Tripredacus

Windows ME on launch day on brand new Gateway 2000 or E-Machines computers was not any good. Maybe for some weeks there was a lot of crashing going on. But what happens after I refused to touch the thing? It apparently got better. Some people had this type of experience with Vista also, but the stigma of a bad release never goes away. So Windows ME and Vista will always be bad to most people.

Well that link isn't wrong, it just isn't being specific. https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh824898.aspx

This was added in SP1, not RTM.

This seems to be a problem with Paypal themselves. https://www.paypal-community.com/t5/About-Payments/server-DNS-address-could-not-be-found/td-p/1336548?profile.language=en

Not dealing with bluetooth for any type of data transfer (such as speakers) myself, my fall back response is to detect or eliminate interference. Since bluetooth runs around 2.4GHz, I would recommend attempts to use the system (if portable) and speaker in other locations. And do a physical survey of other electronics that are in that frequency range and power them off to see if it makes a difference. Your range of interference should be around 10 meters or 33 ft. Wireless speakers (of any type) is not something I have attempted to try quite yet. I still use wires!

We have and have had multiple other places (like Steam or Facebook) for members to talk, and they are not used. I think then an IRC channel would have the same result. It seems everyone just likes to post into the forum.

0x54, not 54, is France. Intl.cpl seems to support a GEOID element, you can try it out to see if it works for you. https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/2764405/how-to-automate-regional-and-language-settings-in-windows-vista--windo Note that it uses the decimal value for GeoID, not the hex. Here is a GeoID list: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/dd374073(v=vs.85).aspx Here is one example I put of passing XML into intl.cpl. http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/163588-keyboard-language-problem/?do=findComment&comment=1046249 Of course, you would need to execute the command from your XML, from FirstLogonCommands or other method.

If legal precendent means anything (and I cannot say how it applies to relative science fiction works) that any court cases concerning actual robots would follow the same lines as those chimpanzees in New York: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/04/21/chimps-given-human-rights-by-u-s-court-for-the-first-time/ BUT... AI is not "AI" currently. It is still just programming. Until any of these robots can pass the Turing Test, they are just machines and their creators should still be held responsible for any actual issues.

I think they are shutting it down, despite the number of people who use it... but instead of what they made it into. IMO it isn't required to have AIM be as fully featured as it is. It has gotten too big to be viable vs the amount of users. If the service were to return to text and links only, and none of that other fancy stuff they added on top of it over the years, then it would not be any large impact for them.

Fireworks is still around, it is in the Creative Suite from Adobe. I think Fireworks was the first program that had the slice tool to make full imagemapped menus for websites. It wasn't Macromedia's regular image editor, that was instead Freehand, but I never got into it. I know version 2 Macromedia products work on Win98, as I have them installed on mine (still) such as Fireworks 2. I wasn't using Win98 as a main in 2004 to know. Flash allowed video embedding using ActionScript. It really was our saviour from "Codec Hell" and the competing video players. The server had to have the codec to play the video, not the client. If Flash was super popular, it was either because of video embedding or the games that were made with it.

Maybe yesteryear for you, but I still use it daily.

64bit versions will be larger than 32bit versions. For example, the 32bit Imagex.exe from ADK 8.1 is 590KB and the 64bit version is 694KB. But also note that the posts on Page 1 are from 5 years ago...

It depends. There are two main versions for those Embedded OS, Enterprise and Standard. One is the componentized version where you can leave parts out. In my experience, most companies that use the Embedded OS are heavily reliant on Windows Explorer or Internet Explorer components and often do not develop their own shell. As a result, it is more in practice to use the Standard edition which is the same exact OS as the desktop counterpart (from a technical standpoint) except that the activation is different. The other main difference is that it supports write filters. I have found that most companies decide to build on a Windows Embedded OS simply because the cost per license is significantly cheaper than the desktop equivalent. My avatar is from the back cover of G1 v1 #1b published by Dreamwave. Edit for jaclaz: For componentized version, that trick of checking all the boxes does work for XP. It doesn't work for 7 because it still leaves some pieces out such as Bluetooth and some other things I forget exactly.

