Serious Problem with Add/Remove Programs


Recommended Posts

I formatted my PC a few days ago and created an up-to-date Windows XP CD with my favourite apps preinstalled. Just tried going to Add/Remove Programs and this is what I am getting:

post-40273-1217464433_thumb.jpg

I've tried "REGSVR32 APPWIZ.CPL" but that hasn't worked. Any ideas?

Edit: Just found that if I scroll right down to the bottom, all my programs are there. But why the black space at the top?

I've seen the KB Article, but not entirely sure what to do... http://support.microsoft.com/kb/266668

Edited by Zoom7000
  warwagon said:
My guess would be that in the processes modifying the install cd you broke add / and remove programs.

Did you use Nlite?

Only question now is, what else did you break.

lol, I was waiting for this. Well, I build images almost every month at work, so it's nothing new to me. Only the first time I have had this problem. I may try to rebuild the image and test it again. I did try this one on a VM before I used it, just didn't notice this!

As for the -1, tried that too, found a -1 entry but it didn't solve the problem.

Are there eventually programs listed in the box? I see that there is a a lot of space in the scroll bar. I've had this with certain applications taking up the space of 100 in the list with just blank space, can't remember what caused it though.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Sure - let's expand on that a bit then to try and be of more help. It's not a one-time use code that can be gamed - each time the proof is required a new transaction takes place to go through the "proof" process. It's a unique step each time. Not a...reusable QR code or pass so to speak. Each time proof is required, a new cryptographic transaction is required. The tricky part here, is trusted issuers. That is still needed. Since this is open source - it doe snot mean that Google has to be the issuer. Google has just provided the tooling to do this, but they don't store the data - to be clear. Presumably, again - you would have some type of government or state issued digital ID that supports the zero-knowledge functions. Effectively, the same entities today that have your information and you (assumingly trust) would continue to have it, it would just be able to be leveraged in a more private manner when you go somewhere or interact with anything requireing age verification. To fake this, someone would need to have a legitimate private key tied to an actual real identity. Cryptographic checks using zero-knowledge would fail otherwise - and again - it can't be used over and over again. Can someone screw up and somehow leak that private key? Sure. No different than leaking your password to your private accounts - a password change would be necessary and let's hope that future implementation of ZKP-based identities bake in some kind of 2FA/MFA for better security. There's not much to hack here, as I said - really comes down to the issuer. If you receive this from the government, none of your real data gets sent to say "MyHubOfChoice.com" when doing age verification - the protocol is only designed to say "Yes - I meet the requirement." Reality is, this keeps you more anonymous than you could ever be today with age verification without having to share anything else about you. However, it's worth stating that anonymity isn't the goal with ZKP - it's removing disclosure. True anonymity is more difficult, as how everything works today to an extent you need to prove who you are with a "trusted" source (ie government/state issued ID). And that data, at the end of the day, does sit in a centralized db as designed. Could that change in the future, perhaps. But the goal of this is just to not have to hand over anymore information than you need to.
    • Oh yeah because its SO hard to duplicate some of the server's logic on the client
    • Software versions increase while older ones are deprecated. This is nothing new, except now it's not included with Windows. Do you not upgrade your software? The biggest issue for me living with 2.0 was that the new versions never upgraded it, it installed side-by-side. I accidentally launched the shite version more than once on accident.
    • They would have to include .NET (not be to be confused with legacy .NET Framework), and they don't. That might be why...dunno. Or maybe because it's open source (guessing)? It's kind of nice to have it separated from the OS.
    • the version 7 needs to be installed separately, why not include it in windows 11 release ?
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      K.I.S.S. earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Week One Done
      solidox earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Dedicated
      solidox earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Week One Done
      Devesh Beri earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      956400 earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      447
    2. 2
      ATLien_0
      162
    3. 3
      +FloatingFatMan
      147
    4. 4
      Nick H.
      66
    5. 5
      +thexfile
      61
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!