Something wrong with Vista?

I hear everyone complaining about it, but what exactly is the problem with Vista?Fyper

what's so good about Vista is the real question you need to ask here...

There are some minor problems with Vista, but right now since it's new a bunch of people bash it because either they have never used it and are just following the crowd, or they used it early on and didn't give Microsoft a chance to fix the problems. Microsoft will be releasing a service pack to fix the perfomance and optimization issues with Vista in the near future.

I am using Vista Ultimate edition and the only problem I've run into with it is that it uses up about 25% of my RAM.

I hear everyone complaining about it, but what exactly is the problem with Vista?Fyper

1. Overpriced

2. Requires above normal processing power/RAM that your basic low-end computer owners don't have and they need to upgrade to be able to run Vista properly.

3. Still a bit of driver compatibility issues

4. It's not required, and it won't be for a long while; only people that really need it are gamers that want to visit DX10 land.

5. Overpriced....I mentioned that one already, right?

6. This version of Microsoft's (MS)newest OS is released with bugs, just like what happened with XP, 2000, ME, 98 and so on....Only to have MS fix the bugs and release "newer" versions of their OS so people have to buy the upgrades and spend more money. If we're lucky, we might get to see Vista2 on the shelves in a few years, claiming it's better protected from hackers, more compatible with hardware/software and bug free; only it'll be just as expensive to upgrade to Vista2 then, as it is now to buy Vista.

Seriously, is there even something wrong with it? Any time I ask about it people fail to give me an answer instead they say: what's so good about it?Fyper

ok....what's wrong with XP? no really coz i want to know why on earth would you want to spend 300$ for OS when the one that now running on your computer is damn fine and without problems

The not allowed copy to c:\ or asking for permission for everything gets old fast but apart for that not so bad. Like in BF2 have to load it with administrator and then click allow for it to work online. oddly enough people complain about old games on it and so far they all worked fine.

Its got a decent popup blocker on it, wish they would of added annoying banners also.

Verdict is simple, Vista isn't really needed right now since 99.9% of games work on XP. Only get Vista if you need an entirely new system like i did otherwise theres no rush for it.

1. Overpriced

2. Requires above normal processing power/RAM that your basic low-end computer owners don't have and they need to upgrade to be able to run Vista properly.

3. Still a bit of driver compatibility issues

4. It's not required, and it won't be for a long while; only people that really need it are gamers that want to visit DX10 land.

5. Overpriced....I mentioned that one already, right?

6. This version of Microsoft's (MS)newest OS is released with bugs, just like what happened with XP, 2000, ME, 98 and so on....Only to have MS fix the bugs and release "newer" versions of their OS so people have to buy the upgrades and spend more money. If we're lucky, we might get to see Vista2 on the shelves in a few years, claiming it's better protected from hackers, more compatible with hardware/software and bug free; only it'll be just as expensive to upgrade to Vista2 then, as it is now to buy Vista.

neatfeatguy

1, Funny, last time I checked and OEM copy of Windows XP Home and Windows Vista Home Basic are the same price.

2. I don't know that 2GB is really all that much RAM since most of the computers released since 2005 have 2GB or more.

3. This is true.

4. Doesn't matter if it is required if the person buying it wants it.

5. See my response to #1.

6. This is very true, but most of the major bugs and issues have been fixed and the new performance and optimization service pack is comming out soon to fix what's left.

The not allowed copy to c:\ or asking for permission for everything gets old fast but apart for that not so bad. Like in BF2 have to load it with administrator and then click allow for it to work online. oddly enough people complain about old games on it and so far they all worked fine.

Sleepyz

Well, for your infomation this feature can be turned off. If you go to Tweak Vistaall of the infomation for doing this is there.

[QUOTE="Fyper"]Seriously, is there even something wrong with it? Any time I ask about it people fail to give me an answer instead they say: what's so good about it?PredatorRules

ok....what's wrong with XP? no really coz i want to know why on earth would you want to spend 300$ for OS when the one that now running on your computer is damn fine and without problems

it's only 80 bucks. And I want a gaming rig so it seems weird to get an old OS (which is the same price as Vista) to go with a new rig.

Can anyone tell me the difference between Basic, Premium and Ultimate?

