P
PRW
Guest
Re: Several reasons not to upgrade to Vista right now
Chad,
A) I can install vista on almost any machine in 30 to 45 minutes, and I
have know installed vista from CTP on through all the patch to date March 14
2008. I have never seen vista install in sixteen minutes.
B) For users that there primary function is software development, this has
to be the OS other than WARP
Sorry, but I have work for Microsoft in the past; and a very large supporter
of the product lines. But this is just not a usable product.
PRW
"Chad Harris" wrote:
> tairobi--
>
> You can twist and shout and yell "bull" all you want. But it's not going to
> take very long here to see who knows what they're talking about and who
> doesn't. I am bemused that you would diss people who genuinely want to help
> you enjoy your PC and in this case Windows Vista on it. What you posted
> was surreal as to setup time being several hours. No one is saying you're a
> bad person because the burn went wrong. Most of us have thick skins because
> although it shouldn't, abuse comes when you help frequently on these groups.
> I long ago learned that people have more respect in any profession for help
> they pay for with the exception of the very indigent or very sick who are
> often grateful to just get the help.
>
> So you can rant and rave like an infant, or you can go about getting
> constructive help. I have timed some builds of Vista and set them up in
> 16-20minutes on a Dell P4 with 1GB RAM. If you're dumb enough to think that
> people would post stuff like this taking their valuable time for the purpose
> of a fictional pissing contest, then you grew up perhaps with irreversible
> stupidity born of stubborn ignorance and I couldn't be paid enough to help
> you.
>
> We have watched setup problems from the first Beta builds of Vista and far
> and away I can tell you that the etiology of the biggest majority of these
> long setup problems is a bad burn. That is not to say that you didn't do
> what you had to do to burn correctly--and of course it should be at the
> slowest possible speed if you have had trouble--Paul Donnelly [MSFT]
> recommended a while back 2X in some directions I remember he offered, and my
> experience is that 4X worked fine although again, if you have trouble
> burning slowly is always helpful. I remember countless posts where Colin
> Barnhorst who helped tirelessly here over the months with consistently great
> quality posts urged people to burn as slow as they can around 2X but
> depending on your burning software that number could vary.
>
> With those speeds I saw from you that would be at the top of my differential
> diagnosis.
>
> I would go after some of those task man anomalies you mentioned running
> System File Checker once you had Vista setup at a decent speed for setup and
> were sure it was correct.
>
> I would also recommend that when you burn you check the box to do a
> CRC/checksum or MD5 hash of your burn which is part of most burning software
> as an option and also available on the web by searching appropriate to any
> build of Vista you're concerned with.
>
> As to your problems with CPU being 100% do a search because I and several
> other people have posted systematic steps you can take in Vista to reduce
> CPU demand with a number of links on how to correct them.
>
> CH
>
>
>
>
> "tairobi" <tairobi@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:48E1E57C-6CCE-4A84-AD75-DDF845862BF6@microsoft.com...
> > "I can take any Dell P4 with 1GB RAM and setup Vista in 16 minutes period.
> > "
> >
> > Bull****. Plain and simple. Next.
> >
> > "Chad Harris" wrote:
> >
> >> I can take any Dell P4 with 1GB RAM and setup Vista in 16 minutes period.
> >> The fault lies with you not Vista. You're delusion that you need Duo
> >> anything or AMD's version or SATA or X64 is pure crap.
> >>
> >> I don't know what you stand by, but you're sitting at a box that needs
> >> competent on site help and you need lessons in Windows and hardware.
> >> Spend
> >> your time ranting getting help on site.
> >>
> >> MVPs are not MSFT employees. They are extremely talented, unselfish
> >> enthusiasts and sometimes IT is in there background and often it is not.
> >> They provide help on these groups that provide one of the best free
> >> learning
> >> experiences that could come into your life if you quit ranting and start
> >> reading.
> >>
> >> My experience has been that the MVPs offer extremely high quality help,
> >> and
> >> reflect a high standard of professionalism. They are volunteers and are
> >> under no obligation.
> >>
> >> The level of spoon feeding you seem to require from your couple posts
> >> suggest to me you need to get on site help and pay attention to what they
> >> teach you since you're unwilling to post specific, cogent, mature adult
> >> questions in here.
