amenx

There are mixed language sites that have an option to choose your language, usually "English" and others, but where the initial web page loads in a foreign language.

Problem is, it doesnt seem to work. I always check the "Never install language packs", yet it keeps coming back.

How do I prevent XP from installing or prompting me to install languages that I dont understand (as a result of visiting mixed language sites)? Thought I saw this option in Gpedit.msc but looked there and couldnt find it. Not in IE options either. I know I saw it somewhere just cant figure out where. Thanks.

I have 2 images, one after a fresh install with just the basic drivers and the other a semi-fresh install with most of the programs that I normally use, ie, CD Burning, MS Office, Anti-virus, Multi-media apps, etc. A fresh install is just too much of a time wasting hassle.

Never mind, it was an extra shortcut pointing to the app in the start panel/programs menu, thats why the key was 'stuck' to it.

Is there a place in the registry for keyboard shortcuts? I found HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Keyboard Layout but all it has are the layouts for different languages (nothing relevent to shortcuts). Reason I'm asking is I downloaded a calculator which I assigned the num* key to but it seems permanently bound to it now and cant change it. Normally its changeable though desktop shortcuts/properties tab but cant do it. Even when I use the backspace key and make it "None" for the shortcut, its still bound to this calculator. I think its somewhere in the registry but and cant find it. Thanks.

I know you can change or delete many context menu entries, esp if they're from 3rd party software as they reside in the registry, but doubt you can change the ones you mention as they may be hard coded into Windows dll's or explorer.exe. re context menus: http://windowsxp.mvps.org/context.htm

I think you may be right. The drivers I was using for the NIC were the 'latest' update, but they could be the problem. Uninstalled it, but his time let Windows automatically install its own default drivers for the NIC and it worked.

Thanks, yes I'm aware I can disable it by going the long way: Contol Panel/System Properties/Hardware/Device Manager/Network Adapters/D-link NIC. I just prefered doing it the easy way by right-clicking the network icon in the system tray and disabling it there. But apparently theres a malfunction thats preventing it from doing so. I want to fix this malfunction rather than live with it.

This is a problem I had last year which I think I only resolved by restoring a system backup. I am unable to disconnect the network connection by right-clicking it to "disable". It gives me this message: "It is not possible to disable the connection at this time. This connection may be using one or more protocols that do not support plug-and-play or it may have been initiated by another user or the system account" There is no 'other user' besides me, no other accounts. Tried many things including disabling 'plug and play', enabling all network priviliges in GPEDIT.MSC, uninstalling/reinstalling the network adapter, disabling the firewall and other network services, disabling Windows Update, nothing seems to work. I only have the TCP/IP Internet Protocol enabled in the network adapter properties. Tried just about everything including searching MS Knowledge base and googling for over an hour. Can anyone help? Thanks.

Sooner (rather than later) the OP will have to search for an all important document that may be no more than 20kb to drive the point home for him. Unless he's a 13 year old with nothing more important to him on his HD than mp3 or wav music files.

I do something similar in dealing with HD fragmenting: rather than use the disk fragmenter (which in some cases may take a couple hours), I just transfer the contents of the partition to another drive and format that partition, then copy back the contents. Usually a 10-15 minute job rather than 2 hours with disk defragmenter. And not only is it defragged, but the data is consolidated in a solid block, something the regular defrag doesnt do.

I disable auto-updating for every app I have except the Anti-virus.

yes, I've been on the "optimal solution" for over a year now... Still, even if you had just one page file, it would still be better off on a second drive. The OS and program files would ideally be on the first drive while the 2nd is basically for less accessed data or backups (as in my case), so rarely any "intensive tasks" on that drive. re the "optimal solution", I recently bought a newer 2nd drive and absent-mindedly formatted it into larger partitions, so the page file was no longer on its own. What I did to get around that was reformatted just the partition it was on and placed a 2gb fixed page file at the beginning of it, so that any other files/data added to that partition afterwards will not defragment the page file. This basically achieving the same effect as if it was on its own partition.

