Super Fast

You can sort of hide XP from 7. -> Right-click XP folders/Properties/checkmark Hidden, apply to current folder(s) only. Note that 7 will still bring up XP files when doing a search, but if you hide the folders for normal views & have Windows set not to reveal hidden or system directories, it should provide at least a basic form of hiding them. Is this what you had in mind, or did you want a different kind of hide? Edit: If you have a bootable CD/DVD disk of Windows that you created, I believe ImgBurn will make a 1 click backup of it to ISO if you select for it to do so.

I agree that auto updates is the devil. Auto updates will download all kinds of pesky things, such as a spyware application to always check if your system is "legit". This may be great for MS, but I hate the "always a camera in my face because you may be a criminal" attitude they are fronting. I mean, if someone does a crime, do the time, but don't treat everyone like criminals! LOL! I hate to have Windows Updates prompt for reboot right when I am in the middle of an important task that needs to complete so I won't lose data. Manual updates is better for me, because I get to choose what & when it's updated.

Enjoy!!!

Well? Bright shiny new year coming up. Guess we all needed bright new avatars, as well.

-> Open the directory with the files you want to print on the same page. -> Holding CTRL, select all the items you want to print with your mouse. -> Right-click the group you selected, & choose Print. -> Select the page layout you want to use. I believe this will work for you. I am not sure if your using XP/Vista/7, but I believe it should work. Although options may differ slightly across OS versions. * Edit: The others may know what they are talking about, & I may be blabbing for no reason, but I thought it would be something to try. Works for pictures!

While I would totally love this feature (highlight empty directories) as what you say is true... Sometimes there are tons of empty dir that are empty, & flagging them instead of deleting them would be a terrific feature for someone like me. The problem isn't that you or I would misuse it, but they are concerned that other people may be less savy than we, & end up hosing a system because they deleted the wrong thing. But so far as how I like it personally, I love it! If not for other users, I would love to have this... Great idea! Only problem with it is, other users may misuse it & cause problems... People who saw tons of empty dir might try to delete them all.

What you are wanting, is to retain the settings to the program, just not the history. This takes a bit of learning/trial & error if you are not used to it, but it can be accomplished with WinRar SFX creation. Batch Icon Extractor will give you perfect icons to use for the SFX loader when you archive the files & turn it into SFX. Advantages of SFX packages: -> Extracts to temp, then auto cleans up when you close the program. -> When you run SFX from flash drives, files are written to the PC (faster writes than flash disk) & run from there. (Also saves write cycles to your flash). -> Programs packed as SFX always stay the same. Run them 1 or 1 million times, the settings are always the same. No history ini files are retained after you close. -> SFX reduces size sometimes by 1/2 to 1/4 the original, when using max compression + solid. -> Files stored in SFX make it easier, because you no longer have to have a folder with 30 files in it. You have a single SFX that extracts to temp & runs. I am not sure if this is what you are seeking, but I use similar for personal things I create from time to time.

I always automate things that are hard. For OS, I store them as bootable ISO files so I don't have to recreate boot loaders when I have to create a copy from backups. This way, you don't have to worry about it fading away.

Like your new avatar. Bright & shiny. Anyway, Yahoo loads fine on mine. Sometimes, if you fall behind on Flash updates, some websites fail to load. There are other reasons of course, but Yahoo never has a problem loading on mine, for some reason.

Try this: -> Before defraggling, close all your web browsers & run CCleaner to clean all your trash first. -> Update to the latest Defraggler before beginning the next step. -> In Defraggler, go to Settings, then options. Then click Advanced, checkmark to use custom fragmentation & stop VSS. Click Define & exclude both. -> Defrag your drive again, & see how things go. * Occasionally, over time, Windows may build up several gigs of Restore points. Windows assigns different amounts for system restore, based on HDD size. It may be necessary over the years, to disable system restore to clear all the restore points, then re-enable it so Windows can create new ones. Anti-virus installations, & major updates can trigger restore events, as well as the normal ones Windows creates automatically.

You were the one that deviated: "Some av's (eg Emsisoft Anti-Malware) even state as system requirements for install that you must be up to date with all services packs. Most software companies anyway don't want people testing their softwares on 'outdated' systems, they like users to give themselves a head start in the security stakes." BTW, there are ways to fool it into installing & running in less than stated requirements for EMI (I shall not list them here). I stated in response to your statement, that I XP does have features unavailable in 7 (as 7 also has that XP doesn't). There are reasons to use both. I stated some of my reasons. Not to deviate from Windows Update, but to respond to your statement concerning EMI. Lest you forget, I bolded the statements above NOT recommending others do as I do, since I do test things mainly for the sake of knowledge & learning. Do not make the mistake that just because I use this for a personal machine that I do not use measures different so on others. While updates are worthless on this machine, because of bandwidth issues (I have multiple machines connected to my internet) as well as others I listed above... I will list yet another reason. I like to get malware on this machine. I like it, because I like to see how things work. How can you see how they work if you never experience them? That is not to say they are worthless for all machines. Please keep on focus & don't mistake the fact that I have a testing machine, as me recommending such for all. See bolded above.

