RyanVM

They probably won't until next month at the earliest.

You missed part two of the QFECheck criteria

For those using mine or similar XP Update Pack, xpsp3res.dll is included which contains more bitmaps and such for functionality added to XP SP2 via hotfixes (it's also been recently included in various official hotfixes from MS). So, my suggestion is to give it a looking over and patch it a) if it exists and B) if it's worthwhile to do.

It actually confuses me a lot more that QFECheck used to not complain. The way QFECheck works (or so I thought it did anyway) is that it checks the registry to see what files have been updated and what their checksums are. It then checks for that file in the location specified and also verifies that the file's checksum is in the Windows File Protection database (which is why QFECheck will fail if you don't install the CAT files for a hotfix). Since XPize is changing the files around, it should be changing the checksums of the files and hence QFECheck should be complaining. However, there's only one reason I can think of for why it wouldn't complain. I know it's possible to compute the checksum independent of the header (so that the computer checksum can be stored in the file without changing the resulting checksum). If all XPize is doing is changing the header files (I'm not sure if icons and bitmaps are considered part of it or not, but a quick experiment with modifyPE would say for sure real quick), it's very possible that the checksums aren't changing. Of course, if that's the case, ViVa shouldn't be having problems and we have more cause for confusion . EDIT: I just did the test. XPize most definitely changes the checksums of the files it patches.

There's directions on my site too, you know

umm...thanks for sharing...? In case you didn't notice, the first post of the thread is linking to Boot Camp documentation...

http://www.ryanvm.net/msfn/ As for the Office updates, the MSFN Unattended Guide can walk you through those.

Sorry, typo. KB912945 is what I meant.

KB912812 fully replaces KB912945 (thank god)

For those that are interested, I've got a new Update Pack out

Has the updated shell32.dll from yesterday's security updates caused any problems for you guys?

I'm almost positive that the "Press any key" message comes from the Microsoft Boot Image. You should be able to just copy the contents of the CD to the hard drive and make a new CD with the default boot image and be good to go.

For the record, these drivers don't work on my Dell B130 laptop. I get "This device can't start" error messages when I use them. The only ones which have ever worked for me are the ones straight from Dell's site.

Yes, in fact there's a whole forum where it's been discussed. Try scrolling down the forum index a bit Or if you want to take the easy way out, try Bashrat's Mass Storage Driver pack

We'll see what happens with the IE cumulative update they're releasing today which will also include the changes introduced with KB912945. And this very well may be a Sun JVM issue requiring them to release an updated version. Blindly blaming MS with no real knowledge of the root cause of the problem is counterproductive. Moreso, it's more Eolas' fault than MS' fault if KB912945 is to blame after all.

I guess that answers your question But seriously, the fact that Windows Update still wants both installed in indication enough for me that both are still needed.

RyanVM's MSFN Files At it you'll find tons of resources meant to supplement what's already available in the official MSFN Unattended Guide. A few pre-made switchless installers for some common apps are available for download, as well as the (getting more famous by the day) RyanVM Integrator and Update Pack, which allow you to directly integrate hotfixed files and other assorted programs into your CD.

I have a real love-hate relationship with MS. As an MSFT stock holder, their stock has been stagnant for the last ~5 years, which means I'm not making money off them (of course, I made a boatload off them in the mid to late 90s, but that's beside the point ), which of course annoys me. As a user of their products, their software can be a royal pain in the arse some times. But at the same time, I have no desire to find many replacements for their software because what they make for the most part "just works".

Err, this isn't a piracy help forum. Go ask somewhere else.

Are you sure it's "unatended.mst" and not "unattended.mst"?

No, the wizard creates it as WPA-PSK. That really doesn't come as much of a surprise since WPA2 support was added to SP2 via a later hotfix. I guess I'm kinda SOL then

Well, say we allow for any upper or lower case letter. That's 52 possibilities. Add the 10 numerical digits and their shifted symbols. That's 72. Add to that the other 11 symbols on a common computer keyboard plus their shifted symbols. That makes 94 possible characters. Don't forget the space bar - 95 possibilities. Now, say we want an 8 character password from that set. That means each letter can be one of 95 possibilities, therefore an 8 character password has 95^8 possibilities - that's 6634204312890625 possibilities - over 6 quadrillion. Say now that your computer can brute force one possibility for each clock cycle (which is an exteme overestimate). Assume a 2GHz CPU (realistically, all CPUs are within an order of magnitude of 2GHz, so changing it to 3GHz or 700MHz won't make a significant difference). That means the CPU is capable of trying 2 billion possibilities per second. Dividing the earlier result by 2 billion yields 3317102 seconds - or 38 days to crack that password by brute force. Now realistically, the number of possibilities a 2GHz CPU can try per second is probably closer to 2000 rather than 2 billion. Therefore, we're talking 38 million days - or 105185 years to crack that password. Long story short - if you make use of all the various characters your keyboard has to offer and you use a password of decent length, you probably don't have to worry about your password being brute forced

Crap, I posted my reply in the wrong thread.

Pardon my ignorance, but does the WPA parameter also cover WPA2-PSK?

hmm...what do we have here? http://unattended.msfn.org/unattended.xp/view/web/46/