Well, for those of us still on Windows XP (Meaning most everyone on the internets), Service Pack 3 is swiftly approaching release. Until then, Release Candidate 2 has been released. Having installed RC1, I can suggest all XP users get this, as it improved the startup time of Windows by about half the time it used to take.

Release notes can be found here

[quote author=Andy link=topic=17377.msg176930#msg176930 date=1205270679]
(Meaning most everyone on the internets)[/quote]

From my website stats tracker:

1.    Windows XP 52.80%
2.    Unknown Windows 23.73%
3.    Windows 2000 4.28%
4.    Windows 98 3.64%
5.    Windows NT 0.11%
6.    Windows 95 0.01%
7.    Windows ME 0.05%
8.    Windows CE 0.03%
  OS unknown 12.18%
  Unix 1.95%
9.    Linux 1.94%
10.    BSD 0.01%
  Macintosh 1.00%
  Known robots 0.23%

Unknown Windows means Vista. :P

My site's stats:

[pre]1. Windows          98.33%
    1. XP              84.40%
    2. Vista            13.99%
    3. Server 2003      1.04%
    4. 98              0.29%
    5. 2000            0.20%
    6. ME              0.07%

2. Macintosh        1.20%
    1. PPC              71.64%
    2. Intel            28.36%

3. Linux            0.43%

4. (not set)        0.02%

5. iPod              0.02%[/pre]

http://www.sitemeter.com/?a=stats&s=s19sachen&r=19 for my site...

And it seems to match up rather well with http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp and http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=10

[quote author=Andy link=topic=17377.msg176933#msg176933 date=1205273658]
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp
[/quote]

Vista's market share grew more in a few months than mac did in 5 years.  also, xp seems to have reached a peak to which it is now declining.  in a few years expect vista to have as much if not more than xp's share

[quote author=Spht link=topic=17377.msg176934#msg176934 date=1205274621]
[quote author=Andy link=topic=17377.msg176933#msg176933 date=1205273658]
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp
[/quote]

Vista's market share grew more in a few months than mac did in 5 years.  also, xp seems to have reached a peak to which it is now declining.  in a few years expect vista to have as much if not more than xp's share
[/quote]

Try one week. It sold more copies in it's first week than there are users of OSX on the planet.

[quote author=Warrior link=topic=17377.msg176935#msg176935 date=1205278002]
[quote author=Spht link=topic=17377.msg176934#msg176934 date=1205274621]
[quote author=Andy link=topic=17377.msg176933#msg176933 date=1205273658]
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp
[/quote]

Vista's market share grew more in a few months than mac did in 5 years.  also, xp seems to have reached a peak to which it is now declining.  in a few years expect vista to have as much if not more than xp's share
[/quote]

Try one week. It sold more copies in it's first week than there are users of OSX on the planet.
[/quote]
Source?

Sold more copies... You're talking about all the prebuilt comp companies that push anything MS releases by contract?

Heh, I know people who bought a new computer, and then bought XP and had the store install it. So totally lame!

But anyways.....
[quote author=Andy link=topic=17377.msg176930#msg176930 date=1205270679]
(Meaning most everyone on the internets)
[/quote]

Hmm:
[quote]
ron@slayer:~$ uname -a
Linux slayer 2.6.21.5-smp #2 SMP Tue Jun 19 14:58:11 CDT 2007 i686 Intel(R) Pentium(R) M processor 1500MHz GenuineIntel GNU/Linux
[/quote]
Looks like an outdated Linux OS to me. :)

I run Linux but I spoof my user agent to say Windows Vista. Mwhahaha.

I think that's why MS started offering free downgrades to XP...

And what?

[quote author=Andy link=topic=17377.msg176947#msg176947 date=1205282839]
I think that's why MS started offering free downgrades to XP...

And what?
[/quote]
Where do you get that from? I haven't heard anything about MS offering that, but I don't get a lot of news.

from what I was told. You can downgrade from Vista to XP only from dell, as customers didnt like being forced into vista.

