clutch

Odd, I don't recall CACLS ever prompting me for anything. I just tried a batch file in W2K, and it worked fine. I can't try it in NT until Monday, but I haven't ever had it prompt me there before either. What is it prompting you for? Is it prompting on errors? You can use /C to continue on error if need be.

In most cases, it involves the software trying to change HKLM reg keys, rather than HKCU. I have had the same issue with two different programs: 1. MP2 Maintenance Tracking Software. This seems to only affect Win2K. It got so bad, that I wound up making him a member of the local power users group. This wasn't a major issue, since it was just one person that doesn't do much on the PC. 2. Best Software "WinFAS" (Fixed Asset Software). The fix at the time, was to give full control access over the ODBC keys. This problem also occurred in both NT4 and Win2K. While I didn't care for this, it was much better than giving Power User access. If you can find out which keys they are, you may be able to get it working. Also, I have read where people have tried relocating the entire key for that piece of software to HKCU (where the user can R/W to it) and have been able to function perfectly fine without account modification. The issue is that the software company isn't writing according to the "rules" of registry use in NT/W2K. As in the case of WinFAS, the next major revision fixed the issue.

I found something that *might* help you out, if you are still looking to try this. Over here, the writer has a method to authenticate via ADSI and ASP. He warns that it may not work on some systems, but that it does function well. I haven't tried it, but I thought I would let you know.

To quote a previous brilliant statement on this very topic: "You can't. Give up now." NT doesn't slipstream, at all, in any manner, shape, or form.

One more thing, the router kicks a$$*... *For a consumer-level broadband sharing device.

Forwarding all the ports won't take away connectivity from the other machines, but it will keep anything else from hosting any services other than the IP that everything is directed to. Normally, if you start the session to transfer a file in AIM, you will be able to transfer it. However, the only time I had any issues with this was when the person I was communicating with was also behind some sort of NAT device. As for the DMZ, it essentially puts the workstation in question "outside" of the "firewall" (umm, NAT is more like it) so that it's fully exposed to all outside traffic for that IP (kinda like when you forward all the ports to one machine). I have seen this used so people can connect to IRC properly, and use Routing and Remote Access in Win2K Server as a VPN (not that it makes any sense, since you could just do away with the router in this case, but that's just me... ) hosting server. You can try running the auto configure option in AIM to see if it will find another port that is more suitable. If I find any more info on this, I will post it.

I read that activation was being required for MSDN subscribers as well now. This was from a subscriber that posted a while ago, but it still seems odd that MS would make that move.

I think this is it. I have been using the IEAK, so I haven't done this in quite a while. http://www.ntcompatible.com/vb/showthread.php?threadid=11614&highlight=download+IE+command

Or, the salesperson would ask you to shut everything down, unplug the battery, and wait 10 minutes before trying again...

I guess that would depend on what you are looking for out of a "corporate" version. My company has an Open License Agreement with MS through CDW, and we buy productivity software (Office 2000/XP, Project, etc.) using this license number. Upon doing so, you get a new key that will not require activation (since I am using SMS to deploy images of Office, this works out quite well) and work on any CD. The only other version that I can think of is where there is no key required at all, due to an entry in the setupp.ini(right?) file on the CD. This format used to be prevelant in the MSDN distributions, but they seem to be requesting activation now as well. If you would like to get into an open license agreement, go through a large distributor (like CDW) and they can guide you through the process. You will probably need a minimum of 5 licenses, however, in order to qualify to corporate licensing.

You just don't get it, do you? Subscription-based software has been out and over-ridden for quite a long time now, and those publishers are only kidding themselves as to its ability to counter true piracy (not just "casual copying"). Also, as there may be a time and a place for discussing w4rez and general computer crap (I always thought this place was fine, but I didn't realize it was such a hang up for you), as there is too a time and place for being a martyr to the "cause". A frankly, a message board that has post from persons talking about game and hardware compatibility interlaced with topics of marijuana usage doesn't seem to be it. Most people have been quite cordial to each other, and very informative. But dude, stop harshing the buzz.

