OT: What Microsoft can do to fix Vista and help with the publicimage....

[RMZ]

For Vista? abandon it and give us something that blows away the latest
Mac OS in terms of aesthetics, functionality and over all user
friendliness.

For their public image? Not a thing. It took years of back stabbing
corporate tactics and high profile, global anti-trust lawsuits to
destroy their public image. We're talking about a company that
historically has been fierce, unethical with competition even to the
point of breaking the law to push their products forward. But the good
side of Microsoft is a company that has always treated the end-users
(both corporate and domestic) like gold. While products aren't always
the best, they tend to be extreemly well supported and fairly well
designed.

Office 2007 and Visual Studio.NET 2008 are proof that Microsoft still
has talent. On the flip side of that coin you have extremely poor
products such as Windows Vista (all versions), Zune and Microsoft's
Mobile Platform. For all of which the competition is truly innovating
where Microsoft has become stagnant, tied down by: corporate
bureaucracy, linear thinking, and government regulation. It's almost
as if they are villain who's gotten away with theft all these years
and now they have been caught, tied down and are slowly receiving
their punishment for years of badness in the form of lost market
share. This is payback, it sucks, but Microsoft is big enough to take
their due and keep moving. That's what they should do and any attempt
to manipulate public perspective would be foolish and would do more
harm than good. Why? Because in the end consumers will remember how
Microsoft treated them and no how Microsoft treated their corporate
competition. Most consumers won't care about the later. But consumers
do care about inferior products, making their core products cutting
edge should be Microsoft's focus.

When it comes to OS products, I'm not a Mac or Linux loyalist and I
think Linux and Mac loyalist on the side lines cheering Microsoft
recent pains tend to be a bit delusional. Windows XP owns over 75% of
the market. Add in Microsoft's server OS products and Vista and the
competition has less than 10% market share. For the Mac to avoid the
problems Windows faces it must remain a bit elite and illusive, that
is it must remain a luxury product and as such it will cap at some
point below 20% for the same reason Lexus can't outsell Toyota you
won't find Mac's outselling Windows, ever. I'm not even going to talk
about Linux.

Microsoft doesn't need to try and clean up their image, we really
don't care. They just need to focus on building outstanding products
that blow their competition out of the water.

 

[Jim]

For Vista? abandon it and give us something that blows away the latest
Mac OS in terms of aesthetics, functionality and over all user
friendliness.

For their public image? Not a thing. It took years of back stabbing
corporate tactics and high profile, global anti-trust lawsuits to
destroy their public image. We're talking about a company that
historically has been fierce, unethical with competition even to the
point of breaking the law to push their products forward. But the good
side of Microsoft is a company that has always treated the end-users
(both corporate and domestic) like gold. While products aren't always
the best, they tend to be extreemly well supported and fairly well
designed.

Office 2007 and Visual Studio.NET 2008 are proof that Microsoft still
has talent. On the flip side of that coin you have extremely poor
products such as Windows Vista (all versions), Zune and Microsoft's
Mobile Platform. For all of which the competition is truly innovating
where Microsoft has become stagnant, tied down by: corporate
bureaucracy, linear thinking, and government regulation. It's almost
as if they are villain who's gotten away with theft all these years
and now they have been caught, tied down and are slowly receiving
their punishment for years of badness in the form of lost market
share. This is payback, it sucks, but Microsoft is big enough to take
their due and keep moving. That's what they should do and any attempt
to manipulate public perspective would be foolish and would do more
harm than good. Why? Because in the end consumers will remember how
Microsoft treated them and no how Microsoft treated their corporate
competition. Most consumers won't care about the later. But consumers
do care about inferior products, making their core products cutting
edge should be Microsoft's focus.

When it comes to OS products, I'm not a Mac or Linux loyalist and I
think Linux and Mac loyalist on the side lines cheering Microsoft
recent pains tend to be a bit delusional. Windows XP owns over 75% of
the market. Add in Microsoft's server OS products and Vista and the
competition has less than 10% market share. For the Mac to avoid the
problems Windows faces it must remain a bit elite and illusive, that
is it must remain a luxury product and as such it will cap at some
point below 20% for the same reason Lexus can't outsell Toyota you
won't find Mac's outselling Windows, ever. I'm not even going to talk
about Linux.

