Search Results

Search found 12918 results on 517 pages for 'hard turner'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 87/517 | < Previous Page | 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94  | Next Page >

  • Can not boot windows XP from cloned hard disk - what can I do?

    - by Martin
    My configuration: a PC (some years old) with MSI K8N-Neo-4F Motherboard, 1 GB RAM. Disk 1 (Maxtor, SATA II, 250 GB): 2 Partitions, on Partition 1 (48 GB): Windows XP Professional (NTFS) on Partition 2 (190 GB): data (NTFS) I wanted to have a larger and faster disk (the PC is incredibly slow and permanently the disk is rattling when I try to open an application or during Windows startup), so I took Disk 2 (Seagate, Sata II, 500 GB), installed in the PC, created at first a 400 GB-partition at the end of the disk and cloned the data to it, which worked well Installed a swap partition and a partition for Ubuntu Linux 12.10 on the first "part" of the disk so I was able to boot Linux and the old Windows XP with the Linux "System selection" at startup. Now I wanted to move Windows XP to the new disk, deleted the Linux partitions cloned Windows XP to the new disk (with free tools - EASESUS), left both disks in the PC and tried to select the new hard drive during boot as boot partition. This did not work, the PC refused to boot from this second disk. I tried many things like making the boot partition on the 2nd drive "active" in the Windows System Preferences modifying the boot.ini file to boot from the second disk - tried to boot from it, but ended with an error message stating that it was not possible to boot from this disk because of a hardware failure or something else or so removing the original disk and plugging the new one on the same SATA port as the original one - also booting failed with an error message repairing the MBR by booting into recovery mode from the Windows XP Installation CD-ROM, selecting the second disk and doing "FIXMBR" which said that everything was fine with the MBR. after that at least the PC tried to boot from the newer disk and then startup was hanging during the blue screen with the Windows Logo.... no luck. ... deleting the cloned partition and cloning again - this time with Macrium Reflect Free version... - no success during booting. I tried a lot of things with no success, so I wonder what I am doing wrong?! What could I do to successfully clone my Win XP partition to replace the original disk by a larger one which is bootable.

    Read the article

  • Dual hard drive Windows 7 system, modified the registry to get programs to install on second drive, now IE doesn't work

    - by paul
    I have a dual hard drive Windows 7 system, Windows is installed on an SSD (C:) and I modified the registry to try to force programs to install on second HDD drive (another letter). The registry edits are pretty simple, just a few keys in HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion to change the drive letter. For the most part the system is very fast and works great, but IE doesn't work anymore. With IE10, it opens for a flash with a white window then closes. I tried installed IE11 which opens a white window for a few seconds, doesn't respond, then crashes. I've tried all the solutions I could find. This includes resetting the IE settings, "uninstalling" and re-installing IE, which is just turning it on and off in "Turn Windows Features on or off", copying the Program Files\Internet Explorer files onto both/either drives, changing the registry keys back to use C:, lots of rebooting, and safe mode. Nothing has worked. I don't see errors in the event viewer, but I might not know what to look for. Any ideas on how to get IE running? I don't need IE for daily browsing, I just need it for cross-browser testing on sites I build and on the rare occasion a page only works in IE. I don't really want to use a virtual machine, but would be ok with something standalone like tredosoft's, but I'm not aware of something like that for current versions of IE.

    Read the article

  • How do I fully share a Hard Drive on my Local Network?

    - by GingerLee
    I have 4 computers connected to a router (DD-WRT) My main PC is Windows 7 (Home Premium). This machine has 2 Hard Disks: HD1 is used for my OS and the other (HD2) is used to store files. My 3 other machines are 1. Ubuntu Destop that I use to learn about linux, 2. A Mac OSX laptop, and 3. A netbook running windows 7. How do I easily share HD2 with my other machines? I would like all my machines to have full access & permissions to HD2 however I would like to RESTRICT access to only PCs that are connected to my router (either via LAN and WiFi) --- btw, I know this is not very secure due to WiFi vulnerability , however, I currently MAC address restrict WiFi connections my router. Extra Info: I have already tried to use the Windows Folder Sharing feature: i.e. I right click over the icon of HD2, and click on the Sharing Tab, but in sub-window labeled "Network File and Folder Sharing", the "Share" button is grayed out. I can click on "Advanced Shared" but that just takes me to a screen in which I have to set certain permissions. What is not clear to me is: How do I set a criteria that shares HD2 with all computer connected to my router?

