• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

696 Excellent


About jaclaz

  • Rank
    The Finder

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • OS
    none specified
  • Country

Recent Profile Visitors

4,231 profile views
  1. Well, unless they are completely demented (in which case you shouldn't allow them physical access to your machine ) they should be able to understand that when they click on something supposed to run a program, and nothing happens, *something* is blocking the execution of the program anyway, what they won't get to know is that this happen because of a set group policy and will be puzzled by the cause. All in all sounds more like a prank than anything else. jaclaz
  2. So, if I get this right, you allow physical access to your computer to other people and when they try to run applications you prevent them from doing that? They will double ckick on links, exe's and shortcuts and nothing will happen? Anyway, clickoff should be able to "catch" that popup window by the text contained in it. jaclaz
  3. Good. I don't know if there is a way (maybe a manufacturer tool/utility) to test the functionality of a SSD (and/or to *somehow* regenerate it). In theory the controller has a map of "defective" sectors and these are re-mapped to good "spare" ones when the SSD is manufactured, but it should be possible to re-test and re-do the mapping also "at home" and there should anyway be a method to verify the functionality of the SSD or it may be hard to get a RMA for it, and it should be around 250 bucks, so not exactly "expendable". jaclaz
  4. You will need a bootable *something*, like a PE, liveCD or bootable stick (it is not a good idea to wipe the base structures of the disk from which you are running the OS), a common way is to use dd (or a port of it) to directly write a file made of 00's to the very beginning and the very end of the disk. There are also usually manufacturer tools that can do the same (like Seagate, Western Digital, etc.). Still, what is perplexing is that you are having some different BSOD Stop Errors, and this would point (also since you said you just built the PC) more to some *random* hardware error. jaclaz
  5. As said there are likely tens of similar programs, but you seem after a totally pointless use, I will repeat myself, if you block something, it will be NOT executed AND the NON-execution will be notified to the user through the popup window, what is the ACTUAL need to hide that notification? Please answer the above question, try to explain the actual use that you have imagined for this feature, as is your question makes very little sense (at least to me). Just for the record (and AFAICT) the clickoff is "better than" or "same as" Buzoff, with a net saving of around 20 bucks and some 3 mb's and it is - to say the least - "queer" that it cannot "catch" that error message, as it can also monitor for text contents of the popup. jaclaz
  6. Looong shot (and not really-really a video player) but what happens with VrtualDub? http://www.virtualdub.org/ More ideas (Real Player 8 shouldn't be too shabby ): http://nt4ref.zcm.com.au/media.htm As per the above the only working VLC version (latest) is 0.8.6h. http://filehippo.com/it/download_vlc_media_player/4246/ jaclaz
  7. WHICH software? (the page you linked to sports several softwares) I believe you mean Simple Software Restriction Policy: http://iwrconsultancy.co.uk/ssrp/ What happens if you manually click OK on that popup window? The idea should be that the program cannot be executed, once through the mentioned program (or directly by Group Policy) access is prevented, so that is just an information, by clicking OK the program is not executed anyway. There are tens of programs capable to click automatically on a button, example: https://www.raymond.cc/blog/auto-click-annoying-confirmation-buttons-clickoff/ http://web.archive.org/web/20120728031722/http://www.johanneshuebner.com/en/clickoff.shtml http://web.archive.org/web/20120728031722/http://www.johanneshuebner.com/download/clickoff.exe And there is also a "default" setting in registry (cannt say if it applies specifically and/or if this is what you actually are looking for): https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms940850.aspx jaclaz
