C
Char Jackson
Sorry, I assumed they were legitimate copies of Windows 7.
Sorry, I assumed they were legitimate copies of Windows 7.
B
BillW50
In
I preordered them from Newegg which Microsoft allowed half price if
preordered 6 months ahead of time. Which I did. Today on eBay they are
worthless and not even worth the shipping costs.
Char said:
I preordered them from Newegg which Microsoft allowed half price if
preordered 6 months ahead of time. Which I did. Today on eBay they are
worthless and not even worth the shipping costs.
B
BillW50
In
It is a serious question! Why run Thunderbird Portable on a flash or
external hard drive when you already have an internal drive already
running anyway? That way you don't need the flash or external plugged in
all of the time. Thus I can use Thunderbird on the internal for a day,
week, or whatever. And when I grab another computer, I sync my data
files and copy Thunderbird Portable to the other machine and I am ready
to go again. And this method works wonderful.
I suppose those who only has one computer, this method sounds silly. But
those of us who has dozens of computers, it is a godsend.
And what many just don't understand (especially newer computer users)
about the horrors and Vista and Windows 7 places on experienced Windows
users is this. As what made Windows what it is today was that if you
knew how to use one Windows version, you knew how to use them all.
Vista and Windows 7 broke that rule. It is my guess is all of the older
programmers have long retired from Microsoft by now. And now
inexperienced younger programmers are now running the show and are
clueless about such rules.
And without following these older rules, the inexperienced don't
understand what made Windows great will cause it to unravel. As let's
say you were evil and say you ran Microsoft. And you wanted to burn
Microsoft to the ground. One sure way would make the users relearn each
new Windows version that comes out. And we see that happening now with
Vista and Windows 7.
Are you sure you are talking about Windows 7? The "Documents and
Settings" folder for example isn't a real folder anymore. That UAC is a
PIA and is nothing more than a hand holding babysitter. Applications
aren't allowed to change its files in the Program Files anymore. There
are tons of things that a user can't do anymore because Microsoft won't
allow it. Microsoft is in control and not the end user.
Now if a user has to relearn each new Windows version from now on. What
is the incentive to upgrade? And if you are forced to relearn each new
OS, why bother with Windows anymore? Why not use another OS who has the
smarts of not making the user to relearn each newer version?
Char said:
It is a serious question! Why run Thunderbird Portable on a flash or
external hard drive when you already have an internal drive already
running anyway? That way you don't need the flash or external plugged in
all of the time. Thus I can use Thunderbird on the internal for a day,
week, or whatever. And when I grab another computer, I sync my data
files and copy Thunderbird Portable to the other machine and I am ready
to go again. And this method works wonderful.
I suppose those who only has one computer, this method sounds silly. But
those of us who has dozens of computers, it is a godsend.
And what many just don't understand (especially newer computer users)
about the horrors and Vista and Windows 7 places on experienced Windows
users is this. As what made Windows what it is today was that if you
knew how to use one Windows version, you knew how to use them all.
Vista and Windows 7 broke that rule. It is my guess is all of the older
programmers have long retired from Microsoft by now. And now
inexperienced younger programmers are now running the show and are
clueless about such rules.
And without following these older rules, the inexperienced don't
understand what made Windows great will cause it to unravel. As let's
say you were evil and say you ran Microsoft. And you wanted to burn
Microsoft to the ground. One sure way would make the users relearn each
new Windows version that comes out. And we see that happening now with
Vista and Windows 7.
Are you sure you are talking about Windows 7? The "Documents and
Settings" folder for example isn't a real folder anymore. That UAC is a
PIA and is nothing more than a hand holding babysitter. Applications
aren't allowed to change its files in the Program Files anymore. There
are tons of things that a user can't do anymore because Microsoft won't
allow it. Microsoft is in control and not the end user.
Now if a user has to relearn each new Windows version from now on. What
is the incentive to upgrade? And if you are forced to relearn each new
OS, why bother with Windows anymore? Why not use another OS who has the
smarts of not making the user to relearn each newer version?
B
BillW50
In
Because Windows 7 (and Vista) changes the rules and forces loyal Windows
users to relearn Windows all over again. And one of the stupid new rules
is that an application has no right to modify anything in its own folder
in the Program Files folder. Thus applications can't store data, INI,
configuration files or anything like this in the Program Files folder.
