Mark Phelps

Basically, if you're asking does MS intend to provide a secret "back door" into Win10 for certain agencies, nothing they have said indicates their plans to do this; but then, if they did intend to do it, they're unlikely to admit it. Without access to source code, none of us can know what "hidden features" come with anything we install. And, if you want to carry to conspiracy theory to its logical end, even if we did have the source code, how could we be guaranteed that the code we have actually has anything to do with the code that was actually used to make the executables we are running? If you're really worried about "back doors", the only workable solution is to (1) keep your PC entirely disconnected from any network (including home networks -- since someone could be listening in to your wireless traffic(!)), and (2) never install or run anything on your PC that you did not code yourself -- including the incorporation of any runtime libraries (which, in the case of Windows, you could not have coded yourself).

Two comments .... First, when you read the vague descriptions provided with the individual Windows Updates today, you really have no idea what the update is actually going to do. So even now, unless you prevent ALL updates, you really have no control over what MS installs as a byproduct of Windows Updates. Second, during the Windows Insider program, one of the Win10 forums posted a hack that you could run that would prevent all future Windows Updates from being applied. Folks on that forum requested this because there were instances where installation of faulty driver updates trashed their machines, and during the Insider program, NO updates could be avoided. The problem with using that patch is that it prevented the upgrades to the new builds -- but since there won't be any new builds after Win10 is released, that's not really going to be a problem.

What's important to note is that upgrading an existing "pirate" version of Win7 or Win8/8.1 to Win10 will not then suddenly give you a non-pirate system. It will still be a "pirate" system, just one running Win10. And, I agree that MS is likely using this to force folks into buying licenses down the road --as they will probably produce an activation scheme for Win10 that can not be defeated using the current MS Toolkit routines. Don't be surprised if, a little more than 30 days after such an upgrade, the system suddenly shuts down (as it did in Win7 when the "trial" period expired) and the only thing it will allow is connecting to MS to buy a license!

Might be able to do it from the details in the MS link: https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/jj574204.aspx

Sorry ... didn't see this sooner, but the best guides to unlocking (rooting) phones, presuming this is an Android phone are the two Android forums: http://forums.androidcentral.com/ and http://androidforums.com/categories/android-phones.3/

Don't use it much myself for any advanced editing, but I do know that Paint Shop Pro supports layers. You should check it out. I believe their latest version is X7.

I regularly use Chromium to access CP. And, since it updates on a frequent basis, apply the nearly-daily updates. Then, starting with Build v42.0.2286.0, when I opened the browser to CP, I got a notice line at the top that Flash wasn't working and that I needed to install it. When I went through the install procedure, it appeard to work, but when I restarted the browser, the notification came back on, again. I reinstalled build v42.0.2283.0, and the notification went away, and Flash was working again. I Googled this and read about how Chromium had changed their handling of Flash -- but this was Months ago, not in the last few days. So, does anyone know why, suddenly, Chromium (or maybe, Google) doesn't handle Flash anymore?

I tried following the steps in the link to install pepper flash -- and while that appeared to work, after I restarted Chromium, the same old "needs flash" error message popped up: http://chromium.woolyss.com/#flash BTW, I checked the earlier builds that work, and Flash is already installed in those builds. So, Google has specifically removed Flash from the newer builds.

The way I "installed" Chromium was to unpack the .zip file to its own directory (on a data partition) and then copy that entire directory to Windows\Program Files. That way, when a new version comes out, I unpack it in a separate directory and copy the new chrome-win32 directory over the old one in Program Files. That makes it easy to change versions while keeping settings intact. You might try using build v42.0.2283.0 or older -- those worked using Flash and only the newer builds are failing. BTW, I get my builds from the MajorGeeks website.

I need to reinstall Office 2013 Pro Plus due to a hard disk crash -- but the product key was on an email which since has been lost. Due to reasons I can't get into, I'm not able to contact the original source and have them send me the email again. The original version is still installed and working but I need to migrate it to a new drive and new machine. I tried magicaljellybean key finder but it did not show the Office product key. Anyone know of a keyfinder app that will show Office product keys? And, yeah, I could install a cracked version, but this is a legit version and I want to continue using it.

That's likely to be the best solution. The version I have now was given to me by a coworker, who also sent me the email with the product key. Since we both worked for the same company, it activated for me. But, he's since retired, moved away, and neither of us are working for that company -- so it' likely that even if I could find the key, it wouldn't activate again.

I think it might depend on how you install Office 2013. Mine was a "click-and-run" install and, in those cases, it appears that only some of the product key is saved on the local machine.

