Vista adoption rate is very high - now 2nd most popular OS!

[calebb]

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=2

This is a fairly reliable way to check OS distribution.

The last time I checked was on June 10 and Vista was up to 3.5% - I was surprised to see it up to 4.5% less than a month later -

It just overtook Windows 2000 and is now the second most popular OS being used (among Internet users)

[pxc]

But Charlie @ theinq says nobody wants Vista. :p

[SippieCup]

wait.. who the hell is using windows 95 to connect to the internet...

[MajorDomo]

The rate will jump dramatically when SP1 hits the download circuit. Same thing happened with the release of XP.....

[LstOfTheBrunnenG]

Clearly lies, only us Vistaboys are deluded enough to live with its obvious flaws on a daily basis.

[calebb]

The rate will jump dramatically when SP1 hits the download circuit. Same thing happened with the release of XP.....

So... in another week or so? (http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=559)

[Martyr]

wait.. who the hell is using windows 95 to connect to the internet...
some companies want to upgrade their computers about as often as they upgrade their machinery

[Xeth]

INAAF (I'm not an apple fanboy), but it looks like OS X is probably still in second place. They decided for some reason to split it into PPC and Intel categories. I know it counts prior versions of Mac OS as well but who the hell uses those anymore?

[Catweazle]

Have to agree with Xeth's comment. Mac OSX does, indeed, have a bigger share of users than either Vista or Windows 2000.

Vista is progressing as well as could be expected.

[Uberbob102000]

I think that Vista adoption among enthusiasts like ourselves will skyrocket when SP1 comes out.

[EVIL-SCOTSMAN]

I think that Vista adoption among enthusiasts like ourselves will skyrocket when SP1 comes out.

agreed, as thats the reason I have ditched my copy of vista for the time being, once sp1 comes out i shall try that fucker out again. :)

[Catweazle]

I think that Vista adoption among enthusiasts like ourselves will skyrocket when SP1 comes out.

LOL

Vista adoption amongst 'enthusiasts' is already much higher than general population Vista adoption. Waiting for a service pack release is for the [S]oft, not for the [H]ard

:D

[eeyrjmr]

While it can be expected that the Rate of Vista adoption is high during the first few months of it release (enthusiast mainly) a couple of things bug me

1) the PC market is quite saturated so much so that (at least here in the UK) PC replacement is more of the driving force for sales.

This is apparent when you then compare the reduction of the old MS operating systems from 2004 --> 2006

98/ME 14.24 --> 6.64 --> 2.76
ie a reduction of 5% a year (ok only over 3years so average not really that useful)
2000 15 --> 12 --> 7
ie a reduction of ~4% a year

Since XP was ment to replace 98/ME and 2000 the total reduction per year is closer to 10% (saying that there are three ppl in my office who still have 98machine simply cause the machine still works and does everything they need it todo, ie they don't upgrade for upgrade sense)

So with XP at 80% market share (if you believe those results), and looking at the time it took for XP to replace those other OS's, yr looking at 4years for Vista to become the dominate OS? (where dominate == >50%) and only if Vista is accepted


moving onto my problem with this (and all serveys). This site puts linux usage at 0.7%
... thats nice, I have seen figures of 2% and even 5%.
Not trying to say ZOMG that site is soo biased and those measurements are wrong cause linux is the 1337 and all use it!!!!!1111one1111, what I am saying is there is no way to really tell

from the front stats page of that site

We use a unique methodology for collecting this data. We collect data from the browsers of site visitors to our exclusive on demand network of small to medium enterprise live stats customers. The sample size for these sites is more than 40,000 urls and growing. The information published is an aggregate of the data from this network of hosted website statistics. The site unique visitor and referral information is summarized on a monthly basis.

