Tripredacus

You can build a WinRE install by Customizing the WinRE Experience to allow the ability to launch a custom "tool" or installer.

A co-worker of mine was having problems with reliability of his computer, using Windows 7 Pro x86 on an Intel DX58SO board. There were two volumes set up as: RAID1 OS RAID1 Storage He went back to a previous Restore Point, and the Storage volume appears as healthy, shows its usage % but the folder appears empty. The current RST driver is installed. Here is the view in My Computer. Yes I am not sure why System Reserved shows up with a drive letter! It is on the RAID1 OS. Also note how it does have files at least in the usage indicator. Of course you didn't believe me, but the drive is empty! Another issue, in Disk Management, the OS volume DOES NOT show up. Only the second RAID1. Curious, it shows the System Reserved on the second RAID, but it was on the first RAID? What is the possible cause for this and how to be able to see the data? Also I can't seem to find the RST software for this board yet, but the board level software shows that both RAID arrays are healthy.

Why exactly are you opposed to a repair install? I had done a repair install on my old XP system and it saved all settings and everything was exactly the same. I even had used the wrong media type to do the reinstall so I only had to activate Windows and it was just like before.

The reason why Windows sees it is because the motherboard is enumerating it even while disabled. This isn't really a Windows 7 issue, as not all motherboards are created equal. I've seen many instances where something can be disabled at the BIOS level and still appear in Windows. Here are some examples: 1. On an EEE PC (700 or 900 series) you can disable the Wireless in the BIOS. It still appears in Device Manager but is not usable. 2. On the D510MO, you can specify to use PCI-E video (which on most Intel boards will disable the onboard video) it indeed uses PCI-E video, but still leaves the onboard detectable in Windows. And as you can imagine, this can cause some video configuration issues! So basically, I am not surprised that you have disabled something in the BIOS and Windows still picks it up, but this is the fault of the hardware and not so much the OS.

Can you be more specific as to what equipment you are using, Operating System and software?

800x600? Try the native resolution of your display instead. Framerate should be at least 80 I would think.

That's for sure. Good graphics aren't for competitive games unless you can get away with it, or you are skillful enough to play at a lower framerate. Most competitive players I know try to make the game as fast as possible, even if that means the game ends up not looking as good. For some people, after you get really involved in doing tournaments and other match types, you are more interested in getting better scores than just playing the game.

Thanks for this info, I always thought (wrongly I guess) that if you use no compression your install would be faster It probably is, and also might depend on how you are deploying images. I am always deploying on gigabit networks, from a high-end server with a RAID10 volume, multicasting, etc. So for me, perhaps an uncompressed image may deploy a second faster? No idea, whatever the speed difference is, in my environment at least, the difference is negligable.

Yeah I think the only reason you would need a "current" gaming machine is if you used shader and high-res graphics mods on your game. But since you're playing UT (I can relate to it because I still play Q3) I can tell you there is a plateau for older games like that. For example, I ran Q3 (all max with frame limiter removed) on 6 different hw configs. For that game the performance level just stops as soon as you hit 2 cores. That being said, no further improvement in gameplay (speed or otherwise) after a P4. To say that Q3 runs the same on a P4 1.7GHz + 512MB 800MHz RDRAM and a Quad Core + 4GB DDR2 800MHz seems strange perhaps. Yes Q3 is a bit older than UT2004, but I am sure that it also has its own height of performance increase at some spec or another. So like was already posted, it is entirely possible that you can get the same amount of performance from a (current) low-end system than you would get from a (current or even budget) gaming system. In my opinion, the only reason you should consider buying a new gaming system is if you want to play some newer game. Then you should tailor your specs to running that game, instead of the one you currently run because anything newer is going to make UT2004 better, BUT only up to a point.

Even the version I have only let me extract one at a time, but there were less than ten files in that one particular place. Another option you may have is to Deploy the OS to the notebook. Then install the driver update manually. Take note of the HwIDs of the device, or check the log file. Then you can use a tool like DriverForge to extract the driver files. Then you can inject those. Only problem seems to be DriverForge is obsolete. I haven't tried the new program yet.

Correct. Compression only effects the WIM file size. I have not seen any noticable difference in deployment speeds of compressed vs non-compressed WIMs. Also, if you ever want to do any WIM inside WIM things, only compress the container WIM, not the one(s) inside.

The chaps at the AutoIT forum also noticed recently you can't search for the word "color" ... Which is true for here as well... But it doesn't stop there!

