cluberti

Well, it *is* a hardware fault, as I said before. Now I have actual data for you: // The bugcheck is indeed an uncorrectable error bugcheck: 0: kd> .bugcheck WHEA_UNCORRECTABLE_ERROR (124) A fatal hardware error has occurred. Parameter 1 identifies the type of error source that reported the error. Parameter 2 holds the address of the WHEA_ERROR_RECORD structure that describes the error conditon. Arguments: Arg1: 00000000, MCA_ASSERT Arg2: 8542d3f0, Address of WHEA_ERROR_RECORD structure Arg3: b2000000, High 32 bits of MCi_STATUS MSR for the MCA bank that had the error Arg4: 00010014, Low 32 bits of MCi_STATUS MSR for the MCA bank that had the error // So, looking at the error record for more info: 0: kd> !errrec ffffffff8542d3f0 Error Record @ FFFFFFFF8542D3F0 has 3 sections Severity : Fatal Validation Bits : 0x00000002 timestamp Total Length : 0x6C2 Timestamp : 12/30/6174 15:06:41.192 Creator : Windows Notify Type : Machine Check Exception Record ID : 0x01C91505E4F7070F Flags : 0x00000000---------------------------------------------------------- Section 0: Generic Processor Section (Descriptor @ FFFFFFFF8542D470) Section Offset : 0x158 Section Length : 0xC0 Flags : 0x00000001 primary FRU ID : n/a FRU Text : n/a Severity : 0x1 - Fatal Generic Processor Error Section Info: ProcessorType : 0x0 - IA32/X64 Processor ISA : 0x0 - X86 Error Type : 0x2 - TLB Error Operation : n/a Flags : 0x00 Level : 0x0 CPU Version : 0x00000000000006E8 CPU Brand String : Genuine Intel(R) CPU T2500 @ 2.00GHz ProcessorId : 0x0000000000000000 TargetAddress : n/a RequestorId : n/a ResponderId : n/a Instruction Ptr : n/a ---------------------------------------------------------- Section 1: X64 Processor Specific Section (Descriptor @ FFFFFFFF8542D4B8) Section Offset : 0x218 Section Length : 0x292 Flags : 0x00000000 FRU ID : n/a FRU Text : n/a Severity : 0x1 - Fatal XPF Processor Specific Error Section Info: Local APIC ID : 0x0000000000000000 CPU ID: 00 08 02 00 A9 C1 00 00 FF FB E9 BF 14 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 XPF Procinfo : (@ 0xFFFFFFFF8542D648) Valid Bits : CI tid rid res ip TLB Check Target Id : 0x0000000000000000 Requestor Id : 0x0000000000000000 Responder Id : 0x0000000000000000 Instruction Ptr : 0x0000000000000000 ---------------------------------------------------------- Section 2: WHEA Packet Section (Descriptor @ FFFFFFFF8542D500) Section Offset : 0x4AA Section Length : 0x218 Flags : 0x00000000 FRU ID : n/a FRU Text : n/a Severity : 0x1 - Fatal WHEA Error Packet Info Section (@ FFFFFFFF8542D89A) Signature : ErPt Flags : 0x00000000 Size : 0x218 RawDataLength : 0x392 Context : 0x0000000000000000 ErrorType : 0x0 - Processor ErrorSeverity : 0x1 - Fatal ErrorSourceId : 0x0 ErrorSourceType : 0x0 - MCE Version : 00000002 Cpu : 0000000000000000 RawDataFormat : 0x1 - IA32 MCA Raw Data : Located @ FFFFFFFF8542D9B2 Processor Error: (Bus Interconnect Error) Processor Number : 0 Bank Number : 2 Status : B200000000010014 Address : 0000000000000000 (I) Misc : 0000000000000000 (I) So, it is complaining about your CPU. Either it's damaged from overvoltage or overclocking, or it's overheating, or you're just unlucky and it was a bad part (Status B200000000010014 == damaged or overheating CPU, btw - I'm not guessing). No matter what way you look at it, you aren't going to fix this without going back to the vendor for a replacement.

