Spooky

Thers always been a problem with tweaks for any of the MS OS line, the fact that a single update could render tweaks ineffective. Vista is no different except that this time everything has changed so there is no basis yet upon which to base overall which tweaks work and which don't other than a persons interaction with the system. I don't believe the freeware tweaking tools you mentioned fully work with Vista at this time. I've no doubt that there will be some tweaking tools available in the near future. In the mean time there are tons of tweaks available for Vista built into the OS already in the hidden receses of the OS in obscure little places in the various GUI's, and also available such as those in the 'Vista Tips and Tweaks' sections. I've even posted some that work and will continue to work, but I have about 75 more I haven't posted yet that are waiting for the RTM because their effectiveness has changed from build to build so i'm waiting to see if they continue to work in the RTM.

Wait a second...what particular folders are you trying to access? Theres no such thing as a global protection in Vista. BTW, takeown will let you grab ownership of any folder.

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2006/10/26/Mi...on_to_bit-tech/ "Microsoft today talked to bit-tech in a bid to reassure the enthusiast community about the licensing terms of Windows Vista. We previously read that Vista could prove to be a nightmare for enthusiasts who upgrade often, with only one transfer to a new machine allowed and with the license tied to a particular system configuration in a way that was far more limiting than Windows XP. A Microsoft spokesman from the Licensing Dept told bit-tech that this would not be the case. He told us that Windows Vista will not require a system re-activation unless the hard drive and one other component is changed. This means that enthusiasts will be able to swap CPUs, memory and graphics cards out without any worry about having to re-activate with MS, either on the internet or by phone. Should you change the hard drive and another piece of hardware - for example for a major upgrade such as a motherboard change that requires a re-installation - Microsoft will allow you to re-activate up to 10 times. You will not, however, be able to have more than one machine activated concurrently. Should you wish to activate more than 10 times, you could be busted, or Microsoft could choose to let you activate again at its discretion. For hardcore system enthusiasts, keeping a ghosted, activated copy of Vista with no drivers could be a good way of being able to swap around components and machines with the minimum amount of hassle." Ahhhh...so thats the trick then? Make an install of Vista - activate it - remove all drivers - then ghost it, that way when the ghosted image is restored without the drivers and everything is re-detected it won't need to be activated again? Hmmmmmm.....

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en;276304

The ocz rally 2 is supported, what makes you think it isn't? I'm using one myself and it works fine.

Some times in Vista you need to change the permissions of a folder but it just will not let you change any permissions. This is more than likely because the system owns the folder. Yes thats right, even logged in as the admin you may not have complete rights over certain things because the system owns them. There is a way around this that allows you to take ownership, after you take ownership you will then be able to change permissions. You can take ownership of a folder with "takeown" command line tool. Use takeown /? in an admin CMD prompt to see full help. You will then be able to change the permissions.

More than likely its the system that owns the items your trying to change so you will need to take ownership. You can take ownership of a folder with "takeown" command line tool. Use takeown /? in an admin CMD prompt to see full help. You will then be able to change the permissions.

Heres some devices that are supposed to work with readyboost: Apacer Handy Steno HT203 2GB $65 Corsair Flash Readout 2GB $85 (Corsair Flash Voyager 512 does not work) Crucial Gizmo Overdrive 2GB $75 OCZ Rally2 2GB $55 Patriot Xporter 2GB $38 Patriot Xporter XT 4GB $85 Sandisk Cruzer Titanium 2GB $85 Sony MicroVault Tiny 1GB $45 Verbatim Store n Go Pro 1GB $49 here are some that people have used and say work: Steno HN212 (512MB) from Apacer works 1GB Cruzer Mini (the 2GB Cruzer does not work) Kingston 512 PNY Attache 256 Heres an example of specs on one that does not work: LG 1.0 Gigabyte Flash drive Access Time = 1.0 mS Average Throughput = 9.0 Megabytes per Sec *Vista doesn't consider it fast enough for ReadyBoost and...the Kingston Data Traveler has been used and some say it worked in some builds and some say it doesn't work for them currently, you must have gotten one that doesn't work. Anyway, here is a decent article for readyboost and devices that work http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2017817,00.asp and heres a Q&A for ready boost: http://blogs.msdn.com/tomarcher/archive/20.../02/615199.aspx and heres some minimum specs for a readyboost device: The minimum requirements for a USB memory device to be ReadyBoost capable is 2.5MB/sec for 4K random access reads and 1.5MB/sec for 512K random writes I've got a more complete list somewhere but can't find it right now, but I don't remember the Kingston Data Traveler being on it.