I get the information from the OEM channel. It is "forward looking" but inventory forcasting is showing that Windows 7 Embedded will be forced out of the market due to CPU support. Having something "work" for regular people is not the same as creating products that are certified and officially supported. So while Windows 7 Embedded will still be an active SKU for a few more years, soon there will be no processors available to be used. I could clarify, not really talking about low end SOC type CPUs, but regarding devices that use or require quad core or equivalent CPU as i5 and i7. A lot of embedded devices are now working with 4k video and high resolution cameras and Atom CPUs are not good enough for that type of application. Ravage was an Agent of the Tripredacus Council in Beast Wars.

Windows 7 is becoming a lost cause on modern hardware, even Windows 7 Embedded. Many Win7e client are having to move into Windows 10 (IoT) OS because the available compatible CPUs on the market are starting to dry up.

Most of the comparisons that people know are in their own limited testing. Whereas the person would use 1 thing, and have to switch to the other for some reason or another. For example, there was some issue with Flash a few years ago where a specific version did not allow you to watch videos on Youtube in Chrome and the most used "solution" was to enable the HTML5 player. I think that people really do not have a good understanding about which is actually better than the other. The only comparison testing I had done (in 2015 already) was a temperature testing using 4K Video at fullscreen. http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/0-*/?do=findComment&comment=1099455 But even that is not a real world test, one where I could say one was better than the other. What we know for sure is this hard facts: 1. Flash was designed to create movies. It became used for many things such as games and even software applications, but the original purpose was for video animation. 2. HTML5 is an updated version of the HTML specification. It is not a fair comparison to Flash. The problem always seemed to be the openess of the particular platform. HTML5 being a web standard would end up being supported in everything. Flash being a proprietary platform requires a plug-in. It is just the most recent in the long chain of things that eventually bowed out that were fine for websites but required a third-party plugin. Think also SVG and Java. But you can say "what SVG works in all browser" and yes it does as an image format. SVG was much bigger and could have been a Flash competitor had it been developed properly. For many years, SVG only worked in IE with a plug-in and did not work in Firefox for many years. Even Firefox did not support XSLT properly for many years. So SVG was an example of something that ran purely on text files (XML) using the XML spec but was only supported on IE until maybe 5-7 years ago. Another reason why people often have a bad taste for these plug-in based technologies is having to interact with the software itself and the differences in how the popular browsers handle it. I can't speak for Macs or Safari or Opera because I do not use those. We know the "best" or easiest browser to use with Flash is Chrome because you never see anything about it. It is because Chrome will update the plugin and extensions on its own by default. This is not the case with Firefox or IE. For those browsers, a scheduled task is created to check for Flash updates. Which then opens a program to click a button saying you need to update Flash. Then you click it, and it will open to the Adobe website to download the new .exe, which sometimes might install some crap-ware (like McAfee or Chrome or a toolbar or whatever) if you forget to uncheck a box. Then you have to run that .exe, which then tells you to close "your browser" and re-open again. This process is annoying in itself, because you could think if Chrome can update Flash without you knowing, why not other things? Another thing is that Flash went through at least two noticable periods of system requirement change. One for client, one for developer sides. Flash had become "slow and bloated" when the web was in the "2.0" phase and got bad press in the same way Vista had. In this period of time, it became obvious that for some websites (especially multimedia ones like youtube, or websites with 3D such as the original Quake 3 that id made to run in your browser) that your minimum system requirements was a two "core" CPU (Hyperthreading, dual core, core 2, etc) and 4GB RAM. Existing computers did not have this and the internet became slow for a lot of people. Vista launched and was being sold with single core CPUs and 1-2GB RAM and ran like crap. The developer requirement changed happened around this time also but with some different specs. For a Flash developer, the new software came from Adobe and a 32bit OS didn't cut it anymore. You needed a 64-bit OS and at least 6GB RAM in order to author in Flash CS2 without running into slowdowns or soft-locks during processing. The only other thing I can think of is that Flash never really became "Easy" to use. After Adobe purchased Macromedia's products, they never changed anything. You'd think that since Flash had shifted away from its Shockwave roots of being a movie creation tool, to being more popular with web animations, menus and games, that perhaps a different UI would have been made specifically for those types of applications. But it didn't happen. In fact, Adobe's programs were largely unchanged from when they were Macromedia branded. I can cite the example of Fireworks in CS4 (or CS5) which is basically no different than Fireworks 2 or MX 2004. The only change seemed to be the ability to use Bridge. Well that was more typing than I expected.

