Daemonforce

I edit setupreg.hiv for several reasons: Add a write filter Force starting/installing services (Ipsec/Crypto) Force/Merge product types (WINNT/LANMANNT) Force desktop appearance A lot of other fun stuff I've never needed to edit the hive for cracking purposes. I think you're the warez monkey.

*walks into thread* Would it be possible to use Hotstream to integrate IE 6.0 into Windows 2000 prior to installation?

Try posting the whole thing next time. It ends before 2000 lines. =/

I am using this guide to make a linux multiboot. Right now I'm working on DSL and I would like to make the KNOPPIX File System specifically reserved. How can I change /KNOPPIX/KNOPPIX to DSLINUX/KNOPPIX or better yet KNOPPIX/DSLINUX without screwing this up? The command I use is: if $lastKey == key[a]; then memdisk /DSLINUX.IMA I plan on also putting in: ChaOS(if I ever get a look at it) FreeNAS IP Cop PHLAK RIP Slax Some of these aren't even based on Knoppix. Can you tell me how you created 4320.img and what it is exactly? I would really like to wrap this up in the next few days.

Update: I finally slimmed the disc down to where it's completely usable again. How would I go about making a linux multiboot? I want to start with DSL.

I don't think it gets any easier than that...=/ You want a domain controller. When your Windows Server 2003 installation is complete, configure your networking and security components then run dcpromo. I advise against doing an unattended domain controller installation. After that, reboot and you will now be using Windows Server 2003 in domain controller mode. Welcome to the world of advanced active directory: Where 2000 needed to be.

More than that, and...That's what's bothering me. There should be a way to defeat this. Sounds like I can compress the 4.42GB package down to maybe 2.4GB. This is used for ISO creation, but what will this do about the actual physical media? Yeah...I'm really not so sure about going that route. My burner doesn't support dual layer.

Yeah well I hope it does! RAwR! Strangely enough, Windows 2000 was really awesome at the time. Somewhere down the line, XP was released...I started getting messenger popups(and nuked every one of these morons trying to bug me). Around the release of SP1 for XP I started getting svchost errors and couldn't figure out what was causing it. It turns out that blaster was the problem. I switched over to Windows .NET Server and that fixed it for a while. I couldn't update the OS, so that got me to go back to XP. After a year I went back to 2000 to see if the problem was still there and it was. Remember, this is a time when I only had one computer and it was on a dialup connection. Stupid networking flaws made me migrate to XP and has kept me from going to anything else since then. Welcome to the development lab...Where the OS you're working on is being compiled on an OS that should retire. When I go to a new OS, it's not because of the features in it, but the crap that it can keep out. I never had any good days on Windows 95. The only thing good about it was that MSN Chat was free and spyware wasn't such a huge problem. I look at the real problems at hand on a zero network system and there are none. The introduction to the Internet is the only problem.

I have created a really kickass multiboot DVD that contains: Windows NT 4.00 Server +SP1 Windows 2000 Professional +SP4 Windows 2000 Advanced Server +SP4 Windows XP Embedded +SP2 (Generic C-i486+S image) Windows XP Professional +SP2 Windows XP Media Center Edition +SP2 Windows XP Tablet PC Edition +SP2 Windows Server 2003 +SP1 (Flip cover to Windows XP 64-Bit Edition) With some combination up to 5 kinds of deployment options along with some floppy tools to be used with diskemu and the Windows XP OPK, this is already too large and I'm not finished. It's clear to me that I'll have to put the 64-Bit builds and linux compilations on hold until I can figure out what needs to be cut out. The first disc I created took about 10 minutes to create on a DVD+R using Nero and it failed after a 55MB overburn! ............................ I should NOT have to do that. EVER! So far everything works except the floppy images. I have not optimized this compilation with any methods I am currently aware of. In fact, I believe I'm losing upwards of 90MB by giving each attendance setting its own bootsector and startup directory to point to. My effort has currently found itself as a massive 36-in-1 powered by CD Shell. The usages are for test and mass deployment in corporate and disaster situations(it's that **** awesome). I would like to know what your ideas are as to what I should add and what needs to go right now. I was looking around in the NT 4 directory and removed about 200MB of garbage that NT4 will never use(Alpha and PPC stuff). I'm considering dropping NT4 and the 2000 series entirely because NT4 has been a huge problem with the admins and 2000 is a horrible network problem under loose security. I'm starting to think I'll never see XP Media Center in a corporate environment so I'm thinking of removing that too. I don't see many places that have a presentation computer anymore. While there are no license problems associated with these Windows flavors, they're just becoming a burden to the rest of my compilation. =/ THEN I need to continue working on WinPE with things such as every single storage driver in existence. I'm sitting here also asking myself how I'm going to add things like: **** Small Linux 2.3RC1 FreeNAS 0.6 IP Cop 1.4.10 P.H.L.A.K. 0.3 R.I.P. Linux Slax Linux 5.0.7B I considered putting Knoppix 3.9 on here but after seeing how horribly slow it runs from a DVD: bad idea. I'm also new to this form of media and have been using vmware this whole time for testing. DSL is so much better when I compare it to the fully blown Knoppix. If anything, I would love to be able to add it. As far as I'm concerned, Windows is easy to mess with because the design is so incredibly simple. Windows Server 2003 was my only problem and I suspect I'll have the same problems with a Windows released with a 64-Bit counterpart or that boots with Arnes Boot Record. Linux is something I have yet to commonly mess with and I already see conflicts if I were to add said builds. What should I remove and how can I add these linux builds to my compilation while keeping the rest of my disc happy?

