cluberti

WSUS meets those needs. All of the update logic can be set on the clients (specifically you probably want the WU on the clients to be set to auto-notify or download, but do not install - this can easily be done via the registry or local policy on the servers - specifically, you would probably consider setting AUOptions to either 2 or 3). WSUS is your answer.

In general, I think it's a problem with the protocol not really being able to work that way, especially if you're allowing drives, printers, clipboard, etc redirection. The RPC endpoints necessary to set these things up generally work fine when both ends of the connection are built to the remote machine, and I've mostly seen this type of fail when you don't first connect directly to the remote host (as in the local ssh endpoint scenario you see). RPC just doesn't work very well this way, although it appears specifically that the auth channels are working. You might want to try it without any redirection of any kind, just to see if it's that.

If you uninstall NOD and the problem continues, you will likely have to find a newer network card driver from nVidia (or report the problem to them and Microsoft via the "Send Feedback" links all over the OS) to get it fixed.

The release candidate is likely to be out this summer, before August 1st when the beta shuts down, so moving to Win7 (assuming you don't mind reinstalling the RC this summer, and again with RTM once it hits the retail channel) shouldn't be dangerous on that front. I've actually moved my main home and dev machines to Win7 7000, and two of my workstations as well. I do not regret the decision.

Considering it modifies tcpip.sys in-memory, post-load, I'd say the odds that it works on tcpip.sys in a WIM file unloaded isn't likely to be good .

What network device is installed on the machine, and what driver is being used? I've not had that problem on the 5 or so machines I have running Win7, so this is quite likely a problem with the network driver (if you have installed antivirus software that installs an LSP layer, that could be it too, of course).

Win7 (as seen in 7000) - Far easier (and more understandable) to tone down or disable UAC, which is nice - No OS emulation inbox probably because they'd get sued by the likes of Sun and VMWare for pushing their product over another (although you do have the option to boot your system from a VHD file - not quite a VM, but close) - Getting to the command prompt is pretty simple (start, type cmd, hit enter), but you can pin it to the start menu or taskbar to make it easier going forward As to the others, we're likely to see this control panel style stick, because most people actually like it (power users do not, but classic view still exists for us via the "All control panel items" option in the list). As to a resource manager, again, this is more a power-user feature that likely isn't going to get into Windows. I would too love an easy tool to tone down some of Win7's services just to satisfy the control freak inside, but honestly it's *really* snappy and I don't feel like I need to tweak Win7 at all yet to make it faster, as it's really fast already. The shutdown dialog in Vista was my biggest pet peeve, but on the other hand I do make fun of the OS for consistently asking me "are you sure?" over and over too, so I guess I can live with them not second guessing me (and I'll just have to be more careful).

I believe Seagate owes everyone involved a big apology, free data recovery, and new (hopefully better... ) drives. Good work everyone.

Sure, just upload them and point me at the location, and we can look.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/181050 http://support.microsoft.com/kb/813827

Yes, but these versions do not remove the files, only the entry points in the UI so they appear to be missing, but are actually not missing at all. Remove the files at your own risk - if removal of the IE or WMP binaries causes other apps to break, putting them back and rebuilding is really your only option.

It's for boot and recovery. If you have an EFI machine, you NEED this partition (EFI system partition), and if you ever want to recover (or convert to bitlocker), this is also helpful (not required, but helpful).

Statements like that might be kosher on other forums, but not here. You are obviously not capable of being even somewhat polite on the forums or following the rules, even though the answers received were indeed correct. Banned.

Well, I cannot say for certain whether or not this limitation does or does not exist. But, I did want to point out that your case # is not accurate - you have the correct number of characters, but the Microsoft case # format does not include ANY letters after the first three (SRX being a case you created by phone, in the US or Canada), and also the first 6 digits are year, month, and day, and 105277 is not a valid yymmdd combo (although 010527 might be. but considering that it was worked in 2008 I highly doubt that is the case). I strongly suggest that you go over your records again to make sure you have the right case #, because you can call in and check on it at any time to see if the fix has been made.

