Nomen

I selected a dozen or so .png files in file explorer and hit enter, and a window opens that wants to print them. I wanted the default win-7 photo viewer to open, but it did not. I don't like the default win-7 photo viewer, so I went and downloaded / installed irfanview. I had it associated to all image file types. I went back to the folder with the png files, they now appear with irfanview icon. I selected a bunch, hit enter, and still a window opens and wants to print them. I went back, selected them, then I right-click. At the top of the context menu is PRINT. The third option is PREVIEW. I select Preview, and Windows photo viewer opens and shows them. WTF is going on, and how do I make it so that the default operation when selecting 1 or more PNG files is to OPEN them in irfanview? edit: If I select 15 of them and hit enter, then they open in irfanview (in separate windows, which I don't like because it's a pain to close them). If I select 16 and hit enter, then I get the print window. ???

I have a Dell E6230 that was bought as a refurbished item and it came with Windows 10 home for refurbished PC's. That's whats on the COA sticker. It was never used or activated. I'm downloading the Windows 10 home ISO's (32 and 64 bit) right now and will find some way to put them on a bootable thumb drive. I'm wondering if the 64 bit is really the way to go. The specs for this laptop are: Dell E6230 4 gb ram (DDR3, 1333 mhz, dual interleave 2 DIMM modules) Intel Core i5-3340 2.7 ghz, 2 cores, HT capable, EM64T I do not have UEFI boot enabled - I would rather not have to unless it's really necessary for Win-10. This laptop will see light use as a browser, email, etc. No games. I'm wondering if 64-bit windows will give better performance vs 32 bit or is there more "overhead" with a 64-bit OS? The Dell chipset drivers for this may very well be 32-bit but somehow dressed up as 64-bit. I see there is a bios update that addresses CVE-2018-3639 & CVE-2018-3640. I have a fuzzy recollection of those vulnerabilites and thought that their mitigation at the bios level came at a CPU performance price. Is that true? Seems that browser updates have also mitigated these vulnerabilities so again is the bios update worth it? And one more thing: Is there anything I can do with the ISO to strip away or remove any telemetry or give the laptop a little (or a lot) less of a connection to the mothership? Is it possible to install and run a win-10 home system without having to set up a microsoft / office account?

This is on a laptop. I reduced the screen resolution and was able to grab the title bar with the mouse, then changed the resolution back. Is there any setting to always keep the title bar in view (or at least "grab-able") ? One more thing: I'm running FF 39 on win-7 and when viewing msfn the text entry box for posting is a thin strip - not accessible for typing. I had to view-pagestyle-off to be able to type these posts (in a little teeny box but at least it's possible).

This really bugs me when it happens. The title bar for a window is off-screen (above the top of the screen) and I can't grab it. Alt-spacebar gives me the menu and I select move, but another problem is that my down-arrow key doesn't work. I found out about a key combination that substitutes for the down-arrow before but I can't find it now. Why can't the mouse be used for the move? The mouse does nothing. Bonus question- is there some arcane setting somewhere that will prevent the title bar of any window from being moved completely off-screen?

So none of the service packs for NT4 addressed the 28-bit LBA issue? We know that XP-SP0 had the issue and was fixed relatively quickly in 2001 or 2002, and win-2K also had the issue and was fixed, but MS did not fix the issue with NT4? Perhaps because SP 6a was released in Nov 1999 - this predates any of the 28-bit LBA fixes from MS I guess. Note this from wikipedia: ----------- Service Pack 7 was planned at one stage in early 2001, but this became the Post SP6a Security Rollup and not a full service pack, released on July 26, 2001, 16 months after the release of Windows 2000 and nearly three months prior to the release of Windows XP.[40] ------------ So I guess there was no LBA-28 fix in that security rollup? Can no files from Win-2K be used by NT4 in this regard? Does the Intel Application Accelerator package apply to (and therefore fix) NT4's problem with LBA-28?

