Slashdot Mirror

There's a multitude of possible migration paths to take, to go from Windows XP to Windows 7 - in fact there is only one migration path that's exclusive to Windows Vista - the inplace upgrade.

The inplace upgrade is a horribly bad idea, and you should never try or consider it.

So, for any reasonable person, the migration paths available from XP to 7 are exactly the same as from Vista to 7. A new, clean install, followed by a migration of application settings.

If you're a home user, use Windows Easy Transfer to save all your settings to an external drive, reinstall, then recover your settings from the external drive. Reinstall all apps.

If you're a business user, there's a wealth of options available to you - check out the documentation for MDT2010, which can provide you with all the tools you need to roll out Windows 7 in your company. USMT and Windows Easy Transfer are the same under the hood - so user settings can be migrated.

A good place to start is the Windows 7 springboard:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/default.aspx

Suck it, nerds.

So they actually bothered to ship it with a compiler, source, and a text editor that's better than note/wordpad?

I didn't think so.

Why would anyone with half a brain bloat up a OS with those things when only about 0.5%(I'm being charitable here) of the user base would ever find a use for them? You can always download the things you mention for free(sans source) from places like http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/visualc/aa336402.aspx

And yes, Visual Express is much better editor than notepad/wordpad.

If you're a nerd you would know where to get them. If you're a true nerd, you can slipstream them into the OS install.

How come you don't know that Ubuntu itself stopped installing gcc by default from disk. From http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=123542

Or maybe you were just trolling for karma. Uninformed posts like yours get modded up all the time as long as they bash MS and/or praise FOSS. In other words, you're a karmawhore wannabe nerd!

no c compiler!
when i try to install programs that i have downloaded (in source code) , ubuntu dosen't find any c compiler. and when i search on my disk for ex: gcc, cc, g++ it dosen't find anything....

dosen't ubuntu have a standard c compiler?
and if not, how can i install one the easiest way (im a noob)?

Re: no c compiler!
Just open up synaptic package manager and install the package 'build-essential' which will automatically install all compilers and development librarys needed to compile most software.

Windows can do CPU microcode updates:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/936357

Microsoft is one step ahead of you - price for Server 2008 R2 Foundation is ~$150 (only available OEM bundled with cheap new servers from Dell and HP) and is limited to 15 users/logins and has no CALs. Otherwise it is full Server 2008 with all the trimmings.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2008/en/us/foundation.aspx

Granted, if you go over that many users in AD it turns itself off apparently - but 15 users would cover the sort of office that would be going with this. Or a desktop running Linux. Somebody at Microsoft was thinking and wanted to protect their market in the lower end.

You know there are alternatives when MS makes Server 2008 R2 avail for 15% it's normal price for =15 user shops...

Yes but considering you can download a free (no cost) versions of MS SQL2005 or a time limited version of SQL2008 how hard would it have been to check? If you don't have anyone on your team who knows SQL then why is the site starting to comment on the SQL you discovered using strings? If you don't know it can you really offer an opinion?

Saying it's vandalised when you didn't even perform the basic checks with someone who knows the MS platform is something you should be beaten up for, it's sensationalist, and now, if you do discover something, how much of your message will get hidden simply because you cried wold at the very beginning?

Search the internet....

Here is a good looking one from GASP microsoft: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/2008.12.linux.aspx

First of all, I do not know how Windows Access Control translates into desktop management noticeable by end users in Windows, to draw the analogy you made to the Linux desktop. I had to look it up just to make sure what you meant here. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa374860(VS.85).aspx This explains ACL's and low-level permissions. I will not go into details (because I am not an expert, and plenty on Slashdot can fill in for me here), but I think it is safe to say Ubuntu Linux, Linux, GNU/Linux (hello, flamewar), and most Unix variants have a pretty expressive permissions system. As an advancing n00b, it is enough to keep me locked out of my systems when running in a user account that is not in wheel. If you meant something like Local Group Policy and GPO's in an Active Directory environment (where I have to make my bread and butter), Linux has been making strides in this department. You just need to Google like everyone else. If you are looking for tools to lock down the Linux desktop(s), particularly GNOME in this example, there is already an active project using tools like gconf (mentioned in a post below), SELinux, and other security utilities to make a locked down kiosk account pretty easy. It is called xguest. http://docs.fedoraproject.org/selinux-user-guide/f11/en-US/sect-Security-Enhanced_Linux-Confining_Users-xguest_Kiosk_Mode.html I would love to hear what people have to say about it if they deploy it in the field. It is serious enough for a Red Hat sales engineer to bring it up as a cheap alternative to Windows kiosks I must laboriously lock down with aforementioned local GP and GPO's. SELinux is no joke either, since its development is derived from DoD/NSA research. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selinux That being said, the current Linux solutions, if you figure in NSA/DoD cooperation, are at least as bad as Microsoft products. Only difference is that they are free.