Mr G: I found the same page and tried that -- and it did the same for me -- only showed the last few digits. There is a footnote that indicates that only some of the key is stored on the machine. That causes me to presume that when activation is done, it checks something at MS, and then when activated, overwrites most of the key.

Tech: thanks. It was a bit difficult to get zippyshare to let me download, but I did eventually do it. Unfortunately, it doesn't show the Office 2013 key at all. The screenshot only shows Office keys up to version 2007, and since this is a cracked version, it's likely an update will not work. Update: I downloaded the latest version and ran it -- and it doesn't show Office 2013, either.

The first video in post #274 looks legit -- but unfortunately, it's not. It involved some trickery on two counts: (1) careful film editing, and (2) replacement of pieces between "cuts". In terms of the first, this is at least two, and possibly, three recordings which are spliced at specific times to give the illusion of one continuous set of actions. In particular, right after the "cut line" is shown and the cut it made, some time elapses (long enough to replace the pieces in the video with different pieces), and that time is removed through editing. In terms of the second, when the cut is made, it is from the top left of the second row of rectangles to the top right of the third row of rectangles. The angle of the cut is important because, if you look closely, it bisects the height of the third row of rectangles. This effectively removes 1/4 of each of the rectangles when the pieces are separated. This would leave you with 1/4 less area when the pieces are reassembled -- with one rectangle left over. Which is what, in reality, it does. But ... if you watch the video, you appear to have the same complete set of rectangles when the three pieces are reassembled, with the "extra" piece being placed with the other pieces. This gives the impression that you could do this sequence over and over, eventually filling up a container with the removed single rectangles -- all the time, retaining the original size and shape of the complete set of rectangles. This is of course, impossible. And, I'm going to tell you how it was done ... If you try this yourself, when you reassemble the pieces, you will notice two differences from the video: 1) The third row of rectangles is now shorter than the other five rows! In fact, it is now 1/4 shorter. IF you look at the left column of rectangles on the larger piece that is cut (the right-hand piece), you will notice that the bottom left rectangle is not the full height of the others. That's because you cut off 1/4 of the height when you made the angled cut. You'll note that in the video, the third row, when the cut pieces are reassembled, is the same height as the other rows. This is geometrically impossible -- since you removed 1/4 of the height. 2) When you add the left-most piece you cut back on the right side, you'll see there's no lower horizontal line on that piece. That's because when you made the cut on that piece, you started at the horizontal line on the lower left. You'll note, that in the video, this upper-right column had four horizontal rows. This is geometrically impossible, because when you made the original cut, there was no bottom row remaining on the piece. Look at it before you move it around, just after you make the cut, and that will confirm what I said. So basically, the way the video is made is through cheating, as follows: 1) The cut is made as indicated 2) The cut pieces are removed and replaced with other pieces -- which have two differences from the original ones. First, the lower row is 1/4 higher than the cut pieces. This extra height is needed so that when reassembled in the new locations, the rows then all have the same heights. Second, the column that goes on the upper right is replaced with another piece where the cut was actually made 1/4 of the height BELOW the lower horizontal border. That is necessary so the new piece still has the lower horizontal row on it. 3) The video is edited to remove the time and actions of replace the original cut pieces with the new "doctored" pieces. IF you watch the video closely, you'll see the height of the whole set of rectangles suddenly increase after the cuts are made -- that's because the new, larger pieces have been inserted. Sorry, looks cool but it involves trickery to make it happen. Don't believe me! Try it yourself and notice how the end result looks quite different from the video.

Guess you missed the part where the OP said which ... basically prevents them from installing anything. My suggestion ... since this is apparently a work PC, then go to your IT department and have THEM fix the problem where some PDFs don't display properly. They will have the needed Admin password to do that.

