CoffeeFiend

I stumbled across this post, and I figured I'd peek at that site (mcmcse). Personally, I wouldn't recommend them. Not so much because the info isn't good, accurate, useful or such, but because it seems outdated for the most part. Looking at their MS cert stuff it seems to be mostly from the Win2k-era: Mostly Win2k stuff (2003's been around for quite a while, even R2 has been out for a bit), NT4 to 2k migration ('nuff said), ISA server 2000 (2004 isn't new either), SMS 2.0 (eek), SQL server 2k (2005's out, even SP1 for it), Office 2002... If one's learning new stuff/training to get certs and such, might as well go with the current new stuff. Also, while their MCSE/MCSA contents isn't all that bad (and arguably their MCDBA too), their MCSD section is lacking to say the least... Still not a bad resource (in the sense that it would work against you), but not like I'd spent too much time there either. I'm not expecting Vista-era stuff or anything, but training for win2k-era stuff nowadays makes little sense.

.

Why would you pick classic ASP nowadays? I can't think of a single good reason to use that (as much as I dislike PHP - and dislike is quite an understatement here - I'd even use that before). If you're gonna go the Microsoft way, ASP.NET is where it's at. Classic ASP is 10 year old tech (the NT4 days)... And ASP.NET isn't anything new either (been around since 2002, the 4th version of the .NET framework is coming up soon). Classic ASP is pretty much inferior to anything I can think of. ASP.NET has rich frameworks, great OO languages, proper error handling, better dev tools, scales better, more maintainable, more secure, faster to develop, far more stable, more flexible, ridiculously more powerful, etc (I could go on for days, but having an edge over classic ASP isn't exactly something to brag about either) Look like you got several issues... -Using the wrong, outdated tech (IMHO) -Trying to enter an invalid data type (string into a numeric column? or a date/time?) and not understanding the (rather helpful) error message (I don't wanna bash anyone, but this is very, very basic stuff we're talking about here) -Obviously, no server-side, nor client-side validation is done (and that's a VERY, VERY BAD thing!). There is NO excuse for not doing this - at the VERY LEAST server-side (and display validation errors on the form/page - not have the page crash like that and display server errors for such things). Preferably, using Regular Expressions, and also doing client-side validation in javascript (onchange/onsubmit). And while we're on that subject, date handling is a fun thing. You're assuming ppl will always enter MM/DD/YYYY it seems... Ideally you use the ISO date format (internally at least). Server/client/database/regional settings and what not can bite you in the a** here... -Likely, you're using string concatenation to generate dynamic SQL (which is again VERY, VERY BAD - 100% exposed to very basic SQL injection attacks, and n00b can TOTALLY hack this without even having to think). The very minimal thing to do (and I'd call that quite a ugly hack) is escaping strings, although parameterized queries is what one ought to use (sprocs not a bad idea either). No idea what DB you're using, nor if you're using the right proivider for it either or anything like that (not enough details - just hoping it ain't jet/access! *shudders*). It may sound harsh, but don't take it as bashing. More like an eye opener perhaps. If you want to find out how to do this properly, there are loads - and I mean LOADS of good infos out there... Like the ASP.NET quickstarts, starter kits, sample code everywhere, MSDN, endless webcasts, training DVDs available for the price of shipping, MS eLearning offers (lots of free courses), tons of community websites, etc... And there are even some great free dev tools (Visual Web Developper namely). There are many excellent (powerful, fast, secure, ...) and free enterprise grade RDBMS'es as well (SQL Server Express as well as DB2 and Oracle express, PostgreSQL, etc). Even if I decided against ASP.NET, I *still* wouldn't do classic ASP.

.

