Spooky

have you tried to do a simple file association? (Open With, always open with this program) for .htm, .html, etc....? I'm not sure Vista will allow something thats 'portable' be a default, I haven't tried it tho. If you get it to work let us know what you did. yes but what is does is make...fiefox default..and doesnt use portable executable....so it kinda defeats the object :S

Eck, OK, I understand what your seeing now. I think your right, its more than likely the indexing going on. Vista has a tendancy to do that at startup and idle times. You can turn it off however, and then see if it helps you out. One of the key things about Vista is its new search engine, and it needs to keep that up to date all the time so I expect there will be a lot of people thinking its simply hard drive thrashing. Some of those things your seeing with the disk activity might also be the services that are 'delayed start'. If you look in services.msc you can which ones these are, there are many of them. For system restore and restore points, i'm not sure how long it should actually take on the average. I know mine comes up almost instantly, well...at least within a few seconds, when I look for past restore points. File version restore, yeah I think your right that it may only come on the Ultimate version but i'm not really sure. I do know that the Ultimate version is what your going to want because it has all the bells and whistles that do not appear in the other versions of Student, Basic, Home, Business. Something I did find for Vista that will be important and might affect how people perceive Vista, Memory. The amount of memory is going to be very important. Of course, generally, adding memory always helps. But just as an example, the beta machine originally had 2 GB of ram when the beta started, I was seeing a lot of odd things I thought were bugs that some people could not verify but others could, this was with RC1 but I had seen the same things in previous builds. One day I had a motherboard fail on another machine. When I pulled the board out I took the memory and plugged it into the beta machine, I though "Might as well use it while i'm waiting for a new mother board". This bought the beta machine to 4GB of ram. When I booted back into Vista RC1 I began to notice how much smooter and faster it ran, the odd 'bugs' I had seen before were completly gone and I couldn;t duplicate them any longer. I thought at first that maybe I had some bad memory, so I ordered some new corsair memory, 4GB, in 1GB sticks. When it arrived I took out the old memory and put the new corsair memory in 1GB at a time, the old 'bugs' came back and while the OS was performing it wasn't very fast. then I added 1GB more of memory, same thing, Then I put the whole 4GB in and once again the things I thought were 'bugs' before were gone and everything was fast and crisp and the hard drive rarely had activity unless there was actual indexing going on or i was moving stuff around or adding something. Don't get me wrong, Vista will probably work fine with 1GB or 2 GB, but my own experience is that after I went to a full 4GB it was like the difference between night and day.

I thought they moved the Corporate version release till Feburary next year, with everyone else getting it in March ???

Exactly, it's not completly stable yet...its is a beta after all. If there's a side effect in Vista, then the OC isn't stable. Besides, I never heard of a Windows-unstable OC that Prime95 can pass on! In fact, it's possible for Prime95 to fail with a game-stable OC!

Actually, I don't think ReadyBoost puts the page file on the USB flash, the page file still remains on a hard drive type device. Ready boost is mostly for applications that you use frequently and in a way sort of functions like extra ram for those, to allow you to start those items more quickly because you don't worry about hard drive seek and read times 'cause its already in memory which is a lot faster. So several million writes to the flash drive will not take place as a result of the page file. I can see why you'd want to put the page file on the flash drive, but its not such a good idea for a few different reasons. Vista doesn't see the flash drive during boot most likely, this leads to Vista wanting to re-create the page file on a hard drive. Vista (and all MS OS's) first place to look for the page file is a hard drive. Even if the page file was on the flash drive, Vista is always going to look at the hard drive first then the flash drive even tho it knows the page file is on the flash drive to begin with. The page file in Vista doesn't have anything to do with the applications, it only has to do with adding virtual memory to the OS in the form of the page file. Vista doesn't 'mirror' the page file - the page file goes where it goes and it stays there, I think your thinking about the shadow copy which does what you mentioned in your post with files and the shadow copy is always on the hard drive but doesn't do anything with the page file.

