Xenomorph

No. 32-bit applications are limited to just 2 Gigs RAM. Like, when testing my system with 4 gigs, I'd have to load two copies of the 32-bit Prime95 to check the memory, as each 32-bit has a 2 gig limit. Or, I can just load up 1 copy of the 64-bit version, and it will test it all. Even a system with 3 Gigs RAM can take advantage of 64-bit Windows. You're going to be hitting ceilings with 32-bit software at 2, 3, 3.5, 4 gigs, etc. If you're running 4 Gigs or more (ie, LESS THAN 8), 64-bit is a must.

I was kinda the opposite with regards to TV. I always watch TV on my computer. It's been my primary TV for 12 years now. Having a TV card that worked great under Vista (and Vista x64) was a must. I'm using a KWorld HD 120 PCI something or other. HDTV is awesome with it. The program "Easy HDTV" is the best HDTV viewer I've ever used (and more than worth the $20 it costs). They all work together great in Vista 32-bit or 64-bit. Newegg has several TV cards from just $19.99 and up that should have WHQL Vista 64-bit drivers. My 1996 STB TV PCI has some home-made 64-bit drivers, but after the August 2007 update, you have to boot in the special F8 mode since they aren't signed. They may not all be signed drivers, but most TV cards can be made to work in Vista x64 using 3rd party drivers.

But not everyone has 4GB or more. If you have less than 4GB, then the biggest benefit of 64-bit goes straight out the window. No not really: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/912923 Not really? My Microsoft link, http://support.microsoft.com/kb/946765 says this: (direct copy and paste) "32-bit versions of Windows Vista use a software-based version of DEP." "64-bit versions of Windows Vista support hardware-backed DEP. " I think my Microsoft link and your Microsoft link should get in a fight to see who wins.

What do you mean, other than being able to use more RAM? That is the biggest issue. A very big one. The biggest one people are running into every single day. And the problem will only become more of an issue as time goes on. Video cards have hundreds of megs of RAM. Some are coming out with a Gig of RAM, and you can use multiple ones of those. Many systems in use have 4 or 8 Gigs of RAM. Some are even using more. Games have already came out that recommend having at least 2 Gigs RAM. Using anything 32-bit will limit you severely. You could have 8 Gigs installed in your system and be able to use less than half of it if you stick with 32-bit. Other features of 64-bit Windows (from Microsoft) are mainly security-related * 32-bit uses some software DEP, 64-bit uses full hardware DEP (Data Execution Prevention). This prevents some buffer overflow exploits. * 64-bit features "Kernel Patch Protection", which prevents bad programs from patching any part of the kernel to take over functions. 32-bit has nothing like this. * 64-bit requires Signed drivers unless you boot in a special F8 developer mode on every boot. For many users this may prevent crap drivers or rootkits from being installed. And of course, many native 64-bit applications may run faster. Memory intensive programs will be able to work with bigger chunks of RAM and do what they do quicker. Something like Zipping/Unzipping, installing programs, decompressing game data (and level loads) will all be faster with 64-bit applications. So, there you go. That's the difference. More RAM, more speed, more security. That's Vista 64-bit. And the trade off? A few applications may not work. So far, only Cisco VPN has been something that bothered me, and I doubt most people would need that. There is a work around. I run XP in a VM, and use CiscoVPN in that, and then route local traffic through the VM.

XdN Tweaker can tell Vista to treat most folders the same, allowing you to apply a view to all folders. http://xenomorph.net/xdntweaker/

...and why would someone want to do this again??? I don't understand why people are trying to shoehorn Vista on FAT32 partitions and 256 meg systems. Is this some science experiment?

32bit icons are nice. but when can we see some ClearType in Windows 2000? if Win2k did ClearType and 32-bit icons, i bet some people would move to it from XP.

well, yes, \Users is a real folder and \Documents and Settings is a junction to \Users. but that doesnt have anything to do with the users' personal folder. its a real location, but what is displayed in that folder may be folders (and files?) from multiple locations - even on different physical drives. Explorer doesn't list the files/folders in the the personal folder, it lists a dynamically generated listing - and i dont know where that listing is stored or where the settings are that control Windows display the personal folder that way.

Hey guys, I made a tweaker too! http://xenomorph.net/xdntweaker/ It has some tweaks specific to Vista, XP, and 2k3.