What made Windows great in the past was if you knew how one version
worked, you also knew all of the other versions worked too. This is no
longer true with Vista and Windows 7. As all of the rules have been
changed and you must relearn how to use the new Windows all over once
again.
This is nonsense! Why keep upgrading to a newer Windows if you have to
relearn how to use the OS all over again? And what is the incentive to
keep using Windows? As if you have to relearn, why bother with Windows?
As why spend that energy only on Windows? Why not learn Unix, Linux, or
even the Mac if you have to relearn anyway?
Lostgallifreyan said:
Because Windows 7 (and Vista) changes the rules and forces loyal Windows
users to relearn Windows all over again. And one of the stupid new rules
is that an application has no right to modify anything in its own folder
in the Program Files folder. Thus applications can't store data, INI,
configuration files or anything like this in the Program Files folder.
What made Windows great in the past was if you knew how one version
worked, you also knew all of the other versions worked too. This is no
longer true with Vista and Windows 7. As all of the rules have been
changed and you must relearn how to use the new Windows all over once
again.
This is nonsense! Why keep upgrading to a newer Windows if you have to
relearn how to use the OS all over again? And what is the incentive to
keep using Windows? As if you have to relearn, why bother with Windows?
As why spend that energy only on Windows? Why not learn Unix, Linux, or
even the Mac if you have to relearn anyway?
B
BillW50
In
Well yes, Windows is getting more and more Unix like all of the time.
Maybe someday in the distant future there will be no difference anymore.
And yes, there are ways to disable many of the new annoyances under the
newer Windows. But I have some problems with this method.
1) Windows was never meant to be Unix. And making Windows into an Unix
look alike is a mistake. As if I wanted to run Unix, I would get Unix in
the first place.
2) The new way requires one to relearn the newer Windows to disable
things that were not a problem in earlier Windows. So users are forced
into this new learning curve state of mind that is counter productive
IMHO.
3) The easiest way out of this particular problem used as an example
above, is to just use another folder which the newer Windows doesn't
have a problem with. Well what about my older Windows? Should I make my
older Windows follow all of the newer rules to keep them all simple?
That means I would have to change a lot of machines to a whole new way
of doing things. And in the end, the older machines really wouldn't work
any better than before anyway.
Lostgallifreyan said:
Well yes, Windows is getting more and more Unix like all of the time.
Maybe someday in the distant future there will be no difference anymore.
And yes, there are ways to disable many of the new annoyances under the
newer Windows. But I have some problems with this method.
1) Windows was never meant to be Unix. And making Windows into an Unix
look alike is a mistake. As if I wanted to run Unix, I would get Unix in
the first place.
2) The new way requires one to relearn the newer Windows to disable
things that were not a problem in earlier Windows. So users are forced
into this new learning curve state of mind that is counter productive
IMHO.
3) The easiest way out of this particular problem used as an example
above, is to just use another folder which the newer Windows doesn't
have a problem with. Well what about my older Windows? Should I make my
older Windows follow all of the newer rules to keep them all simple?
That means I would have to change a lot of machines to a whole new way
of doing things. And in the end, the older machines really wouldn't work
any better than before anyway.
K
Ken Blake, MVP
Never having heard that before, I just went to my \Program Files (x86)
folder in Windows 7 to check. I didn't look at every folder there, but
I quickly found four that had their .ini files there. So what you say
is *not* correct.
Yes, there are *some* things that have changed, but very far from
"all." And as with anything else new, you must relearn some things,
but there too, it's very far from "all over once again."
When I went from Windows XP to Vista, it took me no more than perhaps
a few minutes (at most a couple of hours) to get comfortable with it.
And the same was true going from Vista to Windows 7. Yes, in both
cases as time went on, I learned other new things, but there was
almost nothing I had to learn before I could start using it
productively.
What you say isn't entirely wrong, and yes, Microsoft sometimes
changes things for no good reason, as far as I'm concerned. But in my
view you are dramatically overstating the point.
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP
C
Chris S.
B
BillW50
In
You mean partly not correct. As I don't recall the exact limitations.
But the one thing I am positive of is that if you drop Thunderbird
Portable into Windows 7 Program Files, and try to run Thunderbird,
Windows 7 says it doesn't have permission and you can't do anything like
receive incoming messages (or you get a write error) or can't mark any
existing messages (write error), etc.
