cluberti

Jcarle is absolutely correct. If you want to connect to the console session without locking the actual console, you'll need to use something other than RDP via mstsc - consider another remote desktop solution, like VNC, if this is your ultimate goal.

Not exactly sure what the reasons for the change were, but I think it was to unify the boot logo across all versions of XP (as has been done for Vista). If you have Windows XP, you have Windows XP - Professional and Home were variants of the same product, but they're both Windows XP at their core. So, I think there was some "pre-vista" boot logo cleanup going on.

http://download.microsoft.com/download/8/6...5-LRMAIK_EN.img For the reference, imaging Vista may produce "big" images, but it's not convoluted (or even that difficult). If you download the WAIK (build 6000, RTM) from the link above, and use the document you reference, you should have no trouble building an answer file for Vista that does what you want it to do. Consider visiting the Unattended Vista section of the forum for further assistance .

You might want to do a quick re-read of the data here, as I've not seen that happen before (if you've added the boot and install images via WdsUtil, you should get your list of install images).

If the username and password you are using on your PC is not also exactly the same as a user account on your friend's PC, authentication will fail (and you get asked for a valid username and password on the remote machine before it will let you continue). There are other ways around this that are less secure, but the most secure way is to use a username and password on your machine that is the same as on the other, or provide a username and password on the remote machine when you are prompted that has access to the data you are trying to view.

If you're buying new machines, sticking with the older dual core processors is a wise choice (and making sure they've got at least 1MB of L2 cache is also a good idea). In late 2007, we should be able to get our hands on *real* quad-core processors, and that gives hope that by 2008, they will not suck as bad as these half-baked attempts at getting a product out the door by 2006 (and who cares what quality). Hopefully by 2008 quad-cores will even be affordable (although the cooling may cost more than the processor!!! ).

The only thing it should have come with is documentation - it's not a managed L2 switch (and it certainly isn't L3). Therefore, it's just a basic switch - it will have no software, You should be able to plug it in and use it.

First, drivers designed for Windows 2000 will not work on NT4, as the driver model changed for Win2K and thus the drivers are not based on the same driver model (although some NT4 print drivers work on 2000, but that's more of a spooler issue than a driver model issue - print drivers are special...). Secondly, as you've already found, NT4 does not have built-in USB support, and thus it was left to be provided by the 3rd-party hardware vendors' software and drivers (which you seem to have). However, there was always a catch - most hardware ultimately STILL didn't work because the software for most USB devices will fail to install properly on NT (the other "gotcha" in USB support for NT4), and this was mostly for scanner and camera drivers. The only thing I've actually SEEN work properly was a USB mouse and keyboard, never cameras or scanners (basically only USB HID devices - no TWAIN devices). As an aside, there was actually one generic USB stack written for NT (by Digi), but it was (still is) quite expensive to license, and is pretty much required for anything more than basic USB keyboard/mouse support in NT (support being a loose term). Also remember that the first product Microsoft released that fully supported most USB devices properly was Win98, which was released almost three years after NT4 went RTM, and the first NT-based OS that supported most USB devices properly was Win2K, almost five years after NT4 went RTM. Keep that in mind when trying to shoehorn USB onto NT4.

You didn't happen to install IE7 by chance, and do a system restore back to a point where IE6 was installed?

The passwords are only valid for a few days. Contact Microsoft support to get your own copy, and they should provide this one to you free of charge as it's a product break/fix described in a KB article.

Well, let's take a look and see what's happening while the issue is occuring - perhaps we're barking up the wrong tree? If possible, I need for you to gather data from two tools when you're scanning with Windows update: 1. Download and install the debugging tools for windows - do a typical install, but install the files to C:\Debuggers. Also create two folders on C:, one called "adplus" (C:\adplus) and one called "websymbols (C:\websymbols). One more thing - create the following system environment variable (right-click My Computer > Properties > Advanced tab > Environment Variables button > System variables > New button): Variable name: _NT_SYMBOL_PATH Variable value: SRV*C:\websymbols*http://msdl.microsoft.com/download/symbols;C:\websymbols 2. Open a command prompt in the C:\debuggers folder, and type the following command to get dumps of the particular svchost using the CPU time (you'll be doing this in step 5): cscript adplus.vbs -hang -p <PID> -o c:\adplus - substituting the actual PID of the svchost.exe process we wish to dump for <PID> in the command above - to determine the actual PID for the command above, go to the Processes tab of task manager, then go to View > Select Columns and click to select the PID column checkbox. Now, on the processes tab, each process will show it's PID value (including the svchost.exe process we want to dump), and this value is what we need to use in the command above during the time of high CPU. 3. Download filemon from sysinternals and run it while the high cpu is occurring - we need to see which process in particular is actually hitting the disk during the high CPU duration (as you've said, it can be many minutes, so seeing what's happening on disk during this time can be very useful). 4. Go to Windows update and start the problem by checking for updates. 5. While this is occurring, get two to three adplus dumps (by running the command listed in step 2 at least two or three times) of the specific svchost.exe process using the CPU time, as well as running filemon during this time. After the CPU spike stops, save the filemon log and adplus dumps, and either you can analyze them to see what's happening, or you can send them up (either here or to an FTP) for us to review. I'd really like to see what function is actually causing this (above and beoynd what Process Explorer would show us, in case that's what you're thinking ).

