Vista? - Linux

This is a discussion on Vista? - Linux ; Working on a laptop at work; it has Vista onboard. It also has a core2duo 1.6Ghz chip and 2GB RAM. First item up for bids, file copying. The copy dialog says 3.42MB/sec, 522MB remaining and 1 hour, 44 minutes to ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 32

Thread: Vista?

  1. Vista?

    Working on a laptop at work; it has Vista onboard. It also has a
    core2duo 1.6Ghz chip and 2GB RAM.

    First item up for bids, file copying. The copy dialog says 3.42MB/sec,
    522MB remaining and 1 hour, 44 minutes to go. My calculations say 2.5+
    minutes, Vista says 1 3/4 hours. Cute.

    Mind you, that may not be quite so unrealistic. I've been opening apps
    on the machine. Explorer. Control panel. Nothing particularly heavy.
    Average time to load: 20 seconds, give or take a hair.

    'Course, that's just to _load_. Explorer loaded, then promptly went into
    "not responding" mode for another 30 seconds or so while it tried to get
    the directory contents. Which might be understandable with 30,000
    documents, but there weren't 30,000 documents.

    So, I'm waiting for this and opening a few other items. AV. Another
    explorer window. Maybe five windows opening, all told, and all taking
    their sweet time about it.

    Gah, the AV's taking forever. Switch to another window. Well, the
    _switch_ is taking 5-10 seconds, then giving me the "not responding" bit
    again.

    'Course, at some point, it wakes up and realizes it needs to do
    something, at which point I get app windows flashing up and down and
    going merrily psychotic, as it's trying to do the right thing by handling
    all those queued requests, but the net result is that whatever I was
    doing at the time is now blasted off the screen.

    All in all, the responsiveness is *so* amazingly bad as to be virtually
    unusable. Which, oddly enough, is the reason I was asked to fix the damn
    thing in the first place.

    Grr. AV window minimized for no apparent reason, but that's okay, just
    double-click the systray icon, it'll come up. Hmm... whirling blue
    wheel... 15 seconds. Timed. To show a window for an app that's already
    running. In fact, one of _two_ apps (the other being a security app)
    running. Hardly a heavy load for the machine.

    Wasn't Vista supposed to be speedy and robust and ultra-usable?


  2. Re: Vista?

    On 2008-10-09, Kelsey Bjarnason claimed:
    > Working on a laptop at work; it has Vista onboard. It also has a
    > core2duo 1.6Ghz chip and 2GB RAM.
    >
    > First item up for bids, file copying. The copy dialog says 3.42MB/sec,
    > 522MB remaining and 1 hour, 44 minutes to go. My calculations say 2.5+
    > minutes, Vista says 1 3/4 hours. Cute.
    >
    > Mind you, that may not be quite so unrealistic. I've been opening apps
    > on the machine. Explorer. Control panel. Nothing particularly heavy.
    > Average time to load: 20 seconds, give or take a hair.
    >
    > 'Course, that's just to _load_. Explorer loaded, then promptly went into
    > "not responding" mode for another 30 seconds or so while it tried to get
    > the directory contents. Which might be understandable with 30,000
    > documents, but there weren't 30,000 documents.
    >
    > So, I'm waiting for this and opening a few other items. AV. Another
    > explorer window. Maybe five windows opening, all told, and all taking
    > their sweet time about it.
    >
    > Gah, the AV's taking forever. Switch to another window. Well, the
    > _switch_ is taking 5-10 seconds, then giving me the "not responding" bit
    > again.
    >
    > 'Course, at some point, it wakes up and realizes it needs to do
    > something, at which point I get app windows flashing up and down and
    > going merrily psychotic, as it's trying to do the right thing by handling
    > all those queued requests, but the net result is that whatever I was
    > doing at the time is now blasted off the screen.
    >
    > All in all, the responsiveness is *so* amazingly bad as to be virtually
    > unusable. Which, oddly enough, is the reason I was asked to fix the damn
    > thing in the first place.
    >
    > Grr. AV window minimized for no apparent reason, but that's okay, just
    > double-click the systray icon, it'll come up. Hmm... whirling blue
    > wheel... 15 seconds. Timed. To show a window for an app that's already
    > running. In fact, one of _two_ apps (the other being a security app)
    > running. Hardly a heavy load for the machine.
    >
    > Wasn't Vista supposed to be speedy and robust and ultra-usable?