No you don't understand. Sure one can start using Windows 7 from XP in a
matter of minutes. Yes this is true and it is also true I can take a XP
user and put them on Ubuntu machine and claim the very same thing. Sure
opening and closing applications part is easy under any OS isn't it? But
it doesn't stop there, now does it?
Now let's say a XP user gets comfortable right away under Windows 7 in a
few minutes, which is indeed possible. Now let's say this XP user next
tries to install OE6. Guess what? I have been trying to do so for the
past 2 years. It just hasn't worked yet. Yet every version of Windows
since '95 can run OE. But not Vista or Windows 7. Why not?
And I have dozens of Windows machines here, most are XP machines. And
for some silly reason the first Windows machine I thought of keeping
Thunderbird Portable on the internal drive instead of external. And when
I wanted to use Thunderbird Portable on another machine, I just copy the
folder to another machine. No syncing or anything. This works great.
Well where to put it on a Windows machine? Program Files folder makes
sense since it is a program anyway. So to keep everything the same and
not to do things differently on each computer, I always use the Program
Files folder to temporary hold Thunderbird Portable. Life was wonderful
and everything worked great.
Now comes Windows 7. Dropped Thunderbird Portable in the Program Files
folder and it refuses to run. It runs fine from a newly created folder
that Windows 7 doesn't restrict. But now I have a problem. Now I have to
remember where the silly thing is stored on each computer. There is no
need to make this more difficult than it needs to be.
That is your opinion because you willingly welcome the newer features.
That is great for you. But for me, it limits my possibilities. As I
stated before earlier versions of Windows always had a *must* have
feature for me to want the newer version. Here is a short example:
Windows 95 added LFN support, Windows 3.1 lacked this.
Windows 98 added USB support, a reason to upgrade
Windows 2000 could run far more applications and stay stable
Support for Windows 2000 died, but XP was still going strong.
Now comes Vista and Windows 7. Sure they too have new features too. But
where are the *must* have features? And what about XP runs 100% of what
I want to run and Windows 7 only runs about 95% of what I want to run.
Ever since Windows 3.1, I *never* had a newer version of Windows to run
less than I was using before.
That is just insane Ken! Where is the incentive to use Windows 7? Sure I
have it and sure I use it and try to make the best of it. But I know in
my heart I will at least once a day need to fire up one XP to get my
other work done. But on the flipside, if I run XP I don't have to fire
up Linux, Windows 7, or anything else at anytime. As I can do everything
right here within XP.
So maybe you now understand why I really am not overstating this at all.
You mean partly not correct. As I don't recall the exact limitations.
But the one thing I am positive of is that if you drop Thunderbird
Portable into Windows 7 Program Files, and try to run Thunderbird,
Windows 7 says it doesn't have permission and you can't do anything like
receive incoming messages (or you get a write error) or can't mark any
existing messages (write error), etc.
No you don't understand. Sure one can start using Windows 7 from XP in a
matter of minutes. Yes this is true and it is also true I can take a XP
user and put them on Ubuntu machine and claim the very same thing. Sure
opening and closing applications part is easy under any OS isn't it? But
it doesn't stop there, now does it?
Now let's say a XP user gets comfortable right away under Windows 7 in a
few minutes, which is indeed possible. Now let's say this XP user next
tries to install OE6. Guess what? I have been trying to do so for the
past 2 years. It just hasn't worked yet. Yet every version of Windows
since '95 can run OE. But not Vista or Windows 7. Why not?
And I have dozens of Windows machines here, most are XP machines. And
for some silly reason the first Windows machine I thought of keeping
Thunderbird Portable on the internal drive instead of external. And when
I wanted to use Thunderbird Portable on another machine, I just copy the
folder to another machine. No syncing or anything. This works great.
Well where to put it on a Windows machine? Program Files folder makes
sense since it is a program anyway. So to keep everything the same and
not to do things differently on each computer, I always use the Program
Files folder to temporary hold Thunderbird Portable. Life was wonderful
and everything worked great.
Now comes Windows 7. Dropped Thunderbird Portable in the Program Files
folder and it refuses to run. It runs fine from a newly created folder
that Windows 7 doesn't restrict. But now I have a problem. Now I have to
remember where the silly thing is stored on each computer. There is no
need to make this more difficult than it needs to be.
That is your opinion because you willingly welcome the newer features.
