I figured out how to block outbound by default. It passes GRC's leak test.
I've started a list of allowed programs with WinMail and iexplore.

It would be convenient if there were an "ask" option between allow and
block.
I know I'll feel put upon having to create "allow"s for everything that
wants out.

"Jeff" <S.Cerevisiae@duh.edu> wrote in message
news:eAuXFVgKHHA.3668@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> umm, oops
> shoulda told ya,
> yup Vista needs jre 6 and the I have latest flash-#9
>
> Jeff
>
> "Michael Jennings" <metarhyme******.com> wrote in message
> news:e43T1LgKHHA.1064@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Oh well, I got the right JRE in - it needed version 6.
>> http://java.sun.com/javase/downloads/index.jsp
>>
>> "Jeff" <S.Cerevisiae@duh.edu> wrote in message
>> news:OZji1BgKHHA.1064@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>> guess I'm lucky-
>>> it installed for me with no problems-but
>>> I don't like it to begin with, and Vista's firewall is much better than
>>> XP's; haven't had the need for a 3rd party firewall;
>>> running Avast myself; love it
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>
>

I figured out how to block outbound by default. It passes GRC's leak test.
I've started a list of allowed programs with WinMail and iexplore.

It would be convenient if there were an "ask" option between allow and
block.
I know I'll feel put upon having to create "allow"s for everything that
wants out.

"Jeff" <S.Cerevisiae@duh.edu> wrote in message
news:eAuXFVgKHHA.3668@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> umm, oops
> shoulda told ya,
> yup Vista needs jre 6 and the I have latest flash-#9
>
> Jeff
>
> "Michael Jennings" <metarhyme******.com> wrote in message
> news:e43T1LgKHHA.1064@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Oh well, I got the right JRE in - it needed version 6.
>> http://java.sun.com/javase/downloads/index.jsp
>>
>> "Jeff" <S.Cerevisiae@duh.edu> wrote in message
>> news:OZji1BgKHHA.1064@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>> guess I'm lucky-
>>> it installed for me with no problems-but
>>> I don't like it to begin with, and Vista's firewall is much better than
>>> XP's; haven't had the need for a 3rd party firewall;
>>> running Avast myself; love it
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>
>

On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 05:36:10 -0800, John Barnes wrote:

> I have tried installing so many programs that have failed and caused Vista
> to be unusable that I don't want to 'try' something for the fun of it. I am
> tired of reinstalling Vista due to failed installs. I have begun installing
> on a second copy of Vista first, something I won't be able to do with Vista
> RTM. Guess it will require full backups before any install. Will probably
> have to group installs.

Have to agree ... I like Vista but have found application compatibility to
be disappointing. Many things install but don't work ; some don't install
but do work by manually copying the folder & related files from XP ; many
things install and <partially> work ; compatibility mode usually doesn't
help. It will soon be time (sooner then I had hoped) to wipe out the Vista
partition and start over with a clean Vista partition image ...

"Barry" <barry@none.no> wrote in message
news:1i6dzrhh8s74u.101u0lmy3px2d.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 18:18:31 -0600, Michael Jennings wrote:
>
>> I figured out how to block outbound by default. It passes GRC's leak
>> test.
>> I've started a list of allowed programs with WinMail and iexplore.
>>
>> It would be convenient if there were an "ask" option between allow and
>> block. I know I'll feel put upon having to create "allow"s for everything
>> that wants out.
>
> I too have done this. Be sure to enable logging for dropped outgoing
> packets. You can view the log to see what was blocked that perhaps you
> want to allow. Unfortunately, there are no Vista prompts for outgoing
> traffic ... I keep a desktop link to the log file.

Thanks. I guess I'll find out how long it all takes - indefinite, I suppose.

