Spooky

Was the drive attached when Vista was installed? I ask because in some pre-RC2 builds there was trouble using some USB drives if the drive was not attached when Vista was installed. I've heard of a few this also happend with for RC2 as well.

Well, yeah. The article is exactly correct, turning off the Aero effect doesn't improve gaming performance and the reason why is that the performance of games is not a consideration for MS operating systems any longer. In case anyone missed it, when X-Box and some of the newer consoles started hitting the streets, the move for windows based operating systems started shifting to business, IT, and media centers which are focused applications for PC's rather than "PC's to do everything" focus, with the games left to the consoles which are focused on games. You may have noticed that a lot of games are released first just for console now, where as a few years ago they were released first for PC's. The market for consoles is booming and has a bigger share then PC's so game manufacturers are doing what any business would - going to where the money is and taking their resources with them. The reason for bigger shares for consoles is because for gaming PC's have become a nightmare. The amount of support for PC based games is a lot higher then it is for consoles, the coding for PC games is more extensive and costly. A game off the shelf for the PC might cost about the same as a game for a console for example, but when you add in what it cost to produce a PC game and support it and then compare it to a console game the profit margin is greater with the console game. So, the overall reason why turning off the Aero effect in Vista doesn't improve gaming performance is simply because it's not supposed to, and is supposed to stay running to support things like media center. MS seems to be leaving the games to consoles like X-Box. Think about it, games will suck on the OS, while the entertainment-media orientation will make PC's attractive for homes - MS will sell an OS and then increase their profits by also selling the x-Box if someone wants games. If MS made Vista and future OS's gaming platforms they would be competing with their self in the market place for games. They stand to make much more by divorcing games from the OS and shifting them to consoles. They are simply going where millions of people have said they want to go with PC's by the popularity of movies, music, and other entertainment related media (not games) have told them where people want to be. And those numbers greatly outnumber PC gamers now that 12 and 13 year old kids get consoles every day instead of PC's because mom and dad don't want to put up with the hassel and don't understand PC's when they walk into the store and see consoles advertised as 'Gaming Consoles' and PC's just showing pretty GUI's - comparing the two the consoles look a lot more attractive for giving the kids what they want. Mom and dad want a PC to surf, email, see movies, and listen to music, most adults overall don't play many FPS games for example, you may know a lot of them, but in context with the total PC ownership games are in the minority regardless of the often over-inflated gaming statistics. PC's started out as work machines, evolved into a platform for many things not work related - and will de-evolve back to work machines which I think we will start to see with Vista.

Well, yeah maybe it should have read that - didn't think about it that way. Personally, i'm for some form of anti-piracy control/measures/prevention because I personally have seen the effects it has had on my own business - it ain't pretty. But I am not in favor of these overbearing, heavy handed, as some say 'draconian', absolutly stupid, short-sighted and ill-conceived measures introduced in the Vista license. These seek control over ownership of ones computer system, and introduce a continuing profit source for MS on products already sold (which I may add is illegal in about 50 states) - its more like paying rent then buying to own, all under the banner of anti-piracy. This does nothing to prevent piracy, only encourages it because most hackers love a challenge at one time or another, and penalizes the owner of the computer in the future. I'm waiting for the newspaper story - headline "12 year old kid defeats the MS anti-piracy efforts" - the story; "Today a 12 year old computer hacker released a legitimate software package that completly defeats the MS anti-piracy efforts. Little Johnny said "yeah, I did it...ya wanna see my new X-Box?" Whats MS going to do then - bring out its mighty legal eagles and try to explain to a jury what a 'device' is? Like I said, i'm all for some form of anti-piracy control/measures/prevention, but I am not for something that is still going to do nothing at all and serves only to penalize the legitimate user and have to pay for the "Windows Experience" too. Most of us at one time or another have been screwed and not kissed, well this time they aren't even bothering to use a condom, and forget about the kiss. That line should've been "sombdy will make a crack". What I find most amusing is the fact that by changing one or two bytes in a file or two, it is possible to defeat the entire mound of "protection" and validation schemes that M$ has developed Edit: Make that "somebdy has made a crack"

Vista is a MS product - no it doesn't render the machine inoperative only degrades use of the OS - yes its built into the OS but its triggered by a rejection for activation in the case of pirated versions. I thought that Vista was a Microsoft product.......

