cluberti

Looks like you aren't the only one to have a Dell and this issue. Most informative post I've found about it: http://www.pcreview.co.uk/forums/thread-134867.php Looks like you might be reinstalling Windows.

Correct, and it appears that in the latest av-comparatives tests, Avira's antivirus scored highest of all the engines tested as well.

So any other apps behaving this way (freezing), or just FF? If so, try to get a hang dump of FF once it's hung.

Vista SP1 has been changed to report the total *installed* amount, versus the total *available* amount like Vista RTM and previous versions. It doesn't change that Windows cannot use all 4GB, it just reports the correct installed amount. Also, fix your sig, it violates #5 of the forum rules.

That updates the control panel applet, not the error. Yours happens on boot, so this does not apply. I would suggest doing what I mentioned previously - boot with the 2000 CD to the recovery console and run the fixboot command to re-create boot.ini.

I would think that would be best - ABE can really hammer your server performance too when it gets very busy.

Hard to say - consider using du (using the -v option) agains the root of the volume to see perhaps where the space is. If you need something GUI, consider spacemonger. It's slower, but it has a GUI.

Have you tried any of the 7xxx builds yet?

jaclaz is correct though - if a valid boot.ini isn't found by ntldr, it will attempt to load from the default Windows (or Winnt) folder from the primary partition on the first hard disk enumerated on the IDE (or SCSI) bus. If it doesn't find it, it'll fail - meaning it's likely that whichever version of Windows the OP is using, they've not renamed their Windows folder on install and did install to the first primary partition on the first hard disk, so it works. The OP should still be fixing this (and if it's XP or 2003, that would entail booting the CD to the recovery console and using the fixboot command).

No, it'll all RTM at the same time (it's the exact same codebase across all), although "general availability" for certain editions may come sooner from the OEMs than others.

Well, you do get 4GB of memory regardless of what the OS is allowed to do, the other 1GB (or whatever the skew is depending on your hardware and BIOS) is used to shadow memory from components installed on the box. And /PAE on an XP x86 box does give the ability to create a pagefile larger than 4GB that is one large file, and is used for hardware DEP. But if you want to "see" all 4GB (or more, if it's installed), you need an x64 OS. Note that /PAE on server-class Windows versions only allows usage of the RAM above 4GB for storage of data, not code execution, and the applications using the /PAE window to utilize said RAM have to do their own memory management of the window, and also map it into and out of their process space in the initial 2GB (or 3GB, with /3GB in boot.ini) VA space. It's not pretty, and if you need more than 4GB, you should simply use an x64 OS. Much cleaner, less restrictions, and less overhead on the OS.

Wait - multiple browsers refuse to open? IE and Firefox share absolutely no code, so are we sure the box is clean from malware?

It wasn't disrespect, it was merely stating something that is a fact on these forums. It's also not a classroom, it's the internet, and all we have is what you write and how you write it. It's your choice to write however you choose, but I can tell you from 8 years of experience here that, in general, on a forum called the Microsoft Software Forum Network, it isn't the best idea when trying to get a point across. Also, please do not preach the rules of the forum to me. I considered my post completely within the bounds of the rules I helped write.

I don't know about IE8, but I know IE6 and IE7 have problems with that MIME type, for instance.

As of a later build, it is indeed fixed.

Since all files are stamped UTC and then offset for the machine in question, if you got a file from 2008 without the right DST fix installed it might not get converted to the correct time/date for that year, at that time, and get an incorrect time stamp (it uses old rules for previous years, so there can be patches for previous years). Try not to post with a $ in M$ around here, it generally lowers your credibility and people might not take you seriously. It's pretty childish at this point.

I'll add issue 4 - mixing auth types. It's ALWAYS better to pick one or the other (and basic will work across more platforms than NTLM, keep that in mind if you have users on Linux or Mac platforms, for example). Mixing can cause issues on the clients, as there are multiple WebDAV client implementations as well, and some work better than others with IIS and NTLM.

