Discussion on:

10 things you'll miss when you upgrade to Vista (and how to get some of them back)

Are some of these items on your own list of features you miss in Windows Vista? What else do you wish you had back--and how are you dealing with those shortcomings?

The Image Toolbar in IE 6- I seem to save a lot of jpegs whilst browsing and it was a lot quicker than Right-Click Save As.

I also don't like that I can't resize the Address Bar in IE7. I used to be able to resize it and squeeze in a small toolbar next to it (like SnagIT) but the only way to add a 1.5" toolbar is to add it vertically, reducing viewing space.

XP had a great feature that allowed almost one-click publish the directory or a picture to the web. The default was to MSN only, but third-party software (e.g., Gallery 2) had plug-ins for it as well. I hope next service pack will resurrect it!

First off, good job on the article. Big help. Most importantly, we need to stop whining about the interface changes. If we linger in the "way it used to be" world, nothing progresses. The Ribbon in Office 2007 is a perfect example. You'll hate it the first three days, then all of a sudden you realize how SMART the thing is laid out. So, Vista has things removed now. Big whoop. You can't learn a newer, WAY slicker interface?

Keep whining, and it'll just continue to vindicate Apple's ads making PC users appear to be dweebs. Tear into Vista and make it happen!

I personally think the interface changes in Vista is plain dumb. Microsoft needs to get in their heads that simple and secure is what is best. Not everyone out there wants change and not every one out there is a propeller head.

While I am a computer professonal and I will figure out how use and support the new OS, I do not think it is worth the time and effort to roll it out.

So, this is what we waited for for 5 years, and cost 6 Billion Dollars to create. You gotta be kidding!!! The user access control is the most annoying thing I have ever seen. It assumes we are SO STUPID we can't even "start" some apps. without the annoying popup it gives you. Then go turn it off, and some apps. will not even run properly (BTW these are apps. that are Vista capable!!!). Try changing a file association. Used to be real easy in XP: go in Windows Explorer to Tools, Folder Options, File Types, and you could change file associations for just about anything quickly & easily. Not in Vista, that feature is GONE????

The new Defrag is absolutely worthless, as you have no idea on its progress, so you do not know how long it is going to take to complete??? Thank God for after market products like Diskeeper 2007.

Brand New Windows Vista Laptop, on Feb 1st, needed 11 Windows Vista Updates!!!! Give me a Break.

In XP the task scheduler was extremely easy to use. Not anymore!!!
Heck what the hell is all the stuff listed in there anyway. I have been in the computer business in corp America for over 30 Years, and have owned my own business for over 10 years. I truly feel sorry for P/C users going from XP to this, as it will be very confusing, and in the corp arena definitely require re-training the users at the desktop
level.

It will be a cold day in Hell, before I switch from XP Pro to this crap!!!

Linux is the future, and hopefully it will eventually be the un-doing of M$.

I have been a Windows user since I was 4 years old (yeah ok, I'm only 21). I have often defended Microsoft and their products. However, I think Windows Vista will be the last straw that pushes me over to Linux.

I currently run XP, program in .Net, and use SQL Server 2005 exclusively for databases. As Vista becomes more popular and XP is supported less and less, I will slowly be switching over my computing habits to Linux and other Microsoft Alternatives. If I ever fulfill my dream of starting my own development company (within the next 12 months I hope!!) it will be an all-linux shop.

So far there are only 2 good things I have to say about Microsofts new round of products:
1. Excel 2007 works very well with (SQL Server 2005) OLAP cubes.
2. Office 2007 uses an XML format that Microsoft is making publicly available (so it will be easy for OpenOffice to read/write the new format.

There's my 2 cents.

linux is more and more popular,but it's not easy for children& the ages.it's a good suggestion for the developer of linux to hear what u have said.wish you career success.

In this case, "not easier for children" will be a good thing!
If they can't screw stuff up without a root password
But back on topic, I have also noticed most of these annoyances, & most of them, to me, are just that: annoyances. The real problem, as has been stated before, will be for the average, inept users out there. The ones that think that they don't have a certain program if it's not on the desktop o_O
(you would not believe the number of people I have run into that use winXP, but have never used the Start Menu )

After fiddling with it for awhile I give up. Something simple as loading a driver for my video card turned into days of agravation. Wonkly command line code, getting it into the right folder and so forth. I never got it to work. That should be computer 101 right? run filename.exe right?

It was much worse in the past though video drivers are still an area that Linux based OS (BSD et all non-win32/osX that is) should be commended on since all the work is generally through reverse engineering. Outside of video and wifi, I've not seen any issues in a long time and those two are getting better too. I flopped back and forth for years happily but I love exploring different OS rather than simply running things on top of a specific platform.

Anyhow, play with some liveCD to see what distro works best for you if your really interested. I'm partial to Mandriva which will give you a very nice "control panel" in the GUI. I run the livdCD seamlessly on my Thinkpad T60 including ATI video and the wifi. And not a single thing I've had to do by command prompt (except by loving choice of course). You might also try Kubuntu and Ubuntu distrobutions on liveCD.. PCLinuxOS seems a favourite of others also.

The key is to realize that Linux is the kernel not a single OS. Linux based OS are many different distrobutions made from the same lego pieces; each distrobution has different values and goals resulting in very differetn but similar operating systems.

If video is your biggest issue then I'd hazzard a guess that it's Games your realy after and in that regard; keep a windows partition to run the latest games and a Linux distro dual boot for everything else.

- The Windows boot can be tuned for your specific games instead of all generall tasks you through at it.

- The Linux boot can be used for everything it does well and doesn't really need the 3D support unless you just can't possibly live without eye-candy adding no additional function to your desktop.

In my case I have the following outstanding functions but all else has been replaced under my Mandriva boot:

- Games.. Windowes has lesser broken ATI drivers and first pick of the native game support.

- Syncing PalmOS too Outlook too Cellphone.. discontinued for the moment since the motorola V3 cell sync software sucks badly.

- Editing office files from years of Windows at home and Windows at work.. now done under a VM guest Windows running windowed on the Mandriva host OS thanks to VMware.

- Last, supporting IE so I can admin my dd-wrt router since, for some ungodly reason, the dd-wrt developers build the web interface to only support IE (that may change in later v24 release candidates)...This is again done exlusively under the win32 VM.

Take your time and replace Windows functions with Linux functions as you get comfortable. If your changing to be cool like everyone else then don't.. if your interested in exploring a different OS or moving to a Linux based OS for your own reasons then persevere; there's no loss, even if it's only learning about how a computer actually works.

I agree 100%, there are many users that do not want to learn a new OS.

It would be nice to have a "Classic View"
button in vista that would let the average PC user use there new PC with Vista, but without all the advance features or menus.

Just my $0.02

I have ignored this persistent error for months now but I can do so no longer. It is as common and as irritating as "your a mron" instead of "you're a moron". I refer, of course, to the incorrect use of "here here" instead of the correct "hear hear". Think about what the expression means for a moment and err no more. Thanks.

You "have ignored this persistent error for months now but I can do so no longer"...

Do you get sleepless nights over the poor use of grammar?

The changes are initially irritating and there will always be resistance to change from those who insist on doing things the same old way. Some of the new features, like the new filtering and organising features of Explorer may go unnoticed initially. The trick is, to accept the changes, get used to new ways of working, and THEN see if overall you are more or less productive. The time for change over, in my experience, is very brief in real terms.
I am reminded, back in the days of the introduction of Windows 95, that I had a student who insisted on reloading the File Manager that he was so familiar with in Windows 3.1. I had to virtually tie him down, deleting File Manager, to get him to become productive with Explorer.

You had to "virtually tie him down, deleting File Manager, to get him to become productive with Explorer." If a person does not wish to change, then that decision lies solely with the person not desiring to change. Change has to come from within the person. I oft remember this maxim, 'a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.' Many times, I would go against the flow, sit, when people stood, stand when people stood...and when I was forced to comply, inside I was still doing the opposite.

The most you can hope to do in life, is to show the horse the water, if the horse chooses not to drink, then so be it. Brush the dust from your sandals, and move on.

People change at their pace at there hearts desire and not because they are 'forced'.

"I had to virtually tie him down, deleting File Manager, to get him to become productive with Explorer."

What a joke this is!

I'd much rather have Winfile.exe (Win3.1 version) than the joke that explorer is! With Winfile, I could view more than one directory/folder at a time(I regularly view 2-4 directories at once, passing files between them). With explorer, in order to do the same thing, I must open a NEW Copy for each. Each copy of explorer that gets open, slows the system just a little more.

The only down side (that I found)to Winfile.exe, was the 8.3 file name restriction.

That being said, Which way is more productive?

I would hazard a guess to say that the best way a person is more productive is by using what they are comfy using rather than going through the learning curvem however short or long that may be.

If I came into work and they had put a unix workstation on my desk, telling me its now company standard, then it would be my standard to resign. Not due to unix but due to the attitude of the company. Dont get me wrong I am looking at linux (I know its not unix, but it is a flavour) to use instead of M$ but at my pace.

Too bad Microsoft couldn't come up with an OS upgrade which featured was Secure, Fast and Stable instead of just flashy. We won't be installing this at my organization until there's no avoiding it.

And Microsoft will not rest until there's no avoiding it

Ah, nevermind...

...thus the reason for Microsoft sucking NOVELL into their current fiasco with SUSE Linux and making the statement that MS wouldn't sue any of SUSE users for patent infringment! SCO lost all it's credibility as the front for MS so now they have to figure out a way to do their dirty work themselves!

I have no problems with change.
Change that attempts to improve is good.
Change just for change's sake is bad.
Change that costs more and reduces functionality is just plain wrong.

people will find and use it. Don't make power users spend untold hours getting their systems back to a state they are comfortable with. Don't make computer novices feel lost. Of course, with that "compelling" philosophy, Microsoft would have had a hard time selling anything over the years.

I'd bet the main consideration Microsoft has for many of its changes are to drive recertification income and how-to books. They don't make as much money if people pass the tests the first time, and they are harder to pass if you have to know multiple operating systems.

I don't need an address bar (IE7) that takes up most of a toolbar. I know how to scroll if I need to. I also don't need a search box that duplicates my Google toolbar search. Give me the option to turn it off and put something useful there.

While it COULD have been a great step forward, it was only a little jump. The most irriating thing is that you have to spend tons of time customizing your ribbon because out of the box it just isn't usable.

Plus, other than the ribbon, Office2k7 offers nothing over Office2k3.

The interface in Vista is a step back, not slick...
http://computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyName=windows&articleId=9011819&taxonomyId=125

The biggest problem is that Vista is bloated and a serious resource hog. Across the board apps and games run SLOWER in Vista than in XP.

Sure, the DirectX10 argument will come up, but honestly, we won't know until we see it...

I agree about that point (but I haven't really used the "final" Vista)

While running RC2 on my laptop (with 1GB RAM and a Turion64 2GHz processor) I thought it ran just as fast as XP did, however, when I ran Eclipse, jEdit, MySQL, Apache, Apache Tomcat etc. I noticed things starting to slow down.
There were no real lockups or crashes, but it was considerably slower than when running XP.

I put it down to beta-syndrome and presumed that things would chug along nicely once Vista was properly released.

It seems that 1GB is not enough - perhaps you could do with 1.5 or even 2GB RAM.

Surely MS should never have recommended 1GB system memory for Ultimate...

You're so right, my friend. Enough said.

Yeah, well some things may be easier to access now, but some things have gotten more tucked away behind interfaces and windows and cr*p that Vista's change really doesn't help me as an end user, but instead obscures what I need to find to get things done!

At least OSX doesn't change the basics of their UI every OS revision.

Yeah, but the real question is: can you still switch the entire interface to "Windows classic." I have one computer that I keep in Windows XP interface so I know what customers are talking about when they call and tell me they clicked on such and such and then clicked on such and such. All of my other computers (I have three at my main workstation that I run continuously) I have in "Windows Classic" Mode. Don't tell me that "Windows Classic" is now Windows XP standard interface. Not that I'll use it until I absolutely have to, but please tell me Vista has a "Windows classic" that puts me back to the good old W95/NT4 interface.

In Microsoft's need to sell new operating system versions, they tend to have an "if it ain't broke, fix it [so the customer will think it was broke and run out to buy the new o/s]" kind of mentality. One of Microsoft's problems is that instead of building upon things that work, they need to make a bunch of changes that were not really necessary so that the new o/s looks "new". In the process a lot of the baby goes out with the bath water, as your article points out.

Amen, brother (or sister). Amen.

Reminds me of switching from Win 3.11 to Win 95. I made a "File manager" shortcut on my desktop because I didn't like explorers new interface. Ultimately I of course realized how much better Explorer was and switched. It'll just take time to see the good in all the changes.

