Lang--

*What I thought would help you was the reverse--that if you had been running
setup on those machines that had a problem (since you installed succesfully
on most of your boxes) that trying setup (it has been my experience
lately--see below) from a restart might do the trick. I understand you may
have been there and done that long ago. If the drive letters change you
could hack them back to what you had, but I haven't found that a big deal.
I have to think a little bit though when I want to modify a notepad from my
XP drive and when I go to save on Vista it won't let me until I rename the
location to save to my Vista Drive\Users\Documents.*

And I would really like to hear some of the regulars comment on this or
anyone who understands it. I'd like to hear Darrell Gorter's take on this
too who once in a while will chime in and help in the public groups because
he's on the setup team.

1) I had been setting up from XP always on a dual boot box because I quickly
learned over a year ago that the drive letters will be changed by the bios
if you restart.

2) However, I had to forgo this practice beginning with 5472 and subsequent
builds because when I tried I got something I never saw before. In the
setup screen that comes immediately after your Product Key is accepted, I
began to get a message with a little explanation point bang aka error
message logo that said:

"Error: You must install drivers for your IDE controller to continue Vista
setup." I figure this came from someone on the Windows Error team working
with the setup team or some non-intuitively named subspecialty team that
Redmond is so good at putting together, but I don't understand it. Colin
and Mark V. have been good about reminding people who have SATA and RAID
arrays that they must install the appropriate drivers to complete Vista
setup. But I don't have either.

I also wonder if for those people that this requirement is vintage some of
the last builds back to Beta 2 5384 or one of the interim builds, because I
don't remember that it was needed before but I might be wrong about that for
people who had those setups.

When this happened to me the first time I ran the so-called Vista upgrade
advisor, and it looked like a neat idea except it's totally wrong much of
the time as I began to experiment on different people's boxes and put Vista
on them.

It told me that I

1) Couldn't install Turtle Beach Santa Cruz --a pretty good sounding decent
quality card although they retired it around 2001. So did some guys from
Creative on the Beta and a slew of others. That proved DEAD WRONG.

The way is unconventional and I can't say I understand it fully but on a
dual boot it is to install an older driver on XP and the newest one they
made on Vista and install the TB Control panel on Vista.

2) It said that my IDE controller would not work in Vista and had to be
updated. That proved DEAD WRONG.

3) It said that my BUS host controller (VIA OHCI compliant IEE Host
Controller wouldn't work on Vista.

Given that indication from the completely wrong Vista Upgrade Advisor and
the error message requesting me to install drivers from a disc in setup, I
drilled some byzantine convoluted Intel Sites and the Byzantine halariously
written VIA sites for drivers--with explanations of the explanations --it
remineded me of the byzantine convoluted Norton KBs at times and their site
and I updated the drivers to the newest most appropriate from both sites,
and it didn't matter for setup with XP.

So Lang, when I asked you in a couple threads whether you were setting up
from XP or a restart with your Vista DVD, it came from this experience I
began having with the release of Build 5472.

My experience has been when faced with this obstacle that I don't have any
problem at all setting up Vista's latest builds after 5472 when I do it from
a restart. I don't get the misleading and frankly a little bit crazy
error--I'd really like to talk to the setup team about this and I mean to
email them and see what they say or for that matter the Device driver team
or both. Maybe I can also find one of them MSDN blogging and reach them.

There has to be a reason why they conjured up the false error message but
it's a mistake on the Vista teams' part--that much I know.

The reason the Upgrade Advisor spews what Nancy Anderson, Associate General
Counsel at MSFT and VP Legal Affairs, and self professed "tough guy" Brad
Smith learned in law school is a USC 18 § 1001 False Statment with their
Upgrade Advisor I believe is more sinister. I think OEM VP Scott di Valerio
and other decision makers at MSFT want to falsely scare people into buying
hdw they don't need so they can increase the sales of Vista on OEM
preinstalled desktops that of course can't reach Win RE's startup repair
just like they couldn't reach XP's repair install via so-called "recovery
CDs that are code shorted by OEMs" or "OEM hidden partitions.

I always note with Mr. di Valierio's decisions which screw small hard
working system builders who truly love computers and even Windows, and
reward the 300 multinational named partners like Dell, Sony, HP, Acer that
Mr. Valiero's background is as an accountant not as someone with IT training
and it shows. That MSFT who has thousands of IT trained employees lends
support to this, is regrettable and reminds me of what would happen it Tony
Soprano ran MSFT. I guess when he was at Cornell, Stevie Sinofsky absorbed
just a little more of NY City 3 card Monte on the street than people think.

That legal brain trust is fresh from a $375 million dollar fine from the
European Union and it's growing like Topsy with additional judgmenets and
penalties. I know for Nancy and Brad that's valet parking for the night in
the Queen Anne district of Seattle or at some restaurant but that's to me a
significant amount to lose because of 2 years of pure arrogance. I'd put
their appeal chances right at the success of rubbing the start button on
your monitor and having 3 wishes granted.

MSFT has found a much different climate than when they got Judge Lamberth
booted from their anti-trust suit and then the DOJ subsequently caved with a
new adminstration and MSFT's hiring Jack Abramoff best friend and partner
Ralph Reed as a $27,000 per month lobbyist and defending it for a while
until Reed was exposed in the Abramoff emails. I would enjoy a Christmas
Video this Christmas from the Vista team that had Nancy Anderson and Brad
Smith and Steve Sinofsky marching around a Christmas tree or Hanuka bush
waving Windows Logo flags and shouting "Abramoff Abramoff Reed Reed Reed."

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...oft+Ralph+Reed

Another Stumble for Ralph Reed's Beleaguered Campaign

By Thomas B. Edsall
Monday, May 29, 2006; Page A05

Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...052800964.html

The Fast Rise and Steep Fall of Jack Abramoff
How a Well-Connected Lobbyist Became the Center of a Far-Reaching Corruption
Scandal

By Susan Schmidt and James V. Grimaldi
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, December 29, 2005; A01

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...801588_pf.html

Microsoft's $1.6 Million Man
He's righteous conservative consultant-turned-candidate Ralph Reed.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...801588_pf.html

Bill Gates has correctly given some money to liberal causes like the
California embryonic stem cell campaign--Gates is keen on health issues and
I suspect has little tolerance for the moronic anti-science stance of the
Bush adminiistration, so I wonder how he feels making a millionare of one of
the most intrepid right wing religious based anti-science lobbyist scam
artists.

I'd like to ask the questions at a Gates Balmer press conference on Reed.
It's be genuine fun. You'd get a quick "we're not going to discuss internal
business strategy even if it showcased the ethics of pond scum" answer
though.


Microsoft has been fined 280.5m euros ($357m; £194m) by the European
Commission for failing to comply with an anti-competition ruling. [I'd sure
increase the Christmas bonus of the legal team involved in this
litigation--great going boys and girls--give yourself a big MSFT "Attaboy!"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5171126.stm

CH


"Lang Murphy" wrote in message
...
Think I get it now... install XP and run RC1 setup from within XP?

Lang

"Chad Harris" wrote in message
...
Setup from XP or restart--if have not restarted try that.

CH


"Lang Murphy" wrote in message
...
5600 installed fine on Dell D620 and D820. Having same problem
installing on Dell XPS Gen 2 as 5536: setup BSOD's right after supplying
SATA controller driver with a STOP 7. 5472 still running fine on it, so
I don't think anything's come loose inside or anything like that...
puzzled.

Lang

1 of the teams I think share resonsibilty for Device Manager is the User
Experience team.

CH

"Chad Harris" wrote in message
...
Lang--

*What I thought would help you was the reverse--that if you had been
running setup on those machines that had a problem (since you installed
succesfully on most of your boxes) that trying setup (it has been my
experience lately--see below) from a restart might do the trick. I
understand you may have been there and done that long ago. If the drive
letters change you could hack them back to what you had, but I haven't
found that a big deal. I have to think a little bit though when I want to
modify a notepad from my XP drive and when I go to save on Vista it won't
let me until I rename the location to save to my Vista
Drive\Users\Documents.*

And I would really like to hear some of the regulars comment on this or
anyone who understands it. I'd like to hear Darrell Gorter's take on this
too who once in a while will chime in and help in the public groups
because he's on the setup team.

1) I had been setting up from XP always on a dual boot box because I
quickly learned over a year ago that the drive letters will be changed by
the bios if you restart.

2) However, I had to forgo this practice beginning with 5472 and
subsequent builds because when I tried I got something I never saw before.
In the setup screen that comes immediately after your Product Key is
accepted, I began to get a message with a little explanation point bang
aka error message logo that said:

"Error: You must install drivers for your IDE controller to continue
Vista setup." I figure this came from someone on the Windows Error team
working with the setup team or some non-intuitively named subspecialty
team that Redmond is so good at putting together, but I don't understand
it. Colin and Mark V. have been good about reminding people who have SATA
and RAID arrays that they must install the appropriate drivers to complete
Vista setup. But I don't have either.

