-I-

you realy should try contacting your OEM vendor, a PID is just the hash with wich MS checks wheter your product key is legit, so if the hash (probebly something in a way simular like MD5), of your prductkey, gets in the range of producct keys know to be iligaly used, you should contact your vendor for a new key.

dont worry it will work..because IE and OE will than be slipstreamed,instead of installed as hotfix afterward, - so nline will be able to remove it as usual. just hang on for a bit longer. im not sure about it but, as i believe Windows Installer 3.1 was already planned for the 5.1 release.

based on value per $ (or Euro in my case), i voted XP64 instead of Server2003, also because i think MOST (not all) here who, run 2003 as a workstation, 1 > hardly know what they are playing with (just folowing a guyde doesn't make you an expert), 2 > most of the also run it without a proper licence - with i think is B*tchy. 3 > Server 2003 will in most cases not let you use - ell-cheapo firewalls and virus-scanners. so i chose xp64 instead.

the whole point in VM (virtual Machine) it to let software, (IE: windows) think its running on a dedicated machine.... so NO there is NO way to check it. from in side the vm.

even though i haven't got a 64bit cpu to test this on, but i do think this is NOT a verry good idea. 1> the MCE - components are NOT compilled for x64 architecture. 2> the MCE - components are hoocked in windows XP kernel and runtime evn files. (where XP64 doesn't have those file but, rather 2k3server kernel components instead. id just have to say that running, mircrosoft data-center components on xp64 would be 10times easier than running MCE.

The thing he wants IS possible with correct mod-rewrite installed on apache, But i realy would advice against this. A: because it will obviously drain lots if resources, on the www. machine, In this case, i'r better recomend, debating on why to host both 1 windows domain webserver, and a linux webserver on the same domain. where, an extra domain name would cost no more that $20 a year at most, Another,( chaeaper) way, would be to, change some rulles in your DNS reccords, so www.anyname.com resolves to ip: *.*.*.1 >> Linux and home.anyname.com would resolve to ip: *.*.*.2 >> Windows Otherwise, it would involve writing rewrite lines, on your apache webserver so forward any anyname.com/<var> to be server to a diferend server. BUT: in this situating, it would double the load in your linux webserver. because it now proxy's the windows requist and also has to host the linux request as well, replying on, not only will this hurt older browsers. it will also make any sites on th other server, be non-dynamic, (for example refreshing ' test27.html' loaded in the frame (from a internal link <a href> opject, e would send you right back to 'index.html'Believe me, you should, better use a diferent hostname. and even maybe ask yourself why you even nead 2 webservers, - (absolutely NOT ment as flamebait: But - if you dont know these kind of things, - you may well also be unfamiliar with other things about webservers, - and, probebly just need 1 (either linux or windows) webserver. at all. Running both a windows and a linux server, would imply to me you are going run both ISS with ASP# or ASP.NET even thoug the both also run on unix, verry fast and very stable, - so do perl and php on IIS, but if it realy required for you to run both at the same domain, - I may be willing to point you in the right direction on adding rewrite config to your webserver.

hmmz, - im still thinking about the quistion, because its not completely clear. if im correct, you have got, 10 workstations (xp pro), 1 (woerkstation setup als host for some network share's ??? 1 printer, and a bunch of, wireless hubs... <no shared internet conection>. so what exactly is your question, and what kind of help do you nead...

you posted exactly to where i disagrea, because, im telling that, without a faster cpu, the extra ram wont be use suffisiently (will most likely be spilled). Yes, - 256 would be better (probebly another, 64mb would help a slight bit more but thats where i'd draw the line to max. - any ram more would be completely useless because, the CPU will be the new bottleneck.. 512 like stated would maen just wasting about 150megs of (realy expansive) equipment, (note: SDram prices went way up since theres no longer real support for them). get your cpu to 1ghz and 512ram would be great , get your cpu to about 2.5 and 1gb of ram would make your poiter would fly through your screen at mach II, (lol just kidding),

try if you can, replace ntldr and ntdetect.com on your cdrom with versions of win2k3 (or xp). it might help you boot a few secs faster...

in that case, there is always services.msc darn im getting goose bumbs from as mutch as thinkin about the nightmare of tweaking win2k the old way LOL.... sorry i should have been more clear about it, because my remark in the 512mem was not pointed toward you, but a remark about the folowing quote: i must admid it sounded realy great, but this story should have told you if your where having these problems with a 1ghz pIII or seleron, and 96mb mb ram... (since you have twice that amouth, its actualy quite suficient. (if the os was tweaked properly)... just have one tip: Never ever, think about firering up the cpu, (i mean it), dont you dare - or ill garantee you a blow up... ive done it about 30 times allready, of witch 7 molted within 2months, and the all died within a year.. - and dont say i dont know anything about clocking because my k7 tunderbird 800 is running stable at 1.7ghz for almost 22months now... at just over 60*c for about 4hours a day.

hmmz, - maybe as soon as i get time to try in on a w2k machine... (would be briliant).