That is great for you. But for me, it limits my possibilities. As I
stated before earlier versions of Windows always had a *must* have
feature for me to want the newer version. Here is a short example:
Windows 95 added LFN support, Windows 3.1 lacked this.
Windows 98 added USB support, a reason to upgrade
Windows 2000 could run far more applications and stay stable
Support for Windows 2000 died, but XP was still going strong.
Now comes Vista and Windows 7. Sure they too have new features too. But
where are the *must* have features? And what about XP runs 100% of what
I want to run and Windows 7 only runs about 95% of what I want to run.
Ever since Windows 3.1, I *never* had a newer version of Windows to run
less than I was using before.
That is just insane Ken! Where is the incentive to use Windows 7? Sure I
have it and sure I use it and try to make the best of it. But I know in
my heart I will at least once a day need to fire up one XP to get my
other work done. But on the flipside, if I run XP I don't have to fire
up Linux, Windows 7, or anything else at anytime. As I can do everything
right here within XP.
So maybe you now understand why I really am not overstating this at all.
K
Ken Blake, MVP
Suffice it to say that I completely disagree. But I don't want to get
into an argument over this, so I won't reply to your individual
points. I've said my piece, you've said yours. Anyone else here can
agree with you or with me, as they please.
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP
B
BillW50
In
Mine are the worthless Home Premium Upgrade version which includes both
32 and 64 bit versions. And these Windows 7 are nothing but a PIA! As
you can't install on top of XP (which is a bad idea for any version of
Windows IMHO anyway). Nor can you format the drive and install Windows 7
fresh. As in the past you could insert a qualifying previous Windows
install disc and then that was ok. But not for these PIA Windows 7
upgrade discs. The qualifying Windows must be on the drive and installed
and working. Unbelievable!
Microsoft said these would retail for about 100 bucks when Windows 7 was
released. But if you preorder them like 6 month before the release date
you would only have to pay half and that is it. Sounds good to me. So
Windows 7 licenses for only 50 bucks apiece. I'm sold!
But when it came time for Microsoft to release Windows 7, the retail
price was quickly dropped in half to about 50 bucks. Thus no savings at
all for preordering. And since they are the crappy PIA upgrade Home
editions, they are also unwanted by many. So now they sit up on my shelf
still shrink-wrapped gathering dust. I can't return them back to
Microsoft and get my money back, as Microsoft don't want them either.
:-(
Chris said:
Mine are the worthless Home Premium Upgrade version which includes both
32 and 64 bit versions. And these Windows 7 are nothing but a PIA! As
you can't install on top of XP (which is a bad idea for any version of
Windows IMHO anyway). Nor can you format the drive and install Windows 7
fresh. As in the past you could insert a qualifying previous Windows
install disc and then that was ok. But not for these PIA Windows 7
upgrade discs. The qualifying Windows must be on the drive and installed
and working. Unbelievable!
Microsoft said these would retail for about 100 bucks when Windows 7 was
released. But if you preorder them like 6 month before the release date
you would only have to pay half and that is it. Sounds good to me. So
Windows 7 licenses for only 50 bucks apiece. I'm sold!
But when it came time for Microsoft to release Windows 7, the retail
price was quickly dropped in half to about 50 bucks. Thus no savings at
all for preordering. And since they are the crappy PIA upgrade Home
editions, they are also unwanted by many. So now they sit up on my shelf
still shrink-wrapped gathering dust. I can't return them back to
Microsoft and get my money back, as Microsoft don't want them either.
:-(
C
Chris S.
BillW50 said:
Still....
http://www.ebay.com/itm/WINDOWS-7-H...380?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2ebb77a65c
M
Mayayana
| > Because Windows 7 (and Vista) changes the rules and forces loyal Windows
| > users to relearn Windows all over again. And one of the stupid new rules
| > is that an application has no right to modify anything in its own folder
| > in the Program Files folder. Thus applications can't store data, INI,
| > configuration files or anything like this in the Program Files folder.
|
|
| Never having heard that before, I just went to my \Program Files (x86)
| folder in Windows 7 to check. I didn't look at every folder there, but
| I quickly found four that had their .ini files there. So what you say
| is *not* correct.
|
It is correct. For non-admins (including on
XP) write/delete is restricted on most of the
system outside of the personal app. data folder.
