Atreyu

Well if you have active directory installed, then by default you MUST have DNS installed (for the domain). Set up your domain controller (dns server) to not only work for DNS on your LAN, but then set it up to forward requests that are not found in your LAN. That way you can call the DNS server in your DOMAIN, but also be able to get onto the internet etc... as your DNS server will forward you outside of your LAN if your request does not match any of the IPs of your local machines.

Well, when I was having this problem, it was because my XP machine was having tons of trouble logging into my network (my domain) because it was not talking to the DHCP server. Turned out, I hadn't registered my DHCP server on my Active Directory and that was the problem. It was looking for a DHCP server but couldn't find one. Try playing with your network settings... I'm not sure what else to say, since when I had this problem it was because of DHCP. Your problem may not be the same, but most likely the problem is similar.

huh?

Assuming you are using DHCP on your network... Most likely your problem is occuring as a result of DHCP issues. At startup your XP machine is looking for all the IP information it needs to connect to your domain and the internet etc. If there are any problems with your DHCP settings in either your client or your DHCP server (e.g. your DHCP server is not authorized in the Active Directory), then your XP machine will take forever to start up and allow you to log on. Are you getting stuck where it says "Applying computer settings" or something like that? If so, DHCP configuration is most likely your problem. Try manually entering an IP in your XP machine that would be recognized on your network and see if you have the same problem. If it starts right up, you willknow your problem is DHCP.

I'm not extremely familiar with how this worked in NT4, but I do know that once you commit to the change in Windows 2000 (you upgrade the disks from basic to dynamic) you can't go back without losing everything. Also, as clutch said, it would be better to throw them on a SCSI RAID card and stripe them that way, since in that scenario the card does all the processing. You may also want to consider this: which level of RAID do you want? If you stripe your disks, that may improve speed (with a RAID controller in particular), but if one of them fails, you lose everything spread accross the others. If you decide this sux, then you need RAID with parity, which has it's advantages and disadvantages as well. This is known as RAID level 5 and is probably the most widely used form of RAID out there. There are other levels of RAID which use parity, I think they are 4 and 3.. however 5 is the best as it nearly eliminates the write bottleneck in RAID Level 4 (level 4 uses one disk for parity and level 5 uses all the disks in the array and spreads out the parity bit). This result in reads substantially outperforming writes. Raid 5, however, is often used in multiper processor environments.. which you may or may not apply to you. blablabla bored at work

DosFreak, I never thought I'd think that way about Linux, but I'm beginning to... However, I don't think it will make it onto corporate workstations, as the cost of re-training employees on Linux would far outmatch the cost of simply putting Windows everywhere... even though Linux is free. And also, that whole thing about leftover files and registry entries... that's exactly why I lile my OSs lean and mean. With Windows XP, I just KNOW there are thousands of files and settings and registry entries out there which are completely useless to me, as I would disable all the junk associated with them. When I'm done with a bananna, I don't just throw the peel on the couch.. cuz it takes up space, is gross, and it doesn't belong there. Same concept here. Lotsa trash leftover when you are done disabling and tuning all the settings. Also, if you notice, when you go into the system properties in Windows XP, to the place where you can change all these settings regarding smooth scrolling, fading, and the like... there are three settings to chose from: Fastest, Custom, and Normal(?). If you chose fastest, then all the garbage that is enabled in the box below becomes disabled. So it is evident right there, that Microsoft knows all the extra crapola included in XP slows down the system. Hey maybe some day I'll be a die hard Windows XP fan. But as of now, I'm certainly not impressed. I never thought I'd see an operating system use a freakin cow pasture as the default background. Just a solid color, or perhaps a Windows logo or something... would be fine. Or even.. if XP used the Silver color scheme with the Crystal wallpaper as the default... that is quite nice. But BLUE taskbar and GREEN fields!?? Who designed that? Also, I hate that the start button is like 3 times the size of the old one. I do, however, dig the new start menu. It's handy. One other thing, I was not too displeased with Windows XP after I disabled everything. It wasn't all that bad when changed back to the old style. The only problems I encountered with that was I couldn't administer my domain using either the adminpak.msi from the Windows 2000 Server CD or the adminpak.msi from the Windows .NET Beta 2 CD. I had to do that by Terminal Servicing into one of my domain controllers and changing things from there. That's not all bad, however it's much nicer just to open up my "MASTER MMC" and do everything from there. That's why, when .NET comes out, I may go ahead and make the switch. I have some reading to to about it. There's not much technical info out on Windows XP yet. Most of it seems to be very watered town top level mush propaganda aimed at the home user. If anybody has some good links which talk about Windows XP's domain/AD structure and how it relates or works with that of Windows 2000, please list em'. If you guys can't tell.. I'm extremely bored at work today.

