prathapml

This thread answers your questions: verify

Because I hex edited that myself and tested it. I've even posted that I used this method to patch the tcpip.sys file. If you don't trust me, do it yourself using that method but don't just accuse people of things you don't know about Sorry if I came across as too suspicious. I was just asking questions that anyone would like to know before using something on their production systems. In any case, what you have carried out seems to be done perfectly fine. Thanks for pointing me to the site which contains instructions to do the same manually myself.

The best, in my opinion is Symantec AntiVirus 9.0 Corporate Edition. I would have recommended NAV2k4, but that doesn't run on WS2k3!

Maybe, maybe not - but since the template for that setting in ref.chm contains the quotes, I do too.A little unquestioning maybe, but I am seeing it function fine that way, and I don't have the time to experiment with such a trivial thing - but otherwise I'm a "have-questions-to-the-core" sort of geek who needs to understand what exactly something does before using it.

will the concurrent sessions work even if you use a termsrv.dll from RC1/RC2 builds, or does it work *ONLY* with the file from build 2055?

How can you be certain that the above is a "clean" file - I mean, that it is not maliciously embedded with anything by the person who made it? As for termsrv.dll, will the concurrent sessions work even if you use an RC1/RC2 build-based file, or does it work *ONLY* with build 2055?

The sequence you mention may or may not work. A far better option would be to go here, download the full pack and do the rest of your standard process: latest nero That would save time and space on your CD as well!

oobeinfo.ini usageTry the below, I have altogether disabled displaying the first-time boot screens (OOBE) with these in winnt.sif: [Data] UnattendedInstall="Yes" AutomaticUpdates=1 [Unattended] UnattendMode=FullUnattended UnattendSwitch=Yes I have shown here only the relevant values, you'll have to use the other values you normally do.

Yup! That screenshot seems to be in order. But since it is not signed, nor is it with the same md5sum, it looks like someone meddled with it, before putting it on a server for you to download. For all you know, your SP2 might be virus-ridden, or have a secret DDoS attacker embedded, or hacked files to enable that chinese site to have a backdoor into your PC.

The updated ref.chm in XP SP2's deploy.cab references this: Is it valid for XP, or is it only meant for WS2k3?I know after trying to get it to work, that the below works: [IEHardening] LocalIntranetSites= TrustedSites= But what is the status of IE Hardening, does it work? And if so, is it in the same way as it does on Svr2k3's IE6?

That's impossible! No way, buddy. Such a result is prevented from happening, and won't happen no matter what you try. Your options, as I said, were to either stick with 62.76 (which is extremely good itself, and is very new - so it will install itself with SP2), or wait for the next release which has dX9c, *AND* WHQL signed.

Yes, as any number of people will tell you, don't get such important system updates from un-official sources. If you do get it, confirm that it is a reliable site. What you describe above is a fake - Aaron has a useful thread here to confirm if what you got is a genuine SP2 - SP2 details.

You can junk pretty much all OS-related updates. Mike's link to a thread above has the discussion regarding this. More of related details can be found here: XP SP2 updates integration , what components are updated ?

More of related details can be found here: XP SP2 updates integration , what components are updated ?

Sorry, no offence meant. Just some fun (I'm not english either). I hope you didn't feel bad. BTW, if you want to have the thread's title changed to the right word, you might want to PM an admin or report the thread to an Admin.

More details related to your question can be found here: XP SP2 updates integration , what components are updated ?

I believe the title of this topic is "Security tab lost?". I had to control my funny-bone for some time after seeing "which bottom was lost?" Maybe it was meant to be "Security Button" but ended up being "Bottom".

Or you can use VMware - get a 30 day trial from here: http://www.vmware.com/landing/ws4_home.html

See here: http://gosh.msfnhosting.com/

true....Especially, when it is such an important update, and the main reason they are getting it early is to have it early on corporate networks, to improve security/reliability - and all they are getting is a possibly virus-ridden download. BTW, mentioning the CRC32 checksum result (CRC: 0x046F12B1) as well, in the sticky would be enormously helpful, because that is really the only factor which is common when you want to compare the copy you downloaded as to whether you've got a genuine SP2.

OK, as you all know, SP2 has been RTM'ed and the build to get approval was finalised on Aug4 as originally planned. It wanted 2 days more of just-to-be-****-sure testing, and then got released on Windows Beta. So now, logically this thread comes to a close. A final, small clarification to those of you who got the SP2 final from non-Official sources, and have a question needing to be resolved before it RTW's officially, so that you can be ahead of others in the race: You know that the details of the final SP2 are as follows- Now, there was one thing worrying/puzzling a lot of people over at places where the leak was being discussed - the obtained file's (got thru P2P networks) time-stamp in the digital signature wasn't matching the above, and nor was the MD5 checksum, although CRC and all else was fine.The reason is, the time-stamp mentioned above is GMT - therefore, since I am in a different timeZone (IST, +05:30), the time-stamp says "Wednesday, 04 August, 2004 3:36:58 PM" for me in file-properties, and gives an MD5 of "8b44385f22db7f8a6121273df8545a89". Since windows uses the GMT-time encoding to give a different reading for the time-stamp, the MD5 sum changes when you try generating/comparing it as well. So, if you are in doubt about whether you got/downloaded the correct file, consider your time-zone and check if the Digital Signature is accordingly displayed - if so, you got a genuine file. Hoping this helps...........

Nice of you to post this useful info. I'm a fairly frequent user of OpenOffice, so I guess this is a nice thing to have.

Use the "/s" switch. ow32enen754.exe /s More info for those want to know: Opera uses the WISE installer.

The results of the poll above, currently depresses me. No, *NO* gals at all? Its getting a bit boring, guys!

all details here