    Want to make it look like you're a genius? Take out half the RAM and
    play with it in front of them. When they aren't looking put the RAM
    back. They'll think you're a savior.

    Those are the sorts of slight-of-hand tricks MS pulls in front of
    audiences, when they demo things that they claim they're going to
    release. Only they do it in reverse. After the trade shills are
    mesmerized with greatness and go forth into the world to spread the
    Good© News©, MS goes to work making a mess of it all.

    And that, my friends, is how ME and Vista were born.

    --
    VISTA: Volatile and Ineffective Solution That's an Abomination


  3. Re: Vista?


    "Kelsey Bjarnason" wrote in message
    news:1t12s5-ihf.ln1@spanky.work.net...
    > Working on a laptop at work; it has Vista onboard. It also has a
    > core2duo 1.6Ghz chip and 2GB RAM.
    >
    > First item up for bids, file copying. The copy dialog says 3.42MB/sec,
    > 522MB remaining and 1 hour, 44 minutes to go. My calculations say 2.5+
    > minutes, Vista says 1 3/4 hours. Cute.
    >
    > Mind you, that may not be quite so unrealistic. I've been opening apps
    > on the machine. Explorer. Control panel. Nothing particularly heavy.
    > Average time to load: 20 seconds, give or take a hair.
    >
    > 'Course, that's just to _load_. Explorer loaded, then promptly went into
    > "not responding" mode for another 30 seconds or so while it tried to get
    > the directory contents. Which might be understandable with 30,000
    > documents, but there weren't 30,000 documents.
    >
    > So, I'm waiting for this and opening a few other items. AV. Another
    > explorer window. Maybe five windows opening, all told, and all taking
    > their sweet time about it.
    >
    > Gah, the AV's taking forever. Switch to another window. Well, the
    > _switch_ is taking 5-10 seconds, then giving me the "not responding" bit
    > again.
    >
    > 'Course, at some point, it wakes up and realizes it needs to do
    > something, at which point I get app windows flashing up and down and
    > going merrily psychotic, as it's trying to do the right thing by handling
    > all those queued requests, but the net result is that whatever I was
    > doing at the time is now blasted off the screen.
    >
    > All in all, the responsiveness is *so* amazingly bad as to be virtually
    > unusable. Which, oddly enough, is the reason I was asked to fix the damn
    > thing in the first place.
    >
    > Grr. AV window minimized for no apparent reason, but that's okay, just
    > double-click the systray icon, it'll come up. Hmm... whirling blue
    > wheel... 15 seconds. Timed. To show a window for an app that's already
    > running. In fact, one of _two_ apps (the other being a security app)
    > running. Hardly a heavy load for the machine.
    >
    > Wasn't Vista supposed to be speedy and robust and ultra-usable?
    >

    You are one of a very few who seem to have such problems. Perhaps you could
    find a course to take at a local community college. There are a lot of
    them, I know.


  4. Re: Vista?

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Sinister Midget belched out
    this bit o' wisdom:

    > Want to make it look like you're a genius? Take out half the RAM and
    > play with it in front of them. When they aren't looking put the RAM
    > back. They'll think you're a savior.
    >
    > Those are the sorts of slight-of-hand tricks MS pulls in front of
    > audiences, when they demo things that they claim they're going to
    > release. Only they do it in reverse.


    The ol' "proof-by-demo" trick. As old as trade.

    At least you don't get an hourglass now. You get a spinning circle or
    somesuch.

    --
    Where's th' DAFFY DUCK EXHIBIT??

  5. Re: Vista?

    Hadron wrote:

    > Richard Rasker writes:


    [snip hard facts about Windows Vista]

    > No one listens to you anymore.


    Well, you appear to be lapping it up as if your livelihood depended on it.
    Which in a way I guess it does.