I also wonder if for those people that this requirement is vintage some of
the last builds back to Beta 2 5384 or one of the interim builds, because
I don't remember that it was needed before but I might be wrong about that
for people who had those setups.

When this happened to me the first time I ran the so-called Vista upgrade
advisor, and it looked like a neat idea except it's totally wrong much of
the time as I began to experiment on different people's boxes and put
Vista on them.

It told me that I

1) Couldn't install Turtle Beach Santa Cruz --a pretty good sounding
decent quality card although they retired it around 2001. So did some
guys from Creative on the Beta and a slew of others. That proved DEAD
WRONG.

The way is unconventional and I can't say I understand it fully but on a
dual boot it is to install an older driver on XP and the newest one they
made on Vista and install the TB Control panel on Vista.

2) It said that my IDE controller would not work in Vista and had to be
updated. That proved DEAD WRONG.

3) It said that my BUS host controller (VIA OHCI compliant IEE Host
Controller wouldn't work on Vista.

Given that indication from the completely wrong Vista Upgrade Advisor and
the error message requesting me to install drivers from a disc in setup, I
drilled some byzantine convoluted Intel Sites and the Byzantine
halariously written VIA sites for drivers--with explanations of the
explanations --it remineded me of the byzantine convoluted Norton KBs at
times and their site and I updated the drivers to the newest most
appropriate from both sites, and it didn't matter for setup with XP.

So Lang, when I asked you in a couple threads whether you were setting up
from XP or a restart with your Vista DVD, it came from this experience I
began having with the release of Build 5472.

My experience has been when faced with this obstacle that I don't have any
problem at all setting up Vista's latest builds after 5472 when I do it
from a restart. I don't get the misleading and frankly a little bit crazy
error--I'd really like to talk to the setup team about this and I mean to
email them and see what they say or for that matter the Device driver team
or both. Maybe I can also find one of them MSDN blogging and reach them.

There has to be a reason why they conjured up the false error message but
it's a mistake on the Vista teams' part--that much I know.

The reason the Upgrade Advisor spews what Nancy Anderson, Associate
General Counsel at MSFT and VP Legal Affairs, and self professed "tough
guy" Brad Smith learned in law school is a USC 18 § 1001 False Statment
with their Upgrade Advisor I believe is more sinister. I think OEM VP
Scott di Valerio and other decision makers at MSFT want to falsely scare
people into buying hdw they don't need so they can increase the sales of
Vista on OEM preinstalled desktops that of course can't reach Win RE's
startup repair just like they couldn't reach XP's repair install via
so-called "recovery CDs that are code shorted by OEMs" or "OEM hidden
partitions.

I always note with Mr. di Valierio's decisions which screw small hard
working system builders who truly love computers and even Windows, and
reward the 300 multinational named partners like Dell, Sony, HP, Acer that
Mr. Valiero's background is as an accountant not as someone with IT
training and it shows. That MSFT who has thousands of IT trained
employees lends support to this, is regrettable and reminds me of what
would happen it Tony Soprano ran MSFT. I guess when he was at Cornell,
Stevie Sinofsky absorbed just a little more of NY City 3 card Monte on the
street than people think.

That legal brain trust is fresh from a $375 million dollar fine from the
European Union and it's growing like Topsy with additional judgmenets and
penalties. I know for Nancy and Brad that's valet parking for the night
in the Queen Anne district of Seattle or at some restaurant but that's to
me a significant amount to lose because of 2 years of pure arrogance. I'd
put their appeal chances right at the success of rubbing the start button
on your monitor and having 3 wishes granted.

MSFT has found a much different climate than when they got Judge Lamberth
booted from their anti-trust suit and then the DOJ subsequently caved with
a new adminstration and MSFT's hiring Jack Abramoff best friend and
partner Ralph Reed as a $27,000 per month lobbyist and defending it for a
while until Reed was exposed in the Abramoff emails. I would enjoy a
Christmas Video this Christmas from the Vista team that had Nancy Anderson
and Brad Smith and Steve Sinofsky marching around a Christmas tree or
Hanuka bush waving Windows Logo flags and shouting "Abramoff Abramoff Reed
Reed Reed."

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...oft+Ralph+Reed

Another Stumble for Ralph Reed's Beleaguered Campaign

By Thomas B. Edsall
Monday, May 29, 2006; Page A05

Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...052800964.html

The Fast Rise and Steep Fall of Jack Abramoff
How a Well-Connected Lobbyist Became the Center of a Far-Reaching
Corruption Scandal

By Susan Schmidt and James V. Grimaldi
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, December 29, 2005; A01

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...801588_pf.html

Microsoft's $1.6 Million Man
He's righteous conservative consultant-turned-candidate Ralph Reed.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...801588_pf.html

Bill Gates has correctly given some money to liberal causes like the
California embryonic stem cell campaign--Gates is keen on health issues
and I suspect has little tolerance for the moronic anti-science stance of
the Bush adminiistration, so I wonder how he feels making a millionare of
one of the most intrepid right wing religious based anti-science lobbyist
scam artists.

I'd like to ask the questions at a Gates Balmer press conference on Reed.
It's be genuine fun. You'd get a quick "we're not going to discuss
internal business strategy even if it showcased the ethics of pond scum"
answer though.


Microsoft has been fined 280.5m euros ($357m; £194m) by the European
Commission for failing to comply with an anti-competition ruling. [I'd
sure increase the Christmas bonus of the legal team involved in this
litigation--great going boys and girls--give yourself a big MSFT
"Attaboy!"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5171126.stm

CH


"Lang Murphy" wrote in message
...
Think I get it now... install XP and run RC1 setup from within XP?

Lang

"Chad Harris" wrote in message
...
Setup from XP or restart--if have not restarted try that.

CH


"Lang Murphy" wrote in message
...
5600 installed fine on Dell D620 and D820. Having same problem
installing on Dell XPS Gen 2 as 5536: setup BSOD's right after
supplying SATA controller driver with a STOP 7. 5472 still running fine
on it, so I don't think anything's come loose inside or anything like
that... puzzled.

Lang

Chad,

Wow... I feel my reply will be woefully inadequate given the effort you put
into your response to my question. LOL!

I have not been running setup from the Vista desktop... if that's what you
mean. I have been putting the 5536 and 5600 DVD's in the drive and
restarting the PC. Vista setup starts and gets to the place where I provide
the SATA controller drivers, after which, when I click the Next button on
that page, the screen goes black for a second or two and then the blue
screen appears.

I'm not doing dual boot and only have one hard drive in the box. When I
browse for the SATA controller driver, I can see all drives as expected. I
haven't bothered to go look for updated drivers because it worked fine in
5384 and 5472 and, frankly, I don't have the patience of a saint to attempt
to navigate the byzantine paths of figuring out exactly which Intel
Application Accelerator I need to download because the driver I -have-
worked in 5384 and 5472 and I can't imagine that there's been a new driver
released in the last 2 weeks for hw that's closing in on 2 years old. I
think I would end up spending 30 minutes finding the right download and then
figuring out how to extract just the drivers I need because it seems they,
any vendor, pick one... don't seem to think that making it easy for people
is a good thing. And after all that... I'd end up with the same driver! I'm
guessing...

Anway... something changed between 5472 and 5536 that let my SATA controller
driver install successfully in the former and fail in the latter. I
anticipate that MS will mark this bug as closed with an external, i.e.,
Intel, solution. I guess if I want to run Vista RTM on my Dell XPS Gen 2,
I'm going to have to look for updated drivers. No biggie. Maybe I'll install
SuSE on it... ;-D

Thanks for taking the time and effort to respond in such detail; much
appreciated.

Lang



"Chad Harris" wrote in message
...
Lang--

*What I thought would help you was the reverse--that if you had been
running setup on those machines that had a problem (since you installed
succesfully on most of your boxes) that trying setup (it has been my
experience lately--see below) from a restart might do the trick. I
understand you may have been there and done that long ago. If the drive
letters change you could hack them back to what you had, but I haven't
found that a big deal. I have to think a little bit though when I want to
modify a notepad from my XP drive and when I go to save on Vista it won't
let me until I rename the location to save to my Vista
Drive\Users\Documents.*

And I would really like to hear some of the regulars comment on this or
anyone who understands it. I'd like to hear Darrell Gorter's take on this
too who once in a while will chime in and help in the public groups
because he's on the setup team.

1) I had been setting up from XP always on a dual boot box because I
quickly learned over a year ago that the drive letters will be changed by
the bios if you restart.

2) However, I had to forgo this practice beginning with 5472 and
subsequent builds because when I tried I got something I never saw before.
In the setup screen that comes immediately after your Product Key is
accepted, I began to get a message with a little explanation point bang
aka error message logo that said:

"Error: You must install drivers for your IDE controller to continue
Vista setup." I figure this came from someone on the Windows Error team
working with the setup team or some non-intuitively named subspecialty
team that Redmond is so good at putting together, but I don't understand
it. Colin and Mark V. have been good about reminding people who have SATA
and RAID arrays that they must install the appropriate drivers to complete
Vista setup. But I don't have either.