Now Netcraft has monitored 122,000,635 (increase of 3.97 million over last month) websites on the net (not saying that is the complete total since there is bound to be more) but as you can see 40,000 out of 122,000,635 is a pittifal sample ie 0.03% of webpages! Even the UK chart uses a bigger sample of stores to guage who is #1 for that week :rolleyes:

As they say statistics never lie, but those who make them can. Skewed results from a VERY limited sampling pool. change what you monitor and you would probably see a 100% linux usage, change again and you would prob see a 100% Mac uses IF you only monitored 0.03% of total websites...

Now if the sampling method is now brought into question so do the accuracy/validity of the results. Not trying to say the rate of Vista uptake is going to be markably lower, its expected to be high at this early stage (standard S-curve).
What will be of interest is if the uptake is 10% per year as other MS OS's have been, and a steady 10% over the years (not just the first since that includes enthusiates)

again just to stress... get a better sampling method if such results are going to be used for ZOMG Vista is taking over the world :rolleyes: 0.03% ha!

[Finn]

Once again, the _only_ reason Vista is being 'adopted' is because it's being stuffed down OEM throat by force. M$ has bind every OEM maker into pushing Vista on every new box or lose their licensing rights.

Simple as that and has nothing to do with demand.

Just today I had a client who was very unpleased with his new Vista laptop that lagged like nuts. He was considering to format and install XP instead. Unfortunately it would have meant buying an extra license so I (of all persons!) recommended him to keep the pos on the box and suck it up.

[djnes]

M$ has bind every OEM maker into pushing Vista on every new box or lose their licensing rights.
Someone should tell Dell that because they are still offering XP as an option on certain machines. A former co-worker at HP tells me its still an option for HP machines if you ask for it.

[Finn]

Someone should tell Dell that because they are still offering XP as an option on certain machines. A former co-worker at HP tells me its still an option for HP machines if you ask for it.

Yep XP on special order only.

[djnes]

I wouldn't call it a special order, if it was available as a choice in the customization section.

[digital_exhaust]

Someone should tell Dell that because they are still offering XP as an option on certain machines.

Ubuntu is an option from Dell as well... it would seem to me that if anything would cause Microsoft to question a licensing agreement with a builder, it would be offering an open source OS as an option.... ah, but who knows.... maybe I'm crazy.....

[calebb]

Yep XP on special order only.

Only as much as adding a monitor is a "special order"

[Finn]

First of all Dell is a singular provider that also offers Linux as an option.

If you go to _any_ computer store and look at their offerings there, you will not see anything but Vista running on the machines. 99% of the customer base don't even know there's an option not to get Vista. 98% of them won't know the difference between xp and vista to begin with. 100% are getting reduced performance and all sorts of problems because of Vista.

Just today the client had major problems with virtualization, not being able to set user rights etc. Turned out he didn't have ownership to the system despite being first user and administrator account. After several UAC naggings and extra steps compared to XP he finally managed to take ownership and set user rights properly. Vista is such a PITA just reconfiguring an ini file in program files takes 3 popups with UAC for christs sakes.

[djnes]

100% are getting reduced performance and all sorts of problems because of Vista.
And how much longer must we don our boots and shovels to read your posts? First off, 100% are not experiencing reduced performance or problems, as many people love Vista and feel it's much faster. Secondly, going on your own comments, if 98% of the people don't know the difference between Vista and XP, then they wouldn't happen to notice if, and I mean IF, it was running a little slower. If you're going to spout more BS to us, atleast use think enough before you speak to see if your comments are even rational.

[ChingChang]

Vista is such a PITA just reconfiguring an ini file in program files takes 3 popups with UAC for christs sakes.
So? modifying program files directory should not be a common task. There's no reason to unless you're installing software. If it was something I had to do every day, then maybe I'd care.

[ChingChang]

I like vista a lot more than XP. It performs faster on decent hardware. I've only ever had problems with it when I was using beta drivers and XP drivers at release.

why do people want a Service Pack anyway? what could it improve?

[Finn]

So? modifying program files directory should not be a common task. There's no reason to unless you're installing software. If it was something I had to do every day, then maybe I'd care.