    > You can not be trusted.


    Sure I can. Just not with a Windows machine.

    Richard Rasker
    --
    http://www.linetec.nl

  6. Re: Vista?

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Richard Rasker belched out
    this bit o' wisdom:

    > Hadron wrote:
    >
    >> Richard Rasker writes:

    >
    > [snip hard facts about Windows Vista]
    >
    >> No one listens to you anymore.

    >
    > Well, you appear to be lapping it up as if your livelihood depended on it.
    > Which in a way I guess it does.
    >
    >> You can not be trusted.

    >
    > Sure I can. Just not with a Windows machine.


    Hadron's goal here is to dog/harass anyone who has anything sensible to say.

    Simple as that.

    --
    There is an order of things in this universe.
    -- Apollo, "Who Mourns for Adonais?" stardate 3468.1

  7. Re: Vista?

    On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 23:32:36 +0200, Hadron wrote:


    > The whole world manages. Why do you tell so many lies?
    >
    > No one listens to you anymore. You can not be trusted.


    Some people should not be allowed near computers.
    Kelsey is one.
    Rasker, to a lesser degree, is another.

    Kelsey could screw up an iron cannon ball.


    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
    Please Visit www.linsux.org

  8. Re: Vista?

    Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

    > Hadron's goal here is to dog/harass anyone who has anything sensible to
    > say.
    >
    > Simple as that.


    Quack is a low-life, amoral person. I think, deep-down, he knows this,
    and this is what compels him to harass those who he perceives are his
    moral and intellectual superiors.

    IOW, he's a fscking asshole.


  9. Re: Vista?

    Chris Ahlstrom writes:

    > After takin' a swig o' grog, Richard Rasker belched out
    > this bit o' wisdom:
    >
    >> Hadron wrote:
    >>
    >>> Richard Rasker writes:

    >>
    >> [snip hard facts about Windows Vista]
    >>
    >>> No one listens to you anymore.

    >>
    >> Well, you appear to be lapping it up as if your livelihood depended on it.
    >> Which in a way I guess it does.
    >>
    >>> You can not be trusted.

    >>
    >> Sure I can. Just not with a Windows machine.

    >
    > Hadron's goal here is to dog/harass anyone who has anything sensible to say.
    >
    > Simple as that.


    Fact : both times he posted numbers he was wrong.
    Fact : both times I was right.

    This is not harassment. It is correcting false information which I
    believe Rasker purposely concocted. A bit like you in denial over Linux
    desktop penetration. And you being a Windows user at that.

    So what is sensible about him posting FALSE INFORMATION.

    You're a sycophantic lap dog and should grow a spine.

    Stick with the facts and not the dream la-la-la land facts spouted in
    here by the likes of Rasker.

    --
    "I do believe I have stated that he should be given the benefit of the
    doubt, as is his right. If he did this crime, as it would seem, then he
    should be punished as the law requires."
    -- alt in alt.true-crime, comp.os.linux.advocacy

  10. Re: Vista?

    chrisv writes:

    > Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    >
    >> Hadron's goal here is to dog/harass anyone who has anything sensible to
    >> say.
    >>
    >> Simple as that.

    >
    > Quack is a low-life, amoral person. I think, deep-down, he knows this,
    > and this is what compels him to harass those who he perceives are his
    > moral and intellectual superiors.
    >
    > IOW, he's a fscking asshole.
    >


    Another wonderful advocacy post which sticks to the points in contention
    by the "real" chrisv.

    --
    "Don't like Linux.. don't use it. Simple."
    -- Rick in comp.os.linux.advocacy, alt.os.windows-xp

  11. Re: Vista?

    some idiot forging chrisv wrote:

    >Ignore the forger!


    Done!

