J
Judy
Guest
All I wish to do is copy my photos via Dell-in-one Centre into "My Pictures"
& for them to stay in the order I put them in ( Birth to adult or holiday
start to finish)
I am obviously not using " name" or" Tag" correctly ?
I want my slide show to tell the story not photos at random
--
I am very interested in photos & would like to able to use the Windows Photo
Gallery more I feel one needs a university degree sometimes to understand the
Help Section
Thankyou for your help
Judy
"RandySavage" wrote:
> Calling this build an "RC" is overly optimistic.
>
> There are numerous critical functional flaws in the latest build of RC1:
> 1. Firstly, I cannot follow prescribed trouble reporting procedures because
> the trouble reporting tool won't load due to errors.
> 2. Various MMC snap-ins fail frequently when attempting to load: "MMC has
> detected an error in a snap-in and will unload it."
> 3. Automatic Update errors out with an 8024400A. When help works,
> reference to error code 8024400A yields no information except references to
> other error codes and (potential) fixes for those.
> 4. Help is spotty and incomplete.
> 5. Adding folders for indexing for future searching causes the system to
> grind to halt. Indexing claims "Indexing speed is reduced due to user
> activity," but I'm not doing a thing. The system is doing something and then
> passing blame to me, the user?
> 6. Various diagnostic and performance tools will occassionally work but
> more often than not won't load with an error message.
> 7. The system asked to be shut down to complete the installation of a "new
> device" (a second hard-drive). Responding to the system's request to be
> restarted caused it to corrupt some sort of system database which resulted in
> the system's inability to boot up in standard mode. I was forced to
> reinstall the system.
> 8. Event viewer recorded the error multiple times: "The Event Logging
> service encountered an error while processing an incoming event published
> from Microsoft-Windows-Security-Auditing."
> 9. Event viewer recorded the error: "The service 'StiSvc' may not have
> unregistered for device event notifications before it was stopped." multiple
> times.
> 10. Registered file objects give "file path does not exist" when
> double-clicked.
> 11. Most information links that contact a Web-based resource do not work at
> all. Numerous examples of this, particularly in help, but they are common
> and spread throughout the O.S.
> 12. Thumbnails of photos absent from Explorer. At one time they were
> there, then they dissappeared never to return.
> 13. Photo Management software takes an hour to load. Thumbnails are often
> missing for photos that are perfectly fine.
> 14. The Event Viewer contains several errors indicating "Advise Status
> Change failed. The system is probably low on resources. Free up resources
> and restart the service." With a code 0x80041812.
>
> Then the real fun began. All these errors pale to the litany of critical
> and other system errors that occured when I started to attach hard-drives and
> use the system seriously. I filled Event Viewer up with little critical
> error exes, and error exclamation points. So many errors that to list them
> all here would seem pedantic. My normal computing activities were just too
> much for poor little ole' Vista. I had services errors complaining about
> stopping for no reason, I had diagnostic errors complaining about one thing
> or another taking too long, meanwhile all the diagnostics came back clean as
> far as hardware was concerned. The issue causing the problem was the O.S.!
> The O.S. was so slow, so laden with errors, so unmanagable, and so painful to
> interact with that I've uninstalled it completely and am back to XP.
>
> Apart from the plethora of "bugs," there are numerous annoying
> characteristics.
>
> 1. I am dumb-founded that somebody believes UAC is a functional computer
> protection scheme. I don't want to editorialize too much here, but this
> scheme is easily one of the most inane concepts I could have imagined. A 3
> year old child could design such a methodology. Analogously, UAC is like
> having your car automatically throw on the brakes and grind to a dead stop
> every time you want to make a lane change just in case you might hit someone.
> That's not progress, it's just stupid. In this day and age of 10Gbps WAN
> links, remote control cars on Mars, and designer nano-technology, this is the
> solution? All the computerized cryptology and security and all the
> programming expertise money can buy can't come up with something better than
> a box that says "are you really, really, really sure you want that thing you
> just clicked on to load?"
>
> I read the testing guides, and the forum posts, and the blogs, and no amount
> of condescending dialog about the user "just not getting it" mitagates the
> glaringly obvious rediculousness that is UAC. Jim Jones has been
> reincarnated and he's serving punch in the Redmond cafeteria.
