BetaArchive Logo
Navigation Home Database Screenshots Gallery Image Uploader Server Info FTP Servers Wiki Forum RSS Feed Rules Please Donate
UP: 36d, 21h, 13m | CPU: 30% | MEM: 5572MB of 8191MB used
{The community for beta collectors}

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 45 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 1:55 pm 
Reply with quote
Administrator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:47 am

Posts
12600

Location
United Kingdom

Favourite OS
Windows 10
Compact-mac wrote:
Can KenOath comment on this...?


He would if he wasn't continuously flamed for talking about anything. Because of the last incident he now rarely comes to the forum and even when he does he rarely posts. He is however active at adding screenshots, but thats it.

_________________
Image

> BetaArchive Discord <
> Site rules <
> How to get FTP access <
> How to prepare software <


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 2:01 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
Vista Ultimate R2 wrote:
Hmm, this is all very confusing - so we have KenOath's Powered with SP1 integrated, which has bright blue blocks on the boot screen, and Powered with SP4 with red blocks, but then this copy of Powered SP4 here has dark blue blocks. Also KenOath's SP1 and SP4 both have a Powered wallpaper, whereas the build here has Server. Both of KenOaths builds do refer to Server at one point in the Setup wizard though.

All Server builds of Win2k refer to just Server in the GUI stage of Setup, the wallpaper shown is the only visual difference (and the components you can select to install or skip of course). All Server builds except of Powered also show "Windows 2000 Server Setup" in the text-based setup stage. The Server lanma256 bitmap is suspicious – Powered is based on Advanced Server, not the regular Server. The fake XiSO build also has the Server lanma256 bitmap.

Quote:
KenOath also has Powered with SP1 RC1 built-in - he hasn't screenshotted the bootscreen or default wallpaper for that one to see the colour of the blocks or whether the wallpaper is Powered or Server, but I see there is Windows Movie Maker, which as far as I know came only with Me and not 2000. Did this come with Powered or has he installed it on there using files from Me, and was it only with Powered SP1 RC1 or was it with other, final, versions of Powered?

He said this copy of Powered SP1 RC1 must have been an early release of this OS, maybe a beta or even the initial release, it's got the same "base OS" as the SBS 2000 Beta. Movie Maker does not come preinstalled with any version of 2000, I think it was available as a separate download once, though. Otherwise, he must have installed it himself.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 4:15 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Posts
2393
empireum wrote:
The Server lanma256 bitmap is suspicious – Powered is based on Advanced Server, not the regular Server. The fake XiSO build also has the Server lanma256 bitmap.

Presumably Advanced Server has its own wallpaper then - it's not like the bootscreen, where it is the same for Server/Advanced Server/Datacentre Server (it just says "Server Family")? This copy certainly looks a lot closer to the real thing than the XiSO hack job, the colour of the blocks on the boot screen and that wallpaper are the only two issues that I can see that could suggest it is not real.


Windows OCManage, do you remember where you originally got your ISO of Windows Powered from? Also, when exactly does it ask for vsstask.dll? My 5-in-1 disc of Windows 2000, which includes proper copies of the first four editions and a fake copy of Powered does not include this file anywhere. Server 2003 does have a vsstask.dl_ though, but it is for Volume Shadow Copies, which I think was only introduced in Server 2003 :?

_________________
Image


Last edited by Vista Ultimate R2 on Tue Sep 25, 2007 9:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 4:43 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Tue Sep 19, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
66
Vista Ultimate R2 wrote:
empireum wrote:
The Server lanma256 bitmap is suspicious – Powered is based on Advanced Server, not the regular Server. The fake XiSO build also has the Server lanma256 bitmap.

Presumably Advanced Server has its own wallpaper then - it's not like the bootscreen, where it is the same for Server/Advanced Server/Datacentre Server (it just says "Server Family")? This copy certainly looks a lot closer to the real thing than the XiSO hack job, the colour of the blocks ont eh boot screen and that wallpaper are the only two issues that I can see that could suggest it is not real.


Windows OCManage, do you remember where you originally got your ISO of Windows Powered from? Also, when exactly does it ask for vsstask.dll? My 5-in-1 disc of Windows 2000, which includes proper copies of the first four editions and a fake copy of Powered does not include this file anywhere. Server 2003 does have a vsstask.dl_ though, but it is for Volume Shadow Copies, which I think was only introduced in Server 2003 :?

