cluberti

Can you paste (in code tags) the output of "bcdedit /ENUM" ?

Well, yes, considering the RAID arrays I moved were not the boot drives. Whew . OK, so that makes me feel a bit better. Are we sure the new machine has enough power from the PSU for those drives plus all the other components?

http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showto...18002&st=20

Did you really just move your hard drives from an older *Intel* machine to a newer *AMD* machine and think that Windows would boot? I would have at least suggest sysprep before moving from one vendor to another - and AMD to Intel usually goes far cleaner than what you did. Here's a question - if you press F8 repeatedly after your RAID controller BIOS exits the screen, can you see the XP boot menu? If so, can you boot in Safe Mode? Note you may have to do a repair install to get things working again, so keep that in the back of your mind.

To get back on track with the OP, I've answered as best I could think: It would depend on how much RAM the system can handle (likely 3 or 4GB, even for a mobo for an Athlon XP 2200), and whether or not running a system with older other components (like hard drive, PSU, etc) is something you want to do. However, if the box does everything this person would want already, then perhaps this is the most attractive option if cost is the overriding factor. Honestly, for XP being circa 2001-era code, anything dual core is more than enough given a decent amount of RAM (again, it's an x86 Windows client OS so max 4GB anyway) for pretty much what you've described it being used for. Even a relatively fast single-core would be fine, although dual-core helps with multitasking and the like.Something to keep in mind is that the AMD Athlon XP 2200+ was a 1.8GHz part, and single core. If I go back to even the Athlon X2 5600+ (2.9GHz, dual-core) and compare it to an Intel Pentium E2200 (2.2GHz, dual-core), they're about the same price online, and they benchmark approximately the same. Compare either of those against the AMD Athlon X2 4600+ (which is head and shoulders above the AMD Athlon XP 2200+ that is currently in that system - the benchmarks on that site only go back so far ), and see what ~$70 will buy you nowadays. Very good CPUs for "good enough" computing as it's been called here at MSFN are quite cheap, and still quite powerful. No, DDR2 memory is really very cheap nowadays. There are IDE to SATA converters, but it might be better to look for a motherboard that still has an IDE port (at least one) if you really, really need to keep that IDE drive around. However, since you've mentioned this install is a bit old and crufty, it might be wise just to spend a slight bit more on a newer SATA drive and not limit your motherboard choices. However, I don't know what's on this drive, although perhaps getting a USB or Firewire external enclosure to hold this 80GB drive so that the data can be recovered after the new install might also solve that problem, if that is indeed the reason for keeping the drive in the first place. Again, it would depend. If we're talking about perhaps HD video or watching movies in the future, getting a GeForce 8xxx/9xxx or an ATI Radeon 3xxx/4xxx card wouldn't be a bad idea. However, if we're talking about more basic needs, onboard should be fine. Again, it depends on what you might expect over the (rest of the) life of this system, so spec accordingly. Think 2 - 3 years down the road, and use that as your guide.

So this, Microsoft's documentation on the subject, is wrong? And my XP Professional install, with 2 dual-core CPUs (not Hyperthreaded, either - 4 real, actual cores on 2 sockets) using all 4 cores is somehow ... wrong? Is this some language barrier thing? I would hope so, because otherwise you're just being argumentative for the sake of argument (and, you're still wrong, for what it's worth). Seriously though, what part of this do you still not understand? Note the usage of the word processor. It is the actual, physical CPU that goes in the CPU socket, and the separation of the CPU core from the processor - you can use as many cores as Intel, AMD, et. al. can fit onto a single processor socket in Windows XP Home, and as many cores as Intel, AMD, et.al. can fit onto *2* processor sockets in Windows XP Professional. This really shouldn't be that hard to comprehend.

