nope.

i'm not getting any power to the board past a certain point, which is a different problem than i dealt with the last time i did this. see, but it's a bit deceptive, because the externals all take power from the psu. so, the cd spins when you put something in it and the floppy lights up, but neither are able to communicate with the cpu, so the emergency bit doesn't come in.

one of the things that made me understand what's happening a little bit better was plugging an mp3 player into usb. i wasn't expecting power from the board, but i was hoping the power on the key would be enough to get over the hurdle. unfortunately, the key is programmed to turn off on the physical connection, rather than an electronic one. so, no good.

that leaves me with three remaining options:

a) i can try and short the chip, but i think this is unlikely to work.

b) a better idea is to try an externally powered usb connection. and, thinking back, i think that might have been what i did last time, too. i need an external usb drive for two other reasons now so it will be top priority next monday...

c) i can try and use a jumper to replace the bios. i'm going to have to wait until monday for this, too. it's an excuse to get the soldering iron that i probably should have inherited but, for whatever reason, didn't.

so, my gst money on the 5th is basically going to computer repair. that's mildly irritating, but ok. i don't budget that. it's all stuff i should have around, anyways.

i'm not going to short the chip unless i can find a precise set of instructions. see, i don't think the boot block isn't kicking in, i think the board needs power to communicate with the devices. the short might reset the power along with the force, which shouldn't be missing in the first place, but it's not the intent of the process, so i'm a little cautious about messing with it. as it is, i have no keyboard commands, because there's no power. i have no video out because there's no power. yet the fans are all spinning so it's clearly that the bios crashed before that point...

if i can get some power to the board, i think it should go into recovery and flash off of any media it can read. but, i need to be careful with that.

i could do this with a screwdriver, and conceivably have it up in a few hours. in the back of my mind, though, i'm thinking that, if i wait, and the usb trick works, it won't be necessary - and that the jumper is a safer way to force it. it's simplicity v. safety...

if i can find exact instructions, i will do this. if not, i'll wait for at least the external usb.

there's always reading to catch up on.

actually, i'm realizing the emergency iso i downloaded doesn't have the right file. i have to try that...

yup. i've tried every possible combination and the boot block is just not setting in like it should. i'm rather confused, though. that should be there.

i'm going to have to wait a few days before i can get the materials for a jumper.

the floppy isn't doing what it's supposed to, and the cd isn't either. the flash shouldn't have fucked my boot block, but i'm not even getting beeps with no ram.

so, it's looking like i'm going to have to jumper this. ugh.

it was indeed one bad bios, along with at least one drive of questionable integrity, and i'm irritated i spent so much time with it. there wasn't a way to reset the cmos, but a "set to default" got the floppy working properly in freedos. sort of. it's still sketchy. i'm going to have to flash...

first, to find a disk that i can actually format. i'm confident that this should get the main pc's bios in.

well, i found a bios, and i can't see how one version of dos is really better than the next...

there doesn't appear to be a way to clear the cmos, besides "shorting" it. like i want to do that...

so, dumbass move #2 this month was flashing my bios. i thought it would be a good idea, moving up to 64-bit. my recording machine has been unable to post since friday evening.

a stuck bios chip is not an irresolvable problem, in theory. these particular chips have something built into the firmware that checks the floppy drive. there's also a cd utility i've used before, but cannot locate right now. i'm hoping the floppy works.....

...but i've been having difficulty finding an operating system that will read a floppy drive. there's a known issue with xp (the workaround is to use server 2003, because home users shouldn't need floppies, apparently). my copy of 98 is broken, in general, and won't read it either. i've tried three specialized recovery linux live cds that won't mount...

so, i'm resorting to installing freedos. and then real dos, if that doesn't work.

worst case scenario, i'll have to go in with a parallel cable and reprogram it manually. so, there's a few more days lost....

i know the drive works and the discs are good, if for no other reason than that i just installed 98 with a boot floppy (even though the os won't read, and it won't read from funny windows 98 dos).

so, i either have two bad floppy cables, two bad floppy drives or one bad bios. i can't get the floppy to do anything at all on this backup motherboard.