I'm thread digging! It's a somewhat old post, but an interesting one regardless. Finding good/new ideas for software is always a bit of a challenge (doesn't matter if it's related to unattended installs or such). At least here you don't have to worry about if it's marketable (does it answer a need/create value/is there a viable market for it/does it create value/whatever...), so it's not that bad. I've been thinking about a project for about a year or so. Nothing truly complicated, but I just can't seem to find time for it (so much to do yet so little time!) And also, I'm not sure how much people would have been really interested in it for various reasons. My idea was an installer - yes, I know, there are already lots of them (too many perhaps). But they're all the same type: select what you want, and let it install... (or lots of people just don't use any menus and let it all install regardless). The big difference would have been, this one would take some specifics (like the asset tag #, user name, department or whatever) to determine what should be installed on that PC. Various departments use different line-of-business apps, different PCs come with different software bundled (a batch of dells may come with nero express 5.5, another PC batch may have Rixio instead; and they're often tied to hardware as well). Mainly for licensing purposes. I mean, you just can't install latest version of everything you like on every PC disregarding licensing (and fill the HDs with lots of unecessary stuff), nor make copies for every batch of PCs and departments (too time consuming). It sounds like a rather simple thing to do. Until you really take time to to think about it. Some stuff is licensed per machine. Some other stuff is licensed to users (named users). And those users may work on more than one PC (use different workstations, and perhaps have a corporate laptop too). Or do you just assign/tie a user to a specific PC and install stuff on there only? Or what about shared PCs (many users sharing a few PCs)? Oh, and "x many concurrent users" licenses. And then there's CALs and everything else... And ideally you'd have this working along with a central database that would also keep track of licenses and all (and log everything and tons more things you could think of - auditing, asset tracking, you name it). This could get pretty large and complex eventually... Since I've never really heard anyone ask for solutions like this before (not that I've bothered asking either), and that there are alternate solutions (SMS, GPO, scripts, etc) although often inferior, I've spend my energy and spare time on different projects. (This wouldn't really be useful for small shops and home users either, and would be especially irrelevant for those who completely disregard licensing altogether) I must say I'm more of a fan of centrally administering & remotely deploying stuff over network than sitting at a computer and doing it all by hand (select and wait for stuff to install on every PC? sorry, NOT gonna happen - life's too short, I'd rather push an install to hundreds of PCs in a few seconds instead) Unrelated - it would also be nice to make some nice and useful utilities/script with something cool like PowerShell (monad) or Script.NET, but again, ideas are lacking... (Well, I have LOTS, but they're all rather large and time consuming projects, no small utilities). I'm not wasting time reinventing the wheel again - unless there would be a significant advantage to do things in a new/better way. Anyhow. I think the problem about new ideas is that utilities have been created for just about any problem you could think of (handle registry, inf files, installers, script for everything, resource kits, you name it). Vista will likely change things a bit when it comes to installs/deployments. Ximage, WDS instead of RIS... New installer altogether (WinPE-like versus WINNT32.exe from the command line). A lot of older utilities will become obsolete.

There's something to add to the site's front page under "Misc downloads", right under SQL Server 2000 SP4. SP1 for SQL Server 2005 came out last month: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/913089/ (it's also for SQL Server Express - the free version; there's new downloads for the express ed as well) And there's even several Hotfix packages that came out since then: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/918222/

@playsafe: nah... Married ppl still have LOTS of time to themselves (most, anyways) Single parent here... (Divorced, 2 kids)

