Tripredacus

Perhaps. See Zigzag's comment here: https://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/baa36140-526f-4b01-aa60-79a57525a964/is-there-a-new-windows-10-adk-version-i-can-only-find-adk-with-build-10075-released-along-with?forum=WinPreview2014Setup

I'm reading that there are Windows 10 TP ADKs being released with each new Build. Are there any differences in these new ADK versions concerning the files your tool downloads?

Two things. First it is hard to tell exactly from the first post but it is worded as if you are connecting the SATA drive after the computer is turned on. Is this true or do you connect it prior to turning on the PC? Second is that you can get an internal drive enclosure that has the ability to remove or undock a SATA drive. I know this would be more of a manual process but it could work for you. The one I have is this, although there are certainly other ones out there: http://www.istarusa.com/istarusa/products.php?model=T-7-SA If I don't want the drive detected, I just unlock it. The lock mechanism works in such a way that it will push the internal enclosure outwards from the bay itself, which will disconnect the drive from the SATA connection. You don't even need to take the drive out.

Does it get detected by Windows and if so what is the Hardware ID?

No, Four weeks from GA. On many other forums I'm on, I'm seeing a lot of optimism over Windows 10.

Yes I suspected that the time sync would fix it. Good thing tho... What timing!

Yeah, things like this end up in "white whale" category. Unless you want to drive yourself insane, I wouldn't actively search for them and instead focus on something else. In my own collecting ways, I always find I cannot ever locate the thing I'm looking for until I start looking for something else.

See if there is any Battery software available from Dell for that model notebook.

Microsoft doesn't actually do their own surveys, they are all being done by a contracted company. Who is to say whether MS wants this info or if that company does.

Ah so in that picture, it seems like your computer is off a second.

I blinked and I missed it.

Plus, when you press the F2 or DEL to go into the "BIOS" you are actually going into BIOS or CMOS Setup. So on newer PCs either you are entering UEFI Setup or UEFI+CSM=BIOS Setup. I just call it BIOS. Sometimes like to call it "The Cosmos" a term coined by a former co-worker when trying to pronounce CMOS.

Hmmm I thought this was the next thing... https://twitter.com/StartIsBack/status/608039010141904898 Anyways I'm sure it will be brought up sooner or later, but people probably would want to not have the glyphs on the right side.

First of all, no sort of trading can be done on the forums... its in the rules. Second, these seem to have a proper name of "Compaq MyStyle Color Accent Kit" which I get this from here: http://www.elhvb.com/mobokive/Archive/Compaq/Cto/5000/5000t/5bwms2/5000T-5BWMS2Quickspecs.html Interesting that there are collectors of "modern" computer hardware...

