~9 weeks on Vista without one crash

[...winston]

Itunes latest version here in both Vista and XP...No issues on Ipod or sync'ng with Outlook Contacts and Calender in Office 03/07.
Did you register the Windows vbscript.dll file in Vista ?
Have you posted your issue to the Apple forums..others may have similar issues.

..winston

: No iTunes - sorry.
: I *am* running a lot of strange stuff - including some in-house
: software from the early 90s used for quality control of a
: medical instrument. Vista loves it, probably because it never
: registers and there's no dlls. I think 90% or more of my sw made
: it across, which is better than 3.1 to 95.
:
:
:
: Nik wrote:
: > Are you running iTunes? Mine runs just fine until I fire up iTunes and try
: > to do anything with my iPod. I can predict the number of blue screens....
: >
: >
: >
: > "Onlurker" wrote:
: >
: >> XP was stable, but still had problems once in a while.
: >>
: >> With Vista Home Premium on this 9 week old laptop, I've had some
: >> application compatibility issues but not one single case where
: >> the system froze or crashed. It runs perhaps 12 hours a day,
: >> too. It's fully tricked out with an active sidebar, accessories,
: >> wallpaper-changer, and a few old applications, and I've done
: >> plenty of experimenting. 95 and 98 were a crash a day, XP was a
: >> crash a week, but this is as stable as a fresh 2000 install, and
: >> a lot safer. Why all the groaning?
: >>

 

[Onlurker]

I don't have problems running Vista, I simply point out flaws. Learn
the difference. If you want to come across as some "expert" then my
advice would be not to mention some gadgets or some wallpaper changer
that you've mastered as you expertise. It kind of blows your
creditability. ;-)

I'm not seeking creditabilitilitity, and I am definitely no
expert in Windows. Those are your issues, not mine. I just
expressed my appreciation that despite all my old junk, Vista
seems more stable than any other OS I've used. Apparently I'm
not the only one happy with it.

 

[Drew]

Damn !!! I used all mine for skeet shooting....

Mine hasn't crashed either.
I just hate the "AOHell type protect me from myself" interface so much
that I generally use the machine beside it with XP Pro.
If I wanted AOL type software, I can just install it from one of the
million CDs they sent out... and it's free...

 

[Richard Urban]

Pretty hard to crash Linux when all you do is use the news reader to harass
those in the Microsoft groups.

--


Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

 

[Lang Murphy]

Big deal, you sound like a newbie. I installed Vista in February,
hasn't crashed once if you don't count "recovered from a serious
error" a couple times or the endless times it said it was necessary to
shutdown Explorer, or decided to scramble my desktop icons I just
changed the way I want them and other little things like that.

The point is how stable Vista is depends on everybody's unique setup
and combination of software and to some extend how hard you push it.
All the things you raddled off are toys. Big deal. Try doing some
serious WORK with professional grade software then you may start to
see some of it's many shortcomings, like it's moronic UAC
interference, "calculating remaining time" stupidity when
copying/moving files, inability to remember settings, unable to
generate some thumbnails, play common files types, etc..

Why so harsh? Here's this guy coming in saying I don't have problems and
you're insulting him out of hand. So what if he's a noob? So what if you do
"...serious WORK...". Does that make you special or something?

Lang

 

[Lang Murphy]

XP was stable, but still had problems once in a while.

With Vista Home Premium on this 9 week old laptop, I've had some
application compatibility issues but not one single case where the system
froze or crashed. It runs perhaps 12 hours a day, too. It's fully tricked
out with an active sidebar, accessories, wallpaper-changer, and a few old
applications, and I've done plenty of experimenting. 95 and 98 were a
crash a day, XP was a crash a week, but this is as stable as a fresh 2000
install, and a lot safer. Why all the groaning?

Onlurker,

Always glad to hear of anyone having a good PC experience, whether it be
with Vista, some flavor of Linux, or Mac OS X.

I seem to remember 95 and 98 as more of "crash an hour" OS's... LOL! Just
kidding, though...