Coincidentially this is something I do every day and yes it blows chunks. Porked user rights in straight out of box installs etc. extremely user friendly. Folder options hidden behind several extra mouseclicks in order to restore normal functionality etc etc.

Everything is full of glitter and everything takes at least 3 times as much clicking / time to achieve. Yeah it's friggin great.

[Finn]

I like vista a lot more than XP. It performs faster on decent hardware. I've only ever had problems with it when I was using beta drivers and XP drivers at release.

why do people want a Service Pack anyway? what could it improve?

Quite a bold statement. I think nobody has been able to prove that yet in a controlled enviroment.

[calebb]

Have to agree with Xeth's comment. Mac OSX does, indeed, have a bigger share of users than either Vista or Windows 2000.

Vista is progressing as well as could be expected.


Wait a sec...

10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4 or 10.5?

Windows could have stayed with "Windows 2000" and then started charging for service packs.

i.e., Win2K SP7 would be XP and Win2K SP12 would be Vista..

With this nomenclature, Win2K would be the dominant OS.

In any case, I say that OSX got off easy being only divided into two camps: PowerPC and Intel...

[legendz411]

Touche'


Good insight.


I have a TW's server at home that I geto n the interweb with sometimes.

It are 95 :)

[pxc]

Wait a sec...

10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4 or 10.5?

Windows could have stayed with "Windows 2000" and then started charging for service packs.Yeah, just combine all 32-bit NT versions to make "Vista" have 91%+ vs 6% for OS X. ;)

[Timbowens]

I like it. :cool:

[Catweazle]

Coincidentially this is something I do every day and yes it blows chunks. Porked user rights in straight out of box installs etc. extremely user friendly....

Dude, I get sick of the endless rubbish you spout as well. But hey! I'm a friendly enough fella so I'll give you a tip to help you overcome that n00bishness.

If you have occasion to edit program installation files on a daily basis then all you need to do to overcome that matter of related UAC prompts is ensure that you edit the install path when you install the programs. You can put the programs into whatever folder you choose if you edit that install location, and if it isn't the default 'Program Files' folder you won't get the UAC prompts when you try to edit the installation files themselves.

Simple, isn't it?

While it can be expected that the Rate of Vista adoption is high during the first few months of it release (enthusiast mainly) a couple of things bug me

1) the PC market is quite saturated so much so that (at least here in the UK) PC replacement is more of the driving force for sales.

This is apparent when you then compare the reduction of the old MS operating systems from 2004 --> 2006

98/ME 14.24 --> 6.64 --> 2.76
ie a reduction of 5% a year (ok only over 3years so average not really that useful)
2000 15 --> 12 --> 7
ie a reduction of ~4% a year

Since XP was ment to replace 98/ME and 2000 the total reduction per year is closer to 10% (saying that there are three ppl in my office who still have 98machine simply cause the machine still works and does everything they need it todo, ie they don't upgrade for upgrade sense)

So with XP at 80% market share (if you believe those results), and looking at the time it took for XP to replace those other OS's, yr looking at 4years for Vista to become the dominate OS? (where dominate == >50%) and only if Vista is accepted


moving onto my problem with this (and all serveys). This site puts linux usage at 0.7%
... thats nice, I have seen figures of 2% and even 5%.
Not trying to say ZOMG that site is soo biased and those measurements are wrong cause linux is the 1337 and all use it!!!!!1111one1111, what I am saying is there is no way to really tell

from the front stats page of that site

Quote:
We use a unique methodology for collecting this data. We collect data from the browsers of site visitors to our exclusive on demand network of small to medium enterprise live stats customers. The sample size for these sites is more than 40,000 urls and growing. The information published is an aggregate of the data from this network of hosted website statistics. The site unique visitor and referral information is summarized on a monthly basis.



