Tripredacus

Well we're not going to stop doing our mod duties until then. There are enough entries into that announcement topic now with it being in General Discussion. Do not create additional topics of this, you can post into this one: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/176950-msfn-will-be-taken-offline-12-august-2017/

On some pages you can see this announcement by Xper regarding the MSFN forum. http://www.msfn.org/board/announcement/33-msfn-will-be-taken-offline-12-august-2017/ Changed title, formerly: "MSFN will be taken offline 12 August 2017." New announcement: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/176958-msfn-will-be-online-one-more-month/

I had a similar experience from buying a cheap notebook AC Adapter on ebay. It melted also. I had taken details pictures of the issue and sent them to the manufacturer. They thanked me for them, but IDK if they ever redesigned their product as I never bought from them again.

Merged

Setup can give this message for a variety of reasons. It shows it in the "image selection" page. On a normal installation of anything Vista or newer, the usual cause of this message is a incorrect XML, pointing to a wim location that is incorrect, having wrong install key, etc. 99.999% of the time, a person wouldn't use Setup to install XP at all, except for that one minuscule case of some Vista beta version allowing for you to install an XP image... *supposedly* as I've only read it and never tried it myself. So with such a generic post as OP made (no details about the PE, the Setup version, media type, etc) I can make a generic response also. And the numbers are on my side that they aren't using some obscure Vista Setup+WinPE combo. PS: jaclaz could have said "why not use imagex.exe to install it?" and I would have had to post this emoticon:

That thread is in the Win9x section, so Win XP and newer content for that area is not supposed to be there. I moved the two posts from the Win9x thread to this thread in the Windows 7 section. If you have any more questions about this change, you can PM me instead of posting a reply.

Beta always shows the watermark.

Use DISM to apply the image, not Setup.exe.

You should post the exact version (or build) of Windows you are using.

Two posts split from: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/175734-research-on-am3-board-and-chipsets-resume/

Which one, 1703? Haven't had any custom image requests for that build yet.

Can't speak for him, but I've never had to do a format and reinstall on any of my computers for that reason.

Winaero released a stand-alone Uninstall Cortana download that is separate from the other link. I'm not going to install this program to see if it has the functionality in it or not. The standalone download is available here: http://winaero.com/blog/how-to-uninstall-and-remove-cortana-in-windows-10/ The normal complaint about rehosted files is that there is no need to rehost a file when it is available elsewhere. But this is Legolash2o's creation, so the original or official link is on a forum somewhere. Either way, it is not worth to report this.

You need to test going to the site using the full url and the ip address from both the DC and the webserver itself. Because you need to verify that the website is reachable to begin with, why testing IP is needed. Then when you can verify you can view the site from a computer other than the webserver, you can look into DNS. If DNS is a role on your Domain Controller, you just need to add an A record for the server. If you use some other kind of DNS, you should post what it is.

The normal process is to right click on the image and click view image. Then it should be in the address bar of the browser. It doesn't seem to work for google photos. I put one picture up as a test (Apparently I didn't have any pictures in there) and then when I did that trick, it shows this in the address bar: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/SaQUxKfqqKeQaIV9foB73WOHLyr9RnHdHq1w66UtlUFjx8TKfqJKHQKKSq7fwphPHn3qp1p57QBL7qcEWH5ZnsmmFC41gQsajFxQ6Jb0__et0kaXRVqSH0bKdHBhqkwKzHza-Ke94N69T1jeZEHdy_3-r1_tGOwgvWWf_bl0hbh6drmwJAjaxjbht8mmU-qMvAWoGteHVR0wzJPnAQlzJqG2m9zHgN9RzbGm5pTsnEZAE317XiwzEfHujPuiNPoOZcsAbn3S6LM1eFc0SbiXxvx-1I-YQZMv_aektGHh7aRv5TIVCS5qs1LiCyRA5ycCRGfVaYng_FmqO7juNc9xg1ggNHpNgFyIZzn_fqoSfAv0ZOPbJxQGOGUoL2Tch23e7AZUATm-cjVBTuOR3zspeCxJ-o9PcZnSX4x0MlrBJwu1iCWy6DwZ1eLynZSNsrju1Lz0Mw_AorfnoBR3tTApaRJdmnXYzureXaRdDaR79-bPlQAdoi1ewSIUVIoBGfCEj2IFnjvC2u3y__K569Er_o32dM7QCguE4o8AK42S40LSUGAkidZ0RexhR-eOsgpQkzN5DltrHuMclrW5B3vdy9Z3Hr-JoY4FQUbHVoV_OsDUHExl=w1000-h746-no Of which, only after = at the end can be removed because it is only used to set the image dimensions. I believe that this is binary data and the browser knows how to render it. So you can't get a URL to an actual file, but that URL should work in IMG tags.

