nmX.Memnoch

It's not the chipsets that don't support SLI. NVIDIA specifically blocks SLI support on Intel chipets in their drivers. It's been this way for quite some time (even the 965/975 chipsets are capable of running SLI). This is from Anandtech's brief X38 article:

If the "Remove" button isn't there that means the service pack was installed with the /nobackup switch, which means you can't uninstall it.

I wouldn't expect that to fix your address bar problem.

*sigh* Another programmer who thinks he's an IT professional. I'm not trying to slight your programming abilities, but please don't slight IT professionals abilities either. Most of the time those registry cleaner apps can do more harm than good. If it's not a local/group policy issue then it's almost definitely something your registry cleaner did. As for the settings reverting, this sounds like policy setting to me. Either you have or someone has messed with either the local policies or domain group policies. Check for the existence (and value) of NoSaveSettings under HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Policies\Explorer. To expand on what gosh said, see this KB article: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555130 Another thing to check is the policy setting for 'Disable customizing browser toolbars' under Local Computer Policy > User Configuration > Administrative Templates > Windows Components > Internet Explorer > Toolbars. You can check this by entering rsop.msc in a Run dialog box. This setting is supposed to remove the option, but I've seen conflicting settings do some weird things. Here is the help text from that policy setting:

Actually...no I wouldn't. There are so many server manufacturers that they can't all be bad. Dell HP IBM Gateway Fujitsu-Siemens Sun (yes, you can get Windows on a Sun box now) Those are just to name a few. There are tons more.

That´s sure not to expensive if there will be 4GB versions for some 150 US$... --- EDIT --- If it´s only the 640GB version... auch... 19,200 US$. According to the table at the bottom there will be 40GB, 80GB, 160GB, 320GB and 640GB versions. At $30/GB that puts the 40GB at about $1200 and the 80GB at about $2400. The next question would be: "Can you boot from it?". There demo, tjeez... Actually...he was right. It's their demo. I wish they would've actually shown the file copies instead of just some numbers though.

This definitely sounds cool. Excluding price, it's definitely a better option than the Gigabyte iRAM (or other devices like it). Although, I don't see it replacing any SANs anytime soon (for various reasons): 1. No expandability unless multiple cards in a single computer are seen as one drive. 2. It can only be accessed by one server where SANs can have multiple servers connected. 3. I don't see any way to use it in a failover cluster environment. They also mention it's cost effectiveness. It's definitely not cheaper than an external SAS setup (excluding the server price since you'd have to have that either way). An external SAS setup can also hold several times more data. At any rate, it's definitely a cool idea and I think we'll start seeing more and more stuff like this in the next 5-10 years. Imagine using NAND flash based drives in a SAN! I'm sure enthusiasts with money to burn will be all over the 40GB and 80GB versions.

Sorry but when I'm configuring a server for a business, even if it's only for development/testing purposes, I'll take a "pre-configured" one any day so that they get the warranty package. When you include the additional support through the Tier 1 server OEMs you can't come close to the price with a DIY system. Period. What I build for myself at home is a different story. I currently have a custom built Dual Xeon 3.06GHz/6GB RAM/1.2TB server that's my domain controller, print server, file server, DHCP, DNS, WINS, IIS, etc, etc. I'll be upgrading it to a quad-core system over the coming months though. Here are my planned upgrades (and I'm putting them in this thread in case the OP wants some ideas should he decide to build it himself): Current -> Upgrade Supermicro X5DA8 -> Supermicro PDSME+ 2 x Intel Xeon 3.06GHz -> 1 x Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 6 x 1GB PC2100 Registered ECC DDR -> 4GB (or) 8GB PC2 5300 Unbuffered ECC DDR2 2 x 80GB Seagate 7200.8 PATA RAID1 (OS/Apps Only) -> 2 x 250GB Seagate 7200.10 SATA RAID1 (OS/Apps Only) Toshiba SCSI CD-ROM -> Pioneer PATA DVD+/-RW 3ware 9550SX SATA RAID Controller -> moving to new motherboard 4 x 400GB SATA 3Gbps -> moving to new motherboard with 3ware 9550SX Windows Server 2003 R2 Entperise Edition -> Windows Server 2008 Enterprise x64 Edition (when it's released) That motherboard will allow me to keep my current PCI-X 3ware 9550SX and upgrade to (or add) a PCIe SATA (or SAS) RAID controller later. The CPU will allow me to run as many threads as the current system (given Hyper-Threading), but do it more efficiently and use less power doing it. I haven't decided on the amount of RAM for the upgrade yet, but I will be running at least one VM.

If you want it without all the extra characters try this: dir I:\ /s /on /b > list.txt

Start with the Time sync'ing errors. Time sync'ing problems can wreak havoc on a domain. How to configure an authoritative time server in Windows Server 2003 And also this:

I was almost positive that could be changed using Intel PROSet but I guess not. I did, however, just run Utility Mode on my PE2950. It's not even a DOS environment. It's a custom application for running diagnostics. I'm pretty sure the underlying OS is Win98 so there's probably some way to preempt it loading. At any rate, you're going to need some way to get to IBAUtil.exe anyway (the Utility Partition isn't accessible in Windows). Why not use the onboard NICs, which allow you to easily control the PXE setting(s), for the LAN segment and the addin card for the WAN segment? The Broadcom NetXtreme II's can be teamed just like the Intel NICs can be.