It shouldn't, it should just be obvious, but it will take the 3rd. party vendors with their "crapletts" to make VISTA work the way a lot of people feel it should have at the start! We all know what happens to those companies then; MS makes a deal with them, gobbles them up, or takes their idea and runs them out of business. Result, more innovative companies bite the dust.

While a couple of these issues may be slightly inconveniwent at first or requrie a few extra seconds to learn a new technique, the changes noted are not exactly things that woul dhave me pining for my old OS.

No I don't use Vista, but i played with it for a bit and found it to be no big deal, some eye canfy packed into a nother unresourceful OS that we will watch a hundred security fixes and updates for in a efw months time.

It's like buying a new model of a car.....WHY?

An older model, even one that's been in production just a few years, is generally more reliable, a far better value for money and a more solid investment.

I do so love making Bill richer every time a new Windows version comes out. Makes me feel like I'm giving something back to the Windows community. I am so impressed with the grandiose size of this O/S, it obviously must have been paid for by line-of-code rather than that annoying clean, tight, compact code we used to have to write. I think they ought to rename it from Windows to Gasbag.

The first payroll program I wrote was on a Wang 600 programmable calculator in 1973 (the term microcomputer had not yet been invented). The machine had cassette data storage standard and optional floppy disk and hard disk. Printed output was to a Selectric typewriter and/or a calculator tape.

I also wrote and supported programs to car dealers that printed sales contracts for bank loans.

Total memory was 2k bytes. The 16 data registers used about 104 bytes leaving 1920 bytes for any programs. Of course, we used machine code and squeezed out any superflous code.

I've been using Vista on a spare machine since the first Beta. And, I've noticed with RC1 and RC2 that Vista ran much better. I also noticed that Microsoft opened up their beta program to a much wider audience and they seemed to have listend to the "complaints" from the beta users. Yes, I agree that Microsoft is charging WAY WAY too much for Vista. And I hate the stupid upgrade issues that are going on. But things change, times change and as IT people we need to be ready to change with them.

I know that personally, I would not have a job without the innovations of Micrsoft Products. Because Microsoft keeps pushing the benchmarks on resources (hogging them), the CPU speeds Video Ram etc have all been made better. I'm not saying it's purely because of Microsoft, but because of them, there is a demand for faster better pcs. This pushes R&D to come up with better equipment to handle the software. Yes, I know, we think it should be the other way around, but it's not. And personally, I'm glad that computer hardware is progressing fast enough to keep up with the hardware changes.

Yea, there are things I'll miss (my beloved toolbars in MS Office), but I'm getting used to the "Ribbons". I like the grapics handling of the new system. Will I upgrade my workhorse computer now, nope. I'll wait until bug fixes and patches have come out first. Then I'll make the transition.

...if the OS hogs so much resources that you can't work any faster? The only things you see real improvements in speed wind up being older programs that are not designed for the higher clock speeds. Like trying to drag fill in Excel and the screen scrolls so fast you wind up playing yoyo going from the top of the file to the bottom and back. But try to do anything computer intensive, or multitasking, and you are faced with hangups, blank windows, etc. That is my experience with other Windows upgrades.

Who benefits from the need for better, faster, bigger resources or hardware? Where is this hardware made, that it provides more jobs to benefit the user? Where does the phone support come from, that provides work for the support personnel? Does anybody have answers to those questions that indicate a boost to the GDP for the US?

I had a programming job for two decades before Bill's experimental BASIC interpreter let him make so many people rich. IBM, Burroughs, CDC, GE, Univac, DEC, Farrington, Honeywell, and all the rest managed to keep the roofs over a lot of heads for a long time, and some still do. The complaints with MS seem to focus on bloated programs and their pricing and support policies. My own experience with MS Help service went sour when I suggested they fix a known distribution problem by making it available for download, and the response was that they didn't want to make the software available to people who hadn't paid for it. They completely disregarded the people who had paid for the service but didn't get it, and their profit was their main concern. With every bit of software I acquire, I look for an alternative source, and it will please me greatly when Linux becomes the office standard. Screw MicroSoft.

You may have other operating systems like the linux distrobutions and Mac but really does the average user know how to use these operating systems, god no. I think once setup and training done people will know but then why hasnt this been done. The same reason why microsoft didnt make that download available.

They are a business to and want to make money, they quite successfully do it. Although i dont use MS products and instead run linux operating systems doesnt mean that most people can do this. Lets be honest people have grown up with MS it wont change for a long time. Vista will become the new standard, just like XP did when it was released

If working at Bestbuy Geeksquad has proven anything -- no, people cannot properly use computers. Regardless of whether or not it's a Mac, FreeBSD, or a Linux box, or whatever, if people don't know how to use the machine, it doesn't matter.

I'd rather have someone working for me who had access to the bare essentials, and was able to communicate with the rest of the company, with a product which broke less frequently because people don't know how to operate the machine in the first place.

Sure, Unix based OS-makers are producers of rope -- and you can definitely hang yourself much easier with Unix, if you do the right thing. The catch is that with Unix you're stuck with a smaller sandbox, so the likelihood of fubar'ing a machine is much lower, and it's much simpler to script common actions to make sure the machine is secure and up to date.

Why if you dont reqiure VISTA can you NOT say to the supplier/retailer I want XP PRO.

SORRY MS you have really screwed up this time.

My PICK VISTA another MS ME.

I will not be going the VISTA or OFFICE 2007 way, REASON as below.....

1) The learning curve form my staff to great and we want results from our workers and NOT sitting trying to work our HOW TO DO???.
2) The COST of this bloat ware too high.
3) We have too many computers that are not that old 12 months that will require hardware upgrades before we can get to our current XP PRO level.

NOT FOR US MR GATES.

Change is something that we all have problems with, but in the end, it all works out. I appreciate the tips on how to get the old look and feel of XP with Vista. I haven't worked with Vista too much yet, but I know that I will be in the not too distant future. Thanks for the tips. Very well done.

Most of the ten things on this list are really pretty petty complaints, there isn't one thing on it I miss. I've been running Vista for a few months, and yes, it took a minute to get used to things.
However, anybody remember how much change there was in XP? How many people are still changing the view in the XP control panel, or the start menu, to look like 2K. Half the people I know use the Back button and not the Up button. I guarantee if they hadn't made a bunch of major changes, people would be screaming that they hadn't made any major changes.
There were some major adjustments in moving to XP, and there will be adjustments when moving to Vista. As a network admin, it's my job to be able to deal with these adjustments, which is why I've been working with it daily for months, so I can be ready for the questions. Get the OS, get it set up, play with it, then wipe it and set it up again. Get used to it, and get on with it.

Glad to see someone else championing PowerDesk. Its a great program. PowerDesk Pro v6 loads and works fine in Vista -- just that during the install uncheck the box that says to use PowerDesk for Opening Explorer and IE.

Yes it is a great program! I have been using it since the beginning and have bought numerous copies to use on our equipment. The average user can work just fine without the Pro version, they just won't want to once they get it! You are right about unchecking the box for using to open Explorer and IE, the first time I did that by accident it seemed like it took forever to figure out what I had done

Sheesh,
And I thought I was the only person who liked the PD Pro program!

I wonder if Vistas preview pain has ability to view as many file types as PD6?

I found out some very interesting info about the company that made PD6 and its rival Explorer 6.

I've been using it forever as well. There are *only* two things I would wish for if it were ever updated:

1. Drive icons above BOTH panes instead of only one. I use dual, horizontal panes.

2. Lockable tabs for quick access to favorite folders.

I have purchased Powerdesk Pro v 6.0.2.3. There is an update patch to version 6.0.4.2 but this won't run in Vista. I get this error: No Valid Secquence could be found for the set of patches
Can someone tell me how to patch to the latest version in Vista? Thanks

I have purchased Powerdesk Pro v 6.0.2.3. There is an update patch to version 6.0.4.2 but this won't run in Vista. I get this error: No Valid Secquence could be found for the set of patches
Can someone tell me how to patch to the latest version in Vista? Thanks

I read this and know the limits it presents but there are allot more that are in the system that is more then just a learning curve issue. I've set up servers and done the permissions thing in the past but this takes the cake! Permission structuring to install new software does get unbelievably difficult, I have had incidents where there were no warnings or it's that there was a problem and it just stopped installing the software.

Many issues are not covered in any of the setup information or tutorial information. There could be a general start tutorial that would help newcomers to a Vista or even seasoned computer users that would eliminate the heavy frustrations the software operates under. I found myself more frustrated than actually satisfied or that of finding a wow.

I wish there was a simple way to turn off the entire security, build the box and then turn the security back on. It would also be nice to know more of the security parameters as to when and why they are activated. Also knowing more of the compatibility issues of software and new Vista operating system would reduce headaches. But then again that may be other security issues.

Additionally the speed or processing ability has now become a major issue because of all the redundancy built into the Security System. For the most part I cannot for see any lab top that I?ve ever used running this new Vista because of the speedy issues of this Security System. I turned my Vista machine down to the basic performance orientated machine forget the looks stuff sis and the machine still seems slower than any other XP box that I?ve used.

I am not a happy camper was my current Vista experience. Thank you!

OpenGL2 support I heard is missing.

Kinda stupid attitude to take out the open video interface when most every graphics card maker conforms to it.

I'm moving to Linux, so I'm not worried. I'll leave companies like Transgaming to make products like Cedega so I can play Windows games if I want.

Seeing my network shares, ie: Shared printer!!

Does anyone know of ANY program that will give the Total of file sizes in any one folder in Vista on the status bar, like it used to do in XP???

is not to install Visa in the first place.

That is my choice, but sadly forced on me by M$, far too expensive, far too draconian.

I would have preferred the choice, but I am left no option

Well written, well worth the read. Thanks.

I liked this one. I hope more like it appear in the near future.

Somebody is producing very high ended computer animations for movies,games,and TV.How are they doing it?The computers that I see on Television way out perform mine.I can tweak my operating system till I'm blue in the face and still not match the level of these computers.

This is little known, but the secret to high-end graphics is VOLTAGE. Try tweaking that from the standard 110/220 to 5,000 or 10,000 and see what graphics that makes!

Idiot! It's not the voltage, it's the frequency! Try using 120 Hz, or--better yet--the old military standby 20 KHz! Now that'll make your machine hum!

You're both wrong!
It's the impedance... try setting it to 0.5 micro ohms. That should do it.

It is insolence. Insolence, I say! It is the amount of insolence you have that makes the difference in your graphics and everything else. You speak of electrons but I say it is your attitude that makes all the difference. You all seem to being tweaking at top performance.

I just give the hamster more nuts. He gets that wheel hummin' then.

the lack of performance is caused by the build-up of smoke in the power supply. Here is how to fix it: with the computer off, you place a jumper (a small piece of wire will do) connecting any two red wires on the P/S connector that goes to the motherboard. Leave it well in place, turn the PC on and this will release the smoke build-up.

Then, after it is all done smoking, go out and spend $10,000 on a very high end system with quad CPUs, Gb graphic cards, truckloads of memory, the fastes HD you could possibly find and you will get your performance...

Cheers.

Attach the monitor to an F1 or Indy car

Just use Ultramon for Multiple monitor support. It is a lot better than built in support and is now Vista compatible too.

Is this going to be the new mantra for Vista users? "yea, just buy this, and vista will work like XP did"

I've not been a fan of microsoft for many years. While I see their vista ideas as a whole being generally better, I've also seen that its had a much more negative effect on getting work done, than previous versions of their OS did.

So just pile this on, if you want working multi-monitor support in Vista, buy it from someone other than microsoft. Got it, will start looking for the next juicy vein to slice open, to get cash, for additional softare I never needed before vista.

Gee what ever happened to Norton Desktop for windows 3.1 .... that was a REAL add on that made for much better value. A replacement "progman.exe" that actually made the system a little easier to use, while adding the complexity to do far much more.

Actually no, this phenomenon is not new to Vista. Ultramon was more than useful in previous versions & doesn't just make Vista look like XP. It improved the XP Multi-monitor experience as well.

Sometimes Microsoft's best efforts are not good enough, and if you have the need for more functionality 3rd party is still the way to go.

Its not for everyone, but at least you still have a choice.

Not if MS has anything to say about it! They do not like all these "crapletts" cluttering and degrading their OS!!

Hurray for Norton Desktop, or PCTools Desktop, my favorite. Today I use Powerdesk from VCOM, which is a better Explorer than Windows Explorer.

I hate the new Vista defrag. The old one let me see the report on what files are most fragmented. The fastest way to defrag is to move that fragmented file to another physical hard drive and back.

Darn, this isn't a free tool it's a free "upgrade". My fault for not reading more clearly.

