LeveL

Going off this post on the previous page, you'll have a Windows CD that installs fine etc, but what happens if you upgrade your PC to 4Gb RAM, or you swap from an AMD processor to a system with a P4 (with hyperthreading)? Your install disc would have to be remade? What I am asking then is, can it be done so you have a CD that covers all possibilities? Like, some way to add into the batch commands something like "if exist" ??? Or does Windows itself rename the ntoskrnl.exe so you end up with "ntoskrnl.exe" but it is actually called something else initially on your CD? The other thing is, on my system now I have two kernel files in system32 - ntoskrnl.exe and ntkrnlpa.exe so erm... Which one is the one that needs editing?! Just saves making a whole other XP CD for your next system, I am sure at some point, I am going to probably upgrade to one of those new Core 2 Duo chips (since they seem to wipe the floor with the AMD 4200+) and a Core 2 Duo would have hyperthreading, I do want to also upgrade my system to 4Gb RAM too, I bought a MOBO with that in mind although right now its only got 2Gb RAM and so, uses a different kernel.

Whats all this talk of ResHacker? You don't need ResHacker for this. The file is OEMLOGO.BMP, its 117 x 98 (or smaller), 24 Bit BMP image... $OEM$\$$\system32\oemlogo.bmp $OEM$\$$\system32\oeminfo.ini

AutoIt.

OMFG not one single answer in more than 15 months. Sound Forge v9.0a is out. You know what I am gonna ask now... Anyone know how to install Sony Sound Forge v9.0a silently? I will check back in 14 months to see a user asking how to install Sony Sound Forge v10 I guess.

What has any of this got to do with Unattended Windows 2000/XP/2003 I came here thinking the switches to install this nasty thing would be here, I don't want this hotfix saying it is required on Windows Update. I guess I will just have to try a few things, like cabbing the DLL and adding the line to TXTSETUP.SIF. Then the LegitCheckControl.dll also will need registering. dosnet.inf d1,LegitCheckControl.DLL txtsetup.sif LegitCheckControl.DLL = 100,,,,,,,2,0,0 Register the DLL regsvr32.exe /S %SystemRoot%\system32\LegitCheckControl.dll

Maybe you need to see this: Then this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qi3zCdjt5js Then this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kelCN8J84_I

I get where you're coming from, but those extensions for Firefox are incredibly annoying in that the catalog of extensions is not organized into extensions that work on Firefox v2 and Firefox v1.5. Half the extensions give errors saying it "only works on v0.9 to v1.0" and with the project being open source, no one gives two hoots about this or ever sorts out that catalog of (more than 20,000) extensions. I bet not even 10,000 of them actually work on v2.0.0.3 of Firefox. With Opera, it just works straight away from one single small exe setup file. You don't even need to bother with extensions, but you could, Opera has extensions, they are called "widgets". No offence, but IMHO someone who can't even make a website is in no position to judge or compare any software I can make a website, but not one where people would vote, with a ratings system and all the other server side stuff this type of website would entail. Anyway, even if I couldn't make a website, why does the lack of that knowledge tie into the knowledge of web browsers and my experiences with them? I know at least one programmer who knows nothing about the internet, he is still a programmer. See above about extensions. I never change the skin on any browser or program I use, it might as well not even have the functionality for all I care. Its web pages I am looking at, not the frame of my web browser.

You bunch of lamers whoever it is voting for Firefox. You know Opera is better... you know it. Need proof? Firefox is better than Opera = 2,840 results. Opera is better than Firefox = 3,450 results. Split into percentages this means 45% say Firefox is better than Opera and 55% say Opera is better than Firefox. Firefox sucks = 18,500 results Opera sucks = 562 results Wow, thats almost 33 times more people say Firefox sucks than say Opera sucks! Don't bother to argue with me, I will only refer you to the above figures. In fact there needs to be a "Suck It" site like Digg where the most inane trash gets to #1. If I knew how to design it I would be developing it myself.

If you're doing unattended, just put the DLL file here: sources\$OEM$\$$\system32\gameux.dll This file also needs to be registered... RegSvr32 /S %WINDIR%\system32\gameux.dll

You know, I really can't tell if its my system or not... I have an nForce3 chipset with an ATI 9550, and a single core CPU. All over the net people with this same setup but a dual core AMD X2 CPU are getting an Error 43... I have looked and apparently NVIDIA do not support nForce3 on Vista! Maybe I should just get a Mobo with a VIA chipset?! I found something out about "Windows SAT" - on your ISO this component only takes up 11Mb! Yes, it takes up 72Mb in the installed OS, but only 11Mb on the ISO. I know it would take a lot of testing but we should try to make a complete list of all these sizes... vLite tells you only whats saved in the installed OS, you have to continually copy a full DVD, strip it, find its over CD size, copy athe full DVD, strip it, find its over CD size, its a very long process! The thing is though with those hotfixes, you gotta look at how they do not appear on Windows Update - if they were really THAT important, then they would appear there and they don't.

