Why Can’t I Copy a Large File Despite Having Larger Free Space?

In these days of extra large hard disks many try to copy large files from a DVD but find that can’t even though there is plenty of free space on the hard disk. Why not?

The most likely cause for this is not some sort of copy protection but that the file being copied is too large for the file system to handle. Windows XP allows you to format a hard disk in two different file system formats: FAT32 and NTFS. These file systems differ in the size of file they can handle. FAT32, for example, can only handle files up to 4GB in size. When it was developed, that size file was almost unheard of but now, a DVD can have files that large or larger routinely. So, if you are trying to copy a movie from a DVD onto your FAT32-formatted hard drive it likely won’t copy as most full-length movies are files larger than 4GB.


The original File Allocation Table (FAT) file system was introduced in 1977 and generally applied to floppy disk storage. It was later modified to work with hard disks and other removable media. FAT had a problem however; it could only manage spaces up to 2GB in size. As Windows came into being and programs became larger, the 2GB barrier became a serious problem. Thus, in 1996, with the OEM Service Release 2 (OSR2) of Windows 95 (also known as Windows 95b) came a FAT enhancement known as FAT32.

The two major features of FAT32 that improved upon the original FAT (or FAT16 as it’s sometimes known) are the disk efficiency and size of the disk supported.

Files are stored in clusters on the disk. The size of the clusters depends on the size of disk. Under FAT, drives over 1.2GB used clusters that were 32K in size as the file allocation table itself could not track more clusters because of it’s 16-bit structure. The 32-bit structure in FAT32 allows disks of that size to use 4K per sector. This improves efficiency as a file, no matter how small, will always use at least one cluster and the space in the cluster not used is wasted. FAT32 doesn’t start to use 32K clusters until the disk goes over 60GB in size and can handle disks up to 2TB (terabyte or trillion bytes); though not all operating systems can deal with disks that size even if the file system can.

There are many other features changed between the two but these are the major ones to be concerned with.

The problem that many encounter now is one of the limits of FAT32 that’s being run into: file size. The original FAT (FAT12) had a maximum file size of 32MB, FAT16 has a maximum file size of 2GB, and despite the much larger hard disk size supported by FAT32, the maximum file size only doubled to 4GB.

This is largely why a movie file larger than 4GB in size might not be able to be copied to a hard disk with lots of space. The hard disk is probably formatted using FAT32. There is no quick solution short of converting the hard disk to the NTFS file system.


The New Technology File System (NTFS) was introduced in Windows NT (mid-1993) and is available in different forms in all following products: Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Server 2003, and Vista. It replaces FAT and FAT32 although some operating systems allow you to format disks as either FAT32 or NTFS. You can convert FAT32 disks to NTFS with little problem however going back from NTFS to FAT32 may not be possible due to FAT32 limitations that NTFS does away with (e.g., file size as seen above).

NTFS makes a number of improvements over FAT-based file systems. It uses advanced data structures, has a B+ tree directory structure, has improved reliability and use of disk space, allows for extensions such as security control, and has both a hard disk and file size of 16 EiB (EiB = exbibyte; a contraction of exa binary byte, and equaling 1,152,921,504,606,846,976 bytes).

So, if you need to copy files larger than 4GB, you need to make certain that the file system on the hard disk you are copying to is NTFS and not FAT32. Unfortunately, many portable USB hard disk drives come formatted as FAT32 in order to interface with the maximum number of operating systems.

[Added from comments] You can use a Windows Command Prompt command to convert a FAT volume to NTFS. Open a Command Prompt window (Start | type CMD and Enter into the search dialog to open a window). To see the full syntax of the command and to verify that the command is present in your version of Windows type (no quotes) “CONVERT /?” at the command prompt and hit Enter. This should give you the help and if it comes up you have the command available to use. The command to convert any drive from FAT to NTFS would then be: CONVERT d: /FS:NTFS where d: is the drive letter of the disk/volume you wish to convert. If you want to watch the details add a /V (for verbose) to the command. Also, to enable all users to access the drive, just in case you might want to also add /NoSecurity to the command line. These latter two are optional and usually not needed.

Also, this procedure does not erase the disk so files should be safe. As in all things computer, having a backup of important files is critical no matter what and I’d be careful if the disk is almost full as FAT and NTFS disks likely have different sector sizes and therefore hold different amounts of information.

More Information

Comments from Original Article:

Said this on 2009-12-21 At 10:42 pm
very nice article

the command for converting fat32 to ntfs is as follows

Start > Run > Cmd

convert d: /fs:ntfs

where d: is the drive letter of the external disk.
Said this on 2010-01-02 At 09:00 am
In reply to #4
Thanks anan, this info was extremely helpful. When I tried to do Format it showed only FAT32 option but with this command it converted to NTFS. Now I can copy large files!
Said this on 2010-01-17 At 11:34 pm
In reply to #4
“the command for converting fat32 to ntfs is as follows…”
Thanks Anand. Worked perfectly, was trying to copy an 8gb movie to a 16gb usb stick and kept getting the disk is full (brand new and freshly formated). After I ran that it copied no problems.
Said this on 2010-04-26 At 12:08 am
In reply to #8
thats EXACTLY the prob i was facing! though my USB was 8 GB.
solved now after i stumbled upon the solution given here.
many thanks 🙂
Said this on 2010-09-10 At 07:52 am
In reply to #4
legend. worked first time

Said this on 2010-01-14 At 03:50 am
Microsoft has provided the recommended solution for this issue here : http://support.microsoft.com/kb/307881

Said this on 2010-01-19 At 02:40 am
Thanks 1000 for your precious informations, very easy and understandable!
You solved my problem with huge files.

Said this on 2010-01-23 At 12:02 pm
That microsoft article didnt have my problem ‘the drive is not clean’ so i couldnt convert it. I ran chkdsk like prompted (it even ran it in the initial process) and to no avail it was a-okay. So I just went ahead and opened up admin tools via control panel then formatted my terabyte portable HDD over night…its been seven hours and its at 89%
Said this on 2010-01-23 At 02:42 pm
In reply to #11
Sometimes a full format is the only way to change a drive but, frankly, I’m a bit surprised that a drive as large as that was FAT formatted to begin with and not NTFS formatted. The world of computers constantly throws curveballs. 🙂

Robin Hood
Said this on 2010-02-07 At 02:26 am
Hi, I think it is happening again. MS has win7 out and xp must go, so
they do the same thing as with win98se, when it was at its end of life, and xp took over. It is the big file copy/delete etc that was then crippled. And now its the same with xp.
Damn M$.

Said this on 2010-02-16 At 06:41 am
thank you very much! by far the best answer on the internet!