[quote author=MyndFyre[vL] link=topic=17377.msg176936#msg176936 date=1205278232]
[quote author=Warrior link=topic=17377.msg176935#msg176935 date=1205278002]
[quote author=Spht link=topic=17377.msg176934#msg176934 date=1205274621]
[quote author=Andy link=topic=17377.msg176933#msg176933 date=1205273658]
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp
[/quote][quote author=MyndFyre[vL] link=topic=17377.msg176936#msg176936 date=1205278232]
[quote author=Warrior link=topic=17377.msg176935#msg176935 date=1205278002]
[quote author=Spht link=topic=17377.msg176934#msg176934 date=1205274621]
[quote author=Andy link=topic=17377.msg176933#msg176933 date=1205273658]
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp
[/quote]

Vista's market share grew more in a few months than mac did in 5 years.  also, xp seems to have reached a peak to which it is now declining.  in a few years expect vista to have as much if not more than xp's share
[/quote]

Try one week. It sold more copies in it's first week than there are users of OSX on the planet.
[/quote]
Source?
[/quote]

Vista's market share grew more in a few months than mac did in 5 years.  also, xp seems to have reached a peak to which it is now declining.  in a few years expect vista to have as much if not more than xp's share
[/quote]

Try one week. It sold more copies in it's first week than there are users of OSX on the planet.
[/quote]
Source?
[/quote]

I seem to have misspoken, the correct figure is half of the install base of OSX.

Marketshare at the time for OSX was 5% and total marketshare for Vista after one week was ~2-3% after a 60% surge in PC sales.

I had a link that explained it all nice but I can't seem to find it anymore.

[quote author=Andy link=topic=17377.msg176938#msg176938 date=1205279953]
Sold more copies... You're talking about all the prebuilt comp companies that push anything MS releases by contract?
[/quote]

The same companies that allow you to get Linux as an OEM package as well. OSX is not really an option due to the locked down nature of Apple.

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9040318

[quote author=Andy link=topic=17377.msg176955#msg176955 date=1205293106]
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9040318
[/quote]

[quote]So, what downgrades does Microsoft allow? Owners of the OEM editions of Vista Business and Vista Ultimate can downgrade to Windows XP Professional, including Tablet PC Edition and x64 Edition. [color=red]Only the OEM editions qualify for a downgrade, so if you purchased a new PC with either Business or Ultimate preinstalled, you're in like Flynn.

Those who aren't: All users of Vista Home Basic and Vista Home Premium, and anyone who upgraded to Vista using a retail edition of any of the operating system's SKUs. You are, as they say, SOL.[/color] [/quote]

So, basically, nobody qualifies. And the other option (which took half the article) is to buy XP yourself and "downgrade" which nullifies the "free" part.

Awesome link.

Ya, it's a lame system, but it's still there.

[quote author=Andy link=topic=17377.msg176961#msg176961 date=1205348202]
Ya, it's a lame system, but it's still there.
[/quote]

Applied to a very small percentage of the people. The demand for an XP downgrade was spun to look like nobody wanted Vista, when in fact it's the exact opposite.

I don't think anyone can with a straight face argue that Vista does not have countless improvements over XP, people who dislike Microsoft for whatever reason however will look to attach to any small criticism.

Stop reading Slashdot so much and start looking at actual sales figures.

[quote author=Warrior link=topic=17377.msg176963#msg176963 date=1205350123]
[quote author=Andy link=topic=17377.msg176961#msg176961 date=1205348202]
Ya, it's a lame system, but it's still there.
[/quote]

Applied to a very small percentage of the people. The demand for an XP downgrade was spun to look like nobody wanted Vista, when in fact it's the exact opposite.

I don't think anyone can with a straight face argue that Vista does not have countless improvements over XP, people who dislike Microsoft for whatever reason however will look to attach to any small criticism.

Stop reading Slashdot so much and start looking at actual sales figures.
[/quote]

It's not hard to realize why Vista is selling -- it's because it's almost impossible to buy a new PC with anything else!  End users don't buy a version of Windows at retail; they use whatever comes with the machine they bought.  The fact that Microsoft backpedaled and let Dell continue selling XP for 3 months after Vista was released should tell you something.

[quote author=K link=topic=17377.msg176964#msg176964 date=1205350558]
[quote author=Warrior link=topic=17377.msg176963#msg176963 date=1205350123]
[quote author=Andy link=topic=17377.msg176961#msg176961 date=1205348202]
Ya, it's a lame system, but it's still there.
[/quote]

Applied to a very small percentage of the people. The demand for an XP downgrade was spun to look like nobody wanted Vista, when in fact it's the exact opposite.

I don't think anyone can with a straight face argue that Vista does not have countless improvements over XP, people who dislike Microsoft for whatever reason however will look to attach to any small criticism.