This is not the xISO release this is the real thing though im not sure if it might be a bit corrupted... ill try to install from my original media when i get home.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 4:58 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Posts
2393
Which one are you talking about, yours or Windows OCMnage's copy? I'm afraid that your ISO does not look like the real thing, it has the wrong AutoRun dialog and is several hundred megabytes smaller than OCManage's one (though I'm interested to know what the extra size is, as the other versions of Windows 2000 are much smaller than this - it would be interesting to know the size of KenOath's copies too).

_________________
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 5:52 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
Vista Ultimate R2 wrote:
Presumably Advanced Server has its own wallpaper then - it's not like the bootscreen, where it is the same for Server/Advanced Server/Datacentre Server (it just says "Server Family")?

Win2k Server has its own Lanma256.bmp, and Advanced Server and Datacenter Server both have the Advanced Server Lanma256.bmp (don't ask me why Datacenter doesn't have its own wallpaper as well, I don't know). I've only seen a Win2k Datacenter Lanma256.bmp in Whistler Datacenter Beta 1.

Vista Ultimate R2 wrote:
it would be interesting to know the size of KenOath's copies too

He told me one of his SP4 copies is 417 MB, and the other SP4 is around 456 MB IIRC. Don't know how big his SP1 ISOs are, though.

cooled wrote:
This is not the xISO release this is the real thing though im not sure if it might be a bit corrupted... ill try to install from my original media when i get home.

It'd be great if you did this because something seems to be wrong with the ISO. It's supposed to be bootable, but upon booting it, the system crashes immediately. Booting from the 4 setup disks (which identify themselves as Windows Powered ones due to the Powered txtsetup.sif) crashes before loading the kernel (before it would show that "Windows Powered NAS Setup" screen). I've not tried using the winnt.exe method.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 6:30 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sun May 13, 2007 12:42 am

Posts
2407
Had to expand driver.cab, txtsetup.sif called for the drivers inside.

I actually had the ISO for a few years now.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2007 6:17 am 
Reply with quote
RentedMule wrote:
Vista Ultimate R2: As I have said numerous times before... "Windows Powered" is NOT a version of Windows, per se. The icons and references you find are for Embedded products. It is more "Powered by Windows" and no "Windows, Powered edition".

This is pretty evident with my dealings with NT4 embedded.

Indeed, MS themselves even give an instance where a customer installs
Windows 2000 Server then sets up a "Windows Powered NAS" on this
Server installation.
Quote:
FMS provided the institute with a Windows Powered NAS solution
consisting of an Intel-based 5U chassis server with 1.1 terabytes of storage.
In addition, East Antrim bought another Windows 2000 Server license,
reformatted the Linux-based server, installed Windows 2000 Server on it, and
set up another Windows Powered NAS with an additional terabyte for storing
the very large files of the E-Media department locally on that department's
segment of the network.

Yet on other MS links regarding this "Powered" installation they refer to it as if
it's a custom built Server OS, created using the tools used to create an Embedded ISO,
& would then mean that being target designed would end up
with a hardware/software specific purpose built ISO similar to a target built Embedded.
This Link Here speaks as though it's a converted server installation.
I think this would be similar to the NT4 Embedded ISO whereby the NT4 Embedded
CD is used to create a hardware specific purpose built Embedded image based
on another NT4 operating system, & in doing so, unlocks new "strings" of
bitmaps & icons not previously seen on the same NT4 installation CD.

Windows OCManage wrote:
If anyone wants to see my copy of Windows Powered, here.
Image

If it's no trouble, could you post a link here to this setup bitmap for downloading, I'd imagine that like all other 2000 installations its in the I386 folder.
Thanks. :wink:

empireum wrote:
Vista Ultimate R2 wrote:
It is actually a separate edition like "Datacentre Server" or whatever is though, isn't it? The copy that KenOath has is shown in the screenshots section and it looks like a separate edition with its own boot screen, text in Setup etc. I think it was shipped with NAS systems and was different to Server and the other editions of 2000.

Correct, it was a 5th and separate edition of Windows 2000; the Service Pack 2 to 4 files even include separate update folders for it. The name is confusing as MS used the "Windows Powered" branding mainly for devices running some embedded flavour of Windows, PDAs running CE also had/have(?) this logo.

