<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for 4sysops</title>
	<atom:link href="http://4sysops.com/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://4sysops.com</link>
	<description>For Windows Administrators</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 17 May 2008 09:23:28 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Comment on Vista x64 contra Vista x86? Does 64-bit offer better performance than 32-bit? by troy</title>
		<link>http://4sysops.com/archives/vista-x64-contra-vista-x86-does-64-bit-offer-better-performance-than-32-bit/#comment-69474</link>
		<dc:creator>troy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 May 2008 08:12:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://4sysops.com/archives/vista-x64-contra-vista-x86-does-64-bit-offer-better-performance-than-32-bit/#comment-69474</guid>
		<description>After running on XP (due to budget constraints) for the last year I have finally gotten a new machine.  I initially installed Vista 32-bit on my old machine and it was SOOOOOOOOOOO slooooooooow.  It was like pulling teeth.  

But now, I have upgraded all the hardware and built an AMD spider platform.  I have listed the specs below.  After researching the issue, I am going to rock th 64-bit version of vista.  My main concern was just the games I run but it looks like they will all play without a problem.

Here are my new system specs:


AMD Phenom X4 9850 BE (2.5Ghz OC'd to 3Ghz)
ATI Radeon HD 3870 512MB DDR4(soon to be XFired)
4GB Corsair Dominator DDR2 1066 (PC8500)
22" Samsung 2253LW LCD monitor
WD Raptor 10,000 RPM 75 GB Drive (OS Partition - soon to be RAID)
Samsung 500GB HDD
ASUS M3A32-MVP Delux w/ WiFi (790 Chipset)
CoolerMaster Cosmos 1000 case
CoolerMaster PSU 750W
Zalman CPU Fan 9700
Vista Ultimate x64 &#38; Fedora 9</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>After running on XP (due to budget constraints) for the last year I have finally gotten a new machine.  I initially installed Vista 32-bit on my old machine and it was SOOOOOOOOOOO slooooooooow.  It was like pulling teeth.  </p>
<p>But now, I have upgraded all the hardware and built an AMD spider platform.  I have listed the specs below.  After researching the issue, I am going to rock th 64-bit version of vista.  My main concern was just the games I run but it looks like they will all play without a problem.</p>
<p>Here are my new system specs:</p>
<p>AMD Phenom X4 9850 BE (2.5Ghz OC&#8217;d to 3Ghz)<br />
ATI Radeon HD 3870 512MB DDR4(soon to be XFired)<br />
4GB Corsair Dominator DDR2 1066 (PC8500)<br />
22&#8243; Samsung 2253LW LCD monitor<br />
WD Raptor 10,000 RPM 75 GB Drive (OS Partition - soon to be RAID)<br />
Samsung 500GB HDD<br />
ASUS M3A32-MVP Delux w/ WiFi (790 Chipset)<br />
CoolerMaster Cosmos 1000 case<br />
CoolerMaster PSU 750W<br />
Zalman CPU Fan 9700<br />
Vista Ultimate x64 &amp; Fedora 9</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Windows XP versus Windows Vista - Usability by nev</title>
		<link>http://4sysops.com/archives/windows-xp-versus-windows-vista-usability/#comment-69472</link>
		<dc:creator>nev</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 May 2008 07:55:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://4sysops.com/?p=1295#comment-69472</guid>
		<description>After over a year with Vista...

Here's some "I can't stand" Items"
-"MOVE TO" function in explorer missing.
-Folder keeps forgetting settings. (just bc there's a image file in the folder doesn't mean I want it all in thumbnails!)
-Network Connections is a labyrinth. (used to be one click to network connections.. now making a vpn is takes like guessing game of clicks).  
-Start Search prompt is buggy.. won't launch some apps(word/excel 07!)... so I have to manually have to go in.
-slooooowwww... (I have an Mtron 16GB SSD.. that flies with XP on it!)

The only thing I would miss is the full system backup (that only goes for those with Ult/Business/Ent. versions).  