You have.....no idea. =/ If you have ever gotten the weird problems I've had in the middle of setup down to DOS commands eating away the background, you'd believe the GUI is something that just floats in front of DOS. It's really that horrible. Somehow saying just a DOS extender, doesn't quite say it. Windows NT is something I would rather not touch right now. Windows 2000 is in the same boat now. Windows XP is almost there, but worth hanging on to. Windows NT 4.00 is a solid OS in comparison to Windows 95. Windows 2000 is not related to Windows NT 4.00. It is an entirely new WINNT platform. I admit there is some similarity that makes a seperation between XP and 2000 due to the deployment methods. The XP/.NET/03 builds are part of the NT5 platform. Vista is a solid NT 6.0. Windows Server 2003 is a variant of Windows 2000(since that was the first major to NT5). I'm pretty sure we have a major and minor determination for a reason.

Get a write filter. ...................... I have assembled PE so many times that I truly understand how Windows operates. o_O It's rediculous to have some program write progressive changes only to have that progress removed at shutdown. I have my first drive protected and my storage drive under heavy monitoring. I'm fine with this.

I find it to be really bad. I've been waiting for Vista since early 2004. I now see IIS 7.0 gone in recent betas and that disappoints me. It's clear that we will never see a SP5 released for Windows 2000 and that build is ready to retire now. Windows XP is currently at the midpoint in its life and there hasn't been a workstation OS released by Microsoft since then.... There's no excuse for that. Worse yet, Vista is huge. Not CD huge but DVD huge. I am NOT putting that on my multiboot DVD! It's too much of a waste. As far as I'm concerned, the whole thing is just one huge burden for OEMs to continue struggling with the preparations(that can't be made) while effectively screwing the end users by making them wait even longer on the vendors. From every point that I've been testing: 3xxx to 5xxx, it has been utter garbage. It was almost great at PDC03, but that was like the peak of it to me. I'm not hateful, well actually I am, but I'm still waiting for something better. =/

