VIVA VISTA...Yeah right.....Read this.

[Elder-Pirate]

If Tens of thousands of federal workers are prohibited from upgrading to Vista then that's good enough reason why I probably never will upgrade. Maybe someone will get the message to Mr. Bill as to where the sun doesn't shine.

http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=197700789

[fatty]

That article is nearly six months old :cry:

[Elder-Pirate]

That article is nearly six months old :cry:

So I'm six months late, nothing new here. :lol:
Even if it's a year old, thousands do not know about it yet and they should, whether it may bore you or not.

[AVGWarhawk]

I read about this when Vista hit the market. Problem is, when XP is not supported anymore then Vista is forced upon anyone wanting to us MS. This will probably be a year or two before it starts to become evident XP is on the way out. I hung to to Windows 98 as long as possible. I found XP to be better. Time will tell........

[SUBMAN1]

As I've said countless times, Vista is not the OS of choice if you play to run something from the Redmond Giant. It works like this - old vs. new:

Windows 95 -> Equivalent is Windows 2000
Windows 98 -> Windows XP Pro
Windows 98 SE (The most desirable rev) -> Windows MCE 2005
Windows ME -> Vista

As you all know, Vista has aquired the nickname MEII, and for good reason.

I have 7 machines sitting next to me as I type this, and 2 of them are Linux servers, 1 is MCE 2005, 3 are Xp Pro, 1 is Vista Biz Ed, and 1 is actually Win 98 SE (For legacy garbage - mainly to program some robots with logic). I also work on a Vista box all day, and still long for my MCE 2005 at home!!!

A lot of my video editing work will not run on the Vista boxes either. Did i mention that Vista is pure bloat? Equivelent machines do 2x the work as one Vista box.

I could go on all night, but take it from someone that works on both platforms - MCE 2005 is still the OS to have.

-S

[Skybird]

when I read I need to upgrade graphicscard to see Vista in all it's beauty, and need hardware that usually would be needed to run the newest games, I understood that the design philosophy of Vista was crap from the very beginning on. An OS should not demand as much of the latest hardware possible, but should be running with as smallest ressources as possible, leaving the hardware free to run the stuff you are really interested in: business software, work software, gaming. Instead they tried to make Vista the star performer of the pack, where it only should have been the reliable, solid stage for other actors to dance and sing on and run the real important show. I mean you don't buy a ticket for theatre just to hear the director of the ensemble talking about how how long it took him to recruit all the dancers, and how the finances are, and who wrote the script: you want the girls, the singers and dancers instead, right? It does not matter if the director is wearing a red or a blue hat.

Totally flawed design philosophy. I will not get Vista later. I simply will never get it, period. I refuse to spend money on extremely bad planning and bad decision-making. I cannot comment on the technical aspects, but concerning the design it probably is by far the most stupid Windows there ever was. Totally wrong decisions being made. I couldn't have messed it up any better myself even when wanting to. Eyecandy - pffft... Saw the screenshots, I was not impressed. What is this nonsens in an OS good for? i was running XP in win98SE mode in the beginning, and just after some reinstallations I became too lazy to switch to that mode again, and thus stayed with the default XP layout. XP had problems in the beginning, and many of them, and it took them long until SP2, but now it is good. They should have focussed on increasing security levels - and leave it to that.

[bradclark1]

I will not get Vista later. I simply will never get it, period. I refuse to spend money on extremely bad planning and bad decision-making.
Microsoft are like the police. They'll get you eventually.

[antikristuseke]

Police arround my area must really suck then:rotfl:

[SUBMAN1]

Actually, I've read that Vista was crap, and actually it has some cool technologies (regardless that I hate it), so I cannot say it is complete crap. I won't endorse it though, but I can't say it is all bad.

Why?

Simple. Vista is not what it was supposed to be. MS got sick of waiting, and released a product that is is unfinished for the simple fact of gaining revenue when none was being generated by XP. That is the short answer.

Vista in its current state is not what Vista was intended to be. Period. Windows 11 (boring name, eh?) is what Vista was supposed to be. All the features that Vista is lacking that are supposed to be in Vista, are not there - that is the problem. What we have all be waiting for has not been released yet. For all of you that have not put your claws into Vista yet - Don't! Windows 11 should be released in 2009, so skip Vista alltogether, just like you did with Windows ME.