Yup - looks like it was loading the device profile from an XML file when it crashed: // The crashing thread: 0:044> kn # ChildEBP RetAddr 00 0947e708 097ad05c kernel32!RaiseException+0x58 WARNING: Stack unwind information not available. Following frames may be wrong. 01 0947e770 097acd56 WLIHVUI!DllUnregisterServer+0xbdcc 02 0947e7ec 0977a8fa WLIHVUI!DllUnregisterServer+0xbac6 03 0947e8f0 097a59ab WLIHVUI+0x1a8fa 04 0947e9d0 097a4516 WLIHVUI!DllUnregisterServer+0x471b 05 0947eb0c 097a33e3 WLIHVUI!DllUnregisterServer+0x3286 06 0947ebf0 097a3d3e WLIHVUI!DllUnregisterServer+0x2153 07 0947ecdc 76511f4d WLIHVUI!DllUnregisterServer+0x2aae 08 0947ed64 76527021 ole32!CServerContextActivator::CreateInstance+0x172 09 0947eda4 76512071 ole32!ActivationPropertiesIn::DelegateCreateInstance+0x108 0a 0947edf8 76511fe6 ole32!CApartmentActivator::CreateInstance+0x112 0b 0947ee18 76511b5d ole32!CProcessActivator::CCICallback+0x6d 0c 0947ee38 76511b0e ole32!CProcessActivator::AttemptActivation+0x2c 0d 0947ee74 765120d4 ole32!CProcessActivator::ActivateByContext+0x4f 0e 0947ee9c 76527021 ole32!CProcessActivator::CreateInstance+0x49 0f 0947eedc 765270e7 ole32!ActivationPropertiesIn::DelegateCreateInstance+0x108 10 0947f13c 76527021 ole32!CClientContextActivator::CreateInstance+0xb0 11 0947f17c 76526f49 ole32!ActivationPropertiesIn::DelegateCreateInstance+0x108 12 0947f954 7653dbc7 ole32!ICoCreateInstanceEx+0x403 13 0947f9b4 7653de0a ole32!CComActivator::DoCreateInstance+0xd9 14 0947f9d8 7653ddc3 ole32!CoCreateInstanceEx+0x38 15 0947fa08 6d48d327 ole32!CoCreateInstance+0x37 16 0947fa34 6d48caee wlanui!IHVHelper::IHVHlpInitialize+0x2c 17 0947fa78 6d48ccdc wlanui!CAdvancedUI::ShowAdvancedUI+0x127 18 0947faa4 6d48cd48 wlanui!WLInvokeProfileUI+0x28 19 0947fadc 6d48ce30 wlanui!WLInvokeProfileUIFromXMLFile+0x47 1a 0947fb3c 650c1c3f wlanui!WlanUIEditProfile+0xa4 1b 0947fb98 650c250c wlanpref!ShowWlanProfileDialog+0x43 1c 0947fbcc 769c8b13 wlanpref!CPreflistContextMenu::InvokeCommand+0x129 1d 0947fc34 769c8a60 shell32!CShellExecute::_InvokeInProcExec+0xaf 1e 0947fc4c 769c8a1b shell32!CShellExecute::_InvokeCtxMenu+0x2e 1f 0947fc60 768ce1d2 shell32!CShellExecute::_DoExecute+0x4f 20 0947fc70 7745b132 shell32!CShellExecute::s_ExecuteThreadProc+0x25 21 0947fcec 76433823 shlwapi!WrapperThreadProc+0x10f 22 0947fcf8 7783a9bd kernel32!BaseThreadInitThunk+0xe 23 0947fd38 00000000 ntdll!_RtlUserThreadStart+0x23 // Looks like something wanted to bring up the wireless properties of the driver or the network places: 0:044> .frame 1b 1b 0947fb98 650c250c wlanpref!ShowWlanProfileDialog+0x43 0:044> dt ifaceguid Local var @ 0x947fb78 Type _GUID {704df1d0-0b07-4b19-84e8-9afac41e8306} // <- The GUID for a network interface, likely your wireless 0:044> dt strName Local var @ 0x947fb74 Type WTL::CString +0x000 m_pchData : 0x015d90fc "06B409947164" // Loading the xml file: 0:044> .frame 19 19 0947fadc 6d48ce30 wlanui!WLInvokeProfileUIFromXMLFile+0x47 0:044> dt wstrProfileXmlInput Local var @ 0x947fae4 Type wchar_t* 0x08089028 "<?xml version="1.0"?>..<WLANProfile xmlns="http://www.microsoft.com/networking/WLAN/profile/v1">...<name>06B409947164</name>...<SSIDConfig>....<SSID>....." // Loading the UI extensibility CLSID, so the driver has hooks to extend the display properties: 0:044> .frame 08 08 0947ed64 76527021 ole32!CServerContextActivator::CreateInstance+0x172 0:044> dt pClsid Local var @ 0x947ed18 Type _GUID* 0x05c07324 {1bf6cb2d-2ae0-4879-a7aa-a75834fbd0e3} // <- UI extensibility CLSID 0:044> lmvm wlihvui start end module name 09760000 0984e000 WLIHVUI (export symbols) WLIHVUI.dll Loaded symbol image file: WLIHVUI.dll Image path: C:\Windows\System32\WLIHVUI.dll Image name: WLIHVUI.dll Timestamp: Mon Oct 08 17:21:43 2007 (470A9F67) CheckSum: 000F7982 ImageSize: 000EE000 File version: 11.5.0.0 Product version: 11.5.0.0 File flags: 0 (Mask 3F) File OS: 4 Unknown Win32 File type: 2.0 Dll File date: 00000000.00000000 Translations: 0409.04b0 ProductName: WLIHVUI Module InternalName: WLIHVUI OriginalFilename: WLIHVUI.DLL ProductVersion: 11. 5. 0. 0 FileVersion: 11. 5. 0. 0 FileDescription: WLIHVUI Module LegalCopyright: Copyright (c) Intel Corporation 1999-2007 ... and then we go into the Intel driver, doing whatever it is it does with this data, and crashes. So, it seems the driver was using the UI extensibility APIs to load data from an xml file, and crashed doing whatever it was it was doing with the file. If the newer driver works, it would seem Intel has fixed the problem. I just posted so you could see what was happening - you already know the fix, but now you know why it was broken.