> >>
> >> Lose the delusion that you need high end cutting edge machines to run
> >> Vista,
> >> because most of us can take a 6 year old machine and setup Vista
> >> relatively
> >> quickly--any build from July '05 to RTM.
> >>
> >> I have every driver for every device I need working well (there are a few
> >> tricks and workarounds with some of the older drivers, and at this moment
> >> X64 is more of a challenge, but that's going to change.
> >>
> >> I have every pice of software working well. There is plenty to critique
> >> in
> >> Vista but your observations don't comport with reality. Again get
> >> competent
> >> on site help.
> >>
> >> CH
> >> _________________
> >>
> >> "tairobi" <tairobi@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> news:4051CC47-EE2C-4C7C-BD46-9BF85DE0D399@microsoft.com...
> >> > The people who are disputing the installation times are saying they are
> >> > either on Dual core procs, x64 machines or using SATA hard drives.
> >> > That's
> >> > my
> >> > point exactly. I am on a Dell Inspiron 2.66 GHz laptop with 1 GB of
> >> > memory.
> >> > It's using a UATA hard drive, not Serial ATA. There are a lot of people
> >> > still
> >> > using UATA. My point is that myself, the guys who post about long
> >> > install
> >> > times on these boards, and those with comparable systems can expect
> >> > long
> >> > install times. I stand by that conclusion 100%.
> >> >
> >> > The MVPs may or may not be MS employees. In either case, they are still
> >> > MVPs, meaning they have taken on a role of some responsibility and
> >> > should
> >> > be
> >> > trying to help people actually using this software instead of offering
> >> > one-liner dismissals to people's problems. Microsoft should be ashamed
> >> > of
> >> > themselves for not having dedicated staff open to assisting people on
> >> > these
> >> > boards.
> >> >
> >> > As for not adopting Vista, I'm not saying don't ever upgrade, I'm
> >> > saying
> >> > don't adopt it now. Every OS is buggy right out of the starting gate
> >> > and
> >> > Vista has a multitude of them. My suggestion is to wait a couple of
> >> > years
> >> > for
> >> > Microsoft to start taking people's comments seriously and actually do
> >> > something to make this a better operating system and not a
> >> > multi-million
> >> > dollar "mediocre" OS. It's funny how Microsoft touts that they have
> >> > spent
> >> > tens of millions on Vista and this is the best they can come up with.
> >> >
> >> > So far no one has told me any GOOD reason to upgrade from Windows Xp to
> >> > Vista other than the graphics are prettier. Anyone? Anyone? What about
> >> > Vista
> >> > makes it absolutely necessary for me to scrap Windows XP and move to
> >> > Vista?
> >> > So far, absolutely nothing.
> >> >
> >> > "Tim Draper" wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> no install issues here. i'd be more inclined to say its your pc.
> >> >> took about 1hour for me (about right for a windows install on DVD)....
> >> >> comparing the speed to an XP install on cd.
> >> >>
> >> >> i installed with 1gb ram
> >> >> a 2ghz opteron @ 2.9ghz on a single drive hitachi SATA2 250gb drive.
> >> >>
> >> >> theres always going to be software issues with new OS releases. it's
> >> >> called evolution of the OS. if that didnt happen, we'd all be on 3.11
> >> >> code that sucked (althought did need less system resources
same
> >> >> thing
> >> >> happened with XP and drivers afaik.
> >> >>
> >> >> do you use WMP11? i've always found since the new WMP skin (wmp7+) is
> >> >> always buggy. i never use it apart from to play wmv/wma. a combo of
> >> >> jetaudio and VLC for me. plays EVERYTHING I need.
> >> >>
> >> >> if something is buggy (which tbh, vista isnt available public retail
> >> >> yet
> >> >> & with stable+mature drivers) then find something that IS stable. if a
> >> >> media player is unstable then use something else.