First of all, crahak, I see you definetly stay with XP. Depends... Not really. I use both everyday. Right tool for the right job. But that's no reason for trying to bring Server 2003 down. I don't. It's a truly *GREAT* OS for its intended purposes (I'd even go as far as to say the absolute best), just not as a desktop. Most of the things you sayed are exagerated. We aren't figthing to the death about which's faster, just discussing, comparing facts. Yes, just discussing. Facts? I'd say there's a lot of opinion and bias in there (haven't seen many cold hard facts in the thread before)... Exageration goes both ways too. Next time, please present us with normal-emocion writting. Eh? You say it's easy to make benchmarks lie. That may be rigth (really don't know), but why would anyone in it's rigth mind do a thing like that? Tell that to video card manufacturers that optimize their drivers for benchmarks. And to intel to ensure their compilers only make use of advanced features of "GenuineIntel" CPUs, regardless of processor features, and of them "sponsoring" Intel-only optimizations (and limitations - skype anyone?), like we've seen in some benchmark apps that changed their tests, eliminating those that benefitted their competitors and the like... This is everyday reality. Many people have hidden agendas, or will tweak things, or lie using statistics as it does affect their bottom line/profits. This is more or less what marketing is all about... (Not mentionning how much benchmark's methodologies are fundamentally flawed or the like, either) Unless they wanna defend XP to the death, of course... If you say so... If anyone seemingly has a bias for an OS here it's you (2003 is better period no matter what, etc) - and consequently go out of his way to find benches that favor his preferences. I never said Win2003 was inferior at all (it isn't) - while used its intended purposes (it's not like you're making use of any of 2003's extra and useful features on the desktop, making it mostly pointless) And most important of all, why so many? Think I already answered that one... ($) About software compatibility, I don't see any reason why Server 2003 would be less software compatible than XP. Many games and software are written for XP, but bear in mind that Server 2003 have everything XP does, it just has some features turned off (and other on) for better working as a Server, thus making some workstation tweaks necessary. Well, it *IS* less compatible (talking about desktop apps here). No questions asked. And no, they're not that identical, it's just not THAT simple (some stuff like security models differ quite a bit). If you want names of apps that won't work on 2003, I can give you plenty... (AT&T Natural Voices, Avid Xpress, MS' new Vista Upgrade Advisor, etc - dozens and dozens of apps). And the other fact that many dozens more of installers check Windows' version before installing. Sometimes using compatibility mode to "fake" windows' version may work, but more and more you see apps that require XP SP2, and you can't "fake" the SP version (won't install on 2003 SP1, as it'll report as XP SP1 and not SP2). There is just no debate here... So please post facts, not beliefs, so we can consistently measure both performances. You'd better tell yourself that... Better overall hardware managment than XP (and I dare say performance is only a very small part of the pro/con comparison - XP does perform quite decently for a desktop regardless of any benchmarks). All the benchmarks and threads i've seen point that Server 2003 is better than XP faster != better (everyone has the same opinion, just search) opinion != fact everyone as in "anybody on a public forum that can be some 12yo kid" or straight facts from authoritative enterprise profesionnals knowledgeable on the subject, from 3rd party unbiased lab tests/benchmarks? Yeah, that's what I tought... Unfortunatly i've just managed to find Brasilian/Portuguese benchmarks So "All the benchmarks and threads i've seen " = "only one"? And from a foreign language site (with less exposure)? I wouldn't really base much beliefs on those results alone... (and you make it sound like those things are easy to find - "just search") so you have to use an online translator to understand it. Google's language tools or babelfish won't translate it... Quite a pain to go read a bench from a small low-traffic site by unknown people, to read up on poorly-translated text article, only to find out it's likely flawed in many ways (even well known large sites nowadays have biased stuff, i.e. more or less "paid reviews", or "don't review our stuff in a bad way or you won't get preview samples from us ever again and your ads revenue will drop" and the like). I've never seen such things from reputable sites either. Obviously it can serve as a Server (sorry about the redundancy tongue.gif) much better than XP That's the ONLY real and big advantage over XP, too bad it's TOTALLY unrelevant to this scenario (we're talking "as a desktop", not "as a server" here). That doesn't make it better as a desktop OS than XP in any way. There is NO logic behind this (or extremely flawed logic). That's like saying [while talking about a freightliner used to go get weekly groceries]: Obviously it can serve as a freightliner (...) much better than a car. Ignoring the high purchase cost, dimensions, gas expenses and everything else. More stable XP is quite stable. Unless you've got defective hardware or crappy drivers, it shouldn't almost ever crash. I haven't seen a windows install (without broken hardware or very bad drivers) really give bad problems. Win2003 is definitely more stable in a server environment, being on server-class hardware, running with all the potentially problematic stuff disabled (video acceleration and such), not having tons of crappy desktop shareware apps installed on it. As a desktop OS? Hardly any difference. I doubt you could back up that claim (again, not "in a server scenario" studies - which XP isn't made for either). Can EASILY be converted to a workstation. Yes it can be easily done, doesn't mean it isn't tiem consuming or a PITA (for something pointless). And again, you've pretty much ignored the main point from your first sentence: "It's not worth while, so buyers, forget Server 2003. For the rest of you". As in, for people who don't buy it? Hmm.... Okie. I've NEVER seen any benchmarks that backed up any of your claims (which I would really call "opinions"). And it doesn't really have anything to offer for normal desktop users for the extra few hundreds of $. I do use Win2003 (R2). I even have a LEGIT, as in, PURCHASED version of it (imagine that eh). You can't do things like load-testing server middleware on XP as IIS (a server component) is too limited on it (since it isn't a server). Because the apps i develop will run on IIS7 which has a new and different security model (and a bunch of different stuff underlying). Because some server apps won't install on XP. Because with 2003 you're allowed to run 4 instances of it in VMs which is extremely useful for my work. Things like that. NOT because some unknown person [who likely didn't even buy it nor has much insight/knowledge on the subject] said on his foreign language blog that he gets more frames in Counter-Strike on a 2000$ server OS. As a desktop OS, good ol' 150$ XP is good enough - as in stable and fast enough, and quite afforadable (especially if it comes with a new system). Even XP Home is plenty for most home end-users (they don't typically need IIS or have to join domains or such things). Flame away...

