PsiMoon314
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by PsiMoon314
-
-
Hi,
Just a couple of thoughts on this, and I am prepared to be wrong here:
1. Does the /INTEGRATE option really work for KB960680-v2?
Many other updates have broken /INTEGRATE functionality so I would not be surprised to see it was broken here also. If you do a clean OS install and then install KB960680-v2 does it work correctly?
2. Are you looking in HKEY_USERS\.Default ?
If so then that is not the Default Users Hive. See here for more information:
http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/...02/1786493.aspx
Kind Regards
Simon
0 -
Hi,
The Sysinternals PageDefrag package will defrag the Pagefile, Hibernate file and various registry hive files at the next reboot after running, similar to the way that CHKDSK (or AUTOCHK) will run before Windows is loaded.
This tool will try to ensure that all parts of those file are contiguous, however it does not tackle the $MFT or other meta-files.
Kind Regards
Simon
0 -
Hi,
You might want to look at the HDDErase package which uses the drives internal Secure Erase or Enhanced Secure Erase commands to wipe the drive:
http://cmrr.ucsd.edu/people/Hughes/SecureErase.shtml
This has the advantage of also clearing the data from reserved parts of the drive not accessible in any other way.
Kind Regards
Simon
0 -
Hi,
Any major update such as installing a Service Pack is likely to cause fragmentation of your registry and other system files.
Use of a good defragmentation package and the SysInternals PageDefrag tool should help to put things back into proper order.
Kind Regards
Simon
0 -
Hi,
"but the instant I try and tell them they need to buy something that they think theyve already paid for, I become the bad guy."If they are not prepared to understand that they have been ripped off with a pirated copy of Windows then leave them to it and they can talk to someone else to get the same answer. Give them the contact number for Microsoft in your area and they can discuss it with them.
The options for anyone who comes to me with a pirated copy of Windows are to are take the PC away or get the OS licence updated by what ever means are needed upto and including a licence purchase.
Any retailers who sell pirated Windows installations in my area on their PC's are reported to Microsoft. Strangely most of them have either moved on or are no longer in business.
Kind Regards
Simon
0 -
Hi,
As far as I know the option to skip the product key during XP SP3 installation is only available to Retail versions of the OS, not OEM ones. Most installs use OEM versions of XP, not retail ones.
I specify a "dummy" but valid key in the WINNT.SIF file and then change this prior to activation. You can change the product key used for activation via the XP Activation Wizard.
I also use a dummy Name and Organisation and then change this in the registry once the OS is installed.
In this way XP will install unattended and then need only minimal changes once installed.
Kind Regards
Simon
0 -
Hi,
The following reg tweaks will add a new menu to the Control Panel -> Folder Options -> View menu:
Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\Advanced\Folder\InternetExplorerOnDesktop]
"RegPath"="Software\\Microsoft\\Windows\\CurrentVersion\\Explorer\\HideDesktopIcons\\NewStartPanel"
"Text"="Show Internet Explorer icon on the desktop"
"Type"="checkbox"
"ValueName"="{871C5380-42A0-1069-A2EA-08002B30309D}"
"CheckedValue"=dword:00000000
"UncheckedValue"=dword:00000001
"DefaultValue"=dword:00000000
"HKeyRoot"=dword:80000001
[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\HideDesktopIcons]
[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\HideDesktopIcons\ClassicStartMenu]
"{871C5380-42A0-1069-A2EA-08002B30309D}"=dword:00000000
[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\HideDesktopIcons\NewStartPanel]
"{871C5380-42A0-1069-A2EA-08002B30309D}"=dword:00000000Once applied you should then have two new options, under a new Internet Explorer section at the bottom of the above mentioned menu.
Hope this helps
Kind Regards
Simon
0 -
Hi,
Even if you had the origional Packard Bell Installation or Recovery CD/DVD's for Windows you may still find it fails to install.
Packard Bell PC's often use a technique called "Tattoing" to mark the hard drive with special additional information to ensure you cannot install a Packard Bell version of Windows onto another PC.
If you replace the hard drive with a new one (because the old one failed for example) the Packard Bell Installation or Recovery CD/DVD may not work without the tattoing in place on the new drive. Packard Bell is often reluctant to release information on how to tattoo a new hard drive; however a Google search may find useful information on this.