> >> >>
> >> >> tim
> >> >>
> >> >> tairobi wrote:
> >> >> > I'm not sure what's up with all of the hateful posts from Chad
> >> >> > Harris,
> >> >> > who
> >> >> > obviously has mental issues. This post is meant to convey facts
> >> >> > about
> >> >> > Microsoft's newest operating system.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > First, let me say that I've spent a lot of time with Vista from Beta
> >> >> > 3
> >> >> > to
> >> >> > the latest RTM version. After months of working with Vista and
> >> >> > comparing to
> >> >> > the mature Windows XP operating system, I'm less than impressed with
> >> >> > Windows
> >> >> > Vista.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > For the latest RTM release from MSDN, I completely formatted and
> >> >> > installed
> >> >> > the x86 RTM to a P4 2.66 MHz system with 1 GB of RAM. I timed the
> >> >> > installation. It took three hours and 17 minutes from the time I
> >> >> > popped
> >> >> > in
> >> >> > the DVD that I made from the ISO image from MSDN to the time the
> >> >> > operating
> >> >> > system was on the screen, with the pointer, awaiting input. Upgrades
> >> >> > from
> >> >> > Windows XP take even longer. On my machine, an upgrade from Windows
> >> >> > XP
> >> >> > SP2 to
> >> >> > Vista Ultimate took four hours and 43 minutes. On these very forums,
> >> >> > other
> >> >> > users posted about the long upgrade times. One user said his was
> >> >> > going
> >> >> > on for
> >> >> > 10 hours. Paul smith with Microsoft replied "I've had Vista
> >> >> > typically
> >> >> > take
> >> >> > about 90 minutes to upgrade XP in virtual machine. So yes, 10 hours
> >> >> > is
> >> >> > slow.
> >> >> >
" and then proceeded to offer no technical help. Translation: It
> >> >> > upgrades
> >> >> > fine on the 4 GB RAM Core Duo machines we're testing on here
> >> >> > internally
> >> >> > at
> >> >> > Microsoft, therefore the problem is yours, not ours.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Now onto usage. Here's what I've found:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 1. Instead of an OS that boots faster, Vista takes a full 5 minutes
> >> >> > to
> >> >> > go
> >> >> > from the computer being turned off to being responsive enough to let
> >> >> > me
> >> >> > do
> >> >> > tasks. What that means is between the time I turn on the computer
> >> >> > and
> >> >> > the OS
> >> >> > gets through the "splash screen" and then to the actual desktop, it
> >> >> > takes
> >> >> > about three minutes. Afterward, the machine is completely
> >> >> > unresponsive
> >> >> > for at
> >> >> > least another two mintues. CPU usage during this time is pegged at
> >> >> > 100%.
> >> >> > There are no running programs or processes listed in task manager,
> >> >> > so I
> >> >> > have
> >> >> > to conclude that it's a bunch of services initializing. There is a
> >> >> > services
> >> >> > tab on the task manager, but no CPU usage column to tell you which
> >> >> > one
> >> >> > is
> >> >> > hogging so much memory. You actually have to launch the resource
> >> >> > monitor and
> >> >> > get familiar with it and try to decipher what's using up so much of
> >> >> > your CPU,
> >> >> > and even then it's not clear. So, 5-6 minutes to boot and become
> >> >> > usable
> >> >> > as
> >> >> > opposed to 2 minutes on Windows XP. This was clearly a step
> >> >> > backwards
> >> >> > from
> >> >> > what we, the users, wanted.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 2. Media Player 11 that ships with Vista has some major issues.
> >> >> > After
> >> >> > loading the OS, I found that DVDs which would play flawlessly on
> >> >> > Windows XP
> >> >> > no longer played well on Vista. The picture skipped and hung and was
> >> >> > full of
> >> >> > artifacts. I had to set hardware acceleration to be completely off
> >> >> > before it
> >> >> > calmed down. The problem doesn't happen when played on Real Player
> >> >> > or
> >> >> > PowerDVD, only Media Player 11. I posted on these forums about this
> >> >> > problem
> >> >> > and of course no one from Microsoft bothered to respond.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 3. Many applications that worked in XP run poorly on Vista or don't
> >> >> > run
> >> >> > at
> >> >> > all anymore. Most notably is Office 2003. My Office applications are
> >> >> > dying
> >> >> > for no reason or giving obscure error messages. I had to download
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > Office
> >> >> > 2007 Pro suite off MSDN to get Office stable again. Don't expect
> >> >> > Microsoft to
> >> >> > take you seriously when you report these errors. For example,
> >> >> > several
> >> >> > users
> >> >> > on these forums posted an error connecting with Live Messenger 8.
