Hi Rob--
Try (if you haven't all ready) installing these:
As to patches that might help (and I'd install these anyway as a matter of
principal) you can try:
Update for Windows Vista (KB938194)
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...9d-c33d-48db-a7e3-62eef7c1f7c2&DisplayLang=en
Update for Windows Vista (KB938979)
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...b9-d832-425b-b42c-d3eb2071bbec&DisplayLang=en
I also think running SFC has a great chance of fixing this:
***SFC as a Remedy***:
SFC or System File Checker is a bit like the spare tire in your car or a
backup battery I suppose. In Vista of course, they have changed it
somewhat
and come up with a new name--Redmond stands for name it something different
twice a year and now it's part of WRP or Windows Resource Protection. It
scans protected resources including thousands of files, libraries, critical
folders, and essential registry keys, and it replaces those that are
corrupted with intact ones. It fixes a lot of problems in Windows XP, OE,
Windows Vista, Win Mail, IE6, and on Vista or if it is installed on XP,
IE7.
It protects these things from changes by any source including
administrators, by keeping a spare of most of them.
How to Run SFC:
Type "cmd" into the Search box above the Start Button>and when cmd
comes up
at the top of the Start menu>right click cmd and click "run as Admin" and
when the cmd prompt comes up at the cmd prompt type "sfc /scannow" no
quotes
and let it run. This may fix things quite a bit. It replaces corrupt files
with intact ones, if you're not familiar with it.
If those don't do it, I'd follow directions below, and if you don't have
a Vista DVD you can try the F8 menu:
***Startup Repair from the Vista DVD***
How to Use The Vista DVD to Repair Vista (Startup Repair is misnamed by the
Win RE team and it can be used to fix many Vista components even when you
***can boot to Vista):
http://www.windowsvista.windowsreinstall.com/vistaultimate/repairstartup/index.htm
If you elect to run Startup repair from the Vista DVD (it can fix major
components in Vista--I've verified this many many times; it's good for more
than startup problems, and the Win RE team simply screwed up when they
named
it not understanding its full functionality):
Startup Repair will look like this when you put in the Vista DVD:
http://www.vistaclues.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/click-repair-your-computer.png
You run the startup repair tool this way (and system restore from here is
also sometimes effective):
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/925810/en-us
How To Run Startup Repair In Vista Ultimate (Multiple Screenshots)
http://www.windowsvista.windowsreinstall.com/vistaultimate/repairstartup/index.htm
It will automatically take you to this on your screen:
http://www.vistaclues.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/click-repair-your-computer.png
That will allow you to go to the Vista setup that has a Repair link on
thelower left corner>click it and then you'll see a gray backgrounded list
and I want you to click Startup Repair from it and follow the directions.
The gray screen after you click the first link in the above pic will look
like this:
http://www.windowsreinstall.com/winvista/images/repair/staruprepair/Image17.gif
Click Startup Repair, the link at the top and after it scans>click OK and
let it try to repair Vista. It will tell you if it does, and if it
doesn't, try System Restore from the Recovery Link on the DVD. If these
don't work booting into Safe Mode by tapping the F8 key and using System
Restore from one of the safe modes besides VGA may work. That means you
have the option to try 4 different safe modes to get to system restore,
(one
from the Recovery link on the DVD) and sometimes one will work when the
others won't.
You could also try a Repair Install with Vista which is done exactly the
same way as in XP:
***Repair Install Steps*** (can be used for Vista) MVP Doug Knox
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/helpandsupport/learnmore/tips/doug92.mspx
***Using the F8 Environment***
***Taking Full Advantage of the F8 Options (Windows Advanced Options Menu)
by starting the PC and tapping F8 once per second when the firmware screen
with the pc manufacturer's name shows a few seconds after restarting***:
The F8 options in Vista are the same as XP, and the link for Safe Mode Boot
options is labled XP by MSFT but they are the same for Vista (they haven't
updated to add Vista to the title as they have with several MSKBs that
apply
to both).
Again, pressing F8 repeatedly when you seem the firmware screen may be is a
generic way to launch Windows RE on some OEM Vista computers.
You could also:
Think: I have 4 different ways to get back my XP at F8 and try 'em in
order.
1) Safe Mode 2) Safe Mode with Cmd to Sys Restore which is simply a cmd
prompt in safe mode 3) Safe Mode with Neworking 4) LKG or Last Known Good
Configuration
Try to F8 to the Windows Adv Options Menu>try 3 safe modes there (I don't
use WGA) and Last Known Good>then I go to Win RE in Vista. That gives
you a
choice of Safe Mode, Safe Mode with Networking,and Safe Mode with Command
Prompt.
These methods are outlined in
A description of the Safe Mode Boot options in Windows XP/and Vista
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/315222/
Frequently Asked Questions Regarding System Restore from MSFT:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/plan/faqsrwxp.mspx
System Restore can be run from the Win RE recovery environment from the
same
link as Startup Repair, and sometimes it will work from one F8 safe mode
location or from the Win Recovery Environment when it won't work from other
locations.