the bios hasn't been flashed since 1999. i doubt it supports any method besides a floppy flash. ironically. nor do i suspect asus still has bioses for this thing around...

just to preemptively counter some textbooks that may be overly idealistic or flat-out out of date...

consider the following four combinations:

a) properly written kernel mode drivers written in an os with weak kernel mode security (xp, with most hardware combinations).
b) kernel mode drivers written for an os with weak kernel mode security being run in an os with strong kernel mode security, and that expects almost all drivers to run in user mode. (vista/7/8, with some hardware combinations)
c) badly written user-mode drivers written in an os with strong kernel mode security, and that expects almost all drivers to run in user mode. (vista/7/8, with some hardware combinations)
d) correctly written user-mode drivers written in an os with strong kernel mode security, and that expects almost all drivers to run in user mode. (vista/7/8, by design)

the reality will agree with the textbook in stating that a is faster than d, on the same hardware - meaning xp is faster by design, but less secure (that's the trade-off). again, windows 7 on faster hardware may seem faster than windows xp on slower hardware but that's an apples and oranges comparison that reduces to an actual comparison of the hardware.

but the situation i'm talking about is with either b or c, which are both going to be slow and buggy and which is still the reality with some hardware.

if you think back to '06, vista had a horrible reputation. this is the actual root of the problem. microsoft understood it perfectly well. it's support agents (one of whom was me) understood it perfectly well. the hardware companies understood it perfectly well. but part of my job was confusing people into blaming intel or nvidia instead of microsoft. which isn't to say that they didn't share the blame. but that was microsoft's official strategy - fuck the issue, lie to the customers. they saw it as a pr game.

i can't count the number of times where i nearly broke down and just leveled with the poor bastard on the other side of the line. but, given that everybody understood that the problem had no solution, my job was to ensure that the person walked away from the conversation blaming the person that made their board or chipset or video card, rather than the company that made an operating system that changed all the industry standards without proper documentation or sufficient warning.

again, though, it's eight years on, now. there's no excuse for it still being a problem.

so, that's actually something else to take away from this: if support agents can solve your problem, they will. if they can't, they will lie to you - and get promoted if they're really good at it.

going back to the usb test, i should point out that my pc actually has a faster processor, surprisingly, given that the chip is from 2005. my pc is a pentium D @ 2x3.6. the laptop is an i5 @ 2x2.4. the difference between ten minutes and 30 seconds is still incredible, though, and can't be explained purely by the processor speed. especially given what i know about the way the drivers work...

listen: i worked support for microsoft. i'm telling you the story from the inside. from microsoft training. from documents written by microsoft engineers. it might sound incredible, but it's the actual, blunt truth.

i'm transferring files around right now, and this is a good example. it took almost ten minutes for me to transfer a few gb of files from my laptop (which is running a 64 bit windows 7, with a core i5 and 4 gb of ram - certainly better hardware specs on paper than my desktop) to a usb key. it took 30 seconds to transfer the same data from the same usb to my pc's hard drive, which is currently running an xp x64. if i were to do that on a fully patched vista, it would take ten hours.

ten hours!? yes. ten hours.

...because intel won't update the chipset to conform to the very different driver signing standards. the way windows handles drivers was a huge update from xp to vista.

i'm willing to accept that a lot of hardware manufacturers initially didn't understand how to rewrite their drivers for vista/7/etc. but, they did eventually figure it out. and there's really no excuse for not doing so, other than driving the hardware market.

it's a very widespread problem.

https://www.google.ca/#q=vista+slow+file+transfer&safe=off

all those answers are dead wrong. it's the change in driver framework.

(specifically, chipset drivers)

windows 98 is no longer useable for a number of reasons (for me it's mostly sata drivers), but it would be way faster than xp, too.

generally speaking, the older an operating system is, the faster it is (when compared on the same hardware). of course, it's going to have less functionality. it may be less safe to access the internet with, in theory if not in practice.

this may seem counter-intuitive, but it shouldn't. making something more complex makes it work slower. what doesn't make any sense at all is the idea that upgrading your os will make your machine run faster.

this is a brief explanation.

