so far sounds good, let me ask to, is windows search still available to you?
i see mine in the start menu but when i click it it never pops up..
on a second note, you know of any light weight search apps that work in xp to replace it?
congratz on getting a working clone to..
the drive reporting bad and it doing it on the second disk probably signal of a virus or malware marking good clusters bad, i had that once on mine I used multiple AV's scanning at once to track it down.
it resided in an outside partition is why my Av's couldn't isolate it. once I knew that I just removed/replaced the partition and re formated it, while scanning then scanned again.
folks don't know this but, IBM standard drives can't read all the bytes in a program, there are some bytes "ignored by the drive". to my knowledge "only the ti994a can separate out these bytes, seeing all"because you can adjust the byte chunk size. when you load and run a program they are ignored but present, this is how they made the koobface virus. on my isolated programming machine i use a ti994a as sever to pass all data with a software filter to block these bytes. i just don't know any other way to filter it out.. I just mark what is invisible to IBM drives and overwrite it.. every software made in the last 3 decades has these bad bytes and enough of them are a virus that marks the clusters bad so your computer security will ignore them "till its executable". in the 80's we called them doors, a handle to a function that let us hack away.. it is designed into the machine as a control by (big brother).. it's the same tricks used by MS to compile/run bat files in notepad which has all the functionality of the console only hidden.. basically the address handle is a memory address that resides before commands in a program every function returns something, if only a flag of output of a function. well that flag is moved into stack then the next function is counted for required cycles, that function is expected to interact with the last functions returned data, that is on stack. so the stack is pushed x number of times, so the data return and the new function synchronize. when this is happening in the foreground the bad bytes are being pushed together, defraged if you will, to memory in the background. this is off topic and getting deep and harder to explain any way, but this is the content of my argument over "built in library's", with galleone, over his decided direction with qb64.. only someone willing to hand decompile/translate machine code will even see this stuff. its hidden. what it boils down to is there is one person in control of all data and it isn't us..you might make you own machine secure from it but all hardware and software is vulnerable to it. which means you got to hand decompile translate filter,re translate, re assemble then install <"software security".. (to make it secure). hardware, you either make your own or emulate it, with microcontrollers. only then is any real control or security possible.
Last edited by iamdenteddisk
on Fri Jul 17, 2015 8:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.