Well... I have to say that I find some answers quite biased (and quite incomplete). Pros: Not a whole lot really (as a desktop OS - server wise? XP just doesn't nearly cut it; many small advantages otherwise too, but nothing that'll make a change for most home users - things like licensing for virtual machines; stuff that matters to real IT pros and devs) Cons: -Price (I have a hard time believing most people who use 2003 as a desktop OS actually paid for it, it's over 500$ for the cheapest edition! Most people are whining XP is too expensive. Sorry, but you're not fooling anyone...) Unless you're millionaire or not paying for this, this is a crucial point. -Needs lots of tweaking to be remotely usable as a desktop OS (video acceleration is diabled, audio is disabled, tons of things like that) -No it's not definitely always 100% guaranteed faster than XP (it's fairly easy to make benchmarks lie - just one single driver's version could suffice; tests are often rigged by eqpt mfgs nowadays). Especially if you use any of the things that make Win2003 worthwhile (like, server components) and that your XP is optimized (classic everything, disable animations, disable unecessary services, etc). No, it's not quite day-and-night, and no, it doesn't warrant a 400$+ price difference for a home user. -Software compatibility. Lots of software (and I'm not talking about games, I'm sorry, but I can't imagine someone who'd actually pay for it then play games on it) will just NOT install. Sometimes tweaking the installer or using compatibility mode will work (only half the time or so). Often, it just WON'T work no matter what, even if you managed to install it... Server apps and the like are coded for and tested against Win 2000 server and Win2003. Desktop/consumer apps are coded for and tested against Win2000 Pro and XP (it only makes sense) -More complicated/more options and other things like that (the actual "features" of win 2003) that most non-admin folks will likely not understand very well and perhaps screw something up. (like being qualified to drive a consumer car doesn't make you qualified to drive a freighter)

You're welcome. Sad part is, I did limit myself (I could go on and on... for a very long time, but it gets boring and dry after a while). Other things you could do with saved money: training of IT staff. You were questionning why 2 servers as DCs (a PDC and a BDC). Not knowing this (which isn't new by any measure, talking about NT 3 & 4 days - assuming you're going with this model; the DCs are peers in the new AD model, hence no primary/backup; all peers. Lots of companies still use the NT4 domain model though) does imply you (and perhaps more people) need brought up to speed about Domains, Active Directory, and perhaps a lot more stuff. Perhaps not pay a MCSE certification/course to everyone, but at least some good books (and time to read them), or perhaps some private training - even video training could help... Going with only one DC would be a bad thing (and yes, I've seen PDCs go down before, or the network connection to them), giving "not authorized" errors to everyone until the BDC took over. You may want to know what to do when this happens... And seeing everything you're adding to your network, you could spend some time thinking about your network architecture, doing some planning, and if possible having someone experienced in those kind of things have a look at the big picture. Same goes for SQL Server and ISA. Expect that people will need training. Configuring ISA isn't exactly trivial... And whoever will be using the SQL server (web master?) may need some training too (like, so much of these guys only seem to know about MS access junk, no idea about SQL server or other real DBs whatsoever... be it security, T-SQL, relational database design, sprocs, you name it). Good reference books can't be a bad thing to have around either... (having knowledge to use the new and great soft only makes sense... no point in paying thousands to have it sit idle). Hopefully your admins will be able to handle all the new stuff (AD/Exchange primarily, but loads of other things, like server backups, routine maintenance/diagnostics/config on most of the soft, etc) i.e. you need a "real IT staff" at that point (or perhaps more training?) More costs... Honestly, at this point, it could be a good idea to hire a consultant (not a "paper MCSE", someone who knows his stuff). Especially since you don't seem to truly know what you even want or need (MySQL or MSSQL or ?, not sure about DCs, other omissions...) He could see what needs you have, constraints, budget, etc and come up with a solution tailored to your particular scenario (which is seemingly getting more complex). He can make you different propositions, pick the exact hardware you need and everything. [edit]: some small clarifications...

