Radish
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Radish
-
-
9 hours ago, NoelC said:
I'm not affected by FUD and hype such as "OMG, if you don't update you'll be infected for sure".
Yes, this is so. The propaganda worked on me for a couple of years many years ago then I recognised it for what it was, a heap of sh*t.
9 hours ago, NoelC said:The social engineering that has brought us to this point and made us feel dependent on Mother Microsoft to keep trickling out fixes for vulnerabilities they originally built in is mind boggling.
Yup, mostly propaganda too. It's like they say about the paid-for anti-virus vendors, "If viruses didn't exist they'd be coding them themselves." I do often think that Microsoft are in the same position when it comes to updates - code in something naff somewhere then somewhere down the line release a 'fix'. Keep the masses thinking they need to be suckling at the teat - tripe!
Only thing about Microsoft that isn't propaganda is that they're after your data, and at that, big-time now! Strongest case for not updating I know of - to Hell with them! Punting Spyware Suites and calling them Operating Systems. Of course with Win10 you get the Suite even if you don't update. It's a malignant joke. "It's just telemetry." "'Telemetry', what!" They think our heads zip up the back.
1 -
To reply to my own question in case anyone has use for the information.
1) Made an image of the boot partition of the SSD - TRIM was enabled on this.
2) Using that image, restored it to the boot partition of an HDD.
3) Boot into the HDD and check TRIM setting - it was still enabled, so Win7 doesn't seem to auto-disable TRIM on an HDD.
4) Changed the TRIM setting on the HDD to disabled. HDD seemed to have survived all this fine.
5) In all, turns out safe to use an SSD image to restore to an HDD system. My computing-life just got very simplified by knowing that.All done!
(Interesting. This was the first time I'd used an HDD for about a year and half - have been exclusively using SSD system. Boy the experience really showed up just how slow an HDD is. Wow! And that's with a motherboard that is SATA 2, not SATA 3, so I don't get the full speed benefit of an SSD. Nonetheless, still Wow!)
0 -
Kind of puzzling over this today. What is an "Upvote" for? What is it meant to indicate?
Also what is a "Like" for? What is it meant to indicate?
And what is the difference between the two? How are users meant to use them?
1 -
Don't know the solution myself but found this post elsewhere that suggests a couple of ways of a potential fix that folks say worked for them:
https://superuser.com/questions/620238/could-not-find-this-item-every-time-when-renaming-moving-copying-win-7-expl/683995If it was me and I was going to edit the registry I'd save off any keys I was going to edit/delete before trying the registry hack. That way can get back to base if something goes wrong.
That said, if it was me, I'd try booting in Safe Mode and see if the problem still occurs while in Safe Mode. I think I'd try that before doing anything else.
Also found this. You need to read the whole thread. The fix mentioned there isn't discovered till Page 2:
https://www.sevenforums.com/general-discussion/81527-need-help-unable-rename-move-folders.htmlThe long and the short of what is being suggested there is that update KB980408 is the culprit. They do though propose a fix, see "HellGates" post.
0 -
Mmm . . . I'm kind of totally confused on that issue too I guess. I have so many problems with email notifications from this forum, which make it difficult to actually try and judge what is going on. Really should be 'Sticky' notice/thread somewhere that explains what is happening in this respect. Or even a statement at a user's profile 'Notifications Settings' -- probably the best place to put such a notice, no one can miss it that way.
Should add, got another email for your response directly above. Hope that holds up.
0 -
Well I just got an email informing me of your response in this thread, Dave. Yippee! Hopefully some fixer in the background has fixed things for me. Wait and see I suppose.
On the subject of only getting one email per-last-time-you-visited I'm not a big fan of that scheme. Keep things simple, you're subscribed to a thread send, an email on every post. There are enough options available in notifications to do otherwise. Or just make one email per-last-time-you-visited a yes/no option in it's own right.
Anyway I hope my issue on not getting emails at all is fixed now.
0 -
I'm in the same boat, no email notifications to threads that I follow. I've tried disabling notifications, saving that setting, then resetting it to allow notifications. Doesn't seem to be working for me. Is there anything that an admin at MSFN can do to help stop this happening?
0 -
Have another piece of interesting information on installing KB3033929 as follows:
Cutting a long story short I had occasion to go into Windows Event Viewer (never really go there) and look at some of the Windows logs in there. In the Application section I discovered masses of errors labelled CAP12, Event ID 4107. There were lots. The General (description) information for these events was:
QuoteFailed extract of third-party root list from auto update cab at: <http://www.download.windowsupdate.com/msdownload/update/v3/static/trustedr/en/authrootstl.cab> with error: A required certificate is not within its validity period when verifying against the current system clock or the timestamp in the signed file.
