MrMaguire

I don't have a 64 bit test bed either. But that might change soon. I did click on options: to me, it looks exactly the same in Server 2008 than it does in XP, Vista and Server 2003. I know about putting the domain netbios name before the username, but usually you don't have to do that. In certain cases (With XP based OS's), it will connect to the remote computer and take you to the remote logon screen, where you can log on. But with Vista and 7 based OS's, it will prompt the user for user account credentials before even connecting. I was just pointing out that it didn't seem to be the case with RDC 7 running from the extracted update file on Windows Server 2003 _____________ I know some about the WOW system that the x64 based versions of Windows use. I know that there are different folder conventions on the OS's. But, I'm pretty sure that the RDC files are located in the "WINDOWS" directory somewhere, maybe "System32"? I just find it interesting that the x64 based systems open the already installed version of RDC when the file is ran from the extracted Windows XP version of the update. Or at least it would seem that way. _____________ Well, I can indeed use it, and I very much appreciate the help that I've gotten so far. And if I replace the files carefully, I may be able to "install" it, and make it run just like any other component integrated into the OS. But what I want to do is actually modify the Vista version of the update, so that it will install on a Server 2008 system. I think that would be a much cleaner solution that doesn't require hacking, and slashing the operating system. Plus, it will be much simpler to implement on fresh installs later on (Which I do a lot of).

Thank you very much for the help. I'm using a Windows 2000 CD with integrated updates, so I guess it already has the roots after 2012. Thank you very much, also. I installed that update, and after that the extended kernel installed just fine. Then I installed the extended core, and that worked out fine too. WMP10? As in Windows Media Player 10? Also: Does anyone know which file contains the bitmaps for the boot screen? I would like to add some more black, in addition to what is already there with the extended kernel, to match my custom MSGina.dll.

I would also be interested in this. A classic theme for Windows 8 that basically looks the same as the classic theme from every version of Windows since 2000.

Thanks to the help and advice, I was able to get everything up and running again. All of my files are on my file server, and this Windows 2000 install is just a test bed. I did try a repair install after I screwed it up, for some reason it wouldn’t go through all the way, so I elected to just do a fresh install instead. This time I’ve installed USP 5.1 and the latest daily UURollup mentioned by me in one of the posts above. Plus the drivers and programmes and stuff. Using the Google trick that blueblot referred to, I was able to find the page for the Chrometool and using Bing Translator (Which worked surprisingly well), and was able to find the download. After that, I followed some instructions in another topic here, and I was able to get Office 2007 installed! It actually works really well. With some minor teething problems from Outlook, I was even able to get that to work with my email account. There is no cleartype though, which definitely makes Office 2007 a little bit harder to look at than it already is. By finding a topic started by Tomasz86 on another forum, I was able to get Firefox 28 installed, and that seems to work perfectly fine with my add-ons and such. Even Java 7 Update 55 and Adobe Flush Player 13.0 install and work. _______________ I’m finally starting to understand how exactly the unofficial updates should be installed and used. Until now, I’ve just been guessing because I didn’t know what they all were for. Maybe there should be a guide somewhere (I’m assuming that there isn’t already), to clearly state that in some cases the updates are not completely compatible and may cause problems, and best practices for building new installs with the two sets of updates. I think I know of at least one Windows 2000 user who managed to break their install by applying the unofficial updates in the wrong manor. _______________ I have no real reason to use Internet Explorer. No work related dependency, no add-on or web based application or anything like that. However, I really like it. Especially Internet Explorer 8. It has a great user interface. In my obnoxious opinion, Internet Explorer 8 looks exactly like a web browser should. If it won’t run on 2000, it won’t run. I’m probably just going to switch back to Windows XP after I’ve finished experimenting anyway. Sometimes it’s just nice to know that there’s life outside of vmWare Workstation for OS’s that aren’t Windows XP and Windows 7.

Very nice thread, I'm really enjoying this discussion. @NoelC Random Question: Do you still have a use for floppy disks?

Good advice there, Tommy! Now to go back in time and undo the damage!

Well, I managed to screw up my Windows 2000 installation pretty good . So we'll be back after I get things up and running again.

