http://www.420seekers.org/vistasp2unlock.bat

will unlock it and you can get sp2 from windows update

Will Microsoft finally allow users to create integrated SP2 DVD's of Vista on their own or will people be required to spend yet another $100 to get an integrated SP2 DVD at retail?

vlite.

Google it. They've had that functionality since 1.1.6.

Yeah, but I don't trust unsupported methods for integrating service packs. Usually it slows my computer down compared to installing the service pack separately. There's really no reason Microsoft can't come up with their own officially supported method for doing integrated installs with service packs.

Read the reviews. vlite, of nlite fame is rock solid and is used by millions of techs.

...but I do believe MSFT stated upon SP1's release that SP2 would support slipstreaming without 3rd party apps.

I'm rather surprised that nobody mentioned this, but:

How about the fact that the security infrastructure built into XP was completely rebuilt in Vista?

Microsoft promoted it as "the most secure OS to date", however nothing is proven secure until it's been field-tested. XP is secure - at least, far more secure than something completely new and untested - so why not use it?

From a subjective point of view - we debug many more XP machines than Vista machines - so I do tend to agree Vista is less likely to be crippled by a virus or spyware (still happens though). I don't believe this is just because many are still using XP... I actually think Vista is slightly more secure.

Unfortunately, unlike XP, Vista is a serious PITA to debug if it does get badly infected. The lack of a 'Windows Repair' option is very, very crippling from a tech support point of view. It often ends up being a 'backup & wipe' scenario, whereas XP is fixable 99% of the time.

LOL man, I wonder if you have ever used Vista. What makes you think XP is more secure than Vista? Vista is far more secure than XP. First test it thoroughly and then comment on it!!

Probably the same reasons why ppl chose it over a P112 programmed in machine language? Pretty secure but kinda out of date..?

SP2 will not FIX Vista.

Not in performance. Vista is the way it is.

Maybe correct some compatibility issues for a few.

I sense it will be as important as a SP for Office. Mostly irrelevant.

Those who care about Vista have already taken it. Those who dont, wont care about this SP and are waiting for 7.

Nope

This is not related to the article, although service pack 2 will probably correct allot of incompatibility issues. This comment is about Microsoft's advertising campaign. I have watched quite a few of their "commercials" and i have to say that they are really 'BAD'.

Ok, here we go. Follow the leader. Jump on the bandwagon. Let's play funny like a Mac commercial.
Most of the people who "hate" Vista have the following things in common:
1. They never used the OS
2. They have a pc which cannot handle the OS (which by the way is the user's fault...upgrade and shut up.)
3. They think it is the cool thing to do. "Oh I hate Vista too. yeah, that commercial is funny. So I hate it too."

So let's finally be honest. All you haters out there, tell me the ONE main issue you hate which makes it a bad OS. I don't mean your perception of bloatware, or the themes/visual styles. I mean a REAL issue which kills the OS. And for god's sake do not give me some long drawn out thing about "well on Thursdays if you run update while connecting a usb device in the rain facing north and uttering the alphabet in latin, you get a BSOD...so I hate it." I mean a REAL issue.

HINT #1:
UAC is not an issue!!!! It can be disabled.

HINT #2:
If your browser is crashing every time you click in the Austrian porn pages while also viewing The Wall Street Journal home page....it is the browser. Not the OS.

HINT #3:
If your hardware does not work. Uh, buy new hardware...or let's say the drivers are not installing. Manually install them. Takes 4 mouse clicks. Not hard, people.

HINT #4. Incompatible software. Hmmm...blame the OS because the company you choose to use for your application is not up to date. That makes sense.

HINT #5: ALMOST ALL UI ISSUES can be rectified with simple clicks in the display properties box, or advanced system settings tab. Stop blaming Aero for your slow machine. Once again; upgrade your hardware.

The fact is if your hardware lacks the power to run Vista then it is your fault. Not Vista's. If you are completely computer illiterate and do not understand Vista...it is YOUR fault. Not Vista's. Of if you are just too lazy to sit for awhile and tweak the OS to YOUR NEEDS, and you STILL say it is not intuitive enough for you...once again....your fault. Not Vista's.

I have been working on computers and buiding them since the Commodore 64 days.
I have used Vista since it's first betas. I have really no issues on my end. I choose to run Vista Ultimate 64 bit edition on both my pc's.
They are used for gaming, business, internet, and media (music and film). Any issues I had were minor.
Most of themcame from a lack of hardware on my part from the first machines I tested the OS on, and me playing around in the registry and services menu to tweak it out.
All my gamers work, old apps work, 32 bit works, etc.
I cannot understand the hatred.

