On Wed, 02 Feb 2022 17:39:53 -0000, % <pursent100@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2022-02-02 10:05 a.m., Mark Lloyd wrote:
>> On 2/1/22 17:49, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> I've never found a use for RAMdrives. If you're using the disk a lot,
>>> it'll get cached anyway.
>>
>> I once had a system that used a RAMdrive. It used 32-bit Windows XP on a
>> computer that claimed to allow a maximum of 4GB RAM but actually works
>> with 8. The RAMdrive used the other 4GB, that Windows wouldn't.
>>
>> [snip]
>>
> occupied drive space , yay

Huh?

On Wed, 02 Feb 2022 17:05:33 -0000, Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> wrote:

> On 2/1/22 17:49, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> I've never found a use for RAMdrives. If you're using the disk a lot,
>> it'll get cached anyway.
>
> I once had a system that used a RAMdrive. It used 32-bit Windows XP on a
> computer that claimed to allow a maximum of 4GB RAM but actually works
> with 8. The RAMdrive used the other 4GB, that Windows wouldn't.

Why didn't you just upgrade to 64 bit windows?

On Wed, 02 Feb 2022 17:48:19 -0000, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

> On 2/2/2022 12:05 PM, Mark Lloyd wrote:
>> On 2/1/22 17:49, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> I've never found a use for RAMdrives. If you're using the disk a lot, it'll get cached anyway.
>>
>> I once had a system that used a RAMdrive. It used 32-bit Windows XP on a computer that claimed to allow a maximum of 4GB RAM but actually works with 8. The RAMdrive used the other 4GB, that Windows wouldn't.
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>
> DataRAM RAMDisk does that.
>
> But you need a certain version.
>
> You can also place a pagefile.sys on it, and on an 8GB
> machine, that allows Windows XP 32-bit to use 4GB, while the
> other 4GB holds a pagefile. It has to be done in a certain
> order, in order that it boot correctly. Paging that way,
> is *buttery* smooth. You could run 5GB of programs, and
> not even be aware you were swapping.
>
> The only problem with putting the pagefile on the
> software RAMDisk, is there can be mis-behaviors in
> WinXP. Such as an application program starting and
> running (as seen in Task Manager), yet there is
> no window open in the desktop view. That's why I had
> to stop using that trick. It mostly works, but it's
> "not quite there" for a paging cheat.
>
> The developer of the application, stopped presenting
> that feature at some point, likely receiving a letter
> from a Microsoft lawyer.

WTF? So 32 it windows is actually deliberately cut down? Cheating cunts.

> The reason this works, is the driver for the RAMDisk
> lives in Ring0, and RIng0 has no memory license. it is
> Ring3 where the memory license applies. Ring0 is kernel
> country. And the kernel can access everything. The mechanism
> is also enabled, via the existence of PAE, and the
> default enablement of PAE in WinXP SP3.

On Wed, 02 Feb 2022 18:52:23 -0000, J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG@255soft..uk> wrote:

> On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 at 21:22:22, Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> wrote
> (my responses usually follow points raised):
>> On Tue, 01 Feb 2022 12:33:26 -0000, Wolffan <akwolffan@zoho.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2022 Jan 31, Commander Kinsey wrote
>>> (in article <op.1gvulhdemvhs6z@ryzen.lan>):
> []
>>>> BTW, hardware doesn't break with software.
>>>
>>> It does if the drivers don’t work.
>>
>> Don't use ancient hardware, and never ever buy HP, you're lucky if that
>> works on the intended OS!
>>
>> Anyway printers are a consumable item, they fall apart mechanically in a year.
>
> A lot of modern ones do, agreed. (And a lot of modern ones, the driver
> situation is such that you are lucky if you can find a combination of
> OS, driver, and firmware that will run for more than a month or two.
> (OK, exaggerating for effect.)
>
> And most modern inkjet ones, the cartridges/ink channels block if you
> don't use them for a day or two, and never really recover.
>
> On the other hand, I know of several impact printers that I think will
> outlast me. (OK, may need a drop of ink on the ribbon [though WD40 often
> works].) [Impact: what everyone calls "dot matrix". But all (other than
> golfball/daisywheel/line) print a matrix of dots.] Built like a tank,
> they are. And - provided they have an EPSON emulation mode (usually ye
> olde DIP switch inside somewhere), there's a driver for them in many
> modern OSs. (Though you might have to get a USB/parallel port adapter!)
> []
>>>> No updates wouldn't bother me. Stopping working would. But if all I've
>>>> bypassed is security, that shouldn't stop it working surely?
>>>
>>> don’t know. not going to find out the hard way.
>>
>> It would appear the worst that will happen is a future update won't
>> work. But you can get around that. Or not bother. Windows 11 without
>> updates is newer than Windows 10 with updates.
>
> It's not just an update not _working_, it's the possibility of an update
> _breaking_ something. Which certainly isn't unknown! And if you take
> (say) 11 and then no more updates to stop that happening, aren't you the
> same as someone sticking with any given version of 10, or 7, or XP?

Give away or sell the printer and replace it.

On 2/3/2022 4:18 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 19:50:55 -0000, "Commander Kinsey"
> <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> Christ, my computers aren't that old. And I would never even put Windows 7 on 4GB machine. 4GB machines go in the bin. Using the minimum requirement means you've got the disk swapping non-stop, slowing the computer down by a factor of a billion, driving you crazy, and wearing out the drive.
>
> What would be the easiest way to check?
>
> I have 64gb of DDR4 plus a high end videocard (top 20 on Passmark) and
> lots of disk space. I've got a 1tb DDR and would hope for more once
> the price becomes more friendly.
>

You check resource usage in Task Manager.

Have you ever used Task Manager before ?

At one time, it was the control-alt-delete thing.

But it was also made available via a menu.

On Windows 11, the convenient menu item was removed,
so until we locate exactly what happened to it, it's
back to control-alt-delete again :-)

The GPU tab in Task Manager, helps you determine what
video card resources are being used. In Linux, they got NVidiaSMI
as an approximation to resource usage. And AMD coded up
a bar graph looking thing for the same purpose, although
I've caught that thing being all whacked out and crazy.
At least the Microsoft tab got the competitive spirits going.
I don't know if Apple has one of those too or not (GPU usage).