PS, Server 2008 as a workstation runs as fast as XP... If I had to reinstall, it will be Server 2008.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>After over a year with Vista&#8230;</p>
<p>Here&#8217;s some &#8220;I can&#8217;t stand&#8221; Items&#8221;<br />
-&#8221;MOVE TO&#8221; function in explorer missing.<br />
-Folder keeps forgetting settings. (just bc there&#8217;s a image file in the folder doesn&#8217;t mean I want it all in thumbnails!)<br />
-Network Connections is a labyrinth. (used to be one click to network connections.. now making a vpn is takes like guessing game of clicks).<br />
-Start Search prompt is buggy.. won&#8217;t launch some apps(word/excel 07!)&#8230; so I have to manually have to go in.<br />
-slooooowwww&#8230; (I have an Mtron 16GB SSD.. that flies with XP on it!)</p>
<p>The only thing I would miss is the full system backup (that only goes for those with Ult/Business/Ent. versions).  </p>
<p>PS, Server 2008 as a workstation runs as fast as XP&#8230; If I had to reinstall, it will be Server 2008.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Windows Server 2008: How to install and configure an RODC by Dean</title>
		<link>http://4sysops.com/archives/windows-server-2008-how-to-install-and-configure-an-rodc/#comment-69328</link>
		<dc:creator>Dean</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 16:11:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://4sysops.com/archives/windows-server-2008-how-to-install-and-configure-and-rodc/#comment-69328</guid>
		<description>If you add a Windows Server 2008 to a domain and promote it as a DC it does not hold any FSMO roles and is not a GC by default. The only exception is when you create the first DC in a domain. 
Just adding a Windows Server 2008 DC to the domain doesn’t mean that you can install RODC in it too – actually you can and that’s when you will experience problems. You have to make sure that the Windows Server 2008 DC is configured (and is really functioning) as a GC and the PDC master role has been transferred to it.

Dean
http://www.netometer.com</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you add a Windows Server 2008 to a domain and promote it as a DC it does not hold any FSMO roles and is not a GC by default. The only exception is when you create the first DC in a domain.<br />
Just adding a Windows Server 2008 DC to the domain doesn’t mean that you can install RODC in it too – actually you can and that’s when you will experience problems. You have to make sure that the Windows Server 2008 DC is configured (and is really functioning) as a GC and the PDC master role has been transferred to it.</p>
<p>Dean<br />
<a href="http://www.netometer.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.netometer.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Windows Server 2008: How to install and configure an RODC by Michael</title>
		<link>http://4sysops.com/archives/windows-server-2008-how-to-install-and-configure-an-rodc/#comment-69324</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 15:53:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://4sysops.com/archives/windows-server-2008-how-to-install-and-configure-and-rodc/#comment-69324</guid>
		<description>Dean, as far as I know you can’t even install an RODC if there isn’t at least one Windows Sever 2008 DC in the same domain.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dean, as far as I know you can’t even install an RODC if there isn’t at least one Windows Sever 2008 DC in the same domain.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Windows 7 news and some speculations about Windows in the cloud by Michael</title>
		<link>http://4sysops.com/archives/windows-7-news-and-some-speculations-about-windows-in-the-cloud/#comment-69323</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 15:51:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://4sysops.com/?p=1285#comment-69323</guid>
		<description>Daniel, building an entirely new OS from scratch would be too much even for Microsoft. And think about the whole Windows ecosystem and all those third-party vendors who rely on Windows. So I think evolution is better than revolution in this case. The Live integration will be revolution enough.

Eric E, it will be interesting to see how Apple can compete with Microsoft in the future. They do not have the money to buy 10,000 servers a month. Maybe they get lucky and Google buys them. ;-)

