Sorry guys but I have to ask. 
Why do so many people stick with software that doesn't work in the areas of reliability, security and stability when there are perfectly good alternatives out there?

Vista was dead out of the gate and XP is 6 years old and is still a danger to use on the internet without any third party security software.

Most of the time Windows work networks are so tightly locked down one can't even choose and install a different browser than IE6, Frustrating and annoying a company's users.

It's time these people realised that Micro$oft wants the situation to stay this way to keep I.T. lemmings specifying Windows. 

I believe it's all about control of the web. If people move to proper web browsers with support for web standards then M$ lose their control of the web and keeping their OS flaky from a security standpoint means that to keep work networks secure you have to lock them down and that means corporate users being stuck having to use Internet Explorer.

I can't believe that most people don't see this. Maybe I do because I have been a web dev for years. So do others in my industry!

So most companies are stuck with a 6 year old OS with impotent security and a web browser that supports virtually NO new web technologies.

The worst part of this issue is that I.T. chiefs know that if they changed to a more secure and more reliable OS they would have less value to their employers. So they insist in using Windows. 

The irony is that some I.T. guys use Linux and Macs at home while specifying Windows to the companies where they work for the reason I illustrated above. I actually know a couple of them.

Sticking with Windows, constantly patching it with anti-malware and reliability sticking plasters! Meh, what's the point?

I try it in Windows Server 2008 Release Candidate 0 Enterprise X64 (does this name long enough to compete this Gainward Golder Sample.....bla...bla :) ). The Windows just fine. 
After Copying 85.000 files that the size is 4 - 5 GB, the Windows Explorer memory is groing up to 490.000 MB. After that, I delete all the file. 
I delete 150.000 files, so far nothing instability happen. The only point that is right from the article is the explorer exe failed to release memory. Hopefully this will be fix in FINAL release :D.

10 year flashback Win98 used to give the dreaded out of resources error if one did too much without rebooting. XP does not suffer from this.

There is a fix for this, and for all other Vista problems as well. Can't you see it? It's there, looking at you. It's been there all along but you won't look. Why not? Don't you want a nice OS that really works FOR you, not against you? So go ahead. On the 26th of this month go get yourself an Apple Mini (the cheapest, or an iMac). It will come with Leopard, the newest OS from Apple. You'll be blown away, really. After a month of using it you'll wonder why you stayed with Windows for as long as you have.

It's the superfetch problem, Vista is nothing more than Windows 2003 server kernel with windows Blinds and uxtheme patch, can't you people understand? 
Added was the superfetch, that churns out more than half of your RAM, even if you have 2GB or 4 (3200MB actually). If you disable the service, windows will behave like WinxP on memory management. 
Just disable the rest of "extra goodies" crap and Vista will behave like XP (almost). Voila!

I have noticed this too,

I quite like Vista but it is becoming increasingly frustrating that to back up my working folders I need to reboot Vista about 5 times to get around the problem!

I am guessing they hoped a service pack would be out before these problems surfaced.

Thank goodness that Vista was written "from the ground up" ! Thank goodness that the tireless voles have entirely re-thought the memory management !
Looks like they really did their best to make Vista a success !

Overall in 6 months I've found Vista ok. In general its just a lot slower than XP even on fast hardware. File operations used to be painfully slow but are usable now. My current bugbear is that moving folder trees over another of the same name to merge them doesn't work for me. It leaves behind empty folders and sometime files. I just can't trust it. Using 3rd party apps to do the same thing also doesn't work. Reinstalling Vista hasn't fixed it. Changing permissions and ownship setting don't fix it. So I'm going to have to go back to XP. I'll keep Vista on a partition so I can check when they've fixed it. 

We've about 2,000 users and theres no way I'd roll Vista out to them till its a lot more fixed than it is now. We'd be more likely to trial OSX at this point. 

Every time i learn something about Vista i always hear about several problems about this new OS

Why MS even bothered to launch that junk

Windows XP is still top notch the only thing missing is DX10


I tried to like Vista. But Vista is like a expensive prostitute, Sure it looks good on the surface but touch it and you will be in more and more pain the longer you let it run. See a format get rid of your problems today.

Nothing more than yet another bug in the explorer.exe shell. There have been so many resource and (lack of) threading issues with this and it's nothing new

I don't get this problem, even copying five times that amount.

I cant believe its a Vista problem when only a few people have the symptoms. Although Microsoft released a hotfix so it must be... strange...

Hi.

I dumped VISTA. I dislike it now. I'm using WinXP again and cant possibly find more than 3 differences in games based on DX10 and DX9... besides that DX9 runs faster. 

Long live XP.

With 4 gb Memory 1 gb goes to run Machine on Ultimate, so it takes lot just to stand in place.

However, Even if that Russian Dosn't have Flat Nose, its still outside software thats Problem. Beta offered FREE Security software from half dozen power venders, STRONGER Software for Security got, Worse Ultimate Ran.

To try just concept of Huge File Runs, don't add anything else excepting Vista software for that program & HOPE. Also Put it on DISC & discard software from machine until YOU need it again.Then Reload, quite possibly other softwares where in open conflict for Kaspie.

REMEMBER,similarly theres nothing wrong with accident Victim & Theres Nothing wrong with ULTIMATE or Else;.hahahaha

Signed: T. Von Drashek


I have to admit I have seen this too. Running apps like Poser 7, Carrera and other graphics packages will cause Vista to eat up memory faster than a cop through a dozen donuts. This is with 2 Gb of RAM and nothing else running.

ironic that you bash Apple for charging $129.00 for Leopard when Vista Ultimate is $399.00 and the only thing going for it are the Apple-inspired visuals (oh, and the OSX-Unix inspired protected system folder). 
I have a "Hacintosh" which I built and OSX runs a lot faster and more stably than Vista. Between BSODs caused by driver problems, memory leaks, and compatibility problems, I'm just about ready to go back to XP for my Windows partition (which I seldom boot, but I wanted to play Halo 2!) My OSX86 partition has yet to crash, has never gotten a virus/spyware, and doesn't have any memory leaks. 

M$, though, in another customer-screwing move prevents XP from running Halo 2. . .even though frame rates would no doubt be higher in XP. And they want $399 for this POS?!?! Makes $129.00 for an actually STABLE OS seem like a BARGAIN!

+++ REDO FROM START +++ ? 

We wish...