I also wonder if for those people that this requirement is vintage some of
the last builds back to Beta 2 5384 or one of the interim builds, because
I don't remember that it was needed before but I might be wrong about that
for people who had those setups.

When this happened to me the first time I ran the so-called Vista upgrade
advisor, and it looked like a neat idea except it's totally wrong much of
the time as I began to experiment on different people's boxes and put
Vista on them.

It told me that I

1) Couldn't install Turtle Beach Santa Cruz --a pretty good sounding
decent quality card although they retired it around 2001. So did some
guys from Creative on the Beta and a slew of others. That proved DEAD
WRONG.

The way is unconventional and I can't say I understand it fully but on a
dual boot it is to install an older driver on XP and the newest one they
made on Vista and install the TB Control panel on Vista.

2) It said that my IDE controller would not work in Vista and had to be
updated. That proved DEAD WRONG.

3) It said that my BUS host controller (VIA OHCI compliant IEE Host
Controller wouldn't work on Vista.

Given that indication from the completely wrong Vista Upgrade Advisor and
the error message requesting me to install drivers from a disc in setup, I
drilled some byzantine convoluted Intel Sites and the Byzantine
halariously written VIA sites for drivers--with explanations of the
explanations --it remineded me of the byzantine convoluted Norton KBs at
times and their site and I updated the drivers to the newest most
appropriate from both sites, and it didn't matter for setup with XP.

So Lang, when I asked you in a couple threads whether you were setting up
from XP or a restart with your Vista DVD, it came from this experience I
began having with the release of Build 5472.

My experience has been when faced with this obstacle that I don't have any
problem at all setting up Vista's latest builds after 5472 when I do it
from a restart. I don't get the misleading and frankly a little bit crazy
error--I'd really like to talk to the setup team about this and I mean to
email them and see what they say or for that matter the Device driver team
or both. Maybe I can also find one of them MSDN blogging and reach them.

There has to be a reason why they conjured up the false error message but
it's a mistake on the Vista teams' part--that much I know.

The reason the Upgrade Advisor spews what Nancy Anderson, Associate
General Counsel at MSFT and VP Legal Affairs, and self professed "tough
guy" Brad Smith learned in law school is a USC 18 § 1001 False Statment
with their Upgrade Advisor I believe is more sinister. I think OEM VP
Scott di Valerio and other decision makers at MSFT want to falsely scare
people into buying hdw they don't need so they can increase the sales of
Vista on OEM preinstalled desktops that of course can't reach Win RE's
startup repair just like they couldn't reach XP's repair install via
so-called "recovery CDs that are code shorted by OEMs" or "OEM hidden
partitions.

I always note with Mr. di Valierio's decisions which screw small hard
working system builders who truly love computers and even Windows, and
reward the 300 multinational named partners like Dell, Sony, HP, Acer that
Mr. Valiero's background is as an accountant not as someone with IT
training and it shows. That MSFT who has thousands of IT trained
employees lends support to this, is regrettable and reminds me of what
would happen it Tony Soprano ran MSFT. I guess when he was at Cornell,
Stevie Sinofsky absorbed just a little more of NY City 3 card Monte on the
street than people think.

That legal brain trust is fresh from a $375 million dollar fine from the
European Union and it's growing like Topsy with additional judgmenets and
penalties. I know for Nancy and Brad that's valet parking for the night
in the Queen Anne district of Seattle or at some restaurant but that's to
me a significant amount to lose because of 2 years of pure arrogance. I'd
put their appeal chances right at the success of rubbing the start button
on your monitor and having 3 wishes granted.

MSFT has found a much different climate than when they got Judge Lamberth
booted from their anti-trust suit and then the DOJ subsequently caved with
a new adminstration and MSFT's hiring Jack Abramoff best friend and
partner Ralph Reed as a $27,000 per month lobbyist and defending it for a
while until Reed was exposed in the Abramoff emails. I would enjoy a
Christmas Video this Christmas from the Vista team that had Nancy Anderson
and Brad Smith and Steve Sinofsky marching around a Christmas tree or
Hanuka bush waving Windows Logo flags and shouting "Abramoff Abramoff Reed
Reed Reed."

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...oft+Ralph+Reed

Another Stumble for Ralph Reed's Beleaguered Campaign

By Thomas B. Edsall
Monday, May 29, 2006; Page A05

Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...052800964.html

The Fast Rise and Steep Fall of Jack Abramoff
How a Well-Connected Lobbyist Became the Center of a Far-Reaching
Corruption Scandal

By Susan Schmidt and James V. Grimaldi
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, December 29, 2005; A01

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...801588_pf.html

Microsoft's $1.6 Million Man
He's righteous conservative consultant-turned-candidate Ralph Reed.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...801588_pf.html

Bill Gates has correctly given some money to liberal causes like the
California embryonic stem cell campaign--Gates is keen on health issues
and I suspect has little tolerance for the moronic anti-science stance of
the Bush adminiistration, so I wonder how he feels making a millionare of
one of the most intrepid right wing religious based anti-science lobbyist
scam artists.

I'd like to ask the questions at a Gates Balmer press conference on Reed.
It's be genuine fun. You'd get a quick "we're not going to discuss
internal business strategy even if it showcased the ethics of pond scum"
answer though.


Microsoft has been fined 280.5m euros ($357m; £194m) by the European
Commission for failing to comply with an anti-competition ruling. [I'd
sure increase the Christmas bonus of the legal team involved in this
litigation--great going boys and girls--give yourself a big MSFT
"Attaboy!"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5171126.stm

CH


"Lang Murphy" wrote in message
...
Think I get it now... install XP and run RC1 setup from within XP?

Lang

"Chad Harris" wrote in message
...
Setup from XP or restart--if have not restarted try that.

CH


"Lang Murphy" wrote in message
...
5600 installed fine on Dell D620 and D820. Having same problem
installing on Dell XPS Gen 2 as 5536: setup BSOD's right after
supplying SATA controller driver with a STOP 7. 5472 still running fine
on it, so I don't think anything's come loose inside or anything like
that... puzzled.

Lang

I did go and rummage around on the Intel site last night. I'm beginning to
think that maybe the reason my SATA controller was installed on 5472 and
below was an error and that the newer builds "fixed" that error and now,
LOL, Vista won't install the Intel iastor drivers.

The reason I think that is: when I go into DevMgr on 5472, there are
conflicting drivers listed, i.e., 8xxxxER in one place, 8xxxxEB in another
place. The Intel site says if you have one type, use their driver, if you
have the other type, use the MS native driver. (Don't have the seat up and
have to jump on a con call in a couple of minutes...)

Sidebar: The Intel site has woefully inadequate instructions for using
Windows DevMgr to identify which Intel chipset is installed. Laughable,
actually. Something like... "Open device manager. See if the chipset is
listed in an embedded fashion." I mean... it literally says "see if..." Wow.
Highly technical detailed work instructions, that. NOT! LOL!

Lang


"Chad Harris" wrote in message
...
1 of the teams I think share resonsibilty for Device Manager is the User
Experience team.

CH

"Chad Harris" wrote in message
...
Lang--

*What I thought would help you was the reverse--that if you had been
running setup on those machines that had a problem (since you installed
succesfully on most of your boxes) that trying setup (it has been my
experience lately--see below) from a restart might do the trick. I
understand you may have been there and done that long ago. If the drive
letters change you could hack them back to what you had, but I haven't
found that a big deal. I have to think a little bit though when I want to
modify a notepad from my XP drive and when I go to save on Vista it won't
let me until I rename the location to save to my Vista
Drive\Users\Documents.*

And I would really like to hear some of the regulars comment on this or
anyone who understands it. I'd like to hear Darrell Gorter's take on this
too who once in a while will chime in and help in the public groups
because he's on the setup team.

1) I had been setting up from XP always on a dual boot box because I
quickly learned over a year ago that the drive letters will be changed by
the bios if you restart.

2) However, I had to forgo this practice beginning with 5472 and
subsequent builds because when I tried I got something I never saw
before. In the setup screen that comes immediately after your Product Key
is accepted, I began to get a message with a little explanation point
bang aka error message logo that said:

"Error: You must install drivers for your IDE controller to continue
Vista setup." I figure this came from someone on the Windows Error team
working with the setup team or some non-intuitively named subspecialty
team that Redmond is so good at putting together, but I don't understand
it. Colin and Mark V. have been good about reminding people who have SATA
and RAID arrays that they must install the appropriate drivers to
complete Vista setup. But I don't have either.

I also wonder if for those people that this requirement is vintage some
of the last builds back to Beta 2 5384 or one of the interim builds,
because I don't remember that it was needed before but I might be wrong
about that for people who had those setups.

