jaclaz

Member
  • Content count

    17,942
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    104

jaclaz last won the day on April 22

jaclaz had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

838 Excellent

3 Followers

About jaclaz

  • Rank
    The Finder
  • Birthday

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://jaclaz.altervista.org/

Profile Information

  • OS
    none specified
  • Country

Recent Profile Visitors

6,872 profile views
  1. Yep , I know, just asking if there was a specific "preferred" one, like "try 361, not 355.73". The "361 page" does not even list any 10xx series card: http://drivers.softpedia.com/get/GRAPHICS-BOARD/NVIDIA/NVIDIA-GeForce-iCafe-Graphics-Driver-36177-for-XP.shtml seemingly the only one with: is the 368.91 page you gave in your first post. Since Windows 2000 could not find any reference to those cards, it is likely that it is a mistake/a glitch in the matrix. jaclaz
  2. Which older ones? (out of curiosity) Do you have a link to them (or a version number, etc.)? jaclaz
  3. But you can get a full refund of the price paid anytime, no questions asked, though, an integral lifetime warranty for the money you invested in Gavotte's . Now, you may like (or not like) the fact that the good guy that wrote it is Chinese, and of course whine as much as you want about the lack of (choose one or more) source code, new versions, whatever, still it remains the best possible solution for an XP system with (too) much memory it is has been proved in years of daily use to be very, very stable. About the graphic professionals I know I will gladly pass to them your opinion about their utter incompetence in computing matters, I am pretty sure that the ones that built and use hackintoshes will be delighted by these news (the ones that use original Macs are actually a little "hip" anyway and probably deserve it). While you are at it, you could also tell me how Hasselblads are overrated as professional photo cameras and that there is much more value per buck in (say) Nikons, and I may even agree with you, still all the professional photographers I know use Hasselblads (and Macs) this is only a reported fact in my experience. @TrevMun What you describe (unlike what 98Se described, which is the use of excess memory to create a ramdisk, i.e. and exceptionally fast temporary storage, very useful for some heavy computing typical of graphic/video editing) seems more like "OS crust". You need to have enough memory for the *whatever* processes you need to run (peak usage) then the sheer moment the program(s) is/are terminated they MUST free ALL the memory. If your system starts swapping when you use "program A", then it is "peak usage" and you need more memory (and - if it is the case - an Operating System capable of managing that additional memory), if the system starts swapping after a day or two of use (and after "program A", "program B" and "program C" have been used without a need for swapping as a peak within the program) then it means that some processes are not releasing correctly memory after having been terminated (or have not been properly terminated). The rule of the thumb is as follows: 1) if you have 4 Gb and an OS that can manage only 3.25 or 3.5 GB and that 3.25/3.5 Gb are enough (peak usage) for you use of the computer, it's OK and you can make optionally a 0.5-0.75 Gb ramdisk for temporary storage 2) if you have 6 Gb you can enlarge this ramdisk to 2.5-2.75 Gb still remaining within the "plain" 32 bit OS 3) if you have 8 Gb it makes a lot of sense to switch to a 64 bit OS or try one of the patches to access more RAM But if the issue is with the programs in use (or the configuration, or whatever) that "builds up" RAM usage over time, adding more RAM is only a way to postpone a needed reboot. jaclaz
  4. [additional justification here] You mean: [additional useless and patronizing justification here] I would like better: "We decided to not support anymore XP and Vista, because we can", or "We decided to not support anymore XP and Vista because it is too much work for us" which are plain, simple statements, avoiding giving the impression that the good Mozilla guys actually care about our security and that they are actually capable of doing so (which may or may not be accurate). jaclaz
