cluberti

In the "intermediate" user install, you DON'T integrate the whole driverpack, just the drivers you need . Slims the install down and reduces install time by reducing hardware device scan load times during setup. Make sense?

Well, technically they'll still get reset - but Group Policy will put them right back in place the next time it applies.

The exception code is c0000005, which means E_ACCESS_DENIED, so I'd suggest running process monitor when opening the app until it crashes to see where the access denied is actually occurring.

Hmm, looks like the English package does not exist for x86, but does for Itanium (ia64). You might want to ring up PSS, although since SP1 is no longer supported, you may not get anywhere.Any reason you can't run SP2 or SP3?

Seems very odd - not displaying on the screen? I hate to ask, but any screenshots to better describe?

You might try this. If not, there are (non-free) apps out there that can give you a view of your AD in this manner, like AD Janitor, for example. I can't imagine using something like that, when the interfaces are easily queryable via ADSI like the script linked above, but for some organizations it's cheaper to buy a product and save money on less time spent, I suppose .

You did? Because I see no attachments... Anyway, as to 0x10000050 bugchecks, they're almost always caused by drivers. See if you can attach the .dmp file.

Note that things like kernel filter drivers and disk/chipset drivers can affect windows boot logging, as the counter interfaces used to query these do get some of the info from the drivers themselves directly. Not saying it's what happened, just saying it is possible.

I cannot install WSH 5.7, it says that on the system is already runing the newer version of WSH Try running regsvr32 /u %windir%\system32\jscript.dll, then running regsvr32 %windir%\system32\jscript.dll to see if re-registering it fixes things.

Well, first things first, running the boot logging utility will give you better information: http://www.msfn.org/board/Trace-Vista-boot...an-t117154.html As to the logging issue, first make sure the log isn't disabled (right-click on Operational and make sure "Disable Log" isn't checked). Assuming it's not disabled, look at the properties to make sure that the "enable logging' box is checked, the log size is a reasonable size (like 1028) and that "Overwrite events as needed (oldest events first) is selected. Then, I'd click the "clear log" button and reboot.

This has devolved into a Win9x vs Linux vs Vista vs kitchen sink flame fest, and convincing one side or the other that their opinion is incorrect is crazy (and it never works). Since there is some good stuff in here, I'm not trashing it, but I am closing the thread.

Also not surprising.

Well, considering the menu system in Vista is different than previous OSes, and that mmm+ is XP only, not surprising .

By that sentiment, Win3.x should be sufficient. It doesn't do anything more, does it? It's an OS, it has a browser and media player, and it's got a GUI. Vista security (heck, even XP security with SP2/SP3) plus additional features are what people want, not like people who post on forums like this. People *want* media center. People *want* photo and video to be easy. People *want* to be able to use almost any app or hardware device they can find on shelves, and have it work either by just plugging it in, or putting in the CD and then plugging it in. People *want* a machine that they don't have to think about security, although UAC is a bit obtrusive in this aspect (good design idea, bad implementation). You might want a slim, featureless, purposeful machine - but you and I are a *very* small market subset. The vast majority of users just want things to work with whatever the latest doo-dad or application is, and also want what they currently have to continue to work. Vista does accomplish all of these things, and for the most part XP will continue to do so as well for another few years. Once that is no longer the case, it'll be Vista and Windows 7, and XP will be like Win9x - unsupported, with a small, vocal user base. And it'll make no difference at all in the grand scheme of things, just like it is now.

I won't harp on this, because it seems to be spoken from believing in heresay, but I wanted to touch one thing. XP can boot on 128MB of RAM, and Vista on 512MB. If we say that's 4x as much memory, it's accurate. To top it off, I wouldn't run Vista on less than 1024MB of RAM, personally, but I also wouldn't run XP on less than 512MB of RAM either and expect it to be "snappy". So, 2x the memory on a version of the OS that's 7 years newer seems efficient to me - how much was 512MB of RAM in 2001? How much is 1GB in 2008? It's time to stop comparing the Vista OS, based on the NT kernel with it's extra security, process models, added features, etc and the Win9x kernel OSes which hasn't been changed or updated in any meaningful way in almost 10 years.

In the .sif file, make sure JoinDomain=<YOURDOMAINHERE> and DoOldStyleDomainJoin=YES.

If you're getting it on every site, then perhaps your javascript parser is busted. I would suggest installing WSH 5.7 again on your system, if possible.

Wha...? I missed something here. What is "the one" about full 32bit system?

This hotfix was included in XP SP2, so yes, it's in SP3 as well.

Click the link at the very top of the KB article, in the section titled "Hotfix Download Available, View and request hotfix downloads". It will take you to a web request form, and you'll get the hotfix URL emailed to you.

Maybe my sarcasm meter is broken, but Vista _does_ bring a lot of features that include jargon and acronyms. Patchguard, process integrity levels, sandboxing, split access token, dynamic module load, dynamic kernel memory allocation, registry and filesystem virtualization, signed driver requirements (wish it wasn't x64 only!), bitlocker, security policy, just to name a few.You can like Win9x, and there will always be a subset of users who do - there's nothing wrong with that at all. However, just because you can't "see" the differences don't mean they are there, and until you use them, you shouldn't knock it. And I mean actually use it, not load it up, run it for 10 minutes, and then say "it's not Win98 so I hate it" like the bulk of people in the Win9x forums do when asked about their Vista "experience". As to your quips about the user interface staying the same, it's worked for every company that's implemented the "Windows" and "Mouse" layout, since Xerox PARC, and the first consumer company to eschew it will likely be the next OS vendor out of business. It's what people know, and have known, for YEARS and YEARS. Changing it at this point seems almost suicide, and unnecessary to - in your own estimation, there's nothing really wrong with Win9x for over 13 years, so why change it? That's the same argument with the current Windows GUI model - it's not broken, so why fix something everyone's used to? If I want a unix console, I'll install Linux. If I want to have my users use their machines and apps, I'll install Windows or MacOS with a GUI they know.

http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifepolicy

It'll show up in the directory if you make sure the "publish this printer in the directory" box is checked when you create the queue, and it is by default. Again, you can completely automate the client portion via a logon script or group policy too.

@Zxian, gotta call you out there just in case those who aren't in the know read this - buy an OEM copy, get nothing more from Microsoft than public updates (that is why it's cheaper). Unless you buy retail, you'll have to pay for that support call. Everything else is right on though . Also, ask anyone who runs Vista or XP on a MBP if the hardware is better - this OS (same vista x64 image on both) is almost twice as fast in almost everything but copying files (network limited, not hardware) than my almost identical (but ~$450 USD cheaper) Thinkpad. Why? Because the hardware's better, the mobo is better, the proc is probably better, the RAM is faster, and Apple can make OSX scream when the hardware is that good. Run OSX on this Thinkpad and *then* talk to me about how great OSX is . @cyberformer, eventually you have to reach a point where it costs more to support an old product, however good, than to pump those man-hour time and resources into newer products. 10 years for support of an entire OS product from a company with literally hundreds of millions of installed users in it's userbase is more than acceptable. Ask apple how long they support an OS version, and it isn't 10 years (heck, support for 10.1.x, released in September of 2001, is no longer available other than public downloads and user forums - you must have 10.2.x to get support from a human on the phone, and only within 90 days of purchase before it's not a free call either). As to working on future products and Vista, how many devs do you want working on the Windows codebase? While your desires are laudable, they're not fiscally responsible or programatically sound (too many hands in the cookie jar with that many devs on the same type of product).

That's not a warning because it found something, it's basically spam to get you to use their product. Yes scan just in case (you should be doing so regularly anyway), but that's NOT an error message.