From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0229_01C666FD.5AE78840
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   The only one looking stupid here is you mike.  Again, you should =
strive for honest and avoid making comments about things with which you =
have no experience and appear not to understand.  Your dishonesty for = the
sole purpose of making disparaging comments comes through loud and = clear.

Rich

  "Mike '/m'"  wrote in message =
news:r9pn4255bibgt5i8f1sn959rdatiqgrk9e{at}4ax.com...


  Ummm, OK, Rich.   It was the person in the article, not I who =
mentioned
  the ambiguity and lack of clarity in the message.   He's been using
  Vista, and has been quite pro-Windows on his site.
  http://www.winsupersite.com/


  I just hope calling a "File Operation" a "Program" is
fixed before the
  release, otherwise Microsoft would look even more stupid that they do =
by
  not being able to get their main product out the door.

  One thing, though, while you're into the ad hominem attacks - you =
forgot
  to use your tactic of changing the thread title to something =
disparaging
  of me.  You're slipping.

   /m

  On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 10:53:05 -0700, "Rich"  wrote:

  >   It follows the user's request to elevate in the dialog I =
referenced.  If you can't remember the context from one moment to the =
next you have more serious problems then your lack of honesty and =
insistence to cast aspersions at something you have never used based on =
someone else's comments you do not understand.
  >
  >Rich
  >
  >  "Mike '/m'"  wrote in message =
news:nndn42l664bqa8qmin54oeocd9term9gaj{at}4ax.com...
  >
  >  I looked at this dialog here:
  >  http://www.winsupersite.com/images/reviews/vista_5342_rev5_01.jpg
  >
  >  Not the epitome of clarity, eh?  In actuality, I think it's rather
  >  telling that a dialog *that* badly worded is still present this far =
into
  >  the Vista release cycle.
  >
  >  So, the question remains, will Microsoft fix this mess before they
  >  release Vista to consumers?  Or will Microsoft turn off consumers =
to the
  >  concept of UAP because the bolt-on after-the-fact implementation of =
UAP
  >  in Vista is so bad?
  >
  >    /m
  >
  >
  >  On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 08:31:10 -0700, "Rich"  wrote:
  >
  >  >   Accept responsibility for your own words and stop lying.
  >  >
  >  >   If you wish to see how clearly worded the dialog is look at it. =
 I included the link and so have you yet you would fail to or pretend to =
fail to look and instead lie about it.
  >  >
  >  >Rich
  >  >
  >  >  "Mike '/m'"  wrote in message =
news:67um42ddv89viigs3am7abtht4oj6p4bvf{at}4ax.com...
  >  >
  >  >  >Instead of keeping quiet or acknowledging that you don't=20
  >  >  > understand you make up bullshit and post it as your own.
  >  >
  >  >  > In the future mike, you might want to try at least to=20
  >  >  > present the appearence of honesty by avoiding making=20
  >  >  > statements on topics about which you have no experience
  >  >  > or knowledge.
  >  >
  >  >
  >  >
  >  >  When I say, "From the article" it means that I am
quoting from =
the
  >  >  article.
  >  >
  >  >
  >  >  btw, you comment:
  >  >
  >  >  >On Vista, the user doesn't have administrator access so the =
operation fails.  The article shows a picture of the clearly worded = dialog at =
http://www.winsupersite.com/images/reviews/vista_5342_rev5_00.jpg.  The =
user has a choice how to proceed.  One of which is to elevate to =
administrator and continue the operation.
  >  >
  >  >
  >  >  I notice you left out one of the the other "clearly worded" =
dialogs:
  >  >
  >  >  =
http://www.winsupersite.com/images/reviews/vista_5342_rev5_01.jpg
  >  >  From the article, "Here, you need to give your permission to =
continue
  >  >  something opaquely called a 'File Operation.'"
  >  >
  >  >  (note to Rich, the preceeding was taken from the article, I am =
not
  >  >  making this up))
  >  >
  >  >  My opinion is that he was being kind.  Permission is needed to =
use a
  >  >  *program* called "File Operation"?  What is the
executable for =
that
  >  >  program called?  File Operation?
  >  >
  >  >
  >  >
  >  >
  >  >
  >  >  Here's another comment from the article:
  >  >  (note to Rich, I am quoting the article, I am not making this =
up.)
  >  >
  >  >  =3D=3D=3D
  >  >  One of the most highly-touted features of Windows Vista is glass
  >  >  windows, a part of the Windows Aero user interface. It sounds =
like a
  >  >  great idea, and heck, let's give Microsoft a bit of credit for =
the
  >  >  ingenuity of taking the windows metaphor to its logical =
conclusion.
  >  >  Maybe Apple can add stained glass windows to the next version of =
Mac OS
  >  >  X in response.
  >  >
  >  >  Anyway, the reality of glass windows is that they stink. The =
windows
  >  >  themselves are translucent, meaning you can see through them =
partially.
  >  >  But the visual difference between the topmost window (that is, =
the
  >  >  window with which you are currently interacting, or what we =
might
  >  >  describe as the window with focus) and any other windows (i.e. =
those
  >  >  windows that are visually located "under" the
topmost window) is =
subtle
  >  >  at best. More to the point, you can't tell topmost windows from =
other