I was wondering if now my macor the PS3 at home will be able to read this file from the usb.
Said this on 2010-02-16 At 10:05 am
In reply to #14
AFAIK the PS3 game system uses FAT32 and cannot read NTFS disks. So, it is limited to files smaller that about 4GB.
Said this on 2010-12-04 At 03:12 pm
In reply to #15
HEy U can use winrar It help u to convert your file to Something like 5X700…………

Said this on 2010-02-23 At 03:40 pm
Thanks i needed this information for an external disk which came with FAT32 format , now i can move large files into it thanks again!!

Said this on 2010-03-10 At 11:19 am
THNX man! U saved my life! Cheers!

Said this on 2010-03-23 At 06:20 pm
1. How can i tell if my drive is FAT32 or NTFS? is there a dos command?
2. if i convert from fat32 to NTFS do i loose the data on the drive>?

txs in advance
Said this on 2010-03-23 At 08:54 pm
In reply to #21
Right click on the drive and select Properties. In that dialog it should tell you what the drive format is. In Vista all you have to do is click on the drive in the My Computer window and down at the bottom it should say what the file system is.

In general, there won’t be any data loss when converting from FAT32 to NTFS however a backup of critical data is always a prudent thing to do; particularly when the disk is almost full. If the sector size changes and the disk is almost full with lots of small files then the spare space at the end of the sectors could add up to trouble. But, if you’re changing the file system to put on a large file then that situation is very unlikely.

Said this on 2010-05-06 At 10:24 pm
Excellent Article! If You have to transform FAT32 in NTFS, You may format the drive into NTFS! Right cklick on the drive You want to convert in Windows Explorer, than Format, on options You choose NTFS, and click Quick Format! But, You loose all the data on the formatted drive!

Said this on 2010-05-12 At 10:06 am
SUPURB ARTICLE! I am having the same issue. My brand new 1TB drive is FAT32 formatted and I can’t move my backups (17+ GB) to it. The issue I am having is that I have created several “manual” backups where I copied the files/directories over manually as the backup file (DNA) would not work with the drive.

If I run the CONVERT D: /FS:NTFS command, will it overwrite/destroy my “manual” backups that I already have on the drive or will it convert the files in the process of converting the drive?

Thanks in advance,
Said this on 2010-05-12 At 10:19 am
In reply to #26
The CONVERT program will take care of moving the files into the NTFS structure with (usually) no data loss. I say usually because if the disk is quite full before the conversion strange things sometimes happen. But, if it’s not particularly full then all should be OK. I would not try the command if the disk is almost full. I’d move some things, do the command, and then move them back.

Said this on 2010-05-27 At 02:17 pm
if i already have files on the portable drive will i lose those files when i convert it to ntfs?
Said this on 2010-05-27 At 04:31 pm
In reply to #29
No. At least not unless the drive is almost full. In that case it’s remotely possible that one or more files might not be converted properly but this usually happens more when going from NTFS back to FAT rather than FAT to NTFS. That said, it’s always good to have a backup when messing with the lower levels on a drive. 🙂

Said this on 2010-06-22 At 09:19 am
VERY GOOD ARTICLE. i just bought a USB drive and i couldnt copy files larger than 4g and i didnt know why !! i searched google, found this article and in 2 minutes i made it work !! thank you

Said this on 2010-06-28 At 03:04 pm
Thanks for this post, I’ve learned a lot.
However, I found the post whilst searching for an answer to a related problem.
I have a mini cam on which I filmed a long AVI video – shows as just under 4 GB (4193258KB – maybe somehow the cam capped the file size?) – however I am not able to open/play the movie.
I converted the memory card to NTFS (so I won’t have the issue again) but am still unable to view this movie.
Any ideas what I can do to rescue my movie?

Said this on 2010-06-28 At 03:16 pm
In reply to #33
Your theory about the camera capping the file size is likely correct. As to viewing the file, I’m sorry but I’m not a video file format expert. It’s possible that the file is simply not correctly terminated by the software in the camera. Search for video recovery software; there should be a free version of something out there (be careful you don’t get any junkware with ads, etc. in it though).

BTW, if you reformatted the memory card to NTFS it’s quite possible that the camera will not be able to write to it at all. Most devices are programmed to write to the FAT file system. You might want to try the card in the camera before you commit to filming anything important. You may just have to reformat the card again and content yourself to shooting shorter sequences and then edit them together.

Said this on 2010-06-29 At 10:56 pm
Thanks for the great write-up. I recently bought a 32GB USB flash drive to copy large PST files and couldn’t because the USB was FAT32. Read your article and ran the convert command to make the USB NTFS , and voilla, I can now copy the files. Thanks!

Said this on 2010-07-06 At 02:53 am
i have win xp and ntfs file system in the both drivers
but when i try to copy big file whuch size (28 GB or more ) it gives me can’t copy ,not enough space , Despite Having Larger Free Space
idont know why??
Said this on 2010-07-06 At 04:59 pm
In reply to #37
28G should not be a problem (other than the time it will take!) for NTFS formatted media. The max file size allowed is just shy of 16 Terrabytes.

Said this on 2010-07-21 At 01:27 pm
I have the same problem. I wanted to copy a movie file that is aprox. 7GB to a external HD of 320 GB and it has a free space of 10 GB.

so now my question is if I convert the HD file system, does my existing data be erased or it would remain as it is.
please I am waiting for your response.

[Previously answered. The conversion is SUPPOSED to keep your data intact. Every now and again it might not. With so little space left on the drive I’d likely back some of that up and take it off the drive during the conversion and then put it back so the conversion routines have enough free space to work with. There is no absolute answer to your question. –DaBoss]

Damien Grant
Said this on 2010-08-21 At 01:11 am
Is there any way that a file greater than 4gb can be watched on the PS3? im trying to convert my dvd library, but i want the files to be the best quality they can be. if i cant move a file that is greater than 4gb, but i need my hard drive to be NTFS to move files to it, but the PS3 wont recognize NTFS – what do i do?? Damien Grant.
Said this on 2010-08-21 At 10:29 am
In reply to #42
The PS3 only recognizes FAT32. You’ll have to break the movie up into smaller sections.

Bob Kight
Said this on 2010-08-28 At 05:51 pm
I have been using Adobe Photoshop Elements 2 for many years now and have only recently found the following bug. I have no problem when saving a file from this program to a terabyte size hard drive (which is really around 930 GBs). But after attaching an external 2TB Hard drive, I’ve found that this program will not save to this drive, because it is full – and according to My Computer it has more than a terabyte of room(?). Apparently, this program has a maximum limit to saving files to a 1TB hard drive. If I save any file created to any other drive (equal to or less than a terabyte) – no problem. Then I can drag and drop it into the 2TB Drive – no problem. I can only guess that the software people imagined that this early program would NEVER save files to more than a TeraByte – “surprise – surprise – Sgt Carter”!!!!!
Said this on 2010-08-28 At 05:58 pm
In reply to #45
Actually, it’s probably not the program but the operating system. I’ll bet you are using Windows XP. That’s a limit of XP. The larger than 1TB disks start writing data at a different location that requires multiple sectors to be read and written for each single sector call and Vista and beyond can easily handle this this but XP cannot. I have an article in writing about this but it got delayed by my 99.5-year-old Mother’s passing and my moving to a new city. I’ll be getting back to that shortly.

