LeveL

Doesn't matter I sorted it out. The problem? Where to put $OEM$ The solution? It goes inside the X:\sources folder!

Heh, I wish.... The screen comes up to type a product key (its OK its supposed to) but then, with the <SkipAutoActivation>true</SkipAutoActivation> setting in the answer file the box under the box for product key is still ticked to "Activate whenever I am online". I don't want that box ticked thats the thing. I looked through the reference guide again, it says if you set up a user called "Administrator" this will then enable the Administrators account which is normally disabled by default (THE Administrator, god of the PC, lol) and it also says, unlike other previous versions of Windows, that you can set a blank password for this in the autologin settings and it will all work. Well, hate to have to say this but it just doesn't work... what I ended up with was it asking me to create a user, so I did that, then it got round to autologon time, or what should be autologon, and I have THREE USERS ON THE WELCOME SCREEN, what the F! One is the username I begrudgingly set up (begrudgingly because it was meant to logon on its own with the single main Administrator) and the other two usernames are "Administrator" and "Administrator". Yes, two identical usernames, who knows which one is THE Administrator. This stupid ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ I think I will leave it a few months until this WAIK thing actually does what it says it does. The only thing that I did not have to fill in, the only thing that gave any hint that any of it was even unattended, was the fact that I didn't have to choose the language at the very beginning, apart from that it screwed up on just about every other thing. $OEM$ is not supported with this either, this just adds insult to injury! Oh man why did they have to change it? Really though, its not a joke question - why DID M$ change the entire unattended thing like this? Theres no need to diliberately stop supporting the $OEM$ folder way of doing it or even the WINNT.SIF way either. Its just tragic. Tragic because look, setupmgr.exe from the deployment tools in Windows 2000 is less than six kilobytes - the new WAIK for Vista is 870Mb. Do you know how much bigger that actually is? The WAIK is 147,345 times bigger than the setupmgr.exe was for Windows 2000. The real kicker is - setupmgr.exe works and the Vista WAIK just screws up. Its great.

<SkipAutoActivation>true</SkipAutoActivation> This is not in the WAIK (apart from in the reference guide) so I cannot add it to the answer file with the WAIK. The reference guide does not tell you what other tags this command goes in or anything about it, just tells you the command exists: The term "SkipAutoActivation" does not exist on the internet, so I am completely stuck. Also the WAIK does not account for the fact that no matter which way I do it - I cannot get it to ask where to install, either it is set so it installs automatically to Disk 0 Partition 1 (or wherever you want) OR remove that section (I tried all different combinations but like I said I am not an XML buff) and it does not work, it gives an error. Only an expert in XML could make any sense of that XML file and where things are meant to go, yeah theres the WAIK to do all that for you but certain things don't exist in the WAIK. If you can find SkipAutoActivation in the WAIK I will show my a$$ in the street! EDIT: Eeeesh I found SkipAutoActivation in the WAIK just by pressing Ctrl+F and its there under the licensing thing. Now I got to show my a$$ in the street, sorry for being so dumb, its been a VERY long day today... sorry...

Judging by the small amount of replies to Vista Unattended topics, I have come to 2 conclusions: 1 - No one is really trying to do unattended Vista? 2 - No one can figure out that mind numbing WAIK thing? I have downloaded the WAIK and before I kill someone, just ditched it. I simply copied an Autounattend.xml and used it, but theres a problem with this - I want to add these 2 commands to the answer file: <InstallToAvailablePartition>false</InstallToAvailablePartition> (so I can manually choose the installation destination) and also: <SkipAutoActivation>true</SkipAutoActivation> Of course, typically, naturally... I do not know where in the code these commands are meant to go, because I am not an XML programmer OK (well WHO IS?) in fact I have absolutely no clue at all, everything I try doesn't work, although without these 2 commands it does work. The only question is where the hell are you supposed to put things? How are you supposed to just know where to put things? Why did Microsoft suddenly decide to move the goalposts like this? What was wrong with keeping a WINNT.SIF file? Why have we got to learn an entire new method and an entire new syntax? Why isn't any of this clearly explained in the WAIK CHM file? (for example the part about SkipAutoActivation tells you nothing with regards to what other code tags that command goes in between!) Does M$ actually do this on purpose, or what? Why am I even asking, no one has replied to this topic in months so obviously people must be just as perplexed by all this XML baloney as I am? Please, god please don't make me fire up that WAIK again, I like my monitor screen the way it is thanks.