How to start the System Restore tool at a command prompt in Windows XP
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;304449
Good luck,
CH
Bush the delusional moron said "We're kicking ass."
That's what U.S. President George W. Bush said when Australian Deputy
Prime Minister Mark Vaile asked him about his recent stopover in Iraq on
his way to Sydney for the APEC summit.
Tellin it like it is...
Iraq until the draft for years and years and troops run out April
2008--Osama had it right about the democrats. They have backbones made of
jello. Years more of death and money hemorrhage to the tune of 3 Billion a
week.
i.e.
TIME TO TAKE A STAND
By PAUL KRUGMAN NEW YORK TIMES
Published: September 7, 2007
Here’s what will definitely happen when Gen. David Petraeus testifies
before
Congress next week: he’ll assert that the surge has reduced violence in
Iraq — as long as you don’t count Sunnis killed by Sunnis, Shiites
killed by
Shiites, Iraqis killed by car bombs and people shot in the front of the
head.
Here’s what I’m afraid will happen: Democrats will look at Gen. Petraeus’s
uniform and medals and fall into their usual cringe. They won’t ask hard
questions out of fear that someone might accuse them of attacking the
military. After the testimony, they’ll desperately try to get
Republicans to
agree to a resolution that politely asks President Bush to maybe, possibly,
withdraw some troops, if he feels like it.
There are five things I hope Democrats in Congress will remember.
First, no independent assessment has concluded that violence in Iraq is
down. On the contrary, estimates based on morgue, hospital and police
records suggest that the daily number of civilian deaths is almost twice
its
average pace from last year. And a recent assessment by the nonpartisan
Government Accountability Office found no decline in the average number of
daily attacks.
So how can the military be claiming otherwise? Apparently, the Pentagon has
a double super secret formula that it uses to distinguish sectarian
killings
(bad) from other deaths (not important); according to press reports, all
deaths from car bombs are excluded, and one intelligence analyst told The
Washington Post that “if a bullet went through the back of the head, it’s
sectarian. If it went through the front, it’s criminal.†So the number of
dead is down, as long as you only count certain kinds of dead people.
Oh, and by the way: Baghdad is undergoing ethnic cleansing, with Shiite
militias driving Sunnis out of much of the city. And guess what? When a
Sunni enclave is eliminated and the death toll in that district falls
because there’s nobody left to kill, that counts as progress by the
Pentagon’s
metric.
Second, Gen. Petraeus has a history of making wildly overoptimistic
assessments of progress in Iraq that happen to be convenient for his
political masters.
I’ve written before about the op-ed article Gen. Petraeus published six
weeks before the 2004 election, claiming “tangible progress†in Iraq.
Specifically, he declared that “Iraqi security elements are being rebuilt,â€
that “Iraqi leaders are stepping forward†and that “there has been progress
in the effort to enable Iraqis to shoulder more of the load for their own
security.†A year later, he declared that “there has been enormous progress
with the Iraqi security forces.â€
But now two more years have passed, and the independent commission of
retired military officers appointed by Congress to assess Iraqi security
forces has recommended that the national police force, which is riddled
with
corruption and sectarian influence, be disbanded, while Iraqi military
forces “will be unable to fulfill their essential security responsibilities
independently over the next 12-18 months.â€
Third, any plan that depends on the White House recognizing reality is an
idle fantasy. According to The Sydney Morning Herald, on Tuesday Mr. Bush
told Australia’s deputy prime minister that “we’re kicking ass†in Iraq.
Enough said.
Fourth, the lesson of the past six years is that Republicans will accuse
Democrats of being unpatriotic no matter what the Democrats do. Democrats
gave Mr. Bush everything he wanted in 2002; their reward was an ad
attacking
Max Cleland, who lost both legs and an arm in Vietnam, that featured images
of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.
Finally, the public hates this war and wants to see it ended. Voters are
exasperated with the Democrats, not because they think Congressional
leaders
are too liberal, but because they don’t see Congress doing anything to stop
the war.
In light of all this, you have to wonder what Democrats, who according to
The New York Times are considering a compromise that sets a “goal†for
withdrawal rather than a timetable, are thinking. All such a compromise
would accomplish would be to give Republicans who like to sound moderate —
but who always vote with the Bush administration when it matters —
political
cover.
And six or seven months from now it will be the same thing all over again.
Mr. Bush will stage another photo op at Camp Cupcake, the Marine nickname
for the giant air base he never left on his recent visit to Iraq. The
administration will move the goal posts again, and the military will
come up
with new ways to cook the books and claim success.
One thing is for sure: like 2004, 2008 will be a “khaki election†in which
Republicans insist that a vote for the Democrats is a vote against the
troops. The only question is whether they can also, once again, claim that
the Democrats are flip-floppers who can’t make up their minds.