Note that some disk makers provide a program that can make XP work with the larger disk but it does so by moving data on the disk to a different series of locations and so the disk might not be able to be read if later moved to a different operating system.

Alex DeBongo
Said this on 2011-11-05 At 04:37 pm
In reply to #46
Hi – – DaBoss:
Wrongo! This is a problem with nearly ALL PSE programs up to 7 or 8. They will NOT write to a Terabyte sized HDD. Once above 1TB, you’re cooked. You can open, but not save. Adobe, in it’s vast wisdom, has only recently realized that the TB barrier would likely be broken with people still using PSE-2 thru 7. What we need is a crack to disable the remaining disk-space check.
OBTW – – I am running Winblows Vista (which sux – Shades of WinME).

[Actually, righto as far as it goes. The terabyte limit (and it’s usually around 2T but can vary by device) is something else having to do with 256 byte FAT versus 4096 byte FAT design; not as easily solved as you’ve found. Vista and above won’t be bothered but XP and outside devices will. There are workarounds for XP but these won’t work with external devices like the Playstation. –DaBoss]

Said this on 2010-09-07 At 08:48 pm
If I convert my External Hard Disk to NTFS will this erase all my file in it???

Also when I try on Command Prompt it says:
”Acces denied as you do not have sufficient privileges.”

[As answered before multiple times, generally no to the file loss. As to the privilege item, right click the command prompt icon and select Run As Administrator. If asked, give the proper password and then you should be able to continue. –DaBoss]

Said this on 2010-09-28 At 01:42 am
There’s a lot of useful information in this article, but the original premise is flawed:
“if you are trying to copy a movie from a DVD onto your FAT32-formatted hard drive it likely won’t copy as most full-length movies are files larger than 4GB.”
That’s not correct, if you’re talking about the DVD video standard (as in the movie DVDs you buy or rent), the maximum .vob FILE size is 1Gb, which FAT32 happily supports. The TOTAL amount of video data does, as you say, far exceed 4Gb, but that is achieved by breaking the video data into multiple files.
Unless you’re creating a .iso image file, FAT32 isn’t a problem. Dealing with the DVD encryption is far more of a problem.
Said this on 2010-09-28 At 08:34 am
In reply to #50
Most people try to get the ISO file as they don’t know about the chapters and DVD encryption was broken a long time ago. Even the master Blue Ray code was leaked not long ago so that will be less and less of a problem over time now.

Said this on 2010-10-20 At 12:59 pm
Hi. I have XP w/Nero. I tried to copy a 2.17 GB file to a 4.7 GB DVD and received the message my file was too big for the disk, & was required to select “use 8.3 file names for back-up.” I tried your formula above – Start > Run > Cmd convert d: /fs:ntfs & received the message “cannot convert volume on this device.” Am I doing something wrong? I am backing up some large picture and music files and it seems wasteful to have to use 3-4 almost 5 GB disks for only 8 GB of files. Thanks for your help.
Said this on 2010-10-20 At 01:14 pm
In reply to #52
I would contact Nero. You can’t use the conversion on a disc but you should not have to. Sounds like a program limitation to me; particularly with the need for 8.3 names. Have not needed those for a long time now. There are special (obscure) rules for CD/DVD file naming but 8.3 is not one of them.

Said this on 2010-11-20 At 10:29 am
Thanks for the article, very informative.

1 Question though:

If my external hard drive is 320GB in size, and only 28GB is free and I want to copy a 6GB file over without losing any of the data; can you assure me that converting from FAT32 -> NTFS that I will not lose any data?

Said this on 2010-11-20 At 01:24 pm
In reply to #56
Absolutely assure? No. Nothing in life is absolutely certain. But, under the conditions you describe I see no problems. You have enough space to spare so the conversion should leave you with pretty much what you have free and that’s plenty to do the copy you want to do. As always however it there are critical files on the drive they should be backed up somewhere and this is true even if you were not contemplating a conversion. Drives fail. That’s a rule you can pretty much count on.

Said this on 2010-11-21 At 09:16 pm
u dont have to use this method. there is an easy way. U just have to right click on your drive and click format and change the settings from fat into ntfs and click format and then u will be able to transfer large files easily.

[The point is that people want to KEEP what’s already on the drive. Formatting will erase all that stuff. But, yes, if you don’t care about what’s on the drive then by all means format it as it’s faster. –DaBoss]

Said this on 2010-12-05 At 11:50 pm
Does the drive get formated by this method???????

[Not exactly but sort of :-). The drive is incrementally changed to NTFS format so that’s the ultimate result but, in the process, the data is preserved where it’s not when you format the drive. –DaBoss]

Wing Tat Chan
Said this on 2011-01-09 At 06:13 pm
Do I have to backup my files in my external drive while the windows is converting my external drive from FAT32 to NTFS?

[The answer is in the article and following comments. I’m tired of typing the same thing over and over so please READ what’s written. Thank you. –DaBoss]

Said this on 2011-01-10 At 12:32 am
By converting my external hard disk from FAT32 to NTFS will my data stored be erased?

[The answer is in the article and following comments. I’m tired of typing the same thing over and over so please READ what’s written. Thank you. –DaBoss]

Jacob Norgaard
Said this on 2011-01-17 At 10:03 am
Nice article, but sadly it never tells you what to do if you want to see a movie via your extern harddrive. As far as i understand the only format that tv, soundbars etc can read is the fat32. So what to do if you want to watch a movie on your extern. The only way to get the movie to the extern is to make it NTFS, but then your tv wont be able to read it..
Said this on 2011-01-17 At 12:04 pm
In reply to #68
While not explicitly stated the answer is implicit in the article. To play on an external device you basically need to make the file less than 4 gigabytes in size. Use your favorite editor to either re compress the file to a smaller size or split the file into multiple files.

Said this on 2011-02-17 At 06:48 am
Is there anyway at all you could transfer files larger than 4gb on a WD My Passport Hard Drive on a macbook ? apparently people have problems using nfts on mac operating systems.

[Sorry, I’m not a Mac person. Anyone? -DaBoss]

Said this on 2011-02-22 At 10:39 am
I just tried this to an external HD and now it’s telling me my drive is unformatted and/or corrupted. Any suggestions as to my next step in troubleshooting?

