ppgrainbow

Thanks for the help. I really appreciate it. However, due to a shortage of funding, I may have to hold this off until at least after the new year and consider other options.

Well...here's what I've decided and what should be good to go with Windows Vista, just to be on the safe side. Here's a update on the specs: 1. NZXT Guardian 921 RB Black Mid-Tower Case w/blue LED, ATX 2. Fractal Design Integral R2 500W Power Supply, 80 PLUS® Bronze, 24-pin ATX12V v2.31 EPS12V, 1x 8/6-pin PCIe 3. ASUS M5A97 LE R2.0, AM3+, AMD® 970, DDR3-2133 (O.C.) 32GB /4, PCIe x16, SATA 6 Gb/s RAID 5 /6, USB 3.0 /2, HDA, GbLAN, ATX 4. AMD Phenom II X4, Socket AMD3 w/Phenom II X4 955 (4 x 3.2 GHz - 8 MB Cache) 5. Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO CPU Cooler, Socket 2011/1155/1156/1366/775/FM1/AM3/AM2, 159mm Height, Copper/Aluminum 6. Cooler Master Thermal Compound, 1.0 g 7. Crucial 8 GB (2 x 4 GB) Ballistix Sport XT PC3-12800 DDR3 1600MHz CL9 1.5V SDRAM DIMM, Non-ECC 8. EVGA GeForce® GT 610 810MHz, 1 GB DDR3 1000MHz, PCIe x16, HDMI + DVI + VGA 9. 2 x Western Digital 1TB WD Caviar® Blue (WD10EZEX), SATA 6[Gb/s, 7200 RPM, 64MB cache 10. Lite-on iHAS124 Black 24x DVD±RW Dual-Layer Burner, SATA 11. Nippon Labs ICR-EE Black 1.44 MB Floppy Drive + All-in-One Card Reader Combo Drive, 3.5" Bay 12. Encore ENEWI-1XN42 Wireless N510 PCI-e Adapter, 2dbi Antenna 13. StarTech 2 Port PCI IDE Controller Adapter Card, two dual channel IDE conectors, four IDE devices, 28-bit LBA I made some modifications regarding the computer specs and I'm closing in on finalising it. It seems that Portatech wasn't being specific on what type of brand of the components that I want here. What do you think? To try to reduce costs and power, I may replace the CRT monitor with a LCD/OLED monitor in the near future.

Thanks for the help. Even if there are no fixes for the AMD FX processors will Windows Vista still function okay even without the hotfix? I've also heard that the Bulldozer CPU under Windows has been met with mixed results, especially since the FX 8150 was performing poorly in the benchmarks. Also, in late 2011, AMD admitted that their FX processors didn't meet up to expectations and in early 2012, there were lots of compatibility issues associated with the FX processor too. Now, which multi-core processor would be better, btw? If you have any ideas, let me know.

Thank you for telling me. I have a couple of questions to ask here. 1. Which multi-core CPU should work under Windows Vista? 2. And why is the FX module comcept unknown and untested under Windows Vista? By the way, AMD came out with its FX CPUs before in late 2011 and months before Windows Vista went out of Mainstream Support. Also, I heard that the CoolMax PSUs can present a firehazard that can kill hardware very easily overtime.

Good for you! My host PC is going to be Windows Vista soon.

Here's a follow-up to a previous thread that I made last week: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/170528-considerding-going-back-to-windows-vista/ Since I won the retail copy of Windows Vista Ultimate on eBay for $74, I needed to look for a new custom built PC that still supports Windows Vista on modern hardware even though the OS is out of Mainstream Support. Tell me this. Will any of the configurations that I made work under Windows Vista? All of this stuff that I configured, but not finalised will cost more than $800. Here's a run down of what it could look like. 1. NZXT Guardian 921RB mid-size computer tower. 2. ASUS M5A97 LE R2.0 motherboard supporting up to 32 GB DDR3 RAM. 3. Eight core 3.6 GHz AMD FX8150 processor w/16 MB cache. 4. Cooling: Ultra-performance coolin, copper heat-pip heatsink, high air-flow cooling fan, Artic Silver 5, a 120mm/92m case fan. 5. 8 GB DDR3-1600 RAM (single channel). 6. 2 x 1 TB SATA III hard drives. 7. PCI-e 6-pin compliant 600-watt Coolmax power suuply. 8. 24x DVD/RW optical driver. 9. NVIDIA GeForce GT610 graphics card w/1 GB GDDR3 video RAM. 10. Standard build option, burn-in, test & ship out. 11. One year manufacturer repair/replacement product warranty (expires in December 2014) 12. PCI IDE controller. 13. Internal all in one flash card reader. 14. Wireless PCI-e network card. Having all of this is going to cost me over $800 and will consume 200 more watts per quote from the Barebones computers section on Portatech: http://www.portatech.com/products/product.cshtml?id=70310&o=71327 Let me know what you think, because I am NOT planning to run Windows 2000 as the host OS in 2014 and I will no longer have access to the old computer also.

