jaclaz

Exactly. But there can be "good" and "bad" compromises. The whole point is that to reach a compromise, you have to carry on a negotiation with the other part. Negotiating will take time, in order to reach a compromise good enough to have both parties reasonably happy. As said, 1.5x is totally unjustified and a rule of thumbs that could only be used on completely different ranges of available RAM. Your current 0.5x is only a hopefully better approximation. If you can substantiate your decision and correlate the max value registered during a "torture test" 1,300 with the final value you used, 2,048, it would be a step ahead, after all 2,048/1,300=157% Like when you choose a power supply, you calculate that your actual power need is in the 250÷300 W range and then, knowing that a power supply works better at 1/2 to 2/3 of it's "tag power" you go for a 450÷600 W one. But pagefiles do not work like that. Let's take another example, you have to buy a car for your wife. From historical data you know: that you are a family of three that the car will never be used on a highway or for longish trips that it's main use will be commuting home/work, go to the supermarket and take your child to school Now which car do you buy?: a sub-compact 4 seater (simply because three seaters are not available) a big 4x4, 7 seater Answers: If you live in the US #2, if you live in Europe (and/or are cheap, like me ) #1. In other words, let's say that you fancy having a 2,048 Mb pagefile and it's allright, but do not try "selling" us that it comes from a strictly technical reason, as we won't buy it. jaclaz

NO! Read: http://www.msfn.org/board/solution-seagate...-page-2246.html http://www.msfn.org/board/solution-seagate...-page-2270.html http://www.msfn.org/board/solution-seagate...-page-2274.html jaclaz

Why don't you actually READ the given link? Then, read also here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loadhigh jaclaz

Pheew : both nlite and iso level 4 are can then be acquitted on the grounds of not having committed the crime. jaclaz

Try with echo ON, now. And yes an arrow is "normal". jaclaz

Not even if you actually encrypted the file and know the password? jaclaz

Try typing "pippo" (without double quotes). What happens? Check your ECHO settings (you do NOT want ECHO ON). jaclaz

BTW and IMHO it would be only a re-distribution problem you can also have (by downloading from Microsoft) VHD's with pre-installed Operating Systems: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details...;displaylang=en they are time-bombed, of course. It is possible that the same applies to the images you are talking about. jaclaz

Yep, but I have gathered that it is when it tries to load graphical mode, doesn't it Yep, but that would be a BIOS password and you know it or not? In other words: switch on give boot password press QUICKLY and/or several times/keep pressed F8 or either Ctrl keys http://www.computerhope.com/issues/chsafe.htm What happens? jaclaz

If you could re-phrase the above as: It would be easier to understand if the virii are actually there or if your Antivirus is a bit "oversensitive" and is producing a false alarm. Here is a VirusTotal Analysis of one of the files, copylock.zip: http://www.virustotal.com/it/analisis/beeb...bf4d-1257340919 And this is what NortonWeb has to say: http://safeweb.norton.com/report/show?url=bootdisk.com strangely similar to your post. jaclaz

Hmm. I am not convinced it's "small enough", but anyway sounds much better. Let's see what happened in the years. XP (32 bit) was "advertised" as having the need for a bare minimum of 64 Kb of memory, and usable with 128 Kb: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sysreqs/pro.mspx Using the usual 4x multiplying factor that is needed with MS requirements statements , you had in practice: 64x4=256 Kb "real" bare minimum to boot 128x4=512 Kb "real" minimum to have a usable system In real world a working machine you would have a further 2x factor as in: 128x4x2=1.024=1Gb Now using the mythical 1.5x factor you have respectively: 256x1.5=384 pagefile +256 RAM=640 Mb TOTAL 512x1.5=768 pagefile +512 RAM=1280 Mb TOTAL 1.024x1.5=1.536 pagefile +1.024 RAM=2.560 Mb TOTAL Now, you have x64 that can address a larger amount of RAM than x32, but I do not think that x64 needs that much amount of memory, I mean something like 4 time the actual RAM and (4.096+2048)=6,144/2.560=2.4 times the TOTAL. Questions: What happens if you try running your "Torture Test" on your machine after removing RAM as to remain with "only" 2 Gb of it? What becomes the usage of the pagefile? Hints (not necessarily directly related to questions above): an OS tries to use as much resources as you have available "torture tests" (and in a minor way benchmarks) are - besides inhuman - largishly pointless, the only thing is to see how your paricular system bewhaves with the particular settings you chose with the particualr use you make for it. jaclaz

