Microsoft's AppLocale is discontinued and should be replaced with something like Locale Emulator.
Disclaimer: this is just for judicious testers for fix researching affairs. I don't think "the mass" is wise enough to take the liberty of disregarding a security measure
So.. we all know the story. Bcdedit, DSEO, self-signing and all. But did you know:
Watermarks can possibly be tinkered with this
EDIT: everything from Α to Ω [clause]EDIT2: Loading unsigned code into kernel in Windows 10 (64) with help of VMware Workstation Pro/Player design flaw (should work up to Player 12.5.2)
Especially if you own non-TN monitors, this will be a godsend
EDIT: or this under multi-mon XP
Neat, that's reall useful.
Any advantages over Color Sustainer?
Oh man, solution that doesn't require dll injecting and is monitor/mode specific? Thanks for this!
Judging by "sister thread", it's not like some games can't only work with injection.
Anyway, there's even CPKeeper.
Kill programs instantly with Ctrl+Alt+F4
I need to test a few things that's why I'm asking.
Oh well I found it, I hope? Will need to do some more things.
Nevermind, it's probably something else.
Microsoft's generic Bluetooth driver is included with consumer editions of Windows from Windows XP SP2 onwards (there is nothing to download). Microsoft's driver uses the functionality built into Windows, so there is no extra software when using that driver. Some Bluetooth hardware may need the manufacturer's driver.
See General Bluetooth Support in Windows for more details.
When there'll be a guide for ACT (to slim down actual instructions in this page) it should be worth to be mentioned in force affinity issue
As I've mentioned on a previous thread, the problem there is that the Application Compatibility Toolkit is highly specific and requires some level of understanding of the problem--and the ideal solution is to then provide a game-specific fix package. As a result I'm not sure how useful generic instructions would be.
It's usually difficult to pinpoint what's the compatibility bit required, yes... but the point here was instead to provide yet another way to (permanently) force affinity on a single core, assuming you already know that's needed
I have modified windows registry too many times to believe an automatic solution (especially of this level) is the proper method to suggest.
Dude, its not literally automatic, did you even test it yourself. All it does is bring you to the path you are looking for, instead of having to tediously go through each folder manually, that's it.
Right now I am tired and I can't be bothered to word it better.
I don't see the point.
It seems an additional step to annoy the average joe
I like to keep things simple, but that doesn't mean that I'm doing that only for the average dude, power users also use this website if they need to, and honestly editing the registry is a very, tedious, boring, and repetitive task, I was mostly trying to find a way to streamline things out.
Also that doesn't mean that I should limit myself to stupid workarounds. But really it's not honestly that hard, there's no fancy UI but that's about it. You should honestly be happy that I actually bothered to waste my own time learning how to add that, just to make things simpler for everyone, instead I was hoping you'd maybe help me improve things around, not just tell me that I should remove this because you don't like it, jesus.
I'm just saying I don't see all this improvement.
"Manual" seek isn't such a long process to require help. And I just can't understand how opening cmd, cd-ing into another folder and then pasting the command could be considered faster
I believe what we may really call automatic is something like this magic
It's literally a single command, and I guess it could be adapted for a lot mooore situations
I guess, but I had used the word "automatic" seeing as I didn't know what to name this thing. That's it. I don't really care otherwise.
So, I lost the entire day trying to figure out the safest switches...And I'm somewhat too tired to figure out what solutions should be really endorsed...
Besides I found some further explanations of user and kernel memory distinctions. and just because I'm really lazy.. today I found this TRIM check tool which I believe should be essential for everybody with an SSD, and I'll just post it here
For /3GB, it's probably a bad idea if the system in question is 32-bit. The kernel and other processes need memory as well, and the system could misbehave if a single process is taking up almost the maximum addressable amount of memory. For the flag in the PE header, I don't think there would be too much problem, unless some developer's using a ptr <= 0 check somewhere (BTW, something like this happened with older versions of Macromedia Director, where if you have too much RAM the amount of RAM would be in the negative signed integer region, making the program think you have negative RAM). Out of the three programs that patch programs, I'd say the Large Address Aware enabler would be the best, considering its batch feature. The 4GB patch does basically the same thing as the LAA enabler, but only a single file at a time (so I believe from the screenshot). CFF Explorer is overkill for anyone who aren't interested in the innards of PE executables.
ptr <= 0
Yes indeed LAA enabler is perfect for newcomers just like 4GB patch, if we use basic modeBut then it could be used by advanced users for anything else, if they just cared to enable expert mode.
Besides, I compared the resulting executables.. and I found out that LAA enabler and CFF explorer just change a byte, whilst 4GB and 3GB patches change 2 bytes..
Do you know what this difference may produce?
And then.. what if (instead of 3 entire GB) I recommended something like 2560MB for x86 users (which is somewhat a compromise between normal behavior and maximum user-space VA)?Do you think there would still be a high risk to hit kernel address space limits, in the majority of situations?
The 3GB/4GB enablers recalculate the PE checksum in addition to setting the flag. If the game for some reason uses this value (e.g. DRM schemes), then there could be a bit of trouble if the checksum isn't recalculated. But in most cases, it's a non-issue, and regular EXE files aren't required to have a valid checksum anyway.
As for recommended settings, I'd say have people push up the setting a couple hundred megabytes at a time, and see what works. If they hit the 3GB limit, then doing this isn't helping them and they should revert to having no raised limits.
Is it OK for you now?
Besides, it seems that Windows server 2008 supports "dynamic reallocation"