Microsoft doesn't need to try and clean up their image, we really
don't care. They just need to focus on building outstanding products
that blow their competition out of the water.

Thank you for your monologue, RMZ

JimF

 

[Possum]

Excellent post. Thank you.

I'm just taking a wild guess here, but your above statement is
reminiscent of the kind heard from those who do not fully understand the
difference between what they have read somewhere and what they have
actually used.

I can't make any judgements in comparison, because I've never used a
Mac (They are to damnded expensive). What I can say with a fair amount
of accuracy, after having used Vista for just over a year now (excluding
BETA testing) is that Vista is the most aesthetically pleasing,
functional and user-friendly version of Windows that Microsoft as ever
delivered.



It never ceases to surprise me that in modern capitalistic societies,
where we strive to achieve success and encourage people and companies to
reach the top of the game, that one of the problems we face is the very
success we want. Why? Because when we get to the top, everone wants to
knock us down.

I'm curious to hear your explanation of these alleged unethical
practices that Microsoft is guilty of. Microsoft's success in the market
place is due to the fact that their products are well supported and well
designed, partly because they consistently listen to what their users
say.



You mention government regulation. Now I ask you, whose fault is that?

We have been plagued by viruses and malware for many years now, and
many companies have innovated by providing solutions to help minimise
these threats. One technique that anti-virus providers used was to patch
their software directly into the OS Kernel, the heart of any operating
system. The drawback was that if a legit program could do it, so could a
virus or other malware program. Microsofts solution was to introduce
"Kernel Patch Protection", which prevents ALL forms of software from
improperly patching or changing the Kernel.

And what happened? Instead of adapting to the higher levels of security
that Kernel Patch Protection provided, and modifying their software to
suit, companies like Symantec and McAfee cried foul and ran to the DOJ
because suddenly their program didn't work properly.

And what about Google complaining that people didn't use their desktop
search anymore? Instead of re-writing their software to match or exceed
the superior capabilities of Vista integrated search index, they too
cried fould to the DOJ, and very nearly succeeded in having Microsoft
completely remove integrated indexed search from Vista.

My point is that much of the government regulation that Microsoft is
being subjected to is not because they have broken any laws, or not
because they have treated anyone unfairly.

Global market competitors are as much to blame as anyone. They see
Microsoft deliver a product that is superior to their own, and instead
of investing time and research in advancing their own products, they
wail like children, and blame their own shortcomings on someone else.



I'm curious to see where you got these statistics. My guess is that
your numbers are not accurate.

Yes, XP still enjoys the lions share of the market, as the uptake to
Vista is a little slow. But the same can be said also of XP one year
after it's initial release. In due time, Vista will gain market share,
and XP will be a minority player, used only by a small handfull of
users, or the retro-nostalgic.



Isn't that exactly what they have been doing? Microsoft does build
superior software products. How else do you think they got to be the
largest software company in the world? Now that they are on top, most
everyone wants to knock them down.

Modern economics reminds me of a "Capture-the-flag" or "King-of
the-Hill" style game in Quake or Call of Duty. Only one team can hold a
particular position at a time. You need to eliminate the competition
before you can take the spot for yourself.

Whether it is democracy, socialism, communism, or the myriad shades
in-between, the world is due for a change in political and economic
thinking. Whats the point of achieving success, if that success makes
you the enemy?


--
dzomlija

_____________________
Peter Alexander Dzomlija
-Do you hear, huh? The Alpha and The Omega? Death and Rebirth? And as
you die, so shall I be Reborn...-

-Download MP3 Media Properties Explorer: --http://www.phx.co.za-

- ASUS A8N32-SLI-Deluxe
- AMD Athlon 64 Dual-Core 4800+
- 4GB DDR400
- 128MB ASUS nVidia 6600
- Thermaltake Tai-Chi Chassis
- 1207GB Formatted Storage
- Vista Ultimate x64
- CodeGear Delphi 2007See my rig at:
http://s229.photobucket.com/albums/ee312/Dzomlija/Venus/

 

[C.B.]

For Vista? abandon it and give us something that blows away the latest
Mac OS in terms of aesthetics, functionality and over all user
friendliness.

