cluberti

There's another catch - make sure the EULA you agreed to on the Vista license on that machine doesn't preclude you from using upgrade media that is NOT from the OEM vendor. There were some caveats with XP regarding upgrade licenses that required any future upgrades to be OEM media, as the original OEM license was only upgradeable by licenses from said OEM. I don't know if these happened in Vista as well, but they may. You might want to contact the original OEM that provided you the Vista license to make sure you don't have a clause that precludes you from upgrading your Vista OEM license with retail media. As to the previous question, I can attest that jrf2027 is correct - if the license you have is OEM media with an OEM royalty sticker from one of the major OEMs, you CANNOT upgrade that license to Win7 and then reinstall the Vista license (virtual or otherwise). Microsoft is going to tell you the same thing eventually, but I've already asked and confirmed that question from Microsoft and Dell in the past - once you upgrade a license on your OEM PC with an upgraded version of Windows, that previous license is tied to the upgrade (legally it's still being used to verify the upgrade license is legit) and cannot be re-used or reinstalled without removing the upgraded license from your PC. Meaning, you can reinstall that Vista license on that PC, but only if you remove the Win7 upgrade, as the Win7 upgrade is "using" that Vista license to perform the upgrade (one of the many reasons why upgrades are cheaper than a full license - they still tie up the original license that is installed on the PC).

No, these aren't WAIK-specific settings, they're read by MDT when creating the litetouch media. You must configure the .ini manually.

In the \Control folder in the deployment share you will find 2 .ini files, CustomSettings.ini and Bootstrap.ini. Edit CustomSettings.ini as follows to automate MOST of the MDT settings: [Settings] Priority=Default Properties=MyCustomProperty [Default] OSInstall=Y DeployRoot=\\SERVER\DeploymentShare$ DeploymentType=NEWCOMPUTER Home_Page=http://www.live.com UserID=user UserDomain=DOMAIN UserPassword=userpassword AdminPassword=newcomputeradminpassword OrgName="Organization" FullName=USER TimeZone=035 TimeZoneName=Eastern Standard Time UserLocale=en-us UILanguage=en-us _SMSTSORGNAME=Organization BDEInstallSuppress=YES SkipAdminPassword=YES SkipApplications=YES SkipDomainMembership=YES SkipUserData=YES UserDataLocation=NONE SkipAppsOnUpgrade=YES SkipCapture=YES SkipProductKey=YES SkipLocaleSelection=YES SkipTimeZone=YES If you want to know more about this file, read the MDT help documentation. All of the Property Definitions are defined there.

Basically, it's down to Avira and MSE. They have roughly the same detection and false positive rates, and other than the initial MSE full scan it does after install MSE and Avira have basically the same speed on my machines. Avira scores a bit better than MSE on scans, MSE and Avira score about the same in on-demand protection, so if routine system scans are important Avira might be a better choice for you. If you simply install and forget your antivirus program, however, MSE is likely a better choice than Avira (no nagware/ads in MSE).

Well, one way to check it would be to re-enable everything, make sure the problem comes back, and then use the 50/50 routine. Disable 50% of the non-Microsoft items, reboot, and see if it occurs - if so, disable 50% of what's left, etc (if it doesn't, re-enable the disabled items and disable the other half and retry, etc). Rinse and repeat this method until you've narrowed it down (it's trial and error, but the 50/50 method is usually the quickest way to narrow things down).

The previous poster is correct - to run self-signed drivers, you must be in testsigning mode.

Sounds like perhaps something has hooked CreateProcess or a shell extension has caused problems. I'd consider autoruns and shellexview to disable anything non-Microsoft from starting or running and reboot to see if it changes anything.

Well, of course in the end it's up to you, but redistributing any files from the WAIK does violate the EULA that expressly forbids redistribution of the components from the WAIK package and the copyright Microsoft has on those binaries. Obviously we don't allow it here for those reasons, and it's the reason nuhi removed the file from his application (not wanting to have happen to him what happened to the AutoPatcher folks). Microsoft is pretty harsh in it's dealings with copyright violations, so I'd steer clear to be safe.

