Vista - Have I blundered?

On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 21:07:45 -0400, "Mike Hall - MVP"

>I have two drives, one with Vista Ultimate and Office 2007 plus stuff, and
>the other with XP and Office 2003 plus stuff, where stuff is almost
>identical give or take very small things.. all of my user generated items
>are kept away from both drives..

Cool! Do you use non-standard MBR or physically disconnect the Vista
HD when in XP, to stop XP eating Vista's shadow copies?

>Office 2007 is larger than 2003, but nothing like as much as you suggest..

I used WinDirStart (a free tool that shows files in a graphical way,
scaled proportional to the space they occupy) and found the MS Office
2007 footprint to be around 1G.

In the old days, MS Office was always considered a "disk hog", and
that was true up to MS Office 2000. Thereafter I was pleasantly
surprised to see it stay around the 200-300M mark, while other
utilities (Java, Acrobat Reader, HP printer fluff) grew up past 100M
and in some cases over 200M, too.

So it's not surprising to see installations where the biggest non-game
lump in Program Files isn't MS Office as expected, but (say) the
bundleware that came with an all-in-one printer/scanner, etc.

However, MS Office 2007 (in the single install I did; it hasn't been
popular, and I haven't encouraged sales due to the no-disk thing) was
way larger than that; over 1G as mentioned.

>Vista Ultimate, on the other hand, is substantially larger, but one has to
>remember that it creates volume shadow copies..

Yep. I went from 8G to 32G for that OS, which ends up with around 65%
C: free as opposed to 45% free on an XP in 8G install.

>I would not consider advising the running Open Office unless the OP did not
>want to spend to get MS Office or simply could not afford it
>(understandable).. ease of use within 2007 is way better than anything
>before it once the user has found everything..

Well, that's the thing. There's more "UI shock" moving to MS Office
2007 from previous MS Office than there is moving to Open Office (as
tested by showing clients both). MS Office is not cheap (though
better value than the same money spent on a broken one-trick pony,
like Quick Books for example) and not getting an installation disk
seals it for me; smells like a bad nappy, and I don't sell nappies.

Having said that, if folks do use MS Office to the max and are
prepared to get over the UI shock, MS Office 2007 can turn out to be
the favored choice. When I did the "try each and comment" test with a
couple who were professional editors, they initially went "huh?" on MS
Office 2007, fiddled around a bit, and then went "yeah, cool!" ;-)

I know why they changed the UI; it was a matter of scalability, the
old UI just couldn't contain the sprawling feature set. Still, if you
struggled to learn MS Office 97 and don't need the rich feature set,
Open Office may be a better fit.

I mean, if you said to me "I'll pay you half the cost of a laptop to
forego the joys of activation, and hey, I'll throw in a pre-install
archive so you can install as often and wherever you like", I'd be
seriously tempted to do without all them features - and that's the
basic equation, here. I find I seldom use Word (whereas before it was
like a pen glued to my hand) and mainly use Excel, as the Internet has
superceded printouts and faxes for communication.


And for writing HTML, Word is APPALLING. It pollutes the HTML with
all sorts of Word-isms (such as "special" "MS Word HTML" file type),
bloats the size, and triggers heuristic alarms.

Case in point...

Client is an OE "heavy hitter", using rich HTML stationary (hey,
they're a marketing company, what can I say... they don't spam,
though; they arrange events and publicize through magazines etc.).

They changed their phone number, so they go rt-click, Edit and edit
the new number into the stationary file, and save. Next thing, OE
goes ape**** alerting on scripts/active content within all the new
messages they send out. If they want to select 50 of these to
transfer from Sent Items to another mailbox, they get a pop-up dialog
on each of those 50 messages. They freak out and call me in.

I find the new stationary has that "special" icon (trust Word to smash
up standards) and is about 3+ the size of the old file. It's addled
with Wordesque junk that stems from the "must be pixel-perfect" DTP
mindset that's out of line for HTML.