"Barry" <barry@none.no> wrote in message
news:1i6dzrhh8s74u.101u0lmy3px2d.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 18:18:31 -0600, Michael Jennings wrote:
>
>> I figured out how to block outbound by default. It passes GRC's leak
>> test.
>> I've started a list of allowed programs with WinMail and iexplore.
>>
>> It would be convenient if there were an "ask" option between allow and
>> block. I know I'll feel put upon having to create "allow"s for everything
>> that wants out.
>
> I too have done this. Be sure to enable logging for dropped outgoing
> packets. You can view the log to see what was blocked that perhaps you
> want to allow. Unfortunately, there are no Vista prompts for outgoing
> traffic ... I keep a desktop link to the log file.

Thanks. I guess I'll find out how long it all takes - indefinite, I suppose.

In article <ouu9judxljxk.278c8q2h79bi$.dlg@40tude.net>, barry@none.no
says...
> Have to agree ... I like Vista but have found application compatibility to
> be disappointing.

Question is: should an Operating System be compatible with applications,
or should applications be compatible with and Operating System?
The applications that are not compatible with Vista right now will most
likely get an update in the weeks/months to come, which will make them
compatible with the new OS.
Backwards compatibility is good, but it can't go on forever.


Kind regards,
Mark Veldhuis.

In article <ouu9judxljxk.278c8q2h79bi$.dlg@40tude.net>, barry@none.no
says...
> Have to agree ... I like Vista but have found application compatibility to
> be disappointing.

Question is: should an Operating System be compatible with applications,
or should applications be compatible with and Operating System?
The applications that are not compatible with Vista right now will most
likely get an update in the weeks/months to come, which will make them
compatible with the new OS.
Backwards compatibility is good, but it can't go on forever.


Kind regards,
Mark Veldhuis.

The applications that are not compatible with Vista right now will most
> likely get an update in the weeks/months to come, which will make them
> compatible with the new OS.

Unfortunately, most handy little applications never get updated because the
writers move on, the programs get bought up by some company that doesn't
want the competition and they either let them die or include the functions
in some other program with a plethora of useless functions. I agree that
eventually you have to let backward compatibility go, like 16-bit on 64-bit
platforms. It just means that one has decide which is more important, a new
os and its features or the old os with all the programs that provide the
functions that make life on the computer a more pleasant experience.
My biggest complaint is the number of times that failed installs required a
reinstall of Vista and anything done since the last backup. I used to do a
full backup once a month but with Vista, it seems necessary before
installing any software not specifically labeled Vista compatible.


"Mark Veldhuis" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ffdd36845e8a4e6989681@msnews.microsoft.c om...
> In article <ouu9judxljxk.278c8q2h79bi$.dlg@40tude.net>, barry@none.no
> says...
>> Have to agree ... I like Vista but have found application compatibility
>> to
>> be disappointing.
>
> Question is: should an Operating System be compatible with applications,
> or should applications be compatible with and Operating System?
> The applications that are not compatible with Vista right now will most
> likely get an update in the weeks/months to come, which will make them
> compatible with the new OS.
> Backwards compatibility is good, but it can't go on forever.
>
>
> Kind regards,
> Mark Veldhuis.

The applications that are not compatible with Vista right now will most
> likely get an update in the weeks/months to come, which will make them
> compatible with the new OS.

Unfortunately, most handy little applications never get updated because the
writers move on, the programs get bought up by some company that doesn't
want the competition and they either let them die or include the functions
in some other program with a plethora of useless functions. I agree that
eventually you have to let backward compatibility go, like 16-bit on 64-bit
platforms. It just means that one has decide which is more important, a new
os and its features or the old os with all the programs that provide the
functions that make life on the computer a more pleasant experience.
My biggest complaint is the number of times that failed installs required a
reinstall of Vista and anything done since the last backup. I used to do a
full backup once a month but with Vista, it seems necessary before
installing any software not specifically labeled Vista compatible.


"Mark Veldhuis" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ffdd36845e8a4e6989681@msnews.microsoft.c om...
> In article <ouu9judxljxk.278c8q2h79bi$.dlg@40tude.net>, barry@none.no
> says...
>> Have to agree ... I like Vista but have found application compatibility
>> to
>> be disappointing.
>
> Question is: should an Operating System be compatible with applications,
> or should applications be compatible with and Operating System?
> The applications that are not compatible with Vista right now will most
> likely get an update in the weeks/months to come, which will make them
> compatible with the new OS.
> Backwards compatibility is good, but it can't go on forever.
>
>
> Kind regards,
> Mark Veldhuis.

