shiftyjake wrote:



Nope, didn't work.  Same problem.  I'm gonna try that uninstall-reinstall thing with flash. 

Man, if this doesn't work, maybe Linux will.  I'm tired of Vista's crap.

iStation wrote:

I recommend Japanese if you move to Seattle.

tekiegirl wrote:

Here is how to uninstall Windows Desktop Search (WDS) completely from your PC (step-by-step for those who need it):

1. Click on the Start Menu, then Run.

2. Type cmd in the box and click OK. This will bring up the command line.

3. You should see C:\Documents and Settings\your username>
Type cd.. then press the enter or return key. Do this again.

4. The display should now read C:\>
Type cd windows (or what ever directory windows was installed to, in most cases this is windows) and press enter again.

5. You should now have C:\windows\>
Type the following and press enter:
$NtUninstallKB917013$\spuninst\spuninst.exe /q /promptrestart

6. A box will now appear to confirm the WDS has been uninstalled and asks you to restart. Once you have restarted the PC WDS is gone!

radiofly wrote:

Yes I'm having the same problem and not getting to work. I have a dell laptop running Vista pro. At first vista recognized my psp then I checked my computer to check out my my memory card and nothing there. I tried everything that everyone has posted here but nothing. so if anyone else has this same problem and resolved it please let me know.

Lloyd_Humph wrote:



savvi wrote:  naicul wrote: Hi guys! I don't really know if this is the right place to ask this, but I'll give it a try: I've just installed Vista Business x64 (looks great!), but I'm experiencing a problem with my Internet connection. I connect to Internet trough a cable connection (I have a modem). Vista identified my network card (a realtek rtl8168/8111 family pci-e gigabit ethernet nic). The only problem is that it does not identify the network connection. It says "access: local only" and, when I try to diagnose the problem it says I have to shot down my modem for 10 secounds and then plug it again. This does not solve my problem. Does anyone have any idea where the problem could be? I'm trying to fix this since this morning, and now I look at the clock and it's nine o'clock. Any advice would be highly appreciated. Thanks!

Oh wow thanks! You're amazing!

Digging up a necro thread for no reason? You must be one of the legendary 1337!

Xaero_Vincent wrote:



Wasn't 6.22 the DOS bundled with Windows 3.1?

corona_coder wrote:



In a few words:  Dont use Vi$ta.

Ubuntu is superior and will give optimal performance on your x64 PC.

Dovella wrote:



i drive this car to day one launch in Italy
Its very very beatifull

the quality to component it s Best.
in the car there is dispositive by Microsoft technology called blu and me

Xaero_Vincent wrote:



Ray6 wrote: MS has also relaxed the licensing rules for installing Vista under virtualisation, so it should be much cheaper to get it up and running on your Mac (this was an excellent move on MS's part by the way).

Microsoft also aquired a company that specializes in providing 3D capabilities for VM and TS. Everything we thought we knew about graphics over RDP was wrong.

Sven Groot wrote:



YearOfTheLinuxDesktop wrote: and this could explain the large amount of vista users reporting slow file copying speed.

I don't believe so, as the default on XP is the same, so there would be no loss in performance compared to XP.

And the research I read referred to modern disk scheduling algorithms. It's a paper from 2007 so it's unlikely that its conclusions apply to Windows 2000 and the disks from that era.

drhowarddrfine wrote:

No, almost standards mode is for authors trying to transition older page to standards mode.  No one should ever use it for new pages.  Same with quirks mode.  Standards mode had to be created because IE mishandled the box mode, thus creating 'quirks mode'.  So the doctype is needed to tell browsers you aren't using IEs broken model.  This is all standard stuff.

Modern web pages have no need for quirks mode or almost standards mode.

Sven Groot wrote:



YearOfTheLinuxDesktop wrote: I think I've got confused, the pages were made for IE5, I've made them compatible with IE6 by using the HTML 4.0 transitional doctype. I didn't use the xml tag used on IE6 to enable IE5-quirks mode that on IE7 instead triggers the standard mode but instead I used the doctype so on IE7 they should have been still compatible but they weren't since some divs had weird margings that I had to correct.

That makes no sense. The HTML 4.01 Transitional DOCTYPE (if it includes a system identifier) will trigger standards mode on both IE6 and IE7. No "xml tag" is needed in either case. If you are referring to the XML declaration, that should never be used on non-XHTML documents and due to a bug in IE6 would prevent standards mode even if the DOCTYPE is present (this was fixed in IE7).

If your documents had a HTML 4.01 DOCTYPE and that DOCTYPE was the first line in the document, then your pages were using standards mode, not quirks mode, in both IE6 and 7. That's the mode that changed which they found broke compatibility. And that's the reason they don't want to change it again for IE8. Quirks mode should've remained the same for both browsers.

EDIT: I agree with your other arguments: remember, I'm not in favour of this meta tag switch. I'm just explaining why they're doing it.

Sven Groot wrote:


And thus drastically increases the chances of data loss in the case of power failure. The dialog itself even says you should only enable it for disks with a backup power supply.

I am currently reading a lot of research on storage mechanisms. Results have shown (e.g. in Evaluating Block-level Optimization through the IO Path, Riska, Larkby-Lahet and Riedel) that effective I/O scheduling can close the gap between write-back and write-through disk caching strategies.

In other words, I believe it's not on because the benefit is relatively small while the risks are relatively great.

Cyonix wrote:

Isn’t it off because "advanced performance" caches data in RAM so if your power goes out you’ll lose that data?

drhowarddrfine wrote:

  Why this is bad.