I tried searching for this on the web in general and also here at msfn and couldn't find anything. Other than perhaps a 2 tb max which is a common limit for a lot of motherboard/OS combinations, does NT4 (SP6) have any specific limitation on hard drive size - specifically for IDE drives? I'm currently running a couple of NT4 servers (one on a P3 motherboard, another on a P4 motherboard), both currently have 80 gb drives, and I'm thinking of cloning them to 240 gb SSD and then using a small IDE-SATA adapter to run them off the SSD instead. So I'd be going from 80 gb to 240 gb in this case, which would cross the 137 gb LBA barrier.

The Soyo motherboard in question has a 2002 or 2003 bios and I'm sure there are no socket-478 P4 motherboards ever made that were not LBA-48 bit capable straight from their original factory V1 bios. I could have formatted the drive as a single volume (single primary partition) even booted directly into DOS, but if I wanted to test the ability to read and write to logical sectors far out beyond the 137 gb point I assume that by creating 4 volumes as I did that the volumes are assigned fixed sector positions (start and end) and thus writing directly to the last volume would have beyond the 137 gb point.

To recap: I have a few Soyo socket 478 motherboards with Intel 82801DB IDE controller. I have installed long ago the IAA which replaces ESDI_506.pdr with IntelVSD.VXD and IntelATA.MPD for the IDE drivers. I attached a 250 gb SATA drive using the small IDE-SATA adapter (the adapter plugged directly into the second IDE port on the motherboard) and from DOS (format + fdisk) I have formatted the drive into 4 volumes (65/65/65/44 gb). During POST startup the drive is detected and displayed properly by the bios in the secondary master IDE position. In Windows I have copied several hundred MB from my existing C drive to the last volume (44 gb) on the sata drive and these files seem to be ok. I am sure this would not have worked if I was using the original ESDI_506.pdr and maybe there are other alternatives to the 48 bit LBA problem when it comes to IDE drives, I've never attached to a win-98 system any IDE drives larger than 80 gb. For me it is somewhat rare to have any IDE drives larger than 80 gb but I do have some 320 gb IDE that I was using to build some XP systems 10 years ago (I still have 1 or 2 of those drives still sealed in mylar bag). But for some IDE controllers the IAA files seem to work ok (this is the first time I've ever tested them under these conditions of having >137 gb IDE drive).

I just tried Opera 12.02 and got different results the first time - it can't connect to bgp.he.net because of security protocol. I went in and enabled all protocals in opera and got the same error. I then renamed my hosts file (so no hosts file) and restarted Opera and it worked, and I could get info on IP's without getting the javascript message. I then restored my hosts file and restarted opera and it is still working so I don't know what's going on but I'm happy it's working again.

I bought a few of these small IDE - SATA boards on Ebay recently. They are bi-directional adapters and can be plugged directly into either a motherboard IDE connector (to provide a SATA port to connect to a SATA drive) or can be plugged into an IDE drive (to allow an IDE drive to be connected to a motherboard SATA connector). I know there are lots of IDE/SATA/USB adapters around - this board has no USB connectivity. I'm wondering about connecting a large SATA drive to an IDE port on Win-98 systems and the 137 GB problem. A system I'm thinking of trying this on has an Intel 82801DB Ultra ATA Storage controller and is using IntelVSD.VXD and IntelATA.MPD for the IDE drivers. I do not appear to be using ESDI_506.PDR. I recall that Intel made a set of drivers (Intel Application Accelerator?) way back for certain controllers and (I think) it had the side effect of not having the 137 gb problem (28 bit LBA vs 48 bit LBA). Anyways, I'm going to try a spare 250 gb SATA drive with one of these boards and see if I can read/write properly to the entire drive. I might split the drive into multiple 80 gb volumes and then make sure I can access each volume correctly. Other than that, I have some motherboards that don't have IDE ports where I run win-xp and 7 and have a bunch of old IDE drives to clean up and off-load files and this seems like a good way to connect these drives.