There are other ways without ActiveX, but ActiveX is probably the most common method.

Thats what I thought, but the way people are talking about it makes it seem like its something hidden and secret thus it sounds like another type of admin account with powers beyong those of mere mortals. But in reality there is no such 'Super Admin' account. Was beginning to think I missed something during the beta the super admin account he speaks of is the normal admin account, that is all, like you said it is disabled by default but if your in an existing install you and go into user management and enable and password that admin accout and then be able to use it.

OK, I didn't catch that he was 64bit, maybe i'd better clean my glasses Yeah, i'm with you fizban2, I tend to think its a bad burn also.

Any account you create will show on the Welcome screen as if that person needed to log on, but what you want to do (judging from the article link you posted) is allow access to resources on the machine via a network without the user actually logging in, and in this case you don't need to create an account on the machine with the resources. So, from memory here: I believe your able to set this up with the file sharing and remote access then restricting the shared resources to particular other machines, or to a prticular user name, on the network. Basically, share a folder then in the right click menu for it set up the security then add that person as able to access the machine in remote access. This way they access the resources like any other resource on the network, and I believe they will not see the welcome screen. And...if i'm not mistaken the information for doing all this is in the help in Vista. Of course if you intended something else other that whats in the link you posted then i'm sorry if I mis-understood.

Your doing an upgrade - right? I'm not sure what the 'Vista Transformation Pack' is actually doing in relation to your problem as I don't use those things, but i'm familiar with the 'Vista Transformation Pack' and can see the possibility where there may be some adverse interaction in an upgrade sceinario. Try removing it. The telling clue here may be where you said "I come home and wait like 4 hours for it to install, but it finally does". Its possible that you got a bad burn for the CD. Try re-burning it at 2x then try the upgrade. Sometimes, and its been pointed out by MS during the Vista beta, burning the .iso at a high speed can produce a CD that takes a long time to install. It seems to depend on the type of burner and the quality of the media used also sometimes, certain burners seem to work great for everything but burining the Vista .iso at high speed. A bad burn can also cause the other issues you mentioned. Also, i've heard that some doing upgrades over XP - it took a long time to install because the hard drive it was installing to was almost full, but I personally haven't experienced that myself so I can't vouch for its validity. You said your using RC1, do you have an older processor, older then 2004 time frame? RC1 seemed to have a problem with some processors made in that time frame and certain chipsets, especially AMD, but this is a very remote possibility. Overall, to begin with, I think it might be a good idea to rule out bad media and a bad burn by re-burning while ensuring the media is of good quality. As with any MS OS, the best and favored method is a clean install, give a clean install a whirl.

Well, Vista does play with memory some, but I don't think this is a memory issue. All of my machines have 4GB of ram and while I don't notice the issue on the machines with the ATI vid cards, I do see it on the one machine with the Nvidia card. All are running Vista RC2, except for the one that I refomatted and put the Vista server on.

I noticed that on one of my machines but couldn't get it to duplicate on the others I tried, I was using FEAR too. All my machines which all have the same MB and ATI vid cards (800Pro's), except the one machine that exhibited the symptoms you describe which has an Nvidia card (GeForce 7900). Vid driver issue maybe???

I started to ask if there was a winXP driver for it, but then I realized for 64bit there might not be a winXP driver for it. So the win2K driver works OK with it?