[Without being there to see the situation and understand what happened simply trying now to format the drive would be my suggestion. If that doesn’t work then I’d contact the manufacturer and try to find out what makes their drive so special that it won’t take simple Windows commands. –DaBoss]

Said this on 2011-03-06 At 10:08 am
Hi THIS IS COMMON PROBLEM WITH WIN XP AND WIN VISTA when transfering or copying files esp above 4 GB . I’ve simple solution attach pen drive or memory card to ur usb port open Windows Explorer/My Computer ..now right click on the drive letter SELECT OPEN AS “PORTABLE MEDIA DEVICE”..THIS OPENS NEW WINDOW..DRAG AND DROP OR COPY PASTE THE HUGE FILES INTO THIS WINDOW. NO NEED TO FORMAT OR CHANGE PARTITION TYPE!!

[This will work but pay attention to the last part. As a portable device the USB device will not look like a standard file system to Windows or the Mac and can ONLY be used as a portable media device. If NTFS formatting is used then the device can store media and other files. The down side of either is that the computer or other device you plug the USB drive into must either support portable media devices in one case or NTFS in another. That’s not always the case so know what your devices support. –DaBoss]

Said this on 2011-03-21 At 02:31 pm
i did all the steps and then it was calculating the size for the conversion with a bunch of numbers …….

THEN after waiting it gave me a message saying this .

” Data error (cyclic redundancy check) ”

HELP ME???????

[Sounds like maybe one or more sectors on the drive have become corrupted in some way. I’d back everything up by copying to another disk and then after you know the backup is good (test it) I’d just reformat the initial disk and start over with it. –DaBoss]

Said this on 2011-04-09 At 07:20 pm
This does not fix the problem. Cuz my TV cant read from NTFS structure, but it support H264 (I flashed firmware on LG). Thats really sucks! FAT32 sucks.

[That’s what happens when you live at the convergence point of technology. Often, the old isn’t good enough and the new isn’t well supported. Until the TV maybe gets a new operating system update that does support NTFS best you can do is either reduce the resolution to fit everything into the proper size or break the video apart into properly-sized sections. –DaBoss]

Said this on 2011-06-10 At 02:17 pm
I think this question come about in this scenario. You have a 20gb hard disk with only 500mb free, you try to copy or move a 3gb size file to another drive. The copy process is halted because you need a certain amount of caching area on the disk your copying from for the data to be written for the simple reason if the copy or move fails you already have a duplicate of the duplicate in a temp file form. I find depending on the file being moved you need an equal size amount of free space to produce the same temp file your copying. Confused OK let me simplify I had a drive C: with only 20mb free so I though “I know I will move a large video file say 700mb to get me more space WRONG error says your don’t have free space on the drive your copying TO (seems weird) even though you have GB’s free. Solution move loads of lesser than 20mb files to create enough cache or temp space to copy the large file in my case only 2 lesser than 20mb then with now 60mb approx freed up moved 50mb files and so on until I had 400mb then any size file was movable….phew…hope that helps if even a little.

[Actually, a valid observation but it does not relate to the specific topic here which has more to do with the overall limits of the file system instead of quirks in how Windows copies files. 🙂 –DaBoss]

Said this on 2011-06-20 At 09:45 am

My DBA’s & server’s support team trying move one large Sharepoint Content DB file(around 100 GB) backup file from Prod to QA..

But they always recieve the error “Cannot copy the db : Not enough storage is available to process this command” .

Server : Windows 2003 SE SP2

Please can you advice on how to avoid this error, and copy the file properly from one server to another..

[Sorry, no experience with this specific task. However, as a general comment, make certain there is at least double the size of the file you want to copy free on both drives. Some network systems will, in order to prevent conflicts, make a temporary copy of the file, copy that and then delete the copy. Likewise, on the receiving end, the file may be copied to a temporary file, copied over to the actual file name and then the temporary file deleted. These actions require the double free space. But, that’s just a guess. –DaBoss]

Said this on 2011-07-13 At 09:58 am
When I’ve done the above convert commands I get the message:

the type of file system is FAT32 and doesn’t go any further in the process. Any ideas please?

[Sounds like the conversion did not process correctly and so you still have FAT32 instead of NTFS. –DaBoss]

Said this on 2011-07-18 At 04:29 am
Thanks for the info.
You have resolved 75% of my problem.
I have to external disc driver both in NFTS. And I cannot transfert big files from one to an other. ERROR COPYING FILE OR FOLDER CANNOT COPY FILE.


[Sorry, no way knowing from that error message. Could be one of a great many reasons. –DaBoss]

Said this on 2011-08-22 At 04:59 am
A very good article. But no solution?

[Please consider reading it again. Solution is convert to NTFS. –DaBoss]

Julie G
Said this on 2011-11-25 At 04:30 pm
Followed the instructions and it says is not available for raw drives, I have a 120 GB ipod hooked up, what am I doing wrong ?

[You are trying to apply a Windows command to a non-Windows-formatted device. Won’t work on Apple stuff. Sorry. –DaBoss]

Said this on 2011-12-11 At 06:02 am

[Yes. This is just for USB drives and not for things like SD cards that might fit into a camera. The memory cards carry their own FAT-style formatting but it’s a bit different than the disk FAT. –DaBoss]

Said this on 2011-12-26 At 06:28 am
your article is so helpfull for us , ut itz not complete…….. some file system type u didnt xpossed , eg: exFAT , its a file sytem can u give the information about this ???????

[It’s not really an article about file systems as such; just a way to get more onto a removable device. But, I’ll think about it. –DaBoss]


Now and again the controlling DLL file(s) for MSN becomes unregistered and MSN users receive MAILHOST and/or DOWNLOADHOST problem messages and can’t connect to their mail. Many times this is caused by registry cleaning programs that incorrectly flag the MSN DLL files for deletion from the registry which effectively unregisters the files with the MSN software, resulting in the errors. Here’s how to fix this. Note: If this happens once after running cleaning software it’s likely to happen again if you run the same software again.

In both cases, to fix the problem(s) you need to re-register the files with the MSN program. To do this you will need to type a specific command into a run dialog. This command will register the DLL files with the MSN software and put the registry back in order.

If these commands do not work please contact MSN support. CKnow cannot directly support the MSN software.


In Windows XP, click on the Start button. In the menu click on the entry that says Run. A dialog box will appear. Assuming a default installation of the MSN software, in the dialog box type (cut and paste from here for accuracy):

regsvr32 c:\progra~1\msn\msncorefiles\mailui.dll

The dialog should look like this…


Click on OK or press the Enter key. This re-registers the mailui.dll file and should solve the problem. If you are signed into MSN, sign out and then sign back in and everything should work OK.

If you have installed the MSN software in other than the default directory, then substitute that path for the c:\progra~1\msn\msncorefiles\ portion in the above.