As far as "Why all the groaning?" Go to the support forums for any of the
aforementioned alternative OS's and what you'll find, by a vast majority, is
complaints and problems. That's what these forums are for, right?

Just out of curiousity, did you do a clean install of Vista or did it come
pre-installed on your 9 week old laptop? What make is the laptop and what
are the specs?

Thanks,

Lang

 

[Onlurker]

Onlurker,

Always glad to hear of anyone having a good PC experience, whether it be
with Vista, some flavor of Linux, or Mac OS X.

I seem to remember 95 and 98 as more of "crash an hour" OS's... LOL!
Just kidding, though...

As far as "Why all the groaning?" Go to the support forums for any of
the aforementioned alternative OS's and what you'll find, by a vast
majority, is complaints and problems. That's what these forums are for,
right?

Just out of curiousity, did you do a clean install of Vista or did it
come pre-installed on your 9 week old laptop? What make is the laptop
and what are the specs?

Thanks,

Lang

It's a Dell dual core e1405 with 2GB RAM, nothing special.
Business only so I stripped all the unnecessary media and access
applications rather than a clean install, and finished with
Spybot and Prevx. Installed Office2007, and then my archaic apps
one at a time. To my surprise almost everything - including some
junk I wrote long, long ago - worked fine. I'm constantly trying
new gadgets, new utilities, and use Your Uninstaller (seems to
do a complete job) when things don't work out. So far it's been
a rock.

 

[Frank]

Damn. 36 months on Linux without one crash.

Well, at least you got it to install.
Frank

 

[Peter Foldes]

I agree with Adam here. Although Vista is a very nice OS with the new GUI I will not work with it for my livelihood. The same goes for XP. Our family computers are running XP and Vista but for my business I use only W2K and W2K3 Servers.
For applications and the type of work I do I cannot achieve satisfactory results with XP and neither with Vista.
Eye Candy and that is all what it is that draws the mass public to XP and Vista (don't get me wrong they are both very good OS's and they both certainly have their faults as any OS ) they do not compare to mission critical work that W2K and W2K3 can achieve and is needed
There is no eye candy and they are far more stable and reliable then XP and Vista which is meant for General and Home usage.
My 2 cents only.

 

[Adam Albright]

Well, at least you got it to install.
Frank

That comment suggests you are too dumb to know how to install any
version of Linux, isn't that right Frankie? After all you admitted it
took you six months to figure out Vista.

I've tried Linux over half a dozen times, all the major flavors and
while I like Linux, the OS, the same old problem is none of the major
software vendors support it so it is going nowhere unless and until
that happens. The software selection is very limited and few major
application really run on it except for some second rate knock offs.

 

[Adam Albright]

I'm not seeking creditabilitilitity, and I am definitely no
expert in Windows. Those are your issues, not mine. I just
expressed my appreciation that despite all my old junk, Vista
seems more stable than any other OS I've used. Apparently I'm
not the only one happy with it.

I'm glad Vista works well enough for you and I'm sure millions of
others. The point is Windows is a mature product. Been on the market
over 21 years in many forms. Sadly many people accept so-so as good
enough. I keep wondering why? If Microsoft releases a version of
Windows that can't even get basic functions like file copying to work
at least as well as they did in XP, then it is appropriate to question
why not.

I'm not trying to put anybody down. Everybody has different needs,
people that use Windows range from raw beginners that may use their
computers to read email and maybe browse the web to playing games to
seasoned users that have used it for decades for serious business
purposes. The last group probably are the most vocal because they know
Microsoft dropped the ball. Again. It's a pattern. Hurry up an release
a new version of Windows knowing it is buggy, say oh, we'll fix it in
six months, maybe nine, maybe a year later. Again I ask why should
customers put up with such BS?