Okay, I have USP 5.1 installed. And I also have the January daily relase of UURollup "Windows2000-UURollup-v11-d20140103-x86-ENU.7z". I do have the install package for v24b of Blackwingcat's extended kernel "Windows2000-KB935839-v24b-x86-ENU.exe", but it complains about not having an update installed for IE6 that doesn't even exist on 2000. So I don't have that installed. I also have the install package for Blackwingcat's extended core "Windows2000-KB979683-v14c-x86-ENU.exe". If I install that, it just makes Windows unstable. I looked on the linked page, and I couldn't find anything with "ver. 24G" in the name. ______ Also, I'm trying to get Office 2007 installed, so I can use my .docx files without having to create second .doc copies. Do you happen to know where I can download Blackwingcat's Chrome tool? I'm having a hard time finding it.

I can't even get KernelEx installed on Windows 2000, so I haven't tried that yet.

Given the effort that's been put into keeping Windows 2000 alive, would that even be remotely possible?

I tried installing the Windows 2000 extended kernel (KB935839-v24b), but setup gives an error saying: "It requires IE6SP1 Cumulative Security Update MS12-052(KB2722913)" and then produces another error which says: "Error creating process <<None>>. Reason: The system cannot find the file specified." The problem is, I can't find that update for Windows 2000. I know others have had this issue before, and have been pointed toward a 3.3GB download, which will not work for me. Another Question: Do I install the extended core after installing the extended kernel (KB979683-v14c)? And finally: What benefits are there to installing the extended kernel and core?

I installed the available updates last night, after adding the registry entry. They downloaded and installed just fine. The system rebooted and all seemed well. However, I've been seeing some strange behaviour from MS Security Essentials. After adding the registry entry, it shows the green tick, and then sometimes reverts back to the red cross.

It works! I almost can't believe it!

Wow, I need to test this now.

Amazing new discovery! I performed the same test as above, except I tried it on Windows Server 2008. And, it works!! Will this work on 2008 x64? Well, I don't know, and I can't test it either. My guess is that it will behave the same way it does on XP Pro x64. Unlike with Windows Server 2003, if you connect to a remote computer running NT 6.x, it will prompt you for your user credentials before connecting and logging on. _______ Even though this is basically functional, I'd still like to see if the Vista version of the update can be adapted, that way it'll be installed properly.

Well, I tried it and it worked! I ran it from the extracted folder. I haven't tried to overwrite the preexisting files in attempt to "install" it. I'll have to check out that thing about the domain field later. I also tried running it on Windows XP Pro x64, and it didn't work, it just opens the installed version, (Maybe it needs to be the actual 64bit version of RDC 7?) which is version 6. When you connect to a remote computer running NT 6.x (Ex. Windows 7) from a XP machine with RDC 7, you are prompted to enter your user credentials before it actually connects and logs you on. But with RDC 7 running on Server 2003, it just connects to the remote logon screen, just like it would with RDC 6. _____ As far as KB969084 for Vista goes, I have extracted the .MSU file before and I'll see if there are similar files that can be placed into a "en-us" folder and ran. By the way, what is SFC?

Hmm, would you mind going in to detail about what you did?

It's May 13th, today is the first patch Tuesday after extended support ended for Windows XP. Some XP spin-offs and variants are still in extended support, some for one more year, and one for about five more years. Today is the day that we get to see as to whether or not Microsoft is actually going to keep their promises. Well, looks like they did. ____ Note: I only put the links to the screenshots, instead of embedding them into this post. This is because I haven't figured out how to scale the images yet. So click the links to see the screenshots in full resolution. ____ First up: Windows Embedded POS Ready 2009 http://s25.postimg.org/3rzpniuzj/POS_Ready_2009_May_Updates.png http://s25.postimg.org/4611n4f33/POS_Ready_2009_May_Updates_3.png This is the one we've all been waiting to see. Will POS Ready 2009 receive new updates? Yes, in fact, it has received the most updates out of all of the OS's tested here. Yes I do have Microsoft Office 2010 installed. It's nice to see some updates for that too. That .NET Framework update (KB2833941) is being very stubborn for me and won't install. It goes through the process without error and then just shows up on the Windows Update site like nothing happened. Next: Windows Server 2003 R2 http://s25.postimg.org/n0wsdjf4v/Server_2003_R2_May_Updates.png It's good to see that Microsoft hasn't forgotten about Server 2003. And now: Windows XP Professional x64 Edition http://s25.postimg.org/tq3btk0gv/Windows_XP_Pro_x64.png I'm not totally surprised. I remember reading somewhere that XP Pro x64 was quietly being retired, even though it's based off of Server 2003 and was supposedly going to be supported for one more year. I am disappointed, as this is what I use on my main computer. The optional update you see is nothing new, just a newer driver for my GeForce 8400GS. And finally: Windows XP Professional x86 http://s25.postimg.org/xcdqjxw7z/XP_Pro_x86_May_Updates.png No surprises here, except that there are some updates for Office 2010, which is nice. I honestly didn't know whether Microsoft planned to continue providing updates for it, since it's now installed on an unsupported OS of theirs. You can draw your own conclusions about what this means for the future of good ol' old Windows XP Professional x86. The optional updates you see are nothing new, just some updates I didn't want, such as Windows Search 4.0, and Bing desktop (Who uses that?). I find the presence of the 'Windows Malicious Software Removal Tool - May 2014' (KB890830) interesting. If Windows XP is now out of support, why would Microsoft bother themselves to provide that removal tool, unless this is a one-off? _______________