If I could only have one third party utility, DISKEEPER is it!
I have it on my 933 PIII, and it keeps that 250G drive flying, with the "Set it and forget it" function.
It keeps the extremely important PageFile in one segment--all the time.
I can't think of a better fifty bucks to spend on any computer.

with Eco_Dino, Diskeeper is one of the best products on the market. If I am not mistaken, the XP Disk Defrag is a crippled version of the Diskeeper engine MS leases. Even if I am wrong, It doesnt matter, Diskeeper still is an amazing product. I never have fragmentation worth mentioning. Defrag runs every night and my disks keep on spinning.

Surprising that any company would want to be known as supplying a "crippled" version of anything to MS

of defrag utilities that is. I also use pagedfrg from sysinternals. Thanks to them, I can wave bye bye to my slow disk access problems

I'm on the fence as to how much defragging actually helps. While it almost certainly will improve drive access, I think the jury is out on how much.

Where Diskeeper really shines is in its ability to do its job (and do it well, by the way) in the background by using idle CPU capacity. The highest compliment I can give is that I always forget it's running. Only when I see some drive activity do I remember.

The interface is also very good and intuitive. Definitely a "best buy".

Regards,
Hank Arnold
Microsoft MVP

While diskeeper is not free it is well worth the money. The built-in Windows XP defrag utility sometimes refuses to defrag a disk. It knows that the volume is heavily fragmented, but running it, over and over again, will not decrease the fragmentation.

I created a command script that ran the built-in defrag utility on the volume in a loop for a 1000 times. At the end, the volume's fragmentation had not changed. When I put the trial version of diskeeper on the system and ran it manually three or four times, I had a volume with practically no fragmentation.

Not sure why the built-in defrag utility refused to defragment the volume, but I don't use it anymore since I upgraded my diskeeper trial version. I highly recommend diskeeper as a must have utility for Windows XP. I suspect their Vista product will be just as good and will put it on my Vista system when I get one.

BTW, I'm not affiliated with Execsoft, the maker of diskeeper, just a very pleased customer.

The defrag utility in Windows XP is a cut down version of a third party utility (I believe it is diskkeeper). It will not defragment certain kinds of files (the one I remember off the top of my head is the pagefile). That is why running the windows XP defrag didn't reduce your fragmentation.

Bill

You are correct the defrag in XP is a licensed crippled version of Diskeeper from the former executive software now known as Diskeeper.
I have used their product back in the windows NT 4.0 days until the present current version 2007. It has always performed outstandingly, and the new scheduler is extremely comprehensive. The defrag tool in Vista which is from God knows Who???? is an absolute piece of crap. No idea what it is doing or when it will finish as their is no prgress window or grahical interface. As ususal M$ finds a way to break what was not broken.

Have read the posts regarding Diskkeeper.
What are you alls thoughts on Raxco's Perfect Disk program??

I tried Perfect Disk (v7) and found it was no use for defragging the primary bootable drive at boot-time. Not sure if this is still the case with v8.

Diskeeper does everything I've ever asked it to do without any grumbles. It's slightly faster than Perfect Disk (on my drives) and I've no desire to switch.

Check out this link for a debate on which one is best:

http://www.driverheaven.net/applications-software-tweaking/122458-diskeeper-11-vs-perfect-disk-8-a.html

I tried both. I definitely preferred Diskeeper over Perfect Disk. Better interface. I could see a system performace impact from PD. DK runs all the time, yet has zero impact on performance.

Regards,
Hank Arnold
Microsoft MVP

Who was the expert mind mentor that removed
the folders tree in the explorer bar?
Apparently with no easy way to get it back.
MS can keep this ie7 pile of ?.

BUNCH OF WHINERS - you mean to tell me after all the negative attacks on security, stability, access to programs from 3rd party vendors - this is the rhetoric that you hear. -

You just can seem to please anyone nowadays!

Lets not just label and run ... lets look at why...

Innovation? This round of innovation is costing 100 to 400 dollars for people to get something that **should** have been in the OS some time ago.

Separation of Church and State ... Microsoft is going to easily profit being the only OS and APPLICATIONS that will run seamlessly are their own.

Its not because microsoft built the better mouse trap, but that the guys building the bait system, and the guys building the spring loaded bar and wooden frame, were able to collude on the layout, and give a little more time and know how serious the change was from XP to Vista...

Its a little like nepotism, promote family first. The "microsoft" family. Damned to everyone else that didn't take the change seriously, microsoft OS folks did warn that Vista was going to change....

Did they make the change gradual? or did they suddenly derail the XP world, in favor of Vista, before the rest of the train could catch up?

And while at it, did microsoft decide they were 100% right about everything and everyone else wrong? They sure did.

I like my File Menu above my address bars, I like my windows in classic/2000 mode, I like seeing every extension rather than microsoft deciding "exe" and all the other executable extensions were just nonsensical add ons not worth seeing. And then too the Back/Up ... I may go back to the previous web page, but I very frequently go up and down in diretories..

So ... whine? yes.. with very good reason? Certainly. Should I switch to vista? Never. Why? Because I will *never* be satisfied with the changes microsoft made, that are anti-productive.

Tell me.. what will you do when your mouse isn't working? What keyboard shortcuts did microsoft leave out, and why should you have to wait twice as long for the File menu to appear simply because Vista is for Mice?

Vista has nothing I want for the price I'd have to pay.

No way man - I don't still don't buy it. I mean my point was before Vista there was a ton of criticism of poor security, thats basically all you heard. Now that MS has made a legitimate attempt to address security and progress in OS structure you mean to tell me that now the problem is that its too power hungry and vulnerable to bad mice - no way - I think no matter what MS does, since its the big the dog in the neighborhood the smaller cats will cry - no matter what.

"Did they make the change gradual? or did they suddenly derail the XP world, in favor of Vista, before the rest of the train could catch up?"

You could always choose to stay with XP - and exactly which train is lagging behind?

Yes, there were security problems in previous Windows releases. Fixing them does not require changing anything other than the security problems.

That would have been admitting that they made mistakes in the first versions They would have had to include those in Service Packs and couldn't have made a ton of money on them. They wouldn't have been able to make the OS even more proprietary and in turn lock out 3rd. party security experts who could provide the needed auditing of what VISTA is doing, or not doing! If MS is the only one who knows what is happening at the kernel level vis a vis security they can control how much info is getting out and when. They can also then blame any security woes on other people and not have to take responsibility for the inherent design flaws in their proprietary kernel that can not be taken apart and examined for all the potential screwups and bugs because of DRM! Convenient that piece of crap legislation that makes it illegal for people or companies to examine, repair, and modify a critical component of the OS, all in the name of anti-piracy enforcement. How many individuals are involved in piracy of the OS compared to countries that allow it, such as China? What is the cost of those individuals verses Countries that promote or allow said piracy?

mmmm - its not about pleasing - its about two things:

1/. the products matching the description and
2/. the products being fit for purpose

With all the problems, M$ has not delivered, like the usual track ahs shown, and as usual, the release was late, and then full of problems.

Its the consumer that looses out... Its not good enough! Micro$oft is ffailing its customer base.

Let me ask these questions...

1/. If a civil enigeer had to repair, rebuild, reconstruct every building he built, how long would he remain a civil enigeer?

2/. If a doctor failed every patient and mis-diagnosed the patient's problems every time... How long would the doctor remain in business?

3/. Microsoft releases faulty software, the world snaps it up, and M$ remains in business...

Why is that do you think?

I don't disagree with what you mention, but MS is a company in a Capitalist country, with lots of shareholders to make happy and profits to make. A company?s number one concern is to make money, and as long as people keep buying their products Microsoft will continue to stick with what works for them. In a capitalist society the consumer has the real power, if we don?t like the product then we shouldn?t purchase the product, MS will be forced to change. With other OS vendors out there like Linux and Apple there is some strong competition (albeit not nearly as big as MS), that give consumers choice. Not to mention all the legal problems they are running into across the world forcing them to change the way they do business.

Or just stick with XP, they will support that for at least another 3-5 years, by then maybe Vista will be all it should be for you? Microsoft is way too big and sells to such a diverse variety of people that it will never be everything to everyone. How many people across the world own a MS OS, a billion? At best it can only be a good general OS overall, one that fits most peoples needs most of the time (and maybe a little more). I myself have no problem with XP, so I know they can do a good job, will I switch to Vista, probably one day, but not yet. Why buy a new car if you still like your current one?

$0.2

I don't game so I could care less about DirectX 10. I don't care much for the eye candy, infact many of my XP settings are set to "classic" W2K views and fades etc are turned off.
So can anyone give me one reason why I should upgrade to Vista?

It's good for the economy... keep America working!

... from the commander in chief himself - just keep shopping.

Geesh, I thought I was supporting the American economy all on my own. Now Uncle Bill wants more?

Okay, I'll just rummage through the scores of credit card offers I get each week, apply for yet another one, and purchase Vista--heck a couple copies of Vista--and pay for it later when I realize the return from all the extra productivity that comes from switching to Vista. I suppose I'll have to buy a couple new systems too, probably from the direct OEMs like Dell or HP who are in cahoots with M$ so that Vista will actually work.

Yes, indeed, Microsoft (and me, of course) certainly keep the US economy moving right along.

Actually Dell is busy selling laptops with Vista Home on them with 512M ram (shared as well for video). I have supported a number of folks with that configuration- DOH! So even Dell can't get it right....(Of course I had to order more RAM from Dell)

On the contrary... I think they have got it right... You said "Of course I had to order more RAM from Dell." The sold a pc with les than the required so you would have to buy more... I think they succeeded.

On the contrary... I think they have got it right... You said "Of course I had to order more RAM from Dell." The sold a pc with les than the required so you would have to buy more... I think they succeeded.

Which part of America is kept working, besides MS, and the publishing industry cranking out work arounds to all the problems VISTA creates?

XP is running out of support Vista isnt, Programs are going to be designed for Vista not XP

I don't know where you are, but, in the real world, not only is XP still solidly supported, but Microsoft's own support for XP is scheduled to last beyond the current cut-off date for Vista!

As for new development, unless & until businesses migrate in sufficient quantity, XP will of necessity hold sway.

Remember what you used before XP? Now, who still uses 3.1, 9x or NT? It will be the next wave.

Not that you should just run out and get it right now, but...If your in the IT field, sometime or other your going to have to use, install, or troubleshoot it.

Not everyone HAS to have the latest and greatest. As said many times "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".

I have a old laptop running Dos 6.2 with Windows 3.1, just because there are 3 programs that will not run on any later platform and provide 'unusual' functions that I can't go into here.

I also am currently posting this on a Pentium 233mhz, 96mb ram, Win98se system that provides my every need - and I only have to reboot once every couple of weeks... never crashes either! Only caveat it the fact that I can't view many online video streams, etc.

I do have a system that dual boots Win2K and XP Pro SP2 for the 'power' operations that I perform, including video, imaging and programming applications.

Will I eventually use Vista? Probably only to test the programs I write for compatibility. It just has no appeal for me, at this time, especially with removal of my ability to truly be in control of the system!

My son-in-law's optical shop recently moved from a DOS 6 system that ran the store system. The vendor stayed with DOS as long as possible because of the low overhead.

My friend's wife works in a bank branch that upgraded from Windows 3.1 to XP only this year.
I found it hard to believe given that this bank announced record profits for the last financial year. I suppose they were planning to upgrade some key software and were forced to upgrade.

I think there are some security reasons and SOX reasons that companies are making the change to XP. It's also a good OS that many companies will find easy to upgrade to and to support now that it's been out a while and most problems have been fixed/solved.

Some people believe that you should be an early adopter if you're in the IT field, so that you can get to grips with it and make it part of your repertoire. I don't see the need. How hard was it to switch from Win2k to WinXP? I found that very painless. I think the benefits of waiting for the service packs far outweighs the advantages of early adoption.

Besides, based on what you've said (I'm virtually a non-PC gamer myself, and I always use third-party software), I don't see the point in splashing out.

Of course, if you're buying new hardware that comes with Vista - that's another thing - but I'd be sure to go for Ultimate edition if I went for Vista at all.

I think you hit part of this on the head ... unless there is a huge backlash against microsoft, and calls to PC manufacturers to provide ONLY XP on a new machine, Microsoft will win in the end.

Microsoft will use their 98% PC Dominance to force Vista onto all of the major resellers.

Force people into using Microsoft's car, Microsoft's gas, Microsoft's oil, and Microsoft's Leather wrapping add-on for the steering wheel ...

This is exactly what microsoft IS doing and why. They can force their os based on past performance, past collusion and power from it, to force manufacturers to provide end users with the Vista os .. which again, has some vastly different mechanisms at work than their previous OS's, but at what cost.

