Jump to content

Radish

Member
  • Posts

    150
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1
  • Donations

    0.00 USD 
  • Country

    United Kingdom

Everything posted by Radish

  1. Done. No problems. Scanned. No problems. And, yes, I'll now never have the Super Hub in modem mode directly connect to my computer. I'll just leave it connected to the Archer, which I want to keep using anyway as the Wi-Fi performance is better than the Super Hub. Thanks again.
  2. Okay, Yellow, thanks very much for the clarification. However, I'd think that Virgin Media wouldn't be blocking Tor without pressure from the "authorities". (Could be wrong in that but I doubt it.) Whatever the case, though, do you, or anyone else, know if there is any inherent security risk to the Tor user by having to use meek-bridges?
  3. As said before, if I just launch Tor (Browser) and try to get it to connect via its standard means (without using a meek-bridge) I get an error message of the following type every time: "Tor failed to establish a Tor Network connection. Connecting to the Tor network failed (insufficient resources - 167.114.35.107.443)." (The IP address can be different but the error message is always the same.) If I try to connect to Tor network using the "obfuscation" means available I get the following results: obfs4 > "Establishing an encrypted directory connection" > (leave it trying to connect for a few minutes and the result is: nothing happens, cant establish a connection, Tor Browser doesn't open.) obfs3 > Establishing an encrypted directory connection > (Result: same as for obfs4) fte > Establishing an encrypted directory connection > (Result: same as for obfs4) It's not any area I have expertise in but my reading these results are saying that Tor (Browser) can't connect to the Tor network at all (unless I use a "meek-bridge"). If that is correct reasoning then, at least for me, something is deliberately preventing a connection to the Tor network. I would think "authorities" and my ISP would be involved in the blocking of Tor. Also this is happening before the Tor browser opens -- in fact there as complete failure of the browser to open. I just wonder if this UK-wide (or as Pointertovoid is suggesting Europe-wide) or is it, shock horror, only me!
  4. Was your PS network cable connected to Archer or to Super Hub at the time? Hi, Yellow. I take that you meant "PC" and not "PS" (I'm not sure what "PS" stands for). The Super Hub was in modem only mode (and, obviously, connected to the VM cable wall socket where the physical internet fibre optic connection cable comes into my house) then I had an Ethernet cable from the Super Hub to the Archer and then another Ethernet cable from the Archer to the computer. So, basically, both routers were in operation, connected together, and providing the internet connection. (The Archer is what I think is called and ADSL2+ modem router and is, as far as I understand it, physically incapable of being directly connected to a fibre optic cable internet connection and provide an internet connection via that means. If I'm wrong about that I'd be grateful if you would let me know.) Given the struggles I was having in trying to connect the two routers together and get an internet connection I emailed TP-Link and asked for a couple of hints on how to do this. They responded that to get them working together the Super Hub must be on modem mode and the Archer must be on WI-FI router mode (i.e. not also operating as a modem). There were a couple of other hints on how to do essential configuration that had to be made in the Archer's settings to get the two routers to work together with a VM internet connection. Above said, I was mulling over this last night: why the computer could go into sleep and stay that way with the two routers connected together? Then it occurred to me that it is most likely that the Super Hub was still "under attack" but that the (connected to the Super Hub) Archer was rejecting the "random" internet network traffic being sent to it from the Super Hub (assuming that the Super Hub was passing that traffic to the Archer). Does that sound about right to you? Or could there be other reasons? Yes, that information is correct. In modem only mode there is only one Ethernet port functional on the Super Hub. That is the port that is lowest down (closest to the base) of the Super Hub when the Super Hub is standing upright (the other Ethernet ports are disabled). In the Super Hub browser