MrCobra

My vote goes to XP/XP64. I used Vista extensively for almost a year. I was turned off of it because of the running out of memory while copying files bug, which is still present. I wiped my machine clean and waited for SP1 to come out. The issues I had with RTM were still present in SP1. The "WOW" factor is just not there for me. I see no reason (yet) to move from something that works to something that STILL has major problems for something that's been out for 20+ months now.

That a polished turd is still a turd. I just watched the YouTube video and I must say that it was too scripted.

I think you fail to realize that there are those that DO utilize 8+GB of RAM. My motherboard supports 16GB and I have 8GB. There are frequent times that all memory is used and the pagefile is thrashed around. @OP: If you can afford it and justify it, then get as much as you can.

That and the out of memory while copying files bug (which is still present in SP1) are the 2 main reasons I switched back to XP64. Most everything else looked unfinished and like it was slapped together. Yes. The OS must be rubbish! It couldn't be a driver issue (USB or mass storage) or anything like that Not everyone experiences the "WOW" with Vista. I have very high end machine and Vista was very sluggish. It was a default OS install with the drivers that come on the Vista DVD.

mabe not fresh just revised I would settle for total separation of kernel and user spaces. User mode apps and drivers shouldn't be allowed to bring an OS to its knees like is currently possible. Complete removal of all legacy code and systems from the main code base should also happen while all the older code were virtualized or at least (un)loaded on demand. I think MSFT is going to have to do a radical overhaul at some point with the codebase of Windows. It is getting just a bit too big and heavy.

That's more of a side effect than anything. And it's not like the presence of NTVDM on your box lowered performance or anything. It may be a side effect of the 64bit architecture, but the removal of the 16bit subsystem is a good thing. It's that much less legacy code that needs to be supported and less code problems to deal with on MSFTs part. The more legacy code that is removed from Windows the better. Instead of maintaining legacy code for old apps, they [MSFT] can put more effort into other aspects of Windows. It doesn't really work any better than the x86 version for that (unless you wanna try running x64 compiles). I'm perfectly happy with Vista x86 for that (and VS2008 is perhaps the app I spend the most time in) It does when you need to build 64bit binaries and need access to larger sets of RAM. That's a reason in itself to have waited some more. There isn't a x64 version yet (it's due for next year), and meanwhile running PS under WOW64, adding extra overhead, doesn't make much sense either. And once it's out, it just might need new x64 versions of your plugins and such too. Adobe themselves last time said there was no point going with a x64 version, because it wouldn't have helped at all (it's memory bound, and x64 doesn't make memory access any faster). You're only going to get some benefits, when you work on a few GB worth of images at once (100+ megapixel HDR pano shots? ) And again, most people will need to buy more RAM for it to make use of it in the first place. I didn't need to wait longer. I needed/wanted 64bit now, not later. When 64bit versions of my favorite programs comes along, I will already have the capability to take advantage of them. I like to future proof my PC parts purchases for at least a little while. Yes, I totally agree there. They seriously have to. Windows 7 shouldn't even come in a x86 version. It's not like anyone's going to run it on an old P4 or an Athlon XP, and by then 8GB of RAM will be quite cheap and getting close to mainstream. By that time (hopefully), with Nehalem, memory configurations of at least 12GB will be (somewhat) common. I have 8GB in my box now and sometimes it does get constrained a bit. DDR3 prices will be dropping sometime mid next year. I use CorAVC and Haali, Xvid, QT and others almost on a daily basis under 64bit XP. Absolutely no problems whatsoever. Video playback in XP64 is a lot smoother than in 32bit XP.

"in use" doesn't really mean anything. If someone thought, "Hey, I can get it on the net, so why pay for it?", they were never going to purchase it to begin with. It can't be considered a lost sale because it would never have been sold in the first place. There was no money lost and no money was gained. You can't lose something that you didn't have to begin with. Undoubtedly there will always be those individuals that want everything for nothing, but if companies want to severely curb piracy, they need to drop prices. I don't condone, support, or encourage piracy and before anyone chimes in and starts jumping all over my back about my post, ALL my software is bought and paid for.

I moved to (XP)x64 for a few reasons. 8GB+ of RAM The removal of the 16bit subsystem The support that it will get far and beyond that of the general consumer version of XP Software developement Photography (64bit version of PS is in the works) Luckilly, every piece of H/W that I have has 64bit drivers. I do think that MSFT should abandon 32bit at some point and focus solely on 64bit developement. H/W is advancing rapidly and yet the software (thanks to 20 year old compatability layers and lazy developers) continues to hold it back. Nice posts you've made, btw. Also, thanks for the Screensaver Powertoy. Works fine in XP.

Exactly the reason I threw my Vista PowerTogether give-a-way in the trash. I waited until SP1 to use it again and it still felt the same even after the service pack. Luckilly, all my H/W has XP64 drivers. And since it's based on Server 2003, it'll be supported for a lot longer than plain old XP will be.