I just found that in looking through the service pack 4 for Windows 2000 the IW folder
had a txtsetup.sif in it, which as we know is used simply for the pre-install based
portion of the setup which then leads me to believe it to be a standalone OS, or
perhaps these files are present in the service packs to slipstream into an already
target built image, who knows. :? another mystery yet to solve.


Top
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2007 7:04 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Posts
2393
So are we now thinking that Powered is an OS in its own right, just like the other 4 SKUs of 2000, but that it was never available from MS, you had to build it yourself using a copy of Server and some sort of tool to build a customised image of it, like XPe? And so if we want to find a real copy of Windows Powered then we could be looking for this tool, as opposed to an ISO or i386 folder containing Powered installation files?

I'm also still very intrigued by this issue of it mentioning vsstask.dll, seeing as that file is only in Server 2003, not 2000, as it is for Volume Shadow Copies.

_________________
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2007 8:48 am 
Reply with quote
Vista Ultimate R2 wrote:
So are we now thinking that Powered is an OS in its own right, just like the other 4 SKUs of 2000, but that it was never available from MS, you had to build it yourself using a copy of Server and some sort of tool to build a customized image of it, like XPe? And so if we want to find a real copy of Windows Powered then we could be looking for this tool, as opposed to an ISO or i386 folder containing Powered installation files?

I'd be thinking the latter, & that the service packs had the updated files in them
simply to update an image, extracted into a folder then re-imaged/iso'd.
The only question left in my mind is the authenticity of the setup bitmap that I
asked Windows OCManage to post a d/l link to, which I hope he does. :D
Vista Ultimate R2 wrote:
I'm also still very intrigued by this issue of it mentioning vsstask.dll, seeing as that file is only in Server 2003, not 2000, as it is for Volume Shadow Copies.
Well, you do know that it's the Server appliance kit {SAK} that is used to convert
the server versions to an "Appliance Edition"/"NAS Server", I'd be willing to bet that the image
in Windows OCManage's possession was made using the latter SAK, not the one
made for use on the earlier server versions.
Well, that's my theory anyway. :?

Then of course there's that question of how there came to be 2 different service pack 1
builds of it in the Build Screenshots section here in the forum, if the only service packs
to contain the updated files were from service pack 2 & on.


Top
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2007 2:26 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
Unknown wrote:
I'd be thinking the latter, & that the service packs had the updated files in them
simply to update an image, extracted into a folder then re-imaged/iso'd.
The only question left in my mind is the authenticity of the setup bitmap that I
asked Windows OCManage to post a d/l link to, which I hope he does.

I don't think so. I've played with the SAK 2.0 for Windows 2000, and it neither allows to rebrand the running OS nor to build a new image the "Embedded" way. I'm fairly sure Powered is a separate OS and ISO.
The Setup bitmap is here. It's the same in KenOath's builds and I believe these are genuine.

Unknown wrote:
Well, you do know that it's the Server appliance kit {SAK} that is used to convert
the server versions to an "Appliance Edition"/"NAS Server", I'd be willing to bet that the image
in Windows OCManage's possession was made using the latter SAK, not the one
made for use on the earlier server versions.
Well, that's my theory anyway.

Of course the SAK can "convert" the OS, but only the SAK 3.0 for Windows Server 2003 can change the branding to Appliance Edition. It can't create a new ISO. The Win2k SAK 2.0 doesn't allow either of these and there is no such thing as two separate SAKs, there's only one and you choose upon installing it. This doesn't change the branding on Win2k. So, this would invalidate your theory.

Unknown wrote:
Then of course there's that question of how there came to be 2 different service pack 1
builds of it in the Build Screenshots section here in the forum, if the only service packs
to contain the updated files were from service pack 2 & on.

Very easy to answer. The SP1 builds are the initial builds of the OS. It's the same with Win2k Datacenter. The SP2...4 are the only SPs to contain updated Datacenter files, yet there was a Build 2128 & 2195 SP0 (beta) of Datacenter and the RTM build of Datacenter has the SP1 integrated :) This renders your theory invalid once more.