In Task Manager, you can add extra columns, and I like to
add some IO columns as it makes it easier to determine when
a program is almost finished a file system operation. If
a program doesn't have a progress indicator of its own,
telling you what percentage done it is, then you have to
rely on some other means of figuring it out. On Linux,
that would be iotop (which can measure spot usage or
total usage). Windows can measure spot usage with resmon
or perfmon, and Task Manager can measure total usage for you.
Just about all OSes do a shit job of instrumenting USB
activity.

Paul

On 2/3/2022 6:56 AM, Paul wrote:
> On 2/3/2022 4:18 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 19:50:55 -0000, "Commander Kinsey"
>> <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Christ, my computers aren't that old.  And I would never even put
>>> Windows 7 on 4GB machine.  4GB machines go in the bin.  Using the
>>> minimum requirement means you've got the disk swapping non-stop,
>>> slowing the computer down by a factor of a billion, driving you
>>> crazy, and wearing out the drive.
>>
>> What would be the easiest way to check?
>>
>> I have 64gb of DDR4 plus a high end videocard (top 20 on Passmark) and
>> lots of disk space. I've got a 1tb DDR and would hope for more once
>> the price becomes more friendly.
>>
>
> You check resource usage in Task Manager.
>
> Have you ever used Task Manager before ?
>
> At one time, it was the control-alt-delete thing.
>
> But it was also made available via a menu.
>
> On Windows 11, the convenient menu item was removed,
> so until we locate exactly what happened to it, it's
> back to control-alt-delete again :-)
>
> The GPU tab in Task Manager, helps you determine what
> video card resources are being used. In Linux, they got NVidiaSMI
> as an approximation to resource usage. And AMD coded up
> a bar graph looking thing for the same purpose, although
> I've caught that thing being all whacked out and crazy.
> At least the Microsoft tab got the competitive spirits going.
> I don't know if Apple has one of those too or not (GPU usage).
>
> In Task Manager, you can add extra columns, and I like to
> add some IO columns as it makes it easier to determine when
> a program is almost finished a file system operation. If
> a program doesn't have a progress indicator of its own,
> telling you what percentage done it is, then you have to
> rely on some other means of figuring it out. On Linux,
> that would be iotop (which can measure spot usage or
> total usage). Windows can measure spot usage with resmon
> or perfmon, and Task Manager can measure total usage for you.
> Just about all OSes do a shit job of instrumenting USB
> activity.
>
>    Paul

Paul:
You might be interested in a method I found online for a window's batch
file to note progress of writing to a file:

:: Wait for recording to start
:_StartDelayD
TIMEOUT /T 5 > NUL
( (CALL ) >> <path to file>) 2>NUL && GOTO _StartDelayD

:: Wait for recording to finish
:_WriteDelayD
TIMEOUT /T 300 > NUL
( (CALL ) >> <path to file>) 2>NUL || GOTO _WriteDelayD

On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 19:51:30 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 at 12:22:00, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote
>(my responses usually follow points raised):
>>On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 18:52:23 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
>><G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 at 21:22:22, Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> wrote
>>>(my responses usually follow points raised):
>>>>On Tue, 01 Feb 2022 12:33:26 -0000, Wolffan <akwolffan@zoho.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2022 Jan 31, Commander Kinsey wrote
>>>>> (in article <op.1gvulhdemvhs6z@ryzen.lan>):
>>>[]
>>>>>> BTW, hardware doesn't break with software.
>>>>>
>>>>> It does if the drivers don’t work.
>>>>
>>>>Don't use ancient hardware, and never ever buy HP, you're lucky if that
>>>>works on the intended OS!
>>>>
>>>>Anyway printers are a consumable item, they fall apart mechanically
>>>>in a year.
>>>
>>>A lot of modern ones do, agreed.
>>
>>??? Not in my experience. I've never had a printer that failed
>>anywhere near that quickly.
>
>I'm with you, really. I just let "Commander Kinsey"'s "always use the
>latest everything - if you use anything at all old, you're a lus3r"
>attitude wind me up. I shouldn't have.

He's killfiled here, so he doesn't wind me up.

>>And if a printer I had failed, it could almost always be repaired for
>>much less money than buying a new one. I'm never seen one that "fell
>>apart."
>
>On the whole, I agree - or, you'd carry on with the broken bit.
>>
>>My current printer is a Brother HL-L2300D Monochrome Laser Printer
>>with Duplex Printing. I've had it for about three years with no
>>problems.
>>
>>My wife has a Canon imageCLASS LBP6000 Compact Laser Printer. She's
>>had it for about eight years with no problems.
>
>Mine's a Samsung CLP-775 - it's about a two-foot cube, and I suspect
>heavier than it's safe for me to lift on my own.
>>
>>I like mine much more than hers. I've been waiting for hers to fail so
>>I can replace it with one like mine, but it doesn't oblige me.
>>
>>
>>>(And a lot of modern ones, the driver
>>>situation is such that you are lucky if you can find a combination of
>>>OS, driver, and firmware that will run for more than a month or two.
>>>(OK, exaggerating for effect.)
>>
>>
>>Exaggerating a lot. The only issue, and only with some printers, is
>>that if you switch operating systems, you may not be able to find a
>>driver for the new operating system.
>>
>Yes, you're right (though I think it has been known for W10 updates to
>break them, though it's not common). It's the "no driver when you change
>OS" thing that infuriates me - that and/or the printer makers and/or
>Microsoft's refusal to do universal drivers (for at least printers and
>scanners): OK, something that doesn't take advantage of special
>properties that particular model has, but it still ought to be usable.
>>
>>>And most modern inkjet ones, the cartridges/ink channels block if you
>>>don't use them for a day or two, and never really recover.
>>
>>
>>A day or two? More likely a month or two. And most recover easily if
>>you just replace the ink cartridges.
>
>Again, I exaggerated for effect, perhaps too much. (It also depends
>whether the print head is part of the cartridge, so is replaced when you
>replace the cartridge, or not. Ideally, like some Xerox models, you have
>replaceable ink tanks, but in an assembly - including the head - that is
>itself replaceable. Generally, though, you only get user-replaceable
>heads where they're resistive; piezo ones, as in EPSON - which, granted,
>may give nicer results - usually aren't replaceable.)
>>
>>Yes, color lasers are substantially more expensive to buy than
>>inkjets, but the cost of using them (the cost of the ink cartridges)
>>is much less. And since I rarely need to print anything in color, I
>>stick with B&W lasers.
>
>I've had _two_ multifunction (i. e. with scanner) colour inkjets )a
>Brother and an EPSON) dry up beyond repair (I was doing _very_ little
>printing at the time). I think it _might_ be possible to retrieve the
>Brother, but with a _lot_ of work, special cleaning cart.s, etcetera.
>>
>>However inkjets do fail more often and more quickly than laser
>>printers and that's why I only use laser printers.
>>
>[I'm just dreading when I have to replace the toner/drum for my laser.

