Tripredacus

Most people in the US that get those kinds of phone calls are still using a landline. Mobile phones are usually not allowed to be called by those types. http://www.fcc.gov/guides/truth-about-wireless-phones-and-national-do-not-call-list

Giant amoebas seem to be the least scary giant "thing" we have on the earth. Not like giant centipedes!

FirstLogonCommands is in the oobeSystem pass. Put all your commands into a .cmd and then have this in your XML: <FirstLogonCommands> <SynchronousCommand wcm:action="add"> <Order>1</Order> <Description>Run vbs from cmd</Description> <CommandLine>cmd /C start /wait c:\path\FirstLog.cmd</CommandLine> </SynchronousCommand> </FirstLogonCommands>I don't use VBS myself because of security messages. Example of how to put VBS into CMD: cscript c:\path\RunVBS.VBSOr use wscript if you want.

I'm sure there is *something* that can make use of this. I currently have a notebook here that you can put 2x 8 core Xeon CPUs in and it supports hyperthreading. What kind of notebook needs 32 cores?

I would use 1 .cmd file and put all your code in it. You can even send output to a file using > operator to see which specific commands are failing. Then reference your .cmd in the FirstLogonCommands. I presume your scripts work find if you run them manually? For reference, you may be running into a permissions or Session 0 issue. FirstLogonCommands executes as the logon user (Session 1) Setupcomplete.cmd executes as the LOCAL SYSTEM (Session 0)

Not to get into politics, but does that even work anymore? There was a news story some time ago (maybe a month) that drone activity will no longer be reported to the media.

I'd like to highlight something else. We all know MS's original plans never truly worked out because the market rejected them while in process or after the fact. It isn't just the who Metro interface. We knew back when Windows 8 was only rumbled as being Windows Next that there was not supposed to be a 32bit version. The original plan was to have a 64bit, 128bit and ARM versions. This is the entire reason why 32bit Vista and 7 was never made to work properly (or be supported) on UEFI 2.3.1 firmware. Windows 8 32bit, however, was made to work and is supported. Getting people to drop 32bit is nearly a success, because compared to previous offerings (XP) WOW compatibility is pretty good in Windows Vista and 7. There are only three types of customers that wish to hold onto 32bit: 1. They need to run legacy (16-bit) applications. 2. They need to run legacy (32-bit) applications that do not work properly on WOW. 3. They are afraid of the name due to past issues with XP. I often see this similar thing when trying to steer clients to using an Embedded SKU. They won't because they remember having a tough time with XP Embedded. Plus, we can pretty much agree that no one would be buying 128-bit Windows. You could probably say the current 32/64 sales ratio is 25/75%. If the only options would be 64/128bit, the ratio would likely be 99.99999/0.00001% with a large volume decrease. Also consider the current Downgrade cycle, if those OSes were made available, you could only downgrade on the 64-bit SKU. Alright enough of that. So when Windows 8 came out the idea of the "future" was the same. The difference was that 32bit replaced 128bit. Since MS came out wanting to make their own product with the Surface, they initiated an exclusive program to only make the RT OS available to select tablet manufacturers. You can probably remember the stories from around GA about how MS doesn't care about the OEMs and they are hurting them, OEMs rebelling, etc. There's more to that, but it was more people complaining about this exclusive deal in which MS was showing favoritism to certain OD/EMs. It was only supposed to be a year (from GA or RTM, I forget) and then RT was going to be available for anyone to make devices. That didn't happen. Its like the whole wrap-around Taskbar that was talked about at BUILD that you never heard from again. So I am just saying that it could be that MS is going to get WindowsRT out of the exclusive deal and you can potentially see some competition on the market. That is just a guess (or a hope) as I've seen nothing to show that deal is going away. bpalone, you can have your soap box back now.

SLIC shouldn't have anything to do with the disc not allowing installation to continue. I'd expect that it would rather read the model number from the BIOS to determine if the disc is allowed to be used on the system or not. Anyways, for a Windows 7 Recovery DVD... I'm pretty sure you could take the install.wim and put it on a stock Windows 7 install DVD and it could be installed that way.

Try putting your script in FirstLogonCommands instead.

Ha! I worked one of their shows! Unfortunately I did not get to talk to anyone in the band. Melotron - Dein Meister

Oh so I had it backwards! Duh

I am trying to determine how to change a COM port via CMD or other potential methods. I have tried using change port/chgport but it returns to me an error: Unable to create mapping for port COM1. Error Code = 0x2chgport COM1=COM2 This is the /query output: AUX = \DosDevice\COM1COM1 = \Device\Serial0Am I using this command incorrectly? I am logged in directly to the PC, physical not VM.

New signature I made last week: Also here are my previous two that I hadn't put in this thread: and this Windows 8 one:

I put a .cmd in the image somewhere... <FirstLogonCommands> <SynchronousCommand wcm:action="add"> <Order>1</Order> <Description>Do stuff</Description> <CommandLine>cmd /C start /wait c:\folder\FirstLog.cmd</CommandLine> </SynchronousCommand> </FirstLogonCommands>

There's also this trend where OS makers (at least MS and Apple) think people want to see the same things on all their devices. Both of these companies have mentioned this in commercials, where your "apps" or layout or whatever will be the same on your PC as your tablet or phone. I don't really need this uniformity, as I use different hardware devices for different functions. I do not need, nor want, them to be the same. Where did that idea come from?

I would recommend that you use a static IP for out wired network. Also, do not enter a default gateway for the NIC. This way you should be able to access the internet with wireless via DNS/domain names, and then also have access to your LAN using IP addresses.

Your operating system (Windows 7 x86) is not supported on UEFI 2.3.1 hardware even in Legacy Mode. It does not work properly on that hardware. The most common issue is unable to boot where the first active partition DOES contain boot files but DOES NOT contain the OS. Are you certain that your HP actually does have a UEFI BIOS? I would find it strange that HP would sell a PC that isn't supported by Microsoft.

Random straggler? What is the error?

I definitely have run a computer blind before but it has been a long time. The key is to visualize the computer screen even if you can't see it. It is also a required skill for anyone who does telephone technical support. At least then, sometimes, you can be assisted by the customer. Sometimes that doesn't help.

Those types of driver packages are usually available from the ODMs only. So to find a newer version you might have to look at your board manufacturer's competitors' websites comparable products.

It does seem silly. There are a couple of MS sites I have visit that do not work with IE10. The worst offender is one where there is supposed to be a menu on the left side but it doesn't show up.

This is a feature known as NIC Teaming. I use it for Link Aggregation. It also requires specialized hardware to be used properly. http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh831648.aspx That isn't going to help the OP at all. The error itself is refering to the "network name" which probably is related to NetBIOS and/or the Master Browser on the network. I would recommend doing transfers using IP addresses and not friendly names to see if the problem still occurs.

I removed the link because it was to a zip file. The company that makes it seems to be this one: http://mofang.ithome.com/

It is possible. I'm not sure how RT7Lite fits in tho. The manual way would be to capture your first image, then append the second image. The order doesn't matter. Say then x86 is Index 1 and x64 is Index 2. You save this as install.wim. The requirement then is that your boot image must be the x86 one. That way you can choose either of the images to deploy with Setup.

I should point out that only part of what you have in that spoiler is Boolean related. Google dorks are more like cheats and not really part of logic operation IMO.