OK, my horrendous Italian translation to English: Hello to all. I am new to the forum, and I have joined as I am in need of help. I have installed Windows Updates downloader 2.40 build 1299, and I have updated the lists. When I click download, after 3 seconds it give the following error message to me: Unable to connect to the remote server ......................... I have a modem of the brand Sitecom, and perhaps is this the reason? What must I configure, perhaps the proxy settings? I do not understand how to do such things, and I pray to you you help ... Help me! Is anyone in a position to create a small guide for this, like how to get this to download... this is a mystery to me. With Utorrent, I open the ports within the firewall and it all works. And this downloader, does it work this way as well? Many thanks. And quarch, we generally use English here. If you could try in English, you'll get your answers faster (or at least in French for jcarle).

The very latest version of the Intel Matrix software should work on Win7 (even x64), as I am currently running it. However, it failed to install the first Win7 box I built, but worked the second time. Odd, but I guess that's beta.

Yeah, my time traveling machine is back from the shop, as is my crystal ball. Good times.

The problem with DHCP requests is that they're UDP DISCOVER packet broadcasts, and especially if a client doesn't yet have an IP, it's hard to firewall like that. It's not impossible, but it's pretty difficult. Are you trying to avoid rogue servers on a specific network, or lock clients down for some other reason?

This is what I told you to do January 26th . Note that you should re-run the Win7 winsat tests just to see the difference. As to Vista, you can still run winsat disk, but you can't use the -v option (it doesn't support it for the disk tests). As you can see, the Seagate drive's write caching performance is poor, so keep that in mind when you shop for your next hard disk .

Agreed. Images are *fine*, they just aren't officially supported. Not being officially supported does not mean it doesn't work, it just means it's not tested and therefore the risk falls on the user for doing things that way - if it breaks, tough. However, images work, and as Iceman says, the only problems stem from poorly written software or HAL issues, which are dreadfully easy to avoid. As to the original question re-asked, no, I would not spend the time fighting the XP ship unless you expect to be running XP for more than the next 6 months. If so, I'd say it's worth the 30 days time investment to make it work, but if you are going to Vista entirely in 6 months, it's best to leave it alone and polish your Vista deployment skills in the next 180 days.

Vista doesn't do any latency checks like this, only the more superficial sequential tests. You can run winsat from the command line in Vista as well and see the differences. The Vista score is *not* actually accurate with regards to disks, and this was rectified in Win7's WinSat. Unfortunately, there are going to be a lot of people like you who feel like this is wrong, but the numbers do not lie (and Seagate is generally known for making drives like this, this is not a new thing). If you want help looking at the winsat scores from Vista and Win7 to get an idea of what they mean, let me know.

WD 400 Seagate 500 Disk Sequential 64.0 Read 62.06 MB/s 5.7 153.70 MB/s 7.1 Disk Random 16.0 Read 1.01 MB/s 3.0 2.41 MB/s 4.2 Average Read Time with Sequential Writes 5.991 ms 5.7 8.462 ms 4.7 Latency: 95th Percentile 10.676 ms 5.6 45.524 ms 1.9 Latency: Maximum 83.275 ms 7.7 94.381 ms 7.7 Average Read Time with Random Writes 6.379 ms 5.5 14.475 ms 2.7 Note the horrid blocking latency averages and average read with random write times compared to the two. You get great sequential performance (athough sequential write isn't even as fast as the WD 400, which is interesting), and decent random reads of larger files, but when it comes time to actually do a lot of work that would hit the cache and stress the firmware (the 95th percentile latency number registers how fast or slow blocking-induced latency is at the 95th percentile of the mean vs the maximum latency average number, and average reads with random writes hitting the disk is stressing the write caching and read-method portions of the firmware controller, specifically), the drive falls flat on it's face. Sorry to say, but Seagate built a drive tuned for streaming larger files around, not for random access. Sorry, the tests don't lie.