When this happened to me the first time I ran the so-called Vista upgrade
advisor, and it looked like a neat idea except it's totally wrong much of
the time as I began to experiment on different people's boxes and put
Vista on them.

It told me that I

1) Couldn't install Turtle Beach Santa Cruz --a pretty good sounding
decent quality card although they retired it around 2001. So did some
guys from Creative on the Beta and a slew of others. That proved DEAD
WRONG.

The way is unconventional and I can't say I understand it fully but on a
dual boot it is to install an older driver on XP and the newest one they
made on Vista and install the TB Control panel on Vista.

2) It said that my IDE controller would not work in Vista and had to be
updated. That proved DEAD WRONG.

3) It said that my BUS host controller (VIA OHCI compliant IEE Host
Controller wouldn't work on Vista.

Given that indication from the completely wrong Vista Upgrade Advisor and
the error message requesting me to install drivers from a disc in setup,
I drilled some byzantine convoluted Intel Sites and the Byzantine
halariously written VIA sites for drivers--with explanations of the
explanations --it remineded me of the byzantine convoluted Norton KBs at
times and their site and I updated the drivers to the newest most
appropriate from both sites, and it didn't matter for setup with XP.

So Lang, when I asked you in a couple threads whether you were setting up
from XP or a restart with your Vista DVD, it came from this experience I
began having with the release of Build 5472.

My experience has been when faced with this obstacle that I don't have
any problem at all setting up Vista's latest builds after 5472 when I do
it from a restart. I don't get the misleading and frankly a little bit
crazy error--I'd really like to talk to the setup team about this and I
mean to email them and see what they say or for that matter the Device
driver team or both. Maybe I can also find one of them MSDN blogging and
reach them.

There has to be a reason why they conjured up the false error message but
it's a mistake on the Vista teams' part--that much I know.

The reason the Upgrade Advisor spews what Nancy Anderson, Associate
General Counsel at MSFT and VP Legal Affairs, and self professed "tough
guy" Brad Smith learned in law school is a USC 18 § 1001 False Statment
with their Upgrade Advisor I believe is more sinister. I think OEM VP
Scott di Valerio and other decision makers at MSFT want to falsely scare
people into buying hdw they don't need so they can increase the sales of
Vista on OEM preinstalled desktops that of course can't reach Win RE's
startup repair just like they couldn't reach XP's repair install via
so-called "recovery CDs that are code shorted by OEMs" or "OEM hidden
partitions.

I always note with Mr. di Valierio's decisions which screw small hard
working system builders who truly love computers and even Windows, and
reward the 300 multinational named partners like Dell, Sony, HP, Acer
that Mr. Valiero's background is as an accountant not as someone with IT
training and it shows. That MSFT who has thousands of IT trained
employees lends support to this, is regrettable and reminds me of what
would happen it Tony Soprano ran MSFT. I guess when he was at Cornell,
Stevie Sinofsky absorbed just a little more of NY City 3 card Monte on
the street than people think.

That legal brain trust is fresh from a $375 million dollar fine from the
European Union and it's growing like Topsy with additional judgmenets and
penalties. I know for Nancy and Brad that's valet parking for the night
in the Queen Anne district of Seattle or at some restaurant but that's
to me a significant amount to lose because of 2 years of pure arrogance.
I'd put their appeal chances right at the success of rubbing the start
button on your monitor and having 3 wishes granted.

MSFT has found a much different climate than when they got Judge Lamberth
booted from their anti-trust suit and then the DOJ subsequently caved
with a new adminstration and MSFT's hiring Jack Abramoff best friend and
partner Ralph Reed as a $27,000 per month lobbyist and defending it for a
while until Reed was exposed in the Abramoff emails. I would enjoy a
Christmas Video this Christmas from the Vista team that had Nancy
Anderson and Brad Smith and Steve Sinofsky marching around a Christmas
tree or Hanuka bush waving Windows Logo flags and shouting "Abramoff
Abramoff Reed Reed Reed."

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...oft+Ralph+Reed

Another Stumble for Ralph Reed's Beleaguered Campaign

By Thomas B. Edsall
Monday, May 29, 2006; Page A05

Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...052800964.html

The Fast Rise and Steep Fall of Jack Abramoff
How a Well-Connected Lobbyist Became the Center of a Far-Reaching
Corruption Scandal

By Susan Schmidt and James V. Grimaldi
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, December 29, 2005; A01

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...801588_pf.html

Microsoft's $1.6 Million Man
He's righteous conservative consultant-turned-candidate Ralph Reed.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...801588_pf.html

Bill Gates has correctly given some money to liberal causes like the
California embryonic stem cell campaign--Gates is keen on health issues
and I suspect has little tolerance for the moronic anti-science stance of
the Bush adminiistration, so I wonder how he feels making a millionare of
one of the most intrepid right wing religious based anti-science lobbyist
scam artists.

I'd like to ask the questions at a Gates Balmer press conference on Reed.
It's be genuine fun. You'd get a quick "we're not going to discuss
internal business strategy even if it showcased the ethics of pond scum"
answer though.


Microsoft has been fined 280.5m euros ($357m; £194m) by the European
Commission for failing to comply with an anti-competition ruling. [I'd
sure increase the Christmas bonus of the legal team involved in this
litigation--great going boys and girls--give yourself a big MSFT
"Attaboy!"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5171126.stm

CH


"Lang Murphy" wrote in message
...
Think I get it now... install XP and run RC1 setup from within XP?

Lang

"Chad Harris" wrote in message
...
Setup from XP or restart--if have not restarted try that.

CH


"Lang Murphy" wrote in message
...
5600 installed fine on Dell D620 and D820. Having same problem
installing on Dell XPS Gen 2 as 5536: setup BSOD's right after
supplying SATA controller driver with a STOP 7. 5472 still running
fine on it, so I don't think anything's come loose inside or anything
like that... puzzled.

Lang

Lang--

Yes I couldn't agree more. When I ran that upgrade advisor and it told me
wrongly that I wouldn't be able to use Vista after I had been using it for a
year I drilled Intel's site and also VIA's because the upgrade advisor said
they wouldn't work on Vista so I decided to see how I could update these
device drivers on my box (wrong) and I found the chipset explanations and
endless web pages laughable and byzantine to the max.

CH



"Lang Murphy" wrote in message
...
I did go and rummage around on the Intel site last night. I'm beginning to
think that maybe the reason my SATA controller was installed on 5472 and
below was an error and that the newer builds "fixed" that error and now,
LOL, Vista won't install the Intel iastor drivers.

The reason I think that is: when I go into DevMgr on 5472, there are
conflicting drivers listed, i.e., 8xxxxER in one place, 8xxxxEB in another
place. The Intel site says if you have one type, use their driver, if you
have the other type, use the MS native driver. (Don't have the seat up and
have to jump on a con call in a couple of minutes...)

Sidebar: The Intel site has woefully inadequate instructions for using
Windows DevMgr to identify which Intel chipset is installed. Laughable,
actually. Something like... "Open device manager. See if the chipset is
listed in an embedded fashion." I mean... it literally says "see if..."
Wow. Highly technical detailed work instructions, that. NOT! LOL!

Lang


"Chad Harris" wrote in message
...
1 of the teams I think share resonsibilty for Device Manager is the User
Experience team.

CH

"Chad Harris" wrote in message
...
Lang--

*What I thought would help you was the reverse--that if you had been
running setup on those machines that had a problem (since you installed
succesfully on most of your boxes) that trying setup (it has been my
experience lately--see below) from a restart might do the trick. I
understand you may have been there and done that long ago. If the drive
letters change you could hack them back to what you had, but I haven't
found that a big deal. I have to think a little bit though when I want
to modify a notepad from my XP drive and when I go to save on Vista it
won't let me until I rename the location to save to my Vista
Drive\Users\Documents.*

And I would really like to hear some of the regulars comment on this or
anyone who understands it. I'd like to hear Darrell Gorter's take on
this too who once in a while will chime in and help in the public groups
because he's on the setup team.

1) I had been setting up from XP always on a dual boot box because I
quickly learned over a year ago that the drive letters will be changed
by the bios if you restart.

2) However, I had to forgo this practice beginning with 5472 and
subsequent builds because when I tried I got something I never saw
before. In the setup screen that comes immediately after your Product
Key is accepted, I began to get a message with a little explanation
point bang aka error message logo that said:

"Error: You must install drivers for your IDE controller to continue
Vista setup." I figure this came from someone on the Windows Error
team working with the setup team or some non-intuitively named
subspecialty team that Redmond is so good at putting together, but I
don't understand it. Colin and Mark V. have been good about reminding
people who have SATA and RAID arrays that they must install the
appropriate drivers to complete Vista setup. But I don't have either.

I also wonder if for those people that this requirement is vintage some
of the last builds back to Beta 2 5384 or one of the interim builds,
because I don't remember that it was needed before but I might be wrong
about that for people who had those setups.

When this happened to me the first time I ran the so-called Vista
upgrade advisor, and it looked like a neat idea except it's totally
wrong much of the time as I began to experiment on different people's
boxes and put Vista on them.

