TravisO

Great job on getting this out fairly quick, too bad it's not available on Ryan's BitTorrent tracker as the HTTP speeds are horrible (avg 11K/sec)

Well if you save the following text to a .REG file and import in with RegEdit it might help you out. I've been using these tweaks on my boxes for about 6 years now. ----------------------------------------------------------- Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00 ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ; ; Questionable (but stable) changes, remove the semi-colons on the registry lines to enable ; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ; ; Disables the "click" sound when you click a link in IE ; ;[-HKEY_CURRENT_USER\AppEvents\Schemes\Apps\Explorer\Navigating\.current] ; ; XP and 2k3 ; Removes links folder from favorites. ; Delete C:\Documents and Settings\USERNAME\Favorites\Links after applying this tweak. ; ;[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\Toolbar] ;"LinksFolderName"="" ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ; ; Improves system security ; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ; ; 2000/XP/2003 Prevents DOS Synch flood attacks to your machine by rejecting bogus Synch packets by a computer that is flooding you ; [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcpip\Parameters] "SynAttackProtect"=dword:00000002 "TcpMaxHalfOpen"=dword:00000100 "TcpMaxHalfOpenRetried"=dword:00000080 ; ; Remove the file association so that when you double click on a .reg file, it will automatically merge with your registry ; Instead, if you want to merge registry files, load "regedit.exe" and choose... File > Import ; [-HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\.reg\] ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ; ; System Speedup ; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ; ; XP and 2k3 ; Speeds up viewing of network shares (that are on 98/ME boxes) by disabling remote schedular check (wtf does it do that?!). ; [-HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows\Current Version\Explorer\RemoteComputer\NameSpace\{D6277990-4C6A-11CF-8D87-00AA0060F5BF}] ; ; XP and 2k3 ; Kills services after 5 seconds, if it is hung, instead of default 20. Faster shutdown (no more mystery shutdown hangs) ; [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control] "WaitToKillServiceTimeout"="5000" ; ; XP and 2k3 ; This allows boot files to be placed optimally on the hard-drive for faster boots. ; [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Dfrg\BootOptimizeFunction] "Enable"="Y" ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ; ; Memory Optimization ; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ; ; XP and 2k3 ; Opens 16-bit apps in a seperate memory space, this increases stability when dealing with 16-bit apps. ; [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\WOW] "DefaultSeparateVDM"="Yes" ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ; ; UI changes (remove annoying stuff) ; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ; ; XP and 2k3 ; Removes arrow on shortcuts ; [HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\lnkfile] "IsShortcut"=- [HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\piffile] "IsShortcut"=- ; ; XP and 2k3 ; Removes Briefcase, Document, and Rich-Text-Document from New Menu when you right click the background ; [-HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\.bfc\ShellNew] [-HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\.doc\ShellNew] [-HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\.rtf\ShellNew] ; ; Disable the Desktop Cleanup Wizard ; [HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\Desktop\CleanupWiz] "NoRun"=dword:00000001 ; ; Disables Windows Tour bubble popup ; [HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Applets\Tour] "RunCount"=dword:00000000 [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Applets\Tour] "RunCount"=dword:00000000 ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ; ; Feature adding ; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ; ; XP and 2k3 ; Increases the number of concurrent downloads from a website to 10 or more (default 2). ; [HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Internet Settings] "MaxConnectionsPerServer"=dword:00000010 "MaxConnectionsPer1_0Server"=dword:00000010 ; ; This will add "Services" to the right-click menu of "My Computer" ; [HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\CLSID\{20D04FE0-3AEA-1069-A2D8-08002B30309D}\shell\services] @=hex(2):53,00,65,00,72,00,76,00,69,00,63,00,65,00,73,00,00,00 "SuppressionPolicy"=dword:4000003c [HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\CLSID\{20D04FE0-3AEA-1069-A2D8-08002B30309D}\shell\services\command] @=hex(2):25,00,77,00,69,00,6e,00,64,00,69,00,72,00,25,00,5c,00,73,00,79,00,73, 00,74,00,65,00,6d,00,33,00,32,00,5c,00,6d,00,6d,00,63,00,2e,00,65,00,78,00, 65,00,20,00,2f,00,73,00,20,00,25,00,53,00,79,00,73,00,74,00,65,00,6d,00,52, 00,6f,00,6f,00,74,00,25,00,5c,00,73,00,79,00,73,00,74,00,65,00,6d,00,33,00, 32,00,5c,00,73,00,65,00,72,00,76,00,69,00,63,00,65,00,73,00,2e,00,6d,00,73, 00,63,00,20,00,2f,00,73,00,00,00 ; ; This adds the "Open Command Window Here" for the right click menu on folders ; [HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\Directory\shell\cmd] @="Open Command Window Here" [HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\Directory\shell\cmd\command] @="cmd.exe /k \"cd %L\"" ; ; Sets Outlook XP to minimize to the Sys Tray ; [HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Office\10.0\Outlook\Preferences] "MinToTray"=dword:00000001 ; ; Sets Outlook 2003 to minimize to the Sys Tray ; [HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Office\11.0\Outlook\Preferences] "MinToTray"=dword:00000001 ; ; Sets Outlook 2007 to minimize to the Sys Tray ; [HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Office\12.0\Outlook\Preferences] "MinToTray"=dword:00000001