What? Only 10% improvement in Q3 with a GeForce2 Pro? I guess it could be worse, I could own a V5500... nVidia kicks a$$.

As a "mod", I am more concerned with people flaming each other for no reason. That's it. As for filtering through the hacking and w4rez posts, I don't see that as an issue. Sure, I was irritated by seeing people asking "How do I get my Win2K Adv Server to host Counter-Strike?" when it was clearly obvious that they didn't get it legally. But here's the issue; who cares? Some of the people that *clearly* advocate piracy have also been helpful to others on this board, and I see no reason to censor their discussions. Am I to say "Hey, there is no way that you could have 2 legally licensed copies of Win2K Adv Server in your trailer! Are you running a meth lab to cover the costs of your licensing? If not, then we don't want to hear from you, no matter what you have to say!" when someone is responding to a question about IIS? That seems somewhat unrealistic, and time consuming. How are we to determine who is legit and who isn't? I realize that the topic "Disabling Product Activation" can be considered a clear and intentional request for stealing software. But I consider it a valid topic, since product activation of any type is very irritating. In our office, we have an open licensing agreement, which gives us a CD Key for OfficeXP that never needs activation. However, many people who do have this software legally do not have that option, and like me do not feel that they should go to MS asking "Mother may I?" to get the software activated again. Once I feel that Office XP is stable, I intend to disable PA on my home system, even though I have a legal copy. The whole concept just flat pi$$es me off to no end, and I don't feel that I am alone. One more thing, there seems to be some clear confusion as to who is losing money with software piracy in general. Well, it would have to be anybody who wrote and/or published the software as the software is being used without it being payed for. Now, here's the catch. You see these people that have Win2K Adv Server in here right? And you know damned well the vast majority of them could not have it legally. However, they never could anyway, so it's a net loss of zero to the software owners. Yet, many of these same people wind up learning from the product, and get entry level positions at companies working with it even more (or they request the software and their respective companies purchase it, hence a new sale). That's why I don't really care that much about it. Same thing with MP3s. I have downloaded from bear-share mp3s that I did not have the license for, so I could find a specific song. Once I did, I would pick up the CD if I liked it. Otherwise, the track is just taking up space on my harddrive that I could be using for pirated software until my meth lab starts getting profitable again...

Quote: ...However, it's still a crappy chip right now. Not quite. The chip is fine, it's only problem is that it is effectively running in "compatiblity mode" with most applications. When DivX;) was tweaked for the P4, it smoked the AMD unit. Also, the RDRAM platform with it isn't that bad, so much as it's ridiculously expensive. Performance is fast, but the cost difference makes no sense. Quote: I question a company that tries to tell the consumer that this product is the best, and an older product--that is ususally cheaper is able to perform closely to it, or beat it. By all means, the P4 should be stomping all over the 1.4GHz Athlon, but it's not. Again, compatibility mode. Almost nothing runs well when it's operating in this manner. Also, Apple made the same claims a long time ago with the "G" series systems, stating that their systems could easily run circles around Intel chips. Then, people started running benchmarks comparing similarly clocked (450MHz) P3s vs the the Apple, and Photoshop ran faster on the Intel systems than the on the Apples. This was attributed to the use of SSE, and that Adobe started tweaking their apps to work faster on Intel boxes than they had in the past. I would expect to see such tweaks in the future, as the Pentium platform moves in its current direction. Quote: I've already stated this (I think), but the original specs for the P4 called for a much bigger L1 cache than is currently implemented---only a fraction of the original specs. There was also an optional L3 cache--which wouldn't have hurt anything--but was left out. As did the Athlon, yet I never saw any of the 8MB L2 units hitting the market, but they "claimed" it could. Quote: Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-Intel, but the P4 in its current state is a poor piece of work from Intel. As am I not against AMD, but I would just like to see both sides mentioned here. They (AMD) made a great deal of promises when the Athlon came out, yet had a great deal of problems with the architecture (like the hobbled L2 cache speed at 750MHz and above) and quality issues with chipsets that were shipping. Quote: Things look smooth, but the fact is that we're obviously going to see a blunder from AMD in the SMP arena. Count on it. It's a major undertaking, and while they have learned a lot about engineering and quality control issues, this is still a massive undertaking.

