cluberti

Install the printer on the SBS server (add a new IP port there, etc), then go to the clients and add the network printer. You can "push" it via a logon script or group policy as necessary (you have R2, so you can do this via GP).

I believe there's a .sif file in the image's "Templates" folder. Also, if you open the computer object for the RIS server from the RIS server itself (may have to install 2003 support tools on the RIS server to get ADUC console), you can go to the remote install tab and modify things there.

when I am using mozila firefox I do not have this problem, but I like better IE 7. I enabled script debugging, now how I can see the script blog or something like this how can I find this sript command. Thanks for helping. The problem is how IE's script parser (jscript.dll) is parsing the script. You may have already seen this and this, but they're good reads on the subject. You might want to send an email to the webmaster of the site to see if he would fix his jscript. Technically, IE is throwing the error because the script has issues that the jscript VM doesn't handle - and if we're being technical, the script is trying to add or remove an element (or elements) from an incomplete or unparsed DOM, which is outside of spec. If firefox handles it, that's great, but it's still a script that is out of spec, and throwing the error. The webmaster or dev will have to fix the script as per the KB article in the second link to bring his script into spec.

Microsoft is in the business of making money, not pushing an API or a product (although currently that's what sells). Microsoft, if you remember, did make the most popular *nix way back in the 80s (Xenix), before it was sure that OS/2 or DOS/Win would be the way the market would go.From the wikipedia article, with a link at the bottom of the page for this quote's origin: Had some other platform been the dominant, Microsoft would have likely made headway there too, legal or otherwise. Don't fool yourself into thinking that "Windows" or "DOS" won, Microsoft did by making wise decisions (and of course strongarm sales tactics). If it was something else back then, it'd probably still be Microsoft - don't kid yourself, if it wasn't Microsoft Windows that won, it probably would have been Microsoft Unix, like it or not. Until 95% of the software you can buy off-the-shelf runs on it, it's just a dream. It's still perfectly usable - but it's not FEASIBLE for a for-profit company to dump money into a product that is now 3 versions behind, and written over 10 years ago. Microsoft's business model does not include paying to support an old OS, hence why Microsoft has mainstream, extended, and out of support dates. They answer to shareholders and the market, not Win9x users. Sorry, but true. The market and shareholders demand they make money, and supporting an old OS doesn't cut it. I know people like Win9x, but more people use WinNT OSes like XP and Vista, and the profitability is there, not in Win9x. They do, in every product they create that is initially supported - and it's 10 years for commercial products. Companies, users, and developers can still target the old out of support products if they so choose, but most will stay with mainstream (and some extended) support products, to target the largest market share for their product. Again, market rules.

They get those numbers by saying that a pirated copy is indeed "in use", and if the user had paid for it then it costs $x because the product is being used, but was not bought. And technically, if someone is pirating software and using it, they *should* have paid for it so technically it is a loss, as the company doesn't get paid but the software is still in use. It's not a "hard" loss like someone breaking in and stealing office equipment, but it is a lost sale.

Oh, sorry, I thought you were talking about XP in 2003. Sigh.

The problem isn't the browser, it's the script that is being sent to the browser from the web site. Enable script debugging in IE tools > advanced options if you want to see the script and where the problem lies.

People just complain - it's what people do. People said the same types of things about XP at RTM (and even SP1) - it was slow, bloated, ugly, didn't run older apps right, etc. Now it's the greatest thing since sliced bread .

Well, XP is a valid upgrade path, 2003 is not.And if XP was sluggish, it wasn't XP - it was drivers or 3rd party software, or you were on a Cyrix or Via CPU . XP on it's own, even on a lower-end P3 with 256MB RAM, is snappy.

Usually you can get one from the vendor, but if Acer won't provide one you'll have to get your own.

Yes - you should change it to "always" that way setup knows that you want to see that screen and choose the disk manually, and that the xml doesn't have disk information.

Did you integrate the SATA controller drivers into your source? The error message indicates you did not.

If you have an OEM copy of Vista business from Acer, yes, that key will work.

Would it be possible for you to take an adplus -hang dump of the process, following the guide here? First, download / install the debugging tools, as per the guide. Then: 1. Create a directory called c:\adplus 2. Open a command prompt and change to the directory where you installed the debugging tools. By default, this is "C:\Program Files\Debugging Tools for Windows" 3. Type the following command in the command prompt: cscript adplus.vbs -hang -p <PID> -quiet -o c:\adplus (where <PID> is the process ID of the svchost.exe that is consuming the CPU, and you can see process IDs on the Processes tab of task manager after adding the column - View > Select Columns > PID) 4. Once the debugger has finished (this can take some time), the command prompt window(s) will close, and you will have data in your C:\adplus folder that can be analyzed.

Well, first things first - you can't technically "upgrade" from ME to 2003, as it's not a valid upgrade path. The install would have to be a clean install. And considering XP and 2003 are the same kernel, performance will be similar (since Server 2003 is lighter and the process quantum and memory management are tweaked differently it might feel a bit faster overall) as will user experience. The unattended guide has good documentation on Server 2003 as a workstation, and lots of people (including myself) have had good experience with 2003 as a main desktop OS.

You have WillShowUI set to OnError, meaning it's going to expect you to have answered all questions - yet I don't see anywhere in your XML unattend where you told Windows what disk/partition to use. So, the error makes sense.