Rickj, the situation in Europe is different. Bandwidth is getting cheaper almost every day. I am quite sure that American providers will change their mind again if more competition comes from satellite Internet and mobile providers.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Daniel, building an entirely new OS from scratch would be too much even for Microsoft. And think about the whole Windows ecosystem and all those third-party vendors who rely on Windows. So I think evolution is better than revolution in this case. The Live integration will be revolution enough.</p>
<p>Eric E, it will be interesting to see how Apple can compete with Microsoft in the future. They do not have the money to buy 10,000 servers a month. Maybe they get lucky and Google buys them. <img src='http://4sysops.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';-)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>Rickj, the situation in Europe is different. Bandwidth is getting cheaper almost every day. I am quite sure that American providers will change their mind again if more competition comes from satellite Internet and mobile providers.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Is Vista less secure than Windows 2000? How the Vista bashing industry works by Michael</title>
		<link>http://4sysops.com/archives/is-vista-less-secure-than-windows-2000-how-the-vista-bashing-industry-works/#comment-69321</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 15:49:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://4sysops.com/?p=1284#comment-69321</guid>
		<description>Leonardo, I agree that most Windows 2000 systems are in the corporate world. But I doubt that many companies use the PC Tools software. Malware protection that is based on heuristics will keep admins busy all day.

Chumplet, I think it is possible that one computer can trigger more than one alarm, which explains this 102%. But this number is unbelievably high, anyway.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Leonardo, I agree that most Windows 2000 systems are in the corporate world. But I doubt that many companies use the PC Tools software. Malware protection that is based on heuristics will keep admins busy all day.</p>
<p>Chumplet, I think it is possible that one computer can trigger more than one alarm, which explains this 102%. But this number is unbelievably high, anyway.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Windows Vista versus Windows XP - Reliability by Michael</title>
		<link>http://4sysops.com/archives/windows-vista-versus-windows-xp-reliability/#comment-69320</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 15:47:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://4sysops.com/?p=1289#comment-69320</guid>
		<description>Fernando, for many it is "free" because they have license agreements. But I agree that for all others Vista high price is certainly counterargument.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Fernando, for many it is &#8220;free&#8221; because they have license agreements. But I agree that for all others Vista high price is certainly counterargument.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Take part in the 4sysops survey and win a GFI product by Michael</title>
		<link>http://4sysops.com/archives/take-part-in-the-4sysops-survey-and-win-a-gfi-product/#comment-69318</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 15:42:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://4sysops.com/?p=1287#comment-69318</guid>
		<description>Jacky, thanks. I thought nobody would realize it. I just moved the sidebar to the left sidebar.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jacky, thanks. I thought nobody would realize it. I just moved the sidebar to the left sidebar.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Windows Vista versus Windows XP - Reliability by Michael</title>
		<link>http://4sysops.com/archives/windows-vista-versus-windows-xp-reliability/#comment-69317</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 15:41:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://4sysops.com/?p=1289#comment-69317</guid>
		<description>Christopher, thanks. I think it depends on what you consider as rock solid. If you compare XP with Windows ME I’d say it is rock solid. At least there were no complaints about XP’s reliability in the media in the past years. That means something. I agree with everything else you said. It is not because of XP’s better design that makes it more reliable, but the fact that some software and hardware vendors are still fighting with Vista. Your case with your CRM tool is a good example.

Moop2000, I suppose that in your case the kernel mode part was affected, too. In theory, a reboot shouldn’t be necessary if only the user mode driver crashes. But well that is only theory. Who knows what it is really going on when such an integral part of the OS hangs.

Ochiru, thanks a lot for the hints. I can use that for the article in the German article I am currently preparing. What do you mean by driver signing? You mean the required driver signing for Vista x64?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Christopher, thanks. I think it depends on what you consider as rock solid. If you compare XP with Windows ME I’d say it is rock solid. At least there were no complaints about XP’s reliability in the media in the past years. That means something. I agree with everything else you said. It is not because of XP’s better design that makes it more reliable, but the fact that some software and hardware vendors are still fighting with Vista. Your case with your CRM tool is a good example.</p>
<p>Moop2000, I suppose that in your case the kernel mode part was affected, too. In theory, a reboot shouldn’t be necessary if only the user mode driver crashes. But well that is only theory. Who knows what it is really going on when such an integral part of the OS hangs.</p>
<p>Ochiru, thanks a lot for the hints. I can use that for the article in the German article I am currently preparing. What do you mean by driver signing? You mean the required driver signing for Vista x64?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Windows Vista versus Windows XP - Reliability by Fernando</title>
		<link>http://4sysops.com/archives/windows-vista-versus-windows-xp-reliability/#comment-69267</link>
		<dc:creator>Fernando</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 10:05:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://4sysops.com/?p=1289#comment-69267</guid>
		<description>well, gee, everyone here speaks as if the cost of the OS was "free".