Now Netcraft has monitored 122,000,635 (increase of 3.97 million over last month) websites on the net (not saying that is the complete total since there is bound to be more) but as you can see 40,000 out of 122,000,635 is a pittifal sample ie 0.03% of webpages! Even the UK chart uses a bigger sample of stores to guage who is #1 for that week

As they say statistics never lie, but those who make them can. Skewed results from a VERY limited sampling pool. change what you monitor and you would probably see a 100% linux usage, change again and you would prob see a 100% Mac uses IF you only monitored 0.03% of total websites...

Now if the sampling method is now brought into question so do the accuracy/validity of the results. Not trying to say the rate of Vista uptake is going to be markably lower, its expected to be high at this early stage (standard S-curve).
What will be of interest is if the uptake is 10% per year as other MS OS's have been, and a steady 10% over the years (not just the first since that includes enthusiates)

again just to stress... get a better sampling method if such results are going to be used for ZOMG Vista is taking over the world 0.03% ha!

Let me say without hesitation that I agree with your contention that the "ZOMG Vista is taking over the world" comments are premature. It's too early in the product life cycle yet to make definitive predictions one way or another, really. We can sorta assume with a fair degree of confidence that Windows will remain the dominant desktop OS. But we can't assume that, if there really is a return to a 3 year cycle for new releases, this or any other future version will ever achieve the dominance that Windows XP achieved within the six years it remained the "current version".

However I DON'T agree with your reasoning. Matter of fact I think you've displayed a definite lack of understanding of market research and analysis, and of the way product uptake proceeds.

For starters the fact that a 'sample' is small in relation to the entire population or extent of what is being measured doesn't necessarily make the results unreliable. The 'sample' used here, and the basis upon which it is selected, is consistent with best practice in market research and is statistically sound technique. The point here isn't that the 'measurement' is unsound. Instead, the point is that the results obtained aren't applicable to predictions of the extent of future dominance. In other words, the testing has been fine, but the "take over the world" predictions are a misapplication of the results obtained.

Also, whilst you've correctly identified the 'S-curve' as the general model applicable to product uptake, what you've described in your analysis isn't an S-curve!

You've suggested, for example, that the initial uptake has been 'high' because of 'enthusiasts'. You've then assumed that the timeline to be considered will match that seen for Windows XP. Finally, you've suggested a steady uptake of 10% per annum until the product reaches it peak stauration level.

Okay! The initial uptake isn't "high". Instead it's "low". It might well be that that initial uptake is largely seen amongst 'enthusiasts', but enthusiasts don't push anything to high levels, because enthusiasts are only a very wee small segment of the overall user population. The uptake won't be steady either, and wasn't at a steady rate for XP. You've misinterpreted the data.

XP had a longer lifespan as the 'current' product than is usually the case. Considerably so, actually, and that's why it eventually achieved the market share peak it did. During the initial 18 months or so of release uptake remained 'slow'. Then there was a period during which uptake was more raid, followed by a period where uptake again slowed. Now we are in a period where it's market share will diminish, and that pattern will repeat. Initially, the drop in market share will be slow, then it'll speed up, then it'll slow down again as the last remnants trickle out of use. That's what an 'S-curve' really is!

And Vista won't ever reach 80% or more of market share. Not unless Microsoft defers the release of Vienna for 3 years longer than they plan.

[Finn]

Dude, I get sick of the endless rubbish you spout as well. But hey! I'm a friendly enough fella so I'll give you a tip to help you overcome that n00bishness.

If you have occasion to edit program installation files on a daily basis then all you need to do to overcome that matter of related UAC prompts is ensure that you edit the install path when you install the programs. You can put the programs into whatever folder you choose if you edit that install location, and if it isn't the default 'Program Files' folder you won't get the UAC prompts when you try to edit the installation files themselves.

Simple, isn't it?