I was sort of expecting more activity in this thread, but a lot of the old timers must be gone. I was expecting someone to say something about what (if anything) is going on with the RLoew files (in general) or the sata drivers in particular - but nothing. Or is that happening in the special projects sub-forum? I've been experiencing problems (freeze-ups when accessing SATA drives) with my current setup and I'm exploring alternate solutions for connecting SATA drives to my primary Win-98 system. I have a bunch of SATA driver files scattered across various drives and might have to pull them all together and start experimenting again. I picked up a couple of 4-port SIL3514 boards (2-port SIL3112 boards are hard to find, even 2-port SIL3512 are hard to find) and will mess around with them at some point. I also have some small converter boards that I'll post about in my next post.

I used to stay on top of this but that was a while ago. I'd like to pick up a few PCI sata controller cards and was wondering which of these now have working win-98 drivers and which ones don't. I seem to recall that the only working controllers were the 2-port 3112 cards, not the 4-port cards and not the 351x cards, but maybe I'm wrong on that. And is there now a public-domain RLoew sata driver that works with these Sil controllers?

I obtained the above SST files and ran the updroots thing - got no messages after each command (so I assumed no errors). Does this take effect immediately or is a reboot required? Is there any sort of on-line test or check to see if these certs are working correctly?

Earlier in this thread someone posted a link to rzbrowser-tls12-20180504.7z. I had already downloaded and installed that package in Sept 2018 so I don't know if there's anything newer. I still use FF2 on my win-98 system and haven't really experienced any reduction in usefulness over the past year for the sites I visit. One thing that has been a downer for me is that I somewhat often use https: //bgp.he.net/ with Opera 12.02 and at some point a week or two ago that stopped working. I can bring that page up in FF2 but when I enter an IP to check I get a "this site requires javascript so please turn it on" message (and I'm pretty sure I have it turned on). If anyone can perform an IP lookup on bgp.he.net using any browser running on win-98 please tell me.

Looking at web searches it's clear that I'm not the only one that has or would want to continue to use ghost 2003 to clone their windoze 7 drives but from one of my above posts it's clear that starting with vista and certainly with 7 that there is something about the ntfs boot or disk structure that ghost 2003 (and even newer versions) don't seem to know about or replicate correctly. Ghost is not a sector-by-sector copier so it has to know about the logical structure of the file system it's dealing with when it clones drives. It would be nice to find some instructions on what *exactly* to do, with what tools (bootrec.exe, bcdboot, bcdedit, bootsect, startrep, or other, etc) once a ghost 2003 clone has been made. Maybe it's all here: https://www.veritas.com/content/support/en_US/article.100001014 or here: https://www.digitalcitizen.life/command-prompt-fix-issues-your-boot-records ? On a slight tangent, I've looked at the radified website to find something definitive about the max hard-drive size that ghost 2003 can handle. It seems that it can't clone a 2T drive. I find it odd that I can't find such a basic parameter like that in the ghost faq on that site. I wanted to create an account there to post a question about that, but I can't seem to find a way to create an account.

Well I put the clone drive (as the only drive) in a PC with a CD rom drive and booted a win-7 CD and selected the repair and it did something very quickly and then put the drive back into the target pc and it booted up just fine. I would like to know how to "fix" a drive like this in this state by slaving it to a working win-7 PC and performing what-ever system-level task or operation to the boot records or what-ever but I have not seen any such instructions on how to fix a drive like that under those conditions. Happy new year, by the way. It must be new year somewhere in the world by now.