STOP 0x19 bugchecks are always, ALWAYS caused by bad drivers. If you have an RTM or SP1 disc that you're using to install XP onto the system with, and installing SP2 causes the breakage, it would seem that perhaps SP2 is trying to install a driver update (or is interacting with an existing driver) that causes the kernel pool used by said driver to go corrupt. The error specifically shown above indicates that there was supposed to be a block of virtual memory at that address, but the header describing that block was either NULL (and didn't exist) or did exist but was corrupt. I would suggest one of two things - the first would be to make sure you have the *absolute latest* certified drivers on your system before attempting the SP2 install. Two, I would suggest trying to download SP2 (or better, SP3) full installer package from Microsoft and using that instead. If both of those are done and you are still failing, there are things that can be done to pinpoint the driver, but they involve editing the registry somewhat extensively to enable special pool and driver verifier, and also configuring the system for (and gathering) a complete memory dump. If upgrading drivers and installing from the web package works, it's far quicker than the latter option.

Assuming your Win7 machine has network discovery enabled, try installing the LLTD driver on the XP machines: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details...;displaylang=en This will allow them to respond to the link layter topology discovery requests that Vista and Win7 make when they are "mapping" the network.

Understood, but do you have a viable alternative in mind? Again, apps won't go x64 en masse until vendors can't simply write x86 apps knowing they'll likely run on both variants (whereas obviously an x64 app won't run on x86). If you've got a good alternative, I'm all ears.

WMI can provide this info as well. There are even tools that will create scripts for you.

Totally incorrect. Microsoft updated the slp engine to handle NOT having a serial during setup, and also blacklisted TONS more illegitimate serials. However, keys that are legit that worked since RTM back in 2001 still work with SP3. The setup slp engine for handling product keys has not changed in that regard, the only change is the addition of many more blacklisted keys and the ability to install an SP3 disc without a serial at all (30-day grace period).

Win7 doesn't "disable" NICs at all (in fact, it tries very, VERY hard to *enable* them during setup so it can run WU and get the latest patches, et.al., right away - one of the Win7 niceties that really make it stand out over XP and Vista). What NIC do you have, and what did device manager say about it? I've found that older NICs (especially older 3Com 9xx and really old Intel NICs don't work, nor do some of the older nVidia chipset NICs) either won't work at all, or need drivers (XP's usually work, although using a Vista driver is preferable of course) to be installed before you get internet access. However, if it worked in Vista out of the box, in general it will work in Win7 as well (Vista didn't work with older 3Com and Intel NICs either, I remember that outcry back in 2006).

I believe it does so on a clean boot, but you can manually set up partitions if you like. However, if you let Vista do it, by default it creates GPT partitions. I haven't reinstalled it yet, so I could be wrong, but I believe you can do it manually if you'd like.

And I totally disagree. The problem with any migration to something newer/better is that no matter how long you wait, and how many times you tell people to get ready for it, there will ALWAYS be people who are not ready or who do not understand the migration. For those of us in the US, look at the impending DTV migration in February off of most analog channels to almost all-digital TV transmission - in the US, programs have been simulcast for years on both digital and analog distribution channels, but on Feb 17th, most of that analog distribution will go away. The reason I bring it up is that there are still millions of households in the US (estimated) that are not ready for the DTV transition, even though it was signed into law 3 years ago, and communications about getting ready for the transition (and even these silly vouchers for converter boxes) started in real force in media communications over a year ago, at the end of 2007. No matter what you do or don't do with a migration to something new and drop the old, there will always be the hangers-on who either refuse to upgrade or who have their collective heads in the sand ignoring what is about to come. Don't misunderstand what I'm saying - I understand that there may be little reason to migrate to usage of x64 Windows for most people today. However, not doing so will unnecessarily prolong the x64 migration overall, and this architecture is simply far superior to x86. The x86 architecture is starting to show some limitations with newer consumer hardware (and has on server-grade hardware for a few years now), and whilst hacking around these things now to make x86 still "work" is possible, there's not a really compelling reason to avoid this migration to x64 either to solve some of these problems, and open up new possibilities. Also, the app dev argument is mostly the problem of the developers, not Microsoft - app developers can get their hands on beta and RC x64 versions of Windows just as easily as the x86 versions, but for the most part vendors are choosing not to write x64-native versions because the 32bit variants they write will work on both architectures, and the expenditure to support both platform architectures might be more than they're willing to cut out of their bottom line (especially in this economic climate). I honestly think that the only way that Windows is going to be able to go entirely x64 is to draw a line in the sand (and I believe that this has already been done, if quietly, with Win7 being the last x86 Windows client version), and tell developers to expect x64-only Windows in 2012 or 2013.