"If we're only using two isolation rings, it's a bit unclear where device drivers should go-- the code that allows us to use our video cards, keyboards, mice, printers, and so forth. Do these drivers run in Kernel mode, for maximum performance, or do they run in User mode, for maximum stability? In Windows, at least, the answer is it depends. Device drivers can run in either user or kernel mode. Most drivers are shunted to the User side of the fence these days, with the notable exception of video card drivers, which need bare-knuckle Kernel mode performance. But even that is changing; in Windows Vista, video drivers are segmented into User and Kernel sections. Perhaps that's why gamers complain that Vista performs about 10 percent slower in games. "

https://blog.codinghorror.com/understanding-user-and-kernel-mode/

this explains a bit about the actual problem, without getting into it. i don't really want to spend any more time looking around about this. it's something that nobody seems to want to be published. i wouldn't know this if it weren't for reading internal support memos that said DON'T TELL THE CUSTOMERS THIS all over them.

but, as i've stated, this is irreversible on some hardware, without getting the manufacturers to update their drivers. what's happening is that the drivers are running in kernel mode, when microsoft wants them to run in user mode. this is producing huge amounts of security checks (by design) that slow the fuck out of the file operations. what intel needs to do is rewrite their drivers to run in user mode, like microsoft wants them to do. but they'd rather blame it on vista and tell people they have to upgrade their hardware, as microsoft blames it on the hardware manufacturers (at least internally).

https://msdn.microsoft.com/windows/hardware/drivers/wdf/user-mode-driver-framework-frequently-asked-questions

the result is unusable hardware, on any windows version beyond and including vista.

but, the design changes in how vista uses drivers make xp faster (by design) anyways.

you can think of it as a trade-off between speed and security. xp is all speed, weaker security. vista is all security. now as the hardware has caught up, it's evened out (in terms of perception). but xp remains inherently waaaaay faster.

i mean, this isn't entirely microsoft's fault. it's as much on intel and others (my problem is with intel, i don't know how much others have caught up. initially, nvidia was dragging their feet on this a whole lot.). but, what the hardware people were saying at the time was that microsoft didn't give them enough warning. their engineers had to go through a lengthy retraining process. it's apparently not the kind of change you can gloss over in a weekend. the retraining required was substantial.

how much of that is an excuse, i don't know. but there's a reason that microsoft is widely acknowledged as incompetent. and the whole driver framework switch from xp to vista really demonstrates it.

even so, there's no excuse for this still being an issue, 8 years later.

just a note that if you're still geek enough to be using xp (and i and others have very good reasons that will not change soon, if ever - i'm more likely to move to linux than a post-vista windows system, because they're really legitimately awful on a lot of levels) - support ends on april 8th. so, it's a good time to track down all the updates. if, for example, you've been relying on an sp2 disc and then running windows update whenever you reinstall, you won't be able to do that anymore.

somebody will no doubt do this and torrent it, but trusting them is another issue. better to do it yourself while you can.

there are hardware issues that jumped up in vista that never got solved. the only solution is to buy specific hardware. i mean, if you're running a pre-built system then you probably won't notice any of this. but, as deep and valid as the criticisms of apple are, you're better off with a mac than a dell or an hp....

there's a lot of fixes that don't work floating around. i actually worked support for vista and i will authoritatively tell you that microsoft's response is to blame it on the hardware.

yet, the same hardware works flawlessly with xp.

so, there's conspiracy theories floating around that probably have a lot of truth to them.

around '06, microsoft started loading it's operating systems up with meaningless services that are designed solely to require faster hardware. there's almost no functional use for any of this, except to coerce people into upgrading their systems. that much is really not debatable.

but you can turn that off. that's minor.

one of the bigger problems is with copy operations, and while it may be true that this is at it's core a problem with user-mode drivers (that is to say that the hardware people never made drivers that work properly with the security aspects of windows, post-vista), there's still this lingering question of whether the thing is by design.

what that means is that people with certain types of fairly modern hardware are stuck with xp, unless they want to upgrade central aspects of their system or deal with cripplingly bad file operations.