Actually, some of that is happening right now -- but with negative consequences in all too many cases. I'm a regular contributor to both the Ubuntu forums and Mint forums, and now that XP has been declared "dead" (by some), folks are flocking to the two to "replace" XP with Linux -- and discovering, in the process, that whether or not that works well depends critically on how you define "replace". The primary motivation for this move (at least, what the folks are saying about it), is that they want an OS environment that is "safe" (free from infection), and with MS NOT distributing security patches for XP anymore, they are scared (some of them SERIOUSLY!) about their PC being infected. They have heard that Linux does not have viruses (NOT true!) and that it does not get infected (also, NOT true), so they erase XP from their PCs, install a Linux distro -- and are mortified to discover that one or more of the following is true: 1) The machine does not work (no desktop, no working OS) 2) The machine restarts but does not display a working desktop 3) The machine displays a desktop but it's very "laggy" or there are display "artifacts" making it difficult to use 4) The machine mostly works, but one or more hardware devices don't work well or don't work at all -- most common is internal memory card readers 5) The machine works well Admittedly, we don't really hear from the 5) folks -- so it's impossible to tell what percentage of the "migrants" (folks who migrated to Linux from XP) have really good result, but the reasons for the other 4 problems are generally well understood among those of us who have been around Linux for a few years, mostly having to do with processor/memory/video hardware requirements for modern Linux distros. And yeah, folks really DO expect their 256MB (system memory), 64MB (video card), Intel P4 (processor) PC to run like lightening on a modern Linux distro and EVERYTHING (read that, all hardware devices) to work as well, if not better, in Linux than in Windows. When we tell them they need to wipe the drive and install something like Lubuntu (at best), or more likely, Damn Small Linux or Puppy Linux, they are sorely disappointed and then ask how to go back to XP. It's even worse (surprisingly) for folks with new machines (e.g., Win8 laptops) that have stuff like Hybrid/Dual graphics (which largely don't work under Linux) or self-idling multi-core processors (which don't work nearly as well in Linux due to known kernel limitations). In many cases, they restart after install and don't even get a desktop! And, when they go to run Reset on the Win8 PCs and discover it won't work because they messed up the partitioning scheme, they're really upset. Don't get me wrong, I'm not blaming them, per se. It's not their fault that laptop manufacturers have adopted customized hardware solutions for which Linux driver largely don't exist -- but the folks making the switch don't know this, and they're certainly not told this by the Linux "fans", so they're unprepared for the disastrous results. And, now that MS has finally come full circle to recognize that forcing a smartphone interface on everyone (even desktop PC users) was not a good idea and is restoring the Start Menu for "Threshold", it's likely that more folks will switch over to it, than switch over to Linux. SO, no, I don't see the Linux desktop population growing enough for this to be the "Year of the Linux Desktop".

Admittedly, it's my own opinion, but for me, online backups (what folks today refer to as Cloud solutions) are a waste of money and high-risk. Why? Thee reasons ... First, you have to be able to get online to get to the cloud. That requires not only a working OS on your PC but also Internet access. I recently had Win8.1 crash on me and I was not able to boot into the OS at all. Fortunately, I do regular image backups to a LOCAL external hard drive, so I was able to boot from the Macrium Reflect boot USB, point it to the backups on the external drive and restore a working system, in under 10 minutes. Second, Cloud solutions cost money, every month, even if you don't use them for a month. As to whether they're cheaper than an external drive, that's a matter of how you "cost" them. I can go down to MicroCenter and buy a 3TB drive for around $100 USD. For the standard Carbonate rate of $5 USD per month, that buys me 20 months of usage, but since I've paid for the drive outright, I actually get to use it for as long as I want -- long past 20 months. So for me, the external drive is cheaper in the long run. Third (and I've left the most critical reason to the last), there is the very serious problem of information security. My most critical and sensitive data is not on a drive internal to the PC; instead, it's on an external drive that gets locked in a safe when I'm not here. Paranoid? No -- just want that info to be available ONLY to me. With Cloud services, you are at the mercy of System Admins who can access your data any time they want (I know, I was a Unix System Admin for years). That's presuming no one "hacks" into their systems -- which is easier than you think. And, when I worked in InfoSec, we learned that the most risk was associated with "insiders" -- folks who had become disheartened for some reason or other, and for a pile of cash, would walk away from the System Console for a few minutes to let someone else do whatever they wanted in their absence. I don't want someone else browsing through my family pictures and videos, my email, and my credit card info; instead, I'd rather just keep that stuff locally on a hard drive I can lock up.

When you "burn" an ISO file to a cd, not COPY it, it actually expands the filesystem contained inside the ISO file and writes the corresponding files and folders to the CD. So that, when you then boot from that CD, it contains all the files and folders needed -- not a single ISO file. Installing FROM an ISO file is completely different. You can't just click it and then install. When I last used Ghost (years ago -- quit using it because it failed on me when I most needed it!), it saved backup images to a proprietary format file (not an ISO file). IF that's the same with the Ghost version you're using, the file is an image of a Windows setup, not a Windows installer -- and even if you could expand that onto a new hard drive, it probably wouldn't work because the hardware in the new system would likely require different drivers than those installed in the original system from which the image backup was made.

