WalksInSilence
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by WalksInSilence
-
-
I read somewhere else recently that it was possible to create a desktop shortcut which would restart the PC but go straight into the BIOS. I did not know that this was possible. I would find that quite a useful tool instead of going through the lottery of hitting the DEL button at the right time during the restart sequence.
I was also thinking that surely a restart into Safe Mode shortcut may be possible too.
Problem is that the info out there on creating the Restart To BIOS shortcut does not appear to work with Win7. The web info I've found does not actually specify what Windows OS this works with but the paths I've discovered for the shortcut are given as either:-
shutdown /r /fw
or
shutdown /r /fw /f /t 0
or
shutdown /r /fw /f /t 00
or
shutdown /r /o /f /t 00
However testing these paths on a Win7 PC I found none of the shortcuts worked. So I tried instead using CMD (Admin)/Powershell to see where the problem was and all gave unrecognised CMD line syntax errors, /fw in particular.
What does work is the basic shutdown /r which, after a flagged up one minute delay, will, as you'd expect, shutdown and restarts the PC. What any of those other CMD commands do I'm not sure either.
So is this Restart To BIOS shortcut just a Windows10/11 thing or is there a Win7 specific path that should be used, likewise the Restart Into Safe Mode shortcut idea?
0 -
I've found even the most up to date Waterfox (Classic) is having issues with some web site or you're simply barred from it because: "We've detected you're using an old browser which may not work on our web site or have limited functionality. Click here to update". There's usually no option to by-pass the page so you're effectively barred.
I've installed a set of up to date portable browsers on flash drives to deal with these situations but most of the time I just go somewhere else.
0 -
I'd go with that too ^. MSE has some big annoyances like flagging up a problem and then giving you no other option, whatever the settings, but to 'quarantine' the file.
Can you then simply tell it to ignore the problem, as 98% of what it flags up are FPs? No, you have to go through the rigmarole of 'allowing' the item, bizarrely under the History tab.
However, that aside, it works.
Failing this I'd consider Panda too. I've had that running on a WinXP VM for several years since MSE stopped being compatible with XP installations. It is unobtrusive and although you get occasional pop-ups they're few and far between.
You could not pay me to use any recent 'free' AVAST. I used to love it because it quietly did what it was supposed to do but now, in fact for some time, it has been the epitome of the worst aspects of obnoxiously intrusive, self-promoting, adware-like 'free' software.
I also can not forgive AVAST for ruining Piriform's CCleaner in much the same way and neglecting for years almost all Piriform's other other useful tools.
2 -
I've taken the precaution of downloading various older portable versions of FF.
I'm not minded to update beyond my current installed version TBH, even the ESR option. I know and have been dealing with or just accepting my preferred FF version having problems on some web sites particularly those which actively prevent you using "unsupported" browser versions and try to persuade you to 'upgrade'.
What is the situation in regard to Win7 and the Mozilla Thunderbird email client which shares features with FF? I've not read anything about that.
1 -
Has anyone here had initial Firefox boot speed since the v113 update? Once running there are no problems but I'm estimating the start up time has doubled from about 15secs to 30secs. I thought it might be a 'theme' issue so I reverted from 'Dark' to the Default but the change in behaviour remains.
I'm wondering if it is not a FF problem but a Windows thing because I'm getting now regular alerts whenever I update FF from MS wanting to check the FF updater .EXE.
I've updated to v114 since (the only version I'm being offered) and it is still taking noticeably longer to launch than v112 and earlier versions use to do.
0 -
AFAIK ASUS MBs use the commonest method of accessing the BIOS screen and that is at boot or restart press the DEL (or DL, Delete) key when the MB logo appears. Sometimes you may need to hold the key down or tap it and the PC should boot into the BIOS (or UEFI : Unified Extensible Firmware Interface).
I have no idea what the ASUS BIOS gui looks like but if it is similar to Gigabyte MBs the graphics priority settings are under Peripherals > Init Display First.
Typically you'll have three or for options depending on the number of PCIe slots: IGFX prioritizes the MB onboard graphics and the other settings the GPU in whichever PCIe/PCI slot it is using. There may be another separate menu item: Internal Graphics, for enabling/disabling the internal graphics function.