Heres a freeware app that can do that too: http://winmerge.org

Re Paging file, from the horses mouth: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314482/ To enhance performance, it is good practice to put the paging file on a different partition and on a different physical hard disk drive. That way, Windows can handle multiple I/O requests more quickly. When the paging file is on the boot partition, Windows must perform disk reading and writing requests on both the system folder and the paging file. When the paging file is moved to a different partition, there is less competition between reading and writing requests... ... The optimal solution is to create one paging file that is stored on the boot partition, and then create one paging file on another partition that is less frequently accessed on a different physical hard disk if a different physical hard disk is available. Additionally, it is optimal to create the second paging file so that it exists on its own partition, with no data or operating-system-specific files. By design, Windows uses the paging file on the less frequently accessed partition over the paging file on the more heavily accessed boot partition. An internal algorithm is used to determine which paging file to use for virtual memory management. When you put a paging file on its own partition, the paging file does not become fragmented, and this counts as another definite advantage. If a paging file resides on a partition that contains other data, it may experience fragmentation as it expands to satisfy the extra virtual memory that is required. An unfragmented paging file leads to faster virtual memory access and to a greater chance of a dump-file capture that is free of significant errors...

Actually this is one of the more sensible to do where you move or have your page file on a different drive. It delegates I/O requests to 2 drives rather than have one drive reading/writing the OS/programs demands while doing the same with the paging file. Its described as the "optimal solution" by Microsoft themselves: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314482/

Are there any real or useful tweaks that can help XP performance for todays hardware? I ask this in that XP was released just over 4 years ago and that it may have been optimized for hardware back then, like 1ghz CPUs and 128 or 256mb RAM. Things like "Disable Paging Executive", a reg tweak that allocates more system or program memory to the physcial RAM than to virtual memory. It sounds plausible especially with typical rigs today with 1gb RAM or more. But is it really useful or just unsubstantiated theory? Heres a link to several tweak myths debunked by references from Miscrosoft themselves. Sad that many tweak apps use these to sell their products (although some may use them in freeware): http://mywebpages.comcast.net/SupportCD/XPMyths.html Comments appreciated.

Thanks, found the problem. FAT32, converted to NTFS, now OK. It would have been more thoughtful for Microsoft to say this in the error message rather than just saying "not enough free disk space".

I have XP Pro SP2 and am trying to copy a large 4gb file from a DVD onto my HD, but I get an error saying theres is "not enough disk space". I have 18gb of free space on a 30gb partition on an 80gb WD drive. I have an Intel Perl 865pe mobo with the latest bios update which correctly reads 80gb in the bios for the HD. Nothing in MSKB about false disk space errors. Any ideas? Thanks. Please NOW in Microsoft Windows XP section, use [TAGS] in your topic's title. See rules. --Sonic

When I click a tweak app (XP Smoker), the installer for MS Office FrontPage starts. I tried to let it go thru its motions and selected 'repair' yet it still comes back whenever I click this program. On other occasions, when I right click my D drive, I got the installer for Roxio Easy CD Creator v6. Again, I let it start and chose the 'repair' option and it seemed to not occur again. But the Office FP problem is more persistent. I tried checking MSKB and found a few instances of this problem but none of the solutions applied to my particular circumstances. Any ideas, help appreciated.

I wanted to install one small app, about 1mb. It said .NET Framework 2.0 was needed. DL'd .NET 2 (around 25mb) and installed it. It unpacked some 200mb + into my XP installation and I think over a meg of registry entries. I always try to keep my XP 'lean and mean' and shy away from any bloatware programs, so naturally, was uncomfortable with the addition of .NET to my system. Anyone know if it has any impact on performance in any way, even miniscule? It probably doesnt, still dont like the idea of hundreds of extra MB's on my system just for the sake of one or two small programs that need it.

Thanks! Much appreciated.

I use RegSeeker, freeware. Digs up tons of bad/suspect entries and marks them green (safe to delete) or red (needs investigation). http://www.hoverdesk.net/freeware.htm Interestingly, this cleaner impressed the author of a shareware reg cleaner (RegSupreme) in a comparison test of other reg cleaners he did a few years ago.

When I upgraded to SP2 a few weeks ago, my "physical avialable memory" in the task manager (not the total) read about 828mb right after start up. This seemed to go down bit by bit, day after day (with no new processes loading up). Now it reads 816mb right after start up. Where did these missing 12mb go? Again, no new software loading at start-up and no new processes in the task manager. BTW, this never happened when I was on SP1. Any ideas? Thanks. (P.S. total physical RAM installed 512mb x 2) Title Edited - Please follow new posting rules from now on. --Zxian