LLXX

I don't know about ME, but I've tested a stock install of 98SE with 2Gb of RAM, which worked fine with only minimal adjustment (MaxFileCache setting in system.ini). Read the many memory-limit related threads in this and the subforum above for more information on my test setup, the experiences of other users with large amounts of RAM, etc. The memory controller is the circuitry (usually part of the northbridge chipset) that controls the RAM.

Open a command prompt and do DIR Q: or whatever drive letter your CD-ROM drive is. Now are you so sure there are WAVs on it?

That explains why most of the open-source software is so poorly written... IMHO if you're not going to put 100% effort into writing the best, most efficient software possible, you shouldn't be writing it. These "programmers" should be ashamed of themselves and their work!

If the defragger and a bunch of apps are all trying to access the disk at the same time, then there'll obviously be contention; either the app fails to open the file, or the defragger leaves it alone and "fills in" the space around the file. When you have several programs open, you have more open files, and that's where data can get lost when something bad happens (in addition to the filesystem mess left by the defragger). With complex filesystems like NTFS, the chances that it didn't finish the file location rewriting are even higher than with simple FSs like FAT.

Oh wait... you're all speaking from a point of a commercially oriented programmer. Never mind then...

No, ME is much the same as 98SE.Memory depends on the memory controller on the motherboard. There should be no problems with SATA as the software interface is identical (they will be detected as standard IDE controllers) - make sure BIOS has "emulate SATA as IDE" or similar option, if default doesn't work. If you want to use drives > 128/137Gb, you need the Enable48BitLBA driver -> Get it from the Unofficial Service Pack subforum, there's a link to it in my sig.

You should just leave the system on overnight, with no unneeded programs running, just for a defragging. Less risky than having it defrag in the background, and also ensures most if not all of the files do get defragged.

Offtopic, but yes, the real SYSTEM account with real SID 1-5-18.

We do not consider renaming a method of obfuscation.Evidence? Just apply an obfuscator that actually obfuscates to any .NET program you have and watch what happens to its size both on-disk and in-memory. Does it take less time to execute more instructions? Perhaps you've never taken a look at the output of an "optimizing" compiler. Sure, it does know a few tricks - after all, compiler writers do know Asm, but most of the time it's just performing a deterministic transformation of the source, based on fixed patterns. ...and your P4 probably isn't the same as my P4. Clock speed isn't everything. A Core2 at 2GHz would probably outperform both of those. Also, the Crypto++ MD5 routine binary is identical to the MD5 code I have, only the source is represented in C++. I don't start writing in Asm unless it's a very small program. I start with C to establish the initial design, then gradually convert portions to Asm where the compiler didn't do as good of a job translating the source as it should've. But on the other hand, the hardware industry coming out with faster hardware does help the software companies to sell their software. If it weren't for the huge amounts of storage and ultrafast processors being available to the general public, I doubt that software would've become what it is today. "I want Vista because it's the newest OS and I want the fastest computer so I can run it..." Emphasis on "required and reasonable". Software with more features should take up more space, that much is logical. But, just how much of an increase is warranted is questionable. Have you ever thought about the fact that more time should be spent using those apps than creating them? Or, in other words, is all you care about money Nor could it ever do so, but there is definitely room for improvement.

A fragmented MFT has nothing to do with locating NTLDR, as that messages comes from the boot sector which may be corrupted. The first parts of the platter surface to fail are, obviously, the ones that are used the most. The boot sector is read every time the machine is booted, and its location also means that the HDD heads often rest over its track when the HDD is idling. In summary: It's one of the more vulnerable areas.

Well, I login as SYSTEM all the time (i.e. that's the user account I use) and haven't experienced any problems... you just have to be the usual careful with what you do.

Thanks, but that would be cheating. There's lots of software saying they don't support Win9x and when you mess with winver and make it report you're running 2k or later, they install and run flawlessly. It's like admitting myself as guilty to escape capital punishment in favor of life sentence, while in fact I'm completely innocent. Does that seem right?! You're not making any sense