That is my advice and that is what I would do if I didn't have 10 free copies of Vista on my desk as I write this.

-S

[kiwi_2005]

Vista is how XP should of been:D

*puts on helmet and waits for the incoming*

[SUBMAN1]

Vista is how XP should of been:D

*puts on helmet and waits for the incoming*
Don't make me come over there! :D :p

Maybe i should post a vid on all the features Vista is lacking that should be in it?

[Bathrone]

With due respect, your all entirely wrong. Vista is the first MS OS to go through the new MS secure development lifecycle which is one reason alone not to use xp sp2 aymore.

As too, when patched it has the same technology as windows server 2008 with its kernel so memory management and process scheduling is improved.

In the over 50 million lines of code in Vista is countless other enhancements...service hardening, superfecth and on and on.

The concern that US department has over cost is valid cos Vista costs more. Its a far better product and I think its worth it.

The compatability concern is valid too but the extent to which applications wont work on Vista is highly dependant on what applications you use. Its certainly not the case that everything breaks. And whats more, 99% of packaged software that did have problems has been patched now. For most people its not a problem that ever occurs anymore.

MacOS is too limited by the hardware you can run and BSD/Linux is a nightmare for general desktop use. Yes dos/win95 did suck, but MS has a very good knack for eventually releasing products that stand on their own two feet and Vista is the best desktop operating system ever made. My partner has a Mac and I think the soon to be released Mac OS is good but the problem is you simply cant run the hardware like you can on Vista. Case in point : No 8800 GTX on Mac cos Apple hasnt written a supporting EFI bootsrap for it yet.

I'm a balanced and reasoned person so present me a proper technical argument as to why any other desktop OS is better and I will fairly consider it. In the decades Ive been in ICT I have tried many many desktop OS's and Vista beats all Ive tried.

[bookworm_020]

I'll be sticking to Vista till I upgrade my computer. It would drag the performance down on my current system and give no real advantages.

MY laptop is a mac and I still love it to bits!:D

[Reaves]

I've got Vista Ultra 64 here. I don't mind it tbh.

I've come accross a few problems, most recent is the networking/file sharing but i'm sure i'll figure it out.

It starts quick, shuts down quick. Task manager is a pos to start but in time I think Vista will be fine.

I only really use my Vista PC for entertainment though...

[The Avon Lady]

Been running on a new Dell notebook with Vista Business Edition since March, I think. No problems at all.

Had I not needed a new notebook, I would most likely stuck with XP, since I had no problems with that as well.

One thing's for certain. That old article about the US DOT doesn't influence me of anything one way or the other.

[Bathrone]

It would drag the performance down on my current system and give no real advantages.

Thats your opinion, but one which disregards all of the new features and changes in Vista. Its an opinion that commonly comes from people who dont understand operating systems in detail - its like the bloke who thought that Vista only gave him the aero interface cos thats all he could see was different.

Performance is comparable and actually better in many scenarios. Take for example the new service startup mode where delayed startup occurs that allows the user to more quickly boot and be able to do things while services are still loading. This makes it much better than XP under the same scenario.

Another example is superfetch and how this has eliminated the classic "back from lunch" slowdown.

Some third party devices did make Vista slower because the drivers for Vista were young and did not have the optimisations that were present in XP SP2 version drivers. However since then when people have re-benchmarked on newer Vista drivers things like gpu performance in directx titles has been improved.

With the new file copy changes the disk performance for copying large files is improved over XP - have a look at benchmarks around the net. And with other patches the new kernel is based off windows server 2008 and has much smart process and memory management than XP.

[antikristuseke]

Im not going to touch Vista before it gets its first service pack. As past experiences with MS operating systems have taught me to do. Right now i really see no good reason to upgrade the os anyway since my boot times are allready very quick since all services i dont need are disabled and the only thing loaded during startup is antivirus software. Sure vista has some nice advantages in theory and some even in practice, but they dont outweight the bother.

[Bathrone]

Builds of Vista SP1 is out for connect people now and will be RTM this year.

[HunterICX]

Whats Vista :p

the latest WORKING OS of MS is XP right?
:lol:

[Reaves]

Maybe I only like it because I was using XP64?

Either way I'm loving it. Better driver support at least, plus all new games are built to work with it. Older ones not so nice but I don't mind, they've been shelved for a reason.