What about Windows Small Business Server? Granted... the OEM price is roughly the same as a standard OEM copy of Server 2008... only it comes with a heck of a lot more in the box (Exchange, SQL, etc).

One wonders what will come of Windows Foundation Server and it's pricing.

What about Windows Small Business Server? Granted... the OEM price is roughly the same as a standard OEM copy of Server 2008... only it comes with a heck of a lot more in the box (Exchange, SQL, etc).

One wonders what will come of Windows Foundation Server and it's pricing.

You could use Microsoft Enterprise Search Server Express which is free (if you have a Windows Server license laying around). It's the same search engine as MOSS without the CMS functionality and it can crawl just about everything either natively or with connectors. You can use MSSQL Express as the database engine which is also free.

Or you could go completely open source with Apache SOLR, though I hear it's so featureful that it's very difficult to install and configure.

MOSS is prohibitively expensive. For 2500 seats, you're looking at around $400k to start plus $130k/year.

Where do you get these numbers from? What would stop someone from purchasing Office SharePoint Server 2007 for Internet Sites (no CALs required) for $41,134? Is there some restrictions in licensing which do not allow that? Also why do people have to pay $130k/year.. Are you talking about the optional software assurance program?

You're still talking about additional server licensing and administration.

Big companies have big IT departments to do these things.

Which means that nobody is developing for it. Whenever you have a product that is only sold to enterprises rather than to the wider world it is very, very difficult for external developers to learn it and for software vendors to provide all the useful add-ons that really provide killer support for it and actually make it useful.

There's enough of a market for third-party addons that developers pay to promote their software via opt-in email marketing. I know this because I receive such emails.

A lot of SharePoint development might be internal.

Alas, there is nothing to support that. The wider world can't get access to Sharepoint so they're not coming into large organisations having already known about and learned Sharepoint.

There are lots of big companies actually using SharePoint. And there are lots of products that only really get used in large organizations. Think of SAP, IBM mainframes, Lotus Notes/Domino, etc. These products are less accessible than nearly all Microsoft or Oracle products.

As far as using SharePoint - trial versions are available to download from Microsoft for free, as are trial versions of Microsoft's server operating systems. There's also a freely downloadable pre-configured virtual machine. The core of SharePoint (WSS) is licensed as part of Windows Server. The full-featured version (MOSS) is available to TechNet and MSDN subscribers for evaluation/development use.

That's why companies like BEA found life pretty difficult, because there was a lot of people at college and university using PHP or something that just don't learn their stuff.

And yet PHP and MySQL haven't taken over the corporate world...

MS does have a solution, it's called Windows Federated Search. Windows 7 with 2008R2 has it .. there might be a way to do with Windows Desktop Search 4.0. Here's some info on it - http://geekswithblogs.net/sdorman/archive/2009/05/14/windows-7-federated-search.aspx

You don't know what you're talking about, Federated Search has nothing to do with this; it's just a system for search plugins in Explorer. (link: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd940456(VS.85).aspx )

Seriously? Microsoft offers a free piece of software that runs on the server that does "exactly" what he needs and we are suggesting Sharepoint/Alfresco, grep/locate and Google Search Server?
http://www.microsoft.com/enterprisesearch/en/us/search-server-express.aspx

You don't have to like them, but you should consider that they want to steal the market everywhere enough to give away decent software to get their foot in the door.

If the share is indexed, Windows Search 4.0 will query the index on the remote server. Here is a link to the admin documentation with more information: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc772446(WS.10).aspx

And a nice OS? What are you comparing it to? Windows 3.1? Please tell me what is so "nice" about Windows CE compared to the wealth of other mobile OSes?