From your description I'd guess the MB on board graphics are disabled rather than set to the default Auto. That maybe why you're getting nothing displaying when using the MB outputs.
It would be wrong for me to advise you to fiddle about with these settings or to go to the extreme solution of resetting the BIOS to default values in the hope of fixing the problem. But it can't hurt to look and note down the graphics display priority settings. It might be useful information to others who have more specialist knowledge of ASUS MBs.
Personally I'd go direct to ASUS and ask them about the problem if they have some trouble shooting facility or advice forum.
https://www.asus.com/supportonly/p5kplvm/helpdesk_knowledge/
My guess is that the trouble might be more likely a graphics card issue which is why I suggested trying the MB graphics outputs instead of the GPU.
0 -
I'd go into the BIOS and look at what display device is being used as priority. Also check Device Manager to see if anything is flagged as problem.
Can you test other cable connection types ie. HDMI or Display Port for the same behaviour?
Are you using a dedicate VGA 15-pin DIN port or a dual purpose DVI-I port with VGA adapter?
Your MB should have basic graphics output for situations like this so if you can attach the monitor to the MB rather than the GPU and test that it could point to where the problem might be ie. if it is an issue with the GPU.
0 -
Yep, going for a i5-12600K when I've saved up enough.
I'm still using DDR3 with my current GA-H87 and GA-Z77 and recently up graded both to 16GB (2 x 8GB). Can't say I've noticed much of an increase in performance over 8GB I had before although no doubt its measurably faster.
One of the first things I took on board, something I think was in in a PC magazine article a long time ago about the most effective performance boosting upgrades. That was: beyond a certain level upgrading the system RAM becomes less and less cost effective. What they said matters much more, particularly for gaming and other resource intensive uses like video editing is the GPU and its RAM not the system RAM.
So the advice for getting better performance for your bucks was not 'waste' money upgrading the system RAM, at least not beyond twice the recommended amount, and spend it on a better GPU instead.
I'd suspect that advice is still valid.
0 -
I've already committed to DDR4 3600MHz, expecting 2 x 16GB Kingston Beasts to drop, gently, through my letterbox some time today. I'm hoping 3600MHz is going to be OK as the manual only refers to support up to 3200MHz but the web site clearly states the MB supports up to 5333MHz (OC) XMP. The use of a XMP profile has however been an issue with some other GA-Z690 MBs but nothing reported, I could find, about the Ultra-Durable series being involved.
The DDR4 choice was done on advice from several people on another IT forum and supported by my various researches. The feeling seemed to be that DDR5 currently offers little performance improvement over DDR4 although that will (may?) change in the future.
I've now had responses to the two tickets I open with Gigabyte on the GA-Z690 MB matters. Here are the replies:-
1). "The difference between the V2 and non-V2 is the PWM material and the WIFI module.
However we do not have V2 motherboard release in the UK."
2). "The M.2 socket doesn't share bandwidth with SATA ports. If you have M.2 SSD installed, the SATA ports are available.
You may refer to the user manual page 23 and 24 for details.
The first reply appears suspect but as they've confirmed the MB is not available in the UK, which I thought was going to be the case, it sounds like the differences are trivial anyway.
I have no idea what "PWM material" is meant to mean. I guess a slight translation hiccup - but possibly referring to the PWM fan speed control or related BIOS options. But the Wi-Fi info is clearly incorrect as only the "AC" MB versions have built in Wi-Fi.
The second answer still needs secondary confirmation because the pages referred to in the GA-Z690 DDR4 UD series manual makes no mention about whether or not any SATA ports are disabled when using a NVME PCIe.
The lack of clarity on those pages was the very reason I submitted the ticket. All it says is that the NVME PCIe can not be used in any RAID configuration with SATA connected devices. I thought that was the case anyway and why would you want to? But that does not mean there's no shared bandwidth disabling one or more SATA ports.
In suggesting referring back to the manual about this matter an element of doubt is introduced as to whether the information is reliable.
0 -
Yes, the photos for the MBs seem to be the same but if you check each one the boxes are different - why box the same board differently with it clearly saying it is a V2 if they are exactly the same?