interface that allows configuring of the Super Hub in modem only mode it says, "When active, Modem Mode disables the wireless and routing functions of your Super Hub so you can use your own wireless router." So when connected the Super Hub in modem mode to the Archer you have to (a) connect the only active Ethernet port on the Super Hub to the Archer's "LAN4/WAN" port, then (b) you connect the Archer to the computer via any other available Ethernet port on the Archer. But here is the catch I discovered purely by accident to doing this. I had struggled for a day and half to try to get this to work and it just wouldn't work so I decided to check (again! for the four-hundredth time!) that I had the two routers connected via the correct Ethernet ports. I checked the Super Hub it was fine. Then I unplugged both the Ethernet cables at the back of the Archer and plugged it together again to make sure I had them in the correct ports (I did) and suddenly, for no reason that was immediately obvious to me, the internet connection started working (whereas it had never worked before). So what was the difference this time round? The difference was in the order in which I connected the Ethernet cables to the Archer. Seems that you need to first connect the computer to any of the Archer's LAN(n) ports and only after that has been done do you connect the cable from the Super Hub to the Archer's LAN4/WAN port. (You do this with both routers powered on at the time.) Thinking about that, after the internet connection was suddenly working, I thought that this was odd that it had to be done in that order, but I thought, as that seemed to be the case, this was probably a problem with some part Windows 7 rather than the two routers. If you have any comments to make on this I would be grateful for them. I don't understand why this should be so. Yes! Now I understand what you are writing, Yellow. Yes that sounds like exactly what is happening. I'll now have to do some research on what "bridge mode" means in a little more detail. Yes, I think I'm beginning to understand this a bit better now. Thanks for the comment. As to Windows 7 I only use default fresh install of it (though I tweak that a lot, of course), have never updated it and never will -- I don't want Windows 10, or any of its associated components, rammed down my throat by Microsoft. If ever I change my computer it'll be a bog standard install of Windows 8.1 (and no updates) or Linux, never ever would I accept a computer that was Windows 10. Thanks again for your responses, Yellow. Much appreciated, I've learnt quite a bit through this. And discovered, by accident, how to successfully connect a Super Hub to an Archer and get it to actually work!
  5. Yes, I live in the hell-hole that is known as the UK and TOR connections by straightforward means -- launch TOR browser and off you go -- stopped working for me about a year and a half ago. I'm no expert in the area, just took it that UK "authorities" were now onto it and blocking it somehow, naturally I would suspect this would require the in secret co-operation of your ISP. Eventually I found out that I could try using the "obfuscation" methods built into TOR to try and make connection into TOR relays. None of them worked for me. Then I tried using the built-in "meek-bridges" -- they worked. So whoever is doing the blocking is, for now, unable to do so for the meek-bridges, or they are holding off on doing so for some reason. That said, the latest version of TOR (TOR Browser v7.5.5) has removed meek-amazon owing to some bug. So, for now, only meek-azure option is available for me. Funny TOR flags their meek bridges as "(works in China)". Yeah, right! I live in the land of the "free" UK and I have to use it too! What! In all, Pointertovoid, I think your suspicion that European authorities are working on blocking TOR fully are well founded. It was an object lesson to me in distrust of my local "authorities" when in TOR browser I had to tick, "Tor is censored in my country." Big lesson learnt there! I wonder what it is they after though? Just don't like folks being able to browse in private? Or are they really after shutting-down the dark-net? Or both of these things, of course. Whatever the case, I'm sure there is more of this kind of sh** in the pipeline. Dark days for internet freedom are developing fast now and a lot of it being "legitimated" by governments under the guise of "anti-terrorism" protections for its own citizens. Aye, right! No kidding!