From the Wikipedia linked: So apparently, RDC 6.1 isn't supported on these OS's either.

In that case, I'm wondering how exactly it determines that the OS isn't specifically Windows Vista. If you download the update for XP, and attempt to install it on Server 2003, you get a different, but similiar error. I have a Server 2003 ISO with integrated updates, and I'm pretty sure that it has this newer version of the RDP client. So, I'm thinking that there must be a difference in the way that updates are integrated into install media, and installed on a live system. Okay, so I checked. The integrated Server 2003 ISO doesn't come with RDC ver. 7 (like I thought), so I'm guessing that the update can't be integrated into the Server 2003 install media, just like it can't be installed on a live system.

I thought we were on to something there.

Could you maybe test that? I'd be grateful since it's kinda difficult for me to test 64 bit software with my current setup.

Okay, quick update on this: I extracted the .Cab file from the update (Windows6.0KB969084-x86.msu). Using the command below: expand -f:* "Windows6.0kb969084-x86.msu" C:\TempAs per here: http://social.technet.microsoft.com/forums/windows/en-US/14415ef8-9c7f-4750-b166-afbb8c5c2fe0/the-update-does-not-apply-to-your-system Then I attempted to install the extracted .cab file with the second command listed in that post, and didn't get very far. That was a week ago, fast forward to today, I came across another command that looked more promising. start /w pkgmgr /ip /m:C:\temp\windows6.0kb969084-x86.cab /s:C:\temp /l:C:\temp\install.logAs per here: http://www.wincert.net/forum/topic/1605-installing-windows-update-cabs/ That command gave much more promising results, the prompt returned to "C:\temp\>" and there was some hard drive activity. Then I decided to run "MSTC" from the run box to see if the update had applied. It didn't. So I rebooted in the hope that it would be applied then. No dice. Then I turned to the 'install.log' file that had been generated by the package manager. And, I'm not sure if I'm reading it right (opening it via extension associated notepad), it just shows gibberish. You can make out "terminalservices-rdc7" in some parts of the text, but that's about it. ____ In case anybody feels like looking at the log file, I uploaded it here: http://www.mediafire.com/download/tyk9456afybz67p/install.log

Interesting, on that support page, it does mention Windows Server 2008 SP2. But, in the 'applies to' section, Windows Server 2008 is not included at all. Despite literally every version of Vista being listed. ________ I did try both installing the update as it came from the download page, and extracting the files from the .msu file and using the 'pkmgr' to attempt to install the update from the command prompt. I got as far as extracting the files, and that was where things came to a halt. ________ It seems that version 7 of the Remote Desktop Client is not as well supported as version 6. Version 6 came with Vista/Server 2008, and an update was released for all of the Windows XP based operating systems, including Windows XP Professional x64 Edition. Not only that, but Microsoft actually offers it as an optional update through the typical Windows Update site, which they do not with version 7, even on the supported OS's. It seems that it's only available as an optional download from the KB article I linked in the first post. Version 7 of the Remote Desktop Client seems to be supported on Windows XP x86, and that's about it, and Windows Vista x86/x64 is as far as the support goes in that direction. Don't get me wrong, version 6 of the client seems to work fine, but I have become accustomed to the newer version, and with some things, newer is better. I just find the way that Microsoft has chosen to distribute this update interesting.

Welcome to MSFN , P.S I love southpark. Yeah, me too