BladeRunner

When using the best OS available I feel it is only natural to use the best file system too - NTFS. FAT & FAT32 should be condemed to the same fate as the OS's that spawned them - as mats for your coffee mugs.

"Class Action" Hummm, well that is new, I mean, it is every day in the US somebody decides to do something like this. It is just a matter of course and doesn't actually prove anything. The part about "ZIP Plus" not being SCSI. Well this is actually a fault of the SCSI controllers. A lot of SCSI cards have issues when you chain both internal and external devices together. If you read through the Adaptec documentation you'll see this is listed as an issue - If you've got an Internal SCSI chain then you'll only be able to use one external device or in some cases no external devices on the same controller. I've owned 3 ZIP drives (1x Parallel Port, 1x IDE Internal 1x SCSI Internal) and I'll add that to the numerous ZIP drives I've used at various places or work and I'm still yet to see one fail.

No this is not the case. Everthing will work fine and as long as you are transfering the copy of Win2k from one machine to another - ie, you only have one installation what you are doing is quite legal and above board. If however you have still got your old installation on any PC (and that includes if you have sold your old machine) what you are doing is illegal.

Oh it certainly is true for Intel IDE controllers and has been since the days of the I815 chipset. Any combination of device can be added to said controller and each device will run at it's maximum transfer rate. As I said above, this is true for all Intel IDE controllers since the 815 chipset. I cannot comment on VIA, SIS, Promise, Highpoint etc as they don't list such a feature in the specifications - but I would be very surprised if they didn't do something similar.

Christmas is now three hours old here and I think it is time for me to hit the sack - for fear of Santa deciding not to stop by with me still being up. I'll add my "Merry Christmas" to all the people of NT Compatible old, new, friend and foe!!

*Shrugs* It's trademark infringement. If you want to register a domain with the words "Microsoft" of any of their products in you are either: 1. Not going to be upset when you are asked to surrender it. 2. Already on good terms with Microsoft and have asked their permission first. It is no different to me registering a domain like symantecantivirus.co.uk, adobephotoshop.uk.com or easycdcreator5.com By doing so I'm simply asking for it. The whole idea behine trademarks is to stop people "cyber-squatting" and the like. If I was the owner of the domain in question I'd simply contact MS and ask them if they would be willing to pay the registration costs so that I wasn't out of pocket and then quit while I was ahead - far better than going to court against Microsoft, they cannot possibly win this one as it goes against all of the trademark rulings in the past.

I know it all does sound a little harsh. To be honest Microsoft are not doing their reputation any good what so ever by chasing "small fry" over a very small issue. However, I think most companies have a Zero Tollerance stance on this kind of thing - it is just this is MS so everybody gets their festive panto "booooo & Hissssss" out. Sure it doesn't actually use the word "Microsoft" in it and the word "Window" or "Windows" really cannot be trademarked, well the OS Windows can be, but not the word. However "Windowsxp" is a trademark and that is where this site has got into trouble. I am not saying I particularly agree with what MS is doing in this situation, I just feel that both sides of the argument need to be looked at here and people need to imagine they are on the other side of a similar argument. I took the time to read through some of the "Signatures" at the above URL and it was actually quite amusing. If you disregard about 90% of the posts where people are just doing the usual "MS attacking" and those people that really don't know how domain name registration etc works these days it actually does leave about 10% that make a good argument.

Quote: How can you tell if your graphics card uses directx 9 ?? I have win 2000 pro with a Matrox G400 32MEG agp card Thanks ATI RADEON 9700 & 9500 - They are the only DirectX 9 cards on the market.

Well of course you got a performance increast with a Radeon 9700 - It is a DirectX 9 graphics card. As the GF4 is in no way, shape or form a DX9 card you should see no difference between DX8.1 & DX9.

2 Questions. 1. Do you have a DirectX 9 graphics card? 2. Do you have any games that make use of DirectX 9 API's? If you can answer yes to either of these questions then go for it. If you answer no to both them really there is no point.

OK, calmed down? Right, firstly it is totally upto MS what they allow you to do with their product. It is part of the license agreement that you agreed to when you installed their OS. Secondly, you DO NOT own Windows. You have purchased a single license to run it on a single PC - your "engine" argument is not comparible, unless your Pontiac came with a license to use the engine in a single vehicle only. Thirdly, MS are not stopping you MOVING your OS between computers, however as stated above you have purchased a single license to use on a single PC - remove it from your old PC and install it on your new one, transfer of license and job is done. In the unlikely event the online activation doesn't work a five minute call will solve the problem. Don't like this? Think this is too much of a headache? Then don't use an MS OS - it really is nice and simple I'm sure "anybody" can cope with it.

Ouch! 30 minutes to update a driver, I have never seen anything take that long. Seems there is probably something else wrong somewhere with your system - however you are up and running now and that is the main thing.

OK, what you have to remember is that any paper size specified in an application will override any setting you set at the printer or printer driver level. So, if I go into my printer properties and set A4 and then print a Word document that has been set to "Letter" then I'll get the old error message "Please insert Letter in Tray x" even though I manually set the paper size in the printer. Go into the application that is causing you problems (for MS Office just do this one of the applications) and set the basic templates to use A4 rather than Letter. You'll find all of your problems should then go away - no matter what you do at the printer driver level your problem is going to exist until the application has been setup correctly.

