dbminter

What precisely are you looking for? Because, I really can't get a screen shot that has everything. All that will be returned on all drives is the bottom pane, with the bar representations of the drives. The top pane cannot be resized to a size that does not obscure part of the bottom pane. So, one or the other can be shown at one time. Which/what do you want to know?

I created the ultimate, unpardonable sin. First, I woke up alive, and, then, I made the stupid mistake of sitting down in front of my desk. Honestly, no, I've done nothing like that at all.

AH! Well, HERE'S one of the goddamn problems... one of the DVD drives REFUSES to keep its changed drive letter! FUCKERS! It always reverts back to the first free drive letter after it's changed. The first DVD drive DOESN'T! Only the 2nd. Normally, the drives are supposed to be R: and S:. The first STAYS as R:. The 2nd is going back to the first free drive letter on each Windows start. So, how can I stop this? Also, anyone know where in the Registry, etc. the keys, etc. that store the drive letter information are? I know they won't be of much use here, if any, but, I'm curious where this information is stored in Windows.

I got... All Dogs Go To Heaven 2. Granted, it was a movie only disc, made specifically for Pizza Hut, with a starting ad video stream before the main menu. Which only has two menu options. Start movie and choose Espanol. But... I didn't have to deal with that for too long...

First off, I think I can safely say this, but, not go any further because of lots of stuff that is too complicated. Before you go any further, be aware that this foreign DVD may not play on your US TV at all, regardless of the region coding. If the video format is PAL, the video will not play right unless your player or TV can support PAL. Most in the US support NTSC. PAL on the wrong format TV will result in any of the following or combinations of them: 1.) black and white video 2.) the video is not centered on the screen 3.) a high pitched whine interferes with the audio because of the number of lines being displayed is greater 4.) the video scrolls on the screen like the TV's vertical hold has been tampered with. The video on these DVD's will play fine on a PC because PAL versus NTSC doesn't matter to a PC monitor.

Despite that HELPFUL answer the answer lies in Windows, naturally. Something occurs at Windows start, either something Windows is doing or something it is running, i.e. something else is doing it because it is telling Windows to do it. Because, when the drives are unhidden and Windows is restarted, booting from a CD into DOS shows the drive is present. Restarting and booting into Windows immediately there after hides the drive.

Anyone care to try and tackle this latest issue that STILL makes no fucking sense? For some reason, I have one partition that NEVER unhides. HOWEVER, it's NEVER the same partition AND it's a partition that HAS been visible for YEARS! I first discovered it just before the end of last month. I had a partition where IF Windows Explorer was open to the root directory of the drive and Windows was set to reopen all instances of WE that had been open on the last Windows shutdown, then, the drive would mysterious go Hidden. BUT, it could simply be unhidden by Partition Magic or Disk Director. BUT, if the above process was repeated, it would happen every single time. Now, I've backed up the live system described above and have been working from a restore factory default partition since the 2nd of this month trying to debug it down. I hadn't noticed the problem repeating... BECAUSE IT CHANGED TO A DIFFERENT FUCKING DRIVE! BUT, of course, NOT the same symptoms. A different partition on the same hard drive, an internal SATA, now just WON'T unhide at all! PM and DD say it is not hidden, but, Windows NEVER detects the drive. When Windows is restarted, the status of the drive returns to Hidden. TweakUI has not been set to not display this drive, just returns a ? for the drive. And don't give me the run Scandisk and whatever shit. I've already run all that, virus scanners, spyware scanners. AND DOS utilities, too. I already knew that would return fucking nothing. So, who's got the balls to step to the plate and come up with nothing?

