Tripredacus

Which Thinkpad? What driver is installed?

It is not always just registry keys to look at in these PMLs. First thing to remember is that the process you attach to may not actually be the process that is doing all of the work. A child process may be spawned by w2ksp4-2_en.exe that is doing more things that are not captured here. Also, this seems to be extremely filtered. Two things for next step: 1. your PML shows that this file was written to, see what is in it for the same timestamp: C:\WINNT\system32\config\software.LOG. You could also check the system for *.log around the time you executed the EXE (you do this check right after running it) to see if any other files get updated with anything useful. 2. Check for a child/spawned process doing anything. I do not know the completeness of this PML but if there is nothing more than this then it doesn't appear that this process launched anything. What you may or may not be able to do is the next step to use Process Explorer to pause the w2ksp4-2_en.exe process. You can do this before the error message appears, but you can also do the following (without pausing/halting the process) once the message box is on the screen. In ProcExp (at least XP era versions) you can look at the properties of a process and it will show you all of the files and regkeys that it has open, as well as view the Strings tab for both image (not usually useful) and Memory option which may show paths not visible in lower pane.

It seems that you need to get a matching SP4 from the OEM who originally sold the installation of Datacenter and install that version. Maybe it wasn't always different bits, perhaps there were just instructions you needed to follow before running the update. I found information here, there is a table in the 2.1 section: https://web.archive.org/web/20041130034246/http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/downloads/servicepacks/SP4/ReadMeSP.htm I have not tried to install Datacenter myself because I tend to try using old software in their optimal setup... which means running on a cluster of which i don't have the hardware for., This document seems to indicate that IBM's implementation of Datacenter is locked down in some way. It mentions not being able to install software that has kernel access: http://ps-2.kev009.com/basil.holloway/ALL PDF/sg245845.pdf What you could try, potentially, is to attach procmon to the processes that are involved with running that update file to see if you can see what it might be looking at when it decides that the system isn't qualified and stops the installation to show the message. It might be that there is some old version of Procmon that works in Windows 2000, but maybe not. Here is a thread on superuser talking about other tools that you could try. https://serverfault.com/questions/129044/where-to-get-working-sysinternals-tools-for-windows-2000

It would be helpful if you could post the exact errors you get. And also get any error messages from log files.

Even on an old computer, I doubt you'd see a measurable speed difference in copy speed with what you are using. Gemini says that /v was added in MS-DOS 3.2 but doesn't give a reference link. But let's say that is the case, the reason for needing to add /v was likely to handle copying issues on floppy disks. You would be more likely to see a speed difference on a 286 and copying to/from actual floppy disks. In regards to /V/Y arrangement, this could be an issue with MS-DOS 7.1. While outside of your scope, you could see how other (actual) versions of MS-DOS handle this. COMMAND.COM should parse the entire command, read the options and then execute the command. If it does it in a FIFO method, it could be that (for some reason) it actually is totally ignoring the /Y or would (somehow) try to set that option after verification, and it shows you the overwrite prompt because of that. That is just a guess, but I wonder if DOS 5 or 6.22 has this issue. You could also see if it behaves the same way without setting the COPYCMD variable, just run COPY /V/Y manually to see if it has the same result. If it doesn't then obviously it has something to do with the environment variable.

It seems /V is silent and you'd only know that it is being used if verification fails. Of course there is certainly a way to test that, but I only have theory on that process and not any actual instructions. How I'd imagine that would have to be done is you would need to attach/use a debugger or other process manipulation tool, halt the copy process at some point and you'd need to manually change something. Not knowing exactly how the copy command works, I don't know if you could simply edit the source file or if you'd have to change something in memory, before resuming the process. Another thing that you'd probably need to figure out is how the command is actually verifying. Does it do a CRC check or a bit compare? You'd also want to know at which points in the process that copy gets the info from the source and destination file occurs, so that you would have a better idea of when to interject to cause a failure. Your ability to cause a verification to reliably fail may be very difficult to do under DOS.

Gemini indicates that both do the same thing under MS-DOS as you specified. It also states that the extra . in /Y./V is ignored by both command.com and cmd.exe interpreters. These should also be the same: SET COPYCMD=/Y/V SET COPYCMD=/Y /V Gemini does not know whether there are specific versions of MS-DOS where specific usage of delimiters matter. Of course, you are best to test both commands in a real world scenario before implementing them in your batch file, since LLMs can't/don't do any sort of testing and you have a greater ability to detect if there is actually a difference or not.

We may assist you in trying to find some of these but you can't expect us to do all of the work. Please type these first line of each in a post as text.

You'll need to get the hardware IDs of the devices you want to find drivers for. Usually just the VEN&DEV (or VID&PID) portions would suffice.

Done

You are not the only person on the forum.

Even if the add-ons were signed and approved by the overlords at Mozilla or Google or whoever, I would still expect them to be stealing information. Having something be digitally signed makes no difference to me.

