TravisO

I don't see why people even mention Vista's lack of BluRay support. Have any of you guys realized that neither Win2000 nor XP "support" DVD at all? And guess what, it doesn't matter, that's because you have apps like PowerDVD and a "driver" to support your DVD player/burner. Native support is great, but as you can see you've been living without it for years. You should be happy that Vista will natively play DVD movies and at least 1 of the new HD formats. Talk about a bunch of pessimists! If you buy a BluRay burner it will still work in Vista, if you buy a BluRay rom you'll still be able to play your movies, depending on DRM sh!t, and that's where the movie company is to blame, not MS. PS: how many of you actually use XP's built in CD burning. If you burn CDs, don't use XP's built in burning support and just complained about Vista's lack of BluRay support, you are now officially a hypocrite.

50megs holy wow! I had never thought about video drivers taking up memory, I obviously need to check this out as I have an ATI 9600AIW. I don't know what NVIDIA or ATI drivers take up but 50meg is too much for a mere driver. If it does take up 50meg, sounds like you need to find a hacked version without that new fancy control panel crap. Also, perhaps you should up grade to the newest drivers, which came out like 2 or 3 days ago. Generally newer means more ram, but perhaps they're tweaking their problems.

Rasken, you are a voice of reason in a forum full of people with their head up their arse. I also have to agree with everything you said, everybody said Win2000 used too much ram (128 min) and why switch when 98 only used 32meg. But what happens a couple years later, 95% of these people switched. Many people said the same about XP, lots of mindless FUD stuff (it's not stable, it's all candy, it uses more ram) which is untrue (ok it is candy but I like candy). Guess what, a good 90% of those people switched. Now these nimrods are at it again, "omfg Vista needs 512 ram?". I should point out that 512ram is only about $80, so price wise, it doesn't cost more than requirements of 2000 or Xp in their day. Then when XP SP2 was getting ready, a bunch of people where saying how they won't run it. Guess what, they are now. And guess what, after about a year they'll all switch to Vista because they'll finally realize it's so much better. But anybody who thinks you need SP1 before an OS is stable is full of it. They obviously don't understand all of the testing MS does, which far exceeds the testing Apple does (Linux might be equal but only because the community tests it). This is the reason Apple is beating MS out on releasing features earlier, MS embraces backwards compatibility along with great new features. it's a double edge sword that's the crutch of Windows, but obviously if you guys didn't like it, you wouldn't be using Windows now. And if you don't use Windows, you're wasting your time on this forum category An OS is a give and take thing people, the more it can take, the more it can give back. I'd rather buy a $30 stick of 256ram and get a superior GUI. You all realize in a few years people won't know htf we ever used a raster based UI because it will be so "pixelated" and any attempts at providing high res (aka high fidelity) meant you had to have tiny icons & graphics that don't scale with the size of the text. I just hope that for every 1 FUD forum user, there are 100 people with their head on their shoulders and can't wait for Vista'a new features.

How about some Win 3.0 icons? Do you have those? huh?! Sorry, couldn't resist

The problem appears to be I wasn't using "Total Commander"

You merely want to install the new pack over the old installation. If this wasn't a good idea then Gape would be guilty of some crappy software packages. You're more likely to have problems by uninstalling the pack.

Am I the only person who see's soldier1st 's oversized signature a form of visual DoS ? Come'om man, nobody else cares about the config of your PC, and if we did, we care even less about the 2nd or 3rd PC... When your sig is bigger than your post, we have a problem