Windows 7 Pro SP1 x64 image bugchecks on first boot after imaging. Master Image With the master image, deploying to an Asus Z97 chipset board with an i5 CPU, Windows will bugcheck on first boot with a 0x7E pointing at igdkmd64.sys. No Memory.DMP is created. This indicates that the driver currently in the image for video device VEN_8086&DEV_0402 is incorrect. Before jumping to that conclusion (because I have already done so) I wanted to take a look at what is actually happening with the OS. %windir%\setupact.log has this info: 2015-06-26 05:03:25, Error CBS Failed to call external evaluate applicability on package: Package_1_for_KB2685813~31bf3856ad364e35~amd64~~6.1.1.11, Update: 2685813-1_neutral_LDR [HRESULT = 0x80070bc9 - ERROR_FAIL_REBOOT_REQUIRED]2015-06-26 05:03:25, Info CBS Failed to evaluate external applicability for package update: 2685813-297_neutral_PACKAGE [HRESULT = 0x80070bc9 - ERROR_FAIL_REBOOT_REQUIRED]2015-06-26 05:03:25, Error CBS Failed to call external evaluate applicability on package: Package_for_KB2685813_SP1~31bf3856ad364e35~amd64~~6.1.1.11, Update: 2685813-297_neutral_PACKAGE [HRESULT = 0x80070bc9 - ERROR_FAIL_REBOOT_REQUIRED]2015-06-26 05:03:25, Info CBS Failed to evaluate external applicability for package update: 2685813-445_neutral_PACKAGE [HRESULT = 0x80070bc9 - ERROR_FAIL_REBOOT_REQUIRED]2015-06-26 05:03:25, Error CBS Failed to call external evaluate applicability on package: Package_for_KB2685813~31bf3856ad364e35~amd64~~6.1.1.11, Update: 2685813-445_neutral_PACKAGE [HRESULT = 0x80070bc9 - ERROR_FAIL_REBOOT_REQUIRED][06/26/2015 05:03.25.352] WudfUpdate: Update process returned -2145124329.[06/26/2015 05:03.25.383] WudfUpdate: SetFakeSystemRestorePoint: Problem finalizing nested restore point - (1058)[06/26/2015 05:03.25.399] WudfUpdate: update returned error 0x80240017 - status(80240017) <no error text>.[06/26/2015 05:03.25.430] WudfUpdate: For additional information please look at the log files %windir%\windowsupdate.log and %windir%\Logs\CBS\CBS.log[06/26/2015 05:03.25.446] WudfUpdate: Cleaning up update.[06/26/2015 05:03.25.461] WudfUpdate: Error updating UMDF - status(80240017) <no error text>. Aborting installation.To note that most Intel 6 series and newer Asus boards have a device detected as ACPI\PNP0A0A, which is some ACPI/ASUS/AMD device. What the device does exactly, I do not know. The driver for this requires the UMDF v1.11 x64 update to be in the image. Failing to add that package and having just the driver causes an entirely different bugcheck and logs stating something like "pending primitives." The reason for mentioning this is because the KB2685813 in the logs is a UMDF update.Some errors exist in %windir%\WindowsUpdate.log. 2015-06-26 05:03:18:987 940 664 PT WARNING: Cached cookie has expired or new PID is available2015-06-26 05:03:19:939 940 664 Agent WARNING: Failed to evaluate Installed rule, updateId = {C735DBB1-06B4-49F2-815F-97976B4B86A4}.102, hr = 8004100A2015-06-26 05:03:20:001 940 664 Agent WARNING: Failed to evaluate Installed rule, updateId = {6A8FE277-1048-48B1-803B-4580C15BBDF1}.100, hr = 8004100A2015-06-26 05:03:20:360 940 664 Handler FATAL: UH: 0x80070bc9: EvaluateApplicability failed in CCbs::EvaluateApplicability2015-06-26 05:03:20:360 940 664 Agent WARNING: Failed to evaluate Installed rule, updateId = {4D6711E4-CF8A-4F91-857E-487159ABE994}.501, hr = 80070BC92015-06-26 05:03:20:454 940 664 Handler FATAL: UH: 0x80070bc9: EvaluateApplicability failed in CCbs::EvaluateApplicability2015-06-26 05:03:20:454 940 664 Agent WARNING: Failed to evaluate Installable rule, updateId = {4D6711E4-CF8A-4F91-857E-487159ABE994}.501, hr = 80070BC92015-06-26 05:03:20:563 940 664 Handler FATAL: UH: 0x80070bc9: EvaluateApplicability failed in CCbs::EvaluateApplicability%windir%\Panther\setuperr.log 2015-06-26 05:02:17, Error SYSPRP SPPNP: Error 0x25 (CONFIGRET) occurred while determining the buffer size needed to hold the list of devices that are using service iusb3xhc.2015-06-26 05:02:17, Error SYSPRP SPPNP: Error 0x424 occurred while opening a handle to the service iusb3xhc.[gle=0x00000424]Here is a different error relating to the Intel USB 3.0 Driver. These errors are not in the setupact.log.Image 2 I previously mentioned something about not jumping to conclusions. Image 2 was created because I did just that, figuring that the Intel Video driver (mentioned in the bugcheck) was the cause. Image 2 is the Master image with all Intel video drivers removed. EDIT: I made an error and never actually had deployed Image 2 yet. Link to Memory.dmp here: https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=DF9CED75545B2B97!221&authkey=!AKRMa8G2HsY3zns&ithint=file%2cDMP With both of these images, the OS will boot fine if I put a non-Intel video card in the system. To note I only put Intel video drivers in Win7 images.

Good thing that is an optional thing!

My thought was to run a Domain controller in a VM, probably could use an eval copy of Server 2012 R2 or anything similar on the technet eval page. Then you join your PC to the domain and add configure to use WSUS. Then you can just have WSUS not feed any updates if you wanted. This would mean WU would still be enabled on the client, yet no new updates would be installed. I don't plan on using Windows 10 personally, but it was an idea I had.

Is there a difference between DOS 7.1 and a DOS 7.10? This bootable DOS is made from boot files from a DOS 7.10 (specifically) installation.

This will soon be of no concern or rarity...

I think my older version of this bootable DOS had QBasic in it... Anyways the Editvar does the trick just fine. It shows me the command in the rem and creates the dir using the variable name. editvar -p "Enter the system Serial Number." INPUTrem temp.exe /ss %INPUT%md %INPUT%I wasn't sure if the variable name was case sensitive, but I didn't want to test that out.

Fixed the broken url.

I don't think it has anything to do with Windows 7 vs Windows 10. For that specific link, last week my Win7 got the 404 in 3 different browsers, but a Win8.1 could see it fine with Chrome. And today it works on Win7 in Firefox. There is obviously an issue and I thought it was just my PC, but apparently there is something larger going on.

About the 404 pages... I've been getting that a lot recently. Mostly on the SBLicensing pages where it will go to 404 in all browsers I try, yet they can be accessed by other computers. One link last week was doing this, but today it is working fine. This is the link: http://www.microsoft.com/OEM/en/salesmarketing/Pages/media-replacement.aspx

It appears that you normally wouldn't want to delete that folder... but that it is "ok" to do so if you will never try to uninstall a hotfix or update. That could be a big risk if you were to delete it (or at least its contents) and then some time in the future you run into a conflict with an update. I'm not sure if you could simply move the contents to something else, then restore it should you need to uninstall something. I do not know how Windows would react to that.

See here: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/173394-2-appearing-after-program-names-when-start-button-pressed/ Don't make duplicate posts. Your dupe post in the pinned SIB thread has been deleted.