Glenn9999

Actually, UNION is where your problem is at. UNION takes similar result sets from all statements, links them together, and removes duplicates. The conditional you gave does not apply to the first two result sets, so all data are returned. Assuming the intent of this statement matches your requirements, provide the conditional to all three result sets.

Yes 5512.

Windows XP SP3 will be released on April 29th on Windows Update and the Microsoft Download Center. Source

FWIW, I don't have SB16 config lines, but I have the SB64 Awe's lines still in my DOS CD...might be worth it to check against - most of the card initialization remained the same: CONFIG.SYS DEVICE=A:\CTSB16.SYS /UNIT=0 /BLASTER=A:220 I:5 D:1 H:5 DEVICE=A:\CTMMSYS.SYS AUTOEXEC.BAT SET BLASTER=A220 I7 D1 H5 P330 T6 SET SOUND=C:\SB16 SET MIDI=SYNTH:1 MAP:E CTCM AWEUTIL /S MIXERSET /P /Q SBRESET Don't get too hung up on SET BLASTER, since it is primarily there for backwards compatibility from the ISA days.

I got something going on with a DVD player (non-computer related electronics). On certain disks, it locks up or stutters. I checked the disk and the player both and they're as clean as far as I can tell. But what's confusing me is that it's only on certain disks. Is this a sign the player's biting the dust or is it just old and not working on certain newer disks? (asking this here in case someone might know something to try for certain)

Here's a new revision of this screen saver... Changes: 0.2: Fixed defaults for screen saver name for Windows ME - maybe other 9X systems? 0.2: Wrote check so screen saver will not run & warn of problems if someone tries to run it as a logon screen saver. Windows, as far as I'm aware from my testing, does not allow the application permissions necessary to do any of the configured actions beyond "log off" and "black screen". This makes it effectively useless in function under Win Logon. 0.2: Added option to turn off the monitor as a screen saver action.

It stops working after a certain date. And for SP3 I believe the betas/release candidates expire on June 30, 2008.

Obviously that is only an estimate, and very often, estimates are often wrong. That one is indeed wrong. The last estimate I read from third-party sources was "by the end of April", but Microsoft's last uttering is "end of 2Q 2008". Much depends on Microsoft, but like I've typed in this forum before, I'd rather them take their time and get it right than to throw it out there to numerous problems like Vista SP1. Especially true given they've thrown XP by the side of the road in their development plans and this will be the last SP. The SP3 public RC2 refresh 5508 seems to be running pretty well, though (better than SP2 in a few things), and from what I'm reading they seem to be very close to having a releasable product. So "end of April" seems like a good guess from my perspective.

I see what you mean, and I could do this. In fact, I already made a screensaver which has this function (turn off the monitor). Integrating it into the main app hopefully won't be too hard.

No. the limitations I mentioned apply to all programs run under SYSTEM and not just the screen saver. I can especially confirm it by looking at the source and seeing that this program requires the same access permissions as mine does to perform a shutdown.

It seems to me, unless I'm missing something (and I've been known to do that from time to time), that the screen saver would not be possible under WinLogon. The necessary permissions are not in the main super-user account (the NT kernel's version of Root in Linux - SYSTEM), which runs when the system is booted up. It seems I can't find a way to add those permissions, either (programmatically or through registry). The program could probably (again my guess) impersonate a logged on user to do it through the shutdown app, but it would need to prompt for a user account and (if necessary) password for that to happen - not sure that's too wise from a security standpoint. I can understand the limitations, though, since it is the super-user account and would effectively bypass all authorizations and security if were possible to add privileges (the malware author's dream). But the odd thing about it is this: NT doesn't stop you from setting SCRNSAVE.EXE in this case to whatever you would like that would run. Perhaps the most ludicrous and silly/stupid thing you could do is set it to EXPLORER.EXE and get a fully working login session (with limits of course, most notable being the only thing you could do is "switch user". You can't log off, shutdown, restart the system, etc, etc. - it's effectively an account with no privileges beyond exactly what's required to run MSGINA). Interesting stuff, anyhow...