Vista Ultimate R2 wrote:
So are we now thinking that Powered is an OS in its own right, just like the other 4 SKUs of 2000, but that it was never available from MS, you had to build it yourself using a copy of Server and some sort of tool to build a customised image of it, like XPe? And so if we want to find a real copy of Windows Powered then we could be looking for this tool, as opposed to an ISO or i386 folder containing Powered installation files?

I still believe it's (also) a stand-alone OS. :)


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2007 2:59 pm 
Reply with quote
empireum wrote:
Of course the SAK can "convert" the OS, but only the SAK 3.0 for Windows Server 2003 can change the branding to Appliance Edition. It can't create a new ISO. The Win2k SAK 2.0 doesn't allow either of these and there is no such thing as two separate SAKs, there's only one and you choose upon installing it. This doesn't change the branding on Win2k. So, this would invalidate your theory.

This renders your theory invalid once more.

I still believe it's (also) a stand-alone OS. :)


If you say so. :?

Quote:
September 28th, 2004, 04:50 PM
If you are going to use the server application kits then it's server os. Win2k uses SAK2.0 as the NAS front end and Win2k3 use SAK3.0.

you could always throw a few nics in, team them for load balancing and create shares or use dfs in 2003. Google it and you'll find loads of different flavours and solution.

http://forums.windrivers.com/archive/in ... 64078.html
http://www.forrester.com/Research/Legac ... 21,00.html
Quote:
In the future, the Server Appliance Kit will be included as part of the embedded server operating system and toolset, which is currently in development and code-named "Whistler Embedded Server."

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/pres ... 7sak2.mspx
Quote:
Microsoft Announces Release to Manufacturing of Server Appliance Kit 2.0
RLX Technologies Announces First Windows Powered Web ServerBlade Solution Based on Server Appliance Kit 2.0 as Microsoft Continues to See Strong Momentum

In your own language.
http://www.tecchannel.de/news/themen/business/408129/

And the most important link of all, which supports Rented Mules comments above.
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/embedded/aa731234.aspx

Tell me again it renders my theory invalid. :wink:

& here's another link for good measure.
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/embedded/aa731232.aspx

Here's a beauty.
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/embedded/aa731233.aspx
Quote:
Windows Powered Starter Kit*
To help you apply the Windows Powered brand, you will receive the Windows Powered Starter Kit, containing tools and resources to aid you in delivering a consistent brand identity — from Windows Powered logo and signage artwork files to the Windows Powered Brand and Naming guidelines to the Windows Powered Press kit. You can also receive up to 200 Windows Powered labels for use on product casing.
*Applies only to products in the General Embedded with or without Screen or GUI and Server Appliance device categories as per the logo license agreement, licensed after September 2002. Does not include products licensed under In-car Computing System, Handheld PC, Pocket PC, Smart Phone, Smart Display categories, or Server Appliances built on Microsoft Windows Storage Server.
If you are interested in participating in an upcoming event, send e-mail to wplogo@microsoft.com.
Note: Statistics mentioned above are from the Windows Powered Brand Equity research study, conducted by TNS Intersearch, June 2001.


Last edited by Unknown on Wed Sep 26, 2007 8:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2007 3:07 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Posts
2393
empireum wrote:
I don't think so. I've played with the SAK 2.0 for Windows 2000, and it neither allows to rebrand the running OS nor to build a new image the "Embedded" way. I'm fairly sure Powered is a separate OS and ISO.

What does the SAK do then? Does it make something like Powered but keeps the branding from Server?


empireum wrote:
It's the same in KenOath's builds and I believe these are genuine.

Do you reckon KenOath's builds came from MS like that then, as opposed to him having a tool for building them and having made them himself from a copy of 2000 Server? Do we have any evidence for this eg them being on genuine discs, or being an entire ISO with lots of bits specific to Powered as opposed to just an i386 folder, which would be more likely to be something produced from a tool to build installation sources for Powered?


empireum wrote:
I still believe it's (also) a stand-alone OS. :)

I'm very keen to get to the bottom of this one now ;)

Quote:
& here's another link for good measure.
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/embedded/aa731232.aspx

Here's a beauty.
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/embedded/aa731233.aspx
Quote:
Windows Powered Starter Kit*
To help you apply the Windows Powered brand, you will receive the Windows Powered Starter Kit, containing tools and resources to aid you in delivering a consistent brand identity — from Windows Powered logo and signage artwork files to the Windows Powered Brand and Naming guidelines to the Windows Powered Press kit. You can also receive up to 200 Windows Powered labels for use on product casing.
*Applies only to products in the General Embedded with or without Screen or GUI and Server Appliance device categories as per the logo license agreement, licensed after September 2002. Does not include products licensed under In-car Computing System, Handheld PC, Pocket PC, Smart Phone, Smart Display categories, or Server Appliances built on Microsoft Windows Storage Server.
If you are interested in participating in an upcoming event, send e-mail to wplogo@microsoft.com.
Note: Statistics mentioned above are from the Windows Powered Brand Equity research study, conducted by TNS Intersearch, June 2001.