  6. Thank you so much, Yellow, for your very helpful tips and comments. Hugely appreciated. I went into the BIOS and looked for a "Wake on LAN" setting, no such setting to be found. Then I searched the web for any help on this and came across this webpage: What Is Wake-on-LAN, and How Do I Enable It? Once I read that back into the BIOS and look for anything in the form of “Power on by PCIE/PCI”. No such setting exists in my computer's BIOS. Then, again from that webpage, I looked at these settings in Windows 7: So that solved my immediate problem with the computer waking out of sleep. However, I have a question regarding this when you say: Could you clarify that a little for me (I'm quite ignorant on these matters)? Are you saying that there are random attempted internet connections trying to get into my computer in "modem only mode"? Or are you suggesting that someone must be deliberately trying to hack into my computer? I mean I'm not clear on what you mean when you say, "exposes your PC for unwanted network activity from the internet". What does that mean? What could the "unwanted network activity" be? Also with respect to this, the reason why I'm putting my Virgin Media (VM) Super Hub 2 router into modem only mode is that I intend to cancel my VM fibre connection (too expensive for me now) and replace it with an ADSL (down an phone line) internet connection (cheaper but slower). In preparation for that I got an TP-Link Archer VR2800 modem router. So I was putting my VM modem router into modem only mode so that I could connect the Archer to it and test that the Archer was working okay. I spent most of yesterday night and most of today trying to connect them together and get them to work and in the end I actually managed to get it to work. Yippee! But here is the curious thing for me. Once I had them connected, and having my network adapter enabled for "Allow this device to wake the computer" but disabled for "Only allow a magic packet to wake the computer", I found that my computer wasn't waking unexpectedly from sleep. I don't understand how this can be, given that my VM router is still set to modem only mode -- and hence was still effectively providing the internet connection -- but now it wasn't resulting in the computer waking from sleep. Would you know of any reason why this should be? P.S. With respect to a manual for the VM Modem Router I could only find a "Setup" manual which is of no use at all as it doesn't provide any detail on the router settings, just how to get the thing working and no more. Not that it matters much to me now, next month and I won't be using it at all.
  7. Doh! Thanks for the memory jogger. Yesterday I changed my router mode to "modem only". I just tested by going back to full "modem and wireless mode" (which is what I've always had it on since I got the router years ago) and the computer was able to sleep again. However, now I'm wondering what is it about "modem only mode" that is making it impossible for my computer to sleep? The router is a Virgin Media Super Hub 2 Router. I don't know anything about routers and networking so if anyone can tell me what is going on with this I'd be very grateful. And if someone could tell me how to get this router into "modem only mode" and still get my computer to sleep I'd be even more grateful still.
  8. Been using my computer for years now and frequently put it into sleep mode. Never had any problems with this in the past. Then, suddenly, yesterday, this stopped working properly. Now if I put the computer to sleep it only sleeps for about 20-30 seconds then it wakes up again. d***! I use sleep a lot. How do I fix this?
  9. Thanks very much TELVM. I already had AS SSD Benchmark installer on the system but when I launched it it said it needed .NET 4.x installed. To hell with that for a laugh - I really don't want Microsoft's sub-operating system on my computer. People that write programs that have a multi-gigabyte dependency (other than the OS itself) are surely joking. Also the link you gave to Samsung Magician offered the download of an installer that I already have on the system and have installed. This is "Samsung New Magician" (as they refer to it in documentation) v5.0.0. Its the kind of software that is only one step beyond being entirely useless. None of the functions you refer to actually exist in it. I read somewhere in the last couple of days (can't find the webpage again) that this "New Magician" is a cut-back version of what actually existed in 4.x series. Cut-back it most surely is. A dog it is too. When I first launched it it reported my SSD as being "not supported" which was a puzzle to me. Then I subsequently discovered that I had to give it permission to pass through my firewall so that it could connect to the internet. Once it did that it then reported the drive as being supported. Really! Is that any way to write a program! What are they wanting with the compulsory connect to the internet routine! On the strength of seeing your illustration I managed to find, at a non-Samsung site, and install Samsung Magician v4.9.7 - so I have something that looks like the version you have. As you mention it does have useful features. My interest in TRIM-ing really concerns imaging off the boot partition. I was thinking that maybe if the partition wasn't TRIMed before doing the image then the image might be forced into including a load of redundant junk. I don't know if that is the case or not, it was just a thought I had. In any case now I have "Old Magician" that can force a TRIM so I'll stick with that for now. Last thought is that it strikes me as bizarre that Samsung doesn't include in the Magician a component that works out and reports if the partitions are correctly aligned. And if they aren't correctly aligned that has the functionality to align correctly. How can they write SSD managing software and not include that, what are they thinking about. My guess would be that an incorrectly aligned SSD wears that bit faster and that is good for the money-tree. Ah, well... Thanks again! (Despite my griping I am very pleased with the drive. Just hope it lasts a long-ish time.)
