Has anyone yet validated that KenOath actually owned an iso of this yet?
Or was this just another of his hacks to show?
Reason I ask is i have yet to see a valid iso of this operating system,
not someone's Reshacked attempt.
If so, what is the iso's label.
Last edited by unblestone on Sun Dec 03, 2006 3:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
One day I was playing with Reshack on the Windows 2000 logon.scr. When I clicked on the bitmaps to see what I can change. I found an entry that has a picture that said Windows Powered. I guess this proves its existance.
However I lost my 2000 disk, and it does not appear on the server disk. If someone here has a copy of Windows 2000 Pro, they can check it. I'm going to see if I have the disk. I'll edit this post if I find out I was going crazy.
I have also found these bitmaps on the Windows 2000 Pro and Server discs. Therefore, Windows Powered has to be real. They're not just in the logon.scr file, they are also in the msgina.dll and other files that make up the logon screen appearance and stuff like that. It's also in the ntoskrnl.exe (the boot screen). So, the question is: Is it possible to rebrand Windows 2000 Server to Windows Powered, if not, where to get it? All I could get was a reshacked rebranded Windows 2000 Server that pretended to be Windows Powered.
edit: These below are in Windows 2000 Server, and I bet in any other edition of 2000 as well.
a) it's not a real Windows Powered Edition b) installing any patches may undo the changes
b) this will not perform any other changes that might be implemented in Windows Powered Edition (any limitations or special functions and something like that).
Has anyone yet validated that KenOath actually owned an iso of this yet? Or was this just another of his hacks to show? Reason I ask is i have yet to see a valid iso of this operating system, not someone's Reshacked attempt.
If so, what is the iso's label.
So - are you here to simply make my time here miserable by debunking
anything I say or do,{as was the case on OSBA} or was there a point
to that post that I missed...
Did you not see the screenshots of it empireum posted the link to
on the 3rd post..
The screenshot clearly states that it is Service Pack 1, RC 1.128 ...
Service pack one files don't include { or ever included }
Windows Powered updated files as it wasn't released until just before
service pack 2, similar to Datacenter Server...
That pretty much concludes the authenticity of this operating system...
& seeing your here I doubt i'll be releasing it any time soon...
That screenshot doesn't look real to me, as there are no gaps between the blocks that make up the progress bar, and the blue bar that goes right across the width of the screen looks much less blocky than in the real thing (see the screenshot further up the page).
That screenshot doesn't look real to me, as there are no gaps between the blocks that make up the progress bar, and the blue bar that goes right across the width of the screen looks much less blocky than in the real thing (see the screenshot further up the page).
It also uses the Professional palette for the animated bar instead of the Server palette. Furthermore, the logo looks much "smoother" than the other version, i.e. it doesn't look like it's made of 16 colors. Those screenshots I posted are straight from the NTOSKRNL.EXE of a German Win2k and yet the screen says "Starting up...". Interestingly, KenOath's copy of Powered SP1 has the exact same bootscreen . But to make sure, I'll set up my Asian copies of Win2k and check for myself.
cant you ask them where they get it from or only copy the install cd^^
It is a Dell NAS, came installed that way long before either my boss or I worked here.
I suppose I could see if I can find the CD Somewhere, but I wouldn't count on it.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 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
All views expressed in these forums are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the BetaArchive site owner.