For their public image? Not a thing. It took years of back stabbing
corporate tactics and high profile, global anti-trust lawsuits to
destroy their public image. We're talking about a company that
historically has been fierce, unethical with competition even to the
point of breaking the law to push their products forward. But the good
side of Microsoft is a company that has always treated the end-users
(both corporate and domestic) like gold. While products aren't always
the best, they tend to be extreemly well supported and fairly well
designed.

Office 2007 and Visual Studio.NET 2008 are proof that Microsoft still
has talent. On the flip side of that coin you have extremely poor
products such as Windows Vista (all versions), Zune and Microsoft's
Mobile Platform. For all of which the competition is truly innovating
where Microsoft has become stagnant, tied down by: corporate
bureaucracy, linear thinking, and government regulation. It's almost
as if they are villain who's gotten away with theft all these years
and now they have been caught, tied down and are slowly receiving
their punishment for years of badness in the form of lost market
share. This is payback, it sucks, but Microsoft is big enough to take
their due and keep moving. That's what they should do and any attempt
to manipulate public perspective would be foolish and would do more
harm than good. Why? Because in the end consumers will remember how
Microsoft treated them and no how Microsoft treated their corporate
competition. Most consumers won't care about the later. But consumers
do care about inferior products, making their core products cutting
edge should be Microsoft's focus.

When it comes to OS products, I'm not a Mac or Linux loyalist and I
think Linux and Mac loyalist on the side lines cheering Microsoft
recent pains tend to be a bit delusional. Windows XP owns over 75% of
the market. Add in Microsoft's server OS products and Vista and the
competition has less than 10% market share. For the Mac to avoid the
problems Windows faces it must remain a bit elite and illusive, that
is it must remain a luxury product and as such it will cap at some
point below 20% for the same reason Lexus can't outsell Toyota you
won't find Mac's outselling Windows, ever. I'm not even going to talk
about Linux.

Microsoft doesn't need to try and clean up their image, we really
don't care. They just need to focus on building outstanding products
that blow their competition out of the water.

RMZ,

Apple makes good computers. However, I must disagree with you that the
Mac is "elite, illusive" and a "luxury product". It's just another operating
system. Apple's OS is very good, but I certainly wouldn't call it elite,
illusive or luxurious. What do you base these assumptions on?
You also state "give us something that blows away the latest Mac OS in
terms of aesthetics, functionality and over all user friendliness". How is
the Mac OS more aesthetic, more functional and more user friendly? Please
explain so that I understand. I have used Macs and I don't think they are
superior, as you state. However, this will not keep me from buying a new Mac
later this year, which I intend to do. It's a matter of preference.
Apple borrows ideas from Microsoft and Microsoft borrows ideas from
Apple. Welcome to the competitive world of American business and
international business.
Also, the negative attributes you lay on Microsoft also pertain to
Google and Intel, two of the biggest cutthroat monopolies in the world.
Let's not be too hasty bashing Microsoft unless you are willing to also
include other international conglomerates using the same business practices.
Business is business and you either play the game or cease to exist.

C.B.

 

[C.B.]

I'm just taking a wild guess here, but your above statement is
reminiscent of the kind heard from those who do not fully understand the
difference between what they have read somewhere and what they have
actually used.

I can't make any judgements in comparison, because I've never used a
Mac (They are to damnded expensive). What I can say with a fair amount
of accuracy, after having used Vista for just over a year now (excluding
BETA testing) is that Vista is the most aesthetically pleasing,
functional and user-friendly version of Windows that Microsoft as ever
delivered.



It never ceases to surprise me that in modern capitalistic societies,
where we strive to achieve success and encourage people and companies to
reach the top of the game, that one of the problems we face is the very
success we want. Why? Because when we get to the top, everone wants to
knock us down.

I'm curious to hear your explanation of these alleged unethical
practices that Microsoft is guilty of. Microsoft's success in the market
place is due to the fact that their products are well supported and well
designed, partly because they consistently listen to what their users
say.



You mention government regulation. Now I ask you, whose fault is that?

We have been plagued by viruses and malware for many years now, and
many companies have innovated by providing solutions to help minimise
these threats. One technique that anti-virus providers used was to patch
their software directly into the OS Kernel, the heart of any operating
system. The drawback was that if a legit program could do it, so could a
virus or other malware program. Microsofts solution was to introduce
"Kernel Patch Protection", which prevents ALL forms of software from
improperly patching or changing the Kernel.