Reinstall?
WTF?
Are you trying to install stuff that's not compatible?
like 16 bit apps?
or better yet, old versions of apps that don't work well in XP to begin
with?
or hardware drivers for XP?

Do you have Java 6 installed?

You realize that Vista is new, and that old stuff, if not written for the
new o.s. may not work.
It may, but then again, maybe not.

Heck, the only time I've hadta reinstall is because of Symantec crap-and
that was beta testing it to begin with.

A full backup?
I have one,
using Vista's native Complete PC Restore and Backup
and trust me, it works great.
I use it as a base, but again, I test a lot of stuff.
Sorry for your luck-
Vista running great here,
oh, and if I do have the need to look at old apps,
I just run em in VPC'07 with that X??
that X something o.s. as a guest.

Jeff



"John Barnes" <jbarnes@email.net> wrote in message
news:%23BLlCmoKHHA.5000@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> The applications that are not compatible with Vista right now will most
>> likely get an update in the weeks/months to come, which will make them
>> compatible with the new OS.
>
> Unfortunately, most handy little applications never get updated because
> the writers move on, the programs get bought up by some company that
> doesn't want the competition and they either let them die or include the
> functions in some other program with a plethora of useless functions. I
> agree that eventually you have to let backward compatibility go, like
> 16-bit on 64-bit platforms. It just means that one has decide which is
> more important, a new os and its features or the old os with all the
> programs that provide the functions that make life on the computer a more
> pleasant experience.
> My biggest complaint is the number of times that failed installs required
> a reinstall of Vista and anything done since the last backup. I used to
> do a full backup once a month but with Vista, it seems necessary before
> installing any software not specifically labeled Vista compatible.
>
>
> "Mark Veldhuis" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1ffdd36845e8a4e6989681@msnews.microsoft.c om...
>> In article <ouu9judxljxk.278c8q2h79bi$.dlg@40tude.net>, barry@none.no
>> says...
>>> Have to agree ... I like Vista but have found application compatibility
>>> to
>>> be disappointing.
>>
>> Question is: should an Operating System be compatible with applications,
>> or should applications be compatible with and Operating System?
>> The applications that are not compatible with Vista right now will most
>> likely get an update in the weeks/months to come, which will make them
>> compatible with the new OS.
>> Backwards compatibility is good, but it can't go on forever.
>>
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Mark Veldhuis.
>

Reinstall?
WTF?
Are you trying to install stuff that's not compatible?
like 16 bit apps?
or better yet, old versions of apps that don't work well in XP to begin
with?
or hardware drivers for XP?

Do you have Java 6 installed?

You realize that Vista is new, and that old stuff, if not written for the
new o.s. may not work.
It may, but then again, maybe not.

Heck, the only time I've hadta reinstall is because of Symantec crap-and
that was beta testing it to begin with.

A full backup?
I have one,
using Vista's native Complete PC Restore and Backup
and trust me, it works great.
I use it as a base, but again, I test a lot of stuff.
Sorry for your luck-
Vista running great here,
oh, and if I do have the need to look at old apps,
I just run em in VPC'07 with that X??
that X something o.s. as a guest.