The copy you buy still belongs to you, its the intellectual property (Vista in this case) that doesn't belong to you - its always been this way. But your right - almost - about the license in a way - if you buy the copy of Vista then yes, you purchased a product so the product belongs to you, but the license doesn't belong to you as it only describes the agreement between you and MS for use of their intellectual property. So the physical product medium belongs to you but the intellectual property still belongs to MS. Its the same with about 99.9999 % of any other software you purchase that has a license agreement (EULA) with it. The thing about the Vista license, however, is that MS is now 'clarifying' (yeah right) ,so they say, their rights over the intellectual property by limiting your use of their intellectual property rights to only the first install and activation and then only one more time after that for a total of two times for two different 'devices'. There seems to be a problem in defining 'devices' from the various articles. According to the license a 'device' doesn't just mean what we consider a computer as its not clearly defined what 'device' means in the license. I don't think 'device' means to me what it means to others, and others may have a different definition also. The various web sites like the Win Super Site were quick to jump on the MS bandwagon stating that it just like that in WinXP and MS was just 'clarifying' (which wasn't true because the winXP license was not like the Vista license, clarifications or not) without fully exploring the implications. So part of the problem becomes; if MS said for example that 'device' means a computer then whats the definition of computer in terms of the license? Is it the original computer at the time of the first install? Is the original computer the first install and activation occured on still the original computer in terms of the license if you change a processor and later re-install and activate? Is the computer any computer we happen to be using at the time if you consider it in terms of "well I bought a copy for use on MY computer"? Is computer any computer you own that you can call yours in terms of "well I bought a copy for use on MY computer"? Lions and tigers and bears, Oh My! You could get a headache from trying to describe all the different things a 'device' might be under the Vista license. Its true, that at first glance without really reading the license in depth one might be tempted to simply say "OK, same old stuff, nothing has changed". The truth is nothing could be further from home plate here - the Vista license is nothing like the XP license. Oh sure, there are some of the standard things, but when you begin to really look at the Vista license in its whole context and the implications of the "clarifications" and "devices" you quickly realize that this license is nothing like the XP license and effectively begins to control your rights to ownership over your own computers simply for using a product that you legitimately purchased in the beginning. Even if you never changed any hardware, re-installed, or did anything that caused you to re-activate, the Vista license still infringes upon your ownership rights by removing or limiting that possibility. Its like buying a new engine for your car, if you put a new engine in but you need to pay a fee to the manufacturer to keep using the car because you put a new engine in then wheres your rights to ownership to do with your property as you choose without penality (excluding of course endangering someone or breaking a law)? And thats exactly what this Vista license does, even if you never need to activate again, it infringes upon your rights to ownership by limiting and penalizing you if you attempt to exercise unlimited control over your computer in terms of hardware changes that might need activation. Not really so i don't think, the license says that you can make a copy for your own use, but never describes what 'copy' is - so it could be an .iso, or a copy of the DVD to the hard drive - all thse are 'copies' there is no more 'Corp' versions starting with Vista, there are only different activation schemes. So you can't for example make an un-attended install that you do not need to activate. "STILL sombdy will copy vista sombdy will make a keygen sombdy will make an antiwpa,antiwga.... everyby else goin to use it that's it - nothing changed from XP " Hmmm, not really: "sombdy will copy vista" - someone already has, you can make your own copy, the license permits it. "sombdy will make a keygen" - probably, but then it will not do any good because if you remember when activation was introduced for XP that MS started hashing the machine info with the key - so a keygen is going to be useless unless you install on a different machine each time because the machine info in the hash will give it away and MS probably will not let that key activate and black list it so this effectively negates any keygen because MS now uses all that hash info so a key alone isn't going to do it. "that's it - nothing changed from XP" - wait until you change computers more then twice or change hardware that requires activation - plenty has changed.

An interesting item buried a little deep in Vista and out of the way is in the 'Programs and Features'. This is where you remove installed software like the 'Add/Remove Software' in XP, but different and a little fancier. Its not really the 'Programs and Features' thats buried a little deep and out of the way, its a certain part of it. To get to the interesting part, do this: Go to Control Panel, then start up the 'Programs and Features'. After it starts up in the menu on the left you will see the interesting part indicated by its link called 'Turn Windows Features on or off', click on the link and after the list of these items loads in the GUI window and you will be presented with a bunch of interesting choices to play with. Instead of me trying to explain them all, it would be better if you simply experiment yourself. Some choices may be to turn off the 'Tablet PC Optional Components' for example if you don't use Tablet PC. So...turn off those things your not using, as with any windows OS you may benefit from it in terms of OS performance. Its important to note that if you turn something off that you need and are using it and don't realize it (which is easy to do with Vista), you will need to remember what you turned off because you might need to turn it back on to restore some type of functionality to some software you use of something, there is no 'Boo Boo' button or 'Oh Crap' button; or in other words there is not 'Set Defaults' or 'Undo Changes button. Once you turn something on or off and click OK your only choices are 'Restart Now' or 'Restart later'. Its also important to note that this does not un-install anything, it just turns it on or off.