So I change the phone number in the old stationary using Notepad, and
switch to that. They say "what about the messages we've already
done?" and it's 'sorry...' <shrug>

Then I try to get their preferred HTML editor (Front Page Express, as
downloaded from the Win98 era) set up as the default Edit action for
HTML, so we don't fall into the same damn tar-pit next time. This is
doable, but far more difficult than it should be, and three guesses
what will happen if MS Office ever gets re-installed.

Are OE's safety setting set too high? Well, unsolicited email
"message text" should be handled sternly, as per Restricted Zone norms
at least. Why should I be forced to drop my nickers, or even unbutton
my overcoat, just to accomodate some extra risk that Word imposes?

>...effects/changes preview alone makes Office 2007 worth getting,
>in my opinion..

I must try that feature. My main beef is that as an OEM, I'm obliged
to follow bad practice that I really object to; foisting trialware on
users (that I can fix at install time, I hope, but if you aren't
awake, you get Access and other non-in-this-edition bits rammed in
your face as a "trial") and worst; no installation disk, forcing them
to run after me if they need to re-install (anyone else will say "oh
dear, I don't have that disk; wanna buy it again? <snigger>")

>Pagefiles, if left to Windows Management, size themselves pro rata RAM
>installed, and as many people do have 1gb and more even running XP, I would
>not have thought that pagefile size will make much difference..

Yup. In XP I use 512M for all RAM sizes, with fast user switching and
full memory crash dumps disabled.

>Some games and some applications do not integrate into Windows at all, but
>many do, and at the point of installation it is impossible to determine
>which do and which don't.. it is probably best to assume that most do.. all
>of my large games do, for instance, as does MS Office..

I've got to know which do and don't; with games of a couple of years
ago, the ratio is 1:4 for "must install":"can scrape over".

I don't mind games getting broken, as they can be re-installed, if it
means C: is small enough for me to have imaged elsewhere. If I do
have a meltdown, that image will be a smile, and the broken games will
be a shrug, relatively speaking.

>The best reason for keeping the size of C down is because formatting is
>quicker in the even of total OS failure..

So is AutoChk, ChkDsk, imaging, defragging and SR footprint.

>in normal operation, optimum performance is seen when there is more
>than 15% free space, preferably nearer 25%

Most 8G C: systems have between 2G and 4G free space, in the field.
My own runs routinely at 700M to 1G with no sweat, due to several
bulky core apps (dev tools, WAIK) and if I wanted to, I could free
500M-1G by pulling off a couple of WAIK .CABs etc.

>Even budget computers are fitted with 160gb drives these days, so drive
>space is not at such premium as it once was.. those upgrading to Vista using
>machines at the lower end of the XP level may have a problem in finding
>enough free space, but that is to be expected, yes?

Disk space isn't there to be wasted of crap, especially on C:. I want
a big HD to mean shorter head travel in a C: of the same size.

Vista-era laptops still sell with pukey 40G to 80G HDs here, and once
you drop 32G for the OS, that doesn't leave much - plus, you have 50%
head travel (still better than 100%) most of the time.



>-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Tip Of The Day:
To disable the 'Tip of the Day' feature...
>-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

I don't dual boot. By using BIOS drive priority, each installation sees the
other as just a data drive. I am careful not to use XP utilities on the
Vista drive..

MS Office 2007 is a good product. I recognize that the first view of the
ribbon is daunting because users are not used to seeing any of the functions
available when any of the apps first open. If one looks at the ribbon as a
drop down menu laid on its side, acceptance becomes much easier. One just
has to get used to where everything is. There are a couple of utilities out
there that can recover the old look for those who can't or will not adjust.

It takes up a little over 800mb on my system (Treesize Pro), compared to the
550mb of Office 2003. Yes, there is a difference, but as I said, the preview
feature alone makes 2007 worthwhile, IMHO.

If a user wants an Office suite that gives them the biggest choice of
features, MS Office is the way to go, assuming that the user has the funds
and doesn't mind paying out. If these two criteria can't be met, sure, go
for Open Office.

OEM manufacturers frustrate me to death with their insistence in supplying
budget systems which they know full well will perform badly and are short on
resources. No slots for video cards, half the memory which should be there
for a given OS, small capacity HDDs, the cheapest printer 'thrown in', and
an 'extended' return to base warranty that will be the devil's own job to
get them to acknowledge when the time comes. Anything to screw money out of
people who don't know any better. No changes here at all. They have always
done it. and then the software gets blamed because there is too much of it?


"cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote in
message news:8avbb3latni9o2115k8elonqr24nf595ou@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 21:07:45 -0400, "Mike Hall - MVP"
>
>>I have two drives, one with Vista Ultimate and Office 2007 plus stuff, and
>>the other with XP and Office 2003 plus stuff, where stuff is almost
>>identical give or take very small things.. all of my user generated items
>>are kept away from both drives..
>
> Cool! Do you use non-standard MBR or physically disconnect the Vista
> HD when in XP, to stop XP eating Vista's shadow copies?
>
>>Office 2007 is larger than 2003, but nothing like as much as you suggest..
>
> I used WinDirStart (a free tool that shows files in a graphical way,
> scaled proportional to the space they occupy) and found the MS Office
> 2007 footprint to be around 1G.
>
> In the old days, MS Office was always considered a "disk hog", and
> that was true up to MS Office 2000. Thereafter I was pleasantly
> surprised to see it stay around the 200-300M mark, while other
> utilities (Java, Acrobat Reader, HP printer fluff) grew up past 100M
> and in some cases over 200M, too.
>
> So it's not surprising to see installations where the biggest non-game
> lump in Program Files isn't MS Office as expected, but (say) the
> bundleware that came with an all-in-one printer/scanner, etc.
>
> However, MS Office 2007 (in the single install I did; it hasn't been
> popular, and I haven't encouraged sales due to the no-disk thing) was
> way larger than that; over 1G as mentioned.
>
>>Vista Ultimate, on the other hand, is substantially larger, but one has to
>>remember that it creates volume shadow copies..
>
> Yep. I went from 8G to 32G for that OS, which ends up with around 65%
> C: free as opposed to 45% free on an XP in 8G install.
>
>>I would not consider advising the running Open Office unless the OP did
>>not
>>want to spend to get MS Office or simply could not afford it
>>(understandable).. ease of use within 2007 is way better than anything
>>before it once the user has found everything..
>
> Well, that's the thing. There's more "UI shock" moving to MS Office
> 2007 from previous MS Office than there is moving to Open Office (as
> tested by showing clients both). MS Office is not cheap (though
> better value than the same money spent on a broken one-trick pony,
> like Quick Books for example) and not getting an installation disk
> seals it for me; smells like a bad nappy, and I don't sell nappies.
>
> Having said that, if folks do use MS Office to the max and are
> prepared to get over the UI shock, MS Office 2007 can turn out to be
> the favored choice. When I did the "try each and comment" test with a
> couple who were professional editors, they initially went "huh?" on MS
> Office 2007, fiddled around a bit, and then went "yeah, cool!" ;-)
>
> I know why they changed the UI; it was a matter of scalability, the
> old UI just couldn't contain the sprawling feature set. Still, if you
> struggled to learn MS Office 97 and don't need the rich feature set,
> Open Office may be a better fit.
>
> I mean, if you said to me "I'll pay you half the cost of a laptop to
> forego the joys of activation, and hey, I'll throw in a pre-install
> archive so you can install as often and wherever you like", I'd be
> seriously tempted to do without all them features - and that's the
> basic equation, here. I find I seldom use Word (whereas before it was
> like a pen glued to my hand) and mainly use Excel, as the Internet has
> superceded printouts and faxes for communication.
>
>
> And for writing HTML, Word is APPALLING. It pollutes the HTML with
> all sorts of Word-isms (such as "special" "MS Word HTML" file type),
> bloats the size, and triggers heuristic alarms.
>
> Case in point...
>
> Client is an OE "heavy hitter", using rich HTML stationary (hey,
> they're a marketing company, what can I say... they don't spam,
> though; they arrange events and publicize through magazines etc.).
>
> They changed their phone number, so they go rt-click, Edit and edit
> the new number into the stationary file, and save. Next thing, OE
> goes ape**** alerting on scripts/active content within all the new