Speaking of waiting, what kind of hardware is in this machine, and how old or new is it?

I'll grab it once I get in and start looking at it. Maybe 20 - 30 mins.

sntl_ means something on your network, but having a server with 2 NICs running WINS is a *bad* idea. This is exactly the kind of thing that can happen.

Sounds like you have a service on a machine that was configured to use the account. That's pretty common, although finding won't be as easy as knowing what the problem is . Using logon auditing on your DC's will likely tell you which machine holds the offending service or app.

http://www.zune.net/en-US/ Been using it for a few hours now, and the "Now Playing" screen and the Mixview options are pretty darn cool. Also, having access to the music portion of the Marketplace wirelessly (and WPA2 support) means that with a Zune Pass, you can stream literally *any* song from the marketplace over wifi, and download to the Zune if you like it. Pretty interesting release, I must say. Microsoft should release this globally instead of just the US (or, to those outside the US who have to use a US proxy to access the Marketplace) soon.

The version number they list is a corporate version. And while the A/V engine is the same, the implementation is different. This is partly what makes Norton so much worse than Symantec Corporate - it tries to do to much, instead of just heuristics and virus scanning, and in the process makes everything worse.Fixed the link.

As always, buying the technology that is newest will also be the most expensive. Since i7 will be out but may take awhile to come to reasonable pricing, I think buying a P45 and Core2Quad or Core2Duo makes much more sense right now, and will allow you to spend more money on RAM, a better Video Card, etc for the same amount of cash as that i7 box will cost next year. Also, if you're always waiting for "the next" thing, you'll be waiting forever. Buy the best of the current tech you can afford that meets your needs, and I'd suspect you'll be happy.

Looks like the link is no longer valid.

I would also concur that Symantec's Consumer and Enterprise virus engines are also far different. In fact, Symantec Antivirus (the enterprise version) scores quite well, although McAfee's did not in fact. Hopefully the Artemis product will fare better.

Actually, no it is not. Avast, AVG, and Avira all score (far) better. NOD32 is good for not naming false positives, but it also misses a lot more than those higher on the list when doing on-demand or access scanning.

Does Windows Update say you need the hotfix? Also, look for a file "wmex.dll" on your system in the C:\Program Files\Windows Media Components\Encoder folder, as well as searching the entire hard drive as well, to be safe (mostly to make sure some other program didn't install the file into their installation folder - Adobe Premier is one of the apps that will install a version of this file, for instance, if you install the Windows Media Encoder plug-in). If you do not have wmex.dll on your system, you do not need the update. If you have wmex.dll on your system and it is version 9.0.0.3359 (24th June 2008) or newer, you do not need the update. If you have wmex.dll on your system and it is older than this version, only then do you need the update. Also, you need the x86 version of the update, not the x64 version if this is the case (the error message tells me you are not running a 64bit version of Windows XP).

If you're OK with installing it once the OS is down, that's very easy to do in the unattend.xml with a Run(a)synchronous command. If you want it *in* the .wim file, you'll need to install Vista, install Office 2007 and updates, run sysprep, and then use imagex to make a new .wim file.

Please do. I happen to know a bit about how TPM and Windows works, just fyi. Correct, and they're mostly comparing Office 2003 on both platforms (and OfficeBench, based on Office 2003). Yes, Office 2003 runs far faster on XP because it was designed to use those components (ADO. OLE, ODBC, etc). Vista's components are designed for Office 2007, and if you run O2K7 on both you'll find Vista and XP to be quite comparable, with Vista having a slight edge. If you are only using this PC for Office 2003 work, then it's relevant. Otherwise, not so much.