I have finally got my Autounattend.xml working, so it does not ask for language, product key etc but I have found that if I include this section like this... It will not ask which disk and partition I want to install to, this is correct because the disk and partition is specified there with <DiskID>0</DiskID> and <PartitionID>1</PartitionID> However, I want to just manually choose this one thing, lets say I swap my disks around, buy a new HDD making my old drive the 2nd disk etc, so I always want to manually choose where to install to. So I made the Autounattend.xml like this: That has the whole "InstallTo" section removed (4 lines) and it gives an errorwhen I try this. I also tried the following... This also gives an error! I do not think I have tried this yet......... That leaves in the "InstallTo" section but I doubt this will work,leaving things blank like this is what was causing errors before, things seem to either need to be there and filled in, or the tags need to be taken completely out. This is also covered in the WAIK chm, saying do not leave empty tags. I wonder if it might work with stars like this: Sheesh, I only want it to ask me this ONE thing!

Win some you lose some... ... yes... and... what LINE is the error on? I don't know, it does not say. I also got it to (sort of) work later on, but after formatting the partition it said at the bottom "Windows cannot install to this partition". Hmmm, I left out the InstallTo section because I want to choose where to install to. Maybe it needs to be there but needs to be blank E.G. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nope, it doesn't work to remove those 4 lines above, I get this... ... yes... and... what LINE is the value on thats "outside the range of acceptable values" huh? Its clever enough to get an error and yet dumb enough not to tell you what line is wrong - talking of acceptable values, this isn't one of them!

Heh, thanks, I got it back now. This Vista must be the biggest change in a Windows OS ever, theres so much to learn about it.

I used HFSLIP 1.1.0 for this and it worked, you only have to have the IE6 cab files in HFCABS.

After using HFSLIP myself I would always recommend it, but Boooggy made an IE7 addon you could integrate with nLite, I know that works for sure.

In Vista at the bottom of all Explorer windows you see a blue bar - the "Details Pane". I accidentally turned this off and want to turn it back on but the setting is not in Folder Options as far as I can tell, theres no answer on MSFN or Google either. The funny thing is I only want to enable it to see if my "WebViewBarricade" XP tweak gets rid of it again, lol. I cannot test the tweak though unless its there to begin with. Fiddling with WebViewBarricade, switching it to 0 and 1 isn't bringing it back, but I think if you set that to 1 it does get rid of it. This is what I mean: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Details.PNG

Good tip - this also works in Explorer folders too but is there any registry tweak to set the icons on the Desktop to Windows old standard 32 x 32 instead of 6400 x 6400? Or maybe disable the ability to even change the size and revert back to "old" sizes with a tweak? Dunno why M$ has done this, they are miles too big. When you change them (Ctrl + mouse wheel) it messes up the layout. Sorry I haven't posted a tweak myself, heres one to stop the "Welcome Center" popping up every time you reboot... Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00 ;Stops the "Welcome Center" loading (for current user) when Windows starts [HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run] "WindowsWelcomeCenter"=- Looking more into the registry I noticed this only appears for 5 reboots anyway but hey I DON'T WANT TO SEE IT, EVER!!

You said you slipstreamed SATA drivers but have you tried Bashrat's MassStorage driverpack? http:\\www.driverpacks.net

GTA San Andreas, all the way! For old games its got to be Duke Nukem 3D, come get some!