I am well aware. There are certain programs (address books/games/etc) that must be run (at least initially) on older systems to find how they work to migrate to newer platforms. And there are still some things that you can do easier in XP than in 7. Examples: -> XP Only -> Drag from explorer Window onto Desktop to create shortcut to that folder. -> XP Only -> Arrow key down on a treed out folder to navigate to the next (7 makes you hit Enter on each new folder to view it, else click it). -> XP Only -> User can tree the Desktop. In 7, users cannot tree the Desktop. Yes, I know, right-click folder pane & expand to current folder. But the Desktop folder is different from normal folders. I normally use 7, but sometimes I revert to XP (because there are still things you can learn about it). Sure, I know XP is considered outdated, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have anything to offer in the sake of knowledge. I could probably show you things that would blow your mind, but I rather not. Also, I like your new Avatar icon! It's really cute!

$$$ Money always trumps privacy, when it comes to companies greedy for your next dolla. Holla!!!

Firefox. Other browsers may not be updated as oft, & while they are/may be slight faster, I cannot tell on this machine. Frankly, I am (halfway) surprised there are not arguments more so against using certain browsers (Due to lack up updates/patches/security measures). Some browsers have spotty update records, & FF 16.02 seems to be working fine for me at the moment.

I stated earlier that I do not recommend this for the normal user. Of course not. I saw nothing wrong with posting the results I obtained on my machine. I test programs by the 1,000(s). Were I to allow updates, WGA (or equivalent) would install if I were not uber vigilant. Windows Updates would turn Windows Defender on, which would auto-kill programs it did not like, with some permanently erased instead of recycled. Updates would suck a major portion of my machine bandwidth down the tube. Windows would be incessant about reminders to reboot. Often enough. Machine would break because some apps will have to operate differently once certain updates are applied. What's up, man? Why so angry? Did I do something wrong? I did state that I don't use Updates (on this machine) because I do a lot of testing. I have bolded the statements I made earlier not recommending it to others, so it is more visible. I apologize if there was any misunderstanding? You should know that I have long not recommended everything I do to others, correct? (And that I do a lot of testing for the sake of knowledge).

That may well be true. I just thought this was really interesting. I shall hold off on 8 for the moment, waiting for the bugs to be squashed & see how it fares on the high seas of security for a few months. I rather not update till I know for certain it is at least as secure as XP or 7. Edit: But I may download their trial version of it from time to time when they update their offer, just for the sake of testing what it does.

I tried a TCP optimizer in the past, but I did not notice a substantial difference in the results. Therefore, I never use it.

As stated above, the test machine using Avast was NOT used to connect to Piriform, but rather the main machine with AVG. As per the forum, I also stated that it is possible that my ISP blocked the website due the infection. Have heard that my ISP has a kind of firewall they use to protect users, etc. Not sure on how deep their protection goes, but I listed it because they may have blocked it on their end. * Bolded my prior statement concerning my ISP. As it is entirely possible they did block it till it was fixed. (Hence your observation differing from mine).

Yes, I know this. This is a testing machine, not a business machine. What would be the point of maxing the updates on a testing machine? When you test sometimes a few thousand programs in a week or month, it is pointless to max the updates on that machine. The large numbers and diversity of programs I test guarantee problems no matter how "up-to-date" it is. Of course, & even if it were max updated, I test so many programs that if they did have rootkits/malware embedded, it would still infect the machine. Updates won't block that. I do keep the firewall on, AVG updated with resident shield sometimes on, sometimes off (Resident shield can detect programs on the flash drive as viruses & offer to delete them when in fact, they are not. Programs like XPY or Vispa that use NSIS scripts are considered by many virus scanners to be a threat when it is just the way they work that causes the problem.). For this reason, I sometimes turn resident shield on or off while testing, depending on what I am doing. There are all kinds of reasons for updating Windows to the max, but since even that would do nothing to block the malware that piggybacks on programs, it would be useless to do so on my test machine. _____ @PWillener, I do occasionally grab an infection. While I normally do not get infections due to the way I handle the installs, I sometimes permit it for the sake of learning what a rootkit/infection does so I can learn more about removal methods that work for that particular infection.

No problem!!! It seems to work ok adding drivers, changing default settings for XP, or integrating service packs. But removing things will break parts of the setup. N-Lite creates modified cabinet files that it repacks when you do subtraction of files/drivers/windows components. Which causes problems. Sometimes halfway through the setup, or later. So addition works, but subtraction fails (usually).

Login, you mentioned you used slip streaming, & how difficult some processes were for you. I know from testing n-Lited XP configurations, if you choose for it to remove parts from the installation, it will cause weird problems or crashes on install sometimes. Best to leave all the XP files there. What is safe to change, is the settings. Get it set to install how you want, as well as add NVidia Sata drivers (text mode is what you need, I believe). This may help when your creating an ISO, & if it does then I am glad to have helped you.