Be sure to type in WIM not WMI when you post. We get what you mean but you should at least fix your post and be aware of how you are typing it in the future. I personally try to use Windows Setup as little as possible, so I wouldn't take this approach at all. You should look into a unified deployment platform like MDT (which can be used to create external install media) to handle this type of task rather than trying to get Setup to deploy two totally different operating systems. For .Net Framework, updates for that I get from the catalog are EXE and thus can't be intergrated like MSU files can.

I still prefer XPS over PDF but that is likely more to do with the software itself and not the file format.

Lack of error logging (actual regressions) is one thing I do not like about Windows 10. One example is the change in OOBE made it so half of that phase is not logged into the setupact.log in Panther or UnattendGC anymore, making it impossible to troubleshoot some first-time boot scenarios.

Sure any code that is hidden can be a problem... and PHP is used to target servers for sure. But PHP is not a big threat to clients, because it only runs on the server and does not interact with a browser at all.

After installing the Flash update on Monday, now in Firefox it is set to prompt instead of enabled, which was my old setting. I only had Flash configured to deny/prompt for local storage. So it seems that that update change a setting in my browser without asking or notification. Also the prompt has changed, it says now Flash will slow down my computer.

Flash was too innocent when it came into being, or after its separation from Shockwave. Macromedia had put in the ability to not only have local file access but their own scripting language. Once this happened, Flash became a problem. Macromedia did remove the local file access in SWF but not Projector. Then they removed it from Projector in the MX 2004 version. (Projector was the ability to compile an .exe from your Flash movie. I would put it on the same terms as what an HTA is to HTML/ASP.) Then later they removed Projector. They never did remove ActionScript, and this was the main issue with Flash. Since the SWF was compiled, it hid what script it had inside of it. The SWF could be decompiled but not on the fly in a browser or at runtime. People even figured out how to code it so the SWF couldn't be decompiled properly. It became pretty much void that Adobe could not remove the ActionScript from Flash and only would continue to patch it to fix exploits or other bugs. The writing was on the wall and it was already a dead product for many years now. The problem was that it was the best at certain things up until just recently. While there had been many ways to provide fancy graphics or do video playback, there was nothing better than it functionality wise. Things are a lot different now that HTML5 is defacto staying around and is proven enough to take over that responsibility from Flash. So now Flash can go away. I do not know how the Wii or iPod works, but Flash won't stop immediately. Anything that runs on projector or local files would still work. SWF that is linked to embedded SWF would still work, providing the files are still on the server. Same for anything else it links into, such as images, XML/flatfiles or a database. I'm sure that there will still be extensions for browsers that allow Flash content to work, it is just that Flash will no longer be maintained. Big websites that keep up with trends won't use it anymore, but if your browser still supports it and you go to a site that has it, it will still work.

That is the wrong term. Planned Obsolescence is when a product is created with the plan baked in from the get-go that it will become unusable at some point. So this can't really be applicable to Adobe since it was not them who even made Flash in the first place.

Only until the next one comes out. Also why would Asus decide to name their new phone for 2017, "ZenFone 4" which was also a name of one of their phones from 2014?

Fortunately, Canon still has a website: https://www.canon-europe.com/support/consumer_products/products/fax__multifunctionals/inkjet/pixma_mp_series/pixma_mp230.aspx?type=drivers&language=EN&os=WINDOWS 7 (32-bit)