MerlinTheWizard

Huh. You talk about Win2k PRO, then mention you use it as a server you can't easily restart. Win2k PRO is not meant as a server product, but a workstation one. From experience, it may not be up to the task of being left on for over a week. Memory leaks are rampant (not that there aren't any in the Server versions, there are...), plus, the mixed use of it as a workstation AND a server is calling for trouble. There are some third-party drivers (such as graphics, keyboard, etc) which are clearly not stable enough for this task.

Obviously from the screenshot, you're trying to install Windows 2003 on VMWare. Funny that no one seemed to pick up on that... I am absolutely not sure that Windows 2003 is supported by VMWare yet...

From what I got (your post was definitely not clear, to say the least), it's not that you can't install DirectX. It's just that no hardware acceleration is available. Which is most likely due to the fact that 1) either you haven't installed the proper driver for your video card or 2) you haven't set the hardware acceleration slider in the "Troubleshoot" tab in Display properties/Advanced to more than "no acceleration".

Huh. I have installed service packs on Windows NT, 2000 and now 2003 for years and never had any problem doing so. Upgrading the OS from a different OS line (NT -> 2000, 2000 -> XP, etc) might prove shaky, but installing service packs is usually definitely not. Most often, it's not that different from installing a bunch of hotfixes. If you think administrators have nothing else to do than reinstalling from scratch every time a service pack is out, you're obviously either kidding me or ignorant. Pick one.

Right here.

It's still a bit less than the full 1024 MB which is 1048576. And before SP1, the total and exact amount was shown here. The point is that SP1 *definitely* sees less total RAM, and no one knows why. If it's because of a new security feature, it's obviously something deep inside the kernel, because again, this amount of memory is the TOTAL memory detected by Windows. Obviously there are new services in SP1 and they consume more memory, but it doesn't have anything to do with the total memory, which, well, is what you have in total. I'm amazed to see that no one cares. No one is even curious to know what this (however tiny) amount of RAM is used for? I want to know!

I'm sure not many users noticed it. But there is definitely something here... Maybe it's because of some code execution security feature or something in that vein? It's just weird that I can't seem to find any information about this anywhere...

It's basically the same. I haven't encountered any problem upgrading my Win2k3-as-workstation to SP1. The only thing is to install the new patched uxtheme.dll if you're using non-MS themes, because the old one won't work. See the recent thread about this. I have noticed a small weirdness, as I said in my other thread, where Win2k3 SP1 reports less physical memory than before. Granted it's not by much, but still: I want to know what's the rationale behind this. Maybe it's used for some security feature? Can anyone using Win XP SP2 take a look to see if they have the same physical memory "issue"? Something else: for "Windows Update" to work on Win2k3 SP1, you *need* to enable the "Automatic Updates" service and the "Background Intelligent Transfer Service". If they are not started, the new Windows Update site will warn you it needs them. Even if you don't use automatic updating. That doesn't pose any problem apart from taking up a little more memory. You can still disable Automatic Updates in the corresponding control panel - but the service must be active.

I don't think you got it. I'm talking about the "Total physical memory" as reported by "System Information". It should be the total amount of RAM installed on the computer, and has always been until Win2k3 SP1. The "total physical memory" field in the "performance" tab of the task manager also shows the same decreased figure. For those who have installed SP1 on the Win2k3 box, just take a look at this. You'll see. I'm wondering what this is for...

Hi, I just noticed something with W2k3 SP1: there is less physical memory available to Windows than before upgrading to SP1. I've noticed this on 2 different computers. For instance, on my 1GB RAM machine, Windows used to report 1024 MB physical memory. After SP1, it now reports something like 1022,7 MB. What's up with that? Any clue?

Thanks easydoesit. I first checked the archive for virii (obviously, I never trust anything online, plus, you're new here... at least with this nick), and it didn't seem to have any. So I went on... And it works! So, thanks a bunch.

Well, MS has updated uxtheme.dll in such a way that the old one is probably not compatible - and since the patched version is based on the old one... now we need someone to patch the new version.

Are you using a patched uxtheme.dll? If so, I think this is the culprit. I'm having the exact same problem with Windows 2003 SP1. If not, well this would be something else...

A feature? Are you kidding? And FYI, that does it when logged as Administrator... Just try it! You won't believe it!

Hi, I ran into some weird bug on Windows 2003 that is very easy to reproduce. * Leave default security settings for some folder. That should mean "Everyone" gets the full rights to this folder, with a few exceptions, and no other user is listed except "Everyone". * Create a new folder in this folder from within explorer (context menu / New / Folder). * Do not give it a name. Leave the default name ("New Folder") and hit enter or click anywhere. You now have a "New Folder" folder. * Now try renaming it, any way you want (from within Explorer, or even from a command prompt using "rename"). * It won't work. You can't rename it. I could reproduce this bug on 3 different Windows 2003 boxes with the latest security hot fixes. Note that if you give the new folder a name right away, it works. And you can later rename it again. But if you leave the default name the first time you create it, you're screwed. I wonder if that happens for everyone else and if so, is it a bug or what could be the rationale behind it (I can't figure out any, since you can do anything with this folder, even delete it, but just not rename it...).