cluberti

I think I know what thread you are discussing, and discussing pre-beta releases in and of itself is probably not illegal. However, knowing Microsoft is not distributing any of the builds between 6801 and whatever ultimately becomes the beta, and any partner or vendor with said build IS under NDA, we have to take into account that either this person is using warez, or is violating their NDA (or both). So, the thread was deleted. Once Win7 becomes a public beta, we can talk about builds post 6801.

And that's why people come here for help. Telling someone to reformat to fix things, unless that's the only way, doesn't teach people anything. Try to add some value if you can, people *do* come here to learn more.

It's complaining about 2 things - one, permissions, and two, it cannot communicate with a network connectiod. I would first re-register the Windows Update .dlls. Next, make sure both the Windows Update and BITS services are running, and lastly, if it still fails, you might want to run sysinternals' process monitor to see if you can capture the permissions error. Session 0 in Vista is reserved for non-interactive services and users, like the local system account, and getting token errors there either means there's a misconfiguration on the machine itself, or, more likely, one of the services related to WU (which I mention above).

Probably due to the part where you only needed the answer to your first question, and you didn't ask for any of that additional data until subsequent questions? Therefore, Tain answered the question you said you needed an answer to. For future reference, if you want answers to all questions you ask, don't say you only need the answer to one.

Honestly, unless it's a BIG forum, you don't need a lot more disk speed than you'll get with those drives just yet.

Honestly, for a hosting server, I'd just take the default of let the system decide for you on partitioning. As to the domain name, it's not required that you enter the name of the domain you bought, but it isn't a bad idea to do.

What's wrong with 1.2?

Honestly, there aren't going to be too many people with German XP - there are some, but not many. You should have the source you nLite'd - why not do it yourself?

The exploit is use-after-free in the process doing the calling, not ole32db.dll. The fix addresses the vulnerable application, not the dll that simply exports the APIs called.

Beta dates haven't been announced yet, and the initial beta program is invite-only. Once it's widely available, it'll be up on connect and every site in the known universe will be screaming it from the rooftops. You won't miss it, trust me. It won't be possible .

Agreed .

You might want to consider uninstalling the WAIK and vLite, and re-downloading the latest vLite build and reinstalling it and the WAIK (making sure to copy the requisite files from the WAIK over after the vLite install finishes).

Assuming the file exists, it's either corrupt or the installer is broken. You could run process monitor and filter on that file name/path to see what is being reported by the OS (and not the installer), which may be more accurate.

http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2008-4844 - links there (obviously not a direct link to the exploit).

# for hex 0x8024000e / decimal -2145124338 WU_E_XML_INVALID wuerror.h # Windows Update Agent found invalid information in the # update's XML data. Meaning, you have an update that has bad XML data (or at least WU thinks it is). Could you please post your WindowsUpdate.log file from your Windows directory, preferrably right after receiving this error next time?

That issue was fixed in a subsequent vLite update. If you're still having the problem, post it in the vLite section. [Closed].

It's not *technically* hardware, but this is the most logical place for this question. It is definitely not a Vista question.

Yes, you can only (legally) acquire a VLK installation disc from a Microsoft licensing distributor, online from Microsoft (with an open, enterprise, etc license that allows this), or in media form from your Microsoft rep on your licensing agreement with Microsoft. Googling for this will net you, if anything, illegal copies of Windows. Forum rule 1.a. (aka the first one). [Closed].

That's a nice processor. A bit more than cheapest Core i7 but a system with Core i7 will cost you more than with this quad core. True, and the 920 i7 benches about the same as the 9550, which is a bonus .

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/...n/MS08-078.mspx It's available. Install it now.

Technet has an answer that might help.

Considering XP x64 and Server 2003 x64 are almost identical (same exact kernel and build tree, whereas XP and 2003 are not quite as similar), stability and performance-wise, they're going to be the same. The only problems you'll run into are along the lines fdv pointed out - apps that specifically won't install on an OS that reports as "server", for instance.

Speaking of real-world, I'm running Vista Ultimate SP1 x64 on a Q9550 Core2Quad on an Asus P5Q Deluxe with 8GB RAM, an ATI Radeon 3650 (silent HIS), and some 320GB HDDs as an HTPC and MCE box and it chews through everything I throw at it. And, to boot, it's just as fast in about every benchmark as an i7 920 (except for memory-bound apps, where the i7 will perform far better due to the on-die controller). Drop the following into a nice case with a decent PSU and a BR drive, and it should run very well under XP or Vista: Asus P5Q Deluxe - $190: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16813131297 Intel Core2Quad Q9550 - $320: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16819115041 G.Skill 8GB Kit (4GB x 2) - $110: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16820231151 HIS ATI Radeon 3650 512MB DDR3 (silent) - $110: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16814161220 WD Caviar WD3200AAKS 320GB HDD - $55 (x4 = $220): http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16822136074 Total, $950USD

And the flaw is technically in oledb32.dll, which DOES exist on a 9x install if you have MDAC installed. So claiming invulnerability because you aren't using IE7 (IE6 and IE 5.x are vulnerable too, as is potentially any browser which would run code against this .dll in this manner) is dangerous at least.

Downloaded/worked OK this morning.