[QUOTE="Sleepyz"]

The not allowed copy to c:\ or asking for permission for everything gets old fast but apart for that not so bad. Like in BF2 have to load it with administrator and then click allow for it to work online. oddly enough people complain about old games on it and so far they all worked fine.

thanatose

Well, for your infomation this feature can be turned off. If you go to Tweak Vistaall of the infomation for doing this is there.

Can you give me more specific page?

The biggest issue with Vista is that it's not really needed yet. Pretty much all the other problems with it are related to that same thing, in time all 3rd party programs will support it, drivers will be sorted out and there might even be real benefit from DX10. But for now it's just a bit premature to get it unless you're getting a new rig, in that case you might as well go for it.

I've only used Vista on my brothers computer and it was a while back, my biggest issue with it was getting smaller 3rd party programs working, also something as simple as hooking your cell phone or camera to it proved out to be nearly impossible. Perhaps the've fixed them now. Oh, and then there's the price of course which is quite ridiculous, but that's hardly a surprise to anyone.

If you are getting a new system, get Vista. It has DirectX 10 if you have a DirectX 10 compatible graphics card. It's only a matter of time until games become DirectX 10 only. I have Vista and I'm not complaining. All my games work perfectly on it. Make sure you get at least 2GB of ram

If you are looking at Vista as an upgrade to your current OS you might want to wait until you get a good system for Vista.

The real question is, what's wrong with XP? And what incentive is there for PC Gamers to upgrade to Vista? DX10 has a while to mature, so that arguement goes right out the window for me. Not to mention, I have yet to see any benchmarks showing improved FPS in games on Vista compared to XP, in fact, it's worse in Vista. RAM usage is also a big problem with Vista, as it's just a hog. Every Tech journalist out there will tell you what a resource hog Vista is(bad for gaming), it isn't people just complaining to be "cool".

As pointed out before, tips like these might help some of you with Vista. Top 10 Windows Vista Speed Tweaks

I'd have to say though, some tips are really for the computer saavy, which most of us gamers ARE. For the average user, many of Vista's annoyances are for your own good (protection).

For people currently running XP, there definitely isn't that much incentive at the moment to run out and spend money on Vista....yet.

However, I can't imagine someone building/buying a new machine and paying for XP. When I built a new system, I bought Vista, and also used it as my opportunity/gateway to a 64-bit OS.

Is Vista bad? Absolutely, 100% not. It works great, I've had zero problems. Can it be improved? Yes, I'd like to see more XP/Vista game benchmarks that are in Vista's favor.

Vista is so much faster than XP when using 2GB of memory which I always had. The memory is utilised by superfetch to improve system performance and it doesn't mean the memory is not available.

When a game is launched the cached memory is released but some think it's a resource hog when they see 1GB used on a system with 2 gigs. XP will let your memory sit there most of time doing nothing.

Vista is so much faster than XP when using 2GB of memory which I always had. The memory is utilised by superfetch to improve system performance and it doesn't mean the memory is not available.

When a game is launched the cached memory is released but some think it's a resource hog when they see 1GB used on a system with 2 gigs. XP will let your memory sit there most of time doing nothing.

Deihmos

If it does run better, it surely doesn't show in games, which is what we are talking about....

I can't see how your Vista would eat 60% of your 4GB ram when idle :o.

My Vista eats about 40% of my 2GB ram and between 0 and 10% of my CPU when idle. When you start a game, memory is released for it giving you even more. Memory is cheap, getting 2 to 4GB is not a big investement.

[QUOTE="PredatorRules"]

[QUOTE="Fyper"]Seriously, is there even something wrong with it? Any time I ask about it people fail to give me an answer instead they say: what's so good about it?Fyper

ok....what's wrong with XP? no really coz i want to know why on earth would you want to spend 300$ for OS when the one that now running on your computer is damn fine and without problems

it's only 80 bucks. And I want a gaming rig so it seems weird to get an old OS (which is the same price as Vista) to go with a new rig.

Can anyone tell me the difference between Basic, Premium and Ultimate?

sorry here in Israel the Vista Ultimate cost 300$ - and about getting new OS for new rig - it doesn't matter i would install my good old XP to my new rig

[QUOTE="Deihmos"]

Vista is so much faster than XP when using 2GB of memory which I always had. The memory is utilised by superfetch to improve system performance and it doesn't mean the memory is not available.

