Chrysalis

it can be disabled but only in the registry, the gui control panel setting only disables it for text in notepad etc. The cleartype on dialog boxes and such can be disabled I will try to find the setting I changed and post here tommorow.

the registry has many of the tcp settings present in XP but they are set to 255 decimal value and revert back to that value if you try to change them, mtu can be adjusted manually as normal tho. Regards to mss mtu and automatic tcp tuning, my isp works best on a mtu of 1478, vista doesnt tune to this, when I set mtu to 1478 and rebooted the mss became 1438 and tcp auto tuning set a rwin to match mss so that was good but I did have to manually set the mtu. I also did the ctcp setting as I believe that to improve performance.

yes I want the same it seems silly microsoft couldnt support such a basic feature remote and local logged in at same time.

yes I strongly agree with disabling superfetch suggestion. The idea behind superfetch seems to be to preload your most used apps libs etc. into memory when the machine boots until there is no free ram and all used by cache. The supposed benefit is that the first time you load up a app precached by superfetch it loads nice and fast from the cache. The obvious disadvantage is anything else you do during this precaching will be slower in addition your hard drive is been stressed. Without superfetch apps will still get cached except they will be cached after the first run like XP and unix operating systems do it, not sure if vista still has normal prefetch that XP uses my guess is it doesnt as I couldnt find the prefetch folder plus vista disables the last access timestamp by default which prefetch relies on. My real experience of superfetch is my hd was on indefenitly until I disabled the service, I sat waiting and the longest I waited for was 1hour 40 mins continous hd activity on a clean vista install so not quite what it was pre loading into the cache. I knew it was superfetch as the moment I disabled the service it stopped and stopped on all after bootups.

ok have figured out the problem but dont know a good solution, its remote desktop. Remote desktop doesnt update the screen live when in the background or if session locked out, the workaround I have is to login locally before leaving the machine idle however this is far from ideal as I have to go to the machine just to login before leaving it idle. 1 - can I do a reg tweak or something to allow remote desktop and local login silmutaneously? 2 - if not what alternative software is reccomended? like openvnc or something

I have mirc irc chat app catching text and running scripts 24/7 on a windows vista machine, I used to run it on windows XP with no problems. Since moving it to vista the app and wscript work correctly whilst I am using the machine, I access it over remote desktop. The problems are when idle. If I logout of remote desktop during the time logged out it doesnt work properly. If I stay logged in but its idle it also breaks. The moment I do something on the machine it starts working correctly again. Have checked power saving options. Screen saver for user is disabled. Hard drive power down disabled. Hibernate disabled. Sleep disabled. Display power off disabled. Have tried disabling both windows defender and the nod32 anti virus but they are not causing the problem. The exact issue is this, normally mirc catches some text in a chat channel it sends the text to wscript to process some data looking up on a website, wscript processes the data and returns it to mirc and mirc then parses the data and writes to a logfile. When idle wscript appears to actually work as I see the dumps of text from the website lookups are correct but the part where mirc processes the dumped data isnt working its finding null values. My query is what does windows vista do on a default installation when idle and if anyone has any ideas what may be causing the problem, I see a lot of stuff in windows scheduler that 'may' affect it but have already disabled just about everything I deem not critical with no affect. This is driving me nuts and ideally dont want to roll back to windows xp as the auto tuning tcp feature of vista is working well and speeding up the lookups. UAC is also currently disabled although this appears to not be the cause but I am disabling as much as possible to try and find out what might be going on.

#1 agree fully no start menu not to mention the by default hidden run box, seems microsoft assume everone is adapted to using shortcut keys etc. I have a old habit of clicking to load my programs. #2 I am in a situation where my XP looks better than vista, as I noticed even with a gfx card that has a high aero rating some apps run poor in aero and I have to disable it. #3 thanks didnt know about alt, I did waste 40 mins getting my menu on tho. The defaults really should be to make it easier to migrate to the os not need people to learn it.

