cluberti

LOL - ok, argument was funny, laughed enough at the last response that I had to post something completely useless. Like LOL.

Well, it is above minimum specs, by a good deal, so I'd expect it did perform admirably. Sounds like your work PC was definitely future-proofed when it was purchased with XP, so good on whomever made the specs and the purchase, as it was wise. Wow. All I can say is that a Via C7 CPU compares to a Pentium 3, maybe at 1GHz. Also, that depends on the job being done - in general the C7 ULV in that HP mininote is designed for low power usage, with performance a (very far) second place goal. It barely runs Vista at all, even in the desktop version, and the -M (mobile) and -ULV (the one in your mininote) are atrocious. The fact you survived on that for 6 months surprises me, as I would have thrown in the towel at about day 5. Well, I would respectfully disagree strongly with that statement - I have an Asus Eee 1000HE netbook with a decent Intel Atom 1.6GHz CPU in it running Windows 7, and it does everything a larger laptop can do without significant impact to performance. I don't use it like a desktop and have 15 apps open at once either, but it's definitely not hype. I lug this around to meetings all day, and a machine that performs just as well as my 7lb laptop at ~3lbs, it's a godsend. Also, if nVidia's ION platform is as good as it seems, netbooks will be getting even better (starting with the Lenovo IdeaPad S12, I think, this summer).

The problem stems from the fact that winlogon.exe consumes wininet, thus creating handles at logon to different parts of a user's temp internet files and any other potential IE files that are remote (roaming profiles). This isn't really "fixable" without a complete rewrite of winlogon, and as such it's not "fixed" until Vista and Windows 7 (winlogon rewrite, no ingestion of wininet, no handles to IE on profile load or unload). You could use the user profile hive cleanup tool to try and work around it, although it's not a guarantee that it will work.

Yes, because that's funny!

Yes.

Win7 makes this REALLY easy: open elevated command prompt netsh trace start scenario=FileSharing capture=yes repro netsh trace stop Share the generated .cab file created somewhere. This will have event log data for the File Sharing components on your box that happened during the duration of the trace, and also a network capture that can be viewed in netmon. Pretty cool stuff, actually. If you want to see all the "scenarios" you can trace, run netsh trace show providers (make sure you either have a long buffer in your cmd prompt, our output to a file - this can be a REALLY long list).

Unfortunately, all threads here appear to be waiting on events - this appears to be some sort of hang on a kernel object (or objects), which you can't see in a user-mode dump. You're going to need to get a complete memory dump of the box, assuming you have the disk space for a paging file to match RAM and disk space to store the memory dump too.

Well, if you have Cisco switches, you can find out what port certain MAC addresses belong to - assuming you do know the valid MAC addresses of the other IPs on the network, you could just look for any unknowns in the list. Just use the command show mac-address-table from the switch's IOS console. You could also use switchminer or NeDi to map out the network as well (both open-source apps that are free as in beer).

If you don't have access to premade media, the easiest way is to install Vista SP1, boot into audit mode, install SP2 over it, run compcln to get rid of the SP1 files, and then sysprep and capture the install (I think this is known as the reverse-integration method). Or, you'll find that SP2 integrated media is available from MSDN or Technet or your Microsoft Licensing subscription.

No, because it's a discussion about how Microsoft Windows uses PAE (via AWE). Why don't you go ahead and take your own advice and read the Windows Internals book before you lecture me about my posts? And considering you have two posts here, and can't seem to follow the rules you agreed to (7b specifically) and make nice during discussions without being overly sarcastic (yes, you're being sarcastic), consider yourself banned.