350MHz, windows 2000 and 512mb- OMFG - who thought you computer electronics, realy it doesn't work that way. you know what realy suprices me the most is that your mainboard's mem-controler can even go that fare, ill bet it won't take another mb of ram more just to point somethin out, i must say that, at the time of that cpu being build, standart isue, would be 128, (if your realy eagar for memory u could try 256, oke i allready hear you say, - so why is my 512 ram, used at max all the time, smart-a**, well - how about, you ram is used for pre-loading, (by the mem controler) and your cpu isn't fast enouth to handle that amount of data. neither is if fast enouth or developed to manage the the contollers, on a way they do now-a-days... just to, be clear, win200 was release in '99 (around when the PIII 500 / 650 / 768 / and 933 where mainstream hardware, 500 being budget 933 being high-end consumer machine.... wich 64mb (or 128 if you could afford) sdram pc133 being used as normal some mainboards would even allow 256 be used though, i can rember paying over $100 (or more) for it... id say, nlite the hell out of windows, and dont even bother to use bloatware like McAfee or Norton (use panda or nod32), install only what you REALY cant do without.... cuz the baby aint gonne run fast on you otherwise...

i would stringly advice against the ghost install, for mainly 2 reasons... A: ghost is quite expensive. B: it will make the install process about 3times slower. Also im absolutely not getting why protecting a bunch of xpfiles, is essential, just because, you should only give such a cdrom to trusted people, (if you dont trust them, why would you even hire them). other thing, - a day specific key wouldnt be a good idea, ( example: what iff the bios batery died on you and the date set isn't current date, - i thing, that, whatever you try to protect this will fail as soon as somewone is willing to spend more that 15minutes, to crack your protection your a gone, - some people like me would probebly need less than 5... (iff you dont trust 'm, dont work with 'm)

once upon a time on the msfn board, there was a UA - version to patch the files that wer neaded, so caurse my question is. why this dificult. just patch the darn files that cant be change from a windows theme file... and let a file like desktop-architect do the rest..

to qoute. who buy computers from DELL, I DO, and im verry happy with it, they got perfect support, at least to me the have, - there are just 2 things, - (A) jou must ba corporate customer (with atleas over a 100 workstations... and (B) you must ba rather rude, and ust demand help instead of asking for it... but offcaure all these companies wil have way better sopport foor corporate customers ... all exacpt one. MSI, and Maxdata..

how have you tried this????... give us some extra information, or wont be able to help...

last update, he had a broken fan on his computer, and is still not well (recovering from illness) ... he would send me a PM as soon as the 5.1 version is up on FTP, but than it still needs to be fully tested for buggs. so it will probebly take at least another few days, after the testers got to play with it (but he did say something about, being near completion). (i guess it would probebly take me about 2 of 3 days to check for the biggest errors, if i find none or at least not critical ill recomend it for release, will keep yall posted asa i get it myself...

actualy we allready have a winner, (IBM to be exact, (128 d(mm)x like cores, on a single chip). its not realy blazingly fast clocked chip, but it can hendle just to many threads an once... (perfect voor rendering and probebly compiling as well).

have you tried, the office 2003 Silver theme version, with some cristal incon pack?????

i know its a little late, to start on windows 2000 since its only about another year for vista, i still am hopelessly in love with my windows 2000, i recomand it to many poeple to, but i just miss the windows themes, - i know, like the milions made for 95 and 98, but somthing just doesn't add up, so now a want to get ridd of any of the default 2k colorsheme's but have some nice (BUT CLEAN) installed windows theme's instead so my question is, > what tools best to use, > is there anyone who migh want to help, (thinking about, 10 or so diferent theme's with at least pointing to based on windows looks (with gurglemeyer's usp5) in mind).

some extra specs??? do you mean, that you want to partly create a shellstyle and on the other part a theme file???? you might want to notice that (if this is your case) theme file have been altered (if im correct for XP... but if thats not wat ur lookin for, - plz exlaine more clear....