    --
    "Half say its easier than Windows and the other (more truthful) half
    maintain that they are GLAD Linux is buggy and error prone because it
    puts off the great unwashed that would otherwise pollute the Linux
    gene pool." - "True Linux advocate" Hadron Quark

  12. Re: Vista?

    On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:53:18 +0200, Hadron wrote:

    > Chris Ahlstrom writes:
    >
    >> After takin' a swig o' grog, Richard Rasker belched out
    >> this bit o' wisdom:
    >>
    >>> Hadron wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Richard Rasker writes:
    >>>
    >>> [snip hard facts about Windows Vista]
    >>>
    >>>> No one listens to you anymore.
    >>>
    >>> Well, you appear to be lapping it up as if your livelihood depended on it.
    >>> Which in a way I guess it does.
    >>>
    >>>> You can not be trusted.
    >>>
    >>> Sure I can. Just not with a Windows machine.

    >>
    >> Hadron's goal here is to dog/harass anyone who has anything sensible to say.
    >>
    >> Simple as that.

    >
    > Fact : both times he posted numbers he was wrong.
    > Fact : both times I was right.
    >
    > This is not harassment. It is correcting false information which I
    > believe Rasker purposely concocted. A bit like you in denial over Linux
    > desktop penetration. And you being a Windows user at that.
    >
    > So what is sensible about him posting FALSE INFORMATION.
    >
    > You're a sycophantic lap dog and should grow a spine.
    >
    > Stick with the facts and not the dream la-la-la land facts spouted in
    > here by the likes of Rasker.


    LiarMutt is trying to rewrite history again.

    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
    Please Visit www.linsux.org

  13. Re: Vista?

    On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 19:22:49 -0700, Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:



    > You users cant be trueted to copy anything without Bill loking over your
    > shoulder. You might be stealig something. Or downloading Ubuntu.


    Drinking again Paul?


    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
    Please Visit www.linsux.org

  14. Re: Vista?

    Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
    >
    > Working on a laptop at work; it has Vista onboard. It also has a
    > core2duo 1.6Ghz chip and 2GB RAM.
    >
    > First item up for bids, file copying. The copy dialog says 3.42MB/sec,
    > 522MB remaining and 1 hour, 44 minutes to go. My calculations say 2.5+
    > minutes, Vista says 1 3/4 hours. Cute.


    All this other crap happened while the file copy was in progress?
    There's your problem. Vista is notorious for bogging down on large file
    copies. Something to do with built in DRM, I've been told.

    You users cant be trueted to copy anything without Bill loking over your
    shoulder. You might be stealig something. Or downloading Ubuntu.

    --
    Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    Trust the computer industry to shorten the term "Year 2000" to Y2K.
    It was this kind of thinking that got us in trouble in the first place.
    -- Adrian Tyvand

  15. Re: Vista?

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Moshe Goldfarb.

    wrote
    on Fri, 10 Oct 2008 22:03:38 -0400
    <1tidckjrnbf3z$.xxmr963ksjba.dlg@40tude.net>:
    > On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 19:22:49 -0700, Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >> You users [can't] be [trusted] to copy anything
    >> without Bill [looking] over your shoulder.
    >> You might be [stealing] something. Or downloading Ubuntu.

    >
    > Drinking again Paul?
    >


    Well, the below is pretty heady stuff. Bottoms up...

    (begin excerpt from
    http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/17usc1201.htm )

    17 U.S.C. 1201.

    Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems

    Section 1201. Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems

    (a) Violations regarding circumvention of technological measures.--

    (1)

    (A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure
    that effectively controls access to a work protected
    under this title. The prohibition contained in the
    preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the
    2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment
    of this chapter [17 U.S.C.A. S 1201 et seq.].

    (B-E elided for brevity; these appear to be technical
    exceptions relating to the Library of Congress, and
    a Librarian managing same)

    (2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide,
    or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device,
    component, or part thereof, that--

    (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of
    circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls
    access to a work protected under this title;

    (B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or
    use other than to circumvent a technological measure that
    effectively controls access to a work protected under this
    title [17 U.S.C.A. S 1 et seq.]; or

    (C) is marketed by that person or another acting in
    concert with that person with that person's knowledge
    for use in circumventing a technological measure that
    effectively controls access to a work protected under
    this title.

    (end excerpt)

    There's a fair amount of specifics in the exceptions (e.g.,
    1201(k)(1)(A)(i) refers specifically to VHS format tapes
    and an "automatic gain control copy control technology");
    I won't list them here.