> messages they send out. If they want to select 50 of these to
> transfer from Sent Items to another mailbox, they get a pop-up dialog
> on each of those 50 messages. They freak out and call me in.
>
> I find the new stationary has that "special" icon (trust Word to smash
> up standards) and is about 3+ the size of the old file. It's addled
> with Wordesque junk that stems from the "must be pixel-perfect" DTP
> mindset that's out of line for HTML.
>
> So I change the phone number in the old stationary using Notepad, and
> switch to that. They say "what about the messages we've already
> done?" and it's 'sorry...' <shrug>
>
> Then I try to get their preferred HTML editor (Front Page Express, as
> downloaded from the Win98 era) set up as the default Edit action for
> HTML, so we don't fall into the same damn tar-pit next time. This is
> doable, but far more difficult than it should be, and three guesses
> what will happen if MS Office ever gets re-installed.
>
> Are OE's safety setting set too high? Well, unsolicited email
> "message text" should be handled sternly, as per Restricted Zone norms
> at least. Why should I be forced to drop my nickers, or even unbutton
> my overcoat, just to accomodate some extra risk that Word imposes?
>
>>...effects/changes preview alone makes Office 2007 worth getting,
>>in my opinion..
>
> I must try that feature. My main beef is that as an OEM, I'm obliged
> to follow bad practice that I really object to; foisting trialware on
> users (that I can fix at install time, I hope, but if you aren't
> awake, you get Access and other non-in-this-edition bits rammed in
> your face as a "trial") and worst; no installation disk, forcing them
> to run after me if they need to re-install (anyone else will say "oh
> dear, I don't have that disk; wanna buy it again? <snigger>")
>
>>Pagefiles, if left to Windows Management, size themselves pro rata RAM
>>installed, and as many people do have 1gb and more even running XP, I
>>would
>>not have thought that pagefile size will make much difference..
>
> Yup. In XP I use 512M for all RAM sizes, with fast user switching and
> full memory crash dumps disabled.
>
>>Some games and some applications do not integrate into Windows at all, but
>>many do, and at the point of installation it is impossible to determine
>>which do and which don't.. it is probably best to assume that most do..
>>all
>>of my large games do, for instance, as does MS Office..
>
> I've got to know which do and don't; with games of a couple of years
> ago, the ratio is 1:4 for "must install":"can scrape over".
>
> I don't mind games getting broken, as they can be re-installed, if it
> means C: is small enough for me to have imaged elsewhere. If I do
> have a meltdown, that image will be a smile, and the broken games will
> be a shrug, relatively speaking.
>
>>The best reason for keeping the size of C down is because formatting is
>>quicker in the even of total OS failure..
>
> So is AutoChk, ChkDsk, imaging, defragging and SR footprint.
>
>>in normal operation, optimum performance is seen when there is more
>>than 15% free space, preferably nearer 25%
>
> Most 8G C: systems have between 2G and 4G free space, in the field.
> My own runs routinely at 700M to 1G with no sweat, due to several
> bulky core apps (dev tools, WAIK) and if I wanted to, I could free
> 500M-1G by pulling off a couple of WAIK .CABs etc.
>
>>Even budget computers are fitted with 160gb drives these days, so drive
>>space is not at such premium as it once was.. those upgrading to Vista
>>using
>>machines at the lower end of the XP level may have a problem in finding
>>enough free space, but that is to be expected, yes?
>
> Disk space isn't there to be wasted of crap, especially on C:. I want
> a big HD to mean shorter head travel in a C: of the same size.
>
> Vista-era laptops still sell with pukey 40G to 80G HDs here, and once
> you drop 32G for the OS, that doesn't leave much - plus, you have 50%
> head travel (still better than 100%) most of the time.
>
>
>
>>-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
> Tip Of The Day:
> To disable the 'Tip of the Day' feature...
>>-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

