the problem) Seagate Press Office (for avoiding replying to many legitimate questions of bloggers and on-line magazines) Most probably the Company was afraid of another Class Action, like the one they already had: http://apcmag.com/seagate_settles_class_ac..._capacities.htm There were rumours about a (supposedly reknown) Law Firm willing to start such an action: http://www.bluescreenofdeath.org/?p=91 though the actual said Law Firm site is (alas?) no more : http://www.kbklawfirm.com/seagate/index.php CACHE: http://209.85.129.132/search?q=cache:rPRvR...mp;client=opera EXPIRED: http://whois.domaintools.com/kbklawfirm.com (please note the date it was first created - I like coincidences ) http://gizmodo.com/5130702/1tb-seagate-bar...-gogo-users-say http://www.electronista.com/articles/09/01...acuda.failures/ http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1...7200-11-failing Pretty quick guys over there in Denver.... Nonetheless the Company should IMHO be brought to court for the described misbehaviours. jaclaz

Actually you DO NOT need to. Copy the snippet in a NOTEPAD file, save it with a .cmd extension. Make sure to change this line: to the actual path of your \i386 directory (copied from Cd to hard disk) Make sure to put reg.exe in the same folder where you save the file. Double click on the .cmd file in Explorer. Or you can use REGEDIT manually allright. jaclaz

...should kumarkumar be willing to follow the advice he asked for..... jaclaz

...wait until you get here: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showto...807&st=2323 The linked to post was the consequence of a number of reports about people that were told by Seagate that : they would have NOT attempted Recovery of the data they would EITHER recover the sent drive OR send back ANOTHER working one they would NOT refund ANYTHING BUT a working drive should the sent drive be lost or damaged during shipping forth and back they would provide DATA Recovery through i365 at a cost ranging from $300 to $600 I am happy to know that the good i365 guys, when contacted directly, provided a different arrangement. BTW, how much was the total cost? Or was it ALL at Seagate's or i365's expenses, including the shipping back and forth? This said, I personally find the risk of damage or lost during the shipping to be very high, if you have ever seen how packages are usually handled in airports or storehouses you know what I mean , and in my view higher than that of fixing at home. About this: unfortunately the "because" is moot, you should NEVER, and when I say NEVER, I do mean NEVER, trust ANYONE with the safety of your data. This time it happened to Seagate, but each and every maker has had some "bad" model, and in any case, even if you get a "perfect" drive, there is ALWAYS Murphy's Law around, trying to prove itself right. Having data on a single media, no matter the manufacturer, is very, very, VERY risky. ALWAYS make multiple copies, two at the very least, three much better, of ANYTHING you think of value. jaclaz

and as well not really universal, but covering a certain number of SATA's: http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2384 http://alter.org.ua/en/soft/win/uni_ata/ jaclaz

With all due respect for the Owners and Admins of the board , they do seem to have a twist for changing the way links work (or completely fail to). However it's post #18 in this same thread. See if these work: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showto...75713&st=17 http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?s=&amp...st&p=590337 jaclaz

Define fastest: fastest to prepare source for fastest to deploy Define running OS (where you prepare the source): 2K XP/2003 Vista/2008 Windows 7 Define target machine available RAM: 512 Mb or less 1 Gb 2 Gb (or more) And possibly you will have a non-silly answer. jaclaz