    As for downloading Ubuntu -- that's not covered here,
    really, though presumably were Canonical to bother they
    might take advantage of some of the strictures in this Act.
    (Why that would be in their interest, I for one don't know.)

    It would be interesting, in a rather sad sort of way, to
    see Microsoft attempt to bring Canonical to trial under
    this Section. (I doubt Ubuntu would meet the qualifications
    of 1201(2)(A); such is not its purpose. Specific tools
    thereof, however, might be; certainly the RealDVD fiasco
    is illustrative of someone's displeasure.)

    Other sections in Title 17, Chapter 12,
    which might be of some interest:

    1202. Integrity of copyright management information
    1203. Civil remedies
    1204. Criminal offenses and penalties
    1205. Savings clause

    There are also references to the WIPO treaty. A little
    digging from the obvious place coughed up:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIPO
    http://www.wipo.int/

    http://www.wipo.int/copyright/en/
    in particular has the interesting declaration:

    Disclaimer: The attention of the Secretariat of WIPO
    has been drawn to the fact that certain organizations
    issue certificates purporting to grant copyright
    protection. It should be noted that these certificates
    do not create any right. The Secretariat recalls that,
    by virtue of the Berne Convention for the Protection
    of Literary and Artistic Works, works are protected
    without any formality in all the countries party
    to that Convention. This means that international
    copyright protection is automatic, it exists as soon
    as a work is created, and this principle applies in
    all the countries party to the Berne Convention.

    In all fairness, I can see a usefulness for these
    certificates; presumably they can ensure that, if a dispute
    arises as to timing of a copyrighted work, one can point
    to the certificate to establish such. This is probably
    not all that significant an issue.

    WIPO includes a handy FAQ (English version):

    http://www.wipo.int/copyright/en/faq/

    A final link to a hopefully useful resource: the US Copyright office.

    http://www.copyright.gov/

    Among its selections: vessel hull designs. Why they'd
    bother to put this on their frontpage is probably OT for
    this newsgroup but I do find it a little odd. Apparently
    it's a significant problem for somebody, or was (perhaps
    a World War II holdover?).

    And yes there's a FAQ. It encompasses the WIPO FAQ,
    generally:

    http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/

    and also mentions Elvis, star naming, and the details of
    e-registration. The first is extremely odd considering the
    star died in 1973, and the second is even odder considering
    that any naming of stars is purely parochial on our
    part pending contact with some sort of Galactic Council.
    (Nevertheless, there's a commercial business whose tagline
    is "Name a star after someone"; they advertise occasionally
    on the radio.)

    The last is expected, considering the US Copyright Office's
    offered services.

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    /dev/signature: No such file or directory
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  16. Re: Vista?

    Richard Rasker wrote:
    > Sinister Midget wrote:
    >> Kelsey Bjarnason claimed:
    >>
    >>> Working on a laptop at work; it has Vista onboard. It also has a
    >>> core2duo 1.6Ghz chip and 2GB RAM.




    >>> So, I'm waiting for this and opening a few other items. AV.
    >>> Another explorer window. Maybe five windows opening, all told,
    >>> and all taking their sweet time about it.

    >
    > Nah, just grab yourself another cuppa and enjoy it. I've got this PII
    > 233MHz CPU with 256MB of RAM really taking the piss here, running
    > Mandriva/KDE at a speed which doesn't allow for any break whatsoever,
    > except during its more than two minutes boot time, perhaps.
    >
    >>> Gah, the AV's taking forever. Switch to another window. Well,
    >>> the _switch_ is taking 5-10 seconds, then giving me the "not
    >>> responding" bit again.

    >
    > Soon enough you'll notice that all those cuppas will make you want to
    > take a break even more often. So don't fight nature's call -- and
    > while you're at it, send my regards to Microsoft as well.


    Heh, is this "Back to the Future[TM]"? 25 years ago, I remember letting
    the 300 MB hard disk packs spin up on the minicomputer, allowing me a 20
    minute break for coffee. Vista brings back memories (execpt
    minicomputer apps were snappy.)