You don't turn a ship moving at 60 knots into a 180 degree turn without adequate clearance .... you don't really stop on a dime, so why is it that microsoft has done this with vista?

because they can.

Even if OEM's do sell you a vista license on a new machine, you can always choose to downgrade your installed OS to XP. (These downgrade rights pertains only to the Business & Ultimate editions of Vista though.)

http://download.microsoft.com/download/d/2/3/d23b9533-169d-4996-b198-7b9d3fe15611/downgrade_chart.doc

I guess we'd have to do a survey, but honestly, how many people reading this forum buy their systems from a certified direct OEM systems builder like Dell, HP, etc? Most of us build are own system and we'll install whatever software we think is best. The downgrade rights are rediculous.

I figure most of the people buying from the manufacturing giants, where most people are getting their Vista from now, fall into distinct groups--none of which would exercise these "downgrade" rights.

The first group are the very late adopters who are just now buying their first PC. They wouldn't care if it is Linux, Vista or Windows (except for the hype they believe from TV--remember, they don't have internet now so their only information is coming from TV, maybe radio, or word-of-mouth).

The second group are the extremely ignorant, in terms of computers systems and O/Ss. These are not much different from the very late adopters. Maybe they are buying the system for their offspring or spouse, maybe they just got on broadband and are now worried about security. These people have no clue and believe everything they hear, about computers, from TV and in all the internet garbage they get in their email box or when they "go on line" through AOL or Yahoo Internet Explorer (like advertisements from Staples, Best Buy and Dell that say that Vista is where it's happening).

The third group are the corporate IT departments who are only doing it because of sweet deals they are getting (otherwise, who would buy new systems with Vista at this point?). It is unlikely that these people would exercise their downgrade rights. How stupid would it look to recommend the purchase of new systems and then waste considerable time downgrading them all only to have to upgrade them back to Vista in the not-too-distant future?

The fourth and last group are people like us. The experimenters, the cautious, the skeptical. Why would we buy a machine (if we bought a pre-assembled machine at all) with Vista just to downgrade. No, we would want to keep the Vista so we can learn how it works, find out where it is broken (so we'd have fuel for forums like these or maybe so that we know the system in order for us to help customers) and keep abreast of what's happening in the the Microsoft part of the world. If we want Microsoft XP, we buy (well some of us, anyway) Microsoft XP.

In conclusion, the downgrade rights of Vista (or any other MS operating system) are totally bogus and not worth the electrons (or paper) they are written on.

* The third group are the corporate IT departments who are only doing it because of sweet deals they are getting (otherwise, who would buy new systems with Vista at this point?). *

Or because there is not cost savings to "Rolling-your-own" when you are buying hundreds, or thousands, of PC's a year.

* It is unlikely that these people would exercise their downgrade rights. How stupid would it look to recommend the purchase of new systems and then waste considerable time downgrading them all only to have to upgrade them back to Vista in the not-too-distant future? *

Or, x number of machines are slated to be be replaced in a planned 3-year (5-year) upgrade cycle and none of your critical Enterprise Apps have been certified against Vista yet.

Why do we always assume that "Your" computing needs are similar/the same as "Mine". Isn't this one of the complaints about MS?

Would I like to say, no thanks, not now, not ever? Yes. But until I can run CADD (with full BIM support), Computer Assisted Facilities Management (CAFM), Computerized Maintenance Management (CMMS), Enterprise Content Management (ECMS), Building Automation and Access Control in a unified Linux based environment, it ain't going to happen.

Nice summary, thanks.

No, I don't. I play with my computers, and herein lies your problem--well, one of them. Another problem might be that you're spending other people's money (unless you happen to personally own the corporations). Although your ass may be on the line, your money and even your time, are probably not. No matter, your arguments are not very logical.

First of all, I think I did mention that corporations would buy computers from the large manufactures because of the "sweet deals" that I can only imagine the big manufacturers are offering (no doubt spurred on by Microsoft). The point is, why would you buy them right when a new OS is coming out, especially if you are just going to immediately downgrade them to Windows XP. Buying systems with XP installed with upgrade rights to Vista is a whole different ball game, of course.

You are buying hundreds of PCs just to turn around and exercise the downgrade rights?! I can't imagine that it would be cost effective, in terms of labor, to buy a bunch of PCs with Vista on them and then downgrade to Windows XP. I can see it only if it is a "sweet deal," and that's exactly what I said. Since you are talking brand new systems, do they even have downgrade rights. Where is the XP license to downgrade to? That, I admit, I haven't looked into.

Aside from that, aren't there PCs available from the big corporate vendors with XP on them if you really need XP? Perhaps you should buy your PCs (as part of your upgrade cycle) with XP and upgrade to Vista when it is appropriate. I'm sure you can swing a deal with Microsoft, especially if you're working with, as you say, hundreds or thousands of PCs. As an alternative, you could change your 3-5 year plan so that it includes some logic as well. Is your plan written in stone? I think it should be rather simple.

Ring, ring..."this is the CIO, I don't think we should purchase PCs with Vista installed at this time because of all the difficulties encountered in a new OS and because of the fact that a lot of our critical software is not compatible with Vista at this time. I recommend that we purchase Vista compatible systems with Windows XP installed as part of our upgrade cycle and then purchase a volume upgrade license to Vista once we are sure that Vista will meet our needs..."

Seems pretty straight forward to me--and logical.

The rest of my posting applies to the people who are obviously building their own systems (or upgrading a previously purchased system) and thus having difficulties with Vista. You obviously don't fall into that category. I need say no more.

The very instatutios you are talking about would be useing Bulk Licences anyway. Those firms don Not usually buy computers full of junk. They buy the computer, than build it themselves. (or via a contractor)
If you work with computers, you would know that. There is no basis for the 'Downgrade' offer. It is just a marketing trick.
As for your comment on the CAD, I am courious on that point also. I've heard absolutly nothing form that comunity. The scilence is, to say the least, very telling. -d

To try and clear up my "logic flaws" let me expand on my comments.

Because we have our own Volume Licensing Agreement with Microsoft, it doesn't matter what OS version our supplier puts on a new machine.

HP, Dell et. al. may not be able to ship machines with empty harddrives because of the terms of their OEM deals with MS, but to Corporate IT they might as well be empty.

The first step in getting a new PC ready for deployment is not to sit down and uninstall unneeded packages, install "Standard" packages and then configure networking support. It is to simply remove the factory partition and install a new one from a pre-configured image that includes all of the organizations software and settings.

Hence, buying machines "now" with Vista is not going to reflect poorly on you Professionally. Not buying needed resources when you need them just because of someone elses new policy will.

As for my problem of spending others peoples money it is worse than that. I work for a Public K-12 school system, so metaphorically, I am spending "Your" money.

And in the intrest of full disclosure, my personal computer at home is a "Self-Built" box running openSUSE 10.2 and I have not intention of buying and installing Vista. Not because of hardware or software issues like those discussed in this forum, but because I don't like MS licensing terms. If they don't trust me, fine. But I will not let them "look" at my hard drive whenever they want just so they can enforce their Draconian EULA.

P.S. dawgit - if you really want my take on the CADD issue I can give it to you via private e-mail, or we can start a new discussion about those type of "Vista Issues".

"P.S. dawgit - if you really want my take on the CADD issue I can give it to you via private e-mail, or we can start a new discussion about those type of "Vista Issues"."

I think that would make an interesting topic for discussion...

Companies that purchase hundreds of PCs are don't care what software comes on the PC. How many companies do you know that actually buy hundreds of PCs and use them as they are out of the box?

The point is they don't. They turn on the pc, and re-image it with their company standard image. It doesn't matter what software comes on the PC because it will be wiped clean anyway.

At our company we have a contract with HP/Compaq, we get new shipments of pcs in every week. They are all immediately re-imaged with our company image and sent on their way. I couldn't even tell you what O/S is on the computer, because I DON'T CARE. It doesn't matter.

That clears it up quite a bit for me. As you can imagine even though I do "work with computers," I do not work for a large corporation and never have. Are you exercising downgrade rights when you re-image all of those new computers or is this something outside the standard licensing streams? I say standard, as in non-corporation licensing, because that seems to be where all the marketing dollars go. I have no doubt that corporations have a whole different licensing scheme that the rest of us are not privy to. It seems that you are simply exercising your large quantity license which includes a new OS for a new system.

What puzzles me is that Microsoft says over and over again, ad nauseum, that the only way to get a license for windows (other than buying the full retail package, which corporations, it would seem, would not normally do) is to purchase a new computer with an OEM version of windows installed. Microsoft adds that volume licensing is simply for upgrade licenses not for the original. In the scenario where a corporate IT department buys new PCs with Vista installed, and then re-images them to, say, Windows XP, have they already or do you purchase a new license for that new system? I don't see how this is really exercising downgrade rights. Somehow I thought that downgrade rights were, if you installed, say, Vista on a system that already has OEM Windows XP that you are within your rights to re-install your Windows XP (downgrade) if Vista doesn't work, or you don't like it, etc.

I guess my original point that corporations don't buy new PCs at this time to get Vista simply because they have downgrade rights stands.

I will have to re-read some of the licensing materials. Apart from the nasty comments that we all seem to throw back and forth, I appreciate this discussion and I am learning a lot that I thought I knew but did not.

Thanks, people.

Microsoft has been saying that for years, but do they give you a CD key or volume licensing key to accomplish this? The only time I have done this I had a volume licensing key for the previous version, but I don't have volume license key for the OS (the volume licensing keys for MS OS's are upgrade only so they have to be purchased in addition to an OEM license or other license to be technically legal). I guess I could just bite the bullet and call MS after my OEM key will no longer activate it's self online, but that would be a lot of hassle.

Bill

I've yet to see a PC on the retail shelf that DIDN'T have Vista Home...Whatever pre-installed! We're screwed!!!!

Good luck trying. I got a Toshiba, Vista was unstable and then finally crashed, so I tried to install XP BUT -- surprise, no drivers!! Micro$#!t forced the OEM to ditch any support for XP...

My home laptop hard drive died, so I'm looking at replacing it. I'm thinking of getting Vista so I don't have to upgrade it later.

Is the Media version or the Ultimate better for a laptop?

Mindy

"Ultimate" IS the Media Version, but save yourself both the money and a lot of grief, and just stick with XP. Trust me.

Ultimate is NOT the media version. It's the Business/Media version. Vista Home Premium IS the Media version. Here's a link to the differences: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/choose.mspx

Thanks for clearing that up.

My take on the various versions of Vista is simply this: Why pay for reduced functionality?

Every version of Vista below "Ultimate" merely strips away additional functionality from the base OS (a.k.a. "Ultimate"). Microsoft marketing would have you believe that it is the other way around, and the naming convention plays into that very well.

The Vista DVD contains ALL versions of the Operating System because of this set-up, and the version that is installed on your computer is determined only by the key provided with your license.
IOW, with Vista versions other than Ultimate, Less is Less.

Seen from a manufacturing standpoint however, it's gotta be a good thing for MS, after all, they only have to stamp out one disc...

One Disc to rule them all,
One Disc to find them,
One Disc to bring them all,
and in the darkness bind them

(With apologies to J.R.R. Tolkien ;>)

Vista Ultimate is the b*stard child of XP (regular) and XP Media Center, with Windows 2003 as the surrogate parent. Why do I say this? It has the basic functionality of XP (regular), with the extra trimmings of Media Center, all wrapped up with some of the security and underlying feature upgrades of 2003+.

Honestly, most people don't need to use Ultimate and a lot of the whole hype behind this version is wasted.

The only real things that this version offers is multimedia capability (Media Center, bleh), Multiple User Input methods (want to type in Korean? Can't do so any more for free -- ya moron!), games (wewt -- a few games that M$ interns worked on in their spare time), and Bitlocker encryption (uh, I can get the same thing in Vista Business -- woopdeedoo!).

I bought Vista Ultimate for the Media Center capabilities so I could network my xbox 360 (with the MUI functionality as a bonus), but instead I've become more disgruntled by the lack of interconnectivity, especially when I can do the same, dumb thing much easier with my modded xbox! Plus, I can get the MUI thing up and going in Unix without having to resort to paying an extra $100 for an OS.

Kudos M$ on failing to disappoint again.

Wanted to move up from Win2K to clean up old system. What the heck, Vista is here, why not try it.

Cisco will most likely provide update.
Creative not planning upgrade for Nomad Zen
My Textpad license import fails, Textpad not saying. These are programs I actually use and even need.

Screw it, XP Pro runs fine. Luckily I have MSDN subscription and don't have to go to exchange at retailer.