Try holding Ctrl and select, unselect, select, unselect a few times, see if it changes the hover behaviour. Are you using Virtual PC? VPC sometimes does this when going from VPC to host.

On a x86 only DVD (for instance my Vista Ultimate Beta 5384 DVD) the sources folder is here: DVD:\sources On the DVD with x86 and x64 the sources folder is here: DVD:\sources\x86\sources The 5384 Beta DVD is laid out like so: boot docs efi sources support upgrade autorun.inf bootmgr bootmgr.efi readme.htm serial.txt setup.exe The RTM with x86 and x64 is laid out like so in the x86 folder: boot efi sources support upgrade autorun.inf bootmgr setup.exe So this means, in the RTM DVD in x86 it is missing these files and folders compared to the Beta (x86 only) version: docs bootmgr.efi readme.htm So I think, copy everything thats in the x86 folder to your C:\Vista folder and then from the root of the RTM DVD, copy those two files and one folder into C:\Vista to make it what would be a single install DVD. I can't see the docs folder not being there making any difference, or the htm file, that leaves only one other file - bootmgr.efi. The RTM I have does not even have a readme.htm on the root of it anyway.

A few lawsuits never really fixes anything up. Did STAC, who had DOS 6.0 stolen from them by Microsoft, ever end up distributing DOS 6.0? No! Microsoft just paid them off in a lawsuit and continued to keep hold of the stolen DOS 6.0. Its OK to pay off a company in court but I never knew that then entitled the company stealing the code to keep the code and make multi-millions from it. WTF is that about. Someone once told me they have changed "My Computer" to just "Computer" and "My Pictures" to just "Pictures" and "My Documents" to just "Documents" because in Vista its not your computer, your pictures or your documents anymore and it all belongs to Microsoft! That is just kidding around but hold on a minute, we all know Microsoft WOULD do this if they ever thought they could get away with it... but the thing is what HAVEN'T they got away with up to now since 1976? I refer again to STAC V's Microsoft (DOS v6.0 wrangle) and the dozens upon dozens of other lawsuits Microsoft "lost" but then just kept the stolen intellectual property ANYWAY and made millions, no, billions from it. With Vista, you only own a licence that lets you use the Windows Vista software, so then does this mean that you do not even own the DVD? No, you do not even own the DVD! It is licenced to you thats the thing. Microsoft are, once again, abusing their monopoly, but then I guess thats what having a monopoly is all about eh? Whats the point of being in their position if they're not going to s**t all over everyone, that would just be a wasted opportunity in their eyes. Thats a laugh... I can't see Microsoft ever losing a cent, certainly not because of piracy but yeah maybe because they are being sued thousands of times over, if that ever did happen but my argument always was that they charge so much money for their often inferior software to pay off all the inevitible lawsuits coming their way continually. Inferior software like Microsoft SQL when there are alternatives that are not only free but actually better. Do they really have to charge insane sums like $399 for the new Vista? Yes - To pay off all these lawsuits. Look at how much Sun Microsystems won from Microsoft, it was over $500,000,000. No thats no typing mistake, it really was... half a billion dollars. Behold... Microsoft are still worth billions despite the payout to Sun Microsystems, catch my drift? They have too big a monopoly for them to ever be beaten.

I am using a HFSLIPped Windows 2000 fully updated to today and here: HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\atapi\Parameters It already has this value set! "EnableBigLba"=dword:00000001 Pretty cool, except I aint got a HDD big enough to try it, heh, Win2000 is only installed in VMware with a 3Gb virtual disk. I guess it was a hotfix or HFSLIP that put the support for 137Gb+ in?