Unbeknowns to me, these errors were occurring from the time I had fresh installed Win7 Pro. SP1 up to early this month (September), then they just stopped happening. Kind of scratching my head over that so looking for a solution to the puzzle had a look at the Setup log and lo and behold the 4107 errors stopped after I had installed KB3033929. So it would seem that (again) the 4107 errors were being generated because Win7 Pro. SP1, with no other updates installed, couldn't read the certificate properly, because it lacked the capacity to manage SHA-256 hashes, and then misreported what the error was via the 4107 error description. I'm kind of guessing this but it seems to me it very much looks that way.
Different subject, but for what it's worth for folks trying to run Win 7 SP1 without updating it unless essential. In the Application logs I also found lots of errors labelled WMI, Event ID 10. They had the General description:
QuoteEvent filter with query "SELECT * FROM __InstanceModificationEvent WITHIN 60 WHERE TargetInstance ISA "Win32_Processor" AND TargetInstance.LoadPercentage > 99" could not be reactivated in namespace "//./root/CIMV2" because of error 0x80041003. Events cannot be delivered through this filter until the problem is corrected.
After a bit of research found this webpage: Event ID 10 is logged in the Application log after you install Service Pack 1 for Windows 7
Seems this is common problem for some installs of Win 7 SP1. I created and ran the script mentioned on that webpage and the errors were no longer generated on every boot into Windows. So I thought this might be useful information to post into this thread.
As a result of finding all this out I've now become converted to at least viewing what is going on in Event Viewer logs and have even setup, via Event Viewer, Scheduled Tasks to automatically inform if any of these errors recur (not that I'm expecting them to, they pretty well seem fixed).
Hope this helps.
0 -
Thanks very much for the responses. I'll take that it is safe enough to try my experiment and see how restoring a HDD boot partition from an SSD boot partition image goes. Didn't want to do it without at least trying to find out if the system would trash the HDD in some way on first attempted boot-up because TRIM was enabled. Searched the web for this information, nowhere to be found.
0 -
I'm kind of at an in-between stage in that I have my day to day working system, Win7 x64 SP1, installed to a SSD. However, I have a backup Win7 x64 SP1 system installed to a HDD. My thinking is that if the SSD ever goes bang! then I can just switch to the old HDD and be up and running again very quickly. I have been making separate boot partition images of these systems for restore purposes if I corrupt them. However, as I update the working system, which is on SSD, then I've been manually replicating that on the HDD. This means that (so far) I have been keeping two sets of separate image files. One image for the SSD, the other image for the HDD. Today I was looking at my notes for the SSD system and thinking that that system would work just as well on a HDD -- so I could eliminate keeping two sets of images for systems that are in essence the same system. I would also be freed of replicating the SSD system over onto the HDD. The only flaw I can see in this is that the for the SSD system I need TRIM enabled. So now I'm wondering if enabling TRIM on a HDD system would cause any problems for that system? Or would the HDD operate just fine even with TRIM enabled?
I'm even wondering, if I restored the system on the HDD from an image of the SSD system would Windows 7 immediately recognise that TRIM isn't necessary on the HDD and, hence, automatically disable it on first boot into the HDD system?
0 -
Big thank you from me too, erpdude8. Will follow your advice. (Have now put a correction in my original post on this matter.) Thanks again.
(Now I have to try work out why I don't receive email updates to new posts in this thread. Argh!!!!!!)
0 -
Well, I'm going to, not so much "eat my hat" but at least have a little nibble at its edges. I just came across a situation in which in the space of a few days I tried installing and using two new programs and Win7 SP1 told me that the drivers the programs were trying to install weren't digitally signed -- so Win7 wasn't going to let the programs install them. I went off and did some research and found out that the drivers the programs were trying to install were signed but using SHA-256 signatures. And, it seems, Win7 x86/x64 at SP1 level, and with no other updates installed, can't read the signatures.
Cutting a long story short the solution was install the following updates (and in the following order):
KB3035131 (download can be accessed via here) https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/security-updates/SecurityBulletins/2015/ms15-025
KB3033929 (download can be accessed via here): https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/security-updates/SecurityAdvisories/2015/3033929So, Taos, or anyone else that is reading/following this thread and trying not to update their Win7 SP1 system unless really necessary, it would seem that these two updates are moving into the necessary stage as more and more software developers will move towards digital signing using SHA-256. So, going by my experience, I'd recommend installing those two.
Now I'm thinking that it would be a useful addition to this "Windows 7" section of the forum if there was a kind of 'sticky' thread where people using Win7 SP1 that are trying to avoid updating it, if possible, could post information on updates that, over time, they've found are necessary but that avoid Microsoft spyware and other suspect stuff. Of course, don't just say, "Install KBxxxxxxx," say why it's pretty well essential to do so too.