  >  >  windows at all. And don't pretend you can.
  >  >
  >  >  Let's look at an example. Here are two windows in Windows Vista, =
viewed
  >  >  side-by-side. Quick: Which one is the top-most window? You have =
a 50
  >  >  percent chance of getting it right, so don't pat yourself on the =
back if
  >  >  you chose the right one quite yet. The truth is, neither one is
  >  >  particularly differentiated from the other....
  >  >
  >  >  Glass windows sound like a great idea, until you actually use =
them.
  >  >  Surely Microsoft can do better than this....
  >  >  =3D=3D=3D
  >  >
  >  >
  >  >  Yup, surely Microsoft *could* do better.  They, after all, hire =
the best
  >  >  and the brightest.  The question is why don't they do better =
than this?
  >  >
  >  >  (note to Rich, the preceeding paragraph was my comment, and not =
from the
  >  >  article.)
  >  >
  >  >    /m
  >  >
  >  >
  >  >
  >  >
  >  >  On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 16:17:14 -0700, "Rich"  wrote:
  >  >
  >  >  >   Again you demonstrate that your personal honesty isn't =
important to you.  Not only have you not used Vista you don't understand =
what the article is describing.  Instead of keeping quiet or =
acknowledging that you don't understand you make up bullshit and post it =
as your own.
  >  >  >
  >  >  >   For anyone reading this that cares about what is going on, =
the previous description is very relevant
  >  >  >
  >  >  >  Once Firefox is installed, there are two icons on my Desktop =
I'd like to remove: The Setup application itself and a shortcut to =
Firefox. So I select both icons and drag them to the Recycle Bin. = Simple,
right?
  >  >  >  Wrong. Here's what you have to go through to actually delete =
those files in Windows Vista. First, you get a File Access Denied dialog =
(Figure) explaining that you don't, in fact, have permission to delete a =
... shortcut?? To an application you just installed??? Seriously?=20
  >  >  >
  >  >  >
  >  >  >His annoyance is understandable.  Firefox's installer is poorly =
behaved.  Instead of adding a shortcut to the desktop of existing users =
and the default profile for new users it adds it to the single =
administrator restricted all users profile.  This is an unfriendly = choice
on Windows XP and earlier releases too.  Why?  Because individual = users
have no choice.  The icon must be removed by an administrator only = from
all desktops or none.  On Vista, the user doesn't have = administrator
access so the operation fails.  The article shows a = picture of the
clearly worded dialog at =
http://www.winsupersite.com/images/reviews/vista_5342_rev5_00.jpg.  The =
user has a choice how to proceed.  One of which is to elevate to =
administrator and continue the operation.
  >  >  >
  >  >  >   In the future mike, you might want to try at least to =
present the appearence of honesty by avoiding making statements on = topics
about which you have no experience or knowledge.
  >  >  >
  >  >  >Rich
  >  >  >
  >  >  >
  >  >  >  "Mike '/m'"  wrote in message =
news:lq3l42hccq0251d92p74gstoovk3sospcn{at}4ax.com...
  >  >  >
  >  >  >  From the article:
  >  >  >
  >  >  >  =3D=3D=3D
  >  >  >  What if you're doing something a bit more complicated? Well, =
lucky you,
  >  >  >  the dialogs stack right up, one after the other, in a =
seemingly
  >  >  >  never-ending display of stupidity. Indeed, sometimes you'll =
find
  >  >  >  yourself unable to do certain things for no good reason, and =
you click
  >  >  >  Allow buttons until you're blue in the face. It will never =
stop
  >  >  >  bothering you, unless you agree to stop your silliness and =
leave that
  >  >  >  file on the desktop where it belongs. Mark my words, this =
will happen to
  >  >  >  you. And you will hate it.
  >  >  >  =3D=3D=3D
  >  >  >
  >  >  >   /m
  >  >  >
  >  >  >
  >  >  >  On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 08:15:36 -0700, "Rich"
 wrote:
  >  >  >
  >  >  >  >   I read the article before you felt compelled to quote =
negative excerpts from it and am capable of distinguishing between that =
and your personal bullshit.  Aren't you? =20
  >  >  >  >
  >  >  >  >   Vista does not prompt for elevation multiple times for a =
single task and the article didn't claim it did.  Given that you have =
never used Vista why would you personally make false claims?  Isn't =
personal honesty an issue for you?
  >  >  >  >
  >  >  >  >   I have no doubt you see what you want to see.  If we are =
to judge by the propaganda you post here, it clearly shows that you are =
blind to anything that doesn't take a negative position that you would =
like to agree with.
  >  >  >  >
  >  >  >  >Rich
  >  >  >  >
  >  >  >  >  "Mike '/m'" 
wrote in message =
news:eo6k42h77i0u1eq3mf192tgi0k3im39ib6{at}4ax.com...
  >  >  >  >  On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 18:51:46 -0700,
"Rich"  wrote:
  >  >  >  >
  >  >  >  >  > Bullshit!  I suspect you haven't used Vista or Vista =
with=20
  >  >  >  >  > UAP so your comments are plucked from your ass.
  >  >  >  >
  >  >  >  >  Partially correct.  I have not used Vista.  However, the =
comments I
  >  >  >  >  posted were taken from an article written by someone who =
had been using
  >  >  >  >  Vista, someone who has been very pro-Windows.
  >  >  >  >
  >  >  >  >
  >  >  >  >  > OS X prompting is very similarly.  I haven't
played with =