I will not change to Windows XP for at least another year and a half, and I **may** skip it all together. My reasons: 1) I will not use Windows XP until Windows .NET Server is released, OR until there is far better support for Windows XP in the Windows 2000 Active Directory structure. 2) I will not use Windows XP until there is at least one service pack released for it. Also, I will not use Windows .NET Server until there is at least one .NET service pack released. Therefore it may be a while until I make the switch (if, in fact, iI do). 3) I will not use Windows XP until I can find a way (if there is one) to alter installation so that I don't have to install all the CRAP... like the skins and all that other LUNA garbage. Also, I've never seen so many damn wizards and idiot-proof slush before in an OS. There are a couple little improvements that are nice.. for example the Remote Desktop is very sweet, but Terminal Services in Win2k is just fine for me. Also things like locking the taskbars, transparent icon backgrounds, and translucent selection boxes are nice, but hardly worth the extra overhead and pain in the arse of switching. 4)I will not use Windows XP until there has been plenty of time to find any security issues, and have patches available to fix them. 5)I will not use Windows XP simply because it's Windows 2000 with a bunch of added garbage (like skins). Read any documentation, it's basically a different shell on the same kernel, with tons of "enhancements" that may be good for the home user who opens up their browser occasionally and sends an email now and then, but that really make power users want to puke. There's something you must understand about me and computers. I like lean and mean. Nuttin fancy, just something that runs very fast, runs all my programs, doesn't crash, and has a decent gui, and does not take up unnecessary resources. NT 4 was awesome. The OS still powers huge coorporations and an average installation of the Server version was somewhere around 400 megabytes. Sure there were many security issues with NT 4, but they were all fixed nearly as soon as they were discovered. Windows 2000, as we all know, was all that and a bag of chips. Oh anyways, I'm at work and I should probably get back to work. I have tried WinXP final version off and on since August 12 (when I got it). There's NOTHING in there that makes me want to change for good. As a matter of fact, there's MANY things about it that give me the shivers. It would be nice to be able to go for more than a year without being presented with a new OS to try out. Oh, and another thing... all the extra garbage added onto WinXP might have been ok added ONLY to the personal edition, but has NO PLACE in the Professional edition. And for the love of GOD I hope they don't include all that stuff in the .NET Server editions. Can you imagine going into a server room and seeing LUNA everywhere? **shivers** And I agree, it's an INCREDIBLY annoying operating system to work with. **stepping down off my soapbox** ok ok, back to work ciao

That's the same Norton I use. The only way you will have devldr32.exe is if you have Live!Ware installed. If you have that installed, devldr32.exe will reside in your system32 folder. I'm not 100% sure that this problem still exists with NAVCE 7.51, but it was an issue with 7.0. If you do not have Live!Ware installed, this most likely is not the cause of your problem.

It just occured to me that perhaps Osama and his cronies may be responsible for these viruses? It seems like a very "good" method of him trying to accomplish his goal... disrupting the economies of the world etc. I dunno.. just a thought.. what do you think? Maybe?

WHAT!? We're up to 30 hours in a day now!!! Why didnt't somebody tell me!!? **runs out the door with arms flailing wildly in the air**

Another thing to remember. Antrax is NOT contageous. 5 people (out of the hundreds of million in our country) getting Anthrax does not mean we have an epidemic on our hands. The news is making me very angry by arousing such fear in the nation about it. People, there is absolutely nothing to be worried about (as long as the disease remains to be Anthrax). Heck, the Flu causes approximately 1,000 deaths per year, so why are we not running around with gas masks trying to keep from contracting the flu? Anthrax this year has killed one. And most likely that will be the only one. Also AIDS, which is FAR more likely to be contracted and as we all know, is fatal, and FAR more easily contracted. Anthrax is perfectly curable if caught early enough. And again, it's not contageous. What is really ticking me off is the way news channels and the media in general is handling the whole ordeal. Even respected news channels like CNN are arousing a fear about this. It's funny, reporters will say things like "There is nothing to worry about" and highlighted in huge bold red letters on the left of the screen are the words "ANTRHAX SCARE". Well, this is minor compared to FoxNews.. which is just flat out aweful. Anyways.. it certainly sux, but whatever will be.. will be. I just wish the news would stop showing people in gas masks and the like, with headlines such as "ANTHRAX SCARE IMINENT" etc.