It sure does. However, I will have to do that via VirtualBox from now on as I will be abandoning this old computer in the next several days.

It sure is. However, newer motherboards that I'm considering will not support Windows 2000 or older versions of Windows XP as the host OS, for which it is unfortunate. So, if I wanted to consider Windows 2000 again, I would have to put it in a virtualised environment. Right now, I can hardly install the 2013-11-15 UURollup v11 update.

Thanks for telling me. I'll try to go hunt for a Vista capable motherboard online and update it from here.

Good question. If Windows Millennium detects a USB flash drive by default, the maximum size is 32 GB. However, because Windows 98 and Me, lack LBA 48-bit support, the maximum size will be as much as 128 GB. The USB flash drives will still work, but it's unfortunate that vendors no longer test USB devices on Windows 98 and Me.

You know, Windows 2000 has been my favourite OS for nearly the last four years; however, I've been starting to experience some issues with the OS even though it's working "as-is". And now, I can't run *some* of the software that is designed to work on at least a Core 2 Duo processor or better and I found that I've been plagued with some of the compatibility issues over software designed to only work on Windows XP or Vista. With that said, I'm considering moving back to Windows Vista for a while even though the OS is no longer sold and out of Mainstream Support. I found full retail versions (not the OEM or upgrade versions) of Windows Vista Ultimate for under $100 on eBay and Amazon. But this is where I will need your help as I will end up with a semi-new custom build computer. Can you find me a white coloured full tower case and a good motherboard that is still Windows Vista capable, supports at least one IDE connector (if necessary) and supports up to either 16 GB or as much as 32 GB of memory and a graphics card that works on Windows Vista? I will eventually want to migrate my PCI network card and my PCI PCMCIA card over to the newer motherboard as well as long as it still has PCI support. What I find unfortunate is that newer motherboards and graphics cards have even dropped Windows XP and Vista support, I will still have some time left before all support for Vista ends. The biggest problem is budget and funding issues. If I find that I don't have that kind of money to migrate back to Vista, I may have to scrap this idea. Please post your thoughts of which motherboard is good enough to run Vista on and let me know before the consideration becomes a plan.

Even though that I have been using a couple of Windows Vista desktop and laptop computers a bit, right now, I'm considering moving back to Windows Vista to live out its final years of support.

Okay, when I attempted to install the UURollup v11 2013-11-15 update on this Windows 2000 computer, I received a error "Access Denied" and that the update was partially installed meaning that the Windows 2000 may not work correctly. Here's the example logs regarding this error: Luckily, the botched updated uninstalled any "access denied" errors that it encountered before more damage was done: Is there a way to get around this issue?

Hey there! I recently installed Windows 95 OEM Service Release 2 over MS-DOS/Windows 3.1 after concerns that MS-DOS wouldn't fully recognise the hard disk larger than 2 GB. I had to convert the drive to FAT32 and resize the drive to full capacity at 32 KB clusters (or up yo 66,732 clusters). On the Fujitsu website regarding the LIFEBOOK Point 510, it only found three files, the BIOS update to version 1.09 (1997-09-09), the pen driver for Windows 95 and the updated Windows 95 patch. I'm curious to ask here. In page 33 of the manual for the Fujitsu Point 510 unit, it mentioned the ability to rotate the display from landscape (wide) to portrait (tall) as well as performing pen calibration. Are there any other drivers for the Point 510, for example, which it will let me rotate the display in landscape or portrait mode and perform pen calibration under Windows 95? The integrated video card that the Point 510 uses is the Chip & Technologies (C&T) 65548 display adapter with 1 MB of video RAM. Just curious, because when it had Windows 3.1, I couldn't find any information on that.

