Mordac85

Try running bootvis to trace your boot process to see where the bottleneck is and go from there.

Sounds like a share permissions problem. Does the share work w/o using the rootdfs path?

imho Lotus is just as cumbersome to manage as Exchange.

You should be able to use either the IP, FQDN or the NetBios name of the system when connecting. Since you are getting a message stating there is another system w/that name on the network you might want to review your DNS records (or WINS if you're running that) for inconsistencies. If you don't find anything there, maybe scan your network w/the target system shut down and see if there is a device reporting itself as the target system.

You can also use Petter Nordahl-Hagen's Offline NT Password Editor to set the admin password to a blank (safest). Then login and reset it to whatever you want.

Did you check permissions on WorkOne or possibly remove and re-add it to the domain?

Using the $OEM$ is probably the easier way to administer your file over time too.

Have you checked the Event logs, or any logs used by your applications, to see if there are any entries from the aborting application(s)?

Yzöwl has some good points to consider. 1. Depending on how much you want to spend on the router, it won't be an entire solution, but a good start at limiting the kind of traffic you allow. 2. This was my point from the beginning. You need to understand what's going on behind the scenes. 3. Firewalls, like routers, are not a panacea. If you don't know what they're doing and open them up too much, they just give you a flase sense of security. 4. IE, or something else, either way it's going to be a potential vulnerability and needs to be configured, just as the OS, to minimize your exposure. Since you're connecting to the outside world there is always going to be some risk. How to protect your setup best is what you need to figure out. Just blindly clicking a button is never a good security solution and some of the security reg hacks available give you a way to tweak the system even more than the UI allows.

Sorry, I've never heard of anything like that. I'm not sure MS is even able to do an entire line highlight like that. It would be handy in some instances tho...

The EX_ in the i386 is the compressed copy of the exe. The Selective Startup, I believe, is checked automatically if you alter the startup. For things you want to permenantly remove, you may want to track down the registry entry that they are stored in, usually HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run, and delete them.

There should be an icon under Programs \ Accessories called 'Command Prompt' which is the same as running cmd. As for the Trend issue, you may want to check the event logs and Trend's KB. If you don't have a constant internet connection it could be as simple as it can't find Trend's update server when it starts.

Yes, I guess i didn't finish that thought. But it seems you read my mind despite that. If you can't trust the tool to do the job, you might as well do it yourself. I'm not advocating a 24x7 ultra-paranoid position on security, but I wouldn't recommend preben just throw some reg hacks in to secure his system without understanding what's going on. I'm just trying to advocate a more than token gesture at security, to actually understand why you want to change that registry value. The Orange book is definately overkill and trying to protect against a 0-day exploit is unnecessary for most of us, but if you understand what's being changed you can easily decide if it's worth implementing on your system. Let's say you don't understand why you'd want to use only NTLMv2 and just set it b/c a security guide said so. Depending on your particular situation, it could cause you more grief in the long run. I'll be the first to agree that security can be a time comsuming task, lead to excessive measures (i.e. paranoia) and I agree whole-heartedly that we shouldn't take it too seriously (right? my French is a little rusty). And the major security sites like CERT are still a good place to help keep up to date of the major issues that affect more than just the OS.

Delprat has his point. If you truly want to secure your box you need to know what is being fixed, why it needs it and how it's done. Never trust an app or GUI to do the work for you unless you. There are countless holes, but it really depends on what you need to do as to whether it's a "hole" or a "feature". I'd also recommend starting with Technet's Security Guide and advisories listed at CERT to get a feel for the major security problems in Windows. Also, don't forget any possible vulnerabilities in the non-Microsoft apps you have installed. They can end up being a larger hole than the underlying OS. Once you get a good feel for the basics of Windows security, it's not a tough job to secure your system.

FWIW, if the partitions are on the same physical drive I don't see where seperate partitions necessarily provide much "safety" for a Windows install. If you're going to be dual booting, why not just use grub or lilo to point to your Windows partition and set up an EXT2/FAT32/whatever data partition? IMHO, multiple partitions makes more sense in linux where you can choose to mount them, not necessarily the same benefit is seen in Windows tho.

If they've been disabled you can re-enable them like so: REG Add HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\LanManServer\Parameters /v AutoShareServer /t REG_DWORD /d 1 But it will require a reboot to pick up the change.

Actually, clearing the MRU is only good until you do something else and Windows will re-create the MRU list. Now depending on how bad you hate seeing the list you could set a policy to clear your recent files on exit. You can review Microsoft's write up on the policy here to be sure that's what you want b/c it also clears typed URL's as well (which are different than visited URL's stored in index.dat). Key: HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Policies\Explorer Name: ClearRecentDocsOnExit Type: REG_DWORD Value: (0 = disable, 1 = enable) Otherwise you can just do so manually, like DSX described, from a script when the mood strikes you.

For the SideBySide stuff, I found this at EventID.net Event 32 Source SideBySide Event 59 Source SideBySide For the disk issue it could just be the amount of RAM and how you have the system configured. The Browser errors I've seen when the master is multi-homed or running some kind of VPN connection.

Can you be a little more specific? I don't know what URL's or what "run file" you're referring to. Maybe a path or sample of the file contents?

You can also disconnect all other non-essential peripherals (floppy, CD, mouse, any USB stuff, etc). Plus, have you tried running in Safe mode to see if it hangs there or is there some way to make it hang so you can duplicate it or narrow it down to an application or service? Maybe try disabling any apps/services one at a time to see if it's the offender? Remember not to change too much at once so you can keep track of what works and what doesn't.

In some instances I've been able to remote into the box w/RDP or Dameware and finish the install. Thankfully, we haven't been hit by that 'patch' yet, but I'd also like to know what the cause is before it does pop up. If you're in a corporate environment, do you use nLite to customize your installs?

That's why the Ghosting of a partition works for you. I was just stating for anyone else that may be reading this thread that if you Ghost a partition to a partition the MBR is not copied and while the data may be there, it will not be bootable until you do something extra to make it so. For imaging a system this process, while complicated, gets the job done. However as a generic method to install XP I'd stick w/LoveLiteXP's method of a cusotmized unattended install. Considering chee's original question I think we've covered it. He can either A. use an image and live w/in the HAL constraints, or B. create a customized unattended install.

By Ghosting only the partition, the MBR will not be transferred and the target partition will not boot. Also, this method could only work if the HAL on both systems are compatible.

Glad to hear you're making progress. I haven't run across a SATA drive that I needed a driver for yet. Maybe it's just dumb luck, but I'll take it. One less problem to worry about.

So I gather everything works fine for you using a std IDE/ATA drive? If you're having problems w/just the SATA drives you probably need to modify your install sources to include the necessary SATA drivers. Sounds like you need to check out the Unattended Guide's info on RAID/SATA drivers and add them in. Sorry, but I don't know of any generic drivers for SATA.