The update has been out for awhile now. I want to say since October? It's worked well on RC1 for me.

Until you get an application that requires Vista, continue to run XP. Be sure you keep it patched, but patches are free,

Great article, well writen.

One of the reason's Microsoft created Vista is so it would be different from XP, it's called "Change" people.

When I buy a new OS I don't want it to have the same look and feel of the old OS, I want it to be different.

When you buy a new car they all come with a steering wheel, gas and brake peddle but now there are some new add ons that your old car didn't have. Same applies with Vista

I like what I see and look forward to using and supporting it.

Operating systems are becoming a commodity. I don't wear a fashionable O/S, rather use it like a hammer. The hammer functions to hit a nail and hold the board on the wall.

If the functionality is not significantly better, why bother? I'm an advocate for change, but not to pay $$ for a fashion statement. Remember ME? Talk about marginal! I haven't seen an article yet that would convince me that I really benefit from the new look and feel.

A proper tool box of OSes wouldn't contain anything that limits or restricts functionality or ability, unless one is grossly negligent.

310 choices of great tools, run live in the CDrom, are at http://livecdlist.com

Hundreds more, http://distrowatch.com

more at http://freeos.com

But, it feels like I am preaching to the choir, because everyone here uses these Free and Open Systems.

We only touch Microsoft products to serve the dweebs, in earning a living.

Like the authors of these 'news' releases, all are Microsoft schills. Yes, the emperor has no clothes.

Alex St. John, official spokesman for Microsoft admits as much, in the current news release that "Vista is broken, and will take some time to fix!"

http://pclinuxos.com is more capable in most applications, than Vista, and is FREE!

The spins you put on every one of your posts make me dizzy.
I defy you to post relevant to a topic without bringing up several links to Linux distros

When I buy a new car I don't want the radio controls to be located in the glove box, or the air conditioner to be located on the right side of the dash-board neither. Sometimes things are created that actually work. That's why controls are still located in traditional spots in a car. Removing something as usefull as a menu bar,,,, what use is that? We use them ALL THE TIME.

That's one principle that Microsoft just doesn't seem to have even heard. The other is, the KISS principle.

Microsoft keeps making life and computing (is there a difference?) harder not easier. I installed the Beta version of Vista (thank god some of my experience has benefitted me in that I installed it on a separate partition as a dual boot), it wouldn't recognize my ethernet card so I ditched it immediately. It is pretty tough getting drivers and updating the system without internet access-doh! This should have been one of the first things that Vista made sure was working and backwards compatible.

Microsoft should have worked at getting rid of a lot of XP/office annoyances, bugs and frustrations. First they would have to admit that they exist, which is probably not something they were willing to do. They should have put their collective brain together to make Windows simpler and easier to use. The Vista interface is all they could come up with? What? Sharper graphics and fade in and out and twirl and twist...cripes, computers have been doing that for years. That alone would have been okay if they had actually improved the usability of Windows. Instead, they hyped everything up and now are trying to hype it up in their marketing sectors--but will it really make our computer experience simpler.

It's called the KIS "stupid" principle. Since Microsoft cannot or refuses to recognize their own stupidity they are unable to implement this all important principle.

As I'm writing this a perfect example literally pops up on my screen. I run Outlook all the time. If my internet email server is down for some reason, Outlook seems is unable to detect this. Instead, it just merrily goes about trying to get mail from my various email pop3 accounts on that server, providing me with messages over and over again, not that the server is inexcessable--no--but that somehow I have managed to put in the wrong user name and password (same one I've used on those accounts for years). To be quite honest, I have not tried the MS Office 2007 suite so maybe this is fixed. Who knows if other MS platform email clients or Linux email clients do any better. Nevertheless, Microsoft, how simple would it be to fix this one annoyance (out of thousands)? Keep it Simple Stupid!

The analogy between an OS and a car doesn't really hold water for me, because an OS is just one component of a working computer, but I think I get your point.
To stick with your analogy: while a new car model may have some new gadgets, if might handle worse than the old one, or do less miles to the gallon, or have a smaller boot/trunk. It might even be unstable at high speeds.

Of course, it could (and should) be better. But when I tried out RC2, I wasn't all that impressed. Apart from the look (which is nice, but not as appealing to me as OSX or Suse 10), I found that most of it's new (or improved) functionality was better achieved by third-party applications I already own.

That brings me on to my next point: some of my favorite apps didn't work. I'd be forced to upgrade or patch them to ensure compatibility - every app I owned survived the more from Win2K to WinXP (except the version of Nero I had which alerted me that it wasn't compatible with WinXP, but kept working perfectly regardless!).

I waited for SP2 before I upgraded to XP and I may wait a good while longer before I move to Vista - perhaps until I'm pushed.

The look of the OS is really not that interesting to me. People don't see me driving my PC or laptop down the street! I just want an OS to make the most of my existing HW and SW, provides adequate security (I'll use my own firewall, AV and anti-trojan sw thanks) and doesn't restrict me too heavily as far as the amount of quality SW I can use on it.

Of course, every new OS needs early adopters to find out what's wrong with it, at least so that it can be patched up. I did my little bit with RC2 and I found it to be still very much at the beta stage (gamma in some areas . I'll wait a while until enough of my "stuff" needs upgrading - otherwise I think it may be a little painful and not entirely worth it.

First to the car analogy ... you are looking at some of the back end items, fuel economy and gadgetry, are the reasons to choose a Hyundai over a Chevy (dollar for dollar you get a slightly better set of features with the Hyundai in most cases)

But, the core here of the "innovation" didn't have to involve changing the "defacto standards".

Every car in the USA is required now to have three brake lights the cyclops eye above and centered (left/right) between the other two. Every car since before I was born, has been required to have turn signals.

The previous analogy of having the controls in the glove box, is much more accurate than whether the car has a sun roof or other gadget.

When we get behind the wheel of a car, in the US, the UK, China, anywhere, we always expect that the turn signal lever will be around the steering wheel. Everyone in the USA expects that lever to be on the LEFT side because THAT is the standard and we don't have to go fumbling, nor do we have to take our hands off the steering wheel to activate that turn signal lever.

It does not mean that the car manufacturer couldn't offer the option to move the lever to the right side as a customization, but that by default, from one car to the next, the position defaults to the left side.

So here too, we look at the os .. feature? the ultimate pack's ALT TAB option showing diagonal snapshots of the application rather than the App name and a flat 2d box with icons in them.. BUT.. ATL TAB is still there. Slightly different display but the feature itself does the exact same thing it has done since windows 3.1! (sorry, since windows 3.0 for those that actually did use it)

So too, the FILE menu. Its not that they took it away, but that they made it nearly impossible without hacking the registry to get it back on a permanent basis. And even then, to demote its position, and allow OTHER bars to be moved at will, EXCEPT above the all mighty address bar "thing".

I did find it frustrating once in a while when I would click and drag the File Menu from Outlook 2000 .. but the simple fact that I could, and could put the file menu lower or higher was fine with me ... and were I someone that rarely if ever used the File Menu, maybe having an "auto hide" option would have been nice .. but.. to take away the prior functionality, and not give a way to have it back **easily** and where it was or where I want it to be.. is again, Microsoft's decision that *they* know what is best for *everyone* even me, when I don't work that way.. I don't like having my hand on the mouse 24/7 .. I prefer from the old days, I like most of my stuff to operate from the keyboard. I'm a die hard fan of keyboard control .. and having to wait for the system to see my ALT key and then give me a menu is just as asinine as making someone wait after using a right click for the menu, or anything else one would select.

Give people the choice to work as they need to, don't make sweeping changes and force them on the world.

You have to keep in mind, microsoft is forcing their way to work with your pc, rather than allowing you to find the way that works best for you. And if you don't think they are forcing people, then come back to me in another month or two and show me how many HP, Compaq, Dell, Gateway, and other major manufacturers are still openly offering XP rather than Vista on their pc's.

First of all, I like most of your comments and your interpretation of the car analogy. But I don't agree with the term force. Microsoft is not forcing me to go out and upgrade to Vista (at least not now). You talk about not being able to buy a new computer without Vista..well, that's because the manufactures of those computers choose to have Vista pre-loaded because it's the latest and "greatest" software right now. If you want to buy a new pc but not have Vista on it, then purchase a copy of XP Pro and install it on the new pc.

It's so funny that these conversations come up with every o/s upgrade. Remember folks..MS hasn't come out with an O/S upgrade in about 5 1/2 yrs (Win XP released in 2001). I don't think that 5 yrs is too soon for a new O/S. Yeah, there are bugs...there were bugs in Win XP, Win 98, and so on... That's why I wait until the "fixes" come out before upgrading.

I've been using Vista and Office 2007 for about 4 mos now and while I see problems, I also see features I like. I hated the "Ribbon Bar" in Ofc2007 at first, but now, it's not so bad, there are many things I can now do faster than I could before.

With any kind of change there is always a learning curve. Just because there is a learning curve does not mean that change is bad.

Anyway...got off on a "rabbit trail", back to my point...we aren't being "forced" to switch to Vista right now. Just like there are still companies using Win2000, there will be companies and users still using Windows XP for several more years.

Forced really isn't that strong a word for the issue.

If it weren't a forced issue, then why aren't we seeing PC's advertized with user choices for XP or Vista?

Because they want to push vista on people. Force people into vista, and force everyone else to get in line on the vista bandwagon.

I think partly this also comes from the viewpoint. Right now, there isn't a single application that demands only a vista OS. There isn't anything main stream (qualifying that *main stream*) that requires people use Vista, and in fact many of the main stream applications are having issues under Vista.

I'm not labelling that as a Microsoft Fault .. but just fact ... and specifically I'm thinking of Intuit/quickbooks issues. That there are main stream applications, vendor getting much of the blame here, that are not ready for Vista, and their user base isn't ready either.

The difference from what XP allowed, to what Vista has allowed for the sake of applications to run, and the statement from microsoft that applications shouldn't run in this fashion is the point that gives microsoft the clearance to say "its not MS's fault". Microsoft did lay down a set of rules and standards telling people to become XP compliant with their code ... I don't think, however, that Vendors saw this as microsoft getting ready to lock the Registry (as it should have from inception) against wide open access.

Now that Microsoft has blocked this, and applications are suffering, those vendors will work diligently to come into line, but, at a cost to the consumer, most likely. And its not the consumers' fault.

The consumer won't have the open choice of XP or Vista, they will only get Vista, and Microsoft is not openly giving licenses for *either* OS to be installed, only for those who buy the premium versions.

It is for that I say "forced". You could go to any vendor, and custom order a pc, but to do so, most of them you have to physically call on the phone, because their internet portals, their weekly ads, and everything in the stores has already been Vista-tized. It is this "forced" choice of Vista I mean, not for the joe user that already has their pc, and decides to go Vista ... although even in that, I say there is some "force" applied from the microsoft marketing machine, MMm good! (ha!)

To back off the "cohersed" move to Vista, Microsoft could come out and openly advertize that many applications will require upgrades, and that until you are running versions of those applications that say Vista Ready, that the user may want to hold off.

But that's not microsoft's goal. They are trying to sell their OS as a commodity that everyone needs, without making it something everyone can use. I can't fault them on their more secure approach, its long over due, but their push to have their newest OS adopted as the unversal standard is just wrong. They know it... no one should blindly go forth to Vista because they will be effected by that choice by any app that doesn't work out of box, under Vista, and that is what the people need to know, to make a better decision before upgrade or purchase.

And again, they don't have that choice, so absent a choice, they are forced to Vista.

Microsoft isn't the only company that does this. I can't go out and buy a new Mac with OS9. I can't purchase an old copy of Norton Antivirus from Norton's website. I can't go to Honda and buy a Diesal Element. In all these things...our choices are made for us. But I do have the choice not to buy those items and buy something else.

It's the same way with buying a new computer..
Your quote: "It is for that I say "forced". You could go to any vendor, and custom order a pc, but to do so, most of them you have to physically call on the phone, because their internet portals, their weekly ads, and everything in the stores has already been Vista-tized."

That is not Microsoft's fault, that is the Vendor's fault (sure MS is pushing them, but not forcing their hand) They could offer a choice of OS, they choose not to. Because the Average Joe WANTS the best and the newest, they EXPECT it. They don't want an OLD O/S if they are buying a compter. So those of us who do...know to call. Again, we aren't forced to use their website...we have other avenues.

This is all just Microsoft Bashing at its best. Yeah, I get sick of the prices and propaganda as much as the next person. But it's marketing and it's gone on for ages, and Microsoft isn't the only company doing this. The oil companies do this too by making us buy reformulated gasolene even though we don't want it. Or by raising the prices arbitrarily.

