un4given1

I believe I understand what you are saying. At first log in it says you need to activate, right? If you don't activate it logs you back out. If you try to log back in it lets you? Is this correct?

Create a shortcut to your EXE. Right click on the shortcut and do "Properties" Select the Compatability Tab. Easy enough? Select the options you want.

Here... http://www.w3schools.com/xml/default.asp

don't think I have ever heard of anyone having that happen to them... That's like saying "no antivirus program would ever catch this: del c: /s /q /f" That's a command, not a virus.

I live here in Jacksonville. Recently moved here from Indianapolis. I would have liked to see the Colts or the Jaguars... maybe next year. Jacksonville is really a beautiful city. Proud to host the SB here. Check out some of these pics... http://www.jacksonville.com/images/012205/57622_400.jpg http://www.jacksonville.com/images/012205/57615_400.jpg http://www.jacksonville.com/images/010105/55262_400.jpg http://www.jacksonville.com/images/010105/55260_400.jpg

Give this a try http://www.webmath.com/anything.html According to what you said (x^3+x^2+x+4), right? It can't be simplified.

The problem I see with this method is that once the PC restarts and logs in as admin and your batch file begins running, what's to stop them from killing the batch file before it reboots, and being logged in as admin?

This is a fantastic suggestion... Create a list of PC names, one per line... save as TXT file Create a batch file to copy the installation file locally to the PC into a temp folder. Create a batch file to set an AT command on the remote PCs to run the local install file Run the copy batch file like this (using a command prompt run as a domain admin or as local admin if passwords are consistent across all desktops)... for /f %i IN (pcnames.txt) DO copy "c:\file.exe" \\%i\c$\temp >> copylog.txt Run the scheduler batch file next... for /f %i IN (pcnames.txt) DO AT \\%i xx:xxpm "c:\temp\file.exe >> atlog.txt The install will begin at the designated time. You can then run a check file after they should all have run like this... for /f %i IN (pcnames.txt) DO AT \\%i >> atcheck.txt Hope that helps...

Technically... Just thought I would point those things out...

Windows XP does not have to be installed on NTFS. You can install it on a FAT32 partition.

Um...

This is clearly the best method without any substantial cost. If money isn't an issue I really recommend using Systems Management Server (SMS) I believe you can download a trial on the MS website if you wanna give it a run. It's a beautiful piece of software and allows for more than just installing software. It allows you to remote into PCs (even when no session is active... IE: when the PC is at the security screen) It allows you to keep tabs of stats on every PC and query for anything you could imagine.

Yeah... My end came about a year ago when I had taken a process that allowed the companie I worked for to build about 3 PCs a day to a process that allowed them to build 300 a day! No longer needed a skilled person around... any ol' id*** could do it at that point... why pay me the big bucks? *pink slip* Oh well, it was knowledge that I don't regret having (my experience was with RIS, but unattended none the less)

This isn't even an excuse. You are on the greatest source of unattended installation! FIX IT! Remember it's configured to work for the MAJORITY of the population. We are all tech nuts and don't like those things that really do protect the standard consumer.

Don't get me wrong. I respect each of you for your own reasons... But when you have false opinions about something and you base your sole opinion on that then I have a problem. I understand not wanting to spend money, or just not having a system that can run XP. I respect anyone who is just "afraid" to upgrade because it's different. When Windows 95 came out I was in that boat. I refused to upgrade... Kept comming up with excuses about how much it sucked. I finally gave in and it wasn't so bad. I was even worse with Windows 98, believe it or not. Windows ME came and I jumped at it... what a mistake. Windows XP came and I couldn't wait to install it. I haven't poked around with Longhorn because I am not much of a fan of unfinished work, and that's what Longhorn is. I rely on my computer for too much to run a BETA system. I use it to VPN/RDC into work. I use it to do web programming. I use it to make custom spreadsheets and Access databases. I do video editing (hobby) and even photo editing. Since I switched to Windows XP I have been victim of less and less crashes, and more XPerience (pun) I'm not completely against Windows 98... I'm about to install it on my 2 year old's computer because it's just not been taking to XP well (500mhz, 256MB RAM) and she just loves her Blue's Clues! Oh, and I'm not slamming your opinions... but like any great debate, I am simply supplying rebuttals. What upsets me is when someone answers a question with no real knowledge of both sides and just has no clue.