Yes, it happens eventually, but usually not very quickly. And with a
B&W laser, you could simply replace the whole printer at a low cost.
Mine was under $100

>OK, the cost _per page_ is probably still lower, but the cost of the
>cart/drum is still very high!]

Yes.

>>>On the other hand, I know of several impact printers that I think will
>>>outlast me. (OK, may need a drop of ink on the ribbon [though WD40 often
>>>works].) [Impact: what everyone calls "dot matrix".
>>
>>
>>Perhaps true, but they are much slower than lasers, the quality of the
>>print is much lower, and they require special paper. It's been about
>>35 years since I last had one. I'm glad to no longer have one.
>
>Long time since I did too. The quality can be quite good, but you have
>to use them _very_ slowly to get it. you also didn't mention the noise
>level (-: - doesn't bother me, but would most people! By special paper,
>do you mean with sprocket holes?

Yes.

> A lot of the later ones could use cut
>sheets.

Thanks, I hadn't seen any and didn't know that.

>But I agree, I'd normally recommend a small modern mono laser printer
>for most people, unless they _must_ have colour; if then, lasers still
>cheaper in the long run, but the initial outlay (including spare toner)
>_is_ noticeably higher.

Yes to all the above.

I'm glad to see our opinions on this aren't as far apart as I thought
they were.

On 2/2/22 13:22, Ken Blake wrote:

[snip]

> ??? Not in my experience. I've never had a printer that failed
> anywhere near that quickly.

I once had a cheap HP inkjet that did.

[snip]

> My current printer is a Brother HL-L2300D Monochrome Laser Printer
> with Duplex Printing. I've had it for about three years with no
> problems.

I have a Brother laser that's probably older than that. I have had 2
problems.

1. The printer was refusing to print some things with a strange display
of "Print Unable E1". That turned out to be a driver problem and hasn't
happened recently.

2. The only time I tried non-Brother toner cartridges, they leaked
toner. The printer worked fine after I cleaned it with canned air and
got some Brother toner.

[snip[

> A day or two? More likely a month or two. And most recover easily if
> you just replace the ink cartridges.
>
> Yes, color lasers are substantially more expensive to buy than
> inkjets, but the cost of using them (the cost of the ink cartridges)
> is much less. And since I rarely need to print anything in color, I
> stick with B&W lasers.

> However inkjets do fail more often and more quickly than laser
> printers and that's why I only use laser printers.

I use laser most of the time, but have an inkjet for occasional photo
printing (which the laser doesn't do so well) mostly for Christmas
cards. Also, scanning since the laser is not a multifunction device.

[snip]

> Perhaps true, but they are much slower than lasers, the quality of the
> print is much lower, and they require special paper. It's been about
> 35 years since I last had one. I'm glad to no longer have one.

My first printer was an Epson MX-80. I had it until about 1998, when I
sold it with an old computer. IIRC the only problem I had with it was a
little plastic part broke and a store fixed it for $5.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"In every country and in every age the priest has been hostile to
liberty; he is always in allegiance to the despot, abetting his abuses
in return for protection of his own." -- Thomas Jefferson

On 2/2/22 14:32, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Feb 2022 17:05:33 -0000, Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2/1/22 17:49, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> I've never found a use for RAMdrives.  If you're using the disk a lot,
>>> it'll get cached anyway.
>>
>> I once had a system that used a RAMdrive. It used 32-bit Windows XP on a
>> computer that claimed to allow a maximum of 4GB RAM but actually works
>> with 8. The RAMdrive used the other 4GB, that Windows wouldn't.
>
> Why didn't you just upgrade to 64 bit windows?

From what I had heard, 64-bit XP had a lot of problems, and I didn't
like Vista. I think Win 7 was already available. I'm not sure why I
wasn't using it yet.

When that machine died (I forget what happened), I did use 64-bit on the
replacement.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"In every country and in every age the priest has been hostile to
liberty; he is always in allegiance to the despot, abetting his abuses
in return for protection of his own." -- Thomas Jefferson

On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 12:26:29 -0600, Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid>
wrote:

>On 2/2/22 13:22, Ken Blake wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> ??? Not in my experience. I've never had a printer that failed
>> anywhere near that quickly.
>
>I once had a cheap HP inkjet that did.

OK. Note that I didn't say "printers that *never* fail anywhere near
that quickly." There are almost always exceptions to everything.

>> My current printer is a Brother HL-L2300D Monochrome Laser Printer
>> with Duplex Printing. I've had it for about three years with no
>> problems.
>
>I have a Brother laser that's probably older than that. I have had 2
>problems.
>
>1. The printer was refusing to print some things with a strange display
>of "Print Unable E1". That turned out to be a driver problem and hasn't
>happened recently.

I assume you replaced the driver. It's rarely necessary, but when it
is, it's easy to do and costs nothing.

>2. The only time I tried non-Brother toner cartridges, they leaked
>toner. The printer worked fine after I cleaned it with canned air and
>got some Brother toner.

You've been unlucky. I use third-party toner. It was much less
expensive and it's been fine. I've never had a problem with it.