Jeff



"John Barnes" <jbarnes@email.net> wrote in message
news:%23BLlCmoKHHA.5000@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> The applications that are not compatible with Vista right now will most
>> likely get an update in the weeks/months to come, which will make them
>> compatible with the new OS.
>
> Unfortunately, most handy little applications never get updated because
> the writers move on, the programs get bought up by some company that
> doesn't want the competition and they either let them die or include the
> functions in some other program with a plethora of useless functions. I
> agree that eventually you have to let backward compatibility go, like
> 16-bit on 64-bit platforms. It just means that one has decide which is
> more important, a new os and its features or the old os with all the
> programs that provide the functions that make life on the computer a more
> pleasant experience.
> My biggest complaint is the number of times that failed installs required
> a reinstall of Vista and anything done since the last backup. I used to
> do a full backup once a month but with Vista, it seems necessary before
> installing any software not specifically labeled Vista compatible.
>
>
> "Mark Veldhuis" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1ffdd36845e8a4e6989681@msnews.microsoft.c om...
>> In article <ouu9judxljxk.278c8q2h79bi$.dlg@40tude.net>, barry@none.no
>> says...
>>> Have to agree ... I like Vista but have found application compatibility
>>> to
>>> be disappointing.
>>
>> Question is: should an Operating System be compatible with applications,
>> or should applications be compatible with and Operating System?
>> The applications that are not compatible with Vista right now will most
>> likely get an update in the weeks/months to come, which will make them
>> compatible with the new OS.
>> Backwards compatibility is good, but it can't go on forever.
>>
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Mark Veldhuis.
>

> Reinstall?

Yes


> Are you trying to install stuff that's not compatible?

apparently, but there is no warning until it blows up in the middle of the
install on some. Others warn and install is stopped.

> like 16 bit apps? Have never had a 16-bit app.

Some old programs had 16-bit installers, but never tried to install these
because I know they won't even start on any 64-bit system. I have XP X-64
on another partition

> or better yet, old versions of apps that don't work well in XP to begin
> with?

All worked on XP X-64

> or hardware drivers for XP?

One app had drivers, probably for XP, only 1 year old and designed to run on
XP X-64 Problem was drivers were unsigned.
>
> Do you have Java 6 installed?

Of course
>
> You realize that Vista is new,

Kind of an obnoxious stupid question

> and that old stuff, if not written for the new o.s. may not work.

We all know some may not work. In this case most don't work and several
blow up Vista. Incidentally, nothing I ever tried to install on XP X-64
EVER caused the system to have to be reinstalled.

> It may, but then again, maybe not. ?????????????
>
> Heck, the only time I've hadta reinstall is because of Symantec crap-and
> that was beta testing it to begin with.

Sort of all depends on what you are running, doesn't it?
>
> A full backup?

Ghost from XP86 every month.

> I have one,
> using Vista's native Complete PC Restore and Backup
> and trust me, it works great.
> I use it as a base, but again, I test a lot of stuff.

I'm using a second copy of Vista64 to install to until I know it works. The
least stable system I have used.

> Sorry for your luck-
> Vista running great here,

Runs great here too, but at a skeleton of the system I have on XP X-64

> oh, and if I do have the need to look at old apps,
> I just run em in VPC'07 with that X??
> that X something o.s. as a guest.
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
> "John Barnes" <jbarnes@email.net> wrote in message
> news:%23BLlCmoKHHA.5000@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> The applications that are not compatible with Vista right now will most
>>> likely get an update in the weeks/months to come, which will make them
>>> compatible with the new OS.
>>
>> Unfortunately, most handy little applications never get updated because
>> the writers move on, the programs get bought up by some company that
>> doesn't want the competition and they either let them die or include the
>> functions in some other program with a plethora of useless functions. I
>> agree that eventually you have to let backward compatibility go, like
>> 16-bit on 64-bit platforms. It just means that one has decide which is
>> more important, a new os and its features or the old os with all the
>> programs that provide the functions that make life on the computer a more
>> pleasant experience.
>> My biggest complaint is the number of times that failed installs required
>> a reinstall of Vista and anything done since the last backup. I used to
>> do a full backup once a month but with Vista, it seems necessary before
>> installing any software not specifically labeled Vista compatible.
>>
>>
>> "Mark Veldhuis" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.1ffdd36845e8a4e6989681@msnews.microsoft.c om...
>>> In article <ouu9judxljxk.278c8q2h79bi$.dlg@40tude.net>, barry@none.no
>>> says...
>>>> Have to agree ... I like Vista but have found application compatibility
>>>> to
>>>> be disappointing.
>>>
>>> Question is: should an Operating System be compatible with applications,
>>> or should applications be compatible with and Operating System?
>>> The applications that are not compatible with Vista right now will most
>>> likely get an update in the weeks/months to come, which will make them
>>> compatible with the new OS.
>>> Backwards compatibility is good, but it can't go on forever.
>>>
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Mark Veldhuis.
>>
>

> Reinstall?