On my actaul machine with ATI Radeon 9550 256Mb, I installed the Catalyst driver (says its for Vista) called 7-4_vista32_dd_ccc_enu_44985.exe I think the problem might be the Chipset drivers (not because of removing anything, I mean in general) Windows says it installed the Chipset and yet it didn't because I cannot change the DMA mode and the properties for the "IDE/ATA ATAPI Controller" is very limited. Its nForce3. I don't even think there are any Vista Chipset drivers for NF3 yet... but Nuhi don't worry about this because even on a FULL install of Vista on my real machine, its the same, no glass, no taskbar thumbnails etc. This is funny because the theme IS set on Aero Glass right from the start, in all these cases: 1 - vLite'd in Vmware 2 - vLite'd on my real machine 3 - Full Vista on my real machine Its just not transparent, its the light blue you see in the image in the 1st post. Yeah, this is where I am looking. Sorry man, this problem is not because of vLite... I actually think its because I integrated all these hotfixes: http://www.vistasp1.net/ So much for "Vista SP1" more like "Vista WTF" The really crappy thing is those hotfixes add about 60Mb o the ISO so I was removing a lot more stuff than I could be, OK back to my original plan then of just adding ONLY the hotfixes shown on Windows Update (Theres only about 12, not 90+ like on that Vista SP1 page) OK, I will just strip it, using the same Last Session I was originally that kept quite a few more things (not Windows SAT, I will still remove that) and I will post back... ... theres your warning folks, don't integrate ALL the hotfixes from that page! At least this is all I can narrow it down to as far as the Aero Glass not working goes...

OK now I am worried. I have installed Vista on my real machine, installed chipset drivers and graphics drivers, all compatible with Vista... and still its exactly the same as it is in VMware, no taskbar thumbnails, no Aero Glass. Its just the same light blue windows as in VMware. So I looked for the "force glass" tweak, this: Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00 [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\DWM] "EnableMachineCheck"=dword:00000000 "Glass"=dword:00000001 NOTE: The DWM key was not even there before I imported this tweak! Something is seriously wrong Anyway I applied this tweak and rebooted, still no glass effect, I have an ATI Radeon 9550 256Mb graphics card, 1Gb RAM memory and an Athlon 64 3000+ CPU. When I click themes, it says "Windows Vista" and shows those same light blue windows that should be glass. There is nothing else I can tell you and nothing else I can think of.

Peeps, this is in VMware where you cannot have the translucent effect, I know, but you CAN at least have the theme set on Aero, which it is, also in a full Vista install in VMware, I am 90% sure there are thumbnail previews on the taskbar. Although hey, I am not 100% sure about this. I don't have that much disk space and can't do a full install in VMware. Just trying to perfect my vLite'd ISO before I install it on my real machine, but I guess to really test this, I am going to have to just install it on my real machine anyhow and see what the deal is with that greyed out option. Although why would the Aero Glass effect be tied into the taskbar thumbnail option and ability to do the window scrolling? I can't do the window scrolling either. Its VMware v5.5 as well so its only got 4Mb of video memory, I am surprised Vista even runs on that much vid memory AT ALL, never mind showing any kind of a theme. I just realised that "Switch between windows" icon is the thing to scroll the windows in 3D, hehe, thats not working in VMware either, it seems that in VMware it is completely crippled as far as the theme goes... sorry I seem to be blaming vLite for these things when its got to be VMware. Now where is that Acronis rescue CD.......

Ignore the title folks, its misleading, sorry Nuhi, it isn't vLite that has caused the problem, I just thought it was in the beginning... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- After using vLite, I installed Vista and everything is OK apart from one thing, I hover the mouse over the minimized windows and do not get the preview coming up. So I right clicked the taskbar, chose properties, and indeed, the option is greyed out: What I don't understand is, why should removing "Windows SAT" affect this? Also, when I press Winkey+Ctrl+Tab it does not do the fancy scrolling through the windows! I think this is all related too. Why do I think its the removal of Windows SAT? Because what else could it be? For some reason, because my machine is not rated for performance I think this has affected a few things, yes the Aero Glass is on and OK, yes all the tickboxes under erformance are ticked to use the most luxurious display possible... but its something else entirely I think, it must be because a performance check has never been done? I think what we need is a simple registry tweak to fool Vista into thinking... 1 - The performance check has been done (SAT removed or no SAT removed, who cares, this is the registry we are talking about, I am sure removing SAT won't make any difference if there was some way to make Windows think the check has been performed) 2 - The check was passed! I am using vLite v1.0b and keeping all the compatibility for Aero, ACDsee and the other items, here is my last session... Last_Session.ini

Trying to disable as many services as possible, I kept "Windows Update" enabled, I checked the dependencies for this service and it doesn't have any listed. Wierd, because in Windows XP you need the Background Intelligent Transfer service started. So since Windows Update was not working in Vista (the window does not even open) I enabled the Background Intelligent Transfer service and it still won't work. I also have the network services enabled and have a working connection. I am at a loss really as to what other service(s) Windows Update needs to work! Windows dependencies tab is wrong! Does anyone know what needs enabling to make it work again? EDIT: Its OK I worked it out, it was the Software Licensing service!