It told me that I

1) Couldn't install Turtle Beach Santa Cruz --a pretty good sounding
decent quality card although they retired it around 2001. So did some
guys from Creative on the Beta and a slew of others. That proved DEAD
WRONG.

The way is unconventional and I can't say I understand it fully but on a
dual boot it is to install an older driver on XP and the newest one they
made on Vista and install the TB Control panel on Vista.

2) It said that my IDE controller would not work in Vista and had to be
updated. That proved DEAD WRONG.

3) It said that my BUS host controller (VIA OHCI compliant IEE Host
Controller wouldn't work on Vista.

Given that indication from the completely wrong Vista Upgrade Advisor
and the error message requesting me to install drivers from a disc in
setup, I drilled some byzantine convoluted Intel Sites and the Byzantine
halariously written VIA sites for drivers--with explanations of the
explanations --it remineded me of the byzantine convoluted Norton KBs at
times and their site and I updated the drivers to the newest most
appropriate from both sites, and it didn't matter for setup with XP.

So Lang, when I asked you in a couple threads whether you were setting
up from XP or a restart with your Vista DVD, it came from this
experience I began having with the release of Build 5472.

My experience has been when faced with this obstacle that I don't have
any problem at all setting up Vista's latest builds after 5472 when I do
it from a restart. I don't get the misleading and frankly a little bit
crazy error--I'd really like to talk to the setup team about this and I
mean to email them and see what they say or for that matter the Device
driver team or both. Maybe I can also find one of them MSDN blogging
and reach them.

There has to be a reason why they conjured up the false error message
but it's a mistake on the Vista teams' part--that much I know.

The reason the Upgrade Advisor spews what Nancy Anderson, Associate
General Counsel at MSFT and VP Legal Affairs, and self professed "tough
guy" Brad Smith learned in law school is a USC 18 § 1001 False Statment
with their Upgrade Advisor I believe is more sinister. I think OEM VP
Scott di Valerio and other decision makers at MSFT want to falsely scare
people into buying hdw they don't need so they can increase the sales of
Vista on OEM preinstalled desktops that of course can't reach Win RE's
startup repair just like they couldn't reach XP's repair install via
so-called "recovery CDs that are code shorted by OEMs" or "OEM hidden
partitions.

I always note with Mr. di Valierio's decisions which screw small hard
working system builders who truly love computers and even Windows, and
reward the 300 multinational named partners like Dell, Sony, HP, Acer
that Mr. Valiero's background is as an accountant not as someone with IT
training and it shows. That MSFT who has thousands of IT trained
employees lends support to this, is regrettable and reminds me of what
would happen it Tony Soprano ran MSFT. I guess when he was at Cornell,
Stevie Sinofsky absorbed just a little more of NY City 3 card Monte on
the street than people think.

That legal brain trust is fresh from a $375 million dollar fine from the
European Union and it's growing like Topsy with additional judgmenets
and penalties. I know for Nancy and Brad that's valet parking for the
night in the Queen Anne district of Seattle or at some restaurant but
that's to me a significant amount to lose because of 2 years of pure
arrogance. I'd put their appeal chances right at the success of rubbing
the start button on your monitor and having 3 wishes granted.

MSFT has found a much different climate than when they got Judge
Lamberth booted from their anti-trust suit and then the DOJ subsequently
caved with a new adminstration and MSFT's hiring Jack Abramoff best
friend and partner Ralph Reed as a $27,000 per month lobbyist and
defending it for a while until Reed was exposed in the Abramoff emails.
I would enjoy a Christmas Video this Christmas from the Vista team that
had Nancy Anderson and Brad Smith and Steve Sinofsky marching around a
Christmas tree or Hanuka bush waving Windows Logo flags and shouting
"Abramoff Abramoff Reed Reed Reed."

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...oft+Ralph+Reed

Another Stumble for Ralph Reed's Beleaguered Campaign

By Thomas B. Edsall
Monday, May 29, 2006; Page A05

Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...052800964.html

The Fast Rise and Steep Fall of Jack Abramoff
How a Well-Connected Lobbyist Became the Center of a Far-Reaching
Corruption Scandal

By Susan Schmidt and James V. Grimaldi
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, December 29, 2005; A01

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...801588_pf.html

Microsoft's $1.6 Million Man
He's righteous conservative consultant-turned-candidate Ralph Reed.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...801588_pf.html

Bill Gates has correctly given some money to liberal causes like the
California embryonic stem cell campaign--Gates is keen on health issues
and I suspect has little tolerance for the moronic anti-science stance
of the Bush adminiistration, so I wonder how he feels making a
millionare of one of the most intrepid right wing religious based
anti-science lobbyist scam artists.

I'd like to ask the questions at a Gates Balmer press conference on
Reed. It's be genuine fun. You'd get a quick "we're not going to
discuss internal business strategy even if it showcased the ethics of
pond scum" answer though.


Microsoft has been fined 280.5m euros ($357m; £194m) by the European
Commission for failing to comply with an anti-competition ruling. [I'd
sure increase the Christmas bonus of the legal team involved in this
litigation--great going boys and girls--give yourself a big MSFT
"Attaboy!"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5171126.stm

CH


"Lang Murphy" wrote in message
...
Think I get it now... install XP and run RC1 setup from within XP?

Lang

"Chad Harris" wrote in message
...
Setup from XP or restart--if have not restarted try that.

CH


"Lang Murphy" wrote in message
...
5600 installed fine on Dell D620 and D820. Having same problem
installing on Dell XPS Gen 2 as 5536: setup BSOD's right after
supplying SATA controller driver with a STOP 7. 5472 still running
fine on it, so I don't think anything's come loose inside or anything
like that... puzzled.

Lang

Lang thanks for the info. There are a number on here you know who have good
experience with SATA controller drivers. And I believe you're dead on right
that some things changed as to some of these driver between 5472 and 5536.
I didn't get the error messages I wrote about until 5472. I can't install
it from XP anymore but have no trouble installing from a restart.

I get the error that my IDE controller is preventing the installation of
Vista from XP but no problems from a restart. I'm going to try to contact
some one on the setup team later this week and see if I can learn what might
be generating that error. The error shows up on the setup screen after I
put in the PK and then click on custom install to (the drive I want to park
Vista on--I'm using a dual boot).

CH


"Lang Murphy" wrote in message
...
Chad,

Wow... I feel my reply will be woefully inadequate given the effort you
put into your response to my question. LOL!

I have not been running setup from the Vista desktop... if that's what you
mean. I have been putting the 5536 and 5600 DVD's in the drive and
restarting the PC. Vista setup starts and gets to the place where I
provide the SATA controller drivers, after which, when I click the Next
button on that page, the screen goes black for a second or two and then
the blue screen appears.

I'm not doing dual boot and only have one hard drive in the box. When I
browse for the SATA controller driver, I can see all drives as expected. I
haven't bothered to go look for updated drivers because it worked fine in
5384 and 5472 and, frankly, I don't have the patience of a saint to
attempt to navigate the byzantine paths of figuring out exactly which
Intel Application Accelerator I need to download because the driver
I -have- worked in 5384 and 5472 and I can't imagine that there's been a
new driver released in the last 2 weeks for hw that's closing in on 2
years old. I think I would end up spending 30 minutes finding the right
download and then figuring out how to extract just the drivers I need
because it seems they, any vendor, pick one... don't seem to think that
making it easy for people is a good thing. And after all that... I'd end
up with the same driver! I'm guessing...

Anway... something changed between 5472 and 5536 that let my SATA
controller driver install successfully in the former and fail in the
latter. I anticipate that MS will mark this bug as closed with an
external, i.e., Intel, solution. I guess if I want to run Vista RTM on my
Dell XPS Gen 2, I'm going to have to look for updated drivers. No biggie.
Maybe I'll install SuSE on it... ;-D

Thanks for taking the time and effort to respond in such detail; much
appreciated.

Lang



"Chad Harris" wrote in message
...
Lang--

*What I thought would help you was the reverse--that if you had been
running setup on those machines that had a problem (since you installed
succesfully on most of your boxes) that trying setup (it has been my
experience lately--see below) from a restart might do the trick. I
understand you may have been there and done that long ago. If the drive
letters change you could hack them back to what you had, but I haven't
found that a big deal. I have to think a little bit though when I want to
modify a notepad from my XP drive and when I go to save on Vista it won't
let me until I rename the location to save to my Vista
Drive\Users\Documents.*

And I would really like to hear some of the regulars comment on this or
anyone who understands it. I'd like to hear Darrell Gorter's take on this
too who once in a while will chime in and help in the public groups
because he's on the setup team.

1) I had been setting up from XP always on a dual boot box because I
quickly learned over a year ago that the drive letters will be changed by
the bios if you restart.

