Tripredacus

What WinPE version?

My "pkeyconfig.xrm-ms" on Windows 7 Ultimate SP1 64-bit is 996Ko. That's strange the file size is so big.

Found this, someone might like it. I guess an app for Android phones to make it look like Windows XP. http://www.gizmag.com/xpmod/23039/

Using DD-WRT firmware (if available) may help in your case, but your limiting factor is really the quality of your hardware. As I mentioned before I have a D-Link N router, which was my first wireless router. Using stock firmware, it was crap for G and N. After applying DD-WRT, G was a rock and N increased connectivity dramatically. Say before the update, N was dropping out every 5 minutes, but after it would stay up for at least 2 hours. But it still wasn't good enough on N. Whether this is because of the environment or the fact it was operating in mixed mode, I'm not sure. Another issue is that if you are in mixed (I think, don't take my word on it) that N wireless will run same speed as G if a G device is connected. If no G device, N runs at normal speed. This might be what you are seeing. Alas, while I still have that D-Link, I opted to switch to a dual-band Linksys/Cisco router with the dedicated radios for both G and N and that works like a champ with stock firmware. Either way, DD-WRT has a wiki that explains a lot of the different settings you could possibly have, even if you don't use their custom firmware. While my story probably doesn't help your particular situation, I'm glad you brought to light that different encryption methods can definately cause problems with a wireless connection. That was something I never considered before.

Is your XP a 32bit or 64bit?

Wireless is a tricky thing indeed. I had problems with it, learned a bunch, fixed it and ultimately forgot most of it. I'd consider myself a noob at it too! I was probably like everyone else when starting to use wireless, you plug it in and away you go. But then I need to look at how I am actually using it. What devices do I have and what are their capabilities? For my example, I have multiple (potential) N class devices and then a G device (PS3). So in this situation, in order for me to accomodate all of my devices. With a standard single band N router, this would mean setting it for G. This is because PS3 needs it, and the N devices can use G. But this isn't an ideal situation for me because while the G devices worked fine, there was flakiness with the N devices! So for my purposes, I chose a dual-band router. It has 2 radios set one for G and one for N. And then you end up setting 2 SSIDs for broadcast (if you want). Now to figure out what kind of devices you have. If all your devices connect with N speed, then I would set the router to use N exclusively instead of the hybrid mode. Don't bother changing that signal strength range (20/40MHz) as going to an extra-wide band in a populated area can potentially cause headaches for you and/or your neighbors. Now, the site-survey is an interesting tool that *some* routers have. And some are better than others. For example, on my old router (D-Link N) with DD-WRT, the site-survey would scan the airwaves and show me a list of all other broadcasting devices in the area. This means I can see my neighbors' routers (and an amount of Nintendo Wiis) but most important I can see what wireless channel they are on! This is another important factor as you would want to use a channel (that is legal) and that is not being used by another broadcasting device to save yourself from potential interference. But if your router doesn't have this feature then it won't help you. Which reminds me, if your router is set for "auto" channel, this would mean that the router determines somehow which channel to use. If the router decides to change the channel on you, you definately would lose your connection, but should reconnect shortly after.

Now that Surface has been announced, I understand why the ARM market was locked down to just those 3 vendors. See, except for those 3 companies (and Microsoft), no other OEM or ODM can get ARM cpus or build/whitebook ARM tablets. But there is an interesting thing that no one seems to be picking up on yet. Of the two SKUs announced, although I can't comment on ARM/Windows RT, the x86 offering might be interesting for some people. All that debate over the SecureBoot "feature" where you can't dual boot (except for RedHat) basically died away but what isn't really mentioned in any of those old articles is that SecureBoot is only applicable to systems with UEFI 2.3.1 firmware. Windows 8 32bit is not supported on UEFI, so any 32bit Surface tablets won't have SecureBoot or any other of those UEFI features.

I wouldn't think the encryption type is the cause of the problem. So time for some questions... I can't find the details of this router that I am looking for... Is this a single band router? What band are you using? I see that it supports N and your NIC supports N, so I would like to think you have it set to N on both... Are you using the stock or custom firmware? have you done any fiddling regarding signal strength or anything like that? Does your router have the ability to run a site-survey?

Your cable modem is also your DHCP server. So if you run this in command prompt: ipconfig -all The values of Gateway and/or DHCP server should match and that IP address is your cable modem. I've been out of the cable support business, so I don't know much about newer hardware, but have you tried to connect to the secure page? ie https://192.168.100.1 ... not that I would think it would make a difference but I do know that my cable modem (Motorola) is set for secure login only.

The hold music in the conference center.

Don't know what to tell you...

--JorgeA Yes and no. I think it was something in the things they were trained so say by their masters.... but I did give a clue to "who" it was already. One quick answer, if you want a greater debate, post a new thread someplace. Its real simple. Windows is "less secure" because of this: http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=8 If you could find a relative pie-chart that showed % of OS infections, it would likely be on the money.

Well it seems that the UEFI thing was decided back in 2006 as you can read in that KB article. Remember this was even before it was expected that Windows 8 would only have a 64bit and 128bit version. So what ended up happening was that after initial development, the UEFI spec was only to support 64bit. And it turns out the market didn't exactly trend along with the projections, so we now have a situation where hardware supports UEFI 2.3.1 (due to manufacturers getting product out to support Windows 8) and still quite a demand for 32bit OS. And most of that demand is from the Enterprise and ISVs, not so much the consumer market.

boot.wim in Windows XP? I haven't used Windows Defender Offline. It might have a Vista boot.wim instead of a Windows 7 one. If this is the case, you would try using PEIMG to do driver updates.

