On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 13:44:28 -0700, Frank wrote:

> Stephan Rose wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 11:42:52 -0700, Frank wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>First of all space cadet, you need to realize that the restore/delete
>>>problem is an XP problem.
>>>Not a Vista problem.
>>
>>
>> Actually it is a Vista problem. XP already existed, so why doesn't
>> Vista create it's restore points in such a way that XP doesn't get
>> confused by them and delete them?
>>
>> XP can't look in the future and know Vista exists so it can't take
>> changes in Vista into account.
>>
>> Vista however was created after XP so it shouldn't be creating restore
>> points in such a way that it causes XP to delete them. It isn't causing
>> problems with XP..it's ultimately causing problems with Vista, making
>> it a Vista problem.
>>
>>
>>
> It's an XP problem:
>
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/926185
>
> ..."This problem occurs because the volume snapshot driver that is
> included with Windows Vista and with Windows Server "Longhorn" uses disk
> structures that are incompatible with earlier versions of Windows.
> Therefore, the earlier operating system deletes Windows Vista shadow
> copies or Windows Server "Longhorn" shadow copies together with the
> associated restore points. This behavior occurs because the earlier
> Windows operating systems do not recognize the new disk structures."
>
> Proly be fixed by XP SP3.

Sure a fix can be applied to XP, but ultimately what XP is doing is only
causing issues in Vista. XP is unaffected by it.

That said, I honestly don't get how MS can implement something in a way
that they know XP will destroy. And nobody can tell me they didn't know.
That is why I say it's a problem with Vista. If one knows there's going
to be a problem, why not implement it in a way that it doesn't cause a
problem?


--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

君のこと思い出す日なんてないのは
君のこと忘れたときがないから

Stephan Rose wrote:

>
>
> Sure a fix can be applied to XP, but ultimately what XP is doing is only
> causing issues in Vista. XP is unaffected by it.
>
> That said, I honestly don't get how MS can implement something in a way
> that they know XP will destroy. And nobody can tell me they didn't know.

I'm sure they knew but were more concerned with the new structure of
Vista than any incompatibility with XP. Anyway it's only a problem for
just a few and there are work arounds...one being using separate
physical HDD for XP & Vista...which is what I've done on one box that
has XP, 2K, ME and Vista on it.

> That is why I say it's a problem with Vista.

No, it's an XP problem as the fix will be applied to XP, not Vista.

If one knows there's going
> to be a problem, why not implement it in a way that it doesn't cause a
> problem?

I'm sure they would have done that had it been possible.
But of course, all we're doing is speculating. :-)
Frank
>
>

Stephan Rose wrote:

>
>
> Sure a fix can be applied to XP, but ultimately what XP is doing is only
> causing issues in Vista. XP is unaffected by it.
>
> That said, I honestly don't get how MS can implement something in a way
> that they know XP will destroy. And nobody can tell me they didn't know.

I'm sure they knew but were more concerned with the new structure of
Vista than any incompatibility with XP. Anyway it's only a problem for
just a few and there are work arounds...one being using separate
physical HDD for XP & Vista...which is what I've done on one box that
has XP, 2K, ME and Vista on it.

> That is why I say it's a problem with Vista.

No, it's an XP problem as the fix will be applied to XP, not Vista.

If one knows there's going
> to be a problem, why not implement it in a way that it doesn't cause a
> problem?

I'm sure they would have done that had it been possible.
But of course, all we're doing is speculating. :-)
Frank
>
>

Stephan Rose wrote:

>
>
> Sure a fix can be applied to XP, but ultimately what XP is doing is only
> causing issues in Vista. XP is unaffected by it.
>
> That said, I honestly don't get how MS can implement something in a way
> that they know XP will destroy. And nobody can tell me they didn't know.

I'm sure they knew but were more concerned with the new structure of
Vista than any incompatibility with XP. Anyway it's only a problem for
just a few and there are work arounds...one being using separate
physical HDD for XP & Vista...which is what I've done on one box that
has XP, 2K, ME and Vista on it.

> That is why I say it's a problem with Vista.

No, it's an XP problem as the fix will be applied to XP, not Vista.

If one knows there's going
> to be a problem, why not implement it in a way that it doesn't cause a
> problem?

I'm sure they would have done that had it been possible.
But of course, all we're doing is speculating. :-)
Frank
>
>

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 14:35:22 -0700, Frank wrote:

> Stephan Rose wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Sure a fix can be applied to XP, but ultimately what XP is doing is
>> only causing issues in Vista. XP is unaffected by it.
>>
>> That said, I honestly don't get how MS can implement something in a way
>> that they know XP will destroy. And nobody can tell me they didn't
>> know.
>
> I'm sure they knew but were more concerned with the new structure of
> Vista than any incompatibility with XP. Anyway it's only a problem for
> just a few and there are work arounds...one being using separate
> physical HDD for XP & Vista...which is what I've done on one box that
> has XP, 2K, ME and Vista on it.

