Tripredacus

It looks like both like and upvote increase the reputation number in your info panel. I believe that the forum has an option to enable a "most popular post" type panel, similar to the Popular Contributors panel that appears on the forum index.

I'm sure I'll have some deeper impressions soon. I finally have joined the realm of the living (dead) and got a new workstation that has Windows 10 Enteprise installed. As much as I'd like to remain in the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" category, seeing how my job requires some Windows 10 crap, I figured it was worth a shot. I still kept my old computer tho, so I'm not Windows 7 free... yet.

It is not entirely this fact, more like saying N is backwards compatible (as a blanket statement) is more of pushing marketing speak. If Wireless N was backwards compatible, you wouldn't need mixed mode. Mixed mode is the function of the router/AP to use both N and previous types at the same time. When speaking in terms of this backwards compatibiltiy, you must be specific to the device and to the configuration. A, B, G and N are not compatible with each other. It is the interfaces that determine the compatibility.

@sdfox7 if your wireless G clients can connect to your wireless N network, then you have it configured that way, or in mixed mode. I run pure G and pure N radios at home, and wireless G devices cannot even see the wireless N radio.

You will get this type of message due to Windows either performing a series of actions synchronously and some lag exists that makes the next step in the process to occur before it should. Unfortunately this will result in Windows showing you a message like this and halt whatever it was doing. I see it most often when creating a new folder, and then rename it. Trying to enter it will open a message saying "Unable to locate 'New Folder'" even though the dir doesn't have that name anymore. My best recommendation for avoiding the message you get (and to avoid potential file corruption) is to not multitask when doing a file copy.

If you are wanting to add the drivers post-install (so that the drivers do not exist in the install image) there are multiple ways to do it. The first is the method that I use, where I am using DISM to apply the image to a partition. Then after the image is deployed, I can use DISM to add the driver to that offline installation. Like so: DISM /IMAGE:C:\ /ADD-DRIVER /DRIVER:z:\folder\driver.inf In that example, the driver is actually stored on a network share. Some drivers may be required to be copied to the ramdisk first before adding them this way, but so far I haven't run into any of those. The second example is to make Windows do this work for you. There are various ways to do it, there are multiple unattend settings where you can specific a Synchronous command, or you can use FirstLogonCommands to do it. In this case, the drivers need to be accessible to the OS, whether they exist as a folder inside the image or if they are copied in afterwards using DataImage (which I have not tried in many years) or some other method. Then you can use a DISM command like so: DISM /ONLINE /ADD-DRIVER /DRIVER:c:\folder\driver.inf You may need to use the DISM from the ADK to do this, and if so then you would need to use absolute pathing to DISM.exe so that Windows doesn't try to use the one that is built into the OS. There is also an unattend option you can find called DriverPaths in Microsoft-Windows-PnpCustomizationsNonWinPE, which lets you specify a network path for where the drivers are stored, and Windows will add them to the image IF you are installing to Audit Mode. There are various other ways to do it also, but an all-in-one option for installing different driver sets for different models of computer are outside of this general scope. If you are wanting a driver to be installed for a notebook, such as a touchpad software but do not want this software installed to a desktop, then you will need to use separate answer files for each or go down the path of creating (of finding) a system capable of detecting different hardware and using different deployment options.

There is no rule breaking here. Abandonware certainly exists. The definitions on those websites are correct, but their uses of the term in sentences are misleading.

I had to look it up also. But the page I read was quite general about it. It does not talk specifically about software, but works. The reason being that Windows 95 and Windows 10 being really the same software... it is possible to go even longer for earlier versions but it didn't cover this at all. I'm sure it is buried in the law someplace.

Do a visual inspection of barrel capacitors on the motherboard. These are the ones that look like there is a + (or three pronged "mercedes benz") shape in the top and the tops are silver. They should all be flat. If any are raised or have discoloration on the tops, then this may be a problem. If you are not certain about it, you can post a picture. Another situation where I have seen this has been with the RAM. You can try having just one stick inserted and rotate them. Also you can try turning the computer on without any RAM installed. Of course, the computer will not boot with this type of setup, but it should still turn on. Some computers may have an audible beep code when no memory is installed. There are various other things that can cause this situation, but when it comes down to it, one of the main components is failed or failing. The only time I have seen this issue where there wasn't a component failure, was due to a grounding issue. However, on a previously known working computer, this is usually not the cause. BUT, while you're in your case, good a time as any to get any dust out of there! And you know, if you do end up posting a picture of the insides and there is dust in that picture, I'm sure someone will point it out!

As the rights holder, it is up to Microsoft to decide whether to enforce their copyright. Just because a company does not appear to do anything about people pirating software doesn't mean they can't. At any time that they feel like, they can come down on people who are distributing or hosting software (in part or in full) that they are not allowed to do so, including who disk images (as in this instance) or ISOs, updates, hotfixes, individual programs or files, etc and when they end up doing this, the person who is caught cannot claim that it was OK because nothing was done about it in the past. I'm sure most people would agree that the idea that you'd have to wait 95 years for Windows 95 to enter into the public domain is ridiculous.

