Jump to content

Mark-XP

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    117

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Donations

    0.00 USD 

  • Country

    Germany

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Mark-XP

  1. Mark-XP
    Or you nead a board with a second "< i219" LAN chip on it, like my ,new' GA-Z170N-WiFi God bless that wise (or simply miserly?) taiwanese engineer who decided to put that extra, slightly outdated (or simply cheaper?) i211 on it! No need for an old Realtek-PCI-LAN, and no need to replace its modern 11ac 867 WiFi with an aged M2 6235. This Skylake i5-6600 (non T) system running idle consumes about incredible 1.1 W only (XP) and 0.8 W only (Win7) - at least according to HWMonitor 1.28 - utilizing the integrated HD530. That would mean approximately 1/6 of power input compared to my current IvyBridge-i5 rig ! So, God bless @Mov AX, 0xDEAD, @Dietmar, @Ramsey, @Kai-Schtrom and everyone else who made this possible too! A happy new 2024!
  2. Mark-XP
    Yes @dmiranda, build from this weekend (as i posted above), with pristine profile, and in basilisk too. But please don't bother, if i'm the only one with this phenomenon...
  3. Mark-XP
    Thanks @mina7601, but unfortunately disableing hw-accelaration does not mitigate the issue here.
  4. Mark-XP
    Apropos mal-behaving websites: i ungoogled my digital life quite successfully (at least i suppose it), amongst others using exclusively qwant as search-engine for about 2 years (and it allways did deliver acceptible results). Now, lately they changed their website radically (the simple UI is gone, the rsults presented mistakable imo). But the worst thing is: after having entered the search-terms and the enter-key, Sp.52.9 freezes completely for about 5-10 seconds, and the cpu ist running hot. On Basilisk64 on Win7 it's absolutely the same. Enableing JS mitigates the effect gradually. I've no idea how to diagnose that, maybe with the skills of @roytam1, @basilisk-dev or @VistaLover...? Btw.: i updated from July-versions to latest versions Spt.52.9 & Basilisk64 this weekend. Utilizing about 30 tabs anytime i didn't notice one single crash or missbehaviour in both - in nearly half a year! Excellent job, Thank you !!
  5. Mark-XP

    TRIM for XP

    Mark-XP replied to Dietmar's topic in Windows XP

    I'm using yet AXE and hedit occasionally (both very old too), but i'll give tinyhexer a try next time!
  6. Mark-XP

    TRIM for XP

    Mark-XP replied to Dietmar's topic in Windows XP

    Thanks again @jaclaz for your gentle invitation to hack the partition table, but after thinking about it for some minutes and having found the domain mirkes.de abandoned (vendesi) i decided to solve it practically and shrinked the ext. Partition with gparted in a minute (no heart attack though since it's still ,empty'): Device Boot Start End Sectors Size Id Type /dev/sdb1 2048 67147775 67145728 32G 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT /dev/sdb2 67147776 721614847 654467072 312,1G f W95 Ext'd (LBA) /dev/sdb5 67149824 377577471 310427648 148G 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT /dev/sdb6 377579520 465680383 88100864 42G 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT /dev/sdb7 465682432 629297151 163614720 78G 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT /dev/sdb8 629299200 721614847 92315648 44G 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT No, one cannot figure out that ssd-procedure: initialize it in Win7, with diskmgmt, switch to diskpart to create the ext.partition, then back into diskmgmt to create the 4 ,logical drives' and finally boot to linux and shrink the ext.partition with gparted... Grazie e buone feste! And sorry @Dietmar for having hijacked your thread for a while
  7. Mark-XP

    TRIM for XP

    Mark-XP replied to Dietmar's topic in Windows XP

    Grazie mille di nuovo @jaclaz per l'assistenza! That "queer hole" was the result of a hapless collaboration of three: 1. MS for sure: with Win7 they eliminated the possibility to create an extended partition in diskmgmt , 2. myself - because i didn't inform me well that it remains still possible: with cmd-line diskpart. And instead used: 3. Easus Partition Master 9 - which creates an extendend partition automatically - but obviously that extra "hole" in addition. It looks much better now, without any warning: Disk /dev/sdb: 465,76 GiB, 500107862016 bytes, 976773168 sectors Disk model: CT500MX500SSD1 Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 4096 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 4096 bytes / 4096 bytes Disklabel type: dos Device Boot Start End Sectors Size Id Type /dev/sdb1 2048 67147775 67145728 32G 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT /dev/sdb2 67147776 976771071 909623296 433,7G f W95 Ext'd (LBA) /dev/sdb5 67149824 377577471 310427648 148G 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT /dev/sdb6 377579520 465680383 88100864 42G 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT /dev/sdb7 465682432 629297151 163614720 78G 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT /dev/sdb8 629299200 721614847 92315648 44G 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT Now only remains the final task to shrink the extended Part sdb2 (so that it finishes with sdb8 - to gain the space for linux) - i didn't find that option in Win7's diskmgmt neither... (i hope not to be forced to use gparted to achieve this during linux installation process, i'm allways near to a heart attack at that point...)
  8. Mark-XP

