Off Topic: EWF files
in [Laptops]
|
From: the wharf rat on 19 Dec 2009 13:25 In article <hgikl9$nb4$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, BillW50 <BillW50(a)aol.kom> wrote: > >Sure you can. I have most of my Windows machines have the EWF files from >embedded. To learn how, just Google it. > Yes, you have to illegally extract and install the three necessary files from the trial version of Xp embedded. Then you have to create three registry keys and set 8 or 10 values including that class gid thing correctly. Then you have to edit the registry settings for the volume you want to protect. THEN you have to reboot and run an esoteric and poorly documented command line executable. Good thing you don't need to be a programmer to run Windows :-) This is much easier than mount -o ro :-) :-) I'm glad you like Windows. Personally, I think it's pretty weak for most things. I don't even run it on my laptops.
From: BillW50 on 19 Dec 2009 18:15 In news:hgj5rn$538$1(a)reader1.panix.com, the wharf rat typed on Sat, 19 Dec 2009 18:25:59 +0000 (UTC): > In article <hgikl9$nb4$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > BillW50 <BillW50(a)aol.kom> wrote: >> >> Sure you can. I have most of my Windows machines have the EWF files >> from embedded. To learn how, just Google it. > > Yes, you have to illegally extract and install the three necessary > files from the trial version of Xp embedded. Illegally? I think that is debatable. Downloading trial versions isn't illegal for one. Secondly you are only using a few files from it. And nobody from Microsoft has complained about it yet. Not even a peon from Microsoft. > Then you have to create three registry keys and set 8 or 10 values > including that class gid thing correctly. Then you have to edit the > registry settings for the volume you want to protect. THEN you have > to reboot and run an esoteric and poorly documented command line > executable. That is the hard way to do it. Using "EWF Tool Version 1.0 BETA" does all of that for you. So simple that anybody who can point and click can do it. > Good thing you don't need to be a programmer to run Windows :-) This > is much easier than mount -o ro :-) :-) There are two ways to do things under Windows. The hard way or the easy way. Picking the hard way and complaining about it doesn't get you many points. > I'm glad you like Windows. Personally, I think it's pretty weak > for most things. I don't even run it on my laptops. Funny I am on the other side of the fence and I see just the opposite. As Linux makes a very poor general purpose OS. The part that it fills is a small niche is easy for me to see. And websites that monitor what OS is accessing them always shows Linux at less than 1%. Which makes perfect sense since I see Linux as nothing more than filling a niche anyway. And the data shows just the same. Even the Mac is far more popular than Linux machines for browsing. And that isn't saying much since the Mac is far behind Windows. So how do you explain this? -- Bill Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) - Windows XP SP2
From: the wharf rat on 19 Dec 2009 18:44 In article <hgjmr8$tik$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, BillW50 <BillW50(a)aol.kom> wrote: > >That is the hard way to do it. Using "EWF Tool Version 1.0 BETA" does >all of that for you. So simple that anybody who can point and click can >do it. What's that? Some kind of open source hack? I can't find any mention of it on technet, but I *did* find "Hey all, here is an interesting article from someone trying to use enhanced write filter (EWF) on top of the desktop version of XP Pro. I can't advocate doing this because I'm pretty sure there are licensing restrictions preventing it plus there are no official tools or processes to enable it in a supported way, but I thought it was an interesting experiment -" That's per Aaron Stebner, BTW. >There are two ways to do things under Windows. The hard way or the easy >way. Picking the hard way and complaining about it doesn't get you many >points. I'd rather type mount -o ro than run unsupported unlicensed underground hacks on systems that I'm responsible for. > >And websites that monitor what OS >is accessing them always shows Linux at less than 1%. Lol. 45% of active web servers run Linux. 68% of active web servers run Apache. >popular than Linux machines for browsing. And that isn't saying much >since the Mac is far behind Windows. So how do you explain this? > By pointing out that the error in your logic is so commmon that it even has its own Latin name: argumentum ad antiquitatem. It's also called the appeal to common practice. Your claim is that Windows is obviously superior because everyone believes it is. Sort of like when Mom used to ask "If everyone jumped off a roof would you jump off a roof too?"
