I started installing on the morning of March 18th with Windows update.  The download and first part of the install went very smoothly.  I got to the part where it says "Microsoft needs to reboot the computer to finish installation."  So the computer started shutting down, then installing step 1 of 3 of the Service Pack.  It got to 12% and failed.  It then reversed the changes and said it would try again upon startup. 

So the computer shut down, and started up again.  Then the service pack started to install again.  And once again it failed.  Once again it reversed the changes it had made and rebooted again.  This time upon startup it didn't try to install again.  I got back into Windows and looked for the error: Windows Update 80070005.  This turns out to be a big admin issue that others have had problems with since Windows XP.  After studying dozens of solutions and trying them I finally got the service pack to install THAT NIGHT.  Yes, it took at least 7 tries to get it to install.  Looking through loads of data online about this I found that one of the most prominent fixes Microsoft recommended was to do a clean install.  What kind of fix is that.  Some users paid Microsoft the $59 support fee just to be told to format their drives and reinstall Windows.  WOW.

On the morning of the 19th I was surprised to find my machine booted up with no errors.  I was greeted by the Windows Welcome Center.  Something looked different... I have had 4GB if RAM in my computer since it was built, and we all know that 32bit operating systems cannot address the full 4GB of RAM because of other considerations it has to make with video and virtual RAM.  Therefore Vista has always shown 3GB of RAM in the Welcome Center but since Service Pack 1, it has been showing 4GB of RAM! 

I'm making the assumption that whatever Microsoft did with this Service Pack, it has made the operating system capable of more efficiently addressing what RAM the system has.  Since it's a 32bit system it's still not going to use more than 4GB of RAM, however it can at least acknowledge that it's there - and that's a good sign.

My system does seem a bit quicker moving between applications as well.  I ran 3 antivirus/antispyware scans at the same time to see how that would affect my system and the system took a bit of a performance hit but not as bad as I thought it was going to take, and it stayed stable the whole time - no crashes. 

As I worked along I started to forget how tedious the installation had been (I really didn't get into the workarounds that I tried because it was so mind numbing I couldn't bring myself to write about them - it was that bad).   Then POP - an error.  "Server execution failed" was the error and it had something to do with my network. 

I was still on the internet.  I had a valid IP address.  I was receiving emails.  I could ping other IPs in my subnet.  So what then did this mean?  I tried to bring up the Networking area and my explorer.exe crashed.  I tried again and again explorer.exe crashed (not IE, but the windows desktop environment like the start toolbar and the desktop where your icons are, for the non-techies out there). 

This can't be good....I opened my System info and saw this.

Something is really wrong.  I can't put my finger on it but what happened to the information about the computer?  On this page it doesn't see my RAM or my CPU type or my "Vista score" or anything.  It's all gone.  So much for thinking that Service Pack 1 finally installed and all was going to be great.

I must say I'm very disappointed.  I really wanted to have more people accept Vista as the next generation OS.  It definitely make it a simpler world for developers if we all jumped on the bandwagon.  There would be less compatibility problems because they could focus on making applications that really shined in the Vista OS.  Now we're left with this, well - botched Service Pack 1 fiasco.  They nearly released it a month ago and pulled it back because there were some "issues" that people were experiencing with trying to get the SP installed but it doesn't seem to have been reworked much. 

I have to say that I really wasn't expecting this from Microsoft.  I mean their past releases of Service Packs for operating systems and for Office Suites have gone rather smoothly.  All have patched up vulnerabilities and have added great features that made the Service Packs praiseworthy.  Microsoft XP Service Pack 2 for instance was probably one of the best releases Microsoft has ever made.  Surely, I thought, Microsoft would at least live up to the standard that they have in the past. 

Nope.  They really lost a great opportunity to have more people, and more importantly businesses, adopt the latest OS.  How can it be recommended now?  Businesses can't be down for a full day trying to get a Service Pack to install and then find out that it broke some functionality that they previously had.  That would then mean a clean install after all of that, just to get it to work right.  Then putting on all the data, then hoping everything will be ok and nothing was lost in the process.  That is just NOT going to happen. 

Terrible.

In the past, reinstalling Windows XP from a full version was straightforward.  Stick in the CD, repartition and reformat your hard drive, and install.  With Windows XP upgrade, it was nearly as easy; just start out the same way and when the install process detects the upgrade version of XP, it asks you to pop in an older version of a Windows CD to verify you have one that you're upgrading from.  After a quick scan of Windows 95/98/2000/ME you can pop back in the XP disk and start your clean reinstall (without installing the old operating system first, then upgrading to XP). 

With Vista however, Microsoft has decided that this process was too easy to manipulate and gave software pirates an easy way to beat the system.  They made the process much more difficult to undertake, which makes maintaining a clean, healthy system a huge headache. 

