RENAME/MoveFile VISTA your program called setup/update.exe

[Otto]

RENAME/MoveFile does not work on Network from VISTA if you have” User-account management” on and your program-name has setup or update inside.

I localized the problem: If you start the exe as WHUPDATE.EXE
VISTA ask you if you will go ahead. You say yes then the
Movefile/rename/file/copy function fails.

Renaming the exe WHUPDATE to WHS.EXE all works as suspected.

[Adolfo]

For sure.. Vista Sucks...
Ive' seen so many network problems, slowness, sometimes it gets frozen for a couple of seconds, I really hate this SO.
I'm having problems with almost every client I have and VISTA.

In XP I have pretty good access to the DBF's and MYSQL, in Vista I loose almost 40 % performance.

Access to matrix printers is also a headache.

Well good news on the net, the SP3 for XP is almost ready, it will bring new capabilities

...and vista is at this point

http://crave.cnet.co.uk/gadgets/0,39029 ... -10,00.htm

My 2,5 cents

[TimStone]

Yes, it does take a bit of study to understand the changes in Vista. However, when I installed it on my dual processor computer, the performance improved very dramatically.

I've been running with an ADS using Vista clients and have no problems.

I'm using dual monitors ... no problem.

I did switch to Microsoft's Live One Care for anti-virus, firewall, and other protection. The price is better then the competitors offer, the performance of my computer is greatly improved, I have no conflicts with applications I develop, and I've had absolutely no intrusion of viruses, worms, etc.

The Microsoft model for computing's future is driven by those who use the systems in their industries, not by the developers. So there are changes coming that may require us to learn more, but I have seen many people very pleased with the capabilities of that new direction. When the 64 bit server products are released in February we should see an even greater performance boost for Vista.

Yes, there are some things I would love to have differently. I find it interesting that I can sync my handheld to Outlook, but I can't sync two copies of Outlook ( notebook and desktop ) with an easy sync application from Microsoft. Networking is a bit more challenging, but when its set right, it is safer and works fine.

If you don't like the security changes, remember that these are the result of hackers causing billions of dollars of damage to computers throughout the world. These same people would be happy to steal your software if they could gain a benefit, or crash it just for the fun of it. Maybe with more honesty, we could require less security, and easier operating systems.

I'll get off my soapbox now ...

[Otto]

Adolfo, is 'www.xdata.cl - Desarrollo Inteligente' your product?
A nice homepage and a good looking application.
Regards,
Otto

[Antonio Linares]

Tim,

> and I've had absolutely no intrusion of viruses, worms, etc.

Using Windows you are never safe. There are over 40000 viruses and keep growing. A new virus can suddenly appear that has not been detected by your antivirus yet and your computer security may become in serious risk.

There are no viruses in Linux neither in Mac OSX !!! You really feel safe when you need to manage sensible data and are running on these operating systems.

>
When the 64 bit server products are released in February we should see an even greater performance boost for Vista.
>

64 bits is only useful for multimedia apps (video editing, etc.). On a non-multimedia app, 32 and 64 bits perform quite similar.

>
If you don't like the security changes, remember that these are the result of hackers causing billions of dollars of damage to computers throughout the world.
>

I don't agree with you. Viruses are the result of a weakly designed operating system. Microsoft should provide an antivirus for free, because its such a shame the poor security that Windows offer.

I feel so safe when I use Linux or Mac. Unfortunately I don't have this feeling when I use Windows.

[Adolfo]

Adolfo, is 'www.xdata.cl - Desarrollo Inteligente' your product?
A nice homepage and a good looking application.
Regards,
Otto

Yes Otto.

This is my page...
I only have one program posted there, but soon I'll publish screenshoots of another 2.

Im glad you like it

Thanks

[James Bott]

>There are no viruses in Linux neither in Mac OSX !!!

According to Google searches, there are viruses on both OSs. One reason there are fewer viruses is that there are fewer copies of those OSs running. This makes it less attractive to virus creators. Ironically, if those OSs become more popular due to the fact that they have less viruses, then the virus creators will create more viruses for them.

Note too, that there are a lot more Windows programmers than Linux or OSX programmers. Thus there are a lot more programmers with the skills to write viruses for Windows.

Also, the number of viruses for a particular OS does not mean much. What one needs to compare is percentages. The best comparison would be the percent infection of each OS.

>remember that these are the result of hackers causing billions of dollars of damage to computers throughout the world.

>I don't agree with you. Viruses are the result of a weakly designed operating system.

Of course, you are both right. Viruses are created by evil people and they will target weaker OSs because it is easier and they will also target the OSs most widely in use because they can do the most damage (or make the most money) from them.

Microsoft does have a legacy predicament. Windows was built on DOS and both were designed when PC's were not connected thus there was no need for security. Linux was based on UNIX which was designed from the start as a network OS. I'm not sure about Apple's OS.

So, Microsoft can only try to gradually modify the existing Windows OS to add network security and at the same time they have to keep compatibility with existing hardware and software. It would be much easier to write a completely new OS, than to add security to an OS that wasn't designed to be secure at the start.

>Microsoft should provide an antivirus for free, because its such a shame the poor security that Windows offer.

I'm sure they would be criticized for that too. People would say they are acting like a monopoly and trying to put the anti-virus software vendors out of business.

It is a complex issue.

James

[TimStone]

Antonio,

Yes, there are viruses aimed at MacIntosh. Mac has never had a large installed base because there simply was not a large enough pool of software on the shelves that provided businesses with office solutions. Now that Macs are running Windows applications, you can look for sales to increase. You can also look for viruses to increase.

The criminal mind says "if I can do it, then its OK". I'm sure you have glass windows on your house. If a criminal breaks into your house and steals everything of value, is it your fault because you had windows which could be penetrated ? I think you would hold the criminal accountable. Hackers are no different. They have no business destroying the computers of other people. Its not their property. Making excuses that the security is weak doesn't make it OK.

James point is extremely important. Much of the problem with enhancing security is the need to make the OS backward compatible. That leaves holes which can be penetrated. Also the system is so massive that surely problems will exist. Nothing in life is perfect, and it doesn't matter how many bright people come together to create it !

Vista is the most secure windows out there. THe price of the Microsoft anti-malware solution is so low its almost free. However, nothing will ever stop the criminal mind from trying to break in.