Personally I would source a set of generic Windows XP MCE 2005 install disks and use the licence key on the product sticker to get this PC up and running again.
Kind Regards
Simon
0 -
0
-
Hi Jatinder,
After checking BIOS settings (although I doubt there will be any USB settings there) you might want to uninstall all USB hubs and ports from Windows Device Manager.
To do this Right Click on My Computer, Select Manage and in Computer Management select Device Manager.
In the USB section near the bottom you will have three or more entries for USB Hubs and similar USB items.
Uninstall all of them and then reboot the PC. Once Windows restarts then this should force the Plug and Play process to re-detect your USB hardware and rebuild the list of hubs and adapters.
This may fix the speed issue you reported.
Kind Regards
0 -
Hi,
Creation of the "Owner" account seems to be automatic on Windows XP Home.
With Windows XP Professional you can logon to the Administrator account which is not permitted on Windows XP Home (except in Safe Mode).
I suspect that the post install process for XP Home simply creates this account for you as a starting point.
You can use Control Panel -> User Accounts to create another logon which is more suited to your needs or perhaps a script could be used.
Kind Regards
Simon
0 -
Hi,
Well to quote myself,
Is there a reason why using SVCPACK.INF would prevent Windows XP Home OEM SP3 from creating a default user name at first logon?The answer seems to be something to do with the .NET 1.1 installation or it's updates.
Following a lot of testing when these are commented in the SVCPACK.INF file, Windows XP Home OEM SP3 now installs correctly and the default "Owner" account is created.
Clearly something about this way of installing .NET 1.1 is not 100% working with Windows XP Home OEM.
Kind Regards
Simon
P.S. KB947864 does not install correctly for me either. QFECHECK reports incorrect versions for various files. It would appear that this install method will not work via SVCPACK.INF.
0 -
Hi,
Is there a reason why using SVCPACK.INF would prevent Windows XP Home OEM SP3 from creating a default user name at first logon?
The "Administrator" account is created however you cannot logon to this account in normal mode in Windows XP Home.
This means that the XP Home logon screen is blank and there is no account available to select to logon to the PC.
The usual "Owner" account which XP Home OEM creates when I do not use SVCPACK.INF is not being automatically created.
Anyone have experience of this and can point me to a solution?
Kind Regards
Simon
0 -
Hi,
I have been building a testing XP Home OEM SP3 integration with an unattended install I can cannot get the install to skip asking for the product key.
I have tried using both no ProductKey entry and ProductKey= which is blank in WINNT.SIF and in both cases the SP3 unattended install always asks for a key during installation.
How do you get an unattended install to skip asking for a Product Key?
I am building on Windows XP and not Vista.
Kind Regards
Simon
0 -
Hi,
I believe that Windows itself will append "\386" automatically to:
HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Setup\SourcePath
when installing items after install so this might also be an issue for you.
Kind Regards
Simon
0 -
Hi,
The files you attached are not an MS update; but an AMD Driver for Power Management and quite an old one if the version numbers are accurate.
A later version of this and other AMD related software and drivers can be downloaded via:
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/Techni...182_871,00.html
If you have an AMD Processor which needs one or more additional drivers, perhaps because it's dual core or has some other newer technology then there should be a driver for it on the above site.
There should be no need to "hack" random downloads from the net to get any AMD processor working fully on a modern PC.
Kind Regards
Simon
0 -
Hi,
Both of these units had their hard drives set for Cable Select.That could be a problem in itself. Cable Select is really buggy and never really worked very well as everyone had their own way of implementing it.
Switch to using explicit Master and Slave settings on your IDE devices to ensure this is not the issue.
See this article for more information on this: http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/if/ide/confCS-c.html
I don't believe that PE does support Suspend/Hibernate but if the motherboard BIOS settings differ on each PC some of the points mentioned in the MSKB article might be relevant. Check that BIOS settings are identical especially with regards to Suspend/Hibernate modes.