Tell me. What kind of folder is your Home folder? (C:\Users\YourName) Is it a Virtual folder? a Search folder? Vista does not treat it like a normal folder. I want to know why, and how to change it. I have information / questions on it here: http://xenomorph.net/?page_id=491 While doing searches on the subject, I found this page, which has similar questions: http://darkknight.thinkers-inc.com/blogs/c...ders_3F00_.aspx Again, Vista doesn't treat it like a normal folder. It doesn't even treat it like the usual other File/Image/Music/etc folder types it handles. It's it own virtual folder/normal folder type hybrid. When you open it, it does not display it's actual contents. It displayed an indexed listing (even with indexing turned off). Supposedly, in beta, you could make your own virtual folders. They would display contents as specified in an XML file. In detail view, it even has a "Folder path" column that shows the real location of some of the files / folders. Again, I want to know what kind of folder it is, and how to change it to a normal folder so that no indexing/XML is required to display the contents. I'm hoping its a registry key I could toggle or something else really simply I may have overlooked. Edit: To try and see where the paths are stored, I moved a folder "Game Saves" to D:\Crap. The folder still shows up in my Home folder though. The "Folder path" column shows the actual location of D:\Crap for the "Games Saves" folder. Doing a search in the registry for "\Crap" gives me this location: HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\User Shell Folders I want to know where the contents of the home folder / "Personal files" folder are actually stored, if its an XML file somewhere or what. I also want to know how to make it a normal folder. Thoughts?

1. The Start Menu. Why can't we have an XP-like Start Menu? Why was it dropped? I'd like to see an XP style Start Menu. 2. The ability to remove file associations. This was in everything from Windows 95 to XP, but removed for Vista. Why? People may accidentally associate the wrong program with a file type, but there is no way to un-do it without opening up the Registry Editor. 3. A truly "classic" Explorer look. The folder view on the left doesn't have the lines showing how the folders are connected, and the Toolbar was removed. Why? 4. Power settings are too hidden / confusing. I have to dig through window after window to stop my hard drives from powering off, or make the Shut Down button on the Start Menu actually shut the computer down! Even then, I still have to run Disk Cleanup to remove the Hibernation file. Too many steps and too many things hidden all over! 5. The new Display Properties window. Instead of the single window with tabs, we now have multiple windows that aren't attached to each other, and some that are hidden within links in other windows. Edit: 6. Just like the poster above me said. The double UAC prompt when making folders. I'm prompted when the New Folder is made, then prompted again when I name it.

this is another thing that Vista that really puts me off to it. Explorer has been butchered so badly. they removed the toolbar, changed the interface, and i get the weird "Green bar filling up" at the top of the Window every time i open my Home folder. it takes almost a minute for my Home folder to open because of that green bar. my Home folder is the only one that does this. it's like its scanning all the files or something. no other folder does this. i can open \Windows\System32 a lot faster, when it has 10 times as many files as my home folder.

but thats the equivalent of saying "every version of Windows sold in the last half decade uses ClearType". most people dont use any version of Windows that doesnt have ClearType. anything pre-XP is irrelevant for most people. i dont know the extent of how much control over it you have, but Vista, 2k3, and XP all have the same control over ClearType. you can select "None", "Standard", or "ClearType" in each version of Windows. if you select "None", and there are still cases of it being turned on in Vista, that is simply an issue of poor interface design, which can been seen in XP in many areas as well.

doesnt Opera have something in it to make it check to see if it is the default browser? with Firefox, all i did was have it check, and then i clicked the button to make it the default. i never messed with Vista's built in default program selector.

i'm lost... you want to load music, that is already on your computer, into a virtual CD, to listen to it?? why not just play the music that is on your computer as-is? i know in iTunes that you need to make a playlist to burn to disc. just make a playlist and play from it. why does it have to be on a CD first?

I use ClearType mostly on CRTs. It makes fonts more beautiful. I'm glad the OS has it ALL OVER. Normal fonts are blocky. Font smoothing helps a little - but ClearType makes the print on my screen look like actual print that you'd see in a book! If it looks bad to you, or if it looks blurry - I'd question the quality of your display. Anything less than ClearType seems so primative. I'm glad that Windows, Mac OS, and Linux use something like ClearType.

why would you even want to install Vista on anything less than 512/1024? i'd think it would be *painful* trying to get something to run with so little ram. even for XP, 256 megs is a joke. 256 is a good minimum for Windows 2000 512 is a good minimum for Windows XP 1024 is a good minimum for Windows Vista Vista runs best with 2-4 gigs RAM. you're only fooling yourself if you think 128 or 256 megs is "good enough".

