jaclaz

Well, you should make sure to search on all the forum, this was first result (after the stickies): http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=44890 Where there is a link to dirms and buzzsaw. jaclaz

@Sonarcade You do not need a floppy drive. If you have an external USB drive, you can use the "normal" Disk management" to partition it and format it. If you format the partition as Primary from within windows (2k/XP) it will be already bootable for NT based systems (will look for NTLDR). If you want to have it run another system, like Win9x/ME, you need to format it as FAT16, then use BOOTPART to recreate the bootsector and copy to the root the system files. Could you post some more details on what you wsh to accomplish? jaclaz

What you can do is to make an NTFS compressed volume image and mount it with the VDK. See here: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=26216 Of course this cannot be bootable. See also this: http://www.911cd.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=10109 Things are still on the way about the pseudo-GUI for this purpose but command line and some of the example batches give the idea. jaclaz

Have a look here: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=15970 http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=10792 (and please, always search on the board before posting) jaclaz

Read here: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=30998 jaclaz

Just to keep information consistent, here is a similarly realted thread, where I posted a link to my small tutorial on how to make USB bootable. http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=26612&st=70 Paulo, I see this is your first post, welcome on the board, but take your time looking around and searching before posting (that link has already been posted many, many times) jaclaz

The explanation is correct, the only prob is that CDIMAGE is "for internal use only". There are some other tools that can make the "optimized" ISO, see here: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=39994 jaclaz

Well, I see you are at your 1st post, you could start SEARCHING the forums. (and post in the PROPER forum, which in this case is "Application Installs") Here are some related results: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=16709 http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=36580 jaclaz

Have a look at this: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=44653&hl= (for shell drive or directory) and this: for the send to folder http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/s.../ferguson1.mspx If you want the object you send to the .cmd to be an argument to it, you need, assumed your batch files is called "mycmd.cmd" set the entry to the shortcut as "mycmd.cmd %1" Have a look here too: http://www.petri.co.il/add_command_prompt_...ws_explorer.htm jaclaz

The only backing I have is that the ONLY problems in flashing BIOS I ever knew/read of derive from people who used Windows based software to flash BIOSses.(apart from catastrophic issues of power shortages/surges WHILE flashing BIOS) These could be of course due to either: a ) badly written Windows programs b ) the fact hat probably less experienced users prefer to use the Windows GUI To the above info I summed up point #2 in my previous post, and the good ol' saying: "If ain't broken DO NOT fix it" (and this could be my third cent, DO NOT flash BIOS unless it is needed) jaclaz

My two cents: 1) Though now it is quite common to find Windows utilities to flash the BIOS, it is evidently safer doing it from a non-multitasking non-network connected single user OS as DOS 2) Why would the two main BIOS manufacturers have a DOS program to flash their BIOSes? jaclaz

Win32 is NOT Win9x/ME. VMM32.VXD is present in win 9x/ME, not in NT/2K/XP. It is an "assembly" of device drivers, it does not do anything but that. Read here: http://www.easydesksoftware.com/news/news10.htm http://www.helpwithwindows.com/techfiles/vmm32.html jaclaz

Read these: http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/Articl...3596/13596.html http://www.tcmagazine.info/forums/index.php?showtopic=959 Here is an example for the DOS prompt here: http://windows.about.com/od/tipsarchive/l/bltip177.htm And another way that uses .inf files: [version] signature="$CHICAGO$" [DefaultInstall] AddReg = DosHere.Reg [DosHere.Reg] HKCR,Directory\Shell\DosHere,,,"%DosHereAccel%" HKCR,Directory\Shell\DosHere\command,,,"%11%\cmd.exe /k cd "%1"" HKCR,Drive\Shell\DosHere,,,"%DosHereAccel%" HKCR,Drive\Shell\DosHere\command,,,"%11%\cmd.exe /k cd "%1"" [Strings] DosHereAccel="DOS &Prompt Here" Copy and paste the above in notepad and save it as Doshere.inf jaclaz