Heck..just look at the prices of the Adobe Creative Suites of software and how often they upgrade, then come talk to me about "forced". If I want to get my work done I need to upgrade to use the software and continue to get support and updates...

Anyway..All I'm saying, is Microsoft isn't the only company with these types of practices..and we are NEVER FORCED to do anything we don't want to. As others have said, if you don't like it...go with linux or mac...

The other day they told me at Best Buy I couldn't get a new box without vista

From what I have read on several websites Vista will by default degrade High Def information played through it if it considers that there may be a "leak" (any possible way for the high definition information to be used to make a copy)The problem with this is if you have a high end graphics card with multiple high definition outputs on it good luck playing a high def movie on your new $600 blu-ray DVD player, it will play but it will play in a much degraded output. The same goes with high end digital output audio cards, if there is a possibility of you outputting the sound to another device to make a copy of it Vista will degrade.

You are correct. The reasoning (if you can call it that) is that Microsoft (in it's self-appointed position as Arbiter of All Things) has determined that you should not be making copies of ANYTHING digital.
This is also the reasoning behind the "Activation" debacle, which begun with Windows XP, and has reached new heights , err, I mean DEPTHS in Vista.


My observation has always been that those who themselves steal (for example) usually expect others to do likewise. (Hey, Microsoft, your slip is showing!)


Microsoft has set itself up as the "Moral Monopoly", and we are stuck with the results.

Very good summary for DRM and microsoft becoming the moral monopoly.

I think the article should get a new name ... not 10 things .. 1 .. the one thing you will miss, Freedom.

Microsoft has decided everyone is illegal, so we don't get the freedom to chose how we will work with the products we have legally purchased.

Microsoft is also forcing you to buy only devices that are DRM certified. Oh wait there's that word "forced" again ... You don't *have* to go buy a DRM enabled Plasma Screen TV, but if you don't, your movie will not display on that screen, or will display in lower quality than it was intended to be.

The Saturn ION moved the speedometer to the center of the dashboard (over the radio). I love Saturn, but didn't want to relearn how to drive. This move probably makes it easier to manufacture cars for left-lane countries. What if they changed the steering wheel so that it would turn left when you spin it clockwise? This is "Change".

Change for change's sake brings us back as a society.

Choosing Linux or Vista is just a business decision. When seen that way, it gets harder and harder not to choose Free/OpenSource systems.

But we do agree on one thing. "Great article, well written."

I believe the problem is on a different layer.
ok, so 90% of bussines desktops run win2k or winxp (how many without SP??).
Now look at the Vista we all would like to have, the robust one, the OS that runs independently of the bad software and mixed hardware, the OS that behaves like an OS and not like an OS plus everything else. imagine heaven... then imagine your 30 pc's client network, they need to buy two new computers, and you present them a budget for those new xpto Vista pc, ops !!! in heaven you would have to present a budget with 32 new computers, maybe even a new server, new software, and everything else because the perfect Vista would not work with the old OS's and ERP software and....
that's the kind of marketing mistake that kills a company's. So I believe people at Microsoft (the thechies at least) also want a better OS, the one we all dream of, but they have to sell a product (that's what a company should be doing to survive) that doens't kill the bussiness.
Do users need this new OS? on an enterprise enviroment i don't believe they do. how many of your users really use more than 10% of Microsoft Office potencial?
Is it time for Linux? yes, but then again the eternal problem. You can only manage to be very good at a small amount of issues, and you can have "some" knoledge of all the other subjects in IT world. So we've (at least in Portugal) a huge number of small IT bussiness doing desktop and server management based on windows. It's a risk to open your services (with a staff of 2,3 or maybe 4 persons) to another OS (OS's if you consider each distro a different OS) and maintain your service level.
the ones that reach this opint and survive will be prepared for one of the two possible scenarios:
- Vista gets to be a floop at the enterprise level and it's time for Ubuntu and this way you can maintain old customers running windows and be there for the ones looking at linux
- Vista keeps things like they're now, and you maintain windows clients and open small accounts for linux driven bussiness.
So the ones not working 18 hours a day, can start helping people at ubuntu (not a passion, but the last distro i've tried) making an unified linux distro so we can have a option to present to our customers.

Just think that in 86 Bill told us that 265kb would be enough for any computer in the world. It was just 20 years ago. So, no way i'm doing 6-7 years plan!! :-D

Yeah, when you buy a new car, lets see they move the steering wheel to the trunk, the gas pedal is now on the dash board, and the brake is in the ashtray. The CD's you were able to play in your OLD car no longer work in the new one. Very poor analogy on your part comparing automobiles to Vista. Vista currently is CRAP, and M$$$$ knows it but really could care less what any of us think.

Look .... I hate microsoft as much if not more than the next guy.. I probably hate them *much more* than the next guy..

But even I have to admit there are some things in the *idea* of vista that are worth it. ie their UAC.

UAC seems to be much more like root only access in Redhat, if you attempted to access something that only an admin was allowed, you would be prompted for the superuser's password (gui) or denied if not running as root or at least running the command through sudo (non-GUI).

That is a big step in the right direction ... I think vista *can* work, its the re-invention of the wheel that Microsoft has done without giving us an understanding that I think is causing the greater problem.

Vista shouldn't be on such a push to be everywhere now, its not ready to replace XP .. the software we run on our PC's is not ready for vista, the GUI-ness of the interface is not ready for meager pc's, and the interface's command placements, as I'm sure people can start to agree on, is in need of a sanity check for how things are accessed ...

So why not have a year or so between the release and mainstream push for everyone to upgrade to Vista?

Within that time, Microsoft will have worked out some of the kinks I would hope, and people would have had time to add some beef to their pc's, and perhaps microsoft would have even found a way to code better and make the required processing power less steep.

Microsoft has released the "next" os for them, and its compatibility for its past is non-existant, so the rest of the world needs time to catch up... vista shouldn't be forced on anyone (ie. oem installs on new pc's) give the world a year microsoft ... take that time MS, to go back and see how some of the changes are really asinine and counter productive, see how applications that need to work aren't and try to help those companies come to a better understanding of how to work with you ...

(oh but that's right you don't want competition, so maybe this is exactly what you meant to do then)

"UAC seems to be much more like root only access in Redhat, if you attempted to access something that only an admin was allowed, you would be prompted for the superuser's password (gui) or denied if not running as root or at least running the command through sudo (non-GUI)."

If you stop logging in as administrator all the time and use a restrictive account, setup proper ACLs etc. then what is the difference between WinXP and Vista on that front? There are nice free little runas (admin) tools that will allow you to allow one-time admin privileges just like Vista.

In my experience, WinXP is lovely and secure IF (and only if) you set it up properly...

only problem with non-admin login is again the issue that programs not written 100% compliant to the XP standard, which is now locked out if not... will not run or cause other problems.

case in point is Quicken/Quickbooks. The story is here on TR somewhere.. the 2006 and older version won't work on Vista because they try to use the registry in a way that microsoft said was contrary to XP provisions. While allowed in XP, the same behavior was formally prohibited with Vista .. and now people have to switch to the newest version of Quickbooks to continue working with their data.

Older versions of Corel products have had issues in the past, installing and running from none admin accounts. I know this was the case in 7 or 8 .. but this should not be an issue in more recent releases.. the difference in blame in this case... is that XP has been out for 5 years, and only now is Intuit/Quicken actually writing code to be compliant.. Fault - Intuit.

Now were this an issue of a user being on a verison of quick books from 2000 ... and intuits' 2006 was vista ready, then I'd lay blame on the user ... for not having upgraded at least once in five years..

otherwise, if that user gets a discount to the current version that's whats needed. Now anyone that's just recently purchased 2006 version of quickbooks.. I would expect them to get a FREE upgrade (or 9.95 for delivery fee) to their vista compatible 2007 product.

I would have thought that using the runas command, or third-party tools that do the same thing through a GUI, would work in all cases.
I've been using runas and sanur since Win2k without problems.

If the Vista OS is helpful or offers more functionality or security; it would be worth it; otherwise, it is just eye candy for the masses! $$$$$$$$$

And so Microsoft continues its historic drive towards protecting yourself from yourself. Every iteration of the NT kernel adds layers to administrative access, sets more restrictive defaults and compounds the insult of presuming that I'm a software pirate.

You're right about the learning curve. Rather than continue with the absurdity that is Windows, I'll be spending my time learning the ins and outs of Ubunto. So far, I haven't found anything to complain about there.

Your first paragraph hit the nail squarely on the head. Microsoft condescends to it's customers and presumes them to be thieves. I for one have been, and continue to be, insulted, and more than a little annoyed.

This weekend I installed Vista Ultimate (bought and paid for) on some brand new hardware. I foolishly activated too soon (before changing the clock setting), and then, since there was over a years difference in clock time (The OS thought it was January of 2006 - WTF?), I had to REactivate. That's twice
Being in a rush also kept me from updating my new systems BIOS before installing Vista, but doing so afterwards FORCED a third activation, and this time I got the THIRD DEGREE. "How many computers have you installed the software on?" came the accusing question. Ehh.. "ONE ?!!!".
It seems that updating one's BIOS forces Vista to reinstall all of the drivers, thereby convincing this new wonder OS that it is now running on a completely different machine.
This has NEVER been an issue before.

And that is merely the beginning of the issues I have thus far discovered. (Anybody else out there HATE "Access Denied" messages?!?)

Vista is certainly slick, but it's a long way from user friendly. It's also overpriced, especially in light of all of the legacy software it refuses to run, and the lack of sufficient driver support for existing hardware.

My opinion? Wait. Maybe forever.

that they actually thought a pirate would be calling them in the first place ... much less three times in a row! That is how stupid this whole process is. Not only do they assume the average user is a thief, they designed the system so sloppily that even typical, normal processes like adjusting the clock or BIOS trigger a reinstallation?!?!? How bad is that, eh?

This kind of assininity (sp?) almost guarantees a huge black-market opportunity for pirates and work-around artists. When things work properly (ie, transparently to the user) do you get on the phone and complain about this and that and the other?? No! You get on with your business. But when you are hounded and/or blocked at every turn what do you do? You start looking around for someone to help you get your system working so you CAN get back to your business.

This whole piracy issue is smoke and mirrors. Every system sold comes with an OS. Why would anyone want to buy a second OS when they already received one with the system? The present multi-digit registration system is more than adequate to deter 99% of casual piracy. And the professional thieves, if indeed there are any [that speak English natively], would only be highly amused by these shenanigans anyhow.

More likely, the real truth of the matter is that, in order to continue the insane profits, Micro$oft has to find ways to force everyone to buy something from them every few years and Vista is clearly proof of this. In fact the next step is already out ... renting the operating system and the applications (ie, Office) on a daily or monthly basis. This practice is already in place in several undeveloped countries where it is being tested and refined before unleashing it on the rest of the world.

My understanding is that Microsoft KNOWS that the average user is not the problem. The major portion of that problem lies off-shore, and NOTHING that Redmond has done in the area of "Activation" is going to prevent it from continuing to happen.
Why then, you have to ask yourself, would this corporate giant insist on continuing to inflame it's customer base? Why persist in creating active hostility towards itself?
When you figure that one out, please let me know.
I'd also be interested in knowing just who it was that appointed MS the keeper of digital rights, who gave them the authority to override the Supreme Court's "Fair Use" decisions, and why is no one standing up for the RIGHTS of the little guy (thee and me)?
Obviously Bill Gates is not starving, nor are there too many Hollywood Stars on the breadline, or in the soup kitchen.
If you ask me, it's all very strange indeed.

There is a very important dimension to all of this. Who is to suppose that within a few iterations of MS Windows we will have any access to any features at all. Admin rights may be revoked except to MS Professionals, or we may find it so hard to access anything that we don't have the knowledge anymore, or gradually lose it. At that point we really are in the muck. It seems enormously important to have open source systems that we all understand enough to be able to obtain the same level of functionality as MS products.

I'm not being funny, but most distopian visions (including huxley, orwell and even terminator!) plausibly describe access to advanced technology and information in the hands of a protected group/elite. I bet this could happen faster than we imagine.

And finally, comparatively less important, it seems that we just aren't the ones deciding what should happen with our computer systems. Perhaps nothing new, but it's still not ideal, is it. We reduce ourselves to dogs slavering and whimpering as the master approaches with another pan-full of nameless matter for our pleasure. I don't like this cage.

I agree with you completely.
On the UP side however, is the fact that we all still have access to, and the use of, ALL previous MS systems. (Supported or otherwise.)
The machine I updated this past weekend was my secondary computer. I still run, and will continue to run XP Pro on my main computer. Given my 'druthers, I'd much prefer the look, professionalism and non-condescension of Windows 2000, mixed with the reliability of XP Pro.
Vistas completely scalable non-raster graphics are beautiful to look at, but looks alone do not an OS make.