A theory suggested on another forum is that the V2 is a regional name variation, possibly because an earlier MB (perhaps the GA-Z690-D3SH DDR4 UD), was marketed as GA-Z690 UD DDR4 in those countries. But that does not explain why a web search for the V2 returns no hits at all except for the Gigabyte web site itself.
Thanks for the info; I'll try the forum and see what they say there.
So you think the NVME PCIe doesn't disable any SATA port. That's what I'm hoping but it seems unlikely when the next tier up of GA-Z690 MBs, the more expensive GAMING X series, have SATA ports 5 and 6 disabled when using one.
Again I'll have to try asking about it in that forum.
0 -
I'm aware that if you use a NVME PCIe that many are set up use the same 'channel' as one or more of the ordinary SATA ones ie. it disables those one or two ports.
As I'm currently getting the bits and pieces I need for a new PC build it is a matter of interest to me.
I've settled on a Gigabyte MB mainly because that's what I'm familiar with and likely the Z690 UD DDR4 or maybe the AX version which has built in wi-fi. However when I checked the spec nowhere can I see any reference to this SATA port disabling when using a NVME with this MB series. The PDF manual for their Z690 Gaming X series includes an additional page clearly showing which SATA ports the use of a NVME with that MB will cause. But there is nothing I can see like that in the manuals for the MBs I'm interested in: the UD - Ultra Durable series.
Can anyone here shed any light on this?
Contacting Gigabyte direct is a bit of pain because they do it via their web site by ticketing system so it often takes a comparatively long time for a reply to any inquiry, I already have a ticket open for another question I had about the UD range and that is now a week old.
BTW maybe somebody here knows the answer to that: what is the difference between the GA-Z690 UD DDR4 (rev.1) and the GA-Z690 UD DDR4 V2 (rev.1) and why can I not find any information let alone a supplier in the UK for that, presumably latest, V2 type? Their web site is no help; the comparison tool there shows zero differences between those two models or, likewise, their equivalent AX ones.
Info appreciated.
0 -
There's always something with PC gaming - its like a game in itself getting stuff to run properly.
But I think I am or will be covered for any DirectX compatibility issues. I have a second PC build going on or more correctly re-casing project and one of the main reasons for that is to be able to use the Radeon RX480 4GB GPU I bought at a snip secondhand over 18 months ago. That will free up the Radeon 7850 1GB currently in that PC so I can use it in the i3 one. So, with any luck, if I get any problems as you've described I'll have a set up to match it.
BTW I did think about installing the Radeon RX480 in the new build as it does support Win11 (which surprised me) but I don't want to be relying on a used GPU. Its capabilities in regard to recent games are low end now too. In short I want something better and I know that is going to cost.
0 -
Well whatever is considered retro gaming (I'd say 10+ years old) I'm certain the UHD 770 graphics will be more than good enough.
I currently use an i3-3553 with HD 4600 and its good enough for most games up to about 2005. One of the reasons I chose that particular CPU, bought in 2015 I think, was because it had been reviewed as being able to get just about playable fps on some games as recent as 2013 (Tomb Raider).
I can't afford a decent GPU and get all the other stuff I want too, at this time, due to the limited monthly budget I have. But what I can't avoid is having to make a decision on the OS and that's why I'm asking about Windows 11.
0 -
I'm currently buying all the bits and pieces I need for a new desktop build aiming for a daily task/browsing long life PC usable for retro gaming until I can afford a decent graphics card.
For this reason I'm probably going for Z690 MB which supports DDR4 RAM with an i5-12600K (on board UHD 770 graphics) and 32GB RAM. I thought about a AMD Ryzen 5600G which out performs the i5-12600K in gaming/graphics comparison tests but in, almost, every other measure is not as good. So the i5-12600K is what I've set my mind on as being the best solution.
That brings me to the OS - I'm dreading giving up Windows 7 64bit for regular use but I can't decide whether its best to go all new with Win11 or not. Its going to be a pain re-learning where everything is and getting it set up as I want it whether it is Win10 or Win11. So if Win11 is really just Win10+ then surely it makes more sense to go for that rather than the older OS which will likely stop being supported before Win11.
Also am I right in thinking I can upgrade Win10 Pro to Win11 Pro for free ie. no new licence needed? There are some relatively cheap Win 10 Pro offers available (adverts here for some of those too) so is there any reason not to install Win11 Pro this more affordable way?