If you have a Windows install disk and the Repair option doesn't work, you can do an in-place reinstall -- which will keep all your apps and settings but refresh the system files. Details on doing this are at the Windows 7 forum: http://www.sevenforums.com/tutorials/3413-repair-install.html?filter[3]=Installation and Setup

My own comments (for what they are worth) ... I've been running Linux distros for over 10 years now. Started back in the days when I was a Unix System Admin and discovered that you could get something similar to run on your own PC. Back then, a LOT of work was needed to install a Linux distro, which is probably why they referred to as "hobbyist" solutions -- obviously intended for folks with lots of time to learn what they needed to get a Linux distro actually working on the personal computer. And every year, we hear from the Linux fans about how "this year" was going to be the "Year of the Linux desktop". Well ,,, yeah ... that didn't happen. My view on why that did not happen are closely related to my former professional experience where I was charged with overhauling engineering processes and organizations only to discover (surprise!!) -- folks really don't like change. Plus, they don't like being mislead by folks more interested in championing their causes than in telling it like it really is. And finally, folks press back real hard against change when they see nothing to gain from the change. Personally, I think this last is the key deterrent against Linux taking over the desktop world. Most folks who have a PC (or tablet) bought theirs with an OS (and some apps) already installed and working. While they might be curious about switching their device over to another OS, when you tell them they'll only end up (in terms of functionality) in the same place they are right now, they see no value in making the switch. They hear folks say that Linux can do everything Windows can do -- which, from personal experience in several very different Linux distros over the past 10 years, I can state is NOT true, not unless you define "everything" in very broad terms like "surf the web", or "watch videos", or " create documents". Some folks try out Linux and discover that the Open-source alternatives to their favorite Windows apps do not quite measure up to what they're used to. Even if they do provide the functionality they need, the menus, the pulldowns, the radio buttons -- they're all different! Now, they're facing with learning all new ways to do what they already knew how to do! Then, you get the folks that go running to Ubuntu to "get away from Windows" (free at last!!) -- only to have their next question be how to run their favorite Windows apps, which (again from personal experience) I can tell you mostly do NOT work well with various Linux workarounds like Wine, PlayOnLinux, and WineTricks. Or, they grab a copy of VirtualBox, install a (probably pirated) version of Windows -- only to then proclaim, they're now "Free of Windows!!" Or, they spend a LOT of money on some brand new hardware and discover that the Linux drivers are nowhere up to the capabilities of the Windows drivers, such that their laptop overheats, their networking slows down, their "Hybrid Graphics" simply don't work, nor does their internal SD card reader. So now, they're REALLY PISSED!! Why? Because didn't their Linux friend tell them that "Linux can do everything that Windows can do!"? I find Linux distros fun to use -- they're like free toys that you can play around with to your heart's content. Currently, I'm using both Mint 15 and Mint 16. I switched over from Ubuntu because I actually LIKE menus (run my Win8 PC in Desktop Mode), and can't stand the smartphone-tiles interface on my desktop PC. But ... when I recently upgraded my video card to an AMD HD 8850 because my onboard HD 4290 was going out, it took a LOT of work scrounging through forums to find out how to install AMD Linux drivers that actually work; whereas with Win8, it installed them without my having to do anything. And that last part is what tends to drive folks BACK to Windows from Linux. After hours of forum searches, scrounging around for drivers and scripts, and finally hand-bashing a system that works, along comes a kernel change, or a hardware upgrade, and you're back to square one. And, even to this day, Canonical (the owners of the Ubuntu distro) have STILL not provided a convenient way to "roll-back" a version upgrade that trashes your machine -- something Windows has had for years.

It's important WHERE you create and save the documents. IF you create and save them to local folders -- that are NOT shared -- then having the network connected or not should make no difference. If you create and save them to shared folders, when the network is connected (even if the folder is local), you can get a hanging problem while the PC is trying to resolve network connections.

What I would suggest, before you do a reinstall, is the following: 1) Create a new Word document on each of the PCs. Do NOT put it in a shared folder. 2) Save and close each document on each PC. 3) Then, try to open each document again -- on each of the PCs. 4) Reconnect the network 5) See if you can NOW re-open the new document on each of the PCs. If you are sharing folders across the workgroup and you save the documents in any folders that are being shared, even if those folders are on the local machine, when you try to open a document in that folder, it's going to try to connect to the network. My guess is that connecting to the Win8.1 PC from the XP machines is "hanging" and that's what is preventing you from opening a document when the network is connectec.

rahulko25: I realize this is a frustrating problem ... but when someone advises you to do something and ALL you do in response is repeat your original post with some words highlighted in RED -- that does not help! We can all read, here. Repeating the same thing to us a second time is rude. You mention the PCs are connected through a Homegroup -- but XP does not use Homegroups. If you mean a Work group, that is different. Are any of the Word documents being accessed on a network share? Are any of them on one of the other PCs?

Just open the run dialog box by pressing Win + R and type in “recent“. There you can see your recent activities.