An interesting and insightful reply to the licensing issue with Vista, http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvi...nsing_reply.asp

Actually no...the license clearly states its one copy per device that gets licensed then you can transfer that one time. So this is twice period for one copy - once on the original install and activated, then you can transfer it to another device and activate - thats two times per license per copy according the the license agreement. "As I understand their activation deal, you can reformat and reinstall so long as the hardware stays the same (anyone clarify?). So heres some questions; Since a partition is defined in the license as a device, even if the original partition still exists - when you reformat that same partition it becomes a new device because its been reformatted even tho the partiton was never removed or re-created. So if you install once the first time and activate, then later re-install and activate after a format of that same partition, thats your two times under the license. What changes on a partition everytime you reformat? Its just not physical hardware thats considered a device in the license, a hard drive partition counts as a device also. It also puts a crimp on dual booting when you have to re-install or remove the other OS and keep Vista because more than likely your going to be using another partition to re-install by re-partitioning or formatting. These changes are a long way from what the XP license was, even though Paul at the Win Supersite seems to think otherwise. This is just more than a 're-wording' or 'clarification' of the license, its a whole new way of control over legitimate users. Its a whole new license where its focus because of this 're-wording' or 'clarification' is no longer the same license that XP or previous OS's had. It even introduces a hidden cost (or what i like to call a 'hidden tax') and a way for MS to continue gathering revenue after the product is already sold. I think Paul got it wrong, its all right there in the license in black and white. If you just gloss over the license then you think "Hmm, Ok thats about the same, .....nothing new there...hmmm, maybe a little different but not so much so" - but if you really read it and then put the seperated parts together you see a whole new picture thats not anything like the XP license. Yeah, they 'clarified' it ok, they also added stuff in various places that when placed in context with the clarifications give us a whole different license. If you really want to puzzle over something, If you get a chance, read the actual license and pay attention to the part about Defender, especially the part about automatically removing software it thinks is high risk. I'm just going to sit back and wait until the first law suit. States were nuts over IE being an integrated part of windows, wait until they find out people can't upgrade their computers hardware at will without buying additional licenses.