The "latest/greatest" you thought you d/l was not the "latest/greatest". See if you can get RC2 which is the "latest/greatest" Could be a bad burn like Fizban2 suggested. Also, just a silly question - you did install the correct version didn't you - i mean a 64bit version for 64bit and a 32bit version for 32 bit? I ask because i've heard of people installing the wrong version (putting a 32bit version on a 64bit machine - strangely some systems will install) and it ran like snail-snot on a winter day, basically like you described.

LoL

yes, I agree with you. I have, however, accomplished several full drive images from within the Vista environment with it of the very drive Vista was running on and each and every one was perfect when restored, its one of the feature points for this version of Acronis. But yes, I do agree with you. Not a good idea. Windows periodically reads/writes to the drive even when idle, so that could create a conflict. The best image is still created from a disk that is otherwise not in use, e.g. from DOS or live CD boot.

Was a bug for some people in RC1. Install RC2 build 5744 for fix.

Can someone please explain the 'Super Admin' account in relation to RC 2 build 5744? I'm wondering because the 'Super Admin' (hidden admin account) was supposedly removed from Vista when they made the first account created upon install an admin account. If it still exists then how do you enable it with an existing install? I see that the admin account is normally disabled by default, nothing new here, I just re-enable it using the 'user' admin account created upon install. So whats different? As far as an un-attend install, the ability to enable the admin account has always been there, maybe not documented all the way, but its been there anyway - i've been doing it for un-attend installs the last 5 builds.

Acronis True Image 10 (just released) will do it. Even will create complete images of the drive without having to leave the windows environment.

Looks like the Vista license is beginning to catch the attention of some legal people: http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/200...s_the_user.html yep, its only a matter of time before this is challenged in court. With MS vs millions of users I think the courts will turn the tables on MS.

I read these links earlier, I think the writer has it wrong. MS has already said that activation will be required for any version of Vista be it OEM-Corporate- Retail, with the difference being in the types of options available for activation schemes. The article also talks about a "game performance tweaker (code-named WinSAT)" - WinSAT was taken out of Vista. If the article is speaking about OEM versions only then its possible that activation will not be needed by the end user of the system because OEM's will have the option to pre-activate the OEM version before the system is sold, thus since its already activated the end user will not need to activate Vista on those systems. But as far as activation, there will be an activation requirement, some may not see it because they have an OEM build on their new computer (but if they ever re-install they will need to activate), are a corporate users and their IT department has already taken care of it with one of the methods available to them. Retail (asn in the person who goes out and buys Vista and who is not an OEM or Corporate customer) will always need to activate Vista. This article says different. http://www.vistatechnician.com/windows-vista-business-edition/ And here as well for the Ultimate edition: http://www.vistatechnician.com/windows-vista-ultimate-edition/ The article is deceptive. It does mention that those items will be disable, however what it doesn't tell you is a few important things: 1. Those items specifically mentioned will cause other things not to work, for example - with Defender disabled (and I don't mean the way you can turn it off) - you might not be able to install any software - and it might also un-install any software you did manage to get installed. BTW...Defender is always 'enabled' in some way regardless if you turn it off or not, its got parts in all areas of the OS. 2. With IE disabled you might not be able to see the contents of your hard drives. 3. The article also doesn't mention that as the 30 day activation clock counts down you will begin to see less of the OS available to you and time limits that the OS will stay running will begin to decrease eventually reaching only 1 hour that you are allowed to use the OS. If that's all that gets disabled when you don't activate, then I really don't see a problem. I don't use IE or WMP, or any MS internet security software or firewalls, and don't care about their fancy resource hog of a user interface Aero.

There are ways (all legitimate with a little hidden feature already in every version of Vista aimed at OEM mostly) to activate Vista without any bad effects and no degraded operation for the OS and without resorting to cracks or hacks. I think as a result of the draconian license for Vista you will see these ways exploited tremendously.