I'll shamelessly plug my blog simply because it's relevant here - you can do this with Vista or Win7, and here are the keys:http://www.cluberti.com/blog/2009/08/11/de...s-7-deployment/ If you need to do this in the future with Vista or Win7 versions, that's the list of "default" keys that get added to your install if you leave the box blank - use those in your unattended file and it achieves the same purpose without prompting you.

It does. We get a lot of transient members who join to download something, or join to peruse the forums but not post, etc. Note we welcome folks to do this, of course, but with the expectation that if they join and don't post or otherwise interact with the boards within a specified amount of time, the account will be removed from the DB.

Indeed I was. Revised my list:you would only need 915985 if you're: Running Windows 2000 Server Using File Replication Services (FRS) Replicating a large number of small files to another FRS member Have compression enabled on the FRS volume(s) containing said small files Unless you see the above as a need for your box, you don't "need" it at all.

There are a few right here in this section, you might want to search for them. But back to the question, what's the need? I ask because you might want to consider something like MDT 2010 if you have automation requirements.

No, unfortunately. Either you prep or you log, but you can't do both.

Well, knowing what the BSOD was might be a good start. Considering there's more than 200 possible bugcheck codes, starting with which one you got will give us a better idea of what failed. It does sound like it may be 0x7B (INACCESSIBLE_BOOT_DEVICE) or 0xEB (UNMOUNTABLE_BOOT_VOLUME), but we need to know to be sure.

It's really hard to tell from this minidump what happened, because unfortunately none of the data required to track msvsmon.exe to csrss.exe is actually in the dump. Would you be able to configure the machine for a complete memory dump, and then compress and upload the .dmp file the next time it occurs? Without being able to see both the user and kernel side of VA on the system, debugging F4 crashes is nigh impossible.

Stereo Mix will show up if you have a driver and hardware that supports it - otherwise, if one or the other is missing, you won't see it.

That's not very useful - do you have the .dmp file from the crash to look at?

I'm well aware of that, but it only shows you what parts are slow, and not any info as to why, hence the guessing. Hopefully the files will give a little more info as to why all phases are slow.

you would only need 915985 if you're: Running Windows 2000 Server Using File Replication Services (FRS) Replicating a large number of small files to another FRS member Have compression enabled on the FRS volume(s) containing said small files Want to run Google Chrome 3.x or 4.x Unless you fit that list, you don't actually NEED 915985. As to system stability, I'd probably be as paranoid about it as you are, however, given that there hasn't been a new version of ntdll since March 2006 (915985), changes have had time to be fairly well tested.

We're going to need all of the files if you want any real analysis - the xml is nice, but it's hard to use it to say what's actually happening.

Can you put those files somewhere for us to download? Perhaps we'd have better luck with the data...

You're missing the point, gunsmokingman - it's not illegal to download (and likely not illegal to make available from upload on P2P as well, according to the 2008 ruling), but it would still be illegal to own a copy of a work you never purchased. These lawsuits were more about the ability to make a copy (in any way) rather than focusing on the legality of whether or not the downloader (or uploader, potentially) had the legal right to do the actual downloading or uploading of the file. It would still likely be illegal to have made a copy of a song (or movie, or software, etc) that you never owned in the first place. The 2004 ruling was against using IPs to identify users, especially considering the lawsuit for discovery was filed almost 6 months after the alleged infringement, and the 2008 ruling against BMG was also about using transitive data (IP addresses, specifically) as legal basis for a copyright lawsuit. While the judges ruled in their dissertations that downloading and uploading of files was not illegal, they did *not* discuss whether or not holding copies of works that you did not already own was legal or not. Neither decision seems to invalidate the copyright act, it invalidated the portions of the act that explicitly forbade file sharing, etc. These are considered viable fair use methods of copying files, but neither ruling touched on the legality of the copy once you have downloaded it, and considering making a copy of a work in violation of copyright (not owning it, basically), you may very well still be in violation if you download a file that contains copyright that you do not own the copy rights for. Look, I'm not the police, and I'm not trying to pick a fight or anything. Let it be known that you are free to do with files on the internet what you wish, but be aware that the ruling is not as far reaching as folks might think. It has not actually been touched on yet as to the legality of the file itself (only the sharing of has been decided), and the Copyright Act is still in effect and has not been invalidated above and beyond the sharing portions of it. Just keep it in the back of your mind that you may still be breaking the law (you may not be, but I don't know how likely that is, honestly), and you are using a copyrighted work without paying for the rights to it, which would be considered illegal in almost any other way you acquired it.

