Suxen

*sigh*. All the official fixes have finally arrived to fix svchost.exe using up 100% of the CPU and such, related to Windows Update. One of many topics created about it is over here http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=80372 with the Knowledge Base article at Microsoft posted here (927891). I've done all this, installed the updates, etc. It no longer caused my PC to freeze up as it did before so of course I should be exceptionally happy about it as would anyone else who's suffered this bug, for what now feels like endless months, will be. But that doesn't seem to be the end of the problems for me. Not even close. One of the pieces of advice given around the time was that a lot of files in %Windir%\Installer can cause large slowdowns and heavy resource usage. This was certainly the case for me back when I was trying to find fixes. Removing all the files in that folder made it faster to run Windows Update, but of course it also strips away the ability to change/remove applications. So where is this connected to msiexec.exe? Well, this is just a guess - but some of the more complicated installations out there using msiexec.exe appear to take an awfully long time to run/install/remove and I'm sure it's connected to the same base problem. While it's true I'm using this for software which is more complicated to install (such as Adobe Contribute CS3), I don't believe it is anywhere near complicated enough to warrent the amount of time these installers can take to run. Like svshost.exe did, the majority of time appears to be spent with msiexec.exe taking up a lot of CPU resources while the actual activity, HD, etc, seems pretty minimal. Like the svshost.exe/wau problem, it would get there in the end, after a long long frustrating wait. When my OS has been freshly installed, all this stuff skips along and installs/removes in no time. An entire suite of applications such as Creative Suite CS2 would absolutely not take well over an hour and a half to install or remove as it does now. I keep my drives nicely defragged, defrag the registry, disabled many services I don't need, I try not to junk up my system with applications I do not use, I've even got two HDs with the second being used for the swap file (and permanent storage of things I rarely access, but again, there's no framentation, and swap file is contineous file), and the first drive partitioned in two -one for the OS, the other for program files and things. Not likely to present much performance improvement, but it keeps stuff tidy. So what's the word? How can I go back to perfect harmony with my computer before all this less than joyful mess started kicking in? Go back to Win2k, Win9x? Just grit my teeth, bury my frustrations, and live with it...? I can't remove all the files in %Windir%\Installer - it makes changing/repairing applications difficult (and seems to bust Microsoft Update knowing the Office patches I need, etc) when they need it which while rare, does occur from time to time - an exmple, recently Adobe Audition failed to start and the only way to fix it was seemingly to remove everything Adobe and start over. Reinstalling Audition alone didn't help, I literally had to uninstall every Adobe thing ever installed including the hidden installation entries it creates (seems that it was a conflict between two different versions of shared components or similar). Is there just no fix out there for the amount of time msiexec.exe installers can take when your system has a number of them in the %Windir%\Installer directory? It's eventually happened across multiple OS installations. When it starts getting this way, I usually format, start over, etc. But really, I just want a system I can use, without this hassle. It wastes a lot of time when I'd rather be designing/coding for people, etc. Hoping to hear 42, - Suxen Oh, and some stats: Athlon XP 2200 512MB Ram WinXP SP2 I know I'm not top of the range anymore, but the amount of power needed to run software installations hasn't grown that substantially and as I said already, when my OS has been reinstalled it starts off doing it fairly quick in comparison to where it lands at. Starting the uninstaller and "Requiring required information" can take awhile, etc. Even after it was done uninstalling, clicking the Finish button left me with another 100% CPU spike to wait through while the Add/Remove list was updated... super slowly.

First time I've had this problem, seems very bizzare. I have WinXP Pro SP2, and created an ISO slipstreamed with the latest patches using nLite. Works fine, as usual, and that's my general process when reinstalling Windows then I go on to install Microsoft Office. Unfortunately though, something seems very wrong this time. After installing Office 2003 Pro, and restarting my computer, it shows the Windows bootloader screen, fades to black, and never continuing further to reach the Welcome screen. Anyone have any ideas what might be causing this issue?