that's a very good reason to either stick with xp, or move to linux. microsoft isn't going to make an exception - they're going to blame it on the hardware manufacturers. and the hardware manufacturers are going to tell you to buy new hardware - and you'd better do the research to make sure the drivers work right.

for me, the precise issue is my board. but, i mean, it's a perfectly good asus with sata connectors that can handle up to 16 gb of ram. there's no good reason to upgrade this board. intel just won't fix the chipset drivers to work properly with the way windows does, post-vista.

but if i stick with xp, then i get full use of the board.

worse, the truth is that xp just performs better at core os functions for the simple reason that it's doing less things in the process. getting the drivers to work right will speed up file operations, but it will never be as fast as xp on the same hardware. that would defy basic logic; it would require doing more things in less time. nor does a home user need to care about the security functions that slow everything down...

so, again, it goes back to the conspiracy theory: were the security updates really necessary and were they really buckling to pressure to idiot-proof the os, or are they just driving the hardware market by literally introducing billions of empty cycles?

i'm hoping microsoft decides to do a final platform update or something that pulls everything together. that'll make life easier. but, i suspect that they won't. so...

april 8th.

i'm surprised that i was able to log into my school account, but i was. i was looking for a way to download 7, home premium due to the extra key i have. the links that are all over the internet are all corrupt. i've tried four times, and have given up.

they did, however, have a 64-bit xp, with key. well, that's the best option, really.

i should be able to reimage a 32-bit version based on an old compaq corporate image from about the year 2003. it's all patched up, and ready to be ripped apart.

so, i will come out of this with a 32/64 all-xp dual boot that i will plan to slowly transfer over to 64. first, i need to focus on replacing the dead hd. and i still need to know if i can get the script off.

getting a few more sticks of ram will help act as an incentive to the switch.

probably not today, but almost certainly tomorrow.

the new la dispute record is a little bit boring

well, we can't be young and full of energy for our whole lives. aging isn't preventable or reversible. the interesting part is how we adjust.

for the lyricist, it makes sense to move into more reflective, almost hip-hop type territory. yet, la dispute's strength (musically) has always been it's ability to cause a ruckus as the poetry climaxes. the notes didn't matter, it was all atmosphere. they couldn't be separated. as the lyricist softens, the band behind him simply isn't pulling off the shift to sounding like rem very well. the level of melodic introspection simply doesn't match the level of lyrical depth....

sometimes, age brings us closer to our friends as experiences solidify shared ideals and the depth of interests strengthen. other times, we outgrow our friends and move on. the future, of course, remains to be seen. yet, i can't help but think that the band would rather be rocking a little harder, and i'd definitely suggest that the lyricist could benefit from musicians that have a deeper sense of melody.

it's not ironic. it's universal. it's life.

i just discovered presonus, though, which is the newish project by some of the guys from cubase. no dongles. no virtual dongles. that sounds like it's worth checking out.

i also want to check out reaper. the install is less than 10 mb. i'm a fan of light software...

...but in the end, it's going to be the same old. hopefully, i'm reinstalled by tomorrow.

bad iso.

ugh.

i won't do this a third time.

i'm going to end up mostly running 32 bit software. 32 bit software on a 64 bit os is a bad idea. i mean, it works, but it's pointless to upgrade if your key programs are 32 bit.

i was going to maintain a dual boot, anyways. but i'm thinking old xp - even broken - will still be dominant for the near future.

i built that machine - and this was many years ago now - to get up to 64 bit xp in time. expandable to 16 gb on the board was pretty advanced at the time, although i've never put in more than 4.

contrary to claims otherwise, moving to 64-bit from 32-bit with 4 gb of ram can get extra resources because 32-bit will inevitably ignore one of your sticks to fit the total (including the ram from your video card) under 4. it's not a max of 4 + bios + video + whatever else. it's 4. max. total. so, if i upgrade then i get another gb...

