"Release Candidate?" Vista is not even close.

[Guest]

After reading your response to RC1, I could not in fairness agree to a lot of
things that you said (they should have an in-between choice). First I think
that you need to install Vista RC1 onto a clean drive, although this will not
change the most annoying problems that you’re having. I think a lot of the
other things that you complained about will change.
Why you ask, well I started with the Beta version and choose to do an
upgrade from XP Pro, but a lot of my software failed to work after the
upgrade. That was ok that's what I thought would happen when I installed the
Bata version. The beta worked as an OS but with a lot of problems and at
first I had similar feeling as you about the OS, but the main point is that
it was working. Then I upgraded to RC1 and everything went down hill (Beta
was working, not the best but working). So after reading a lot about
problems with the upgrades from Beta to RC1 I wiped my drives clean as I was
fed up with trying to fix them. I installed RC1 version on a clean drive,
and 28 minutes later the install was complete, trust me when I say I was
surprised I could see the network, IE worked everything. It took longer to
upgrade with the beta, and every thing was so slow after the upgrade (drive
running all the time indexing issues, hardware issues etc),
So I started installing some of my programs and noticed that they to were
installing faster then in any other OS (it still has that “are you sureâ€
problem). Some of the programs that did not work with the upgrade are now
working, one thing that made a difference is that at some venders now have
Vista drivers available, but they expire in Jan 28th????.
I agree with you on at least half of the things that you spoke about. The
search is a joke, you have more choices in XP without plug-in, the “are you
sure†is another joke. If they want to use that approach once you say OK to
the install, stop asking me unless i'm installing another program. I could
keep going on like you about the problems but I do like the networking side
of Vista.
I just think that you need to step back and think this out a little more.
Your system as you presented it is as you said ahead of the game. That’s why
I said install it on a newly formatted drive by itself. Mine is not as good
as yours (I received the same score on my video card and it’s an ATI 9700
pro, It’s a VW Bug to your Porsche). You don’t have to like it, just look
and see what’s going on. I’m sure that your scores will be a lot better
after a fresh install.

WT

 

[Lang Murphy]

Well... finally got it back up and running. Formatted the drive from WinPE
boot CD, which claimed the format failed, but went ahead and tried to
reinstall Vista and it installed. Running chkdsk from Vista now... and
chkdsk tells me it added 156 bad clusters to the bad cluster file... Yipes!

Lang

 

[Guest]

Ouch. That's a couple of bad sectors.

I suppose its inevitable. It seems like hard-drive quality went up from the
late seventies, peaked, and is headed back down. I had a week where 4 drives
just in my main home PC failed. Four out of seven. Thank goodness you get a
lot more storage for you hard-drive dollar than you did in the seventies or I
think I wouldn't want to play this game any more.

I'm glad you got the system back on line.

 

[Guest]

I did install to a clean drive. Clean and formatted. I never ran an upgrade
install. I must have not been clear about that.

I agree with you that the networking is "better" than in XP. It's certainly
more feature rich. I'm not thinking I'll need IPv6 any time soon, and wish
it weren't enabled by default, but I guess you could argue somebody's gotta
be first and Microsoft figures its them. Now we need to wait for all the
millions of routers running "the Internet" to get upgraded. Then we'll be so
happy. We'll have lots of addresses and we won't be able to remember a
single one because the address-string is too long.

You say your applications installed more quickly than on XP? Wow.
Impressive. Good. Nobody deserves the experience I've had with Vista.