Either way i'm ready for DX10 and that's all I want.

[Skybird]

Windows 11 should be released in 2009, so skip Vista alltogether, just like you did with Windows ME.

That is like my hope, and calculation. Make 2009 a release in 2010, and then give them one year to patch it, and you you are in late 2010, or early 2011. If my rig survives that long, and since I do not have any need for performance boosts from hardware (almost buying no games at all anymore), that date is early enough for me to think about a new OS. And since I did not like many of the security implications of the new philosophy of MS (too restrictive on customer's rights, at least to our standards over here, that digital security environment and thing slike that), and since I have a special edition of a print magazin on my table, featuring Linux, I see a chance that I finally will get my new horse saddled with Linux sooner or later anyway, just right now I do not have the sufficient knowledge. And if Vista boots faster and shuts down quicker - well, such are features I couldn't care less for, like it is with many other features as well. If yolu do not have those 20 additional seconds, then you have a serious problem with yourself, or a troubled life in general. Hell, I have deactivated many services in XP, and do not miss any option I could imagine in my dreams. Vista has nothing to offer me, just more or less potential for problems. Too many "innovations" are sold these days as real big stories, as indespensable features of comfort, and things you cannot live without - but fact is that most of them have never been missed by most customers before. You get fulfilled desires you did not know you had them before. what I am concerned for is backward compatability, concenring some older software. and this is where vista not really shines (like windows compatability modes in XP all too often do not help you with old sims for older OS, too).

And finally, stubborn as I am: it is me, not microsoft, deciding on when I agree to follow a new hardware developement cycle. And my cycles certainly last much longer than those of the industry.

[Bathrone]

Skybird your in a for a shock with BSD / Linux if you think MS's approach to security is too strong. Command line sessions in the shell and sudo goodness you have to look forward too. :know:

And, no native Directx support for wintel subsims.

As for DRM and Vista, yeah DRM is a PITA. But atleast MS didnt do a linux community approach and basically rip off commercial companies IP by reverse engineering their stuff without permission and illegaly implementing functionality from it. MS partnered with those people like the HD-DVD patent pool owners and implemented it. MS had the choice - either dont implement those patent pool owners requirements or work with them.

Thats why Ubuntu (which I like the most of all linux distros) doesnt have this stuff installed by default cos its illegal for them to do so.

The argument that says additional security over winxpsp2 isnt needed is an argument from someone who has never had to deal with the business cost of downed xp workstations or the grief from family members asking for support to remove malware from their systems. Like MacOS and Linux, Vista isnt impervious to malware but it sure is defense in depth compared to winxpsp2.

[antikristuseke]

Most cases of malware, spyware, adware and viruses are due to user stupidity. Hell, most computer related problems are due to the malfunction on the adapter between the chair and the keyboard.

[bradclark1]

Police arround my area must really suck then:rotfl:
I said eventually! Your eventually just hasn't happened yet. But eventually, eventually will happen.:)

[Tchocky]

I'm running MCE '05 on my laptop, no major trouble. I won't be buying anything new for a good while, so I may just skip Vista.
Boot Fedora every so often for a change of scenery

[Skybird]

Skybird your in a for a shock with BSD / Linux if you think MS's approach to security is too strong. Command line sessions in the shell and sudo goodness you have to look forward too. :know:

I know, and I like that. Because it does not limit Joe Average to the ways of working and thinking that MS previously has fixed for all eternity in the way their software is working (and related business software es well), but forces him to actually learn about his computer again - a knowledge that more and more private users do not have anymore these days. Somebody above mentioned that many security desasters come from stupid users, and he is right. These stupid user are too comfprtable, and do lack the knowledge. I do not claim to be a perfect DOS sage myself, I am not, for I was deeply buried inside the Kickstart and Workbench stuff for Amiga when DOS was the PC standard, and the little DOS things I knew I mostly have forgotten again (used it only for the old university computers). However, the basic principle of modern software predefining the ways in which to think and to work, and not being able to get beyond that, not even imagining anymore that one could reach there, is a major problem imo. There are/were even scientific research projects that examined in what ways the use of modern software has limited the approaches and views and interpretations of scientific data in the achademical community. For that reason I would totally welcome OS which are more spartanic (spartan?) and focussed on the basics only. I do not like this glamourous blinking super-wonder-eye-blender-stuff, and I do not like when OS frees the user from the need to learn at leats some fundamental things about how the computer is functioning, and why.

