Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2011 January 31

Welcome to the Wikipedia Computing Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 31

Blu-ray discs

I don't have a Blu-ray player and therefore haven't held very many of the discs in my hands. A guy I work with just came into the office asking about a Blu-ray disc that his wife got. He says that it will not play in his Blu-ray player and went on to say that there is a lip around the bottom outer edge of the disc that he could feel with his fingers. This isn't a common thing, right? It seems to me that it might be a manufacturing defect. I've done some searching and can't find mention of this lip anywhere. Any ideas? Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 01:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

This happens on occasion with DVDs, too in the manufacturing process. It shouldn't affect playback, though, unless the lip is unusually large. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 01:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Blu-Ray discs are notorious for not playing because the firmware on the player needs to be upgraded. Completely ridiculous, but I've got completely legit BD movies that I can't watch because the industry prefers to cram in more goofy shit onto their discs than letting people watch movies they paid for. Does the disc not work at all or does it only show the menu? Alice in Wonderland and Toy Story 3 fell into the latter category for me. You're supposed to be able to update the firmware by downloading a file (or having the player connect over the WiFi), though I've never gotten that to work properly. Matt Deres (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe the issue was that it wouldn't play at all. Dismas|^(talk) 06:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

"AES 256

My friend sent me the follow which is apparently encrypted in "AES 256" with the password "1234". Can someone decrypt it for me, or give me an online page to do so? I cannot install anything on this computer

{{3f6acb316a45332820693fdd0ea491f57c22a02a65bd17692d1aa210d67e3b424294967294}}

Sure. AES is the standard encryption used by the U.S. government and many other organizations. So, it should be easily cracked with some online little script. Right? Of course not. Ask your "friend" for the key. If he doesn't want to give it to you, you can't have it. -- kainaw™ 13:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Err, the OP says they have the key. They just want to know what it decrypts to. Way to be snarky for no reason. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

If he really wants to know, it decrypts to:

����c�b��
�:u��1w�(<�*�O��S

Now, he can ask his "friend" what that means, or ask for the real key, or ask what odd flavor of AES is being used. -- kainaw™ 13:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course he really wants to know! That's what the entire question was about. Just because there is some confusion inherent to this doesn't mean that he's trying to do what you've assumed he is trying to do. Don't bite the posters for no reason. There's no need to put "friend" in quotation marks. You're assuming some weird faith here, and frankly I just don't see why. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The supplied hex string consists of 74 hex digits, which corresponds to 296 bits. In its most basic mode of operation (electronic codebook), the cipher returns a ciphertext whose length is a multiple of the block size (128). Most online utilities only support electronic codebook (ECB) encryption/decryption. Also, an AES-256 key should be 256 bits long, the supplied key is not, which means it must have been subject to padding. It'd be easier if you asked your friend what mode of operation and what padding scheme (for the key) was used. decltype (talk) 14:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

AES doesn't encrypt files using passwords. It encrypts 128-bit blocks using a key of 128, 192, or 256 bits. There are ways of encrypting files that make use of AES (together with a cryptographic hash function), but there is no standard way of doing it. Your friend will have to tell you what encryption product he/she used. In a properly designed encryption product, the 128-bit blocks are not pieces of the user's file and the key is not the user's passphrase padded out to the required length. There are encryption programs that do it that way, but they are written by people who have no idea what they're doing, are insecure, and should not be used for any purpose. -- BenRG (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it is important that we do not help people who are perhaps not giving the correct information. "I cannot install anything onto this computer" seems as if it is an encryted drive?

Where did the computer come from? Is the whole drive locked? Can you get into windows?