And what happened? Instead of adapting to the higher levels of security
that Kernel Patch Protection provided, and modifying their software to
suit, companies like Symantec and McAfee cried foul and ran to the DOJ
because suddenly their program didn't work properly.

And what about Google complaining that people didn't use their desktop
search anymore? Instead of re-writing their software to match or exceed
the superior capabilities of Vista integrated search index, they too
cried fould to the DOJ, and very nearly succeeded in having Microsoft
completely remove integrated indexed search from Vista.

My point is that much of the government regulation that Microsoft is
being subjected to is not because they have broken any laws, or not
because they have treated anyone unfairly.

Global market competitors are as much to blame as anyone. They see
Microsoft deliver a product that is superior to their own, and instead
of investing time and research in advancing their own products, they
wail like children, and blame their own shortcomings on someone else.



I'm curious to see where you got these statistics. My guess is that
your numbers are not accurate.

Yes, XP still enjoys the lions share of the market, as the uptake to
Vista is a little slow. But the same can be said also of XP one year
after it's initial release. In due time, Vista will gain market share,
and XP will be a minority player, used only by a small handfull of
users, or the retro-nostalgic.



Isn't that exactly what they have been doing? Microsoft does build
superior software products. How else do you think they got to be the
largest software company in the world? Now that they are on top, most
everyone wants to knock them down.

Modern economics reminds me of a "Capture-the-flag" or "King-of
the-Hill" style game in Quake or Call of Duty. Only one team can hold a
particular position at a time. You need to eliminate the competition
before you can take the spot for yourself.

Whether it is democracy, socialism, communism, or the myriad shades
in-between, the world is due for a change in political and economic
thinking. Whats the point of achieving success, if that success makes
you the enemy?


--
dzomlija

_____________________
Peter Alexander Dzomlija
-Do you hear, huh? The Alpha and The Omega? Death and Rebirth? And as
you die, so shall I be Reborn...-

-Download MP3 Media Properties Explorer: --http://www.phx.co.za-

- ASUS A8N32-SLI-Deluxe
- AMD Athlon 64 Dual-Core 4800+
- 4GB DDR400
- 128MB ASUS nVidia 6600
- Thermaltake Tai-Chi Chassis
- 1207GB Formatted Storage
- Vista Ultimate x64
- CodeGear Delphi 2007See my rig at:
http://s229.photobucket.com/albums/ee312/Dzomlija/Venus/

Dzomlija,

Nice reply. Also, very politely done.

C.B.

 

[RMZ]

... What I can say with a fair amount

of accuracy, after having used Vista for just over a year now (excluding
BETA testing) is that Vista is the most aesthetically pleasing,
functional and user-friendly version of Windows that Microsoft as ever
delivered.

That's an honest response and if you have a video card that rates high
enough to run Aero Glass (hint: motherboard based GPU's can't do it
justice) then you're right it is most aesthetically pleasing OS
Microsoft has put out, but compared to Mac OS in this department is a
laugh. It's like comparing a Cadillac to a Royce there is no
comparison unless. But let's not forget that for most people the
little details don't matter. For them good enough is fine as long as
the price is right.

So while all this may come across as back handed against Microsoft,
well it is and it isn't. I think there are quite a few parallels we
can draw with consumer desktop and notebook computers and the auto-
industry. I have to wonder how the Ford motor company felt as luxury
car makers were putting out a premium product at a higher price in the
early days. It's a natural progression really. Apple's OS is very,
very fast. But that speed comes at the cost of hardware-lock in
mandated by the vendor. Yes you can upgrade a Mac within limits, but
it's a pretty small set of options you have compared to a PC. Apple
has a much smaller set of hardware they can tweak their drivers
against, it gives them much more head room for performance and again
it comes at a cost. But it's perfect as long as they remain a high-end
product.

I really think Apple and Microsoft are much more secure in their
places in the market than people tend to believe. Apple is poking fun
a lot more and trying to position themselves as that high end product
and I know some of those ads have upset Microsoft, but I hope both
company realize that to a large degree they exist in two different
market segments in the same respect that luxury car makers exist in a
different market from economy cars.

RMZ;616365 Wrote:

It never ceases to surprise me that in modern capitalistic societies,
where we strive to achieve success and encourage people and companies to
reach the top of the game, that one of the problems we face is the very
success we want.