Most uncatchy title in the world. I got myself a Wireless keyboard and mouse. At last, I have finally entered the year 2003 B) Due to the arrangement of my desk and such (no, I can't move it, please don't suggest it) I can't really read my screen from bed or other locations in the room, and being a lazy sort, sometimes I like to IM while lying in bed or just check what's happened on my PC if I hear a message come in. Most of my work is done through the PC, so it's important in a way to find out what's going on. So.... I'm looking for virtual desktop software, so I can have one virtual desktop at a really big resolution - ie: 640x480, or a way to zoom in on a single screen only. Windows magnifier and similar is no good. A large part of the screen space is taken up with the magnifier window, it really doesn't make best use of available space. Now, one thing you find is though some software allows you to set a resolution per virtual desktop, they'll mess up the size of all your existing windows on the desktops, making them all very cramped so you have to manually stretch everything back... don't like that Virtual Desktop software I've tried: Chimera - Messes up window sizes on other virtual desktops ManageDesk - Messes up window sizes on other virtual desktops CoolDesk - Can't set resolution small enough DesktopPlus - Can't set resolution small enough Enable Virtual Desktop - Really don't remember, didn't like it AltDesk - couldn't set resolution? Multi User Desk 2004 - Not bad... still not really perfect ExeDesk - Doesn't mess with Window sizes, but something about this software I reeaaally didn't like. Okay, maybe I'm picky. Any suggestions (asides from being less picky!).

Using WinXP Pro (obviously, to the super techs), I'm trying to work out what permissions I should use to create a similar effect that admin shares have. Okay, that sounds weird so I'll try and break it down into something understandable; when I try to access an admin share, ie: c$, windows prompts me for a login username and password. However, folders I've created that are very limited in permissions don't prompt me for any login. I know I can give alternative credentials if I map a drive, but surely there's an easier way? I'd rather not have to map half a dozen folders. Too many drive letters kicking about that way

Tried it, the only issues I have with that are it's not incremental (though when I think about it, I believe you can make it so - however, the following point is still an issue, keep reading ). While all my apps + data files are on the E drive (pretty handy, I guess you could say), if I uninstall an application then revert to a previous image that was taken while the application was still installed, you have an interesting situation. Windows will be looking for things that don't exist, registry entries that are no longer valid, etc. Solution is to reinstall the application, then uninstall it again so it removes the redundent crap from the registry. The second thing is if I have a lot of apps recently installed, think it's a mistake, and want to go back to an earlier state when they weren't installed, I have to work out what I can safely remove from the program files directory, and the documents and settings/user/application data that may have been added and isn't valid anymore. Not a huge deal, I agree, but either way it's slightly bypassing the timesaving benefits and isn't 100% complete solution. It would save some time at least, though. If I get around this by installing all programs on C, I'll end up with a pretty big image file just so I can easily restore my OS. I see the benefits, and a reply is appreciated. It's good software, and I use it for any imaging I have to do these days compared to Ghost or DriveImage. But imaging daily is soon going to eat up my space, and I don't have unlimited funds for my hobby Some kind of software to track system changes, file changes, etc, can safe lots of space in comparison. Edit: And used to use Ghost. But the thing with images is I want to get way from having to copy a 3GB OS (maybe 1.5GB compressed) everyday. If I store 7 days, I've already hit 10.5. While it saves time, sometimes 14 days later I really just want to clear out a bunch of junk I've been working with recently for example. I can see the benefits at the same time, maybe I should just go for imaging of the OS. Maybe some day 2BrightSparks will make really awesome system-restore/tracking software too, and my life will be complete Second Edit: Also, I do use VMs to try and minimalize system damage with bad applications, etc, but accidents still manage to happen..

My vote is for PerfectDisk, though I seriously hope it has some kind of Set it and Forget It feature in future versions. I'm lazy.. O&O can do lots of fancy defrag methods, but they're not all good for performance. Diskeeper worked okay for me, but I found performance wasn't improved as much as when using PD.

My vote goes out to Opera. Stability seems relatively okay, ram usage is compariable to FF sometimes, though on the whole I find it slightly better. I'd love to see them trim down ram usage even further, though. I have issues with FF sometimes hanging even though it's supposed to have closed, so I have to manually end the process via the task manager. Also the occasional 100% CPU usage. In my own opinion, I just think it's slightly overhyped. It has potential.