I'm not sure I understand. The idea is more for to do something with the system so the power requirements will be eliminated/reduced if it is left for a certain period of time unattended. I know many people/places where the computer tends to be left on - the screen saver is an ideal enough solution to do whatever it is. I started out with shutdown, and moved to all the other options. As far as sending the monitor to standby, is that functionality already not in the Power Options? However, this program will send the whole system to standby in the time period if you were to set it. If there is a concern of the screen saver even running, I guess you could always set it to one minute - you would mainly see the countdown screen that aceuk posted. (and yes I know the Black Screen option does not turn the monitor off, but as you saw in this thread, it was a requested feature) Not a problem, thank you for checking into it. That confirmed the problem for me.

Nevermind...I figured it out.

Completely understood and that's what I'm trying to change. And I'm seeing those setting changes when it comes to the Timeout value when I change it (I have it set to 15 seconds now and it works perfectly but with LOGON.SCR), but not for SCRNSAVE.EXE. I should add that Doug Knox's Tool to do the same thing (which actually follows the same process as I linked to), does not work as well. Anyway, what does the default user profile have to do with changing the screen saver on the logon screen?

As per the other thread, I'm trying to change my default screen saver. I'm applying the process found here, and the change is shown within regedit, but the change does not seem to take effect within the system (I still get logon.scr). Oddly enough, I can change the screen saver timeout just fine and the change will be reflected. I figured out that Comodo Defense+ was protecting the relevant key, so I removed that. The only other possibility I could think of was that either there was a registry protection similar to the file protection on certain deemed "critical" keys, or maybe Windows Defender is causing the setting to "hold" to the old one. So any ideas on what's going on on this one?

What I was asking was whether it worked for not if you set the "action" in the configuration to "Black Screen" instead of "Shutdown"... Hopefully I can look into this and a couple of other things very soon.

It would seem when no one is logged in (i.e. as a default screen saver), there is no assigned right for a running program to shut down the system. To shut down a system via software, you have to have the assigned rights as a user to be able to do it. The program assigns those rights before it shuts down. But since there is no user right to assign (i.e. no user to assign those rights to), you see the message you are seeing. See the Microsoft Page on this error for more details. Does it work without problem if you were to set the action to black screen (just to clarify that I'm on the right track)? (I'll look into fixing this for the next revision)

I just downloaded CFP 3.0.18.309 without any trouble? 32-bit XP Vista 64-bit XP Vista

Did you read the question? While these options are good in getting a PDF file from another file, they are not good options in taking a series of documents from a scanner and outputting them in sequence so they may be reprinted with your suggestions in a reasonably similar form.

For what is before me, I'm posed with the question of how to produce PDFs from scanned documents that look half-decent. I'm wondering, if it'd work well to scan to image, then import it into a word processor, stretch it out to full page size with 0" margins set, and then export it all to PDF using something like PDF Creator. Or is there another way to approach it? Does anyone have experience in doing this? What works and doesn't work? (Yes I know there are specific softwares to do this, but I'm not looking to pay through the nose to get this done either)

A scheduled task would be what you would want. The question that remains is how, and to that end you would need to identify the main OS in question. Very easy if it's XP (and probably Vista) - look into the shutdown command. You could try something like: C:\> at 18:00 /interactive /every:M,T,W,Th,F,S,Su c:\windows\shutdown.exe -i -l 600 -m “It is way past the time you should be at home. Come back tomorrow.” Documentation: AT SchTasks - more proper for XP perhaps Shutdown