Well it's a SP, so you should install it and figure out if you need to modify anything. IMHO there's no good reason to get paranoid about a SP. PS: I use to use 2003 Server as a workstation on my laptop back when I use to do development on it.

They will mix fine and don't worry about the whole dual vs single issue, it's vastly overrated. Real world benchmarks will show the difference is so small you wouldn't notice the difference. As stated here they show dual channel only offers a 2%-4% difference, meaning even long tasks that take say 10secs, it's not even 1/4th of a second faster. And in your most demanding games you might get 1 fps more at best. In your older games where you'd gain maybe 5fps, you're already well above 60fps so it won't matter. Personally, I'd put the largest chip in first (which is usually the newest anyways) as the older chip will go bad first, and if it does, you're less likely to use it, meaning less memory errors as it fails. But I'm splitting hairs here.

The Samsung 19" is very good and the price is fair. IMHO Samsung is making the best ones for the price, they use to make all of Dell's monitors, which is how they become so infamous, although back in 2006 Dell switched to another company (to save money I think). Personally I would suggest you get a 1600x1200 monitor (which are almost always 20") because if you want a play a high end game that you can't handle at your 19"s native resolution of 1280x1024, if you had a 20" 1600x1200 you could play the game in 800x600 and still be in a native resolution, so it will give a non blurred image. Also, don't get obsessed on Response Times, 2ms IS NOT always better than 6ms because companies are now measuring only parts of the monitor, not the entire screen. The dirty secret is, the fastest monitors on the market probably have a full screen redraw of 8ms or 6ms at best. It really depends on the company. Contrast ratio is also vastly overrated, you don't want to go blind staring at an overly bright screen, but as long as you can adjust it lower, I guess it doesn't matter. But imho, no matter what you buy on today's market, as long as it's a brand name, you'll be happy with. My setup at work are two 20" 1600x1200 Dell monitors that are rotated, so in a way I get a virtual 30" screen, as long as you can ignore the bevels in the center (about an inch wide). I do mostly coding, and I find it's better to work rotated as code fits in 1200 width anyways, so I might as well enjoy the extra height to see more. It also gives me more than enough room to display a page at true size and still have room for toolbars and such (ex: Word, Photoshop).

A rough translation... Integrate the IE7 and me the machine apparently walks well but when I want to open the IE7 leaves a poster to me error that says,… Internet Explorer Internet Explorer has detected a problem and must be closed. If this in the current process, you can lose your information. Report this problem to Microsoft. To create an error report to send to improve Internet to explorer. The report is confidential and anonymous. in order to see the data that east report of errors contains, it clicks here. and when I click there, it says this to me,… AppName: iexplore.exe AppVer: 7.0.6000.16414 ModName: urlmon.dll ModVer 6.0.2900.2995 Offset: 0003db2f that I make to use the IE7

As the topic says, FireFox 2.0.0.3 is out! Find your local language here or US English I haven't got info on what's changed but they also released a new build of 1.5 (1.5.0.11) which makes me suspect a large security hole was patched. The release notes haven't been updated since March 15th's 2.0.0.3 RC1 build. I've found these developer notes: Made sure ALL six bugs that went into this release were verified, including the "FTP pasv command" bug... You can find developer discussion on this release here.

Unless you were running 5yr old versions, you're totally wrong here. Yahoo uses like 13mb last I checked a year or two ago on XP. Live Messenger (v8) uses 30mb of ram, although MSN Messenger 7.5 uses around 13mb. Perhaps you don't have these apps on the screen. When you minimize apps in XP it will move the majority of it's memory into swap (even if you do have the free memory available.UPDATE: I ran Vista in 512mb and in 2gb and Vista does NOT put apps in swap memory when ran. My theory is because back in 2001 ram was still small (all basic Dell boxes were 128mb) so saving memory was important, although you'd think they'd make it smarter and only swap when needed, not on every minimize. Despite, this is the reason why it appears apps in Vista use more ram in XP, they're not.

