dencorso

Make a full back-up (preferably, at least, a partition image), then try the removal procedure. In case the removal hoses the system, all you have to do is to redeploy the image, and you're back to square one. This way there's nothing to lose. But you may have to acquire an external HDD to hold the image, in case you don't have one at hand already.

Sure. But since the Extended Support End Date for all types of Windows Server 2003 is 7/14/2015 (as opposed to far away 4/9/2019 for Windows Embedded POSReady 2009), those willing to find the way to make the spoof a reality should really hurry up, lest it ends up being useless.

With all due respect, it's more than obvious, by now, that you should fully remove IE9, as per post #11. Then check whether your issues remain with IE8, or if they're gone. If they're gone, then you might reinstall IE9 or a later version. Further troubleshooting is futile, already, IMO, except for removal / reinstallation.

What part of "help with academic material, such as assignments, is not permitted on MSFN" (Rule #2c) did you fail to understand, iinfarlina?

I have used this (PCRegedit): PCRegedit.iso It worked. ... No. Those kernels are actually hugely different, in fact, except on the most general conception principles. Very true. It's the way to go for x64, all right!

XP Pro x64 is the same codebase as Server 2003... so it's a very different (although not totally different) animal. Accordingly, my guess is adding the POSReady 2009 spoof to it ought probably totally hose the system.

My suggestion is "do create a version targetting .NET 2.0" just for test purposes, not for release or any real-world use.

Such monitors were usually sold with Silicon Graphics and Sun workstations, although I'm not sure either ever offered a 50'' one.

We cross posted, jaclaz. Anyway thanks for taking the responsibility from my shoulders and letting it rest squarely on MS's much larger shoulders.

If MagicAndre1981 solves it, great! If not, then, after you both agree there's nothing more to be tried with your current IE9 installation, do the following, from an elevated command prompt (cmd.exe). Make sure you have admin rights. This should force uninstall IE 9 and roll back to IE 8. It's my adaptation of what's done in this post. Bear in mind I've never tried it, so I cannot assert whether it actually does really work. If it works, thank jaclaz, for it was him who found that method. If it does not, you can blame me, because it was I who adapted it to IE9, and thought it might be worth a shot. As always, obviously caveat emptor (= here to backup 1st).

Do consider recompiling it with VC# 2005 instead (if at all possible), because that would reduce the .NET framework version required to 2.0, making it much lighter. The Visual C# 2005 Express Edition ISO continues to be available for free from MS, although they don't advertise it. If .NET is to blame, then we're speaking of a situation where lighting the application should make a big difference, and when thinking about lighting a .NET application, VC# 2005 is perhaps the best option in what regards the funcionality to overall size ratio. Than again, if this experiment results in no perceptible difference, then the problem must lie elsewhere.

About 4 months ago I bought a pair of WD2002FAEX and then, 3 months ago, one further WD1502FAEX, all of them 512-bytes sectored WD Blacks. And eBay has just given me 70 hits for WD2002FAEX... Look for WDnnnnFAEX for the latest non-AF WD Blacks. WD Caviar Black (512 or AF) 2011-13.7z

Using advanced format hard drives with windows XP (even if POSReady 2009) is asking for trouble, IMO. And there's still plenty 512-bytes sectored HDDs around for one to select from, so that there's not any real need to do it yet, either.

Doesn't the Wayback Machine help any with it?

Scan for malware. If you don't find any, remove the security update and see whether it fixes the issue. In any case post the result and we can go on from there, OK?

FWIW: 7-zip always works. Older updates contain the files. Newer ones contain just deltas, because they're "Intra-Package Deltas-Aware Packages" (see KB828030) and 7-zip duly extracts those deltas. It does not know, however, how to create the files from the deltas. That's why one has to extract them the MS way: it's not just compression... delta creation must be reversed, too.

Windows K? XP? Really? Cool!

For one who works with words, you surprise me: you ask for plain straightforward answers, which cannot be given most of the time. But I'm happy you remain around. And I think, by now, the questions you originally asked have been answered by the facts, as you can see in many newer threads. And no, nobody ever flamed you out of here. You're just too sensitive to criticism. And you're not alone, unfortunately. Did you perchance observe that no one (the OP included) in this thread, but you, got incensed by any post on the thread? BTW, you took my rolling emoticon out of context: it belonged exclusively to the remark about magical thinking.

The OP's transverse question seems to me to be equivalent to your unasked question #3, and both seem to me to be improperly phrased, because both the adoption of WES 2009, or the spoofing of it, will, at most, accomplish the OS continuing to be patched... but neither can possibly keep *"them"* getting patched!!! However, everybody here (me included) seems to have concluded that the OP really-really meant "the best way to having the OS continue to be patched", so that, if so, question #3 has actually been asked. The answer to #1 is: by creating a full -- known to be good -- backup before every patch Tuesday, so that if anything goes wrong, recovery ought to be easy. And the identification of the problem patch almost as easy. ... Then again, simply by having the backups might actually prevent problems (magically, of course!) because Murphy's law implies that wherever recovery is easy and painless, problems won't ever actually occur!!!

The wise human being knows to not ask more questions than those he/she really needs to know the answers for...

When you 1st posted your question, monroe, I had no answer for it, because I hadn't, then, yet tested the newer Flash version. But, now, I've already tested it (and actually remain using it), so I can tell you confidently I see no reason at all to avoid updating to Flash Player 14.0.0.125. You're quite right, Flash Player 13.0.0.223, the Extended Support Release, also exists and it *is* an altenative, to be used were there any reason not to upgrade... but it's not actually needed at this time, IMO.

Then, afterwards, do please read this post and this other post, too.

Yes!!! Thank you very much, MagicAndre1981! You do rock! You really do!