(edited for clarity)

To many hoops and changes and my XP works great. No reason to fix what is not broken. We are not talking 98 or 2000 here but XP, a very stable system. Change for the sake of change is not logical.

I installed Vista on my home PC this weekend. It broke my scanner, iTunes (video portion), and all my software that recorded streaming audio. The new GUI is slick, but all that motion is making me seasick. I spent $160 for a new GUI and a system that gives me less than what I had under XP? Very depressing.

Agree. Just ourchased a new notebook. Yes the eye candy is different, but I don't see any noticeable difference in speed or functionality. Frankly, it seems harder to find the functions I easily had on XP.

10 things you'll misss when you switch to linux.... or maybe not

1 Internet Explorer. Unless you already use firefox, or Opera or Mozilla...

2 V.I.S. (Virus Installation Subsystem) All those handy functions that allow the latest macro virus to read you address book and mail copies of itself to all you contacts.

3 Most malware ( because the linux security model keeps the various services running under unpriviledged user ids, most security threats are trivial.)

4 the registry. With few exceptions, linux uses plain text configuration files. In most cases application failure due to configuration errors can be solved by renaming or removing the user's personalized configuration for the application.

5 defragging the hard drive. Linux "sees" the hard drive as a random access device, not a circular piece of tape.

6 Microsoft support ( hours of scouring the microsoft KB site in search of useful answers that are not circular references?

7 ever increasing minimum hardware requirements

8 The globally unique ID

9 invasive product registration procedures

10 The Microsoft tax

This isn't really a comeback - but I'm sick of people touting Linux as the be-all and end-all solution to every computer problem. Yes, some Linux distros are fantastic. Most still need a lot of work and I look forward to the day that they are a feasible replacement to Windows for the average, everyday user.

1.) An entirely graphic system, no code or text based configuration required.

2.) Being able to turn to your friend and say "How did you work around this..." because they still use Windows or a Mac.

3.) Logical menu setup (Fedora, in particular, is all over the place)

4.) Powerful, easy to use Office software (As nice as OpenOffice.Org is, it is nowhere near Microsoft Office yet. Mind you, I do really like their Writer package)

5.) A powerful graphics program (As with Ooo, Gimp really doesn't cut it yet.)

6.) Warantees and a physical place you can take your computer to when you have troubles.

7.) Good games

8.) Instant compatibility with the majority of computers provided and used in workspaces, at internet cafes etc.

9.) Having your software pre-installed and ready to go when you buy your computer from a retailer.

10.) The ability to get software at a store, dealing face-to-face with people, as opposed to downloading over the internet (which many average users cannot afford to do).

However, at the rate at which it's advancing, I say give it a few years - less than five - and my list will be cut down to seven. Five years and it will be less than that. Ten years? My list might be the same, but comparing Windows' shortcomings to Linux.

You wrote:

"An entirely graphic system, no code or text based configuration required."

This sounds kind of like the person who drives the Porche 911 who has never changed a spark plug. Or the person who tells you hunting is barbaric and then orders a double Big Mac.

Are you proposing a GUI to do the simplest damn things out there? Besides that being able to edit and modify things at the kernel level is one of the differences between the closed/open source models. Not everything can have a GUI and that is a good thing.

Same lazy attitude regarding your buying a computer with pre-installed OS. And who can't afford to download a free .iso file from the web that can afford a new computer with pre-installed OS???

Gee? Maybe it's the graphics bloat pulling down the system that needs to be restarted all the time? Maybe it's a dumb filesystem interface that forces us to reboot the machine because `a file is still in use' or `a service needs to be shut down', etc?

One thing that Windows seriously needs to do in order to be worthwhile is dump the garbage user interfaces and go for uptime, so that once people remove a lot of bugs from their code, or memory leaks aren't as big of a deal, Windows won't have to be rebooted nigh weekly for trivial updates and garbage.

Hmmm... maybe doing this will make other things like viruses be easier to unroot too, ya think?

> 1.) An entirely graphic system, no code or text based configuration required.

You like dealing with setup dialogs? I hated them when I had to work as student IT at my school, because frankly I discovered all of the `automated' means of installing things to be too much of a PITA and all over the place to actually help IT pro's.

> 2.) Being able to turn to your friend and say "How did you work around this..." because they still use Windows or a Mac.

???? Obviously you need to read through documentation or ask others for help. That's how _real_ people get stuff done with opensource software -- not hole themselves up in a box and wait for their friends to come by and then ask them for help (esp when the help may be a YMMV type of thing), but instead ask someone who actually might know how to use the system for help.

> 3.) Logical menu setup (Fedora, in particular, is all over the place)

That's Gnome and Fedora, both of which are pieces of trash. Try PCBSD with their custom KDE menus, or XFCE4 with its cleanliness, etc, etc -- you may be surprised.

Oh -- did I mention you have choices on Unix?

> 4.) Powerful, easy to use Office software (As nice as OpenOffice.Org is, it is nowhere near Microsoft Office yet. Mind you, I do really like their Writer package)

True, this is lacking. If you really need M$ Office, Mac OSX or Wine be thine path. Or maybe grow up and use a real documentation language like TeTeX (I don't know how many times I wanted to shoot myself because M$ Word corrupted my ~2MB document and I had to go back and start from scratch because it was toast).

> 5.) A powerful graphics program (As with Ooo, Gimp really doesn't cut it yet.)

Gimp does many things that Photoshop does too -- the interface is just a bit wonky.

Oh, and Disney was nice enough to help ensure that Photoshop and other Adobe products worked well with Wine, so guess what? You got it -- Wine works well with Adobe stuff.

> 6.) Warantees and a physical place you can take your computer to when you have troubles.

HAHAHAHAHAH. It's called manufacturer's warranties which DO NOT COVER SOFTWARE.

Most decent professionals do NOT need a particular operating system preinstalled on a machine in order to troubleshoot or assist with an issue. If they don't have the proper tools, they shouldn't deserve your business.

Besides, do you really want to turn in your PC to Geeksquad for help :)?

> 7.) Good games

Define `good'. Oh yeah, Wine + CEDEGA does games too, and a lot are already ported to Unix..

> 8.) Instant compatibility with the majority of computers provided and used in workspaces, at internet cafes etc.

Define `compatibility'. The Internet doesn't require a particular configuration, apart from Windows domain junk (which is just masked LDAP capability, which is stupid to have if you want other machines to be capable of connecting to your hotspot, cafe, etc), and besides Unix does a better job at networking than Windows does. Hence, that's why Unix PC's and Unix based appliances are running the a lot of the Internet backbone and are acting as gateway servers into corporations. The only other means that competes with Unix in this regard is Cisco, Juniper, etc with their network appliances -- and guess what? JunOS runs FreeBSD, and Cisco is going to be running Linux soon. Surprised? I think not...

Oh, and as for hardware compatibility -- many hardware products that are still functional from operating system to operating system on Windows are deprecated on purpose because companies refuse to support drivers and apps for their devices. Well, guess what folks? If it's supported on Unix, the EOL for the device is much higher because people are expected to use devices for a much longer period of time than with Windows. Cool, eh?

Saves you $50~$300+ on purchasing new hardware for fully functional printers, scanners, USB devices, etc.

> 9.) Having your software pre-installed and ready to go when you buy your computer from a retailer.

Oh, I love having bloat preinstalled when I buy a PC. Norton, games, Nero, blah -- wewt -- bloat for the lose as they say.

> 10.) The ability to get software at a store, dealing face-to-face with people, as opposed to downloading over the internet (which many average users cannot afford to do).

Packaging and installation is a shortcoming of Unix, but it's a shortcoming that Windows suffers as well.

As least I can do...

yum install `blah'
apt-get install `blah'
pkg_add `blah'

... instead of having to hunt through a bunch of websites looking for software that I *think* works for my operating system, that is indeed safe for use because no one piggybacked a trojan or spyware into the app in the downloaded copy I get. YAY!

> However, at the rate at which it's advancing, I say give it a few years - less than five - and my list will be cut down to seven. Five years and it will be less than that. Ten years? My list might be the same, but comparing Windows' shortcomings to Linux.

Your list wreaks of lack of experience and knowledge. Please try some more things before writing things off as impossible.

I do the same thing in XP with my Desktop toolbar. I hide the Desktop then drag the Desktop Toolbar to the Desktop. It's just more compact, cleaner looking. However, I can't do this in Vista (Ultimate). Doesn't work anymore
I did try your tip, but that did not work. I right then left clicked dragged the Quick Launch folder from the Start menu Search results (and tried the Desktop folder too) to the edge of my desktop (and all around the desktop)but neither turned into Toolbars. Just the option to Move, Copy or Create a Shortcut. What did I do wrong?

More power for the illiterate! Menus you don?t have to read, just remember what the icon looked like! Run your mouse around the screen and click until the right action happens, just like a video game! How Fun! Never have t o read anything again!!

This new thinking, if you want to call it that, is dumbing down the computer user to the point that it is no longer a ?professional? tool. The problem is you can change the menus all you want, but as soon as a new version comes out, they like to change the pictures on the icons. What the heck do they mean now?

I like the idea of making the computer usable for everyone, but come on! The professional has long gone from the software, don?t call it that any more.

Just wondering, do you have your keyboard and mouse labeled so you know what they are? Or your phone, pens, rulers, calculator and fridge? Or do you know what they look like and you are able to recognise variations to them? Item (or icon) recognition is an essential skill, and in many cases far more useful than being able to read.

Providing IT support in a Public Library, I see my fair share of computers set up in languages other than English. I've managed to troubleshoot wireless network problems with most of these thanks to my knowledge of what each icon looks like and means. Far easier for me than learning how to read 12 different languages.

You know what I think about Vista? I think I am tired of hearing about it. Vista is Defective By Design, it's not an "upgrade" by any measure, and I wish the trade press would stop working as an extension of the Microsoft marketing department.

If it's from Microsoft or Apple, it's not news: both companies long ago abandoned technological innovation in favor of marketing blitzes and legal bullying. The trade press should show them both nothing but contempt, and focus instead on the real innovators, and on products that are genuine upgrades.

So shut up about Vista, already. It's not news.

Once comfortable in an environment there are always growing pains when moving to a new one. Face the natural discomfort head-on and give the changes a shot before trying to turn Vista into XP/2000/95. Microsoft did not make these changes just for the hell of it or to piss off end users. Considerable time, effort, and money were invested in usability studies to create something better with the end user in mind. Take that with a grain of salt, naturally, but at least give the changes a try for a while. Chances are that once you're accustomed to them, you will actually LIKE them.
When I see a user's desktop littered with one-hundred-fifty shortcuts to programs that are also in the start menu, I just have to shake my head and sigh. Windows 3.1 hasn't been around for years, and yet some people (and installation programs should be blamed for this!) still use their desktop like the old Program Manager. Check out the start menu, Sassafrass! You can even organize it however you want.
Before you bemoan a loss of features and go to great lengths to "get some of them back," resist the urge and try living differently for a couple weeks. You'll probably find yourself getting along just fine and maybe even find that the changes are improvements.

It's not so much that we( or maybe just me) regard the changes as ill conceived but, for my part, the level of training that we will have to dispence to the user communitity to get them up to speed.

I work in a distribution center where things change slower then anywhere else I can imagine. My end user group is not the most computer-literate. Having finally, recently, got them up to speed on win2k( yes, finally...go ahead an laugh!!!) to have to skip a generation of evolution in the 'Look-and-Feel' of an OS is going to be time consuming for this 3 person department.

Can we pay for training on the new UI? Sure, that would be nice. But, as I've said, we're a DC and getting groups of people to take training with out over burdening a department would be a tad difficult. Not to say anything about convincing individuals( or managers) of the necessity.

I like the analogy given somewhere in the prior posts about the hammer. The computer is just that - a hammer or tool to work with. We've had the claw hammer for generations and has the hammer maker changed it? Well, in minute ways - yes. But an overhaul like Vista from XP? The new hammer, for what ever it's improvements might be, would not sell.

That argument, of course, opens the door to why this market is so different from the other markets. Because, unlike most other markets there is just one hammer maker from the laman-worker bee perspective. Be that as it may( and an argument for another thread of the hundreds ) I don't like what I've heard, read, or seen for myself so far about the modifications to the OS. I would rather they fix the kernel and secure the current OS rather dump it for, from what I can tell so far, primarily UI changes.

Give an example of the above. Xp to Vista is not like going from 2k to XP. XP had so many improvements in areas that 2K lacked it was, by my reckoning, a much needed change. Now, XP is stable, functional, understandable, and most of all, a 'little' more secure then 2k was. What does Vista have that XP doesn't? Or that XP can't get with third party products? Nothing that I can tell.