Well, it depends on what you mean by problems. To some people the display of the watermark on the desktop is a problem. The key to using Vista sucessfully is going to be three things: 1. Current hardware - MS has already said that stuff that was older then 2005 might have problems - this includes processors, hard drives, etc... 2. Memory - the memory requirement given is the minimum to have the OS install and start up - its not whats really needed to function well. For example, my beta test machine normally has 1GB of ram and Vista runs OK for most 'light' tasks with paging to the hard drive a lot and I was having the normal beta problems most have. But then I beefed up the memory to 4GB, it was the difference between night and day and over 90% of the problems I was having at 1GB of ram went away, the OS smoothed out, runs fast, no more hard drive thrashing, and everything works well (aside from the normal un-optimized beta things). 3. Processor/chipset - Intel works well right now for the most part, there are still a few problems with AMD processors and chipsets other than intel. yep, there are problems just like any piece of beta software has.

Why bother to remove the watermark at this time anyway. You just have to do it again and again for each build, and then its going to go away anyway when Vista goes RTM. Besides, there is no need to modify any files to do this, its a registry entry change.

Vista does not have xvid or divx codecs. getting some third party codecs to install can be a pain in Vista. The codec pak that is known to work in Vista at this time is the k-lite Mega Codec Pak version 1.59, however, do a custom install with it and unckeck the fldshow items as Vista has a problem with the fldshow.

MS hasn't supported OpenGL in its past products and I don't think you will see it in Vista either. It will probably be up to the card manufacturer to provide some sort of opengl driver/support. Right now the ATI beta drivers don't support opengl and might not in the future.

Eck, I tried the Avast beta in vista, didn't like it. I installed the trend PC-Cillin instead and its doing a fine job. Some of the services are delayed start, that might be what your seeing with the "starting up stuff for several minutes " thing. You have anything in your startup? Mine only takes about 20 seconds from boot to desktop (allowing a few seconds for the password), then its ready to go. Mine doesn't seem to be still loading anything at the desktop. My restore points take just a couple of seconds. Yours take more then just a few seconds?

yep, I understand what your saying. The reason that others may stay on top is because they don't play by the normal 'windows' programming rules for their apps. The normal rules require windows compatable apps to obey the intended convention regarding focus windows, while the MS coders do use this convention. Thats the reason the other sidebars your using will always 'remain on top'. Nothing wrong with them, the coding is just a little outside the norm.

Its supposed to do that, its by design, because when you press desktop it gives you just what you want - the desktop. The sidebar is basically another window (a little different tho) and when you use desktop it minimizes all the other windows so you can see the desktop. But....I do see your point. You could do what someone else suggested, keep it on top of other windows but that does look kinda ugly.

Vista has something neat in it called junctions. Read this thread for a little more information: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=82950 Anyway, junctions are very useful and you can create your own. Open up a command prompt and type 'Mklink /?' and you will be presented with the necessary information for creating your own junctions in Vista. How about a junction that looks like a folder but when you copy files to it they are directed to your web site some where on the internet immediately....drag and drop for the internet without any other client needed (FTP, front page, P2P stuff, etc...) OK, the truth now, junctions are not new as they have been in NTFS based OS's for a while. Vista just calls them symlinks - actually symlinks are new but they are so close to what junctions are. What is new is that MS has provided the MKlink command line tool to create your own 'symlinks' in Vista where as in the past the tools were not part of the OS. Why are they new for Vista? Because this is the first time that the use of symlinks/junctions have been so obvious in a MS OS, so in a sense they are 'new'. I used the 'junction' term here because thats what those who used past OS were familiar with.