Stop reading Slashdot so much and start looking at actual sales figures.
[/quote]

It's not hard to realize why Vista is selling -- it's because it's almost impossible to buy a new PC with anything else!  End users don't buy a version of Windows at retail; they use whatever comes with the machine they bought.  The fact that Microsoft backpedaled and let Dell continue selling XP for 3 months after Vista was released should tell you something.
[/quote]

You state that users will use whatever comes with the machine they bought, then go on to say that the fact that XP was sold after Vista was released should say something.

Which is it? Do users not care, or does it "say something"?

Additionally, your first argument is not very valid today seeing as there's plenty of Linux OEM offerings out there (Asus EeePc, Dell Ubuntu Deal, etc).

I disagree with the notion that users don't care what's installed on their system. There's plenty of alternatives out there in the form of Linux and Apple's hardware/software bundles.. why is it then that sales figures still lean in favor of Vista?

Usually at this point, people will become dismissive and say that "It's not about Sales or Marketshare!" yet they will jump at the chance to swipe at Vista over that exact same thing.

Every non-technical person I know who's bought a new computer either hates it or has bought XP to replace it. That's all I can really say about it, I've never personally used it.

[quote author=iago link=topic=17377.msg176966#msg176966 date=1205353578]
Every non-technical person I know who's bought a new computer either hates it or has bought XP to replace it. That's all I can really say about it, I've never personally used it.

[/quote]

That may very well be true, and I'm not contesting that some people may dislike it. I'm simply questioning K's own logic through hypothetical situations.

Vista's not this perfect Operating System, but it's also not as bad as everyone makes it out to be. It'd be more believable if these exact same issues were not said for Windows XP (Compatibility, UI differences, Performance) and those die hard Windows 2000 users were not now Windows XP Users.

[quote author=Warrior link=topic=17377.msg176965#msg176965 date=1205351084]
You state that users will use whatever comes with the machine they bought, then go on to say that the fact that XP was sold after Vista was released should say something.

Which is it? Do users not care, or does it "say something"?
[/quote]
It doesn't have to be one or the other.    A large percentage of people don't care or are ignorant about what OS comes with the new PC they bought.  A smaller percentage (maybe of more important business users?) complained enough to Dell to get XP back.

[quote author=Warrior link=topic=17377.msg176965#msg176965 date=1205351084]
Additionally, your first argument is not very valid today seeing as there's plenty of Linux OEM offerings out there (Asus EeePc, Dell Ubuntu Deal, etc).
I disagree with the notion that users don't care what's installed on their system. There's plenty of alternatives out there in the form of Linux and Apple's hardware/software bundles.. why is it then that sales figures still lean in favor of Vista?
[/quote]

1. Go to Best Buy.
2. Pick out a laptop PC
3. Tell me what operating system it comes with.

Actually, don't bother.  If you go to BestBuy.com you can see that they sell 62 different laptops with some version of Vista on it.  Only 2 laptops come with Windows XP. 
They sell 11 mac laptops.
They sell a total of 3 linux laptops -- the Asus Eee pc in 3 different colors -- and it's only available online.

I wonder why people don't by Ubuntu from Dell?  If you go to dell.com and try to configure a computer, it's not even given as an option.  You have to select "Open Source PCs" from the tiny menu on the bottom of the page.  Once you click that link, you get the message:
[quote]
The main thing to note is that when you choose open source you don’t get a Windows® operating system. If you’re here by mistake and you are looking for a Dell PC with Windows, please use the following link.

Shop Dell PCs with Windows
[/quote]

If you confirm that you really, really, want to buy an Ubuntu machine, you get the choice of 3 laptops or a desktop.  They sell 11 laptops and 16 desktops with Vista.

No average consumer shopping for a computer is going to pick one of these machines.

Speaking of that, has anybody tried that Eee PC? I've only heard about it incidentally, from people saying, "it's like a Eee PC" or something similar, I'm wondering if they're worthwhile looking into.

[quote author=K link=topic=17377.msg176971#msg176971 date=1205363316]
It doesn't have to be one or the other.    A large percentage of people don't care or are ignorant about what OS comes with the new PC they bought.  A smaller percentage (maybe of more important business users?) complained enough to Dell to get XP back.
[/quote]

Business users complaining about to a desktop OEM? That doesn't sound logical to me. Additionally, since it's a small percentage then it's not really saying much.

[quote author=K link=topic=17377.msg176971#msg176971 date=1205363316]
No average consumer shopping for a computer is going to pick one of these machines.
[/quote]

It's a little thing called supply and demand, if the demand for Linux was higher then they'd invest more into heavier advertising and offering a wider selection of packages.

