At0mic

Is there any reason why you need to perform an upgrade? A clean is install is much better. Anyway, to answer your question, you need to have a Retail Licence Key in order to perform an Upgrade. OEM Keys only support Clean Install. I think anyway correct me if I'm wrong somebody. I assume you dont have a VLK.

HT allows software to treat a single CPU as two CPU's so in theory, if a piece of software supports SMP, then it should support HT. Even windows NT could probably use HT. However, "anything pre-XP" isn't optimized for HT. HT will be much better on XP or 2003.

Yes windows 2000 Server does support hyperthreading, I've tried it. A P4 with HT shows up as two processors in taskmanager. A dual P4 with HT shows up as four processors in taskmanager. However, if you run a program that doesn't support HT, it will only use half the CPU. Therefore, if you require some pretty demanding programs which dont support HT, then you would be better off by disabling HT in the BIOS which will enable the full CPU to be used for your apps. Windows 2000 Pro supports up to two processors, therefore I assume it will happily run HT. As for converting server into pro using that program which we shouldn't be talking about in here, yes it should still support HT seeing as both OS's support HT (I think?) anyway.

Did you boot from CD?

Thanks very much for the info and the links everyone. I've decided to completely strip down Win2k right down to the bare essentials and see how well it runs. I'll try some experiments on my main computer using virtual pc to see how low I can get the memory usage down to.

Seeing as large HD support was added in SP3 and this is a cumulative SP5 then it will be yes

I have an old laptop I want to use occasionally. What would be the best OS to put on it? Win98 would probably be the easiest but can win2000 be stripped down enough to run at a reasonable speed? What about NT4.0? I know Microsoft say 16Mb or 32Mb recommended but does it really run ok with this little ram? What would be the fastest for an old machine like this; a very stripped down Win2k or an out of the box NT4.0? Unless anybody knows of a way to strip down NT4.0? I know that NT4.0 doesn’t natively support USB but I could live with a PS2 Mouse. I know you win9x purists will tell me to use 95 or 98 but I prefer to have a proper 32-bit OS. Although, I welcome to hear the arguments from both sides of the fence. Requirements I need: Web browsing MPEG playback email PCMCIA support is essential for my network card USB would be nice but not essential Laptop Specs Toshiba 320CT Intel Pentium 266 MMX (not PII) 32Mb EDO RAM 2Mb C&T 65555 Video Yamaha OPL3-SAx WDM Sound 4Gb Hard drive PCMCIA USB

I think I heard that Apple struck a deal with motorola to supply PPC processors for a further 3 years. Although the contract doesn't say that they have to keep buying PPC for the next three years it just means that they have to keep buying them until their current orders are completed. So although there's a chance we might see Macs on the x86 platform in 2006, it will probably be 2007 or maybe even 2008 at the latest. It will be a simple transition thought because OSX natively supports both x86 and PPC and do a lot of software companys like Adobe. Things could turn complicated however, when Intel starts pushing 64-bit.

for your first question, there's a snap-in that you have to install to view hidden accounts but I forgot what its called. to answer your other qustion, open "exchange system manager" Servers Storage Group right click on a mailstore and select properties. in the general tab, there's a tick box "Archive all messages sent or received by mailboxes on this store" and under this goes the name of an account where all mail gets copied to. This account can get big if you work for a large organization. In the company I work for, this accounts gets around 11,000 emails per month, so I have to look after it. I try not to let the inbox get too big so I move them to a different folder for each month.

Set the laptop as a workgroup. Next, re-join it to the domain again.

This is pretty impressive stuff Source

Its a bit of a security risk giving everyone rights to log locally onto a server. At work I made a new group called "TS Users" and I allowed this new group to "logon locally" in "local security policy". Then I just added whoever needed access to the "TS Users" group. Of course, if this is your server at home then security may not be as big a issue as it would be in a corporate network

My vote goes to Steve Wozniak. Ok, he's not a manufacturer himself but he literaly built the words first commercal personel computer in a garrage back in 1974. Check this out. There should be a statue built of this guy.

A bit of a meaningless topic really. Are we talking about the fastest OS on today’s hardware or the fastest OS on the hardware that was around when each OS came out? If you’re talking today’s hardware, then XP is the fastest for a workstation or 2003 for a server. If however, you used a machine from 1998/1999, then Windows 98 would be the fastest because XP would be slow as s***. Mainly because most machines at that time had around 64Mb ram. Or towards the end of 1999 you’re stepping towards 128 Mb territory so Windows 2000 would be the better choice. You could compare a 1998 machine running win98 with a 2001 machine running winxp but then it wouldn't be fare because you would have to compare equivalent applications. If the question was what is the fastest OS on today’s hardware regardless of what you can do with it, then the answer would be MS-DOS 1.0 as it would load almost instantly. An improvement of considerable magnitude when compared to the IBM Datamaster with its 8086 processor and 64K ram which made its debut with MS-DOS 1.0

I'd just like to say; Gurgelmeyer, you are the man! I've installed your USP5 on 3 machines so far - one machine was a post install which originally had SP4 and the other two were integrated installs using nlite and I have to say its flawless. You're an asset to the win2k community

dirtwarrior I cant remember the size of the ISO but as Gurgelmeyer said its smaller that Windows 2000 SP4 because some unneeded files were removed from driver.cab. I slipstreamed it as an SP Those option packs dont support hotstreaming. Gurgelmeyer is working on USP 5.1 which will have everything those option packs have anyway.

nice work Gurgelmeyer! I installed it on Windows 2000 SP4 and had no problems. I then slipstreamed it into Windows 2000 SP4 using nlite and it again I had no problems. It works like a charm great work! I'm looking forward to your next pack.

when its released this thread should be a sticky at least. keep up the good work Gurgelmeyer I've been longing for the ultimate win2k disk and your work is the answer to make this happen.

I use the windows built in defrag it does a good job. The defrag program that came with 9x though was awful so if your using 9x then use a 3rd party program.

great news! I'm glad everythings going ok with the project and hopefully we can all give it a try soon

Have we understood you correctly or are you asking how to run ie6setup.exe as non-administrator in win2k?

Try a different DOS disk In order to remove a virus you need anti-virus software like Sophos, McAfee, Norton or AVG. HijackThis isn’t anti-virus software its anti-hijack software so of course it wont get rid of W32/Nsag.B Just use a different dos boot disk. There’s obviously a problem with your dos disk. Either that or your drive needs cleaning. Failing that, make sure the cables are fully seated properly.

ok try creating a new folder and share it to everyone and put the login script in that folder. put the new path in users profiles.

Make a batch file with a .bat extension like login.bat for example. Put it into \\server\Netlogon\ and in a user profile type in \\server\Netlogon\login but do NOT use the file extension because it wont work. In the batch file write START \\server\Netlogon\LoginScript.vbs

I got the problem on 2 different machines with SP4 + MS URP and no other updates. I was going to uninstalled the MS URP and then try your SP5 today but I didn't have time. I'll try it later.