This seems to be referring to something more general though, namely all kinds of things that can be "powered" by [embedded] versions of Windows, as opposed to specifically "Windows 2000 Powered NAS Server", which is what the OS in question is called. These also refer to the current "Windows Powered" program that uses XP/2003 as its base - can we be sure that this means Windows Powered as in this 2000-based OS was not available in any form other than a tool to create installation sources for it, as opposed to a pre-built OS for "windows powered" NAS servers?

_________________
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2007 3:12 pm 
Reply with quote
Vista Ultimate R2 wrote:
empireum wrote:
I don't think so. I've played with the SAK 2.0 for Windows 2000, and it neither allows to rebrand the running OS nor to build a new image the "Embedded" way. I'm fairly sure Powered is a separate OS and ISO.

What does the SAK do then? Does it make something like Powered but keeps the branding from Server?


empireum wrote:
It's the same in KenOath's builds and I believe these are genuine.

Do you reckon KenOath's builds came from MS like that then, as opposed to him having a tool for building them and having made them himself from a copy of 2000 Server? Do we have any evidence for this eg them being on genuine discs, or being an entire ISO with lots of bits specific to Powered as opposed to just an i386 folder, which would be more likely to be something produced from a tool to build installation sources for Powered?


empireum wrote:
I still believe it's (also) a stand-alone OS. :)

I'm very keen to get to the bottom of this one now ;)

I'd have to say that if what he has is genuine, it's possibly made & branded using
the tools needed to create a Windows Powered installation, but again, I'd have to
imagine that there wont be any specific size for an installation-image as it depends on
the purpose it was built for.
However, I can feel that comment being debunked again,so perhaps I'll step back
a bit & see what others have to say. :?

empireum wrote:
I've played with the SAK 2.0 for Windows 2000, and it neither allows to rebrand the running OS nor to build a new image the "Embedded" way.

Have you played with SAK 2.0 or 2.01.
2.01 is an upgrade for 2.0, but I'm sure you knew this yeah. :wink:

Vista Ultimate R2 wrote:
This seems to be referring to something more general though, namely all kinds of things that can be "powered" by [embedded] versions of Windows, as opposed to specifically "Windows 2000 Powered NAS Server", which is what the OS in question is called. These also refer to the current "Windows Powered" program that uses XP/2003 as its base - can we be sure that this means Windows Powered as in this 2000-based OS was not available in any form other than a tool to create installation sources for it, as opposed to a pre-built OS for "windows powered" NAS servers?

Quote:
What products qualify?
The requirements for a product to qualify for the Windows Powered Logo Program are specific to each device type under the program. The base criteria for any device to qualify is that the product must be loaded with one of the Windows® operating systems listed below pursuant to a valid license with Microsoft:
Windows CE 5.0
Windows CE .NET 4.x
Windows CE 3.x
Windows CE 2.x
Windows XP Embedded
Windows NT Embedded
Windows CE for Smart Displays
Hand Held PC 2000
Hand Held PC 3.0
Hand Held PC 2.0
Windows Server 2003, Standard Edition for Embedded Systems with Server Appliance Software 3.0
Windows Server 2003, Standard Edition for Telecommunications Systems with Server Appliance Software 3.0
Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition for Embedded Systems with Server Appliance Software 3.0
Server Appliance Kit 2.0 with Windows 2000
Server Appliance Kit 2.0 with Windows 2000 Server
Server Appliance Kit 2.0 with Windows 2000 Advanced Server
Windows XP Professional with Embedded Restrictions
Windows CE for Automotive
If you are unsure if your product qualifies for the Windows Powered Logo Program, e-mail wplogo@microsoft.com.