You can use multi-core CPUs in XP Home, but only on one socket. Since most people's home machines don't have dual-socket motherboards, this isn't a problem. This has been discussed here earlier, and Microsoft has their official statement here. Again, basically you can cram as many CPU cores on one CPU socket, and Windows XP Home will be able to use all of them. You only run into problems with XP Home when you add a second physical CPU into a second physical CPU socket, XP Home won't "see" or use any CPU cores on the second socket (whereas XP Professional would, as it supports 2 CPU sockets vs 1 for XP Home).

Because Microsoft limits the number of sockets you can have based on what you've paid for, so "supporting" versus "can use" is strictly licensing. XP Home can "see" one socket, but it can *use* as many cores as you can cram on said socket due to the way Microsoft licenses the product. XP Pro can "see" two sockets, and it can *use* as many cores as you can cram on said sockets, again due to licensing restrictions. Server 2003 can see differing sockets (again, not cores, sockets) based on what you've licensed, hence the discussion.

For example, on an x64 Vista system you should be able to download the en-us x64 package to C:\TEMP (again, example) and install it as follows: start /w expand -f:* C:\TEMP\Windows6.0-KB941314-x64_en-US.msu C:\TEMP\941314 start /w pkgmgr.exe /m:C:\TEMP\941314\Windows6.0-KB941314-x64.cab /l:C:\TEMP\941314.log This will expand the msu into it's 4 component files, and pkgmgr should be able to install it (or at least attempt to install it) from the xml answer file and the .cab file (the pkgmgr.exe command line above). Once pkgmgr fails or succeeds, you can check the 941314.log to see what happened. However, I just noticed in your first post you said you were running Home Premium. Looking closely at the RSAT package download page, it may just be that your OS doesn't qualify as a version this will run on: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details...vQXkRD9fA%3d%3d

Hmmm - perhaps installing it from the MSU using switches to log the install, perhaps that might shed some light. It's likely failing, but hard to say why without some logging. The pkgmgr logging is usually pretty verbose, so it should help you.