@BeatZero Yep, but how was ME started? I mean, no offence intended and with all due respect to you , but it would be first time I find something posted/detailed by MDGx coming out as substantially inaccurate. Maybe there are some dependencies that don't work because of your particular setup. jaclaz

Sure I did , but I am one step ahead of you : when and if your only copy of them (as you did not back them up properly) will fail , don't come here asking for help in recovering them.... @tain I am sure that this approach is applied whenever pruning is made. jaclaz

It is possible that nlite edits a path somewhere (.sif or similar files) using lower case characters. jaclaz

If I may, and of course as a provocation , I find deleting old posts/threads to be "falsifying history". Who knows if any of those posts has been useful (or will be) if not for anything else to avoid re-posting the same question/problem/report? Just imagine if (say) Picasso had destroyed ALL his juvenile paintings or Kipling ALL his initial attempts at literature.... Ok, ok, moot point, I do know a fair number of artists and writers whose WHOLE production could be destroyed without any damage to humanity (actually avoiding quite a number of nightmares to future generations).... You see? When you are sad or in blue mood all you have to do is come here and read a few of your early posts, and it will cheer you up a bit! jaclaz

There is no such thing as a "reliable" program simply because there is no "reliable" way to diagnose health, or to be more exact predict life of a drive. There are S.M.A.R.T. info readers, that's all. Specific manufacturer's diagnostics tend to be reliable to diagnose existing problems, but won't as well predict ANYTHING reliably. Check the (now getting oldish) famous Google report on their drives: http://research.google.com/archive/disk_failures.pdf jaclaz

Hey peeps, have you checked/tested what is here: http://www.mdgx.com/newtip2.htm FAST EXIT | RESTART! If I get it right, ability to EXit to DOS depends on the way ME is loaded. jaclaz

Well, I have been called names before, but it's the first time I've been tagged (indirectly) as "bizarre". I find OBVIOUS that each system has to be visible AND run on a different drive, i.e. Windos 9x is ALWAYS on D:, NT is ALWAYS on E:, 2K is ALWAYS on F:, XP is ALWAYS on G:, ME is ALWAYS in the trashbin . jaclaz

There is no tricky part in identifying TX and RX. Three easy steps: You connect the cables. You have EXACTLY a 50% probability they are correctly connected. If it doesn't work, you exchange the cables and get 100% probability. Sorting the TX and RX COUPLE of wires FROM the other ones in a CA-42 or other similar cables (if not already documented in this thread) may be trickier as you have to identify also the + and - to which to connect the external battery needed by some of them and the GROUND cable. jaclaz

And here: http://www.msfn.org/board/install-windows-usb-f157.html BUt are you talking of multiboot XP and 7 in the sense of installing them from USB to some other media or in the sense of running on USB stick ? jaclaz

Windows cannot uninstall itself. It can only get corrupted and become unbootable at most. Yep , but a number of laptops have a "recovery option" on hard disk, which, if run will re-make the drive just as when it came from factory, some use a pre-configured drive image while some simply have a half-pre-configured image that automatically starts the installation of windows, which would look to the (unsuspecting) user who somehow "triggered" the recovery, as if Windows had UNinstalled itself and then tries re-installing itself from scratch. I presume this is what may have happened. If something like the above has happened, then there is (additionally) an error in the "new" setup, which probably can be fixed through safe mode and/or command line. jaclaz

Actually -iso-level 4 is normally used in 1.x PE's, AFAIK: http://www.msfn.org/board/create-iso-file-...ofs-t95805.html jaclaz P.S.: And yes, the -R should be a -r

The CA-42 is the CA-42, see here for a nice pictorial and description: http://www.msfn.org/board/solution-seagate...-page-1756.html There is not such a thing as "CA-42 for modell xxxx" and "CA-42 for model yyyy", there are "real" CA-42's and "fake" CA-42's, your mileage may vary, there are differnt "versions" of the CA-42, too, "version 2.2 is reported to be working: http://www.msfn.org/board/solution-seagate...-page-1794.html Why people is so obsessed with using CA-42 is still a mistery to me. jaclaz

A rather largish choice, if I may go slightly OT, the 1.5 Myth is still a die-hard one. JFYI: http://tadej-ivan.50webs.com/myths.html jaclaz

Now I remember where I saw one lately, there is devload.com in this USB floppy: http://johnson.tmfc.net/dos/usbdrv.html Here: http://www.infradead.org/devload/ And yes, it should work allright: http://osdir.com/ml/emulators.freedos.gene...9/msg00020.html http://www.opensubscriber.com/message/free...t/10707321.html jaclaz