Free doesn't always mean better, and while 7zip tends to provide better zip archival than WinRAR, WinRAR's RAR format archives are almost always compressed far better than 7zip's 7z archive format on the same files (not scientific, but I'm talking about very large file archives in my own possession over the years, and WinRAR definitely does a better job at creating RAR archives that are smaller). Also, I've found WinRAR to make RAR archives faster than 7zip creates 7z archives of the same files on my hardware (again, it's not scientific, but it's definitely noticeable). Add to that pretty much everyone I work with on a daily basis is comfortable with RAR as the standard archive format nowadays, and 7zip cannot create a RAR archive, that's a problem. I think if you only need decompression capabilities and time isn't really of the essence, 7zip would be a fine choice as it is free - however, for those of us who RAR up multi-gigabyte files on a regular basis and need to send them over the internet, WinRAR is a must. With that in mind, I don't see a need to move to 7zip or it's (as you already mentioned) problematic shell extension - especially considering the shell extensions are what I mainly use rather than the full UI.

Well, technically Vista and Server 2008 (and Win7 and Server 2008 R2) are each their server twin's codebase, so technically this is all licensing and app compat (and mostly the former). However, technically x64 is the best long-term option, as Windows 7 will be the last client OS from Microsoft to be built x86 and x64, and Windows v.next will be x64 only (Windows Server 2008 R2, aka Windows 7 Server, is already x64 only). Did you mean that to (virtually) sound the way I'm reading it? Sarcasm is hard to determine on the internet with one whom you do not know, so either that's funny sarcasm or fighting words. If it's funny sarcasm, let me know.

Really? What did I post that was incorrect? I'm genuinely curious, because what I've posted in this thread thusfar has been 100% accurate. That indeed is correct, although on systems with faster CPUs in a VM you can get some EMM386 errors that appear to be timing-related (slowing down the virtual CPU in hyper-v, for instance, makes the problem go away in a 95 and a 98SE VM).

Windows ME runs on DOS, regardless of what the folks who think otherwise have said. Look at the Windows ME filesystem after install with a boot CD and notice things like command.com, autoexec.bat, config.sys, etc. Windows ME hides the DOS shell, but it's still there and it's still used to bootstrap Windows.

No, not here . I'm hoping I never have to reinstall any of my Vista boxes (been good since 2006!) and other than installing new builds for Win7 now, I'm hoping once I get Win7 RTM on my machines those won't ever need to be reinstalled either.

We've done our research, and we're working with authorities. They were definitely Poles, posting from Poland. We know who they are, hopefully this will be resolved soon.

Wait - you were testing writing viruses, managed to get one of your viruses you created on your own machine, caused it to hose up, and now you want us to help you fix your box so you can, what, write more viruses? I can't think of ANY good reason to be running virus creation software unless the ultimate intent was malicious. Also, I've googled you a bit, and I believe your intent to be quite malicious. So, evidence says, sorry, no can do. In fact, I think it's time you leave. [Closed].

Because for some of us, it was the most unstable abortion of an OS imagineable, even with inbox drivers. I remember going back to 98 before I moved to 2000 because it was that bad. I had it on OEM hardware, whitebox hardware, and even hardware "designed for Windows ME" (a Compaq I'd rather forget). I like to think of Windows ME as the testbed for features later found in Windows XP.

Need a network trace to see the RPC or SMB error at this point, probably.

More info on the router model, I think we'll need that info. Usually a Line In port means it's a DSL router, which wouldn't work in this case.

You have the desktop exprience feature installed, I assume?

How are you performing the quick format? And are you absolutely certain the drive is indeed formatting? I've honestly NEVER ever heard of this happening before, because again, without the file table information even though the data is physically on the disk, the OS has no way of knowing what it is or where it is (and when it writes it's own file tables, it keeps track of only what it's writing, etc). If XP is "seeing" previous installed settings, the format most definitely did not occur (even if the app or OS installer says it did).

Well, WDM driver support is one reason, if you plan on using a lot of newer hardware. Can't think of too many other reasons (similar kernel, etc), as long as one doesn't choose WinME..

LOL

You could run process monitor from sysinternals to see what the system is doing during this time. Another question is, if you boot into safe mode and open the document, do you get the same delay?