cluberti

You can use xperf, from the performance toolkit, to monitor Windows on a level that might tell you what's happening.

That the setting was changed some other way? A fast format clears the MBR and the file table information, so even if there are files existing on sectors on disk the OS is not going to ever "see" them or be able to use them. While your conclusion might make sense on paper, it's not a valid conclusion. It's more likely that somehow you had been able to get XP to use settings more amicable to the display without installing the correct driver for the display chipset before the reinstall, whereas the default resolution for XP with the "Standard VGA Driver" settings it uses if it can't find the driver for your video card is 640x480 at 256 colors, which is expected behavior (and probably the resolution and color depth you saw).

If you've removed the power cord and cleared the CMOS and the machine won't boot, it isn't a software problem. If the machine doesn't POST at all, are you hearing any beeping? If not, it could be a bad piece (or pieces) of hardware in the system causing the issue. A machine not POSTing at all is rarely a RAM problem, and is more likely a video card or CPU issue. Do you have a spare video card you could use/borrow to place in the system and test? Avoiding going into sleep or rebooting is just delaying the inevitable hardware failure you're up against. When a machine won't boot after you pull the cord and clear the CMOS, you're way past software problems and well into failing hardware territory.

Have you read this yet? http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library...362(WS.10).aspx

The question is, did the installation actually *really* finish as normal? Bypassing the UAC prompt like that *cancels* whatever operation caused it to pop in the first place, but it wouldn't stop an installer that didn't, say, really actually need elevated permissions to install.So, either the utorrent installer doesn't actually need to install to any location or perform any operations during install that require permissions above your current pseudo-admin permissions, or the installer really didn't actually finish and some portion of it failed. However, as you've found, hitting escape on the UAC dialog doesn't actually pass the "OK" down to the kernel to give the process a full admin token at all, it just dismisses the dialog (basically a "cancel" response).

I would concur with the other posters - this system would run Win98 / SE quite fine. Unless you have some need for Win95, I think Win98SE would be suggested on this hardware if you want to run a Win9x system (which I assume you would since you're posting in this forum ).

Note that what I said wasn't incorrect - it was *introduced* in Win98 as a fully supported driver model for the whole OS. It was never advertised for Win95, for two reasons - one, because WDM support was only for OSR 2.5 systems (2.0 and older couldn't run the new kernel), and you couldn't buy OSR 2.5 from a retail store as it was OEM-release only, and two, the WDM kernel for Win95 only supported specific USB devices and certain system bus plug and play devices (some video cards and audio devices released with WDM drivers for Win95 OSR 2.5 and installed the new kernel as a patch, if I remember back that far correctly), and support was indeed minimal (and not entirely stable either) at best.

Yes, this is why - you make it permanent after you run those tools, removing the uninstall files, the previous SP's files, and any restore points the installer created during SP setup.

I'll move this to the Vista Unattend section; might want to post your xml here though, to see if vLite is screwing it up or not.

Generally when I was still doing RIS installs I used RunOnceEx to install apps over the network based on answers in the RIS wizard when booted (used a cmd batch to save variables into the first reboot after OS install). Then the correct <insert product here> would get installed from it's network install location based on the RIS wizard, and that also made maintenance easy as the install location on the network never changed.

Windows NT-based systems like 2000, XP, Vista, and Win7 are all capable of running the Windows kernel across multiple processors. However, it is correct that you won't see double the speed of Windows by adding a second CPU or CPU core - Windows is almost always far more memory-starved than CPU-cycle starved. You will likely make an NT-based system more responsive with multiple CPUs or CPU cores and/or able to run more applications in parallel, but it won't be much faster. Windows XP Pro supports 2 sockets (what Microsoft considers a CPU, regardless of how many cores the CPU has), and XP Home supports 1 socket. Meaning if you have one quad-core CPU, Windows XP Home and Professional would all see 4 "processors" - however, if you added a second quad-core CPU, Windows XP Home would still only see 4 processors but Windows XP Professional would see all 8. From the link:

Actually, that is incorrect. The Windows Driver Model (WDM) was first introduced for Win98, and then used on Windows 2000. Drivers written specifically for Win98 (WDM drivers) will not work on NT4.0 or Windows 95 (although drivers for Win95 will work on Win98 in compat mode, usually). Depends - if the drivers are WDM drivers specifically for Win98 and higher, then no. If they're the older Virtual Device Driver (VxD) model introduced in earlier versions of Windows. then yes, Win98 can use those drivers.