    Read the article

  • Best format for hard drive for Windows and Mac?

    - by Neil
    I have a 500 GB USB External Hard Drive. I need four partitions on it, for the following purposes: 160 GB for a bootable backup of my Mac. 160 GB for a bootable backup of my Windows. 11 GB for a bootable Snow Leopard Install Disk Rest as for file storage. Now I need a partition table which will get recognised on both Windows and Mac, without needing extra software on Windows, which will let me keep bootable copies of both OS'es, but let me access the file storage from both OS'es. Currently, I have a GUI Partition Table, with Mac OS Extended (Journaled) Partitions for the two backups, Mac OS Extended for the Install Disk, and NTFS for the file storage. While this gets recognised perfectly on my Mac, thanks to an NTFS for Mac driver from Paragon, when connected to Windows, the drive is detected by the machine (listed in Safely Remove USB), but not recognised in Windows Explorer unless I install MacDrive, which is not feasible for me to install on public Windows Machines I might wanna access my storage area on. Can someone recommend the best combination of formats and software/drivers to get this done seamlessly?

    Read the article

  • Impossible to install Ubuntu 10.10 dual boot with Windows 7 on new Acer desktop computer

    - by Don Myers
    My brother has a brand new Acer Desktop with Windows 7. I have done many installs (40+) of Ubuntu starting with 8.10, and have never run into this. I've spent three hours trying to do a dual boot install of 10.10. When you get to the place where you normally would choose to install as a dual boot or overwrite the existing information on the hard drive, that block is just blank. Nothing. No choices even to do a manual partition setup. If you try to go on you get the message "No root file system is defined. Please correct this from the partitioning menu." but there is nothing in the partitioning menu. I tried a good 10.04 disc also. Same thing happens with it. I ran a gparted live cd, and it shows the hard drive as sda with 3 partitions on the original. sda1 is a small partition called PQService. sda2 is another small partition called System Reserved, and GParted says it is the boot partition. sda3 is the main partation with the operating system (Windows 7) and all of the empty space. There is a little unallocated space at the very beginning and very end of the hard drive. If I go to places in the Live CD, it shows a 640 gb hard disk called Acer, but it also shows a 640 gb hard disk called system reserved. They are the same disk. There is just one hard drive. If you click properties in the System Reserved 640 gb, it shows all information as unknown. I had to change the boot order in the bios in order to run the live cd. The hard drive instead of being listed as such is listed as Raid:Raid Ready. Something the way this computer is set up is preventing Ubuntu from being able to identify the hard drive partitions at all to do an install, even if you were not doing a dual boot and just wanted to overwrite Windows. Is this a bug that needs reported? This is a major problem for me and my brother, but also for Ubuntu if new users want to Ubuntu and find they cannot install it.

    Read the article

  • Windows 7 booting and startup repair issues

    - by aardvark
    I have a MSI FR720 laptop with Windows 7 and Lubuntu partions. For quite a while (6 months or so) I've been having issues booting from my hard drive, it'd take me between 5 minutes and several hours for me to be able to have it recognize the hard drive as a bootable device. I did several disk checks on it, and my hard drive seems in perfect condition, and the fact that booting would usually only work after removing the hard drive and trying to reset it in its slot or lightly shaking it makes me think it had something to do with the connection in the hard drive slot as opposed to the hard drive itself. I was having particular issues with it detecting the hard drive today so I decided to try booting it from an external hard drive dock. It detected it first try and so far has had no problems finding the bootable partitions on my hard drive. When I selected my Windows 7 partition from the boot menu it said that it hadn't been shut down properly last time and needed startup repair. I've done this several times over the last 6 months, so this is hardly unusual. I do startup repair, it fails, and then I try to do a system restore. The system restore also failed, and it says that no files were changed. I restart and try it again. However, this time when I get to the startup repair it's not detecting a Windows OS. I tried clicking next and doing a startup repair but the repair is always failing. If I ignore the startup repair option and instead select "Launch windows normally" it will get to the windows animation, stop halfway through and then crash into a BSoD. I can't read the error on the screen because it immediately switches to back and tries to restart. This is my first time asking a question like this online, so let me know if I need to provide any extra information and I'll do my best to give it I tried using diskpart to find the list of partitions and see if one's labelled as an active partition, but it says that no disk were detected. I can run Lubuntu just fine. I can also see all of my Windows 7 files from it EDIT: The startup repair diagnosis and repair log is this: -- Number of repair attempts: 1 Session details System Disk = Windows directory = AutoChk Run = 0 Number of root causes = 1 Test Performed: Name: Check for updates Result: Completed successfully. Error code = 0x0 Time taken = 15ms Test Performed: Name: System disk test Result: Completed successfully. Error code = 0x0 Time taken = 31ms Root cause found. If a hard disk is installed, it is not responding. -- Any chance that this is a result of me doing this through an external dock through a USB drive?