That's what I'm trying to say. The installer fails to properly register the xactengine3_0.dll file (it first existed in the March 2008 redistributable) which causes the DirectX installation to fail. One thing that I found is that according to this thread, 0xC0000001D in failed API, LoadLibraryEx() means, Illegal Instruction, meaning that the Compaq TC1000 uses a 1 GHz Transmeta Cruesoe processor which only uses MMX instructions. Typically, versions of the DirectX 9.0c from March 2008 to June 2010 require at a absolute minimum, the SSE instruction set, which which is only found in Intel Pentium III processors or better as well as the HP Compaq TC1100 which uses either a Pentium M or Celeron processor. When I put Windows 95 OSR2 on the Fujitsu Point 510 tablet computer, I found that I could not install DirectX 8.0a (which was the last version of DirectX to support Windows 95). DirectX 8.0a rrquires a Intel Pentium or equivlent processor with CMPXCHG8B instruction set for which the Point 510 lacks...so, I had to settle for DirectX 5 (July 1997 version) instead. I'm gonna read up on the DXCB utility to see how I can try to get the June 2010 redistributable of DirectX 9.0c working on the TC1000, if not...then I'm afraid that I'm gonna have to give up until further notice. {b]Update: The problem has been resolved! In order to forcefully get the June 2010 redistributable of DirectX 9.0c to work, I used the DXCB utility with the following switches: By using this command above DXCB will only use the 32-bit redistributables from June 2010 with Windows XP as the target OS. As I already have the directx_Jun2010_redist.exe file placed in the \DXCB directory, it will not redownload the latest revision of DirectX 9.0c and will print out a verbose log of the files that were extracted. Here's what it looks like: With this update hack, it took 32 minutes, 19.91 seconds to complete the command and forcefully install the June 2010 redistributable of DirectX 9.0c in the \WINDOWS\system32 folder. However, when it tried to initialise XAudio, I received a error that the processor on the TC1000 wasn't supported and it required SSE instruction set in order to use XAudio. But other than that, DirectX 9.0c is working "as-is" on the TC1000. I have now moved the files placed in the DXCB directory off of the TC1000 by moving the files over the network onto one of my USB hard drives. I will now need to put the files in a ZIP file for future reference incase I have to re-install it again in the near future.

Please accept my apologies for not responding, but thank you for telling me. I'll give it a whirl and read the instructions. I downloaded the November 2007 version of the DirectX 9.0c update and as far as I know, it might be the last version that would work on the TC1000. The only files that might be left from later revisions of DirectX 9.0c are the following four files: Starting in the February 2008 redistributable of DirectX 9.0c, xactengine3_0.dll gets installed and on some machines (such as the TC1000 which lacks SSE and SSE2 instruction sets) will fail to install properly, leaving leftover files from later revisions of DX 9.0c. Now that I downloaded DXCB 2.2.1, how can I get the June 2010 redistributable of DirectX 9.0c to work properly?

Uh oh. Thanks for telling me. It turns out that the srv.sys driver (from v5.00.2195.7369) contains bugs relative to L0001FD6A and L0001FDAB. The bugs are found to cause the STOP 0x1E error when attempting to transfer files from a network drive that is connected on the main computer to the other one. I had to reboot again from a bug check when attempting to transfer files via the Tecra 720CDT laptop, btw. This could have a effect on the latest version of UURollup v11 that I attempted to install. On a side note, I can transfer files from this desktop computer to either the Tecra 720CDT or TC1000 portable computers when the hard disks are connected as a network drive here, but due to the bug found in srv.sys, not the other way around.

Um, I have a problem here. With the current version of UURollup v11 that I have, I'm getting a STOP 0x1E error referencing to SRV.SYS. The current version of SRV.SYS is version 5.00.2195.7369 with the datestamp of 2012-10-02 21:04:08. This is the case when I try to connect a folder as a network drive from one of the USB hard drives that are connected on this computer from either the Compaq TC1000 or the Toshiba Tecra 720CDT portable computers. The first STOP error occoured at 15:28:02 and the second one occurred at 15:30:40 >> 15:28:02 *** STOP: 0x0000001e (0xc0000005, 0xbd0aedab, 0x00000000, 0x000000e8) *** srv.sys - Address 0xbd0aedab base at 0xbd09f000 DateStamp 0x506b56cd >> 15:30:40 *** STOP: 0x0000001e (0xc0000005, 0xbd074dab, 0x00000000, 0x000000e8) *** srv.sys - Address 0xbd074dab base at 0xbd065000 DateStamp 0x506b56cd Is there an updated version of UURollup v11 that will try to correct this error without anymore errors popping up? Thank you for your time.