Still reading your post, but just to comment: > Allow me to doubt that you had at any moment two partitions active, as this is - >besides not allowed - almost impossible to obtain with *any* "Normal" tool Ah, yes. I was wrong. Disk Management shows in real time that when using command line diskpart to mark partition 1 or 2 active that only 1 of them becomes active - the other one (if active) becomes non-active. So when the "system reserved" partition is Active, I get the first error in this thread upon boot (0XC000000e can't find required device). When the second (and only other) partition is marked active, I get the "bootmgr" is missing message. When this drive is slaved to active Win-7 system, system reserved becomes E drive and the other partition becomes F. E drive has bootmgr, bootsect.bak, $recyclebin (folder), Boot (folder), System volume information (folder). So I decide to copy bootmgr and Boot (folder) from E to F. I can copy the Boot folder, but when I try to copy the bootmgr file (which I'm told is 382 kb) I get the message "You'll need to provide administrator permissions to copy this folder - Local disk" ? So all of a sudden bootmgr becomes a folder? In any case, bootmgr and boot folder is present on "system reserved" partition, and that partition is marked active, and windows resides on the other partition and everything is there but something else must be wrong because the target system doesn't boot with this drive. Could the slaving of this drive to another PC have imposed drive lettering to these paritions that is screwing stuff up and must be removed? I still would like to know if bootrec.exe can be used to fix this, without having to somehow boot a win-7 install disk and mess around with recovery option.

I attached the clone drive via usb adapter to a running win-7 system and used drive management to set the second partition to active. The drive has 2 partitions, the first one being very small (100 mb) named "System Reserved". I put the clone back in the target PC and tried booting it again, this time I got the message "bootmgr was missing. Press cntrl alt delete" I did the USB thing again with the drive and now set the first partition to active as well. So they were both set as active. Put it back into the target and booted - still got the bootmgr message. Maybe only the first partition must be set active - not the second? How does win-7 deal with 2 active partitions on the boot drive? Putzing around the net I found this: "Bootmgr was introduced in Windows Vista which Microsoft released to the public on January 30, 2007. In previous versions of Windows, that's before Vista; a program referred to as NTLDR was the boot manager. This means that Windows XP users won't get the bootmgr is missing error. Bootmgr is essential for the boot sequence to begin; without it, the operating system will not load. In other words, if ‘Bootmgr is missing’ then your computer won't boot. In this post, we discuss how to fix ‘Windows Bootmgr is missing’ errors in Windows." https://www.ghacks.net/2017/05/02/fixing-bootmgr-is-missing-error-in-windows/ What I'm looking for now is a way to fix this boot mgr thing without having a win-7 CD handy but instead do it while the drive is attached to a running win-7 system via usb. Is this possible? I guess what I'm looking for is the equivalent to the dos "sys" command. It doesn't look like the "diskpart" command shell can do this? Maybe this will work? Windows USB/DVD Download Tool https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=56485 Seems that BootRec.exe would work the best, but I can't find the damn file anywhere! Ok, I've expanded winre.wim from the cloned drive and have a copy of that entire thing on my primary drive on the PC that the cloned drive is slaved to via USB. Looking at the commands for bootrec /fixmbr I don't know how to tell bootrec *which drive* to operate on... ?

I've cloned XP dozens of times back in the day, with Ghost 2003, and the clone always booted. I've rarely cloned a win-7 drive, but it seems that every time I do, the damn thing won't boot and I have to putz with a setup CD or drive tool of some sort to "fix it", but I never figure or am never told what the hell the problem was. An example error is: 0XC000000e The boot selection failed because a required device is inaccessible. Why isin't Ghost cloning this thing so that it's bootable? Is this a known thing for ghost 2003 or is there some ghost setting that I don't have right? What bit or what-ever on the drive is not flipped in the right direction to cause this?

This is what I've always used: [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\WindowsEmbedded\ProductVersion] "FeaturePackVersion"="SP3" [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\WPA\WEPOS] "Installed"=dword:00000000 [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\WPA\WES] "Installed"=dword:00000000 [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\WPA\PosReady] "Installed"=dword:00000001 I last used that a few days before the supposed end of the update support for XP (July?) while creating several new master XP installations for several motherboards and it worked fine. But in any case - can I get an answer to the question -> is WU still updating XP-POS systems?

A couple of days ago I was testing Klonezilla and used to to clone an XP master drive. The drive had SP3 but hadn't been powered up since october 2012. It was up-to-date at that time. I started the clone and was surprised to see, within a few minutes, the gold shield in the task bar telling me there were updates available. Seemed to be a few dozen updates, the last on the list being the XP end of life notification. I selected all except for the EOL notification and they downloaded and installed, and then no other updates were offered. I then ran my POS reg file (the one that creates 4 registry keys) and restarted several times but still no other updates were offered. I was thinking that maybe I'll re-clone the drive and then run the reg file before I let it try accessing the WU server. Or is what I'm seeing known behavior - that MS is no longer offering POS updates through WU?