  5. I quickly tested it in XP, where the service is actually called PlugPlay or Plug and Play: sc query PlugPlay SERVICE_NAME: PlugPlay TYPE : 20 WIN32_SHARE_PROCESS STATE : 4 RUNNING (NOT_STOPPABLE,NOT_PAUSABLE,ACCEPTS_SHUTDOWN) WIN32_EXIT_CODE : 0 (0x0) SERVICE_EXIT_CODE : 0 (0x0) CHECKPOINT : 0x0 WAIT_HINT : 0x0 sc qc PlugPlay [SC] GetServiceConfig SUCCESS SERVICE_NAME: PlugPlay TYPE : 20 WIN32_SHARE_PROCESS START_TYPE : 2 AUTO_START ERROR_CONTROL : 1 NORMAL BINARY_PATH_NAME : C:\WINDOWS\system32\services.exe LOAD_ORDER_GROUP : PlugPlay TAG : 0 DISPLAY_NAME : Plug and Play DEPENDENCIES : SERVICE_START_NAME : LocalSystem is there really a "&" in Windows 10? It would break a good 99% of any existing batch file ... jaclaz
  6. This might do (as a batch, not one liner): @ECHO OFF SETLOCAL ENABLEEXTENSIONS CALL :reset FOR /F "tokens=1,2 delims=:" %%A IN ('sc query state^= all ^|FIND "_NAME"') DO SET %%A=%%B&CALL :parse GOTO :EOF :parse IF NOT DEFINED DISPLAY_NAME GOTO :EOF FOR /F "tokens=3" %%C in ('sc qc %SERVICE_NAME% ^| FIND "START_TYPE"') do ECHO xxx %SERVICE_NAME% = %%C =%DISPLAY_NAME% :reset SET SERVICE_NAME= SET DISPLAY_NAME= GOTO :EOF The output is "ugly", due to the extremely different length of service names. jaclaz
  7. Nahhh, now you have narrowed it to a small niche (video editing, and presumably professional level video editing) that of course represents a teeny-tiny amount of users worldwide. At least here in Italy the "issue" is not about prices (which are not all-in-all that mich higher than other countries) it is about uses. All the people I know that are - even slightly - connected with graphics at a professional or semi-professional level, be it design, photography or video will be using their stupidly expensive Mac systems or - more recently - Hackintoshes. jaclaz
  8. I am using QTweb on XP just fine: http://www.qtweb.net/ it might not be "up to date", still it works just fine, with the exception of some of the "hip" sites, of course. jaclaz
  9. Well, actually NOTHING written by MS was EVER actually clear (everywhere but particularly on MSDN), so that doesn't particularly qualify the thing as being "privacy violation" related. On the other hand these R<something>.clb files have been created on several Windows versions since at least 2003, so if they are actually conneceted wth "privacy violaton" as a one time exception the Windows 10 and the new MS management/policies are not to blame. jaclaz
  10. @Heinoganda I am not sad with you, only sad for you as it seems like the thingy isn't going as you expected, but was perplexed about your statement (in the sense that it seems to me nothing changed, if not maybe some time that passed without progress). jaclaz
  11. @98SE With all due respect why limiting the patch to 192 GB or 2 TB? Why not promoting the idea that every single device should have no less than 128 Petabyte of RAM? I mean, if you dream, dream big. In the real world, most machines have tops 4 Gb RAM, a few have 8 or 16 Gb, a handful have 32 or 64 GB, I have never seen in my life (and I have seen quite a few machines, rest assured) an actual machine with 128 Gb of RAM, most probably the people I know are not rich (or gullible) enough to spend the kind of money needed for 128 Gb of RAM (and for the accompanying top level hardware), maybe I should try to elevate the circle of my acquaintances. @Heionoganda Why this new statement? I thought you saw it coming early enough. jaclaz
  12. As a side note, if you ever have a 2TB machine and Windows 10 makes a full memory dump (crashdump) I want to see its examination .... jaclaz
  13. Wouldn't this be easily fixed by : CD /D %~dp0 jaclaz
  14. Maybe you were using a counterfeited version? (maybe a cheap Chinese clone? or maybe a NSA hacked version?) jaclaz
  15. You are wanting to install Windows 2000 from USB by simply creating a USB "dump" of the install .iso? That won't happen. The USB stick contents need to be adapted/modified to allow the install (or you can install copying files to hard disk, etc.), here: http://www.msfn.org/board/forum/157-install-windows-from-usb/ you will find a number of possible ways, most will be for XP or later OS, but there should be a couple ways/methods also tested for Win2k, the easiest would be: jaclaz