In Windows Vista click on the Start button and copy the above command into the search box and then press the Enter key.


The problem and solution are similar to the above.

In Windows XP open the Run dialog as above but for DOWNLOADHOST type the following:

regsvr32 c:\progra~1\msn\msncorefiles\msnmetal.dll

This re-registers the msnmetal.dll file and should solve the problem. If you are signed into MSN, sign out and then sign back in and everything should work OK (though, some reports are that the error still pops up even though the downloading will work — this may not be all that is needed).

If you have installed the MSN software in other than the default directory, then substitute that path for the c:\progra~1\msn\msncorefiles\ portion in the above.

In Windows Vista click on the Start button and copy the above command into the search box and then press the Enter key.

Comments from Original Article:

Said this on 2009-06-09 At 10:09 pm
It worked… Thxs I get this problem from time to time and usually have to remove and reinstall MSN. This works fine thxs again

Carol Porter
Said this on 2009-07-17 At 08:27 am
I cannot open my emails. Can someone there fix them
Said this on 2009-07-17 At 02:27 pm
In reply to #3
If the problem is a MAILHOST problem then read the page above and do what it says. If not, then certainly not with the (lack of) information provided.

Said this on 2009-07-18 At 10:14 pm
i tried all your solutions for the “mailhost” problem. even uninstalled then installed msn, plus entered all your directions about the commands. but, needless to say I still have the same problem, nothing was resolved.

i ceratainly would appreciate it if someone could be kind enough to send me some feedback as to how I can solve this problem!

thank you,
Said this on 2009-07-18 At 10:28 pm
In reply to #5
I’m sorry but the fix described here has fixed all MAILHOST problems reported to date using either Windows XP or Vista. If you are still getting the MAILHOST message then I have no other suggestions. Reinstalling MSN was the only other solution and you say you’ve done that. I have to assume that your installation is in the standard folder as shown above or that you modified the command appropriately if not and that you tried running the command as an administrator for the system* (usually should not be needed but can never hurt). If you are getting some other error then that would be beyond the scope of this article and not using MSN myself, I could only refer you to their support. Sorry.

[*To run a command prompt program as administrator open Start | Programs | Accessories and right click Command Prompt. Select Run as Administrator from the context menu. Then, type the command at the prompt.]

Said this on 2009-10-20 At 04:15 pm
Thanks for the workaround. It is very useful.

Said this on 2009-12-26 At 08:42 pm
I tried this, but it didn’t solve my problem, I can’t even see my download manager, and/ or my windows crash when a program goes to the download page. I only see the upper part of the page. Then a send error report to msn comes on, so I send but the problem doesnt’ get repaired?? Any help out there for this. Jim

Said this on 2010-05-01 At 06:34 pm
regsvr32 c:\progra~1\msn\msncorefiles\msnmetal.dll……how do i get this to work with WIN-7?


Said this on 2010-10-25 At 10:55 am
I had an error thst said: MSN5.mail view and using the first recommended phrase worked immediately. Thank you for this free repair. It is greatly appreciated.

regsvr32 c:\progra~1\msn\msncorefiles\mailui.dll

Ron Bastian
Said this on 2011-02-12 At 12:56 am
I’am an old guy and very new to computers and your website to me is very best site that I have ever got the right answer the very first time. thank you so much Ron Bastian

Erin Stevens
Said this on 2011-05-21 At 09:37 pm
FINALLY, after months of trying to fix my mailhost problem your FREE repair did the trick – IMMEADIATELY too! I can’t thank you enough…

Why Aren’t Different Display Colors the Same in Different Monitors?

Often computer users complain that images viewed on one computer do not look the same when viewed on another. Sometimes the images are better; often worse. This page attempts to address that topic.

(A short discussion of color and how it is displayed on a computer monitor is at the end of this tutorial. Click here if you need to review that first.)

Here is the short list of factors that typically cause color display problems:

  • Viewing environment
  • Monitor settings
  • Nonlinear human vision
  • Gamma correction
  • Color coding

Viewing environment

The environment a monitor sits in can have a profound effect on the ability to view color images with their proper colors. If you have reflections on the screen or a room that has an ambient brightness different from the room in which the image was created then that image will look different; sometimes greatly so. As one example, an image developed in a dimly-lighted room and shown in a bright room will appear contrasty to the viewer. If the room is bright, the image may appear washed out.

If an image looks “different” the first things to research are the ambient conditions under which that image was developed. This may give you a clue as to how to make the environment better for viewing that image.

Monitor Settings

Color display is very sensitive to how your monitor’s controls are set. If not set properly the full range of colors in a digital image may not show properly. As an example, if the brightness control is improperly set some shades of black may combine and shading will be lost in an image.

To set your monitor (this assumes a CRT), drop out of Windows to the DOS command prompt. The screen should be all dark except for the prompt. Turn the brightness control all the way down and then adjust it upward until the monitor just starts to lighten up. Back the control down until the screen turns dark again. Once set, don’t move that control further. Now, display a representative picture and adjust the contrast to accurately display the image (strangely, when doing this you will notice the “contrast” control really affecting the “brightness” of the image). Note: On some monitors the brightness control may be called “Black Level” and the contrast control may be called “Picture.” (Some monitors may appear more contrasty than others due to a black coating on the mask the electron beam passes through.)

Nonlinear Human Vision

One problem with display of color is that human vision does not respond in a linear manner to changes in brightness. You may have seen professional photographers holding up a gray card to determine exposure. The gray card is 18% luminance but is perceived by human vision as about half brightness. Computer and display systems have to take this intensity nonlinearity into consideration. Not all do it correctly or well.

CRTs also have their own nonlinearities which are a function of the generation of the electron beam in the monitor (near saturation, phosphors may also have some effect). These corrections involve the next concept: gamma correction.

Gamma Correction

Intensity of light on a monitor’s screen is nonlinear relative to the applied voltage to generate that intensity (intensity is roughly applied voltage raised to some power). The exact power number is typically given the name gamma. If you have an image consisting of linear-light intensities then some compensation must be made for that image or it will appear murky in the mid-tones. On the other hand, if the image has had gamma correction and you apply another gamma correction to it then the image midtones will be too light. (Note: Images generated by a camera typically have gamma correction applied to them by the camera. Images generated by other means may not.)

Ideally, when you create an image you should make whatever corrections are necessary to take out the effects of your ambient conditions. This will allow the viewer of the image to always apply a transform suitable to their ambient conditions and thus correctly view the image. In practice this ideal is rarely achieved and so images can vary from system to system.

Color Coding

It’s possible to have virtually an infinite color spectrum on a monitor due to its analog nature; it’s just not possible for the computer to feed that many colors to the monitor. Let’s take the transition between black and white to examine this.