>
> Computers are tools. When they start causing more work than alleviating it,
> they will end up on the trash pile. UAC is a step in that direction.
>
> 2. Removing a single file type from indexing (which claims cannot be
> disabled) causes all Indexed folders to be reindexed. There are far better
> ways to manage this than reindexing all the folders. Reindexing the folders
> is the most unintelligent way a program could handle the issue that it begs
> the question the of engineering acumen. Were I a beginner programmer I might
> do it that way. In the 70s.
>
> 3. Windows Explorer was an area that really needed changing in XP. It sure
> has been changed, for the worse. Firstly, the built-in search is a mess.
> Why can't I do advanced searching any time I'm in Explorer? No, I have to go
> to search in the start menu to get any features. And this is because of?
> Secondly, there's no abiliity to have a preview pane unless actually in the
> photo management software, which is only a surrogate to explorer. Why can't
> I have photo management and file management together, cohesively, and add
> reasonable search. Is that "too hard to program" or did a committee decide
> the feature wasn't needed or the public "just wasn't ready for that kind of
> seemless experience." All those graphically intensive 3-d renderings of my
> open windows are useless when basic navigating is a chore.
>
> Also, why didn't Microsoft add something that tells you the size of folders?
> There are a dozen free applications that fill this gap for XP. There's even
> a nice plug-in "Folder Size" that adds that function to Explorer you can get
> for free. Why is such a glaring gap still there?
>
> Etc.
>
> The number of usability issues in Explorer is far greater than my patience
> with enumerating them.
>
> 4. One thing I'd really hoped was the O.S. would be much more configurable
> than XP. I'm a heavy user. Some would argue a power user. I prefer the
> keyboard to the mouse because its faster. I know the keyboard shortcuts
> (thank you IBM ergonomics team!) and use them. Because I'm such a heavy user
> it would be fair to say perhaps I like things setup a little bit differently
> than many. In fact, the default settings in XP are just about the opposite
> from how I set them, whether its explorer or the task bar or whatever. I was
> hoping I'd be able to configure the crud out of Vista. Tune it up just the
> way I like it. Can I? No.
>
> Regarding the "low resource" error and my machine's capability of handling
> the tasks asked of it:
> I don't know the scale for the Computer Performance score. clicking the
> link to get more information takes you to the regular Microsoft home page,
> with no specific Performance Score information. The score I got is 4.5,
> which was the lowest score, the score of my graphics adapter. I realize it
> isn't the best, just a 256MB SLI ATI X700, but that adapter is several
> generations ahead of what the public is using. I discarded adapters several
> generations back that most I know haven't gotten to yet. Other than the
> graphics adapter, my machine is essentially one generation back from the
> current hottest consumer-grade hardware you can buy: AMD Dual Core x64 4400+,
> 2GB of fast matched Corsair XMS memory, SATA 2 hard-drives (not running as
> RAID as they were with XP PRO X64 because the drivers don't work), nVidia
> nForce 4 chipset, Sound Blaster Audigy-2 ZS. It isn't the hottest hardware,
> but it isn't far behind, and if this machine is inadequate to run Vista, then
> Microsoft is in for more bad press than their P.R. firm will be able to
> handle.
>
> This software is an embarassment. When you consider that the programming
> task it represents is only an evolutionary step for Windows, not a
> revolutionary one (basically a prettier interface, some more diagnostic
> tools, and most inane attempt at protecting the system by having the user
> click on things twice via UAC) combined with the long amount time developing
> it, then Microsoft is truly in a grave situation. I'm particularly concerned
> because I am the one this software was developed for. I'm a Microsoft
> shareholder. This is partially my company, and I am very dissappointed with
> this as our next O.S. If I can't get behind it, and I have a vested
> interested, how can the public? Yes, Vista is pretty. VERY pretty. But no
> prettier than the graphics on the G4 Mac running OS-X sitting here next to
> me, and it's years old. Microsoft had such an opportunity to fix the myriad
> of user interface issues that make working with XP just not what it ought to
> be, and that has been squandered. I'm voting against the current management
> team at the next shareholder meeting and then selling my stock.
