kaninelupus 275 Practically a Posting Shark

Until now, one had to find a 3rd party app to change the logon screen, but MS has enabled the customising of the LogOn UI. Now this tweak is initially turned off, the intention being that the OEM can activate and put their own image in (can you just imagine a dirty big DELL logo facing you every time you boot up??).

Now this is a [B]two step[/B] process.

1) Load up an [B]elevated[/B] (as Admin) Regedit and navigate to the following entry:

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Authentication\LogonUI\Background

look for the entry "OEMBackground" The defaualt value is set to "0", or off. Double-click on the entry and change value to "1"

Now you may need to log-off and then back on to activate.

[I]Alternatively, [URL="http://www.winhelponline.com/blog/windows-7-lets-you-change-the-logon-background-image/"]this[/URL] site demonstrates how to activate via the Group Policy Editor[/I]

2) Before selecting your image, you'll first likely need to create the folder it is going to sit in, as follows:
C:\Windows\System32\oobe\info\backgrounds

Now the info I originally found here suggests creating a series of sized images. Personally I found that any but the "backgroundDefault.jpg" named image was ignored by Win7, so my advice is to just stick with that. Image also has to be no more than 256 kb in size, but if Win7 being finicky, compress a little below that.

Enjoy :)

NB: If you drop in your new image, into that newly created file directory and Hmmm - same old Windows Logon UI - load up regedit again and just make sure Windows didn't switch ot back ...

I s'pose it's going to depend on what you are after. Having had a fair did into both Vista and Win7, performance, stability and usability all vastly improved in Win7.

As to required disk space, the RC is the full-blown Ultimate version, whereas on a netbook you'd be running one of the more basic versions which require far less disk space.

As an aside, does the netbook have an SD port... a good number of netbooks add SD support, allowing the user to expand memory that way (SD cards are now available up to 64GB).

[QUOTE=scru;916822]Sorry, but I'm not your "buddy-boy". Why would anybody want to buy a high-end gaming notebook for school? For one they are huge and heavy (just imagine taking those to and from every single class). Furthermore, unless you actually intend to spend your college years locked away in your dorm gaming, then there's really no point in all that power.[/QUOTE]

Sorry "buddy-boy", but when the Mactard usually uses terms like Mac & "we all [I]know[/I]" and "best in class", one usually [I]not[/I] referring to the [I]classroom[/I] (should have known I was talking to a juvenile).

As for best in the [I]classroom[/I] (and as a highschool digital arts an IT teacher, I might actually know what I'm talking about here), the MacBook is a bl@@dy disaster, and a pain in the butt besides. For starters we use [b]two[/b] Autodesk applications in the classroom; AutoCAD and 3DS Max 2008 (updating to 2010 release by end of yr)... NEITHER of these applications are available to OS X. SO, the student loads up Windows in BootCamp... and BOTH applications run like crap, because Mac have already put Windows on the back foot for anyone running under BootCamp (I guess they figure if Mac users actually realised how well Windows can [I]really[/I] run, Apple might be selling a whole less over-priced machines).

Then we come to Photoshop CS4, which runs better on a half-the-price notebook than on Apple's MacBook Pro - which might have something to do with the fact that OS X is [I]hardcoded[/I] ...

iamthwee commented: Excellent, especially the reference to "buddy-boy" +21

[QUOTE=MosaicFuneral;916766]lol Liter usage.[/QUOTE]

Hey, in the wee hours of the morning, nothing wrong with short-handing :)

[QUOTE=jbennet;915876]Do you see now why AMD64 is a much easier name?[/QUOTE]

While you or I may understand that differentiation (must say am a little surprised the Itanium processor model actually still survives given the frustrating lack of app-transition to 64-bit), do you honestly think the average end-user is going to look at the term "AMD64" and have any clue as to what it means?? Especially given the lack of reliable, consistent and up-to-date info on the term (most definitions relate back to around the point where Intel adopted the "similar" technology, or even prior to, to differentiate btwn 64 and Itanium 64-bit... all of which will mean nothing to the end-user 2-3 yrs onwards) thus the question still holds weight. Given that x64 and AMD64 are pretty much synonymous terms, one would think devs - even open source devs - would use the most understandable and commonly understood definition.

Let's face it, while you and I may understand the distinguishing factors btwn x64 and [I]pure[/I] 64-bit, how many [I]general[/I] end-users do you think are going to comprehend the difference. for 99.99% of users, a def of x64 is what they can understand.

jbennet commented: youve made some good points, and yeah, itanium survives in niche markets - its used for datacentre servers mostly now, and scientific workstations which need to do a lot of number crunching +36

OK - 'tis interesting. So why the heck would they be listing it as "AMD64" then, and not simply x64 (the term most of us are more familiar with)?? Having had absolutely nothing to do with AMD's 64-bit processors, had to go look it up, and have to say the info just ends up sending you on a wild goose chase.

[Quote]so long as you have a 64-bit processor with hardware virtualization support (Intel VT-x and AMD-V) enabled. (as a side note, to make use of the SMP capabilities of 3.0, you need this enabled too - check your BIOS)[/quote]

So it sounds like it comes with the same limitation which will see many looking to use the virtualised XP option in Win7 - all down to virtualisation support at CPU level?? VMWare doesn't have this limitation, does it??

[QUOTE=Salem;915350]Sure, just get as much detail from the properties as you can, then do a search for "driver + OS + whatever you know about the device"

Download things which look promising, then put them on a CD / USB / floppy and see if anything installs.[/QUOTE]

NOT the best advice.... sorry. When unsure about installing drivers, the hit-and-miss method can make a bigger mess of things.

Locate the latest possible driver build for your hardware, but use the Device Manager to do the driver install. Now in the case of drivers packed in a installer, Winrar will sometimes be able to unpack, but [URL="http://legroom.net/software/uniextract"]Universal Extractor[/URL] has a better hit rate, especially on those using an InstallShield installer, which Winrar can't access.

Once drivers extracted, use Device Manager to install from local file/folder (just be sure to select the "sub-directories" option.

Doing it this way ensures you don't end loading your system with drivers not compatible with your hardware (as is possible in anything prior to Vista).

Happy hunting :)

[QUOTE=jbennet;915192]
One caveat though. Laptops generally have crappy recovery partitions instead of actual windows vista CDs. Dont try it if you have one of these, as you dont want to risk bricking it . Some laptops have the option to burn your own recovery CDs, if so then i reccomend this.[/QUOTE]

What a load of nonsense - as long as the recovery partition remains untouched (is usually protected anyhow), this is a non-issue!!

Partitioning/Resizing drives can easily be done [I]within[/I] Windows - have done myself before with no dramas... the reason the previous benchmark software for the job Partition Magic never got updated for Vista, is that you no longer need this type of app.

Now just because I'm feeling particularly lazy, will guide you by referring you to two forum posts on the topic. Have used the techniques myself, so know very well they work :)

The [URL="http://www.vistarewired.com/2007/02/16/how-to-resize-a-partition-in-windows-vista"]first[/URL] covers the initial process of resizing your drive to set space aside for a second partition, and use of images does make it a little user friendly.

Now I've always dual-booted btwn different Windows builds, so not 100% sure if Ubuntu has the option to format the new partition (which you will need to do) before install - I know other Linux distros do, but never liked Ubuntu to bother with more than a Live disc... would more advise OpenSuse.

You can save the need for this task by converting the now unused disk-space to a newly formatted partition using the ...