First post in months... Back, sorta Well, it sounds like a SBE (only 3 switches... can't be too much PCs or people working there). Personally (that being the keyword here), I'd take a different approach. It sounds like your email is already taken care of (using exchange on existing server), so I'll fous only on the new things and how much new stuff you need. 1) Database. What you'll need here can VASTLY vary. It truly depends on what you'll run, and mainly what you'll do with it. MySQL or MS SQL... They're like totally different. They tend to answer completely different needs. MySQL is free, more lightweight, but not quite a real enterprise RDBMS like MSSQL/DB2/Oracle or even PostreSQL... If it's for some kind of PHP based CMS for an intranet web server or such, MySQL might be the ideal choice (likely it'll use some MySQL-proprietary SQL anyways). MS SQL (and Oracle and DB2 and again, PostgreSQL mostly fits here too) is a "heavier" but more powerful system (in terms of enterprise features and such). All are great products. And nowadays all 3 big names offer a free (albeit limited) product (SQL Server Express, Oracle 10g Express, and DB2 Express-C) while PostgreSQL is completely free. The limitations on those "express" prodocuts is mainly a max RAM/CPU usage limit (like 4GB RAM and one CPU max) - which is PLENTY for most tasks, and offers an easy (and competitively priced) upgrade path. Unless your main use will be those PHP-ish web apps and such, I'd go with one of the other DBs. All 4 are frankly quite good. You can try them for free ("kick the tires"), and see what works best for you (the Oracle install can be finnicky on the JRE version seemingly). If you're a all-Microsoft shop, likely you'll prefer MS SQL (mainly because of how well it integrates with their own dev tools and other products), but the others would work quite well too. [bTW, there are some great free dev tools from Microsoft - Visual Web Developper, Visual C# Express, etc - you can even get Visual Studio Standard for free if you know where to look - yes, I mean legally; and loads of free extras... too many to list here). But you're not quite saying enough to be able to really help here... No idea what you'll do with it whatsoever. Being a smallish shop, I would tend to say those "express" database products will be enough (assuming no one will run stupid n00b SQL i.e. queries that peg the CPU for 5 minutes, and that you won't get into pretty serious/heavy business intelligence/warehousing/data mining stuff or the like). If you plan on developping apps in-house and that your devs will screw something up all the time and take your production DB down (or make it overly busy all the time), then a dev database is a good idea (it's a good idea in general to separate dev and production DBs regardless). Any old cheap PC with enough RAM and one of those express editions DBs should suffice for that (SQL Server Developper Ed is like 50$ too IIRC). It's a matter of knowing not only what you need now, but foreseeing what the company will need in the future (next few years). Are the business/accounting/marketing types going to want some data mining app next year? Are you going to push nice Smart Client apps? Any "Line-of-Business" apps that will need a DB "backend"? Anything special you are or will be developping in-house? ... Anyhow. Unless you're doing something heavy (like, not just simple web apps), a small server will be plenty for this (I'd even be tempted to put it on a server that will do more than this, it just may be sitting 99% idle 99% of the time), just don't starve it on RAM or you'll get performance according to that (256MB won't really cut it...) What you really need to worry here is data integrity (which is partly why I tend to rule out MySQL for such use) and backing up the server - you better plan for the worst. Got a place to back everything up? (network share, tape, whatever). The day data vanishes into thin air, your job may do the same... 2) ISA Server: It's not ridiculously demanding, and you don't have a whole lot of users, but I'd definitely throw some RAM at it (it does caching too, that always benefits from more RAM). It's hard to exactly say how much hardware it'll need. 25 users that need loads of bandwidth, or mostly idle? It's mainly a matter of total bandwidth, and I can't guess/tell you how much bandwidth 25 users will use up... Either ways, that's not very many users at all. It shouldn't exactly need a powerful server. If I knew for sure your DB usage would be low enough, I'd be tempted to say put both on the same box (SBS could work great for this, lowering hardware and licensing costs). 