djnes

There isn't a problem of driver availability...if Vista drivers exist, you should be able to find both. As of now, both are about even in terms of compatibility. Most people tend to go with x64 simply because it's more future proof. If anything, x64 is snappier on the same system than x86. If you think you'll have 4 GB of system memory anytime within the next few years, you'd also want to go with Vista x64, or else you'd be re-installing your OS just to upgrade your memory.

How long are you giving it to load? Do you see a window, with an animated green-fill scrolling across the small window, down in IE's bottom tool bar? If so, the anti-phishing scanner might be the culprit.

Network and Sharing Center > Manage Network Connections > Right Click on the NIC's connection, and click properties.

You aren't doing anything negative to your hard drive by letting Vista's Indexing service run on it. That's by design, and only speeds up searching. The Vista search feature is one of the reasons why I won't go back to XP. As for the delay in file copies, that's been mostly fixed, for me atleast, with the Performance patches that have been out for over a week now. Also, if you follow the standard tweaks of disabling the two options starting with Link Layer and IPv6 (unless you are using it) in TCP/IP properties , that makes a HUGE difference.

Performance isn't a reason why people switch back to XP, given that on most recent, or fairly recent systems, Vista will give better day-to-day performance. The main reason to switch back to XP is if you have hardware that isn't compatible. If it's a software applications, Virtual PC 2007 can solve that issue.

Many people would beg to disagree with that statement. I'm using Vista on all of my computers now, and couldn't imagine a reason for wanting to go back to XP.

What's the structure of the recovery disc? If it has the i386 directory, you could probably use vLite to make a standard Vista disc.

I truly wish, as an IT Manager, it was simple a matter of user knowledge. However, with more and more varied attacks, such as the WMF method, user knowledge, and smart computing habits aren't always enough. That's why, with consideration given to the fact some good, free AV packages exist, there's no way to really argue against running one. It's been a long long time since they had any real affect on system performance either.

That's the kind of thinking that leads to outbreaks.

I may be wrong, but I don't think you can with an OEM license. I was thinking only corporate and possibly retail license allow this. Unless you have a very specific application incompatibility, don't turn your back on Vista without giving it a shot.

Now I see what you are trying to do. I was thinking all you wanted was your photos to print full page. I'm not away of anything built in to Vista that allows custom dimensions. If the Poweroys from XP were ported over, we'd have something.

I think you might have misunderstood what I was saying. Anytime I've tried to print a photo to a full page, larger or not, the output is perfectly fine, exactly as it used to print with that setting you are looking for in XP. I'm actually able to print the same pictures out on my PC (Vista) and my wife's PC (XP) and the output is the same on both, regardless of the photo. You seem to be hung up on the wording of the feature, rather than what the prints actually look like. I asked in the first post if you were having a problem with the output. If so, that's what we should be talking about, not the wording of the feature. I've printed everything from our wedding photos, to much smaller, lower quality photos with both options on both OSes, and I can't see a difference.

Is it the rotation part you aren't finding? Mine seems to do that for me, when I choose to print full page images. That's what I was getting at. I'm sitting in front of two PCs right now, one with XP and one with Vista Ultimate, and I'm not seeing a difference in the output, trying to print some full page images.

This probably isn't the answer you're looking for, but I've always found it easier to just back up my data, and copy it to the new PC.

For what I've printed so far, the full page option works just the same as what you're used to in XP.

If you are reinstalling, it's always best to clear the drive and start from scratch.

If you are doing a re-install, you should be using a blank drive. However, if for some odd circumstance, you want to re-install on an existing partition, how much free space does it have?

Honestly, in much less time than it took you to have typed that entire message, you could have had it re-activated. I've had to call in a re-activation of several Vista machines already. It is a nuisance, but you've already spent more time venting about it, than it would take to solve the actual issue. 5 minutes is the absolute longest I've ever been on the phone for this. I don't mean to pile it on, but I also never understand what part of the problem, or text of a message makes people think you need to buy a new key. Call it in, re-activate, and be done with it.

I bought this game, but haven't had a chance to load it yet. Has anyone played it yet? If so, what do you think?

If you use BartPE (free) along with your Ghost12 files, you can have the best and most flexible solution around for disk-imaging.

I may be wrong, but I believe there's a new hotfix to address this issue, assuming you mean Vista's Windows Mail application.

There's no set list of what will or won't trip the activation. Even if you do something major, such as the motherboard, most people have been able to call in to re-activate regardless of what they change. The unwritten rule seems to say, for the most part, as long as you aren't trying to activate it on a second computer, meaning two computers at once, you'll be fine.

Even better yet, have a storage drive, with a folder called documents, and save everything there. I'm not sure what the allure to the "My" folders are, but I can't say I've ever used them. If you have a storage drive setup, you can have all of your data easily accessible to both OSes.

Yep, that's what I've seen as well. Sometimes it takes longer than others, even from the same server, for a similar sized file, but it will complete.

You have more than 99 local users?