Yes


> Are you trying to install stuff that's not compatible?

apparently, but there is no warning until it blows up in the middle of the
install on some. Others warn and install is stopped.

> like 16 bit apps? Have never had a 16-bit app.

Some old programs had 16-bit installers, but never tried to install these
because I know they won't even start on any 64-bit system. I have XP X-64
on another partition

> or better yet, old versions of apps that don't work well in XP to begin
> with?

All worked on XP X-64

> or hardware drivers for XP?

One app had drivers, probably for XP, only 1 year old and designed to run on
XP X-64 Problem was drivers were unsigned.
>
> Do you have Java 6 installed?

Of course
>
> You realize that Vista is new,

Kind of an obnoxious stupid question

> and that old stuff, if not written for the new o.s. may not work.

We all know some may not work. In this case most don't work and several
blow up Vista. Incidentally, nothing I ever tried to install on XP X-64
EVER caused the system to have to be reinstalled.

> It may, but then again, maybe not. ?????????????
>
> Heck, the only time I've hadta reinstall is because of Symantec crap-and
> that was beta testing it to begin with.

Sort of all depends on what you are running, doesn't it?
>
> A full backup?

Ghost from XP86 every month.

> I have one,
> using Vista's native Complete PC Restore and Backup
> and trust me, it works great.
> I use it as a base, but again, I test a lot of stuff.

I'm using a second copy of Vista64 to install to until I know it works. The
least stable system I have used.

> Sorry for your luck-
> Vista running great here,

Runs great here too, but at a skeleton of the system I have on XP X-64

> oh, and if I do have the need to look at old apps,
> I just run em in VPC'07 with that X??
> that X something o.s. as a guest.
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
> "John Barnes" <jbarnes@email.net> wrote in message
> news:%23BLlCmoKHHA.5000@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> The applications that are not compatible with Vista right now will most
>>> likely get an update in the weeks/months to come, which will make them
>>> compatible with the new OS.
>>
>> Unfortunately, most handy little applications never get updated because
>> the writers move on, the programs get bought up by some company that
>> doesn't want the competition and they either let them die or include the
>> functions in some other program with a plethora of useless functions. I
>> agree that eventually you have to let backward compatibility go, like
>> 16-bit on 64-bit platforms. It just means that one has decide which is
>> more important, a new os and its features or the old os with all the
>> programs that provide the functions that make life on the computer a more
>> pleasant experience.
>> My biggest complaint is the number of times that failed installs required
>> a reinstall of Vista and anything done since the last backup. I used to
>> do a full backup once a month but with Vista, it seems necessary before
>> installing any software not specifically labeled Vista compatible.
>>
>>
>> "Mark Veldhuis" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.1ffdd36845e8a4e6989681@msnews.microsoft.c om...
>>> In article <ouu9judxljxk.278c8q2h79bi$.dlg@40tude.net>, barry@none.no
>>> says...
>>>> Have to agree ... I like Vista but have found application compatibility
>>>> to
>>>> be disappointing.
>>>
>>> Question is: should an Operating System be compatible with applications,
>>> or should applications be compatible with and Operating System?
>>> The applications that are not compatible with Vista right now will most
>>> likely get an update in the weeks/months to come, which will make them
>>> compatible with the new OS.
>>> Backwards compatibility is good, but it can't go on forever.
>>>
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Mark Veldhuis.
>>
>

Well John

Been running this puppy since 5384(wink) and yup,
if your having issues, don't know what to tell ya.
Running good for me, now
Sure there's apps that won't work in it, that have stalled, or even froze up
without warning on me also, but again,
I just vpc those if I need to.
Did mean 16bit installers too-sorry bout that.
All in all, over the course of this, other than some obvious mess-ups,
I'm happy with Vista,
never lookin back.