Better tools, better real-time support, better hardware support. You may want to read on the subject. For example, here or here

Seriously. You're probably going to want a separate server(s) for this job. You didn't specifiy what you're indexing, how often, or where, however I'll make some assumptions and point you towards an enterprise search appliance or product. Many will probably point you to Google Enterprise Search. I've worked with the search functionality withing Microsoft Sharepoint 2007, and it's (ostensibly) free spin-off, Microsoft Search Server. Again, you'll probably need to dedicate some hardware to this. In addition to crawling all the content, the search product will also need to index and present it to the user. This requires a front-end crawling role, back-end indexing role, and a database to keep all the data in. Dealing with several hundred gigs mean you'll want to have separate servers for all 3 (again, basing this off of my knowledge of MS products. YMMV). The nice part is that your users will work through a webpage, and the workstation won't be tied up doing any crunching of it's own.

Try starting here: http://www.google.com/enterprise/

or here: http://www.microsoft.com/enterprisesearch/en/us/search-server-express.aspx

Use Microsoft Search Server 2008 Express...its free, all you need is a free server box. Also Check out SharePoint Search and FAST enterprise search.
http://www.microsoft.com/enterprisesearch

Where do I go to file bug reports with Microsoft? Last time I checked, the only option available was a black hole. You fill in your issue, and you get a page that says 'thank you for submitting your issue'.

It depends on the products. I don't know how it's handled for Windows or Office, for example. For some products (most notably, all developer-related products - WinSDK, Visual Studio, .NET, SQL Server, PowerShell etc), there are bug trackers at Microsoft Connect. Here are some examples of bugs that I have reported via it - as you can see, sometimes there's a fairly long delay before there is any response, and the answer isn't always "we'll fix it", but in all cases there is some response: 1 2 3 4 5.

Where do I go to file bug reports with Microsoft? Last time I checked, the only option available was a black hole. You fill in your issue, and you get a page that says 'thank you for submitting your issue'.

It depends on the products. I don't know how it's handled for Windows or Office, for example. For some products (most notably, all developer-related products - WinSDK, Visual Studio, .NET, SQL Server, PowerShell etc), there are bug trackers at Microsoft Connect. Here are some examples of bugs that I have reported via it - as you can see, sometimes there's a fairly long delay before there is any response, and the answer isn't always "we'll fix it", but in all cases there is some response: 1 2 3 4 5.

Where do I go to file bug reports with Microsoft? Last time I checked, the only option available was a black hole. You fill in your issue, and you get a page that says 'thank you for submitting your issue'.

It depends on the products. I don't know how it's handled for Windows or Office, for example. For some products (most notably, all developer-related products - WinSDK, Visual Studio, .NET, SQL Server, PowerShell etc), there are bug trackers at Microsoft Connect. Here are some examples of bugs that I have reported via it - as you can see, sometimes there's a fairly long delay before there is any response, and the answer isn't always "we'll fix it", but in all cases there is some response: 1 2 3 4 5.

Where do I go to file bug reports with Microsoft? Last time I checked, the only option available was a black hole. You fill in your issue, and you get a page that says 'thank you for submitting your issue'.

It depends on the products. I don't know how it's handled for Windows or Office, for example. For some products (most notably, all developer-related products - WinSDK, Visual Studio, .NET, SQL Server, PowerShell etc), there are bug trackers at Microsoft Connect. Here are some examples of bugs that I have reported via it - as you can see, sometimes there's a fairly long delay before there is any response, and the answer isn't always "we'll fix it", but in all cases there is some response: 1 2 3 4 5.

Where do I go to file bug reports with Microsoft? Last time I checked, the only option available was a black hole. You fill in your issue, and you get a page that says 'thank you for submitting your issue'.

It depends on the products. I don't know how it's handled for Windows or Office, for example. For some products (most notably, all developer-related products - WinSDK, Visual Studio, .NET, SQL Server, PowerShell etc), there are bug trackers at Microsoft Connect. Here are some examples of bugs that I have reported via it - as you can see, sometimes there's a fairly long delay before there is any response, and the answer isn't always "we'll fix it", but in all cases there is some response: 1 2 3 4 5.