Also mentioned here: Only 44 hits in all the interwebs for the quoted phrase "Target state is Absent. Client id: Deepclean." I see that I have a DeepClean.log in c:\windows\logs\CBS dated nov 16. It only contains entries dated Nov 16. These are the first few lines of that file: =========== 2019-11-16 20:06:21, Info DISM Service Pack Cleanup UI: PID=8432 Superseded Service Packs 0 - CScavengeCleanup::GetSpaceUsed 2019-11-16 20:06:35, Info CBS DC: Ensuring the online components hive is loaded to load maps... 2019-11-16 20:06:38, Info CBS DC: Clearing cache... 2019-11-16 20:06:38, Info CBS DC: Finding superseded packages... 2019-11-16 20:06:38, Info CBS Skipping: Microsoft-Windows-CodecPack-Basic-Package~31bf3856ad364e35~x86~~6.1.7601.17514 due to applicability ============ Would like to know what initiated or triggered that activity, based on what settings, and what the results are for future system stability / functionality. This install of windows was created using 7lite (or what-ever it's called) back in oct 2016 and had all known/good kb's rolled in and has not performed a windows-update check since then and has automatic updates disabled.

I'm flipping through my Win-7 event viewer and I see (as of Nov 16) a bunch of entries in the setup logs as follows: Initiating changes for package KB3087039. Current state is Installed. Target state is Absent. Client id: Deepclean. A reboot is necessary before package KB2532531 can be changed to the Absent state. There are dozens if not a hundred or so of each of those, with all sorts of KB numbers. What's going on here?

I'm putzing with a new Synology NAS and was wondering about NFS for XP. When it comes to SMB, XP is only capable of SMB-1 and no service pack seems to exist to give it SMB-2 capability. When it comes to NFS, there seems to be something called "Windows Services for UNIX" for which the MS links no long work and archive.org does not seem to have them. So I'm wondering if they would be on any MSDN or technet CD's. If this package exists on MSDN then I will likely have it, but I'd need to know which CD to look for. Any ideas? Anyone ever get NFS working on XP?

I'm getting this protocol error again: Firefox can't connect securely to (...).storage.googleapis.com because the site uses a security protocol which isin't enabled. This is with Roytam's 5/4/2018 firefox with DLL's copied from Retrozilla 2.2 (2/23/2019). As mentioned just above, I had seemingly fixed this error by copying all files from root of Retrozilla folder to the Firefox folder, copying over all DLL's with the same name. This allowed the content from the above URL to be displayed. Just this morning I'm seeing this same error again. I have no googleapis cookies, I've cleared the firefox cache, and my system time and date clock are correct. I can copy the link to the offending googleapis file (its a jpeg) to Opera 12.02 and it is rendered just fine. It is also rendered just fine on Netscape Navigator 9.0.0.6. With netscape 7.2, I first get a "website certified by unknown authority" which according to Details is Google Internet Authority G3. I can accept the certificate, which I do, and then I get this error: Netscape 7.2 and (...).storage.googleapis.com cannot communicate securely because they have no common encryption algorythms. Retrozilla 2.2 can display the image with no protocol issues. I had both Retrozilla 2.2 and Roytam firefox (with retrozilla DLL's) side-by-side while viewing https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/viewMyClient.html and they seem identical. Opera 12.02 has a much shorter list of Cipher Suites, but all the ones it is is showing are also showing on Firefox. But Opera is supporting "OCSP stapling" and Firefox is not (neither is retrozilla). Any ideas how to get to the bottom of this? Are security protocols and ciphers negotiated based on browser user-agent? Edit: And today, looking at the same website that has all these storage.googleapis jpg files on it's site, everything is working fine again. What is going on with this?