Have a look here: http://www.ss64.com/nt/copy.html As a general rule, unless you do need to change the name of the file, the destination path is sufficient: copy D:\Batfil~1\defrag.bat C:\WINDOWS\STARTM~1\Programs\StartUp try this: CD C:\WINDOWS\STARTM~1\Programs\StartUp copy D:\Batfil~1\defrag.bat The first line changes directory to the destination. The second one copies to the current dir the file. It could be some problem with the 8.3 naming, the above should help in troubleshooting. jaclaz

Yes, you need to overwrite (AFTER having made a BACKUP, and IF you are sure you have an alternative way to boot the machine), the following two files: NTDETECT.COM NTLDR (you can get them from any already installed XP, and, if I recall correctly they are even between the files in SP2) I have read some reports that the files must be in the SAME language than the original install, but I cannot confirm it, italian and english mix well, cannot say for other languages. See my post here: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=33030 for more info on the NT/2k/XP boot process. jaclaz

Yes, it is possible, sort of. There are two methods (remember here we are talking about DOS based bootable .iso, NOT Bart/WinPE ones): 1) By using this tool: http://www.911cd.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=8955 (Link is not working right now, I am posting last version below) 2) by making a DOS (Win9.x) bootable Pendrive and using the virtual cd-drive that comes with SHSUCDX, SHSUCDHD: http://www.geocities.com/jadoxa/shsucdx/ jaclaz Isoemubase.zip

It could be that "somehow" you have reset something in the device. Some USB key manufacturers have special software that allows a sort of "low-level" access to the device. You could/should contact the manufacturer. jaclaz

Just for reference, here are the two main pages where how and when MS collects and (if) sends any data: http://www.hevanet.com/peace/microsoft.htm http://www.utdallas.edu/~jbs024000/article...plorer_spy.html Please, before flaming me, note that I do not endorse the contents of the linked pages, and cannot say how much of what is there described is true, though I, for one, don't like some of the "features" some MS programs have, typically the signature on Office 97 files. At the time, when it was found out, there were big questions raised and, though there was a freeware program to remove the signature available almost immediately, MS had to make and publish on his site a dedicated tool to remove the "feature". I never used versions of Office later than 97, so I don't know if the "feature" is still there (for files with macros only) as stated in the first linked article. Sure enough the one above I am sure about is NOT an attempt to Privacy, but still it is a demonstration of the POSSIBILITY that MS COULD do some tracking, like it did with the (in)famous Media Player version that "phoned home" titles of videos, unless people keep a watch on it. jaclaz

Maybe this can help in clarifying the question: http://www.karbosguide.com/hardware/module6c3.htm Yep, just try to boot in windows 9x/ME, THEN delete the following files: C:\COMMAND.COM C:\IO.SYS C:\MSDOS.SYS C:\WINDOWS\COMMAND.COM (and remove them from memory) Then, remove from the PATH the C:\WINDOWS\COMMAND No, I am joking, don't do that, but you can try the following: from within windows 98, run MSInfo (Start->Programs->Accessories->System Tools->System Information) Click on Software environment, then check HOW MANY are the 16 bit modules loaded and HOW MANY are the 32 bit ones. Win9x/Me is a DOS based 16/32 bit Operating System, as compared to Windows 3.x, which was a 16 bit shell to DOS, and Windows NT/2k/XP/2003 which are true 32bit operating systems in which a DOS virtual machine is implemented for (partial) backward compatibility. See here too: http://www.winsupersite.com/faq/millennium.asp On a side note, how did you get your handle? A cat walking on your keyboard during forum first registration? jaclaz

To let the Administrator know that someone is trying to get access (unauthorized) to a PC in the LAN. Yeah, I know it's just your mum, but to Windows it could be a hacker! jaclaz

Where? in your living room? A couple more: http://www.adesso.com/products_detail.asp?productid=281 http://www.chicony.com/products/Input%20Device/kb.asp?diff=5 (model KB-9820 bottom of the page) jaclaz

