cluberti

Well, as it's always good to check, it is indeed an architecture issue. This is supposedly included and fixed in March builds of Win7, as it has already been fixed in Vista/2008, in KB967352.

Correct - if you pre-partition, Win7 won't create the 200MB (or, 100MB in later builds) partition. However, adding bitlocker later will be more of a pain, for one of the downsides. However, if you never plan on bitlocker for your machine, nor plan on booting with an EFI bios (and you'd know already if you were or not), you don't absolutely need it (the boot data can be stored on the same partition as Windows, but recovery may be harder later if something bad were to happen to the filesystem of the root partition).

Or, better, put the .dmp file somewhere we can all access it.

Retail versions of Windows don't ask for make and model, and neither do OEM discs (especially not multiple OEM vendor queries like this) - OEM discs are made for a specific vendor (and quite often, a specific model). Also, I know one of the vendors in your list *doesn't provide* OEM discs (only a recovery partition). Taking all that into consideration, two things are quite obvious - one, that you're using a warez copy of Vista Ultimate (specifically, the 18 in 1 version found easily on the 'net), and two that you failed to read rule 1.a for comprehension (you know, the first of the rules you agreed to when you signed up for the forums?). Say goodbye. [Closed].

First things first - do not double post. One post should be sufficient - I've deleted your other post, and merged the replies here. Now onto your queries. Normally when you see this it's a failure of the browser detection code on the web site you're visiting. What's your user agent, specifically? In IE, you can get it quickly by running "java script:(navigator.userAgent)" (minus the quotes of course) in the address bar. Unless your ISP is making you visit some specific site, or using a transparent proxy known to mess with IE, it shouldn't matter what they "support". I'd say it's likely that disabling UAC temporarily to install IE8 might be something you should consider.

I'd say it could be some protection software installed with a game. For example, some games install "punkbuster", which has known Win7 incompatibilities, and a compatible version isn't expected until around RTM. There are others, and knowing it's an atapi.sys bugcheck (I'd like to see the actual .dmp files to confirm), it probably isn't atapi.sys (considering the one on XP is quite similar to the one on Vista and Win7).

Can you get a crash of the application? There's a sticky at the top of the section on how to do it.

Second link in a Google search looks promising. As we always say, learn to search.

7B == INACCESSIBLE_BOOT_DEVICE. Which sounds like the drives are SATA, hanging off a SATA controller, meaning you'd have to integrate the SATA drivers into the installation disc before XP will install properly (assuming you cannot switch to IDE compat mode in the BIOS, as you've stated you probably cannot do).

A quick google search found this.

Look for MC<insert letters here>'s that have passed the Windows Internals exam then - anyone who's passed that is definitely not paper (there's no study materials other than the Windows Internals' book, and that only covers about 25% of the test - the rest is only gleaned from experience). Just sayin' .

Moving.

Did the problem occur on build 7000, and does it occur on any later builds?

If you're having trouble coming out of sleep, and the problem doesn't exist in 7000, consider trying a later build.

Ouch, that's bad. If you do happen to get a new controller and it doesn't read the data on the drives, you only really have the option of sending the drives to a recovery service (like OnTrack, as an example) to rebuild the data in their labs, one sector at a time. It's not cheap, but it works.

No, but we're talking about a minority when the majority is at least 500 million installed seats (legally licensed, anyway - estimates peg actual installs of Windows at close to double that number). What percentage of those folks (who aren't satiated by, say, Stardock products or the like) need to make it known they want this before it's a minority you have to consider catering to? I understand your analogy, but it doesn't scale to what Microsoft deals with when it comes to features to add or cut, or to not broach at all.

PM offline.