Rig #1. Q6600 at 3.5Ghz - 280GTX in SLI - 8gb ddr2 at 1333 - 4TB storage, 1220 watt PSU

Rig #2. Phenom 9850BE at 3.4Ghz - 9800 GTX+ in triple SLI - 8GB DDR2 at 1066 - 2 TB storage - 1000 watt PSU

See that? The hardware is there. If you cannot physically afford Vista through hardware or even software then XP is for you. But if you CAn afford it and you are just too lazy to go out and do it, then blame yourself. Not Microsoft.

You are my Hero.

Next to Bill Gates, of course.

I do not agree:

#1 UAC is an issue because MS made efforts to annoy users. If you have to disable it, their "efforts" were useless. I do not want to pay for useless (or annoying) new functions.

#2 IE7 is pathetic. Of course you have Firefox/Opera/Safari, but the default Vista browser sucks. They can make it better, of course, but MS insist in being compatible just where they should not. Activex? Kill it, PLEASE!

#3 Bad drivers are not MS fault, ok. But they have enough experience to make decent SDK to avoid the need of changing everything each windows release. Well, it seems they do not care...

#4 Incompatible software, you are right there... But, good documentation and OS specification would help anyway: Why in hell would you create 2 different libraries (dlls) which contain different functions and call it with the same name? MS did it several times, but this is not directly Vista related...

#5 That is right for you and me, but the average Joe does not know and do not pay to fix UI problems. Their own most used products are inconsistent regarding their UI: Take a look at Office 2007, now open the Live Messenger, now give a click to Windows search 4.0. They look different and behave totally different... I expect a better job standardizing their OWN products, even if they have completely different developer teams, they should coordinate basic things.
My personal end note, I hate menuless windows and ribbon interfaces, but still think they should keep the same basic UI in their products.

1.) It has caused a massive amount of developers to code their apps in a way that is more secure and no longer induces a UAC prompt. Security isn't useless.

2.) Agreed.

3.) They change once with each "platform" release. And, though it may amaze you to know, there are quite a few "XP" drivers that work just fine in Vista. Go figure. I wonder how *that* could have happened. Perhaps a few driver manufacturers actually had a clue?

4.) Agreed to a degree. Devs can, and *should* be able to code around them anyway. Dependence on MSFT libraries can hamstring an application.

5.) Office 2007 was released after the Vista UI was finalized. Win7 will ship with the ribbon interface in it's apps and they are working on their "Live" services. Ever tried tying together multiple development efforts, all with different release schedules with a single UI? Amazingly, it takes time. They *are* co-ordinating. Office 2007 was simply the first release with that new interface.

I agree man

Relax. If it makes anyone happy *not* to use Vista by all means leave them alone. We need everybody at maximum happiness level!

Someone pay a little too much 'Paranoia' back in the day?

Keep smiling. You'll live longer. ;)

lol yah.

Clean Coal? What the heck? Who are these advertisers? First Barack Obama has ad banners on here and now we have the paradoxical clean coal. Coal is about as clean as someone with emphysema's lungs. Not so coincidentally, Barack voted pro coal, pro nuclear, anti-solar, and anti-wind. Just one of the many reasons I'm against him. That being said he's better than McCain, but you're still a total puppet if you're voting for either of them. It's not like Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and Ralph Nader aren't all better options. Voting for the lesser of two evils, is still voting for evil.

Thank you for that completely unrelated opinion that no one cares about here.

Well Jim, maybe it is better you did not reply, since your post is just as misinformed as the others.

Trying to say that Vista does not have issues is like saying there are no nuts in jar of peanuts.

I am glad Microsoft continues to address the Vista issues, but most of us will wait for Windows 7 and hope they can reduce the bloatware with it.

Secondly it is well known that Microsoft is attempting mightly to take the bloat out of Vista with Windows 7, so it won't be that much like Vista.

If you think Vista is so good, how come about 70% of corporate America has decided to skip it?

Legume.

^What he/she said^

"Trying to say that Vista does not have issues is like saying there are no nuts in jar of peanuts."

There aren't.

The simple answer is that it doesn't offer any significant advantage over XP to the average business user. Certainly not enough to justify the expenses of upgrading software and hardware along with training. This doesn't make it a bad OS, just one with a poorly conceived strategy. It's a combination of MS being overly confident.

