Tripredacus

I chose no, but I used to. I did learn some classical guitar and also used to play an electric bass. Those were in the "days of long ago" and I don't think I remember anything about playing it. Let me say that while I was able to play the guitar ok (I'm more of a keyboard person really) I can't play guitar hero for the life of me. I can't seem to get both of my hands to do what the game says for me to do. Like I am out of sync. The motions in that game feel very foreign because I am thinking like I am playing a guitar and it doesn't work lol.

I know what you mean Cluberti. It just seems to me that brute forcing people into changing doesn't seem like the best it could be done.

Alright, I didn't do so bad. 73%

Hmm also something about what you said before... not being a hardware issue. Said you ran 2003 on this for 2 years. I am asking this now, is all of your hardware 2008 certified?

Verify that you have specified that the server send along a DNS suffix in your DHCP settings. If you leave this option blank or disable it, it will not pass that along.

I had recently completed a 3 month SR with Microsoft regarding our server, and its slow speeds on traffic going TO the server. http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?s=&amp...st&p=818425 In addition, you can try disabling the Link Layer Topology Mapping on the Vista machines and the server. This can be done with Group Policy.

Well the first is obviously you'd only have 1 server. It depends on what your needs are really, what services you plan on running. Some services conflict with each other (they will tell you this when you try to enable them) so in some cases you can't run DNS on the same machine as "some other service". Of course you need DNS to run AD, it won't install unless you have it enabled on that server, or another is available on the network somewhere already.

2008 and Vista are really the same base product. The functions of the recycle bin are likely exactly the same.

Hmmm... I am thinking that you might not want or need to do a full data migration the way you are thinking. Unless drive space on the file server is becoming a problem that is. Here is me thinking aloud, maybe it can help you out. ... Set the local accounts' My Documents (using system variable) to synchronize with the data on their server share. You would only need to do this once. You can set this up with a logon script, or have them do it manually. Of course there will be some down-time for your users during the file transfer. ... Also possible, Server 2003 requires both NTFS and Domain permissions to fully access anything properly. Make sure you set permissions on the Sharing and Security tabs properly. Hopefully these users are in an OU and not just part of the Users group, but even then it might not be too big of a deal. Is this to say that the user's data is only to be kept locally on their computers and not on the server anymore? Is there no data to be shared between people at all? If its fine to keep the data on the server after you get it to the PC... it might be a good idea, especially if anyone set up shortcuts to files up there. Not sure if you would want to use roaming profiles either (after the migration) to automatically sync up to the server for backup reasons.

I do not know if this information is stored in the registry. I do know that they are stored in system variables. AutoIT supports finding this information with the following functions: DriveSpaceTotal() DriveSpaceFree() DriveGetType() DriveGetDrive() DriveGetFileSystem() DriveGetLabel() DriveGetSerial() give this a shot, might be easier.

Which EEE PC model do you have? Its also obvious you modified it from the original configuration right? These things are designed to work with solid-state drives...

What is the size of your Windows user profile? It should be under 1GB! You can check this by looking at the properties of c:\documents and settings\YOURPROFILENAME. Mine weighs in at ~400-600MB last I checked.

I found this on another site. You can try it. Make sure to backup any changed files first! I can't garauntee it will work, I haven't tried it.

Thank you! Yes man I know this is gonna work, yes i checked shutdown cmd on run through regedit & msconfig i m not able to find it, I think after disable system failure restart automatically will work on it , if it does not then there must be the power problem.. N thank you ones again! for ur suggestion.. Appreciate You won't find the shutdown that way. Shutdown is in system32 but don't touch that one. Malware can end up restarting the computer by either running that program (you also need it to restart or shutdown yourself) or Windows protection may trigger it automatically if a program does something really bad. Hopefully you'll get to see a nice BSOD on the screen, which means we can troubleshoot it. If you find your computer had restarted by itself and it didn't have a BSOD, then there are other problems. You might be able to check that out even now, while the machine is running. If you look in the Event Viewer, under System, there may be logs relating to how Windows had unproperly shutdown, or in some cases, you will see an entry that says the Event Logging service has started and the previous entry is NOT the event log service is shutting down. There should never be any logs between the service stopping and starting, because even in a fault situation, it should log at least the error before the service starts again.