So that website is doing the same thing as the earlier one. It is looking at user agents on a list of possible responses and returning the information according to the list. For that specific one you tried, it did not have it and then listed the "unknown" type response. BUT here is the other problem. That website will never put a browser response to that User Agent because it is not a browser. It is a spider identifier. So we see here perhaps a bit of laziness. In an ideal situation, a spider shouldn't receive that information in return from the website. It should have something else that would be benefitting to a search engine spider (such as a site description or something) instead of saying it doesn't know what browser it is. Since the design for a spider is that there is no person on the other end, there would be no reason why you would expect that a spider would want to know what their browser is.... because they likely aren't using a browser in the first place. I can't think of any reason to use a search engine spider user agent unless you were testing something on your own website regarding them.

Sure! I don't think I've ever seen it. I still have more time on OS 7-9 than OS X. On MacOS, I prefer 9 and older type errors of Bombs, question marks and sad faces. And also whatever that error situation is that would lead to the Mac to make duck quack sounds.

It is a problem with that site and how it identifies the browser! For example, for me, it says: "You're using browser version 1 on Operating System" We can see exactly how it is giving you the information, from their .js: http://detectmybrowser.com/javascripts/browser.js { string: navigator.userAgent, subString: "Gecko", identity: "Mozilla", versionSearch: "rv" }, It shows Mozilla, simply because it sees Gecko in the string. I am not certain if it is doing a "select" or if the function immediately exits after finding the first match. It could be tested by having two of the things it is looking for in the user agent. See the substring values in the DataBrowser section of the js to see the values it recognizes. BUT, this is how a website uses a User Agent in most cases. They look for certain text and may provide different code (whole pages, includes, css, whatever) based on what it finds. And it will vary on a site by site basis. As in this example, we only see it says "Mozilla" because that is what that particular web author has classified any user agent with Gecko to be. It will be different for other websites and site authors. And we can probably guess why your example returns the results it did for me. For testing a user agent they way that you have, you would not use a site like you have put because it isn't telling you what you want. You would use a site that actually shows you your user agent. For two purposes only to use these sites: 1. You want to verify that your browser is actually reporting the user agent correctly, or to verify against typos. (Because obviously, you can see it where you edited it on the client) 2. You want to know what some other device's user agent is because you want to copy its string for use on another browser. Here is a site that tells you exactly what you want to know: http://whatsmyuseragent.org/ (It is an example)

No it doesn't mean that. It means that if the browser is IE, then force that ruleset. With modern IE, it has the compatibility mode. If you ever went to a website and it only worked in compatibility mode, then likely that website did not use that tag.

Never! I set all my browsers to prompt. Besides, the default location is in the user profile. That should be kept as small as possible. I just have a folder on one of my drives with all my portables in it. I generally only use them from a USB key, and that key has everything in the root.

One example of how changing the user agent string doesn't help, when it comes to spoofing for later versions of IE, if your browser isn't IE10 or IE11, it doesn't do anything with this HTML: <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=10"/> Which is an instruction to the browser (if IE10, IE11 or Edge) to handle things according to IE10 rules, whatever they are. Ideally, this is not some throwaway code to have on a web page, but as we all know, many websites are not written very well. It is impossible to know for sure whether or not the page author added this because it was required for something to work, or because they just copied it from some example, or used a Generator that added it. BUT, in the cases where it is a required thing in order for a page to work properly in Internet Explorer, then this alone may be responsible for delivering non-working markup to your non-IE browser with an IE user agent. The content value on that meta tag can specify a wide variety of IE versions, including Edge or even IE5.5!

In Windows 7, some applications would disable Aero (or change the Windows theme) automatically if certain conditions were met. This happens to me with Fireworks MX 2004. Does this trigger no longer exist in Windows 10? Or if it still does, perhaps something can be done to disable AeroGlass when a program like that is opened, so as to not cause problems.

I doubt it is conspiracy. There is no reason why MS would want any sort of bad press about anything. I think it is partly their current direction on the OS and also perhaps they have too many/wrong type of people working on these updates. They also seem to have an attitude of "too big to fail" and seem to be running just fine because of the grasp of the market they do have. But we can be certain that Windows is not their money maker anymore and perhaps this is why it doesn't seem to get the attention it deserves. There is always people saying that MS is trying to be like Apple, but they really aren't. Mac OS has not had a real change to how it looks in a very long time. Even if Windows still looked like Vista and all the work that MS would do is to fix the long-standing problems that have been in Windows (for sometimes decades) I think no one would really complain. The redesign in Windows 8 and then Windows 10 was not something anyone had asked for. And it seems like they changed too much at once.

Even in modern situations, spoofing the user agent isn't a foolproof method of doing anything. This is especially true if that user agent you are using causes the site to send different code for you to use, code that would be usable on the actual browser you were pretending to be. This will cause some sites to then appear to not work properly. So changing User Agents is still just a testing type thing in most cases.

WB!