Jeff

"John Barnes" <jbarnes@email.net> wrote in message
news:etbz7buKHHA.4916@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
>> Reinstall?
>
> Yes
>
>
> > Are you trying to install stuff that's not compatible?
>
> apparently, but there is no warning until it blows up in the middle of the
> install on some. Others warn and install is stopped.
>
>> like 16 bit apps? Have never had a 16-bit app.
>
> Some old programs had 16-bit installers, but never tried to install these
> because I know they won't even start on any 64-bit system. I have XP X-64
> on another partition
>
>> or better yet, old versions of apps that don't work well in XP to begin
>> with?
>
> All worked on XP X-64
>
>> or hardware drivers for XP?
>
> One app had drivers, probably for XP, only 1 year old and designed to run
> on XP X-64 Problem was drivers were unsigned.
>>
>> Do you have Java 6 installed?
>
> Of course
>>
>> You realize that Vista is new,
>
> Kind of an obnoxious stupid question
>
>> and that old stuff, if not written for the new o.s. may not work.
>
> We all know some may not work. In this case most don't work and several
> blow up Vista. Incidentally, nothing I ever tried to install on XP X-64
> EVER caused the system to have to be reinstalled.
>
>> It may, but then again, maybe not. ?????????????
>>
>> Heck, the only time I've hadta reinstall is because of Symantec crap-and
>> that was beta testing it to begin with.
>
> Sort of all depends on what you are running, doesn't it?
>>
>> A full backup?
>
> Ghost from XP86 every month.
>
>> I have one,
>> using Vista's native Complete PC Restore and Backup
>> and trust me, it works great.
>> I use it as a base, but again, I test a lot of stuff.
>
> I'm using a second copy of Vista64 to install to until I know it works.
> The least stable system I have used.
>
>> Sorry for your luck-
>> Vista running great here,
>
> Runs great here too, but at a skeleton of the system I have on XP X-64
>
>> oh, and if I do have the need to look at old apps,
>> I just run em in VPC'07 with that X??
>> that X something o.s. as a guest.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>>
>>
>> "John Barnes" <jbarnes@email.net> wrote in message
>> news:%23BLlCmoKHHA.5000@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>> The applications that are not compatible with Vista right now will most
>>>> likely get an update in the weeks/months to come, which will make them
>>>> compatible with the new OS.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, most handy little applications never get updated because
>>> the writers move on, the programs get bought up by some company that
>>> doesn't want the competition and they either let them die or include the
>>> functions in some other program with a plethora of useless functions. I
>>> agree that eventually you have to let backward compatibility go, like
>>> 16-bit on 64-bit platforms. It just means that one has decide which is
>>> more important, a new os and its features or the old os with all the
>>> programs that provide the functions that make life on the computer a
>>> more pleasant experience.
>>> My biggest complaint is the number of times that failed installs
>>> required a reinstall of Vista and anything done since the last backup.
>>> I used to do a full backup once a month but with Vista, it seems
>>> necessary before installing any software not specifically labeled Vista
>>> compatible.
>>>
>>>
>>> "Mark Veldhuis" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
>>> news:MPG.1ffdd36845e8a4e6989681@msnews.microsoft.c om...
>>>> In article <ouu9judxljxk.278c8q2h79bi$.dlg@40tude.net>, barry@none.no
>>>> says...
>>>>> Have to agree ... I like Vista but have found application
>>>>> compatibility to
>>>>> be disappointing.
>>>>
>>>> Question is: should an Operating System be compatible with
>>>> applications,
>>>> or should applications be compatible with and Operating System?
>>>> The applications that are not compatible with Vista right now will most
>>>> likely get an update in the weeks/months to come, which will make them
>>>> compatible with the new OS.
>>>> Backwards compatibility is good, but it can't go on forever.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>> Mark Veldhuis.
>>>
>>
>

Well John

Been running this puppy since 5384(wink) and yup,
if your having issues, don't know what to tell ya.
Running good for me, now
Sure there's apps that won't work in it, that have stalled, or even froze up
without warning on me also, but again,
I just vpc those if I need to.
Did mean 16bit installers too-sorry bout that.
All in all, over the course of this, other than some obvious mess-ups,
I'm happy with Vista,
never lookin back.