>
> Remember the change from Windows 2.0 to Windows 3.0? Earth shaking. 3.0
> was graphical, versus 2.0 DOS-shell. Then 3.0 to 3.1? More features,
> better, faster. 3.11 from 3.1? Networking! (Cruddy 16-bit thunking
> networking, but networking nevertheless) 3.11 to 95, then 98? Paradigm
> shifting. Remember NT 3.0, then 3.4 then 3.5 then 4.0 then 2000? All
> incrementally better. Quicker, more features, more stable, everything
> better. Then the mother of all upgrades, XP. That was truly an upgrade. In
> every case we're presented with a better O.S. More secure, more stable, more
> features, better. This is the first time that you could argue the upgrade
> isn't better, or more secure, or faster. Every prior upgrade of Windows
> offered a user interface that was more intuitive than the last, except for
> this one. This time the user interface is so clunky, so difficult to
> navigate (compared to XP) that the O.S. is nearly unusable. Oh, sure, there
> are some new features, but not so many as to make someone want to change from
> XP to this. Every additional photo feature, like adjusting photos or
> cropping them I can accomplish with free software in XP, and much more
> quickly. The indexing and search capabilities are abysmal. Slow,
> inaccurate, and painful to navigate. The ONLY compelling feature this O.S.
> offers is its built-in diagnostic system. This was sorely absent from XP.
> That one feature may be enough for many to upgrade, but then I have to ask
> what have the programmers in Redmond been doing all this time? The O.S. is
> just hooking into monitoring functions that have been there since 2000 and
> adding a little logic to them. It took all this time just to do that?
> Where's all the killer security they've been sweating over? A dialog box
> popping up that says "are you really really sure you want to run that?"
> Pathetic.
>
> And then you have the issue of Vista never, ever, ever not accessing the
> hard-drives. That hard-drive light stays lit solid the entire time the O.S.
> is operating. Oh, sure, its probably indexing something, after all, you
> can't turn indexing off. Or control it reasonably. Or maybe the drive is
> running because I have a virus (not). Or maybe somethings broken and its
> running a chkdsk to fix it (not). Or maybe its just big brother spying on
> me. One of the questions on the Vista "is this ready for release" survey was
> "Do you feel more secure with Vista than XP." No way. No. Not even close.
> I feel far less secure. I don't know what that operating system is doing
> behind my back but its doing something. Just look at that hard-drive light.
> At this rate I'll suffer drive failure in half the time it normally takes,
> and that's not counting the system overhead all that indexing is consuming,
> making me wait and slowing down my productivity.
>
> And that's what its all about, isn't it. PRODUCTIVITY. Computers are tools.
> Tools designed to do data processing and to entertain us. Vista didn't make
> me more productive, nor more entertained. "But this is only RC1/2." you
> argue. "Release Candidate" means that this software is a candidate for
> RELEASE. Release to the public as a finished application. You couldn't
> release this thing. This software is closer to Alpha than Beta, and calling
> it RC is euphamistic at best. A funny joke to be played on the testers.
> This software is a year and half from being RC.
>
> And I'm no Microsoft basher. I like Microsoft. I'm a shareholder and have
> been using Microsoft O.S. since the Dos 1.0 days and using/programming
> computers in general since the IBM 360 days. I'm not the most technical guy
> around, plenty posting here are far more technical than I, and I'm not good
> enough at programming to program good PC security, but apparently neither is
> Microsoft.
>
> The obvious issue, the rhinocerous in the bathtub, is Apple. Why Microsoft
> is so wary I'll never know given Apple's market share, but they are. This
> new interface is a direct result of the Aqua interface in OS-X. So given
> that this is meant to compete directly with Apple, how is it Apple seems to
> manage security without UAC just fine? How is it Apple seems to offer a
> reasonably intuitive interface (except where's the darn right mouse button!),
> while still being secure, offering enough power to those that want it, but
> not those that don't. Don't get me wrong. I am no Macintosh fan. I don't
> like Apple. I never have. I own one for testing and so I'm familiar enough
> with it to trouble shoot it, but that's it. The real winners with Vista will
> be Apple. Every time I use Vista, my Mac starts looking a little better.
> I'm disgusted with myself, but that's the truth.
>
> ----------------
> This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
> suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the "I
> Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow this
> link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and then
> click "I Agree" in the message pane.