No it isn't simple and you're the n00b trying to teach me what my job is. We're not going to mess up the standard installation paths just because a new lame os doesn't work properly . It does cost extra time and extra work so I'm content that Vista sucks. Even if UAC wouldn't be irritating enough all security related changes are now double as hard to achieve with pointless extra steps in the way. New (Vista) OS installs are porked right out of the box (HP for example) which means that you can't do a routine install without preliminary work on the POS. Where XP boxes were no-hands-on installs.

Secondly part of my job is to make custom installations at scene according to the clients needs.. Who and what are you to tell me how I should do the job? You're an arrogant little prick with a serious case of egomania running. The truth is you don't have a clue on what I'm doing and why. It is _not_ an option to just move the 'game' folder somewhere else and rub against the shiny box in happiness of a new toy OS. This is for kiddies like you who can play with the computer instead of using it for work.

[DeFex]

Meanwhile people continue to buy McDognads hamburgers. they are not the best, second best or even 100th best if you try at all the hamburger places.

as you can see the amount of something sold "market share" has nothing to do with how good it actually iis, just how many sheep buy it. apple fanboys will be the first to tell you this when it comes to computers, and the first to ignore what they just said when it comes to MP3 players.

also if you want to see something else crap that sells very well they have this thing called the "top 40"

[DeFex]

why do people want a Service Pack anyway? what could it improve?

XP was pretty rubbish untill SP1 came out, SP2 was even better (except WGA)

maybe vista might be usable by some of the people who do not like it once SP1 comes out and they fix what people are not liking about it .

[masteraleph]

Secondly part of my job is to make custom installations at scene according to the clients needs.. Who and what are you to tell me how I should do the job? You're an arrogant little prick with a serious case of egomania running. The truth is you don't have a clue on what I'm doing and why. It is _not_ an option to just move the 'game' folder somewhere else and rub against the shiny box in happiness of a new toy OS. This is for kiddies like you who can play with the computer instead of using it for work.

While I agree with your criticism on that poster's advice, you have to admit that what you're running into is somewhat rare. If you were working at a large company then it's probably a problem you'd rarely run into, mainly because you'd have a standard build and would push updates and installations rather infrequently. If you were maintaining your personal computer, it'd also be a problem you'd not run into, since you wouldn't be changing your configuration that often. The real issue is that you're doing independent contracting for various people. The alternative is, of course, to turn off UAC until everything is set up. But keep in mind that privelege elevation isn't unique to Vista; it's only unique to Vista when compared to other Windows installations. If you were doing custom work for clients on Linux, you'd see it then, too.

As for the speed point- completely ancedotally I find that Vista is faster for me while in Windows (though significantly slower at starting up).

[Wrench00]

I liked vista so much I bought Ultimate it was going so well that I am very happy with my OSX setup now :P

[eeyrjmr]

...

And why do you think I have "displayed a definite lack of understanding of market research and analysis"
I would say that marketshare has a lack of market research understanding, 0.03% is a piss-poor samplesize. Yes I know you can't take every single machine into account... that is the purpose of such analysis... which then brings me onto why such piss-poor samplesize is an issue

The Original Poster and QUOTE!
Vista adoption rate is very high - now 2nd most popular OS!!!

As I said statistic's don't lie, but those that compile them do. In this instance they presented the results such that a layman has interpreted it that Vista is the 2nd most popular OS!!!
Where in actual fact it is only 2 (3rd if you combine OSX) ONLY when viewed from those selected 40,000 websites :rolleyes:
Sure if they had a samplesize of 1% then I would be a bit less skeptical but 0.03%!!!!
Not only that looking at the browser stats this particular marketing site puts its share at 10%, yet other such surveys (using larger samplesize... infact the BBC did one) puts firefox in Europe at ~20-30%.... alot bigger then the 10% that site puts it at (again sever lack of info abt its sampling allowing for silly interpretations by laymen)

Likewise there was a report not to long ago that basically says it is impossible to state how many actual linux users there are, yet this site put it out at 0.7% of total computer usage... To again be interpreted by said layman incorrectly.