>[snip[
>
>> A day or two? More likely a month or two. And most recover easily if
>> you just replace the ink cartridges.
>>
>> Yes, color lasers are substantially more expensive to buy than
>> inkjets, but the cost of using them (the cost of the ink cartridges)
>> is much less. And since I rarely need to print anything in color, I
>> stick with B&W lasers.
>
>> However inkjets do fail more often and more quickly than laser
>> printers and that's why I only use laser printers.
>
>I use laser most of the time, but have an inkjet for occasional photo
>printing (which the laser doesn't do so well) mostly for Christmas
>cards.

Understood. We're all different. I never print photos, and I didn't
want to incur the cost of a second printer, nor did I want to deal
with clogged ink-jets, especially if I used it only rarely. There's an
occasional time when I might like to have a color printer, but it's
rare and never necessary.

> Also, scanning since the laser is not a multifunction device.

I have a stand-alone scanner, a Canon LiDE 80, which I like a lot. I'm
almost always against any kind of multi-function device. If one
component fails, I don't want to have to replace the whole thing.

>> Perhaps true, but they are much slower than lasers, the quality of the
>> print is much lower, and they require special paper. It's been about
>> 35 years since I last had one. I'm glad to no longer have one.
>
>My first printer was an Epson MX-80. I had it until about 1998, when I
>sold it with an old computer. IIRC the only problem I had with it was a
>little plastic part broke and a store fixed it for $5.

My first two printers (around 1986 and 1990) were both dot-matrix. It
was too long ago for me to remember either brand and model. I don't
remember any problems with either. I got the second one because it was
faster and more versatile.

After those two dot-matrix printers, I graduated to laser printers
(the first one was an HP LaserJet IIIP; I got it primarily because I
was looking for a job at the time and wanted a laser printer to print
resumes and cover letters), and they are what I've always used since
then, with one exception--I once had an cheap ink-jet (it was also
long ago and I've forgotten the brand and model), but it was a pain in
the ass to deal with and I never wanted one again. I tried refilling
the cartridges myself, and it was a mess.

On Thu, 03 Feb 2022 08:42:59 -0800, Nobody <jock@soccer.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 06:56:35 -0500, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On 2/3/2022 4:18 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 19:50:55 -0000, "Commander Kinsey"
>>> <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Christ, my computers aren't that old. And I would never even put Windows 7 on 4GB machine. 4GB machines go in the bin. Using the minimum requirement means you've got the disk swapping non-stop, slowing the computer down by a factor of a billion, driving you crazy, and wearing out the drive.
>>>
>>> What would be the easiest way to check?
>>>
>>> I have 64gb of DDR4 plus a high end videocard (top 20 on Passmark) and
>>> lots of disk space. I've got a 1tb DDR and would hope for more once
>>> the price becomes more friendly.
>>>
>>
>>You check resource usage in Task Manager.
>>
>>Have you ever used Task Manager before ?
>>
>>At one time, it was the control-alt-delete thing.
>>
>>But it was also made available via a menu.
>>
>>On Windows 11, the convenient menu item was removed,
>>so until we locate exactly what happened to it, it's
>>back to control-alt-delete again :-)
>
>Huh? Win 11 Home x64...
>
>Right click START... Task Manager is immediately above SETTINGS

Home or Professional. Right-click on any bank space on the task bar.

On 2/3/2022 11:42 AM, Nobody wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 06:56:35 -0500, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 2/3/2022 4:18 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 19:50:55 -0000, "Commander Kinsey"
>>> <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Christ, my computers aren't that old. And I would never even put Windows 7 on 4GB machine. 4GB machines go in the bin. Using the minimum requirement means you've got the disk swapping non-stop, slowing the computer down by a factor of a billion, driving you crazy, and wearing out the drive.
>>>
>>> What would be the easiest way to check?
>>>
>>> I have 64gb of DDR4 plus a high end videocard (top 20 on Passmark) and
>>> lots of disk space. I've got a 1tb DDR and would hope for more once
>>> the price becomes more friendly.
>>>
>>
>> You check resource usage in Task Manager.
>>
>> Have you ever used Task Manager before ?
>>
>> At one time, it was the control-alt-delete thing.
>>
>> But it was also made available via a menu.
>>
>> On Windows 11, the convenient menu item was removed,
>> so until we locate exactly what happened to it, it's
>> back to control-alt-delete again :-)
>
> Huh? Win 11 Home x64...
>
> Right click START... Task Manager is immediately above SETTINGS
>

There's a reason for my focus on the right hand side of
the screen. It's because that's where the function is
most likely to be found when you switch between OSes.

[Picture]

https://i.postimg.cc/Y0jkGY0k/Task-Manager-then-and-now.gif

I'm looking at the window of my fourth OS today so far,
plugging and unplugging as the need arises.

I don't even use the right-click Start Menu on Windows 11.
I can't think of a reason to go in there :-)

I do use right-click Start on Windows 11, but to access
Device Manager and Disk Management.

Paul

On 2/3/2022 1:34 PM, Mark Lloyd wrote:
> On 2/2/22 14:32, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> On Wed, 02 Feb 2022 17:05:33 -0000, Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/1/22 17:49, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>> I've never found a use for RAMdrives.  If you're using the disk a lot,
>>>> it'll get cached anyway.
>>>
>>> I once had a system that used a RAMdrive. It used 32-bit Windows XP on a
>>> computer that claimed to allow a maximum of 4GB RAM but actually works
>>> with 8. The RAMdrive used the other 4GB, that Windows wouldn't.
>>
>> Why didn't you just upgrade to 64 bit windows?
>
> From what I had heard, 64-bit XP had a lot of problems, and I didn't like Vista. I think Win 7 was already available. I'm not sure why I wasn't using it yet.
>
> When that machine died (I forget what happened), I did use 64-bit on the replacement.
>

WinXP x64 is not WinXP. It was another OS, repurposed
to fill that slot.

It also stopped receiving Service Packs.

And there were problems finding drivers for it
at the time, likely because of its actual parentage.

And after a couple Service Packs, Vista was fine. It
just got a premature launch, to suit some business
purpose.

