jaclaz

Well, your case is border line with the XYZ problem (or the chocolate covered banana ), it happens very often, and to many people don't worry , JFYI it is "coded": https://jdebp.eu/FGA/put-down-the-chocolate-covered-banana.html In this case the original tool did make what was expected but due to a number of other complications the given alternatives ar simply "better", jaclaz

Well, if you like to call that "normal" it's fine, but still it isn't "normal". Is it not that you are in one of the conditions seen here? https://web.archive.org/web/20090331144811/http://support.microsoft.com/kb/831374 Running vrfydsk could be a good idea: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=17657 jaclaz

I like "Joe" . It is simple and short enough, a lot less pretentious than "Navigator" or similar, and I cannot remember any other browser with a similar name. To be fair I wouldn't have disliked "Matt", but besides the risk of a legal battle on the property of the name, the double T could cause spelling errors, and the possible interpretation as "not-glossy" wouldn't have been nice . jaclaz

You'll have to concur that "anything else" is easier to make a reference to than: "cf69fed1697d94a058f6074ab55fd6094a200a3ec1af1e806fe537f1d115c2d283f7a083fdcb157a2abe0fda98d74f3b31ca0484aa803e48177dbb53eb1cdd34 or tVnRIF7Nvg4Ywlcv4zUffArn+LyLpeCPezvyqEXTw2RF5gU1skMG87JFy0KiaPVy". And I am not discussing your freedom of naming things , only highlighting the risk of you being sued, from what I understand, the usage of "boc" instead of "BinOC" is seen by the Trademark holder as a problematic misnaming/wrong short naming. jaclaz

Just saying ... https://www.zdnet.com/article/windows-10-new-study-shows-home-edition-users-are-baffled-by-updates/ https://insider.windows.com/en-us/articles/were-listening-to-you/ Mission Status: FAILED jaclaz

How come it is "boc-uxp" (and not "BinOC-uxp")? jaclaz

It must have been a tough life with an OS (or given set of programs) that constantly trash your NTFS. No, it isn't "normal", it happens, but it shouldn't and surely it shouldn't happen often. @luweitest Good. At least now there is (or should be) a "solid base". Let's see what SFC comes out with. jaclaz

Sure, "boc" is the "shorter" (all small letters) form. jaclaz

Then you can use IMDISK just fine: http://reboot.pro/forum/59-imdisk/ http://reboot.pro/topic/2072-imdisk-by-olof-lagerkvist/ Or for XP also good ol' Filedisk would do nicely (as it did since 2005 or so and until IMDISK became prevalent): https://msfn.org/board/topic/38118-filedisk-virtual-disk-driver-for-windows-nt2kx/ jaclaz

Only to play devil's advocate , here it is a practical use: http://reboot.pro/topic/21851-boot-winxp-x64-in-efi-on-thinkpad-x220/ jaclaz

Also: https://archive.bintec-elmeg.com/?dir=Files/Weitere_Downloads/Ältere_Produkte/artem/software_tools/odyssey-client/ https://www.driverguide.com/driver/detail.php?driverid=923686 https://www.driverguide.com/driver/detail.php?driverid=1234775 jaclaz

I am not sure to understand if it is the "same" thing, but what about the "OEM" version for Zyxel? ftp://ftp.zyxel-tech.de/ZyAIR_B-220/software/ ftp://ftp.zyxel-tech.de/ZyAIR_B-220/software/ZyAIR_B-220_V2.27_Windows98SE_WindowsME__FunkOdysseyClient.zip ftp://ftp.zyxel-tech.de/ZyAIR_B-220/software/ZyAIR_B-220_V2.27_WindowsXP_Windows2000__FunkOdysseyClient.zip jaclaz