Compress old files just stores old files in compressed format. It does not delete them. While compressing saves space, it also causes it to take longer to load those files because they have to be uncompressed to launch next time.

I have used computers many years. I have also seen the most up-to-date Windows 7 (32 & 64 Bit) versions severely compromised with trojans & malware. _____ A lot (not all) of trojans come from the following: -> User is using IE or a variant of it without Active-X scripting disabled. Therefore, autorun malware installs itself. -> User installs "free" program that adds downloader trojan/rootkit/malware... -> User does not use any form of Antivirus (making infection easier). -> User does not use any firewall (else firewall is disabled by malware or User). -> No form of sandboxing is used. -> User is running full Admin account. _____ I would say that the main 3 causes of infection on machines I see are: * Users running XP (with no service pack... Prior to SP2, XP suffered many problems...). * Using IE (without Active-X scripting disabled). * Installing rogue executables (to get a "free" screensaver, editor, other). _____ There are, of course, many other reasons... But the main reason I don't on this machine, is I test a lot of things. I have all my important things backed up, & this machine is solely for personal testing reasons. I haven't seen any PC that is cannot be infected due to being fully updated. All PC's are. I routinely see PC's that are plagued with problems (whether updates are on or off). Most seem to be where they run locally downloaded files that have a malicious payload that they grant full permissions to run. But even having the most up-to-date machine won't block these from running & doing damage. It is critical, therefore, to watch what you allow to run on your machine. What I do, I don't always recommend to others to do. I do things for the sake of learning, because I like to know things. I am not recommending this to others, but here are additional reasons I have disabled Windows Updates (for this test machine). -> Windows Updates can be large & take up lots of bandwidth. Downloads & surfing in general are much faster with it turned off. -> Windows Updates continually wish to reboot after application of updates. I need my sanity. I reboot frequently enough while testing. -> Windows Updates grow huge over time, & attempts to uninstall any bad update, whether consecutively or not, often cause problems & hose machines. -> The largeness creates slowdowns as Windows becomes larger, & patches are applied on top of patches. -> Once in a blue moon, Windows Update downloads a badly written driver that brings a system down. -> Windows Updates may enable Windows Defender, who may try to (mistakenly) delete files from your flash drive or HDD that are NOT malware or viruses. -> Windows Updates may download (automatically) programs that check your activation. Though I bought Windows, I detest being spied on like a criminal. -> Windows activation checks may leave files on your computer, that takes a technically inclined person to fully remove. -> Occasionally, a major update can/may/will break software on your computer. Especially ones changing the way address randomization is handled, etc. -> Over time, Windows Updates can slow a pc to sometimes double or triple as slow. Fast machines may still be fast, 3x slower isn't something I can deal with. Lastly, there has never been a fully up-to-date & patched Windows that is unsubsceptible to malware. Let me stress that again. Even the most patched system with the most up-to-date antivirus can be over-run with keyloggers, trojans, phishing, toolbars, redirectors, etc. Especially when that cause is a locally run file that inherits full permissions to install everything (program + malicious payload) by clicking ok. Sure, it helps to have up-to-date antivirus (i do have that, yes) but newer exploits oft have no definitions for a day or two, or sometimes days or weeks while A/V companies try to crack the encryption sophisticated rootkits use in order to provide a method to remove them. So, long story short is... I do not recommend to others to turn off Updates, but I know I do it to mine for the reason's above. I like my system fast for testing, & I know full well how to quickly remove malware that gets on mine during testing, so I am not worried. Restore/re-image/backup/re-install/etc... I use all kinds of programs to test what is the best, & also to see how they work. Sorry if it seems a bit foolish to you. I have my reasons on this machine. Hope u understand.

Yes, I read it. _____ On the test machine, I was using Avast + CCleaner + Defraggler (To which Avast detected as "possible malicious programs), which is false. I had not tried the Piriform website on the machine using Avast. On my machine, I was using AVG & simply had the same error as others listed here, but no warning from AVG. I also, am using Firefox. _____ Nothing happened, except I could not access the forums till sometime today when I came home. As I had this same error loading page as others here, & I was not using Avast on my main machine, I simply deduced that the website was down. And not that Avast was protecting the machine(s) listed above. I could be incorrect on this. _____ It is also possible that my ISP automatically blocked the website while it was under attack.

http://www.h-online....ck-1742332.html Seems that Windows 8 has already been compromised, & it hasn't even been out that long. From what I can tell, it states that ALL of 8's security has been compromised. This is bad... I'd say 7 is more secure, but others may disagree. I have heard that 8 uses data sharing between tiles (can't be good) as well as other things. While 7 does have nice features, I don't believe sharing data between tiles, browsers, etc. does anything for security. What's your opinion, please? Is 7 more secure than 8, or do you think they are about the same?