Paul

On 2/3/2022 5:54 PM, Nobody wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 16:10:10 -0500, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 2/3/2022 11:42 AM, Nobody wrote:
>>> On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 06:56:35 -0500, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/3/2022 4:18 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 19:50:55 -0000, "Commander Kinsey"
>>>>> <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Christ, my computers aren't that old. And I would never even put Windows 7 on 4GB machine. 4GB machines go in the bin. Using the minimum requirement means you've got the disk swapping non-stop, slowing the computer down by a factor of a billion, driving you crazy, and wearing out the drive.
>>>>>
>>>>> What would be the easiest way to check?
>>>>>
>>>>> I have 64gb of DDR4 plus a high end videocard (top 20 on Passmark) and
>>>>> lots of disk space. I've got a 1tb DDR and would hope for more once
>>>>> the price becomes more friendly.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You check resource usage in Task Manager.
>>>>
>>>> Have you ever used Task Manager before ?
>>>>
>>>> At one time, it was the control-alt-delete thing.
>>>>
>>>> But it was also made available via a menu.
>>>>
>>>> On Windows 11, the convenient menu item was removed,
>>>> so until we locate exactly what happened to it, it's
>>>> back to control-alt-delete again :-)
>>>
>>> Huh? Win 11 Home x64...
>>>
>>> Right click START... Task Manager is immediately above SETTINGS
>>>
>>
>> I do use right-click Start on Windows 11, but to access
>> Device Manager and Disk Management.
>>
>
> <scratching head vigorously>
>
> So another function in the same list is *inconvenient*?
>
> <sigh>
>

I'm used to looking for it in the same place, as I
move from OS to OS.

I'm typing this from Windows 7.

Paul

On Thu, 03 Feb 2022 16:43:36 -0000, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 19:51:30 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
> <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 at 12:22:00, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote
>> (my responses usually follow points raised):
>>> On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 18:52:23 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
>>> <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 at 21:22:22, Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> wrote
>>>> (my responses usually follow points raised):
>>>>> On Tue, 01 Feb 2022 12:33:26 -0000, Wolffan <akwolffan@zoho.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2022 Jan 31, Commander Kinsey wrote
>>>>>> (in article <op.1gvulhdemvhs6z@ryzen.lan>):
>>>> []
>>>>>>> BTW, hardware doesn't break with software.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It does if the drivers don’t work.
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't use ancient hardware, and never ever buy HP, you're lucky if that
>>>>> works on the intended OS!
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway printers are a consumable item, they fall apart mechanically
>>>>> in a year.
>>>>
>>>> A lot of modern ones do, agreed.
>>>
>>> ??? Not in my experience. I've never had a printer that failed
>>> anywhere near that quickly.
>>
>> I'm with you, really. I just let "Commander Kinsey"'s "always use the
>> latest everything - if you use anything at all old, you're a lus3r"
>> attitude wind me up. I shouldn't have.
>
> He's killfiled here, so he doesn't wind me up.

And yet you're seeing replies to me. FFS get a real newsreader.

>>> And if a printer I had failed, it could almost always be repaired for
>>> much less money than buying a new one. I'm never seen one that "fell
>>> apart."
>>
>> On the whole, I agree - or, you'd carry on with the broken bit.
>>>
>>> My current printer is a Brother HL-L2300D Monochrome Laser Printer
>>> with Duplex Printing. I've had it for about three years with no
>>> problems.
>>>
>>> My wife has a Canon imageCLASS LBP6000 Compact Laser Printer. She's
>>> had it for about eight years with no problems.
>>
>> Mine's a Samsung CLP-775 - it's about a two-foot cube, and I suspect
>> heavier than it's safe for me to lift on my own.
>>>
>>> I like mine much more than hers. I've been waiting for hers to fail so
>>> I can replace it with one like mine, but it doesn't oblige me.
>>>
>>>
>>>> (And a lot of modern ones, the driver
>>>> situation is such that you are lucky if you can find a combination of
>>>> OS, driver, and firmware that will run for more than a month or two..
>>>> (OK, exaggerating for effect.)
>>>
>>>
>>> Exaggerating a lot. The only issue, and only with some printers, is
>>> that if you switch operating systems, you may not be able to find a
>>> driver for the new operating system.
>>>
>> Yes, you're right (though I think it has been known for W10 updates to
>> break them, though it's not common). It's the "no driver when you change
>> OS" thing that infuriates me - that and/or the printer makers and/or
>> Microsoft's refusal to do universal drivers (for at least printers and
>> scanners): OK, something that doesn't take advantage of special
>> properties that particular model has, but it still ought to be usable..
>>>
>>>> And most modern inkjet ones, the cartridges/ink channels block if you
>>>> don't use them for a day or two, and never really recover.
>>>
>>>
>>> A day or two? More likely a month or two. And most recover easily if
>>> you just replace the ink cartridges.
>>
>> Again, I exaggerated for effect, perhaps too much. (It also depends
>> whether the print head is part of the cartridge, so is replaced when you
>> replace the cartridge, or not. Ideally, like some Xerox models, you have
>> replaceable ink tanks, but in an assembly - including the head - that is
>> itself replaceable. Generally, though, you only get user-replaceable
>> heads where they're resistive; piezo ones, as in EPSON - which, granted,
>> may give nicer results - usually aren't replaceable.)
>>>
>>> Yes, color lasers are substantially more expensive to buy than
>>> inkjets, but the cost of using them (the cost of the ink cartridges)
>>> is much less. And since I rarely need to print anything in color, I
>>> stick with B&W lasers.
>>
>> I've had _two_ multifunction (i. e. with scanner) colour inkjets )a
>> Brother and an EPSON) dry up beyond repair (I was doing _very_ little
>> printing at the time). I think it _might_ be possible to retrieve the
>> Brother, but with a _lot_ of work, special cleaning cart.s, etcetera.
>>>
>>> However inkjets do fail more often and more quickly than laser
>>> printers and that's why I only use laser printers.
>>>
>> [I'm just dreading when I have to replace the toner/drum for my laser..
>
> Yes, it happens eventually, but usually not very quickly. And with a
> B&W laser, you could simply replace the whole printer at a low cost.
> Mine was under $100

In an office environment it happens quickly.