It doesn't make much sense to launch an unproven OS in terms of consumer attachment into the market that degree, OEMs are testing the water right now.

Apple/Linux sure like to make themselves seem like a big deal, but they're quick to downplay their own significance in an attempt to rationalize a poor attachment rate.

Mac does not succeed because it's on a closed, overpriced platform.
Linux does not succeed because it's not there yet in terms of usability.

You don't conform to the Windows paradigm, yet you expect to be distributed under the same terms?
The point is that there is choice, and it's directly proportional to the amount of demand there is for said Operating System.

It's true... Linux needs a lot of work still... Almost every time I use it, something hangs or crashes, and needing to go into konsole to do menial tasks isn't very idiot-friendly.

However, Windows Vista is still shit, and everyone I know who had it come with a comp they bought recently (4 laptops and 3 pcs), I had to wipe and install XP for. The only copy of Vista within a 20 mile (no joke) radius of me is on a VM on my PC.

Warrior, just give it up man, you've been defending Vista since it ever came out. :-\

[quote author=vuther.de link=topic=17377.msg176976#msg176976 date=1205371739]
Warrior, just give it up man, you've been defending Vista since it ever came out. :-\
[/quote]

Then why is it you nag me constantly about how to get an illegal copy?

[quote author=Andy link=topic=17377.msg176975#msg176975 date=1205370419]
It's true... Linux needs a lot of work still... Almost every time I use it, something hangs or crashes, and needing to go into konsole to do menial tasks isn't very idiot-friendly.

However, Windows Vista is still shit, and everyone I know who had it come with a comp they bought recently (4 laptops and 3 pcs), I had to wipe and install XP for. The only copy of Vista within a 20 mile (no joke) radius of me is on a VM on my PC.
[/quote]

I respect your opinion, I disagree though. I think Vista could of been a bit better, but it's been made out to seem much worse than it actually is.

I think if you run a fully patched install (There have been numerous performance / reliability patches) then you're pretty much good to go.

I don't see what's so bad about Vista. Everything works like a charm. I've never had anything crash, or hang on me. It automatically detects my xbox 360 on the network for media sharing, because of media center. It has sexy aero glass effects. The cool aero windows key + tab makes it 100% worth it as it is. I mean, c'mon...

Vista Home Basic uses almost 5 gigs of hard drive space, and requires more RAM to run the default explorer system than XP to run Luna. Those two factors alone make me despise it.

As for your comment about 2000: The only reason I'm not using Win2KPro right now is because my Motherboard's AGP slot doesn't seem to like it, and all graphics run terribly slow on it. I still think it's the greatest OS to come out of Redmond.

And don't say "2K can't even handle your motherboard, so how is it good?" because this motherboard is shit, and I can't run a Direct3D app for longer than 10 minutes without the entire computer crashing. (And yes, I've replaced my video card to no avail.)

[quote author=Andy link=topic=17377.msg176981#msg176981 date=1205377504]
Vista Home Basic uses almost 5 gigs of hard drive space, and requires more RAM to run the default explorer system than XP to run Luna. Those two factors alone make me despise it.
[/quote]

Vista's memory manager is radically different than Windows XP's memory manager. Unused memory is wasted memory.

In Windows XP, it just let unused cache memory sit there and didn't reap the benefits of this faster, and unused memory.

Under Windows Vista, this is the exact opposite. SuperFetch is the intelligent portion of Vista's memory manager which manages cache memory and allocates it to processes which need it on a demand basis.

In other words, the less processes you have running the more memory will be split between those individual processes.

This is all factored in with usage statistics collected by SuperFetch (Which is why Vista will be up to full speed about a day after it is installed, or a day after a Service Pack is installed)

[quote author=Andy link=topic=17377.msg176981#msg176981 date=1205377504]
As for your comment about 2000: The only reason I'm not using Win2KPro right now is because my Motherboard's AGP slot doesn't seem to like it, and all graphics run terribly slow on it. I still think it's the greatest OS to come out of Redmond.

And don't say "2K can't even handle your motherboard, so how is it good?" because this motherboard is shit, and I can't run a Direct3D app for longer than 10 minutes without the entire computer crashing. (And yes, I've replaced my video card to no avail.)
[/quote]

Lol, I'm not going to dig you on that man. I'll take your word for it, I'm just stating what I've noticed in general from the ex-diehard Win2K fans.

