JorgeA

dencorso, The more I ponder this series of procedures, the less I think that we should go ahead with the full program, at least in my case. The thing is, Norton 360 provides too many benefits for me to realistically consider getting rid of it. And if there's no chance that I'll stop using it, then there's no point (beyond curiosity) in going through all of these steps. N360 alerts me when I'm opening an unsafe website. If I'm on Google, it automatically rates sites for safety right on the search results page. It also filters my e-mail for spam, and it scans e-mails for viruses. It offers many, many more features that I could get from other places (among them firewall, online backup, disk cleanup, login manager, anti-phishing), but for these the point is that N360 offers a single, integrated place at which to access these various functions. Aside from the fact that I would not even be aware of some of these functions were it not for N360, it cuts down on the need to keep track of which individual application is for what purpose. I know that Symantec products have many detractors for various reasons -- and it's by no means a perfect package -- but I find Norton 360 to be useful and very convenient. I no longer surf the Web on my PCs that don't have the Norton "Site Safety" feature (on those computers, I only visit sites that I know, or sites that I have first checked out on my N360-equipped PC). So, I wish to cancel the scheduled major surgery. I do want to learn how to create the most reliable kind of HDD image, but I'm going no further than that. I'm enormously grateful for your offer to spend a considerable amount of time on the proposed diagnostics, but I think it'll be time better spent on other issues. At my end, there is no shortage of questions to ask. --JorgeA

puntoMX, I'll be curious to hear both sides on this point. Of bigger concern to me, though, is that we're talking about my work PC here, so I'm eager to use the safest, least error-prone method possible. Whether the image takes a longer or shorter time to make, or even whether it takes up half of the new external HDD, is not nearly as important to me as whether the procedure yields a bootable image that is both faithful and reliable. In fact, honestly I'm not sure yet that I won't bail out on the part of the process that involves erasing the existing HDD. I will certainly go as far as creating the image, so that I can learn how to routinely create this kind of backup for use as a last resort in case of a catastrophic disk failure. But to go that next step -- I'm just not sure that the time + risk involved are worth the couple of minutes that I'll be saving when opening large Word files. --JorgeA

BlouBul, I appreciate the explanation, that's a very sensible approach! When I get a chance to, I'll round up all my programs (that aren't on CD/DVDs) and their serial numbers, and do the same thing. Thanks for the reminder!! LOL --JorgeA

Hey there, stranger! Thank you very much for the rundown of the process. When you get a chance, I'd like to revisit the part of our discussion where you warned that some kinds of disk images are not so reliable. If we go ahead with this, I want to make sure that we're using the most trustworthy method for restoring the HDD. --JorgeA

BlouBul, Interesting strategy! Let me see if I understand correctly what you do. So, let's say that you have downloaded the program "Infectmypc.zip". At some point, either before or after unzipping and installing the program, you copy it to this special folder where you store it for future reference. Then you also create a text file with the serial number for the program, and put it in that special folder. Did I get it right? --JorgeA

Hey BlouBul, Long time no see! Yes, that's what I, too, understood his idea to be. Hopefully, though, doing it will take some of the mystery and terror out of the process for me. That said, we'll have to consult some with dencorso on this, as I remember he was cautioning that at least some types of images may not be all that reliable when it comes to putting them back. Which could mean that my desire to shave a couple of minutes off a file loading time would leave me without a working PC. I'm not organized enough to have all that information at hand. (Probably a reflection of the scattered way in which my mind works...) I do have everything somewhere, but it's that "somewhere" that's the key. And of course, in many cases that "somewhere" is inside the PC as the program was downloaded and there never was a separate box or label with the number printed on it. I'm getting a headache just thinking about collecting all this info!! That sure would make the process a heck of a lot easier and less painful each time we did it. If we go ahead with this project, that's what I would like to do. How about a program like CCleaner? I've been using it regularly on two of my PCs, including this one, and it seems to get rid of a lot of registry garbage (its most useful feature IMHO). But is that, plus regular maintenance (deleting temporary files, etc.), enough to keep the system in tip-top shape? --JorgeA