>> OK, the cost _per page_ is probably still lower, but the cost of the
>> cart/drum is still very high!]
>
> Yes.

A brother inkjet can be 1p (1.3 cents) a page, including the paper, printing in colour. Not sure about colour laser, but colour photocopier is 6p. HP inkjet is 14p, but who buys them?

>>>> On the other hand, I know of several impact printers that I think will
>>>> outlast me. (OK, may need a drop of ink on the ribbon [though WD40 often
>>>> works].) [Impact: what everyone calls "dot matrix".
>>>
>>> Perhaps true, but they are much slower than lasers, the quality of the
>>> print is much lower, and they require special paper. It's been about
>>> 35 years since I last had one. I'm glad to no longer have one.
>>
>> Long time since I did too. The quality can be quite good, but you have
>> to use them _very_ slowly to get it. you also didn't mention the noise
>> level (-: - doesn't bother me, but would most people! By special paper,
>> do you mean with sprocket holes?

I had a very fast bidirectional one. It shook the desk.

> Yes.
>
>> A lot of the later ones could use cut
>> sheets.
>
> Thanks, I hadn't seen any and didn't know that.

I don't remember any that needed holes. You could attach a sprocket set to put that stuff in if you wanted to do 5000 page printouts, but otherwise, just use normal paper.

>> But I agree, I'd normally recommend a small modern mono laser printer
>> for most people, unless they _must_ have colour; if then, lasers still
>> cheaper in the long run, but the initial outlay (including spare toner)
>> _is_ noticeably higher.
>
> Yes to all the above.

Especially HP lasers They lie. A printer with cartridges included! Yeah right, they're 1/4 full!

On Thu, 03 Feb 2022 18:26:29 -0000, Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> wrote:

> On 2/2/22 13:22, Ken Blake wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> ??? Not in my experience. I've never had a printer that failed
>> anywhere near that quickly.
>
> I once had a cheap HP inkjet that did.

HP is anything but cheap. Especially their rip off inks with their stupidity of including the heads on every cartridge. So you waste money buying heads all the time, and they're cheap shit heads that clog.

>> My current printer is a Brother HL-L2300D Monochrome Laser Printer
>> with Duplex Printing. I've had it for about three years with no
>> problems.
>
> I have a Brother laser that's probably older than that. I have had 2
> problems.
>
> 1. The printer was refusing to print some things with a strange display
> of "Print Unable E1". That turned out to be a driver problem and hasn't
> happened recently.
>
> 2. The only time I tried non-Brother toner cartridges, they leaked
> toner. The printer worked fine after I cleaned it with canned air and
> got some Brother toner.

I've never had trouble with Brothers, and I refilled the toners for where I worked. I did drop a toner bottle once, that was funny.

>> A day or two? More likely a month or two. And most recover easily if
>> you just replace the ink cartridges.
>>
>> Yes, color lasers are substantially more expensive to buy than
>> inkjets, but the cost of using them (the cost of the ink cartridges)
>> is much less. And since I rarely need to print anything in color, I
>> stick with B&W lasers.
>
>> However inkjets do fail more often and more quickly than laser
>> printers and that's why I only use laser printers.
>
> I use laser most of the time, but have an inkjet for occasional photo
> printing (which the laser doesn't do so well) mostly for Christmas
> cards. Also, scanning since the laser is not a multifunction device.

Since half the stuff I print has at last a bit of colour on it, I just use an inkjet. The only point of a laser is to print 1000 sheets quickly. Even then, at my work, they often wanted 1000s of colour sheets, so I stacked some nice Brother 130 printers on top of each other which were square and the paper and ink cartridges went in the front, and called them a printer pool in Windows. I sat there feeding in paper and cartridges and masses of colour prints came out rapidly.

>> Perhaps true, but they are much slower than lasers, the quality of the
>> print is much lower, and they require special paper. It's been about
>> 35 years since I last had one. I'm glad to no longer have one.

For colour, laser is shit quality, the toner doesn't mix like ink.

> My first printer was an Epson MX-80. I had it until about 1998, when I
> sold it with an old computer. IIRC the only problem I had with it was a
> little plastic part broke and a store fixed it for $5.

Nowadays you can 3d print those. There are people on Ebay who will print anything for a tenner if you give them the dimensions.

On Thu, 03 Feb 2022 19:15:32 -0000, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 12:26:29 -0600, Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2/2/22 13:22, Ken Blake wrote:
>>
>>> My current printer is a Brother HL-L2300D Monochrome Laser Printer
>>> with Duplex Printing. I've had it for about three years with no
>>> problems.
>>
>> I have a Brother laser that's probably older than that. I have had 2
>> problems.
>>
>> 1. The printer was refusing to print some things with a strange display
>> of "Print Unable E1". That turned out to be a driver problem and hasn't
>> happened recently.
>
> I assume you replaced the driver. It's rarely necessary, but when it
> is, it's easy to do and costs nothing.

Easy my arse. Everything always ends up with complications.

>>> A day or two? More likely a month or two. And most recover easily if
>>> you just replace the ink cartridges.
>>>
>>> Yes, color lasers are substantially more expensive to buy than
>>> inkjets, but the cost of using them (the cost of the ink cartridges)
>>> is much less. And since I rarely need to print anything in color, I
>>> stick with B&W lasers.
>>
>>> However inkjets do fail more often and more quickly than laser
>>> printers and that's why I only use laser printers.
>>
>> I use laser most of the time, but have an inkjet for occasional photo
>> printing (which the laser doesn't do so well) mostly for Christmas
>> cards.
>
> Understood. We're all different. I never print photos, and I didn't
> want to incur the cost of a second printer, nor did I want to deal
> with clogged ink-jets, especially if I used it only rarely. There's an
> occasional time when I might like to have a color printer, but it's
> rare and never necessary.

I have an Epson with a 3rd party continuous ink system attached. £1 for 100ml. You can even refill it while it's running.

>> Also, scanning since the laser is not a multifunction device.
>
> I have a stand-alone scanner, a Canon LiDE 80, which I like a lot. I'm
> almost always against any kind of multi-function device. If one
> component fails, I don't want to have to replace the whole thing.