I assume you are not trying to image the host XP OS while it is hibernated or suspended? :-)
Bad/Faulty RAM could also be a cause of STOP errors so it might be worth testing this with suitable software (Windows Memory Diagnostic or Memtest 86+) to eliminate this as a cause of the problem.
Kind Regards
Simon
0 -
0
-
Hi,
Here are the update options you might like to check out:
AutoPatcher XP: http://www.autopatcher.com/files/apup.zip
Offline Update: http://www.heise.de/ct/projekte/offlineupd...wnload_uk.shtml
Smitti.COM: http://smithii.com/slipstream_xpsp2
I perfer AutoPatcher, but that's because I have been using it for years and like the way it works. Check out the others and see which works best for you.
Windows XP SP3 is due out in the near future so that will help; but in the interim ...
Kind Regards
Simon
0 -
-
Hi,
The installation options I use are:
WindowsUpdateAgent30-x86.exe /wuforce /quiet /norestart
Kind Regards
Simon
0 -
Hi Zxian,
Indeed I have worked under such contracts as well regarding the transfer of IP to my employers. I don't like them personally but sometimes is unavoidable.
However I don't believe that there is any such term in the conditions of use for MSFN. I am therefore guessing that any IP members might generate would still belong to them?
Anyway it's becoming clear that many of you are thinking I am just picking a fight or causing trouble so lets leave the issue there.
The issue can be discussed by whom ever whats to and you can come you what ever conclusions you wish to come to.
If you wish to amend the terms of use of MSFN then just let everyone know what the new terms are.
As a suggestion perhaps this issue has been worked on before and I would guess that the EFF might be able to offer help and advice on this matter, probably for free
For those of you who wish to start learning about copyright then I would suggest that the following articles might give you the outline:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright
The most directly relevant International Treaty would appear to be the Berne Convention which is covered by this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convent..._Artistic_Works
Basically it's tricky stuff and you do need to take care when dealing with it.
I will send an e-mail to the EFF and see what they have to say about this issue.
Kind Regards
Simon
0 -
Hi Kelsenellenelvian,
OMG What a _____________ hey please quit trying to cause trouble.Dude, calm down and take a chill pill. I am not causing trouble but bring to someone's attention a possible issue that needs to be addressed.
It fairly clearly states we have the ability to modify and can do so at will whenever we feel nessecary.This breaks no US laws as we reserve the right to refuse service.
I am not questioning the terms and conditions of the site, the service it offers, or the right of MSFN to refuse service to anyone as it seems fit. These comments are therefore unnecessary and irrelevant to the point I am attempting to make.
I am attempting to clarify what appears to be a misconception that MSFN owns the posts and has the right to do what it like with the information contained within them. I am afraid it doesn't and to claim otherwise is false.
Also this breaks no international laws as you agreed to them when you clicked the little box...As you don't seem to be aware of the fact, a contract cannot give you the right to break the law. This is so basic that I am surprised I have to make this clear.
If this were not the case then the law would be meaningless as any contract anywhere could in effect reverse a particular law. For example, you would have the right to end someone's life because they signed a contract that said you could do this. This is clearly not the case.
In many countries contracts can also be deemed to be unfair (and null and void) if they contain terms or conditions which are clearly difficult or impossible to fulfil or basically plain daft.
Kind Regards
Simon
0 -
Hi,
I was not questioning the fact or the details of the moderation of that specific thread.
I was specifically asking about the comments the mod published regarding the ownership of the information and materials posted on MSFN and the board.
Someone senior in the MSFN world should be looking into this issue because it could become important.
As an example, if MSFN were sold to some third-party then would the messages stored on the message board form part of the sale? I suspect they would and therefore be considered an asset and be worth something.
However the vast majority of the post were not made by persons connected with MSFN but by others who would still have the copyright on them.
So, does MSFN own the posts?
Probably not given there seems to be nothing regarding this in the MSFN rules or agreement. Each post would appear to be owned by the person who posted it.
They almost certainly do not own the copyright on them unless the copyright holder has transferred this to MSFN.
To claim otherwise could be a breach of international law and the relevant laws for where the MSFN servers are located.
Kind Regards
Simon
0
Integration Issue with KB960680-v2
in Unattended Windows 2000/XP/2003
Posted
Sorry I bothered.