Program Files is part of that. Microsoft has
enforced a strict policy that all PCs are corporate
workstations, not owned by the people using
them. Therefore all program settings must go
to the personal folder(s) or the HKCU Registry
keys.
I had to change my own program installers
to accomodate that change because I'm generally
expecting the software to be used by a single
person and I like to keep it all contained. So now
my installers create subfolders for INI files, and an
HKLM Registry key, and then set both to be
completely accessible to all.
You could be looking at INI files that are read-only
for non-admins, or you may be looking at software
that's been installed as I described above.
| > users to relearn Windows all over again. And one of the stupid new rules
| > is that an application has no right to modify anything in its own folder
| > in the Program Files folder. Thus applications can't store data, INI,
| > configuration files or anything like this in the Program Files folder.
|
|
| Never having heard that before, I just went to my \Program Files (x86)
| folder in Windows 7 to check. I didn't look at every folder there, but
| I quickly found four that had their .ini files there. So what you say
| is *not* correct.
|
It is correct. For non-admins (including on
XP) write/delete is restricted on most of the
system outside of the personal app. data folder.
Program Files is part of that. Microsoft has
enforced a strict policy that all PCs are corporate
workstations, not owned by the people using
them. Therefore all program settings must go
to the personal folder(s) or the HKCU Registry
keys.
I had to change my own program installers
to accomodate that change because I'm generally
expecting the software to be used by a single
person and I like to keep it all contained. So now
my installers create subfolders for INI files, and an
HKLM Registry key, and then set both to be
completely accessible to all.
You could be looking at INI files that are read-only
for non-admins, or you may be looking at software
that's been installed as I described above.
B
BillW50
In
There is no reason for any argument Ken. I understand you like new shiny
things. That is just fine and that is you. But for me, any newer Windows
version has to do something better than what I am doing now. Up to XP,
there was always a very good reason for me to upgrade. As something I
needed was in the newer Windows version.
Now along comes Windows 7 with lots of bells and whistles and all new
and shiny. Great no problem there. And it sports lots of new features.
Fantastic!
But one could clam that Linux is also nice, shiny, and has bells and
whistles too. And I totally agree with both that Windows 7 and Linux
both share these same claims.
The part you don't seem to understand is something my mentors said back
in the early 80's when there was no top dog in the OS race. And they
wisely said that you don't pick the OS first. You first pick the
applications that you want to run and then pick the OS that will run
them.
Oddly enough, even decades later... this is *still* words to live by
(and oddly enough seemingly nobody but me says this today). As there
always has been some really great OS in the past and even found today.
And they could even include doing everything that an OS could ever do.
And that is great and all. But even the world's *best* OS goes down in
flames if you can't run what you want to run on them. And this is the
*real* test of a great OS Ken. Nothing else really matters.
There is no reason for any argument Ken. I understand you like new shiny
things. That is just fine and that is you. But for me, any newer Windows
version has to do something better than what I am doing now. Up to XP,
there was always a very good reason for me to upgrade. As something I
needed was in the newer Windows version.
Now along comes Windows 7 with lots of bells and whistles and all new
and shiny. Great no problem there. And it sports lots of new features.
Fantastic!
But one could clam that Linux is also nice, shiny, and has bells and
whistles too. And I totally agree with both that Windows 7 and Linux
both share these same claims.
The part you don't seem to understand is something my mentors said back
in the early 80's when there was no top dog in the OS race. And they
wisely said that you don't pick the OS first. You first pick the
applications that you want to run and then pick the OS that will run
them.
Oddly enough, even decades later... this is *still* words to live by
(and oddly enough seemingly nobody but me says this today). As there
always has been some really great OS in the past and even found today.
And they could even include doing everything that an OS could ever do.
And that is great and all. But even the world's *best* OS goes down in
flames if you can't run what you want to run on them. And this is the
*real* test of a great OS Ken. Nothing else really matters.
C
Char Jackson
He clearly has no clue what he has there and what it's worth. I think
he'd rather complain, assuming he even has any copies of Win 7 like he
says.
C
Char Jackson
You're right. He's totally overstating things.
C
Chris S.
Char Jackson said:
11 bidders placed 16 bids! If I had them (As he says) I'd have them up on
eBay
in a New York minute!