The scanner is so chap you might aswell have it on top of the inkjet. I didn't even know they still sold stand alone scanners. In fact when I bought my inkjet, the cheapest inkjet had a scanner ion top anyway. And multifunction means you can also colour photocopy without even using the computer.

>>> Perhaps true, but they are much slower than lasers, the quality of the
>>> print is much lower, and they require special paper. It's been about
>>> 35 years since I last had one. I'm glad to no longer have one.
>>
>> My first printer was an Epson MX-80. I had it until about 1998, when I
>> sold it with an old computer. IIRC the only problem I had with it was a
>> little plastic part broke and a store fixed it for $5.
>
> My first two printers (around 1986 and 1990) were both dot-matrix. It
> was too long ago for me to remember either brand and model. I don't
> remember any problems with either. I got the second one because it was
> faster and more versatile.

My memory is better than yours, my 1991 dot matrix was an Epson. I think the model had 100 in it. Very loud. But you could do pretty good BnW images with it, it was 24 pins instead of 9.

> After those two dot-matrix printers, I graduated to laser printers
> (the first one was an HP LaserJet IIIP; I got it primarily because I
> was looking for a job at the time and wanted a laser printer to print
> resumes and cover letters), and they are what I've always used since
> then, with one exception--I once had an cheap ink-jet (it was also
> long ago and I've forgotten the brand and model), but it was a pain in
> the ass to deal with and I never wanted one again. I tried refilling
> the cartridges myself, and it was a mess.

Clumsy oaf.

On Thu, 03 Feb 2022 18:34:19 -0000, Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> wrote:

> On 2/2/22 14:32, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> On Wed, 02 Feb 2022 17:05:33 -0000, Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/1/22 17:49, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>> I've never found a use for RAMdrives. If you're using the disk a lot,
>>>> it'll get cached anyway.
>>>
>>> I once had a system that used a RAMdrive. It used 32-bit Windows XP on a
>>> computer that claimed to allow a maximum of 4GB RAM but actually works
>>> with 8. The RAMdrive used the other 4GB, that Windows wouldn't.
>>
>> Why didn't you just upgrade to 64 bit windows?
>
> From what I had heard, 64-bit XP had a lot of problems,

Not in my experience, 64 bit anything has always been better.

> and I didn't
> like Vista. I think Win 7 was already available. I'm not sure why I
> wasn't using it yet.

Vista was pretty much the same as 7.

On Thu, 03 Feb 2022 21:14:23 -0000, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

> On 2/3/2022 1:34 PM, Mark Lloyd wrote:
>> On 2/2/22 14:32, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>> On Wed, 02 Feb 2022 17:05:33 -0000, Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/1/22 17:49, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>>> I've never found a use for RAMdrives. If you're using the disk a lot,
>>>>> it'll get cached anyway.
>>>>
>>>> I once had a system that used a RAMdrive. It used 32-bit Windows XP on a
>>>> computer that claimed to allow a maximum of 4GB RAM but actually works
>>>> with 8. The RAMdrive used the other 4GB, that Windows wouldn't.
>>>
>>> Why didn't you just upgrade to 64 bit windows?
>>
>> From what I had heard, 64-bit XP had a lot of problems, and I didn't like Vista. I think Win 7 was already available. I'm not sure why I wasn't using it yet.
>>
>> When that machine died (I forget what happened), I did use 64-bit on the replacement.
>
> WinXP x64 is not WinXP. It was another OS, repurposed
> to fill that slot.

Incorrect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP_editions#Windows_XP_64-Bit_Edition

> It also stopped receiving Service Packs.
>
> And there were problems finding drivers for it
> at the time, likely because of its actual parentage.

I never had a problem with it.

> And after a couple Service Packs, Vista was fine. It
> just got a premature launch, to suit some business
> purpose.

I never had a problem with that either.

On Thu, 03 Feb 2022 21:56:25 -0000, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

> On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 10:13:58 -0500, Wolffan <akwolffan@zoho.com>
> wrote:
>
>> And you usually can’t tell in advance which chip you have. One of may
>> reasons why I decline to screw with the TPM on my machines.
>
> Agreed - but then if/when I go win 11 I intend to have it done by my
> favorite tech who built the machine in the first place.
>
> It would be equivalent to a mid-level corporate file server with 64 gb
> DDR4 RAM, a high end graphics card (top 20 on the PassCard list which
> of course a server wouldn't have), 20 Tb on 4 drives (one of which I
> have Bitlocker on which makes me wonder whether or not I'm golden for
> TPM) plus a couple more 8Tb externals
>
> Basically what would be the best way to investigate suitability? Both
> for TPM and Win 11?

20Tb is a lot of porn.

On 2/3/2022 4:56 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 10:13:58 -0500, Wolffan <akwolffan@zoho.com>
> wrote:
>
>> And you usually can’t tell in advance which chip you have. One of may
>> reasons why I decline to screw with the TPM on my machines.
>
> Agreed - but then if/when I go win 11 I intend to have it done by my
> favorite tech who built the machine in the first place.
>
> It would be equivalent to a mid-level corporate file server with 64 gb
> DDR4 RAM, a high end graphics card (top 20 on the PassCard list which
> of course a server wouldn't have), 20 Tb on 4 drives (one of which I
> have Bitlocker on which makes me wonder whether or not I'm golden for
> TPM) plus a couple more 8Tb externals
>
> Basically what would be the best way to investigate suitability? Both
> for TPM and Win 11?
>

In the Settings on Windows 10, if you type "TPM" in the search box,
that should put you in a place with details of your TPM. Either TPM 1.2
or TPM 2.0 would work, but 2.0 may be more secure than 1.2 . (As if
anyone cares.) If the BIOS refuses to acknowledge the existence of the
TPM module, then Windows is not going to show one either. This might
mean that TPM is passed as an ACPI object, via a BIOS table.

With Bitlocker, best practice is to have a "recovery key" media, with
the info needed to decrypt the partition. This is intended to prevent
you from being locked out. Even if Windows 11 were to come along, you
still need to stock media with the key on it, if it is important
to get the disk open on short notice.