    Read the article

  • Currently using View, Should I use a hard table instead?

    - by 1001010101
    I am currently debating whether my table, mapping_uGroups_uProducts, which is a view formed by the following table: CREATE ALGORITHM=UNDEFINED DEFINER=`root`@`localhost` SQL SECURITY DEFINER VIEW `db`.`mapping_uGroups_uProducts` AS select distinct `X`.`upID` AS `upID`,`Z`.`ugID` AS `ugID` from ((`db`.`mapping_uProducts_Products` `X` join `db`.`productsInfo` `Y` on((`X`.`pID` = `Y`.`pID`))) join `db`.`mapping_uGroups_Groups` `Z` on((`Y`.`gID` = `Z`.`gID`))); My current query is: SELECT upID FROM uProductsInfo \ JOIN fs_uProducts USING (upID) column \ JOIN mapping_uGroups_uProducts USING (upID) -- could be faster if we use hard table and index \ JOIN mapping_fs_key USING (fsKeyID) \ WHERE fsName="OVERALL" \ AND ugID=1 \ ORDER BY score DESC \ LIMIT 0,30; which is pretty slow. (for 30 results, it requires about 10 secondes). I think the reason for my query being so slow is definitely due to the fact that that particular query relies on a VIEW which has no index to speed things up. +----+-------------+----------------+--------+----------------+---------+---------+---------------------------------------+-------+---------------------------------+ | id | select_type | table | type | possible_keys | key | key_len | ref | rows | Extra | +----+-------------+----------------+--------+----------------+---------+---------+---------------------------------------+-------+---------------------------------+ | 1 | PRIMARY | mapping_fs_key | const | PRIMARY,fsName | fsName | 386 | const | 1 | Using temporary; Using filesort | | 1 | PRIMARY | <derived2> | ALL | NULL | NULL | NULL | NULL | 19706 | Using where | | 1 | PRIMARY | uProductsInfo | eq_ref | PRIMARY | PRIMARY | 4 | mapping_uGroups_uProducts.upID | 1 | Using index | | 1 | PRIMARY | fs_uProducts | ref | upID | upID | 4 | db.uProductsInfo.upID | 221 | Using where | | 2 | DERIVED | X | ALL | PRIMARY | NULL | NULL | NULL | 40772 | Using temporary | | 2 | DERIVED | Y | eq_ref | PRIMARY | PRIMARY | 4 | db.X.pID | 1 | Distinct | | 2 | DERIVED | Z | ref | PRIMARY | PRIMARY | 4 | db.Y.gID | 2 | Using index; Distinct | +----+-------------+----------------+--------+----------------+---------+---------+---------------------------------------+-------+---------------------------------+ 7 rows in set (0.48 sec) The explain here looks pretty cryptic, and I don't know whether I should drop view and write a script to just insert everything in the view to a hard table. ( obviously, it will lose the flexibility of the view since the mapping changes quite frequently). Does anyone have any idea to how I can optimize my schema better?

    Read the article

  • What is the proper way of hard-coding sections in a UITableView?