  10. Thanks very much jaclaz. I'll go with your option "1)" and the explanatory note on Win7 inherently aligning to 4096 bytes. Another question occurs to me though. When does the SSD do TRIM-ing? When the system is in sleep mode? While the system isn't being used heavily (e.g. just typing a letter or reading a webpage etc.)?
  11. Well I got the SSD installed and Win7 installed to it. Did some of the tweaks for lower writes that are kicking around on the web but not a lot as some seem to me to look a bit experimental. I'll try some of the ones I left out after I get the boot partition imaged off. However, I have run into the following "problem" (don't rightly know if is a problem or not). I have 3 Primary partitions on the SSD and 3 Logical Volumes in the Extended partition. When I go to check the alignment of the partitions via msinfo32.exe I get the following information and results (basically the partitions that I can check for alignment are fine): Partition Disk #0, Partition #0 (This is C: Partition - Primary) Partition Size 50.00 GB (53,687,091,200 bytes) Partition Starting Offset 1,048,576 bytes (/ 4096 = 256) - FINE Partition Disk #0, Partition #1 (This is D: Partition - Primary) Partition Size 20.00 GB (21,474,836,480 bytes) Partition Starting Offset 53,688,139,776 bytes (/ 4096 = 13,107,456) - FINE Partition Disk #0, Partition #2 (This is E: Partition - Primary) Partition Size 20.00 GB (21,474,836,480 bytes) Partition Starting Offset 75,162,976,256 bytes (/ 4096 = 18,350,336) - FINE Partition Disk #0, Partition #3 (This seems to be the entire Extended Partition and there is no information at all given for the Logical Volumes within the Extended Partition.) Partition Size 142.88 GB (153,420,300,288 bytes) Partition Starting Offset 96,637,812,736 bytes (/ 4096 = 23,593,216) - FINE So it seems that what partitions I can check are correctly aligned. But what about the three Logical Volumes I have in the Extended Partition? How do I check them for correct alignment? (I assume they are probably okay because the others are checking out fine, but how do I know?) Msinfo32.exe doesn't provide any "offset" information on them at all that allows the check to be done.
  12. Might try something like that in the future, just for the fun. ACHI I already checked BIOS yesterday - all fine. Thanks for the mention though.
  13. Thanks very much for the inf. Don't use Spotify so not a concern for me. Do use Firefox. For years I've always set it to write its "Cache2" data into a ramdisk - that can literally be several thousands of small files on a daily basis. Likewise I always launch Firefox via a batch file that forces it to write any data it would normally write to TEMP and TMP folders (on the SSD/HD) into the ramdisk. Instructions to write Cache2 to ramdisk (where ramdisk is drive letter W:): Go about:config and search for the entry browser.cache.disk.parent_directory (if setting does not exist then create it as a new 'string') then enter the path where Firefox will create the cache folder W:\\ FIREFOX\\ (needs double back-slash not single). It is possible via Firefox config settings to write the cache stuff into memory anyway (thus by-passing the need for a ramdisk) but my tests for that method showed that if doing it that way it still writes a small amount of stuff to the HD - so I prefer to use a ramdisk. This page explains how to do this: https://thetechjournal.com/how-to/tutorial-how-to-move-your-mozilla-firefox-cache-memory.xhtml The batch for forcing Firefox temp/tmp files to ramdisk (I use this launch method for several programs, works well): set TEMP=W:\TEMP set TMP=W:\TMP start "" "C:\Program Files (x86)\INTERNET\FIREFOX\firefox.exe" exit To get a really good freeware ramdisk: http://www.majorgeeks.com/files/details/softperfect_ram_disk.html I did look at the article your second link points to which was interesting as I didn't know of that setting in Firefox. I later found out it might be possible to completely turn off this "session restore" feature of Firefox. Details here: http://portableapps.com/support/firefox_portable#performance Thanks again. I can see now that setting up this SSD is going to take me a couple of days with tweaking and recording what I did. Ah, well...