0 -
Sounds weird, it certainly shouldn't be behaving like that.
I wish my solution had been as trouble and cost free.
Since my problem was fixed I have turned off Windows updates and deleted the KB971033 update - no trouble having done that, so far. The only update you get now and have done for several years is the malicious software removal tool anyway.
0 -
I'd tried that and it flagged up an error message about the key being not valid for this system. That is pretty much what the guy on the activation line was saying - the Installation ID appears to have changed so it simply did not match. But why when the CPU and MB were not touched? We'll probably never know.
I've now records of the all the current related system ID, licence ID and key codes so if this happens again (please no!) I have the proof needed that the problem is something else other than it being 'not genuine'.
Any answers still appreciated to the 'Final' question about whether turning off Window Updates completely and deleting the KB971033 update or anything else that might help prevent the problem recurring in the future.
0 -
Thanks so much for that information; I was posting the info below as you must have been posting your reply so I can confirm I have already done the last thing suggested: bought a new, system matched, key.
I have just used that key, it was authenticated without issue and it works perfectly (at this time) with Windows now showing as properly activated again.
However I'm still interested in finding the cause of the original problem as I updated my other Win7 PC which is a very close match for the one concerned (same SDD and other hardware was updated in the same way). It was done a few weeks after the other one for just this sort of reason - when that seemed all OK I did the updating on that so maybe I have all this 'fun' to go through again.
For that reason any obvious problem with MGADiag and slmgr reports that can be identified could be very helpful.
I'm posting the same data for the new set up for reference and proof of its activation and genuineness:-
MGADiag Report With New Key 31.03.22.rtf
The MGDiag report I've checked for differences between the new and the old and if anyone can see anything but the most obvious ie. new PK and activation status I'd be surprised. The only difference of possible significance I can see is the installation ID which, suggests I guess, that was the problem ie. the MS PC interrogation tools, saw the changes to the hardware as it being a different PC even though the CPU/MB were not touched. Yes?
Final question: particularly in relation to the other PC, if the same thing happens with that I will use your advice before shelling out on a new key. But what is the best way of stopping this happening again apart from not changing the hardware?
I've already altered, years ago, all the Group Policy settings on both PCs to stop other MS telemetry gathering. If I disable Windows updates completely (currently on 'check but ask before install') and delete the KB971033 update apparently connected with these problems would that be effective?
On the other PC I am using, temporarily MSE, which is set to update itself as necessary. Is that program updater another MS spy in the cab doing more than just updating itself.
0 -
Thanks, I'll do all that later today.
I had to use the slmgr -rearm command to get the option to Activate Windows now or use a new key. Without having done that the only option was to get sent on a fatuous journey around MS's 'Help' pages I wasted half a day doing.
I thought it would just be a simple matter of using the telephone activation method and get to a real person who'd sort the problem out. They could not - which is why I'm here.
As requested:-
MGADiag Report 30.03.22 (not Edited).rtf
I am thinking this may be the relevant information but why is it being blocked that is the question?
The key is from a genuine sealed MS Win7 Pro 64bit OEM and is what has been on this PC and working for 6 years, almost exactly. Could it just be the hardware change I made five or six week ago ie. cloning the original 128GB SSD to a 500GB one?
0 -
I was going to ask about that - whether I could just buy a genuine new, matched as far as possible, copy of Win7 and simply use that to activate the existing installation as it is avoiding the, really unwanted, need to reinstall the OS from scratch?
Any help you can give will be most welcome.
I have the the MGADiag report available already as I posted it on the MS Community forums earlier today, adding to the plethora of others who over the years (at least a decade) have been reporting similar issues with Win7.
Certain unnecessary details (Browser Data and the key Windows Product ID info I've edited out).