[quote author=Warrior link=topic=17377.msg176984#msg176984 date=1205386387]
Under Windows Vista, this is the exact opposite. SuperFetch is the intelligent portion of Vista's memory manager which manages cache memory and allocates it to processes which need it on a demand basis.

In other words, the less processes you have running the more memory will be split between those individual processes.
[/quote]

Sounds a lot like how linux manages memory.

[quote author=Explicit[nK] link=topic=17377.msg176985#msg176985 date=1205387382]
[quote author=Warrior link=topic=17377.msg176984#msg176984 date=1205386387]
Under Windows Vista, this is the exact opposite. SuperFetch is the intelligent portion of Vista's memory manager which manages cache memory and allocates it to processes which need it on a demand basis.

In other words, the less processes you have running the more memory will be split between those individual processes.
[/quote]

Sounds a lot like how linux manages memory.
[/quote]

Basically. In Linux, I'd always have ~10MB free, no matter how many processes ran.

In XP, I wouldn't be using all my memory. And in Vista, I always use only ~60% of it.

As someone who's used win2kpro for over 6 years, and 3 months ago purchased a new laptop that came shipped with vista, i have to say i have no complaints about vista and even prefer it over win2k.  i also haven't upgraded with sp1 yet

[quote author=Spht link=topic=17377.msg176990#msg176990 date=1205414381]
As someone who's used win2kpro for over 6 years, and 3 months ago purchased a new laptop that came shipped with vista, i have to say i have no complaints about vista and even prefer it over win2k.  i also haven't upgraded with sp1 yet
[/quote]

Yeah, I agreed completely.

I've used w2kpro and WinXP for ages and I use Vista (Business) at work, and I can't really complain at all about it, it did take like 20mins of getting used to. I could see people hating it though, say for instance, if they had a crappy computer with a gig of ram and a mediocure processor that took forever to load things. But at work with an Intel dual core X6800 Extreme processor @ 2.93 GHz and a dual GPU 512MB GDDR3 video card setup and two gigs of RAM, Vista runs like no other, I think the only thing Vista recommended that I get was more ram becuase I got a score of 5.6 everything else was topped out.

But I'll always love WinXP, and I still use it on my laptop

I have a 4.3 rating (1GB RAM, 3.4 GHz processor, ATi Radeon X800 XT PE) and Vista runs swell.

So I'm not sure what people are talking about. Aero runs fine. Vista runs fine.

[quote author=Andy link=topic=17377.msg176975#msg176975 date=1205370419]
It's true... Linux needs a lot of work still... Almost every time I use it, something hangs or crashes, and needing to go into konsole to do menial tasks isn't very idiot-friendly.
[/quote]

You're either cursed, running bad hardware, staying too close to the bleeding edge, or doing something wrong.  I've never had a kernel panic on me (excepting bootup when it's missing the driver for the root fs, but without a root fs, what good is the system?).  If you meant userland apps crash, then (1) that's not Linux, that's a buggy userland app (which can show up on any OS if you find a bad enough author) and (2) you should say what app crashed, not just call it "Linux."  Or do you say "my Windows crashed" when Outlook GPFs?

[quote author=MrRaza link=topic=17377.msg176998#msg176998 date=1205440768]
I could see people hating it though, say for instance, if they had a crappy computer with a gig of ram and a mediocure processor that took forever to load things. But at work with an Intel dual core X6800 Extreme processor @ 2.93 GHz and a dual GPU 512MB GDDR3 video card setup and two gigs of RAM, Vista runs like no other, I think the only thing Vista recommended that I get was more ram becuase I got a score of 5.6 everything else was topped out.
[/quote]

I run a Linux system with 1 GB of RAM and a "mediocre" (i.e. not particularly new) processor and it runs quite nicely.  Even my Windows XP systems run reasonably well with that hardware.  If Vista can't match their performance when it's configured to match their features (I'll give up Aero in favor of classic if it'll make Vista as efficient as Win2k in classic mode), that sounds like a problem in Vista.

[quote author=Kp link=topic=17377.msg177002#msg177002 date=1205464842]
I run a Linux system with 1 GB of RAM and a "mediocre" (i.e. not particularly new) processor and it runs quite nicely.  Even my Windows XP systems run reasonably well with that hardware.  If Vista can't match their performance when it's configured to match their features (I'll give up Aero in favor of classic if it'll make Vista as efficient as Win2k in classic mode), that sounds like a problem in Vista.
[/quote]

People take the performance hit with Vista out of proportion, it was bad back in January but it's negligible now if at all. It's something to be expected though, Vista included a lot of "1.0" platforms which needed to be refined.