The ratio of intensity between brightest white and darkest black is called the contrast ratio and it changes for each environment. Projected film has a ratio of around 80:1 but typical office conditions limit the ratio of most monitors to around 5:1.

Human vision, on the other hand, can detect small differences in intensity. Changes on the order of 0.1% of the range between black and white can be detected. If we code each of these differences assuming linear intensity some 9,900 codes (or 14 bits) would be required per level.

But, as we’ve seen, nothing is linear. If the coding roughly follows the required nonlinearities (small changes where human vision can detect small changes and larger changes where human vision only detects larger changes) then some 460 codes (about nine bits) per increment would be needed. From a practical standpoint, the computer uses eight bits. When nonlinearly coded this yields an image sufficient for broadcast-quality digital television.

To quote from the colorspace FAQWeb Link:

Desktop computers are optimized neither for image synthesis nor for video. They have programmable “gamma” and either poor standards or no standards. Consequently, image interchange among desktop computers is fraught with difficulty.

A Special Case: The Computer’s Color Compromise

Extending the logic above for black to white, consider a model where each primary color uses eight bits to define it. Then, using 24 bits, 16,777,216 individual colors can be represented digitally. This 24-bit model is currently the standard most current computer graphics are held to when simulating true colors as seen in nature.

Some computers, however, compromise by using a 256-color mode of operation. In this mode the compromise involves using a palette to hold the colors currently in use. Each entry in the palette contains the full 24-bit representation of that color (plus information the system needs). So long as an image can be fully represented by any 256 colors of the 16 million available the palette method works very well. And, using the palette greatly reduces the amount of memory and processing needed to display the image to the screen. (Note: With advances in CPU and graphics processor technology working in full 24-bit mode has become easier so more and more systems do not need this compromise.)

The problem with the palette compromise is that it is a compromise. If any single image requires more than 256 colors then some grouping of the closest colors must be made and all of these assigned to some intermediate color that exists in the palette. Also, since each image can carry its own palette, if more than one image is shown on the screen there may be a total of more than 256 individual colors represented and so the computer must impose further compromises and combinations.

When dealing with multiple images you can sometimes watch these compromises happening as various images become active on the screen. The remaining images on the screen may color shift as the active palette changes. It’s much worse if images with more than 16 colors are viewed on a 16 color display.

The bottom line is that when color display of an image is involved, you should expect viewing differences instead of expecting consistent images from computer to computer. Different is the norm, not the exception.

What Is Color?

As a refresher, let’s briefly discuss color itself. We’ll use the computer’s color monitor as the basis for this discussion.

First, would you believe that all those colors you see on your computer’s monitor are really only combinations of just three? Believe it, it’s true. The monitor uses a color scheme known as additive color. The three primary colors in this system are red, green, and blue; often just referred to as RGB. Color on a monitor is obtained by illuminating phosphors that glow in the proper primary color combinations when hit by an electron beam. The electron beam scans the face of the monitor through a mask which directs the beam to specific phosphors (the phosphors are laid out in either dot groups known as triads or side-by-side thin lines). To the eye, each triad (or line trio) appears as a single dot. The term additive is used because where no beam falls there is black and where all colors are lit together there is white. Where two colors overlap various intermediate colors are created. The figure below shows this relationship.

Color Overlap

Different beam intensities vary the color intensity which translates to more color varieties. Each pixel in the display is defined by a specific digital code that defines the intensity of each primary color that has to be applied to the triad or line trio representing that pixel (pixels and triads are usually not a one-to-one match on the screen leading to further compromise).

Why Does a File of the Form TFTPxxx Try to Run at Startup?

A file of the form TFTPxxx (where xxx = numbers) attempts to run at system start and Windows does not know how to do that. Why does it happen?

The Windows Trivial File Transfer Program is a small file transfer client provided with Windows (this differs from the FTP commonly talked about and is not a substitute for it — see the references below). When run, that program sometimes leaves behind a file of the form TFTPxxx in whatever directory was default when the program runs. The files are harmless; they are just left over from the Trivial FTP program running. That explains where the file comes from. Now we need to backtrack a bit…

On 16 July 2003 Microsoft released a patch to correct a security vulnerability in a Windows Distributed Component Object Model (DCOM) Remote Procedure Call (RPC) interface. Without the patch, computers were vulnerable to crackers or programs which could enter a vulnerable computer and run arbitrary code on that vulnerable computer. Unfortunately, most people either did not know about or ignored the patch. A description of the vulnerability and links to the patch are on the Microsoft site…

http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=823980Web Link

About a month later, a modified form of the Blaster Worm was released which specifically targeted this vulnerability. While the worm did little damage to an infected computer it did run the Windows Trivial FTP client to send itself to other computers and, in the process since it used the Startup directory as the default, caused that program to drop TFTPxxx files into the Startup directory. The next time Windows started it encountered these files and did not know how to run them. Windows then asked users to specify a program or search the Internet. Many picked the second option and ended up at the FILExt site, leading eventually to this FAQ which is also posted on the FILExt site.

What should you do?

If you have not already, download and IMMEDIATELY install the Windows patch described above. This will stop further incoming attacks.

Once you have done that, you need to get rid of whatever caused the problem. For this you really should have updated anti-virus software. By scanning your system it should find and handle the appropriate files for you. Computer Knowledge makes no specific recommendation. A list of the major anti-virus software vendors can be found here as part of the CKnow Virus Tutorial.

You can further help yourself by installing a firewall of some sort between you and the Internet. There are a number of software firewalls that work just fine. CKnow takes no position on which firewall you should use. It’s your choice but you should make the choice and use something. If you have a continuous connection to the Internet instead of dial-up you should strongly consider getting a hardware firewall.

Finally, the TFTPxxx files appear in the Startup Group in Windows. You should be able to see them by choosing Start | Program Files | Startup and they should therefore be in the folder C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Start Menu\Programs\Startup\ for Windows XP or the folder C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\Programs\Startup for Windows Vista.

Delete these files (they may be read only and, if so, you may have to right click the file, select Properties, and uncheck the ReadOnly attribute). As indicated above, these files are not dangerous. They just clutter up the Startup directory and cause Windows to pause to ask you about them during Startup.

Then, keep your firewall and anti-virus software up to date at all times.

Install Windows security patches when released.

Added note: Other malware has started to appear and use the Trivial FTP program and, therefore, leave TFTPxxxx files on systems. Some of these files can contain signatures of the malware and can be tagged by anti-virus software as being infected. The solution is the same as the above: make certain you have all the latest Microsoft Critical Updates and delete the leftover files. The anti-virus software should remove the malware itself or their Website should have a program that will do the removal.

More Information

Why Can’t I Add a Small File to a USB Drive?

Problem: You are trying to copy a small file to a USB device with lots of room on it but can’t. Why not?