Jeff

"John Barnes" <jbarnes@email.net> wrote in message
news:etbz7buKHHA.4916@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
>> Reinstall?
>
> Yes
>
>
> > Are you trying to install stuff that's not compatible?
>
> apparently, but there is no warning until it blows up in the middle of the
> install on some. Others warn and install is stopped.
>
>> like 16 bit apps? Have never had a 16-bit app.
>
> Some old programs had 16-bit installers, but never tried to install these
> because I know they won't even start on any 64-bit system. I have XP X-64
> on another partition
>
>> or better yet, old versions of apps that don't work well in XP to begin
>> with?
>
> All worked on XP X-64
>
>> or hardware drivers for XP?
>
> One app had drivers, probably for XP, only 1 year old and designed to run
> on XP X-64 Problem was drivers were unsigned.
>>
>> Do you have Java 6 installed?
>
> Of course
>>
>> You realize that Vista is new,
>
> Kind of an obnoxious stupid question
>
>> and that old stuff, if not written for the new o.s. may not work.
>
> We all know some may not work. In this case most don't work and several
> blow up Vista. Incidentally, nothing I ever tried to install on XP X-64
> EVER caused the system to have to be reinstalled.
>
>> It may, but then again, maybe not. ?????????????
>>
>> Heck, the only time I've hadta reinstall is because of Symantec crap-and
>> that was beta testing it to begin with.
>
> Sort of all depends on what you are running, doesn't it?
>>
>> A full backup?
>
> Ghost from XP86 every month.
>
>> I have one,
>> using Vista's native Complete PC Restore and Backup
>> and trust me, it works great.
>> I use it as a base, but again, I test a lot of stuff.
>
> I'm using a second copy of Vista64 to install to until I know it works.
> The least stable system I have used.
>
>> Sorry for your luck-
>> Vista running great here,
>
> Runs great here too, but at a skeleton of the system I have on XP X-64
>
>> oh, and if I do have the need to look at old apps,
>> I just run em in VPC'07 with that X??
>> that X something o.s. as a guest.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>>
>>
>> "John Barnes" <jbarnes@email.net> wrote in message
>> news:%23BLlCmoKHHA.5000@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>> The applications that are not compatible with Vista right now will most
>>>> likely get an update in the weeks/months to come, which will make them
>>>> compatible with the new OS.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, most handy little applications never get updated because
>>> the writers move on, the programs get bought up by some company that
>>> doesn't want the competition and they either let them die or include the
>>> functions in some other program with a plethora of useless functions. I
>>> agree that eventually you have to let backward compatibility go, like
>>> 16-bit on 64-bit platforms. It just means that one has decide which is
>>> more important, a new os and its features or the old os with all the
>>> programs that provide the functions that make life on the computer a
>>> more pleasant experience.
>>> My biggest complaint is the number of times that failed installs
>>> required a reinstall of Vista and anything done since the last backup.
>>> I used to do a full backup once a month but with Vista, it seems
>>> necessary before installing any software not specifically labeled Vista
>>> compatible.
>>>
>>>
>>> "Mark Veldhuis" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
>>> news:MPG.1ffdd36845e8a4e6989681@msnews.microsoft.c om...
>>>> In article <ouu9judxljxk.278c8q2h79bi$.dlg@40tude.net>, barry@none.no
>>>> says...
>>>>> Have to agree ... I like Vista but have found application
>>>>> compatibility to
>>>>> be disappointing.
>>>>
>>>> Question is: should an Operating System be compatible with
>>>> applications,
>>>> or should applications be compatible with and Operating System?
>>>> The applications that are not compatible with Vista right now will most
>>>> likely get an update in the weeks/months to come, which will make them
>>>> compatible with the new OS.
>>>> Backwards compatibility is good, but it can't go on forever.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>> Mark Veldhuis.
>>>
>>
>