That should be a self-evident truth. The essence of obfuscation is to obscure the intent of the code by changing its flow (add jump instructions to delinearise sequential blocks), introducing extra code that does nothing ("garbage code"), or converting basic operations to equivalent series of instructions that require more operations, which goes as far as implementing another virtual machine.What takes more instructions, x+1 or x+60-65535+65596 ? Analysis of the current "best"-in-efficiency software reveals absolute efficiencies of approximately 12-20%.By merely changing a few compiler options, in MSVC for example, that can be improved into the 70-80% range. ("Hello World!" messagebox compiled with MSVC6 default settings: 40Kb; same source, same compiler, different settings: 1Kb | for comparison, the same function in unopt'd Asm: 1Kb ) It can thus be demonstrated that C/C++ can approach the efficiency of "normal" unoptimised Asm, but only via two conditions - [1] the compiler is set to generate the most efficient output, and [2] the programmer takes care in writing the source. The first point is trivial to satisfy, and I am indeed very surprised, by the number of programmers that never neglected to take notice or by M$ which seems intent on making the compiler produce the worst output I'm not sure of which. The second point is a little more difficult to satisfy, but by taking care to remove duplicated code and use methods which increase efficiency (such as HeapAlloc()'ing instead of putting the entire 256 thousand zero bytes into the executable) it is not that hard after all. No, plenty complained about Java. In fact I'd sooner install .NET than Java, then strip out everything I don't need than the basic runtimes.Java was developed to fill a specific niche requiring portability across different platforms, and indeed it has done so. Sun hasn't been pushing Java for everything though, and it remains successfully used on platforms that are hard to standardise (phones, PDAs, etc.) Why don't we like the .NET framework? One reason, is because most of it's just plain useless to the end-user. The end-user doesn't care that it comes with compilers. The end-user doesn't write programs (did M$ intend them to? I don't think so.) The end-user doesn't need all of that..NET sounds like a good concept in theory, and like you said, having all those standard classes is great, but the way they implemented it just fails. It may be, but I'm certainly not going along with it without some serious consideration of the implications of doing so. It's just a way for M$ to coerce the mindless lusers to upgrade to new hardware.HDD space is cheap, so what? Just because we have exabytes of storage available doesn't mean the software has to expand to fill it! More space should mean we can store more data and software, not store the same amount of bigger less efficient software. Do more with less, not less with more.

That was the WD1200BB... the JB ones were fine, though. I have a pair of WD1200JB in my system that have been working for 3 years now.

Ditch Norton and get a real antivirus.

What kind of s*** is this? The Internet is platform-agnostic! If you're talking about things like Flash, well, they're proprietary, and not in the spirit of the web. Tell that to the guys at VH1.com. I had a subscription to their site but have been visiting it very rarely. Recently when I tried to follow a link in one of their e-mails, I got a nice message saying "sorry but your operating system is no longer supported by our site" or something like that. I have no idea if it was about Media Player version or anything else, they just said my OS was bad. So I said "f*ck them" and sent an unsubscribe reply (as instructed). At least twice. They still send me those stupid news e-mails and I keep marking them as junk. As for Flash... that's funny, but I currently have installed v9.0.28 and it works fine. But I disabled it in my browser using Nir Sofer's TurnFlash, and enable it only when needed. And no, that was not the reason for the VH1.com rejection. Use Proxomitron. It can make other websites think you're running whatever OS or browser you want. In fact, I'm sure more than one server admin is a bit puzzled that someone is still using DOS 3.2 and Lynx as a browser

...why don't you learn how to use a hex editor. A lot more useful than you think.

net user command. Google "net user" for more information.

Stop calling it memory. You're confusing yourself and the rest of us here If your D: is empty, then by all means use it...

That's the norm. My IBM ThinkPad can adjust the LCD brightness even with no OS installed, since it's controlled directly by keyboard -> hardware.Default install of Vista will use more power than XP, since it has more services etc. running in the background which takes more CPU activity.

You can try gaining the true 'root', i.e. the local system account. I don't know if this will work for Vista, but it works for XP. Open a command prompt and type at xx:xx /i "cmd.exe" Where xx:xx is some time a few minutes from now. Wait a few minutes and see if a command prompt comes up. If it does, you've got root account and should be able to do anything you like.

You can obfuscate it but that will only make an already inefficient program even more so. Why bother protecting code that no one will want? There are better things on the non-.NET side. Including better software protections.

You have to take a look at the manufacturer of the LCD panel itself (not the casing and everything else around it). It might be an NEC or some other brand, but most of these small LCD monitor manufacturers just buy standard parts, assemble them into their own case and sell them.

Computer recycling center/dump. Many lusers throw away perfectly good hardware. You can probably get the cables for free, and take anything else you might find interesting.

What's the CPU usage in the task manager while playing?