--


Mike Hall
MS MVP Windows Shell/User
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/

"Mike Hall - MVP" <mikehall@mvps.org> wrote:

> Programs integrate with the OS so there is no value in installing
> them on a different drive or partition,

Wrong, wrong, WRONG!

I dual boot, Windows XP is on drive C: of course, Vista on drive D: and
all my files for Quicken, Xnews, Pegasus Mail and Outlook are on drive
E: resulting in syncronization regardless of which OS I boot into.

Are you referring to program files or data files? Many programs install
files into Windows folders, and in the event that Windows has to be
re-installed, so will any apps that have lost contact with installation
files integrated into Windows.

What did you think that I meant?


"XS11E" <xs11e@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns99845D318CD60xs11eyahoocom@127.0.0.1...
> "Mike Hall - MVP" <mikehall@mvps.org> wrote:
>
>> Programs integrate with the OS so there is no value in installing
>> them on a different drive or partition,
>
> Wrong, wrong, WRONG!
>
> I dual boot, Windows XP is on drive C: of course, Vista on drive D: and
> all my files for Quicken, Xnews, Pegasus Mail and Outlook are on drive
> E: resulting in syncronization regardless of which OS I boot into.
>

--


Mike Hall
MS MVP Windows Shell/User
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/

"Mike Hall - MVP" <mikehall@mvps.org> wrote:

> Are you referring to program files or data files?

Yes to both.

My entire Xnews install is on the common drive (drive D
along with Aspell, Aspell dictionary and MimeProxy. Pegasus and
Outlook are installed on both the OS drives and the mailboxs are on
drive D:

> Many programs install files into Windows folders, and in the event
> that Windows has to be re-installed, so will any apps that have
> lost contact with installation files integrated into Windows.

Yes but if any program requires installing or re-installing, I can
point it to the data files, if it doesn't need to be installed I can
just create a shortcut in the Windows quick launch bar so it's not a
black and white situation, it depends on how much the installer messes
with the registry and what .dlls it installs. I have one very much
needed program that uses a 16 bit installer, apparently the
installation isn't needed bacause I just copied the entier directory
from Windows XP Program Files, dropped into Program Files (x86) in
Vista 64 and it works! That's a candidate to be moved to the D: drive
and run from a shortcut in Windows when I get around to it.... It's
another that needs syncronization between the two OSs and moving it
will accomplish that.







--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

So I wasn't wrong, wrong WRONG entirely then.. I made no mention of data
files, and never suggested that data files can't be moved, even though some
can't, depending upon the program that creates and controls them..

The situation is indeed not black and white, and as I stated to another
thread, it is not easy to determine whether or not a program installation
drops files into various Windows directories..


"XS11E" <xs11e@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9984B6384E398xs11eyahoocom@127.0.0.1...
> "Mike Hall - MVP" <mikehall@mvps.org> wrote:
>
>> Are you referring to program files or data files?
>
> Yes to both.
>
> My entire Xnews install is on the common drive (drive D
> along with Aspell, Aspell dictionary and MimeProxy. Pegasus and
> Outlook are installed on both the OS drives and the mailboxs are on
> drive D:
>
>> Many programs install files into Windows folders, and in the event
>> that Windows has to be re-installed, so will any apps that have
>> lost contact with installation files integrated into Windows.
>
> Yes but if any program requires installing or re-installing, I can
> point it to the data files, if it doesn't need to be installed I can
> just create a shortcut in the Windows quick launch bar so it's not a
> black and white situation, it depends on how much the installer messes
> with the registry and what .dlls it installs. I have one very much
> needed program that uses a 16 bit installer, apparently the
> installation isn't needed bacause I just copied the entier directory
> from Windows XP Program Files, dropped into Program Files (x86) in
> Vista 64 and it works! That's a candidate to be moved to the D: drive
> and run from a shortcut in Windows when I get around to it.... It's
> another that needs syncronization between the two OSs and moving it
> will accomplish that.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
> The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

--


Mike Hall
MS MVP Windows Shell/User
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/

"Mike Hall - MVP" <mikehall@mvps.org> wrote:

> So I wasn't wrong, wrong WRONG entirely then..

Correct, you were only sorta partially wrong.



--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

On Mon, 6 Aug 2007 07:35:00 -0400, "Mike Hall - MVP"

>I don't dual boot. By using BIOS drive priority, each installation sees the
>other as just a data drive. I am careful not to use XP utilities on the
>Vista drive..

O..K.. IKWYM in terms of not trying to shell XP-era Boot.ini within
Vista's boot management or using an add-on boot manager, but as the
two OSs can still see each other's volumes, I'd expect to hear that XP
was eating Vista's shadow copies.

