Steve, I just copied the link from firefox which carefully urlencoded the brackets for me (here we go down another Firefox vs. the rest war if we're not careful ... we've had that one a few times). However, Urlencoding the brackets makes sense given that the bulletin board code uses them for simple items such as [ b ] [ / b ] for bold
My impression of Vista was that it's Windows' answer to OS X. Of course, the point of OS X was to put some *nix into Mac to make it better and more popular... it worked, except they fucked up some of the nice things about *nix, and added so much GUI crap that it's bloated as a desktop OS and hobbled as a server OS. It does seem like it will have some interesting features, but the only way I'm going to run it is in beta on a spare machine that isn't connected to my network, just to see what it's like. I've heard enough nightmare stories about its call-home 'features' that I'm definitely not planning on throwing away XP (which I consider a very good OS; as much as I may not like Microsoft, I think it's very stable, usable and has a great deal of life left in it, especially with a decent 64-bit version out). Short answer... no.
I agree, xp is a very good os, and i dont really see much point in upgrading to vista when it comes out, though vista will probably be nice because it will have a truer 64-bit edition.
Personally, I wish Vista would have a better support than XP for managing the OS from a limited user account. Some kind of "su" or "sudo", that is, would be quite welcome. Oh I know XP has "runas" but that's just the first step: you still cannot run Windows Explorer as admin without extremely cumbersome tweaking, and running control panel applets can be tricky too. Also, you lose the current user environment (say, network shares).
After being intrigued by an article on Vista's display implementation (which seems very cool, and will apparently be backported to XP), I decided to try out the beta. It was... ridiculous. Vista takes a truly horrible amount of time to install, and while it's pretty much hands-free, it doesn't give you the option to configure your network settings, time, language, or users because of it. Of course, that's probably just a beta thing, but the time it takes is just inordinately long, and I doubt that'll change -- not to mention it has a 7.6GB footprint! Don't try installing Vista on a system with fault-tolerant partitions. In fact, don't even try disabling drives with fault-tolerant partitions in your BIOS and then installing Vista on a remaining drive. Vista will still refuse. I had to physically unplug said drive to get Vista to install on a separate drive. Installing on a partition that already has a Windows installation on it does not overwrite the installation or give you the option to do so, nor does it apparently make Vista the default or even modify the MBR, as my first (and second) Vista boots resulted in blue screens. Deleting the partition and reinstalling Vista fixed this. Perhaps I am expecting too much from a beta installer. The first time I attempted to run Solitaire, it changed my resolution and died with an error after attempting to load 'high-resolution resources.' While quite humorous, this was not exactly what I had hoped for from Microsoft's next-generation OS. Aside from this, Vista feels very much like XP with a few little hacks to make it prettier. I have not spent a lot of time with this installation, and probably will not -- it's possible that the bugs I experienced have been fixed, as I installed build 5219, which I had laying around. I'm currently downloading build 5472 and hoping that it will show a little more promise.
Perhaps the program started counting cards and Vista had to shut it down before it broke the bank. ;D
Quoted (without permission ) from Windows Vista deployment issues by Brien M. Posey (Free registration required or you can use BugMeNot) Say bye bye to the good old games... (at least until someone writes an emulator!)