You guys seen the Atari Flashback? http://www.atari.com/us/games/atari_flashback/7800

Exactly... MS has a bunch of downloads w/ guides for remote-connecting / accessing 2k/xp server domains, tunneling vpn's, etc. in 98 & ME.... ok, so one may not have every single last feature & security benefit, but it suffices fairly adequately. At the point it becomes a shortcoming for one's work, one's salary / company budget can well afford pretty much any os, software, hardware needed several times over-- thus rendering this topic moot: at that point XP or other MS OS would be too limiting, so custom apps costing thousands are at one's disposal(as well pricey tech support-- wouldn't spend time on this forum for example), one's pc may have 2-4 gb ram, multiple SCSI disks, possibly in RAID array.... brings up a similar analogy: -- why don't we all get scsi drives then? Because heavy-duty / specialized work may justify spending a multiple of several times for the privilege of single or low-double digit % performance increase.... Value is in the eye of each individual user, but there's no big tech / performance leap from a tweaked 98 like we have-- to winxp, as with dos/win3 to win98-- or as there will be between 2k/xp to a stable and established Longhorn(widespread apps for the architecture). A casual user is different-- they need more compatibility & have less time to spend tweaking & diddling-- so let them get XP, though it itself still needs a lot of adjusting & fixing(BlackViper, autopatcher, ntlite, xplite anyone?). Peace..... I will bet you that 90% of you die hard Windows 98 users aren't concerned about the money. I'll bet it's just all out hatred for something you don't know.

Yes... the client piece is available on any of the Windows OSes. You can download it right off of the MS website. The server piece however is not. You can not use Remote Desktop to connect to a Windows 98 PC.

maybe you should try unplugging your keyboard and getting a life... It holds the same license it had when you purchased it. You have no more rights to the software than the day it came out. "Unsupported" just simply means that the OS is no longer supported Microsoft's update and support teams. It's just like the warranty on your new car or truck running out. You can still drive it, you can still work on it and use it, but Ford isn't going to just fix it for you for free.

You didn't specify... and I would still bet you are wrong on that. Why tweak when you have a superior product? mean what you say, and say what you mean. If you are going to try to discount something back it up with evidence and thurough information. I don't know what that breaks out to be USD, but $200 USD isn't much for it IMO Sometimes you have to give up convenience for a superior product. I will gladly deal with the trouble of activation just to run XP. You have simply just had good luck. I would assume you have never been hit by any viruses in XP either (can't get any if you don't run it...) And, how do you know if you don't have any viruses if you don't run any virus scan software? I think you will find more companies are moving to XP because of AD integration and Windows authentication (2k has that all too, but a lot of companies have skipped 2k completely) Windows 98 just doesn't have the necessary tools for the work world. You might be able to get away with it at home, but your opinions on 98 as opposed to XP are a little based on hatred. I used to have this friend who had a 79 Nova. He replaced 4 engines in it, it was beat up and just all around was a piece of junk. But he wasn't going to give it up, because he knew that car. He knew how it drove, he knew how to fix it... He was too afraid to get a different car in fear that he would really look like he knew nothing. I believe that's where you 98 trolls reside. I hope at least some of you will rethink your opinions on XP and "come to the dark side.."

Yes, you are right, there are "freeware" programs out there that will do just about anything. But none of them are "Remote Desktop" And, YES... most companies do use Windows XP. I have worked for my share of corporate environments and I guarantee that there are 5x as many companies running XP than 98.

I would be willing to argue this one... most companies are using 2000 or XP, and we all know companies make up the majority of PCs What are you basing this one? Windows XP is more stable, that's for sure, and if you are argueing this one then you may not have installed it properly. OK, so you pay (at most) $200 for an OS that runs your PC for 5 years... you don't think that's worth it? My computer runs my life. I paid $1400 for my bed because it determines my whole day... I see my computer as the same. Connect to a domain? No Remote Desktop? No A WHOLE list of things... Buy a legal copy... You're insane. You should have a virus scanner on any Windows OS That's why Windows XP is more stable?

Wow... what a waste of machine on 98SE. You are aware that your 64bit chip is wasted on a 32 bit OS, right? You do not get any more performance because it's a 64bit chip. Granted, XP is 32bit, but they have a 64bit version comming out.

Try it as a Computer setting instead of a User setting. See if that works for you. Remember that in order for that policy to be used you would have to log that user off and back on to pull the new policy.

OK... It has been 7 years since Windows 98 was released (98SE in 99, so that's 6 years). I can't believe there are still so many people who run it. Why? What is your reason for running it? I switched to XP almost instantly. I work in corporate environments so it's important for me to work with the newest and best. IMO Windows XP is more stable, faster and just all around a better OS. So, to help me understand please answer the following questions... Why I still use Windows 98/98SE over Windows XP My system specs Have you ever tried Windows XP or do you just hate it so much you won't? Just curious to know why, that's all.