It happened today, the only thing that actually seems to have changed is that Firefox disabled ALL extensions. I will update to the 115.12.0esr as it has an option for and see if that fixes it. That did not do anything. There was some other change that Mozilla writes about here: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/add-on-signing-in-firefox?as=u&utm_source=inproduct Changing the signature requirement in about:config re-enabled the extensions.

The only reason why Elon is managing Doge is because he said he would do it. Usually when people come up with grandiose ideas, they don't volunteer to be part of the solution. The complaint (which OP should have highlighted) is the following: I doubt it is the case to be honest. On X you do not need to follow him to see what he says, that is true. However X has (and has had for a long time, even when Jack was on the board) 2 views. The default view which is the old view where you only see the content of the people you follow: Their posts (but not replies) and their retweets. The other view is the For You, or the feed. On that view you will also see posts the people you follow have replied to, have liked AND posts from accounts that they follow. Even before Elon bought Twitter, he was one of the users with a very high engagement, many replies, many followers, many quote tweets. So if any of the people you follow also follow him, then his posts are going to show up in the For You view. Especially if you follow any news outlet or journalist, as they all follow him. Now the For You feed has been the default view on Twitter for quite a few years now, so this predates it being X. He had posted some internal info last year stating that most people use the For You view and he had posted how to use the other view. The For You view is often criticized because it displays the posts out of order. That is why I never liked to use it. I think that X could make this complaint moot if they just change the default tab to the Following mode, since if you potentially never see any post from Elon on that view. But as I said, if you follow any news/journo type, they are probably going to quote tweet him, so you can't hide from him forever. The only issue unrelated to the algorithm is that you cannot actually mute some accounts. Technically you can but the posts can still appear. I do not know if Musk's account is one of them but the X and SpaceX accounts cannot be actually muted. The X account I can understand, same reason here you cannot block Admins. Even in this case, I don't think it is something you would take legal action against.

Starting with 2012, probably not. The only real issue would be in regards to hardware or software capability. And it depends on what you mean by a daily driver. If you mean just using the internet, then no issue will be had. If you want to play games, that may be an issue with certain aspects if they (or the video/sound card) do not support the Server version. I think around 2012 to now, Windows Server is less transparent vs client, meaning most programs don't know any difference. But also in regards to using an old Server OS like 2008 R2, you are going to run into the same issues as equivalent client OS in regards to security certificates and TLS.

This happened to me at home only yesterday. That PC is using Win 10 1809. I will get the version info later. You could choose to keep it and re-enable the extension anyways. The Chrome web store does not have any sort of alternative. Also you could say their messaging is slightly deceptive. On both the toast when opening the browser, and on the web store it says it "doesn't follow best practices" which is gives a negative connotation. I'm sure they flag all extension with v2 this way but they could say something like how they are migrating to a new method and these extensions haven't updated to it yet.

OEMs can only use processors in the distribution channel, which should all be current gen.

Also done!

Done.

On one Windows 7 computer I have Firefox 115.0.3 (64-bit) and every now and then when I open it it shows a tab that states the root certificate will expire soon. I believe it stated March 13. It gives the option to upgrading the browser to a new version (or new branch) which looks to be 115.1esr. Is updating the browser the only way to resolve this or is there a way to update the root certificate it uses to stay on the same version?

I was replying to the specific condition where an infected PC is put onto the network that contains a router. Those router issues you speak of come either that way from manufacturing, from a bad firmware update or from the internet.

No one can really say. Here you can drive anything you want but it has to pass inspection. I'm sure there are different rules for different things. During the summer you can see vehicles from 80 years ago being driven around. There is also a consideration toward import laws. Some vehicles are illegal to drive here only because they are illegal to import, based on emissions, safety or some other regulation. Two examples are Nissan Skyline GT-R (car from 2 Fast 2 Furious movie) and I seem to recall that Hyundai made a model of Elantra for Europe in the 2010s that got 2-3x the MPG as the US model but was banned for import.

2 computers connect to the same interface, so the possibility exists. Most (like 99.9%) of consumer routers never get updates or patched for CVEs.

The Paris Agreement has always had the same complaint about it, that it was just an agreement and not binding. It was just used as a badge of honor. Many countries joined it but didn't change their operating procedures or used it as an excuse to make money from their citizens.

They are not reliable as a straight adapter. It comes down to whether the computer sends the correct signals and also on the monitor. I stopped using them because I kept running into scenarios where the adapter would work on one computer but not another, or various displays not working with them. There are also situations where you can get no video during boot, in Setup, in text mode (Windows or Linux), etc. HDMI to VGA has the same issues but usually worked more than the DVI variety. They are cheap enough to try if you have a lot of hardware to use, but I wouldn't bank on it or recommend to someone with just 1 computer because the possibility exists that they could end up with something they can't use.