  14. Thanks again for the responses, things are getting a bit clear now and at least I have a minimal basic understanding of how this SSD thing and its controller function. Glad to find out that free space of a partition is pretty well seen by the SSD controller as counting towards the over provisioning total. This means I can just set up my partitions as I would normally do on a HD. Get the SSD tomorrow so looking forward to installing it and Win 7 to it. Hoping the improvement in speed is as much as it is hyped up to be. Thanks again.
  15. Okay, jaclaz, thank you. Seems like I'll have to completely rethink the way I view HDs though my "suspicions" on how an SSD is managed seem to be in accord with the information you provided. I'm still though wondering about what is the relationship on an SSD between "free space (notionally shown as being) within a partition", "unallocated space", "over provisioning" and "wear levelling". Is free space within a partition also seen by an SSD as being unallocated space and hence used by the SSD to help with wear levelling? (Rather like if free space in a partition is seen by the SSD as over provisioning space.) Also how is the page file managed on an SSD? Going by what you are saying my view that there might be multiple forced writes to the same "cells" isn't what happens in practice.
  16. Thanks very much for the responses, much appreciated. EVO it is then, happy that is solved. On the issue of partitioning and over provisioning I'm a little confused over this. When I partition the SSD I'll just use the sizes I currently have on my HD (with the exception of the last partition which will have to be smaller as the SSD is smaller than my HD). So the partitions on the SSD will all have in excess of 60% free space (with the exception of the last partition). Now, linking that free space within a partition to the notion of Over Provisioning (OP) is the free space within partitions also used to aid wear levelling? I.e. the free space within partitions is also counted as OP. If that is the case then I don't really need to consider providing unallocated (unpartitioned) free space to help with the longevity of the SSD. If that isn't the case then would it be better for me to reduce the size of the partitions (so that each partition has less free space) and just used the amount of partition free space "saved" as unallocated (unpartitioned) free space? (I hope this is making sense.) I guess what I'm getting at is what is the relationship between partition free space, OP and wear levelling? Lastly, with respect to the boot partition and the page file, how does the page file work on an SSD? I'm thinking that on a HD data written into the page file is always written into a specifically allocated area on the HD. However, as far as my understanding goes, this would be a disaster on an SSD because it means multiple (forced?) writes to the same "cells" on the SSD. So does an SSD manage the page file differently from the way it is managed on a HD? Or maybe I should be asking does Win 7 manage the page file differently on an SSD?
  17. I've decided to take the plunge and try a SSD - which will be a new experience for me. I'll be installing a Win 7 OS to it and from what reading I've done it seems that the Win 7 installer can natively and automatically manage doing the "alignment" of the SDD correctly - good 'cause I'm not very techy. I've done some basic reading on this and then went to Amazon to see what was on offer. I decided that one of the following 3 SSDs looks like it might be for me (they are all around the 250GB mark in size): Samsung 850 EVO 250 GB 2.5 inch Solid State Drive Integral 240 GB V Series V2 Solid State Drive ADATA SU800 256GB 3D-NAND 200TB TBW Long-Endurance 560MB/s Read and 520MB/s Write High Speed 2.5 Inch SATA III Solid State Drive (ASU800SS-256GT-C) I'm wondering if anyone could comment on which of these drives looks like it would be the best purchase? My own guess would be that the Adata one looks best but I have never before heard of Adata - so wondering if they are a reliable manufacturer or not. Also, I am thinking of partitioning the SSD to split the OS partition off from other partitions which I would want to use for portable programs (quite a lot - most of the software I use now is portable editions) and data partitions. I've looked around and it seems opinion is divided on whether or not SSDs should or should not be partitioned. Any comments from experience on this would be appreciated. Lastly, if I do partition the SSD could someone comment on the following point. My understanding is that to reduce wear for any particular "cell" of an SSD that the SSD will write new data to a less used (or entirely unused) "cell" - in this way, over time, the overall "wear" on "cells" is spread out fairly evenly across the entire SSD. However, if I partition the SSD into multiple partitions does this mean that this cell wear can't be evened out as much as it could be if the entire SSD was just a single partition? I mean, if the SSD was a single partition then it has access to all cells on the SSD to even out wear. But, if the SSD is multiple partitions then does this mean that the SSD can only even out wear by only using the available cells within any given partition? Or does a multiple partition SSD still use all of the SSD to even out cell wear? By that I guess my thinking is that the partitioning of an SSD might be more "virtual" than real. On a HD the partitions are physically discrete parts of the HD. But on an SSD that might not be the case. On an SSD it might be possible to just say "partition" x is just a storage allocation size of, let's say, 50.00GB but that 50.00GB needn't be arranged as 50.00GB of "contiguous cell space" allocated to the "partition" - the cells that constitute that 50.00GB allocation size could (notionally) be anywhere in the matrix of the total number of cells available on the SSD. If that notion of mine is correct then that might mean that even if the SSD is "partitioned" into multiple "partitions" then the SSD still retains the capacity to even out wear by utilising all the available cells on the SSD. (I hope my meaning is making sense here.) If anyone knows which of these methods is used on SSDs for "partitions" and evening out wear I would be grateful for the information.