    - by Sheehan Alam
    I have a UITableView with 3 sections that are hard coded. Everything is working fine, but I am not sure if I am doing it correctly. Define number of rows in section: - (NSInteger)tableView:(UITableView *)tblView numberOfRowsInSection:(NSInteger)section { NSInteger rows; //Bio Section if(section == 0){ rows = 2; } //Profile section else if(section == 1){ rows = 5; } //Count section else if(section == 2){ rows = 3; } } return rows; } Here is where I build my cells: - (UITableViewCell *)tableView:(UITableView *)tblView cellForRowAtIndexPath:(NSIndexPath *)indexPath { static NSString *CellIdentifier = @"Cell"; UITableViewCell *cell = [tblView dequeueReusableCellWithIdentifier:CellIdentifier]; if (cell == nil) { cell = [[[UITableViewCell alloc] initWithStyle:UITableViewCellStyleSubtitle reuseIdentifier:CellIdentifier] autorelease]; } cell.textLabel.numberOfLines = 5; cell.textLabel.font = [UIFont fontWithName:@"Helvetica" size:(10.0)]; cell.textLabel.lineBreakMode = UILineBreakModeWordWrap; if ([self.message_source isEqualToString:@"default"]) { if (indexPath.section == 0) { if (indexPath.row == 0) { cell.textLabel.text = [Utils formatMessage:[NSString stringWithFormat: @"%@", mySTUser.bio]]; cell.detailTextLabel.text = nil; } else if(indexPath.row == 1){ cell.textLabel.text = [NSString stringWithFormat: @"%@", mySTUser.website]; cell.detailTextLabel.text = nil; cell.accessoryType = UITableViewCellAccessoryDisclosureIndicator; } } } //more code exists, but you get the point... Now I define my number of sections - (NSInteger)numberOfSectionsInTableView:(UITableView *)tblView { return 3; } Is this the proper way of hard-coding my UITableView? Will I run into any issues when cells are reused?

    Read the article

  • Clarification On Write-Caching Policy, Its Underlying Options And How It Applies To Hard Drives And Solid-State Drives

    - by Boris_yo
    In last week after doing more research on subject matter, I have been wondering about what I have been neglecting all those years to understand write-caching policy, always leaving it on default setting. Write-caching policy improves writing performance and consists of write-back caching and write-cache buffer flushing. This is how I understand all the above, but correct me if I erred somewhere: Write-through cache / Write-through caching itself is not a part of write caching policy per se and it's when data is written to both cache and storage device so if Windows will need that data later again, it is retrieved from cache and not from storage device which means only improved read performance as there is no need for waiting for storage device to read required data again. Since data is still written to storage device, write performance isn't improved and represents no risk of data loss or corruption in case of power failure or system crash while only data in cache gets lost. This option seems to be enabled by default and is recommended for removable devices with no need to use function of "Safely Remove Hardware" on user's part. Write-back caching is similar to above but without writing data to storage device, periodically releasing data from cache and writing to storage device when it is idle. In my opinion this option improves both read and write performance but represents risk if power failure or system crash occurs with the outcome of not only losing data eventually to be written to storage device, but causing file inconsistencies or corrupted file system. Write-back caching cannot be enabled together with write-through caching and it is not recommended to be enabled if no backup power supply is availabe. Write-cache buffer flushing I reckon is similar to write-back caching but enables immediate release and writing of data from cache to storage device right before power outage occurs but I don't know if it applies also to occasional system crash. This option seem to be complementary to write-back cache reducing or potentially eliminating risk of data loss or corruption of file system. I have questions about relevance of last 2 options to today's modern SSDs in order to get best performance and with less wear on SSDs: I know that traditional hard drives come with onboard cache (I wonder what type of cache that is), but do SSDs also come with cache? Assuming they do, is this cache faster than their NAND flash and system RAM and worth taking the risk of utilizing it by enabling write-back cache? I read somewhere that generally storage device's cache is faster than RAM, but I want to be sure. Additionally I read that write-caching should be enabled since current data that is to be written later to NAND flash is kept for a while in cache and provided there is data that gets modified a lot before finally being written, holding of this data and its periodic release reduces its write times to SSD thereby reducing its wearing. Now regarding to write-cache buffer flushing, I heard that SSD controllers are so fast by themselves that enabling this option is not required, because they manage flushing. However, once again, I don't know if SSDs have their own onboard cache and whether or not it is faster than their NAND flash and system RAM because if it is, keeping this option enabled would make sense. Recently I have posted question about issue with my Intel 330 SSD 120GB which was main reason to do deeper research having suspicion of write-caching policy being the culprit of SSD's freezing issue assuming data being released is what causes freezes. Currently I have write-cache enabled and write-cache buffer flushing disabled because I believe SSD controller's management of write-cache flushing and Windows write-cache buffer flushing are conflicting with each other: Since I want to troubleshoot in small steps to finally determine the source of issue, I have decided to start with write-caching policy and the move to drivers, switching to AHCI later on and finally disabling DIPM (device initiated power management) through registry modification thanks to @TomWijsman

    Read the article

  • Android ListView clears when hard BACK key is pressed.