  >  >  >  >  > OS X much but from what I did see it is
identical in the =

  >  >  >  >  > model for when to prompt.
  >  >  >  >
  >  >  >  >  Sorry, Rich, OS-X does prompt once for each
Administrative =
task, not
  >  >  >  >  several times throughout the task as the article I quoted =
indicates
  >  >  >  >  about Vista.
  >  >  >  >
  >  >  >  >  In the rush to get Vista out the door eventually, it is =
looking like
  >  >  >  >  many short cuts have been taken and are continuing to be =
taken;
  >  >  >  >  resulting in, among other things, the annoying
behavior of =
endless
  >  >  >  >  prompts cited in the article I quoted. =20
  >  >  >  >
  >  >  >  >  The comments I have been seeing from Windows cheerleaders =
about Vista's
  >  >  >  >  shortcomings and unmet promises are growing in number and =
volume.  If
  >  >  >  >  you don't like that, then you perhaps you should
listen to =
what they are
  >  >  >  >  saying and get your employer to fix the problem.  =
Unfortuantely that may
  >  >  >  >  mean even more delays for Vista which so far has had the =
gestation
  >  >  >  >  period of an elephant.  Vista will probably be as bulky =
with it is
  >  >  >  >  finally born.
  >  >  >  >
  >  >  >  >   /m
------=_NextPart_000_0229_01C666FD.5AE78840
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








   The only
one looking =
stupid here is=20
you mike.  Again, you should strive for honest and avoid making =
comments=20
about things with which you have no experience and appear not to=20
understand.  Your dishonesty for the sole purpose of making =
disparaging=20
comments comes through loud and clear.
 
Rich
 

  "Mike '/m'" <mike{at}barkto.com>=20">mailto:mike{at}barkto.com">mike{at}barkto.com>=20
  wrote in message news:r9pn4255bib=
gt5i8f1sn959rdatiqgrk9e{at}4ax.com...Ummm,=20
  OK, Rich.   It was the person in the article, not I who=20
  mentionedthe ambiguity and lack of clarity in the =
message.  =20
  He's been usingVista, and has been quite pro-Windows on his =
site.http://www.winsupersite.com/=">http://www.winsupersite.com/http://www.winsupersite.com/">http://www.winsupersite.com/=
>I=20
  just hope calling a "File Operation" a "Program" is
fixed before=20
  therelease, otherwise Microsoft would look even more stupid that =
they do=20
  bynot being able to get their main product out the =
door.One thing,=20
  though, while you're into the ad hominem attacks - you forgotto =
use your=20
  tactic of changing the thread title to something disparagingof =
me. =20
  You're
slipping. /m<g>On
Sun, 23 Apr 2006 =
10:53:05=20
  -0700, "Rich" <{at}>
wrote:>   It follows the =
user's=20
  request to elevate in the dialog I referenced.  If you can't =
remember the=20
  context from one moment to the next you have more serious problems =
then your=20
  lack of honesty and insistence to cast aspersions at something you =
have never=20
  used based on someone else's comments you do not=20
 
