Jody Thornton

My Vista screen. A bit customized with smaller basic buttons and a lighter blue basic Win7 style menu.

Please share. I need your PM. In 7-zip format, I've got it down to 5 mb.

Here a few visual styles that I used. I modified them somewhat (smaller caption buttons or start button replacement, etc). Use as you like. I may have more. (Actually, it's too big to attach. Send me a PM or if someone knows another way, that would be great.)

I think ever since XP, the OS has become LESS dependant on Internet Explorer. During the early 2000s, apps like Music Match Jukebox relied on IE6 libraries to be present, in order to run. It's not so much that Windows needs .NET Framework. But application developers have found it easier to work with, so it's here to stay. Mind you (when not in use) I don't find .NET to impact performance at all. I dunno; I used to hate Vista when it cam out, and even Windows 8. But I'll tell you, Windows 8 (when used with Classic Shell applied) really can be a stable desktop OS. It runs exceptionally well.

Yes but Windows Server 2003 updates extended XP x64 by a year (same codebase) And Windows Server 2008 "Classic" could extend Vista to 2020 because it shares the same codebase as Vista. We're not expecting Microsoft to step up at all. We just keep hoping that some person will attempt hacking the updates to make them compatible.

We also now know that YES Microsoft will push updates. I think slow ring users (business editions) will get updates later than fast ring customers (home users), but it seemes updates are forced. So much for being able to stick with a particular build of Windows 10 if you like how it works.

Hi Folks: I vLited my Vista installation back in Feb 2014. I integrated IE9 and all updates to that point. SP2 was already part of the source. And I've removed such goodies as Indexing, Remote Assistance, System Restore, Simple TCP, Terminal Services and lord know what else. It runs great and really lean. And no event log errors. Now I recently had to fix up a bunch of .NET and Windows Update issues. So I'm back to running well again. As a final step I ran The System Readiness Tool. When I look at the CheckSUR.log that it creates, I find references to files in the Component Store that appear orphaned, or else the payload/file is missing (and most of it looks like it's from the junk I removed with vLite) So here's my question: would it be fair to say that if a line in CheckSUR.log reads as: Checking Package Watchlist (f) CSI Payload File Missing 0x00000000 mshwkorr.dll amd64_microsoft-windows-t..reinkrecognition.ko_31bf3856ad364e35_6.0.6001.18000_none_600bc58be4a7864a ... that I could delete either the WinSxS folder that corrresponds with it, or the registry entry that matches it, without doing damage to the system?

I was pleasantly surprised at how well 75 renders sites. I really never thought I'd see K-Meleon rise from the dead, but I'm glad to see it has. Now just to wait for more themes, and for them to solve the icon size issue on toolbars and bookmarks (apparently, you can't change one without the other)

What features were missing on Windows Server 2008 that Vista had? (I'm also wondering if Server 2008 updates will be portable to Vista, but there's no news on that front.

By the way, the link I provided for the GAT at XIN appears to be down. One more month of updates too. I hope to get 'em. (Edit (on July 12th) It's Alive! LOL (site's back up)

All I remember is that my LSI Logic controller required a driver to be added (F5 needed to be pressed up on setup so I could provide a floppy). but both Windows Server 2003 (and it's renamed modified sibling - Windows XP x64 Edition) both included the SCSI drivers for it.

Well I ended up completely turfing the Microsoft.NET folder under Windows, after taking ownership of the entire tree. Then I restored the folder tree from the installation DVD. .NET apps all work now, and my Event log is devoid of those pesky errors. But now the services are not lited in the Services snap-in. Oh well it works now without complaint.

Well that would work, and that would be OK since the only .NET app that I use is CD Burner XP. It uses .NET 3x binaries though. Of course I wanted to try to fix it nonetheless...lol I tried SFC and even all of the cleanup tools (but the latter isn't really a vailid option, since .NET 2 and 3 are integrated with Vista). Still over the last couple of days, I tried several things that I read on the web. None of it helped. So I'm using your solution Dencorso, and disabling .NET Optimzation Services. Thanks for your help guys.

