control panel in Vista

[shankle]

I did not have this problem until I had to do a reinstall of Vista.
The Control Panel flashes on the screen and  Microsoft is silent on the subject.
I have a work around but it is a pain and not permanent.
This is what I paid $200 for when I bought a new Puter......
Nothing is ever easy....

[vanjast]

I bought 2x new laptops and the supplier said that it comes with vista.
I said that I do not want vista, but XP - And only will have vista with SP6+.
No can do they say and gave me vista...  :tdown

As I get home - pc on table, DOS format disk completely then install XP...
Have no problems  :thumbu
:bg

[BlackVortex]

Except that you paid for Vista anyway. Microsoft thanks you for your contribution.

[shankle]

Thanks for the replies.
Most of us, including me, don't have much of a choice if we want to keep
somewhat current.
I think I am going to try a combination of Ubuntu and Vista. Online stuff
and email with Ubuntu and programming with vista. Anything else is years
of work for me. In other words try to avoid Vista and windows 7, 8, 9,
10, etc. as much as I can.
Maybe someone has a better solution. I certainly don't see one.

[BlackVortex]

Maybe someone has a better solution. I certainly don't see one.

See this ?

XP

:cheekygreen: :cheekygreen: :cheekygreen:

[shankle]

This one hit me right between the eyes.
I had to reinstalled Vista. In doing to I didn't know about reactivating it.
Finally I saw it and went through the process. Now my Control panel
is working. Wonder what other surprises I will get?
No wonder people are going to Linux.

[Mark Jones]

...No wonder people are going to Linux.

Ya know what would be nice? A special Linux distro, or even a YouTube video, which showcased ALL of the top Linux builds so the user could get an idea what platform to migrate to. I mean, there are like a thousand Linux variants out there, and everyone claims their variant is the best.

[shankle]

I have the same problem. It's needed. Also it shouldn't take anyone days to install Ubuntu.
Now I admit that installing just Ubuntu might not be a problem but just try it with Vista,
Ubuntu and some other OS, I've spent days in the process. IMHO Ubuntu is in it's infancy
and some serious work needs to be done on GRUB. Grub causes all the trouble with Dual
Booting. If it wasn't for Easybcd and a site like "Neosmart.net" it would have been an
impossibility for me. I've got it half working now. God what a hassle....

[locche]

This should work:
Vista has its own boot loader, but it will read the boot.ini files from XP/2000.  Windows can boot Linux so you can do the following steps:
You will need a copy of ntldr from xp/2000 to do this.
1.
Install Linux on the desired partitions, you need 1 for root, 1 for swap. Install  LILO not GRUB for the bootloader.  When the install asks you where do you want the
boot loader installed, select the root partition, NOT the MBR.  So if you installed root on /dev/hda1 then select this as the place to install. 
When the install does the reboot, you'll need the cd or whatever to start your system.. A few yrs back you could make a bootable floppy to start the system, but I assume
this is no longer an option for most people. To boot your system from the cd, there is a boot option, usually called "rescue".  Try to type rescue at the prompt or follow the help instructions. It will first seem like your repeating an install but linux is just loading devices, basic keybd configs, etc.  At some point after linux has found itself on the hdd, it will offer the option to boot your installation wit, so select this option. You should now have a command prompt.

2. cd to the /boot folder. There is a file there called vmlinuz-x.x.x.x-xx. Rename it to plain vmlinuz.  Open up the following file for an edit: /etc/lilo.conf
Assuming you installed root on the first partition of the first disk, be sure to have the following lines in the file:
boot=/dev/hda1
image=/boot/vmlinuz 
root=/dev/hda1
label=PickAName   <<=== free choice of name

If you have Debian you additionally need the line
initrd=initrd.img-X.X.X-X-X86    <<== replace those x's with the numbers of the the name of the initrd.img file in /boot

Save the file.

3. type lilo or /sbin/lilo
You should see
* added PickAName
(  maybe some gripes  about not being active partitions and mbrs, you can ignore these. Mistakes must be corrected. If you added the lines as above, there should
be no errors. If there are, just rename /etc/lilo.cfg to /etc/lilo.alt and create a new /etc/lilo.cfg with only the lines above.