DISCLAIMER: My opinion follows below this paragraph and is not an accusation or an endorsement of any other persons or entities opinion including that of MSFN, this is just my opinion and i am not offering any legal, financial, or other advice as to the purchase or suitability and/or applicability for any purpose of the Vista operating system. I do not claim any legal expertise in these matters. This opinion, which forms the contents of this post, comes from my own understanding of the wording as presented in the License agreement found on the Microsoft web site and persumed to have been prepared for public viewing due to its public offering nature: The license agreement says this, in part: "2. INSTALLATION AND USE RIGHTS. Before you use the software under a license, you must assign that license to one device (physical hardware system). That device is the “licensed device.” A hardware partition or blade is considered to be a separate device. a. Licensed Device. You may install one copy of the software on the licensed device. You may use the software on up to two processors on that device at one time. Except as provided in the Storage and Network Use (Ultimate edition) sections below, you may not use the software on any other device. b. Number of Users. Except as provided in the Device Connections (all editions), Remote Access Technologies (Home Basic and Home Premium editions) and Other Access Technologies (Ultimate edition) sections below, only one user may use the software at a time." So from the license agreement, in this part, you may not use Vista on any other device other than the one its installed on (licensed to) and only one user may use the software at a time. This means you can't use Vista on more than one machine at a time, so this kills any home networking if you have two machines on your home network and say for example that you and your wife (or other family member) want to say for example surf the web at the same time, because if you install Vista on the second machine and activate it after its been installed on the first machine and activated, the second machine then becomes the licensed device. But in the overview section of the license it states: "1. OVERVIEW. a. Software. The software includes desktop operating system software. This software does not include Windows Live services. Windows Live is a service available from Microsoft under a separate agreement. b. License Model. The software is licensed on a per copy per device basis. c. Edition Specific Rights. See the Additional License Terms sections at the end of this agreement for license terms that apply to specific editions of the software." So the license is based on a per copy per device basis. This means a single copy of Vista is licensed to a single device. OK, nothing new here as its always been that way basically. But...then it states here in the license agreement: "15. REASSIGN TO ANOTHER DEVICE. a. Software Other than Windows Anytime Upgrade. The first user of the software may reassign the license to another device one time. If you reassign the license, that other device becomes the “licensed device.” b. Windows Anytime Upgrade Software. The first user of the software may reassign the license to another device one time, but only if the license terms of the software you upgraded from allows reassignment." So this means that you install it once and thats the first time. Then you are allowed one transfer (see where it says "The first user of the software may reassign the license to another device one time." So this in combination with the "2. INSTALLATION AND USE RIGHTS" part allows you to install the software initially and then transfer it to another device once - this is two times, the initial time and then the transfer. this means if you install Vista on the second machine in your home network for example and activate it after its been installed on the first machine and activated, the second machine then becomes the licensed device - so this is your initial install and then a transfer and this equals two times which is the limit of the license. This means that the license is no longer any good for further installs or transfers because the limit of the license has been reached. That is the extent of the license, this means another license will be needed to install and transfer again because the license per copy only covers the initial install and then one transfer and thats it. I don't think Microsoft is going to let you get away with a third activation either by internet or phone because they are bound by the license also and the license only gives you two times. Now granted, if you have some type of hardware failure, a motherboard for example which its replacement basically means a new machine in hardware terms for the OS most of the time, a phone call to MS might just let you go ahead and activate again. However, MS controls the activations and we already have read about the reduced functionality if Vista is not activated. I think the fair thing to do would be let MS explain this a little more, because from putting the pieces of the license together in context with each other it sure doesn't seem like you will be able to activate more than twice per license and a license extends and covers one copy of vista only, thus you can not activate one copy of Vista on more than two devices which is the limit of the license. I read the information by Paul Thurrott (and this is not intended to be critical of or dispute the information presented at the link mentioned) in the link at http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing.asp and he seems to paint a rosier picture, but also seems to have failed to put these pieces together. Paul seems to think that this is the same as its been in all MS OS's, but it isn't when you place all this in context with the new MS anti-piracy efforts as this is the first time MS has ever been this heavy-handed in their regualtion of our use of the product purchased. This "regulation" attempt is outside what we as mere mortals consider "industry standards" (and in my opinion, I believe outside the legal bounds of consumer law and possibly some other laws like anti-trust), is basically a 'Tax', serves no purpose to prevent piracy and is improperly represented under the banner of anti-piracy efforts thus disguising the possibility of the opportunity to make additional profits from the same product in effect selling the same product over and over again, punishes those who seek to upgrade their hardware and possibly imposes an additional 'disguised' financial burden on those that purchase the Vista OS. This punishment comes from the fact that no where in the License does it state that more than two activation per license are available under any conditions that may exist normally and are common for computer owners and an unknowing making the purchase of Vista does not have an opportunity to review or understand the terms of the license before purchase. It also possibly seeks by its present wording to attempt to regulate or restrict when hardware upgrades or the type of hardware upgrade one may make if they continue to use a single copy of Vista and thus limits a persons control over their own computer if a single copy of Vista is to be used - this decreases a persons rights over owner ship of their own computer if a single copy of Vista is to be used and they wish to upgrade hardware that may affect the activation or licensing of Vista. I'm all for the anti-piracy efforts, but the way this is presented its not anti-piracy, in my opinion its a hidden tax that offers an opportunity to MS to sell the product again and again over time by restricting the honest persons rights to full control over their own hardware in terms of changing or upgrading some types of hardware (or devices). It in effect says "Oh, you changed your hardware a third time, too bad, you'll need to buy another license if you wish to continue the use of Vista". I don't remember reading anywhere that Ms is legally authorized to collect taxes. Of course i could be completly wrong, its happened before . BTW, if you use the contents of this post anywhere else and its for a good purpose then i get credit