There are many great improvements under the hood. You never hear MS marketing them, but they are there. The bottom line though is that the average user needs to see more tangible improvements. To them, that's where the added value is.

What I love about so many of the rabid Vista haters that most haven't actually used it or have suffered one of the god awful low-end machines that should have never been certified in the first place. Many of the issues touted are the same ones that you encounter with any significant OS upgrade. That's just how it works whether the OS is Mac, Win, or Linux there will be hardware and compatability issues.

Having used Vista for quite a while now, I can say that it's a pretty solid experience. It's significantly streamlined many of the weak points of XP. When problems do occur, they are handled far more gracefully, resulting in very few catastrophic incidents. Huge security improvements too (althoughthe UAC implementation is terrible). However, again, there is just not enough there to justify the expense of upgrading for the average user already running XP.

What P. said

Now it all makes sense: the emperor DOES indeed have new clothes. :) :) ;)

agree.

i dont have a high end pc (yet) so im keeping xp for a while . .

tried vista . . too slow for my taste (and pc) . . but I wont complain and blame microsoft . .

can't wait for windows 7 and then i'll buy a great pc to take advantage of the new features . .
i also have linux and osx but i like windows better for my everyday computing and gaming . .

...or the roj has a bug up his bum regarding Vista? ;)

I'm honestly confused if you are having actual problems with Vista Business (or Enterprise) editions.

We've been using them on our new Dell systems for several months now. Since we've gotten our one application that had issues with Vista fixed, it's actually been a boon to us.

Our techs can now focus on development and PM issues. We're actually considering consolidating our two support tiers once again (had to break it out for XP). The additional management functionality and ease of deployment simply blow XP out of the water.

Number us and many our clients among the "Corporate north America" that are spending money on this "pointless endeavor".

Number Intel in there as well, while you're at it. ;)

Why hasn't Corporate America upgraded? Duh idiot, maybe they just upgraded to WinXP, doesn't make sense to do it again. OR, Why fix something that ain't broke yet. (notice I said YET)

In fact Vista DOESN'T have any issues, the only problem I, as a technician, have is the lack of a Repair option. The NEED to bring this make. Its just like in Win2K, they took out MSCONFIG. But at least with that you could run it still as long as you had the exe file.

Pumpkin?

Google Stop Error 0101. You'll find that many are having this problem, that it's not localized to any given version of Vista, that it's sporadic, that there are as many theories as to why it occurs as there are sand grains on the beach and that no one (including apparently MS) knows for sure why it's happening.

Just one symptom of the rot...

And sadly, yes - I'm one of those who experienced it - as have other folks I know - and all of us have completley disparate modern hardware. Our best *guess* is that it's Vista's half-baked video subsystem - but we, like everyone else, aren't sure.

As to intel running it, they always did have more money than brains... :)

We'll wait for Windows 7 - that OS will hopefully be actually finished and tested actually give a viable reason to switch (you know - tangible advantages).

Goggled it. Teh only Windows related links that show up are for XP. Not sure what you are trying to get at there. Perhaps a typo?

As to intel running it, they always did have more money than brains... :)

...which irrelevant to your claim that no businesses use it, how? *laughing* Brains or not, your claim is false. Nice try.

"No companies are using Vista"

"Intel is using Vista"

"They don't count because they use Vista"

You're a friggin' genius! An instant, easy, and infallible way to win *any* argument! Why didn't *I* think of that??

We'll wait for Windows 7 - that OS will hopefully be actually finished and tested actually give a viable reason to switch (you know - tangible advantages).

You do realize Win7 isn't adding much functionality over Vista(I assume something that would address your "tangible advantages"). Ya know, since you don't seem to think the myriad reasons anyone could give you here to be such. It's mostly just tweaks and feature rewrites. Take a look at the Engineering Windows 7 blog.

Pumpkins, unlike peanuts, are not legumes.

I really don't know why I bother responding to any of these posts anymore, all these people that keep talking about vista like they've actually used it, or know what their talking about. Stop being such lemmings, repeating your hearsay of "vista sucks" and making up random bs off the top of your head to make it sound worse.

djmixxx1970:
Worse then windows ME, which was less stable, broke compatibility with most software and applications, and came out a year before XP - when microsoft knew XP would have just as much compatibility issues with ME as it would 98?