> >> >> > Jim
> >> >> > Pickering replied with "Unable to duplicate on a 32 bit system
> >> >> > running
Chad,
A) I can install vista on almost any machine in 30 to 45 minutes, and I
have know installed vista from CTP on through all the patch to date March 14
2008. I have never seen vista install in sixteen minutes.
B) For users that there primary function is software development, this has
to be the OS other than WARP
Sorry, but I have work for Microsoft in the past; and a very large supporter
of the product lines. But this is just not a usable product.
PRW
"Chad Harris" wrote:
> tairobi--
>
> You can twist and shout and yell "bull" all you want. But it's not going to
> take very long here to see who knows what they're talking about and who
> doesn't. I am bemused that you would diss people who genuinely want to help
> you enjoy your PC and in this case Windows Vista on it. What you posted
> was surreal as to setup time being several hours. No one is saying you're a
> bad person because the burn went wrong. Most of us have thick skins because
> although it shouldn't, abuse comes when you help frequently on these groups.
> I long ago learned that people have more respect in any profession for help
> they pay for with the exception of the very indigent or very sick who are
> often grateful to just get the help.
>
> So you can rant and rave like an infant, or you can go about getting
> constructive help. I have timed some builds of Vista and set them up in
> 16-20minutes on a Dell P4 with 1GB RAM. If you're dumb enough to think that
> people would post stuff like this taking their valuable time for the purpose
> of a fictional pissing contest, then you grew up perhaps with irreversible
> stupidity born of stubborn ignorance and I couldn't be paid enough to help
> you.
>
> We have watched setup problems from the first Beta builds of Vista and far
> and away I can tell you that the etiology of the biggest majority of these
> long setup problems is a bad burn. That is not to say that you didn't do
> what you had to do to burn correctly--and of course it should be at the
> slowest possible speed if you have had trouble--Paul Donnelly [MSFT]
> recommended a while back 2X in some directions I remember he offered, and my
> experience is that 4X worked fine although again, if you have trouble
> burning slowly is always helpful. I remember countless posts where Colin
> Barnhorst who helped tirelessly here over the months with consistently great
> quality posts urged people to burn as slow as they can around 2X but
> depending on your burning software that number could vary.
>
> With those speeds I saw from you that would be at the top of my differential
> diagnosis.
>
> I would go after some of those task man anomalies you mentioned running
> System File Checker once you had Vista setup at a decent speed for setup and
> were sure it was correct.
>
> I would also recommend that when you burn you check the box to do a
> CRC/checksum or MD5 hash of your burn which is part of most burning software
> as an option and also available on the web by searching appropriate to any
> build of Vista you're concerned with.
>
> As to your problems with CPU being 100% do a search because I and several
> other people have posted systematic steps you can take in Vista to reduce
> CPU demand with a number of links on how to correct them.
>
> CH
>
>
>
>
> "tairobi" <tairobi@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:48E1E57C-6CCE-4A84-AD75-DDF845862BF6@microsoft.com...
> > "I can take any Dell P4 with 1GB RAM and setup Vista in 16 minutes period.
> > "
> >
> > Bull****. Plain and simple. Next.
> >
> > "Chad Harris" wrote:
> >
> >> I can take any Dell P4 with 1GB RAM and setup Vista in 16 minutes period.
> >> The fault lies with you not Vista. You're delusion that you need Duo
> >> anything or AMD's version or SATA or X64 is pure crap.
> >>
> >> I don't know what you stand by, but you're sitting at a box that needs
> >> competent on site help and you need lessons in Windows and hardware.
> >> Spend
> >> your time ranting getting help on site.
> >>
> >> MVPs are not MSFT employees. They are extremely talented, unselfish
> >> enthusiasts and sometimes IT is in there background and often it is not.
> >> They provide help on these groups that provide one of the best free
> >> learning
> >> experiences that could come into your life if you quit ranting and start
> >> reading.
> >>
> >> My experience has been that the MVPs offer extremely high quality help,
> >> and
> >> reflect a high standard of professionalism. They are volunteers and are
> >> under no obligation.
> >>
> >> The level of spoon feeding you seem to require from your couple posts
> >> suggest to me you need to get on site help and pay attention to what they
> >> teach you since you're unwilling to post specific, cogent, mature adult
> >> questions in here.