Diagnostic Report (1.9.0027.0):
-----------------------------------------
Windows Validation Data-->Validation Code: 0
Cached Online Validation Code: N/A, hr = 0xc004f012
Windows Product Key:
Windows Product Key Hash:
Windows Product ID: 00371-OEM-9321596-70116
Windows Product ID Type: 8
Windows License Type: COA SLP
Windows OS version: 6.1.7601.2.00010100.1.0.048
ID: {09DC9D4D-8028-415A-AFC4-F28DFA13712D}(1)
Is Admin: Yes
TestCab: 0x0
LegitcheckControl ActiveX: N/A, hr = 0x80070002
Signed By: N/A, hr = 0x80070002
Product Name: Windows 7 Professional
Architecture: 0x00000009
Build lab: 7601.win7sp1_ldr_escrow.200102-1707
TTS Error:
Validation Diagnostic:
Resolution Status: N/AVista WgaER Data-->
ThreatID(s): N/A, hr = 0x80070002
Version: N/A, hr = 0x80070002Windows XP Notifications Data-->
Cached Result: N/A, hr = 0x80070002
File Exists: No
Version: N/A, hr = 0x80070002
WgaTray.exe Signed By: N/A, hr = 0x80070002
WgaLogon.dll Signed By: N/A, hr = 0x80070002OGA Notifications Data-->
Cached Result: N/A, hr = 0x80070002
Version: N/A, hr = 0x80070002
OGAExec.exe Signed By: N/A, hr = 0x80070002
OGAAddin.dll Signed By: N/A, hr = 0x80070002OGA Data-->
Office Status: 109 N/A
OGA Version: N/A, 0x80070002
Signed By: N/A, hr = 0x80070002
Office Diagnostics: 025D1FF3-364-80041010_025D1FF3-229-80041010_025D1FF3-230-1_025D1FF3-517-80040154_025D1FF3-237-80040154_025D1FF3-238-2_025D1FF3-244-80070002_025D1FF3-258-3File Scan Data-->
Other data-->
Office Details: <GenuineResults><MachineData><UGUID>{09DC9D4D-8028-415A-AFC4-F28DFA13712D}</UGUID><Version>1.9.0027.0</Version><OS>6.1.7601.2.00010100.1.0.048</OS><Architecture>x64</Architecture><PKey>*****-*****-*****-*****-DVG7F</PKey><PID>00371-OEM-9321596-70116</PID><PIDType>8</PIDType><SID>S-1-5-21-4197761801-1826107602-129243619</SID><SYSTEM><Manufacturer>Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd.</Manufacturer><Model>H87-HD3</Model></SYSTEM><BIOS><Manufacturer>American Megatrends Inc.</Manufacturer><Version>F10</Version><SMBIOSVersion major="2" minor="7"/><Date>20150818000000.000000+000</Date></BIOS><HWID>97DF3607018400F4</HWID><UserLCID>0809</UserLCID><SystemLCID>0409</SystemLCID><TimeZone>GMT Standard Time(GMT+00:00)</TimeZone><iJoin>0</iJoin><SBID><stat>3</stat><msppid></msppid><name></name><model></model></SBID><OEM/><GANotification/></MachineData><Software><Office><Result>109</Result><Products/><Applications/></Office></Software></GenuineResults>Spsys.log Content: 0x80070002
Licensing Data-->
Software licensing service version: 6.1.7601.23403Name: Windows(R) 7, Professional edition
Description: Windows Operating System - Windows(R) 7, OEM_COA_SLP channel
Activation ID: da22eadd-46dc-4056-a287-f5041c852470
Application ID: 55c92734-d682-4d71-983e-d6ec3f16059f
Extended PID: 00371-00186-215-970116-02-2057-7600.0000-1632016
Installation ID: 003853505084359355766325877370649542802474429302533711
Processor Certificate URL: http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkID=88338
Machine Certificate URL: http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkID=88339
Use License URL: http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkID=88341
Product Key Certificate URL: http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkID=88340
Partial Product Key: DVG7F
License Status: Initial grace period
Time remaining: 41760 minute(s) (29 day(s))
Remaining Windows rearm count: 3
Trusted time: 29/03/2022 14:50:29Windows Activation Technologies-->
HrOffline: 0x00000000
HrOnline: 0xC004C4A2
HealthStatus: 0x0000000000000000
Event Time Stamp: 3:27:2022 15:22
ActiveX: Registered, Version: 7.1.7600.16395
Admin Service: Registered, Version: 7.1.7600.16395
HealthStatus Bitmask Output:
HWID Data-->
HWID Hash Current: OgAAAAMAAQABAAIAAgACAAAAAwABAAEAHKL0RukaFT/QnOxq/srE3sSFje939oqbELf0gnKKvkHI9g==OEM Activation 1.0 Data-->
N/AOEM Activation 2.0 Data-->
BIOS valid for OA 2.0: yes, but no SLIC table
Windows marker version: N/A
OEMID and OEMTableID Consistent: N/A
BIOS Information:
ACPI Table Name OEMID Value OEMTableID Value
APIC ALASKA A M I
FACP ALASKA A M I
HPET ALASKA A M I
MCFG ALASKA A M I
FPDT ALASKA A M I
SSDT PmRef Cpu0Ist
SSDT PmRef Cpu0Ist
SSDT PmRef Cpu0Ist
SSDT PmRef Cpu0IstThe slmgr -dlv report I have too but that looks to be just the same as the Licensing Data info in the MGADiag report,
I compared this report with one of the others posted in the MS Community forums and that clearly indicated an issue with the licensing which was shown as not valid. As you can see I have nothing like that.