1) Vista runs smoother/faster if your system can support it (You wouldn't be playing Crysis, Doom3, or COD4 on a pentium 3, with your 3dfx voodoo, nomatter how awesome your 4pci/sli setup use to be. Why would you put a new os on old hardware?).

2) Less Security holes then any other desktop version of windows. Less per month, less in the first year of each compared, less vulnerabilities in every way. Even Linux/BSD comes out with security patches regularly, so get off your high horse.

Roj:
3) Stability Issues? Used vista at home and work for almost 2 years, and had about one bluescreen. Occasionally tried going back to xp, only to be reminded it crashes tons more on the same hardware. There may be some machines out there witch are less stable with vista then xp, but noone I know of who's used vista has seen it.

4) *Most Importantly*
roj, your reasons for waiting for windows 7 is probably the most inaccurate, uneducated bs I've read in a long time.

Windows 7 is going to be, think "Vista SP2 and a half", or "Windows Vista Touchscreen edition". Because the only major difference planned in a touch-oriented interface (think iphone, and maybe someday soon, minority report).

Sort of like when XP came out and it was just 2000 with themeing and a couple new extras bundled on the CD...Win7 is 95% the same as vista. Sure you can expect alittle more bloat (new things included), acouple small tweaks here and there, more vista type html-like screens for configuration. But to change it to much would break vista compatibility, and since most software/drivers work with vista now, that would recreate most the initial vista problems.

*saves this in a text file as a base for the next time I see someone saying the same things*

4) exactly. MS knows vista has an image problem so rather than spend tons of money trying to change peoples perceptions they'll release it under a diff name.

win7 is v 6.1 basically like win2k was 5 and xp was 5.1

the core code is vista and now after vista is done taking flak for doing many things right, win 7 will look like it's so much better to normal users. But in reality the biggest thing that will change is peoples' perception.

Ok, most of what you said I agree with but you are really wrong about Windows 7

Its not going to be just Vista Touchscreen Edition. (touchscreen has been implemented since XP FYI) It will be multi-touch which is a big step but also include the following enhancements and tweaks.

http://www.winsupersite.com/faq/windows_7.asp

Agree with you dude :). If you guys really want a fast OS then try Windows 95, it will install in less than 20 seconds and will run much faster than XP or any other operating system on your crappy hardware. Get a decent hardware then try Vista x64 SP1 (more secure than x86 version). Don't be a f**!!

Windows 7 will be much better than Vista. It's not only about multi-touch screen feature. Try this: http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/ (official Windows 7 blog).

Why do people blame the operating system if they see BSOD? Almost every BSODs are caused by driver bugs, so why blame the OS? It's not Microsoft's fault, is it? Even one of my sister really hated Vista because it often used to show BSOD. Then when I sent those error reports to Microsoft then I found out it was because of Intel graphics driver and updates were available to address it. That could all be done easily via Vista's error reports and solutions. So easy!!

I didn't mean to imply touchscreen capabilitys weren't already in windows, just that the interface will be more multi-touch oriented and friendly.

Other then that little tweaks and enhancements, I just don't expect anything else to really be a hudge difference, though I still plan to upgrade (although after the extreme lack of content for vista ultimate users, I would hope we'd get a free windows7 upgrade off windowsupdate, though I don't expect it.)

Not a *huge* difference.

It *will* basically be VistaR2. No big deal calling it that. It's the second iteration of the platform. One would naturally expect improvements to existing functionality, more code efficiency, and so on.

The "Engineering Windows 7" blog has some very good info on what Win7 will and will *not* be. If interested, I strongly suggest checking it out.

(although after the extreme lack of content for vista ultimate users,

Oooh.... Don't even get me started on that. I am so pissed off at MSFT about that BS. "Extras" my ass. I spent an extra hundred on nothing. There should be a lawsuit.

Meh...

Much better?

Well..better tested, which will be a big bonus (considering the nightmare that was Vista's initial release).

But really, it's just improvements to the platform. I'm a die-hard lurker of that blog. It's a *great* blog, don't get me wrong, but they're advertising it as something it's not.

Win7 functionality has already been set in stone. The goals are set. They're trying to pass the blog off as some way for us users to have input on the OS, but in reality, all they are really doing is explaining why they are doing things the way they are doing them (and stressing the difference from how it was done with Vista).

It's an excellent source of information, but I just wish they'd give up on the "You're helping us build Win7" BS.