    - by Rpond
    In my android app I have a Tabhost with a ListView as one of the tabs. By clicking on an item in the ListView (an address) I start an Intent to Google Maps for directions and the choice dialog pops up for google maps, web browser etc. Problem is if I press the hard back button then the launch dialog goes away but also the ListView is cleared. Any idea why?

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET Performance, 100 "Memory Hard Faults" indiciate a memory swapping problem?

    - by Robert
    With a customer web site we currently experiences performance problems. While analyzing the problem we found an unexpected amount of of 112 "Memory Hard Faults" per minute. Does anybody can interpret the meaning of this value? Does this happen, when memory swapping is necessary - so the root cause is not sufficient memory? Even if the CPU value seems high, it is not the main problem for the slow web site. Do you agree?

    Read the article

  • Why is good UI design so hard for some Developers?

    - by Chris Ballance
    Some of us just have a hard time with the softer aspects of UI design (myself especially). Are "back-end coders" doomed to only design business logic and data layers? Is there something we can do to retrain our brain to be more effective at designing pleasing and useful presentation layers? Colleagues have recommended a few books me including The Design of Sites, Don't make me think and Why Software sucks , but I am wondering what others have done to remove their deficiencies in this area?

    Read the article

  • Dedicated hard disk for SE dbname.dbs files & dedicated ramdisk for /tmp files.

    - by Frank Computer
    INFORMIX-SE 7.2: I would like to dedicate a hard disk, exclusively for my dbname.dbs directory which holds all the .dat and .idx files, and create a ramdisk for my /tmp temporary files in order to improve performance. I would also like to strip down the OS from any unecessary files and processes to minimize overhead for my dedicated application. Is this a good idea and are there any roadmaps for accomplishing this?

    Read the article

  • What is the best private cloud storage setup

    - by vdrmrt
    I need to create a private cloud and I'm searching for the best setup. These are my 2 most important requirements 1. Disk and system redundant 2. Price / GB as low as possible The system is going to be used as backup setup which will receive data 24/7 over SFTP and rsync. High throughput is not that important. I'm planning to use glusterfs and consumer grade 4TB hard-drives. I have worked out 3 possible setups 3 servers with 11 4TB HDD Setup up a replica 3 glusterfs and setup each hard drive as a separate ext4 brick. Total capacity: 44TB HDD / TB ratio of 0.75 (33HDD / 44TB) 2 servers with 11 4TB HDD The 11 hard-drives are combined in a RAIDZ3 ZFS storage pool. With a replica 2 gluster setup. Total capacity: 32TB (+ zfs compression) HDD / TB ratio of 0.68 (22HDD / 32TB) 3 servers with 11 4TB consumer hard-drives Setup up a replica 3 glusterfs and setup each hard-drive as a separate zfs storage pool and export each pool as a brick. Total capacity: 32TB (+ zfs compression) HDD / TB ratio of 0.68 (22HDD / 32TB) (Cheapest) My remarks and concerns: If a hard drive fails which setup will recover the quickest? In my opinion setup 1 and 3 because there only the contents of 1 hard-drive needs to be copied over the network. Instead of setup 2 were the hard-drive needs te be reconstructed by reading the parity of all the other harddrives in the system. Will a zfs pool on 1 harddrive give me extra protection against for example bit rot? With setup 1 and 3 I can loose 2 systems and still be up and running with setup 2 I can only loose 1 system. When I use ZFS I can enable compression which will give me some extra storage.

    Read the article

  • SEI Turns Software Architecture into a Game

    - by Bob Rhubart-Oracle
    "Architecture is the decisions that you wish you could get right early in a project." -- Ralph E. Johnson Unless you can see into the future, getting those decisions right comes down to a collection of hard choices. But the Software Engineering Institute (SEI) of Carnegie Mellon University has turned those hard choices into a game. Literally. According to the SEI website: The Hard Choices game is a simulation of the software development cycle meant to communicate the concepts of uncertainty, risk, options, and technical debt. In the quest to become market leader, players race to release a quality product to the marketplace. By the end of the game, everyone has experienced the implications of investing effort to gain an advantage or of paying a price to take shortcuts, as they employ design strategies in the face of uncertainty.   Check it out for yourself: Download the Hard Choices Board Game Download the companion white paper: The Hard Choices Game Explained

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94  | Next Page >