euwh, - letme ask this??? what do you wnat to do with this machine other than running a dhcp???? ar you realy only looking for it as router???? if so, you dont even nead the hard drive, (one with 5400rm and 1gb would be WAY more than enouth (ore even without it - (just a flopie-disk would be enought thou a harddisk word be a better choice (for durabilitie). (if you one want to use a router, concidder FREESCO or you want more options, there are awail server based versions of thing like DSL (**** small linux) and the likes.... whatever you want, and nead... BUT DO KEEP IN MIND THIS... if its realy only DHCP that you want, you'd better, put the thing on ebay, - collect about $50 bucks - and buy a router instead - This is because: > a full-blown PII machine uses so much power and noise, that if you'd leave it on for about 6 hours a day (without rebooting it every time you leav your own computer (if youd do that it likely would cost you even more)), I know for a fact that your enegy bill would be higher, than, than if you 'd buy a real router, and never pull the plug for the same year.... (costs of router + cost of energy bill from leaving on the router < (is lesser than) Leaving Bigg computer running for 6hours a day, even wouthout monitor and cdrom and stuff like that enabled). besidess, the PII makes probebly about 20-db and the rother less than 3....

ow realy - is it realy called AMD64???? ow my dear god LOL - actualy i find it rather stupid,of MS, since they should have known by now, that you should have been using the architecture name instead - (cant blame them for not changing 32bit names from - i386 to ix86) (where, the official standard name is call, Intel based x86 architecture) so now i realy wonder why they didn't call it something like x8664 (there are already 2 subsets of x64, cpu's - the IA64 and the AMD64 - wich ar far from compatible - where as, x86 and amd64 are (yes, 64bit app's CAN be run on a 32bit x68 cpu - IF, you'd create a kind of vertual machine that would first read the 64 bits, and than, execute the 2 splitted parts, in 2 following clocks), 1st task .... read 64bits, - 2nd task .... calculate b1 to b32 3rd task ..... calculate b33 to 64 4th task ..... build final, awnser, in theory your clock would now decreas from a P4 3.2ghz. to a 800mzz 64bit emu.... (of caurce this is also the exact reason why nobody is fulish enouth to even think about such an emulator, but thats besides the point), a better example perhaps would be to state that some of amd's 64bit machines have enabled Intels Hytherthreading mode, in a slightly diferent way - because, - instead of using the next cloak, (or remaining bits) they no use the b33 to b64 (as if it where, either a diferent clock or a diferent core) if used in 32bit modus.... meaning that if, software is optimized well enought, for HT (or multicore) a 64bit 2ghz,, cpu, would be nearly preform equal to a 4ghz 32bit cpu...

browsing the net, i stumbled upon a realy nice looking litle, app, called, desktop architect. - and to runs, quite well, way better than, for example, windowsblinds (and stuf like that), witch is freeware, - so what im wondering , is if it would be possible, to install this (not as softwere) but as a windows service. - and change som regestry values, so in can completely replace the default (als in <rclick on desktop> and <config panel> (only ting is that we might also need a screenres tool now, or we wont be able to switch... ??? any way, its just a suggestion (in any one knows how this could be done, id love to have these kinds of features aval as, add-ons (for example, (instalable as either hotfix, or other AI.pachage.

Some info about cpu's, actualy, PPC versions of windows never realy existed (apart from af few early abandoned versions for NT.3x) mainly there where os2 at first, and ofcource there was always MacOS, mips, ofcourse, is not a CPU, anynore, because of its stredged limitis, it grew more and more into a core component, as a processing unit, for refrigerators, routers, and thelephone / laser-copiers, now a days, there are only 3 workstation, processors, left. the i-x86 (like the althonXP and Pentium 4) the i-x86(64) (like the new athlon64 optron64 and intel VIIV), and IBM's PPC (like the G3 G4 and G5) and for the server market, there are also Sun's Untra Sparq and Intel Itanium. (both are 64bit procesors, but with a more avanced prosessor subset than the x86 cpu's). as a last, there will also be, (in the near future) IBM's CELL processor, (thats the one used in Playstation 3). but the Cell wil most likely never, be used for things like running windows, or any other destop os. but instead, will be used in clusters, super-computers, and the workspace of grafical designers, CELL wil probebly be the #1 rendering unit, in many of disney's and warner bros's animation studio's within the next decade...