I managed to make it work in Server 2003 by creating a new Admin account at the T-12 minute stage via cmdlines.txt and using NET.EXE. When I try to duplicate this in Windows 2000 it doesn't log in automatically. I have totally given up, been trying to do it for 2 days - so I made an AutoIt3 script that gets dumped on the Desktop. In the nicest possible way... f**k it! __init() #NoTrayIcon Send ( '{LWIN}R' ) Send ( '{LWIN}R' ) Send ( '{LWIN}R' ) Send ( '{LWIN}R' ) Send ( '{LWIN}R' ) WinWait ( 'Run', 'Type the name of a program' ) WinActivate ( 'Run', 'Type the name of a program' ) Send ( 'rundll32.exe %SystemRoot%\System32\netplwiz.dll,UsersRunDll' ) Send ( '{ENTER}' ) WinWait ( 'Users and Passwords', 'Use the list below to grant or deny users access' ) WinActivate ( 'Users and Passwords', 'Use the list below to grant or deny users access' ) Send ( '{SPACE}' ) Send ( '{ENTER}' ) WinWait ( 'Automatically Log On', 'You can set up your computer so that users' ) WinActivate ( 'Automatically Log On', 'You can set up your computer so that users' ) Send ( '{ENTER}' ) func __init () endfunc On first login, the box "Users must enter a user name and password to use this computer." is ticked. You can run the AutoIt3 program and it unticks the box but then Windows reboots like it should etc and you go into User Accounts and the **** box is still TICKED! So then I cannot even run this AutoIt3 thing on first logon! It works on the next reboot when that box is ticked, sheesh, so then I don't know, like I said I give up on it - just too difficult because when that box magically ticks itself, is when Windows 2000 is shutting down so, its impossible, the Windows GUI isn't there to manipulate as its shutting down and registry tweaks are pointless, the settings don't stick, those also get overwritten as the PC reboots.

Thanks, everything integrated fine And they all went home happily ever after.

It can't be that simple! Thanks for the tip B) Edit - it isn't that simple... it still asks for the password. I thought the only Windows OS that does not let the Adminsitrator (not "an" Administrator, I mean the main Administrator itself) logon automativally with a blank password is Server 2003? Sheesh, who knows, this Windows 2000 is fully patched, maybe a hotfix has done it?

In WINNT.SIF on Windows 2000 you have the setting AutoLogonCount=1 this allows the PC to log in the very first time, then usually on unattended installs you'd wanna reboot it again, after which, with AutoLogonCount=1 it means it will not automatically login again after that and needs the password. I have tried looking in the MS info files about this and searched MSFN but the term "AutoLogonCount=1" is all over the forum, because its in pretty much everyones WINNT.SIF so it makes looking for the answer difficult. All I wanna know is, what is the maximum value for this? Is it a case of either a 1 or a 0 and thats all you can have or does it have a maximum value? Ideally I want it on the maximum value, like maybe AutoLogonCount=999999999 but I don't know if this is possible. I can test it etc but then, I still don't know if its the maximum/what the maximum is! There is a reg tweak you can use to force this logon to a billion times or, nine hundred and ninety nine million nine hundred and ninety nine thousand nine hundred and ninety nine... but that only seems to work if you manually run the reg tweak, it does not work by importing it with REGEDIT /S Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00 ;One Billion Automatic Logins [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\Winlogon] "AutoAdminLogon"="999999999" "DefaultUserName"="Administrator" "DefaultPassword"="" "ForceAutoLogon"="1" I know on Server 2003 MS cracked down on this and you need to create a whole new Administrator (or any level) account to autologon with a blank password, but in Windows 2000 and XP I am sure you can be called "Administrator" and have autologin, yes with a blank password, always with a blank password! Some might say this is suicide, but not really, I am the only user of my PC and even if anyone else in my house logged in, so what, they are computer literate! Passwords are just an unneccesary pain as far as I am concerned.

Alright, that hex setting DOES work in Windows 2000 but it only changes to 06 when you manually set the start menu on "show small icons in the start menu". If I import a reg tweak then yeah, it also changes to a 06 but you go back into the registry ten minutes later and its changed back to a 02 again! In other words the registry resets itself back again! This is just ridiculous! I am logged in as "Administrator" too - theres no reason for a reg file to change the registry then it just changes back again. Faced with a new problem then - why the **** does the registry set the hex setting back to a 02 again when I said 06? STAY ON 06!!!! AAAAGH!!!!!