Hope this helps.
Important Edit: erpdude8 has posted a correction to this post (see erpdude8's post below). Do not install KB3035131 -- it is obsolete. Instead install KB3071756 -- again see erpdude8's comments below with a link to the update.
1 -
Ops!
Sorry, jaclaz. Getting older and bit befuddled now and then. Link is in the post now.
0 -
Thanks for the responses.
Apart from my own musings on this I found this webpage on the advisability/inadvisability of partitioning an SSD. There is one poster there, "Community", that writes quite extensively on how SSDs deal with data on the SSD. (Community's post starts with the first paragraph, "SSDs do not, I repeat, do NOT work at the filesystem level!") Reading it blew all my own thoughts on how SSDs must work out of the water -- if he is right. Problem is I don't have the technical expertise to decide if he is right or wrong. Very interesting read though.
If Community is right then, by my reading, on an SSD you can partition as freely as you please or not partition as freely as you please; it makes no difference how the SSD handles wear levelling. I was just wondering if any folks on this forum had any thoughts on this.
0 -
I have a SSD. When I got it I partitioned using the same scheme I had used with HDDs for years - six partitions in total. Last night I was looking at my actual use of each partition and what I find is that I've got one partition that is close to chock-full but most of the other partitions have lots of free space. Then I got to thinking that I could better use the SSD if I just had a very small number of partitions and the one massive partition for general use. Then I thought that doing that might be better for the SSD in the sense that there is more free-space on a giant partition for what gets called "wear levelling" functions. This seemed to me a reasonable thought as to why partitions on a SSD should be kept to a minimum. Thinking about that I thought that the only partitions that I really need are:
C:\ - for the OS
D:\ - for my own documents, sheer paranoia leads the way here, I never want that partition corrupted by anything else
E:\ - one massive partition for everything else.Is this a good thing to do? Are partitions on SSDs really necessary? How does free space on SSD partitions fit into this equation? Does wear levelling of partition x occur only in the free space of partition x? Or would the SSD use all the free space across all partitions for wear levelling of partition x?
I'm just hoping to get the thoughts of others with more expertise than I have with this post. In that way I might be able to work out if I really need all the partitions I currently have.
0 -
Got the card. Fitted fine. Installed drivers from the packaged CD -- d*** wouldn't work. Went to the website, downloaded and installed latest drivers -- started to work fine.
I just backed up all my data partitions using my new USB3 ports and considerably faster than using USB2. Happy now. Thanks for the help.
0 -
It's okay, I posted my question on Amazon and the card manufacturers responded that the card is suitable for my motherboard.
0 -
Glenn9999,
If you want to alter the Windows Update settings (and can't) then it might be because (by whatever means) the settings regarding Windows Updates in Group Policy (settings) [gpedit.msc] have been altered.
I'm suggesting this because on my system I went into Group Policy and made settings in there that makes it impossible for my system to do MS updates. This means that if I use my a Control Panel Windows Update interface I can't alter the current settings from there, they are locked because of the Group Policy settings -- to alter the Windows Update settings would require going back into Group Policy and altering in there. Maybe worth a check on your own system.
0 -
Hi,
My computer has this motherboard: GIGABYTE GA-H61M-DS2 DVI (rev. 1.0)
This is the specification page for that motherboard: GIGABYTE GA-H61M-DS2 DVI (rev. 1.0) - SpecificationsIn the specifications Expansion Slots section it says this motherboard has,
Quote1 x PCI Express x16 slot, running at x16
(The PCI Express x16 slot conforms to PCI Express 3.0 standard.)I am thinking of purchasing this PCI Express card: Inateck 2-Port PCI-E USB 3.0 Express Card, Mini PCI-E USB 3.0 Hub Controller Adapter, with Internal USB 3.0 20-PIN Connector
Can someone please tell me if this USB 3.0 card is suitable for, compatible with, my motherboard?
0 -
Hi toas,
I'm mildly chuckling (in a good way) at what you are letting yourself be dragged into as this thread progresses. You start off just wondering if installing Win7 SP1 is okay. Then you fire yourself into a process of trying different options to see if you can update the 'good' stuff and miss the bad stuff. Not the best way to go in my opinion. I have installed Win7 Pro. x64 SP1 on my computer and, after, now, several years of use, have never had a problem with it -- rock-solid stable. I have Win Updates blocked at a couple of points on the system, so this is never going to update, ever. Of course your system will be different from mine so that might not work for you. But if it was me I'd just try try the bare install of Win7 with SP1, see if it is okay, and don't tie myself in knots trying to work around a problem that doesn't exist for my machine.