I've also noticed a decrease in performance when using Classic. Maybe I'm just so used to flicker free drawing, but the redraw is absolutely horrible. I don't remember it being quite as horrendous in Windows XP.

I think the major issues at first were some flaws in the caching mechanism SuperFetch in Vista which caused sluggish reactions but that's since been remedied via Patches.

Overall, it's improved greatly since it was released and I think the trade off between a host of enhancements and a now negligible speed difference is worth it.

You mean classic as in what's referred to in Linux as the "Redmond" interface? If that's the case, I'm even more pissed... I can't deal with the stupid bubbly designs all the companies have been using these last 'few' years, and if they're taking support away from the squared off UI's, I just have another reason to despise Vista.

Here's a problem I have with Vista: I have a 100% legitimate copy of Vista Home Basic. This copy came on a Dell DVD that came with my father's laptop (which I promptly reformatted and installed XP Pro SP2 on). However, the only way to get my copy to be registered as Genuine is to call the number, talk to a thickly accented Indian man, who will ask for my key and give me numbers to enter into the OS, which then validate my copy. Why?

Shouldn't you be happy that Microsoft is even offering to validate the XP copy rather than leaving you with Vista?

They could easily have opted not to offer this service at all seeing as how they are moving forward in the industry. It's much like how Windows 95 and 98 became obsolete and no longer supported.

No, I meant the copy of Vista, not XP. Sorry if that was phrased oddly. I used the same CD to install onto a Virtual Machine, and that's when I ran into the above problem.

I was just about to point out what Warrior pointed out, about Vista's 'original windows theme' and the redawing rate. I have a brand new computer and Vista runs amazingly well, except for the rate at which windows maximize/minimize in the classic theme. It's very sluggish. I never noticed anything like it on XP, but immedietly noticed it when I tried the theme out on Vista. It's not a huge deal, to me, because I like the Aero enabled theme better, but still... WTFX0R.

[quote author=Andy link=topic=17377.msg177009#msg177009 date=1205517133]
No, I meant the copy of Vista, not XP. Sorry if that was phrased oddly. I used the same CD to install onto a Virtual Machine, and that's when I ran into the above problem.
[/quote]

Um, you're note even supposed to be allowed to run Home Basic in a VM. :P

Where are these 'ratings' you speak of coming from?

I'm a die-hard XP fan myself, I refuse to switch to Vista  :)

The OS gives you a rating value on various parts of your hardware, as well as an overall rating.

[quote author=Newby link=topic=17377.msg177014#msg177014 date=1205532091]
[quote author=Andy link=topic=17377.msg177009#msg177009 date=1205517133]
No, I meant the copy of Vista, not XP. Sorry if that was phrased oddly. I used the same CD to install onto a Virtual Machine, and that's when I ran into the above problem.
[/quote]

Um, you're note even supposed to be allowed to run Home Basic in a VM. :P
[/quote]

Er... what? Then why does MS Virtual PC 2007 have a Vista option?

[quote author=Andy link=topic=17377.msg177018#msg177018 date=1205540430]
The OS gives you a rating value on various parts of your hardware, as well as an overall rating.

[quote author=Newby link=topic=17377.msg177014#msg177014 date=1205532091]
[quote author=Andy link=topic=17377.msg177009#msg177009 date=1205517133]
No, I meant the copy of Vista, not XP. Sorry if that was phrased oddly. I used the same CD to install onto a Virtual Machine, and that's when I ran into the above problem.
[/quote]

Um, you're note even supposed to be allowed to run Home Basic in a VM. :P
[/quote]

Er... what? Then why does MS Virtual PC 2007 have a Vista option?
[/quote]

In the ToS Vista Basic is forbidden from being run in a Virtual Machine.

Virtual PC sucks, try VMware.

[quote author=MrRaza link=topic=17377.msg177033#msg177033 date=1205629046]
Virtual PC sucks, try VMware.
[/quote]

^ smart


I'm not upgrading to a RC of SP3 though, I can wait and don't care to risk reinstalling right now.

VPC's free and works fine with Windows OS's, which is what I use it for.

[quote author=Andy link=topic=17377.msg177057#msg177057 date=1205709253]
VPC's free and works fine with Windows OS's, which is what I use it for.
[/quote]

The only thing I found useful about VPC, is that when I would need to write online tests with SecureExam, VPC would be able to load SecureExam in a XP vpc VM but while when loading SecureExam in in VMWARE, it would detect it and fail to load the test.