Yes, and I'm going to call you out on rule 7b as well. I made it a point to be completely above-board, even when you've shown you're clearly not understood the architecture of Windows, and yet you come back and tell me somehow (again) that I'm wrong. 3 things, and I'll be done. 1. I know Windows Internals (both the book and the platform) like the back of my hand, and I've been working with the actual innards of Windows for 15 years. If you would read the documentation I linked in the thread, you'd understand that Windows handles PAE by loading a PAE kernel, which then allows for AWE calls to map physical pages into a virtual address space inside a process' VA range so it can access it (and manage it) directly. They're necessary for each other to work. I'm done discussing this. 2. The fact that you're bringing paging into this when physical memory pages mapped via VirtualAlloc AWE calls *cannot* be paged to disk is incredulous. 3. I know enough to know that you obviously understand the CPU architecture behind PAE, but you're also obviously not a developer nor have you ever had to actually write code for, or understand code running on, an x86 Windows PAE system. You've had your time to make your arguments, and the fact remains that you still haven't understood the basics of the book you suggest others to read. Here was your quote: Let's dissect this, shall we?"That your explanation of AWE and that it is required to address physical RAM located above 4G is wrong" - Calling VirtualAlloc a specific way, also known as using the AWE APIs on Windows, *is* required (along with the PAE kernel being loaded) to address physical memory pages located above 4GB. This is *not* up for debate, and it's clearly documented on MSDN. "That you cannot use AWE to explain what PAE is?" - And why not? AWE is the API set, and VirtualAlloc specifically is the API called, used to map physical memory pages above the 4GB boundary into a process' VA. I didn't bother explaining all of the technical details in the Intel x86 architecture that allows for addressing of a 64bit PTE via the 4bit extensions to the processor necessary to address the RAM, because on Windows, I don't need to know the technical details of how this works to be able to utilize PAE on a Windows system - this is what the Win32 API is for. If you wanted a dissertation on PAE, you go to Intel and you download the PDF for the hardware, and you read it. But it still doesn't help you any on Windows, because you *have* to use the AWE API to access physical pages of memory above the 4GB boundary, so on Windows, for all intents and purposes, they are intertwined. Using one to bring in the other in a description of how this works *on Windows* is perfectly fine and valid, and I've explained this to people many times over this very way. "That you can remove the existence of AWE and still use RAM above 4G?" - On a Windows system, *no*, you cannot *not* use the AWE API and still use RAM above 4GB. If we're speaking from a developer perspective, this is the API set used to allocate physical pages of memory into a process' VA, and it's the only way short of writing a device driver and bypassing the OS entirely (and even then, you aren't bypassing the kernel entirely). Next, if we're speaking of how the Windows OS itself can put the VA of a process into memory above the 4GB boundary, how do you think it does it? Is there a memory allocation API lower than VirtualAlloc? No, there isn't. Now that I've discussed this even further than I wished, I'm following through on my initial statement. Violation of rule 7b (not to mention the spreading of misinformation, which isn't a rule violation but should be) gets you banned. Congratulations.

nuhi took the time to write the code, test it, fix bugs filed, and make it the way it is. It is *his* code - all of you whiners can complain elsewhere. If he wants to kill it, so be it. For fear that someone will whine further, I'm closing this thread. Do *not* create another. [Closed].

7063 created a 100MB partition - can't say as to previous builds, as I've only upgraded. 7063 I wiped and started over, and it was a 100MB partition. Since people are stating that 7048 creates a 200MB partition, and I can confirm that at least with 7063 and all subsequent builds the initial partition was 100MB up front, sometime after 7048 .

Note that in the later builds, the partition created is 100MB.

Can you take a hang dump of iexplore.exe with the dialog box on the screen?

Could be - it could also be some BIOS setting for USB devices as well, although I don't know for sure.

Very interesting - umbus.sys is the UserMode Bus enumerator, and it does what it sounds like it does - it enumerates devices on the various user-mode buses during boot so that drivers can be loaded for devices found. Note that these devices would likely show up in "safely remove devices", although it's not a guarantee (there is a UMBus for Printers, for instance). Do you have anything attached to the USB or FireWire ports on this system?

Well, what specifically is happening during this long delay?