DL.

This could be somewhat useful. But I would like it to have an option to make the monitor go to standby rather than using a screensaver (the screen is still fully powered on with a screensaver).

More info is needed. What is the part number (starting with "PSPB", probably written somewhere on the bottom side) of the machine you got?

To some extent it sure does! But an optimized system may very well beat a system that is faster on paper. Not completely true, deleting the wrong files will actually slow down your PC! That is because it will waste resources and time waiting/looking for files that's expected to be there but are not, it won't just skip them and move on immediately, but rather keep trying for a while.

I see what you mean and I've been thinking about it too. On two screens you can also "maximize" the windows easier and keep them more separated. Even though bigger screens (24-30") are much better for viewing multiple windows simultaneously than smaller ones (20-22" are not really large). With the sizes you're talking about I can see somewhat of an advantage of using two smaller monitors, the question is whether or not that still holds true with even larger monitors? There are a few different possible uses to consider and it's a bit difficult to find a monitor that will work almost as good for all of them: -Ordinary computer work (browsing, coding, office work, VNC/RDP, virtual machines and other similar activities...) -Gaming -Watching movies (or TV using a TV-tuner) For the last one and maybe to some extent gaming, one could probably just buy an even bigger TV. But that won't work very well for the first one, and a TV requires a separate license fee to be paid. If more games had support for multiple monitors that would be quite nice (a "deeper" experience, the ability to see multiple locations or just have the map/inventory on a second screen), but we're not there yet. Any more opinions on this?

I prefer 1 30", as that's about as much screen real-estate as I can keep straight in my mind . I kind of assumed that one big screen would be better, with two screens you get that annoying border in the middle. Two large monitors may also be a bit too wide for normal viewing distances.

Have you read this?

Very interresting topic! I will buy a new comp and new monitor(s) later this year, but I'm not quite sure what to choose: 1x30" or 2/3x27-28"? 2x30" is probably way overkill and just a (huge) waste of cash (I'm not willing to spend that much). I feel very much limited by my current 21" CRT in many situations. I'm a heavy multitasker, but I also like to play games and watch movies. A question to anyone who owns or regularly use 30"-monitors: Is one 30" enough and useful (not too big for one screen?), or would you rather have two 27-28"?

I agree on most of your suggestions, nice ones! These ones in particular: -The ability to choose exactly which components to install, both during and before (=like nLite/vLite) the installation would be a really great feature. -A "gaming mode" where most system resources are freed up for use by games and features they need. -A more customizable system and easy to do it. I would like to see a more powerful Explorer (file manager), with many features currently found in 3rd party tools. Since an OS needs a great file manager (and every single OS has one), they probably won't be in trouble for making it the best there is.

Try running the same command from cmdlines.txt instead.

When new tweaks are found or bugs found in the current ones, neither of which are very likely to happen too often. But you never know...

Just a few things to try: Read this thread and you may find some helpful pointers. Make sure you have all updates for WMP 10 by using Windows Update, select everything that seems relevant. Download and install this or this. Download and install VLC.

Try setting some services (test various combinations) to manual instead of disabled. If a service is not allowed to start (but would need to because something wants it to) because it's missing or disabled there may be delays like that. On "minlogon": It's off topic for this thread, but you can search for it and you'll find some info. Minlogon doesn't work at first logon, you have to use the original winlogon and then replace the file later. I've been working on that myself in the past; I made a somewhat working solution (=works most of the times but not always for some strange reason) including an uninstaller and the Ctrl-Alt-Del replacement (minlogon disables it). It's a self extracting EXE to be run after the first logon (can be done in a few different ways), the file consists of a batch file and the other files needed to make the switch.

For that comp you should definitely use XP, no doubt about it. Only 1GB of RAM is considered low even for XP nowadays. Replacing that graphics card with something faster will make your gaming experience so much better, also getting a faster CPU (depending on what your mainboard can take) will make it even better for you. You things are not very expensive, but just don't spend too much on that old comp.

Win Server 2008 has been thouroughly tested and are supposed to be more ready than most other OS:s: -Some corporations and local authorities have been using it in production since the beta stages. -It's based on SP1 of the original Longhorn code (which Vista is based on) and they've had plenty of time to find and iron out most of the bugs found in the code with Vista (not all of course, there will probably be a a lot more). I haven't had time to test the final version yet, but I sure will.

The keys to be able to use Vista are lots of RAM (at least 2GB) and no odd/special hardware, a fast HD is also quite useful (not your typical 4200 or 5400 rpm laptop drive, but rather a 7200 rpm). If you don't want to mess with your current installation you could get another HD and install to that one. Ghost has worked just fine for me too for years, but many people use Acronis True Image.

Try turning it off for a while, after the next restart turn it back on. Then as BAH said; wait a couple of restarts and it may work better. Also check the settings for the programs (the button to the right, next to the checkbox), make sure they're all set to autohide.

Those "registry problems" are probably nothing to worry about, and you certainly don't have to shell out what it says to fix them. Try using CCleaner to scan and fix registry "problems" (usually temporary entries and incorrect shortcuts). This may not fix you actual problem, but you'll get rid of the "registry problems". What else does the error message say? Did you do anything else right before the problem started occurring? Run Windows Update to make sure Windows has all the latest patches installed. You could try reinstalling the program only (with the latest updates), to see if that solves your problem. Also try updating/reinstalling the drivers for your hardware. These are some general pointers that may or may not fix your problem, but are worth trying.

Try running Memtest to check your RAM for errors, if the RAM is healthy there should be no errors.

Those are probably nothing to worry about. Do you have your web browser runnig at the same time as you're scanning? The browser might be locking some files which are in use. Try using CCleaner, it's a great free file- and reg-cleaner.

Isn't a RAM-drive supposed to be counterproductive nowadays; less RAM free to use for the OS and progs? Replacing the hard drive is often a wiser choice than using the money to buy some experimental solution like CF or similar. On you guys Vista discussion: Let jcarle keep XP if he wants to, and yes, XP is probably faster for some parts. But running Vista on new hardware (no need to exaggerate) a with a few things disabled (and the system kept clean) should work just fine.

This may not answer your question; but can't you do anything else while it's installing?

I used to have problems with that until I successfully fixed it long time ago, but I don't quite remember how. Did you remove any services? Do you have the file named hidserv.dll in system32?

I agree on what Glenn9999 said; you need to be able to show an image of some kind and it will most likely stop the boot process while it's displayed. You could use some ASCII art which can be displayed at any point in the boot process. But the big question is, why would you even want a splash screen for DOS? In Windows the boot logo is displayed to make the boot process feel faster and to introduce the OS, booting DOS doesn't really take that much time and when you boot DOS you can easily see it.

Your bookmarks are the file named bookmarks.htm, if there is no such file then check the subfolder named bookmarkbackups. Do you mean plugins or extensions?

Not blanked out, just left open to separate the info on the CPU and HDD.