Where do I go to file bug reports with Microsoft? Last time I checked, the only option available was a black hole. You fill in your issue, and you get a page that says 'thank you for submitting your issue'.

It depends on the products. I don't know how it's handled for Windows or Office, for example. For some products (most notably, all developer-related products - WinSDK, Visual Studio, .NET, SQL Server, PowerShell etc), there are bug trackers at Microsoft Connect. Here are some examples of bugs that I have reported via it - as you can see, sometimes there's a fairly long delay before there is any response, and the answer isn't always "we'll fix it", but in all cases there is some response: 1 2 3 4 5.

I know the proper way to handle this is to have a QA/triage team (not between the developer and the user, but in addition to them) who solve problems like this. The reality is that we work with the resources we have, and sometimes theu do not include QA.

I can definitely understand the "limited resources" argument, but if you go after it, it's not the same as saying that there is no problem. You're just saying that there are not enough resources to solve this particular problem.

You also said it would be trivial for the developers to file the bug. I can't speak for Lennart, but I've learned to not do that

The normal way this is handled is by creating bugs for individual problems at granularity level most convenient for developers and QA, and then linking them up to user's original combined bug report.

Maybe the report is missing information so the reporter needs to comment anyway

If that's the case, you ask the reporter to provide missing information in the bug he originally reported.

maybe the developers interpretation of the report is somehow wrong

Not sure what this has to do with it. How that would not be a problem with a properly reported bug?

maybe the bug is already fixed

In this case, you close the separate bugs you've created that are already fixed as "duplicate".

the developer can't reproduce

In this case, you close the separate bugs you've created that don't repro as "not repro".

It's a case "responsibility": there is a person who is responsible for keeping the report up to date and correct and there is a person who is responsible for fixing the problem.

A user can only report to the best of his ability, which is quite often not on par with info that developers need, anyway. The only thing that you really need from the user are description of the problem, and, ideally, clear repro steps (if they are not clear, you keep asking questions until they become clear).

Yes, this all is properly solved by having dedicated QA staff (volunteers would also work, but it's probably not as interesting as coding, which is why you don't see many people volunteering).

I don't understand. This is a pretty special feature of open source, isn't it?

Not at all. Plenty of closed-source projects have bug trackers where developers communicate with users who report bugs directly. Heck, Microsoft has one!

If you're really interested, you could go to http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc716877.aspx and read about it.

MS09-054

FAQ for HTML Component Handling Vulnerability - CVE-2009-2529

If I use Firefox, which Internet Explorer update do I need to
install?
If a computer system is configured for Automatic Update, the
correct update will be downloaded and made available for installation depending
on the Automatic Update configuration. In the event that a computer system is
not configured for Automatic Update, users should verify which version of the
Windows operating system and Internet Explorer is on their system and download
the appropriate update.

If I install this security update, do I need to disable the Windows
Presentation Foundation Plug-in in Firefox to be protected from this
vulnerability?
No. Customers who have installed the security updates
associated with this security bulletin are protected from this
vulnerability.

If I have not yet applied this security update, how do I disable the
Windows Presentation Foundation plug-in in Firefox?
If you have not yet
applied this update, you can disable the Windows Presentation Foundation plug-in
in Firefox to block this vulnerability. To do this, launch the Firefox browser,
select the Tools pull-down menu, and then click Add-ons. Select
the Plugins icon at the top of the Add-ons window. In the list of
Plugins, select Windows Presentation Foundation 3.5.30729.1 and click
Disable.

If I uninstall the .NET Framework Assistant extension, does it disable or
remove the Windows Presentation Foundation plug-in?
If the .NET
Framework Assistant extension is uninstalled it does not disable or remove the
Windows Presentation Foundation plug-in. The .NET Framework Assistant and
Windows Presentation Foundation plug-in are controlled through different screens
in the Firefox Add-ons management window.

I fail to see how it would be beneficial to do an upgrade rather than a flat out re-format followed by re-install. The problem is the only reasonably priced versions of Windows 7 are upgrade versions that require me to have Vista on that machine. Thanks but I think I'll stick with XP on my home desktop for the time being.

You qualify for Windows 7's reduced upgrade pricing if you have Windows XP, too. From the Microsoft Store's pre-order page:

• "You qualify for Windows 7 upgrade versions if you're running genuine Windows Vista or Windows XP on your PC."