The fact that I show some independent thought when faced with such PR show I have an understanding that goes outside of market research and classical statistics so please don't say otherwise... Try some independent thought for once instead of going with the flow

[ChingChang]

XP was pretty rubbish untill SP1 came out, SP2 was even better (except WGA)

maybe vista might be usable by some of the people who do not like it once SP1 comes out and they fix what people are not liking about it .
I know that SP1 improved XP a lot. But what I'm asking is what would SP1 improve for vista? What don't people like about it?

[Martyr]

I know that SP1 improved XP a lot. But what I'm asking is what would SP1 improve for vista? What don't people like about it?

they dont know.

[calebb]

I know that SP1 improved XP a lot. But what I'm asking is what would SP1 improve for vista? What don't people like about it?

Nothing... but people like the magic SP1 release. That's why Microsoft is rolling out the beta at the unprecedented 6 month mark (normally 1 year +) and it's why they are predicting an unprecedented 3 month beta period. (normally 1 year +)


As far as the accuracy of the website I linked, their numbers match Microsoft's claims for copies of Vista sold/activated/in-use.

[devil22]

And why do you think I have "displayed a definite lack of understanding of market research and analysis"
I would say that marketshare has a lack of market research understanding, 0.03% is a piss-poor samplesize. Yes I know you can't take every single machine into account... that is the purpose of such analysis... which then brings me onto why such piss-poor samplesize is an issue

0.03% is not a 'piss-poor' sample size if it's the best availible, and sample sizes much smaller are routinely used to accurately gauge polls of all kinds including politics. Do you have a better site [i.e., one with a higher sample size]? Netcraft's studies are of servers, as far as I know, so I doubt it.



The Original Poster and QUOTE!
Vista adoption rate is very high - now 2nd most popular OS!!!

As I said statistic's don't lie, but those that compile them do. In this instance they presented the results such that a layman has interpreted it that Vista is the 2nd most popular OS!!!
Where in actual fact it is only 2 (3rd if you combine OSX) ONLY when viewed from those selected 40,000 websites :rolleyes:
Sure if they had a samplesize of 1% then I would be a bit less skeptical but 0.03%!!!!
Not only that looking at the browser stats this particular marketing site puts its share at 10%, yet other such surveys (using larger samplesize... infact the BBC did one) puts firefox in Europe at ~20-30%.... alot bigger then the 10% that site puts it at (again sever lack of info abt its sampling allowing for silly interpretations by laymen)

Rambling nonsense. I assume you're talking about FireFox, and it's usage in Europe is widely known to be higher than the rest of the world, which is where the statistics come from.


Likewise there was a report not to long ago that basically says it is impossible to state how many actual linux users there are, yet this site put it out at 0.7% of total computer usage... To again be interpreted by said layman incorrectly.

They probably meant total, but we are looking at web users, since it's presumed nearly everybody surfs the web on whatever computer/os they use. Unless you have some survery result that shows a significant number of people have computers and don't surf, then we can presume most every computer is on the web to some degree and can be sampled by web statistic software. Even if you object, you have to presume the number of linux/mac users that don't surf to the number of windows users that don't surf is the same proportion as the number of linux/mac users that do surf to the number of windows users which surf which is a known quantity, thanks to web statistic companies like hitslink.

Hitlink is nothing but web statistic software, that the user does not really even see on the website, any website that wants to keep statistics can use their software, it does not discriminate against linux or mac sites, so we can presume they use it as much as windows sites, and since the user does not interact with it we can presume it gets a completely random sample. It is nothing but that 6 or 7 or 8 digit number on the bottom of many web pages you have been to, that also grabs information from the users computer without asking or interacting with the user. The idea that this is non-random on 40,000 web sites with hundreds of millions of visitors is completely baffling and wishful thinking.