Its a problem with some NIC card drivers. The IPV4 Checksum Offload thing was only a solution for the Marvell NIC's. The behavior is still exhibited by some other NIC card drivers also who do not expose the IPV4 Checksum Offload (or comparable - what ever the card manufacture calls it) setting so you can change it. It also, some think, might be related to DNS in some odd way. Sometimes changing a system or browser setting somewhere will kick-start it and make things work right again, which is why when someone changed their Protected Mode settings it started working again. It will be fixed by RTM. Most people who have changed their NIC drivers to the WinXP drivers don't have the problem any longer. So give the winXP drivers a shot and see what happens. I'd recommend that you turn off UAC while you change the drivers and then turn UAC back on.

Here is how to get rid of the word 'Shortcut' on shortcuts in Vista. make your own with the below or use the .reg file i've attached to this post: ; get rid of the word 'Shortcut' on shortcuts ; this is the original value ; [HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer] ; "link"=hex:1e,00,00,00 ; this is the changed value to get rid of word 'Shortcut' [HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer] "link"=hex:00,00,00,00 Reboot after you do this. It will not get rid of the word 'Shortcut' on the shortcuts created before this reg entry, it will only not put the word 'Shortcut' on those you create after this reg entry is done. I included the original value also in case you want to go back, just comment the changed value and un-comment the original value to and merge it again and reboot. no_shoct.reg

Just wait, it will when you least expect it.

Its by design, but basically you using a shortcut in a virtual file type system (called junctions) that points back to its self in a way. Its not a real shortcut persay. So for example: (using the XP file path of: C:\Documents and Settings\<user name/profile name here>, in this example) A program that installed fine in WinXP installs in Vista and needs to access the 'Documents and Settings' (a junction in Vista) to complete the install. The target of the junction is a User. In WinXP this path would have been C:\Documents and Settings\<user name here>, this would have been a actual 'hard' file path coded into the software install routines or set up files. With Vista however, there is no actual C:\Documents and Settings\<user name here> file path, but in order to get software to install that worked fine in XP - Vista needs to provide the file path the software wants. So, the software starts installing and Vista detects that its looking for the actual file path of C:\Documents and Settings\<user name here>, Vista in effect says 'Yoo Hoo, over here" and it finds the expected system folder C:\Documents and Settings\<user name here> but instead of finding it in an actual file path it finds it in the virtual file system in the form of the junction when it hits the junction Vista has directed it to, but thats OK cause it has found the file path it was looking for. So in effect Vista has recreated the older XP file system in a virtual way by using junctions so software made prior to Vista can still have a chance of installing. All the installing software sees is 'C:\Documents and Settings\<user name here>' and picturing this in Vista 'junction' terms this path would really be 'C:\<some junction on the desired install path>\<desired install destination>', but the installing software doesn't see this and doesn't care because the install routines thinks the path is still 'C:\Documents and Settings\<user name here>', it doesn't know what a junction is and thinks its an actual file path. so, still using the XP file path of: C:\Documents and Settings\<user name/profile name here>, in this example; When you click on this junction you get redirected back to the junction because there is no install destination youv'e supplied the junction. The junction, from what i know so far, has a native target of <some user> (like in the older XP system of C:\Documents and Settings\<user name here>), but the software installing tells it which user depending on whos logged in at the time as windows reports the logged in user. Since just clicking on the junction doesn't tell Vista what user profile in the 'Documents and Settings' the junction default behavior is to simply redirect to its self and you get the effect you described with the never ending folder, where as something pre-Vista being installed would have told Vista "Hey, I want to put some files in C:\Documents and Settings\<user name/profile name here>" and vista would have sent it on its way by providing the file path thru the junction. Thats about the best way I can explain it. While it is confusing, its by design and it works as you demonstrated to yourself without realizing it. With previous systems wev'e had to think two dimensionally i.e...create a directory and put files in it but the items were always being physically created on the hard drive. With Vista we now have to start thinking maybe more three dimensionally, i.e...we have physical locations on the hard drive for parts of our file system but part of the file system is now virtual and doesn't actually reside on the hard drive.

You do a repair with Vista by booting on the DVD again, after you select the language a screen comes up where its asks for the location of the install, there is an option there to do a repair.