If it was Vista SP1 and still ran poorly, it was either underpowered (less than 2GB RAM on a P4, perhaps) or you have to look elsewhere for your troubles. Vista SP1 is fairly bug-free and quite compatible with most software, even x64 Vista. While that is your opinion, you'll find most here would disagree with you. Vista SP1 (x86 or x64) runs just as well as XP SP3, and is compatible with most software packages that run on XP. There have been benchmarks posted on the 'net even, and they're basically the same performance on the same box. I just don't understand what people fear from TC and TPM. TPM itself doesn't lock anything, the OS and/or drivers have to provide the means to use the TPM chip. TPM is actually quite useful in assisting with cryptography, and Vista uses the TPM for BitLocker and OS key hashing and cryptography. Also, TPM does preserve anonymity with 1.2 (the current standard) via "Direct anonymous attestation", which is a protocol based on the idea of a zero-knowledge proof which allows a TPM user to receive a certification in such a way that the Privacy CA would not be able to link requests to a single user or platform, while still being able to identify rogue TPMs.

Creating memory dumps, fyi.

Doing such isn't that hard, and in fact it's pretty rudimentary. Make sure you're grounded and working on a static-free surface, line up the board with the back panels and the screw holes in the case (same with the PSU), screw them in using the included screws, then plug things in. Not much more to it then that, and as long as you're careful to make sure the board is mounted correctly over the holes, and than no metal is touching metal (if you do it right, it will not happen), you're fine.

Actually, you are incorrect - *Vista* hasn't, but the x64 architecture has. There is no way to have 16bit support on a true x64 OS due to architectural limitations, wthout resorting to virtualization. I would suggest something like DOSBox if you're running an x64 OS, because you *cannot* have native 16bit in an x64 OS. Certain 16bit *installers* using InstallShield or Acme setup engines will actually run because they are recompiled as 32bit installers during the load, as there is special code written into the WOW64 subsystem to allow this to work by running the 16bit installer as a 32bit app recompiled automatically at load time. However, if the app being installed is not an actual 32bit application and is a 16bit app, it will still fail to run (even though installed). To reiterate, when the CPU is running in x64 mode, it is not possible for it to provide 16bit addressing, and as such 16bit apps *will not* run on an x64 OS due to hardware architectural limitations.

A second lawsuit has cropped up against nVidia for the same thing. Looks like things will get interesting - if they did indeed lie to the market about the problem they knew about since 2007, there are scenarios where nVidia's $1.6billion reserves do not cover the costs of repairs, putting them into bankruptcy and out of business.

You can make your own decisions about ATI vs nVidia and hope you don't get a lemon nVidia card, but on a more technical level the ATI 4xxx parts are more performant than the GeForce 9xxx series, and almost as much as the GeForce 260/280 cards (but running much leaner on power and priced much cheaper). As to dual vs quad core, you don't *need* a quad core processor, but if the price / performance difference between a dual and a quad-core box is so small, it almost doesn't make sense *not* to go with a quad-core (future-proofing your system). And if you're a gamer, it is almost a no-brainer right now, Intel parts are much, much faster than ATI chips.

Well, assuming you have a separate Vista (or downlevel client-OS) license, then this is a no-brainer to stay on Vista x64. However, if you don't, then running Vista x86 makes *some* sense (but I agree with you, virtualization is a better route).

To add flavor to the mix, and again not knowing exactly what prices are in your area, consider the following options as well: - Intel 2.83GHz quad-core (Q9550) - 4GB G.SKILL (4x1GB, part # F3-8500CL6D-2GBHK) DDR3 1066 (6-6-6-15) - Enermax MODU82+ PSU 625W (modular power supply - if you like messing with the innards over the life of the PC, consider a modular PSU) All other options as listed are very good indeed, these are just the changes I'd make.

AnalogX installed on PC1 will do everything you require without configuring routing, just making sure that the gateway IP address (and proxy server in any internet software you use) on PC2 points to PC1. This is why I suggested AnalogX Proxy, as it answers your question in the easiest way possible. Don't just assume that because I suggested a product rather than a command means I didn't answer your question.

AnalogX Proxy might meet your needs.

Heh - Itanium laptop. Very funny .