I'll agree it's a huge learning curve (especially considering that not much has changed since 2000 and AD with the platform), but I would argue the nightmare point (assuming the company was willing to let you train on things, even if just in a simulated lab). The changes are good (and it's about time on a lot of them), just don't migrate thinking it'll be like NT4 -> 2000 or XP, because then it'll bite ya. These things really are necessary evils with the new 2.x profiles. The old profile storage system was slow, didn't roam well, and could cause (lots) of problems with roaming users and terminal server-heavy environments (this ultimately stemmed from the way winlogon and the group policy engines were designed). Again, a pain, but a necessary evil to make differential profile roaming and removing the winlogon handles to locations in the user's profile (especially if it was stored remotely) needed to be done. They were problems since NT4, and finally addressed. Whilst this was a pain during Vista RTM due to problems with it's design, the Vista SP1 (and Win7) changes to the servicing engine have pretty much removed most, if not all, of the "Trusted Installer service" quirks that plagued Vista machines during RTM. Plus, Trusted Installer is needed for a lot of things in the platform (including hotpatching and AxIS), which I really have grown to appreciate. This I'll almost agree with you on - I actually like the new shell and control panel design, but they were definitely not geared towards the IT professional (well, the searchable address bar in the start menu and the search engine in general were, but that's not quite covering the whole thing I think you're speaking of). It was a desire to make the start menu and system menus easier to use and less imposing on the regular user (even old-time Windows users), but it is a bit of a learning curve to get used to. Whereas XP's changes were mostly "throw some color on that start menu and blow up the icons a bit", Vista (and Win7) design changes were for the better for overall system usability. I *hated* them at first, now I go back to XP and can't figure out how I made due without the changes (and now that I've used Win7 for awhile, I can't get used to *not* using the superbar taskbar, and when I go back to Vista I get frustrated that it's the "old-style" taskbar too - funny how things grow on you when you aren't paying attention. Well, I personally find that the people I've helped migrate to Vista from XP (both large-scale corporate and much smaller personal settings), with a bit of initial help on the transition, are almost to a person much happier with Vista and the way it works to the way XP used to work for them. Yes, XP was fine and there was no driving reason to switch to Vista, but the complaints people had about Vista during RTM really just don't hold up, and almost everyone genuinely likes the Vista changes. I think Win7 will actually be more of the same for XP users who will migrate to Win7, although it should have most of the bugs that plagued Vista out of it's system before then.

Actually, for it's time, Win98 (especially SE) really was the best OS out there, by far. However, as time has moved on, the NT-based OSes since XP have brought a lot more security and hardware and device usability to Windows than the 9x platform could offer during it's run. At this time in history, however, Apple's OS is at least a viable alternative to Windows, which it wasn't during the time that the 9x platform was dominant (linux still continues to be ignored by the world public at large, even with the inroads Ubuntu has seemed to have made, so I don't include that as a *real* alternative for most people).

http://support.microsoft.com/common/intern...ow&rdpath=1 Select China, and go through the steps to find the support options. Since it appears to be a bug in a hotfix, you should be able to create a case for free.