It is not free and the cost of a Vista Ultimate is orders of magnitude higher than a copy of XP.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>well, gee, everyone here speaks as if the cost of the OS was &#8220;free&#8221;.</p>
<p>It is not free and the cost of a Vista Ultimate is orders of magnitude higher than a copy of XP.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on RoyalTS vs. visionapp Remote Desktop - Two free RDP connection management tools by Fred</title>
		<link>http://4sysops.com/archives/royalts-vs-visionapp-remote-desktop-two-free-rdp-connection-management-tools/#comment-69260</link>
		<dc:creator>Fred</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 08:51:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://4sysops.com/archives/royalts-vs-visionapp-remote-desktop-two-free-rdp-connection-management-tools/#comment-69260</guid>
		<description>I can connect on a custom port with Royal TS 1.4.1 (and probably earlier) without trouble.

In the "connection" tab of the settings form put the I.P. address or host name in "Host" without mentioning the port (it wouldn't recognize it); setup the RDP port separately in the "Advanced" tab. (It's of course a bit awkward that these 2 related settings are so distant in the interface.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I can connect on a custom port with Royal TS 1.4.1 (and probably earlier) without trouble.</p>
<p>In the &#8220;connection&#8221; tab of the settings form put the I.P. address or host name in &#8220;Host&#8221; without mentioning the port (it wouldn&#8217;t recognize it); setup the RDP port separately in the &#8220;Advanced&#8221; tab. (It&#8217;s of course a bit awkward that these 2 related settings are so distant in the interface.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Windows Vista versus Windows XP - Reliability by ochiru</title>
		<link>http://4sysops.com/archives/windows-vista-versus-windows-xp-reliability/#comment-69188</link>
		<dc:creator>ochiru</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2008 22:40:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://4sysops.com/?p=1289#comment-69188</guid>
		<description>It's more common with XP that single process can make system unresponsive. With Vista I've usually been able to sort the issue without a reboot.

I mentioned dualcore support as with XP I personally had reliability/performance problems with my Athlon 64 X2. Same hardware with Vista installed have had no similar problems.

-Driver signing and user mode GPU driver

With XP there were and still are a lot of unstable or plain broken GPU drivers - especially nVidia had those frequently. With Vista I have had yet to encounter such problems with nVidia or ATI drivers. But I've updated a few Intel GPU drivers in Lenovo T61 laptops because those were causing crashes.

-System Restore

With XP this never really worked. It works in Vista fixing an unbootable installation after a PSU failure and crash. Because even the most reliable system can still have hardware failures.

-SP1

Fixed those annoying sleep mode and file transfer problems I had with my T60 and has improved reliability index in those systems I've installed it already. I haven't installed it to x64 any Vistas yet so I don't know if it has similar results. XP SP3 in comparision doesn't seem to be even an essential update, not until you've W2008 Servers.

-Windows Update installarions

Some laptops users have a peculiar habit of shutting down systems before installations are complete. Seems so far that Vista can manage this better than XP SP2.

-Offline files
There haven't been any problems with these in Vista laptops. Missing offline files have been one of the more common problems with XP SP2.

-Copy protections and malware

Neither Vista x86 or x64 have yet suffered problems with these. There's still zero virus infection on Vista machines I manage.
In comparison, I recently spend full 9 hours of my saturday cleaning up clients XP SP2 laptop - from about 1800 infected files :(

Copy protection I've mentioned because those act like viruses and cause all kinds of reliability issues.