  18. This thread has at times been depressing, sometimes humorous and occasionally outright hilarious. For me the standout post so far has been xpclient's amazingly, outstandingly brilliant rant. Had me in stitches but God I could see the good reason in it. For me 10 was a sheer non-starter right from the get-go. But I was always wondering if I should upgrade from Win7 to Win8.1. Then in xpclient's post there was this: Amazing, he just sold me 8.1. I got it in a VM now and managed to find instructions on how to get rid of the God-awful "ribbon" UI in Explorer - so that is it for me. 8.1 it is. Thank you for your well expressed insight xpclient! That said, once I get it installed I still won't let the bugger connect to Microsoft Updates! Or Microsoft anything for that matter. To hell with that for a laugh!
  19. With Win10 and its so called "telemetry" "features" they have produced a system that I think of as a "Spyware Suite" posing as an OS. By that measure, and they will no doubt want to ramp that up going forward, I think they are committing suicide as it is. Also there was a past MS CEO that was famous for coming on stage and ranting the mantra, "Developers, developers, developers...!" Just now it looks like MS has changed the mantra to "Obfuscate, obfuscate, obfuscate...!" Eventually it will go tits up for them with that attitude. So suicidal tendencies in abundance there too.
  20. No, the earlier version isn't suitable. I want to install SnagIt and it says System Requirement is .NET 4.6 or later. EDIT: Have to admit this "certificates" thing is well beyond my skill level - but for what it's worth should say: This system has never been updated at MS Updates. So what is on the system is what is installed via a clean install of Win7. Therefore, I'm thinking that there might not be any "certificates" on the machine at all unless they are installed during clean install of system. Maybe this KB2813430 that you mentioned to install only installs the capacity to manage certificates and doesn't actually install any certificates itself. That was my impression when I read the page KB2813430 - but as said I really don't understand the information given there.
  21. Thanks for the response dencorso. I tried the following: (1) Downloaded KB2813430 (2) Double-clicked to run (seemed to install fine) then rebooted the machine. (3) Tried again to install .NET but I get the identical error as described in my first post. I did try reading the page for the hotfix download but it might as well be written in double-Dutch for all the sense it makes to me. I suspect there is something else I need to do but I don't know what. So stuck again. How to solve?
  22. The exact error message I get I have already posted above, please read it - it specifically mentions a ""A certificate chain could not be built to a trusted root authority." whatever that means. I tried the online-install but that also failed with the installer claiming there was no internet connection. In any case I only did that out of curiosity - I very much want to down the offline install route. In case it is relevant I have the following settings made in Group Policy with respect to Windows Update: Computer Configuration\Administrative Templates\Windows Components\Windows Update\Configure Automatic Updates - Disabled Computer Configuration\Administrative Templates\Windows Components\Windows Update\Turn on recommended updates via Automatic Updates - Disabled (All other settings in that key area are "Not configured" i.e. as per default for clean install of Win7.) User Configuration\Windows Components\Widows Update\Remove Access to use all Windows Update features - Enabled (All other settings in that key area are "Not configured" i.e. as per default for clean install of Win7.) I have Windows Update blocked in this way because I don't want this system subject to Microsoft installing whatever it wants to the system.
