Ian Betts wrote:
> "Saran" <none@nospam> wrote in message
> news:eHD1urS3HHA.4676@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> Ian Betts wrote:
>>> "Saran" <none@nospam> wrote in message
>>> news:ORmmLAG3HHA.3940@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>> lforbes wrote:
>>>>> "Saran" wrote:
>>>>>> lforbes wrote:
>>>>>>> "Saran" wrote:
>>>>>>>> lforbes wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Where is the file located? Is it on the desktop? I found this
>>>>>>>>> happened when the folder was open. I solved this by moving the
>>>>>>>>> file to a empty folder and then deleting the folder (without
>>>>>>>>> opening it).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> By the way I have seen this problem in XP as well.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes a similar problem used to be in XP (though I haven't seen
>>>>>>>> it for quite some time), but it didn't persist between reboots.
>>>>>>>> Again, seeing as this was a known problem in XP (seemingly
>>>>>>>> before an update was released, which would imply there was a
>>>>>>>> solution) I find it inexcusable that it remains, ever worse, in
>>>>>>>> Vista. -saran
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It was when the preview pane was open. I can still recreate the
>>>>>>> error in XP so it wasn't fixed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I haven't run into this problem in well over a year, nor can I
>>>>>> reproduce it like I used to be able, so I can only say this must
>>>>>> of come about from one of the updates.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have been a network tech (Mac and PC)
>>>>>>> for almost 20 years so I have seen a lot of changes that are
>>>>>>> more drastic than Vista. Personally the change from Mac's OS 9
>>>>>>> to OSX was far worse as OSX just didn't let you install any
>>>>>>> software that wasn't written for it and crashed constantly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That actually does sound like Vista in certain respects; it does
>>>>>> have a habit of crashing on certain softwares... hell it even
>>>>>> crashes on some programs that -are- written for it... go figure.
>>>>>> Given how long Microsoft claiemd thye worked on it, these
>>>>>> problems are just unacceptable imho.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -saran
>>>>>
>>>>> Really - Well in 6 months it hasn't crashed for me yet except with
>>>>> IE 7 once in awhile if I have over 20 tabs open.
>>>>
>>>> I've seen IE7 crash randomly and refuse to start for no reason at
>>>> all. I'm sorry but I have little faith in that browser, especially
>>>> when I can sue something like Maxthon that uses the IE rendering
>>>> core. On a system with IE6, I cna have several dozen tabs open with
>>>> out a problem.
>>>>> I run all sorts of old and 3rd party software including tons of
>>>>> older children's software and it all runs fine. For everything
>>>>> that isn't Vista certified, I just run in compatibility mode and
>>>>> it runs without issue.
>>>>
>>>> Most general programs seem to run ok for the most part. Theres many
>>>> that don't, however. Like certain Tax and inventory and some AV
>>>> "suites" for starters.
>>>>
>>>>> I have a new machine with an OEM copy. I never ever do upgrades as
>>>>> my experience is that they are never stable. I always do a clean
>>>>> install and migrate settings.
>>>>
>>>> True. I'm glad it's working well for you. Clean install seems to be
>>>> best with Vista, but I find it curious, that, given how advanced
>>>> Vista is supposed to be, why does it have so many problems with
>>>> "upgrade" installs? This was not what Microsoft can't telling us
>>>> the years leading to Vista's release.
>>>>
>>>> -saran
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Well I have used Vista without once having it crash and I use 2000
>>> software and download every update automatically without one giving
>>> trouble. I just do not recognize your constant catalogue of
>>> disasters. I have also updated XP to Vista with only the need for
>>> update printer drivers for an older Epson.
>>
>> Then you are lucky. Many people are not so fortunate. I suspect Vista
>> tends to run more properly on what seem like a hand full of hard
>> ware (and perhaps loaded up software) combinations. I still find it
>> inexcusable that Vista is so fragile that it falls apart on so many
>> combinations. You just happen to have a good one, so feel free to
>> get a cookie at the door.
>>> I still ask why you use the system but you just cannot answer.
>>
>> I don't recall you ever asking me that, but if you read many of my
>> posts, you would not need to ask. If you refer to Vista, we service
>> many systems, many Vista now a days, intermixed with XP and older.
>> At home I have Vista in a VM Ware image. We have also ran various
>> "side by side" tests between Vista and XP/2000 and other OS's, with
>> different configs. That, and many of the customer's systems's end up
>> being a test of sorts too. Half of the Vista machines with problems
>> are brand new out of the box HPs/Compaqs/Dells/etc that crash for no
>> reason or some other problem, so when I say there's just a lot of
>> problems with Vista, I'm not saying it out of thin air.
>>
>> -saran
>>
>>
> I teach and repair computers and see lots of Vista machines and few
> give the problems you keep harping about. This NG is just a flea bite
> of problems against the millions of Vista users that never seek
> advice.
I don't think you've really spent al lthat much time with Vista if you
haen't seen too many problems, or like I said, you've just been lucky.
> HP and Compaqs give the problems not Vista, they are about the worst
> ready to use that PC World sell.
Agreed. I just expect a lot more adaptability from an OS that was hyped
so long to be so "advanced"...
> You clearly have a limited knowledge of the early days of 95, 98 and
> XP, They all gave update difficulties because they were at the time
> advanced.
On the contrary, I've been around "PC"'s since the 8088 touting IBM
5150's (my first x86 system, if you will.) I've had ever system in that
family over the years, and worked on many directly. I've used every
version of Windows quite thoroughly since 1.0. I've seen just about
every type of problem out there, including down right weird hardware
incompatibilities and other anomalies. I hold a BS and not only help run
a computer service shop but I also do various consulting and am pretty
well off.
So please don't tell me I have a limited knowledge. I remember the pains
in Win 95 quite well. Not really something easily forgotten, not in my
line of work
I actually try to learn from the past, unlike Microsoft
it sometimes seems.
> I run XP, Ubuntu and Vista and find Vista compares well.
Please describe the systems you run each on and what state each one is
in. Every time I see someoen saya Vista runs as good or better than XP,
they never give much information about how old/healthy the XP vs the
Vista system is. Any realatively healthy Vista system will run better
than a sick XP, or one that's got too much junk on it.
In out experience, XP of equal or better cleanlyness vitually always out
performs Vista. Many magazines have also pointed this out. I don't think
thye would just lie about it. From our own in house tests, as well as
all the customer's system's we've worked on, Vista generally ranks lower
than it's predeccors. Vista is not what the hype and promises said it
would be.
-saran