I guess it must be me then. I don't know what the deal is. I mean, I
thought I kinda had this whole "computer thing" worked out. I mean, I've
been using computers for a while. 35 years. And I've been using PCs for a
while. 25 years. I've hand-built 100s of PCs of various configurations
since the early eighties. From 8088 machines where the CPU is on the
back-plane instead of the motherboard, on through every generation of Intel &
AMD processor (I ran one of their first for a while, a 80386-40, a full 7Mhz
quicker than Intel's top 33Mhz CPU) and have worked with just about every
system and graphics bus, drive interface type (MFM, RLL, SCSI & on & on ad
nauseum), and have dealt with all manner of computer related issues, from
genning 2.x & 3.x Netware servers, LAN Manager, Banyan Vines, DecNET, IBM
broadband, Token Ring, Arcnet, etc. I've diagnosed failed systems,
programmed in a variety of languages including machine, assembly, APL, C,
C++, Pascal, COBOL, Visual Basic, SQL, and SEQUAL. I've owned my own
computer consulting company, worked at software companies, hardware
companies, networking companies, and long ago had a job providing phone
technical support to end users. I've worked with Von Neumann architecture
and multi-processor systems with up to 16 CPUs. My friends are all IT people
and computer programmers. Heck, one of my Bachelor's degrees is even in
Computer Information Systems. I've even taken old computers out to the
desert and helped them to meet the "big computer in the sky" at the business
end of a shotgun, just to round out my experience. I've tested literally
thousands of software titles. I've written technical manuals, installed
structured cabling, and taught classes in computer technology. I continue to
attend advanced computing courses at Cal Tech. I run Apple OS-X and Linux
and PocketPC O.S. in addition to Windows. The icing on the cake? Don't say
it too loudly, but I even pay for the software I use.

But this Vista is whoopin' my a$$. I have never met a meaner, nastier, more
ornary PC O.S. than this. Well, forgetting about OS/2 for now. Other than
OS/2 I've never met a more bad-tempered, obstinate, or smellier O.S. than
Vista. PC O.S., let me clarify. Let's not revisit "big iron."

And it pisses me off because I own Microsoft stock. They have to do a good
job on the O.S. Not only for the share price, although that's a good enough
reason by itself, but also because I'm a "heavy" PC user frequently logging
16 hours a day staring at Microsoft generated pixels. I just can't afford
the productivity hit Vista causes.

If you're reading this, you're a good guy, Bill. A couple of suggestions,
though. Less charity, more creative thinking. Hands-on work. Your
customers need you. Let us be your charity, and the donation good software.
Like it or not, you've built in a certain responsibility to the entire
computer using world by the close to ubiquitous dominance of the PC O.S. and
"Office" application system you've helped to create and nurture. I know,
it's boring being number one all the time. But the alternative is to be
number two, and nobody wants that position.

Randy

 

[Guest]

You're a smart man Jay.

I mean, what is wrong with these hardware vendors? I've worked at a
hardware company before. We manufactured communications boards back in the
late eighties. We sweated over our drivers. Arguably, it is what made the
hardware what it was. Without good drivers, our boards were just a piece of
fiberglass with lead and tiny colored devices attached. These hardware
manufacturers should be sweating bullets, working night and day on this.
They have an obligation to the millions of users that gave up a piece of
their life to buy their product.

Is the problem one of apathy? Is there not enough qualified programmers
because our school system is broken and getting worse and we're not producing
enough engineers? Is it corporate greed squeezing the margins by firing good
people? Is it competition from companies elsewhere payinig their people $1 a
day becuase it only costs $0.50 a day to live there and the U.S. is just too
expensive? Are systems just too complex to effectively manage? Is
management so ensconsed in their ivory tower that they don't know what's
going on with "the little people?" Is it just a symptom of a larger trend?
The decline of Western civilization and the rebirth of the Eastern? Is there
an epidemic of drug use, alcoholism, or has syphilis started rotting at
everyone's brain? Is it because of widespread sickness, cases of Beriberi,
laughing sickness, or rickets? Is it Greed, Sloth, Pride, Jealousy,
Vengefulness, Pride or Gluttony? I mean, really, what in the hell is going

 

[Guest]

I agree. RC2 is MUCH better than RC1. RC1 was unusable. Calling RC1 an RC
at all was more than just optimistic. I would argue it was self-deceit, or
borderline psychosis.