understand.>>Rich>> 
"Mike '/m'" =
<mike{at}barkto.com>">mailto:mike{at}barkto.com">mike{at}barkto.com>
wrote in =
message news:nndn42l664b=
qa8qmin54oeocd9term9gaj{at}4ax.com...>> =20
  I looked at this dialog here:>  http://www.winsupersite.com/images/reviews/vista_5342_rev5_01.jpg=
">http://www.winsupersite.com/images/reviews/vista_5342_rev5_01.jpg=
R>>> =20
  Not the epitome of clarity, eh?  In actuality, I think it's=20
  rather>  telling that a dialog *that* badly worded is =
still=20
  present this far into>  the Vista release=20
  cycle.>>  So, the question
remains, will Microsoft =
fix this=20
  mess before they>  release Vista to
consumers?  Or =
will=20
  Microsoft turn off consumers to the>  concept of UAP =
because the=20
  bolt-on after-the-fact implementation of UAP> 
in Vista is =
so=20
  bad?>>    =
/m>>>  On=20
  Sun, 23 Apr 2006 08:31:10 -0700, "Rich" <{at}> =
wrote:>> =20
  >   Accept responsibility for your own words and stop=20
  lying.>  >> 
>   If you wish =
to see=20
  how clearly worded the dialog is look at it.  I included the link =
and so=20
  have you yet you would fail to or pretend to fail to look and instead =
lie=20
  about it.> 
>> 
>Rich> =20
  >>  >  "Mike
'/m'" <mike{at}barkto.com>">mailto:mike{at}barkto.com">mike{at}barkto.com>
wrote in =
message news:67um42ddv89=
viigs3am7abtht4oj6p4bvf{at}4ax.com...> =20
  >>  >  >Instead
of keeping quiet or =
acknowledging=20
  that you don't >  >  >
understand you make up =
bullshit=20
  and post it as your own.> 
>>  >  =
> In=20
  the future mike, you might want to try at least to >  =
> =20
  > present the appearence of honesty by avoiding making =
> =20
  >  > statements on topics about which you have no=20
  experience>  >  > or
knowledge.> =20
  >>  >> 
>>  >  =
When I=20
  say, "From the article" it means that I am quoting from =
the> =20
  >  article.> 
>>  =
>> =20
  >  btw, you comment:> 
>>  =
> =20
  >On Vista, the user doesn't have administrator access so the =
operation=20
  fails.  The article shows a picture of the clearly worded dialog =
at http://www.winsupersite.com/images/reviews/vista_5342_rev5_00.jpg=
">.&" target="new">http://www.winsupersite.com/images/reviews/vista_5342_rev5_00.jpg.&=
nbsp;=20
  The user has a choice how to proceed.  One of which is to elevate =
to=20
  administrator and continue the operation.>  =
>> =20
  >>  >  I notice you left
out one of the the =
other=20
  "clearly worded" dialogs:> 
>>  >  =
http://www.winsupersite.com/images/reviews/vista_5342_rev5_01.jpg=
">http://www.winsupersite.com/images/reviews/vista_5342_rev5_01.jpg=
R>> =20
  >  From the article, "Here, you need to give your permission =
to=20
  continue>  >  something
opaquely called a 'File=20
  Operation.'"> 
>>  >  (note to =
Rich, the=20
  preceeding was taken from the article, I am not>  =
> =20
  making this up))> 
>>  >  My =
opinion is=20
  that he was being kind.  Permission is needed to use =
a> =20
  >  *program* called "File Operation"? 
What is the =
executable for=20
  that>  >  program
called?  File=20
  Operation?> 
>> 
>> =20
  >>  >> 
>>  >  =
Here's=20
  another comment from the article:> 
>  (note to =
Rich, I am=20
  quoting the article, I am not making this up.)> =20
  >>  > 
=3D=3D=3D>  >  One =
of the most=20
  highly-touted features of Windows Vista is glass>  =
> =20
  windows, a part of the Windows Aero user interface. It sounds like=20
  a>  >  great idea, and heck,
let's give Microsoft =
a bit of=20
  credit for the>  >  ingenuity
of taking the =
windows=20
  metaphor to its logical conclusion.> 
>  Maybe =
Apple can=20
  add stained glass windows to the next version of Mac
OS> =20
  >  X in response.> 
>>  >  =
Anyway,=20
  the reality of glass windows is that they stink. The =
windows> =20
  >  themselves are translucent, meaning you can see through =
them=20
  partially.>  >  But the visual
difference between =
the=20
  topmost window (that is, the> 
>  window with =
which you=20
  are currently interacting, or what we might> 
>  =
describe=20
  as the window with focus) and any other windows (i.e. =
those> =20
  >  windows that are visually located "under"
the topmost =
window) is=20
  subtle>  >  at best. More to
the point, you can't =
tell=20
  topmost windows from other>  > 
windows at all. =
And don't=20
  pretend you can.> 
>>  >  Let's =
look at an=20
  example. Here are two windows in Windows Vista,
viewed> =20
  >  side-by-side. Quick: Which one is the top-most window? You =
have a=20
  50>  >  percent chance of
getting it right, so =
don't pat=20
  yourself on the back if>  > 
you chose the right =
one quite=20
  yet. The truth is, neither one is>  >  =
particularly=20
  differentiated from the other....> 
>>  =
> =20
  Glass windows sound like a great idea, until you actually use=20
  them.>  >  Surely Microsoft can
do better than=20
  this....>  > 
=3D=3D=3D>  =
>> =20
  >>  >  Yup, surely
Microsoft *could* do =
better. =20
  They, after all, hire the best> 
>  and the=20
  brightest.  The question is why don't they do better than=20
  this?>  >> 
>  (note to Rich, the=20
  preceeding paragraph was my comment, and not from the>  =
> =20
  article.)> 
>> 
>   =20
  /m>  >> 
>>  =
>> =20
  >>  >  On Sat, 22 Apr
2006 16:17:14 -0700, =
"Rich"=20
  <{at}> wrote:> 
>>  >  =
>  =20
  Again you demonstrate that your personal honesty isn't important to =
you. =20
  Not only have you not used Vista you don't understand what the article =
is=20
  describing.  Instead of keeping quiet or acknowledging that you =
don't=20
  understand you make up bullshit and post it as your
own.>  =