i'll try to attach one of the logs i've done this twice now, and both times got the spx/sp4 error. i went with option E, for the medium compression seperate SPX file. \source\i386\sp4.cab exists i read somewhere that i need to add this to DOSNET.INF: [Files] ;... d1,disk1 ;... i have NOT tried that yet. im doing this for one of my Laptops. i have a slipstreamed Win2kSP4 disc that works fine. the Laptop does NOT have a Floppy or CD drive...! all files are installed from real mode DOS (Win98SE boot) using WINNT.EXE. everything is installed from C:\Files\Install\Win2k\i386. i'm testing out these updated slipstream builds using WINNT.EXE + Win98SE DOS under VMware. 3 systems of mine do not have Floppy or CD drives HFSLIP.TXT

when i run this, everything seems to work during install, EXCEPT: i get the message that Win2000 setup cannot read SPX.CAB and SP4.CAB. i skip both, and Windows 2000 installs fine. the files are in \i386, so why arent they seen/copied correctly? sorry if this has been covered before.

sorry if this has been covered. a search didnt help me much. whenever i run the 98toME program, several registry entries are added to my system without asking. Copy to Folder Move to Folder Send To i've removed these registry entries (they are added to the registry in several locations). i noticed in the README it says it adds these keys, without any Undo/uninstall. why? my Right Click menu is cluttered enough, and i hate having to re-remove the registry entries every time i run the program.

i'm using the Win9x drivers for my USB Network card, which havent been updated in almost 2 years. with those drivers, things were working just fine. all of a sudden a few days ago, they werent working fine. i'd get a crash with the network card's .SYS file blamed on the blue screen. when i go to get the latest drivers (from Nov05), they list they are for Win98SE/Me/2k/XP. i may try those in a bit, but i doubt anything i could do would stop Win98 from blue screening after a while. thats what it does. thats what its famous for.

i believe it to be stable. i have ran Prime95, but not MemTest86 yet. with Windows 2000, its uptime is several days without issue (except an extreme lack of ram). even with Win98, if its just sitting there, it can go a long time. when playing DOS games under Windows, i had a blue screen in relation to the Audio drivers, and of course recently with the Network card causing the system to blue screen. i guess right now with the system, old/bad drivers are the cause. the Windows 98/Me drivers for a lot of stuff havent been updated in a while. for video, i even have to use 1997 drivers as the more current 1999 and 2000 versions cause video corruption at 16bit color (NeoMagic 128XD chipset). 24bit color is too slow on it, and some games wont work at that, so i keep it at 16bit color and just use the older drivers. in the 6 years since the 2000 release, they obviously havent released a fixed set. for the sound drivers, i have newer WDMs that dont work with DOS games, or the older VxDs that do work but caused a blue screen once. and for the network card, current drivers work only in WinXP/2k.

it runs great. when it runs. it runs DOS apps nicely. when it runs. it lets me do a lot of stuff. ...when it runs. i have a Laptop w/ a Pentium MMX 233MHz, 4.0 Gig HD, 96 Megs RAM. Windows 2000 runs on it, but slowly. id really need more ram for Win2k to run smoothly. at least 128. unfortunately, 96 megs is the system max. also, while Windows 2000 runs ok, it means no DOS apps without dual boot, extra DOS drivers/configuration, etc. Windows 98 runs great on the system. there is just one problem. blue screens. the system ran fine for days. but then it would Blue Screen everytime i'd pop in my USB WiFi card. i ended up uninstalling lots of software, drivers, boots to safe mode, removing hidden devices, rebooting, installing drivers/software again, etc. i even re-installed Windows. i got my USB WiFi card working again, but when i reinstalled my PCMCIA network card, the system hung. after a reboot, i got a blue screen again. the system had Windows 98 SE, the latest unofficial Service Pack, all Windows Updates (except the April 06 ActiveX breaker), etc. it was working fine and fast - but it just broke down after a while. Windows 9x seems to have a history of doing that. i have no idea what would have changed. why it would mess up like that after a while.

in my opinion, Thunderbird is a horrible replacement for Outlook Express. Thunderbird cant seem to join multiple posts or thread the way OE does. the way Thunderbird handles newsgroups seems to be the same dated way that Netscape 2.x worked. the fact that its been such a very long time, and they havent fixed up the news reader is sad. OE is more than just a mail client. it handles mail pretty well, does newsreading better than a lot of other apps. Thunderbird never offered me anything more than what i get with OE, but it certainly had noticable shortcomings that turned me off to it right away.

i use my Laptop at home and school, and setting a static IP wouldnt work out too well when at school (lots of networks and hosts there). i leave the laptop on DHCP, but during the many times i dont have a network cable plugged into it, it seems to take 5 times longer to boot. i dont recall if the DHCP timeout is 30 seconds, 60 seconds, or whatever. i just know i'd like it to be just 5-10 seconds. if the system doesnt get a DHCP response by then, i just want it to get to the Desktop.