    TRIM for XP

    Mark-XP replied to Dietmar's topic in Windows XP

    Sorry @George King, neither WS 2003 nor XP-x64 here to test their boot-compatibilty in UEFI/GPT environment. And tbh, @jaclazhas even strengthend above my decision to stay with Bios/MBR. Btw.: horrible news from Prague yesterday, sad to hear - even the ,golden city' isn't safe from such adversity these days...
  9. Mark-XP

    TRIM for XP

    Mark-XP replied to Dietmar's topic in Windows XP

    Thank you @jaclaz you're absolutely right, and sorry for my missunderstading: Did an initializing with a pristine ssd and part.style MBR in Win7 (see jpeg below), created a primary partition, and it starts correctly at sector 2048: me@compi:~\> sudo fdisk -l Disk /dev/sdb: 465,76 GiB, 500107862016 bytes, 976773168 sectors Disk model: CT500MX500SSD1 Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 4096 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 4096 bytes / 4096 bytes Disklabel type: dos Disk identifier: 0x01b2403d Device Boot Start End Sectors Size Id Type /dev/sdb1 2048 67151871 67149824 32G 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT /dev/sdb2 67167765 377591759 310423995 148G f W95 Ext'd (LBA) /dev/sdb5 67167828 377591759 310423932 148G 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT Partition 2 does not start on physical sector boundary. Partition 5 does not start on physical sector boundary. But anyway - according to linux' fdisk the subsequent partitions are not aligned physically - not if created with diskmgmt, nor if i use EASUS Partition Master 9.0. In either case fdisk tells me there's no correct physical sector alignment. How should one create and manage windows' partitions then? Edit: Or is there something special with "fdisk"? Does "aligned to 2048 sectors" not mean the same as "physical sector alignment" (are there two different types of sectors)?
  10. Mark-XP

    TRIM for XP

    Mark-XP replied to Dietmar's topic in Windows XP

    Yes, of course; inserting a pristine ssd in the 2nd drive-slot, Win7's diskmgmt shows up the "data-media-initialising" tool where i first have to choose between the traditional MBR and modern GPT (with a 2048 s GUID). Well, as a (technical) ultraconservative (blimp?) i obviously ever choosed MBR here. The second important reason is: i'm using a (licensed) version of xxClone for easy cloning and backuping my WinXP and Data partitions. Furthemore, if anything goes wrong with notorious Win7 or Linux regarding boot: this longterm faithful ,companion' is able to copy the MBR back again onto the affected hd/ssd in a second - and i can boot back to ,safe harbour' WinXP . A possibility i see (a priori): one could stay with MBR but then choose a size for the primary (WinXP) patition to let it end precisely at the end of a physical sector , and then - at least - all the subsequent partitons could be sized to be aligned. Is that correct?
  11. Mark-XP

    TRIM for XP

    Mark-XP replied to Dietmar's topic in Windows XP

    Grazie @jaclaz, esatto: it's a dual-boot situation (initially, then with linux later grub gets installed to get it triple-boot). The "new" paradigm you're mentioning is the GPT partitioning scheme - with its 2048 sector patition table. No, for whatever reason i never thought about switching to GPT (instead of traditional MBR) - does Win-XP (32bit) have any problems with it? And, more importantly: is GPT a precondition for achieving correct sector alignment on an ssd? Regarding those registry-entries: in Win7 i have two of them (ControlSet001 and ControlSet002)) with equal values: 65536 for "LessThan4GB" and 1048576 for the other 3.
  12. Mark-XP