I'm a tad late on replying to this one. Lavasoft Firewall is built on Outpost firewall from what I can see, has more or less the same features (though slightly less, if I remember). I suppose you could claim it's lighter than Outpost because it doesn't have all the ad-blocking extras, etc. Best firewall? I'm not really sure there is one. I've tried: Sygate - I had bad experiences with it; I remember that my internet connection would work for a while, then stop. Remove Sygate, internet problem stops. Norton - too heavy on system resources. Somewhat unfortunate as even after all this time, I actually like it best interface wise, and how it works on the whole (program configuration, ports, etc) - shock horror! ZoneAlarm Free - I've noticed it using 15% CPU when I'm downloading a lot of stuff, especially off usenet. Way too much in my opinion. ZoneAlarm Pro - Yuck. What I detest most these days is firewalls trying to be more than just a firewall. I want something to monitor incoming and outgoing connections. Anything else should be addon software, an extra installation (done say, via a checkbox), or plugins that can be 100% removed. I considered buying it when I used ICS and didn't ZA-Free didn't have support for it, but the last thing I want is a bloated-up firewall for one extra feature, when I'm really just after a way to monitor inbound/outbound connections. Outpost - Good, but compontent monitoring gets on my nerves. I can't put my finger on it, but I just wish Outpost worked a little differently. Kerio - I really disliked the interface. Didn't think it's ram/cpu usage was all that low. Maybe I just had a bad experience, but I'll always check the ram/cpu usage of firewalls in different circumstances to see how it holds up. I want something light that doesn't kill my system. Just my two cents. I'm still hoping I might find a firewall I like some day. I'd really like a way to monitor outbound connections, because I'm slightly paranoid, though I have a router. Who knows if I'll somehow get a trojan on my computer? I always believe it's best to keep your bases covered when computer security is concerned.

Hey all, I have a fantasticly amazingly habit - either through pure bad luck, or general lack of talent (I digress, but I would say my computer skills are very capable these days so I'm opting for 'bad luck') - of accidently ruining my OS installations. Quick bunch of details: I use nLite to create an OS installation disc (of XP) and integrate the latest patches, etc, then go thorugh the installation. All apps/personal files are on E, everything else is on C, so reinstalling is quick. But to get to the point, it's still a pain having to go through reinstalling so much. Third time this year already, having a bad year. I've looked at Winternals Recovery manager - it's good, but too complicated for my needs. I couldn't ever get it to work on my base workstation, because from what I can tell it's not designed for single workstation installation, more network/multiple system based where one computer is for storing backups, and the rest can be scheduled to take backups and store the data via the network. System Restore is okay, but here's an example of where I find it failing Day 1 - Created recovery point, installed applications Day 6 - Uninstalled an application Day 7 - Screwed up system, decided to revert to day 1 Well, it partially worked, but it left me with a few missing files and inability to unstall the application I did on Day 6 because those files were removed on day 7 and not all of them were brought back on the day 1 image. Also, some other files can be left lying around. Lastly, tried Norton GoBack. Interesting program, but I see a lack of options which is somewhat painful. I want to exclude certain directories from being backed up, but I can't. Irritating. Are there any other products, more advanced than GoBack but not the level of Winternals, that do a similar job to System Restore only more efficiently? If not... what would you suggest? I know I could create system images every day and such, but as all my personal files are on E as well, that creates another whole problem. Why create an image of 100GB of data when all I need a backup of is the windows folder, a few files in program files that have changed, and a few files in application data. I don't want to have to lose latest emails in outlook, for example, because I've have to restore my OS to a state 7 days ago. That's what I like about system restore, if I can credit it for anything. I don't lose my updated files, but I can restore the system (okay, I actually have lost a few files when using system restore, which is why I'd further like the ability to exclude a directory from changes being recorded). I'd love to hear suggestions. I'd really like to up my level of productivity rather than waisting all my time just fixing my computer. EDIT: Just wanted to add, I use SyncBackSE for keeping backups of personal data. It's great, it'd the kind of backup software I've searched for for years. I absolutely love it. But it doesn't solve my issues of wanting an easy way to rollback my system into a working state.