I have a legit license to Windows XP, and I had x64 Professional installed. While I only have 2 gigs of ram, I did 64 bit because some programs, recompiled for 64 bit (so just about anything that has a 64 bit version) will run faster. Also, I have heard that it is more stable.

But...FCKING M$! I installed Service pack RC 2, which is the same service pack for Windows Server 2003. It installed fine. But when I tried to install the full release for service pack 2 for 64 bit OSes, I got an error.

Error was "Permission is Denied". The NEXT message was "Service pack is only half installed, entire OS may not work because our fucking installer refuses to finish the job." I could not even reinstall the old RC2 version of that same service pack, that has installed before : same error message.

I looked it up : get this : Windows is denying permission to access a registry key entry to IT's OWN SERVICE PACK INSTALLER!!!! WTF!!! That is a clear example of "security" conflicting with stability and usability. It was IMPOSSIBLE to fix the problem.

Yes, I tried resetting permissions using the permission manager tool. Subinacl. I reset permissions to allow access for EVERY registry key, using a batch file.

I did a repair install of the entire operating system. This means I not only had reset the registry, but replaced every system file. Still the same error.

F*cking safe mode didn't do squat, either : same error, just for some reason the OS runs 5 times slower in safe mode so it took about 40 minutes for my top of the line computer to even get to the error.



So I jacked a copy of Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition. I had over 80 programs installed, including 40 full games, so I really regret having to format. As soon as my extra hard drive arrives I am going to make an image of the OS and all install programs so I can reset everything faster next time.

Server 2003 is AWESOME! Everything is subtly more snappy, it uses way less memory, by default it has far few services enabled. I read the entire kernel has been designed for performance at a low level. Games seem to load faster and run much more consistently, and everything works.

Despite DirectX and games being "unsupported", everything so far works great. Theres one or 2 that refuse to install because they detect an 'incompatible' OS, but there are usually work-arounds.

The OS has all sorts of tools for managing it : I found a screen that let me get to all sorts of windows settings easily, without screwing with registry keys.

Why on EARTH would anyone want vista, when they can run the same applications with vastly more stability and speed? Sure, I have themes disabled so it isn't as pretty...but it sure is snappy, virtually instantaneous usually.

I know this may sound stupid but did you contact microsoft?

Sorry but I don't really want to read all that, just a quick suggestion in case you haven't tried yet.

Switch to Linux then.

Why on EARTH would anyone want vista, when they can run the same applications with vastly more stability and speed?

So, to sum up, the $1000 OS was more effective than the $300 one?

Amazing.

Mistake #1.

Mistake #2.

You should have did what you did in Mistake #2 first... you would have saved yourself a lot of time and headaches. Why did you install the RC 2 anyway? Wasn't the other release already available?