Tripredacus

On a well used system, trying to dig through the dir structure manually is a real pain. The visualisation programs are so much easier for that task.

There is a Treesize for Win9x as well, all the way at the bottom of this page: https://www.jam-software.com/treesize_free The UI is reminiscent of some Norton program that did/does the same thing, but I can never remember the name of it.

Which HAL is installed? This shows up in Device Manager in the Computer section. I have seen a wrong HAL in XP cause a MP appear as a UP in both Device Manager and Task Manager Performance tab. https://www.betaarchive.com/wiki/index.php/Microsoft_KB_Archive/309283

It is invalid parameter. Also not aware of this IE9-vista.msu. Usually you install IE9 by way of installing the 3 .msu pre-requisite updates and then running the .EXE. In this scenario, IE9 is not integrated into the image, rather is installed during first boot. There are also compatibility issues regarding Vista where you may need to use the WAIK for the OS version. WAIK 1.1 for Vista SP1 servicing. Also that you may need to use peimg to service images instead of DISM. Verify /english exists. /image is for a file not a mount point. Make sure you are using the Deployment Tools Command Prompt.

Want to know the actual error text shown in the Deployment Tools CMD. You'll also want to find the relevant log entries that line up with the cmd you run in the DISM.log file. To make things easier, do not do a batch run, just use 1 file.

I don't hate it, I just prefer not to use it if I don't have to.

DISM can integrate .msu and .cab files. What is the error you get with DISM?

Ah just looking now, it seems XP doesn't natively support the manifest, and will ignore it. Apparently, Vista also. So perhaps this is a dead end. That, however, doesn't invalidate that Common-Controls v6 is required. I would run depends on the setup.exe (formerly setup.tmp) and see if anything else is missing. Otherwise, it is possible you can run into an issue with the certs that are in there as well. Since the issue isn't really to do with the original setup, the one that uses the .iss. But perhaps, you can still rebuild the whole thing since you have both the files and the .iss. You'd need to change all those minVersion values. When doing this, do not include the setup.tmp/exe from before, perhaps the rebuild will create a new one. And see about using an older version that v6, if you use v6 you probably don't have to change the .iss. I haven't used inno setup in a long time.

This setup requires the Common Controls for Vista, this is specified in the manifest. It may require .net Framework 1.1, 2.0 or 4.0. Also the setup does not contain the installation files. There must be a different file that can be opened, or an archive that is included. It is safe to remove those attachments now.

Microsoft hasn't had an official WinPE distribution program since 2011, and as such any links to a WinPE posted on MSFN cannot be posted. If anyone has information regarding the resumption of a redistribution policy, you can send it to me for review.

That wouldn't be a good idea.

Is the split files complete? The forum only shows 6-9. Perhaps do not put this .tmp file onto the forum at all and put it somewhere else like a Google/OneDrive. See if you can get the insides using Innounp: http://innounp.sourceforge.net/ Note: can't force https on that link. With the .iss file you have, you can see exactly what the setup is going to do, and so you can modify it. For example, you may want to remove everything except the last line in [Run] section and everything except "createdesktopicon" in [Tasks]. For the MinVersion, XP should be set to 5.0. My reference .iss file is for a setup that is for XP and that is what it has. Example from that file: Source: "{app}\setup.exe"; DestDir: "{app}"; MinVersion: 0.0,5.0; Flags: ignoreversion Since you have the .iss file, and can extract the files from the archive, you can repackage it using a modified .iss file if you wanted to create an XP installer.

It has nothing to do with what we think, rather the governments for the countries our users and the website is in. I was not around when rule 1 came into being, so I cannot say whether is was just decided on or if it came into being due to a reaction for something. The redistribution portion certainly did come in as a reaction to something. Xper decided it is better to just not allow unauthorized redistribution rather than having to constantly deal with other companies' legal departments.

Is the setup within the setup also an Inno package, or something else? The original package built with Inno, should have an .iss file, which is the script file that inno uses to install the package. An OS version can be specified in there. Also, either program's manifest can be blocking the install.

Ok the board has 3 mechanical x16 slots but two of them are 4x electrical. The video card should be installed in the slot closest to the CPU. I do not think that the card being a PCIX 4.0 in the 3.0 electrical 16x slot would cause the issues you describe. You wouldn't be able to get everything out of the card while it is in that board, but it shouldn't be unusable. As for the TDP, it may be that with Win 10/Linux Turbo Boost isn't being used at idle, while in Win7 it is. May be due to settings, drivers or lack of drivers.

Things change, new ideas come about, people like to relive old times, etc. Not closing topic.

Gigabyte makes at least 3 video cards with that chip and you didn't post your motherboard make/model.

Since you still haven't posted specs, I can only ask: is there any mechanical vs electrical considerations with the motherboard?

I'd take the route of calling the bank to complain about it. I would hate it if my bank went that route. I do not have anything on my phone connected to financials in any way and prefer to keep it that way.

When you say "install" do you mean only using setup.exe? Because you can image an XP install onto the disk without issue. You could even put DOS on it if you wanted. But for XP 32bit it might be an issue, you may need to only be looking at XP 64bit for this type of device. The first step is to make sure you can find a storage driver to use, since if you can't find one, then it isn't going to boot.

It can be hard to find out, but it is possible your video card does not have a UEFI BIOS or support GOP. Post the model of your video card if you can't find out if it does. I use a Sapphire RX 580, which I had to get because it has a BIOS switch between legacy and UEFI, and I am still using a legacy system. At the time, it was the only 8 GB video card I could find that supported legacy. Of course, having the switch means that I could use it on UEFI if/when I decide to go that route.

OK I was just looking at the console output in your screenshot. Looking at it again, it is not blocking the ads, or at least the adsbygoogle.js that is on googlesyndication. To figure out where the issue lies, you'll need to figure out why the console is showing you that SyntaxError. I believe that is what is causing the issue. Here is what you can do. If you can get a page to do this thing where the posts don't show up. Then go into the inspector and view the console and verify the SyntaxError is present. Then on the page again, choose to view page source instead of inspect. Select all and copypasta it into a .txt file. Then PM me the text file. Just to make sure we aren't wasting any time, I do not want a .txt file if the error console doesn't show that Syntax Error message.

All of the things that are monitored are from within the shell. Start Menu, apps, search/cortana, browsers. All either part of the shell or launched from the shell. If you were to replace the shell with a browser, does the same amount of monitoring occur? I am inclined to think not, but it would be interesting to know if that was the case.

To my knowledge, it doesn't change what Windows Update does.

The blocking of the ads shouldn't be what is causing it, as shown in your picture. Unless, the process used to do the block (which would be to not put the affected code in the rendered code, or the browser putting a comment on it) is what is causing the problem. Notice that Syntax error at the end. If the blocking method is also removing part of the page code outside of the ad object, it could be what is the actual issue. On a page with this security enabled, do an inspect on the stars for rate this topic. Then with the security disabled, repeat. I wonder if the browser security is commenting out a portion of code it shouldn't, and with tags being "missing" causes the page content to not appear.