Windows Vista is only required if you want to do the undesirable "in place" upgrade over your old OS installation. To install the upgrade version of Windows 7 on a Windows XP PC, you are required to do a "clean" installation (back up, erase old OS, install new OS, re-install apps). However, Windows XP users do qualify for "upgrade pricing."

I agree that it's always better (but more time-consuming) to do a clean install anyway, even if an "in place" upgrade is possible. Windows Easy Transfer (it's on the Windows 7 DVD) makes it somewhat easy by backing up user accounts and settings in addition to files.

First off, if you install Java even if you wanted to install it just for IE, or just to run a local program that runs java, it installs the Java Plugin for FireFox as well as ask you for the toolbar of the day. The same goes for Adobe Acrobat Reader if you just wanted to view a PDF, and is actually worse since the earlier installers would install Adobe AIR Without permission. Flash doesn't install to both by default, but the problem with Flash for FireFox is that it does not automatically update. (don't know why. The ActiveX Flash has an updater.)

Second. Again, I'm all for the blacklisting, Especially the 1.0 version since uninstall was not possible until 1.1. What I'm saying is that this needs to happen with other plugins with similar security issues and not just with Microsoft's because a few zealots are butthurt because they see a MS product in their Microsoft free FireFox.

In February, .NET 3.5 framework comes out and it has 2 verified exploits (See Here). In that period of time, Adobe flash has had 4 exploits and Acrobat Reader had 8 (See Here). Java had 15 (not too sure of this number See Here) Now considering that none of the affected Adobe or Sun Plugins were blocked (as they should have been) Is this more of a political move because it's Microsoft or is it because Firefox cares about the security of their browser? (which they should.)

If ever there was an example of keeping it simple, .NET is it - as an example of what not to do.

I don't think the design goal of .NET was ever to "keep it single". It could be a lot simple if its design goals were like JVM - a VM specifically designed to run a single language that is very restrictive in terms of what one can do with it. .NET, however, was originally designed as VM for which you could write a full-featured ISO C++ compiler producing strictly bytecode (not necessarily verifiable - can't really do it with C++ - but 100% "managed"). Because of that, it's far more feature-rich than JVM from its user's perspective, and that, of course, means "more complicated".

In fact, one of the recent .NET vulnerabilities specifically has to do with an obscure CLR feature that, so far as I know, was originally added to it solely for the sake of C++.

so Microsoft Federation Police Department is going to deploy these to look for WGA violations? good! now Joe User will BEG to get linux installed.

Maybe your system can't work with it, but they do publish the file version information for this update.

From the TFA, it is clear that Microsoft approves of this particular move. I quote

It's recently surfaced that it has a serious security vulnerability, and Microsoft is recommending that all users disable the add-on.

I mean, this damage control. But I think Firefox is doing the mature thing and doing it the right way. Because not everbody wants to read the MS KnowledgeBase article and implement it themselves. At least, not my mom.

Users can't use regedit

What the hell are you talking about? I've had 75 year old hotel desk clerks (customers using our software) using regedit, if you can't explain how to use regedit, you''re just incapable of writing detailed instructions.

Alternatively, you can just send them a file, a .reg, that will remove the key, Google is your friend:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/310516

REALLY

Not

hard

I wouldn't touch a byte on Firefox dir if I was MS.

They don't touch the firefox directory you moron. They add a single registry key. Firefox doesn't even need to be installed, installing it later and having the plugin work is another reason why it works this way. Likewise you can rm -rf the firefox and install it again later and the plugin will work. Please don't talk about what you don't have the slightest understanding of. Just because its related to MS doesn't mean they are out to eat your babies and share your wife with dingos and Steve Erwin. Please get a grip on reality, MS isn't out to get you, regardless of how many times Stallman screams it.

Can you be any more complete ignorant of whats going on and still talk like you have a clue? You don't even know what the right utility is on OS X, you're looking for 'defaults' not plutil.

Why is it that slashdot mods seem to think the more retarded a statement is, the higher rating it needs whenever MS involved. You want to bitch about MS, fine, but have a clue and know what the hell you are talking about, prevents you from being made out like a douchebag when everyone else pipes up to call you out on your ignorance.