Keywords like: Bitlocker Best Practice bde-manage Recovery Key

may help find more info. I haven't looked for any articles
on what happens if W10 is already encrypted. Bitlocker does not
absolutely need TPM, it can work without it.

Windows 7 Bitlocker and Windows 10 Bitlocker are not the same thing.
Windows 7 has the Elephant Diffuser (slower, but more secure).
Windows 10 removed Diffuser, but it still has an encryption method
of suitable strength.

Windows 11 should not have Elephant Diffuser either. One difference
with Windows 11, is it has the option of using hard drive FDE. When
that option is used, the encryption overhead is provided by the
hard drive internal processor. With FDE, if the key is changed on
the drive, it's as if the drive was erased (only random numbers
come out, on a key change). Windows 11 should not make gratuitous
changes to something that is already there... but, you never know.
That's where the further research comes in. If it finds software
Windows 10 Bitlocker method, it should just continue to use it.

Paul

On 2/3/2022 7:46 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Feb 2022 21:14:23 -0000, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 2/3/2022 1:34 PM, Mark Lloyd wrote:
>>> On 2/2/22 14:32, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 02 Feb 2022 17:05:33 -0000, Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/1/22 17:49, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>
>>>>>> I've never found a use for RAMdrives.  If you're using the disk a lot,
>>>>>> it'll get cached anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>> I once had a system that used a RAMdrive. It used 32-bit Windows XP on a
>>>>> computer that claimed to allow a maximum of 4GB RAM but actually works
>>>>> with 8. The RAMdrive used the other 4GB, that Windows wouldn't.
>>>>
>>>> Why didn't you just upgrade to 64 bit windows?
>>>
>>>  From what I had heard, 64-bit XP had a lot of problems, and I didn't like Vista. I think Win 7 was already available. I'm not sure why I wasn't using it yet.
>>>
>>> When that machine died (I forget what happened), I did use 64-bit on the replacement.
>>
>> WinXP x64 is not WinXP. It was another OS, repurposed
>> to fill that slot.
>
> Incorrect.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP_editions#Windows_XP_64-Bit_Edition

It's right in the article.

"Windows XP 64-Bit Edition, Version 2003 – Based on Windows Server 2003 codebase"
-------------------

Driver availability for WS2003 always sucked. A major disadvantage for a WinXP64 owner.

I know, because I used to try to find drivers for people.

Paul

On Fri, 04 Feb 2022 01:15:47 -0000, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

> On 2/3/2022 4:56 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 10:13:58 -0500, Wolffan <akwolffan@zoho.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> And you usually can’t tell in advance which chip you have. One of may
>>> reasons why I decline to screw with the TPM on my machines.
>>
>> Agreed - but then if/when I go win 11 I intend to have it done by my
>> favorite tech who built the machine in the first place.
>>
>> It would be equivalent to a mid-level corporate file server with 64 gb
>> DDR4 RAM, a high end graphics card (top 20 on the PassCard list which
>> of course a server wouldn't have), 20 Tb on 4 drives (one of which I
>> have Bitlocker on which makes me wonder whether or not I'm golden for
>> TPM) plus a couple more 8Tb externals
>>
>> Basically what would be the best way to investigate suitability? Both
>> for TPM and Win 11?
>>
>
> In the Settings on Windows 10, if you type "TPM" in the search box,
> that should put you in a place with details of your TPM. Either TPM 1.2
> or TPM 2.0 would work,

I've heard that but it isn't true. I have a machine with TPM 1.2 and it refused to install until I bypassed the check. It said on the screen, "requires TPM 2.0, you have TPM 1.2".

> but 2.0 may be more secure than 1.2 . (As if
> anyone cares.) If the BIOS refuses to acknowledge the existence of the
> TPM module, then Windows is not going to show one either. This might
> mean that TPM is passed as an ACPI object, via a BIOS table.
>
> With Bitlocker, best practice is to have a "recovery key" media, with
> the info needed to decrypt the partition. This is intended to prevent
> you from being locked out. Even if Windows 11 were to come along, you
> still need to stock media with the key on it, if it is important
> to get the disk open on short notice.

Doesn't matter how much you encrypt your data, a court order will ask you to provide the password.

On Fri, 04 Feb 2022 01:21:37 -0000, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

> On 2/3/2022 7:46 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> On Thu, 03 Feb 2022 21:14:23 -0000, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/3/2022 1:34 PM, Mark Lloyd wrote:
>>>> On 2/2/22 14:32, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 02 Feb 2022 17:05:33 -0000, Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/1/22 17:49, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've never found a use for RAMdrives. If you're using the disk a lot,
>>>>>>> it'll get cached anyway.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I once had a system that used a RAMdrive. It used 32-bit Windows XP on a
>>>>>> computer that claimed to allow a maximum of 4GB RAM but actually works
>>>>>> with 8. The RAMdrive used the other 4GB, that Windows wouldn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why didn't you just upgrade to 64 bit windows?
>>>>
>>>> From what I had heard, 64-bit XP had a lot of problems, and I didn't like Vista. I think Win 7 was already available. I'm not sure why I wasn't using it yet.
>>>>
>>>> When that machine died (I forget what happened), I did use 64-bit on the replacement.
>>>
>>> WinXP x64 is not WinXP. It was another OS, repurposed
>>> to fill that slot.
>>
>> Incorrect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP_editions#Windows_XP_64-Bit_Edition
>
> It's right in the article.
>
> "Windows XP 64-Bit Edition, Version 2003 – Based on Windows Server 2003 codebase"

Well according to WP there are about 3 XP 64 bit versions. The one I had worked just fine.

> Driver availability for WS2003 always sucked. A major disadvantage for a WinXP64 owner.

Well I never had trouble finding drivers for 2000.

On 2/3/2022 10:04 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Feb 2022 01:21:37 -0000, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

>> Driver availability for WS2003 always sucked. A major disadvantage for a WinXP64 owner.
>
> Well I never had trouble finding drivers for 2000.

2003 was like an orphan, in that hardware manufacturers
ignored it. That's why I knew I was in for a disappointment,
if I went looking for drivers for anything related to that.

Paul