The fact that I show some independent thought when faced with such PR show I have an understanding that goes outside of market research and classical statistics so please don't say otherwise... Try some independent thought for once instead of going with the flow


You call this crap independent thought? It looks like the last 200,000 messages on web statistics for OSes I've seen over on slashdot and digg down to the cookie cutted mad hacker that can't spell or write personality, which is where you got this crap I'm sure. Pretty ironic that you would call it that in that case.

[smizack]

wait.. who the hell is using windows 95 to connect to the internet...

Modders.
Some of those guys can make win95 look effing sweet.

[Hypernova]

Modders.
Some of those guys can make win95 look effing sweet.

Care to point to some sites? That sounds pretty [H]ardcore.

[smizack]

http://www.virtualplastic.net/cgi-bin/search/search.cgi?search=win95

Here's one, I'll have to search my links for more. I haven't been into that in a few years tho so some of my other links were dead. :(

[Catweazle]

No it isn't simple and you're the n00b trying to teach me what my job is. We're not going to mess up the standard installation paths just because a new lame os doesn't work properly . It does cost extra time and extra work so I'm content that Vista sucks. Even if UAC wouldn't be irritating enough all security related changes are now double as hard to achieve with pointless extra steps in the way. New (Vista) OS installs are porked right out of the box (HP for example) which means that you can't do a routine install without preliminary work on the POS. Where XP boxes were no-hands-on installs.

Secondly part of my job is to make custom installations at scene according to the clients needs.. Who and what are you to tell me how I should do the job? You're an arrogant little prick with a serious case of egomania running. The truth is you don't have a clue on what I'm doing and why. It is _not_ an option to just move the 'game' folder somewhere else and rub against the shiny box in happiness of a new toy OS. This is for kiddies like you who can play with the computer instead of using it for work.

Calling you, for outright BS, IMO! You've used personal abuse and intimated that I'm some young gamer kiddie, and produced three-fifths of fuck-all to back yourself up with. Matter of fact you've been posting in here for quite a few weeks now, and I've only ever seen you post anything of substanbce on about two or three occasions. All the rest of your contribution are vage Vista-hate rants which aren't supportable by fact, but which are instead simply based upon your own personal dislike of change in your work environment.

In this case what I said was perfectly correct. If the need exists to edit files within a program install:

In an owner/user scenario ANY program whatsoever can be installed to the directory of choice, escaping those UAC prompts. The prompts only continually crop up when editing files within the 'protected' directories.
In a situation such as you describe, where the default program directory structure needs to be retained but edits to program files is necessary, doing it without constant prompts is also incredibly easy. You can copy the entire program diorectory structure to another location, do all the edits prompt-free, and then move the whole bloody thing back to overwrite. That way you only get the prompt at the end of the job, and you can select the "Do this for the nex xxxxxx instances.." option to avoid numerous prompts during the move!

This sort of shit has been brought up by you in dozens of threads, and never have you provided any explanation of your own uniqie circumstances to effectively counter the responses which have demonstrated that your claims are unsupportable. You've only ever provided vague mentions about 'providing customer support' in a manner which implies that saying so somehow makes your claims sacrosanct!

Put up or fucken shut up! Provide some detail of just how it's impossible to avoid those prompts in your circumstance, when others can avoid them quite easily. So far you provide nothing more than the annoyance one gets from a blowfly which is hovering above the Sunday roast.


I make no apology for the n00bish comment above. Were a Techie under my supervision to spout as loud and long with the things you've been saying I'd be putting together a severance package ;)



- stuff -
Good post! And thanks for saving me from making the post I actually came in here to make, before I saw the abuse dished out above.

The smallness of a statistical sample as a proportion of the overall data set is an irrelevence in relation to the reliability of a study for predictive or analytical purposes. You can only really call it as an unreliable sample on the basis of demonstrating that there are factors involved in the sample selection which somehow make it a 'skewed' sample.

[odoe]

I think we've run our course here.
I remember using amiga for sequencing. Now that was a great OS.