cluberti

I'm actually uncertain about the number of connections on Web edition SP1, because it's listed as having full RRAS support as of SP1. I'll have to verify this (seems like a loophole for cheap VPN servers, but it may indeed be true).

Hm - it used to be free. In fact, I believe you can find a version on the Windows 2000 CD...

dAbReAkA, you need to be aware that it was post-RC2 where (basically) the debug kernel and binaries were replaced with non-debug ones, and speed is increased tremendously because of it.

nitroshift, I'd say call Microsoft and Intel on that one then - it should've been fixed in RTM. If it isn't, call and ask - perhaps the processor driver is not working with your setup for some reason, and (if you even desire to) it can probably be tracked down and resolved. That stinks though.

To confuse you even more, the type of NAT most home routers use is SNAT, or Source Network Address Translation, allowing multiple private machines to use a public IP address. When you publish a service on an internal private machine to the web (or create a one-to-one NAT for a specific private machine), you're doing what's called a DNAT, or Direct Network Address Translation. Fun, eh? Probably not useful to you, but it might be someday .

lol - damned if you do, damned if you dont...

- lol I think the recommendation is 15GB free on the boot volume Vista will be installed to. And I think it actually is close to 8GB.

It could very well be the antivirus software, but disabling all non-Microsoft explorer shell extensions (via shellexview from nirsoft.net) and startup items (autoruns from sysinternals) is a good way to check for other things. After the changes, a reboot should tell you whether that has made a change in behavior or not.

The key algorithm was changed for RTM, so I can assure you they won't work with WGA without any checking the actual keys involved - they won't validate against the algorithm as they are pre-RTM keys. Tell that to your shareholders... won't fly. That I can somewhat agree with, but developing Windows costs many, many millions of dollars, and since Microsoft is a for-profit company, ROI is important. If that means Vista retails for over a certain price and people and companies (and OEM vendors) will buy it, that is what will be charged. It's just a fact of economics - if people wouldn't pay that, it wouldn't be able to be charged and still leave a company in business; the development would be too expensive in the long term. I don't see this changing any time soon, though, even though Office is the cash cow, not Windows.

If you installed RTM without a key, you'd get 30 days to see if it was resolved or not (I believe it was, btw).

I've seen this before when one (or more) of the event log files themselves (.evt files) becomes corrupt: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/172156

At this point, if the user is not working even in the proper group, take a test machine off of the domain and create a test user in the appropriate network operators group, and see if it works. This should rule out whether or not a domain policy is causing this. Also, filemon/regmon while attempting to change network configuration data may point us at a policy or OS mod to get this to work as well.

Just be careful, as there are some inherent limitations of TS on Windows 2000 as compared to Windows 2003 (registry limits, paged pool size limitations just to start). As long as you don't plan on using the 2000 server for a large # of users, it should be fine. Otherwise, keep an eye on performance and add new (Windows 2000) servers as necessary.

No, not OEM. Evil empire and all that

The key for show hidden system files is: Key: HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\Advanced Value: ShowSuperHidden Type: REG_DWORD Data: 0 = Hide Files, 1 = Show Files I've never gotten clarification on which actually causes the setting to change last (take preference), but some testing should give an idea if you are still curious. As to TaskBarWinXP, you'll find more information about that by searching for IStream or IPersistStream (or both) - just a hint. Remember, MSDN is a developer site, so think like a developer when searching it and you'll have more luck . Understood .

In XP and Server 2003, it's been moved to the Network Services svchost.exe process. It can be broken out again into it's own process, but more surgery would be needed to make it more Windows 2000-like: 1. Stop the winmgmt service 2. Open regedit and browse to HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\SvcHost 3. Edit the "netsvcs" value, and remove the winmgmt entry 4. Create a new registry REG_MULTI_SZ string value type named "wmigroup" 5. Add winmgmt to the new "wmigroup" value 6. Browse to HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\winmgmt\ImagePath 7. Edit the "ImagePath" value ...change this: %SystemRoot%\System32\svchost.exe -k netsvcs ...to this: %SystemRoot%\System32\svchost.exe -k wmigroup 8. Reboot for the changes to take effect To see the changes, open a command prompt and run tasklist /svc and you should now see a svchost.exe entry running winmgmt.

Getting at least a kernel memory dump to review the next time it occurs would help us greatly. Those errors can be a whole host of things, and without a memory dump, we're all just making educated guesses. And in my experience, it's usually not your hardware drivers at fault, but drivers for software (like CD burning software, antivirus/antispyware software) that are the ultimate culprit.

RTM clean install took 13 minutes, and the upgrade from a (relatively clean) XP x64 machine took roughly an hour.

There's no statute on what a software product can cost, nor what can be charged - if you feel the price is too high for Microsoft Windows Vista, then don't buy or use it. I guess people don't realize the kind of money that goes into a project like this, for man hours, equipment, testing, etc. even before a product is shipped, and then the additional costs for ongoing maintenance and support (those costs are mostly eaten by Microsoft, as support contracts don't cover even a fraction of those costs - that all gets tagged to the cost of product development as well). I guess people think it only takes a few dollars and man-hours to produce, when in fact many millions go into a project like this, regardless of the end product. Microsoft is in the business of software development to make a profit for it's shareholders and employees, not to be the cheapest or best software out there. If they are one or both, benefit, but ultimately it's the bottom line that counts. Therefore, they charge what they believe the market will bear, and no less. Profit is the ultimate motive, for almost any business venture. I sincerely disbelieve that line of thinking - If Microsoft charged $50 for Windows or Office, I sincerely doubt that would make even a minor dent in the amount of piracy for Windows and Office. Think this way: most music transferred online is done via P2P, and not legally purchased from any online store, but the cost of a legal download is at most a dollar or two per track or 12 - 15 dollars per disc. Music and software may be entirely different products, but the net outcome will likely be similar. As long as it (whatever "it" is) can be had for free, piracy is here to stay, regardless of cost.

Actually, it looks like you just might. One of the values of the ShellState function (also read from this key in the registry) is to set the start bar to standard or classic mode, as well as 29 to 35 other shell settings, depending on the OS. So yes, this is probably the setting - you are likely setting the start menu to classic with one of those 00 entries. See this link for what you can do with this value: http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default..../shellstate.asp It's not sneaky - it is well documented all over MSDN as a shell function.

As far as the leaked copy of Vista, it's still pretty useless after 30 days without a key (although I'm sure someone will probably get around that soon enough). I guess people feel that since the internet is basically free, anything found on it should be as well, even though using any software package you didn't pay for (assuming it isn't open source) is akin to thievery. I won't get into flame wars about the cost of software, loss of revenue stated by companies due to software piracy, etc., but that's just my two cents.

Easy there - I know nothing of your setup other than the error you're seeing, and that it happens after SP4. The status message that the error is giving is that the update is ready to install, but fails. I know I've seen this when DCOM permissions are screwed, or the OLE key contains entries that are invalid or too restrictive for DCOM settings. No need to get angry. One other point - you state that you're getting an error installing updates on a 2000 Pro machine after installing SP4, and now you state that you're also seeing different update errors on an XP SP2 machine. Does this happen for every install you do on 2000 w/SP4 or XP w/SP2, or just the current installations? Have you modified any of the files on the installation source for either install disc?

I've actually had trouble installing the recovery console without the folder, but I'm not sure why that is either.

Check this post: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=86385

There is no boot screen, regardless of video card. Just a pulsing green bar.