Spooky

Member
  • Content count

    718
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Spooky

  1. Why don't you folks in countries other than the U.S. try one of the following: 1. Have a friend in the U.S. purchase it for you in the U.S. then send it to you. 2. Purchase from one of the on-line U.S. places on the net, have it shipped to a friend in the U.S. then have the friend send it to you. 3. Same as #2 above but instead have it shipped straight to you. This may mean you pay extra import tax or something in some countries, where as #2 above in those cases will be less expensive. 4. If your going to be in the U.S. (vacation, visit relatives, work, etc...) buy it while your here. Better yet, if there are several of you in the same country, and if one of you will be visiting the U.S., get together and have the person visiting buy for all while he/she is here. 5. If you know someone who works for FedEx who knows folks in the U.S. who work for FedEx, have them contact their fellow FedEx employee in the U.S. who works for FedEx and arrange for them to 'jump seat' a purchased copy to you as an employee crew member baggage. Advantage to this is its classed as personal baggage for the FedEx aircraft crew member and exempt from customs import tax. I actually did this once for something, its perfectly legal. Works with other shipping companies also. FedEx employees do this all the time for each other. 6. If you know someone in the military ----well i'm not going to go into this one but the possibility is endless here including getting it for free. There are a lots more ways too.
  2. @croc, I'm sorry. I thought you were speaking about the price increasing AFTER it got to Australia, I didn't realize you were speaking about the MS set price. In that case it has to do with greed, or what MS thinks the market will bear -OK they are both greed, one just sounds more politically correct then the other.
  3. WoW! thats horrible. Its got nothing to do with a free trade agreement, what it has to do with is the Australian market place has increased the price. Its a $180 increase over the U.S. price. I checked, the import cost was around $10.00 (USD) per unit (each boxed copy), the rest of what you seeing is an increase that the Australian market place has tacked on. So its not Vista Ultimate screwing you, its the Australian market screwing you.
  4. (Not considering any 'work arounds' or 'hacks') I think MS disabled the ability to do a clean install from an upgrade version didn't they? Used to be an upgrade version of windows asked to see a previous version before continuing, then it did a full clean install, but I do believe this capability has been removed for Vista.
  5. I know a couple of software engineers in Australia who used the address of a friend here in the U.S., they received theirs, it was sent to the address of the friend in the U.S. - who sent it to them in Australia.
  6. Got mine yesterday.
  7. @Tassadaru I'm was looking around for something that you might try for ICS, haven't really found anything yet. This is probably because there isn't really any replacement for ICS because ICS is a MS innovation that is built into the OS.
  8. Yes, some of these utilities say they do but they really don't simply because they can't really. What they try to do is disable the autotune which in the beginning people claimed cause the 4226. This was based upon something that occured during the beta when autotune wasn't working correctly (it was a beta after all). In the RTM these utilities do not increase the number of TCP/IP connections. Besides the way this works is there is no need to increase this as the limit of 10 in reality only affects connections that do not respond or time out during the TCP/IP hand shaking process - if all the connections connect and are sucessful in the TCP/IP handshaking and do not time out this limit of 10 has no effect - in other words if all the connects are good and act like they are supposed to there is no limit. In practical reality the 4226 error is not really an error, its something that tells you some of the connections did not sucessfully negoiate the TCP/IP handshaking process or timed out. Even in winXP when the so called 'fix' for TCPIP.sys was put out with the hacked file it did not actually remove the limit, the hacked file just changed the limit to a higher number - by doing this the 4226 was not reported until the higher number was reached, so people had connections that did not do the TCP/IP handshaking sucessfully or timed out and they didn't even know it until much later when the higher limit was reached. the people who hacked the file and distributed it advertised it as "more TCP/IP connections" when in reality it did not do anything at all for the number of connections and the TCP/IP was still functioning exactly the same as it was before being hacked. It did nothing for the number of connections because there was nothing to do because there was no limit to begin with. The people who hacked the file did so in the mistaken belief that they were changing some limit, they simply did not understand how TCP/IP operates. The same is true for Vista, its how TCP/IP operates. The 4226 event has been widely touted has placing a limit on the numer of connections you can make. In reality its only telling you that some of the connections did not do the TCP/IP handshaking properly or timed out duing the connection attempt. Thats all its telling you. Is it not telling you there is a limit on the number of connections you can make, and is not placing a limit on the number of connections. The connections that it reports are connections you could not use anyway because they did not actually connect due to either conditions on the net, the path, or the client on the other end. There is no limit to change, there is no limit on the number of connections you can make. What your seeing is the exact same activity for every TCP/IP stack in the world on every OS in the world, MS is just reporting it to you thats all. What your seeing is simply how TCP/IP sees the connection and how TCP/IP operates, its what is happening on the net, not on your computer. Changing any file will not change the effect your seeing, because what your seeing has already occured outside of your computer, not on your computer, and on the net and these are conditions you can not control. So it is not true that a utility can increase the number of connections you can make, there is no file you can hack or change to increase the number of connections, and it will not be true, ever for TCP/IP, simply because there is no limit on the number of connections you can make and the event 4226 is in reality only reporting bad connections you could not use anyway because they never really connected.