On 7/13/2018 at 8:03 PM, taos said:The lack of user-control and transparency with the MS update process really annoys me. From reading at the RyanVM & MDL sites, it seems that, in order to gain control over the update process, one must waste a good amount of valuable time identifying good and bad updates, and downloading 3rd party tools.
Yup, this is what I avoid!
On 7/13/2018 at 8:03 PM, taos said:Looking at the wider picture I think what worries me more than hackers is MS. They’re the menace. They’re the ones who are actively taking away user control . . .
Yup, too! Don't dance with the Devil unless you are utterly, utterly pressed into it.
All the above said, having read this thread I do like the advice you are getting from others about how to update 'safely'. I've bookmarked this thread for my own use in case I ever need it in the future. But I'd never do it unless completely pressed to it.
1 -
31 minutes ago, dencorso said:
Just as a test, change the mouse for another one.
Hi, dencorso,
This isn't necessary the information that Yellow Horror give was definitely the cause of what was happening - that and that I had a Windows setting made that allowed internet activity to wake the computer once it had gone to sleep (as detailed in posts above). Basically, I had one router, a Virgin Media Super Hub 2, connected to the computer in modem only mode. Seems that when this is done then, as Yellow Horror correctly identified, the router only acts as a bridge and hence has no firewalling functionality (in that mode) and hence my computer was exposed to all internet activity aimed at it and that was what was waking the computer from sleep. If I then connected another router between the Super Hub and the computer the waking from sleep problem disappeared -- the second router was now providing firewalling functionality. Hence, the problem was using only the Super Hub in modem only mode which was exposing my computer to all internet activity aimed at my machine and that was what was waking it up.
Thanks for the thought though.
1 -
Just changed ISP. Tried TOR and got the same results I already noted in my posts above. Only way to get into the TOR network is via a meek-bridge. So, it seems, TOR is being blocked nation-wide by ISPs in the UK. They sure don't tell you that when you sign up. It's not even in the fine-print.
0 -
19 hours ago, leo321 said:
IF disconnecting the network interfaces don't work, it had to be a malware infection.
Leo, my computer is clean, no problems. I just followed Yellow Horror's advice and things all checked out fine. Computer sleeps okay now and no unexpected wake-ups of any kind. But thanks for the thought.
17 hours ago, HarryTri said:In this case you should install Update 1 (it has no telemetry and it corrects a bunch of Windows 8.1 bugs).
Thanks for mentioning that Harry, keeping me straight on things. The installer ISO for Win 8.1 that I have has Update 1 integrated. So create an install DVD from the ISO and the installer already gets me to Update 1 level. That is what I meant by a "bog standard" install of Win 8.1 -- for me that would automatically be to Update 1 level. To be honest I didn't know that Update 1 fixed "a bunch of bugs" -- so you are correct I was ignorant of that. The ISO I have was an official Microsoft release, checked fine against Microsoft MSDN's own hashes for the ISO at the time I downloaded it, so no problems there.
All above said my current computer will likely last me a long time -- and I'm starting to get on in years so it might outlive me. Have Win7 Pro. x64 SP1 installed, no updates, and runs with no problems at all, has done so for a couple of years, solidly stable. If push comes to shove and I ever do have to change OS I might just give Win8.1 a pass, (had it installed for a while, didn't like it, went back to Win7) and go for Linux Mint, which I ran for a couple of years. Pretty good it was too. Only thing that pushed me back to Windows was the need to use MS Office for work and the lack of a Linux DVD burner that could in any way reliably burn multi-session DVD's. So was dual-booting (which I didn't like doing, pest) between two OSes just to deal with those two factors. If it wasn't for those factors I'd still be on Mint. As it stands now I very, very rarely want to burn multi-session DVD's, so that factor isn't as important to me as it was, and the necessity for MS Office will evaporate for me within the next two years, yippee!
0 -
Many thanks, Yellow. You are a mine of good inf.
0
Update Win 7, or Not ?
in Windows 7
Posted
erpdude8, that article ends with the paragraph:
Which to me seems presumptuous with its, "everyone would have to upgrade to Windows 10", why 'have to'? aren't there other options?, and Win10 is a downgrade, and "It's just a matter of time anyway."
If ever I'm forced off Win7 then I've got Win8.1 as my next OS, for a while. If I ever get pushed off that then I'll go back to Linux Mint and to hell with Microsoft. I would never in a million years install Win10 or any upstream derivatives thereof.
Of course there is the outlier of ReactOS but when, if ever, that will be stable and usable is anyone's guess at this point in time. But if the drip, drip, drip of its development continues then eventually it will fill the tub.