I understand that you claim to have no errors in Ubuntu, but is it possible that Ubuntu is simply not kernel panic'ing when the INT18 is sent from the processor, thus you don't see the error (again, it's not an error that will cause your box to spontaneously reboot or anything, but it IS a hardware error you should take care of before something else breaks - that's why Windows is bugchecking)? According to the bugcheck code and the parameters, your problem appears to be thus: Bug Check 0x9C: MACHINE_CHECK_EXCEPTION The MACHINE_CHECK_EXCEPTION bug check has a value of 0x0000009C. This bug check indicates that a fatal machine check exception has occurred. Parameters The four parameters that are listed in the message have different meanings, depending on the processor type. If the processor is based on a newer x86-based architecture and has the MCA feature and the MCE feature (for example, any Intel Processor of family 6 or higher, such as Pentium Pro, Pentium IV, or Xeon), or if the processor is an x64-based processor, the parameters have the following meaning. Parameter Description 1 The bank number 2 The address of the MCA_EXCEPTION structure 3 The high 32 bits of MCi_STATUS MSR for the MCA bank that had the error 4 The low 32 bits of MCi_STATUS MSR for the MCA bank that had the error In looking at the document "BIOS and Kernel Developer's Guide for AMD Athlon 64 and AMD Opteron Processors" from AMD which discusses the Machine Check architecture and codes, it appears your processor told the OS quite a bit. Lert's see what it said... Looking at the error codes for the actual BUS error: Wdog error 0111 BUS GEN 1 GEN GEN LG I can tell you that the CPU reported the BUS error as a "GENeric error", the requested operation timed out (1), it was a GENeric memory error, and it was a GENeric cache level error (meaning it was probably DRAM, not a CPU cache issue) Digging deeper into the Machine Check bits, the following is displayed: MA Model Specific MCA O ID Other Information Error Code Error Code VV SDP ___________|____________ _______|_______ _______|______ AEUECRC| | | | LRCNVVC| | | | ^^^^^^^| | | | 6 5 4 3 2 1 3210987654321098765432109876543210987654321098765432109876543210 ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1011001000000000000000000000000000000000000001110000111100001111 The above chart means thus: VAL (bit 63) is set to 1, meaning a VALID ERROR was detected UC (bit 61) is set to 1, meaning the error is NOT correctable by hardware (so the machine should STOP whatever it's doing) EN (bit 60) is set to 1, meaning that error reporting is enabled for this error in the actual MCA control register, so we should report this PCC (bit 57) is set to 1, meaning the actual state of the CPU may actually be corrupted because of the error condition, and as such whatever was executing should stop to avoid potential data loss (hence why Windows actually bugchecks - this is serious) Bits 18, 17, and 16 are set to 1, meaning the extended error code came from the northbridge on the motherboard, and it reads 0111 (19 -> 16), which means the error was a BUS error, indicating an error in the HyperTransport or actual DRAM errors Bits 11, 10, and 09 are reserved, and are ignored Bit 08 is set to 1, meaning that an error was found by the DRAM scrubber (indicating potential memory problems) Bits 03 and 02 are reserved, and are ignored Bit 01 indicates there was an error associated with the CPU 01 core Bit 00 indicates there was an error associated with the CPU 00 core So, honestly knowing that it was a generic processor cache hit error reported by the northbridge, and it was a DRAM scrubber watchdog error, I'd say it's probably bad RAM or a bad memory controller on the motherboard (the read or write timed out, so it's one or the other).

If you're talking about a bugcheck code of 0x00000080 (0x40000080 isn't a Windows bugcheck code, so if it's that you've got a 3rd party driver or program throwing it for sure), then it means: Bug Check 0x80: NMI_HARDWARE_FAILURE The NMI_HARDWARE_FAILURE bug check has a value of 0x00000080. This bug check indicates that a hardware malfunction has occurred. Parameters None Cause A variety of hardware malfunctions can cause the NMI_HARDWARE_FAILURE bug check. The exact cause is difficult to determine. Resolving the Problem Remove any hardware or drivers that have been recently installed. Make sure that all memory modules are of the same type.

If you open process explorer, what is happening inside the process when the CPU is high? What modules and functions are consuming the CPU time?

I'm not sure, that's why you need to take a look at a network trace of it occurring to see what *actually* happened along the wire. I don't know if that error is valid or not, and as such what is being sent to/from the Exchange server, and the actual error that comes back over the network, are very important. It makes no sense, which means something is obviously amiss - but I don't think there's anyone that's gonna have a quick-fix answer for this. With that in mind, you have to start somewhere in troubleshooting it . I'd say a network trace to see what the exchange server actually sent back is a good starting point.

Seems like it (not sure why at the moment) - try adding one of the sites to the Trusted sites zone, and make sure the "Enable protected mode for this zone...." checkbox is unchecked. Then close / reopen IE and retry.

You could consider getting a process monitor boot log, that would log everything from the first kernel start through logon (right up until the point you open procmon.exe again and save the log). Since 0xc0000005 is "Access Denied", you could look and see why you're getting that error in the procmon log.

Still needs elevation for ... what? All operations that require a full token will always present a UAC prompt (even to a member of the administrators group) unless you're logged on as the LOCAL administrator account.

Disabling UAC also disables IE protected mode. That is likely the culprit, not UAC directly. If you put the site(s) in question into trusted sites and disable protected mode for that zone, the problem should abate. And those of you telling someone you don't know to disable UAC as a matter of course are crazy - UAC is meant to help protect the system, and if it hinders your use consider what you are doing. If you're that saavy, great, do what you will, but don't preach it to everyone you meet. It does do good and can keep a box more secure. If you're getting UAC prompts all the time, what the hell are you doing?

The folder contents are 100MB compressed?