The biggest weakness of vista I feel is the harder to use gui, its more clicks to do everything and different enough in that you have to learn the os. The control panel is a right mess compared to XP. In addition it runs a lot slower on equal hardware to XP with games running at around half speed, aero which technically should be faster than the old gdi is actually slower when I use a gfx card with high aero rating I hope this is a short term issue and will improve with better drivers in the future. I feel if vista added UAC, didnt have any drm, no gui changes (aero is ok I mean the gui layout changes explorer, hidden menus etc.) then people would have been more satisfied however I expect MS were trying to justify the price tag so changed things round so it looks different enough that people feel more has changed to justify the expense. UAC I actually feel overall is a good idea, for myself the default mode is a nuisance (i set to auto elevate but leaving uac enabled) but for the vast majority of people who are noobs uac is a benefit and is needed. Oh to add superfetch I got no idea what MS were thinking when they were developing this feature but its way overboard in what it does, prefetch was a good idea, caching everything into free ram is a good idea as long as its passive. But superfetch is a bad idea thrashing the hd for long periods on every bootup making everything in general slower whilst its working.

Without wanting to be rude I know its windows update 100% I am not sure why this is even been debated. In Windows XP I know it shows up as svchost.exe (used by various services) but in windows vista windows update uses trusted installer.exe What is a fact is its windows update causing the issue. Another fact is it was a recognised bug in windows XP that didnt affect everyone but the people it affected it was a big inconveniance but the bug was squashed early 2007 on windows XP. What I am on about now is I am seeing the exact same symptons when checking for updates and installing updates the logical conclusion is that it is the same bug, I hope you understand what I am getting at now. I am not debating what trustedinstaller is and isnt. It is also not a case of cpu is high but rather it flatlines maxed for a long time and makes the pc appear its half frozen this is NOT normal. As for trashed registry etc. this behaviour is 100% repeatable on clean installs. If you have no idea what the bug was in XP these are the patches that fixed it. WindowsUpdateAgent30-x86.exe WindowsXP-KB927891-v3-x86-ENU.exe My belief is the bug was present in vista and XP but only got fixed in XP.

The problem was this. When checking for updates the cpu stayed at 100% for ages depending on how many patches are installed so on a machine that has office and lots of patches already installed it stayed at 100% for many minutes even on powerful machines, the cpu usage dropped after updates were installed so you are talking about a different bug. After the bug was fixed cpu still went to 100% but only for a much shorter period of time maybe a a minute or 2 at the most and it no longer stays flatlined at 100%. The bug was even more serious for people who automatically check for updates since on every bootup they had 100% cpu for anything up to an hour depending on the power of the cpu. The problem with vista is the exact same behaviour if checking for updates or installing updates the cpu goes to 100% and flatlines there for ages except instead of svchost.exe it is trustedinstaller.exe. It doesnt peak at 100% every so often (this is what it should do) it flatlines at 100%. I expect like the XP bug the problem only affects some machines and you are not affected.

It seems vista has the same bug that plagued XP for years which got fixed in early 2007. I have noticed when checking for windows updates or even windows defender updates trustedinstaller sits at 100% cpu for quite a while hogging cpu. Anyone else noticed this? On XP it was svchost that used to hog cpu.

Microsoft Baseline Security app has same problem, its worse now tho, both the app and MS update site take over 20 minutes to scan for updates. Office update website however is FAST no cpu hog, so for office update there is a different algorithm in place that works.

thanks, currently I do all current user tweaks in cmdlines and local machine in runonceex is this good enough or should current user be reimported 2nd time after 1st boot? also the following tweak is wrong I think. ; Show Hidden Files and Folders [HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\Advanced] "Hidden"=dword:00000000 should be ; Show Hidden Files and Folders [HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\Advanced] "Hidden"=dword:00000001 many thanks.

hmm since enabling sfc this has stopped occuring, I did run sfc scannow which restored some files of cd as well but I didnt let it finish since I had too many prompts to insert cd, seems it was restoring some files not installed by media, I have left sfc enabled tho. Windows isnt any slower.