The file transfer issues is a real sore point with me and no doubt
millions of others. Because of what I use my computer for I move large
volumes of files around every day, all day long. It should be a simple
painless process. It was, more or less in XP. Now Microsoft with it's
stupid UAC and buggy "calculating time remaining" BS due to files
running through endless layers of needless code can drag out this
simple process causing it to take three, five, ten, even twenty times
longer! That's insane and Microsoft had to know it, yet they released
Vista with this serious bug anyway. Talk about arrogance!

I know all about other shells, using the command prompt, hotfixes,
hell, I was one of the first months ago to mention HOW to help relive
some the misery associated with slow file copying and provide a non
Microsoft link to the hotfix that helps, but alone doesn't always
work.

The point that zooms over the heads of the fanboy crowd that infests
newsgroups like this is Microsoft shouldn't be allowed to get away
with this kind of sub standard performance concerning a basic core
feature of any operating system. They do in part again because of the
ignorant fanboy crowd that are all too willing to bend over and firmly
grab their ankles letting Microsoft do whatever they want.

 

[Adam Albright]

Pretty hard to crash Linux when all you do is use the news reader to harass
those in the Microsoft groups.

Say Richie, were you born with that chip on your shoulder?

I'm not a Linux groupie, but I'm not a Microsoft kiss ass either.
Therefore I can be something you can never be. OBJECTIVE.

Nearly any flavor, even older versions of Linux is technically better
that Vista or for that matter any version of Windows. It was designed
that way. Therefore it is more stable. Windows being a mass marketed
product adds layers and layers of fluff, hand holding and eye candy,
much you can't turn off or customize often making it clumsy, klunky
and prone to fail and be subject to outside attacks.

You know what my biggest gripe is?

Microsoft got it in it's head they are doing users a favor to let you
pay a pile of cold hard cash to get a license to use Windows and
assume they can take over your computer and restrict how you use it
forcing you to use features you neither need or want.

What you and other Microsoft apologists imply is if you don't like a
particular Windows feature, replace it. Which on the surface seems
reasonable, but in reality isn't. Again take the Explorer shell. You
yourself admitted you don't use it which is confirmation you think
it's junk. Microsoft's heavy handed tactics imposes their crap on
users. Their shell, their browser, their graphic viewer, their media
player, etc.. The point is many of these "features" are so entwined
with the OS you can't remove them. So even if you install better
replacements, you're still stuck with a huge overhead which if Windows
was written better you could decide to remove or never install in the
first place.

 

[ray]

Well, at least you got it to install.
Frank

Yes. On eight different machines.

 

[ray]

Pretty hard to crash Linux when all you do is use the news reader to harass
those in the Microsoft groups.

Oh, I do a few other things.

 

[Stephan Rose]

Yes. On eight different machines.

I will likely be up to 4 ubuntu machines by the end of the week. End of
next week latest. Replacing XP on two laptops.

One is going to get a RAM boost first though so it may not see Ubuntu
until next week depending on shipping. =)

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

 

[ray]

I will likely be up to 4 ubuntu machines by the end of the week. End of
next week latest. Replacing XP on two laptops.

One is going to get a RAM boost first though so it may not see Ubuntu
until next week depending on shipping. =)

Cool. We have five at home (though one is not used often - it was my
wife's prior to replacement a year and a half ago - old compaq) including
one laptop - all Ubuntu expect my mini-itx running Gentoo. I also admin
five systems at the local library - currently four Ubuntu and one Xandros
test box.

 

[Lang Murphy]

It's a Dell dual core e1405 with 2GB RAM, nothing special. Business only
so I stripped all the unnecessary media and access applications rather
than a clean install, and finished with Spybot and Prevx. Installed
Office2007, and then my archaic apps one at a time. To my surprise almost
everything - including some junk I wrote long, long ago - worked fine. I'm
constantly trying new gadgets, new utilities, and use Your Uninstaller
(seems to do a complete job) when things don't work out. So far it's been
a rock.

Thanks for sharing that info. Sounds like you did all the right things to
stabilize your system. Congrats and best wishes for continued rock solid
computing.

Lang