I have this section in my Autounattend.xml unattended answer file: <FirstLogonCommands> <SynchronousCommand wcm:action="add"> <CommandLine>REGEDIT /S C:\WINDOWS\system32\tweak.reg</CommandLine> <Description>RegEntries</Description> <Order>1</Order> </SynchronousCommand> </FirstLogonCommands> So this is only any use if you install on a C:\ drive, so I change it to this: <FirstLogonCommands> <SynchronousCommand wcm:action="add"> <CommandLine>REGEDIT /S %WINDIR%\system32\tweak.reg</CommandLine> <Description>RegEntries</Description> <Order>1</Order> </SynchronousCommand> </FirstLogonCommands> And it does not work! These XML methods suck, this was never a problem in XP with WINNT.SIF, you just used %SYSTEMDRIVE% or %WINDIR% and it worked, not in Vista though. I thought things were supposed to get better and easier, not worse and harder?

there is documentation included in the zip package you download. There is a TXT, DOC, and HTML file. OUCH! Now I feel really stupid! I have been using the command line program after pulling it out of the downloaded package and never even thought once to check it.

Does anyone know the command line switches for this program apart from the makers of the program? How something so good can be so undocumented is just plain WRONG!

Thanks for this, but where does Windows look for the drivers if you run this command? Is there any way to append a path to the drivers to this command? Example: RunDll32.exe Syssetup.dll,UpdatePnpDeviceDrivers "%SystemDrive%\driver_temp\"

Thanks tfw2002, tested and working on Server 2003 SP2. Its all in hex, but it shows up in the registry as: mmc.exe %systemroot%\system32\devmgmt.msc So if you install Windows on any drive A to Z it will work.

I am having the same problem. I'm also not interested in any "cracked" hotfix, I just want to use the normal hotfix so its installed and not showing up in Windows Updates. Heres what I did... 1 - Opened the KB905474 file with WinRAR 2 - Dragged out the file inside, its called "WGANOT~1.EXE" 3 - Renamed that file to "KB905474.exe" 4 - Tested an install by doing this: start /wait KB905474.exe /Q /O /Z (I know just /Q can be used, but that reboots the machine without any warning!) 5 - When I put this into my ISO and installed it, Windows Update still says I need the KB905474 update. Maybe it was because I left in the INF+DLL commands in my batch file (because that also was not working) so I will retest just doing it the /Q /O /Z way and post back.

Sorry Nuhi, my mistake! This helps a great deal because now I can get that stupid IE7 hotfix put to the bottom where it belongs, its "IE7-KB928090-WindowsXP-x86-enu.exe" and it does not have a build date on it. Because its an IE7 hotfix I think it has to be slipstreamed AFTER any IE7 addon (which is why I need this hotfix, because I am adding on IE7) the hotfix number "928090" is STILL the highest number even though this hotfix was released in February.

I read somewhere you should arrange the hotfixes in nLite by date, this way it goes through and slipstreams 2004/2005/2006/2007 so there is a smooth slipstream. BUT This doesn't always work out, and if you have addons too, they get mixed in randomly. Although without addons also, the hotfixes are not necessarily in date order, I can only blame Microsoft for this, naturally! So my suggestion is simple: A "Move Up" button and a "Move Down" button so you can sort these odd hotfixes and addons out yourself. The buttons would simply link to whatever hotfix or addon you have highlighted. I ask this because I am including a WMP11 hotfix and it might get slipstreamed in before the WMP11 addon.

Here: http://www.betanews.com/article/Microsoft_...ions/1100756076 Microsoft said: "Microsoft told BetaNews that shipping content in the released version of the tour was developed using licensed software." This is provably LIES. Absolutely 100% a clear cut LIE. Because you can open those WAV files yourself and see the Deepz0ne signature in the end of the file. I think its just funny how Microsoft can actually deny this even after they have been caught. It would be a great tactic if we were all THREE YEARS OLD and couldn't just point out that they are obviously lying. They also say: "Microsoft has copyright to use the .wav file in question and did not use a cracked version of this software in development of the tour in Windows XP." Outright lies again and a classic diversion. What does "Microsoft having the copyright to use the .wav file in question" have to do with the fact that they are using cracked software? I agree, they do have the copyright to the audio files because they created them, but they certainly don't have the right to use illegally cracked software such as Sonic Foundry Sound Forge. Plus, it isn't a ".wav file in question" it is actually NINE .wav files so it is provable nine times over. Microsoft have been caught... 1 - Using cracked software. 2 - Spinning the story. 3 - Lying about it. 4 - Downplaying the facts, claiming "one .wav file" when it is nine .wav files.

Anywhere except PC World, or similar places; with staff there who know nothing about computers and a prey on families buying full systems just so they can get 0.5% commission. If you go in there for a printer cable or something, forget it, the staff WON'T help you.