A few things to remember about inkjet printers: 1) Most companies that sell them operate under the Gillette model. Basically sell the printer at a loss and charge a premium for the ink cartridges. Consequently, they have a vested interest in making you go through ink cartridges as quickly as possible, too, and not buy generics or refill. You will see these printer companies suing the makers of the third-party generics for claimed patent infringements. Hence, you get things like these monitors on printers which tell you when a inkjet cartridge is out or not, which is what you are encountering. (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060501/1145244.shtml ) The problem with them, though, is that they will go off long before the ink is truly out, and will go off on even one color being gone (the multi-color cartridge is a great racket for that, too, I've seen many of those that were "empty" that had only one color gone and the rest full) and stop printing. This is pretty much universal. For example, on this inkjet printer sitting here (Canon S600), I can "replace" a cartridge with itself 3 or 4 times before it will truly be out, and can even print when it is out (though with poor results). You might be able to do this with yours if you still see ink in the cartridge (YMMV of course on newer things, since I'm sure they want to lock down their racket). My previous printer (HP 540) was the same way. In other words, don't believe the software monitor. 2) Another function of this mess in #1 is that they will run an abominably excessive amount of ink through for no particular reason (i.e. waste it). If you take an inkjet printer apart (I did with the 540 to try to clean the head), you will find a rather large sponge that will be soaking in ink. This is how a inkjet printer cleans itself, both on the cycle before it begins and when you select a "cleaning" option. The best thing with this Canon S600 that attracted me to it was the removable cart (along with the single color carts) - I clean the heads myself and get them cleaner than the printer would by wasting ink. The added benefit is that you can get to the heads to clean them without a service call or replacing the printer or doing what I did with the HP 540. I figure half (or more) of any ink that is in a ink cartridge is wasted. Refrain from using the clean option and clean the heads yourself when it is needed. 3) Another thing that contributes to waste of ink is the color setting options for black print. Most printers will typically use ALL your ink colors when it prints black, unless the setting is made to not do that (assuming you are lucky enough to have a printer that even has that setting). And the setting won't "stick" when you make it. Check if there is a "use only black ink" setting when you print and turn it off each time. Or if you buy a new printer, try to check into this issue But overall... Because the detection software decided that one of your ink cartridges was out. Yes (assuming it has even run out), and no it won't work without one of the colors because they want you to run right out and buy a new cartridge ASAP. The moral of the story, as it is with any capitalist enterprise...anything to get...

Noises are hard to explain, aren't they? The first thought I had when I started hearing the noise was that there was a power wire touching the fan blades. Wasn't a metallic sound, either, so nothing structural. By "had the case off" I meant removing the side panels. Putting my ear up close to everything was how I singled out this particular fan. But especially since 1) the noise happened and 2) It went away after tinkering with this fan's settings, I'm wondering how to explain the noise in the first place and if it represents a problem.

I had a 120mm case fan that was rattling (making noises). I tried moving wires out of the way of it, that didn't work and finally figured out that there was a possible airflow issue (the noise would stop when I had the case off). I switched the fan to low from medium and the noise went away, with the case on. Is that the likely explanation (not enough air coming in, too much coming out), or is this fan on the way to biting the dust? The 120mm fan blows air out the back, I have a 80mm case fan in the front, along with the power supply fans and the CPU fan. System is relatively clean.

It's important to remember, especially with the case of Microsoft, that they can't win for trying in the court of public opinion. In this case: 1) People were complaining that IE wouldn't render "standard" (whatever that means at the moment). Especially remember that IE5/6 wasn't particularly standards-oriented, and in fact marched a tune to MS-HTML, so most sites were developed for MS-HTML, and these people started complaining. 2) IE changed to be "standard-compliant" and therefore broke said sites in #1. People complain incessantly again. Of course, the thing to remember about standards, is that they're great if they're set in stone for a long time, but the web standards are so fluid and changing that they're almost nonsensical to try to push too hard on. You can even see the reactions of the fanbois of the other browsers..."IE 8 renders to Acid2, great, but what about Acid3?" There's always going to be a problem. People will always complain about something. Either it doesn't meet standards, it breaks pages, or something else. Especially Microsoft, because of what it is (mind you Firefox and Opera have much worse problems, but they get free passes).