It's an example of a flaw of capitalism. This got political very
quickly, but when you push this idea forward that "to be a successful
company we have to compete in a global market" and the means by which
you do that serves to benefit the corporation while damaging the
economy then we have a real problem. So you have people in a
developing countries, where- with all due respect the standard of
living is different than it is in the places such as the US and the
UK. Yet the US corporations are allowed to offshore billions of
dollars of jobs to those places, effectively by passing standards such
as OSHA and of course the relative cost of skilled labor in order to
allow the corporation to compete on the global market. To me that who
scenario is happening way too often. The standard of living for the US
is not judged by the upper class, it's judged by the middle class and
their jobs need to be protected. This is a lesson we could learn from
the Japanese, they know how to protect their own and as a culture they
are willing to pay a bit more to get products produced by Japanese
corporations.

I'm actually quite conservative in politcal views, but on this subject
something has to be done because the US economy is the victim and the
only tie in to Microsoft here is that Microsoft operates as a global
corporation and seemingly with little regard to the US economy outside
of where US law forces them to restrain. Other tech companies are much
better about keeping things at home.

Why? Because when we get to the top, everone wants to
knock us down.

I'm curious to hear your explanation of these alleged unethical
practices that Microsoft is guilty of.

See the anti-trust ruling of 2000 aginst the company, yes that ruling
was overturned (in part), but see anti-trust settlements Microsoft
made across many US states in 2003. Companies with deep pockets tend
to settle outside of court when they know they can't win. That could
be taken as subjective, but let's let common sense rule the day here.
My specific comment about breaking the law was referring to their more
recent battles with the EU.

As far as unethical practices in general, well there's a case study
here. If you journey back to the origins of the companies products
they are essentially built on the backs of the work others have done
and "borrowed" generally without payment or proper recondition given
to the authors. Is there a specific instance where I can point the
finger and say Microsoft broke the law here? No, go read through the
anti-trust documents, ok. What is ethical and what is not may be
subjective, but let's look at the track record.

MS-DOS borrowed heavily from Unix
Windows borrowed heavily from OS/2 and the history between Microsoft
and IBM is very shady there and well documented.
Internet Explorer borrowed from Netscape
C# borrowed from Java (after Sun refused to allow Microsoft to
customize Java, the .NET Framework was born)

In most cases the final Microsoft product is better than the product
that inspired it, but the means by which they get to that end product
is often questionable.

You mention government regulation. Now I ask you, whose fault is that?

Yeah, it's a big mess for them and it is only because it's hendering
their products usability to an extent. It's easy to blame the
government but the reality is anti-trust lawsuits aren't filled
frivolously, it was a long time coming in both the US and the EU. The
outcome may be settlement instead of judgement, but it doesn't change
the ruling in the minds of consumers and (more importantly) would-be
business partners. Even if the type of bullying you do is legal if no
body wants to play with you anymore that becomes a real problem for
you. When the problem effects you're ability to deliver the same
outstanding products you have in the past then the downfall begins.

We have been plagued by viruses and malware for many years now, and
many companies have innovated by providing solutions to help minimise
these threats. One technique that anti-virus providers used was to patch
their software directly into the OS Kernel, the heart of any operating
system. The drawback was that if a legit program could do it, so could a
virus or other malware program. Microsofts solution was to introduce
"Kernel Patch Protection", which prevents ALL forms of software from
improperly patching or changing the Kernel.

And what happened? Instead of adapting to the higher levels of security
that Kernel Patch Protection provided, and modifying their software to
suit, companies like Symantec and McAfee cried foul and ran to the DOJ
because suddenly their program didn't work properly.

Yep again, now you see what's happend. The path to the DOJ has been
paved and Microsoft becomes the one treated unfairly. You can call it
karma's return or whatever you want, the point is Microsoft's actions
over the past few decades lead to that path being paved.

And what about Google complaining that people didn't use their desktop
search anymore? Instead of re-writing their software to match or exceed
the superior capabilities of Vista integrated search index, they too
cried fould to the DOJ, and very nearly succeeded in having Microsoft
completely remove integrated indexed search from Vista.