puntoMX, Glad to have you back! Yes, I came up with the idea of a new CPU in this interim period while dencorso is busy and can't help with the diagnostics, as I looked for other ways that one might speed up the file loading,. The thinking is that whatever may be going on in the background is something that's being processed by the CPU, so if I have a faster processor, then whatever processing that may turn out to be, it will be done faster. Maybe when dencorso returns and guides BlouBul and me through the disk imaging process, then I'll have a better idea of how it works and feel more comfortable with the notion of an OS reinstall. Although, to think of it, it really doesn't help to do an image of the system and then put it back over the newly reinstalled disk -- that would bring back all the problems that convinced us to reinstall the OS in the first place, no? So it would have to be a laborious process of cataloguing every program on the PC and then reinstalling each one manually, one by one, finding product license numbers, entering them. Just thinking about it, I can hardly believe that some people, as they claim, actually reinstall their OS twice a year. --JorgeA

CoffeeFiend, The depth of your computer knowledge is truly impressive. Vertex shaders, whoa! B) I'm assuming that, as with the CPU, installing a video card is also a straightforward process of inserting the card in the slot, reconnecting the monitor to it, and having the system recognize it automatically. OK, so we have come to some solid ideas on a video card and the CPU (although I'm still tempted to shell out for a fast Core 2 Quad...). How about increasing the RAM from 4GB to 8GB -- no real point in it, right? Thanks for the scoop on the Windows Experience Index, BTW. --JorgeA

CoffeeFiend, We're getting closer to a decision! Now, the PC does currently have 4GB of RAM (4 x 1GB modules) installed. According to the System Information Viewer, they're DDR2 PC2-6400 at 800 MHz. Does this info affect the RAM recommendation? The video card upgrade is also intriguing. The other day I happened to run the Windows Experience Index for the first time in a while, and my video rating had gone down to 3.3 (from the previous 3.4) even though I haven't made any changes at all to the hardware!?! --JorgeA

Nope. Windows cannot tell. But it's not too hard to guesstimate CoffeeFiend, Umm... how would one do that? You can safely assume that I'm completely ignorant when it comes to electrical issues. (In addition to anything else I might be ignorant about!) As for the full set of improvements, I think I'll stick to one upgrade, tops -- either new RAM or a new CPU, otherwise it starts getting pretty expensive as you pointed out. If I do anything at all. that is. --JorgeA

CoffeeFiend, Yeah, anything over $200 might be just too many bucks for the bang. I'll have to think about that. OTOH, I'm sure that I don't want to replace the motherboard. That does sound like a major physical project for this all-thumbs guy, and reinstalling the OS and all my programs would be such a PITA that I might be better off saving my pennies to get a whole new PC and start fresh. That's a good point, though, about the 250W PSU. Some of these higher-end CPUs are 95W. Other than getting one of those Radio Shack devices that measures your power draw, is there any way (like, from inside Windows) to find out how much power the machine is using, so that one could gauge whether a new PSU would be in order with a new CPU? I really appreciate your filling me on all these issues as I explore getting deeper into my computer -- literally! --JorgeA

CoffeFiend, This is extremely informative, thank you! I see what you mean about the performance gain vs. the additional cost. But, let's say for the sake of argument that cost is a secondary consideration. How much more difficult or complex would it be to get one of those Core 2 Quads running on my PC? Is it still a pretty straighforward installation+recognition process, like you described (for example) with the Pentium E6800, or are there more steps involved? Not that I'm a trust-fund baby with $$$ to burn -- far from it! I am curious, though. My PC sometimes (all right, most of the time) works on a distributed computing project, and it could make use of the extra cores. But, would a quad-core CPU "just work," or is there additional tweaking to be done beyond that for the E6800? One more head-scratcher. Can you check out my PC's specifications, and tell me what the letters Y, W, K, C, and C mean, when you expand the "Processor upgrade information"? I thought that maybe Y stands for Yorkfield and W for Wolfdale, but that doesn't work for every listing on the Newegg page,and anyway it still leaves K and C to be explained. (And does the info mean to say that I could put in an E6700, but not an E6800?) This is all new and exciting, but mysterious... --JorgeA

