GrofLuigi

About the nLite aspect: Read all sections on nLite homepage, start working with it, create your test installation and post Last Session.ini and/or questions about individual components (which you can also search in the forum). It's hard work! GL

Someone who has experience with Alienware can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure you can't use this CD on a new computer and/or you can't properly slipstream it (the installation CD) with a Service Pack. This is windows XP OEM version, tied with the computer, probably customized by Alienware, already activated with Microsoft (WGA). If Alienware gives uncustomized CD, then I'm wrong. GL

On Windows Server 2003 it's easy. It defaults to NOT mounting new partitions. I use this to enable it: diskpart automount enable (for your needs, I guess you could replace enable with disable.) However, XP's diskpart is different and I don't think it is possible with it. Places to look for what you want: Disk management Group policies Services <- now that I think about it, this is not a good place - it would disable mounting ALL partitions, including the system one, so Windows wouldn't boot. I think it's possible in XP too. Don't know about Vista. GL

Please fix it (and that other thing that bledd said), they are very annoying. You can do anything! GL

What is XPP? XP Pro? What do you mean by restore disc? I meant recovery CDs as received together with a new computer from OEM manufacturer. GL

You don't have it (heavens help you if you do ). It's something else ( I don't know what). GL

I don't think the computer specs are important. Only that it works well in general - no RAM/HDD problems, no crashes. I've used many versions of nLite on several computers without problems. As for my usage, I always start fresh (copy files from a source CD). The source is the most important aspect of nLite. Recovery CDs from computer manufacturers are (nearly) always a no-no, as well as 'customized' in any way. It's even worse if they were customized by someone else. I use retail XP Pro disc and slipstream the latest service pack. I utilize nearly all nLite's features (pages) and integrate hotfixes, but rarely (nearly never) addons - I don't see the need for them. Maybe my usage pattern is different from what most other people do - I don't work with unattended integration of programs because I don't do mass install on many computers - and I take my time with installing programs afterwards. Oh, and another aspect very important aspect for nLite is that your .Net framework installation works well. I had zero problems (with nLite & other programs) using .Net 2.0 Service Pack 1. GL

OK, have fun. I just tried to help. nLite has always worked for me. GL

Sorry if it didn't work out well. If you are not giving up, I have some suggestions for you: Since you have problems, don't burn from nLite. Just use the "Make ISO" button on the Bootable ISO screen of nLite, it will ask you for a filename and you can burn that with your favorite app. If you use Last Session, you must start from scratch and recreate the steps you did before (point to the original source files and do all integration/removal again). Or, you could just load your session and deselect the pages you don't need (for example, if you made it to the end but didn't succeed in burning, select just the Bootable ISO page and use your processed directory as source). If you're using RW discs, try erasing them before you start, either in nLite or in your app. BTW, Roxio is not seen as a top notch burning app any more, why don't you try ImgBurn for a change. It's specialized in burning ISO files, it's lightweight and can do many other things (and also try erasing with it). About the not accepting CD key problem: There can be many reasons for that, not easily discovered. First, Microsoft changes (blacklists) their accepted keys with every Service Pack. Then there is (was) the issue I wrote about in my previous post. That's why I suggested you try slipstreaming manually to see if nLite is the culprit (which I seriously doubt). Then, there are different settings of Unattended Mode (maybe in combination with Skip OOBE and/or Remove OOBE) that can influence accepting the key. Try taking out every variable that may influence the result (unatended, addons, removals, tweaks etc.) Could you post attach your Last Session.ini? GL

When I saw the title I expected some fun (like throwing it in garbage, sticking it some places...) GL

I think they have attempted, but failed. Depends on what operating system you were doing the slipstreaming. There were reports of various cases of either nLite or Vista not properly slipstreaming (interfering with) some product keys. Latest revisions of nLite addressed these issues. Have you tried them (the last came out yesterday)? And searching/browsing the nlite forum wouldn't hurt... I bet you'll stuble onto your issue. GL * Edit: But those issues were mostly with XP SP3 (and BTW why don't you integrate that? It's not much different from SP2.) Maybe try playing with unattended mode or do full slipstream (either manually or don't do anything else with nLite and then check if it will accept your key).

Your source folder will be F:\XP (and F:\ must be writable, i.e. hard drive). That's what you point nLite to as source. You slipstream that source with XPSP2.EXE located in F:\XP-SP2 on your pic (doesn't matter if it's writable or not). That file is the only one needed, assumming it's the real thing (272 MB, downloaded from here, original name WindowsXP-KB835935-SP2-ENU.exe). GL

More often than not, recovery CD's from computer manufacturers aren't 'the real thing' - a proper windows installation source. GL

Instead of turning this into a flamewar, I suggest you read the comments on the article. Although there is some of the usual Vista bashing, there are MANY valid points (that can also be presented as a reply to your reply. ) I guess that's because Mark blog is read by many technical people. I'm not one of those people that need always to have the last word. If you want, we can continue the discussion through PM, (and I have a reply to every point you raise ), but, as I have said in another thread before, I see no point - both our minds are set towards opposite things and I doubt either would change his mind. I see this thread as a healthy discussion, not as flaming, but I see no fruitful outcome. So... peace man! Hmmm... on the other hand, wouldn't opening a sandbox on the forum with free flaming (Windows vs all others, XP vs Vista...) free the threads from repeating same things over and over again? :angrym: GL

They've actually improved it quite a bit. Details here. I see that Mark Russinovich's article quoted very often. Have you read it entirely? OK, this might be the fault of Server 2003 or the slow network. (But it didn't stop Microsoft taking good money for 5 years for Server2003. Shouldn't they at least issue a hotfix?) And this would be... what... the most frequent case of copy operation a normal user would issue? File copy also works correctly under Vista. They're hardly reinventing the wheel here... My understanding of Mark's article is they have (re)invented square wheels with Vista, and with SP1 they've made them oval - drastical improvement. The "scenario" that is "drastically improved" is "copying files on high-latency, high-bandwidth networks" (how many of these you've got?) and is begging for help from many other subsystems. (So the improvement is in them, not in file copy). I must mention that I have nothing but utter respect for Mark and his knowledge and integrity, but I doubt even he could go openly against his current employer... So one must read everything carefully. And to return to the topic again, please remind me why was all this necessary? GL

If you want to say goodbye to Accessibility Options once and for all, try this: REGEDIT4 [-HKEY_USERS\.DEFAULT\Control Panel\Accessibility] [-HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Control Panel\Accessibility] Warning: irreversible. GL

I viewed your new ini and can't find anything obvious. But MAYBE they implemented some of the program's features through some of these (maybe they use a DLL that depends on them): Cameras and camcorders MS XML 2.0 (very unlikely; you should have 4 or 6 anyway) HTTP SSL (also I think this is a server-side component) Message Queuing (MSMQ) Performance Logs and Alerts RemoveMUI (or anything to have with languages; who knows how the program was written; but this is the las measure I would try, only in despair ) Anyway, it can be a case of poorly written (or misconfigured) program and not to have anything with nLite. GL

From their site: System Requirements Microsoft Windows XP P3 600MHz CPU or above for SDTV P4 2.0GHz CPU or above for HDTV 128M RAM or above for SDTV 256M RAM or above for HDTV VGA Card with at least 16MB Memory for SDTV VGA Card with at least 32MB Memory for HDTV Sound Card or On Board Sound Chip one Free USB 2.0 Port (not compatible with USB1.1) Microsoft Direct X 9.0 or above Microsoft Media Player 9.0 or above UHF/VHF Antenna for DVB-T Terrestrial TV So, this is what you shouldn't have removed: Windows Media Player Windows Media Player 6.4 And make **** sure you have drivers for these: Sound Controllers Display Adapters Display Adapters (old) Here's other things that could IMO potentially cause trouble: Cameras and camcorders Portable Audio Scanners Toshiba DVD decoder card Multifunctional Acm Core Codecs ActiveX for streaming video Intel Indeo codecs Media Center MIDI audio support (some items more, some less). I know I wouldn't remove them if I was building for such a purpose. GL

There are several methods for patching SFC, but they are mostly aimed at disabling it. From my experience with nLite, although Nuhi invested tremendeous efforts in fixing the popups (around the time of the news article you pointed to in your first post), SFC enabled still doesn't work quite right. Maybe it was fixed in the very latest version (and you say it isn't ), but since that time I gave up and just use SFC disabled. I believe this is the site of "janedoe of Neowin" you were talking with. And yes, it is about disabling SFC, but it might give you some clues (IF you haven't seen it before, which I doubt). FFFFFF9D doesn't work on Win2000 SP2 (I think it was 2) and later OS's. I think I read about a patch that uses that value to make SFC switchable in the registry, but for the life of me can't remember where I read it. Maybe here somewhere or at RyanVM's board. *EDIT* Or was it XPLite? GL

Good idea, but what will happen if driver signing policy is set to or reverts to warn (or God forbid, block)? I've seen it happen many times, with or without nLite. Won't it result with mixed files after installation of non-signed drivers? OK, this is pure speculation, but IMO it's always better to see what is going on. GL

I have no direct experience with it, but from what I see from the KB article, CAPICOM is for Biztalk Server (and there is a redistributable for other OSes but I see nowhere any mention of x64 version; all links point to the same download). I myself wouldn't install it if I'm not absolutly sure it's needed. But this is only a guess. GL

I can remember them saying the EXACT same thing back from when Win95 came out even. From "Runs like crap on my 486", to "the minimum requirements are unrealistic" (it WOULD install and work on a 386 -- if you were the most patient person in the world), to "it's just Win 3.11 with a new look", "It's bloated", "nobody needs this", "the old one does what I need just fine", "I have no reason to upgrade", etc. Were those statements not true at that time? If anything, they would be a proof of Microsoft's deeds, not the users'. We can't whine even if there's something to whine about? If we have something to whine about, we'll whine. You're trying to say Microsoft is immaculate? Can we expect to be burned on stake? True, but I'll not say Vista or 7 is great if they don't become great. And I won't call anyone fanboy if he/she presents facts that support his/her opinion. Now, for some sad facts of life I strongly believe in: 1. Software development (and testing) always lags badly behind hardware development. It's not just Microsoft, every hardware manufacturer produces a piece of hardware and then issues endless revisions of drivers until they get it right (those who don't are even worse, it shows they don't care). 2. You know the old saying that any Microsoft OS isn't worth installing until service pack 1? I don't think it's a linear function, the SP number is increasing with time (and I suspect that's why they rushed Vista SP1, that was supposed to be RTM, they hoped to trick people). Very simple reason - increased complexity. Only after SP2 will I consider taking a look at Vista. 3. Microsoft needs to make money. Well d'uh. So they try to offer new Windows version every couple of years. But no new breakthrough in hardware was made in the last few years* and the devices are pretty much still the same (you can print with printers, copy files to/from hard disks, burn CDs/DVDs; combo devices excluded). So the basic Operating System tasks are still the same (copy, print, burn...) and everything else can be achieved by external applications. So Microsoft bundles stripped-down versions of some application for doing external tasks (emailing, photo/video manipulation) and that's the bloat. That's what I'm whining about. Make them optional.** I sure won't have trust in OE to keep my mail in if it means something to me - I'll buy a serious application for email (or photo editing or Internet browsing or...) but Microsoft's versions stay inside and consume SERIOUS resources because they are intertwined with other dll's and there are hidden checks for those components everywhere. You don't believe me? See any of the antitrust court trials/investigations against Microsoft. Again, for the Nth time, thanks God for Nuhi. But it should have been like that in the first place. And yes, even XP is seriously bloated for an OS, but yet underpowered to do serious work in any of the areas it tries to. 4. (And this comes from 3) Microsoft doesn't listen to customers as much as it listens to authorities, big hardware makers or Holywood (yes, DRM). So if a new 'feature' is to be added, it will be for catering the needs of Microsoft or the above entities, and the user comes at the last place. It's logical and perfectly normal in our world today, but because of that I will always question Microsoft's actions from this perspective. GL * I think that the shift to multiple-core processors was the perfect opportunity for them to say: "this is why you need to switch to Vista/Server2008, XP and its predecessors won't work well on multiple cores" (and they said this, but not too loudly, and I have yet to see any technical documentation that Vista/Server2008 kernel (scheduler) is THAT much more optimized for multiple cores). Instead, they based their Vista marketing campaign on skins (WOW!). I'm still laughing my a$$ out. Are they selling toys to kindergarden children? ** Actually this wish may come true - I read rumours that Windows 7 will be modular, but, again, in a bad way - "software as a service" so you'll have to pay for windows components or per hour of usage (yeah that's Microsoft's holy grail - direct connection to my wallet).

They are part of Internet Explorer Core. If you remove them, you lose most of its functionality (and many many programs depend on it). GL

Well what do you know... I just tried this on Opera and it works there too. Amazing... and offtopic, I know . GL

Glad to be of assistance. I guess I shouldn't have written the "Less likely" sentence. GL