Chris
B
BillW50
In
Having decades of computer experience, I completely understand this
philosophy! Although there is always a point that enough is enough and
there is a time to move on. And don't get me wrong; as I am not saying
that about you at all. As I don't know where you are exactly. Here I
will give you one example:
When the Timex Sinclair 1000 first came out, it was the first personal
computer under 100 bucks. Sure it came with only 2kb of RAM. And sure it
wasn't compatible with anything else. And sure the display only worked
best with an old B&W TV. And sure it used a standard cassette player for
mass storage, etc. Not very impressive for even back then.
But it did something really amazing at the time. It was a beautiful
machine to learn programming on. And you didn't spell any Basic command
out, as they were already printed on each QWERTY key. Nor would it allow
you to make any type of typo of any kind. As it wouldn't accept the line
until you fixed it first. And I know of no computer before or since that
was so exceptional at this task.
And having been a subscriber to a magazine dedicated to Sinclair
computers (Sync I believe it was called). There were lots of stories of
how people were using these things. And one of them really stuck out at
me. As one guy beefed this machine up so much, that he added a full size
keyboard, added a real office printer, and all kinds of expensive things
to the poor Timex machine. And then forced his secretary to use it in
the office.
I'm sorry! But even as wimpy as those IBM-XT machines were back then.
That would have been far better choice for an office computer for his
secretary to use and probably would have saved a few bucks in the
process. Even a CP/M, Apple II, or a Commodore machine would have been
far better making them into an office machine than a Timex machine.
Nonetheless.... I digress. As there is a real thrill taking something
like a Timex computer and going where no man has gone before. Aww yes...
and who could place a price on this? ;-)
Lostgallifreyan said:
Having decades of computer experience, I completely understand this
philosophy! Although there is always a point that enough is enough and
there is a time to move on. And don't get me wrong; as I am not saying
that about you at all. As I don't know where you are exactly. Here I
will give you one example:
When the Timex Sinclair 1000 first came out, it was the first personal
computer under 100 bucks. Sure it came with only 2kb of RAM. And sure it
wasn't compatible with anything else. And sure the display only worked
best with an old B&W TV. And sure it used a standard cassette player for
mass storage, etc. Not very impressive for even back then.
But it did something really amazing at the time. It was a beautiful
machine to learn programming on. And you didn't spell any Basic command
out, as they were already printed on each QWERTY key. Nor would it allow
you to make any type of typo of any kind. As it wouldn't accept the line
until you fixed it first. And I know of no computer before or since that
was so exceptional at this task.
And having been a subscriber to a magazine dedicated to Sinclair
computers (Sync I believe it was called). There were lots of stories of
how people were using these things. And one of them really stuck out at
me. As one guy beefed this machine up so much, that he added a full size
keyboard, added a real office printer, and all kinds of expensive things
to the poor Timex machine. And then forced his secretary to use it in
the office.
I'm sorry! But even as wimpy as those IBM-XT machines were back then.
That would have been far better choice for an office computer for his
secretary to use and probably would have saved a few bucks in the
process. Even a CP/M, Apple II, or a Commodore machine would have been
far better making them into an office machine than a Timex machine.
Nonetheless.... I digress. As there is a real thrill taking something
like a Timex computer and going where no man has gone before. Aww yes...
and who could place a price on this? ;-)
C
Chris S.
BillW50 said:
The Sinclair had 2K bits of RAM? That is wimpy!
K
Ken Blake, MVP
OK, thanks. It must be because I'm logged on as an administrator.
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP
B
BillW50
In
I am always logged on as an administrator (I know *big* security no-no).
But that still doesn't help a portable application dropped in the
Program Files folder under Windows 7. While I am searching for a better
explanation of what I mean, here is what Windows 7 did to the "Documents
and Settings" which is my second beef with Windows 7 among countless
other problems for now.
Access denied to the "My Documents and Settings" folder - Microsoft
Answers
http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/...settings/915eecc8-6a07-4d6a-8ca5-468ee51e9484
I am always logged on as an administrator (I know *big* security no-no).
But that still doesn't help a portable application dropped in the
Program Files folder under Windows 7. While I am searching for a better
explanation of what I mean, here is what Windows 7 did to the "Documents
and Settings" which is my second beef with Windows 7 among countless
other problems for now.
Access denied to the "My Documents and Settings" folder - Microsoft
Answers
http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/...settings/915eecc8-6a07-4d6a-8ca5-468ee51e9484