Concenring the demands of business companies, I do not care less. I see it from the perspective of the private user that I am, and that perspective dictates my way in which I look at what I want from an OS, and what not. I am very conservative in my internet behavior, and that behavior has served me well so far.

So, still - no Vista for me, even if you'd pay me for using it. No benefits for me, only potential problems - no, thanks. Even before SP2 there were many people defending XP, saying how well and good it was, and I had so many damn troubles with it, and so many system reinstallations. If Vista really would be so good right now, it would not need another SP.

and if memory management works better in Vista, or not, and some things are faster, or not - of what use could that be for me? for all my software I am currently running, runs with fully satisfactory frames, and satisfactory resolutions of 1280, no matter what software. What could I gain in having more performance? Nothing, for I already do not miss anything. and games of the future - hell, I'm 40 now, not many games there are that I am interested to buy anymore, and if so - they are likely of higher age, meaning they would run supersmooth on my rig. am I interested in Far Cry 2? Crysis? Not at all, I played Far Cry, it was fun, and the genre does not interest me anymore today. Chess? My system is of overkill capacity for that. Works? Word? PSP? Don't need more ressources, speed, RAM, whatever. So, superior memory management is of no use for me. I have no hardware/driver-related problems to cure. If enough is not enough, than it never will be enough. Hasta la vista, Vista.

[SUBMAN1]

I am not sure what is going on here, but I am beginning to sense an MS employee has infiltrated this forum, and is very wrong in his/her opinion. :p By the way, I have a friend leaving AD for something more lucrative who is not happy with Vista at all! He even calls it MEII and he worked on it!

And as far as being secure, it already has a ton of patches out, so I don't buy this security portion. It is only marginally more secure than Windows XP, and if you turn of the terrible UAC, then what do you have left as a secure platform?

As for some of the software incompatibilities, I have a critical accoutning app that won't run, VPN issues, simple burning programs failing to function, video editing tools that are borked, and DVD players that can't play DVD's - this list is endless. Don't tell me that everything works fine! If you plan to use it to play the occasional game, no problem then, but don't try and work on it and expect things to function smoothly.

The only thing secure seems to be MS's built in DRM to appease the RIAA and MPAA - the only real change here.

I could go on and on all day about this and that, but I'd be wasting my breath, so lets let the industry talk for me:

(http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070530-windows-vista-no-more-secure-than-xp-report.html)
http://www.crn.com/software/199701019



THE BOTTOM LINE
Based on the Test Center's findings, businesses that migrate their Windows PCs from XP to Vista will get a slightly more secure OS. But as the Finjan reports showed, Vista's security remains wafer thin.

In the end, both the Vista and the XP test notebooks were almost equally damaged by viruses, trojans and other malware. And because most of the Web sites in the test were able to exploit (http://www.crn.com/encyclopedia/defineterm.jhtml?term=exploit&x=&y=) Vista's weaknesses, Internet users are just about equally vulnerable with both OSes.

VARs can still cite improved security as a selling point for Vista upgrades. Yet to avoid giving customers a false sense of safety, solution providers should stress that third-party security suites also will be needed to provide systems with ample protection.

http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/1327/vvxmu9.jpg

[TteFAboB]

Just make sure you guys don't miss Vista's Solitaire. It's a major improvement over XP's. Now that I have it running on my XP, I don't even know how I could play the old one.

Unless you people know of a better third-party Solitaire.

[Bathrone]

Subman, actually if you spent more time drilling down your arguments with facts instead of making fallacious ad hominem quips you might make a bit of sense. Ive made a good living out of ICT and I *am* interested in what MS critics have to say. I will give you the time and what I hope is my objective rationality to seriously consider your points. However Im not going to down the ad hominem road and get into some personal slurring with you. It not only dilutes the argument it just isnt nice. For the record though mate no, Im not a MS employee nor do I have any financial interest in it as an investor or anything. I do just as much work on Unix as MS in my consulting.

Lets explore your assertion about Vista and patches:

http://blogs.csoonline.com/windows_vista_6_month_vulnerability_report

As you can see, your entirely wrong on that claim you made.