M$ makes changes only to make money. That is the function of business. Changes lead to new requirements in hardware and software ... and the upgrade train moves on.

And frankly, what is really "new"?

Transparency and fancy graphics?

Transparency has been standard equipment on nVidia-equipped H-P systems for at least a year. The rest is just new pretty pictures and icons (ie, new pretty pictures for the PSP crowd that will shortly be replacing you).

Enhanced security?

If you call locking the user down tighter and tighter "enhanced security", then I guess you're correct. It is true that younger workers are a wee bit stupider (preferring pretty pictures to words like my kindergartener does) but is that any reason to cater to them? I wonder.

Functionality?

Hard to buy into this since the level of backwards INcompatibility reaches an all-time new high on this account. Not only will most people have to buy new software (oops, I mean upgrade ... and that is assuming the software company even bothers*), but even their hardware will likely require replacement as the memory reqirements exceed 1GB RAM for reasonable operation; and that is assuming the video card will work and the hard drive will be large enough ... not very good assumptions.

*one tiny example: I have used Borland's Reflex database since before Gates even saw windows running at the Xerox research center. And it was so well-written that it has worked on every M$ OS right up through XP Pro. Guess what? M$ changed a system file somewhere and now when Reflex starts up, it displays the wrong characters (ie, nonsense characters). The program still works. I can load files and print reports (yes, the menus are memorized after all these years) without any problem.

Progress and innovation? I think not.

Yet another attempt to make me upgrade to Office Professional to use Access? Ah, yes. Now we have the true picure.

You seem to have a something against younger people. It's funny you say that the "younger workers are a wee bit stupider[sic]," but I would be willing to bet that it's probably more likely that there are more people in your generation that punch-the-monkey, install twelve browser toolbars, buy herbal v1AgrA and breast augmentation pills from spam e-mail, send money to 419-scam artists in Africa, click that 'yes' button when asked to install adware, and then tell the clerk at the computer store that they think they have a virus and bitch about how Microsoft made Windows ******.
To suggest that the graphical changes made in Vista are just transparent window borders and in any way similar to the nVidia parlor tricks you're referring to is ignorant. Take a deeper look into what's under the hood- that's where the real changes lie. These changes might not make your DOS emulation run any faster, but they open new doors for developers to create more evocative and exciting software for everyone else in the world. Transparent window borders are not even the tip of the iceberg.
While you've been using Reflex and waving that flat file database banner so proudly, the rest of the world has moved on to more efficient and powerful DBMSes (even free ones!). It blows my mind that someone could expect *obsolete* software from the 1980s to still work in an OS several generations later. There comes a point where you just have to let it go. The fact that Reflex still runs is NOT a testament to the quality of the software. Lots of things will still run in the DOS emulator (command prompt)!
Yes, I am sure that someone at Microsoft is intentionally trying to get you and the rest of the cavalcade of Reflex users to ?upgrade to Office Professional to use Access? by making changes in Vista so that garbage characters are displayed. I bet that will generate *millions* of conversions to Office. You know what else still works after all these years? Horses! Ford and GM just come out with new vehicles every year to try to force people into getting rid of their horses when they are perfectly adequate for getting us to work and back. Have any other insight on insidious business practices or conspiracy theories?
Maybe Vista just isn't for you. You have all the freedom in the world to upgrade or not. Just as you have held on to Reflex all these years, why not stick with DOS 6 or Windows 3.1 or 95? If it meets your needs, use it. You won?t even need to upgrade hardware.
As for innovation, I don?t think anyone hell bent on using software from twenty years ago is qualified to make any assertions regarding ?progress and innovation.? So while you?re busy pissing on Microsoft?s parade, dust off and peek outside your Hobbit-hole.

"Take a deeper look into what's under the hood- that's where the real changes lie. These changes might not make your DOS emulation run any faster, but they open new doors for developers to create more evocative and exciting software for everyone else in the world. Transparent window borders are not even the tip of the iceberg."

What kind of new doors are opened for developers that aren't in XP? DirectX10 doesn't count as it isn't out yet and the release date is highly mobile.

What "evocative" software can't be made in XP?

Bravo! and Well Stated.

>>>It blows my mind that someone could expect *obsolete* software from the 1980s to still work in an OS several generations later. There comes a point where you just have to let it go. The fact that Reflex still runs is NOT a testament to the quality of the software. Lots of things will still run in the DOS emulator (command prompt)!

You need to rethink why people have computers. It's supposed to be a time-saver. I had a client who had hundreds of recipes in an old Tandy data base. When support for this DB went away, she had to retype everything to port it over. Many, many wasted hours.

On the other hand, I worked on Unisys mainframes for a Navy project. We ran code that the new programmers just could not understand. It had been designed for a Burroughs Corp punch card system in 1968 before Unisys was even formed. It used a special set of codes to recognize overpunches that were used in those systems to save one byte of memory by placing the negative sign in one of the columns in a numeric field. Crucial back in 1968, not needed now, but still preserved in the EBCDIC character set used by IBM and Unisys mainframes.

Why change a character set? It worked fine in 1968 and also worked fine 25 years later when we upgraded the software.

Just happened by and found the "Vista not developed for you alone, your majesty" thread.

Silly serfs. Of course it was developed just for me.

M$ hopes to entice me to abandon my nice speedy stable XP computers with the prospect of pretty pictures (AeroDoh!) and abbreviated functionality (missing the explorer menu bar anyone?).

Pretty pictures, like Trix, are for kids. You are excused. You may now return to your game box.

P.S. hmcm, few graphics-based DOS business programs even exist much less run from the current DOS prompt. And your poor client did not HAVE to re-key the recipes. Even today there are database programs that read the PRC format; and failing that, there are several Basic programs to convert any DB data file to ASCII or dBase. And mainframes impress me even less. My first "personal" computer was an IBM 360/155 with a whopping 8KB core! My first programming language was APL (with Ken Iverson's kind assistance). Ah. Those were the days.

I am a network administrator. What new features have they incorporated to make my duties easier? As I see it, what they have called improved security is only going to cause me more headaches to get legitimate software running again.

I appreciate innovative, productive changes. That's not what many of these comments have been complaining about. A memory intensive new UI doesn't fit my description of innovative or productive. It only makes our computers run slower so we buy new ones. But to be perfectly honest these aren't even the things that bother me the most.

MS has assumed the only use for audio/video outputs is for duplication so everyone who uses these outputs must therefore be a thief. I use these outputs to make my computer my entertainment system. But I can only do that with Vista if I put up with lower quality output. Do you really think I should think this is an improvement that I will come to like after I get used to it?

What happens when "they" decide that every pen sold will be used for forgery? How about making every hammer out of rubber because we "assume" they will be used for bashing in someone's skull?

What if every printer is forced to print an identifying mark on everything it prints so it can be traced back to the creator? You never know, the person could be printer ransom notes, or printing forged IDs.

The simple solution is to create the best tool you can. Then you punish/prosecute people who abuse those tools. You don't assume everyone is a criminal and disable some of the functionality of the tool. But this is exactly what MS and others are doing when it comes to audio and video equipment.

It's a really sad world when they assume everyone is bad.

messing with the DVD quality is outrageous---Microsoft is not my big brother and they never will be! Go to this extreme and there are other options.

vista is missing the internet games such as checkers, hearts, reversi, spades and backgammon.

can anyone tell me how to install them from the window xp cd or download them.

if you upgrade from window xp the games stay.

thx

Isn't it just so wonderful how M$ foresees the needs of it's important users beforehand? M$ is saving the IT folk's valuable time (normally wasted removing games from the system). And I am sure that an "enhancement package" will be made available at a modest cost for the rest of the rabble.

I personally like Windows Vista and how it looks and feels. I have beta tested it since it first came out and now I own Windows Vista Ultimate myself. Yes, there are programs that still don't run on the new OS but soon more software packages should be Vista Compatible or have patches for you to download so they can be run on the new OS.

sharing your expense account so the rest of us can afford to update our hardware / software / peripherals, etc. to work with the latest version of M$ware we'll eventually be forced to "upgrade" to? Be a pal.

Do I sound a little negative? Perhaps it comes from having to shell out a couple thousand bucks every couple years so Bill can afford $2,000 door knobs. And that is just my personal computers. Heaven knows how much money the company had to shell out for hundreds of systems (which might explain the lack of bonuses this year)!

. . .is that you think too much. Did Bill tell you to think for yourself? Of course not. Bad people! Bad, bad people!

See Grub, he's a good people. "I like it. It's pretty. It will work one day, Bill said so. All I had to do is buy new software. Oh, the old stuff was still working fine, but Bill said it had expired."

I agree with a few other posts. It doesn't matter what you think. Bill, in his infinite wisdom will take administrative rights away because we are to simple minded to manage our own boxes. Just think of the revenue streams for M$$upport when we have to call them to do any administrative task on our box. After all, we don't own our copy of M$$oftware, we payed for the right to use it. M$ still owns it.

Your administrative rights have not been taken away- you are still an admin by default. It just asks you if you if everything's kosher before initiating something that could change and possibly damage the system. The feature can be easily switched off, too, for users that feel it's too invasive. If you're "simple-minded" enough to need to call "M$$upport," then you probably need to have this feature on.

you've yet to see the "access Denied" messages boxes... Just try getting into the root of the C: drive.

or are you just spouting what you've heard others say? I can get to the root of the C:\ drive without any problems. I've yet to receive an ACCESS DENIED message for ANYTHING I've tried to do in Vista. Of course, I'm running as an administrator and I've turned off the User Account Control messages.

Were you being sarcastic?

If not, and you are running vista as administrator and without UAC, then you've defeated one of the major reasons for upgrading to Vista.

While it gets you to what you want, its hardly the same as running like everyone else's default experience, and so you can't be party sympathizer to the problems others are having.

Please explain UAC - I have been in computing a little while and not seen this abbreviation before.

EDIT: Ok, User Access Control... but this does not help me... nor does http://techtalkblogs.com/blog/archive/2006/10/30/762.aspx

But dont try explain, there is not enough space or time.

Yes I am also running that way (and lots of people are)
Why? Because there are enough problems to solve with Vista and compatibility to have a machine behaving as you want it and be able to find everything again without these (not wanting to start another pro-con...) security settings//major nuisances take your pick.
When I finally get all my programs working and can tell my users where and how to find everything I will start using it as it was shipped.
But running this way seriously narrows down my "Why doesn't it work" search path.
I may have to do some work again when back in UAC mode but that is my choice.
Example? Current issue: Error coming up about a program not able to load it's help file. I would have thought "access to folder" without my setting.

The new Desktop Personalize window takes what used to be a simple tabbed sheet interface and complicates it. Several more clicks are needed to perform many of the familiar updates. I wish there was a fix for that.

XP is at the point where it is as good as an OS release will get. There are thousands of free tools for it, UNIX command line tools (which tickles me pink) and best of all, it just works. Now Vista. In a few years, it'll be at the same place. My argument is, that will things like sudo (they call it UAC don't they) and tighter control over the OS, maybe its time to ditch Windows, stump up for that MacBook and have a pretty UI, good compatability with popular protocols and a Unix kernel at the heart of it all. Then, I can stick to Microsoft for Office and office alone. That is, at the end of the day, the only reason I run Windows anyway.

I have used:

Win 3.1
Win 3.11
Win NT 3.5
Win 95
Win 98
Win NT 4
Win ME
Win 2k
Win XP

Win 2k looked good, but still kinda Win NT4 look.

Win XP, I didnt like, and still dont, however, I use it... it does do more than Win 2k, but like everything, it has drawbacks, which I wont detail or go into, that is not my point. I have grown used to Win XP and how it works. No doubt, I wont like Vista but will grow to accept it.

For me, the biggest issue with XP or Vista (should I get to use it) is IE7... and its constant crashing and not closing when I close it, and the other things that start to occur since it installed.

Why not use another browser... I use a specific tool for uni, and it only works with IE... so I am limited in browser choice.

In XP you can drag a file from Explorer to a command window to save having to type the full path, Vista does not have this feature. :'-(

Whenever I try to send email, OWA still crashes my Internet Explorer under Vista. We've applied patches to our Exchange servers, and installed the latest MIME controls on the client machines.

Where's the damn button tool bar in Windows Explorer?

In XP I had all the buttons I needed setup so 1-click did the trick. Now with Vista, 2 or 3 or 4 damn clicks to get done what ya need. Hope someone creates a hack to bring back the button bar.

EveryOne : Deny ??

Is it default behaviour with folders???

how do you do this, is it a simple case of just trying the normal install of the secondary monitor drivers using the xp drivers, do these have to be the x64 bit version too?