cluberti

Usually you receive other things (like enterprise phone support packs) - usually those get better with higher certification, and possibly training resources as well. You would want to check on that, but I'm pretty sure that at least used to be true...

Right, but validation happens repeatedly - it's not a one-time deal like it was on XP. And when 3 machines validate with the same PID key, 2 will fail to revalidate and will re-arm and need reactivation.

Was that your documents folder, or just a drive you use for those types of files?

Please read the "Windows Internals, 4th Edition" book and this post before saying things like that - it's just plain wrong.

Right - and in 180 days, when 3 machines attempt to re-check whether or not their installation is valid, it's likely that 2 will break (if you've got three with the same key installed).

Considering Disk Cleanup should not touch anything in your \Users\Documents folders, I'm not sure exactly what happened. What actually did it delete, and where were those files?

PM me, and I will provide a workspace for you to upload a dump (if you can generate one).

I've been getting this a lot recently in IE7 on Vista, and IE7 on XP...

You can add them in cmdlines.txt, yes, but you are somewhat limited in what functions you can run because some components have yet to install at this phase of setup. If you search the forums, you will find your answer.

It should, yes, although sometimes you do have to specify that it loads a non-PAE kernel specifically in boot.ini.

0x0000007F: UNEXPECTED_KERNEL_MODE_TRAP One of three types of problems occurred in kernel-mode: (1) Hardware failures. (2) Software problems. (3) A bound trap (i.e., a condition that the kernel is not allowed to have or intercept). Hardware failures are the most common cause (many dozen KB articles exist for this error referencing specific hardware failures) and, of these, memory hardware failures are the most common. 0x000000D1: DRIVER_IRQL_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL The system attempted to access pageable memory using a kernel process IRQL that was too high. The most typical cause is a bad device driver (one that uses improper addresses). It can also be caused by caused by faulty or mismatched RAM, or a damaged pagefile. I'd say you've either got a misbehaving driver on your system (hardware or filesystem filter), or your RAM needs checking.

PAE gets enabled because it's the only way for an x86 Windows OS to use DEP on 64bit processors.

Actually, with Windows XP, all OEM re-activations (royalty or retail) would fail without a call to Microsoft. I'm not so sure that won't carry forward to Vista. Who wants to be the first to test this out?

Concern is always good, but in this case, it would be unfounded. You will be able to play back all unprotected content from previous systems (regardless of where they were garnered).

Have you considered downloading netmon3 from connect.microsoft.com and gathering a network trace of the issue occurring? It would be interesting to see if this was the NIC broadcasting, or if it was perhaps something else (and if so, where the traffic was heading).

The only reason I can see adding an Administrative-level account to other groups would be if it was used as a service account (which shouldn't be done, btw), or if the administrators group was not given permissions to files or folders that some of these groups do have, but you still wanted the Administrator account to have access (that is also bad practice). Your assertion is correct, it technically should only need to be in the Domain or Enterprise Administrators group.

You should be able to run system restore to the time right before you installed Daemon Tools, and reboot.

Moving to more appropriate section of the forum.

That applies to full retail versions only.

BitLocker in Vista can leverage this technology, so yes, it's already in there on newer machines. I don't think it's as sinister as people want to believe, but anything is possible. A good conspiracy theory about Microsoft always makes me chuckle anyway - weren't they trying to take over the internet with IE on Win95 way back when too?

Have you pressed the "ALT" button in IE recently? You might find something you're missing...

There are free tools, but I've done this for years and I swear by Adminstudio from Installshield/Macromedia. It isn't cheap, but it's really good.

For Windows XP, yes, x86 and x64 are two different licenses. Vista, however, uses the same license for x86 and x64 (you get both x86 and x64 DVDs in the box, but one key). Just know that with Vista, once you choose your architecture for the key, you're stuck with your choice. As to the OEM question, yes, if you buy an OEM copy, it is stuck to that hardware forever. You are required to buy a new license if you wish to install it on another different PC, royalty or retail OEM have the same limitation.

During setup, it's an HRESULT with the severity of SUCCESS (0), FACILITY_NULL (0x0), CODE 0x87. It likely means that Windows was unable to locate a .dll, or ttempted to load a .dll and encountered an error (0x87). Either you have a file that is not there, or your file doesn't match the hash checksum for SFC and things fail. As to what file, I could not say - but have you modified any resources in the Windows i386 folder?

You guys are all confusing physical RAM (hardware) with Virtual Address Space (just what it sounds like). Virtual Address Space: - A 32bit process running on a 32bit Windows OS can address 2GB of Virtual Address Space, unless it is compiled LARGEMEMORYAWARE. - A 32bit process compiled LARGEMEMORYAWARE running on a 32bit Windows OS can address 3GB of Virtual Address Space, with /3GB enabled. - A 32bit process compiled LARGEMEMORYAWARE running on a 64bit x64 Windows OS can address 4GB of Virtual Address Space. - A 64bit process running on an x64 Windows OS can address 8TB of Virtual Address Space. - A 64bit process running on an ia64 Windows OS can address 7.152TB of Virtual Address Space Physical RAM: - A 32bit Windows XP or Windows Vista OS can address 4GB of Physical RAM, no exceptions. - A 32bit Windows 2000 Server can address 4GB of Physical RAM, no exceptions. - A 32bit Windows 2000 Advanced Server can address 8GB of Physical RAM with /PAE enabled. - A 32bit Windows 2000 Datacenter Server can address 32GB of Physical RAM with /PAE enabled. - A 32bit Windows Server 2003 Web Edition server can address 2GB of RAM, no exceptions. - A 32bit Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition server can address 4GB of RAM, no exceptions. - A 32bit Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition server can address 32GB of Physical RAM with /PAE enabled. - A 32bit Windows Server 2003 Datacenter Edition server can address 64GB of Physical RAM with /PAE enabled. - A 64bit x64 Windows XP, Windows Vista, or Server 2003 OS can address 128GB of RAM. - A 64bit ia64 Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition or Datacenter Edition server can address 1TB of RAM. Remember that running processes do not understand RAM, they only understand their Virtual Address Space assigned to them by the kernel memory manager. The memory manager then decides what portions of that Virtual Address Space get mapped into physical RAM, and what portions go into virtual memory (the paging file). All this to say that the issue the original poster has is with Windows XP's recognition of Physical RAM, not Virtual Address Space. There is a (really important) difference.