Top
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2007 3:34 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Posts
2393
Unknown wrote:
Vista Ultimate R2 wrote:
This seems to be referring to something more general though, namely all kinds of things that can be "powered" by [embedded] versions of Windows, as opposed to specifically "Windows 2000 Powered NAS Server", which is what the OS in question is called. These also refer to the current "Windows Powered" program that uses XP/2003 as its base - can we be sure that this means Windows Powered as in this 2000-based OS was not available in any form other than a tool to create installation sources for it, as opposed to a pre-built OS for "windows powered" NAS servers?

Quote:
What products qualify?
...
Server Appliance Kit 2.0 with Windows 2000
Server Appliance Kit 2.0 with Windows 2000 Server
Server Appliance Kit 2.0 with Windows 2000 Advanced Server

So I think the key issue now is does using this SAK on a copy of Windows 2000 Professional, Server or Advanced Server turn it into a Windows Powered-branded copy of Windows 2000? If yes, then that explains what Windows Powered is, but if not then it must be something else, because they haven't mentioned any other forms of Windows 2000 apart from SAK-ised copies of the regular SKUs in what qualifies for part of this more general "Windows powered" programme. Either there is a tool different to the SAK that can make Windows 2000 Powered for NAS Server, or it must have been available pre-built, perhaps only on an OEM restore disc when you bought an NAS server? (but then if it is one of these, why does this Windows Powered Programme not mention them?) Interestingly I see that NT Embedded is mentioned too, which we seem to think was only available as a tool for building a customised image of it?


PS I think it might be an idea to move all of this into a separate topic specifically about Windows 2000 Powered for NAS Server at some stage; as this is an interesting discussion and worth its own topic in my view - not sure if anyone else agrees that we should do this?

_________________
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2007 3:44 pm 
Reply with quote
Administrator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:47 am

Posts
12600

Location
United Kingdom

Favourite OS
Windows 10
Vista Ultimate R2,

You're a mod, do what you feel best ;)

_________________
Image

> BetaArchive Discord <
> Site rules <
> How to get FTP access <
> How to prepare software <


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2007 3:44 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Tue Sep 19, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
66
I agree with Vista Ultimate R2 on moving this discussion on windows powered into its own topic.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2007 3:50 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Posts
2393
cooled wrote:
I agree with Vista Ultimate R2 on moving this discussion on windows powered into its own topic.

Sorry about going off-topic in the topic for your FTP server, it should be sorted now ;) Think I did that right, haven't done that before, hope I haven't screwed anything up! Now, back to the discussion of this curious OS, and specifically the SAK and what exactly it does... :)

_________________
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2007 4:04 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
Vista Ultimate R2 wrote:
What does the SAK do then? Does it make something like Powered but keeps the branding from Server?

The SAK allows you to install "Null Device" drivers for keyboard, mouse and video, allowing the device to run headlessly. Furthermore, it sets up a simple web-based management UI (similar to Webmin for *nix) requiring IIS. It does not change the branding.

Vista Ultimate R2 wrote:
So I think the key issue now is does using this SAK on a copy of Windows 2000 Professional, Server or Advanced Server turn it into a Windows Powered-branded copy of Windows 2000?

No, it doesn't change the branding.

Unknown wrote:
Have you played with SAK 2.0 or 2.01.
2.01 is an upgrade for 2.0, but I'm sure you knew this yeah

Both. No difference. And Microsoft doesn't mention the possibility to change the branding anywhere.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2007 4:14 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Posts
2393
empireum wrote:
Vista Ultimate R2 wrote:
What does the SAK do then? Does it make something like Powered but keeps the branding from Server?

The SAK allows you to install "Null Device" drivers for keyboard, mouse and video, allowing the device to run headlessly. Furthermore, it sets up a simple web-based management UI (similar to Webmin for *nix) requiring IIS. It does not change the branding.

Right, so this means that this Windows Powered OS is not part of the "Windows powered" programme for embedded devices, given that it only mentions 2000 with the SAK, not any other variant of 2000. However, this OS does use the same logo as the "Powered" programme, as that logo that features in its branding is also on devices designed for running NT Embedded, which is part of that programme.

:?

_________________
Image


Top  Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 45 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2




Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All views expressed in these forums are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the BetaArchive site owner.

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group

Copyright © 2006-2020

 

Sitemap | XML | RSS