Bob Sneidar wrote: > ...One thing they did without really saying much about it, is they put a > virtual bridge between the OS and the LAN connection. Sure they can > control network traffic better, but unbeknownst to me until recently, > there are certain devices that can interfere with bridges on networks, > one of which is the Spanning Tree Protocol, which uses bridging to > accomplish some of it's magic. That cause our Vista machines network > connections to mysteriously fail, and nothing I could do would fix > them...
OK... I'll amend my statement to say, "...*many* of the *more common* end user and programmers complaints..." IT departments had a myriad of other reasons for not wanting to move from XP to Vista and, in general, the most common complaint amongst ordinary end users was the intrusive UAC, no matter what flavor it came in. Airports huh? Then I'm sure you are familiar with the old joke that, if airplanes were like PCs, you would hear from your pilot in mid-flight, "Please fasten your seatbelt while we shutdown out engines and reboot." ;-) Actually, one of the things they "did" fix in Vista was partitioning memory in such a way that crashing a single "application" program didn't require rebooting the entire machine. As to what you refer to, that's a whole other animal. I'm not defending Vista and will be very happy when it (and XP) goes away and is replaced by Windows 7. I was just addressing the question of a test bed for testing Rev apps on PC and pointing out a little known fact as reason to why the test bed might need to be expanded. Aloha from Hawaii, Jim Bufalini _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [email protected] Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