What happens if you just click start and start typing hyper-v - does it show up in the start menu search list?

Interesting indeed. Seems the Vista SP1 RSAT package doesn't work on Vista SP2 yet, but you may be able to install the package by brute force perhaps.

Isn't available as in not found, or doesn't work?

Wow - and I'm sure I'd choose the sound of server fans over Rod Stewart every time! Has radio in Buffalo gotten that bad?

Yes - the re-arm script is separate from any key used, and should work fine regardless of whether or not the key itself is able to be activated or not.

Try giving it the public, standard, generic key that systembuilders use, that way it'll bypass the request for a key during install, but when you go to activate the key won't work (these are keys that cannot be activated, they're used strictly for building installation media) and you'll have to enter the "proper" key for the install. I do this all the time.

Agreed - either some add-on or extension with a global hook is loaded in the IE7 process and catching the F5 keypress or IE "thinks" you were on your home page, and pressing F5 caused it to refresh the home page. Either is just as likely, and for what it's worth I've personally never seen that behavior before. Do you experience the same behavior if you run IE7 from the command line with the -extoff switch (iexplore.exe -extoff to start it in safe mode)?

Well, you should 1st know that "upgrades" in the truest form from XP are not supported on Windows 7 - you can use XP as a qualifying product to install from upgrade media for Win7, but you'll get a fresh install of Windows 7, with your user data preserved. Programs, drivers, etc will all have to be reinstalled. Upgrading from Vista is supported 100%, just like any other Windows upgrade in the past (programs come along with the upgrade, settings, files, etc). Also note that while Win7 will run on lesser hardware than Vista would, you still shouldn't try to run as a "pro" user on anything with less than 2GB of RAM and a dual-core or multi-processor machine. Win7 will run on less, but it won't be as good an experience for you (also make sure you have a video card capable of running aero as well if you want the visual effects of Win7 enabled, of course).

PM sent.

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/...der/sysreq.mspx

Looks like spam to me - say goodbye.

Correct - this was a pilot program for invite only, and someone leaked the URL and registration code. Unfortunately they didn't password protect the form itself (although you did need the program ID, which was in fact not public - that was also leaked) that the invited were to fill out, and the link was leaked by a participant. Did someone really think that a pilot program for IT support folks was open to the whole internet? I'm not surprised that it came down so quickly. Like the complaints above at the linked site, I've also seen some complaints on the web that Microsoft somehow owes the folks who signed up and got (what are now invalid) keys and media - someone will have to explain to me what Microsoft owes anybody on a leaked promotion code that was not public in any way (well, until after the leak, of course). Somehow Microsoft should be forced to honor something because you *knew* that you were entering a named pilot program for customer service professionals (it was called "TechNet Plus Consumer Service Professional Pilot Full" for goodness' sakes) that you were not invited to, but you saw on some "reputable" internet site? And if you didn't know, how is that possible? Microsoft does not give away $300+ subscriptions regularly, and you didn't think it was odd that Microsoft themselves didn't do the marketing or PR for it, but Gizmodo, Ars Technica, etc were? You didn't find that the least bit odd??? The sense of entitlement of some folks in the last few generations is astonishing. It seems Microsoft made a mistake in trusting the public, and it's probably safe to say they won't do it again anytime soon.

That means nothing - kernel32 is only pointed to because it was in the top of the stack. If you look closely, you'll see it is there because the RaiseException function used to let you know a process is crashing is in kernel32.dll. You HAVE to at least see the stack and look at memory to be able to tell what's happening. I've posted in the other post more information.

Get a hang dump of sidebar.exe after about 30 seconds of chewing up CPU, using the instructions in the link. Then, compress the c:\adplus folder and put it somewhere we can get to it and we'll know more of what's happening.