I'm not going to disect your message. ....................... Yes I am. =/ DOS was absolutely horrible to deal with when I had to rely on it. DOS was this awful 16 color environment that looked like someone took a black background and smeared a bunch of gray crap all over it. It was available to me in the form of a floppy disc and it was originally used by me to do an install of Win9X or prepare an installation with an Fdisk and format. DOS and Win9X are something I would like to stay as far away from as possible. I don't need to give you any reasons why. BartPE is something I need to get away from due to licensing issues. Corporate offices just don't like it for some reason. Linux cannot support a Windows sysprep, but it can prepare a linux installation, so I keep it ready. ReactOS is probably the first step towards getting Win32s to "natively" run on a *nix base. It's been in alpha stage since the first days I've had a computer and the current condition of it is horrible. Making a Windows that runs as an ISOLINUX can't be a good thing. ReactOS Team is trying to figure out all the little hooks and references in Windows code and they need to just write their own build without that "help." Windows source was closed for a reason and I can guarantee that by the time the ReactOS Team is done making a worthy candidate, half their developers will have gone insane. Windows 2000 is now garbage because of networking problems. If I deployed Windows 2000 over this network, 9 out of 10 boxes would be experiencing service failures within 10 seconds of joining the domain. Windows XP has a software firewall and you would be surprised how much crap it keeps out. Maybe I could get around this if I were to put a write filter on Win2K. Windows NT and 2000 are no longer something that I can simply deploy and use without a second thought. I would like to just move to linux because it presents the least problems, but I need to figure out how I'm going to do that. There is rumor that Slax is doing what ReactOS is doing, but I don't think it's running Win32 APIs natively. That's another thing bothering me. Win32s have not been classic Win32s since mid 2002. Somewhere around this time back in 2002(maybe it was April), I had gotten the chance to test an OS that the web detected as Windows .NET CLR 1.0. For the Windows impaired, that's Windows .NET Server 2003. I used this for a great period of time after getting along with XP because XP did not support my applications! It was around the release of SP1 and no one knew what .NET was. I didn't even know what .NET was! That was a serious problem, especially since all the cool stuff was already using it. YES! YES! OMGWTFBBQ YES! ♥ PE!!! RAwR! I really didn't want to go through the details of why I don't like ReactOS. That post was long enough. If you download the latest builds, you will recognize they're completely useless as far as an ISOLINUX goes. There at least needs to be some file system support for mass storage devices or network support before I pick this one up again. I like what the ReactOS team is trying to accomplish, but the end result is going to be this half-assed throwback to Lindows at best. Yeah. What did I say? ......... Oh you thought... I first started messing with a computer back in 2001 and I was stuck with Windows 95 since it was the only build I had and I really wanted NT. I believe you can understand what kind of problems quickly came from the lack of a decent operating system. Think back to every single flaw and bug from setup to the end result and imagine dealing with that about 7 times each day. I fixed every problem I came across other than the "Windows 95 unsupported" issue. I really needed NT. Buying 2000 was pushing my cash limit as well as four or five kinds of physical laws because I had hell trying to install XP on here for the first time. That was fun. Windows 95 was not a bootable CD. It was one disc and an associated MS-DOS boot disk with the OAK CD driver and a ramdrive for calling setup from the CD. My super 7 was created in 1998 and to this very day people give me very odd looks when they see that board. I guess there's some history behind the ASUS P5A-B that I don't understand. I already made a long post about these issues this morning. I was going to post it at 911CD but decided not to since I doubt anyone would read it. Right now it's just one big mess and Hardware Engineers are trying to defeat the point of booting from a floppy and are even removing the drive from the new board designs. I understand that a floppy drive just doesn't belong in a modern computer, but this is forcing me into a pinch.

I prefer descriptions between physical and virtual. I use a physical server because I can depend on it not killing itself whenever I need to do a critical download. On my workstation, a virtual server is ok for unimportant tasks(like making changes to the physical server), but if I'm in the middle of a game and this computer overheats and reboots, everything my virtual server was doing is gone. This is why I have and prefer a physical server over anything. Running a virtual server on a physical server would be absolutely perfect because if your installation has a critical problem, you can always run a snapshot and go back to when things worked. I can't do that on my physical server because the load would be a likely cause of intermittent reboots. =/

I suggest you make sure encryption and compression are always turned off. I've had problems with NTFS drives(internal and external alike) and it was always a problem with permission settings. I don't know if you use your drive between anything different that X86-based PCs, but if you do, the Mac will hate it.

I've never fallen into the belief that Microsoft actually has any competition...Windows is not unix. *Reads adamk's post* ......................... I most certainly agree! I always run into the problem of some business partners using XP Home to get their work done. They run a small network and I see them having problems where they need those networking tools and they need the domain controller. I always tell them they're better off with Windows XP Professional and something that can be a DC, but they only listen to me once they start running into stupid networking barriers and wonder what went wrong. You can add a ninth face to Vista. Vista PE. I'm going to extract it and run. I can't stand the thought of worrying about support problems when everyone goes to Vista and I'm here happy with my resource hog called XP. I've been using it when it was great and I had a look at Longhorn in the days when it was purely labelled such. From day 1 I recognized problems on the new platform that just shouldn't be happening. It feels like that bump in the road from NT 4 to 2000. I'm done with NT 6.

Wai...I think you pretty much described Active Desktop Calendar.