2) However, I had to forgo this practice beginning with 5472 and
subsequent builds because when I tried I got something I never saw
before. In the setup screen that comes immediately after your Product Key
is accepted, I began to get a message with a little explanation point
bang aka error message logo that said:

"Error: You must install drivers for your IDE controller to continue
Vista setup." I figure this came from someone on the Windows Error team
working with the setup team or some non-intuitively named subspecialty
team that Redmond is so good at putting together, but I don't understand
it. Colin and Mark V. have been good about reminding people who have SATA
and RAID arrays that they must install the appropriate drivers to
complete Vista setup. But I don't have either.

I also wonder if for those people that this requirement is vintage some
of the last builds back to Beta 2 5384 or one of the interim builds,
because I don't remember that it was needed before but I might be wrong
about that for people who had those setups.

When this happened to me the first time I ran the so-called Vista upgrade
advisor, and it looked like a neat idea except it's totally wrong much of
the time as I began to experiment on different people's boxes and put
Vista on them.

It told me that I

1) Couldn't install Turtle Beach Santa Cruz --a pretty good sounding
decent quality card although they retired it around 2001. So did some
guys from Creative on the Beta and a slew of others. That proved DEAD
WRONG.

The way is unconventional and I can't say I understand it fully but on a
dual boot it is to install an older driver on XP and the newest one they
made on Vista and install the TB Control panel on Vista.

2) It said that my IDE controller would not work in Vista and had to be
updated. That proved DEAD WRONG.

3) It said that my BUS host controller (VIA OHCI compliant IEE Host
Controller wouldn't work on Vista.

Given that indication from the completely wrong Vista Upgrade Advisor and
the error message requesting me to install drivers from a disc in setup,
I drilled some byzantine convoluted Intel Sites and the Byzantine
halariously written VIA sites for drivers--with explanations of the
explanations --it remineded me of the byzantine convoluted Norton KBs at
times and their site and I updated the drivers to the newest most
appropriate from both sites, and it didn't matter for setup with XP.

So Lang, when I asked you in a couple threads whether you were setting up
from XP or a restart with your Vista DVD, it came from this experience I
began having with the release of Build 5472.

My experience has been when faced with this obstacle that I don't have
any problem at all setting up Vista's latest builds after 5472 when I do
it from a restart. I don't get the misleading and frankly a little bit
crazy error--I'd really like to talk to the setup team about this and I
mean to email them and see what they say or for that matter the Device
driver team or both. Maybe I can also find one of them MSDN blogging and
reach them.

There has to be a reason why they conjured up the false error message but
it's a mistake on the Vista teams' part--that much I know.

The reason the Upgrade Advisor spews what Nancy Anderson, Associate
General Counsel at MSFT and VP Legal Affairs, and self professed "tough
guy" Brad Smith learned in law school is a USC 18 § 1001 False Statment
with their Upgrade Advisor I believe is more sinister. I think OEM VP
Scott di Valerio and other decision makers at MSFT want to falsely scare
people into buying hdw they don't need so they can increase the sales of
Vista on OEM preinstalled desktops that of course can't reach Win RE's
startup repair just like they couldn't reach XP's repair install via
so-called "recovery CDs that are code shorted by OEMs" or "OEM hidden
partitions.

I always note with Mr. di Valierio's decisions which screw small hard
working system builders who truly love computers and even Windows, and
reward the 300 multinational named partners like Dell, Sony, HP, Acer
that Mr. Valiero's background is as an accountant not as someone with IT
training and it shows. That MSFT who has thousands of IT trained
employees lends support to this, is regrettable and reminds me of what
would happen it Tony Soprano ran MSFT. I guess when he was at Cornell,
Stevie Sinofsky absorbed just a little more of NY City 3 card Monte on
the street than people think.

That legal brain trust is fresh from a $375 million dollar fine from the
European Union and it's growing like Topsy with additional judgmenets and
penalties. I know for Nancy and Brad that's valet parking for the night
in the Queen Anne district of Seattle or at some restaurant but that's
to me a significant amount to lose because of 2 years of pure arrogance.
I'd put their appeal chances right at the success of rubbing the start
button on your monitor and having 3 wishes granted.

MSFT has found a much different climate than when they got Judge Lamberth
booted from their anti-trust suit and then the DOJ subsequently caved
with a new adminstration and MSFT's hiring Jack Abramoff best friend and
partner Ralph Reed as a $27,000 per month lobbyist and defending it for a
while until Reed was exposed in the Abramoff emails. I would enjoy a
Christmas Video this Christmas from the Vista team that had Nancy
Anderson and Brad Smith and Steve Sinofsky marching around a Christmas
tree or Hanuka bush waving Windows Logo flags and shouting "Abramoff
Abramoff Reed Reed Reed."

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...oft+Ralph+Reed

Another Stumble for Ralph Reed's Beleaguered Campaign

By Thomas B. Edsall
Monday, May 29, 2006; Page A05

Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...052800964.html

The Fast Rise and Steep Fall of Jack Abramoff
How a Well-Connected Lobbyist Became the Center of a Far-Reaching
Corruption Scandal

By Susan Schmidt and James V. Grimaldi
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, December 29, 2005; A01

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...801588_pf.html

Microsoft's $1.6 Million Man
He's righteous conservative consultant-turned-candidate Ralph Reed.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...801588_pf.html

Bill Gates has correctly given some money to liberal causes like the
California embryonic stem cell campaign--Gates is keen on health issues
and I suspect has little tolerance for the moronic anti-science stance of
the Bush adminiistration, so I wonder how he feels making a millionare of
one of the most intrepid right wing religious based anti-science lobbyist
scam artists.

I'd like to ask the questions at a Gates Balmer press conference on Reed.
It's be genuine fun. You'd get a quick "we're not going to discuss
internal business strategy even if it showcased the ethics of pond scum"
answer though.


Microsoft has been fined 280.5m euros ($357m; £194m) by the European
Commission for failing to comply with an anti-competition ruling. [I'd
sure increase the Christmas bonus of the legal team involved in this
litigation--great going boys and girls--give yourself a big MSFT
"Attaboy!"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5171126.stm

CH


"Lang Murphy" wrote in message
...
Think I get it now... install XP and run RC1 setup from within XP?

Lang

"Chad Harris" wrote in message
...
Setup from XP or restart--if have not restarted try that.

CH


"Lang Murphy" wrote in message
...
5600 installed fine on Dell D620 and D820. Having same problem
installing on Dell XPS Gen 2 as 5536: setup BSOD's right after
supplying SATA controller driver with a STOP 7. 5472 still running
fine on it, so I don't think anything's come loose inside or anything
like that... puzzled.

Lang

Chad,

Gee, I have to admit... I'm totally confused. Intel's site says:

Start Quote ***********************************
"If you have a chipset based on the Intel 82801EB I/O controller hub (ICH5),
please use the Microsoft* native storage driver built into Windows*. The
Microsoft native storage driver supports both Serial ATA and Parallel ATA
hard drives.
If you have a chipset based on the Intel 82801ER I/O controller hub (ICH5R),
please use the Intel Application Accelerator RAID Edition. The Intel
Application Accelerator RAID Edition supports the RAID controller in ICH5R
and will not work with an ICH5 I/O controller hub.

Note: There are two different ICH5 I/O controller hubs: ICH5 and ICH5R.
Intel® 865 and 875 chipset-based platforms may use either the ICH5 or the
ICH5R I/O controller hub. This depends on the specific motherboard."

End quote *************************************

Now, the way I read this, there are two separate and distinct controller
hubs. The EB and the ER. On my Dell XPS Gen 2 desktop running 5472, Device
Mgr tells me:

Under IDE ATA/ATAPI Controllers: Intel 82801EB Ultra ATA Storage
Controllers - 24DB (using, as Intel says, the MS driver)

Under Storage Controllers: Intel 82801ER SATA RAID Controller (using, as
Intel says, the Intel driver [from 2004])

So... anyway, that's why I thought that maybe something was broke in builds
prior to 5536 that allowed the above situation to even exist. I haven't
found a way to verify which Intel chipset I'm using as their chipset ID
utility won't run in Vista and their instructions to "see if..." I can
determine the chipset from visually scanning DevMgr output don't help very
much, to put it lightly. I can't map 82801 to any of their listed chipsets.
Well, now hold on a sec... I've been rootin' 'round while writing this and
finally found some -almost- definitive information... LOL. Wow, I actually
found a table in which I found my chipset which is not even hinted at in
DevMgr in any way, shape, or form... 875P. Unbelievable! And I had to map
both the storage controller and the memory controller to figure it out.
Furthermore, which is what adds to the confusion, is they list both the EB
and ER controllers. Now if I go back to the above statement, I have to
assume what they mean is the 875P chipset is going to use one or the other,
not both.

Here's Intel's DWI for using DevMgr to discover one's chipset:

"After Device Manager is launched, see if the device name of the chipset is
listed. The device name may appear in a string similar to the following:
"Intel® 955X Processor to I/O Controller - 2774" In this example, the
chipset is an Intel® 955X Express Chipset." Holy crap! Thanks for nothing
guys!