Well, there's a few already.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s more common with XP that single process can make system unresponsive. With Vista I&#8217;ve usually been able to sort the issue without a reboot.</p>
<p>I mentioned dualcore support as with XP I personally had reliability/performance problems with my Athlon 64 X2. Same hardware with Vista installed have had no similar problems.</p>
<p>-Driver signing and user mode GPU driver</p>
<p>With XP there were and still are a lot of unstable or plain broken GPU drivers - especially nVidia had those frequently. With Vista I have had yet to encounter such problems with nVidia or ATI drivers. But I&#8217;ve updated a few Intel GPU drivers in Lenovo T61 laptops because those were causing crashes.</p>
<p>-System Restore</p>
<p>With XP this never really worked. It works in Vista fixing an unbootable installation after a PSU failure and crash. Because even the most reliable system can still have hardware failures.</p>
<p>-SP1</p>
<p>Fixed those annoying sleep mode and file transfer problems I had with my T60 and has improved reliability index in those systems I&#8217;ve installed it already. I haven&#8217;t installed it to x64 any Vistas yet so I don&#8217;t know if it has similar results. XP SP3 in comparision doesn&#8217;t seem to be even an essential update, not until you&#8217;ve W2008 Servers.</p>
<p>-Windows Update installarions</p>
<p>Some laptops users have a peculiar habit of shutting down systems before installations are complete. Seems so far that Vista can manage this better than XP SP2.</p>
<p>-Offline files<br />
There haven&#8217;t been any problems with these in Vista laptops. Missing offline files have been one of the more common problems with XP SP2.</p>
<p>-Copy protections and malware</p>
<p>Neither Vista x86 or x64 have yet suffered problems with these. There&#8217;s still zero virus infection on Vista machines I manage.<br />
In comparison, I recently spend full 9 hours of my saturday cleaning up clients XP SP2 laptop - from about 1800 infected files <img src='http://4sysops.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_sad.gif' alt=':(' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>Copy protection I&#8217;ve mentioned because those act like viruses and cause all kinds of reliability issues.</p>
<p>Well, there&#8217;s a few already.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Windows Vista versus Windows XP - Reliability by ochiru</title>
		<link>http://4sysops.com/archives/windows-vista-versus-windows-xp-reliability/#comment-69184</link>
		<dc:creator>ochiru</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2008 21:57:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://4sysops.com/?p=1289#comment-69184</guid>
		<description>I disagree that XP is any more reliable than Vista. There are a few points why I think that is the case:

-Memory management and dualcore support</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I disagree that XP is any more reliable than Vista. There are a few points why I think that is the case:</p>
<p>-Memory management and dualcore support</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Windows Vista versus Windows XP - Reliability by moop2000</title>
		<link>http://4sysops.com/archives/windows-vista-versus-windows-xp-reliability/#comment-69177</link>
		<dc:creator>moop2000</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2008 20:48:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://4sysops.com/?p=1289#comment-69177</guid>
		<description>I have to say, I've seen WDDM trying to save the day myself. After installing the latest ATI drivers for my video card, I've had my system freak out a couple times. I'll get a pop-up message in the system tray that states that the Video Driver has failed and it is attempting to restart it. So it is an improvement, my system doesn't blue screen immediately, and will let me close programs and save open documents. But it's not perfect. Once the driver crashes the first time, it never comes back to life correctly, and it will keep crashing till I actually get a blue screen. So I've learned now, if I get the message the driver failed, closed what I have, and reboot the machine myself. So no, its not perfect, but it is a big improvement over XP in terms of trying to keep video drivers from taking out the system.