For the record, RAID 1 is absolutely, positively, one-hundred percent NOT a backup when it comes to software, and I think that's what you're looking for from your original post I quoted (correct me if I am wrong). A RAID 1 array provides fault tolerance for hardware only. A backup in the sense that if you have a failure, you can revert to the backup (in this case, the device). In the sense that if you have a hard disk hardware failure, then a RAID 1 will keep your system running until you can replace the failed disk, and rebuild the array. However, it provides no real backup in the event that there's a software problem on the machine (of any kind), including complete system failure. A RAID 1 in this case would simply give you a second copy of a completely unbootable system - not a good backup. If it's a backup you want, get a gigantic external drive (or set of drives) and back up your system to this external drive set (and maybe even have a second array with another copy, just in case - if your data is that important, back it up MORE THAN ONCE). I recommend something small, like a set of USB 2.0 drives and a Linksys NSLU2 or a D-Link DSM-G600 network storage unit. Even NTbackup is good enough to handle backing up in that scenario.

Windows (or any other OS) doesn't control a lot of what a processor does. A lot of what the OS does is feed it code about the OS, not how to run the code it's sent to the processor, which core to run it on (unless affinity has been set), how to queue if the proc is busy, whether or not to access the data from L1 or L2 cache, etc. You'd be surprised how little your OS has to do with the processor's internal functions.

No, VMware requires a 64bit processor (most newer ones work as x64 under an x86 OS). As to the CD issue, what type of virtual hard disk are you using (SCSI or IDE), and is it preallocated? I've found that creating preallocated IDE discs works better than SCSI in VMware Workstation 5.x and Server 1.0x.

Have you applied the hotfix in KB916089 as of yet?

The processor cores need to be able to communicate with all other cores - usually, this is done in the processor core itself (or between cores on the die in multiple-core scenarios), but with these dual dual-core setups, the processors have to actually go OUTSIDE of the processor itself, to the system bus, to communicate with the other set of cores on the same processor. Inter-processor communication within cores on one die is very, very fast. The system bus is MUCH slower than the processor core or die when it comes to communication, so this is a really, really bad idea - we've introduced latency (well, above and beyond the normal latencies processors experience on-die) where there was none before. Think of it as going from computer to computer communication over a 100Mb link to a 14.4k modem - not a good idea if speed is your desire (and it should be with processors!).

I do admit that the built-in NTBackup software is limited - you may wish to consider Ultrabac, as it works quite well and has an x64 version for Windows available.

Instead of manually creating a dial-up file, consider using the CMAK (you can find it as an installable component on Windows Server) to build a dial-up profile and installer.

We generally call updates that are released post-service pack as labeled as the next service pack's files. For instance, you can find security updates for Windows 2000 that are listed as SP5, even though there never was an SP5 (even after the post-SP4 rollup). It's nonclemature, and makes tracking patches easier (amongst other things). While I think there's likely to be an SP3 for XP in late '07 or into '08, I'm not betting the farm on it either now that Vista is RTM .

Note that neither Intel's nor AMD's current quad-core offerings are actually quad-core at all, but dual dual-core processors. Hopefully both will show better products when we see REAL quad-core processors (and not the current trash of using the system bus to communicate - what a mess).

WSUS will not iinstall on any version of Windows lower than Server 2003. That means no Windows 2000 deployments of WSUS 3.0.

Please, never ever buy a Norton-branded product again! . Seriously though, this happens with almost every version of their software. See here for the Norton removal tool. I've seen this with every version of the Norton security suite since 2005 as well, so be forewarned.

Is it only in word? Also, in word, are you perhaps printing a watermark?

According to Mark Brown, this one's legit. Not sure why it was done this way, but it's apparently legit.

Nope .