bkraptor

I've had those 2 protocols disabled from the start, as they were flooding the network. I don't think there's a tcpip.sys file that is for Vista, and I wouldn't use one from XP.

Nothing appears in event viewer. I haven't stopped or blocked any services. If that guy's problem was the same as ours he would be reporting that his connection stopped working all of the sudden, he wouldn't be worried about decreasing download rates in uTorrent. uTorrent never eats up more than 20 kB/s upband, whereas I have around 512 kB/s upload bandwidth (tested!) I remember once when this happened, I can't really recall what exactly I tried to do, but I know I got a message saying something like I didn't have enough privileges to complete that action. One reboot later and everything was fine again.

It just happened to me again, so the reinstall didn't solve anything. I re-checked, and no 4226 was reported, or anything at all for that matter. This time I closed uTorrent but nothing would work. Then after ~2 minutes everything started working again. I would take a look at uTorrent, but I would definitely not rule out ICS. The guy reporting speed problems with uTorrent certainly has a completely different problem than us. Our connection just stops working all of the sudden.

Wow that gave me a headache. Any particular reason it might turn off by itself?

A. An item dealing with the Vista shell, limited to 60 words or less. Bring back the old "Up one level" button. I can probably live w/o it, but I certainly miss it. B. An item dealing with the Vista UI, limited to 60 words or less. Favourite links? WTF - if it won't work why force me to use it? Personalization? Either return to the old tab style, or make everything using the new look. Stop using both the new look AND one-tabbed windows. Also you should make everything easier to find, I shouldn't be digging in the System properties to go to the Performance window to be able to click the "Adjust visual effects" link, which BTW, has a UAC-like shield icon on it, suggesting you'd need administrative privileges to access it, which it doesn't need. C. An item dealing with the core functionality of Vista, limited to 60 words or less. Why have symlinks/junctions if there's no way to create/manage them by default. And why have them at all if they simply won't work (except for those that YOU create manually with junction.exe) D. An item dealing with Vista networking features, limited to 60 words or less. Wow... the network and sharing center just sucks. So much bloat... And double clicking the network icon should default to "Manage network connections" instead of DOING NOTHING! Also forgot to mention... SPEED. It is unacceptable for a high end PC to feel like Windows XP running on 256 MB RAM.

I had the exact same problem before my reinstall (haven't yet checked if it's fixed now, but I suspect it isn't). System: Intel C2D, 2 GB DDR RAM, Intel Pro/100+ Management LAN Adapter for ISP connection, Onboard Marvell Yukon 1Gbps for LAN (ICS is enabled). Vista Ultimate x64 RTM, not yet activated. All updates installed, NO system tweaking whatsoever, except for disabling Windows Defender. My connection uses PPPoE (it isn't broadband though - it uses UTP cable that comes from a local switch that connects to the local media converter that goes to my ISP). The problem occured with both the default Windows driver for the Intel adapter, and the WHQL one supplied by Intel, and it manifested itself exactly as Tassadaru described it: all existing connections continued to work flawlessly, NO new connections could be made. Windows didn't inform me of any cricical error, but I checked and the 4226 event wasn't reported along with the freeze. As I had uTorrent running in the background I didn't think of restarting it to fix the problem, instead I resorted to rebooting, which fixed the problem for the moment. I am curious to find out whether the auto-thing in Vista is responsible for it. What Tassadaru and me have in common is: 1. ICS 2. uTorrent 3. Vista 4. nationality

A weird thing happened today. I never actually tried to reboot in between the setting of the ClearType Tuning Control Panel Applet. So while I was experimenting with rebooting, I noticed it taking effect, then I noticed it also had an effect even without rebooting. I set it to the lightest contrast level, and now all my display problems are gone. Thanks for all the help.

I forgot to mention, I have a 19" TFT (LCD) with a Samsung 2ms panel.

Yes, ClearType was enabled even before starting this topic, I did disable it and enabled it the way you described. I tried changing the various reg options you posted and rebooted in between, with no visible effect on text. <edit> Posted the above message right after you posted your latest message. I did a search for "ClearType_Tuning_Control_Panel_Applet", but it returned no results. Can you provide a link? I tried the online tool from Microsoft but it does nothing, using both IE7 and FireFox 2.

I don't want to flame you, but if ClearType worked at the device level you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the screenshots with and without ClearType. And I do agree, no ClearType looks better on bold or small text, but otherwise, for general reading it's way better with it on.

