XP Pro Start-up sound refuses to play

ISSUE:
When logging onto my XP Pro machine via standard user profile w/ admin
rights, the Windows XP start-up sound will not play. There is no problem
with my integrated sound card or it's drivers. Everything works flawlessly
except for this one niggling issue.

CURRENT MACHINE STATE:
1) Sounds & Audio Device Properties:
a) 'Windows Default' sound scheme is selected
b) 'Windows XP Startup.wav' is selected for the 'Start Windows' program
event
c) 'Windows XP Startup.wav' plays normally when you test it via the
'play' button
d) Every other program event plays its associated .wav file without fail
e) All 'Windows Default' sound scheme .wav files are located at the
standard location: %SystemDrive%\WINDOWS\Media
f) Assigning a different .wav file to the 'Start Windows' program event
has the same result: startup sound still refuses to play
g) Moving 'Windows XP Startup.wav' to a different location on the HDD
then reassigning it to the 'Start Windows' program event has the same
result: startup sound still refuses to play

2) If I create a new user profile (limited or administrative), the start-up
sound WILL play when the system boots into the new profile.
3) After creating a new profile, if I log in once again under the
"problematic" profile, the problem persists (the startup sound still refuses
to play).

Any help will be greatly appreciated.

------------------------------------------------------------
MACHINE SPECS:
PC: eMachines E620 notebook
RAM: 3GB DDR2 PC2-5300
CPU AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 2650e
Sound Card / Drivers: Realtek High Definition Audio
OS: Windows XP Professional x86, SP3 w/ all updates
Problematic Profile: User w/ full administrative rights (aka an "admin"
account)




--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ---

PROBLEM SOLVED:
Re-enabled "Beep on Errors" using Xteq 6.5

WHAT XTEQ 6.5 HAD TO SAY ABOUT IT:
Note #2: If you are using Windows 2000, it can happen that disabling this
option will also disable the Startup or Shutdown sounds of Windows itself.
This seems to be a bug in Windows.

Apparently, the bug extends to Windows XP as well.


"Gregg Harris" wrote in message
...
ISSUE:
When logging onto my XP Pro machine via standard user profile w/ admin
rights, the Windows XP start-up sound will not play. There is no problem
with my integrated sound card or it's drivers. Everything works flawlessly
except for this one niggling issue.

CURRENT MACHINE STATE:
1) Sounds & Audio Device Properties:
a) 'Windows Default' sound scheme is selected
b) 'Windows XP Startup.wav' is selected for the 'Start Windows' program
event
c) 'Windows XP Startup.wav' plays normally when you test it via the
'play' button
d) Every other program event plays its associated .wav file without
fail
e) All 'Windows Default' sound scheme .wav files are located at the
standard location: %SystemDrive%\WINDOWS\Media
f) Assigning a different .wav file to the 'Start Windows' program event
has the same result: startup sound still refuses to play
g) Moving 'Windows XP Startup.wav' to a different location on the HDD
then reassigning it to the 'Start Windows' program event has the same
result: startup sound still refuses to play

2) If I create a new user profile (limited or administrative), the
start-up sound WILL play when the system boots into the new profile.
3) After creating a new profile, if I log in once again under the
"problematic" profile, the problem persists (the startup sound still
refuses to play).

Any help will be greatly appreciated.

------------------------------------------------------------
MACHINE SPECS:
PC: eMachines E620 notebook
RAM: 3GB DDR2 PC2-5300
CPU AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 2650e
Sound Card / Drivers: Realtek High Definition Audio
OS: Windows XP Professional x86, SP3 w/ all updates
Problematic Profile: User w/ full administrative rights (aka an "admin"
account)




--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to
---



--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ---

Gregg Harris wrote:

PROBLEM SOLVED:
Re-enabled "Beep on Errors" using Xteq 6.5

WHAT XTEQ 6.5 HAD TO SAY ABOUT IT:
Note #2: If you are using Windows 2000, it can happen that disabling this
option will also disable the Startup or Shutdown sounds of Windows itself.
This seems to be a bug in Windows.

Apparently, the bug extends to Windows XP as well.

I X-Teq can have you changing options that will not only corrupt the OS
regarding its behavior but also destroy some or all of it usability.
It's a dangerous tool. If you don't know what its setting do, don't use
it. It looks like a handy Windows tweaker but some of those tweaks are
very potent.

Gregg Harris wrote:

snipped the body

--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to
---

This is NOT a valid signature (which is delimited by a "-- \n" line).
That means their spam is in the BODY of your post. That means they
spamify your posts. If you continue posting through this provider while
they spamify your posts then you choose to be their spamming affiliate
and your posts are spam.

You've got that right, Vanguard. Fortunately, I do know how to use it as I
just have done to eliminate an irritating issue with XP Pro SP3 that has
even stumped seasoned M$ MVPs (answer was too simple, apparently). Turns
out, the issue was a Windows programming "glitch". Judging by the results,
more people should use XTEQ instead of fewer. Thanks for the heads-up,
though.

"VanguardLH" wrote in message
...

It's a dangerous tool. If you don't know what its setting do, don't use
it. It looks like a handy Windows tweaker but some of those tweaks are
very potent.



--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ---

On 6/25/2011 12:34 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
Gregg Harris wrote:

snipped the body

--- Posted via freenews.netfront.net - Complaints to
news_netfront.net ---

links intentionally munged


This is NOT a valid signature (which is delimited by a "-- \n" line).
That means their spam is in the BODY of your post. That means they
spamify your posts. If you continue posting through this provider while
they spamify your posts then you choose to be their spamming affiliate
and your posts are spam.

It appears that this is also added after he's written his post and sent
it to the news server for posting. So one would naturally assume that
by simply adding a valid signature, then this "spam" would then appear
as part of the signature and not be in the body of the message. Now if
it doesn't, then this newsgroup provider is altering your posts and
personally I would be looking for another newsgroup provider that didn't
do this.


--

Roy Smith
Windows XP Home
Thunderbird 3.1.11
Sunday, June 26, 2011 6:36:36 AM

Roy Smith wrote:

On 6/25/2011 12:34 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
Gregg Harris wrote:

snipped the body

--- Posted via freenews.netfront.net - Complaints to
news_netfront.net ---

links intentionally munged


This is NOT a valid signature (which is delimited by a "-- \n" line).
That means their spam is in the BODY of your post. That means they
spamify your posts. If you continue posting through this provider while
they spamify your posts then you choose to be their spamming affiliate
and your posts are spam.

It appears that this is also added after he's written his post and sent
it to the news server for posting. So one would naturally assume that
by simply adding a valid signature, then this "spam" would then appear
as part of the signature and not be in the body of the message. Now if
it doesn't, then this newsgroup provider is altering your posts and
personally I would be looking for another newsgroup provider that didn't
do this.

Several Usenet providers append their promotional "signature" (spam) to
posts submitted through them. I paid the signup fee for Teranews "free"
service but when I saw they were spamifying my posts with their promo
appendage I immediately discarded them. I believe they later removed
their spam crap but that was long after I closed the account (and
they're down so much that I wouldn't even consider using them anymore).

I'm assuming the "freenews" in freenews.netfront.net means it is another
free NNTP service but with the caveat that all posts submitted through
it will get spamified with their promotional crap. While adding your
own signature would probably place their spam after the sigdash line,
the spam is still there plus your signature plus their spam crap might
exceed the netiquette of 4-line maximum for signatures.

If the OP is paying for freenews.netfront.net then they're definitely
getting ripped off by using a SPAM-SUPPORTED service.