3) Security System... Dunno. Never had that setup on a PC. Not exactly my field. How many additional servers/hardware you need? A couple servers for the DB server and ISA (again, that's pure guessing, no one can guess how much use/load you'll be putting on it for sure). DNS, DHCP and WINS is ridiculously lightweight. You can run that on pretty much any server (those type of things could run on a 486 along with a basic firewall...) Not worried about that whatsoever. (I'd likely run it on the same box as the ISA server personally, and that's if you don't already have it running on another box or something). DCs wise, the 2nd is the backup. That's somewhat problematic... Kinda expensive to buy 2 servers and 2 Win2003 licenses for that (a few thousand $ just for authenticating users), and it's typically a problem to put something else (like ISA, Exchange or SQL Server) on that box at the same time (again, unless you opt for SBS, which seems like a viable alternative in this scenario). Perhaps 2 servers running SBS could do... Both serving as domain controllers, one of the two running ISA, the other running SQL server. Yes, 6 servers would be ideal, but that's 3 times as much in hardware costs which is prohibitive to many small businesses (that means many thousands of $ in hardware alone), and Win2003 licenses for 6 servers vs 2 SBS 2003 licenses would set you back a couple thousand $ or more too (depends on the edition, etc). And lately everybody's getting into server consolidation, and it makes sense. Only 2 servers to maintain/upgrade/backup/monitor/manage/administer, etc instead of 6 (even more savings!) Not counting electricity savings (not just the server's usage, but less AC req'd too, double savings). Although I wouldn't go for the most basic configuration of the cheapest/weakest Dell server you can get either... (The PowerEdge 2800, dual 2.8GHz Xeon with 4GB RAM and SBS2003 Premium could be a viable option, with Redundant PSU, for around 2500$ each - don't forget about UPS'es either) With that leftover $$$, you could buy a computers to run backup jobs if you don't have one already, or more storage space for your users, or much needed workstation upgrades, or CALs for whatever, or MS Office licenses, whatever you want, I'm sure you'd find a use for it... Anyhow. A server for every little thing would be great if your company can afford it, but the reality is most small companies just can't afford it (and large companies tend to consolidate to fewer but beefier servers instead anyways). If you got lots of $$$, then by all means go and build a nice infrastructure... Buy like a dozen nice and powerful servers (backup server too, you didn't mention intranet/internet web servers or servers to hold user profiles or anything either), SQL Server Enterprise Ed or Oracle, a Fiber Channel SAN, redundant everything, new server room with nice UPS'es and AC everywhere... When you got the money, the choice is always easy. If the money's there, it's usually somewhat easy to justify the expense (ROI figures here and there, high availability figures, future expansion/needs, etc...). Given the size of the business (or what it appears to be), I doubt this is the case... How do you connect all the servers and hardware? I'd opt for Gigabit Ethernet nowadays. It's come down in price a LOT lately. Most servers now come with redundant GB ports, and decent switches are quite afforadable too. If possible, I'd link all the servers that way. Those 2 Dells, UPS'es and a GB ethernet switch should set you back around 7k$ including taxes and all (depending on options and such). 6 or 7 servers would be *WAY* more - it would cost you more than that in Win2003 licenses and CALs alone, without including any actual hardware at all... Hope that helps [edit]: BTW, SBS 2003 R2 will be out in a couple months and it's quite nice - it includes SQL Server 2005 [workgroup ed; uses 2 CPUs/3GB RAM max] instead of SQL Server 2000. A *very* nice upgrade If you buy SBS 2003 non-R2 meanwhile, they can give you a R2 upgrade media kit for free.