When a game is launched the cached memory is released but some think it's a resource hog when they see 1GB used on a system with 2 gigs. XP will let your memory sit there most of time doing nothing.

mismajor99

If it does run better, it surely doesn't show in games, which is what we are talking about....

I am not paranoid about frames dropping from 100 to 95 or use programs to get scores. If there is any difference it isn't noticable and judging from some of the more recent benchmarks there isn't any difference to talk about.

[QUOTE="mismajor99"][QUOTE="Deihmos"]

Vista is so much faster than XP when using 2GB of memory which I always had. The memory is utilised by superfetch to improve system performance and it doesn't mean the memory is not available.

When a game is launched the cached memory is released but some think it's a resource hog when they see 1GB used on a system with 2 gigs. XP will let your memory sit there most of time doing nothing.

Deihmos

If it does run better, it surely doesn't show in games, which is what we are talking about....

I am not paranoid about frames dropping from 100 to 95 or use programs to get scores. If there is any difference it isn't noticable and judging from some of the more recent benchmarks there isn't any difference to talk about.

Take a look at every benchmark out there. Vista underperforms on just about every game, not to mention, there are various backwards compatibility problems with older games. MS needs to fix these issues and convince the overwhelming majority of PC Gamers to upgrade, not just worthless talking points. Vista not only needs to be as good as XP, it needs to be better to make it worth it for the average gamer to upgrade.

I can't see how your Vista would eat 60% of your 4GB ram when idle :o.

My Vista eats about 40% of my 2GB ram and between 0 and 10% of my CPU when idle. When you start a game, memory is released for it giving you even more. Memory is cheap, getting 2 to 4GB is not a big investement.

shogoh

I just checked and I am using 35% 720MB and I have a bunch of stuff running in the background with all the extras turned on. These days you can get 2GB for $70.00 or less.

[QUOTE="Deihmos"][QUOTE="mismajor99"][QUOTE="Deihmos"]

Vista is so much faster than XP when using 2GB of memory which I always had. The memory is utilised by superfetch to improve system performance and it doesn't mean the memory is not available.

When a game is launched the cached memory is released but some think it's a resource hog when they see 1GB used on a system with 2 gigs. XP will let your memory sit there most of time doing nothing.

mismajor99

If it does run better, it surely doesn't show in games, which is what we are talking about....

I am not paranoid about frames dropping from 100 to 95 or use programs to get scores. If there is any difference it isn't noticable and judging from some of the more recent benchmarks there isn't any difference to talk about.

Take a look at every benchmark out there. Vista underperforms on just about every game, not to mention, there are various backwards compatibility problems with older games. MS needs to fix these issues and convince the overwhelming majority of PC Gamers to upgrade, not just worthless talking points. Vista not only needs to be as good as XP, it needs to be better to make it worth it for the average gamer to upgrade.

Most issues are caused by nvidia but the drivers got better since release. From the games I play I have nothing to complain about.

Most issues are caused by nvidia with their drivers. the drivers got better since release.

Deihmos

Vista does not perform better than XP. That's the bottom line.

it's only 80 bucks. And I want a gaming rig so it seems weird to get an old OS (which is the same price as Vista) to go with a new rig.Fyper

I recently rebuilt my machine to get up to spec and DX10 ready. When I did I bought Windows XP - OEM and it came with a free upgrade to Vista. I have the upgrade sitting on a shelf and will use it when I need it. I understand the compatibility and drivers issues are quickly being resolved. But why should I deal with even minor issues for (slightly) worse performance until I have to?

gr.

My problem is that I have a computer running XP that can run nearly anything right now, but if I want to even upgrade to Vista I have to get a brand new video card since Microsoft did not take the time to work with the Video card and provide working driver technology like they did with XP.

I now have a 6800GT and it will apparently NEVER work in Vista. Whose fault is this? NVidia? Microsoft? I don't really know and don't really care. All I know is that instead of dishing out the $300 for a new OS, I'm going to have to dish out hundreds more for a new motherboard, new processor, and new video card as well.

If Vista worked with existing systems there wouldn't be a problem. But it frequently doesn't from my personal experience.

I don't think anything is wrong with Vista but if you a gamer and you upgrade to Vista, be prepared to upgrade everything else as well. Also be careful about buy a laptop with Vista installed because most of the ones you see on sale in Best Buy or Circuit City are not strong enough to work with VistaBunit23

Yeah, I think that's a good point, most of us that are happy with Vista are most likely running newer hardware.