Chaosdruid (talk) 12:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Advanced bluetooth / windows functions

Is it possible to go above and beyond the default drivers that a bluetooth USB dongle comes with so that I can, for example, intercept when I press a button on my headset and have it change a song instead of changing the volume? Is there a driver or program that is compatible with a wide range of dongles that can configure advanced features like this? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but it is technically challenging. If you are already a programmer, you may find this guide to BlueZ programming useful. You will not have to write low-level driver code, but you will need to interact with it. If you are not already a programmer, your options are significantly more limited. I am not aware of any "applications" that let you remap BlueTooth events; but you can read through this list of alternative software. If you are working on Windows, here is a Broadcom Bluetooth Developer Kit; of course, if your device does not use a Broadcom radio, you may need to find a similar kit from your device's manufacturer. Here is a Microsoft Windows Bluetooth SDK, from MSDN, intended for higher-level application software; it should be compatible with all standard Bluetooth devices (but has less access to low-level events). Nimur (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Dual Boot Windows 7?

Hello,
One of the other editors was telling me you could dual boot a pc. I have several questions:

1. Is it safe?
2. Can you run Mac OS doing this (my current pc is a dell windows 7 laptop)?
3. Is it easy to do?
   

Any replies would be appreciated
Thanks,
Thomas888b(Say Hi) 19:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

1. Dual boot itself doesn't make your computer more or less safe as you only run one operating system at any given time. The only security thing I can think of is that the OS you use least may not receive all the latest updates and patches as quickly as the other one, and therefore it could be less safe during the first minutes after it boots up. (before it has been updated with the latest patches).
2. Yes, you could run Mac OS and Win 7 on the same computer.
3. It depends on how good your computer skills are, but there are a number of guides online. For instance, this.

// 83.253.250.186 (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Little more on #1: if your Windows is already installed, and you want to dual boot without reinstalling Windows, and you don't have any unpartitioned/empty drive space, you will need to resize your Windows partition/s first, which is usually safe, but can potentially break things. It's apparently a good idea to defrag your filesystems beforehand, and of course making regular backups is quite smart. #2: Entirely possible (given certain hardware requirements), but you should know that running Mac OS on non-Apple hardware violates Apple's EULA (see Hackintosh). #3: it should be easy, but possibly tedious. ¦ Reisio (talk) 23:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• I have a computer running Windows Vista and would like to install Windows XP, but I want to keep Windows Vista intact as well. It has two hard-drive partitions. If I do a duel boot, doesn't that mean a boot menu will come up at boot asking me if I want to run XP or Vista? PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

This should probably be in its own topic since it is a separate (if related) question. You can have a dual-boot of XP and Vista, yes, but only if you have XP installed before installing Vista. It doesn't work the other way around. -Amordea (talk) 02:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not actually correct. Ideally you'd install XP first because Vista knows how to handle it and thus sets up the dual boot menu for you automatically, but you can do it round the other way too. The only problem is that XP's installer will overwrite the boot loader (stopping Vista from loading) so you'll need to boot from the Vista DVD again and select "Repair" to replace the bootloader with the Vista one.  ZX81  ^talk 02:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that's good to know. -Amordea (talk) 02:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that's all I needed to know! PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 04:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Power issues

Two questions concerning a recent power cord problem that I've developed on my laptop.

• The background: Since moving to a new house with new plugs several months ago, I've been going through power cords like a mad man (averaging about one every 1.5 months). At first I'd figured it was the awkward positioning, but then I figured out it was probably the power source itself. It seems the problem was fixed just by using a power strip (which evidently cleaned the energy up). Still, the power quality on my computer has been faltering in recent days, since my current cord was damaged before I figured out to use a power strip.
• The questions:
  • I plugged in a completely new cord that I know is working into my computer (I know it's working because it works on another computer of the same make in the house). The power is still flickering, which makes me think it's internal to my computer. Is that sort of problem likely to be the battery, or the motherboard itself? The batter is replaceable; the motherboard is not.
  • A few minutes ago my computer got nasty and just shut off on me. Upon reboot, it's told me there's not as much RAM as before (uh-oh). I plugged in new RAM (only an additional .5GB instead of 2 GB... hmph... good thing I can run Ubuntu on 1GB of RAM), and the new RAM is working. Is it safe to surmise that the power issue is what caused the RAM to go crazy? The RAM compartment had been exposed on my laptop, so it's quite possible that something leaked in (like water) which may have disrupted the RAM on its own. Nevertheless, I don't want to risk the other components of my computer if my power cord is causing shorts to wipe out the capability of its parts.

Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you explain why you think it is a power problem? I have never seen a power cord fail, personally. Power cords are just a thick wire with some insulation around it; there is not a lot of fragile or finicky stuff inside them that can fail. I think it is more likely that you have a power supply problem, and when you switched power cords and didn't see any problems, it was just coincidence. Or by "power cord" do you mean "power cord plus power adapter"? Power adapters can indeed fail, but, again, this is pretty rare in my experience. Again, what do you mean by "the power is still flickering"? Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

OK: I have had several power adapter/cords die on my watch in the past several months. It's obvious because... you plug them in, and they don't work, but another cord does work.

As for the flickering, when it's plugged in, the screen flickers between bright and non-bright mode, as the power is constantly disconnecting and reconnecting. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

You talk about "power cord", is this the part that attaches from your wall socket into the adapter for your laptop? Or is it the part that comes out of the adapter and into your laptop itself? Which part have you "replaced" so many times already? Given what I could extract from your problem description I can with 99% certainty say your your problem is one of the following:

1. The power quality at your new house is poor (high total harmonic distortion) and/or you are not getting a decent voltage at your mains point, leading to your adapter (which is likely a switch mode power supply) intermittently cutting out the supply to your laptop
2. Your power adapter has an internal fault that may be intermittent
3. The cord from your power adapter to your laptop has an internal fault that may be intermittent; pay particular attention to the point where the cord exits the adapter body as it commonly experiences bending and stresses
4. The plug on the end of your power cord is not making clean contact with the socket in your laptop. The contact pin could be worn.
5. The socket in your laptop has started working itself loose from the motherboard creating a dry joint type of problem

I'd be very surprised if it's not one of the above. I'm 100% confident the problem is not the "power cord" from your wall socket to your adapter. Zunaid 08:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Or 6, it could be a faulty power socket. Get an electrical engineer to look at it. Maybe it's time to rewire the house.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. Let me eliminate some of those possibilities:

• I've used more than one wall socket.
• I've used more than one cord; I've used another cord that the other laptop in my home has no problems with, but my laptop is having problems with.

And an update: I finally got my computer to sit in just the right position on my lap so that it charged for about 30 minutes straight (it took a while). When I did remove the cord, both the metal on the cord and on the back of the laptop were extraordinarily hot to the touch. I'm not sure if this is a new development or not. Also, don't forget it's the second question I asked above. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Then it is #4. Most likely the pin inside your laptop's socket is not making a good connection with the plug on the end of your adapter. If you wiggle it in the socket can you hear electrical arcing? In that case expect it to burn off sooner or later, one of these days the pin will simply come out still stuck inside your power supply's plug. Exact same thing happened to my work laptop (hence I now have a new one! :P). Root cause is simple wear and tear from plugging and unplugging over the years, also, any pressure that has been put on the point by accidentally or deliberately leaning the laptop over onto the power plug and/or using it on a non-flat surface. Zunaid 21:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, is the socket the sort of thing that can be replaced on a laptop? Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Windows XP install media

Hi, I have a computer that I need to re-install Windows XP on but I don't have the original media. I have the license and product key..I'm not trying to pirate anything...I just need the CD. Is there anywhere I can download something like that? 69.180.160.77 (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I don't believe so. Unfortunately, I believe that every Windows XP Disk has a unique license key, and only that key will work, so you would need the original disk (or at least the early releases). Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 23:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

That's incorrect. All XP CDs of a given type are pressed from a master with identical pits. Microsoft can't tell what physical disc you used for installation and, believe me, they don't care. They just want their licensing fee. This is equally true of more recent products with their increasingly draconian activation schemes. The discs are still all alike. -- BenRG (talk) 08:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

One of the big criticisms I have against Microsoft is this issue, trying to re-install XP when you lose the disc (thankfully this is less of a problem with Vista and 7). The short answer is, yes, you can download a legit XP CD via a torrent site (for example).