  23. Windows 7 Pro. SP1 x64 .NET v4.6.2 x86-x64 Offline Installer (Microsoft Official Filename NDP462-KB3151800-x86-x64-AllOS-ENU.exe) I have the OS setup so that it cannot do Microsoft Updates - no Microsoft updates of any kind have been done on the system. Windows Update has been disabled in Group Policy and also blocked via TinyWall firewall. I run the system this way as I'm utterly paranoid over what Microsoft might be throwing onto Win7 systems by via updates - so called "telemetry" (i.e. spyware) and so on and I sure as hell don't want Win10. .NET has never been installed on this system, but now I have a need for it (if I can get the damn thing installed!). I downloaded the offline installer for the latest version but when I try to install it produces the following error: OS Version = 6.1.7601, SP = 1.0, Platform 2, Service Pack 1 OS Description = Win7 - x64 Service Pack 1 MSI = 5.0.7601.17514 Windows version = amd64_windowsfoundation_31bf3856ad364e35_6.1.7601.17514_none_615fdfe2a739474c.manifest Windows servicing = 6.1.7601.17514 CommandLine = H:\b64ad360e62a6964ab5521c44ad4d9\\Setup.exe /x86 /x64 /redist TimeZone = GMT Standard Time Initial LCID = 2057 Using Simultaneous Download and Install mechanism Operation: Installing Package Name = Microsoft .NET Framework 4.6.2 Setup Package Version = 4.6.01590 User Experience Data Collection Policy: Disabled Number of applicable items: 8 H:\b64ad360e62a6964ab5521c44ad4d9\netfx_Full_x64.msi - Signature verification for file netfx_Full_x64.msi (H:\b64ad360e62a6964ab5521c44ad4d9\netfx_Full_x64.msi) failed with error 0x800b010a (A certificate chain could not be built to a trusted root authority.) No FileHash provided. Cannot perform FileHash verification for netfx_Full_x64.msi File netfx_Full_x64.msi (H:\b64ad360e62a6964ab5521c44ad4d9\netfx_Full_x64.msi), failed authentication. (Error = -2146762486). It is recommended that you delete this file and retry setup again. Exe (H:\b64ad360e62a6964ab5521c44ad4d9\SetupUtility.exe) succeeded. Exe Log File: dd_SetupUtility.txt ServiceControl operation succeeded! ServiceControl operation succeeded! Exe (H:\b64ad360e62a6964ab5521c44ad4d9\SetupUtility.exe) succeeded. Exe Log File: dd_SetupUtility.txt Final Result: Installation failed with error code: (0x800B010A), "A certificate chain could not be built to a trusted root authority. " (Elapsed time: 0 00:00:19). I have tried installing several times and with unblocking Windows Update in Tinywall but still I get the same error. How do I manage to install .NET?
  24. I had precious little faith in Microsoft anyway but since this Win 10 nonsense I have absolutely ziltch. Of course the "upgrade" will be back and even if it doesn't they'll still try and dump so called "telemetry" spyware junk onto Win 7 and 8 systems via so called updates. Only safe thing to do in this regard is a fresh install install of Win 7 or 8 and never update it for anything. Dancing with the devil to do otherwise.
  25. xpclient - this won't solve all your problems but it will help you find out some of the information that is connected to your broadband usage. Download NetWorx. You can get it as a portable if you don't want to install anything to the system to try it out. (If you use it as a portable, I do all the time, you won't have access to a couple of its functions but other than that I find it very good.) They also have a pretty good Online NetWorx User Manual for it to help get started. Totally different topic but the company also has a very good for free SoftPerfect Ramdisk available. Some companies are charging big bucks for ramdisk software.


×
×
  • Create New...