I was doing some more thinking about this. If accelerators gain popularity, they might help make the address bar go away. I wish there was more search providers for both IE and Firefox. For example, I have the search provider for MSKB, but wish there was one for MSDN or TechNet.

You can get this information from WMI, specifically the Win32_OperatingSystem class, and the BuildNumber property. Not sure how to get that from a regular CMD file. I've done it with AutoIT and I've seen others use VBScript and other things too.

Has both the Media Player DRM issue and Network Location issue been fixed with SP1? These two issues I have seen cause the error you are getting.

ACPI being motherboards that support APM (Advanced Power Management) type options like sleep and hibernate. The UP and MP are for UniProcessor (single CPU or core) and MultiProcessor (2 or more CPUs or cores). An MP HAL will also be applied to a single CPU with Hyper-Threading, such as P4 and newer Celerons. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/309283 Any more information about the HAL is bound to be quite technical. I can't find any technical items in the first 3 pages of The Google results. Maybe I'm not searching for the right things...

On some things if you highlight you see a box with a white/blue arrow and you can right-click and see options. I've never used them myself but it may be handy for some people. You can read about them here, with a picture of what to look for: http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows7/Press-the-Internet-Explorer-8-Accelerator

I do not know anyone at that forum. You should probably send them an email using the contact us link on their site.

Reminds me of the old greeting.... Happy Luke Easter, not looking forward to Rick Monday.

Jingle Cats - Dance of the Reed Flutes I'm not one to listen to holiday music outside their designated holidays, but Jingle Cats gets an exception.

Any screens you see where you can select locale, Windows edition to install or even the Setup screen with the step-by-step is the boot.wim. You never actually ever see the install.wim in action. The boot.wim copies the files from install.wim to the hard drive, and then reboots to boot off the hard drive. The 64bit boot.wim cannot install x86 images... or at least they will not show up in the selection screen, but a x86 boot.wim can show you both types. This was tested and proven using WDS tho.

News post: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2011/03/the-story-behind-url-hunter-a-game-played-in-a-url-bar.ars Site: http://probablyinteractive.com/url-hunter I got a score of 3, using Firefox 3.6.15.

Creative doesn't support multiple sound devices. The only OS I got multiple sound cards to work (to be specific, AC97 onboard, 2x PCI SB and 1x PCI-E SB) was in Windows XP Pro x64. Also, not all SB has the FP connector.

1) I do not know why you needed to do a reshack on the file. See now you have two options there.... 2) In a supported environment, running recovery (ah then again I haven't tested custom WinRE.... maybe I will do that today) won't touch other partitions. As far as how your recovery process works, you get an out by saying if the customer runs the program in any fashion not covered in your instructions, the loss of data may occur and the system's warranty will not be covered. However, if you are a System Builder, you are required to provide the edge-to-edge media anyways, so they can still reinstall Windows with that. If you are an OEM, you should follow the direction of your Partner rep. Threads merged. No need to make a new one. You can add a file to the "Recovery Partition" and search for it first, like the Vista recovery does. But just put your install.wim in Sources. Setup already knows where that is. Update - I tested the WinRE with custom partitions however there was a problem. Since the XML is inside of the Ramdisk, it is hardcoded to know where the INSTALL.WIM is, and hardcoded to what partition to install it on. Since I created a second partition in Windows, it mixed up the drive letters in WinRE. That being said, the Data partition got letter D, the OS vol got letter E and the recovery partition got letter F. Normally, the recovery partition should get letter E, and my XML has the InstallFrom to look on E. Since E is not the recovery partition, WinRE gives an error because it can't find INSTALL.WIM. Here-in lies the problem... Screenshot of system after deployment and setting up the secondary partition: Diskpart results from after receiving the error in WinRE about the WIM: DISKPART> list vol Volume ### Ltr Label Fs Type Size Status Info ---------- --- ----------- ----- ---------- ------- --------- -------- Volume 0 C System NTFS Partition 500 MB Healthy Volume 1 E LocalDisk NTFS Partition 110 GB Healthy Volume 2 D Storage NTFS Partition 117 GB Healthy Volume 3 F Recovery NTFS Partition 6000 MB Healthy Hidden Update2 - Adding a second hard disk also caused problems with drive letter assignment.

You may be able to enable the Advanced Internet Option of "Allow active content to run in files on My Computer" but I wouldn't recommend it.