Jody Thornton

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.

(I posted in the "web" forums at the bottom, but I think it's in the wrong spot. If this contravenes duplicate posting rules, just remove the old one. Thanks. ) My mom's Outlook.com account was one of those that Microsoft rolled out the new and improved look shown here: https://cdn2.vox-cdn...ook.com-2.0.png Does any one know of a way to revert to the look and feel from May 2015 and before? I have not found ANYTHING Google-wise. Thank you,

My mom's Outlook.com account was one of those that Microsoft rolled out the new and improved look shown here: 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 Does any one know of a way to revert to the look and feel from May 2015 and before? I have not found ANYTHING Google-wise. Thank you,

Hmmmm - I really have to say that Internet Explorer improved vastly after version 9. The new interface is quite sleek actually. I set up Pale Moon with the FoxE9 add on, so I can mimic the look. But IE performance is quite good in 11. I actually liked 7, as it ran well on XP, but ran very badly on Vista (for which it was originally designed...lol). It doesn't render a lot properly now (although using it with Google Chrome Frame helps a bit). I like IE 7 when used with the classic desktop.

Well I had two processors (both Xeon 3.66 GHZ Netburst/P4 style). My RAM is slower (DDR2/400 MHz) but I had 4 GB (which I upgraded to 7 GB). I know that thE RTM release of Vista didn't support my slower SATA bus, but I guess SP2 must've fixed that. So rather than me tweaking things to work, I wonder if time and updates resolved the issue.

nVidia drivers have the Control Panel tool that can modify 3D and 2D rendering for smoothness at the cost of speed. If you want better performance, it sets rendering to a slightly more jagged image.

I may be able to get an xw8600 for even cheaper. My hope is that is compatible with Windows 8.1 x64 as well. It has two Duo Core Xeons in it and an SAS interface.

I'm sorry Dencorso, I just checked again and it appears that I've lied (doh!). It says Designed for XP, and in white on Black, the bottom half says "Vista Capable", which must be true because it's running that right now.

I've run as Administrator since Windows 2000 Professional (what I prefer to replicate is a single user box ala Win9x). I always install as Administrator. Then I create a new Administrator account with an alternate name, log in and remove the original Administrator account from the system. I'm using Puppy Linux on an old Dell D610 notebook, and it only runs as root. It's been fine. I'm not saying there is no threat whatsoever. I just backup my data regularly before the worst happens.