The file referred to as loader.bin is an El Torito stack used to boot CD Shell/Diskem1x. I renamed my CD Shell directory from BOOT to CDSH for simplified testing with Longhorn. I'll go back to the classic BOOT style until I start messing with linux again. It looks to me like you need to provide a full path to loader.bin. For my project this would currently be "D:\DARCIE\CDSH\loader.bin" I don't use CDImage or Mkisofs for compiling bootable CD images. It works fine for me in Nero.

It is here you shall be mercilessly judged! RAwR! o_O They're not overrated, just overpriced. Then again they are the fastest drives you can buy without going SCSI. Suddenly it's no longer a competition of drive size but how fast you can access your data. I don't like raptors because you can't hold much on them. The good thing is that they're just what my technician computer needs. I actually sat through 2 whole minutes waiting on Nero to finish burning a 1.1GB bootable image. I have 512MB PC4000 in this beast so that shouldn't be the problem. Drive access is. I have data crunching from a 5400.8RPM disk to a 7200.16. There's definitely a bottleneck there. =/ My Maxtor 7L300S0 does that for me.

I like the emphasis you put on the address bar.

How do I get around this? or is there another way to create the Boot Folders? DUH! Read the tutorial! O_o I don't even need to tell you to read it in order to know that much. When you have a WinNT distribution and you run the setup/install tools of an older distribution, you're going to get a warning that you can't do an in-place upgrade or clean installation. The purpose of this is to prevent operating system conflicts. You need to use an older operating system if you want to use this method. Since the technician computer shouldn't be having those kinds of problems, I suggest a virtual machine. VMware workstation is how I get around this. I could list the boot folders for you, but I would rather you use a fool-proof method. Yet another strike against XP Home. A few hours ago I installed Windows 2000 Adv. Server inside of a virtual machine to get the boot folders that I needed. =/ I did the same thing yesterday with NT 4 Server. You know that part of the site that says you should have a lot of patience when making this? I think it's time to reinforce that statement. I've been preparing my builds since September and I'm suddenly having problems with Windows 2000(again). I need to do some slipstreaming and get the hell away from everything older than XP.

Windows 95 setup wanted to do what exactly? Windows 95 is what I would call a "hardware manipulation" operating system. That's why I liked it. It deserves to be a local connection gateway. Then again, I remember what caused my first bluescreen and why I should stick to IP Cop. =/ Unsupported. I keep a virtual disk of Windows 95/98 around whenever I want a legacy/non-English game to run. Windows 95 emulation for XP isn't enough for these legacy applications. I have been fighting several images this evening on the technician computer(512MB PC4000). I want 8GB! o_O Don't like it? Turn it off and watch your terminal operate as slow as a Win2K box with 32MB ram. Better get that /INRAM switch ready. Why is my ASUSTeK P5A-B Super 7 "Pentium" board still on the setup manifest? o_O I like boards made after 2002 because it ensures that it supports El Torito. You wouldn't believe how much garbage comes into the shop. AT-Compatible...AT-Compatible...AT-Compatible...AT-Compatible...Oh hey an ATX! O_o AT-Compatible...AT-Compatible...AT-Compatible...WTF? Take any combination of these units and you can bet that booting a CD will be an issue. The reason I like this is because it forces users to stop using crap. Agreed. ............... Every time this thread pops up it feels like I'm talking to Gene Ray. O_o I don't like Windows NT. I support it as a last ditch effort to get rid of 9X. Everything I would expect to work on NT4, doesn't. I wish I started with Windows NT back in 2001 instead of Windows 95. It came prepackaged with everything I liked and even came with my favorite build of Internet Explorer. Don't get me started on that crap. It's a team of people with half-assed attempts at reverse-engineering Windows NT 4.0 and 5.0. They need to stop that. Reverse engineer something people can actually use like Windows XP. Also, I'm able to fix a lot of crap that they're having trouble with right now. I took one look at this garbage and within 1 minute I understood exactly what it was and decided that I don't want it. The lacking file system support and network just instantly killed the point of it. It may be based on linux binaries, but then again so is DARCIE. I'm still in the process of making that and the difference is that it already doesn't suck. RIP Linux is probably the only thing that comes remotely close to it. I don't want another linux distro that can do next to nothing like every other linux I've touched. Natively supporting Win32s is great, but I would like to be able to do everything I want. If I have to go in and fix everything for the ROS Team myself, that's discouraging because I already have a Windows that I can rely on 100%. It was an Alpha 4 years ago and it's an Alpha now.