Additionally I've looked into the Plug and Play GPO (Group Policy Object) settings cited as a possible cause of the problem and its already set to "Not Defined" as apparently it should be.
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/topic/100b81a0-6780-6501-9669-b888232c44d5
I have also checked another thing mentioned in that article:-
One or more of the following registry subkeys maybe missing:-
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\Profilelist\S-1-5-18
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\Profilelist\S-1-5-19
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\Profilelist\S-1-5-20
They are all present in my registry.
0 -
10 hours ago, Tripredacus said:
I suspect that this type of reasoning is made up by people who aren't or haven't any farming experience. I did work (and live) on a farm for some time and I can say that it makes no different if there is DST or not. You work from sunrise to sunset (or beyond but indoors) and you determine what time to wake up based on what time the sunrise is the next day.
Exactly- dairy farmers in particular have to bring their cows in to milk them at the same time or times each day whether it is dark or not. The cows don't care.
0 -
Update - may be some useful info for others with the same issue so please excuse the double post.
Using a supposed fix with CMD Prompt "slmgr -rearm"* I managed to get my desktop back and also what appears to be just a short "period of grace" whilst trying to sort out this problem.
What it did though is allow me to use the "Activate Windows Now" system Properties page options. I used the telephone activation ones and deliberately messed it up (a trick I'd read about years ago) so I'd get put through to a real person.
That worked and I had a surprisingly long conversation with him trying for sort out the matter and later his supervisor. The bottom line though was that either they now don't have the knowledge, the tools or (probably) the desire to help fix this sort of problem with a Win7 installation.
The 'real person' said the problem was likely as a result of the cloning of the SSD. The 63 number Installation ID didn't match up with either the previous Product Key or the specific Product ID, not clear which.
BTW such information can be found by using CMD Prompt again (Admin rights enabled):-
slmgr /dlv
The dialogue box with the info may take 5+ seconds to appear.
The 'solution' recommended in the end, surprise, surprise, was to use the original install disc to do a fresh install of Win7 and then that, hopefully, fixes the validation issue.
But this raises the whole question of what happens when you need to or want to replace the primary OS SSD/HDD in a PC. I used a System cloning tool - EASEUS Todo and the cloned SSD was working fine with Windows reporting the OS as "Activated" until this authentication issue arose.
If the Installation ID is changed by the cloning and that is the cause of the problem, even though it is being used in exactly the same PC, how come none of the articles or forum posts about cloning/replacing the primary SSD/HDD mention this,
My thinking is that maybe it is actually a licencing thing not a key one. I'm using an OEM Windows licence and that is reporting the installation as a clone on new hardware ie. the replacement SSD. Correct even though in exactly the same PC but perhaps doing that is not covered by the OEM licence.
However could it also mean the possibility that even if I do a clean reinstall of the OS from the original disc onto a new SSD that will have a different installation ID too and again not be covered by the original licence if I use the same product key?
Comments/thoughts welcome.
* This is only a temporary fix, the activation status is reset to 3 days but with a "period of grace" of a month. I assume this means that after 3 days it'll go back to the black desktop and basic Windows functionality, with warning prompts on start up and, after a month Windows, will be disabled.
0 -
Thanks I've been reading about another CMD Prompt solution just now and I may use it if I can't get any help from MS.
It is not really a matter of activation or reactivation.