> >>
> >> Lose the delusion that you need high end cutting edge machines to run
> >> Vista,
> >> because most of us can take a 6 year old machine and setup Vista
> >> relatively
> >> quickly--any build from July '05 to RTM.
> >>
> >> I have every driver for every device I need working well (there are a few
> >> tricks and workarounds with some of the older drivers, and at this moment
> >> X64 is more of a challenge, but that's going to change.
> >>
> >> I have every pice of software working well. There is plenty to critique
> >> in
> >> Vista but your observations don't comport with reality. Again get
> >> competent
> >> on site help.
> >>
> >> CH
> >> _________________
> >>
> >> "tairobi" <tairobi@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> news:4051CC47-EE2C-4C7C-BD46-9BF85DE0D399@microsoft.com...
> >> > The people who are disputing the installation times are saying they are
> >> > either on Dual core procs, x64 machines or using SATA hard drives.
> >> > That's
> >> > my
> >> > point exactly. I am on a Dell Inspiron 2.66 GHz laptop with 1 GB of
> >> > memory.
> >> > It's using a UATA hard drive, not Serial ATA. There are a lot of people
> >> > still
> >> > using UATA. My point is that myself, the guys who post about long
> >> > install
> >> > times on these boards, and those with comparable systems can expect
> >> > long
> >> > install times. I stand by that conclusion 100%.
> >> >
> >> > The MVPs may or may not be MS employees. In either case, they are still
> >> > MVPs, meaning they have taken on a role of some responsibility and
> >> > should
> >> > be
> >> > trying to help people actually using this software instead of offering
> >> > one-liner dismissals to people's problems. Microsoft should be ashamed
> >> > of
> >> > themselves for not having dedicated staff open to assisting people on
> >> > these
> >> > boards.
> >> >
> >> > As for not adopting Vista, I'm not saying don't ever upgrade, I'm
> >> > saying
> >> > don't adopt it now. Every OS is buggy right out of the starting gate
> >> > and
> >> > Vista has a multitude of them. My suggestion is to wait a couple of
> >> > years
> >> > for
> >> > Microsoft to start taking people's comments seriously and actually do
> >> > something to make this a better operating system and not a
> >> > multi-million
> >> > dollar "mediocre" OS. It's funny how Microsoft touts that they have
> >> > spent
> >> > tens of millions on Vista and this is the best they can come up with.
> >> >
> >> > So far no one has told me any GOOD reason to upgrade from Windows Xp to
> >> > Vista other than the graphics are prettier. Anyone? Anyone? What about
> >> > Vista
> >> > makes it absolutely necessary for me to scrap Windows XP and move to
> >> > Vista?
> >> > So far, absolutely nothing.
> >> >
> >> > "Tim Draper" wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> no install issues here. i'd be more inclined to say its your pc.
> >> >> took about 1hour for me (about right for a windows install on DVD)....
> >> >> comparing the speed to an XP install on cd.
> >> >>
> >> >> i installed with 1gb ram
> >> >> a 2ghz opteron @ 2.9ghz on a single drive hitachi SATA2 250gb drive.
> >> >>
> >> >> theres always going to be software issues with new OS releases. it's
> >> >> called evolution of the OS. if that didnt happen, we'd all be on 3.11
> >> >> code that sucked (althought did need less system resources
same > >> >> thing
> >> >> happened with XP and drivers afaik.
> >> >>
> >> >> do you use WMP11? i've always found since the new WMP skin (wmp7+) is
> >> >> always buggy. i never use it apart from to play wmv/wma. a combo of
> >> >> jetaudio and VLC for me. plays EVERYTHING I need.
> >> >>
> >> >> if something is buggy (which tbh, vista isnt available public retail
> >> >> yet
> >> >> & with stable+mature drivers) then find something that IS stable. if a
> >> >> media player is unstable then use something else.