Hi Folks: Recently I began seeing some errors upon startup in Event Viewer. It shows an Event ID of 1111 and here's what the error says: .NET Runtime Optimization Service (clr_optimization_v2.0.50727_32) - Service reached limit of transient errors. and a second error shows .NET Runtime Optimization Service (clr_optimization_v2.0.50727_64) - Service reached limit of transient errors. When I start both ngen services, they start and then stop almost immediately. Then the errors show again. Now when you Google this stuff, mostly the solution offered is that you need to reinstall Windows Vista, because .NET v2x and 3x are integrated with the OS. However, I can't believe that there's not a way to repair .NET by grabbing files from install.wim off the installation DVD-ROM. Besides, my system works great in most other respects. I have attempted removing about four or five recent .NET v2x updates, and reinstalling them. I figured that might re-register something. But no go.

That's right, I still have another batch of updates to await. What I plan on doing a bit down the road is moving my server to a new box. At which point, I'll just nLite an install disc of Windows Server 2003 with all of the updates built in, so it may be a moot point by then. We'll see. Thanks for the help guys!

I'm with jaclaz on this one. I tested my Vista and XP x64 installations by running simultaneously the most applications I could possibly want to run at once. I did it with two 1 gb page files (one on each drive), and without paging at all. Without paging I still had a hard time going beyond 5 gb or RAM usage. I loaded up my audio editor with dozens of wave files, opened two browser instances with about 50 tabs each, office apps with four or five docs and spreadsheets, you name it. Performance was nearly the same. I will say that my workstation still seemed to run faster without paging, but I had less free memory of course. I'd probably be "safer" with a page file, but I'll never near the limit. Apparently, paging can make meory use more efficient by placing memory address and data pointers in the page file for quick acccess. But I figure, if it places that in RAM too, all the better. And I really agree that a memory dump will only be useful to a handful of people, and I don't know any of them. .

Here it is. I found it.

Hi Folks: I am running a small file server with Windows Server 2003 Standard SP2, and as you might know, extended phase support finalizes next month. Now once the updates are no longer coming, is it now completely safe to expunge the \Windows\hf_mig folder? Or is there any other reason to keep it? I noticed that updates from the last year or so have not used it at all. To avoid double posting, would this be valid for Windows XP and Windows 2000 systems as well?

NoelC, I noticed somewhere here that you posted a screenshot (I wish I could find it now...lol) but it had different caption buttons (min/max/close) than the now default Windows 10 "shapes". What theme was that?

Now I have an additional question. This might be another route I can take. If I wanted to upgrade my existing HP xw8200 machine, would going with the original Windows 8 be a valid choice to make? With Windows 8, it appears that I could still run the x64 version without the need for SSE2 and NX capabilities on the CPU. Is that correct? Would I still receive patches and updates for the original Windows 8? And if I installed with Classic Shell, could I force Windows 8 to boot to the desktop? Any other "gotchas" that I'd run into by opting for the original Windows 8?

It had more of the Windows 8 look like this: http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/outlook-com/images/EverythingInItsPlace.jpg Now that's what most outlook.com users (myself included) still have. Apparently though, and handful of accounts were chosen by Microsoft to roll out their new Outlook Web App appearance. It will now look the same if you were using the Office Outlook Web App for your Exchange account. My mom was one of those chosen, and given that she is 72 this month with Parkinsons, it's a wee bit hard for her to adapt. This is now how it appears for her. https://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/3tvaz-2xzROJ-OyfJ0aILoPlKvY=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3716972/New-ways-to-get-more-done-in-Outlook.com-2.0.png The article linked below discusses the rollout, but I just wondered if I could temporarily reverse it. There is a lite mode that is reminicent of HotMail, and that could be an option, but I wanted to see if I could return her to what she was accustomed to. http://www.theverge.com/2015/5/21/8634979/microsoft-outlook-email-service-new-features-user-interface

I really appreciate that Dencorso. Just to clarify for other readers, this is the web based Outlook.com I'm asking about. Thanks for all the help Dencorso.

Bump! I was asking the moderator if there was a way to get added attention to this thread. My worry is that it's being missed because it's in a forum that's so far down the list. I hope I'm wrong, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of info on this issue on the web.

The new version is using the Outlook Web App format, whereas the older format is using the "Metro" like look.

Has to be, as I've not seen it. Typing this from Vista Ultimate x64.