Well, CHKDSK "should be" (to be fair this is how I personally recommend to run it) run THREE times, in this order: 1) CHKDSK <driveletter:> 2) CHKDSK <driveletter:> /F 3) CHKDSK <driveletter:> /R The last pass (the one with the /R) should "get rid" of the bad sectors. (and no, they are not "normal", and as well the "minor inconsistencies" + the 44 index issues are not normal and may be enough to create the original problem). Once you have run the CHKDSK as above thrice, if you re-run it without any parameter as in #1, your output should be *like*: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chkdsk#/media/File:Chkdsk_screenshot.png SMART data is actually (again in my perverted mind) a bunch of totally meaningless data, however even if they had any relevance (or connection with the problem) , they are at a level far lower than where the NTFS (and thus CHKDSK) are, jaclaz

Sure, but you will have to state WHICH features do you use/want, you know, like: AFAICT Daemon tools are/were a convenient way to mount/access/play/whatever a number of CD/DVD "rips" or dd-like copies in various "common" formats (most of which making no sense whatsoever ab initio). jaclaz

First thing I would do is to run a chkdsk on the boot/system volume. That kind of error is often connected with the main hard disk having issues (be them a too full volume, a bad hybernation file or *whatever* else). Anyway running a chkdsk costs nothing and won't do any harm (if it does, it means there is a much bigger underlying problem). Check this (only seemingly unrelated): https://msfn.org/board/topic/170864-chkdsk-not-working-faulty-hard-drive/ https://msfn.org/board/topic/170864-chkdsk-not-working-faulty-hard-drive/?do=findComment&amp;comment=1066252 jaclaz

So, essentially it is what I would call a "high end (graphic) workstation". 64 GB of RAM are usually enough on those machines, but sure , if you plan on 128 GB you need to take that in account. I don't know about the investment value, ten years is a rather far horizon when it comes to computing, only three or four years ago buying a SSD would have had a rather steep cost, nowdays they can be had for (metaphorically) peanuts, compare with: https://blog.westerndigital.com/truth-ssds-hdd-vendors-do-not-want-you-to-know/ again an image is worth a thousand words (it is a 2015 forecast, but it came out as pretty much accurate): Actual prices last quarter: https://www.minitool.com/news/ssd-prices-fall.html jaclaz

Back to topic, I am a non-believer (not entirely unlike dencorso ) but what I don' t believe in is: a) that your PC (unless it is actually a high end workstation or - worse - a gaming machine) would actually need anything more powerful than 550/600 W, maybe 650 W b) that power supplies quality actually matters [1] Why don't you post your full specs and let us double check if you actually need an actual "monster" PSU? In my experience some of the "Online" calculators are sometimes way off and tend to be overly "cautious", i.e. the result may suggest a PSU that is much more than what is needed, even if taking into account some "spare". Getting double the suggested power is - let's say - conservative. Anything 750 W or higher is a "monster" in my personal opinion, being equivalent to 1 HP or more (an image is worth a thousand words): the thingy that produces hot air in your PC has the same power of a large mammal that can lift 75 Kg by 1 m in 1 second (and may weight some 400-600 Kg and eat 20 pounds of hay each day) jaclaz [1] This needs to be explained. With the exception of a - by now mythical - Epson (with a DX2 66 processor) that worked just ok for some 22 years (not all of them, but nearly all, 24/7) that I decommissioned (and it was still working just fine) only a couple years ago, I had several - in practice every - PSU in service I ever had fail, one way or the other and for one reason or the other, the sample size is in the order of a few tens of machines so relatively little, still .... ... I never managed to find a meaningful pattern: 1) I had "El-cheapo" PSU's fail 2) I had "Mid-range price" PSU's fail 3) I had "known brand" PSU's fail (though never used/tested the very high end ones that cost the same as a full computer) I had El-Cheapo ones last the same or longer than "high price/brand" ones and the (what would be normal) opposite