Same as I stated above AND this is the real problem Microsoft is
facing, this is their challenge. Google for example is operated by a
group of highly intelligent guys, ok it's tech sector everyone is
highly intelligent, but Google is different, they are a creme of the
crop- good kind of company. They make their money by selling ads and
not technology. They understand the importance of public image and
isn't it reasonable to assume if they can play off of Microsot's
tarnished image, they will prosper from that? So again Microsoft may
take punches they don't deserve, but again in a way they are paying
for mistakes of the past because that image didn't tarnish itself.

My point is that much of the government regulation that Microsoft is
being subjected to is not because they have broken any laws, or not
because they have treated anyone unfairly.

Global market competitors are as much to blame as anyone. They see
Microsoft deliver a product that is superior to their own, and instead
of investing time and research in advancing their own products, they
wail like children, and blame their own shortcomings on someone else.

Not going to disagree entirely, other than putting the law aside
Microsoft could have chosen a high ethical standard in the 80's. They
could have been less of a bully, it took a very long time to built up
to the anti-trust climax and they deserved that trial. They probably
deserved the 2000 judgment against them, but that judge made a few key
mistakes and so the ruling was over turned.

Getting back to my point. None of this has to matter to customers. We
just want an outstanding product at a great price. In the eys of the
consumer Microsoft brand is doing just fine. In tech culture it's much
less so but that's a different thread for a different group.

 

[RMZ]

RMZ,

Apple makes good computers. However, I must disagree with you that the
Mac is "elite, illusive" and a "luxury product". It's just another operating
system. Apple's OS is very good, but I certainly wouldn't call it elite,
illusive or luxurious. What do you base these assumptions on?

I'm glad you asked me to qualify this because I feel it's very easy to
quality I didn't. So if you think in terms of automobiles for example,
Luxury boils down to: price, marketing, quality and features. Can we
agree on that? If we can consider this in the Mac vs PC debate:

1. Price
Apples for apples compare the cost of a Intel Core 2 Duo Windows PC to
an equally equipped Mac. I've done this twice in the past year and in
both cases the difference in price was around $500. Compare the low-
end MacBook Pro to a comparable Gateway as an example. When you have
an OS such as Windows that is "open" to be distributed to many vendors
it's naturally going to be able to sell for less and be more available
and also less expensive.

2. Marketing
Have a look at the architecture of Apple's retail stores. There is no
counterpart to this for Microsoft Windows, because Microsoft does not
manufacturer PCs, but what you're seeing is an extreem attention to
customer satisfaction and detail that I think you could draw again
with what luxury auto makers are doing.
http://www.apple.com/retail/

The difference in visiting an Apple retailer in a local mall and
visiting a Best Buy to pick up a Windows PC are about as different as
visiting a Ford dealership and a BMW dealership, it's a different
experience and it's a different market.

3. Quality
Consumer Reports as our guide, Mac leads in quality:
http://www.macworld.com/article/41295/2004/12/consumer.html

4. Features
One of many articles comparing features of MacOS to Windows Vista
http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=196800670&pgno=1&queryText=

You also state "give us something that blows away the latest Mac OS in
terms of aesthetics, functionality and over all user friendliness". How is
the Mac OS more aesthetic, more functional and more user friendly? Please
explain so that I understand.

See link above, also for fun see
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2007/10/21/wye-wyg-windows-vista-vs-mac-os-x-leopard/

 

[Not Me]

I have used both. The eye candy means nothing to me.
I just want my computer to do what I tell it, without taking all day to do
it (or asking me, ARE YOU SURE...).
That is why I have 2 machines with Vista and 150 with XP.

 

[Guest]

Windows Vista Has Already Been Fixed, It's Called Service Pack 1, And It
Will Be Released On The 2nd Tuesday Of Next Month.

 

[RMZ]

Windows Vista Has Already Been Fixed, It's Called Service Pack 1, And It
Will Be Released On The 2nd Tuesday Of Next Month.

I haven't seen what service pack 1 does.... but can you define fixed?
On some accounts I'm sure it is a better product after SP1 and will be
even better a few years down the road after SP2. Last week MacOS got a
fiarly large update as well. Good companies continue to support their
products and make them better.

However are the changes in SP1 likely to end the whole VIsta vs XP
debate? Does SP1 gives XP users a strong reason to upgrade?

 

[Guest]

It (My MSDN Subscriber Download's Copy Of Windows Vista Service Pack One
RTM) Runs Great On My 2 Computer's, Except When The File Indexing Service Is
Indexing Files, Just FYI.