The most likely answer is that the root directory of the USB device is full. USB devices are typically formatted using the FAT file system to allow for maximum compatibility. When originally designed, the FAT file system had file names consisting of eight character names with three character extensions, the so-called 8.3 format. When Windows 95 came out, Microsoft wanted to have it handle longer and more descriptive file names but was basically stuck with the FAT file system. So, they came up with VFAT where, by using a trick, they could put long file names into the directory by taking up several directory entries for a single file name.

But, this causes some unexpected problems with FAT devices. The number of directory entries in a FAT file system is limited in the root directory of the device. This table shows the limits…

Type of Storage Max Root Directory Entries
360 kB 5.25″ Floppy Disk 112
720 kB 3.5″ Floppy Disk 112
1.2 MB 5.25″ Floppy Disk 224
1.44 MB 3.5″ Floppy Disk 224
2.88 MB 3.5″ Floppy Disk 448
Hard Disk 512

In general, USB devices would be considered hard disks under this system and be limited to 512 root directory entries. But, that doesn’t mean you can put 512 files in the root directory of the device. Remember the VFAT that uses a trick for long file names? Well, the trick is to use multiple spots in the directory for the longer file names and the longer the file name, the more directory entries it uses. So, if you have enough long file names in the root directory of the device, even though you have not reached your 512 file maximum, the root directory can still be full and not able to accept more files; no matter how much free space there is on the device.

The extra directory entries are tagged as read-only, hidden, system, and volume label attributes. This combination is generally ignored by DOS as it is non-standard but, at the same time, the markings tell DOS that the directory entry is occupied. This is a very unusual solution to a difficult problem and therefore sometimes causes unanticipated problems. One of these is the root directory full problem described here.

OK, how do you fix it? Well, you can’t fix the basis of the problem; that’s written into the file system. However, you can work around it. Subdirectories do not have the limits of the root directory as they expand as needed. So, the workaround is to remove at least one file from the affected device and then create a subdirectory (folder) on the device. Copy all new files (and maybe some or all of the old files) into the subdirectory. Problem solved and you can now fill the device as full as you can with files.

More Information

Why Do I See ‘This Web Site Does Not Supply Ownership Information’ in My Browser?

Newer browsers have security features designed to help you determine if a website you are browsing is a valid and perhaps trusted site. While the intent is good, the messages users get can be confusing and fear-inducing for not really good reason. Let’s see why.

The messages you can get include:

This web site does not supply ownership information.
Verified by: Thawte Consulting cc (or some other certificate agency) but with no ownership information.
Verified by: Thawte Consulting cc (or some other certificate agency) with ownership information.

The latter two are generally accompanied by an https: start to the URL and the information in the message shown when you are on the site indicates the level of certification the owner of the site has applied to the site. That’s really all there is to it: provide a secure URL and a security certificate and you get a “Verified by…” message; don’t and you get a generic (and maybe worrysome) “…does not supply ownership information” message.

Of the three, only the last one has much meaning. To obtain the certification necessary to get the required EV SSL certificate the owner has to provide a good deal of proof of ownership information to the certifying authority (plus a good deal of money as well[Smile]). Generally, only banks and other such institutions go to that trouble to convince the visiting user(s) of their authenticity (although this trend may be [and should be] changing).

Note: In any case, no matter how detailed the security certificate is, there is NO guarantee of no inappropriate or incorrect information on the site. The certificate only attests to the ownership of the site. Please keep this in mind as it’s important to your interpretation of the various ownership warnings.

Let’s look at each in turn in a bit more detail. [Screen shots below were taken using Firefox 3.5.1 and may differ some with your browser.]

This web site does not supply ownership information.

Regular Security

Taken from the CKnow site, this is what you are likely to see for most of the sites you visit. Is it bad? Not necessarily; it just means the owner of the site did not find it necessary to obtain a security certificate for the site. Since CKnow collects no personal information from you there really is no need for the site to have a security certificate or for you to have to undergo the overhead of a secure connection with the encryption/decryption routines at both ends of the connection. Most sites you visit will likely have this “warning” displayed by the browser.

Verified by: … but with no ownership information.

SSL Connection Security

Taken from the Google Mail site, this is what you are likely to see when you visit a site whose URL starts with “https:” instead of just “http:”. If the URL and the certificate match it means that the site domain name as shown in the browser bar is accurate and that there is a valid security certificate for the site. Note that some small business sites use the certificate of the host for the site. That would mean that the certificate and the URL don’t necessarily match so caution should be used at those sites but, even so, a mismatch does not necessarily mean anything is wrong. If concerned, contact the webmaster for the site and get confirmation from them directly. Further note that in an effort to appear valid some phishing sites have adopted SSL and have certificates issued to them so having a certificate of this type or not is no guarantee and you should be certain the site is who they say they are before entering any personally-identifying information or credit card data.

Verified by: … with ownership information.

EV SSL Security

Taken from the site of an insurance/banking site often used by military members, the USAA certification provides an example of the EV certificate (EV = Extended Valuation). This simply means that they have gone through a rather extensive process to prove to the certifying authority that they are who they say they are. This is the best of the certifications but it’s also harder to get and more expensive. Indeed, the expense is one of the reasons smaller businesses have used to lobby against the various ownership information displays. But, over time, the cost has come down and you should expect to see more serious business sites having this sort of certification instead of the more generic certification without ownership information.

But it bears repeating: No matter how detailed the security certificate is, there is NO guarantee of no inappropriate or incorrect information on the site. The certificate only attests to the ownership of the site.

Prior comments from original 7/17/2009 article…

Jan Cheng
Said this on 2009-09-01 At 03:39 pm
I have an SSL cert from ix-one.com
When I visit my website there is no padlock!!!
So I click on the favicon and it says
This web site does not supply ownership information.
Said this on 2009-09-01 At 05:29 pm
In reply to #1
Create a support ticket with them and get them to install the certificate and tell you how to use their system to create https output pages.

v sekhar
Said this on 2009-10-04 At 09:25 am
Thank you DaBoss. Now I’ve relieved off my worrying doubts. I see the first message very often on my wordpress blog. The information you provided is much helping to me. Thank u once again.

Wayne Davies
Said this on 2009-11-21 At 05:29 am
My comment is about this: The certificate only attests to the ownership of the site

Something I’ve always wondered is what’s to stop an otherwise legitimate authority issuing certificates that purports to confirm ownership to unsavoury people in return for large amounts of money?

Or worse, what’s stopping a criminal organisation from setting up an apparently legitimate authority that then issues certificates to both genuine companies and crooks? Or perhaps using the data they collected on genuine companies to buy certificates from a reputable authority?