CoffeeFiend, Thanks for the information! Based on what you said, I went on the Newegg website at: http://www.newegg.com/Store/SubCategory.aspx?SubCategory=343&name=Processors-Desktops. (The forum menu to insert links isn't showing up on my screen. For that matter, neither is the emoticons list. And the drop-down menu for my profile has popped down and won't roll back up.) If I understand correctly what you said, I should be looking at the CPUs described on that page as "Wolfdale" or "Yorkfield;" they're the ones that carry that 775 number. The Core i5's that are shown there seem to have a different number associated with them. Supposing that I did want to get one of these babies, what would be involved in getting everything to work together, besides dropping it into the socket? Would Windows just recognize the new CPU? Any changes to the BIOS settings or values that I'd have to make? Never done anything like this before... ...but it's a tempting idea!! --JorgeA

puntoMX, Oh, so you run like an Internet café, or something like that? Thank you for the new thoughts on the AHCI. After you suggested it, I started looking into that and I got the definite impression that I could mess things up royally! But I will look some into the possibility of upgrading the CPU. I think dencorso somewhere had linked to a site, or presented a list, of CPUs that are compatible with my motherboard. Have a great weekend. --JorgeA

puntoMX, Can you elaborate on what it means that you're using Windows 7 in public places with administrative access? BTW, thanks for the insights. They help to guide my decision. But an OS reinstall I am trying to avoid like the plague... I'll try to figure out how to determine if AHCI is enabled on my system. (Go into the BIOS?) I do know that my HDD supports NCQ. --JorgeA

Hi puntoMX, I guess that I would either throw out or store away the current 1GB RAM modules, as I would be putting in four new 2GB modules. Don't know what else one could do with the old ones. The reason I'm thinking about installing faster RAM (if that's possible for my PC) is to see if it helps with the slow loading of Word files, as discussed in that long thread that has gone dormant for the time being. The only other possibility I can think of, to cut down on those 3-minute file loading times, is to get a faster CPU. What do you think? Is there a way to get my PC to make use of faster RAM, or not really? --JorgeA

Hey puntoMX, Great to hear from you! And thanks for the tip. Sounds like HP and not Crucial is correct. Maybe I'll swap out the four 1GB RAM modules it has in there now for 2GB ones. (The current modules are of the 800MHz variety.) Can you fill me in on that "low timing modules" concept? I'm not sure what that means. --JorgeA

Hello, I'm considering adding more RAM to my Vista PC, but the information provided by the manufacturer and a major RAM vendor is in conflict. The Hewlett-Packard specifications say that my PC can take DDR2 DIMM modules up to PC2-6400. This amounts to an 800MHz front-side bus speed. However, if you then expand the motherboard information, it says that it can handle up to 1333 MHz. However, the Crucial page for my PC claims that it can take modules up to PC2-8500, which is equivalent to a FSB speed of 1066 MHz. So my question is -- what is, in fact, the fastest RAM that I can USEFULLY install on this computer? Is it PC2-6400, PC2-8500, or something perhaps even faster? There are plausible reasons to doubt the accuracy of either website. The HP information could well be outdated, but OTOH Crucial could well be trying to sell me more expensive RAM that I can't use to its fullest potential. Who's right? Thanks for any insight you might provide! --JorgeA