I've read the articles, and indeed the decision itself. The judge never really ruled on whether or not the person actually had to own a copy of the recording, he simply ruled that downloading the track did not constitute a violation of fair use rights. It seemed that he considered the download to not be infringing due to levies paid to the industry on audio medium sold in the country, but it isn't clear-cut. I did discuss this with a lawyer friend of mine from Canada, and he seemed to be of the same vague opinion that the ruling is clear in some ways, but not in others. The issue at hand was the downloading of songs (regardless of legality from the downloader) because the Copyright Act specifically stated that the download of the track itself was illegal, regardless of whether or not the downloader had the rights to copy the file. The judge disagreed with this interpretation of the law (hence the decision), but he did not specifically rule on the interpretation that making a copy of a copyrighted work that a person did not own the rights to would be deemed legal. In fact, it's quite clear he steered very clear of making this distinction. He allowed that downloading onto an audio medium WAS legal, because the industry gets paid levies on all blanks of this medium sold (tapes, CDs, even MP3 players). However, hard drives DO NOT get levies paid from the sale, so storage on a hard disk is likely infringement, going by the letter of the ruling, and again the lawyers I talked to seemed to think that this was probably still considered infringement, because the ruling ONLY covered audio recording medium, and in Canada these are considered any device sold with a levy attached that is paid to the recording companies and industries - CDs, tapes, MP3 players, DVD players, etc - hard drives and other storage mediums are not included on this list. So, unless a court case goes to trial and the judge deems hard disks audio recording medium (and levies are thus placed on the sale of these in Canada), they're infringing devices. I'd say downloading songs in Canada might be legal, but there's just as good a chance they might not be. You're free to do as you wish, it's a country with freedoms, but be aware it may still be deemed illegal in the future - the decision seems very less-than-final, with at least a 50/50 chance downloading from the 'net to a hard disk is illegal if you don't own the original source or rights to it.

The ruling said that the act of downloading the song was not illegal as it fell under the provisions of the Copyright Act, but there is still the gray area where you've made a copy of a song you do not own, thus falling under the unauthorised reproduction portions of the Act. Yes, it's legal to download anything in Canada under the portions of the Act that allow you to make backup copies of works you own the rights to, but I'd still say it is still very likely to be considered illegal in Canada to actually posses copies of copyrighted works that you do *not* own the rights to, regardless of where you acquired the copy. Remember, if the uploading of copyrighted content to a P2P network is illegal in Canada (it is) under the guise that you're not making a copy but attempting to distribute, then it would stand to reason that if put in front of a court of law, you would at least have a good chance to be found in violation of copying something you did not own that you acquired from a P2P network. In reading the ruling, it appears they allowed the downloading of songs under the provisions of the law that allow you to make backup copies of media you own the rights to, as they disagreed with removing P2P downloading in the law from all uses. I believe they didn't touch on legality of the downloaded content specifically, so as to not void larger portions of the Act. As such, I would not hold your hat on the fact that the act of downloading something from P2P is not illegal to take that to the end that having that copy you downloaded is legal - if the act of uploading it so you can download it is legal, the act of having it after downloading without owning the license to use it will probably get you in trouble if it was ever brought up in court.

Just to expound on the subject, a quote from the Microsoft.com piracy site for their documentation on the issue and their stance: