mongo66

Just out of curiosity, which release of the KB938371 update do you have installed? This update was re-released (v2), so if you've got the original, you might want to update it... Download (links not offered in KB article): Vista x86 http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details...;displaylang=en Vista x64 http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details...;displaylang=en

Yzöwl, Check to see whether or not the following updates are installed. IF they're missing, download and install them in this order... #1 http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=949939 #2 http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=937287 #3 http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=938371 These are the prerequisite updates required to install SP1. Could be a possible solution as to why WU is refusing to offer SP1.

Very good point -- I can't argue with that To me, it's not about taking the easy way out, because 9 times out 10, I don't. I wouldn't possess the knowledge I have today if I took the alternate route... But in this particular case, "Microsoft f***** it up BIG time" IMO -- right from the very release of Vista itself. I don't want to make sound as if I'm putting the blame solely on Microsoft, but they are responsible in a big way. Had they not "rushed" Vista out the door, but given developers and OEMs more time to adapt, we wouldn't have to deal with this <insert word here> or whatever you wanna call it. Back to the problem... Like someone else said, it probably boils down to some bizarre hardware? compatibility issue that's keeping you from updating to SP1 via Windows Update. Should you come across a solution (whatever that may be), share it with us!

+1 Vista Service Pack compatibility Come to think of it, if you can't get it to work, just download the official pre-integrated ISO... Why waste anymore time than you already have with this bs...? No TechNet subscription? No problem... bt is your friend Windows Vista with Service Pack 1 (x86) - DVD (English) en_windows_vista_with_service_pack_1_x86_dvd_x14-29594.iso (2.87 GB) CRC = CE4CB528 MD5 = b09267740ddd1a08d80b04ec6bbc232a SHA1 = bcd715a02739809e477c726ae4b5caa914156429 Windows Vista with Service Pack 1 (x64) - DVD (English) en_windows_vista_with_service_pack_1_x64_dvd_x14-29595.iso (3.66 GB) CRC = 5CC5BE14 MD5 = e4ce0b193d94279e4dce1098d6b5afeb SHA1 = bdadc46a263a7bf67eb38609770e4fdbd05247cb *** Activation IS required ***

As far as I know, WU has always depended on the registry to ascertain updates for a given machine.

I have formatted the whole drive. There was nothing left on it. And I was able to install Vista... Some suggest that because the laptop was supplied with and conceived for Vista, I might need a BIOS upgrade - but I've installed XP on it before! What do you think? Formatting is not the same as repartitioning. Did you repartition the drive beforehand? I seriously doubt it's a BIOS problem... If it was, you won't be able to install Vista in the first place.

Run a malware and/or virus scan on your computer... Run msconfig.exe and click the Startup tab... It should display a list of startup programs. Browse thru the list, uncheck suspicious items or items you don't want loaded with Vista.

Did you remove any .cat (security catalog) files? If I remember correctly, nlite has an option to do just that... I suggest you keep these files intact -- removing them does more harm than good, imo.

You mean this: @echo off reg delete HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\WindowsUpdate\VistaSp1 /f > NUL 2>&1 reg delete HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Wow6432Node\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\WindowsUpdate\VistaSP1 /f > NUL 2>&1 reg add HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\WindowsUpdate\VistaSp1 /v Beta1 /t REG_SZ /d dcf99ef8-d784-414e-b411-81a910d2761d /f IF NOT %errorlevel% == 0 ( goto ERROR) :SUCCESS @echo. echo =========================================================== echo Windows Vista SP1 registry key has been set successfully. echo Please check for updates in Windows Update. echo =========================================================== @echo. goto END :ERROR @echo. echo =========================================================== echo FAILED to set Windows Vista SP1 registry keys. echo Please run this script by right clicking and selecting echo "Run as Administrator". echo =========================================================== @echo. goto END :END pause @Yzöwl: Before using the "reghack", you may want to install the latest Windows Update Agent just to see if it solves anything...

After all these years of using the commandline... A GUI front-end for cdimage? I guess I must have missed it somehow... Thanks for the info.

Manually unregistering an ActiveX control (using regsvr32) won't delete the control from the system nor will the addon entry be removed from the "Manage Add-ons" page. Regsvr32 /u control.ocx disables the control; it does not uninstall it. During an automatic ActiveX installation, component data (i.e., guid, version info, vendor etc.) is also written to the registry. This data is written independent of the .ocx registration. Therefore, if you want to manually add/remove controls, you'll have to include all the relevant information as well.

+1 Agreed.

Download mirrors: http://www.filewatcher.com/m/WindowsXP-KB8...927592.0.0.html

No problems here -- downloading it now as I type this... Something wrong with your connection perhaps?

I don't have a clue, but... I'd start off by not removing any display drivers, storage drivers, windows services. You may also want to keep several system components as well. I realize some aren't necessary, but for the sake of troubleshooting, keep them intact (for now). You know what to do next...

Hmm, I've never seen that error before... You could also try Universal Extractor (if you haven't already done so). I don't know if it'll do what you want it to do, but it's worth a shot...

Don't disable ReadyBoost. As for Superfetch, if you have lots of RAM (> 2gb) turning it off may prove to be beneficial, although I can't say for certain since I'm running Vista with 1gb RAM. Leaving it on will result in faster application launch times since your most commonly used apps are preloaded into RAM. I don't know how much truth there is to it, but I've been running Vista for awhile now, SuperFetch has been good to me (so far). Install 64-bit. You will be able to use the full 4GB. Its more stable and has compatibility with 32-bit apps. Sorry brucevangeorge, I just had to comment You know, I see this a lot... "Vista x64 is more stable than Vista x86..." How is that so? I've yet to see concrete proof of this. Both have the same codebase; only difference being one is 32bit while the other, 64bit. The only notable benefits of Vista x64 I can think of are: (1) Supports up to 128gb RAM (2) Better performance*** (3) Digitally Signed drivers (4) PatchGuard (does it really work?) *** To experience overall performance gains, applications would need to be optimized for 64bit. While Vista x64 may outperform Vista x86, I wouldn't claim it's more stable or better to use. Generally speaking, using "digitally signed" device drivers may allow for more stability, but then again, the WHQL stamp is trivial at best imo... Just because it's digitally signed, doesn't necessarily mean it's good. There are of course plenty of benefits to running Vista x64. If you're fortunate enough to own a 64bit system, more power to ya! Just my worthless 2¢ ... Thank you for reading.

Try this: http://oddbasket.deviantart.com/art/Royale-Remixed-44294818

I use 7-zip to open/extract executable files... If that doesn't work, I just run the installer (without actually installing it) to obtain the files I need. Most auto-installers will extract contents to a temporary location within the %TEMP% folder when executed.

I don't think Windows XP can be installed from USB (not without using BartPE or other methods described here). Copying the setup source (i386) to USB and running winnt.exe won't work. You will need to copy the setup source files (i386 folder + cdtags) to your harddisk and run Windows XP setup from that harddisk.

Yes. You only need to apply a small dab (about the size of a grain of rice), then mount the heatsink. Note: Applying too much or too little thermal paste will also cause the CPU to overheat. Be sure to apply just the right amount.

As for the slow file copy issue, the problem still exists in SP1 -- especially when transferring large files from a USB device to HDD. Copying the same files on XP takes seconds; on Vista 15-20 minutes... After hours of searching and reading through numerous forums, I finally found a solution (well at least it worked for me). Uninstalling the "Remote Differential Compression" feature solved the file copy issue (Control Panel > Programs and Features > Turn Windows Features on or off).

Having used XPSP3 since its (official release), I didn't notice any boot or UI slowdowns... If anything, it seems to run a bit faster than SP2. Besides, I wouldn't recommend installing a service pack over an existing windows installation anyways. There's too many unknowns and things could get messy during the upgrade process. It's best to just download the SP3 Network Installer, slipstream it (to the original source), and reinstall from scratch. You can't go wrong there.

See this thread: How to boot/install from USB key.

When you replaced the CPU, did you clean off the old layer of thermal paste (from the PIII 933 CPU + heatsink) AND apply a new layer? If not, I suggest you invest in a tube of Arctic Silver or thermal paste of similar quality and apply it before you fry that PIII CPU... If it's still overheating, reseat the heatsink as it could be seated "improperly"... Another thing I would do is reset the BIOS to its default values. Also check to see that you have adequate case cooling as well. I'm a little confused here... If there's no RAM, the motherboard should beep constantly. If there was no CPU, I wouldn't think you'd be able to hear any beeps, period.