Tripredacus

Working on some new layout ideas, and can't figure out why there is a gap in the div arrangements here: http://tripredacus.net/chars/b/beta.php They are appearing in the correct order, but I cannot figure out why two "spots" are skipped before the fourth item is placed, and then continues as it is supposed to. I've checked both in IE and Firefox. You should be fine seeing code generated from your browser... It almost looks like there is something in the way, are they conflicting with each other since they have no height attribute set? If so, what is the best way to get past that? This is still in progress but I wanted to get the general idea down before playing with additional spacing and coloring of the individual boxes... Update: Yes, the height property needs to be set properly otherwise the box height varies too much. Also needed to clear some two of the divs inside the container itself.

Welcome to the MSFN!

Yes we noticed that returning members became Anonymous users for some reason.

I can see it in some situations, but no one is going to want confidential data on those things. Maybe this is viable at the SMB level. Or maybe something for use in the sales force, but not anything that has to follow any sort of regulations like HIPAA.

Welcome to the MSFN! Check out rule 11 on the forum rules: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules

Welcome to the MSFN!

I'd be highly surprised if Google thinks they can make a dent in the corporate IT market with that product.

I think its because you can't move the + tab away from the end. In Firefox 3, there was an option to prompt about tabs being open when you close the browser. I had always turned that off so I am not seeing any difference with Firefox 4. Under options\Tabs there are some settings you can try: - Warn me when closing multiple tabs I don't see a way to turn on the browser closing warning. It might be in about:config. Also don't forget to check the add-on site for anything, maybe someone made a mod for tabs or the warning?

This occurs with a Windows Installer package in Audit Mode. Testing in normal mode isn't really within the scope of how my software operates. It doesn't matter if it is done with 32 or 64bit OS. I have noticed it happening with multiple different installers, from notebook SCMs, Windows Live and Bluetooth software. The setup program will exit when "it is done" but it won't wait for the MSIEXEC it spawns to finish. So originally I had problems when my installer app would want to reboot the system before the install was actually finished. After adding in a "please wait" screen, it became obvious that MSIEXEC was taking a really long time to complete its task. So I went about debugging it. I ran a Procmon on it, and found that after the main installation was done, MSIEXEC would just kinda sit around and not do much of anything. Or if it was waiting on something, I can't see what it is doing by just monitoring MSIEXEC. The time is off in the log because the deployment test has a reset BIOS. Here is a timeline of events using Windows Live as an example. It logged over 1,000,000 events so I'm not posting the log file. If you want I can try putting it up on SkyDrive. @ 7:08:55 msiexec.exe creates its thread and begins the install @ 7:13:15 the install is (for all intents and purposes) finished, but msiexec does not exit. @ 7:13:23 Thread Exit @ 7:13:29 Thread Exit @ 7:13:56 Thread Exit @ 7:14:22 Thread Exit @ 7:15:02 Thread Exit @ 7:16:25 Thread Create @ 7:16:25 Thread Create @ 7:17:25 Thread Exit @ 7:17:32 Thread Exit @ 7:17:32 Thread Exit @ 7:18:53 Thread Create @ 7:20:00 Thread Exit @ 7:22:13 Thread Create @ 7:22:13 Thread Exit @ 7:23:15 Thread Create @ 7:23:15 Thread Create @ 7:23:15 RegCloseKey HKCR At the point of the RegCloseKey, the normal msiexec events show up and the process exits in less than 0.001 seconds. But you can see above there is a period of time, about 10 minutes of NOTHING being logged by MSIEXEC. So what is it doing during this time and what can be done to speed it up a little? Note: if the install is cancelled due to a reboot occurring at (say) the 7:13 mark, msiexec will rollback the installation! Attached is the msiexec.exe process info from ProcExp at about 7:15, during the "nothing doing" phase. Any ideas? msiexec.exe.txt

Ah I know a tool that can do all of that... but I think its more expensive than SCCM... Altiris: http://www.symantec.com/business/theme.jsp?themeid=altiris I have not used it since Symantec bought it tho, so it must be better now than then I hope!

Your installer should work with Make_PE3, but I've never gotten correct VGA drivers to work in PE.

There are some options I've seen... Using the ODD variable: Searching all drive letters:

It looks like this update is for Windows 7 RTM. Are you trying to put it into an SP1 image? Also, have you checked the DISM log for the error?

Yes it will always download that in my experience. I never tried disabling the detection. Fortunately you can manually set the boot options for the server. In the Server properties, on the Boot tab, set your x86 and x64 boot image to be the same. I do not have a server anymore that has that option set... but here is that menu:

Definately disable the LLTD then. Only a Server 2008 or higher server version can respond properly to those messages from the Vista clients. With no server to respond to the LLTD, you just have a bunch of extra data floating about your network, as Vista will keep sending out requests waiting for a response. When I first introduced Vista into our old network, this was causing all sorts of connectivity issues. I had set all clients (and all deployments) to disable LLTD on Vista. Windows 7 also has it, but by the time we started adding Windows 7 clients, we had migrated the domain to Server 2008 and the problem never appeared.

I've never tried using the built-in functions for FTP in Windows, but I have set up FileZilla (part of the XAMPP package) multiple times.

I've seen Yes quite a few times actually, and Asia too! Pink Floyd - Poles Apart

Oh boy are you in for it now! Website, just looking at it - it seems your entire top div is a link back to the home page, but it is designed to look like it is in different pieces. You may not necessarily need to have the "home page" part of the picture up top. - you should put a text based shortcut menu in the footer that has Home | the other top level menu choices. - the contact us/courses/links boxes bottom borders align differently in relation to the line in the background image differently on each page. - the picture on the About Us page should have a background that matches the page content color. Same with the gear in the Courses box. In fact a lot of images are like this. - the social networking icons are larger than your top level menu options, meaning the viewers focus will gravitate towards them. - the three contact images on the Contact Us form do not match the overall color/design scheme of the site. - the hover color of the "head office" link on the bottom is too similar to the background color on the gradient. - Your copyright says 2010... - on some pages, the Links box at the bottom has a picture in it. Website, behind the scenes - Google Analytics code should be at the bottom of the document and not the top. You can find best use instructions on your GA account. - Tables are for tables not for layout! - you have mixed case in some attributes, and use full URI for some and not others. Example: <p><a href="www.hse.gov.uk" title="HSE">www.hse.gov.uk</a></p> <p><A href="http://www.ilcor.org/" target="_blank">www.ilcor.org/</A> - your CSS validates, which is great, but your HTML has no Doctype. - you are specifying attribute tags for objects that do not support them, such as Marginwidth, MarginHeight, etc. - Your code is closest to HTML 4.01 Transitional. Add this as your Doctype, and adjust your code appropriately if you want that part to be good. It is fine to make coding sacrifices of course, for example on my own site, I'm not overly concerned about having ALT tags for every image or specifying an encoding type. forum - the logo on your forum does not match your website. - the design and colorscheme of the forum does not match the website - the forum #1 user is Admin. This is bad. Always set to hide the Admin account. Then your second user is a Global Mod and is your everyday use account. - not sure why all the forum hovers say Merry Christmas on them... summary It looks fine and is likely to be functional for what it is designed for. Nothing really glaring except for the GA placement. I also didn't bother testing your contact form. You want to make sure that is sanitized and secure since it is a direct source into your webserver. In the end, this looks like a run of the mill business website, which isn't a knock against you since it is your first website. Heck my first website looked like everyone else's too. That's just how you start.

Moving to Win7 unattend section for appropriate exposure.

It could be the Link Layer Topology options. What OS is on your domain controllers? Is your network a mixed OS environment?

Well I'm not sure how to enable that account, you'll have to search elsewhere. But the page I linked to had an option.

Make sure you are also aware of the following from the RT 7 lite EULA:

Without using the manual ways, and the more fun setacl trick, I have found most success with Malwarebytes. A last resort is combofix. Reinstalling is never an option for me, it is the boring way to fix things.

The domain controller may have applied policies to the system without your knowledge. Run gpresult /r from the cmd. You do not need to post the results, but look for the following (or similar) returns (this is from my PC here for reference) RSOP data for SKYLYNX\Username on SKYLYNX : Logging Mode ---------------------------------------------------------- OS Configuration: Member Workstation OS Version: 6.1.7601 Site Name: N/A Roaming Profile: N/A Local Profile: C:\Users\Username Connected over a slow link?: No COMPUTER SETTINGS ------------------ Last time Group Policy was applied: 5/10/2011 at 9:06:16 AM Group Policy was applied from: sub.domain.local Group Policy slow link threshold: 500 kbps Domain Name: DOMAIN Domain Type: Windows 2000 Applied Group Policy Objects ----------------------------- Default Domain Policy You wll also see something similar under USER SETTINGS. You may see some of the following security groups listed in its section too: - This Organization - Domain Computers