Ascii2

The question is not rhetorical, but there is no technical problem. I do however want to know what the tweak specified in KB247951 actually does. If I were to include the tweak with my main Windows distributions, I should be sure as to its function.

This post is an error. Please refer to the preceding post.

Those that do not need neen not have anything in common; however, those that do work may requie something or a condition true from a set of things to be common. I believe that at least a single Windows registry hive information may be adjusted to allow the compatibility for the booltoader, but what exactly I am unsure (I would guess something from the SYSTEM or SYSTEM.alt hive). The fist phase of Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 (maybe NT4 also) setup is known as Textmode. During Textmode, options to partition may be available, setup files are copied to system directory, and the End User Licence agreement may be accepted. The text mode is mostly blue in color and is composed entirely of ASCII or extended ASCII characters.You should complete Windows XP Textmode part of Windows setup. Once completed the Windows XP boot files should be used; the rest of setup (Windows GUI-like setup) need not be run.

Thanks.

Although, motherboard may support greater transfer rate, a device may not. If a device's maximum DMA transfer rate were UDMA66, then the UDMA66 Windows driver support would allow the device to use its maximum transfer rate. Currently no; my devices' maximum transfer rates are either lesser than or greater than UDMA66. My thinking is as follows: for a device to transfer at a select transfer mode, it must have the mode enabled and all other dependencies (chipset, drivers, BIOS, etc.) must have the mode enabled also.If what you believe "enabled" refers to is equivalent to what the writer of the last sentence of the KB247951 article believed to be its meaning, then the language of the sentence does not restrict DMA transfer modes greater than UDMA66 on Intel chipsets.

A "NoCDBurning" value may be used in Windows XP to disable Windows XP CD-R(W)/DVD-R(W) burning. To disable burning globally, many Internet sources, including MSFN.org forums, indicate that the value should exist at: [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Policies\Explorer] To disable burning globally, Microsoft TechNet Library indicates ( http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc738513.aspx ) the value NoCDBurning should exist at: HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Policies\NetworkWhich would be equivalent to: [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Policies\Network] Notice that the keys where NoCDBurning is to be written differ. Which key should NoCDBurning be written to disable disc burning in Windows XP? Should both keys work?

I have tested using boot files from Windows XP Professional with Service Pack 1 (the Windows XP version that most closely resembles Windows 2000 Professional with Service Pack 4) on Windows 2000 Professional with Service Pack 4 on computers of many hardware configurations (different hard disks, motherboards, BIOS, hard disk interfaces, etc.). All computers used C: as the system partition and were configured in boot.ini using the Multi method. The result was that most (roughly 75%) computers running Windows 2000 Professional with Service Pack 4 were able to boot using Windows XP boot files; others were not. In conclusion, the Windows XP boot files are not able to boot Windows 2000 on any hardware/BIOS configuration by simply replacing the boot files manually (therefore the files themselves are not fully compatible). It may be possible (untested) to use Windows setup or recovery console to write boot files, or make necessary adjustment to other related files so Windows 2000 operation system may be boot with Windows XP boot files. @Dave-H: It may be possible to still get Windows XP boot files to work on your computer if Windows XP setup is run and completed through Textmode. After that the Windows installation need not continue. Windows 2000 may be boot, boot.ini may be edited to remove the information for Windows XP and set another Windows version for default, and Windows XP System directory may be deleted. You should then have Windows 2000 Professional booting with Windows XP boot files.

For higher transfer rate, the motherboard and the device have to be "higher" than UDMA66 of course. If that was your question. The language of the Microsoft statement quoted earlier seemed to indicate that all devices capable of using Ultra DMA transfer rates UDMA66 or greater would use UDMA66 transfer mode on Intel chipsets with the EnableUDMA66 value set. To have the question fully understood, I shall rephrase. Consider the following conditions for the question: An Intel Chipset supporting DMA transfer rates greater than UDMA66 is used. A device supporting DMA transfer rates greater than UDMA66 exists on an IDE channel. Intel Chipset drivers are not used (Microsoft drivers would be used and automatically installed). The EnableUDMA66 value is set to "1" (enabled). Would the device on the IDE channel transfer at a transfer rate greater than UDMA66 or be limited to a UDMA transfer rate?

Microsoft Knowledgebase article 247951 ( http://support.microsoft.com/kb/247951 ) specifies a tweak for Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 to enable support for UDMA66 on Intel Chipsets on Intel chipsets. The last sentence of the article states: Is the sentence accurate? If devices on Intel chipsets with the tweak applied support transfer rates greater than UDMA66, would the devices be throttled to UDMA66? EDIT: A rephrasing of the question for clarification: The language of the Microsoft statement quoted earlier seemed to indicate that all devices capable of using Ultra DMA transfer rates UDMA66 or greater would use UDMA66 transfer mode on Intel chipsets with the EnableUDMA66 value set. Consider the following conditions for the question that will follow: An Intel Chipset supporting DMA transfer rates greater than UDMA66 is used. A device supporting DMA transfer rates greater than UDMA66 exists on an IDE channel. Intel Chipset drivers are not used (Microsoft drivers would be used and automatically installed). The EnableUDMA66 value is set to "1" (enabled). Would the device on the IDE channel transfer at a transfer rate greater than UDMA66 or be limited to a UDMA transfer rate?