But in order to do this, you need to know a few things, because there are at least 30 different versions of XP out there. First, is this a retail, OEM, or volume license? Second, is the version Home, Professional, or Media Center Edition? (there are other versions too, but these are rarer) But you need to determine these two things before you can figure out which CD you need to download.

If you're not sure, check a few things first. First, is your computer from a major manufacturer like Dell or HP? If so, check and make sure you don't have a recovery partition on the hard drive (this is a common scenario where the installation image is saved on the hard drive since they don't have to ship you a CD then and it's arguably harder to "lose" a disk image). If you do have a recovery partition, hooray, you're saved! If you do not have a recovery partition or have deleted this partition, but do have a Dell or HP, then you need an OEM copy of XP. The good news is, you won't have to enter the product key when you reinstall with an OEM copy of Windows, but you do have to pick the OEM copy specific to the distributor of your PC.

If you purchased your copy of Windows from a store, then you have a retail copy of Windows and you need to download a retail version.

If you got your computer from a small computer business or wholesaler, then you may have a volume license (I used to not think there was a difference between volume license and retail, until I tried to enter a volume license into a retail copy of Windows XP and it refused my product key and only by chance did I find a volume license copy which worked with my code).

So for instance, if you have a Dell which has a Windows XP Home sticker on it, you need to download a Dell OEM copy of Windows XP Home.

Be careful what you download...XP CD's are a common vector for malicious software distributors (as I found out once myself when trying to compile my technician's toolkit to include the vast array of Windows XP versions...luckily I run tests on my CD's before installing them on customer PC's!). -Amordea (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

You install software that you downloaded via torrents on your customers' machines? Please tell me who you work for so I can be sure never to be a customer of yours. Seriously, this is very irresponsible. Your "testing" of the downloads cannot be comprehensive — you are placing all your faith in your malware detection programs — and is not proof against threats that your malware program doesn't yet know about. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

That's fair criticism. I agree it's not ideal. I would not do so if I felt I had much choice in the matter and I always acquire the legitimate CD whenever possible. But paying hundreds of dollars to acquire each and every distribution of Windows XP (there really are very many, 30 probably isn't an exaggeration and they are not interoperable) is pretty ridiculous though. To be fair, I almost never need to use them...recovery partitions are common. But what choice does one have when no CD or recovery partition is available?

While this is not quite a forum for argument, I do not agree that it's as dangerous as you suggest. There are plenty of legitimate torrents out there if you know where and how to look for them. And I do not think there is nearly the opportunity for zero-day viruses as you are making it sound. -Amordea (talk) 00:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Where is a legit torrent I can download it from? Again, I'm not trying to pirate anything...I own a license for this. The original CD was one of those shiny gold ones you get when you buy retail. Not one that's branded...69.180.160.77 (talk) 01:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I am not talking piracy either. I wouldn't condone that.