  8. Well, actually my idea was explicitly excluding the (stupid) Cloud. The Internet (and the Cloud) is good to publish your public data, definitely NOT to hold your private ones. Your VPN and remote access is a good idea, only it won't work for the masses and it is - most probably - not as secure as you would like it to be (I mean your setup is probably secure or secure enough, but the masses will manage to put together terrible security holes). And surely not everyone actually *needs* that kind of computing power you need/use, though MORE is always better. My most used tools (Excel or other spreadsheet, Word or other word processor, some drawing tools *like* Autocad, a handful of vertical, specific programs) have become MUCH faster than myself several years ago on almost *any* hardware, and if the good MS guys (AND the good Linux guys) didn't manage to senselessly slow down everything at each release by adding mostly unneeded BLOAT, requiring me to upgrade the hardware to keep pace with the introduced slowness, I would be very happy with the current average computing power, particularly since we managed to get SSD's . Still, with all this computing power and progress and plug'n play OS's and what not, if we have to do simple things, like simply synchronize the address book of two (different make/model) handies between them and with a desktop is a nightmare. This is something I could do in DOS between a PC and a PSION some 25 years ago in less than a minute ... And I could completely image/backup on optical media (CD) a whole hard disk (500 Mb) in less than one hour ... Progress is something different, as I see it ... jaclaz
  9. What you report is "strange", we will need some more details. Is that UEFI or BIOS (or UEFI/CSM)? If the disk is not MBR then it is GPT, it could be that - somehow - you managed to have a hybrid MBR of some kind, but it is more likely that you have a GPT disk (where the concept of active partition doesn't exist anymore). How (EXACTLY) did you install the Windows 10? How big is the actual hard disk? How (EXACTLY) did you partition it (or you let the Windows 10 installer do it's stuff automatically)? Generically speaking a good idea could be to wipe the first - say - 100 sectors AND the last 100 sectors of the disk before attempting to reinstall (and let the Windows 10 Setup do its thing automatically, at least as an experiment). jaclaz
  10. Last version of Opera that works on NT 4.00 is 10.63, you will need the "classic installer": http://arc.opera.com/pub/opera/win/1063/en/ jaclaz
  11. Allow me - as often happens - to partially disagree. You are mixing the form factor and available peripherals with the hardware capabilities (and you are perfectly right about the fact that some work *needs* a big screen, possibly multi-monitor, some "sensible" input device, i.e. keyboard and high precision mouse/pen and that such things are now offered only by a desktop system) but - in theory and given the ridiculous speed and computing power of today's small devices - it would be not too hard to imagine that before or later you could have a smartphone sized device that you simply "dock" onto a desktop setup, including multi-monitor, keyboard, sensible input device, etc. The main point is the other one you made, it is the "continuum" idea that is flawed, instead of dumbing down the user interface with simplified (limited) options and ridiculously huge buttons (suitable to be "pressed" by big, fat, fingers on a teeny-tiny touchscreen) and keep that same interface when a desktop setup is connected, they should have made two completely different interfaces, one - simplified - for the teeny-tiny touchscreen and one with all the options available, etc. suited to when you have a keyboard, mouse/pen, etc. and large monitor(s) connected, BUT seemingly there is no-one (since the Office Ribbon was pushed upon the unsuspecting user) capable to "invent" a "desktop user interface" better than the good ol' "win9x-like" (or if you prefer Macintosh System 7) one. And no, both the Mac OsX interface and all the various Linux desktops are either very "win9x-like" or they fail to be as functional as the good ol' way. Whether this happens because by now we got used to it or because by sheer luck that is the best possible interface is hard to say, still while it makes sense to have a "hamburger" menu on a small screen there is no reason why we should have the same on a large monitor where each sub-menu would be more accessible, and (at least to me) having a full keyboard and a mouse with right click and a wheel on the mouse makes a huge difference in the speed with which I can work on a PC. BUT then again, what would be the "advantage" of having *everything* on this imagined tablet or smartphone sized computer? Of course the possibility to consult/have handy all your data anytime, BUT at a much greater risk of losing/damaging the ONLY storage of such data. So all in all IF they could make up their mind and have an OS interface for "real" machines (desktops and "portables" - I consider todays HUGE 15" "laptops" as something I would NEVER dare to rest on my lap) and another one for tablets/smartphones and sub-notebooks and devise an actually working, foolproof and safe "syncing" method (excluding the stupid Cloud) between them everyone would be happy I believe: 1) kids and hipsters would be happy to play and only consume information on their tablet/smartphone devices 2) "serious" users could have the convenience of their "serious" desktop setup when working AND optionally be able to have their data with them accessible through their tablet/smartphone device. jaclaz