Style sheets kick a$$.

I have created ISO files in Adaptec EZ CD Creator 5 and CDR-Win 3.8, and I would like to burn them in Nero 5.5. Which options do I need to select to make this successful? I can't seem to find any specifics on the Nero site, and nothing (other than .NRG files) in the help file. I can browse for the image using "All Files", but when I select it Nero calls it a "foreign image" and gives me a dialog requesting block size and a few other variables. Is there anybody that can successfully burn ISOs in Nero around here?

Thanks bud! I read that link once before, but every time I burned an ISO in that fashion, the CD would not work. However, this is a more recent build and it worked fine. Thanks again.

Wow, what a bizarre turn of events this thread has taken. I just thought I would drop by to see what I have been missing, and it would appear to be quite a bit. I will say something though, not every use of a crack is to simply steal the software involved. We were evaluating Solidworks 2000 (CAD app) last year, and could only get 15 day eval licenses. Well, we went through 2 of them because our engineers only knew 2D AutoCRAP software and didn't have the time to dedicate to learning this parasolid-based app. It became so difficult to get the licenses (waited 2 weeks for #3 to get here, and #2 sat with the sales person so long that we only had 8 days left on it) that I got the educational crack for it. After about a month, the engineers loved it and we spent $35,000 on our copies. I advised our reseller what I had to do, and they inturn complained to Solidworks about this. Since then, Solidworks has changed their temp license to 30 days and has made reissues much simpler. We were having the same issue with COSMOS Works (FEA plug-in for Solidworks) and they are still using the old 15-day limit that Solidworks did. However, we couldn't even get the second license, since we had to get it directly from COSMOS and we didn't have a rep at the time (we were still working through or reseller, and they had their own problems getting them). I "extended" our testing in a similar fashion, and we wound up buying the product (another $12,000 plus annualized maintenance). Our rep came by last week, and I discussed all these issues with him. It's a shame that these companies are making evaluation so damn difficult, to the point that it's hurting sales of their products. They think they are controlling piracy, when in fact they are running off future customers.

I haven't seen any problems with adding a ton of memory to workstations, but unless you are doing memory intensive tasks (extensive compiling, database development on the workstation, CAD/CAM, etc) then I think anything beyond 256MB would be the point of diminished returns. I use 384MB on my workstations, with a minimum of 256MB for any machine that I would use normally.

Ummm, did you get any BIOS updates for them? I still have a few Gateway beaters at work (one 200MHz non-MMX and one 133MHz) that I run NT 4 SP6a on. Those, however, have separate video cards rather than on-board video. Also, memory hasn't been an issue until I tried to add more to the 133 units (I had 3 others that I threw away). They didn't care for newer DIMMs at all (yes, a couple of them took DIMMs). I had the same issue with some of our older Dell Dimension machines not being able to use current DIMMs, then I updated the BIOS on them and all's well.

Sun is lame. Java isn't "platform independent", it IS a platform unto itself. They need to get over it. MS can twist the rules just like Sun can. And here's the kicker; the average person that buys a PC doesn't even know what Java is anyway, and isn't going to care.

In computer management, you can to convert the drive in question to a "dynamic disk". I would recommend trying this with a test drive/partition first. Then, you can create mount points. About dynamic disks: http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q175/7/61.ASP And here are faqs on dynamic disk conversion and mount points: http://www.windows2000faq.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=13762 http://www.windows2000faq.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=13781 http://www.windows2000faq.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=13782 I am not sure if they will support UNC paths as of yet, but it could be worth a shot.

There might be another way. You could check out "dynamic disks", and see if you can mount the network share to a given point on your partition. This is a system-wide function, but I can't remember if it supports UNCs.

Release To Manufacturing. Generally, this is the build that "goes gold" and is ready for mass production.