The only reason I don't have a big complaint about it is my personal addiction to bitlocker. That and my technet subscription still costs the same =)

"omitted from both Vista RTM and SP1 despite announcements to the contrary, will finally make its re-appearance in Vista SP2: Called Windows Connect Now"

What do mean WCN is missing on Vista? It's working perfectly on my computers!!

Update: just finished a fresh install using Vista SP1 on one computer - yup, WCN is still there on SP1 and I just restored my wireless connection from a USB flash drive. Try running the function before saying it's not there!

Internetworld7 You have got to be joking? Vista IS and WILL ALWAYS BE the worst windows in history, Security holes, Flaws, Quit Watching Microsoft Commercials trying to convince the public that Vista Is Good, Are You A Sales Person Or AKA Bill Gates?

Poor child.

You've been molested by the frenetic display of ill-will by the miserable amongst you in a futile effort to breed even more misery; For as we all know, misery loves company.

Please, heed not the lies and deceit spread by those who do not feel worthy to enter the light. We all know that Vista works with more hardware and more software than any other OS known to man.

Truly, what more could anyone ask for?

Having worked extensively with Vista Enterprise, I am certainly NOT going to disagree with your statements about the OS, fanboiz to the contrary. Vista offers absolutely nothing to an enterprise running XP, (either the 32 or 64bit edition) and SP2 is essentially making the best of a bad (VERY bad) lot. Those running Vista already will absolutely require SP2 since SP1 certainly did not address thoroughly the myriad performance, resource or stability issues inherent in the OS. In point of fact those issues could not be addressed as essentially what is needed is a redesign and streamline.

That will be provided in Windows 7, which by all accounts will be a much better thought out endeavor and is likely to finally be the worthwhile upgrade to draw users, consumer and corporate, away from XP.

To those users running XP of any description (home / Professional / x64 Edition), I would strongly advise (in my professional opinion) that they bypass Vista even with SP2 and wait for Windows 7.

Bandaids are NEVER a solution and corporate North America doesn't spend time or money on pointless endeavors.

Nope. Vista is the most secure Windows yet. And this is coming from someone who prefers XP to Vista for many other reasons.

yeah, and that's your opinion. I happen to like Vista and there are many others that do as well. I think UAC is a great feature. It keeps my computer more secure by not allowing most malware applications to run, unless you give them permission.

By doing this, yes you do have to give some other programs that are more trustworthy permission. How hard can it be to click the mouse button to OK it anyways?

Do we always have to complain about something? It seems that way to me. People had told MS that they wanted a more secure OS and when they put security in Vista via UAC, people complain because it is asks for permission and they don't want it to. You can disable UAC, but that makes it less secure.

We are all entitled to our own opinion, but if you think everyone thinks Vista is the WORST microsoft OS, I am sure you will find many people who would not agree. I am one of them because I find Vista to be one of the most secure and therefore best OS they have released.

" Those running Vista already will absolutely require SP2 since SP1 certainly did not address thoroughly the myriad performance, resource or stability issues inherent in the OS."

What environment are you running in? Because I've seen multiple environments that run Vista and run it smoothly. In fact, our Dell Optiplex 330's actually run better on our network with Vista Business x86 SP1 than they do with XP Pro SP3. Get yourself a Core 2 Duo or AMD Athlon 64 cpu or above, 1GB or more of RAM, a Vista capable graphics card (or integrated--make sure the drivers are updated, emphasized below), any modern hard drive (stay away from oldschool 5400RPM PATA drives) and Vista runs fine doing normal business tasks.

Yes, with just 1GB of RAM and measley ATI Radeon Xpress 1150 graphics, one of our major partners (law firm) swears by Vista. The only thing he dislikes is the fact that our dictation software does not work with it but that will change next week.

It's all in the setup--get a clean install, uninstall those f%^&ed up toolbars that come with other programs (adobe reader, flash player, and Sun Java all try to install crap by default, watch out for those), and install windows updates (as well as video driver updates, very important) and then just the programs you need. Sysprep then Norton Ghost, WDS, or whatever.

SSDD, man. These idiots who have never used anything but dev-builds or the initial release prior to *any* of the updates still think they have the slightest clue what they are talking about.

It'd be funny if it wasn't so terribly pathetic. You'd hope they could find more meaningful outlets for their angst.

I agree with roj on some things (recently, it seems), but he is in left field on this.

Vista works. It didn't at first, but post-SP1, it is a damn sight better than XP.

Try using it on decent hardware prior to parroting the sock-puppet brigade, will ya?

It is more secure, more stable, more reliable..pretty much the opposite of what you just claimed. Seriously...try actually using it. (Unless you have a 6 year old system, in which case, stick with XP)

As I*'ve posted before:

Athlon 64 AM2 6000+, 4Gb OCZ Platinum Performance RAM, twin Seagate Barracuda ES 500Gb drives, Asus Xonar DX, nVidia 8800GT (or ATI 1950GT - doesn't matter), so it's not weak hardware. Latest BIOS / drivers of course. The pat answer of throw more hardware at it is just that: a pat answer, and it doesn't apply. I've seen the same SAyop Error 0101 on brand spanking new boxes form HP which came with Vista on them. The only thing I can discern is that under load, the video subsystem simply buckles.

That points to poor code, not hardware.

I'll bet Hollywood money that the fine tune that is Windows 7 banishes this issue as if it had never been - but then again, you tend to get better results when you take the time and test properly (MS themselves admit - privately of course - that they rushed Vista).

All of the above still does not change the fact that the Corps are panning the OS as it doesn't offer them anything that they haven't got now - and that market is the critical one for MS.

Well, that is definately good hardware, and certainly exceeds Vista's recommended requirements quite extensively. For my home PC, I just have an AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ (socket 939) with 2GB of PC3200 RAM and a WD 750GB SATA drive. I've used an ATI x700, GeForce 6600, GeForce 8600GTS and GeForce 8800GTS and I haven't had any errors related to software other than being an nvidia driver glitch in one of their early 2007 drivers. Of course I had problems getting EAX sound to work then I discovered Creative Alchemy remedies that. Tested Office XP and for a short while ran Office 2003 (started running OpenOffice 3.0 since I don't have any legal versions of Microsoft anymore)--no major slowdowns, rarely if ever have I run out of RAM.

I'm not sure what to tell you. There is probably some sort of incompatibility, corrupt files, or something along those lines. Maybe even an anti-Vista aura that emanates from your body--who knows???

This will make Vista the best Windows OS yet. Better than any other windowing OS. Ever.

Thankfully, Steve Jobs was smart enough to allow owners of Apple hardware to run this beautiful operating System and not forcing them to languish in the abysmal lock-in of Mac OSX.

We should all be thankful to Microsoft. Thanks to them, our computers ship with an OS that is 100% compatible with over 80% of every other computer in the world.

It is a good day indeed, my friends. Rejoice!

i sence a bit of sarcasm in this post?!

Let's hope so....

You make me so sad. Your sarcasm speaks volumes. Fret not, little one. I am sure that some day you will feel worthy enough to use the OS mankind has always been intended to use so that you can join the ranks of the billions of happy computer users who all share the same glorious platform and can communicate their joy seamlessly regardless of hardware.

You seem to have missed that someone has a similar account name to the other twat.

internetworId7 and internetworld7 (one has an uppercase i as the l) are different people.
One is a flamer and the other is a goader of a flamer.

I prefer "satirist" to "goader"(sic), thank you very much.

For one thing, the word you are trying to use to describe me is not even a real word. I assume you believe it to mean, "Someone who Goads", and you would be sadly mistaken.

I think I deserve better than being described by words that don't even exist.

Other than that, I consider my posts to be a simple counterpoint to the posts of my doppelganger; A perfect harmony, so to speak. Yin and yang, Order and Chaos, Good and Evil...though of much less import, obviously.

Where before there was mere idiocy, there is now Art. It is a beautiful thing.

"I think I deserve better than being described by words that don't even exist."

That's where you're wrong.

I like this internetworId7 :P, the other one is a real f**! Steve Jobs gay partner. Nice to see ya around dude :P

Actually I hate tried Vista on the Toshiba laptop i no longer use (because of Vista). I hate it because:

1. When copying files, it stalls and takes forever, which i can afford in private time but at work, when i want to give a file to someone and it takes an hour, that'$ productivity down the drain.

2. Because many software have issues with it: Nero pre 7 versions, Mathcad 13 and before, Norton Ghost 13 and before, etc.

3. I have old software that i use and will not dump simply because a "new" os is out. When i try to open the .hlp file, guess what. The .hlp file reader is not easily obtainable from MS, you don't just "follow the link".

4. I cannot login using "Administrator". I have software that require me to do so to properly function.

5. I used to customize the tool bar in my windows explorer, now it seems that this mp3 player, erm operating system, organises my files in most favorite style ... Ok, let it show me stars by default, but allow me to customize it, do not take out useful functions.

Just as it was so helpful to put the cursor on a text in MS Word 2003 and immediately reveal what font and style it is, in MS Word 2007 this functionality was not included. I know many many engineers who cursed MS Word 2007 before they learned to "live with it"; i.e. to return their productivity to its previous level using this new software but certainly not increase productivity.

6. I do not think an "operating system" should be THAT BIG!! i mean what's an operating system supposed to do? you know how many "services" you can safely shutdown. I think an OS should be "clever" (neural networks): it shall run and observe what's going on for several days and if it find out that this PC is being used only for games or for the internet ... then a lot of things can be excluded from the startup.

7. I'm really lost with all the versions.

I hated XP when it was first released, until SP2 was rolled then it became stable. But now that i have a functional OS, i will not upgrade even to that Windows 7 now being touted. I am and will continue to use XP. No matter what new technology there is, a driver can be created for XP to make it function, Blu-ray or other.

Many firms have taken the wise choice not to upgrade their OS to Vista. Ours is one, despite that their deal with MS is to get all their upgrades...

Whatever happened to "Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.", BN???

1. Sounds like that nasty pre-SP1 problem.

2. (a) Nero? Yeah, but you can easily get around that by disabling the nero startup processes. The program itself would work in compatibility mode. Shame Nero still used that same CDROM driver through 2006. Oh well...

(b) Don't know about Mathcad...

(c) We got Ghost 13 to work. I forget exactly what we did, but we definately had to use sysprep first.

3. Umm...how long does it take to do a search at support.microsoft.com?

4. ??? Not sure what you mean. I'm assuming it is about running programs as administrator, AKA a single right click and two left clicks, or go to properties and select "run this program as an administrator" to do it every time.

5. Tools -> Folder options... -> Use Windows Classic Folders. OK.

6. Er...whatever.

7. You are not alone.

This is typically why so many people fear Vista (or anything for that matter)--they don't understand it, and they expect it to work the same way that the last OS did. It doesn't, and it has damn good reasons for not working the same way.

The biggest problem with Vista is that software companies did not follow Microsoft's advice about coding software. They've asked, begged and outright nagged companies to quit requiring administrative access to run their programs for so long, so Microsoft finally forced them to change their code and guess what? They still didn't. Hence the administrator issues I'm assuming you referred to earlier.

They also did not really market the features to the software makers at all--that nifty feature that allows you to play video games before they are installed (and while they install)? Implememnted rarely. Why? They failed to advertise it. Same reason people are able to spread rumors about Vista's instability--nobody proved otherwise.

*laughing*

You not wanting to use updated versions of software doesn't mean the OS is bad. It just means you are happy with what you currently have.

Why you'd hate an OS you choose not to use because your current OS suits you fine is a tad ridiculous, IMO.

bourgeoisdude covered the rest. Pre SP1 issues or crap software that requires you to operate in an insecure environment in order to function.

And 7? Lost with all the versions? Really? You must be easily confused...

I hated XP when it was first released, until SP2 was rolled then it became stable. But now that i have a functional OS, i will not upgrade even to that Windows 7 now being touted. I am and will continue to use XP. No matter what new technology there is, a driver can be created for XP to make it function, Blu-ray or other.

You forgot to add, "Now get of my lawn, you darned kids!"

You got the rest of the grumpy old curmudgeon part perfect.

"They also did not really market the features to the software makers at all--that nifty feature that allows you to play video games before they are installed (and while they install)? Implememnted rarely. Why? They failed to advertise it. Same reason people are able to spread rumors about Vista's instability--nobody proved otherwise."

lol, correct, never heard of that one and I beta tested vista from b2. Any examples of anything that does implement this? more info?

Maybe you've been sucking up to Fox for too long?

The guy (?) has an excellent style. Intelligent humor and sarcasm. Things sadly neglected on BN - but maybe life looks different after 2 pints of Guinness for lunch.

but maybe life looks different after 2 pints of Guinness for lunch.

But now you've gone and given me ideas again....

Halo 2 PC is the only game I know of for sure...could be others.

Amazing!!! SP2 is big s****. I have instaled it and it consume more RAM than in SP1!! almost 50% more and dont have anything else......

MS is really going down!!!