I'm currently testing multiple unattend scripts for Windows 2000 Adv. Server. Setup is currently at the end but I'm still waiting on it. I have no idea what could be wrong with it. I just finished testing Windows 2000 Professional. This is my crashdebug/textattend script seen before setup: ;SetupMgrTag [Data] AutoPartition=1 MsDosInitiated="0" UnattendedInstall="Yes" [Unattended] UnattendMode=FullUnattended OemSkipEula=Yes OemPreinstall=No TargetPath=WINDOWS WaitForReboot=No NoWaitAfterTextMode=1 NoWaitAfterGUIMode=1 ProgramFilesDir="C:\Program Files" CommonProgramFilesDir="C:\Program Files\Common" DriverSigningPolicy=Ignore NonDriverSigningPolicy=Ignore [GuiUnattended] AdminPassword=* EncryptedAdminPassword=No OEMSkipRegional=1 TimeZone=4 OemSkipWelcome=1 ProfilesDir="%systemdrive%\Users\" AutoLogon=Yes AutoLogonCount=1 [UserData] FullName="Windows User" ComputerName=* [Display] BitsPerPel=32 Xresolution=1024 YResolution=768 Vrefresh=60 [TapiLocation] CountryCode=1 Dialing=Tone AreaCode=360 [Identification] JoinWorkgroup=WORKGROUP [Networking] InstallDefaultComponents=Yes [RegionalSettings] LanguageGroup=1 Language=00000409 This is my unattended script seen under setup: ;SetupMgrTag [Data] AutoPartition="0" Floppyless="1" MsDosInitiated="0" UnattendedInstall="Yes" [Unattended] UnattendMode=ProvideDefault OemSkipEula=Yes OemPreinstall=No TargetPath=\WINDOWS WaitForReboot=No NoWaitAfterTextMode=1 NoWaitAfterGUIMode=1 ProgramFilesDir="C:\Program Files" CommonProgramFilesDir="C:\Program Files\Common" DriverSigningPolicy=Ignore NonDriverSigningPolicy=Ignore [GuiUnattended] AdminPassword=* EncryptedAdminPassword=No OEMSkipRegional=1 TimeZone=4 OemSkipWelcome=1 ProfilesDir="%systemdrive%\Users\" AutoLogon=Yes AutoLogonCount=1 [UserData] FullName="Windows User" OrgName="" ComputerName=* productid="HB9CF-JTKJF-722HV-VPBRF-9VKVM" [Display] BitsPerPel=32 Xresolution=1024 YResolution=768 Vrefresh=60 [TapiLocation] CountryCode=1 Dialing=Tone AreaCode=360 [Identification] JoinWorkgroup=WORKGROUP [Networking] InstallDefaultComponents=Yes [RegionalSettings] LanguageGroup=1 Language=00000409 See something strange? Under volume license mode, Windows 2000 generates that exact key. I can try putting in something else and it always reverts. I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why it does this.

3.1 sounds about right to me. Yes...Vista takes a gross advantage of XML and independent references...I get it! Shell32 is probably the biggest file in Vista right now. Mhm. Now that I have to disagree with. NT6 uses the same installation pattern as everything after Windows 2000. XP/03 goes through the BSOI for partitioning and file expanding/copying. The whole point to this zone is extracting the Windows Preinstallation Environment to a writable media. You could do what Longhorn demonstrated since the release of XP. NT6 on the other hand, reads a compressed File-Based Windows image to boot from. The result is a loader that just flies to the Win32 environment. Now that Vista is the new title, the file-based image is mounted as a system directory and a write filter is used to make temporary writes to WinPE. The only miraculous thing NT6 has done is get rid of that horrible BSOI that can cause severe overheating and the I386 design that has been used since Windows 3.11. I like the new File-based image packing for maximum portability, but I've never been able to get Ximage to manipulate these things. I guess I'll have to wait for the RTM release. =/

I have had temporary fixes for all of these and doing so is annoying me. I want to see them all fixed now. The development team has been dragging Longhorn this far, they could at least fix the things that I can. That's exactly the point I'm making. It's an entirely new generation of operating system. Uhmmm....5? Are you telling me that I would be likely to see the exact kind of OS behavior from XP to Longhorn if it were 1999 when everyone was using NT 4 and I started messing with betas of Windows 2000?