I use IMGBurn for burning, first time I tried it with the Vista community tech preview before the betas came out it worked. I do alot of video stuff with open source software and I didnt have a problem there either. The only thing I had to wait for was Thurstmaster to release Vista drivers for my joysticks I use in flight sims.

There was a major deployment of Vista to a large government department here in my town, which went well. One of the solutions offered was for legacy apps to be virtualised but the release saw none that required it. thousands of desktops and laptops running Vista for a critical core government agency.

Your experience is totally at odds with the majority of people - honestly.

As for that article its rather odd that no other tests collaborate the findings. An element of computer science is repeatability. The testing methods use were not representative and were in fact misleading.

Do you know who Roger Grimes is? I do. Have you read his book? I have. Like Roger I work in the industry and I know some very hardcore Unix zealots that could talk about all the problems of Vista with some authority but all agree it is a mandatory upgrade from XP. I've allready explained some of the elements that make Vista defense in depth. The detail really is in Grime's book. And yes, it is true there is alot of Unix features in Vista that Unix had before Vista.

It's all been very well said by a comment left on that website by a MS Employee which I quote below:

*******************

would like to respond to this article. First, let me start off by saying that although I'm a full-time Microsoft employee (as of a few months ago), this is not an "official" Microsoft response. I'm responding as a 20-year Windows security veteran, author of 7 books on computer security, and long-time user of several other OSs besides Windows (e.g. OpenBSD, Linux, AS/400, etc.). Overall, the conclusion of the article is not supported by itself or the facts of every other independent review, even by people who dislike Microsoft.

This article stated that Windows Vista is no more secure than Windows XP. Ignoring for the moment that your own tests and printed rating system showed otherwise, there are huge reasons why I know your conclusions and tests are grossly inaccurate-and your readers should know so they can make an informed decision.

First, there is no doubt that you either disabled User Account Control (UAC), ignored its warnings, or refused to report on it. 99% of Windows malware requires elevated permissions in order to infect Windows. Vista, by default, doesn't allow elevated sessions without a secondary "in your face" consent by the logged in user. Windows XP, on the other hand, does not give such a warning.

So in order for most of your malware tests to work, you intentionally ignored one or more (in most cases it would be two or three) warnings to intentionally execute the malware. Windows XP would either give no warnings (because it doesn't have UAC), or just one or two (depending on the default warnings given by Internet Explorer).

How about reporting how often malware silently installed without the user receiving one or more warnings (the most serious security problem)? I know the improved delta between XP to Vista is significant, and was by your own observations. Why not share that with your readers?

I've run similar tests against my personal collection of over 16,000 malware programs, and I know the results. Windows Vista is significantly more resistant to malware than previous Windows versions. But this isn't only my conclusion, it is the statement of every anti-malware vendor, dozens of world-wide hacker experts, and hundreds of other demonstrated, documented tests. Talk to H.D. Moore (of Metasploit fame), talk to Foundstone (my previous employers), talk to Joanna Rutkowska (of Blue Pill fame), or another other Windows security professional who doesn't work for Microsoft. Some may even extremely dislike Microsoft, but to a person they will ALL tell you the same thing. Windows Vista is more secure than XP-in theory and in practice. Have you ever asked yourself why your tests are the only ones to the contrary? I suggest that it was not well conceived or implemented.

Your tests essentially measure, "If I ignore multiple warnings, how well does Windows run a program designed to run for Windows?". Or was it how well Windows does as an anti-malware program, by itself, even though it is not designed to be a stand-alone anti-malware program? Although Windows Vista does come with some anti-malware defenses (e.g. Windows Defender), Microsoft does not recommend running Windows, any version, without additional anti-malware program installed. If Microsoft thought Vista didn't need additional anti-malware software installed, they would say so.

Your article ignore hundreds of other new security features and settings that stop existing malware programs (disabled LM hashes, stronger buffer overflow protection, improved NetBIOS security, session isolation, mandatory integrity controls, Internet Explorer-Protected Mode, BitLocker, 800 new group policy settings, portable media control, stronger default encryption, improved EFS, IPv6, file and registry virtualization, built-in RMS client, and more). And these aren't just some theoretical increase in security. They improve security in practical, ease to see ways. But if you ignore multiple warning prompts, malware designed for your system will always be able to exploit regardless of the OS (albeit my hat is off to OpenBSD and VAX for their stellar records).