RC2 is much better than RC1. I figure its just virtually unusable, instead
of completely unusable. I'm defining "use" as accomplishing tasks using
computer applications. I'm not defining use as staring at the pretty display
or running diagnostics over and over. Well, maybe running diagnostics over
and over is sorta use, but for my purposes I'm defining use as being able to
produce some definable positive output that doesn't consist entirely of
diagnostic results for the PC. Bloodshot eyes from gazing lovingly at the
pristine Siren's song of an interface, while noteworthy, is also not "use" by
my definition. I mean, it is true you're using the O.S., arguably, however
you aren't really using the computer. For my purposes, playing games is
"use" though the break my rule about producing useful output. The output
being entertainment. While the one could argue the visual representation of
the O.S. is entertaining in and of itself, and one may be entertained by the
O.S., I need the O.S. to exist for a reason other than just to satisfy itself.

I sure hope Microsoft is a machine. A big, earth-shaking, juggernaut at
producinig patches, hot-fixes, enhancements, adjuncts, gadgets, tools, and
upgrades for this O.S. once it is realeased, because it seems Microsoft is
going to release this to manufacturinig in a state not amazingly far from
where it is now, and where it is now is non-functional for use in my sphere
of influence.

 

[Guest]

I looked into this. It was a good, thoughtful suggestion. This, however,
was not causing the hard-drive LED to be on enough to melt the plastic
surrounding the diode.

I believe I have traced the problem to my hardware. We know Microsoft
frequently blames the hardware, and hardware is often to blame. In my
particular case it doesn't seem my hardware was broken, per se, rather that
it just wasn't good enough. Not good enough to run Vista.

My hardware is far above the minimum stated hardware requirements, but I get
the feeling those requirements are a tad optimistic. Or should I say
"psychotic."

I ran a bunch of diagnostics. I'd use the PC for some menial, routine, so
boring and low-end you just want to slit your own throat task and I'd watch
the O.S. devolve into pure thrash. Everything was thrashing everything.
Vista diagnostics was fairly confortable it had come up with two primary
causes:
1) My 2GB of main memory was insufficient for anything other than just the
O.S. operating by itself with no other applications loaded or work being done.
2) My SATA II hard-drive, which was one of the fastest if not the fastest
SATA II hard-drive just two or three quarters ago just wasn't macho enough to
stay on task writing and retrieving bits.

My hardware, while well above the hardware prescribed by Microsoft as being
able run Vista ably, is not actually good enough to do anything *other* than
run Vista. Vista will run just fine. Just don't use the computer, and
whatever you do don't load any applications and try to accomplish any tasks.
That is just asking for trouble and a sure recipe for disaster.

Stupid me. I had this antiquated notion that computers exist to do
automated processinig of information. I guess I'm really living in the past.
My bad.

 

[MICHAEL]

"I guess it must be me then."

Randy, it's not just you. But, of course, you know that- you were
being polite.

My experience with Vista on two different machines has not been
bad. But, in no way, has Vista been outperforming my XP setups.

-Michael

 

[Lang Murphy]

Thanks, Randy... me too!

Lang

Ouch. That's a couple of bad sectors.

I suppose its inevitable. It seems like hard-drive quality went up from
the
late seventies, peaked, and is headed back down. I had a week where 4
drives
just in my main home PC failed. Four out of seven. Thank goodness you
get a
lot more storage for you hard-drive dollar than you did in the seventies
or I
think I wouldn't want to play this game any more.

I'm glad you got the system back on line.

 

[Guest]

Randy,

I have to agree, RC1 was not a release candidate, not even close. CP/M, DEC
1140/ 1170 huh?? you must be as old as I am. I have been down the RC path
with lots of different programs, including Microsoft. The Beta 2 release and
the RC1 release were awful. I went down the upgrade path and it was so bad
that I ended up doing a clean install. Some of the bugs that I saw were
unexcuseable such as the horizontal and vertical scroll bar functions
reversed or the default printer selecting the last one on the list regardless
of what you had selected as your default. Anyway, RC2 is much sweeter than
any of the other releases. To me it seems like build 5744 is the first
stable release candidate.