That being said, I still prefer XP in terms of speed over Vista any day. It should not take as long as it does to move/copy files on a modern computer!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have to say, I&#8217;ve seen WDDM trying to save the day myself. After installing the latest ATI drivers for my video card, I&#8217;ve had my system freak out a couple times. I&#8217;ll get a pop-up message in the system tray that states that the Video Driver has failed and it is attempting to restart it. So it is an improvement, my system doesn&#8217;t blue screen immediately, and will let me close programs and save open documents. But it&#8217;s not perfect. Once the driver crashes the first time, it never comes back to life correctly, and it will keep crashing till I actually get a blue screen. So I&#8217;ve learned now, if I get the message the driver failed, closed what I have, and reboot the machine myself. So no, its not perfect, but it is a big improvement over XP in terms of trying to keep video drivers from taking out the system.</p>
<p>That being said, I still prefer XP in terms of speed over Vista any day. It should not take as long as it does to move/copy files on a modern computer!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Windows Vista versus Windows XP - Reliability by Christopher</title>
		<link>http://4sysops.com/archives/windows-vista-versus-windows-xp-reliability/#comment-69176</link>
		<dc:creator>Christopher</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2008 20:46:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://4sysops.com/?p=1289#comment-69176</guid>
		<description>I think Vista has the potential to be more reliable, and can't really say that XP is rock solid.  Of all the problems that I work through on XP, they're almost always caused by applications.  XP's big problem then is that it allows applications to stomp all over it.

The current problem with Vista's stability however is that the applications that I must run today have often not yet released a version that is Vista compatible, or I can't afford to upgrade to the version that is.  For example, my CRM, which is already 2 versions older than their latest:  It's going to cost me about 10grand in actual software costs to upgrade, 3 man months in time/payroll, and then the costs associated with the actual rollout, that being, user training and reduced productivity while the users regain familiarity.  Were I to upgrade to Vista, that simple platform upgrade would require me to undertake some fairly significant projects in order to bring all of the applications up to version that supports Vista.  The current version of my CRM crashes all over the place if I try to run it on Vista, even in compatibility mode.

So in the case of my CRM, Vista is highly unstable with my current version, but I imagine would be rock solid with the latest released version.

I suppose I'm also saying that the perceived stability of Vista relies heavily on the stability of the applications that run on it.  Perhaps XP is "stable" today simply because the applications/drivers have matured enough to leave XP alone.

As Microsoft moves towards running more in the user space and isolating the OS, I believe the stability of XP will be shambles in comparison.  Vista is headed in the right direction.  In addition, I imagine the perception of my end-users may change as they see applications crashing individually instead of taking down the entire platform.

I'd really like to see Windows 7 become the very last full platform upgrade.  I'd like to see a modular architecture that can be upgraded and downgraded similar to the linux kernel and the way you can load different kernels and modules through Grub.  Were Microsoft to take this modular approach to their OS, my ability to roll out new modules/kernels to my user base, as well as my comfort level with rolling new things out faster (because I could back them out with a simple boot.ini edit ala GRUB), well it would just be much easier and more economic for me to feed Microsoft and keep up with their platform.

Thanks for the post Michael; good topic.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think Vista has the potential to be more reliable, and can&#8217;t really say that XP is rock solid.  Of all the problems that I work through on XP, they&#8217;re almost always caused by applications.  XP&#8217;s big problem then is that it allows applications to stomp all over it.</p>
<p>The current problem with Vista&#8217;s stability however is that the applications that I must run today have often not yet released a version that is Vista compatible, or I can&#8217;t afford to upgrade to the version that is.  For example, my CRM, which is already 2 versions older than their latest:  It&#8217;s going to cost me about 10grand in actual software costs to upgrade, 3 man months in time/payroll, and then the costs associated with the actual rollout, that being, user training and reduced productivity while the users regain familiarity.  Were I to upgrade to Vista, that simple platform upgrade would require me to undertake some fairly significant projects in order to bring all of the applications up to version that supports Vista.  The current version of my CRM crashes all over the place if I try to run it on Vista, even in compatibility mode.</p>
<p>So in the case of my CRM, Vista is highly unstable with my current version, but I imagine would be rock solid with the latest released version.</p>
<p>I suppose I&#8217;m also saying that the perceived stability of Vista relies heavily on the stability of the applications that run on it.  Perhaps XP is &#8220;stable&#8221; today simply because the applications/drivers have matured enough to leave XP alone.</p>
<p>As Microsoft moves towards running more in the user space and isolating the OS, I believe the stability of XP will be shambles in comparison.  Vista is headed in the right direction.  In addition, I imagine the perception of my end-users may change as they see applications crashing individually instead of taking down the entire platform.</p>
<p>I&#8217;d really like to see Windows 7 become the very last full platform upgrade.  I&#8217;d like to see a modular architecture that can be upgraded and downgraded similar to the linux kernel and the way you can load different kernels and modules through Grub.  Were Microsoft to take this modular approach to their OS, my ability to roll out new modules/kernels to my user base, as well as my comfort level with rolling new things out faster (because I could back them out with a simple boot.ini edit ala GRUB), well it would just be much easier and more economic for me to feed Microsoft and keep up with their platform.</p>
<p>Thanks for the post Michael; good topic.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Windows 7 news and some speculations about Windows in the cloud by rickj</title>
		<link>http://4sysops.com/archives/windows-7-news-and-some-speculations-about-windows-in-the-cloud/#comment-69097</link>
		<dc:creator>rickj</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2008 12:41:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://4sysops.com/?p=1285#comment-69097</guid>
		<description>It's a nice dream, but it all depends on network links presently controlled by Comcastic, Bell Canada and other outfits who are moving their networks in the opposite direction. (filtering, usage caps, etc)