I have searched Google and MSFN, I have found the XP answer to this but not the Windows 2000 answer. How can I change the Start Menu from this... To this: For such a simple cosmetic change I have never known there to be a registry tweak that just flat out does not exist! But it doesn't, I used "ExamDiff Pro" to compare two registry files and it is not listed in the differences! Most differences were in the CLSID keys with long random numbers in the key names (nothing to do with this small icons thing, trust me) Why is it possible in XP but not possible in Windows 2000? In XP you can import this tweak to do it... That is for XP though - it does not work on Windows 2000. I also tried "RegShot" and it gave me this as the only differences in the registry... Regshot 1.7 Comments: Datetime:2006/11/21 09:02:02 , 2006/11/21 09:02:18 ---------------------------------- Values modified:2 ---------------------------------- HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Cryptography\RNG\Seed: D4 60 5A 12 8B FB E7 4A ED A7 A9 A4 BF AF 65 E0 FB E3 8F B4 59 C3 18 85 45 17 12 CB EC 5A 02 7C 1D F2 BC B0 72 B1 3D 00 8B 30 FA A4 24 3E DA BE 18 D6 ED 85 DA AB A8 DA EE 23 40 A5 7A D7 85 24 99 2A A1 9B D9 CA 7E 8F 2C 73 D0 47 17 2F A7 14 HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Cryptography\RNG\Seed: 77 66 A7 FD 49 D7 B9 CF AF 66 73 6E 58 B9 73 B3 EA 15 60 63 58 F6 93 72 01 69 09 19 B7 16 0B CC A4 97 90 E8 8F 9F DE F2 27 23 DB 95 83 55 6B 6B 2E 38 71 D5 92 CF AE 69 03 1D 63 10 3E 02 57 8E 8E 1E 54 6A FE D3 13 A8 AC E9 89 AA 93 57 B7 23 HKU\S-1-5-21-2000478354-1326574676-725345543-1000\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\Discardable\PostSetup\Component Categories\{00021492-0000-0000-C000-000000000046}\Enum\Implementing: 1C 00 00 00 01 00 00 00 D6 07 0B 00 02 00 15 00 09 00 01 00 0A 00 DA 00 02 00 00 00 81 45 E0 01 EE 4E D0 11 BF E9 00 AA 00 5B 43 83 21 BF 5C 0E 5F D1 D0 11 83 01 00 AA 00 5B 43 83 HKU\S-1-5-21-2000478354-1326574676-725345543-1000\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\Discardable\PostSetup\Component Categories\{00021492-0000-0000-C000-000000000046}\Enum\Implementing: 1C 00 00 00 01 00 00 00 D6 07 0B 00 02 00 15 00 09 00 02 00 0B 00 42 02 02 00 00 00 81 45 E0 01 EE 4E D0 11 BF E9 00 AA 00 5B 43 83 21 BF 5C 0E 5F D1 D0 11 83 01 00 AA 00 5B 43 83 ---------------------------------- Total changes:2 ---------------------------------- HKLM and HKU WHERES THE HKCU THOUGH?! Things like this are enough to drive me nuts! Its not even a vital tweak its all about the principle of it now! How can M$ make Windows 2000 so that some setting is completely independent of the registry? Nothing is independent of the registry though thats the thing - someone has got to RESCUE ME from this madness, please, how can you change it with a REG file? Please tell me, I am actually going crazy here

Nothing in nLite would cause it to check your hard drive like that. Sounds more like your HDD is dying to me, back it up if you can!

Yeah but nobody trusts Microsoft. Already I have seen "Pro version" on their site so they are probably going to gradually cripple the functionality of things like TCP View and all the other great stuff and sell you, yep, SELL you a "Pro" version which is really just what the original free SysInternals one was. dry.gif