I don’t necessarily think it’s what Microsoft can learn from Apple. But what Microsoft needs to learn period. I think Microsoft needs to make Windows 100% modular. Anything and everything except core functionality should be easily removable from the OS. There are too many interdependencies in Windows. They need to quit adding feature on top of feature on top of feature. I also think that Microsoft needs start making Windows 64bit only and quit catering to the people/businesses that need to keep 20 year old applications running. Why should I as a user suffer bloat and intentional bugs just to ensure that some business can still run the same software that they ran 20 years ago exactly the same as it did 20 years ago? If legacy applications are that important then keeps the OS they were designed for or virtualize them. If anything, the NT line of Windows should only be backward compatible with the NT line. 9x code support needs to be killed.

Jobs could crap in a paper bag and every Mac head would chant his name and be ready to fork out money for it. Check this out: http://gizmodo.com/tag/macheads-the-movie/ Everything inside of an X86 based Mac is standard PC parts. And with the exception of a customied board for the PPC line of products up until the X86 transition was announced, were also just normal PC parts. Thinkpad T61 --- CPU: Intel® Core™2 Duo processor T9300 (2.5GHz, 6MB, 800MHz) Memory: Up to 4GB PC2–5300/677MHz (3GB addressable with 32-bit OS) MBP --- CPU: Intel® Core™2 Duo processor (2.5GHz or 2.6GHz, 6MB, 800MHz) Memory: 2GB (two 1GB SO-DIMMs) of PC2-5300 (667MHz) DDR2 memory Based on those two observations you made alone, I really don't see how everything is better. The specs for the MBP and the ThinkPad are very similar. Looks like someone has been drinking too much of the Jobs flavored kool-aid. In all seriousness, use whatever you like, makes no difference. But please take the blinders off before spewing Apple propaganda that isn't even true. you really dont expect anyone to buy this one right? lets see! few days ago ive been called up for network being infected with malwares which had KIS installed on all systems and updated daily... you can give a total nOOb a mac and come back in one month and see no virus or malware ever infected the system... All down to market share. It was the same with FF. Everyone claimed it was the second coming of Christ and that there were no exploits or holes in it...until it hit a certain market share to make it worth while to exploit it.

If it's .msi based installs then you can modify the .msi file to allow them to install. With few exceptions like requiring routines not present in the OS, most of the newer stuff installs and works on 2000 just fine. For InstallShield based installers, run them and then copy everything from the temp folder they are stored in and modify the .msi files (if there are any) or import the scripts into InstallShield and modify those. The majority of the OS checks in the installers are artificial.

Office 2003 for me. I'm used to it and it works. While Office 2007 works, I just don't like it.

There's absolutely nothing majorly wrong with the NT kernel except it has dependencies that shouldn't be in there. The MinWin project is a totally self contained kernel. It doesn't rely on anything outside of itself. Everything else plugs in. Windows 7 may see the use of this, but I highly doubt it. In reply to what you posted... The kernel will never be user servicable like in *nix. That would have MSFT relinquish the control it has over the OS. I think the kernel space and user space should be 100% seperated. There is no reason a user mode app should be able to bring down the system as is currently possible on all versions of Windows. And for goodness sakes, it they're going to get security concious after all these years of problems, at least build the security in instead of slapping it on top of everything else.

Never ever flash a BIOS from inside Windows. I personally killed 2 boards doing that and know of others that have had boards die on them as a result of flashing from within Windows. Find out what EPROM chip your computer uses and find the good old DOS based flash program for it.

I don't know of any automated solutions for it, but you can render the clipboard memory buffers to a DC (device context) and save it out to a file format of your choice. It may be beyond the scope of what you're asking for, but if you have any programming knowledge it's a simple task to perform.

From Borland/CodeGear http://www.codegear.com/products/turbo From Microsoft http://www.microsoft.com/express/ Or if you'd like to try your hand at x86 assembly language http://www.masm32.com/ All the tools are free of charge.

FLP can very much be used as a general purpose OS. I even have MSOffice installed and it's running fine. My SP3 & FLP installs mirror each other except for the fact that one is FLP and one is SP3, but everything works on the FLP box just like it does on my SP3 box. I've tested it extensively and there have been absolutely no issues whatsoever. Makes for a nice game box for my daughter. Before anyone goes on a rant, YES...my copy is perfectly legal.

Yes, as long as the correct multiprocessor support was detected and loaded properly when you first installed it.

All the official links still work. SP3 was "pulled" because of a compatability issue with some other MSFT software which the general consumer will never see or use. MSFT didn't test SP3 thoroughly enough with their software and they found problems after the SP was final. SP1 for Vista was the same except it was driver incompatabilities. It didn't change and it's highly unlikely that SP3 will change. They'd better hurry the heck up and fix it... this is ridiculous! And did anyone else notice that support.microsoft.com was down for about 5 hours this morning? Unless you use that app or work with it, that will not affect you in any way. SP3 is therefore safe to use.

Then you more than likely removed the Windows Time Service. Without that, it won't update automatically.

Final RTM build is 5512.

Well, according to the rules this means you're going to be banned. Sorry, couldn't resist. Thought it better for someone other than myself to post it.

As the title & discription suggests.

It's a bug in XP. SP3 fixes it.