>Hi Mark.
>
>>IMO, this Vista UAC thing is really poorly implemented. The Virtualization "feature" seems so dangerous, because an app can be using files that it thinks are centrally located (in the Program Files, for instance), when in fact, Vista has "silently" copied them to the Virtual folder under the Users\ folder tree, and the app is happily running using a copy of the files that are located off in never never land. How scary is that! Even MS apps, such as Visual Studio, IIS, and others are having problems with this. See the link below:
>
>Virtualization isn't intended to be a long-term solution. In fact, MS has stated that it'll be removed in the future. Its only purpose is to prevent existing apps from breaking (ie. giving "file access denied" errors) until they're rewritten to use locations other than Program Files for data. IOW, to be Vista compliant, you need to change where you store your read-write files.

That is one of the things I don't like about Vista. I have never been a fan of deeply nested subdirectories being the repository of important data and now Vista is enforcing it. Along with the licensing issues and the performance issues on sub-Ahnuld machines, I am going to sit Vista out as long as possible. In this case it doesn't bother me a bit to not be on the "latest and greatest."

PS -- Thanks for the weather <g>. I think one of your funniest lines ever was "We don't import, we export."