Well, it depends. There are basically 3 modes, apparently. 1.) if you're willing to pay for everything 2.) IF your hardware supports it and you have qualified #1 3.) a mode sans 1 and 2. It appears to be like 1 GB of RAM... and the will of God to get it to work. Posted before I was done. I had meant to go on at the above point by saying that depending on if your graphics card, processor, and amount of RAM support it, some of the "features," which are the usual cosmetic changes MS throws in to MAKE you think it has been improved simply by looking better, won't be supported. Which, of course, as we all know, these new cosmetic changes cause Windows to run slower and usually never work right, resulting in crashes of Windows Explorer. The earlier proposed big change, some kind of new file system that basically said they were able to get any file made by an application on any computer on any file system, regardless, could be read on Vista. Yeah, right. Anyway, it won't be in there, and, IMO, that's for the better. Can you IMAGINE the sheer number of security holes such a concept would introduce?

I saved money once by getting a DVD I wanted free with a Pizza Hut pizza.

Most likely, they mean the supply of available beta testing slots. Because, you have to understand how commercial beta testing is done. The number of testers is always limited because they need the number of samples in the set controlled. If the number varies or is never capped, then, people who, basically, cannot be monitored, controlled, selected for specific traits, etc. are allowed into the sample set. In other words, a REAL world return of user experiences would occur, as opposed to the ones the commercial software developer wants.

Well, maybe it depends on WHAT you're smoking that makes you see spiders you can't touch because they aren't there.

I have a similar story. Over 5 years ago, I had a VCR where a spider crawled between the covering over the LED section depicting the clock. Of course, it couldn't get out and died in there. So, the clock was forever obscured. There was no sensible way to get the cover off. And, since the remote control sensor was also conveniently placed under the same cover, it would be obvious if I forced the cover off, the remote control would stop working. Also, the biggest scare I ever got in my life. When I learned spiders had 8 eyes. Around 1985, a Transformer called Perceptor was released. He was billed as a "real working microsope" although his lenses were closer to just magnifying glass level. One day, I found a dead spider on the floor and decided to give it a close up look under Perceptor. I slid the thing around and got THE shock of my life up to that point! :& 8 goddamn eyes! So, I looked up spiders in a book from the public library after that and discovered, yeah, they do.

The Julia Roberts look a like dolls? Or, the inflatable dead mouse ones with optional trap restraint for that perfect recreation of ambience? Or, the wombat with optional waterwings? Or the Tweety with optional wombat? Or, the deluxe Looks Like A Pair Of Squashed Bugs During Mating ® model? Or, the inflatable dog with man's face arse?

Well, disconnected all USB devices, except for the USB mouse which is connected via the PS/2 instead with an adapter, and rebooted. Reran Sandra, and I still get the result that 4 of the hubs/ports/controllers/whatever are listed as USB 1.1 and two of the as USB 2.0. As described in my earlier posts. Let's see what Microsoft's little shit has to say. USB device reviewer, returning these entries in order: 1.) Intel ? 82801EB USB Universal Host Controller - 24D2 DriverKey: {36FC9E60-C465-11CF-8056-444553540000}\0000 VendorID: 8086 DeviceID: 24D2 SubSysID: 425A8086 Revision: 02 Root Hub Hub Power: Self Power Number of Ports: 2 Power switching: None Compound device: No Over-current Protection: Individual Port 1 Port 2 Relatively the same (Different DriverKey location, e.g. 0001, different DeviceID's, etc., but, that's expected) for the remaining 3 listed USB controllers: 2.) 24D4 3.) 24D7 4.) 24DE Then, we get to the USB 2 controller 5.) Intel ? 82801EB USB2 Enhanced Host Controller - 24DD DriverKey: {36FC9E60-C465-11CF-8056-444553540000}\0003 VendorID: 8086 DeviceID: 24DD SubSysID: 425A8086 Revision: 02 DebugPort: 1 Root Hub: USB#ROOT_HUB20#4&3820b9ae&3#{f18a0e88-c30c-11d0-8815-00a0c906bed8} Hub Power: Self Power Number of Ports: 8 Power switching: Ganged Compound device: No Over-current Protection: Global Ports 1 through 8 05.) USB Controller/Hub - Intel ? 82801EB USB Universal Host Controller - 24DE Okay... the 8 ports make sense, as I have 8 ports total. I forgot two of them. This setup is SO idiotic! 6 in the back, but only they're divded into 4 in one group, and 2 in another. Then, the extra two in the front. FUCKERS! So, I'm going to ask something. Wasn't there something about how USB controllers are listed that has like multiple entries in it? For instance, take the above example. There are 5 separate entries. One is an apparent "master" entry, the last list, because it has the 8 ports on it. So, what's throwing me off is why then are there 4 separate entries of 2 each? I would be more likely to accept any of this if it made sense. e.g. One controller would have 4, and 2 would have 2. But, I guess it doesn't work that way? Each "controller" can only have 2 ports max, is that it? Thus, for the third and 4th, a separate "controller" must be installed? Followed by a 3rd controller for the 5th and 6th, etc.? And, why are each of the separate ports in the first 4 controllers listed as USB 1.1 but the main USB 2 controller lists as USB 2? Is it for backwards compatibility with USB 1.1? BTW, just in case it needed to be said, since I didn't, this was still with no devices connected up, save as noted about the PS/2 USB mouse. And, now, of course, I discover I had FORGOTTEN the pair at the bottom in the back. So, two USB 1.x devices were still connected at the time these tests were run, and, I had forgotten. A parallel to USB printer adapter and a USB Microsoft Sidewinder game controller. Oh, and I see that Sandra had listed 8 channels on the USB 2 controller. So, it's starting to make some sense, it seems.