From: BillW50 on 19 Dec 2009 21:25 In news:hgjohq$kjk$1(a)reader1.panix.com, the wharf rat typed on Sat, 19 Dec 2009 23:44:58 +0000 (UTC): > In article <hgjmr8$tik$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > BillW50 <BillW50(a)aol.kom> wrote: >> >> That is the hard way to do it. Using "EWF Tool Version 1.0 BETA" does >> all of that for you. So simple that anybody who can point and click >> can do it. > > What's that? Some kind of open source hack? I can't > find any mention of it on technet, but I *did* find It was here the last time I checked: http://www.computa.co.uk/staff/dan/?p=5 > "Hey all, here is an interesting article from someone trying to use > enhanced write filter (EWF) on top of the desktop version of XP Pro. > I can't advocate doing this because I'm pretty sure there are > licensing restrictions preventing it plus there are no official tools > or processes to enable it in a supported way, but I thought it was an > interesting experiment -" > > That's per Aaron Stebner, BTW. Disclaimers are everywhere. Remember there was a time when ordering coffee didn't have a disclaimer saying coffee is hot? Or don't use the hair drier in the shower? If you listen to all of them, you can't even eat or breath. So you need to use some common sense instead. I guess I should add a disclaimer that being an idiot is normally a bad thing, except when you can sue somebody else for megabucks. Then of course, you must give most of it to the lawyers that helped you in the first place. But then again, you are still the idiot in the end. Although maybe with a few extra bucks in your wallet. >> There are two ways to do things under Windows. The hard way or the >> easy way. Picking the hard way and complaining about it doesn't get >> you many points. > > I'd rather type mount -o ro than run unsupported unlicensed > underground hacks on systems that I'm responsible for. That may work for not corrupting my WMA files created under Windows. But let's say someday I get Linux to create them, then what? Wouldn't it be simpler to just use Windows in the first place? >> And websites that monitor what OS >> is accessing them always shows Linux at less than 1%. > > Lol. 45% of active web servers run Linux. 68% of active > web servers run Apache. Lol. Servers are a niche for one. What is it like one out of a thousand computer users run servers or higher? And yes, on the Linux side, Apache is the clear winner. So let's see with the benefit of doubt, one out of a thousand was 0.1% I believe. So you ignore 99.9% and use 0.1% as some sort of evidence? >> popular than Linux machines for browsing. And that isn't saying much >> since the Mac is far behind Windows. So how do you explain this? >> > By pointing out that the error in your logic is so commmon > that it even has its own Latin name: argumentum ad antiquitatem. It's > also called the appeal to common practice. Your claim is that Windows > is obviously superior because everyone believes it is. Sort of like > when Mom used to ask "If everyone jumped off a roof would you jump off > a > roof too?" Does Latin have a phrase for the word hyperbole? A statement that is so ridiculous that it can't be true? Surely there isn't a problem with people jumping off of roofs are there? Or coffee drinkers spilling hot coffee in their laps and being awarded millions? Sure it happens once in a blue moon. But if Linux were any good, surely it would break the 1% barrier you would think. But even so, the Mac is still kicking its butt by 5 times and more. Nowadays the Mac can run Windows, so those figures are only probably going to get worse. -- Bill Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) - Windows XP SP2
From: the wharf rat on 20 Dec 2009 13:16
In article <hgk29l$sev$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, BillW50 <BillW50(a)aol.kom> wrote: > >http://www.computa.co.uk/staff/dan/?p=5 > Lol, turns out it's not really write protecting the disk. It's spooling changes to memory then disgarding them on shutdown... >Disclaimers are everywhere. Remember there was a time when ordering You can't use untested beta software from unknown developers on production systems. |