  12. Then you didn't have all primary partitions, as expected. And - again - the issue is ONLY with logical volumes inside extended partition, and only if some "featrures" of the disk manager (and also possibly diskpart, but that would need to be tested) are used, (it is entirely possible that the same failed routine that rewrites wrongly the EPBR chain of logical volumes inside extended is used during install without the customer intervention). I know it is confusing, but a partition can be primary OR extended. There is NO such thing as an "extended volume", all volumes are "logical volumes". A primary partition "contains" (actually "is") a logical volume. There is NO "empty space" between the start address of the primary partition and the start of the logical volumes inside it, you may say that there is a 0 offset before the VBR (volume boot record, what is commony called bootsector) of the logical volume inside the primary partition, or, if you prefer, that the VBR is the first sector inside a primary partition. An extended partition can contain one or more logical volumes. The first sector of an extended partition is an EPBR, very similar to a MBR, containing partition address entries. Of the four available "slots", only two are used, the first one points to the next logical volume inside the extended partition and the second points to the following next EPBR (if any), and the scheme continues for each added logical volume. On a cylinder/head aligned partitioning the gap between the EMBR and the VBR is 62 sectors (the relative offset of the VBR is 63, i.e. 62+1 which is the EPBR). On a Mb aligned partitioning the gap between the EMBR and the VBR is 2047 sectors (the relative offset of the VBR is 2048, i.e. 2047+1 which is the EPBR). The defect in the Dsk Manager of Xp is that in some instances it "decides" to rewrite the 2048 value of the offset replacing it with 63, obviously making all logical volumes inside extended not anymore accessible/findable. Primary partitions are UNaffected by this. jaclaz
  13. What you want to do is largely "outside the scope" of DMDE, which mainly is about "recovering files" (as opposed to "repairing the filesystem"). The virtual reconstruction BTW is not something "necessarily valid", it is just an attempt to - maybe - access (otherwise inaccessible) files in a way similar to a "normal filemanager" would, but what you see in the "virtual reconstruction filesystem" is just an attempt, there is no guarantee that an item in the reconstructed filesystem is "good" or "sane" and anyway a number of filesystem metadata will be either missing or faked. Particularly in the case of a USB stick (which will surely be of limited size) it is easy and quick to create image(s) of the stick and work on those images (it will definitely be faster, once the initial image has been created) to extract the files from the virtually reconstructed filesystem and then create a new filesystem and copy back the recovered files to it. More or less the only tool we have to actually repair a NTFS filesystem is CHKDSK, but the repair process not necessarily will recover or make accessible again files, on the other hand FAT is a much simpler filesystem (btw having far less filesystem metadata) and if a file is simply deleted there are tools to undelete them (provided that the actual file locations/extents have not been overwritten). More or less a "simple delete" in FAT consists in marking the entry in the FAT table as "available" by overwriting the first character of the filename with a special character (this is why most FAT undelete tools will ask you for the first letter of the original filename) and 00ing the cluster chain in the FAT table. If the file (originally, before being deleted) was occupying a single, contiguous, extent on disk, it is trivial to undelete that file with a a hex/disk editor. see as an example the good ol'way using Norton Diskedit: http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=339042 but if the file was fragmented or we are talking of several files and/or the undelete process is not started immediately after having realized that a deletion wrongly occurred, things become more complex, and there is a likely possibility that part of the file(s) have been overwritten and/or create a cluster allocation conflict, so, for obvious safety reasons, most tools will only attempt to extract files and not modify the actual FAT tables of the original filesystem. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undeletion jaclaz
  14. yep, my bad, I insist forgetting that I used the FreeDOS Fdisk for this kind of installs, see: http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=16713&st=0 exactly for that reason (though Ranish is of course OK) or - for that matters - also grub4dos would do it nicely. jaclaz