No expelled members means... oh, dear... that they're all virgins.

A year later, the court tries to recover transcripts of the case, but, the backup DVD is unreadable. It is discovered the disc used was a CMC!

I'll still be on it until God gets off my ass and stops with the conflicting results. Or I can get some straight answers. Or someone does me a favor and Never put anything past the fuckers. Okay, I'll see what THIS has to say. Thanks!

I am starting to think that, maybe, I had run Sandra when the devices and 1.x USB hubs were attached to the back ports at the time. And, that's why they were returning 1.x. YET... if that was the case, WHY weren't there FOUR USB 2.0 ports detected instead of 2? The two free front ones AND the two that had the two USB 2.0 drives connected up to them?

Now, one thing that still bugs me, though. Okay, if as Sandra is returning... and NO ONE has verified for me yet that I have 4 USB 1.1 ports, the ones in the back, and 2 USB 2.0 ports, in the front... WHY am I getting apparent USB 2.0 speeds in ALL 6 ports? i.e getting the same speeds in all ports? IF that were the case, then, it would have to be that the two USB 2.0 ports were running at the USB 1.1 speed, wouldn't it?

How do you want these results? From what application? From what field? It does matter because, as I've said no one is consistent. So, one result from somewhere may not be what someone else is looking for.

Be picky all you like, because, in the end, the notation of the units, etc. doesn't matter a flying fuck. The manufacturers NEVER stick to anything consistent. They never explain if they're using megabyte, megabit, or mebibyte. They often times use all captial letters as a shouting advertising technique, so, it doesn't matter.

Something I had noticed for a while and I believe it is the case. Can anyone verify it or shoot it down? There is no such thing as 12x CD-RW. Everything I've seen advertised as 12x CD-RW has never written greater than 10x. These 12x CD-RW's have always had a maximum rated speed write descriptor of 10x. In both the Sony DRU-700a and the NEC 3500a. Now, could it be the age of these two drives? The newer NEC is 2 years old now, I think. Anyway, has anyone every gotten 12x on a "12x" CD-RW? And, if so, how old is the drive used? Thanks!

I was wondering, going a bit off topic. Is there something that can create MDS/MDF from an existing ISO or other image AND still write images to non NTFS partitions? i.e. create split images in that format when the image goes over 4 GB. UltraISO will, but, only with that klunky all but arbitrary .IBZ, I think it was, format. Thanks!

Moved post to where it belongs.

Still, apothecary table is a bit more modern than materia medica table.