Are you using Live!Ware on Win2k? If so, are you using a Norton Antivirus? There have been issues in the past with devldr32.exe (%root%/winnt/system32/devldr32.exe) hanging on shutdown. Move devldr32.exe to your startup folder and that will fix the problem. But it sounds like you fixed the problem anyays. I just figured I'd post this for the sheer thrill of it.

I posted this in "other" since it applies to both WinXP's "remote desktop" and Win2k's Terminal Services. The default port is 3389 for both, and this can EASILY be changed with a little flick of the registry. In Windows 2000 Terminal Services Client, the port can also be changed to match that of the server it is trying to connect to (regardless if it's WinXP RD or Win2k TS). My question is regarding the Terminal Services Web Client. According to Microsoft you are unable to change the port that the web client uses to connect to a terminal server (port 3389). This may be set in stone, but I DOUBT it. There must be some way to change it. I'm wondering if anybody on here knows of a way to change the port that Terminal Services Web Client uses to connect to a Terminal Server.

I have mailed this to Philip as a news item so you may see it pop up on the main page as well. Everybody should read through this. GRC's Report on Denial of Service Attacks on Windows XP -- Hacker's Dream Come True --

Oh wups... Well I didn't remember seeing it before on here, and I stop by many times per day. Very possible that I could have missed it though. Sorry!

Yes, but at least it's a fruitful discussion. Nobody is ranting or flaming, which is why I like NTCompatible so much. Good info is being exchanged in a very civil way. Nothing wrong with going off topic if you ask me; as long as the conversation is still resulting in the exchange of useful knowledge.

Cool that clears it up a bit for me. Yeah I realized that alone it's not a cure-all, that's why it's used extensively with ASP. And XSL... oh yeah..... forgot about that :-). Thanx Xiven.

It may not replace them, but it works wonderfully with ASP. Also, XML's data and formatting layer are completely separate (hope I said that correctly). ONe major advantage of XML tho is the ability a programmer has to customize basically ANYTHING. Make up his/her own language to do whatever they need to be done. For example, let's say in ASP (vbscript) if you needed a button to execute a given function and there was no "onclick" event, you could invent your own "onclick" event.

Eh, so could I. ...Just a bit of info I picked up along the way. I remember hearing or reading somewhere that "PHP is the UNIX/LINUX equivalent to ASP".... or something to that effect. This is why I've never bothered to learn it. If I'm wrong, please correct me! Thanx

Check out XML before PHP. I'm no guru yet, but from what I read, it has a very bright future. Also it works very well with ASP, which in turn works VERY well with COM. Does PHP have these abilities? Prolly not, since it's a Unix/Linux thing. Just my input.

Now that, my friends, is how a discussion/argument should take place. Well done guys!

Ayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy- MEN!!

Ya know what else I just thought of... With a PC, you can download emulators, which allow you to play Nintendo, Super Nintendo, Sega, Nintendo 64, and Playstation games. Again, there are legal issues here, but it just goes to show you how much more sensible it is to have a PC. You just have far more options. Welp gotta go to work. Talk to you guys later.

XBox, as I understand it, is going to have a Pentium III 700mhz, a GeForce 3, an Nvidia NForce, and a hard drive. Well, if this is the hardware, then I can say that my computer kicks it's butt! Maybe the XBox will be different, but what happens when a game needs to be patched? Or new maps or scenarios added? What if your video stops working properly? Also, unlike computers, consoles are limited to perform only to the best of their ability. They cannot be upgraded like a computer can to give it the capacity to perform better. So basically you have to wait for another, better console to be released. Also, speaking of cost. If we are assuming that games cost $50 and you have oh, 20 games... that would run you right around $1,000 in itself. With a PC, you COULD borrow your favorite game from a friend and burn it. 20 games for the PC COULD = $8 (the cost of blank cds). Questions regarding the legality of this are important, but the fact of the matter is that you COULD do this, and many, MANY people do. And like FatFish said, pcs are not limited to games. They do EVERYTHING else. This is where my opinion is developed. PCs are not "static" like consoles are, current PCs have the same processing power as the most current console (and this increases with every passing month), PCs are easily repairable if there is a problem, PC games are every bit as good if not better (in my opinion), the cost of games for the PC is thousands of dollars less than for a console (provided you do the burning thing), and finally, as FatFish said, when you are done playing your game on the PC, you can do whatever else it is you do on a computer. This is how I see it. But hey that's just me. I refuse to buy a cell phone too, so maybe I'm nuts.

If you ask me, don't buy any of them. In my opinion, consoles are a huge waste of money.