Ok...let's stop that little piece of misinformation before it goes any further. Even Windows XP Home Edition will support a quad-core CPU. Here are the OS CPU limitations spelled out for you: Windows XP Home Edition / Vista Home Basic / Vista Home Premium All support only one physical CPU. That CPU can have Hyper-Threading, can be dual-core, quad-core, octo-core*, etc, etc and it will use every core. What you cannot do is use more than one physical CPU. Example 1: These editions will use all four cores of a single quad-core CPU system. Example 2: These editions will only use the four cores of the first CPU in a dual quad-core CPU system (a system with 2 quad-core CPUs installed on a dual socket motherboard). They will completely "ignore" the second physical CPU. Windows XP Professional / Vista Business / Vista Enterprise / Vista Ultimate Supports up to two physical CPUs. Those CPUs can have Hyper-Threading, can be dual-core, quad-core, octo-core, etc, etc and it will use every core on both CPUs. Example 1: These editions will use all four cores of a single quad-core CPU system. Example 2: These editions will use all eight cores of a dual quad-core CPU system (a system with 2 quad-core CPUs installed on a dual socket motherboard).

You're going to run about the same cost either way. Purchasing an assembled one from Dell, HP, IBM, etc is going to net you a good warranty package as well. What's your planned budget? You can get a entry level Dell PowerEdge 840 for under $2500USD. I know that may sound like a lot, but in the world of servers it's pretty cheap, especially considering what it would've cost to get something semi-equivelant to that 5-10 years ago.

You should be able to enable PXE on the NIC in the BIOS. And truth be told, if you install Dell OpenManage Server Admnistrator Managed Node, you can change a lot of BIOS options from within Windows. EDIT: I just verified on one of my PE6850's that ou can change the PXE setting(s) in OMSA. This server has Broadcom NICs though so the options may be a bit different. I just got a PE2950 that's still being setup. I'll fire it up in a bit and check there as well.

It's a local user group called Remote Desktop Users. Adding users to that group will (should) give them remote desktop permissions. This can be scripted using the NET LOCALGROUP command: NET LOCALGROUP "Remote Desktop Users" <DOMAIN>\<User> /ADD

Considering that XP was release nearly a year and a half before Server 2003 it'd be hard for it to be a cut down version of Server 2003. Actually, it's quite the opposite. Server 2003 was based off of the XP SP2 code base. And yes, they are targeted at completely different market segments. XP is a desktop OS and Server 2003 is a server OS. Imagine that. XP Professional does NOT have a core limitation. It has a limitation on the number of physical CPUs it can use (which is 2). You can install XP on dual quad-core system and it will recognize and use all eight cores. For that matter, XP Home works the same way, except that it can only use a single physical CPU. But it is multithreaded in that you can run XP Home on a quad-core CPU and it will recognize and use all four cores. Period. XP has a 10 user connection limit to prevent it from being used as a server OS. The network tuning is different from Server 2003 anyway so even if it had a higher connection limit it wouldn't be the best solution. The TCP limit you speak of on XP is not on the number of connections. It's a limit on the number of half-open connections. This is something that you want limited to reduce the possibility of DoS attacks. The only case where I can see using Server 2003 as a "desktop" OS is if you're doing any sort of development and using that workstation (instead of a dedicated development server).

Um...Nut sure where this part is coming from, so forgive me if I get my thinking & dunce caps backwards... My reference to using APW/.INFs above was in regard to installing a locally attached printer only. It's just a quick-N-dirty was of stripping all the "helper App" garbage out of the driver and just getting the thing to print, instead of having it trying to become your new best friend. They're not backwards. I guess I was just clarifying that it's not supposed to be done that way on Terminal Servers (I've seen people do it and it's a pain to "fix"). Not necessarily. On a Terminal Server you would use the same method to install printer drivers (not the printer itself) so that the Terminal Server can successfully connect the client's printer. You do this because the printers aren't actually installed on the Terminal Server, you're just making the driver available so user can print from within their TS session. Right, but you have to make the driver available for that initial connection. I think we're both trying to say the same thing, just in different ways. That's the thing...we're NOT using the UPD anymore. When I started the job back in April the server had Windows 2000 Server on it and it was basically being used as a "one stop shop"...Domain Controller (and associated DNS, WINS, DHCP services), File Server, Print Server, Database Server, and Terminal Server. They were having problems with some HP LaserJet 1320 printers (those suck BTW). Against my recommendation, and because the network printers at the main location (where the server sits) are hung off of the server, they loaded the UPD on the server trying to fix the problems with those printers.Anyway, they got a new server and everything but Terminal Services was moved to the new box. Once we were sure everything was running smooth on the new server, we reinstalled the old server with Windows Server 2003 and loaded the individual printer drivers for the remote users (using the Drivers tab in Print Server Properties). Everything was fine until we loaded the LJ4000 drivers. I'm pretty sure that we did use PCL6 though. I'm not sure that backing down PCL5 will work because I believe the driver has to match what the client has installed (since it technically maps it back to the clients local printer) and he has the PCL6 drivers loaded on all of those printers. Oh, and I guess is should clarify that the remote workstations are using a variety of HP printers. They're not all LJ4000/4100's. Even at the main location they have five or six different types of HP printers. Again, no previous driver installs. This happened on a completely fresh server install and without using the UPD. I even made sure to use the latest versions of the individual printer drivers direct from HP's site.