I had this problem causing me to reinstall and it is still present, I previously blamed IE7 but IE7 hasnt touched this installation yet. SFC is disabled so I suspect it could be caused by overwritten system dlls. Problem. When a dozen or so windows are open and in the taskbar and I havent selected one for a short time I then click a different window on the taskbar, for example it could be a different internet explorer window, it will then flash a different window quickly on screen before going to the one I selected, I can see on the taskbar its actually quickly selecting a "different" window to the one I clicked on and then quickly going to the one I selected, its fast but not fast enough to delay the process and to not cause a visible disruption. I can visibly see the other window briefly go on top then go away again, I think it even sometimes does more then 1 window cycling 2 or 3 before going to the one I selected. Has anyone known of this issue and know what the cause might be as I am pulling hairs out over this, I could reinstall windows all over again and it come back again.

great thanks, I did fresh install today and already my windows is acting weird, after installing many apps etc. I think now woithout SFC these apps have managed to replace system dlls causing problrms, will see. hmm something else is still disabling sfc C:\Documents and Settings\Chris>sfc /scannow Windows File Protection could not initiate a scan of protected system files. The specific error code is 0x000006ba [The RPC server is unavailable. ].

I disabled SFC in this current install of windows but soon noticed some weird stability issues, I dont know if its because windows has lost the protection of SFC and some rogue dlls are in place or just a coincidental event. As I understand it disabling SFC offers the following advantages. Speed up installation of windows considerably. Allows removal/replacement of system files. Removes some limitations due to # of hotfixes can be integrated. Disadvantages. Windows becomes more vulnerable to some exploits and rogue installers replacing key dlls. Not sure and would like to know. SFC disabled improves windows performance after installation? Can SFC be disabled for fast install but then enabled after for protection?

I have noticed the following 2 problems present in 1.2 and 1.2.1 but were not present in the previous RC. Final image size is larger considerably. When integrating ryanvm wmp10 pack nlite complains it is overwriting "newer" files when it isnt, it misreads 10. as 1.0 in the file version.

got 916089 installed unfortenatly no improvement, I gave windows update a test run and svchost still hogged cpu for some minutes, but now it was also slowing down the animation bar the entire pc struggling very bad.

I have had to disable the auto update checker because everytime it checked for updates I had a massive slowdown for 3-4 mins whilst it checked for updates, svchost.exe. It caused a video clip I was watching to go about 5fps on a amd64 3500+. If I delete all the msi files will it stop the problem and what downside is there just the inability to modify installations? man I missed this post, you a star thanks. Hmm what the... for some reason they havent made the patch public no link to download.

Am I mistaken or can't IE7 spread tabs to multiple rows? I have loaded about 12 of my 40 or so tabs I use in maxthon into IE7 and its squeezing them all into 1 row and utilising a scroller, not impressive.

got it working, after I disabled the hds in the bios it reset the first boot hd back to the ide device now its working. i had already read that post, funny enough I think what you said wouldnt work since the sata2 drivers would refuse to install whilst in ide mode? and if switch to sata mode with no sata2 drivers it wouldnt boot, chicken and egg situation. however i have it installing now, sata2 drivers slipstreamed and fixed the hd order in bios. it failed in ide mode as well so it made me recheck the hd order.

disagree, if I left winupdates to auto then on every bootup their is a 7 minute worth of 100% cpu usage on svchost.exe on my older pc as auto updates checks for updates. if it finds any it then takes 5-10 minutes to install them. if this was a production pc it would be very disturbing and more then a minor annoyance.

Hi I wish to have xp boot of a sata hd on my sata2 controller independent of any ide device is xp capable of doing this? I slipstreamed my sata2 drivers to the cd and it allows me to select the hd in setup but then it moans about not been able to install boot files on my ide hd (I have it unpartitioned right now), my sata hd is selected as first hd device in my bios and is listed first in the setup so the only conclusion I come to is xp doesnt allow booting directly of a sata device it needs a ide device to piggy back of for the bootblock. my bios allows me to run the sata2 controller in ide mode which I assume is for compatability and would work but then I am essentially throwing performance away, in theory I could install in ide mode, then switch it to sata mode but I cant see how this would work since windows has to bootup to detect the sata controller and install the drivers and it wouldnt boot following the bios change. any thoughts, soon if possible please as that pc is down because of this and using my 2nd pc.

I need the toolbar and it still works with that addon disabled. if goto manage addons with google toolbar installed it has 2 entries the one I disabled and the toolbar itself.