• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

639 Excellent


About jaclaz

  • Rank
    The Finder

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • OS
    none specified
  • Country

Recent Profile Visitors

3,678 profile views
  1. If I get this right, you have a misconfigured "My Documents" target/redirection. or key in the Registry: http://www.techrepublic.com/article/tech-tip-redirect-my-documents-to-an-alternate-location-in-windows-xp/ https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/221837 http://windowsxp.mvps.org/redirectfolders.htm jaclaz
  2. Maybe (coincidence) the newly named PC-BSD (now TrueOS) will fit the bill: https://www.trueos.org/more-on-trueos/ jaclaz
  3. What is "botched" (just so you know) is the XP "Search", it is a known issue, it simply doesn't do what it is supposed to do. For "pure" file searching (by filename/extension) given that most XP's work on NTFS formatted volumes, NOTHING can beat a "Pure" $MFT parser, such as: https://sourceforge.net/projects/swiftsearch/ There are of course many more, some were listed here: If you want to search for text inside files, apart the name, searchmonkey is IMHO not-so-shabby (though not "perfect", as an example it only does a volume at a time): http://searchmonkey.embeddediq.com/index.php The good thing is that opens in a lower pane a preview of the selected file with the line where the match was found. I wouldn't use it as "everyday tool", but when I need to really search for some text into files, it is handy. jaclaz
  4. I have to disagree. I am pretty sure that there are still quite a few very capable and talented developers at MS (though possibly a few less than they used to be) but they are seriously mismanaged and given foolish or pointless objectives. The problem is all (as it happened before and not only in MS, but everywhere) in the decision-makers and in management, not in the actual people that do things. jaclaz
  5. @JorgeA That article is made out mostly of truisms (unneeded) such as "technology evolves and so does counter-techology" and of FUD "since a single german hacker managed to workaround Apple touchID then all biometrics technology is compromised". Remember if "they" are after you, "they" ALREADY pwn you. @NoelC In case of a second mag, I would have 30 rounds more, just because moar! ... and you wouldn't even need basic math skills ... jaclaz
  6. I don't want to seem more grumpy than usual but what (the heck) is the problem? IF your modified kernel32.dll is tested, stable, verified to be working, etc. you can report the fact to the anti-virus vendors and - unless there is actually something malicious - they will normally whitelist the file. IF instead it is a half-@§§ed, temporary, untested, only partially working version (let's call it Alpha or Beta) the (I presume restricted number of ) testers will know that it is a false positive and trust you more than the antivirus detection heuristics. jaclaz
  7. Version 2.34 of Atto Disk Benchmark has been reported as working in Windows 95 : https://www.vogons.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=44820 https://www.vogons.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=44820#p477064 Here is another download of 2.34 (mislabeled as version 2.32): http://ht4u.net/download-details/234/1355/ jaclaz
  8. I don't know. Meaning that - besides the obvious patriotic preference for Beretta - till now one of the very good things is (was) amount of shots available. I recently casually saw a (seemingly also rather el-cheapo BTW) "newish" handgun made in Florida with an astonishing 30 rounds in the magazine (.22 WMR). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kel-Tec_PMR-30 It seems like recent modes have evolved and are reliable and very handy (light, little recoil, etc.). jaclaz
  9. ... and - as a side note - in XP (and 2K) it was (and still is) very easy to replace the shell with a much less "heavy" one (such as bblean or similar blackbox derived one) ... jaclaz
  10. Hmmm, tricky. Of course the app being Microsoft they may well be using the secret seven : https://web.archive.org/web/20151204024041/http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jonathan.deboynepollard/Humour/microsoft-monopoly.html Get this Registry viewer/editor: https://web.archive.org/web/20051101101104/http://www.resplendence.com/downloads https://web.archive.org/web/20051101101104/http://www.resplendence.com/download/reglite.exe and use it to search for pi.exe in the Registry. (unlike "normal" Regedit it will make a list of all occurrences found). Check also what is in the "Version" properties tab of the actual pi.exe file. jaclaz EDIT: maybe it uses some of the (devilish) other ways to start. like a .dll or *something like that*, search the registry also for "Starter".
  11. If the biometric reader/sensor/whatever has a given method to identify (for the sake of the discussion let's say my left thumb fingerprint) you cannot "change" it (if conceptually it is - wrongly - "a password"), you may "change" it (at the most 9 times, considering inconvenient to take one's shoes off) by "shifting" to a different finger. But once "they" will have collected all my fingerprints (and made perfect replicas, capable of tricking the sensors), "they" will be able to log in/enter/whatever. jaclaz
  12. Sorry , I didn't notice that it was in the "Open With" context menu and that you wanted to change the name only. I sent you on a wild goose chase with the previous suggestion . Loosely there is a "translation table" in the Registry that - when a program is started - is created, linking a "description" (in your case "Microsoft Digital Image starter Edition 2006 Editor") to a given executable (including path), this translation table is kept in the Registry as MUIcache, in XP it is HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\ShellNoRoam\MUICache. The "description" is extracted by Explorer from some data in the Version metadata of the executable. Most probably the old description remained sticky (or if you prefer the new executable has the same path and name as the old one and the info wasn't refreshed). Again you can edit the Registry, but there is again a nice, easy tool for that, Nirsoft MuiCacheView: http://www.nirsoft.net/utils/muicache_view.html Just run it, find on the right the description you want to edit or on the left the executable filename, double click on the line and change the description. The operation is safe, it won't affect anything else. jaclaz
  13. @JorgeA Besides the usual FUD of which this kind of articles is full, there is ONLY a basic "conceptual" issue: Biometrics is ID/username, NOT a password/authentication. Your looks, fingerprints, eye iris and veins patterns, etc. do exist in the real world, they are used to identify you. Of course - one way or the other - they can (or will be) be reproduced (possibly with a level of accuracy sufficient to trick this or that sensor) the point is about the misuse of these as an authentication method. A password (in theory) is something secret that - as long and until you do not reveal it - does not "exist" and thus cannot be reproduced. A password can be BOTH revoked or changed, a biometric pattern can be revoked but NOT changed, you are born with it. jaclaz
  14. NOT what you asked, but why don't you try ATTO and/or CrystalDiskMark to compare/verify results? jaclaz
  15. Very likely it is just the "name" in the "file association". On XP you can use this nice little tool Wassociate: http://wstudios.home.xs4all.nl/Associate/index.html You can do the same manually editing the Registry, and if needed using the built-in command line tools ASSOC and FTYPE: http://ss64.com/nt/assoc.html http://ss64.com/nt/ftype.html but the previously mentioned tool is easier and comprehensive and has a very well written documentation on how the file associations work. jaclaz