This almost seems like a culture conversion problem rather than an actual integer parsing problem (a quick google search for this error turns up issues with English-written C# code on non-English Windows builds of Windows and/or .net and this error with this exact stack).

Nope, which is really too bad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Received_Sign...ngth_Indication

Well, it only requires 2 things - one, a prometric testing center, and 2, not living in China, India, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, or Vietnam. I'm assuming there are no testing centers in Romania then?

I'm enjoying Win7 at the moment more than I've enjoyed using any previous Microsoft OS since, perhaps, Windows 95.

That error has nothing to do with memory: Bug Check 0x24: NTFS_FILE_SYSTEM The NTFS_FILE_SYSTEM bug check has a value of 0x00000024. This indicates a problem occurred in ntfs.sys, the driver file that allows the system to read and write to NTFS drives. Parameters The following parameters are displayed on the blue screen. Parameter Description 1 Specifies source file and line number information. The high 16 bits (the first four hexadecimal digits after the "0x") identify the source file by its identifier number. The low 16 bits identify the source line in the file where the bug check occurred. 2 If NtfsExceptionFilter is on the stack, this parameter specifies the address of the exception record. 3 If NtfsExceptionFilter is on the stack, this parameter specifies the address of the context record. 4 Reserved Cause One possible cause of this bug check is disk corruption. Corruption in the NTFS file system or bad blocks (sectors) on the hard disk can induce this error. Corrupted SCSI and IDE drivers can also adversely affect the system's ability to read and write to disk, thus causing the error. Another possible cause is depletion of nonpaged pool memory. If the nonpaged pool memory is completely depleted, this error can stop the system. However, during the indexing process, if the amount of available nonpaged pool memory is very low, another kernel-mode driver requiring nonpaged pool memory can also trigger this error. If you're getting a bugcheck, configure your box for a complete memory dump, and the next time it bugchecks you'll have a memory.dmp file that we can look at to see what's happening for sure.

I figured it out a few years ago, but I don't support XP anymore so I'd basically forgotten it. Thank goodness for email search!

No, the .reg clears all the user's explorer views they've saved in the user's profile and replaces them with the "explorer" view. It just takes a reg merge, logoff and logon (or apply during a synchronous logon script, before explorer loads), and it's done.