Torrenting is the only way I know of downloading a legit copy unfortunately since Microsoft does not offer the CD for download. But like I said, you will need to know your version. You say it's retail. Is it Home or Professional? (I don't recall if MCE was ever non-OEM or not.) -Amordea (talk) 01:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It's XP Pro. Thanks...69.180.160.77 (talk) 01:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The demand for legit retail XP Pro CD's seems rather low unfortunately (it is pretty late in the game for Windows XP). In my search, I am not sure there is a copy I saw that I could say with a good degree of reliability isn't tainted. I don't suppose there is a chance you can find a friend who has a copy and ask to borrow their CD? If not, you might be better off calling Microsoft on this one and seeing if they will help you being as you do have a legitimate product key. Sorry I couldn't be of more help there. -Amordea (talk) 01:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't comprehend the fear and uncertainty about malware I'm seeing in this thread. If you don't know the provenance of an ISO image then check its SHA-1 hash, for heaven's sake. Microsoft doesn't seem to have a publicly accessible list of hashes of its non-public downloads, but I would tend to trust this thread and this page, for example. SHA-1 hashes can't be forged. If your hash matches theirs, then you have the same file. -- BenRG (talk) 08:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. In fact in the past I was able to get the hashes from Microsoft themselves somewhere on the technet site (the download page but I couldn't download myself), I had to sign in but don't have and have never had any subscription. I would note despite Amordea's claim above, I'm actually quite sure it won't be very hard if you know where to look to find legitimate (same as the ones from MSDN/Technet) SP3 integrated Windows XP retail ISOs although for obvious reasons I won't discuss where. I don't see any reason to get a version without SP3 integrated. I would also note that even if you still don't trust the hashes, their existance in old forum posts and the like does prove the same ISO has been available for however long and while it's possible someone included malware however many years ago in Windows XP that still hasn't been activated and still isn't detectable by malware detection software, this also seems unlikely. Nil Einne (talk) 10:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

From a simple search ('download windows 7 from technet') I was able to find what I was referring to above that provides hashes from Microsoft [1] and it seems you don't even have to signin anymore (or may be I'm remembering wrong). Click on Windows XP, look for 'Windows XP Professional with Service Pack 3 (x86) - CD (English)' (without VL!), click on view and you can get the SHA-1 hash. And to be frank, if you anyone still claims you can't be sure because maybe the ISO was modified but gives the same hash you probably don't belong on the RDC. So yes, please stop with the FUD about it being impossible to be very confident you aren't getting something that isn't malware infected when Microsoft themselves provide hashes you can use to verify anything you download is the same as what Microsoft provide. In fact I would trust something like this you've verified yourself far more then I would any non-official media that e.g. you get a friend to burn for you even if it allegedly comes from the original media. Nil Einne (talk) 10:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

If you found a copy, you could have posted the link. It's easy to be a critic, but not especially useful when there is no help. I would have absolutely been forthcoming with a link to a torrent if I saw one I found trustworthy, but I didn't (which doesn't mean they are bad, just that I cannot reliably claim they are not and therefore do not feel good about linking them). None of the copies I found match the above SHA-1, either (I didn't say there isn't one out there, I'm sure there is somewhere...but I didn't find it after a timely search). That doesn't mean they are bad CD's either. If you slipstream a service pack in with nLite or in some other fashion you are not going to get the same SHA-1 as if you got a standard retail copy from Microsoft. If you want to be helpful to the OP, point him to where he can download a copy. -Amordea (talk) 11:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Well I never said I found a link. I didn't bother to look properly as I was resonably confident you could find one. I don't see how you can claim my post was not helpful as I amply demonstrated my main point, which was to clear any remaining doubt from earlier posters claims that it is impossible to be sure you aren't going to get malware when I provided a link to Microsoft's official hashes.

To clear any remaining doubt of the supposed unavailability of the file, it was a little harder then I expect but I found a ED2K URI which I strongly suspect is for the right file within a few minutes (primarily took so long because I didn't target it at first which was perhaps a mistake since ED2K tends to nearly always be the best place from my experience to get older unpopular stuff particularly specific versions which aren't necessarily the most common ones to be used/downloaded which is the case here since the VL one is probably what most people use and many people don't seem to care about getting official MS versions particular with XP where many people need slipstream IDE drivers. ). And adding it to eMule quickly shows the file appears to be available complete from at least one source (I suspect more will show up if left long enough) which suggests from my experience, it may be slow but should arrive eventually.