Actually, I think what I’m really asking here is: Who’s making sure the certificate issuers are legit?
Said this on 2009-11-21 At 12:10 pm
In reply to #4
Nobody in particular. However, if a certificate is found to be bogus the system can be purged. See here for more…


Alexis Wilke
Said this on 2010-01-05 At 02:46 pm
[Generally, only banks and other such institutions go to that trouble to convince the visiting user(s) of their authenticity …]

Sorry but that statement is wrong. ALL businesses that want to do e-Commerce on their website, including banks, MUST have a certificate. Without the valid certificate, the cart cannot be enabled to take credit card information on your website.

My company, for instance, has such a secure site here: https://secure.m2osw.com

We use godaddy for our certificate and it shows on the left side of the screen (below the menus.) That is another important point in regard to having a secure site.

Of course, many hackers will use free certificate, or individual certificates (that are really cheap) and put that on their hacker website… which is not properly verified. That’s where you get a complicated set of things happening and why a secure site is not automatically a secure business!

Said this on 2010-01-05 At 04:27 pm
In reply to #6
Nope. Not wrong. Please re-read. That statement only applies to the EV SSL certificate. Your site does not have that. By using the GoDaddy certificate you clearly fall into the Verified By with No Ownership information category (the middle one above). Perfectly OK for e-business but you have not taken that extra step that banks, etc. generally take by getting the EV SSL certificate.
Alexis Wilke
Said this on 2010-01-05 At 11:15 pm
In reply to #7
Ah! I see. That’s recent I guess… 😎

Note that GoDaddy does offer EV SSL for about $99/year. (i.e. Premium SSL).

Maybe my company will switch to that soon.

Thank you for taking the time to reply!

Shabeer Naha
Said this on 2010-02-12 At 06:53 am
Thawte’s SSL Web Server Certificates costs $250 a year.
Thawte’s EV SSL Certificate costs $600 a year.

Answerable.com which sells Thawte’s Certificates have a much cheaper pricing. (http://answerable.com/digital_certificate.php)

Web Server Certificate : $84 a /year – this is same as Thawte’s SSL Web Server Certificates. But there is no mention of EV or not. I wouldnt be surprised if the EV comes with $84 a year.

[There are a number of discount sellers of these certificates. –DaBoss]

Harry Lee
Said this on 2010-05-28 At 08:20 am
You saved my day, DaBoss.
I’ve wondered why and where da above message came from.
Now I’m pretty much relieved with that

Is it O.K for me to put your wonderful writings in my blog to share that useful information of yours with my people after your permission? Of course I’ll put down there your source url address though.

Waiting for your reply.
Thanks once again.

Said this on 2010-05-28 At 10:27 pm
In reply to #11
Thank you for the kind comments.

In general, copying CKnow material in substance in a blog or other page is NOT allowed. If the material is published even with a link given then there would be no reason for someone to come here to get the information and that’s counterproductive for me. Feel free to comment and link but not copy and link. For example…

“I found this great page on the Cknow.com site that explains those messages about website ownership and why there is really no problem with most of them. See that here [linked].”

…would be just fine. However, a repeat of the reasons and most of the substance of the article and then a link would NOT be fine.

Thank you for asking and I hope you see the difference and understand why.

Said this on 2010-10-12 At 09:27 pm
The message “This website ….” means two things:

a) the Certificate Issuer PKI hierarchy is not registered at cert database of browser, and
b) The real location of files is not owned by super-user (a WebServer configuration problem).

The “scrap” message has NOTHING RELATED to EV certification.

Building PKI tree (CA Self-Signed, CA Service , Final certificate) following the RFC5280 and fixing “WebServer configuration” are enough to stop the problem.

EV certs provides other OIDs that only show WHO is responsable for that certificate (jurisdiction, real address of individual between others policy OIDs). There is “no secret” key beside this. Visit www.cabforum.org and read the EV Guide. It is free!!!. EV is not a solution, because it ALSO MAY BE FORGED as any other Certificate after visited a malicious web page with some “cracking code”. EV is a “money solution” for “Big Jangle Enterprises”.

Said this on 2011-01-10 At 11:02 am
If ownership declaration is only needed/recommended for HTTPS:// sites then why indicate for HTTP:// sites. It only makes things confusing for consumers.

“This web site does not supply ownership information.”
Oh! Should I now NOT trust this site?

One more “boon-dangle” to confuse the average Internet user!
jennie guanzon
Said this on 2011-11-26 At 08:54 pm
In reply to #18
This web site does not supply ownership information

[Most don’t. For this site it’s just not worth the effort or money to do so. I’ve got no active content to make it necessary. –DaBoss]
jennie guanzon
Said this on 2011-11-26 At 08:56 pm
In reply to #18
Thanks for the information.

Karen Cole
Said this on 2012-01-27 At 04:57 pm
I need the name of a excellent company where I can get the SSL certificate and everything so that it shows my favicon in the upper left of the URL bar and so that people can always freely visit (from absolutely everywhere) our storefront business website, rainbowriting.com .

[I don’t use one and so have no direct experience but many website hosting providers also have a certificate they can provide. One other suggestion, besides a simple Google search, would be to see what certificate providers the big players (any major site) use as you know those will be good sources but expect to pay more in all probability. –DaBoss]

Why Do I See Action Canceled When Trying to Use a Network Help File?

At times you may see “Action canceled” when trying to access content in a .CHM Windows help file. The most likely cause of this is a security patch Microsoft issued which blocks access to such content when the file is stored on a network device. This page tells how to fix this problem.

The Problem

When .CHM (HTML Help) files are stored on a network device Windows treats them as not secure after installation of on of several security updates. You might see something looking like this…

CHM File Action Canceled

The Fix

The obvious and safest fix is to move the .CHM help files onto the local computer trying to access them. There is good reason for the security patch and fixing it in other ways simply makes your system more vulnerable; if only by small amounts.

If this is not possible Microsoft describes this problem and provides a registry workaround for it in Article ID: 896054Web Link but the fix as they describe it is quite complicated for the average user. It involves directly editing the registry to specifically allow the file(s) in question to be accessed as a workaround to the security patch.

Fortunately, EC Software GmbH, makers of the excellent Help & Manual help writing tool, have posted a small program called HHReg that will make the fix for you. See this page…

http://www.ec-software.com/products_hhreg.htmlWeb Link

…for a description and the link to the latest version of their free program HHReg. Using this tool you can select specific help files or folders to add to the registry so a specific system can then access those files. This is probably the safest way to work around the security patch if you can’t install the files onto your local computer. It allows only specific items to be accessed.

In either case you should make a backup of your registry before applying any patches no matter what method you use to apply the patches. You also need to have administrator access to apply any of these patches. And, if you are on a corporate network it would be wise to advise the network administrator of the problem and fix so they are aware of the problem and at least one way to fix it corporate-wide.