Well I agree with ya on one thing, one OS per drive. Period. I personally
don't like throwing multiple OS' on a single drive either.

Though I suppose I may need to break that rule on my next system if I
actually do build myself a raid array. It'll be hard to dedicate Windows
and Ubuntu each to their own physical drive then.

Though there is this one new hard drive out that is really tempting,
maybe I'll just buy two of those instead. Up to 200 gigs capacity and it
has 1 gig worth of cache in the form of RAM with a 90 second battery
backup in case of power failure to commit said cache to media if
necessary.

Supposed to be extremely fast due to its huge cache.

>
>> That is why I say it's a problem with Vista.
>
> No, it's an XP problem as the fix will be applied to XP, not Vista.

Vista is still the one that's having the problem with it. =)

>
> If one knows there's going
>> to be a problem, why not implement it in a way that it doesn't cause a
>> problem?
>
> I'm sure they would have done that had it been possible. But of course,
> all we're doing is speculating. :-) Frank

Personally I would not say that it would have been impossible. Most
software related things these days are generally not impossible,
though...they can be inconvenient to implement. But agreed, all either
one of us can do on the matter is speculate.

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

君のこと思い出す日なんてないのは
君のこと忘れたときがないから

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 14:35:22 -0700, Frank wrote:

> Stephan Rose wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Sure a fix can be applied to XP, but ultimately what XP is doing is
>> only causing issues in Vista. XP is unaffected by it.
>>
>> That said, I honestly don't get how MS can implement something in a way
>> that they know XP will destroy. And nobody can tell me they didn't
>> know.
>
> I'm sure they knew but were more concerned with the new structure of
> Vista than any incompatibility with XP. Anyway it's only a problem for
> just a few and there are work arounds...one being using separate
> physical HDD for XP & Vista...which is what I've done on one box that
> has XP, 2K, ME and Vista on it.

Well I agree with ya on one thing, one OS per drive. Period. I personally
don't like throwing multiple OS' on a single drive either.

Though I suppose I may need to break that rule on my next system if I
actually do build myself a raid array. It'll be hard to dedicate Windows
and Ubuntu each to their own physical drive then.

Though there is this one new hard drive out that is really tempting,
maybe I'll just buy two of those instead. Up to 200 gigs capacity and it
has 1 gig worth of cache in the form of RAM with a 90 second battery
backup in case of power failure to commit said cache to media if
necessary.

Supposed to be extremely fast due to its huge cache.

>
>> That is why I say it's a problem with Vista.
>
> No, it's an XP problem as the fix will be applied to XP, not Vista.

Vista is still the one that's having the problem with it. =)

>
> If one knows there's going
>> to be a problem, why not implement it in a way that it doesn't cause a
>> problem?
>
> I'm sure they would have done that had it been possible. But of course,
> all we're doing is speculating. :-) Frank

Personally I would not say that it would have been impossible. Most
software related things these days are generally not impossible,
though...they can be inconvenient to implement. But agreed, all either
one of us can do on the matter is speculate.

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

君のこと思い出す日なんてないのは
君のこと忘れたときがないから

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 14:35:22 -0700, Frank wrote:

> Stephan Rose wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Sure a fix can be applied to XP, but ultimately what XP is doing is
>> only causing issues in Vista. XP is unaffected by it.
>>
>> That said, I honestly don't get how MS can implement something in a way
>> that they know XP will destroy. And nobody can tell me they didn't
>> know.
>
> I'm sure they knew but were more concerned with the new structure of
> Vista than any incompatibility with XP. Anyway it's only a problem for
> just a few and there are work arounds...one being using separate
> physical HDD for XP & Vista...which is what I've done on one box that
> has XP, 2K, ME and Vista on it.

Well I agree with ya on one thing, one OS per drive. Period. I personally
don't like throwing multiple OS' on a single drive either.

Though I suppose I may need to break that rule on my next system if I
actually do build myself a raid array. It'll be hard to dedicate Windows
and Ubuntu each to their own physical drive then.

Though there is this one new hard drive out that is really tempting,
maybe I'll just buy two of those instead. Up to 200 gigs capacity and it
has 1 gig worth of cache in the form of RAM with a 90 second battery
backup in case of power failure to commit said cache to media if
necessary.

Supposed to be extremely fast due to its huge cache.

>
>> That is why I say it's a problem with Vista.
>
> No, it's an XP problem as the fix will be applied to XP, not Vista.

Vista is still the one that's having the problem with it. =)

>
> If one knows there's going
>> to be a problem, why not implement it in a way that it doesn't cause a
>> problem?
>
> I'm sure they would have done that had it been possible. But of course,
> all we're doing is speculating. :-) Frank

Personally I would not say that it would have been impossible. Most
software related things these days are generally not impossible,
though...they can be inconvenient to implement. But agreed, all either
one of us can do on the matter is speculate.

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

君のこと思い出す日なんてないのは
君のこと忘れたときがないから