An interesting review. I know that I tried out F.E.A.R in the current build (5728-16387) just yesterday using the in-box drivers for my ATI X800 Pro and didn't have any of the issues mentioned in the review, in fact it performed better then it did in XP Pro with very stable frame rates in the 90's to low 100's, in XP about the best I could get was somewhere between 70 and 80 with the same vid card and the ATI release drivers for XP. I did note that the reviews test machine used an AMD processor. My beta test machine where I tried out F.E.A.R. has an Intel Pent 4 3.2 Ghz processor with 4 GB of ram but it only has a performace rating of 4.2 which is less then the reviews test machine. I also know that Vista has some issues with AMD processors right now. Plus they were over clocking and while they told what they used for cooling overclocking does still produce some side effects at times due to heat unless the temp does not increase at all and remains constant. Overclocking is probably the last thing you'd want to do in Vista anyway, its sensitive that way. I don't really take stock in reviews of this nature when they involve beta products, especially an un-optimized operating system that doesn't work well at the time with the hardware (the AMD processor in this case) used for the test and then on top of that using beta drivers for the vid cards.

Hmmm, I've seen that site before. I'm not so sure the lists are 100% accurate. I have some of the things they say are working but they aren't working well. I also have some things that are shown as not working but they are working fine for me. All in All though the site is a good source of info.

You can get rid of the shortcut arrows in vista by using an old reg tweak that still works: Open up regedit and go to: [HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\lnkfile] Then re-name 'IsShortcut' to 'AriochIsShortcut' in the right pane. Close regedit and reboot - shortcut arrows are gone.

The Vista firewall in 5728 is great. BTW, having been involved in many different firewall betas from many of the well known companies over the years, I can say that, for an out of the box first time effort, the Vista firewall is going to beat them all. There is not one other software firewall on the market that completly protects during boot, the Vista firewall turns your machine into a black hole while its booting, with complete stealth when you arrive at the desktop as-is. There won't be any need to add a third party software firewall. I think MS did a good job with their first integrated firewall. Of course this is all just my opinion. Just make sure you use the Advanced Firewall interface instead of the normal firewall interface when configuring as it gives you access to both in-bound and out-bound and all the configuration options. To find the advanced firewall interface simply (in the Ultimate version - don't know about the others right now as i'm using Ultimate but I think it will show up also by doing this) do a search at the start menu for 'Firewall' then when it comes up right click on it and choose to 'pin' it to the start menu or you can create a shortcut to it on the desktop.

Vista doesn't have a 'Copy To' or 'Move To' that works everywhere. This reg tweak will add that capability to the right click context menu. You can make your own by using the below: ;add 'Copy to Folder' to right click context [HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\AllFilesystemObjects\shellex\ContextMenuHandlers\{C2FBB630-2971-11D1-A18C-00C04FD75D13}] ;add 'Move to Folder' to right click context [HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\AllFilesystemObjects\shellex\ContextMenuHandlers\{C2FBB631-2971-11D1-A18C-00C04FD75D13}] or...you can use the copy_move_to.reg file I attached to this post. copy_move_to.reg

Yep, the shift key method works but doesn't work every where. However, There is a registry tweak that does enable the command prompt here on the right click context menu that works every where. Make your own by using the below: ; add command prompt to right click context menu [HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\Folder\shell\Open Command Prompt Here] [HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\Folder\shell\Open Command Prompt Here\command] @="cmd.exe /k pushd %L" Or you can just use the cmd_prmt_here.reg file I attached to this post. cmd_prmt_here.reg

You do know that the very first account you create is in the administrators profile don't you? Some say to name this account 'local' and you will have full administrator privilages. Evidently there is an 'Administrator' then there is a kind of super administrator account that is normally hidden and has no UAC. The normal Administrator account can be enable after you log in with the first account you created. The super admin account is hidden, and some say that if you create the very first user upon install and name that account 'local' that account will have the super admin privilages.