As for speed, I am running RC2 on a P4-3GHZ and it seems as responsive on
Vista as it was on XP. I also own some of Microsoft and hope they do well.
I am not real sure of Vista and the lack of support from the hardware
vendors. If Microsoft rolls this out for the business community next month
they better not have Epson printers because according to Epson they are not
going to produce any drivers until RTM. How much can they change from RC2 to
RTM? It is real frustrating not having the Epson stuff working.

 

[Jeff]

Vbritt,
Strange,
Because I had an HP that didn't have Vista drivers;so I bought an Epson
Photostylus R210- and it's drivers were found by Vista-and work great.

Jeff

 

[Guest]

I guess I should have been more specific. The status monitor that shows the
ink levels and allows easy access to printer utilities will not work with
Vista. The printer is identified by Vista and works fine. It is all of the
extra's that do not work.

 

[Guest]

I loaded the Beta and then Vista Ultimate RC1 to a fairly state of the art
PC, a Dell XPS Gen 4 running a Pentium 4 (3.2 GHz) and 2GB Ram, Nvidia 256
video card- and rate a 3 plus on the Performance evaluation in Vista. My Dell
XPS laptop with a mere 1GB Ram and Pentium M (1.73GHz) processor scores a
2.1!! Neither of these machines are over a year old, and ran on Windows Media
Center 2005 just fine.
I never thought I'd say this, but lately I have been looking at an Apple
laptop a coworker has and thinking it works fine, and does not run on a
bloated OS like Vista- 15GB is pretty fat, I think. I estimate that on the
laptop Vista and its attendant updates are using about 20GB hard drive space,
compared to about 8GB that Media Center used.

 

[Guest]

Calling this build an "RC" is overly optimistic.

There are numerous critical functional flaws in the latest build of RC1:
1. Firstly, I cannot follow prescribed trouble reporting procedures because
the trouble reporting tool won't load due to errors.
2. Various MMC snap-ins fail frequently when attempting to load: "MMC has
detected an error in a snap-in and will unload it."
3. Automatic Update errors out with an 8024400A. When help works,
reference to error code 8024400A yields no information except references to
other error codes and (potential) fixes for those.
4. Help is spotty and incomplete.
5. Adding folders for indexing for future searching causes the system to
grind to halt. Indexing claims "Indexing speed is reduced due to user
activity," but I'm not doing a thing. The system is doing something and then
passing blame to me, the user?
6. Various diagnostic and performance tools will occassionally work but
more often than not won't load with an error message.
7. The system asked to be shut down to complete the installation of a "new
device" (a second hard-drive). Responding to the system's request to be
restarted caused it to corrupt some sort of system database which resulted in
the system's inability to boot up in standard mode. I was forced to
reinstall the system.
8. Event viewer recorded the error multiple times: "The Event Logging
service encountered an error while processing an incoming event published
from Microsoft-Windows-Security-Auditing."
9. Event viewer recorded the error: "The service 'StiSvc' may not have
unregistered for device event notifications before it was stopped." multiple
times.
10. Registered file objects give "file path does not exist" when
double-clicked.
11. Most information links that contact a Web-based resource do not work at
all. Numerous examples of this, particularly in help, but they are common
and spread throughout the O.S.
12. Thumbnails of photos absent from Explorer. At one time they were
there, then they dissappeared never to return.
13. Photo Management software takes an hour to load. Thumbnails are often
missing for photos that are perfectly fine.
14. The Event Viewer contains several errors indicating "Advise Status
Change failed. The system is probably low on resources. Free up resources
and restart the service." With a code 0x80041812.

