> It's more stable when compared to my experience with XPSP2. I log 60+ hours > a week on the same PC running Vista that used to run XP, and Vista doesn't > crash or hang nearly as often.
I pretty much never have my XP or W2K boxes crash unless I have driver or overheating problems. Are you doing kernel level development or something? > The interface is better; that is less cluttered and a little more intuitive > for me to use. I only spent 20 minutes with it, but what was less cluttered or more intuitive about it? I still saw the same minimize/maximize/close buttons at the top of the window, could still move windows around, still had a task bar, still had a start button, etc. I actually found to do some basic things I had to go through MORE screens than with W2K or WXP(such as setup the NIC)... > the ability of the OS to 'bounce back' from errors. What does this mean? Like, if an application crashes, I can restore to 5min ago, having the application open with my data so I can copy/paste it out to protect it or maybe not click the button that caused it to crash? I haven't seen this 'bounce back' feature, so I'm curious what it might be in some detail... > Are there things I don't like? Sure. The "security" nags are a joke. Incredibly annoying. Apple has already jumped on this with their newest MAC vs. PC/Vista commercial(go to apple.com and look at the 'security' commercial if you haven't seen it). > IE7 is pretty, but not as stable as IE6 or 5.5. IE7 is definitely nicer-- and available with XP. I agree it's not as stable, and I find it's definitely slower and due to the integration of IE with the O/S, it also slows down the overall system noticeably, which is a sad thing, indeed... There's an IE7-look-alike skin for Firefox, BTW. I'm using it here at work on my W2K machine where I can't install IE7. > tapped and tamed over time. Give it a chance and I think it will pleasantly > surprise you once you peel back the irritations that have been put in place > to "protect" you from errors the average user would trip over. I'm all for 'protecting' the average user, but for power users/administrators, Microsoft needs to let us disable that crap-- such as the security 'craplets' as this guy calls them, which are nothing more than an annoyance. One of my biggest beefs lately with MS, is that they think it's acceptable in W2K3 to set automatic updates 'on' without the option to turn them off, and then auto updates will REBOOT THE COMPUTER without asking, unattended! We have a few servers that require a login session to run a processing application that can't run as a service, and this rebooting will effectively disable our server. The only way to stop this behavior is to DISABLE the 'Automatic Updates' service... Why would they gray out the 'automatic updates' control panel? Why have it at all if you can't control it? -- Derek _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