Go use Process Explorer instead, it will give you better information.

You don't have to (fully) disagree with me. Your RAM is way above 98's needs and unless you spent a fortune, you didn't get 256mb of ram when you bought the machine. Personally, I would have installed XP too, as ram is your limiting factor anyways, not CPU. Just recently I upgraded (my call) a small network from Win98 to XP and all the machines had similar specs to your box.My point was, if you had a 98 grade box, you wouldn't be able to run XP. And by 98 grade I mean it would have been 400mhz or less and 16mb or 32mb of ram. You bought your machine pretty late in the 98 life-cycle.

You are correct, over the past few years MS has had some big hickups (Office 2002 -> Office 2007, Windows 2002 -> Windows 2007, SQL2000 -> SQL2005, IE6 -> IE7). But if you look back, you'll see MS has spent more time on track than off: a new version of SQL Server, Windows, IE and Office was coming out every 2-3yrs. So these past few years are the exception, not the rule. MS has stated many places on their blogs that these 5+yr dev cycles were a BAD idea and they won't do that again. Instead they are going back to incremental versions instead of shooting for the stars. A new Visual Studio is coming out this year, SQL2008 will be out, Vista R2 is coming out at the beginning of 2008 and a new OS comes out in 2009.

Honestly, Vista's requirements aren't very high at all when you do the math. The biggest "bloat" Windows ever faced was Windows 2000, where "usable" ram requirements went from 32mb to 192mb in order to run a usable box, that's 6x more in less than 2yrs!!! Where as a usable Vista setup is 768, which is only 3x that of XP's 256mb ram and the jump took 5yrs!!! Minimum requirements are garbage... XP CANNOT run efficiently at 128mb of ram. Heck a default boot is around 110mb or so, you need to heavily customize XP to get the bootup smaller, which is something that 99% of users don't know how to do. For an end user you need 256mb in order just to run your everyday apps at the same time; IE, Office, anti virus and a music player. When you get into a family setup with multiple logins running (aka user switching) you're needs skyrocket to 768mb or more. And if you are a developer (SQL server, Visual Studio) you better be rocking 2gb or more. Finally, I also believe we won't see the larger benefits of the Vista improvements until Windows 2009 (yes it's slated for a 2yr release date) where there will be a reworked UI and more improvements. Heck we might even see some benefits in Vista R2 that's suppose to come out in about a year. So obviously I'm not on the "Vista is the best thing ever" train, but I do realize it lays a lot of groundwork for vast improvements. Even one of Vista Aero's project managers said (I lost the url) that Vista's UI is like invention of fire. In itself it's kind of cool but it will take awhile before the truly amazing stuff to come out, the example he list was the combustion engine. Finally we need software in order to push hardware. I'm a firm believer that RAM isn't any cheaper today that it was in 2001 because software requirements have halted since XP came out (ok Office XP and then 2007 did want more ram). You need demand in order to push production. We're on the wave of a bunch of great technology innovations; Intel's Core 2 Duo gives massive amounts of speed with a small watt/heat footprint. NVIDIA is coming out with $70, $100, $130 DirectX10 based cards and even Intel has an onboard chipset that can do DX10 too. Finally memory companies are ramping up to 80nm and 65nm based memory, which will bring prices down, especially in the area of 2GB ram chips, which are still very overpriced. Finally 64bit computing puts us past the 4GB ram limits we've been having and Vista supports this very well and Intel & AMD have been pushing for awhile. Yes, right now as we stand Vista may seem a bit needy, but in only 3-6 months from now we'll see some huge improvements in memory and video, especially when you look at prices. PS: Stop whining, Vista is not an OS to stick on your current Win2000/XP box, it's a new OS for new boxes. Just like how Win2000/XP cannot run on the same box as your98/ME setup, the requirements have simply changed. Upgrade and grow up, or keep using XP. Nothing is new here, MS has always been on a 2 step OS plan. A first OS comes out (95, 2000, Vista) and it usually requires a new box to run efficiently because of massive improvements. Then a 2nd stage OS comes (98, XP, Win2009) out fairly quickly that will work on your same hardware.

What would be really evil/impressive is that MS contacts the owner of the VLK and asks them "Do you guys own a computer out in Springfield, MA" and when the owner says no, they invalidate JUST that one PC. But to be realistic, the goal of this would be to looked for VLKs that have leaked online and shutdown mass deployment of stolen VLKs. MS doesn't care about one single PC that might be using a VLK from your job, it's too small on their radar.