I'm a .NET guy also. This sound similar as ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem and couple of delegates. Or am I horribly mistaken?

So far as I can tell, from a .NET guy perspective, GCD is for OS X what Task Parallel Library is for .NET. Or Parallel Patterns Library for VC++ - Microsoft implemented C++0x lambdas in VC++10 mainly for that, in fact, just as Apple added blocks to their gcc fork mainly for GCD. Even the terms mostly match - futures, tasks, task groups.

Which is good, I guess, since it means that skills obtained with one would be easily transferable to another.

Maybe it's a little paranoid, but... Doesn't Microsoft potentially benefit from Firefox vulnerabilities? I mean, IE isn't doing so well right now, and this could discredit Firefox a little.

I'm the one who found and reported one of the vulnerabilities (CVE-2009-0090) in this batch that affects Firefox, and I strongly doubt that it was in any way intentional - the vulnerability itself is a fairly obscure corner case in .NET bytecode validator/verifier, and, so far as I can tell, it has been there for a very long time, seemingly before WPF was even released. All in all, it looks like a genuine bug.

A testament to its obscurity is the way I encountered it - I was designing an Algol-60 compiler targetting .NET, and was looking for an efficient way to pass Algol function-type function arguments (which are effectively vararg on the caller side) without having to lift outer locals used by captured functions to heap. Only after coming up with an efficient design and testing that it works, I realized the implications of what I had just done to the verifier.

I cannot comment on CVE-2009-2529 (the second Firefox-affecting vulnerability), but I don't see how it would be any different. Really, the idea of MS deliberately adding vulnerabilities to its products in hope of marginally affecting Firefox by them (remember that IE is hit much worse...) is pretty absurd - even if you disregard the notion of business reputation when it comes to MS, it poses a very high legal liability. No-one in a sane mind would even contemplate doing such a thing.

Disclaimer: I do work for Microsoft at present, though not on the affected products. I did not work for Microsoft when I discovered and reported that vulnerability.

How many times must we hear about this plugin? This is at least the third time I've seen an article on it.

If you got 1.0 of the plugin and want to get rid of it, get the update here or Here, install it, and then uninstall it.

I'm saving this in my journal. That way, when they post the next .NET plugin story next month, I can just post the journal link. Maybe I can keep the story count there too.

Microsoft, from all people?

Microsoft and Lockheed Martin been partners on high-profile military projects for at least the last ten years:

The alliance builds on existing relationships between Lockheed Martin and Microsoft on projects including the U.S. Air Force Integrated Space Command and Control (ISC2) program, a comprehensive upgrade of the North American Air Defense (NORAD) Cheyenne Mountain Complex; the integrated warfare system for the U.S. Navy's next nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, CVN 77; the Global Command Support System-Air Force; and the U.S. Defense Department's Defense Messaging System. The companies also are members of the Blue Team, which is competing for the Navy's next-generation land attack destroyer, DD 21 Lockheed Martin, Microsoft Form Alliance Focused on U.S. Government Market [May 24, 2001]

The Blue Team lost on what would become the DDG 1000 Zumwalt Class - Multimission Destroyer.

CVN-77 is the tenth and last of the Nimitz class super-carriers, the USS George H.W. Bush (CVN-77)

Microsoft has announced two more partnering agreements with large training and simulation companies for its recently unveiled Microsoft ESP visual simulation platform.
Lockheed Martin and FlightSafety International both will use ESP as part of their efforts to lower costs in their simulation on aircrew training. Those companies join Northrop Grumman and SAIC as large integrators who have joined with Microsoft on use of ESP, which was announced in November and became available Jan. 1. Lockheed Martin, FlightSafety to use Microsoft ESP platform [February 21, 2008]

His server software is horrible bad!

Lockheed would seem to disagree: Microsoft Case Studies: Lockheed Martin gains Enterprise-class capabilities with SAP on Windows, SQL Server [July 20, 2009]

If Windows 7 is just Windows Vista SP2, then what is Windows Vista SP2?

SPPhi.

If Windows 7 is just Windows Vista SP2, then what is Windows Vista SP2?

I've been using Windows 7 for a long time now, and if you get the latest processor technology and Office 2010 with it, you will love your PC again. It's a dramatic improvement.