Understood. Thanks.

I realize that mass storage drivers are necessary for Windows setup to detect a mass storage device. I had thought that a mass storage driver contains information on how to read and write data to a mass storage device, not merely just provide information on how to access the device. If what I thought is the case, then it would be possible that partitions created by Windows setup could be different than those created by another partitioning utility with the same partitioning ability (the difference would be due to drivers selecting where to write to disk differently).

Perhaps my question was not correctly understood. A typo existed (word "and" was missing). The typo has been corrected and the question has been further adjusted for clarity. I want to know if formatting a drive that would require special mass storage drivers in Windows 2000/XP Textmode setup could occur before running Windows setup without have problems with the setup of Windows.

When special mass storage drivers are used during Textmode of Windows 2000/XP setup (either integrated into setup or by using "F6" key) and an NTFS partition is to be created, must the partition be created by Windows setup or may it be created by a third party partitioning tool (like Kroll Ontrack Disk Manager 10.46) prior to Windows setup and have Windows correctly install?

I remember trying earlier versions of Microsoft's DST fix for Windows 2000 Professional with Service Pack 4 and and Windows XP Professional with Service Pack 1; they did not work correctly. The solution seemed to be (and may still seem to be) to use AXCEL216's Unofficial DST fix.

Althoght the time zone fixes have been greatly advertised as fixes for Daylight Saving Time, the fixes change information for more than the zones that use Daylight Saving Time. The fixes are general OS time zone fixes.

Thank you geek. I tried using the .ART samples at http://samples.mplayerhq.hu/image-samples/ART/ , but did not arrive at the desired result. I had applied "AOL Image Support Update for Windows 2000" patch from http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb727075.aspx and attempted to read AOL ART images using Internet Explorer 6 with Service Pack 1. The ART images were not able to be read. I tried to find out why and noticed KB918439 ( http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/...n/ms06-022.mspx ). The KB918439 patch resolves problem for which a remote code execution may occur with handling of AOL ART images by Internet Explorer (not in the image files themselves). The "fix" for the problem was to break (not remove, the files to decode the images are still installed) AOL ART image support instead of fixing the Internet Explorer handling. I had the KB918439 patch applied.

Synncronization I recently have been customizing an unattended installation source for Windows XP Professional with Service Pack 1. Using a different time zone, I also encountered the problem of time being one hour off when synchronizing with a time server. I made the following .reg file (encoded in Unicode) to disable synchronization with time server: Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00 ; This change disables Windows Time Synchronization with a server ; This tweak does not disable the Windows Time Service [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\W32Time\Parameters] "Type"="NoSync" I did find a fix that, once applied, give correct time with time server synchronization: "Unofficial DST Revised Update for Windows 2000 SP4/XP/XP SP1/XP SP1a" from http://www.mdgx.com/add.htm#TZU (AXCEL216 website) could correct the problem. The package uses /Q for quiet installation (also /R:N may be used as a no reboot switch, but I do not believe the package ever invokes a reboot).

The only reason I can think of is to be able to run commands or installations early in Windows GUI setup for which prior components must already exist for the installations or commands to be sucessfull (like installing something dependent on network components); the components may already exist from a previous loop. Conditional statements would have to be used to not remain indefinately looping.

I am trying to find an AOL ART compressed image (has a .art extension) to test an update patch. I cannot (after much googleing) find one. Where can an AOL ART compressed image be found?

That seems fortunate. Have registry settings been applied (disabling tabbed browsing, perhaps)?

Thanks. That is what I thought.

With operating systems prior to Windows XP family (such as Windows 2000 family), selecting a range of icons on the Desktop could be done by holding the [shift] key and using the arrows to select the desired area of icons. With Windows XP, the behavior for the desktop changed. When [shift] + Arrows are used to select icons, icons outside of the range of icons traversed, are selected. How can the classic Desktop selection behavior by made to occur for the Windows XP Desktop?

Try setting "UnattendSwitch" in [unattended] section to "No" instead of "Yes". When an answer exists to skip something in Windows 2000 setup, setup continues skiping what was meant to be skipped, but still applies parameters specified in the answer file for the skipped section. Perhaps the Windows XP setup differs with this respect; it may skip sections but not apply the skipped sections' answer (could also be a bug).

Windows 2000 does indeed support RunnOnceEx; I can verify this to be true.The original poster should rename his RunOnceEx.cmd to something that follows the 8.3 short filename format (like "logon.cmd"); add REG.EXE from DEPLOY.CAB to the $OEM$ directory; and, either remove the "\" "from SET PP=%cdrom%\", or proceeding the %cdrom% variable in his script with exception to the definition of the variable. After those modifications, RunOnceEx should run. EDIT: Also on the line: REG ADD %KEY%\200 /V 1 /D "\"%systemdrive%\Program Files\WinZip\winzip32.exe \" /noqp /autoinstall" /fAn extra space seems to exist after winzip32.exe (although this may not be a problem).

The installer fix does not seem to be available.Please make the installer available.