> >> >>
> >> >> tim
> >> >>
> >> >> tairobi wrote:
> >> >> > I'm not sure what's up with all of the hateful posts from Chad
> >> >> > Harris,
> >> >> > who
> >> >> > obviously has mental issues. This post is meant to convey facts
> >> >> > about
> >> >> > Microsoft's newest operating system.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > First, let me say that I've spent a lot of time with Vista from Beta
> >> >> > 3
> >> >> > to
> >> >> > the latest RTM version. After months of working with Vista and
> >> >> > comparing to
> >> >> > the mature Windows XP operating system, I'm less than impressed with
> >> >> > Windows
> >> >> > Vista.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > For the latest RTM release from MSDN, I completely formatted and
> >> >> > installed
> >> >> > the x86 RTM to a P4 2.66 MHz system with 1 GB of RAM. I timed the
> >> >> > installation. It took three hours and 17 minutes from the time I
> >> >> > popped
> >> >> > in
> >> >> > the DVD that I made from the ISO image from MSDN to the time the
> >> >> > operating
> >> >> > system was on the screen, with the pointer, awaiting input. Upgrades
> >> >> > from
> >> >> > Windows XP take even longer. On my machine, an upgrade from Windows
> >> >> > XP
> >> >> > SP2 to
> >> >> > Vista Ultimate took four hours and 43 minutes. On these very forums,
> >> >> > other
> >> >> > users posted about the long upgrade times. One user said his was
> >> >> > going
> >> >> > on for
> >> >> > 10 hours. Paul smith with Microsoft replied "I've had Vista
> >> >> > typically
> >> >> > take
> >> >> > about 90 minutes to upgrade XP in virtual machine. So yes, 10 hours
> >> >> > is
> >> >> > slow.
> >> >> >
" and then proceeded to offer no technical help. Translation: It> >> >> > upgrades
> >> >> > fine on the 4 GB RAM Core Duo machines we're testing on here
> >> >> > internally
> >> >> > at
> >> >> > Microsoft, therefore the problem is yours, not ours.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Now onto usage. Here's what I've found:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 1. Instead of an OS that boots faster, Vista takes a full 5 minutes
> >> >> > to
> >> >> > go
> >> >> > from the computer being turned off to being responsive enough to let
> >> >> > me
> >> >> > do
> >> >> > tasks. What that means is between the time I turn on the computer
> >> >> > and
> >> >> > the OS
> >> >> > gets through the "splash screen" and then to the actual desktop, it
> >> >> > takes
> >> >> > about three minutes. Afterward, the machine is completely
> >> >> > unresponsive
> >> >> > for at
> >> >> > least another two mintues. CPU usage during this time is pegged at
> >> >> > 100%.
> >> >> > There are no running programs or processes listed in task manager,
> >> >> > so I
> >> >> > have
> >> >> > to conclude that it's a bunch of services initializing. There is a
> >> >> > services
> >> >> > tab on the task manager, but no CPU usage column to tell you which
> >> >> > one
> >> >> > is
> >> >> > hogging so much memory. You actually have to launch the resource
> >> >> > monitor and
> >> >> > get familiar with it and try to decipher what's using up so much of
> >> >> > your CPU,
> >> >> > and even then it's not clear. So, 5-6 minutes to boot and become
> >> >> > usable
> >> >> > as
> >> >> > opposed to 2 minutes on Windows XP. This was clearly a step
> >> >> > backwards
> >> >> > from
> >> >> > what we, the users, wanted.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 2. Media Player 11 that ships with Vista has some major issues.
> >> >> > After
> >> >> > loading the OS, I found that DVDs which would play flawlessly on
> >> >> > Windows XP
> >> >> > no longer played well on Vista. The picture skipped and hung and was
> >> >> > full of
> >> >> > artifacts. I had to set hardware acceleration to be completely off
> >> >> > before it
> >> >> > calmed down. The problem doesn't happen when played on Real Player
> >> >> > or
> >> >> > PowerDVD, only Media Player 11. I posted on these forums about this
> >> >> > problem
> >> >> > and of course no one from Microsoft bothered to respond.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 3. Many applications that worked in XP run poorly on Vista or don't
> >> >> > run
> >> >> > at
> >> >> > all anymore. Most notably is Office 2003. My Office applications are
> >> >> > dying
> >> >> > for no reason or giving obscure error messages. I had to download
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > Office
> >> >> > 2007 Pro suite off MSDN to get Office stable again. Don't expect
> >> >> > Microsoft to
> >> >> > take you seriously when you report these errors. For example,
> >> >> > several
> >> >> > users
> >> >> > on these forums posted an error connecting with Live Messenger 8.
> >> >> > Jim
> >> >> > Pickering replied with "Unable to duplicate on a 32 bit system
> >> >> > running