JFYI (and as a side-side note) it is a few years (I believe 2011 or 2012) that I sourced (for around 30-40 Euro each) some used "terminals" Fujitsu Futro S210/220/300 that sport : Transmeta Crusoe 800 MHz(entirely passive cooled) Internal PSU (no external "brick") Expansion slot (1) that I use for a network card. PS/2 connectors (besides Serial, Parallel and VGA) *like*: https://www.ebay.it/itm/Fujitsu-Siemens-THIN-CLIENT-PC-FSC-FUTRO-S300-800MHz-256MB-CF-Standfus-Stromkbel/233116340957? I replaced the tiny CF card with a 4 GB one and quickly and half-@§§edly installed on it Zeroshell and the thingy has been churning away 24/7 ever since. To be fair the first one was replaced by its brother a couple years ago because the PSU died (power surge/lightning). jaclaz

Find bootmgr in root of your boot (or system or both) volume. Delete it. Reboot. If it doesn't boot, it is BIOS, if it boots again it is UEFI. Now, seriously. Have a look at your system volume (or boot volume or both), that may be either your C:\ volume or in case of GPT the "hidden" one. Unless it is a FrankenInstall, you will have EITHER : \bootmgr \boot\BCD OR: \EFI\Microsoft\Boot\bootmgfw.efi or \EFI\Microsoft\Boot\bootmgr.efi \EFI\Microsoft\Boot\BCD And/or run BCDEDIT as follows: bcdedit.exe /enum ALL See (for more information): http://www.mistyprojects.co.uk/documents/BCDEdit/index.html jaclaz

JFYI, one of the reasons why Italians do it incontrovertibly better is that it is already "incontrovertibile/incontrovertibilmente" in Italian . In this case we are nearer to Latin: https://it.wiktionary.org/wiki/incontrovertibile jaclaz

Isn't it fun when data (real world data) completely contradicts what you have been told by the know-it-all guys till now? https://news.softpedia.com/news/microsoft-ironically-proves-forced-windows-update-don-t-make-any-sense-524897.shtml The actual .pdf has a lot on nice new words and concepts (at least for me), example: and it is IMHO worth some time reading: https://github.com/Microsoft/MSRC-Security-Research/blob/master/presentations/2019_02_BlueHatIL/2019_01 - BlueHatIL - Trends%2C challenge%2C and shifts in software vulnerability mitigation.pdf jaclaz

Hmmm. Actually *needing* a 850 W PSU sound like a high-high end gaming machine, and overclocking is so '90's . Are you really sure-sure you need such a powerful PSU? About the eraser, *any* will do nicely, we were just being a bit nostalgic of the good ol'times ... jaclaz

Once said that having a C: drive letter for a Windows NT install on a multipartition system "forcing" a drive letter assignment is a good recipe for having issues - before or later - it is perfectly possible to make this forced assign, but of course you cannot have C: if that drive letter is already assigned to an existing partition. You cannot run the install from C: and expect that a different partition will get C:, you need to first "force" the FAT32 partition to get another drive letter and then "force" the NTFS "target" partition to become C: using a migrate.inf file: https://web.archive.org/web/20160817074749/http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=19663 or hiding the FAT32 partition (and other partitions if needed) so that automatic drive letter assigning actually assigns C: to the "target" NTFS partition. jaclaz

Sure, it has become an "exclusive", "design" item. Look at the price of this (OK, it seemingly includes a sharpener, No, it is just the eraser): http://www.fabercastell.com/products/more-products/eraser/EraserUFOingiftbox/188306 The sharpener is another item: http://www.fabercastell.com/design/products/ufo-sharpener-eraser/SharpenerUFOingiftbox/188305 They should have IMHO have called it iEraser instead of UFO, but probably Apple wouldn't have been happy about that, and this is the other one, platinum plated AND fulfilling its task perfectly: https://www.graf-von-faber-castell.com/products/Eraserroundplatinumplated/188502 and now look at this latter's price: https://www.thepencompany.com/product/graf-von-faber-castell-round-eraser/ jaclaz

NOT strictly Windows 10 related, still IMHO - more than preoccupying - terrifying: https://www.brentozar.com/archive/2019/02/what-queries-does-microsofts-telemetry-service-run-on-your-sql-server/ jaclaz