jcarle

Does it continuously do so all the time?

Sorry, my bad. I didn't think it mattered with nLite. Guess I know different now. The only reason I haven't added automatic installation of the updates is because I don't have the information on the command-line switches for each update and/or how to verify if it is already installed and/or the required order of installation. Mostly, I lack the time to do the research to find this out. If you'd like to give me a hand with that nuhi, I'd love the help. Just send me a PM if you're interested.

Make sure you re-download the latest version and re-install it. There was a minor bug fix integrated into it. Also make sure that you have the most current UL (from January) as the Malicious Software Removal Tool changes every month.

UL is short for Update List.

The january ULs will be posted soon.

slipstream sp2 first, then wmp11, then hotfixes

Visual Studio Orca is supposed to be released soon. I'm undecided as to wether I rewrite the download implementation I have now or wait to see if the .NET 3.0 implementation would offer better support for resuming.

you have to replace it in dllcache first, then in system32

Um, yes it will. It's a full blown processor. This is NOT hyperthreading that we're talking about. Dual core processors have the same power as dual processors.

Well, I didn't really forget about them per se. I just figured that I might as well limit it to the big three who have the lion's share of the market. I know that Hitachi, Samsung, Fujitsu and IBM also make hard drives, but as far as I know, their market share is not very large.

READ THE FOLLOWING CAREFULLY BEFORE FLAMING. I am not, and I repeat, NOT trying to sound like a jackass, nor am I trying to make anyone feel stupid. I am neither trying to say that anyone/everyone is stupid. I am NOT. Repeat NOT! With that out of the way... I think that anyone who thinks a single core processor is better then a dual core processor is completely missing the point. Can a computer run fine using a single core processor? Yes... and they have since 1981 when the first PC was released to the public. However, the same computer can run BETTER with a dual core processor. And that's the point I think everyone is missing. I went from a Pentium 630 (3.0GHz single core, 800MHz FSB, 2MB Cache) to a Pentium 930 (3.0GHz dual core, 800MHz FSB, 4MB Cache) and IMMEDIATELY saw a difference. I changed NOTHING else in my machine, not a piece of hardware, not a piece of software, not even a BIOS setting. And when changes in computer technology speed are measured in milliseconds (such as the difference in memory timings), to be able to objectively see a difference in the speed of my computer simply by changing to dual core, it's something great. What a lot of people are forgetting is that there is no such thing as true multi-tasking and true multi-threading on a single core computer. That's where the concept of time-slicing came in (which, if I'm not mistaken, was invented by Microsoft with Windows). Before time-slicing, everything was one application at a time and one task at a time... Think DOS. When you're running a computer in DOS, you can only do ONE thing. You can run a program and only that program. Once you're finished, you come back to the DOS prompt where the computer waits for it's next command. Windows gets beyond this by time-slicing the processor between all the different programs that are running (or system processes). If you have a single processor, well, you're dividing all the work to be done between it. So if you have 4 applications running which would require 100% CPU then each application gets to use the CPU 1/4rd of the time (and for those who are more astute on time-slicing, I'm over simplifying). So each program will take 4x the time to do it's work then if they were running alone. The same scenario using a dual core processor is completely different ball game. The same 4 applications running which would require 100% CPU would each get 1/4 of the processor as in the first scenario, but this is where the cores come in. Since they are 2 cores, each core shares the work. So one core takes two applications, the other takes the other two. Each application then gets 1/2 of each core. So instead of taking 4x the time to complete, the applications will take only 2x the time to complete. On my machine, I have 28 processes that start with my computer. That includes the Windows system processes, different services and background utilities. On a single core machine, that means that the processor has to be time-sliced 28 times. On my dual core, each core can be distributed with 14 processes. That's a significant difference. Windows does all of this work transparently so you don't even need to worry about it. But if you want to get finicky, you can always set a process to work exclusively on one core only. You could even make all windows threads work on the second core only, and have a single dedicated core available to whatever it is you want to do, such as play a cpu intensive game. At the price of current CPUs, why wouldn't you get a dual core processor? Hell, I can't wait for intel to release a 3.0GHz quad-core, there's just too many benefits to more cores. Read more about Time-Slicing.

I'll say one thing, even if I trust WD over all others, Seagate still has the crown when it comes to capacity and perpendicular recording.

Click on the plus icon, which opens up WUD's webpage. From there, select a UL you'd like to use, then when asked if you want to save or open the UL, open it. It will then be installed in WUD. Simply click the refresh button and you can select the UL that was installed. Select the updates you want to download and off it will go.

ConvertXtoDVD works just fine for me. If you haven't already, give it a spin.

That's like a bandwidth orgasm.

Anything by OCZ is my recommendation.

Nope. Depends on the processor. Older generation Pentiums (like the 930) had individual L2 caches for each core (1MB OR 2MB) while newer Core 2 Duo have a single shared L2 cache (4MB typically). AMD X2s also have individual L2 caches for each core.

@maleko: Check out CPU Rightmark Clock (Freeware) which allows you to do just what you asked (and more).

Er? The WMP11 Integrator or Windows Updates Downloader? You asked about the WMP11 Integrator but it sounds like you're talking about the Windows Updates Downloader...

****! I've been discovered! Run for it!

I tried that & got a one word reply back from allanol some 2 years ago, the reply was " Ritalin " I was lost for words & gave up any hope for any form of justice being served. I then pointed out the fact the member did it again & was given a reply that read " the moderators cannot read every post on the forum " Thus my generally contempt attitude overall. As far as the search go's I made a post about what I was looking for, iv'e given up searching. Thanks anyway.! Keep in mind, there's a been a fair amount of change within the moderators of MSFN since then.

That would be sysdm.cpl, found in Windows\system32. The bitmap in question is #1033. (Which can be edited using a Resource Editor).

That's the missing information I don't have.

If you're going to include them in the package, simply extract the ULs from the ULZs and copy the uncompressed ULs to the program directory. A ULZ is simply the a UL file that is compressed using WinZip algorythms. You can extract the ULs from the ULZs using WinZip, WinRAR or 7zip. All WUD does is associate itself to the ULZ extension and automatically extracts the UL and copies it to it's program directory.

I believe you're referring to OEMLOGO.BMP and OEMINFO.INI. There's a full guide to how it works available here.