Errr...people do use their computers for things other than playing games. Programming, web development, virtual machines, creating/editing documents, working with databases...those things all take processing power and RAM as well. I dare say that if he was doing some programming using Visual Studio 2005 against an ASP.NET site hosted within a VM he could potentially be using more RAM than any of the newer games on the market. Worthless to who? People who actually need that much RAM will gladly pay the price premium. If you're only web browsing, playing the occassional game, checking email, running IRC and/or an IM client then yeah, 4GB isn't going to give you any better performance than 2GB (which makes it the optimal choice for your situation). But if you're doing any video/audio editing, programming, running virtual machines, etc, then you definitely want to get as much RAM as you can.Let me ask you this question. What gives better performance: 1. Having 2GB of RAM and paging to the hard drive. (or) 2. Spending the extra cash to get 4GB of RAM so you don't have to page to the hard drive. which mean that i also recommended 4GB I read exactly what you said. But you used a blanket "2GB is the optimal for Vista" statement. Again, that all depends on what the PC is being used for. Which is why I fealt the need to clarify that 2GB is the desired minimum for Vista and not necessarily the optimal for every situation.

You still have to be able to effectively lockdown the workstation so that they can't run anything else. This is MUCH more time consuming (and quirky) to do with Group Policies than it is with Windows SteadyState* or something like SiteKiosk. *Disclaimer: I've never used SteadyState personally. We purchased a license for SiteKiosk years ago before the Shared Computer Toolkit was available.

So basically the computer will only be used for browsing those two websites? I've said it before: SiteKiosk. You can also check out Microsoft Windows SteadyState (formerly known as the Shared Computer Toolkit). This is a free alternative, but I don't know if it will let you lock down as much as SiteKiosk does. SiteKiosk is $200USD for the Plus Bundle version (includes the SiteCoach Internet content filter and a few other addons). It's $149USD for the basic version.

Check your Event Logs for any error messages related to replication and/or group policies.

Optimal = the best solution In other words, saying 2GB is the "optimal" means that adding anything more than that won't give you a performance increase. 2GB is the desired minimum for acceptable performance, but not necessarily the optimal (based on the usage of the system). Taking those statements into account I would say more than 2GB will definitely be of benefit to him, especially if he's using VMware and VS2005 at the same time (and if he's like me, listening to some music while he works). Virtual instances are great for development environments, and running multiple VM's with different configurations is nice to have as well. That's hard to do if you're RAM limited.

Yes there is...even on volume licensed versions. There's even activation on OEM and Retail versions.

That's not the "optimal", that's the sweet spot where you get a noticeable performance difference over say 512MB or 1GB. 4GB certainly isn't going make the machine perform slower than 2GB. This is due to limitations of the chipset and the way memory is addressed. When you have 4GB PCI devices will take some as will your graphics card (the bigger the frame buffer on your video card, the more system memory will be reserved for it). Don't worry though, the system "sees" the full 4GB.And yes, x64 operating systems will show that you have 4GB installed. What it doesn't tell you is that it can't use/address all of it (again, depending on how many devices you have installed and how much RAM is on your video card). The system properties page will in fact show "4GB". Attached is a screenshot example of what a 32-bit OS shows for a system with 4GB (taken from my work computer). This particular system has several PCI devices and a 256MB video card. See this thread for more information.

Yes, what sort of troubles are you having? HPBPRO.EXE and HPBOID.EXE. Every time a new user logs into a terminal server another instance of each is started...and they aren't stopped with the user logs out. You also can't terminate the processes in Task Manager. Get enough users logging in and out all day and the server will eventually run out of virtual memory, the CPU goes to 100% and eventually stop responding to connection attempts. Disabling the services doesn't work because HP seems to have coded the driver to just reset the service back to Automatic and start them anyway. Using the Add Printer Wizard isn't the correct way to load additional drivers on a Terminal Server. Technically it works, but it's not the proper way. You're supposed to load them on the Drivers tab of the Print Server Properties. I have a customer on a side job that has a Terminal Server for some of their external users to connect to a custom application. After a single day of use there were 50+ instances of each started in Task Manager. And the only way to clear them is to reboot the server. There are a couple of solutions listed here, but none of them are 100%. The thing I find really odd is that thread is almost 4 years old now and HP still hasn't fixed it. Those files aren't even required for printing. We even tried loading just the drivers without using the UPD and one of the printer drivers (4000 or 4100 I believe) has them anyway.