So what you are basically asking is how to update a pirated version of Windows?

Seems I misread the title of this thread. I thought somebody was offering to rent me a large bird of prey from the vulture family. Damn, just when I thought I could at last get the upper hand on the netx doors neighbours cats!

Hummm, funny, I thought the guy came here to ask for some help. Not to be told that he needs to upgrade his OS at £90 and then throw away his £100 backup solution and source another one :-/ I guess I should ask. As a user of Iomega ZIP drives since the days of the 100mb parallel port version, through Internal SCSI & Internal IDE I love the devices. I only got rid of mine when my old unit eventually gave up the ghost and when I rebuilt my machine there wasn't really space for it. They all gave me years of reliable service. So, why are Iomega devices crap? A possible fix from Iomega was to boot the WinNT machine to "last known good config" and then remove the software. Now reboot, and grab the latest version from the Iomega site. Now install the latest version WITHOUT the ZIP drive attached to the machine. Add the device after the machine has fully finished installing the software and see if that works.

Are you service packed to the latest version? Both SP2 & SP3 for Win2k added fixes for "Memory could not be read" error messages. BTW - The error lies in them being displayed, there isn't actually anthing going wrong, just throwing up an error message when it shouldn't do.

I must concur. I log in from my work workstation, from my home PC and occasionally from one of the machines in our server room if I'm going to be there a while. I've never been asked to install Gator when visiting this site. Some annoying pop-up's certainly, but nothing like Gator.

Obviously we don't know. I'm still yet to see an XP machine crash and that is after using numerous different configurations. So I think I'll agree, WinXP was extremely stable from the very beginning.

Just keep an eye on your valuables and don't, whatever you do make a casual comment like "Well I was thinking about buying the new Sony Zx6775 32" widescreen" for if you do he'll be there all day.

OK, silly question. You have tried removing the memory upgrade you've just fitted and then seeing if the machine still stalls or boots ok?

Our Windows 2000 AD domain uses a DHCP server. This is fine, any Windows box on the network is automatically configured with an IP address etc. However, we have some Linux boxes that are running DHCP - these are so that we can attach set-top boxes to the network. The set-top boxes all have a MAC address starting the same way. The problem at the moment is that when one of these set-top boxes is added to the network there is a 50-50 change the Windows DHCP server will assign an IP address before the Linux box (which is configured to look for certain MAC ranges) gets there. Is there a way to configure the DHCP server on Win2k Server to ignore a whole range of MAC addresses? For example if MAC address starts FF then do not assign IP address, then the Linux box can do as it needs. Ta

It would appear that the Linux DHCP servers can indeed do this. They are acting purely on a list of known MAC addresses and simply don't get involved with any MAC address that doesn't concern them. So in the above example only Developer1's DHCP server will respond to one of Developer1's set-top boxes - well with the exception of the Windows servers of course as they are busy answering anything - but Developer2's DHCP server will not attempt to assign an IP address to a device using a MAC address from Developer1's pool. I was hoping that maybe the Windows DHCP server could do the same (as a rule the Windows servers can do more or less the same as the Linux boxes, however the features are usually hidden away). Oh well, back to the drawing board I feel.

OK. Basically speaking. Windows 2000 AD domain. This makes up some 85-90% of the network - Windows 2000 servers with Windows 2000 Professional & Windows XP Professional workstations. Each Windows box logs onto the network, the Windows DHCP server happily assigns an IP address to them, they are happy. The other 10-15% of the network is made up of Linux boxes and set-top boxes. Each of the developers has their own range of development MAC addresses and also their own range of IP addresses. Each of them run a DHCP server on their Linux boxes. So, a set-top box is attached, the Linux box is only distributing IP addresses for a certain list of MAC addresses -all is peachy (mainly because usually the set-top boxes are attached directly to the Linux boxes). Now they have the need to plug in the odd set-top box somewhere else on the network. It has it's own manually specified MAC address (from that developers range) and what we want to happen is that developers Linux box hands over an IP address from that developers range. However, before the Linux boxes have any time to hand over an address the Win2k Servers have responded quicker and already given out the address. I guess the only way forward here is to configure the Windows DHCP server to do all the dishing out of IP addresses to all boxes, be they Windows or Linux. Is that possible to do? Create a new scope which gives out IP addresses to certain MAC addresses? It isn't exactly reservation as such. Example: Developer1 IP Address range 10.171.254.1 - 10.171.254.254 MAC Address range 00:02:02:FF:FF ;(x Developer2 IP Address range 10.171.253.1 - 10.171.253.254 MAC address range 00:02:02:FF:FE ;(x Would that be possible?

I see posts appear like this on a near monthly basis. I really don't udnerstand where people are having problems with GTA2 under either Win2k or WinXP - it just works. Insert CD, Install Game, Run Game - Job complete. Of course I recommend the addition of the performance patch, but that is it. Please can you define "Not working" ie what exactly happens when you try to run it.