    TRIM for XP

    Mark-XP replied to Dietmar's topic in Windows XP

    Please let me expand this topic e little bit: About a dacade ago i was informed that standard partitioning an ssd in Win7 would respect the (physical 4k) sector alignment. Ever since, i partitioned a new ssd with Win7 diskmgmt.msc (even if XP allways inhabits the primary partition for sure) and never had any problems at all. Now lately i anstalled a Linux besides WinXP and Win7 an ran "sudo fdisk -l". The diagnosis was somewhat scary: me@compi:~\> sudo fdisk -l Disk /dev/sda: 465,76 GiB, 500107862016 bytes, 976773168 sectors ... Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 4096 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 4096 bytes / 4096 bytes Disklabel type: dos Device Boot Start End Sectors Size Id Type /dev/sda1 * 63 67135634 67135572 32G 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT /dev/sda2 67135635 713173544 646037910 308,1G f W95 Ext'd (LBA) /dev/sda5 67135698 377559629 310423932 148G 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT /dev/sda6 377559693 465660089 88100397 42G 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT /dev/sda7 465660153 625073084 159412932 76G 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT /dev/sda8 625073148 713173544 88100397 42G 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT /dev/sda3 713173545 763604991 50431447 24G 83 Linux /dev/sda4 763604992 771993599 8388608 4G 82 Linux swap / Solaris Partition 1 does not start on physical sector boundary. Partition 2 does not start on physical sector boundary. Partition 3 does not start on physical sector boundary. Partition 5 does not start on physical sector boundary. Partition 6 does not start on physical sector boundary. Partition 7 does not start on physical sector boundary. Partition 8 does not start on physical sector boundary. (sda1: primary WinXP partition, sda2: extended partition housing sda5: Data ... sda8: Win7) Obviously almost nothing is aligned here (except the Linux swap) which doesn't surprise much, since Win7-diskmgmt did put the first primary part at sector 63 (and not 64). What practice would you recommend for bringing into servive and partitioning a new ssd?
  13. Mark-XP
    And i'll be probably be "forced" to downgrade the Wifi Module (on a modern MoBo) and replace it with an older 6235 /OT
  14. Mark-XP
    Thanks again @VistaLover for investigating further and risolving this issue. Fwiw: i tried to get some information abot driver support for intel WiFi devices (for our obsolete OSs for sure ) and what i finally found was this comprehensive abstract (sorry, qwant search-engine stricly refuses to give me a link for the english version).
  15. Mark-XP
    Thanks @mina7601, i can confirm: after an update from an older version (July) to the latest this issue is resolved. And sorry, yes i'm rather update-lazy, i do uptate only 2-3 times a year
  16. Mark-XP
    A strange error here on many intel sites with NewMoon 28.10 and Spt 52.9 (in Win7 environment btw.) see below No problems in contrast with PaleMonn and Basislisk. Probably some ua related junk...
  17. Mark-XP
    I have to admit i too laughed about anton12's observation (and his patience!) - without any spitefulness or snideness. So i likewise wouldn't never impute suchlike to anyone here a priori - not in general, and not to NotHereToPlayGames in particular.
  18. Mark-XP
    Just a kind clue, @NotHereToPlayGames: I've been a hardcore refusenik for a decade too, but in 2020 (during the pandemic), separated geografically from my friends, i decided to change that - the main use-case here was Signal messenger for (video)calls. Bought a used Sony Xperia X (compact) - you shoud get one today for about $50, rooted it, disbled or deleted all the google/yt/fb/amazon crap and did install an opensource firewall and browser. It required approx. one (hard) week for a "pefect" setup, but i didn't regret those investments even for one single second. A phonenumber/SIM is needed only once to activate/register the messenger (at least in case of Signal) and aamof, i'm just using my device exclusively SIM-less.
  19. Mark-XP
    Did you notice, @j7n and @VistaLover, that vertical scrolling is indeed possible on those sites by using the arrow-up/down and page-up/down keys (at least in St.52 , be sure to click on the canvas first to ensure it gets the focus)? Hence that sabotage/discrimination of UXP browsers could be estimated only as partial successful
  20. Mark-XP
    This proposition does suprise me quite a lot since i didn't face never any problems in this regard, on several systems, in all the years: P35 (Abit), GM45 (Dell notebook), Z77 (asrock) and even the latest Z170 (Gigabyte - thanks to the great work of @Mov AX, 0xDEADand Dietmar for sure ). Perhaps that particular issue may be caused by sloppy implementation of the S-states by the mainboard manufacturer, or whatever HW malfunction...
  21. Mark-XP
    From my purely instinctive "mozilla-experience" basis i'll stay on 102 ESR alap, and if then any important(!) site will not work with it in the future, i'll install v115 (parallel) for it.
  22. Mark-XP
    I observed this kind of behavior impudence by mozilla already many years ago, leaving add-ons unsupported after an update. But updating to a version that isn't supported by the used os would lift mozillas improfessionalism and recklessness to an new level imo - is that really true? And beware: even if you copy a profile (with auto-update disabled) to a profile-folder of another (newer) version of firefox, it will imediately change that pref to enabled. Simply awful.
  23. Mark-XP
    Thanks for your advice @VistaLover, indeed my first method obviously was unnecessarily complicated!
  24. Mark-XP
    Yes, and - actually as usual - PortableApps managed NOT to provide that latest, final and hence most important version of the 102 ESR version: https://sourceforge.net/projects/portableapps/files/Mozilla Firefox, Portable Ed./ Sometimes More and more often the ignorant behaviour of IT-folks is leaving me speachless. Maybe one weekend (with very bad weather), i'll install the regular 102.15.1 version, compare the differences (to 102.13 portatable) in a diligent file-by-file comparison to spot the changes, and handcraft my own final 102.15 portable version...
  25. Mark-XP
    I'm glad too to read your status reports (but doleful for all the victims anyway). Not denying it at all, imo the climate change is only the one side of the coin: in the german "Ahr valley" (where the flood desaster happened 2 years ago, which @VistaLoverreferred to above) similar catastrophes have happened ever again in former times: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_Hochwasserereignisse_an_der_Ahr Let me please indicate to the row with date "30. May 1602" for instance: 16 buildings were destroyed, 9 people drowned! Now, what would you expect in casualties and damage if you multiply that former population with 10 or 20, add all the modern attendent infrastructure and simultaneously diminish the majority of natural flooding areas? However, let's finish this off-topic - good to know the two protagonists of this thread are fine!
×
×
  • Create New...