Microsoft Windows 7 Professional Full - Retail: $299.99

Cheapest Nehalem Processor: $279.99

(note, can't buy Office 2010 yet)

Latest Office 20xx: $399.95

Total: $979.93

You are astroturfing. No-one gets the normal retail version of Windows. Normal people get the SB-version, which will cost you around $192.00
for the Ultimate edition.
Office 2007 costs $294.99 on amazon.com

Makes $766 instead of $979. And as he's been using Windows 7 for a long time, he cannot have ment the latest Nehalem processors. More like core2duo or core2quad.

I've been using Windows 7 for a long time now, and if you get the latest processor technology and Office 2010 with it, you will love your PC again. It's a dramatic improvement.

Microsoft Windows 7 Professional Full - Retail: $299.99
Cheapest Nehalem Processor: $279.99
(note, can't buy Office 2010 yet)
Latest Office 20xx: $399.95

Total: $979.93

So Michael Dell, the CEO of the company that is the largest dealer of PCs to businesses and individuals, suggests you opt for the extra grand in order to 'love your PC again.' You don't say. I would be shocked if anyone was willing to fork over more than $900 for an entire computer these days. How am I to differentiate this from any salesman saying, "Buy the most expensive one for the best experience."

"Blank" is a screen saver in Windows XP – right between Beziers and Marquee – which, coincidentally, turns your screen black. I felt it reasonable to assume that this is what he meant.

What surprises me is that MS hasn't done much in the area(unless you are willing to go all the way to Windows Home Server). Architecturally, Volume Shadow Copy is abundantly powerful and has been available since before Time Machine even hit the scene; but you certainly wouldn't know about it from looking at any of the advertising, documentation, or spec sheets for non-server Microsoft OSes.

When accessed from the shell in client versions of Windows Vista and Windows 7, Shadow Copy is often called "Previous Versions." Back when Vista was released, I remember seeing it mentioned in reviews and on Microsoft's product info pages.

Maybe it wasn't a "front page" feature because it was only available in Vista Business, Ultimate, and Enterprise (and not Home Premium). Thankfully, MS has corrected this mistake by including this feature (and all other backup features) in Windows 7 Home Premium as well.

Why do you think it wasn't deliberate?

Well, because Microsoft is launching their home-grown cloud computing initiative in just a few weeks, and the fact that another one that was under their care was so poorly managed that it unrecoverably, catastrophically failed will probably make people rather hesitant to put their trust in Microsoft's.

One problem is that CA's expect "instant gratification" when they issue a new root certificate. Properly, root certificates ought to change very rarely. They should be published a few years before they're used, so there's time for people to install new browser updates and be confident that a fake root cert didn't get through. Now, though, Microsoft Windows Update is being used as the source of root CA authority. We're seeing far more root certificates, more than are really necessary.

The U.S. Department of Defense is going to all-HTTPS for most military sites, even the public-facing ones. But they have far too many root certificates, and few browsers have them all.

This has nothing to do with "depth of Microsoft's problems". Your school probably pays for MSDNAA as a benefit to students (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/academic/default.aspx/). This program has been around for a long time. I used it to get windows 98/2000/xp from my university back in the day.

I disagree. We are on XP now, however we plan to move to Windows 7 EE as we roll out new machines.

With the EA including App-V in the MDOP, most anything which will not run in Windows 7 should run through App-V. We are finding that more of our applications work under Windows 7 without modification than did under Vista. Windows 7's system requirements are less than that of Vista. Add a 2008 R2 server and you get branch cache. There are no compelling reasons to stay with XP on a new PC now, however there features in Windows 7 which would be quite beneficial.

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/enterprise/products/mdop/default.aspx
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/enterprise/products/windows-7/features.aspx#branchcache

I disagree. We are on XP now, however we plan to move to Windows 7 EE as we roll out new machines.

With the EA including App-V in the MDOP, most anything which will not run in Windows 7 should run through App-V. We are finding that more of our applications work under Windows 7 without modification than did under Vista. Windows 7's system requirements are less than that of Vista. Add a 2008 R2 server and you get branch cache. There are no compelling reasons to stay with XP on a new PC now, however there features in Windows 7 which would be quite beneficial.

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/enterprise/products/mdop/default.aspx
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/enterprise/products/windows-7/features.aspx#branchcache