OK, 875P is listed in DevMgr, but as 82875P. Now, maybe those with more
experience with Intel Chipsets than I would look at it and go "Hey, you've
got an 875P chipset" and maybe, going forward, I'll be able to figure that
stuff out, but, geez... if the standard naming convention is 82xxxY, then
why not disclose that for folks trying to discover their chipset? Ah,
whatever.

Sorry this post wandered all over the back forty and back again, like some
bovine with "Mad Cow's." Frustrating to expend so much time and energy
figuring this crap out. I ain't getting paid to figure out how to get my own
personal XPS box running RC1. But I bugged it, at least.

Thanks,

Lang



"Chad Harris" wrote in message
...
Lang--

Yes I couldn't agree more. When I ran that upgrade advisor and it told me
wrongly that I wouldn't be able to use Vista after I had been using it for
a year I drilled Intel's site and also VIA's because the upgrade advisor
said they wouldn't work on Vista so I decided to see how I could update
these device drivers on my box (wrong) and I found the chipset
explanations and endless web pages laughable and byzantine to the max.

CH



"Lang Murphy" wrote in message
...
I did go and rummage around on the Intel site last night. I'm beginning to
think that maybe the reason my SATA controller was installed on 5472 and
below was an error and that the newer builds "fixed" that error and now,
LOL, Vista won't install the Intel iastor drivers.

The reason I think that is: when I go into DevMgr on 5472, there are
conflicting drivers listed, i.e., 8xxxxER in one place, 8xxxxEB in
another place. The Intel site says if you have one type, use their
driver, if you have the other type, use the MS native driver. (Don't have
the seat up and have to jump on a con call in a couple of minutes...)

Sidebar: The Intel site has woefully inadequate instructions for using
Windows DevMgr to identify which Intel chipset is installed. Laughable,
actually. Something like... "Open device manager. See if the chipset is
listed in an embedded fashion." I mean... it literally says "see if..."
Wow. Highly technical detailed work instructions, that. NOT! LOL!

Lang


"Chad Harris" wrote in message
...
1 of the teams I think share resonsibilty for Device Manager is the User
Experience team.

CH

"Chad Harris" wrote in message
...
Lang--

*What I thought would help you was the reverse--that if you had been
running setup on those machines that had a problem (since you installed
succesfully on most of your boxes) that trying setup (it has been my
experience lately--see below) from a restart might do the trick. I
understand you may have been there and done that long ago. If the
drive letters change you could hack them back to what you had, but I
haven't found that a big deal. I have to think a little bit though when
I want to modify a notepad from my XP drive and when I go to save on
Vista it won't let me until I rename the location to save to my Vista
Drive\Users\Documents.*

And I would really like to hear some of the regulars comment on this or
anyone who understands it. I'd like to hear Darrell Gorter's take on
this too who once in a while will chime in and help in the public
groups because he's on the setup team.

1) I had been setting up from XP always on a dual boot box because I
quickly learned over a year ago that the drive letters will be changed
by the bios if you restart.

2) However, I had to forgo this practice beginning with 5472 and
subsequent builds because when I tried I got something I never saw
before. In the setup screen that comes immediately after your Product
Key is accepted, I began to get a message with a little explanation
point bang aka error message logo that said:

"Error: You must install drivers for your IDE controller to continue
Vista setup." I figure this came from someone on the Windows Error
team working with the setup team or some non-intuitively named
subspecialty team that Redmond is so good at putting together, but I
don't understand it. Colin and Mark V. have been good about reminding
people who have SATA and RAID arrays that they must install the
appropriate drivers to complete Vista setup. But I don't have either.

I also wonder if for those people that this requirement is vintage some
of the last builds back to Beta 2 5384 or one of the interim builds,
because I don't remember that it was needed before but I might be wrong
about that for people who had those setups.

When this happened to me the first time I ran the so-called Vista
upgrade advisor, and it looked like a neat idea except it's totally
wrong much of the time as I began to experiment on different people's
boxes and put Vista on them.

It told me that I

1) Couldn't install Turtle Beach Santa Cruz --a pretty good sounding
decent quality card although they retired it around 2001. So did some
guys from Creative on the Beta and a slew of others. That proved DEAD
WRONG.

The way is unconventional and I can't say I understand it fully but on
a dual boot it is to install an older driver on XP and the newest one
they made on Vista and install the TB Control panel on Vista.

2) It said that my IDE controller would not work in Vista and had to be
updated. That proved DEAD WRONG.

3) It said that my BUS host controller (VIA OHCI compliant IEE Host
Controller wouldn't work on Vista.

Given that indication from the completely wrong Vista Upgrade Advisor
and the error message requesting me to install drivers from a disc in
setup, I drilled some byzantine convoluted Intel Sites and the
Byzantine halariously written VIA sites for drivers--with explanations
of the explanations --it remineded me of the byzantine convoluted
Norton KBs at times and their site and I updated the drivers to the
newest most appropriate from both sites, and it didn't matter for setup
with XP.

So Lang, when I asked you in a couple threads whether you were setting
up from XP or a restart with your Vista DVD, it came from this
experience I began having with the release of Build 5472.

My experience has been when faced with this obstacle that I don't have
any problem at all setting up Vista's latest builds after 5472 when I
do it from a restart. I don't get the misleading and frankly a little
bit crazy error--I'd really like to talk to the setup team about this
and I mean to email them and see what they say or for that matter the
Device driver team or both. Maybe I can also find one of them MSDN
blogging and reach them.

There has to be a reason why they conjured up the false error message
but it's a mistake on the Vista teams' part--that much I know.

The reason the Upgrade Advisor spews what Nancy Anderson, Associate
General Counsel at MSFT and VP Legal Affairs, and self professed "tough
guy" Brad Smith learned in law school is a USC 18 § 1001 False Statment
with their Upgrade Advisor I believe is more sinister. I think OEM VP
Scott di Valerio and other decision makers at MSFT want to falsely
scare people into buying hdw they don't need so they can increase the
sales of Vista on OEM preinstalled desktops that of course can't reach
Win RE's startup repair just like they couldn't reach XP's repair
install via so-called "recovery CDs that are code shorted by OEMs" or
"OEM hidden partitions.

I always note with Mr. di Valierio's decisions which screw small hard
working system builders who truly love computers and even Windows, and
reward the 300 multinational named partners like Dell, Sony, HP, Acer
that Mr. Valiero's background is as an accountant not as someone with
IT training and it shows. That MSFT who has thousands of IT trained
employees lends support to this, is regrettable and reminds me of what
would happen it Tony Soprano ran MSFT. I guess when he was at Cornell,
Stevie Sinofsky absorbed just a little more of NY City 3 card Monte on
the street than people think.

That legal brain trust is fresh from a $375 million dollar fine from
the European Union and it's growing like Topsy with additional
judgmenets and penalties. I know for Nancy and Brad that's valet
parking for the night in the Queen Anne district of Seattle or at some
restaurant but that's to me a significant amount to lose because of 2
years of pure arrogance. I'd put their appeal chances right at the
success of rubbing the start button on your monitor and having 3 wishes
granted.

MSFT has found a much different climate than when they got Judge
Lamberth booted from their anti-trust suit and then the DOJ
subsequently caved with a new adminstration and MSFT's hiring Jack
Abramoff best friend and partner Ralph Reed as a $27,000 per month
lobbyist and defending it for a while until Reed was exposed in the
Abramoff emails. I would enjoy a Christmas Video this Christmas from
the Vista team that had Nancy Anderson and Brad Smith and Steve
Sinofsky marching around a Christmas tree or Hanuka bush waving Windows
Logo flags and shouting "Abramoff Abramoff Reed Reed Reed."

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...oft+Ralph+Reed

Another Stumble for Ralph Reed's Beleaguered Campaign

By Thomas B. Edsall
Monday, May 29, 2006; Page A05

Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...052800964.html

The Fast Rise and Steep Fall of Jack Abramoff
How a Well-Connected Lobbyist Became the Center of a Far-Reaching
Corruption Scandal

By Susan Schmidt and James V. Grimaldi
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, December 29, 2005; A01

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...801588_pf.html

Microsoft's $1.6 Million Man
He's righteous conservative consultant-turned-candidate Ralph Reed.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...801588_pf.html

Bill Gates has correctly given some money to liberal causes like the
California embryonic stem cell campaign--Gates is keen on health issues
and I suspect has little tolerance for the moronic anti-science stance
of the Bush adminiistration, so I wonder how he feels making a
millionare of one of the most intrepid right wing religious based
anti-science lobbyist scam artists.

I'd like to ask the questions at a Gates Balmer press conference on
Reed. It's be genuine fun. You'd get a quick "we're not going to
discuss internal business strategy even if it showcased the ethics of
pond scum" answer though.