I first heard rumors of this immediately after Windows Vista was released (actually in the beta stage), and now I had a chance to try it out myself.  PLEASE NOTE: I am using the "Anytime Upgrade CD" that Microsoft has put out as one way to upgrade from XP or a lower version of Vista.  I didn't use a retail upgrade version (this may make a difference).  I first tried the common XP way of completing a Windows reinstall: Reformatting the hard drive, and letting the upgrade cd check for a previous copy of Windows (where at this point it would ask you to pop in the older disk). 

The upgrade cd of Vista starts out the same way, letting you repartition and reformat your hard drive.  Then it asks you to put in the product key for Vista.  This is where it gets frustrating.  You can either put in the key, and when Vista realizes it's an upgrade key, it will not let you install OR you can skip putting in the key until the install is complete.  Then when you go to authenticate your key, it will tell you that it's an upgrade key and that you can't complete Windows validation.  You then have the choice to buy a full version key online or you can start over with a clean install of WINDOWS XP, validate that, then upgrade XP to Vista.  It will then usually validate properly (unless you've done a clean install a few times, where you'll have to call Microsoft so they can do the manual validation).

I next tried to do the "workaround" clean install that was rumored to be the new Vista way to complete this without fully installing the old operating system, then upgrading.  This workaround said to install Vista like I tried before, then do NOT try to validate it.  At this point try to update this copy of Vista to Vista Ultimate.  I started the process again, installing Vista, then trying to update it, but this failed.  Now I admit that because it wasn't clear, I installed Vista Ultimate, then tried to update to Ultimate.  This may have been why it failed.  I guess I could've tried to install Vista Basic with the "anytime upgrade cd," then do an upgrade to Ultimate but I have a feeling that wouldn't have worked either.  The reason I think that is because Microsoft doesn't allow you to upgrade on a system that has not been validated properly. 

I ended up having to put on Windows XP, validate XP, then upgrade to Vista and validate.  That was the only way it worked.  For anyone that has done a clean install, you can appreciate the amount of time it took to do this 3 times in a day.  Hopefully this will save you some time trying to do what I've already tried, only to end up having to do it the way Microsoft wants you to.

If anyone has found a way to do a real clean install using an upgrade disk or anytime upgrade cd, please post it here.

PLEASE NOTE AGAIN: I am using the "Anytime Upgrade CD" that Microsoft has put out as one way to upgrade from XP or a lower version of Vista.  I didn't use a retail upgrade version (this may make a difference). 

As downloading MP3's, movies and video games has become mainstream, ISPs have started to see a large rise in the bandwidth usage they handle.  This has become a problem for some ISPs because their ability to provide "high speed" internet to all of their customers is reduced.  Their networks have a finite ability to handle bandwidth, similar to a water hose can only accommodate a certain amount of water at any given time.  The more bandwidth customers use, the less bandwidth there is to sell to new customers, not to mention that current customer's speeds will be affected negatively.

The per-bandwidth price model would allow companies to make profits that are more in line with what they were before large downloads were so common.  For example, if 100 customers used 2 gigabytes each of bandwidth (200Gb usage) and making $45/mo per user ($4500 per 200Gb of used bandwidth or $22.50 per Gb revenue) in the past, and now those same 100 customers are using 6 gb (600Gb usage) paying about the same amount ($4500 per 600Gb used or $7.50 per Gb revenue) then ISPs need to charge more per Gb to get back to those higher margin times. Please note that these figures are just arbitrary figures but they give you an idea as to how ISPs see this...

They could raise everyone's rates but why do that when not everyone is using the same amount of bandwidth?  So their idea is to charge per-Gigabyte and therefore get the steady stream of revenue per Gb that they are looking for.  There are some problems with this though. 

First, customers and businesses started using more bandwidth because it was touted as being "unlimited."  Services like iTunes started to flourish because customers could purchase and download lots of music, etc due to this as well.  If ISPs hadn't sold this as "unlimited," services like iTunes, Amazon Unbox, etc wouldn't have taken off like they have.

The second problem is that getting users to sign up for "unlimited" internet and then changing their plans to pay per Gb, is that its a bait and switch situation where they get people to sign up for service expecting one thing and getting something else.  It's not the user's fault that they are taking advantage of unlimited internet when they were promised unlimited internet. 

I can understand that bandwidth usage can never be unlimited, but to sell services as unlimited, and being able to charge users more money due to that fact, is a problem that shouldn't be looked past.

One can look at this the same way the oil shortage is looked at.  We're so used to living on a whole lot of oil but the resources are finite.  As we use it up the price skyrockets.  Is this going to happen with the finite resource of bandwidth?  ISPs probably won't lay more cable at an expense of millions of dollars just to satisfy our need for bandwidth without us paying for it.  In my opinion, because of the way they sold what bandwidth they did have as unlimited, they should be responsible for keeping up with the demand without added cost to us, but realistically that will not happen.

So what should be done to utilize ISPs finite bandwidth while still living the way we're used to?