My Computer > Tools > Folder Options > View > "Show encrypted or compressed NTFS files in color" (3rd option from the bottom). Realize the files aren't colored because it's external, it's colored because they are compressed or encrypted. Considering you did a clean install, which would have caused you to loose access to encrypted files, I'm guessing the files are encrypted to increase space.

Well the way most companies do it is by writing a tiny problem, but that's probably beyond your scope. Instead you could create a web page (.html) and use Javascript to fire off a yes/no via the Confirm function, then make a decision. Although it will fire off a web browser window first that won't close by itself. Also IE6 XP SP2 and IE7 will display warnings because you're trying to run an EXE from a web browser, and FireFox will refuse to execute it if that's your default browser. So it's not the most elegant solution, but it is easy. I'll come back later and post some HTML/Javascript

Well it wouldn't hurt to apply the latest bios & chipset flash to your motherboard. But I also have a 4GB setup and Task Manager only shows 3.5gb while msinfo32 does report I have 4GB.

I'm crossing my fingers that SP3 will add this feature to the installer (obviously you'll have to slipstream SP3 into your install CD) but considering MS's track record of not adding new features to older OSes, I'm not holding my breathe. Not to mention that SP3 isn't for another 6 months

I run a tight setup, NOD32, Windows Defender, always apply updates the day they come out, run IE & FireFox in a non admin mode, I don't visit shady sites and I use a special hosts file via HOSTS SECURE to block known bad urls/banners/frames as well as run a NATing router. But since I did a fresh install of XP with SP2 integrated in Dec 2005 I've was unable to visit Microsoft Update and one of my SVCHOSTS.EXE would randomly kick up to 100%, about 2 or 3 times a day. It would only happen while using the PC, it wouldn't kick up when I was away (as far as I can tell). The most obvious reason is malware, but considering how tight my setup is, I know it wasn't. Then in Jan 2007 MS released a patch to Windows Installer that would fix a bug that kicks SVCHOST to 100%, sadly it didn't help. Well two days ago MS released an update to that patch and after I installed it, I was cured instantly. I was able to go to Microsoft Update and download any patches I hadn't manually installed (mostly just drivers for my printer and some non critical office ones) and SVCHOST stopped randomly acting up. I'm just posting this because it's a problem I've suffered from for an entire year and just letting anybody know if they have the same problem, this new updated patch will fix it. http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?...b;EN-US;Q927891 I know this bug is probably pretty niche, but it turned my PC from a pain in the arse to a usable box again. For my case, this update is worthy of a sticky in this forum as it's a problem that's been misclassified as malware by people for years. A quick Google search shows some people were complaining as far back as 2002, and while it might have been malware, in some cases (mine) it wasn't. PS: if you think this is something more people need to know about, please digg it

If it's failing already, it must not be a ball bearing fan, which last a very long time with great reliability. But they make a little big more noise.

I know MS spends a fortune on usability studies, but IE7 is the first time where I outright hate a "design improvement". But I choose 'like it' because of the extra security it adds to users. Despite, IE7 wasn't able to make me stop using Firefox 2.x

Well you want the fins pointing in a direction that allows air to pass (iow, vertical), otherwise you're blocking air flow. If you want better cooling, get a larger fn, a 20mm could output a huge amount of CFM (cubc feet/minute) pretty quietly.

It's not a lack of users to count that's the problem, it's simply that TheCounter is lazy and always takes at least 1 month before they add stats, sometimes longer. The same thing happened with IE7, but like I said before, they can retroactively enable it for the month.

I know there's always something better coming out tomorrow but.... Nvidia is releasing their affordable line of DirectX10 cards in March, the 8300 line which will cost about $99usd. Heck if you want just DX10 support, there will be a $70usd model too. You can read about the upcoming cards at: http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=37205 Also, I agree you probably can't get the setup you want. I'd say buy a 1gb ram chip for now (don't get two 512mb for dual channel) and save up for the extra 1gb and but it when you can. 2gb is a must for power users, but 1gb is still pretty good for Vista.

You're totally correct, TheCounter hasn't added Vista to their list of OSes, yet. They always take at least 1 month to do so, but realize they can do it retroactively if they want, so maybe in a few days/weeks we'll see a Vista entry in the Feb stats.We can only assume that Vista is currently being tagged as "unknown" or as XP.

You couldn't be more wrong, if you do some homework you'll find out that:1. XP is faster, even on less ram 2. You can just disable the themes if you don't like them 3. If you want to nit pick XP's "extra features" simply disable any service you don't want or need. XP is much better than 2000, but it's been covered enough times already that I'm not going to beat that horse anymore. Don't take my words lightly, I used 2000 as my workstation OS since it went RC0, and I've used XP extensively a few months after it came out.