I can't speak about XP and older OSes. The problem seems to be with the newer Bootmgr introduced with Vista/2008. Here is some reading. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/930061

These quotes and responses were from linked articles. This is potentially an invalid complaint, as some notebook BIOS will report the empty card reader as the C:, so there a potential for a first time installation to fail, while a reboot and it works. This is because setup would format the hard drive, but fail in assigning the drive letter due to it already being in use, and then installation would fail. But on a reboot, the BIOS would assign the hard drive the letter C: and give the card reader something else. So it is a reasonable assumption that this wasn't the fault of the OS. Think of the average computer user: your relatives. You can easily imagine that there will be millions of Windows 8 users (presuming MS sells that many that is) who won't even know the desktop exists. Ignorance might be bliss for these users, but it will bring a horrible problem... Tech Support. If you've ever done tech support for regular users, you can already see how this is going to be a problem. Now imagine if a user has a problem and they need to do something in Control Panel (or worse, the registry) and they don't have a keyboard or mouse and only have a touch screen like an AIO PC. I know this not only from that type of job experience but also from personal experience. I've recently become the go-to PC tech for a retired fellow in his late 70s. He was a master of IE6 and Outlook Express. Once it became evident that these antiquated programs were becoming a large problem, he requested to change to something more secure. While it may seem trivial to us, his request to change is something maybe he wished he didn't have to do. To switch to Chrome and Thunderbird brought on a wave of mass confusion and plenty of phone calls. Edit: Here is a video that a user posted on Reboot, about a guy who had his dad try out Windows 8 for the first time. Exactly, this point was brought up in a teleconference last week. Its like Vista. But there is another problem with this that is behind the scenes. OEMs have been doing a crap-ton of work to prepare for Windows 8. There are big time differences in the production scenarios for Windows 8 compared to Windows 7. I sometimes wonder if all those man-hours (aka time vs money) is going to be worthwhile compared to how well the product is going to sell. This is partly true. Part of the problem is that Microsoft accepts the stigma that people put on it. They say that the OS is insecure. Take a look at the known fact that Windows gets a lot of viruses from IE or Outlook Express (when it was around). And people point the finger at MS about getting all these viruses, even though their own practices were the cause of their problems. Nevertheless, MS takes the responsibility instead of attempting to inform their userbase. And this led to the UAC. There was no attempt to educate their users, so they put in a system that was designed to help protect Windows from the users. Windows 8 with Metro is no difference. It is another step in protecting the OS from the users. This was already seen originally when the new Visual Studio was to only let you create Metro apps. The idea put forth at ADKFest was that regular desktop programs would cease to exist and there would only be Metro apps. Metro apps are not designed to touch the system files of the OS or the registry which would cut back on viruses or other corruption. This is the same thing as adding UAC IMO.

I am going to have to build an image with the RP, because handloading it off DVD and installing drivers every time is getting old fast.

Tripredacus, So I gather that motherboards with UEFI can't run 32-bit OS's? I didn't know that. --JorgeA Its not so much "can't" its more like "probably won't". As I struggled with getting things figured out about it... I was not able to explain the 95% failure rate of being able to deploy Win7 32bit on them, and the 95% success rate while using 64bit. I've done probably over 50 (or maybe 100) deployments on this new spec and was never able to explain why I wasn't getting a 100% replication of either kind. Intel and the other ODMs I was in contact with didn't really have any idea of what the trouble was. It took me about 2 months to get the "32bit not supported on UEFI" email from Microsoft. While the official line of why Win 8 32bit isn't supported because it can't take advantage of UEFI 2.3.1's features, I'm certain this slight incompatibility also weighs heavily into their decision. Now for the technical reasoning behind this, it has to do with the bootloader. You should be able to deploy 32bit Win8 (or Win7 for that matter) onto a UEFI 2.3.1 spec board as long as you use unattend to only have 1 partition. Its when there is a System Reserved (or similar) partition involved that Windows does a kabooom on this hardware spec. It was really annoying when I didn't have the answer, but now that I do we just adapt to it. What else can you do?

I've modified your topic title. Since this is not an RT7lite forum, you'll either need to put RT7 in your topic title or post your questions in their topic.

Its not so dreaded. Did you already set up a share on your Win7 PC and create an account to log in with?

Yes I've heard of this before... I think even seen it happen with Vista before. I don't think I've tried to use the ODD after having installed Windows 8 yet. I plan on doing some more development for Win8 on Monday so maybe I can try it if I remember. I am only dealing with Windows 8 RP x64 tho, not touching 32bit version at all I don't think.

32bit Windows 8 is likely going to be a legacy OS for people to use on older hardware. Of all the new hardware I am testing this month: 2 AMD boards 10 Intel boards 4 notebooks All of them except 1 have UEFI 2.3.1. So in this case, 32bit Windows (7 or even 8) is not supported on those devices. So because many manufacturers are using the new spec, I forsee that most Windows 8 in the market will be 64bit, or tablets which will have RT for ARM. And even the tablets will be from few manufacturers, since there is some limiter in the channel for who can sell ARM based products for some reason.

I'm thinking you'll have to code something up to run at FirstLogonCommands or SetupComplete.cmd. How to deploy from a website using JavaScript [ MSDN ] However, it looks like you should be able to use AutoIT, VBScript or some other language to install it using the API call msAddTrackingProtectionList.

Yes you can use WSUS which will let you manage what updates your clients receive. You can even set up different groups of types to add computers into, say if you want managers to get different updates than secretaries or whatever you think of. But is this an Unattend question?