Maybe this will help you. http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=37292

First, disable the automatic restart on system failure. This will make it so if you get a BSOD, it won't reboot on you. However, if the reboot is caused by malware (causing the shutdown cmd to run) or the hardware (heat or power related), it will not prevent this. An each-step process for this is to use the F8 boot menu and choose the appropriate option. It only keeps this option for that boot period. There is a way to disable this in Windows or via the registry, but I do not have this information for you.

I have been unable to replicate this "feature". I had tried multiple ways to do it. I did this to test upgrading possibilities before deciding to get Vista myself. I have tried upgrading, replacing and removing hardware. Nothing I was able to do trigger activation. Here is my best attempt which failed to de-activate: I started with just a hard drive and a motherboard. Installed Vista Business RTM and activated it. Then added a video card, tv capture card, a serial card, a cd drive, a floppy drive. No change. I reimaged the machine as is, activated Windows and then removed all those things, and disabled a bunch of the onboard devices in the BIOS. No change. I'll believe this when I see it, to say the least.

If you get the "this program has experienced a problem and needs to close" message, then it should log the actual error in Event Viewer. It is possible that one of your components is causing the problem.

Check the Application section of Event Viewer to see if there is any error relating to this.

The local admin account can still be blocked based on a couple of factors. Those are: Local Group Policy, Domain Group Policy, Local Ownership rights, NTFS permissions, inherited group permissions, file use restrictions. As for which it could be, you'll need to post additional information. Try these questions to start: 1. Are you on a domain, workgroup (LAN) or stand-alone? 2. Is the local admin user created after installation (aka not the default Administrator account)? 3. Is the local admin account a member of any other groups besides Administrators? 4. Are there any other local users? 5. What distribution of Vista are you using? I just tried on a system here, and I have no problems accessing this option. Although, I am running Vista in the Audit pass. There is an easier way to get to it is Computer Properties, Advanced tab.

It may fall under the same rules as regular shortcuts. Since whatever setting your Extensions option is on, shortcuts will still not ever show filename.lnk.

One option is to backup (or rename) the original Defrag program. Then put in your other defrag program into system32, and rename it to the name of the Vista one. That would at least fool Vista into opening your program instead, since it only opens a file and doesn't check anything else.

You system might be configured to look for a SUS instead of the Windows Update website. Check out this thread to see if any of it helps: http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums...e-90309cf13367/

So you're suggesting that we keep the masses in the dark, and never move on to the benefits of 64-bit computing? I recommend that all my friends use 64-bit Vista if their computers can support it and they can find the drivers for them. Software isn't really a big deal - I haven't found any common 32-bit software that won't run on Vista x64 yet, and 64-bit drivers are just like 32-bit drivers... everything is just categorized for the architechture these days. Education goes a long way with most people. If my father can understand the benefits of 64-bit computing, anyone can. No I totally agree. We should be moved more into 64bit. Microsoft even wants to do a total shift into that area as well. My problem is that 64bit software development is seen as an optional thing. There needs to be more incentive to creating 64bit apps, as this will make the transition easier. Microsoft always has a way of plopping stuff into our laps and then we have to struggle to adapt to it. I imagine a larger outcry than the Vista transition when 64bit becomes the requirement. The Vista transition may have been a lot easier if Microsoft distributed dev-betas to software companies, so that they can prepare for the next OS release. MS does this for hardware companies, but the usual outcry about their operating systems is based on software woes. Right now, 64bit is a specialised option for people and companies to use. Some engineering applications are written for it, but the reason most people use it is for higher reliability in storage and server platforms. The market share for 64bit is much lower than 32bit, and I would imagine that 64bit Windows releases are lower even than Linux or Mac. The thing is that we are seeing it from the "Power User" or corporate environment angle, and not from the regular every day user angle. Regular people do not understand system requirements. They do not know that some program they have that requires Windows 98 or higher is not likely to work properly on XP, Vista or a 64bit OS. A lot of customer education will be required for 64bit integration, unless the leading software makers get on board before that transition takes place. Otherwise, we are just going to have another Vista, or more likely, another Windows 2000. I have found a few programs that do not work in 64bit so far.

Let's first consider the fact that I failed science already in 8th grade, but passed it a second time lol.