>
> http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/co...f4c&dg=microsoft.public.windows.vista.general
& for them to stay in the order I put them in ( Birth to adult or holiday
start to finish)
I am obviously not using " name" or" Tag" correctly ?
I want my slide show to tell the story not photos at random
--
I am very interested in photos & would like to able to use the Windows Photo
Gallery more I feel one needs a university degree sometimes to understand the
Help Section
Thankyou for your help
Judy
"RandySavage" wrote:
> Calling this build an "RC" is overly optimistic.
>
> There are numerous critical functional flaws in the latest build of RC1:
> 1. Firstly, I cannot follow prescribed trouble reporting procedures because
> the trouble reporting tool won't load due to errors.
> 2. Various MMC snap-ins fail frequently when attempting to load: "MMC has
> detected an error in a snap-in and will unload it."
> 3. Automatic Update errors out with an 8024400A. When help works,
> reference to error code 8024400A yields no information except references to
> other error codes and (potential) fixes for those.
> 4. Help is spotty and incomplete.
> 5. Adding folders for indexing for future searching causes the system to
> grind to halt. Indexing claims "Indexing speed is reduced due to user
> activity," but I'm not doing a thing. The system is doing something and then
> passing blame to me, the user?
> 6. Various diagnostic and performance tools will occassionally work but
> more often than not won't load with an error message.
> 7. The system asked to be shut down to complete the installation of a "new
> device" (a second hard-drive). Responding to the system's request to be
> restarted caused it to corrupt some sort of system database which resulted in
> the system's inability to boot up in standard mode. I was forced to
> reinstall the system.
> 8. Event viewer recorded the error multiple times: "The Event Logging
> service encountered an error while processing an incoming event published
> from Microsoft-Windows-Security-Auditing."
> 9. Event viewer recorded the error: "The service 'StiSvc' may not have
> unregistered for device event notifications before it was stopped." multiple
> times.
> 10. Registered file objects give "file path does not exist" when
> double-clicked.
> 11. Most information links that contact a Web-based resource do not work at
> all. Numerous examples of this, particularly in help, but they are common
> and spread throughout the O.S.
> 12. Thumbnails of photos absent from Explorer. At one time they were
> there, then they dissappeared never to return.
> 13. Photo Management software takes an hour to load. Thumbnails are often
> missing for photos that are perfectly fine.
> 14. The Event Viewer contains several errors indicating "Advise Status
> Change failed. The system is probably low on resources. Free up resources
> and restart the service." With a code 0x80041812.
>
> Then the real fun began. All these errors pale to the litany of critical
> and other system errors that occured when I started to attach hard-drives and
> use the system seriously. I filled Event Viewer up with little critical
> error exes, and error exclamation points. So many errors that to list them
> all here would seem pedantic. My normal computing activities were just too
> much for poor little ole' Vista. I had services errors complaining about
> stopping for no reason, I had diagnostic errors complaining about one thing
> or another taking too long, meanwhile all the diagnostics came back clean as
> far as hardware was concerned. The issue causing the problem was the O.S.!
> The O.S. was so slow, so laden with errors, so unmanagable, and so painful to
> interact with that I've uninstalled it completely and am back to XP.
>
> Apart from the plethora of "bugs," there are numerous annoying
> characteristics.
>
> 1. I am dumb-founded that somebody believes UAC is a functional computer
> protection scheme. I don't want to editorialize too much here, but this
> scheme is easily one of the most inane concepts I could have imagined. A 3
> year old child could design such a methodology. Analogously, UAC is like
> having your car automatically throw on the brakes and grind to a dead stop
> every time you want to make a lane change just in case you might hit someone.
> That's not progress, it's just stupid. In this day and age of 10Gbps WAN
> links, remote control cars on Mars, and designer nano-technology, this is the
> solution? All the computerized cryptology and security and all the
> programming expertise money can buy can't come up with something better than
> a box that says "are you really, really, really sure you want that thing you
> just clicked on to load?"
>
> I read the testing guides, and the forum posts, and the blogs, and no amount
> of condescending dialog about the user "just not getting it" mitagates the
> glaringly obvious rediculousness that is UAC. Jim Jones has been
> reincarnated and he's serving punch in the Redmond cafeteria.
>
> Computers are tools. When they start causing more work than alleviating it,
> they will end up on the trash pile. UAC is a step in that direction.
>
> 2. Removing a single file type from indexing (which claims cannot be
> disabled) causes all Indexed folders to be reindexed. There are far better
> ways to manage this than reindexing all the folders. Reindexing the folders
> is the most unintelligent way a program could handle the issue that it begs
> the question the of engineering acumen. Were I a beginner programmer I might
> do it that way. In the 70s.
>
> 3. Windows Explorer was an area that really needed changing in XP. It sure
> has been changed, for the worse. Firstly, the built-in search is a mess.
> Why can't I do advanced searching any time I'm in Explorer? No, I have to go
> to search in the start menu to get any features. And this is because of?
> Secondly, there's no abiliity to have a preview pane unless actually in the
> photo management software, which is only a surrogate to explorer. Why can't
> I have photo management and file management together, cohesively, and add
> reasonable search. Is that "too hard to program" or did a committee decide
> the feature wasn't needed or the public "just wasn't ready for that kind of
> seemless experience." All those graphically intensive 3-d renderings of my
> open windows are useless when basic navigating is a chore.
>
> Also, why didn't Microsoft add something that tells you the size of folders?
> There are a dozen free applications that fill this gap for XP. There's even
> a nice plug-in "Folder Size" that adds that function to Explorer you can get
> for free. Why is such a glaring gap still there?
>
> Etc.
>
> The number of usability issues in Explorer is far greater than my patience
> with enumerating them.
>
> 4. One thing I'd really hoped was the O.S. would be much more configurable
> than XP. I'm a heavy user. Some would argue a power user. I prefer the
> keyboard to the mouse because its faster. I know the keyboard shortcuts
> (thank you IBM ergonomics team!) and use them. Because I'm such a heavy user
> it would be fair to say perhaps I like things setup a little bit differently
> than many. In fact, the default settings in XP are just about the opposite
> from how I set them, whether its explorer or the task bar or whatever. I was
> hoping I'd be able to configure the crud out of Vista. Tune it up just the
> way I like it. Can I? No.
>
> Regarding the "low resource" error and my machine's capability of handling
> the tasks asked of it:
> I don't know the scale for the Computer Performance score. clicking the
> link to get more information takes you to the regular Microsoft home page,
> with no specific Performance Score information. The score I got is 4.5,
> which was the lowest score, the score of my graphics adapter. I realize it
> isn't the best, just a 256MB SLI ATI X700, but that adapter is several
> generations ahead of what the public is using. I discarded adapters several
> generations back that most I know haven't gotten to yet. Other than the
> graphics adapter, my machine is essentially one generation back from the
> current hottest consumer-grade hardware you can buy: AMD Dual Core x64 4400+,
> 2GB of fast matched Corsair XMS memory, SATA 2 hard-drives (not running as
> RAID as they were with XP PRO X64 because the drivers don't work), nVidia
> nForce 4 chipset, Sound Blaster Audigy-2 ZS. It isn't the hottest hardware,
> but it isn't far behind, and if this machine is inadequate to run Vista, then
> Microsoft is in for more bad press than their P.R. firm will be able to
> handle.
>
> This software is an embarassment. When you consider that the programming
> task it represents is only an evolutionary step for Windows, not a
> revolutionary one (basically a prettier interface, some more diagnostic
> tools, and most inane attempt at protecting the system by having the user
> click on things twice via UAC) combined with the long amount time developing
> it, then Microsoft is truly in a grave situation. I'm particularly concerned
> because I am the one this software was developed for. I'm a Microsoft
> shareholder. This is partially my company, and I am very dissappointed with
> this as our next O.S. If I can't get behind it, and I have a vested
> interested, how can the public? Yes, Vista is pretty. VERY pretty. But no
> prettier than the graphics on the G4 Mac running OS-X sitting here next to
> me, and it's years old. Microsoft had such an opportunity to fix the myriad
> of user interface issues that make working with XP just not what it ought to
> be, and that has been squandered. I'm voting against the current management
> team at the next shareholder meeting and then selling my stock.