Google seems to be the only company that gets this, and tries to influence the network providers.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s a nice dream, but it all depends on network links presently controlled by Comcastic, Bell Canada and other outfits who are moving their networks in the opposite direction. (filtering, usage caps, etc)</p>
<p>Google seems to be the only company that gets this, and tries to influence the network providers.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Expanding a virtual VMware disk by alloytm</title>
		<link>http://4sysops.com/archives/expanding-a-virtual-vmware-disk/#comment-69077</link>
		<dc:creator>alloytm</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2008 10:02:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://4sysops.com/archives/expanding-a-virtual-vmware-disk/#comment-69077</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the info, I use it to expand my Ubuntu guest virtual disk.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the info, I use it to expand my Ubuntu guest virtual disk.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on How to disable Vista’s desktop search indexing (Windows Search) by Vasu</title>
		<link>http://4sysops.com/archives/how-to-disable-vista%e2%80%99s-desktop-search-indexing-windows-search/#comment-69049</link>
		<dc:creator>Vasu</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2008 07:21:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://4sysops.com/archives/how-to-disable-vista%e2%80%99s-desktop-search-indexing-windows-search/#comment-69049</guid>
		<description>Searching on mapped drives taking more time and hanging the vista system?
any resolution for this?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Searching on mapped drives taking more time and hanging the vista system?<br />
any resolution for this?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Poll: Vista x86 or Vista x64? What is your choice? by Cristian Remy</title>
		<link>http://4sysops.com/archives/poll-vista-x86-or-vista-x64-what-is-your-choice/#comment-69016</link>
		<dc:creator>Cristian Remy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2008 02:56:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://4sysops.com/?p=1248#comment-69016</guid>
		<description>I have intensive applications with Vista X64, Server 2008 x64 and XP x64 and if you are careful to select your peripherals(good quality devices) there's no trouble with drivers and support.

Also the implementation of WOW64 from Microsoft is really amazing, almost any problem.

I use Virtual machines, Database managers, Video processing applications and all works fine. Many games works well with x64 versions of windows.

I recommend try a x64 windows version.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have intensive applications with Vista X64, Server 2008 x64 and XP x64 and if you are careful to select your peripherals(good quality devices) there&#8217;s no trouble with drivers and support.</p>
<p>Also the implementation of WOW64 from Microsoft is really amazing, almost any problem.</p>
<p>I use Virtual machines, Database managers, Video processing applications and all works fine. Many games works well with x64 versions of windows.</p>
<p>I recommend try a x64 windows version.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Active Directory Reporting Tool - quick overview of user states by Jeff</title>
		<link>http://4sysops.com/archives/active-directory-reporting-tool-get-a-quick-overview-of-user-states/#comment-68925</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeff</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 May 2008 19:26:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://4sysops.com/?p=1259#comment-68925</guid>
		<description>It's hard to complain about a free tool, however it has limited usability without the capability of exporting to at least a couple of different formats.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s hard to complain about a free tool, however it has limited usability without the capability of exporting to at least a couple of different formats.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
