Files Waiting to be Burned

[Guest]

Anyone have this annoying issue.

When dropping files to a blank CD to burn, I get a constant barrage of
messages stating "You have files Waiting to Burn to CD" or something liek
that. This little popup will occur right after the first file lands. It will
then constantly repeat itself. If I am dropping a DVD's worth of data, it can
be quite of few popups. If I ignore then, they fade away then come back. If I
close them, then they still come back.

I want ONE notification. Once ALL files have been dropped, then tell me. If
I choose to ignore, quit reminding me.

 

[AJR]

Matter of procedure. When the "balloon" pops up - I click on it (as
suggested)- and verify that all the files to be burned are listed in the CD
screen (also listed are current files on CD if any) - select option listed
on right pane to burn the files.
Works great - no repeat of "balloon".

 

[Chad Harris]

You never have to see this glitch/annoyance that does nothing for you again.

1) Rt. Click Computer in Vista or My Computer in the considerably more
stable OS XP (the one whose release candidates were really release
candidates as opposed to the piece of crap released to TAP on August 2 that
was "RC1)>Click your Optical Device Listing or Listings

Properties>***Recording Tab***>& in there uncheck "Enable CD recording".

You'll still be able to burn or rip with it unchecked (at least I can).
Keep the Imapi Service on automatic at services.msc in the run box
(Services).



2) You can disable baloon messages with a simple reg hack, but some people
may not woant to and you don't have to. It is:
1. Start
2. Run
3. regedit
4. Navigate to: HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\Curre
ntVersion\Explorer\Advanced
5. Modify or Create "EnableBalloonTips"
6. Set the value to 0
7.To reverse this change, set the value to 1

3) When you boot and see the baloon pop-up, click on it.
In the window that shows, select all the files (I think they appear as large
icons with shortcut arrows).
Press Shift + Del on your keyboard. Confirm deletion.

I think this is a terribly unsatisfactory solution. I never want to see
that sucker and I never do.

CH

 

[Guest]

Let's wait until RC1 is officially released before we say how bad it is. It
is difficult to accurately describe something that doesn't exist yet. We may
be close, but we're not there yet.

I'm not sayint RC1 will be perfect. I'm not even saying it will be good. I
just think it will be a little more fair comparing a RC1 release to a RC1
release. Let's not prejudge RC1 because it carries the name Vista or is made
by Microsoft.

 

[Guest]

Firth,

Didn't you read what Chad wrote? On August the 2nd, five days ago, MS
released build 5487 (RC1) to TAP members. Also Chad tested 5487, himself.
Have you?

 

[Chad Harris]

I've seen it. You'll get a look soon. We'll stay tuned. I've appreciated
all the points from Bernie, Alan, and everybody else on the perspective of
overall builds. Vista is a very complicated Network of hundreds if not
thousands of people putting pieces in place.

But my fear is if they don't hold it up 6 months, Robert, they will have
taken away their chance to do the job they should, and that job frankly is
huge right now, and I for one hate trying to patchwork functionality with
service packs. My experience with XP SP's was that while to be sure there
were functionality changes, for the most part they were nearly entirely IE
security driven.



CH

 

[Chad Harris]

I didn't test it; I spent time with it looking in places I knew to check.
Those are two different things. Testing means spending days adding a lot of
apps, and some hardware, and going every place you know and using every
native utility you can and seeing what happens day in and day out. There
will be plenty of time for people to get RC1--and it will be CPP so a number
of people will have it. But they still won't have access to bug reports and
MSFT will continue to hide the context and descriptions of what has been
fixed in the new era of Sinofsky paranoia.

CH

 

[Bernie]

I've seen it. You'll get a look soon. We'll stay tuned. I've appreciated
all the points from Bernie, Alan, and everybody else on the perspective of
overall builds. Vista is a very complicated Network of hundreds if not
thousands of people putting pieces in place.

As an update to what I said about builds and broken functionality I
would add that an RC build is not the same as an interim build. When you
slap RC in front of it you are in effect saying, "Hey guys this is it.
Unless you find anything seriously wrong with this we are going to
release it." Everyone working on Vista would know that is what is meant
by RC and so would either; get their stuff right, remove that stuff
without making it look broken, or delay the release of an RC. Otherwise
what is the point in calling it an RC?

The only excuse I can think of is that releasing an RC might keep the
less technically informed "stakeholders" happy that you are still on
track for your final release date. But that doesn't make sense either
because the moment you release it the whole world will be informed by
the more knowledgable that it aint what it's meant to be.

 

[Chad Harris]

It makes plenty of sense when it dawns on you that under Sinofsky, quality
will not be very important. He figures they cna slap the MSFT logo on it
and the suckers will buy anything. I'm trying to inform some of the
suckers as to what I see when I see it. I look forward to your review on
RC1 aka 5487.0 or whatever decimal point gets slapped on it very soon.
Everyone working on vista largely hides and they hide their bug fix. Why do
you think Darryl Goiter [MSFT] from the Vista setup team rarely ever posts
in here? Notice how many cheerleaders praise anything MSFT does anyway.

CH

 

[Chad Harris]

Correction: The word should be "Can"; a goiter is a lay name for a thyroid
tumor; and Darryl spells his last name Gorter as in:

Diffences between Upgrading versus Repair
Darrell Gorter [MSFT] details the differences between Upgrading versus
Repairing Windows XP.

It would be preferable to do an upgrade from inside the OS rather than
a repair if possible. If the evaluation period has not expired, then just
insert the cd and let setup run, tell it to do an upgrade.

Setup does a refresh of the OS files, so OS files are overwritten with
the files from setup. This would include any OS updates that have been
installed on the system. Running setup presumes to go to a known good state
with known OS files, so setup does not do version checking. Most settings
should be preserved, installed applications and drivers should be preserved.

So if you do a repair rather than an upgrade, here are some
differences that may take place:

1) you may need to use F6 to install mass storage drivers if your
system needs them. ( upgrade uses the installed drivers)

2) Drive lettering is re-enumerated during setup, so there is
potential that some of your drive letters could change. Since you boot from
the CD to start setup, the drives have to be enumerated before you can get
into setup.

3) netcard setting may have to reconfigured if they are not default
settings. Netcards are redetected so some of the settings may not be moved
over.

4) Hal is redected rather than migrated.

Darrell Gorter[MSFT]

CH

It makes plenty of sense when it dawns on you that under Sinofsky, quality
will not be very important. He figures they cna slap the MSFT logo on it
and the suckers will buy anything. I'm trying to inform some of the
suckers as to what I see when I see it. I look forward to your review on
RC1 aka 5487.0 or whatever decimal point gets slapped on it very soon.
Everyone working on vista largely hides and they hide their bug fix. Why
do you think Darryl Goiter [MSFT] from the Vista setup team rarely ever
posts in here? Notice how many cheerleaders praise anything MSFT does
anyway.

CH

As an update to what I said about builds and broken functionality I would
add that an RC build is not the same as an interim build. When you slap
RC in front of it you are in effect saying, "Hey guys this is it. Unless
you find anything seriously wrong with this we are going to release it."
Everyone working on Vista would know that is what is meant by RC and so
would either; get their stuff right, remove that stuff without making it
look broken, or delay the release of an RC. Otherwise what is the point
in calling it an RC?

The only excuse I can think of is that releasing an RC might keep the
less technically informed "stakeholders" happy that you are still on
track for your final release date. But that doesn't make sense either
because the moment you release it the whole world will be informed by the
more knowledgable that it aint what it's meant to be.