Microsoft has been fined 280.5m euros ($357m; £194m) by the European
Commission for failing to comply with an anti-competition ruling. [I'd
sure increase the Christmas bonus of the legal team involved in this
litigation--great going boys and girls--give yourself a big MSFT
"Attaboy!"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5171126.stm

CH


"Lang Murphy" wrote in message
...
Think I get it now... install XP and run RC1 setup from within XP?

Lang

"Chad Harris" wrote in message
...
Setup from XP or restart--if have not restarted try that.

CH


"Lang Murphy" wrote in message
...
5600 installed fine on Dell D620 and D820. Having same problem
installing on Dell XPS Gen 2 as 5536: setup BSOD's right after
supplying SATA controller driver with a STOP 7. 5472 still running
fine on it, so I don't think anything's come loose inside or
anything like that... puzzled.

Lang

Hello, Chad, I didn't have much trouble at all with Beta2 with Santa Cruz on
a Dell computer but after installing RC1, my Santa Cruz sound card stopped
working.
I tried your steps your described. However I got an error message at the
step where I manually update the driver from Device Manager after installing
4193.
I had 4146s installed on another drive with XP. The error I got at this step
after pointing the path for install the driver to "xpdrive:\program files
....WDM" is this
"Windows found driver software for your device but encountered an error
while attempting to install it."

I tried various things, removing everything and do cleaning installing with
different versions and with your methods. None worked.
The only time the driver can be installed is when I use the 4112 install CD
from Dell but this cause RC1 get blue screen immediately. I had to get into
safe mode to remove it.

Anyone has the same problem? Is there a solution?

Thanks.

Shawn


"Chad Harris" wrote:

Lang--

*What I thought would help you was the reverse--that if you had been running
setup on those machines that had a problem (since you installed succesfully
on most of your boxes) that trying setup (it has been my experience
lately--see below) from a restart might do the trick. I understand you may
have been there and done that long ago. If the drive letters change you
could hack them back to what you had, but I haven't found that a big deal.
I have to think a little bit though when I want to modify a notepad from my
XP drive and when I go to save on Vista it won't let me until I rename the
location to save to my Vista Drive\Users\Documents.*

And I would really like to hear some of the regulars comment on this or
anyone who understands it. I'd like to hear Darrell Gorter's take on this
too who once in a while will chime in and help in the public groups because
he's on the setup team.

1) I had been setting up from XP always on a dual boot box because I quickly
learned over a year ago that the drive letters will be changed by the bios
if you restart.

2) However, I had to forgo this practice beginning with 5472 and subsequent
builds because when I tried I got something I never saw before. In the
setup screen that comes immediately after your Product Key is accepted, I
began to get a message with a little explanation point bang aka error
message logo that said:

"Error: You must install drivers for your IDE controller to continue Vista
setup." I figure this came from someone on the Windows Error team working
with the setup team or some non-intuitively named subspecialty team that
Redmond is so good at putting together, but I don't understand it. Colin
and Mark V. have been good about reminding people who have SATA and RAID
arrays that they must install the appropriate drivers to complete Vista
setup. But I don't have either.

I also wonder if for those people that this requirement is vintage some of
the last builds back to Beta 2 5384 or one of the interim builds, because I
don't remember that it was needed before but I might be wrong about that for
people who had those setups.

When this happened to me the first time I ran the so-called Vista upgrade
advisor, and it looked like a neat idea except it's totally wrong much of
the time as I began to experiment on different people's boxes and put Vista
on them.

It told me that I

1) Couldn't install Turtle Beach Santa Cruz --a pretty good sounding decent
quality card although they retired it around 2001. So did some guys from
Creative on the Beta and a slew of others. That proved DEAD WRONG.

The way is unconventional and I can't say I understand it fully but on a
dual boot it is to install an older driver on XP and the newest one they
made on Vista and install the TB Control panel on Vista.

2) It said that my IDE controller would not work in Vista and had to be
updated. That proved DEAD WRONG.

3) It said that my BUS host controller (VIA OHCI compliant IEE Host
Controller wouldn't work on Vista.

Given that indication from the completely wrong Vista Upgrade Advisor and
the error message requesting me to install drivers from a disc in setup, I
drilled some byzantine convoluted Intel Sites and the Byzantine halariously
written VIA sites for drivers--with explanations of the explanations --it
remineded me of the byzantine convoluted Norton KBs at times and their site
and I updated the drivers to the newest most appropriate from both sites,
and it didn't matter for setup with XP.

So Lang, when I asked you in a couple threads whether you were setting up
from XP or a restart with your Vista DVD, it came from this experience I
began having with the release of Build 5472.

My experience has been when faced with this obstacle that I don't have any
problem at all setting up Vista's latest builds after 5472 when I do it from
a restart. I don't get the misleading and frankly a little bit crazy
error--I'd really like to talk to the setup team about this and I mean to
email them and see what they say or for that matter the Device driver team
or both. Maybe I can also find one of them MSDN blogging and reach them.

There has to be a reason why they conjured up the false error message but
it's a mistake on the Vista teams' part--that much I know.

The reason the Upgrade Advisor spews what Nancy Anderson, Associate General
Counsel at MSFT and VP Legal Affairs, and self professed "tough guy" Brad
Smith learned in law school is a USC 18 § 1001 False Statment with their
Upgrade Advisor I believe is more sinister. I think OEM VP Scott di Valerio
and other decision makers at MSFT want to falsely scare people into buying
hdw they don't need so they can increase the sales of Vista on OEM
preinstalled desktops that of course can't reach Win RE's startup repair
just like they couldn't reach XP's repair install via so-called "recovery
CDs that are code shorted by OEMs" or "OEM hidden partitions.

I always note with Mr. di Valierio's decisions which screw small hard
working system builders who truly love computers and even Windows, and
reward the 300 multinational named partners like Dell, Sony, HP, Acer that
Mr. Valiero's background is as an accountant not as someone with IT training
and it shows. That MSFT who has thousands of IT trained employees lends
support to this, is regrettable and reminds me of what would happen it Tony
Soprano ran MSFT. I guess when he was at Cornell, Stevie Sinofsky absorbed
just a little more of NY City 3 card Monte on the street than people think.

That legal brain trust is fresh from a $375 million dollar fine from the
European Union and it's growing like Topsy with additional judgmenets and
penalties. I know for Nancy and Brad that's valet parking for the night in
the Queen Anne district of Seattle or at some restaurant but that's to me a
significant amount to lose because of 2 years of pure arrogance. I'd put
their appeal chances right at the success of rubbing the start button on
your monitor and having 3 wishes granted.

MSFT has found a much different climate than when they got Judge Lamberth
booted from their anti-trust suit and then the DOJ subsequently caved with a
new adminstration and MSFT's hiring Jack Abramoff best friend and partner
Ralph Reed as a $27,000 per month lobbyist and defending it for a while
until Reed was exposed in the Abramoff emails. I would enjoy a Christmas
Video this Christmas from the Vista team that had Nancy Anderson and Brad
Smith and Steve Sinofsky marching around a Christmas tree or Hanuka bush
waving Windows Logo flags and shouting "Abramoff Abramoff Reed Reed Reed."

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...oft+Ralph+Reed

Another Stumble for Ralph Reed's Beleaguered Campaign

By Thomas B. Edsall
Monday, May 29, 2006; Page A05

Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...052800964.html

The Fast Rise and Steep Fall of Jack Abramoff
How a Well-Connected Lobbyist Became the Center of a Far-Reaching Corruption
Scandal

By Susan Schmidt and James V. Grimaldi
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, December 29, 2005; A01

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...801588_pf.html

Microsoft's $1.6 Million Man
He's righteous conservative consultant-turned-candidate Ralph Reed.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...801588_pf.html

Bill Gates has correctly given some money to liberal causes like the
California embryonic stem cell campaign--Gates is keen on health issues and
I suspect has little tolerance for the moronic anti-science stance of the
Bush adminiistration, so I wonder how he feels making a millionare of one of
the most intrepid right wing religious based anti-science lobbyist scam
artists.

I'd like to ask the questions at a Gates Balmer press conference on Reed.
It's be genuine fun. You'd get a quick "we're not going to discuss internal
business strategy even if it showcased the ethics of pond scum" answer
though.


Microsoft has been fined 280.5m euros ($357m; £194m) by the European
Commission for failing to comply with an anti-competition ruling. [I'd sure
increase the Christmas bonus of the legal team involved in this
litigation--great going boys and girls--give yourself a big MSFT "Attaboy!"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5171126.stm

CH


"Lang Murphy" wrote in message
...
Think I get it now... install XP and run RC1 setup from within XP?

Lang

"Chad Harris" wrote in message
...
Setup from XP or restart--if have not restarted try that.

CH


"Lang Murphy" wrote in message
...
5600 installed fine on Dell D620 and D820. Having same problem
installing on Dell XPS Gen 2 as 5536: setup BSOD's right after supplying
SATA controller driver with a STOP 7. 5472 still running fine on it, so
I don't think anything's come loose inside or anything like that...
puzzled.

Lang