The Update Pack #2 dated from Dec 3rd is indeed what you need. Just select an AVC profile and that's it (Standard AVC in expert mode with a few tweaks works well for me) The only concern you may have is playback - you'll need proper codecs to playback a .MP4 AVC/AAC of course. (Just happenned to stumble across their free volcano screensaver, and it's not quite as bad as I thought it would be)

Not fool proof at all, and btw there is a AllowRightClick extension for firefox

Amongst the new builds of all the nero stuff, it's worth mentionning this one. Nero recode now offers AVC encoding. In fact, it creates MPEG4 ISO files: .MP4 files with AVC/AAC contents. it offers better quality than other ASP encoders like XviD (and of course DivX ). Enconding time can be a bit slow, but the results are outstanding. Their AAC codec is also one of the best audio codecs out there, both at low and high bitrates, and also offers 5.1 channel audio. it just might become my new encoding app over Gordian Knot (no, not crappy AGK-the real thing). Well worth the money!

Good man I'm one of those XHTML 1.1 Strict nazi's (and CSS2 all the way!)

Theres hundreds of things that can cause this. Latest one I've ran into was SpySweeper (depends in you install the shell hooks - which do get installed by default unattended install). Which was fixed by removing it by importing this reg file Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00 [-HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\Folder\shellex\ContextMenuHandlers\SpySweeper] You might have to look deeper

Unlimited diskspace, they know you're only going to use so much really (especially if they don't allow binary files or such). They intend to make you pay mostly for bandwidth. Lots of large files to download = lots of used up bandwidth = $$$. or the other scenario: Unlimited bandwidth, means either: 1) Your website will be so slow (makes you swear they serve 3000 websites on a 56k line) that you're hardly gonna use any. or 2) You got a decent speed, but they hardly give you any space, and the space will lost a lot. So they make their money again. That simple They all tend to give you some basic free hosting (a lot of them anyways) to later lure you into buying more space, more bandwidth, extra features (php/mysql, control panels, etc) and such to end up making some money. Also, lots of "free" hosting is free, but after a setup fee and/or domain registration/transfer fees and such things. Good, reliable hosting with lots of space, decent speed, high bandwidth, good features and everything usually isn't free. If it's free, there's almost always a catch: they're there to make money to pay server/connection/etc bills and make a living out of it too, so it can't all be free.

.

Sysprep works with different hardware, the only thing to watch for is the HAL, and even then you can change it. Most MUP.SYS issues I've seen weren't related to it, it just happened to crash just past that. (in most cases it was fixed by using a decent PSU)

@totoymola: If your install arleady writes the 1033 to the registry, then yeah it wouldn't be needed. Not sure if it was written at install or at first run. (can't be bothered checking, it doesn't hurt to have it there either ways) Unless you let us know otherwise, the SID you used is the one for the current user, so you're really importing the same info twice (if the SID actually resolves to anything as SIDs are (mostly) unique). So effectivly being nothing more than the other info pointed out before. Of course it still works. It's the same information as people have come up with before - plus some useless info abotu a SID that doesn't resolve to anything. Perhaps yuo don't know what they are or how they work? Tested working (not just by me either), works fine without the machine specific SID info, on more than a PC too. And we already know you like your buddies work a lot... You sound like he's invented the wheel or something.

People here love flashgetmore than anything else it seems (it's ok). Then if you use firefox there's a flashgot extension (there's already a BHO for IE I beleive). There's a whole bunch of other download managers. There's also a whole bunch of others that lots of people use. Like free download manager, download accelerator, getright, NetTransport... The best thing to do might just be to try them all out (those that look good to you) and see what works best for you.

That's the 137GB barrier. (137 "pretend" GB or 128 "real" ones, same thing, depends what you pick for 1GB, 1000 or 1024MB). You need 48 bit LBA support. Perhaps a BIOS update could offer it, else a different controller could. The old 28 bit adressing can't address the upper portion of your HD (2^28 sectors of 512 bytes each - or 128GB) Another option could be a new motherboard too. (btw, your OS has to support it too, but if you're using XP SP2 you should be fine)

I don't know why you all want the nice DOM inspector gone. I sure wouldn't use any installer that's missing it... QFA - sure, that one's useless.

Same here, I still use IRC, but you couldn't get me using any of those IM apps.

I haven't tried this, but ideally you'd want more switches, but even then, just about every time I make a winrar sfx, I need some different options ie: where to extract (full path, curr dir, temp dir, ...) and if to run an exe after. And there's obviously no way to make it guess what you want for you. Unless you just need some "make a basic sfx" (no comments or such in it), then sure, why not. And even then I'd add at least the switches for compression level and such. Either ways, making a sfx only takes an extra 2 clicks.