Hello, I've been unable to download/install the Windows Live OneCare safety scanner on my Vista tower. I keep getting, in the lower left corner of my browser, a yellow triangle with an exclamation point and a notation saying, "Error on page." When I clicked on that text and copied the error details, I got the following information: Webpage error details User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.0; WOW64; Trident/4.0; SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; Media Center PC 5.0; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30729; .NET4.0C) Timestamp: Xxx, XX Nov 2010 XX:XX:XX UTC [timestamp information redacted] Message: Unspecified error. Line: 77 Char: 2 Code: 0 URI: http://onecare.live.com/resource/js/s_code_h_2.js Message: Unspecified error. Line: 93 Char: 4 Code: 0 URI: http://onecare.live.com/resource/js/common/install.js Message: Unspecified error. Line: 1 Char: 1 Code: 0 URI: http://onecare.live.com/site/en-us/sandbox/install.htm?scanner=default&goback=http%3A%2F%2Fonecare.live.com%2Fsite%2Fen-us%2Fcenter%2Fwhatsnew.htm Message: Unspecified error. Line: 1 Char: 1 Code: 0 URI: http://onecare.live.com/site/en-us/sandbox/install.htm?scanner=default&goback=http%3A%2F%2Fonecare.live.com%2Fsite%2Fen-us%2Fcenter%2Fwhatsnew.htm The symptom is that, when I click on the "Install Now" button, it's highlighted, but nothing further happens. Despite the heading, "Webpage error details," I don't think that this is a problem with the website, as from the same page I was able to download, install, and run the scanner on my Vista laptop, so it must have something to do with the particular PC. Can anybody here decipher this log for me and figure out what's going on? It's not very helpful to keep saying, "Unspecified" error. Thanks in advance for any ideas or tips. --JorgeA

cluberti (and @Sp0iLedBrAt), I ran the OneLiveCare scanner by Microsoft on the Vista laptop. It didn't find any malware, but it did perform some repairs on the Registry. Afterward, I was able to download the MRT via the usual (automated-with-permission) method, and it's running as I write this. How about that. As for the Vista tower, I went to the update page, did a manual download of the MRT, and then was able to run the program. It didn't find anything wrong. But out of curiosity I tried to download it through the automated process, and it still failed. Nor can I get the OneLiveCare installation. Hmm... But the main crisis seems to have passed. I'll still check out the informative WUSA links you both gave me, for the next time something like this happens. You can never have too many options. Thanks very much! --JorgeA

cluberti, I have no clue as to what I might have done to both machines that would screw up this update, and no clue as to how to go about investigating it. This is the first time an MRT install has failed on either PC. How does one utilize that WUSA thing? I did a Search, clicked on it, and it fails with some error message about needing the "full path" of the MSU file. Not a very informative message, actually. What do I enter for "update"? How would I find out the correct name of whatever it is that I would put in there?? This is all very frustrating. And Microsoft is absolutely no help with its vague message about Windows Update encountering an "unknown error." Totally out at sea here. I could use some guidance! --JorgeA UPDATE: The WUSA thing may now be moot. The Vista laptop is currently running the Windows Live online safety scanner (first time I've ever tried that); but the Vista tower was unable to download the files for that. However, the Vista tower was able to download the MRT manually, and it's running as I write this. I'll report back if it finds anything.

cluberti, I'll have to research this WUSA log stuff, never heard of the concept before today. I was mainly hoping to see if you or anybody else had experienced this issue, which occurred with today's MRT update, and if anybody knew anything about it. I guess it's too early in the process to tell, but since both of my Vista PCs had the problem, then it suggests the possibility that it might be a more widespread issue. --JorgeA

cluberti, Sorry if this constitutes a thread hijacking, but it has to do exactly with the subject of the title -- Today, my two Vista computers have repeatedly failed to install this month's Malicious Software Removal Tool (error code 80200053). When I click on "Get help with this error," there is no reference to the actual code number. Restarting the PCs to try again didn't make any difference. Is this happening to you (or to anybody else reading this), and what can one do about it? It's a bit concerning that it would be precisely the tool for malicious software that's being prevented from installing. --JorgeA

dencorso, You're welcome. Glad to be of service! Oh, I know what THAT's like... I'll check out that thread tomorrow (Thursday). --JorgeA

dencorso, That's very OK with me, thanks! I went through the thread with AnnieMS. What a frustrating problem. My only quibble is that one of the links you gave her, when I clicked on it, instead of taking me to a sticky thread about disk imaging, it took me to a short thread about MSN Messenger. And as far as being unexpectedly busy this week -- ride the wave for all it's worth!! --JorgeA