About the laptops with Vista from Best Buy, etc. You do need to be careful. From my own experience of buying two from Best Buy

ASUS G1S-X1 C2D T7300 8600M GT

Runs Vista and games just fine!

while this one was utter garbage, I was SO disappointed with it

Toshiba P105-S9337 C2D T7200 7900 GS Go

It had way too much in-game stuttering going on to be useful. Guess what, it wasn't just my machine either search: Toshiba Vista stutter

Everything.

As a mod from the overclocking union, I've seen more than enough people come to us with problems with various issues, and most of them stemmed from the fact that they were running Vista.

Driver support is still junk. XFi support isn't there. The fact that you have to ok everything really gets on my nerves as a power user. And I'm aware that you can disable it (I did after a while when I was beta testing it...yes I was an official beta tester, and yes, I tested from beta 2 to the final release canditate). It is a system hog. If you enable aero, cpu usage goes down, but ram usage goes up. If you disable aero (and even use windows classic), cpu usage goes up, but ram goes down. Both are unacceptable for me as a power user.

Then there is the issue of network transfer speeds. A fellow mod at the OCU decided to test to see how fast Vista is with network transfers. Although at this point I no longer remember the exact performance figures, XP did win, and by quite a bit. It would seem that the tcp/ip stack in Vista is inferior. Either that or there is more network overhead which is slowing it down. Either way, that is bad.

We've done several other tests to (including hard drive to hard drive transfers) and XP still won. Then of course there is the entire DRM issue, which is one of our largest peeves.

If you like to know more about why Vista isn't good, come to the OCU and ask there. I'm sure you'll get lots of answers.

PS: I don't feel the need to give MS a chance NOW. If Vista sucks NOW, then I won't use it NOW. If after the first service pack, it's good, then I'll use it. Until then! Or maybe Windows 7 will be good right of the bat...

Seriously, is there even something wrong with it? Any time I ask about it people fail to give me an answer instead they say: what's so good about it?Fyper

it's a major resource hog. Minor bugs. Compatibility issues with certain games. No service packs. Doesn't add anything new than some new flashy interface.

Seriously, is there even something wrong with it? Any time I ask about it people fail to give me an answer instead they say: what's so good about it?Fyper

Things people hate about it that ive heard from friends etc. Alot of bit torrents dont work, some games dont work or dont run properly on it, it lags the computer way more than it should, currently its pointless and unnecessary, too many security checks and/or other annoyances like that. Basically people are upset with it because its supposed to be the net big successor to XP and it just sucks, all it does it make your desktop look prettier and causes nothing but lag and problems. I would not recommend anyone getting vista until the service packs are fully or until its necessary to have vista to run things.

Everything.

As a mod from the overclocking union, I've seen more than enough people come to us with problems with various issues, and most of them stemmed from the fact that they were running Vista.

Driver support is still junk. XFi support isn't there. The fact that you have to ok everything really gets on my nerves as a power user. And I'm aware that you can disable it (I did after a while when I was beta testing it...yes I was an official beta tester, and yes, I tested from beta 2 to the final release canditate). It is a system hog. If you enable aero, cpu usage goes down, but ram usage goes up. If you disable aero (and even use windows classic), cpu usage goes up, but ram goes down. Both are unacceptable for me as a power user.

Then there is the issue of network transfer speeds. A fellow mod at the OCU decided to test to see how fast Vista is with network transfers. Although at this point I no longer remember the exact performance figures, XP did win, and by quite a bit. It would seem that the tcp/ip stack in Vista is inferior. Either that or there is more network overhead which is slowing it down. Either way, that is bad.

We've done several other tests to (including hard drive to hard drive transfers) and XP still won. Then of course there is the entire DRM issue, which is one of our largest peeves.

If you like to know more about why Vista isn't good, come to the OCU and ask there. I'm sure you'll get lots of answers.

PS: I don't feel the need to give MS a chance NOW. If Vista sucks NOW, then I won't use it NOW. If after the first service pack, it's good, then I'll use it. Until then! Or maybe Windows 7 will be good right of the bat...

MasterKevosavi

Do you ever read CPU Magazine? As a power user, it's great and has pretty much hit on every point you mentioned. Great post.