4. cd /root
   type the following:
   dd=if=/dev/hda1 of=bootlin.bin bs=512 ct=1
   
5. You need a flashdisk formatted with fat, so windows can read it. Plug in the usbstick. Type in modprobe usb-storage to find out which dev your usbstick is
    assigned to. Mine was /dev/sda1. 
   mount the disk:   mount /dev/sda1  /mnt                     
   Now copy the file  to the disk
   cp bootlin.bin /mnt
   unmount the disk
   umount /dev/sda1

6.
Now install Vista on the desired partition.  Now copy the ntldr file to the root directory of C:\.. Now create a textfile  called boot.in, which you will save to C:\ as well and
add the lines:
[boot loader]
timeout=0
c:\bootlin.bin="Linux"
[operating systems]
c:\bootlin.bin="Linux"

Hope this helps. 

[shankle]

This is for Mark Jones.
I sent you a private message but I guess you either didn't get it or haven't seen it.
Curious as to your thoughts.
JPS

[Mark Jones]

Thanks, yes I got the message but have been just swamped in classes this semester. I took a quick look on the Ubuntu homepage for that document explaining all of the differences between the various 'Nixes, but didn't have enough time to perform an in-depth search, and the entire weekend and thensome is already full.

What also must be an important factor, is how much each user customizes their OS before saying "Hey look, my OS is the best!" I get the feeling that an unbiased, impartial overview is just impossible.

[shankle]

Hi Mark,
Everything has its drawbacks and the multitude of distro names is one of them.
Seems to me that a central body needs to be formed by Linux to control this.
Lots of information in that pocket guide that will certainly help me with the nitty
gritty of Ubuntu. Without it, it's an impossibility.

[tetsu-jp]

...No wonder people are going to Linux.

Ya know what would be nice? A special Linux distro, or even a YouTube video, which showcased ALL of the top Linux builds so the user could get an idea what platform to migrate to. I mean, there are like a thousand Linux variants out there, and everyone claims their variant is the best.

this would be exceeding the maximum allowed length.

seriously, there is new DOTNET technology, new VB, new Silverlight, and you need Vista to run Visual Studio.
it is not just XP with AERO surface added (what they sometimes say).

also new Win Server is somehow compatible with Vista (it can run most new games).

the problem with old XP (or LINUX) is, you do not get:

-multicore suport
-64BIT CPU support
-4GB or more memory support
-modern 3D graphics support
-serial ATA support (my mainboard has just one legacy IDE port)
-1OOOMBps Ethernet support

and with Vista/Win Server, you get all this!

http://mtfujitown.info/htp1/microsoft.html

I have certain LINUX distros at home, sneaked in via magazines, but no motivation to install them.
I feel generous keeping the DVDs.

do they have something like MSDN? the answer is, no. neither documentation, nor social forum.
and even if, it would be a shadow of MSDN, at best.

if Vista is not professional enough for you, get Win Server (free trial, Web Server edition only $450)
if it is too slow, upgrade your computer.

If you don't want to do these things, think about LINUX.

[BlackVortex]

-multicore suport
-64BIT CPU support
-4GB or more memory support
-modern 3D graphics support
-serial ATA support (my mainboard has just one legacy IDE port)
-1OOOMBps Ethernet support

What do you mean about multicore ? XP supports multicore cpus just fine.

With XP64 you get 64bit+memory support (although it's a bad OS overall)
And what about SATA support ? You mean, lack of drivers for recent notebooks I guess.

Also I don't understand about Ethernet support, what is missing ? My mainboard supports Gigabit LAN, you mean I can't get the full speed on XP ?

[tetsu-jp]

you could argue the same way for WIN98 (which was a good OS).

as it appears, new hardware works better on the latest OS revisions.

they have even come up with installers which require Vista (at least, .NET framework).

there is also an XP web site from Microsoft!

but they clearly advise people to consider Vista.
by the way, WIN7 will support low-end computers, what ever this means, i guess, 1GHz/1GB memory/single core (while Vista is not good advice for a slow CPU).

as it looks the upgrade spiral includes some form of sacrifice (old software/hardware), recently it has changed, 1 1/2 years = "old".

on the other hand, if you build a brand new system, it is much more fun than to run the old OS.
I have WIN98 computer, guess how often it is booted up? not all all in two weeks.

it is OK if you skip VISTA,  wait for WIN7 major release (beta versions already available), and continue to use XP.

but for a new system, don't consider WIN XP. current games maybe work, but this may change in one year.