Thanks for the link. Can you try to fix the URL link? All I'm getting is a link to the username and password that is required to login to the account on the RyanVM.net Discussion Board.

Has anyone tested Adobe Flash Player 12 Beta on Windows 2000, Windows XP SP2 or Windows XP SP3 yet even though Windows XP only has less than five months of life left? The very first version of Flash Player 12 is 12.0.0.3 and the current version is 12.0.0.9. Flash Player 11.1 through 11.9 required the SetDlldirectoryW which at a absolute minimum required Windows XP Service Pack 1 or higher. Can anyone look into the entry point dependencies on the files to determine the absolute minimum requirements for Flash Player 12 come January 2014? By the time Flash Player 13 is released, Windows XP will sadly fall off the Microsoft support list. Adobe is now moving to three-month rapid release cycle for its Flash Player and Adobe AIR products. Thank you for your time.

Okay, after manually attempting to remove DirectX, it messed up my Windows XP installation, so I had to do a re-install of the OS on the TC1000 and unfortunately, the error still occurs. The error logs tells it all: The API that failed to load was LoadLibraryEx() in module dxupdate.cpp on line 2234 with the error 0xC0000001D (Illegal Instruction Executed). Other APIs that failed to load were DirectXUpdateInstallPlugin(), InstallPlugIn() and RegisterDllFromSection(). This is on a installation running Windows XP SP2. I earlier that someone tried to install the DirectX redistributable under Windows XP SP3 and it didn't work well with the August 2008 redistributable: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/124227-directx-redist-fails-to-install-on-windows-xp-sp3/ I'm hardly guessing that this might be a botched installation of DirectX 9.0c, don't you think? I could be wrong. I was wondering this. Is there is a way to fix this without going into too much of a hassle of having to reinstall the OS again?

It may mean a hardware failure. Or CPU overheating. The OP-listed symptoms could be disk errors. I don't think that is it. Windows XP is installed on a CF card attached to a CF-IDE adapter and the card has only been in use for four days. The reason why it's throwing Event 11 errors referencing to "disk" is that there is a possible IDE controller error meaning that it's possible that either the IDE cablss are loose or they're going bad. I'm gonna try to find ways to re-install DirectX 9.0c though.

Thanks for telling me. I managed to partially solve this issue, by uninstalling and reinstalling the NVIDIA GeForce2 Go integrated driver. The C:\WINDOWS\system\xactengine3_0.dll driver is there. I will try to uninstall DirectX and reinstall it to see if it helps and report back.

A few days after I reloaded Windows XP Tablet PC Edition on the Compaq TC1000 and applied the updates, I've decided to install DirectX 9.0c. However, when I tried to install the June 2010 and April 2011 updates, I receive this error message: The message ends in the following: Checking the DirectX Diagnostic Tool, the version of DirectX is identified as DirectX 9.0c (4.09.0000.0904). In the Display section of DirectX Diagnostic Tool, DirectDraw test results ran successfully. However, when I tested Direct3D, I received this error message: Direct3D 7 test results: Test failed at step 8 (Creating 3D Device): HRESULT = 0x887602eb (error code) Direct3D 8 test results: Test failed at step 8 (Creating 3D Device): HRESULT = 0x8007000e (Out of memory) Direct3D 9 test results: Test failed at step 8 (Creating 3D Device): HRESULT = 0x8007000e (Out of memory) The culprit to this error what that I received a STOP 0xF4 error when I attempted to detach the TC1000 monitor from the keyboard and on the next reboot, I received a STOP 0x24 meaning that the NTFS file system has gone corrupt. I had to pull out the CF card onto a PCMCIA adapter, attach it to the PCMCIA PCI slot on the back of my desktop computer and run CHKDSK /F to fix the problem. Unfortunately, when CHKDSK /F was finished some of the files that required DirectX to work was deleted, resulting in the loss of Direct 3D functionality. As a result of this, 3D screensavers supplied with Windows XP do not work anymore. For example, when trying to run the 3D Text screensaver, I receive a "No preview available" message. Here are the log files for the June 2010 update: And here are the log files for the April 2011 update: Please keep in mind that as Windows XP is installed on a 32 GB CF card, how can I correct this error that was previously caused by NTFS corruption?

Regretably, also SATA to IDE or IDE to SATA adapters often present similar issues. True. I think that it might be a result of poorly designed adapters. And the BIOS associated with the TC1000 is only adding more problems here.