  9. Try installing logged in as the admin
  10. The website quit working after the enrolement period was over. I haven't checked yet if i got mine or not. the email said 6 - 8 weeks after launch,,,,so when is that?
  11. are you talking about a low level format? Thats a little different from a regular format. Most HD manufactures have a utility that will help out with a low level format. Have you tried the manufactures web site? I know WD for example had such a utility, and maxtor did. But...I think you are talking about a regular full format, aren't you? If so, when you boot on the DVD there is a way to get to the command prompt, I think thru repair, can't remember right now but its around the forum somewhere. Anyway, after you get to the command prompt you can do a full format from there. Or if you have a WinPE CD you can boot on it and do a full format, or if you have something like bartsPE you can do the same. Personally I use a WinPE 2.0 CD, its indespensible and I would highly recommend it. The WinPE is free for d/l from MS.
  12. There is a big difference between "It works" and 100% compatable or even just compatable. Yes, it works, so it may be 100% compatable with things like, it runs, it produces a window, it doesn't normally crash, basic functions operate without problems.... it isn't 100% compatable with the TCP/IP in Vista...as in a previous post - "net.max_halfopen == 4/default is 8, bt.connect_speed == 4/default is 20" - the ability of a third party application to change these values is NOT compatable with the TCP/IP stack in Vista. So lets qualify the term '100% compatable' - yes its 100% compatable as far as it functioning, but its not 100% compatable as far as the TCP/IP is concerned. System requirements are only established for functionality (as in - will it run and do basic functions), not for 100% compatability. The ""net.max_halfopen == 4/default is 8, bt.connect_speed == 4/default is 20" only affects how the program tries to make things happen and its interpetation, not as things are actually happening. And there in lies the need to code for the Vista TCP/IP stack to satisfy its requirements instead of trying to make it do something it wasn't intended to do with a third party application. DISCLAIMER: This is not to say that uTorrent is not a good little program, and its obvious that the person who coded it knew what he/she was doing, and its a good program. I've tried it myself and its a fine piece of work. So i'm not trying to dog out uTorrent here, its just not addressing the Vista TCP/IP stack functionality properly, its still trying to address the stack like it did in XP. I'm sure as time goes on it will do so.
  13. Sometimes, for some reason, don't know why, some drivers can do this. Something else too is indexing and defrag, Vista tries to run these when it thinks the machine is idle. One of the partial solutions for the indexing is to let Vista completly index everything, or exclude certain drives from indexing (not recommended for the Vista install drive). Go in and tell it to index and then just wait until its finished. The follow on indexing spurts will be shorter in duration and much less frequent, unless you do a lot of changes with adding, moving, and removing stuff. And...yes there is a way to turn indexing off. The defrag part, well...you can turn it off. Personally I don't turn it off but some people do. Another thing too ....how much memory you have...and...do you have anything running in the background?
  14. Concerning P2P applications in XP and Vista; "theese lockups were NEVER happening on my Windows XP machine." You found part of the problem right there. Your P2P application was made for winXP which used a implementation of TCP/IP, while adhereing to the standards for the most part it was implemented differently. Just because a P2P application made for winXP installs in Vista and seems to work doesn't mean it does everything its supposed to do properly. As an example; "net.max_halfopen == 4/default is 8, bt.connect_speed == 4/default is 20" An application could do this in winXP, but an application can't do this in Vista. "Even so, I've never encountered ONE single lockup or net/slowdown on XP." See above - your application is still trying to address the Vista TCP/IP stack in the same manner it addressed the winXP TCP/IP stack because it was coded based upon an earlier iimplementation of TCP/IP. It needs to be coded based upon the TCP/IP implementation in Vista to work properly. Concerning ICS; "or ICS (since all people are using ICS that share this problem or something similar). " I don't have any problems with ICS, but I agree that some people are experiencing issues with it. I'd be willing to bet that if you were to take a look at those systems you would find something that wasn't compliant with the requirements for using Vista ICS (routers, firmware, etc....) ICS was made based upon the standards which include normal things like web browsers, email, and FTP, and later included things like instant messaging, it was never intended to be used with P2P clients. "(if it's a M$ problem, and I believe it is.)" Is it a MS problem (meaning is it an issue with Vista)? ; who can say for a fact. A true story; When I was a kid I remember my uncle trying to put a carb on a car he was working on one day, he was a back yard mechanic and loved cars, and back in those days you didn't need to be a rocket scientist to fix your own car, he was building a car from the ground up. He couldn't get the carb for the exact year of the vehicle so he tried to use a carb from a previous year model. The carb was the same for both years with the exception that one of the mounting holes had been moved slightly for the later year model, other than this they were the same. He put it on and it worked fine except he couldn't ever get the one part of the carb bolted down because the hole was slightly off. About two weeks after he got it working he faintly smelled gas when driving it, everything else was running perfectly. Checking the engine didn't reveal anything, no leaks were seen, but that carb mounting hole was evidently on his mind because he said "i think its that carb", he never was able to bolt that part of the carb down because the one mounting hole was slightly off. Anyway, it bugged the crap out of him. He wrote a letter to the company complaining about the carb, they wrote back and told him to use the right carb and everything would be fine. Eventually he found the right carb, put it on, and never had another problem again with that car. He built it with his own hands using original factory parts for the year and model, except for that one thing, that carb which he later corrected, took him three years to find all the parts. The moral of the story is; It can look like its supposed to be and doing what its supposed to do, but if we put the wrong parts in and don't meet the requirements for what was intended its never going to work exactly like its supposed to. In the computer world we have a tendancy to get the operating system then try to make our stuff fit rather then meeting the requirements of the OS.