[QUOTE="Fyper"]I hear everyone complaining about it, but what exactly is the problem with Vista?neatfeatguy

2. My mom runs it fine with 700mb and a pent 4 1.6ghz... and if your gaming you would have past the reccomended already.

3. I agree but its not too bad for me or anyone I know. Its nvidia and ATis fault tho not microsoft

4. Yup, I dont understand why ppl get DX10 cards with XP its really stupid....

5. Oh sthu already its 89$ for basic 110$ for Home Prem....

6. Doubt it. Thats what SP's are for

If you have a DX10 card no reason not to get Vista, also its a GREAT op I love it I have Basic 32 and 64 bit.

[QUOTE="MasterKevosavi"]

Everything.

[my post removed in the quote to save quoting space]

mismajor99

Do you ever read CPU Magazine? As a power user, it's great and has pretty much hit on every point you mentioned. Great post.

I do actually own a few (3) issues of CPU. I think that it is one of the best mags out there for computers. That said, of the issues I do own, 2 of them were pre-vista release, and the other is this year's (I believe) May edition, so they didn't talk about the cons to Vista. I would however, like a subscription to CPU, it's pretty cheap.

Seriously, is there even something wrong with it? Any time I ask about it people fail to give me an answer instead they say: what's so good about it?Fyper

[QUOTE="MasterKevosavi"]

Everything.

[my post removed to reduce quote size]

Deihmos

There will always be someone that doesn't know what they are doing and there will always be someone that encounters a problem regardless of the OS they are using.

X-Fi support is still there. Turning off UAC is a rediculous thing to complain about. Aero makes the system faster by using the GPU and not the CPU and the ram is cached to be released on demand. Was XP liked right off the bat? I remember reading some of these same things about resource hog etc.

XFi support is actually very minimal at this point because of Vista's attempt to stamp out that market. It's true. You can't use your XFi (or similar sound card) to its potential because of the DRMness in Vista.

The people that were having problems were a mixture of people. Some of them were average computer users, but some were fellow OCU mods that I know for a fact know plenty about computers and were able to pinpoint the problem down on Vista.

I had to turn off UAC because of the things I use my computer for. I go far too fast to be stopped every step of the way to confirm something or type in my password. I don't have the time for stuff like that. And if I have to turn it off to be as productive as I am on XP (or linux for that matter), and UAC is one of the major selling points to Vista, why bother using Vista?

I'm fully aware that Aero uses the GPU instead of the CPU. So now my video card never is at rest and the fan needs to be at a higher speed constantly. The extra RAM usage I was talking about stemmed only from activating Aero, not the RAM that SuperFetch is taking up.

Lets also not forget that your frames per second is lower in games in Vista than in XP. Since no games explicitly require Vista and only Vista (Halo 2 and Shadowrun can be 'patched' to run on XP), there is no point.

And yes, I know that XP was not liked over Win2k when it came out. I did not make the move to XP until it was good, and nor did many other people. I have the same stance now. I have no intention, as is the same for many other power users, to move to Vista until it is good.

PS: What about the file transfer slow downs? Are people just suppose to ignore that? I understand that the average person doesn't have to worry about that, but there are plenty that do have to worry.

[QUOTE="Deihmos"][QUOTE="MasterKevosavi"]

Everything.

[my post removed to reduce quote size]

MasterKevosavi

There will always be someone that doesn't know what they are doing and there will always be someone that encounters a problem regardless of the OS they are using.

X-Fi support is still there. Turning off UAC is a rediculous thing to complain about. Aero makes the system faster by using the GPU and not the CPU and the ram is cached to be released on demand. Was XP liked right off the bat? I remember reading some of these same things about resource hog etc.

XFi support is actually very minimal at this point because of Vista's attempt to stamp out that market. It's true. You can't use your XFi (or similar sound card) to its potential because of the DRMness in Vista.

The people that were having problems were a mixture of people. Some of them were average computer users, but some were fellow OCU mods that I know for a fact know plenty about computers and were able to pinpoint the problem down on Vista.

I had to turn off UAC because of the things I use my computer for. I go far too fast to be stopped every step of the way to confirm something or type in my password. I don't have the time for stuff like that. And if I have to turn it off to be as productive as I am on XP (or linux for that matter), and UAC is one of the major selling points to Vista, why bother using Vista?