Then the real fun began. All these errors pale to the litany of critical
and other system errors that occured when I started to attach hard-drives and
use the system seriously. I filled Event Viewer up with little critical
error exes, and error exclamation points. So many errors that to list them
all here would seem pedantic. My normal computing activities were just too
much for poor little ole' Vista. I had services errors complaining about
stopping for no reason, I had diagnostic errors complaining about one thing
or another taking too long, meanwhile all the diagnostics came back clean as
far as hardware was concerned. The issue causing the problem was the O.S.!
The O.S. was so slow, so laden with errors, so unmanagable, and so painful to
interact with that I've uninstalled it completely and am back to XP.

Apart from the plethora of "bugs," there are numerous annoying
characteristics.

1. I am dumb-founded that somebody believes UAC is a functional computer
protection scheme. I don't want to editorialize too much here, but this
scheme is easily one of the most inane concepts I could have imagined. A 3
year old child could design such a methodology. Analogously, UAC is like
having your car automatically throw on the brakes and grind to a dead stop
every time you want to make a lane change just in case you might hit someone.
That's not progress, it's just stupid. In this day and age of 10Gbps WAN
links, remote control cars on Mars, and designer nano-technology, this is the
solution? All the computerized cryptology and security and all the
programming expertise money can buy can't come up with something better than
a box that says "are you really, really, really sure you want that thing you
just clicked on to load?"

I read the testing guides, and the forum posts, and the blogs, and no amount
of condescending dialog about the user "just not getting it" mitagates the
glaringly obvious rediculousness that is UAC. Jim Jones has been
reincarnated and he's serving punch in the Redmond cafeteria.

Computers are tools. When they start causing more work than alleviating it,
they will end up on the trash pile. UAC is a step in that direction.

2. Removing a single file type from indexing (which claims cannot be
disabled) causes all Indexed folders to be reindexed. There are far better
ways to manage this than reindexing all the folders. Reindexing the folders
is the most unintelligent way a program could handle the issue that it begs
the question the of engineering acumen. Were I a beginner programmer I might
do it that way. In the 70s.

3. Windows Explorer was an area that really needed changing in XP. It sure
has been changed, for the worse. Firstly, the built-in search is a mess.
Why can't I do advanced searching any time I'm in Explorer? No, I have to go
to search in the start menu to get any features. And this is because of?
Secondly, there's no abiliity to have a preview pane unless actually in the
photo management software, which is only a surrogate to explorer. Why can't
I have photo management and file management together, cohesively, and add
reasonable search. Is that "too hard to program" or did a committee decide
the feature wasn't needed or the public "just wasn't ready for that kind of
seemless experience." All those graphically intensive 3-d renderings of my
open windows are useless when basic navigating is a chore.

Also, why didn't Microsoft add something that tells you the size of folders?
There are a dozen free applications that fill this gap for XP. There's even
a nice plug-in "Folder Size" that adds that function to Explorer you can get
for free. Why is such a glaring gap still there?

Etc.

The number of usability issues in Explorer is far greater than my patience
with enumerating them.

4. One thing I'd really hoped was the O.S. would be much more configurable
than XP. I'm a heavy user. Some would argue a power user. I prefer the
keyboard to the mouse because its faster. I know the keyboard shortcuts
(thank you IBM ergonomics team!) and use them. Because I'm such a heavy user
it would be fair to say perhaps I like things setup a little bit differently
than many. In fact, the default settings in XP are just about the opposite
from how I set them, whether its explorer or the task bar or whatever. I was
hoping I'd be able to configure the crud out of Vista. Tune it up just the
way I like it. Can I? No.

Regarding the "low resource" error and my machine's capability of handling
the tasks asked of it:
I don't know the scale for the Computer Performance score. clicking the
link to get more information takes you to the regular Microsoft home page,
with no specific Performance Score information. The score I got is 4.5,
which was the lowest score, the score of my graphics adapter. I realize it
isn't the best, just a 256MB SLI ATI X700, but that adapter is several
generations ahead of what the public is using. I discarded adapters several
generations back that most I know haven't gotten to yet. Other than the
graphics adapter, my machine is essentially one generation back from the
current hottest consumer-grade hardware you can buy: AMD Dual Core x64 4400+,
2GB of fast matched Corsair XMS memory, SATA 2 hard-drives (not running as
RAID as they were with XP PRO X64 because the drivers don't work), nVidia
nForce 4 chipset, Sound Blaster Audigy-2 ZS. It isn't the hottest hardware,
but it isn't far behind, and if this machine is inadequate to run Vista, then
Microsoft is in for more bad press than their P.R. firm will be able to
handle.