If you really want torrents, it took me a little longer then expected but within say 10 minutes (difficult to estimate because I did the eMule stuff and wrote this in between), I found two torrents from a mainstream torrent site, one without any apparent seeds currently, one with 1 seed (and 2 peers). And it took so long partially because I screwed up my searching. While no hash is provided, from the filename I strongly suspect these two will give the right file (no I'm not going to download the files to prove it).

Oh and I would mention in both cases I used Google to start off with so it's not like I'm using some super secret search engine that no one knows about (although obviously existing knowledge helped). You could probably find more if you searched harder and from other places e.g. usenet or rapidshare etc I didn't bother to look that hard.

Also we have discussed before why it is not a good idea to provide direct links to torrents which provide content distributed without the copyright holders permission on wikipedia. And from my POV the same applies to ED2K URIs/hashes. Not everyone agrees but I have made my views clear so there is no way I'm going to provide a link and would strongly discourage others from doing so as well. There are places where this would be acceptable, wikipedia isn't one of them. In fact even this post goes a little further then I would like, but I see no choice if people are going to spread FUD on both sides (claiming you can't be highly confident what you got doesn't have malware and claiming that even though you can, you can't actually find it) about the impossibility of getting malware free versions of a lot of MS content. If you wish to continue to make the claim it can't be found all I can do is echo CT's sentiments albeit from a different direction.

Edit: Actually while checking something above I found a third torrent with 4 seeders and ~12 peers which I'd came across earlier but didn't look at properly because the name sounded dodgy but when I did look at it turns out it was just the uploader's name. This one even gives a hash albeit MD5 but from some forum posts, this appears to be correlated with the SHA-1 Microsoft provides so it's even more likely to be the right thing. Again the torrent is from a mainstream torrent site and I started from Google. (It doesn't of course matter that much what the site is ultimately whether the file you download is what you want is all that matters and in case this isn't clear since we have a hash from Microsoft the final arbitrator will be hashing the file when it's complete. I only mention the mainstream bit to emphasise it's not like I have to look at very obscure sites.) You probably do want to look careful at the info before downloading to avoid wasting time and bandwidth I initially thought I had something because it mentioned the hash but looking carefully while whoever made the file claimed the source was the original MSDN file it had slipstreamed drivers. And my eMule reached 9 complete sources for the file before I cancelled it.

Nil Einne (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

From what the original poster wrote, it suggests to me that they're trying to reinstall Windows XP which came with their device thus making it the OEM version. Microsoft have never offered OEM versions for download (I've got access to MSDN, Technet Plus and Eopen) and they only offer the retail or volume licence versions and an OEM key won't work with a retail disc unless you do some tampering to it. So because Microsoft don't offer OEM versions for download, they also won't have released official hashes for those discs either... Also since you'd be downloading something that Microsoft haven't themselves made available for download regardless of whether you have a right to use it, I'm sure there could be legal implications (especially as torrents are generally easy to see who's downloading it), but that's up to you to decide if it's worth it. Sorry to sound really boring, but I feel I really should repeat my original reply, just contact the computer manufacturer and ask them for replacement media. They'll be able to supply with you with official/legal copies of the disc at what should be a very low cost and you'll be able to reuse in the future if needed again.  ZX81  ^talk 19:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The only difference between the retail, OEM and volume license discs is a product code in the text file setupp.ini. You can change a (SHA-1 verified) retail/VL disc to an OEM disc by editing that file, as described here for example. I suppose this might be described as tampering, but I have trouble getting too worked up about it. That's not to say that getting a replacement disc from the OEM is a bad idea. -- BenRG (talk) 08:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Just contact the people you got the computer from and ask for replacement media. They'll make a small admin fee, but they will supply it (or if they're no longer in business you can purchase OEM media straight from Microsoft again for a small fee). Much safer than downloading things from 3rd party places which may/may not be riddled with viruses/spyware.  ZX81  ^talk 23:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)