...but the reality is that setting the pagefile to 10 gb is just as good. the system may have to dump stuff to the drive here and there, but you never have to use more than 3 gb of ram all at the same time and if you did your system would crash because it couldn't.

i'm standing here all these years later and sort of laughing at myself. 64-bit is still a niche market. and i have to admit i don't see any real reason to upgrade, either. there's nothing i can think of that will work in 64 that doesn't in 32.

it's mostly the lack of evaluation software. there's lots of software i could buy. i can't afford to even think about that. so if i'm running everything in 32 anyways because it's all i can find then it's meaningless.

but it may be useful to have a non-broken system, from time to time.

yeah.

the problem with running 32 in 64 is that you're constantly converting it. what you're actually doing is running through a virtual machine. that's a net loss in speed (it may not be measurable, but it's a downgrade). considering the amount of drivers in use in sound production, that's bad news waiting to happen.

i just realized i installed the wrong version of 7 on my laptop. it's a home premium key on the back. i have a pro version i got from school, that resulted from a wipe on the recovery console. i can't swap the keys out without reinstalling, so i'm going to download home premium and try that for my 64 bit escapade, instead.

it's what i should have done in the first place.

(i could call them, but it's not worth it. they never really fixed the copy issues in vista.)

a google search suggests it's still a problem with 7. well, i'll find out.

i highly doubt there are 32-bit linux drivers for my mixer, let alone 64-bit ones. it's not feasible.

currently reminding myself why vista is the wost operating system ever...

i mean, i can handle a little bit of performance degradation from an optimized xp to an out-of-the-box vista, at least for now. but my windows 98 computer (currently running xp) can transfer files faster. it's preposterously slow.

i don't have the interest in stripping it down the way i stripped down xp, but i'm going to try to vlite it before i essentially give up and stick with what is a half-broken xp. the cd install is the broken part. the scripts i lost in the hard drive crash were what fixed them...

....and then this no good, third rate os has the nerve to reject my perfectly valid product key. fuckers...

you are SO getting formatted, windows vista.

i actually worked vista support for a while, believe it or not. i wrote some of those kb articles. it was a fun job with good pay, even. canadian labour can't compete with labour in the philippines, though. and alas...

i happen to have one of those cords from an old phone. i may end up trying this, after i swap out the chips.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZBsf-5iiDE

i have a .10, though, not a .11. the bug that affects the .11s doesn't affect my model.

regardless, if i can't get it to read, trying to hack in through hyperterminal is a third thing i can try.

i'm in a back-up mood, obviously.

i've never really liked the idea of forcing people to pay for mp3s. i'd never pay for one, myself. nor is streaming the best option for traveling. but these drive type options weren't really available, yet, either, so i rationalized to myself that if you're going to listen to it when you're on the bus then you can bloody well pay me for it....

the technology is here, though, now, so i'm going to use it. it'll take some time to upload, but my first 23 releases (and my 26th) will be available here in mp3 by this time tomorrow. i'll keep this up-to-date as i continue forwards.

https://googledrive.com/host/0B5JfVE9XTZikMS1zek9ER0xSU1E/

yeah. i think if i just download everything from bandcamp, and repeat the process of categorizing all the cd-rs and dvd-rs in the box...

it's not worth the amount recovery is going to cost. sadly.

tools or bust. i'll find out in two weeks.

musically, what i've lost is xml files and transitional pieces. parts to build tracks up, but nothing completed.

for right now, i'd rather spend the cash on a good external backup drive.

on second thought, data recovery is much more expensive than i thought it would be.

there are two further troubleshooting steps i can try at the beginning of april, when i can get the right tools, but i think they're both low probability. i've resigned myself to needing somebody to open the drive up. that could take years to save up for...

obviously, i can't leave myself in suspended animation for that long. so, i'm going to take the opportunity to upgrade as much software as i can.

in the end, i'll have to decide if it's worth it. am i happy with a vanilla vista or a vanilla xp? do i really need to recover a few dozen source files for the sake of having them? or is the iso i'm about to reconstruct "good enough"?

i could see the drive sitting in a box for the next ten years gathering dust.

i absolutely must try those fixes, though. and if they don't work, and i'm happy with the replacement, i might get experimental about it.