>
> Remember the change from Windows 2.0 to Windows 3.0? Earth shaking. 3.0
> was graphical, versus 2.0 DOS-shell. Then 3.0 to 3.1? More features,
> better, faster. 3.11 from 3.1? Networking! (Cruddy 16-bit thunking
> networking, but networking nevertheless) 3.11 to 95, then 98? Paradigm
> shifting. Remember NT 3.0, then 3.4 then 3.5 then 4.0 then 2000? All
> incrementally better. Quicker, more features, more stable, everything
> better. Then the mother of all upgrades, XP. That was truly an upgrade. In
> every case we're presented with a better O.S. More secure, more stable, more
> features, better. This is the first time that you could argue the upgrade
> isn't better, or more secure, or faster. Every prior upgrade of Windows
> offered a user interface that was more intuitive than the last, except for
> this one. This time the user interface is so clunky, so difficult to
> navigate (compared to XP) that the O.S. is nearly unusable. Oh, sure, there
> are some new features, but not so many as to make someone want to change from
> XP to this. Every additional photo feature, like adjusting photos or
> cropping them I can accomplish with free software in XP, and much more
> quickly. The indexing and search capabilities are abysmal. Slow,
> inaccurate, and painful to navigate. The ONLY compelling feature this O.S.
> offers is its built-in diagnostic system. This was sorely absent from XP.
> That one feature may be enough for many to upgrade, but then I have to ask
> what have the programmers in Redmond been doing all this time? The O.S. is
> just hooking into monitoring functions that have been there since 2000 and
> adding a little logic to them. It took all this time just to do that?
> Where's all the killer security they've been sweating over? A dialog box
> popping up that says "are you really really sure you want to run that?"
> Pathetic.
>
> And then you have the issue of Vista never, ever, ever not accessing the
> hard-drives. That hard-drive light stays lit solid the entire time the O.S.
> is operating. Oh, sure, its probably indexing something, after all, you
> can't turn indexing off. Or control it reasonably. Or maybe the drive is
> running because I have a virus (not). Or maybe somethings broken and its
> running a chkdsk to fix it (not). Or maybe its just big brother spying on
> me. One of the questions on the Vista "is this ready for release" survey was
> "Do you feel more secure with Vista than XP." No way. No. Not even close.
> I feel far less secure. I don't know what that operating system is doing
> behind my back but its doing something. Just look at that hard-drive light.
> At this rate I'll suffer drive failure in half the time it normally takes,
> and that's not counting the system overhead all that indexing is consuming,
> making me wait and slowing down my productivity.
>
> And that's what its all about, isn't it. PRODUCTIVITY. Computers are tools.
> Tools designed to do data processing and to entertain us. Vista didn't make
> me more productive, nor more entertained. "But this is only RC1/2." you
> argue. "Release Candidate" means that this software is a candidate for
> RELEASE. Release to the public as a finished application. You couldn't
> release this thing. This software is closer to Alpha than Beta, and calling
> it RC is euphamistic at best. A funny joke to be played on the testers.
> This software is a year and half from being RC.
>
> And I'm no Microsoft basher. I like Microsoft. I'm a shareholder and have
> been using Microsoft O.S. since the Dos 1.0 days and using/programming
> computers in general since the IBM 360 days. I'm not the most technical guy
> around, plenty posting here are far more technical than I, and I'm not good
> enough at programming to program good PC security, but apparently neither is
> Microsoft.
>
> The obvious issue, the rhinocerous in the bathtub, is Apple. Why Microsoft
> is so wary I'll never know given Apple's market share, but they are. This
> new interface is a direct result of the Aqua interface in OS-X. So given
> that this is meant to compete directly with Apple, how is it Apple seems to
> manage security without UAC just fine? How is it Apple seems to offer a
> reasonably intuitive interface (except where's the darn right mouse button!),
> while still being secure, offering enough power to those that want it, but
> not those that don't. Don't get me wrong. I am no Macintosh fan. I don't
> like Apple. I never have. I own one for testing and so I'm familiar enough
> with it to trouble shoot it, but that's it. The real winners with Vista will
> be Apple. Every time I use Vista, my Mac starts looking a little better.
> I'm disgusted with myself, but that's the truth.
>
> ----------------
> This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
> suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the "I
> Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow this
> link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and then
> click "I Agree" in the message pane.
>
> http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/co...f4c&dg=microsoft.public.windows.vista.general