  >  >> 
>  >   For anyone =
reading=20
  this that cares about what is going on, the previous description is =
very=20
  relevant>  > 
>>  >  =
> =20
  Once Firefox is installed, there are two icons on my Desktop I'd like =
to=20
  remove: The Setup application itself and a shortcut to Firefox. So I =
select=20
  both icons and drag them to the Recycle Bin. Simple, =
right?> =20
  >  >  Wrong. Here's what you have to go
through to =
actually=20
  delete those files in Windows Vista. First, you get a File Access =
Denied=20
  dialog (Figure) explaining that you don't, in fact, have permission to =
delete=20
  a ... shortcut?? To an application you just installed??? Seriously?=20
  >  > 
>>  >  =
>> =20
  >  >His annoyance is understandable.  Firefox's =
installer is=20
  poorly behaved.  Instead of adding a shortcut to the desktop of =
existing=20
  users and the default profile for new users it adds it to the single=20
  administrator restricted all users profile.  This is an =
unfriendly choice=20
  on Windows XP and earlier releases too.  Why?  Because =
individual=20
  users have no choice.  The icon must be removed by an =
administrator only=20
  from all desktops or none.  On Vista, the user doesn't have =
administrator=20
  access so the operation fails.  The article shows a picture of =
the=20
  clearly worded dialog at http://www.winsupersite.com/images/reviews/vista_5342_rev5_00.jpg=
">.&" target="new">http://www.winsupersite.com/images/reviews/vista_5342_rev5_00.jpg.&=
nbsp;=20
  The user has a choice how to proceed.  One of which is to elevate =
to=20
  administrator and continue the operation.> 
> =20
  >>  > 
>   In the future mike, you =
might=20
  want to try at least to present the appearence of honesty by avoiding =
making=20
  statements on topics about which you have no experience or=20
  knowledge.>  > 
>>  > =20
  >Rich>  > 
>>  > =20
  >>  > 
>  "Mike '/m'" <mike{at}barkto.com>">mailto:mike{at}barkto.com">mike{at}barkto.com>
wrote in =
message news:lq3l42hccq0=
251d92p74gstoovk3sospcn{at}4ax.com...> =20
  >  >> 
>  >  From the=20
  article:>  > 
>>  >  =
> =20
  =3D=3D=3D>  > 
>  What if you're doing =
something a bit=20
  more complicated? Well, lucky you,> 
>  >  =
the=20
  dialogs stack right up, one after the other, in a =
seemingly> =20
  >  >  never-ending display of stupidity. Indeed, =
sometimes=20
  you'll find>  > 
>  yourself unable to do =
certain=20
  things for no good reason, and you click> 
>  =
> =20
  Allow buttons until you're blue in the face. It will never =
stop> =20
  >  >  bothering you, unless you agree to
stop your =
silliness=20
  and leave that>  > 
>  file on the desktop =
where=20
  it belongs. Mark my words, this will happen to>  =
> =20
  >  you. And you will hate it.> 
>  =
> =20
  =3D=3D=3D>  > 
>>  >  =
>  =20
  /m>  > 
>>  >  =
>> =20
  >  >  On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 08:15:36 -0700,
"Rich" =
<{at}>=20
  wrote:>  > 
>>  >  =
> =20
  >   I read the article before you felt compelled
to quote =

