LLXX

You have restored the fonts, but you have not told Windows to use them. In Display property page, finds the Appearance option to set the fonts,size,color there.

Let me repeat... they are your files, so you do anything you want with them.

I have IE 6.0 and Win98se, and was perfectly safe during the times of the WMF-exploit, remembering even having visited one of the malicious sites with a sacrificial machine, downloading the malicious WMF itself and trying to open it, all the while wondering why this supposedly "critical" exploit wasn't doing anything at all to the system.

Sure... PM me a link to it and I'll take a look.

They're your files, you do anything you want with them... I'd just burn several CDs and keep them in different places if I wanted to be really safe. I don't rely on some server far away to keep my data.

The speed of your connection depends on the amount of bandwidth that the server on the other end has decided to give you. If the server is congested with other users, it cannot provide you full bandwidth. Try downloading from very fast servers such as Microsoft's. They can give over 10 megabytes/s for one individual connection.

Pay $14.99 for a file-copier? A batch file would've done almost the same thing...

Umm. No.First off, memory is NOT manufactured at the same places. There are MANY memory manufacturing plants and companies. In fact, there's even one here in Sherbrooke, QC, Canada that makes high-end server memory. Samsung makes it's own memory and makes memory for other brands. GB Micro make memory and there are others as well. Generic memory is NOT performance memory. Generic memory is BUDGET memory that MAY work for a while. Comparing OCZ performance memory to Generic memory is RIDICULOUS! @others: My preferences are Kingston for stability and reliability. OCZ for performance. The quality you get with generic memory seems to vary quite a bit. Some have reported on the quality being awful, while others (including me) use it with no problem and it even overclocks rather well.

AMDs don't have a built-in thermal limiter, unlike Intel CPUs. It'll just keep heating up if the heatsink fails, easily reaching over 400°F and permanently damaging itself and the motherboard as well as causing a probable fire hazard. I've seen an aluminum heatsink, on which the fan failed, that had a depression melted into the bottom of it by an overheated Athlon. In contrast... That's normal. In many cases the stock cooler is more than sufficient.I know AMD cost less, and have a higher performance for same price than Intel, but still trust the Intels more. I have a 3.6GHz P4 HT that used to have the stock cooler and was overclocked to 3.9GHz, but it's now running at 4.17GHz with a rather large custom heatsink. I've never observed temperatures over 60°C, and it normally idles at ~25-30°C. @fif4evr: 65-70°C is at the lower limit of the thermal limiter which indicates the heatsink isn't performing as it should, consider removing, cleaning, and reinstalling the heatsink with a thermal compound such as Arctic Silver. The stock cooler, properly installed, should be more than sufficient unless you're planning to overclock.

i dont understand. the reason to get high performance ram is for overclocking it like crazy. bh-5 likes 3.2v and that stuff gets HOT. ram cooling is extremely important if you pump up the volts on it. i dont need it since im on stock voltage yet still overclocked to 260mhz for my ram. people even watercool their ram. He did not specify whether or not he was overclocking or overvolting his RAM. Even "high performance" RAM running at stock voltage and speed will not heat up very much. If you overclock or overvolt generic standard RAM it will also output more heat as well.

Using drive overlay software might work, but it is much more risky than a hardware solution or an updated driver. See the threads mentioned above for more details.

Then explain why the ASPI layer would have anything to do with it!

You meant those kinds of tables... You can try Adobe's OCR'r : http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=1907

Are you using 32-bit disk access or has Windows reverted to realmode (DOS 16-bit)disk access? Check this in the System Properties -> Performance page. If it lists any drives as "MS-DOS compatibility mode", that means it's using realmode BIOS for disk access which slows down significantly.

Unpack the installer and see for yourself... Or monitor its installation with FileMon and RegMon.

Switch to Intel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy I'm not interested in appearance. If you can improve the performance, then go ahead...

Have you Scandisk'd the drive? The analyses posted so far indicate a problem with the disk subsystem hardware.

It seems the optical assembly of the drive has gone out of calibration... Just get a new burner, they're cheap.

I've seen probably the real version of this file, after install the Adobe Acrobat (full version), but it doesn't seems to affect anything besides freeing up memory and disk space if I delete it. My recommendation is to not even have normally considered "harmless" items in the startup, as you seen, when something goes wrong it's difficult to figure out which item it is.

Dragon Natural Speaking is supposed to be the best... though I tried it before and it still requires slower and more pronounced speech than normal. For most purposes my perspective is you should learn to type faster.

What do you mean, are you trying to OCR an image of a paper sitting on a table? OCR is not 100% perfect, always needs some amendment afterwards.

The best way to test is to just fill the drive up with files (obviously not doing this to your boot drive, but connect the large drive as secondary) until its completely full, then using DOS-mode scandisk to see if anything got corrupted. DOS-mode scandisk is rumored to support disks up to 512Gb.

@gdogg: Would that be your applications supporting dual-core and not the OS itself? Can XP home run system services on both cores at once, or do you have to specifically set it to use it via affinity setting in taskmgr?

These are single-bit errors and each one except for the first is at the 10th bit, so it might be a connection problem. Remove and reinsert the RAM modules and test again. If the error repeatedly occurs in the same place, there is a problem with the RAM itself. Try underclocking the RAM - e.g. instead of running DDR400 at 200MHz, use 166MHz instead. Slowing down might solve the problem, at the expense of slightly decreased performance. Otherwise you'll need to replace the RAM.