The home market has been different though.  Microsoft really pushes vendors hard to make sure the home user's next PC has Vista installed.  They've spent the last 3 or 4 years in development so they better get it out to the public.  For some reason, I still have a feeling that Vista just hasn't broken through and really resonated with consumers.  Microsoft picked up on this too and has been working on the 1st service pack for Vista, which is to be released sometime this spring.  They've been vocal telling companies not to wait for the service pack to upgrade, but to get their copies now so that when the service pack comes along it will be an easier transition for them.  I haven't seen a rush for Vista yet however, and was starting to get the impression from my clients and others that they were leaning on waiting for 6 months to a year after Service Pack 1 to make sure it patches what it was supposed to patch and do what it was touted to do. 

If people wait too long they may as well just wait for the next iteration of Windows.  Yes, Microsoft is already leaking information about the next iteration of the Windows operating system, called informally Windows 7.   This is very interesting to say the least.  Now they have a highly used and very stable OS in Win XP, a shiny new OS with high expectations (Vista), and now the "just kidding with that Vista thing, this is the new OS" OS (Windows 7).   By the time Windows 7 is expected for release they may have put out Service Pack 2 for Vista but do you really think there will be any desire to make Vista better if they're shooting for Windows 7 now as the new XP replacement (coming out in late 2009)? 

Now I know that Microsoft is constantly in the process of making new operating systems as well as other products but why would they start leaking information about Win 7 when it's been barely a year since Vista's release.  I don't remember hearing about Vista a year after Win XP was released.  I imagine that's because Microsoft wanted XP to be "the" OS for users for a long time, which it has been.  Now they seem to be undermining Vista by doing this.  It's almost as if they see that businesses and even home users are just not buying into the Vista experience and decided to hit the drawing board again. 

If Microsoft doesn't have faith in Vista, who will?  What do you think about this subject?

The goal is to remove all laptop computers by January 2008 and all desktop computers by February 2008.

Instead, everyone will be provided with an Etch-A-Sketch.

Technical Justification:

1. No boot-up problems
2. No technical glitches keeping work from being done.
3. No more wasted time reading and writing emails.
4. No more worries about power outages.
5. Budget savings on upgrades huge.

Frequently Asked Questions from the Etch-A-Sketch Help Desk:
 
Q: My Etch-A-Sketch has all of these funny little lines all over the
screen.
A: Pick it up and shake it.

Q: How do I turn my Etch-A-Sketch off?
A: Pick it up and shake it.

Q: What's the shortcut for Undo?
A: Pick it up and shake it.

Q: How do I create a New Document window?
A: Pick it up and shake it.

Q: How do I set the background and foreground to the same color?
A: Pick it up and shake it.

Q: What is the proper procedure for rebooting my Etch-A-Sketch?
A: Pick it up and shake it.

Q: How do I delete a document on my Etch-A-Sketch?
A: Pick it up and shake it.

Q: How do I save my Etch-A-Sketch document?
A: Don't shake it.

Regards
IT Solutions

If you're the average user and decide to apply this service pack, be prepared to do a clean install of your operating system when the final release comes out.

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/abouttn/flash/landingpages/editorial_121207.mspx

Who knows how long this is going to last.  If you've always wanted to get a legal copy of one of Microsoft's versions of Vista or Office 2007, sign up.  Just know that you will be required to let them know how you use the software and give your ideas for how to make it better.  They may also monitor how you use the software.

The way I look at it is that they already have the capability to "see" us using their software so you might as well get a free copy of their software for it.

Read the whole story at: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119706842364217640.html?mod=hps_us_whats_news

Slashdot had a story today about someone named Christopher Knight that was charged with copyright infringement by Viacom two weeks ago.  He had a clip on YouTube that was taken down after this charge, but recently the clip was back up on the site.  Apparently what happened was that Mr. Knight wrote a "Counter Claim Letter" to YouTube and it was determined that Viacom had no right to make this charge.

Instead of being bullied Mr. Knight used this little known letter to stand up for himself. 

To see the Slashdot story: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/13/2028206

Below (between the lines) is a sample DMCA Counter Notification Letter that was drafted by Dave Touretzky and used by permission and can also be found on his webpage: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Terrorism/form-letter.html

Well now you can create a new email account to give out for each website you're unsure about.  The product is called Nyms (by Anonymizer) and it's really great.  Say you go to www.getyourfreeipod123.us (fake website but you get the idea) and you're intrigued by the idea but are pretty sure that you'll be spammed forever more if you are crazy enough to give out your real email.  Well, all you do is create a Nym called something like getyourfreeipod123@nyms.net and have the service forward stuff sent to it to your real email address.  When you start getting flooded with spam from this address then just turn that specific Nym off!  No more spam!  Each email that comes from a Nym tells you which Nym was emailed.   The key is to name your Nym something that will let you know where you used it so you can be sure not to use that site again. 

The smart thing to do is to make one Nym for each site that you are unsure about and that way if only one of the sites is bad you can just turn that Nym off and keep the others on.