Hmmm, not really i don't think. You have to actually purchase a new license if you transfer the license to a new 'device' (which includes partitions on hard drivers) more then twice, they will not just let you re-activate by phone, you will have to actually purchase a new license. Install twice on different 'devices' and you will need to shell out the bucks for a new license. Transfering the license means that you activated it on a 'device' and when that happens the licensing is automatically transfered to that new device but the limit is two. You also can't use it on more then one machine at a time, so you can't use it for example on multiple machines in your home network when more then one person is using a machine on your network. You can get a copy of the license thru a link in the blog at: http://blogs.technet.com/windowsvista/arch...or-Windows.aspx This is very sad indeed. Such a radical departure from industry norms and previous OS's. This is like if you replace more then two tires on your car that you have to pay the dealer a fee to continue to use the car. This is basically a tax, a tax levied against those who upgrade hardware, and does nothing to stop or curb piracy which is the banner under which its introduced. I'm sure there are going to be a bunch of lawsuits over this with states bringing suit for anti-trust and consumer law violations. MS may think the anti-trust thing in Europe really bit them in the butt, just wait until 50 states with 50 different anti-trust cases against them show up, its going to be like Europe times 50. BTW, i'll bet some of those states that bought lawsuits before because of IE are going to be taking a very interesting look at the Europe results because MS made our courts believe at the time that IE and other components could not be removed from windows, yet here MS in Europe removing components from the very OS they said they couldn't be removed from.

Hmmm, nope, the Ultimate License says that you can make a backup copy of your licensed copy by specifically stating in the license: "10. BACKUP COPY. You may make one backup copy of the media. You may use it only to reinstall the software." the license doesn't say anything about an .iso. Also look at : http://blogs.technet.com/windowsvista/arch...or-Windows.aspx you can get a copy of the license thru a link in the blog. You mean make a copy of the Vista ISO? Yes, I think that's obviously against the EULA...

take a look at ... http://internetweek.cmp.com/news/193300242 This is where the story came from originally i think. Its changed as of today and they admitted they made some errors in their initial report. As for the .iso, there is no mention of an .iso or how many times an .iso can be moved in the license.

after May 2007, if you try to install the Vista beta it will tell you that you can't because its expired. You won't be able to use your pc unless you reinstall Vista or install another OS. No, its not a combination, its simply the version with everything in it, all the bells and whistles, that doesn't appear in the other versions. The memory managemnt for all the versions is the same. All the versions include the same processes also.

works fine here

Starting with Vista RC 2 there will be certain services that you can not disable. Lets use Task Scheduler as an example; you used to be able to just "Stop using task scheduler" by the setting in the GUI, now the setting is no longer there and you can't turn it off or change its start up status in the services. So what you will need to do is change it in the registry. Still using Task Scheduler as an example, start up reg edit and go to: [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\Schedule] "Start"=dword:00000002 You can change the startup status for a service not changeable in any other way by changing the value of the "Start" key. Its simple, just choose one of these values and change the key value; 1 = system start 2 = automatic 3 = manual 4 = disabled You don't even need to re-boot (although i'd recommend it just to be sure), simply change the reg key. I do not recommend you set any service to disabled if its not necessary to do so. Setting them to manual allows them to start in case they are needed instead of receiving an error about a service not starting. BTW: I found 4 different instances of Task Scheduler running in taskman. All the things (24 of them) it was scheduling should be things starting up with Vista, why 'schedule' them? Anyway, after i set Task Scheduler to manual i noticed a little bit, slight, responsiveness in the OS at log on.

did you try removing the existing partition first then creating a new partition, then reformatting NTFS?

Kev, I didn't go that far with it. This is just a basic 'beginners' helper thing I tought might interest those just getting started and needing a little help. Although you could eaisly develop it into what you need by following the advice of fizban2 in the reply just above this one.

Kind of long, but informative and interesting content concerning Vista's SuperFetch; http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=242429

Read it already, good book. yes, virtual address space is what I was talking about primarily, sorry I wasn't clear.

Hmmm, i'm not seeing this myself.

I rarely see any paging, I have 4GB of memory.

This whole performance thing in Vista is so misunderstood. It doesn't tell you how well your hardware is performing. It only tells you how well Vista THINKS its performing with your hardware. (BTW...you guys did know that if you install over 2GB of RAM that Vista will recognize and use it didn't you? Unlike the 2B barrier (without switches) in previous windows versions.)

Flash player installed fine for me and with no crashes in 5744. did you install the latest version?

Just curious, what is this for?

Did you try bridging the NICs (the connections)? Vista will only use one NIC at a time for the most part, if you bridge them however it should use both. Both NIC's will show as installed and 'active' but one will not work. It doesn't means theres a problem, it just means that Vista chose one over the other when they were detected and installed. Generally the one that will grab an IP address first will be the one Vista chooses as the dominate NIC and then keep it that way. One more thing too, check the IRQ's being used for the cards if bridging doesn't fix it. There may be some sort of contention for the IRQ even tho it doesn't show up as a problem. I have one machine with two NIC's and i had to bridge to get them both to work.