    --
    HPT
    Quando omni flunkus moritati
    (If all else fails, play dead)
    - "Red" Green

  17. Re: Vista?

    Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:

    > On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 19:22:49 -0700, Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >> You users cant be trueted to copy anything without Bill loking over your
    >> shoulder. You might be stealig something. Or downloading Ubuntu.

    >
    > Drinking again Paul?


    Then let's hear your explanation why Vista's basic file system functions can
    be a few orders in magnitude slower than on XP -- and of course Linux.
    I've only heard two likely explanations so far: that it's just the normal
    kludged-together buggy crapware we've come to expect from Redmond; and that
    the host of DRM mechanisms in Vista is responsible for the sucky behaviour.
    (And in a way, I can't escape the feeling that these two reasons are
    actually intimately linked.)

    Richard Rasker
    --
    http://www.linetec.nl

  18. Re: Vista?

    On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 12:08:35 +0200, Richard Rasker wrote:

    > Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
    >
    >> On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 19:22:49 -0700, Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> You users cant be trueted to copy anything without Bill loking over your
    >>> shoulder. You might be stealig something. Or downloading Ubuntu.

    >>
    >> Drinking again Paul?

    >
    > Then let's hear your explanation why Vista's basic file system functions can
    > be a few orders in magnitude slower than on XP -- and of course Linux.


    I don't have to explain anything.
    I never made any claims one way or the other.
    For the record though, and for the 100th time or more, I'm not a fan of
    Vista.

    > I've only heard two likely explanations so far: that it's just the normal
    > kludged-together buggy crapware we've come to expect from Redmond; and that
    > the host of DRM mechanisms in Vista is responsible for the sucky behaviour.
    > (And in a way, I can't escape the feeling that these two reasons are
    > actually intimately linked.)


    Maybe they are, maybe they are not.
    My daughter's Gateway laptop runs Vista and I haven't seen any problems
    other than the UAC being a pita, but that is easily fixed.
    She does a lot of video editing and surely would be complaining if it had
    problems because video editing/rendering is time/cycle intensive as it is.


    BTW I was referring to Paul's spelling, not what he wrote.
    Of course it went right over the Linux loons pointy heads.


    > Richard Rasker



    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
    Please Visit www.linsux.org

  19. Re: Vista?

    Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
    >
    > Maybe they are, maybe they are not.
    > My daughter's Gateway laptop runs Vista and I haven't seen any problems
    > other than the UAC being a pita, but that is easily fixed.



    Oh, so you turned UAC off and now she is running on the Internet as
    user/admin wide open to attack, like she was before on XP?

    Maybe, you need to understand what is happening with UAC, particularly
    about those two access tokens on Vista for user/admin.

    http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/l.../cc709691.aspx


    Do you know anything about Visualization on Vista?

    http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/m.../cc138019.aspx
    http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/m.../cc160882.aspx

    There is an user account on Vista that can be used that already has its
    privileges escalated, one can still leave UAC enabled and no UAC
    prompts, and yes, it's that same account that's on XP.




    The out of the box user-admin account Vista gives one is not an
    user/admin account with full admin rights, even with UAC disabled.
    That's because that user/admin account or any new user/admin account
    doesn't inherit full admin rights from the built-in Administrator
    account, like on XP.

    You can test this by going to your daughter's machine as user/admin and
    see if you can add, change permissions for an existing account or even
    delete an account of off C:\Program Files or C:\Windows and some
    sub-folders within those folders.

    You'll find that you cannot do it. You cannot even do it with the
    Administrator user account. The only thing you can to with the
    Administrator account is use the Advanced button to take ownership and
    point to an individual user account or group account that has the proper
    permissions.






    Vista is a closed by default O/S.

    HTH :-P










  20. Re: Vista?

    Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:



    One other thing here, I have IIS, SQL Server and a whole host of other
    background solutions running on the HP dv9000 with the Vista O/S. And
    the machine runs lightening fast, but of course, it's running on a Vista
    certified computer and not on something that would turn the machine into
    a door stop, because it doesn't have the power.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast