I'd feel more comfortable if this were in a members only forum...
If the site that information is on isn't even members only, what's the point? The abandonware on winworld is way more illegal than simply linking to another site. Stop being so paranoid.
I'd feel more comfortable if this were in a members only forum...
If the site that information is on isn't even members only, what's the point? The abandonware on winworld is way more illegal than simply linking to another site.
Win7 is a current product though, abandonware, for the most part, nobody prosecutes for. I just don't want Winboards to go away, is that so bad?
The only thing that would make it go away is your paranoia. The links are not related to Winboards, nor are they hosted on any servers related to winboards, much less does it have any ties to anyone here. Linking to it does not make it illegal.
W7 Loader is just a pile of crap because if you don't have that annoying 100mb partition, It just won't work (Happened to me, RemWAT was the only one that worked, since I don't have that infamous 100mb partition on my PC...) :S
W7 Loader is just a pile of crap because if you don't have that annoying 100mb partition, It just won't work (Happened to me, RemWAT was the only one that worked, since I don't have that infamous 100mb partition on my PC...) :S
Eh? You're doing it wrong. I used it both in the real world and in VMware and it worked just fine. The software mod does absolutely nothing with a 100MB partition you speak of. Click Install, reboot, and you're done. The "100MB partition" I think you're referring to are the SLIC tables, which no, not every computer has. And its <1KB in the BIOS image, not a 100MB partition. But that's the what the software loader is for, so that the SLIC tables can be emulated.
Eh? You're doing it wrong. I used it both in the real world and in VMware and it worked just fine. The software mod does absolutely nothing with a 100MB partition you speak of. Click Install, reboot, and you're done. The "100MB partition" I think you're referring to are the SLIC tables, which no, not every computer has. And its <1KB in the BIOS image, not a 100MB partition. But that's the what the software loader is for, so that the SLIC tables can be emulated.
It's that 100mb (or more) "System Reserved" partition which W7 makes ONLY when you install it on a formatted disk at the beginning of the disk..
Im affraid not Hazar, this doesn't depend on size or guessing paths. It uses a system declare which gets the path 100% accurate all the time -- something a batch file can't do
This activates pretty much anything I have tested it on, with or without a drive letter too. It also doesn't hold resources like your own loader, it can generate its own fresh files.
I beg to differ. the batch will search for a 100mb partition, and the system reserved will be 100mb. It will mount every 100mb partition it finds, and unmount when done. 100% reliable.
So, this means that if you don't have that Sys Recovery partition which the loader needs to mount, you're SOL... :S
This is why it didn't work on my W7 build, also note that's been nLite'd so, maybe it lacks other things to make the loader run properly...
So I finally installed 7 and I must say... I'm pissed. Everything I have for internet connectivity is incompatible. I have a wifi usb dongle that Win7 doesn't even recognize. It just completely ignores it, though even linux with all it's wifi trouble, recognizes it instantly. Way to drop the ball Microsoft (And Belkin... And Netgear)
Why does everybody think that's what I'm saying? Did I say I was mad at Microsoft? Did I say that Microsoft should make these drivers? I said I'm upset that the devices don't work with Windows 7, even after installing the drivers. And yeah, I don't expect Microsoft to handle every piece of hardware out there, but when it doesn't even recognize that the hardware is there, I get a little upset. Do they really think it's okay to say "If Windows doesn't recognize it, it doesn't exist. To hell with what is physically there." It's not like I'm running some archaic device here. These are fairly new (And still in stores!) wifi devices.
Anyway after about four hours I got something working in a rather roundabout way, so I'm pleased with that.
Why does everybody think that's what I'm saying? Did I say I was mad at Microsoft? Did I say that Microsoft should make these drivers? I said I'm upset that the devices don't work with Windows 7, even after installing the drivers. And yeah, I don't expect Microsoft to handle every piece of hardware out there, but when it doesn't even recognize that the hardware is there, I get a little upset. Do they really think it's okay to say "If Windows doesn't recognize it, it doesn't exist. To hell with what is physically there." It's not like I'm running some archaic device here. These are fairly new (And still in stores!) wifi devices.
Anyway after about four hours I got something working in a rather roundabout way, so I'm pleased with that.
You should have seen the nightmares I had with my realtek wifi card and ATI video card under linux
In the long run I had to run a bleeding edge kernel, compile DRI and Xorg drivers from bleeding edge code and pray that it compiled right. After that the video was ass slow to the point where I couldn't even play a video. Slide show central. And even then it was worse on my battery than windows because it wouldn't let me control the voltage on my CPU.
So I wouldn't say Linux is any better off than Windows 7, or any version of Windows for that matter. While there is the argument that the hardware support is *there*, being there doesn't necessarily mean its stable or even working at all. The Linux attitude toward drivers its "Let's introduce New Feature 1 and New Feature 2 for New Device 1 before any existing code for New Device 1 is deemed stable or even complete" for the exact P.R. that you're demonstrating now. The pretense that Linux has better hardware support. Going even further than this, most of the drivers for older hardware haven't even been maintained in at least a decade. Sound familiar?
Most recently the PIIX IDE driver was "updated" and broke support for older PIIX revisions when adding support for newer PIIX4 versions, which hasn't been fixed since at least 2.6.18.
Why does everybody think that's what I'm saying? Did I say I was mad at Microsoft? Did I say that Microsoft should make these drivers? I said I'm upset that the devices don't work with Windows 7, even after installing the drivers. And yeah, I don't expect Microsoft to handle every piece of hardware out there, but when it doesn't even recognize that the hardware is there, I get a little upset. Do they really think it's okay to say "If Windows doesn't recognize it, it doesn't exist. To hell with what is physically there." It's not like I'm running some archaic device here. These are fairly new (And still in stores!) wifi devices.
Anyway after about four hours I got something working in a rather roundabout way, so I'm pleased with that.
If they device can't be recognized, how is the operating system supposed to know it physically exists? Last I checked, OS's didn't come with eyes.
If they device can't be recognized, how is the operating system supposed to know it physically exists? Last I checked, OS's didn't come with eyes.
I dunno, the same way it comes up with the "New Hardware Found" dialog? My point is it should say the device can't be installed, rather than just ignoring it completely.
So I wouldn't say Linux is any better off than Windows 7, or any version of Windows for that matter. While there is the argument that the hardware support is *there*, being there doesn't necessarily mean its stable or even working at all. The Linux attitude toward drivers its "Let's introduce New Feature 1 and New Feature 2 for New Device 1 before any existing code for New Device 1 is deemed stable or even complete" for the exact P.R. that you're demonstrating now. The pretense that Linux has better hardware support. Going even further than this, most of the drivers for older hardware haven't even been maintained in at least a decade. Sound familiar?
Haha, I would never say Linux had good driver support, I've seen and experienced some nightmares trying to get devices to work. I was just using it to juxtapose 7's difficulty with Ralink (Ralink!) drivers.
Why does everybody think that's what I'm saying? Did I say I was mad at Microsoft? Did I say that Microsoft should make these drivers? I said I'm upset that the devices don't work with Windows 7, even after installing the drivers. And yeah, I don't expect Microsoft to handle every piece of hardware out there, but when it doesn't even recognize that the hardware is there, I get a little upset. Do they really think it's okay to say "If Windows doesn't recognize it, it doesn't exist. To hell with what is physically there." It's not like I'm running some archaic device here. These are fairly new (And still in stores!) wifi devices.
Anyway after about four hours I got something working in a rather roundabout way, so I'm pleased with that.
Comments
http://forums.mydigitallife.info/thread ... s-7-loader
If the site that information is on isn't even members only, what's the point? The abandonware on winworld is way more illegal than simply linking to another site. Stop being so paranoid.
Exactly. And you people all worry too much.
^ This.
The only thing that would make it go away is your paranoia. The links are not related to Winboards, nor are they hosted on any servers related to winboards, much less does it have any ties to anyone here. Linking to it does not make it illegal.
That's been proven as it won't die even when people actually try to kill it. :P
W7 Loader is just a pile of crap because if you don't have that annoying 100mb partition, It just won't work (Happened to me, RemWAT was the only one that worked, since I don't have that infamous 100mb partition on my PC...) :S
Eh? You're doing it wrong. I used it both in the real world and in VMware and it worked just fine. The software mod does absolutely nothing with a 100MB partition you speak of. Click Install, reboot, and you're done. The "100MB partition" I think you're referring to are the SLIC tables, which no, not every computer has. And its <1KB in the BIOS image, not a 100MB partition. But that's the what the software loader is for, so that the SLIC tables can be emulated.
Delusions of grandeur, gentlemen. This forum's sphere of influence in the cyber-buccaneering world is negligible.
Check out this conversation at MDL forums:
So, this means that if you don't have that Sys Recovery partition which the loader needs to mount, you're SOL... :S
This is why it didn't work on my W7 build, also note that's been nLite'd so, maybe it lacks other things to make the loader run properly...
Nuff said.
Cool.
Anyway after about four hours I got something working in a rather roundabout way, so I'm pleased with that.
You should have seen the nightmares I had with my realtek wifi card and ATI video card under linux
In the long run I had to run a bleeding edge kernel, compile DRI and Xorg drivers from bleeding edge code and pray that it compiled right. After that the video was ass slow to the point where I couldn't even play a video. Slide show central. And even then it was worse on my battery than windows because it wouldn't let me control the voltage on my CPU.
So I wouldn't say Linux is any better off than Windows 7, or any version of Windows for that matter. While there is the argument that the hardware support is *there*, being there doesn't necessarily mean its stable or even working at all. The Linux attitude toward drivers its "Let's introduce New Feature 1 and New Feature 2 for New Device 1 before any existing code for New Device 1 is deemed stable or even complete" for the exact P.R. that you're demonstrating now. The pretense that Linux has better hardware support. Going even further than this, most of the drivers for older hardware haven't even been maintained in at least a decade. Sound familiar?
Most recently the PIIX IDE driver was "updated" and broke support for older PIIX revisions when adding support for newer PIIX4 versions, which hasn't been fixed since at least 2.6.18.
If they device can't be recognized, how is the operating system supposed to know it physically exists? Last I checked, OS's didn't come with eyes.
That's what you think...
Well as extra security I usualy leave my web cam unplugged just incase my dsystem did gaine senteance and wanted to see what was going down around it.
I dunno, the same way it comes up with the "New Hardware Found" dialog? My point is it should say the device can't be installed, rather than just ignoring it completely.
Haha, I would never say Linux had good driver support, I've seen and experienced some nightmares trying to get devices to work. I was just using it to juxtapose 7's difficulty with Ralink (Ralink!) drivers.