This software is an embarassment. When you consider that the programming
task it represents is only an evolutionary step for Windows, not a
revolutionary one (basically a prettier interface, some more diagnostic
tools, and most inane attempt at protecting the system by having the user
click on things twice via UAC) combined with the long amount time developing
it, then Microsoft is truly in a grave situation. I'm particularly concerned
because I am the one this software was developed for. I'm a Microsoft
shareholder. This is partially my company, and I am very dissappointed with
this as our next O.S. If I can't get behind it, and I have a vested
interested, how can the public? Yes, Vista is pretty. VERY pretty. But no
prettier than the graphics on the G4 Mac running OS-X sitting here next to
me, and it's years old. Microsoft had such an opportunity to fix the myriad
of user interface issues that make working with XP just not what it ought to
be, and that has been squandered. I'm voting against the current management
team at the next shareholder meeting and then selling my stock.

Remember the change from Windows 2.0 to Windows 3.0? Earth shaking. 3.0
was graphical, versus 2.0 DOS-shell. Then 3.0 to 3.1? More features,
better, faster. 3.11 from 3.1? Networking! (Cruddy 16-bit thunking
networking, but networking nevertheless) 3.11 to 95, then 98? Paradigm
shifting. Remember NT 3.0, then 3.4 then 3.5 then 4.0 then 2000? All
incrementally better. Quicker, more features, more stable, everything
better. Then the mother of all upgrades, XP. That was truly an upgrade. In
every case we're presented with a better O.S. More secure, more stable, more
features, better. This is the first time that you could argue the upgrade
isn't better, or more secure, or faster. Every prior upgrade of Windows
offered a user interface that was more intuitive than the last, except for
this one. This time the user interface is so clunky, so difficult to
navigate (compared to XP) that the O.S. is nearly unusable. Oh, sure, there
are some new features, but not so many as to make someone want to change from
XP to this. Every additional photo feature, like adjusting photos or
cropping them I can accomplish with free software in XP, and much more
quickly. The indexing and search capabilities are abysmal. Slow,
inaccurate, and painful to navigate. The ONLY compelling feature this O.S.
offers is its built-in diagnostic system. This was sorely absent from XP.
That one feature may be enough for many to upgrade, but then I have to ask
what have the programmers in Redmond been doing all this time? The O.S. is
just hooking into monitoring functions that have been there since 2000 and
adding a little logic to them. It took all this time just to do that?
Where's all the killer security they've been sweating over? A dialog box
popping up that says "are you really really sure you want to run that?"
Pathetic.

And then you have the issue of Vista never, ever, ever not accessing the
hard-drives. That hard-drive light stays lit solid the entire time the O.S.
is operating. Oh, sure, its probably indexing something, after all, you
can't turn indexing off. Or control it reasonably. Or maybe the drive is
running because I have a virus (not). Or maybe somethings broken and its
running a chkdsk to fix it (not). Or maybe its just big brother spying on
me. One of the questions on the Vista "is this ready for release" survey was
"Do you feel more secure with Vista than XP." No way. No. Not even close.
I feel far less secure. I don't know what that operating system is doing
behind my back but its doing something. Just look at that hard-drive light.
At this rate I'll suffer drive failure in half the time it normally takes,
and that's not counting the system overhead all that indexing is consuming,
making me wait and slowing down my productivity.

And that's what its all about, isn't it. PRODUCTIVITY. Computers are tools.
Tools designed to do data processing and to entertain us. Vista didn't make
me more productive, nor more entertained. "But this is only RC1/2." you
argue. "Release Candidate" means that this software is a candidate for
RELEASE. Release to the public as a finished application. You couldn't
release this thing. This software is closer to Alpha than Beta, and calling
it RC is euphamistic at best. A funny joke to be played on the testers.
This software is a year and half from being RC.