  negative excerpts from it and am capable of distinguishing between =
that and=20
  your personal bullshit.  Aren't you? 
>  =
> =20
  >  >> 
>  >  >   =
Vista=20
  does not prompt for elevation multiple times for a single task and the =
article=20
  didn't claim it did.  Given that you have never used Vista why =
would you=20
  personally make false claims?  Isn't personal honesty an issue =
for=20
  you?>  >  > 
>>  >  =

  >  >   I have no doubt you see
what you want to=20
  see.  If we are to judge by the propaganda you post here, it =
clearly=20
  shows that you are blind to anything that doesn't take a negative =
position=20
  that you would like to agree with.> 
>  >  =

  >>  > 
>  >Rich>  =
> =20
  >  >> 
>  >  >  "Mike =
'/m'"=20
  <mike{at}barkto.com>">mailto:mike{at}barkto.com">mike{at}barkto.com>
wrote =
in message=20
  news:eo6k42h77i0=
u1eq3mf192tgi0k3im39ib6{at}4ax.com...> =20
  >  >  >  On Fri, 21 Apr
2006 18:51:46 -0700, =
"Rich"=20
  <{at}> wrote:>  > 
>  =
>> =20
  >  >  >  >
Bullshit!  I suspect you =
haven't=20
  used Vista or Vista with >  > 
>  =
>  >=20
  UAP so your comments are plucked from your ass.>  =
> =20
  >  >> 
>  >  >  =
Partially=20
  correct.  I have not used Vista.  However, the comments=20
  I>  >  > 
>  posted were taken =
from an=20
  article written by someone who had been using> 
>  =

  >  >  Vista, someone who has been very=20
  pro-Windows.>  > 
>  >>  =
> =20
  >  >> 
>  >  >  > OS =
X=20
  prompting is very similarly.  I haven't played with =
> =20
  >  >  >  > OS X
much but from what I did =
see it is=20
  identical in the >  > 
>  >  > =
model=20
  for when to prompt.>  > 
>  =
>> =20
  >  >  >  Sorry, Rich,
OS-X does prompt once =
for each=20
  Administrative task, not>  > 
>  =
> =20
  several times throughout the task as the article I quoted=20
  indicates>  > 
>  >  about=20
  Vista.>  >  > 
>>  =
> =20
  >  >  In the rush to get Vista out the door =
eventually, it is=20
  looking like>  > 
>  >  many short =
cuts=20
  have been taken and are continuing to be taken;>  =
> =20
  >  >  resulting in, among other things,
the annoying =
behavior=20
  of endless>  > 
>  >  prompts =
cited in the=20
  article I quoted.  > 
>  > =20
  >>  > 
>  >  The comments I =
have been=20
  seeing from Windows cheerleaders about Vista's>  =
> =20
  >  >  shortcomings and unmet promises are
growing in =
number=20
  and volume.  If>  > 
>  >  =
you don't=20
  like that, then you perhaps you should listen to what they =
are> =20
  >  >  >  saying and get
your employer to fix =
the=20
  problem.  Unfortuantely that may> 
>  =
> =20
  >  mean even more delays for Vista which so far has had the=20
  gestation>  > 
>  >  period of an=20
  elephant.  Vista will probably be as bulky with it =
is> =20
  >  >  >  finally
born.>  =
> =20
  >  >> 
>  >  >  =20
/m

------=_NextPart_000_0229_01C666FD.5AE78840--

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5