Or do you exclude the Vista HD from XP's System Restore?

>MS Office 2007 is a good product. I recognize that the first view of the
>ribbon is daunting because users are not used to seeing any of the functions
>available when any of the apps first open. If one looks at the ribbon as a
>drop down menu laid on its side, acceptance becomes much easier.

That's the "aha!" moment, yes, and I was pleasently surprised how
quickly my publisher/editor clients "got" that (especially as they
don't consider themselves "computer literate", but I've become used to
women who underestimate their technical prowess)

>It takes up a little over 800mb on my system (Treesize Pro), compared to the
>550mb of Office 2003. Yes, there is a difference, but as I said, the preview
>feature alone makes 2007 worthwhile, IMHO.

I don't see MS Office installations as often as I used to, but as I'm
retrofitting WinDirStat to PCs I see, I'll look at MS Office
footprints, correlating these with edition and version.

I'll start on my own two PCs...

XP SP2 with MS Office 2003 Pro + SP2 + 15 updates
- 289M in its subtree
- 20M in Common Files, Office11
-> 309M

Vista64 with MS Office 2007 Enterprise + PDF add-ons
- 614M in its subtree in Program Files (x86)
- 70M in Common Files, Office12
-> 674M

So yes; not as bad as I remembered (where did "1G" come from?).

>OEM manufacturers frustrate me to death with their insistence in supplying
>budget systems which they know full well will perform badly

I'm a small-volume OEM, and it is MS who insist I supply my generic MS
Office 2007 as an installed footprint with NO installation disks.

Not only that, but a few months ago, I saw a supplier's email that
referred to the current price of the installation disks (no license,
sold separately, I'm supposed to swallow the cost in return for the
priviledge of selling MS Office 2007) as an "introductory special
offer", due to go up from about US$ 10 to US$ 150.

I'd never seen the pack described as a "special offer" on any of the
three supplier's price lists that I receive regularly. I emailed my
lead on this, heard nothing, and assumed I was mis-informed after my
suppliers responded "huh?" as well.

This week's supplier price list shows the price is now indeed US$ 150.

IMO, this kind of cheap trickery is disgusting, and I do not intend to
recommend or sell MS Office 2007 in future, because it is beneath the
standards I set for myself as a system builder.

That means if my clients want it, they can either buy their PC
somewhere else, or they can pay retail price for it (thus blowing out
the cost with respect to the free Open Office they already have).

It's time we pinned down the "OEM Blues", which is normally ascribed
to greedy loyalty OEMs compelling Microsoft to buckle on standards.

In my direct experience in this case, it is MS who compells the OEM to
sell diskless air-boxes, creating an artificial dependency on the OEM
("oh please, OEM, re-install my software for me, after I followed
advice to 'just' wipe and re-install because of a virus"), not to
mention forcing repeat sales of the same license at full retail price.


>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
Never turn your back on an installer program
>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -

>
> Or do you exclude the Vista HD from XP's System Restore?

Does not protect Vista Restore points.
>

On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 18:13:36 -0700, "John Barnes" wrote:

>> Or do you exclude the Vista HD from XP's System Restore?

>Does not protect Vista Restore points.

Bummer - it should, if MS designed their OS safely.

This is in contrast to "hiding" the Vista volume(s) drive letter(s) in
XP's TweakUI, which is known not to work either.

If XP is set to not SR a volume, it shouldn't touch the thing, and if
the volume is FATxx, you can delete any \SVI it created there.

The challenge is then to KEEP this disabled, as if the volume goes
away and comes back, XP duuuuuhfaults back to drooling SR all over it
again. Also, it's a tricky thing to catch SR's dialog box at the
right time; too early, and volumes you want to protect are not listed
in it, and too late, it will have already started drooling away.

No Windows version has been a safe platform for at-risk HDs since
WinME's System Restore. Any HD visible will immediately attract
unsolicited writes... the safety clue is Just Not There. See...

http://cquirke.spaces.live.com/blog/...8C23!289.entry


>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
I'm *not* indignant!
>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -