Francesco

I used the italian version of the hotfix. The hotfix is the wmp 6.4 patch that came out just a few days ago. But if you say that it integrated i'll try redownloading and reintegrating all the december hotfixes, maybe one of them got corrupted.

Did somebody here manage to integrate KB918033 using nLite? I can't manage to get that hotfix to integrate

The speed argument is pointless: you won't lose performance if you keep IE installed. You lose performance only for background applications and services, not for applications that you decide when to launch and when not like IE. Also some windows functionalities won't work without IE.

...So it's too much of a hassle to forward two ports for web & ftp services?!? I don't want to forward anything I want my pc directly connected to the internet with firewall. XP leaves all the sharing services turned on, it's up to the firewall to prevent people accessing them from firewalled interfaces (for example the interface connected to the internet). On Vista instead if I add even a single public (firewalled) network connection then vista would turn off ALL sharings on all the interfaces, not only the one set to public connection! I don't know who the heck designed vista networking but this is completely screwed up. They pretend everybody to use routers and they don't let people override their network autosensing stuff. I see no sense in vista turning all the file sharing services off just because there's a "public network connection" present. Nobody would be able to access those sharing services from the firewalled interfaces so there wouldn't be security risks in keeping those services turned on. The IPTV is a decoder that connects directly to my router and I can't get another router because the decoder works only with the router my telco company gave me. Passive Mode FTP - Client sets transfer port. Active Mode FTP - Server sets transfer port, and gives it to client on port 20. The only way to blow Passive Mode FTP with NAT is to (Assume your running Active and open/forward port 20). Either that or a completely botched dual NIC config has completely borked the routing table to where the machine can't find its own a** let alone decide which version of "out" to send a packet to. The IIS FTP is and always has been a Passive FTP Server, I've been running one for years, and doing it behind a NAT firewall. My typical transfers are 100-700MB and stability has never been an issue. I also run web, email, & remote access services (on various machines) behind the same NAT router. I was referring to FTP client transfers: I would have to use a client that lets me chose the port range. Also I would have the same problem with mIRC and other applications that open random ports. I just want my pc directly connected to internet without vista disabling all the file sharing on all interfaces just because I have a "public network connection" active. Is that asking too much? Almost surely it was a bad router but I got sick of that problem and I don't want to use again 2 routers to connect to the internet.

Oh my I hate nero it breaks everything! First outlook 2003 then the audio cds, now this. **** if only there was a decent alternative to that suite full of useless stuff.

So there's no other way other than using a 2° router? Is this a vista bug or what? I can't believe it supports "local only", "local and internet" but not "internet only" connections. I don't want to use a 2° router because the router wouldn't solve anything. Using another router will still mean that I'll have to open all the ports by hand because if I set DMZ all of the ports open in the LAN will be visible on internet. In the past I had a situation like that, with router+ port forwarding but I use my pc as a web server on internet and using it behind NAT always messed things up: often connections were dropped and things like that. Also that would mean to say goodbye to FTP passive mode.

No wait, I don't want to enable filesharing on internet. Creating a bridge between the connection is nosense because both the connections are configured as private networks. Also I actually have vmware installed so even those virtual network connections should be bridged too and that's not a very good idea. The only problem I have is that the internet connection, according to the windows help, should be configured as a public connection (or the firewall would be disabled). Pratically it looks like vista supports "local connections", "local and internet connections" but no "internet connections". I would have had the same problem if I was connecting using my old 56k: is there any way to fix this without buying a real router (I can't change the one I have since it's needed for IPTV)?

Hello I have a problem setting up connection settings on vista. I have 2 ethernet cards, one connected to my 360, another one connected to my router. I connect to internet using a PPPoe connection that on vista is supposed to be configured as a Public Network, right? Well if I configure it as a public network I can't manage to enable file and media sharing. If I configure my internet PPPoe connection as a private network instead vista will have open ports on internet (the firewall is turned off). Any idea? BTW my router works only with PPPoe (pratically just like an adsl ethernet modem).

I have vista and WPI never crashed, 5.6 included.

I've checked out WPI 4.6 and the problem seems to have been fixed. Sorry @Kelsenellenelvian: i've read your message just now I saw you already released WPI 4.6 so I didn't reply to avoid bothering you.

I integrated IE7 on my windows CD with nLite and WPI seems to work fine. Maybe the IE7 installer removes some files while nlite doesn't.

dont you mean 5.6 ? Oops yes, 5.6

I don't have WPI actually here but i'm talking about the application ID, not the numeric id for the install order. I'll check out if the bug is still there when i'll test WPI 4.6.

Err I don't know if I am the only person getting this problem however sometimes when I change the ID of applications and save, pratically a record with the old ID is saved inside the config.JS file (so I get double entries) and also a random entry is removed from the config.JS. Any idea? Was I the only one having this problem? I've had it even on older versions but I was too lazy to report it

Why don't you post this on digg too? Many people don't know that without IE installed they may be vulnerable because of all the various applications that use IE libraries.

I've found the following line in the emule preference file: SkinProfile=C:\Program Files\eMule\skins\XPize.eMuleSkin.ini however i'm using italian windows XP so the "Program Files" folder isn't correct. Is XPize using the wrong path?

Why don't we post on FlashGet forum asking for the google toolbar to be disabled except for chinese users? It's nosense to have a chinese bar for not-chinese users.

One page before ... http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?s=&amp...st&p=571543 Oops sorry I didn't notice that post. Thanks a lot!

Does somebody here already knows the october patches replaced some older patches and expecially which ones were replaced?

Let's hope that no mad cows were harmed during the process!

I beg your pardon? jaclaz http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=4120 (the url you posted) is really about mad cows. I'm not joking.

This is why I said that I would have needed help of other people to identify the files that can't ee compressed. BTW that url is about mad cows. Usually DLLs and Executable that shouldn't have been compressed don't even load so it shouldn't have took a long time to identify them. Obviously the system files compressor would have checked the files MD5 before compressing to identify if the file is the right file to patch. However if you say that it's not worth it because it needs more RAM and applications may run slower I will trust you. I've only seen applications launching faster but I never checked out the ram usage and I've never benchmarked them.

I usually install it: the installer puts the executable in Program Files\utorrent so it shouldn't be much hard to replace that icon.

Why? The uTorrent installer seems to have a default path. You probably downloaded just the executable.

I was thinking about creating an utility that compresses with UPX all windows system files (all the EXEs and DLLs present in the XP cd). Usually UPX create smaller executable/dll files that execute/load faster. Some of those EXE/DLLs give problems when UPX-ized but if somebody is interested in this project we can try finding out the files that can be UPX-ized properly. This not only would make windows installs smaller but it should also make them faster (obviously after we can get windows working with as much possible compressed files we can do some benchmarks). This will affect only applications loading time, not applications speed. Is anybody here interested?