Unfortunately, there is no group policy for this, as it only exists for Vista and higher - XP, 2003, etc. lacks any policy to configure these settings or lock them down. However, it can be done. Please again make note that there's no group policy that will lock this down, and what I'm posting here isn't really documented anywhere at all; also, the registry changes currently work only for XP/2003 and potentially Windows 2000, but do not work in Vista or newer - you must add the key {5C4F28B5-F869-4E84-8E60-F11DB97C5CC7} after \AllFolders\Shell\ for it to work there. Also, in Vista+ there's a GPO for this, as above, so I guess that's not really an issue). Without further ado, this is how you would force all user folder views to Explorer by default: Key: HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\Shell\Bags\AllFolders\Shell Value: WFlags Type: REG_DWORD Data: 0 Key: HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\Shell\Bags\AllFolders\Shell Value: Status Type: REG_DWORD Data: 0 Key: HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\Shell\Bags\AllFolders\Shell Value: Mode Type: REG_DWORD Data: 4 Key: HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\Shell\Bags\AllFolders\Shell Value: vid Type: REG_SZ Data: {137E7700-3573-11CF-AE69-08002B2E1262} Key: HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\ShellNoRoam\Bags\AllFolders\Shell Value: WFlags Type: REG_DWORD Data: 0 Key: HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\ShellNoRoam\Bags\AllFolders\Shell Value: Status Type: REG_DWORD Data: 0 Key: HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\ShellNoRoam\Bags\AllFolders\Shell Value: Mode Type: REG_DWORD Data: 4 Key: HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\ShellNoRoam\Bags\AllFolders\Shell Value: vid Type: REG_SZ Data: {137E7700-3573-11CF-AE69-08002B2E1262} Here's a .reg that will force "details" view for all current and new folders if imported into a logged-on user's registry: Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00 [-HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\ShellNoRoam\Bags] [-HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\ShellNoRoam\BagMRU] [-HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\Shell\Bags] [-HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\Shell\BagMRU] [HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\ShellNoRoam\Bags\AllFolders\Shell] "WFlags"=dword:00000000 "Status"=dword:00000000 "Mode"=dword:00000004 "vid"="{137E7700-3573-11CF-AE69-08002B2E1262}" [HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\Shell\Bags\AllFolders\Shell] "WFlags"=dword:00000000 "Status"=dword:00000000 "Mode"=dword:00000004 "vid"="{137E7700-3573-11CF-AE69-08002B2E1262}" Here are all of the possible "mode" and "vid" values that can be set: Name Mode VID Icons 1 {0057D0E0-3573-11CF-AE69-08002B2E1262} List 3 {0E1FA5E0-3573-11CF-AE69-08002B2E1262} Details 4 {137E7700-3573-11CF-AE69-08002B2E1262} Thumbnail 5 {8BEBB290-52D0-11D0-B7F4-00C04FD706EC} Tiles 6 {65F125E5-7BE1-4810-BA9D-D271C8432CE3} Filmstrip 7 {8EEFA624-D1E9-445B-94B7-74FBCE2EA11A} EDIT 9th April 2010: Someone documents the Vista/Win7 version of this here: http://www.msfn.org/board/win7-entries-related-folder-views-t142961-pid-917586.html/page__gopid__917586

I've done it myself, it took me ~1 hour to create the VM, install Vista, install SP2, run compcln.exe, and imagex the partition after reboot. Just over an hour, is all it took. It was a mid-range Dell, nothing fancy. I'm just using your own words: "sure I have downloaded from 'other sources' other than MS". That's copyright infringement in the United States, and that's what I was refering to.

First, it's "moot", not "mute", but simple semantics aside, you wouldn't be jailed. Just fined, heavily. You must understand that the source code (and technically, even the CD or DVD media the source is imprinted on) is protected by US copyright law. You're given the right to make a backup copy (1) of the original source media for use by YOU, and you only (whether that be you as a person or you as a corporation or company entity) by law, but after that any copies are illegal as per the copyright on Microsoft software distributed in the US. Meaning that either the making of a copy to be distributed, or the acquisition of said copy, both are illegal under US copyright law and both are subject to fines and/or imprisonment. Also, making an SP1 or SP2-integrated installation source is really pretty easy, and takes maybe an hour or two - probably quicker than the time it would take to download a copy from a torrent, likely.

http://www.wincert.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=5092 - it's for SP2, but you can use the same to apply SP1 to your VM and then image it back up into a WIM file. In fact, unless you don't want SP2, it may be wise to install SP1, then immediately apply SP2 afterwards and run compcln.exe as per the instructions you'll find in the link. I like that link because it's text and images, so there's no ambiguity as to what you're supposed to be doing.

Well, although layout of the application and kernel VA is larger, you still have the same APIs for memory allocation and management so the same sorts of logic apply. Obviously the amount of RAM in a system changes the numbers a bit, and depending on the app load the box runs, you likely still need a paging file, and perfmon analysis of a running system can tell you how best to tweak it.