  15. I didn't realize this was becomming such a wide spread problem for people. I think its important to understand something concerning P2P applications, the real issue is that a problem doesn't really exist to being with. By this I mean that, using Windows as an example (not necessairly Vista), or even connection and internet/intranet operating systems in general, when using these systems they function according to the standards used for their TCP/IP interfaces - drivers - etc.... There is nothing wrong with the TCP/IP stack in Vista. Thats right, i'll say it again - there is nothing wrong with the TCP/IP stack in Vista. Its built with and adheres to the established standards used by those agencies who establish such standards (RFC for example), these are industry standards, it uses those standards to make connections. And...as Vista is out of the box, it works using those standards just like it was supposed to....IF!!!! all of the things that are not a part of Vista adhere to the exact same standards. The vast majority of P2P clients for example do not fully adhere to the software coding and TCP/IP standards even though they may say they do. They are riddled with odd ball coding schemes to make certain features work and frequently use code that 'forces' TCP/IP to work in ways at times it wasn't intended to work in, or the code is not really compliant with what was really intended, or the code is just not optimized to use certain things in an efficient manner. I'm not saying that the people who coded these things did anything wrong, its just that certain features in their products while they may seem to function may not be functioning as well as they should, I've never heard of one coder who coded perfect code for a thrid party application or didn't at some point "shoe horn" a "kludged up" routine into a third party product, there is always something that needs to be "modified" to make a third party product use the featurs they want you to use. Take into account also that for example if you have millions of computers all running the same OS with the same general types of connections, or entirely different connections, that no two of them will ever be alike, so its impossible to design an OS that will work exactly the same way for everyone all the time for their connections. There are just too many variables involved, every thing from the servers their connections pass thru to the operating status of their ISP's to the time of day to the network loading to the type of application being used. This is why we have standards for things like TCP/IP, so the TCP/IP stack can be built and optimized under a set of known standard conditions with known standard components or software. This is done so that the TCP/IP stack will work as intended in the OS out of the box, not in necessarily practice or application, and have the best chance of sucess for the majority of people - there are just two many unknowns to account for to try to build an OS that say for example works fine with little johnny's connection but not with little sallys connection. How are we or anyone to know what the outside influences are on any connection at any one time and build an OS TCP/IP stack based upon that? It can't be done. So, when we install Vista the TCP/IP stack works like its supposed to according to standards, what happens after we install it and start adding in P2P stuff doesn't mean there is a problem with the TCP/IP stack at all. So this is what I mean by the problem doesn't really exist. Because we add a P2P application to the OS and it doesn't work exactly like it did in the past or we expected it to doesn't mean that there is something wrong with the TCP/IP stack in Vista, what it does mean is there is something wrong or not right with the P2P application we added. The solution to the problem is to have who ever coded or made the P2P application structure it so its optimized, coded properly, and uses the TCP/IP stack in Vista properly. Are there some things in Vista applications that could be different or better? yes there are, but were not talking Vista in-box applications, were talking a TCP/IP stack that is designed and built exactly according to standards that work while tyring to interface with the unknown particulars of a third party application that is probably (in all likely hood) not really coded properly to properly utilize the features of the TCP/IP stack in Vista to begin with. What we are trying to do is force a known (TCP/IP stack in Vista) to compensate for the unknown condition (the P2P software), when in reality the unknown should be using the known properly. Trying to change the TCP/IP stack is not the solution, using the TCP/IP stack properly is.