The real answer is that all of today's operating systems, no matter who the vendors are, are significantly more secure than the ones we used in the past. It's still saddening that we live in such a malicious world, but that is more due to the default anonymity that underpins the Internet than any particular product. Malicious hackers wouldn't hack near as much if we could catch them. And they are no easier to catch using Windows than they are using any other OS. Till we improve the Internet, hackers will continue to take advantage of vulnerabilities.

If you look at the number of found vulnerabilities in Windows XP (28) vs. Vista (11) this year, Vista wins again. If that seems like a lot, don't forget Mac OS X has had 101 in the same time period. Cute commercials, but not necessarily a stellar reason to dog Microsoft about.

In conclusion, I’m not sure why you choose to run a store that paints Windows Vista as no better security-wise than Windows XP?

Sincerely,

Roger A. Grimes, Sr. Security Consultant
Microsoft ACE Team
Author of Windows Vista Security: Securing Vista Against Malicious Attack

[Skybird]

Your experience is totally at odds with the majority of people.
No, that majority seems to be a phantom of yours. A friend of mine is salesman in the PC departement of the major electronics consumer shop chain here in Germany, I see him in the noon break sometimes. He confirms that Vista lies like lead in their shelves, and that they have very many customer complaints with it, and requests to give it back (what does not work too often, of course). Also, my former employer where I worked before moving to my current hometown, a large scale distributor for telephone and cell-phone articles, had test runs with Vista before wanting to switch the whole company over to it. The IT guys tested it in an internal network, then trashed it, and returned to a former version of NT. They said it was a "nerve-wrecking affair" and gave them more problems than any other OS they ever had.

Just two experiences from professional practice.

[Bathrone]

Sales of Vista has been good - MS reported on earnings with it recently.

The assertion that Vista is a miserable failure is not matched by sales earnings. You can attempt to argue that so and so business had many returns or whatever, but ultimately the sales figures dont support those assertions. And really its the total sales that is meaningful to the debate.

Some business have chosen to not upgrade to Vista cos they have security managed elsewhere and their internal machines really arent vulnerable to any real extent.

But to claim that Vista doesnt work and is somehow grossly broken is simply wrong.

Also there is things that saves money to business with their IT operations. One of the really big savings in the embedded imaging. No more lots and lots of different images for different builds. One image for x32 and image for x64. Simple. Fast.

Zealots from Linux or MacOS would have you believe the reason that MS dominates the desktop OS market is because of a conspiracy - but really is because its widely supported by lots of hardware, has alot of good features and since Vista with being the first to go through the secure development lifecycle process that MS came up with to get its together from the problems with XP its the most secure theyve ever done.

[Skybird]

Reports from MS on the issue necessarily include marketing efforts - by trying to look optimistic. We had numbers on sales posted here in the forum some time ago. And they included those vistas that came with sales of complete machines and thus were unable to be evaded by customers. but fact is that they have time and again requests for machines being sold not with Vista. The separately sold numbers some months ago were reported to be disappointing.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070420-dell-responds-to-customer-feedback-by-bringing-back-windows-xp.html

we also had this thread:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=116047&highlight=Vista

and a hint from the release start:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/software/2007-03-27-vista-sells_N.htm?csp=27

Okay, you love vista, I don't, this debate leads nowhere, so count me out.

P.S. Search Button -> General Forum -> "Vista"

[Bathrone]

Well hangon :) I dont love it. My wife uses a MacOS on her Macbook, its nice. I also use Unix and have a machine in my house running PC-BSD (I prefer that over Linux mainly because I prefer the BSD oversight to software dev and releases Linux has too many amatuer programmers in a free for all IMHO).

I actually agree with you the Windows presupplied thing is ethically wrong. People should be able to consciously choose what they want without OEMs living in fear of loosing MS special volume licensing deals.

AFAIK, it would illegal for MS to mislead its financial reporting being a public company on the stock exchange. When I google vista sales I see a mix ranging from good to bad on "opinion" type articles. The official MS figures, which as I understand are required to meet accounting and legal standards seem pretty good.

Im not trying to argue mate for the sake of it :) Its a topic I have interest in thats all.

[bradclark1]

Never mind. Already addressed.

[SUBMAN1]

Did you just respond to my article with a Microsoft propoganda letter? I'm not even going to bother replying to that.

-S