I have seen a stock Windows 10 do an upgrade in 18 hours. Stock meaning that the system was setup just to test the upgrade process. The software was not "used" as a person normally would and nothing additional was installed besides drivers to make flags go away in Device Manager. The fact that the average time it takes a stock system to do a version upgrade is 4 hours out to say something. But we all realise that the OS is much larger these days than in Win98 days, and the OS is doing way more and there is a lot of overhead. People do not compare current technology to old technology, or properly efficient old technology because they have no experience with it. We know examples of how a new install of Windows 95 installed onto a 5400RPM hard disk could take 5 seconds to boot to desktop, and this speed can only be matched these days by having an immensly faster boot disk and a tuned OS, be it Windows 7 or newer. The cheats that the industry use to speed up "boot" time by making the computer enter hybernation at shutdown do not count! Hardware has certainly gotten better, but a lot of software really hasn't.

You speak as if Windows 2000 is just one SKU. I gather you are speaking about Windows 2000 Professional only?

Did @dencorso reply to someone after 7 years of looking for an iPaq for his job, or is something missing here?

If using Server 2016 with desktop (as opposed to Core), the default UI is still Server Manager, and everything can be done through there. Or you can use the context on the Start button to go to other places. It has a Start Screen like Windows 8/10 does but I've never used it and have only opened it by accident.

Orphaned products are what most people consider to be abandonware. Programs or games created by companies that no longer exist, therefore there is no entity to enforce copyright. The only way a Windows OS can be freely redistributed is if Microsoft puts the product into the public domain. OR, they go out of business and no one purchases/claims the rights to Windows, then it would be considered orphaned. Until then, the License is still enforceable on Windows 95, even if the product is no longer sold or supported.

As far as OS is concerned.... their focus is not going to be on desktop or on mobile but mobile we can say they just are not interested in creating a competing operating system. Now they are all about servers and online services that mobile devices can access.

As far as I am aware, Microsoft has not yet released Windows 95 into the public domain. As such, this software is warez as it contains a "disk image" of an installed Windows 95 OS. Congrats to Techrepublic, Neowin and Zdnet for supporting software piracy.

Using this as an example, and forgetting the Server 2003 notation, does this work on NT 4? https://www.microsoft.com/es-ES/download/details.aspx?id=3636

Update Catalog says that KB4338818 replaces KB4055038, KB4284842 and KB4284826. Presuming these three would need to be on the system already, or perhaps reinstalling those could fix the issue. However, Catalog also states that KB4338818 is superceded by KB4343900. Installing this instead may work. https://www.catalog.update.microsoft.com/Search.aspx?q=4338818

The real alarm bell that should have gone off was not that OneDrive didn't support MS program files, but the reasons why it would exclude them. So it is obviously not doing just a file copy when it is copying files to the online folder, otherwise, it wouldn't matter if a file was a PST or not. I wouldn't be surprised if the file uploader is actually reading the contents of files before or during the file transfer.

There is potentially another reason. It is true that Setup itself will attempt to partition the disk in GPT format IF you boot the install media in UEFI, and MBR if you boot in legacy. However, there are certain situations where Diskpart (at least) behaves incorrectly. I have seen it various times where diskpart will refuse to run MBR commands[1] on certain hardware and certain hard drives, even when the WinPE is booted in Legacy. [1] Commands for diskpart are not MBR or GPT mostly, but diskpart will give a similar error to what Windows Setup does, that the disk type is incorrect. The commands being the same, you can clean a disk, create a partition and format it, however then you would get the error when trying to make a partition active or setting an ID. In any case, it is my understanding that you cannot do an in-place upgrade with a regular Windows 8.1 DVD, and that some changing to the ISO contents is required in order to allow for that functionality. BUT, I do not think there is an upgrade path from XP to 8.1. Usually the in-place upgrade path is last version to next version. Meaning to do in-place upgrade to 8.1 from XP you'd have to upgrade to Vista, then 7 and then 8.1. The other "upgrade" option available in this situation is to use the User State Migration Tool (USMT). You can use v5 to capture the user data from XP, then you do the install of 8.1... which YES does erase the hard drive. Then you can use the USMT for 8.1 to restore the data and HOPE it works. https://cloudblogs.microsoft.com/enterprisemobility/2013/09/12/how-to-migrate-user-data-from-windows-xp-to-windows-8-1-with-system-center-2012-r2-configuration-manager/ To be honest tho, if this is a desktop computer, I would recommend putting in a blank hard drive. Disconnect the other two/one/whatever and install Windows 8.1 onto that. And end up leaving your existing XP installations be.

Changed topic title.

If the issue is limited to a change in the expected behaviour of your browser, I would look into resetting it, trying a different browser, and scan for malware.

I had mixed results. Initially, emoticon images were not in cache so when I typed in the code manually and posted, only the text had shown up. If I opened the emoticons panel, none of the images were initially present, then they loaded in and I clicked on the same one. Then after that, typing in emoticons manually would change to the picture in the post editor as they should. I am not familiar with how the post editor works exactly. The way it looks to behave is that it does a "text replace" on the emoticon text with an IMG tag with a picture. If you happen to do that without the images cached, or before the script to do the replace is run, or it doesn't run because the image isn't cached, then that looks to be the reason. The forum relies on the browser to load and run an AJAX script to do this conversion. Unfortunately, I didn't have the monitor running when I did my initial test where I duplicated the issue, only after I had opened the emoticon panel. My Palemoon is edited so the help menu is missing, but my user agent says I am using PaleMoon/27.6.2.

The software should do a compatibility check before updating. If the OS is not supported in the new version, then the software should say so and then exit the updater.