Thanks for clarifying things for me, I still have one problem though. The registry values you listed don't exist at HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Control Panel\Desktop. I manually created them, but tweaking them has no effect on the displayed text. Is there a reboot required? I also tried using the powertoy for XP, but that doesn't work either

Well, this is a matter of taste, and the problem here is not whether or not ClearType looks good or not, but rather how to tweak its settings like in XP. <edit> Here's another example. First image with ClearType on, there's a clear greenish tint to the whole text on the page, while the 2nd image with no ClearType has no greenish tint.

dAbReAkA: Can't you notice the reddish and greenish tints all around the bolded text? I don't have XP installed any more so I can't post screenshots. Screemer: thanks, but that link doesn't work for Vista. First image is with ClearType, zoomed to 400%, 2nd image is the same thing with ClearType disabled.

Wow... is there no way to do this? This is driving me insane... it's even worse with white text on black background

I used to tweak my ClearType settings in XP with the ClearType Tunning PowerToy, but there's no such thing in Vista. Can anyone help me with a link / hint?

I have spotted this "win51ip.SP1" file that is present on the SP1->SP2 slipstreamed CD, but is not present on the original -> SP2 slipstreamed CD, so I was asking what other files might differ (because I know the one mentioned makes no difference).

I'm just worried that junk might remain from the slipstreaming of SP1.

I'm going to make a slipstreamed CD of XP Pro with SP2, but I'm wondering, how is it better to make it: - over the original Windows XP Professional CD - over the slipstreamed Windows XP Professional SP1 CD Would it be too much if I asked to have an explanation as to why one way is better than the other? Thanks PS: Sorry if this has already been discussed, my searching skills aren't that developed

Right click my computer -> advanced -> Performance Settings -> make sure the "Use drop shadows for icon labels on the desktop" checkbox is on. Sorry, but I have no idea how to do it any other way.

I like being open-minded, and that's why I don't like excluding the different possibilities. What made me suspect this was not the final version was the fact that the boot screen has some parts missing (like the "Professional" and the year of the copyright). I regarded the possiblity of the 1st file being a fake as very low, that is why I made the assumption that both were MS at origin. With the help of gabriel, who, btw, kindly explained that the 1st file is most likely a fake, I reached the conclusion that my 1st assumption (the one about both files being of MS origin) was false. Thus the problem (at least from my pov) is solved. What I don't like, though, is people that view me from above and give me useless answers like RTFM and such. I am a member of lots of forums and this is BY FAR the most aggressive one I've visited. I really believe you should not have this kind of attitude towards newcomers, as I do everything possible to avoid doing this on the forums I am an "elder". <edit> prathapml, thanks for the explanation of what "xpsp2_RTM_ENU.exe" really is.

viceversa, what gabriel said and you didn't was the fact that the other file I was comparing the MS one with was probably a fake. One thing about what gabriel said is not true though... It's for him and he knows what it means

XPerties, I believe you're completely offtopic. And with that kind of attitude there will be lots of things you will never understand. gabriel, thanks for the complete response, you answered my question.

It seems I won't get any answers here. Well, at least I tried. Can any mod close this topic now? Thanks! <edit> PS: if everybody has it doesn't mean it's actually supposed to be there. Open up your mind. It won't hurt!

If it's the "final" one then why does IE claim it's the RTM one? (look at the image in the first post). Shouldn't there be a "final" string attached to it? or possibly no string at all? I am talking about the RTM version (xpsp2_RTM_ENU.exe) and the MS downloadeable one (WindowsXP-KB835935-SP2-ENU.exe). That page you gave me (which, btw, I had already read when I first started this topic) says nothing about the RTM version (xpsp2_RTM_ENU.exe), so no, all my questions are NOT answered on that page.

There actually is NOTHING to read. It's all about "WindowsXP-KB835935-SP2-ENU.exe", which I've also mentioned in a previous post. So please do not be rude. Maybe you did not understand what my question is: I've seen 2 "final" versions of SP2: the RTM version (278 920 704 bytes, MD5 94276421fa963122a4e434d3b14fdc01) and the "WindowsXP-KB835935-SP2-ENU.exe" version (278 927 592 bytes, MD5 59a98f181fe383907e520a391d75b5a7). I thought the 1st one was for manufacturers, while the 2nd was intended for general public use (aka downloadeable). So I went on and installed the 2nd version (WindowsXP-KB835935-SP2-ENU.exe), but when I looked in the "About IE" page I noticed what is in the picture in the first post - IE claims to have SP2 RTM installed. So this is contradictory to my first assumption: the 2 packages might be the same - both RTM. So here comes my question: they differ in size and MD5Sum - so what is actually different about them? PS: please please please try to avoid being rude! I may be new here but I'm not the average Joe.