And I'm no Microsoft basher. I like Microsoft. I'm a shareholder and have
been using Microsoft O.S. since the Dos 1.0 days and using/programming
computers in general since the IBM 360 days. I'm not the most technical guy
around, plenty posting here are far more technical than I, and I'm not good
enough at programming to program good PC security, but apparently neither is
Microsoft.

The obvious issue, the rhinocerous in the bathtub, is Apple. Why Microsoft
is so wary I'll never know given Apple's market share, but they are. This
new interface is a direct result of the Aqua interface in OS-X. So given
that this is meant to compete directly with Apple, how is it Apple seems to
manage security without UAC just fine? How is it Apple seems to offer a
reasonably intuitive interface (except where's the darn right mouse button!),
while still being secure, offering enough power to those that want it, but
not those that don't. Don't get me wrong. I am no Macintosh fan. I don't
like Apple. I never have. I own one for testing and so I'm familiar enough
with it to trouble shoot it, but that's it. The real winners with Vista will
be Apple. Every time I use Vista, my Mac starts looking a little better.
I'm disgusted with myself, but that's the truth.

----------------
This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the "I
Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow this
link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and then
click "I Agree" in the message pane.

http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/co...f4c&dg=microsoft.public.windows.vista.general

 

[Chad Harris]

Randy--

RTM released with an awful lot of bugs as well, but my observation has been
that I used several builds between the one you are using and RTM and
Iappreciate your observations but it would have been more timely to file
your bug reports a few months ago, and you are able to buy RTM in most
countries. I could give you a very long list of RTM bugs I have been
keeping and sending off to various teams, but I'd encourage you to get the
one in the store if you possibly can and then compile your bug list. You'll
get a new set.

I made a lot of posts that RTM was really Beta RC1 and I believe that to be
true.

CH

 

[Guest]

If you all are soo into customizing your os's why aren't u guys on "open
source" linux rocks, & it's free!!!!!!!!!!! Now you want a stable os, that
you can customize, not spend a fortune on & don't need 2 gigs of ram and
200gis of hd to run it. they have suse, ubantu, fedora, just to name a very
few. Mac's are great also, but there is an alternative to the Microsoft
nitemare... I just bought my first laptop w/vista on it and am not impressed,
plan on at least dual booting if not wiping out the ms os all of the way...
Have not seen anything here that linux does not have or you can not configure
yourself, and they have come a long way as to being user friendly and more
compatable w/alot of software out there. Linux rocks
a linux goddess

 

[Universe_JDJ]

If you all are soo into customizing your os's why aren't u guys on "open
source" linux rocks, & it's free!!!!!!!!!!! Now you want a stable os, that
you can customize, not spend a fortune on & don't need 2 gigs of ram and
200gis of hd to run it. they have suse, ubantu, fedora, just to name a very
few. Mac's are great also, but there is an alternative to the Microsoft
nitemare... I just bought my first laptop w/vista on it and am not impressed,
plan on at least dual booting if not wiping out the ms os all of the way....
Have not seen anything here that linux does not have or you can not configure
yourself, and they have come a long way as to being user friendly and more
compatable w/alot of software out there. Linux rocks
a linux goddess















...

read more »

What a way to resurrect this.

 

[Judy]

All I wish to do is copy my photos via Dell-in-one Centre into "My Pictures"
& for them to stay in the order I put them in ( Birth to adult or holiday
start to finish)
I am obviously not using " name" or" Tag" correctly ?
I want my slide show to tell the story not photos at random



--
I am very interested in photos & would like to able to use the Windows Photo
Gallery more I feel one needs a university degree sometimes to understand the
Help Section
Thankyou for your help
Judy

 

[Bob]

Try this. Create a new folder under c:\users\Judy and copy your photos to
it.