What I am saying is that no program yet on Vista has frozen and not let me open another program over it, I used FF and Yahoo as two programs because frankly as far as programs go they are the two worst at freezing on my system and going whitescreen(or black as FF is want to do for some reason, I am hurting firefox’s fans feelings but it’s the truth, IE is slower overall though so that’s why I stick with FF. That was one of the key changes in Vista, besides the kernel, that MS enacted. They made it where windows explorer doesn’t get tied up with a non-responsive program allowing you to close the program without messing with explorer or to open another instance of the program or another program altogether without having it covered up by the non-responsive software. Whether other people have had the issue is not for me to say, I haven’t seen it or read about it, but there is a noticeable difference between XP and Vista on this.
That would mean your OS has frozen, or, basically, let the application suck up all of the resources enough to make the rest of the system unresponsive. A good preemptive multitasking OS shouldn't allow that. That was one reason why I thought Mac OS 9 sucked architecturally.
That was one of the key changes in Vista, besides the kernel, that MS enacted. They made it where windows explorer doesn’t get tied up with a non-responsive program
What they did is finally multithread Explorer. Explorer being single-threaded is why it's the most notorious application to go unresponsive and leave you with a blank window if you move something else over it, especially if you're dealing with large folders or network shares. Ever try to open a folder with 300,000 files? I have. I wouldn't suggest it.
Explorer losing it will take down your whole desktop. It should generally now work better, that early file copy problem aside.