I'm fully aware that Aero uses the GPU instead of the CPU. So now my video card never is at rest and the fan needs to be at a higher speed constantly. The extra RAM usage I was talking about stemmed only from activating Aero, not the RAM that SuperFetch is taking up.

Lets also not forget that your frames per second is lower in games in Vista than in XP. Since no games explicitly require Vista and only Vista (Halo 2 and Shadowrun can be 'patched' to run on XP), there is no point.

And yes, I know that XP was not liked over Win2k when it came out. I did not make the move to XP until it was good, and nor did many other people. I have the same stance now. I have no intention, as is the same for many other power users, to move to Vista until it is good.

PS: What about the file transfer slow downs? Are people just suppose to ignore that? I understand that the average person doesn't have to worry about that, but there are plenty that do have to worry.

Not saying anyone needs to upgrade at all. No one needed to upgrade from Windows 98 either. I have been using it for a while and I am impressed by the speed, interface and i don't see anything wrong with it.Didn't comment on network speed because never cared to test it. Just sent a large file to my xbox and it transferred at 9.1MB/s which I think is the same speed I got with XP.

Resistence to change is natural but regardless, the windows vistaOS is here to stay and XP is heading out the door. It had a good run but I was ready for something new. Microsoft will stop offering Windows XP for sale by January 2008 and support will be discontinued by January 2009.

[QUOTE="Bunit23"]I don't think anything is wrong with Vista but if you a gamer and you upgrade to Vista, be prepared to upgrade everything else as well. Also be careful about buy a laptop with Vista installed because most of the ones you see on sale in Best Buy or Circuit City are not strong enough to work with VistaNitrous2O

Yeah, I think that's a good point, most of us that are happy with Vista are most likely running newer hardware.

About the laptops with Vista from Best Buy, etc. You do need to be careful. From my own experience of buying two from Best Buy

ASUS G1S-X1 C2D T7300 8600M GT

Runs Vista and games just fine!

while this one was utter garbage, I was SO disappointed with it

Toshiba P105-S9337 C2D T7200 7900 GS Go

It had way too much in-game stuttering going on to be useful. Guess what, it wasn't just my machine either search: Toshiba Vista stutter

AnotherG1S'er:D

I have Vista Ultimate and it seems to run fine on my comp.

Specs are:
Core 2 Duo e6300
7900 GT
1024 MBs RAM

It runs completely fine. Just that it looks better than normal, and comes with extra stuff that I am not really sure what it does.

I am using Vista Ultimate edition and the only problem I've run into with it is that it uses up about 25% of my RAM.

thanatose

Thats a big problem for someone with one gig RAM

[QUOTE="MasterKevosavi"][QUOTE="Deihmos"][QUOTE="MasterKevosavi"]

Everything.

[my post removed to reduce quote size]

Deihmos

There will always be someone that doesn't know what they are doing and there will always be someone that encounters a problem regardless of the OS they are using.

X-Fi support is still there. Turning off UAC is a rediculous thing to complain about. Aero makes the system faster by using the GPU and not the CPU and the ram is cached to be released on demand. Was XP liked right off the bat? I remember reading some of these same things about resource hog etc.

Not saying anyone needs to upgrade at all. No one needed to upgrade from Windows 98 either. I have been using it for a while and I am impressed by the speed, interface and i don't see anything wrong with it.Didn't comment on network speed because never cared to test it. Just sent a large file to my xbox and it transferred at 9.1MB/s which I think is the same speed I got with XP.

Resistence to change is natural but regardless, the windows vistaOS is here to stay and XP is heading out the door. It had a good run but I was ready for something new. Microsoft will stop offering Windows XP for sale by January 2008 and support will be discontinued by January 2009.

Oh yes, the upgrade from Win98 was only positive. Ditching the oldschool kernel in favour of their new NT kernel was a very smart move on MS's part.

In regards to you transfering files to your xbox, you are not limited by your PC there, but by your xbox. The xbox uses an ATA33 (not 133, but only 33) for the hard drive connection. I suggest not arguing against our research on this issue.

Also, if I was resistant to change, why would I take up linux? Or FreeBSD? Which I've done. They are much more different to XP than Vista is. Also, I'd be willing to start using Vista if a) I had more control over what I was doing, and b) it's problems are fixed. Hopefully around SP1 time these will be done. Or by Windows 7 time...