RJARRRPCGP, Windows 95, 98 and ME are based on DOS. The DOS is not there as backward compatibility, it is the CORE. Windows 3.1 has never even been called an OS, it is a graphical shell over DOS (up to 6.22) Unlike that, Windows 95, 98 and ME are Operating Systems, based on DOS 7.0 or 7.1 and 8.0. Microsoft have made miracles to convince people that windows 9x/ME are really self-standing Operating Systems, (and succeeded with you), but they are not. jaclaz

quoque tu, prathapml? Sorry if I say so, but I quite frankly expected by Moderators (and I am thinking about un4given1's posts, that often show a pretty useless aggressivity) a less simplicistic and more mature approach to a debate. My personal PC experience: 1) I went from DOS/Win 3.1 directly to NT4 (skipping Win95), then upgraded to Win2k (skipping over Win98) 2) I never used professionally Win98, but in my business environment MOST machines are/were Win95/98 so I can say that I know quite well all MS systems 3) I have quite a few XP machines that from time to time help mantain, though I, due to the limited hardware I own, and the cost of a legitimate copy of Windows XP, still use only Win2k Every one of the above OS has its good and bad sides, but a discussion should be based on mutual respect, it is incredible that I, that NEVER liked Win9x, should feel compelled to post in this board to actually defend Win9x fans. It already happened here: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=39573 Quite obviously a newer OS, AFTER SOME INITIAL PROBLEMS, has: - more features - better handling of problems found in previous version - better security - better support (drivers and devices) BUT it: - requires more powerful hardware (processor speed, HD size, memory size, etc.) - requires additional "training" on the user part - is more targeted by hackers/virii So it all depends on how you use it, WHICH features do you need, how MUCH money can you spend on it, I'll make a few examples: roughly 15 years ago I started using Excel 3.0, and Word 2.0 on a DOS/Win 3.11 platform, I did then, more or less, the same job I do now. Do you think that you need Office 2003 to make a simple spreadsheet or write a letter? I ALWAYS take the Audio card off my work PC, (I don't like sounds when working)should I need to upgrade to another OS because my NT 4.00 (running smoothly on a 64 mb 450 Mhz PC) has not good Audio Drivers? I have a subnotebook with 48 Mb of Ram 133 Mhz Processor, after MUCH experimenting, I found that it worked very well with a "Lite" 98, allowing me to do my normal work (with all the limits of the small screen), read my mail, go on the Internet whenever I connect it through a PMCIA Lan adapter. Should I spend some $ 1,000÷2,000 to buy a new one? I recently helped out a friend put up a small server in his design office. I forced him to spend the extra-money needed to buy 10,000 RPM SCSI RAID disks, and Windows Server 2003 as I reckoned that was what was NEEDED. Should I have said to him "Save the money and buy a normal PC with XP and normal ATA disks? I bought a computer (together with all the family) as a present for my cousin, which is an almost complete computer illiterate, but likes a lot music and videos, I chose one with XP Media Center Edition 2005. Should I have chosen a REDHAT Linux OS? My nephew is 14 years old and likes a lot computers, he views himself as a small hacker, he already has a PC with windows XP (re-installed n times), I helped him install KNOPPIX Linux as dual boot, he likes it a lot better than XP, do you think I should not have done that? When comparing Operating System there is NO "better" or "worse" OS, there are "newer" and "elder", "advantages" and "disadvantages", "brighter" and "darker" sides, as in MOST things in life. Again: XP is more secure and has more features than 98, BUT needs newer hardware and uses more space and resources 98 is leaner and faster (on the same hardware) BUT is less stable and lacks advanced filesystem features Linux is more difficult to setup and requires learning a lot of new things, has poorer hardware support, BUT it is free and has some outstanding features, like VERY advanced filesystem features, a high level of security, an enormous amount of free applications BSD is even more difficult to learn, BUT it is free and has exceptional security features jaclaz

You're welcome. jaclaz

Costless=Risky $$$=No Probs (The above applies to other things too, not only BIOS flashing) jaclaz