I cannot use telephone activation - that's why I mentioned activation/reactivation. It seems that when Windows is being reported as "not genuine" all activation/reactivation options are missing from the System > Product Key options.
They just send you to almost useless help pages instead which deal with activation problems but not the OS reporting as "not genuine". The assumption, wrongly, is that you're using counterfeit software even when it was a genuine MS install with a COA. So most of the advice is irrelevant and therefore unhelpful.
Its apparently blamed on a MS validation server issue which glitches in certain cases for unknown reasons. But knowing that it is a MS servers getting it wrong fault doesn't help resolve the problem.
I bet this could be fixed if users could just get in contact with a real person and MS made aware of the issue. But, judging from the posts I've found this problem been known about for years.
0 -
I've had this PC since 2016 when I activated the 100% genuine, factory sealed, copy of Win7 Pro 64. No problems since then in this respect until earlier today.
Out of the blue I get a pop-up saying this 6 years old fully updated by MS until Win7 supported ended is now, mysteriously not genuine (Build 7601).
Pretty sure this must be caused by the fact that about a month ago I replaced the almost full 128GB SSD originally fitted with a 500GB one cloned from that.
Nothing untoward reported after the replacement; Windows continued indicating on the System Info screen that the licence and OS are just as before genuine and activated. I even had the last monthly Windows Malicious Software Revoval tool offered and installed and why would that happen if it was not a valid Windows OS.
Problem is that as the reported issue is that Windows is not a genuine copy the option to (re)activate it is missing. I was therefore sent on a merry-go-round of unhelpful "help" pages online at MS until apparently opening some sort of ticket with customer 'phone support from which I'm waiting to get a response.
Question is what do you do in such circumstances? What is the best course of action?
Even more worrying is that I updated my other (Win7 Pro) PC a few weeks later in the same way. At this time there is no indication of any trouble, Windows is shown as valid and activated but I'm really concerned I'm go through this again with that too some time soon.0 -
On 3/27/2022 at 12:41 PM, UCyborg said:
How do you people feel about DST? I've read USA is going permanent DST while Europe will continue to change clocks at least until 2026. Initially, it was supposed to end by 2021 or so, but I didn't catch what time would end up permanent.
I think either two options above are bul***** and vote for permanent standard time. Daylight Stupid Time belongs in the history books.
I've thought this for years was an utterly redundant feature of modern 24/7 societies, particularly with IT meaning we're often communicating with other people who are in completely different time zones and can be anywhere in the world. For many people IT has made DST an irrelevance.
You can understand it, just about, for countries in the far north (Scandinavia) and far south wanting to optimise their limited daylight hours to the working day but for the rest of us having to change the clock times every six months is absurd.
I've just finished going around the house resetting all the clocks and equipment that don't do that automatically............................tedious.
The usual excuse in the UK for the those bleating about having a permanent standard time is that in the north farmers will have to start work in the dark and schoolkids will have to go to school in the dark and come home in the dark. That risks them becoming victims of more road accidents.
Yet the one trial they did in the UK from 1968 -1971 swapping to permanent British Summer Time (BST) in March that first year, which I am just old enough to remember, actually showed it reduced the number of road traffic accidents in total.
In fact I went to school in the south of England and like hundreds of others in the area we had a significant commute by foot, train and bus which meant that for at least four months of the year: November to February we were setting off before the sun had risen at 07.45 - 08.00 and arriving back home 16.30 - 17.00 after it had set.
1
.png.d307eec4242f5486cbdc99f85e362aff.png)
.png.f2bbc8cc3b04b594aa186ff999b09866.png)
.png.11bd892ffb6cb86ce30752bd71addcdb.png)
Future Of Firefox Quantum On Windows 7
in Windows 7
Posted · Edited by WalksInSilence
For me the problem is not one of whether Win7 will support the latest version of FF it is how long the FF versions it can run are viable for at least general browsing.
I still use a much earlier version for that purpose and another even earlier version which works for a WinXP VM on the same PC. But increasingly web page functionality, including posting here, does not work correctly.
That is only going to get worse but if FF Quantum v115ESR follows a similar ageing pattern you're still going to be able to use it for a lot of online purposes, like browsing forums, 5+ years or more from now which means on any Windows version that can run it.