Slashdot Mirror

• 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor
• 1 GB of system memory
• 40 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space

Here are the minimum requirements:

• 800 MHz processor and 512 MB of system memory
• 20 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space
• Support for Super VGA graphics

Looking at these as an average consumer, I would think that Vista Ultimate should be fine on a 3200+ Athlon XP with 2GB of memory. But it's not unless I turn off a lot of things, and that requires a geek not an average consumer. If MS really listed the requirements, not many would upgrade their OS as it would require many to buy a new computer instead. If they're buying a new computer, hey, those Macs look cute.

Oh for goodness sake, stop being sensible will you - this is Slashdot!

Actually UAC becomes a lot more usable if you install the Elevation PowerToys:

• The Originals
• The New Set

Oh for goodness sake, stop being sensible will you - this is Slashdot!

Actually UAC becomes a lot more usable if you install the Elevation PowerToys:

• The Originals
• The New Set

Oh for goodness sake, stop being sensible will you - this is Slashdot!

Actually UAC becomes a lot more usable if you install the Elevation PowerToys:

• The Originals
• The New Set

Oh for goodness sake, stop being sensible will you - this is Slashdot!

Actually UAC becomes a lot more usable if you install the Elevation PowerToys:

• The Originals
• The New Set

Oh for goodness sake, stop being sensible will you - this is Slashdot!

Actually UAC becomes a lot more usable if you install the Elevation PowerToys:

• The Originals
• The New Set

Oh for goodness sake, stop being sensible will you - this is Slashdot!

Actually UAC becomes a lot more usable if you install the Elevation PowerToys:

• The Originals
• The New Set

I'll provide links since you didn't. =)

Download Windows Web Server 2008 trial (or if you prefer, you can get a trial of a different version of Windows Server)

Buy Windows Web Server 2008 - apparently U.S. $140.91 ($157.76 after shipping according to shopzilla.com) from pcRUSH.com (I'd never heard of this company, but here's their Shopzilla customer rating page); this is the best price I could find, but it seems rather low so I'm somewhat skeptical.

Buy Windows Web Server 2008 - U.S. $362.49 with free shipping on Amazon.com; this is the second best price I could find, and looks a bit less fishy considering the price is closer to retail and the seller (Amazon) is well-known.

Feel free to search for better prices. I tried shopzilla.com and pricegrabber.com and the prices above were the best that came up.

In case you're wondering, the reason why I singled out Windows Web Server (as opposed to another edition of Windows Server) is that if you're not going to actually use the OS for the server features, it doesn't make sense to buy a more expensive edition. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I'll provide links since you didn't. =)

Download Windows Web Server 2008 trial (or if you prefer, you can get a trial of a different version of Windows Server)

Buy Windows Web Server 2008 - apparently U.S. $140.91 ($157.76 after shipping according to shopzilla.com) from pcRUSH.com (I'd never heard of this company, but here's their Shopzilla customer rating page); this is the best price I could find, but it seems rather low so I'm somewhat skeptical.

Buy Windows Web Server 2008 - U.S. $362.49 with free shipping on Amazon.com; this is the second best price I could find, and looks a bit less fishy considering the price is closer to retail and the seller (Amazon) is well-known.

Feel free to search for better prices. I tried shopzilla.com and pricegrabber.com and the prices above were the best that came up.

In case you're wondering, the reason why I singled out Windows Web Server (as opposed to another edition of Windows Server) is that if you're not going to actually use the OS for the server features, it doesn't make sense to buy a more expensive edition. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Yes, it could, unless you're running a 64-bit OS and processor. Most computers, which are 32-bit, have a total or 4 GB of addressable memory space, which includes video memory, sound card memory (if you actually still use one) and system RAM. Therefore, if you put in a 2GB video card, you can't make use more than 2 GB of system RAM.

That's not entirely accurate. PAE makes it possible to address 4+ GB of addresses on a 32-bit system, so long as your operating system supports it fully. AFAIK both Linux and BSD happily do, and certain Windows versions also support it.

It's $200 per BUSINESS per year. (or replace software distributor with business).

Not all software is distributed by a partnership or corporation. Some software is distributed by an individual author. To take an example related to Slashdot's parent company, who would sign the packages on SourceForge.net?

I said you dont need to keep renewing your cert for old signings to continue working. You only need to renew if you need to sign new software after your old cert has expired.

Even if the signature of the old version of a program is still valid, an individual software author would have to either renew or get a new hobby.

Certificates dont have 'privileges'.

By "certificates have privileges", I meant that the operating system grants privileges to a program based on the certificate chain with which a program is signed.

Signing for distribution can be done with any of these vendors: [link to a list including Comodo]

True, but then what is the meaning of the row "Accepted for Windows kernel mode certification" in the table on this page? I'm guessing that Microsoft must have expanded the list of valid KMCS root CAs since last time I checked, but Comodo is still not there. Which $200 SPC vendor were you thinking of?

This is what Microsoft's Steve Riley had to say about outbound protection:

There's an important axiom of security that you must understand: protection belongs on the asset you want to protect, not on the thing you're trying to protect against. The correct approach is to run the lean yet effective Windows firewall on every computer in your organization, to protect each one from every other computer in the world. If you try to block outbound connections from a computer that's already compromised, how can you be sure that the computer is really doing what you ask? The answer: you can't. Outbound protection is security theater--it's a gimmick that only gives the impression of improving your security without doing anything that actually does improve your security. This is why outbound protection didn't exist in the Windows XP firewall and why it doesn't exist in the Windows Vista(TM) firewall.

Earlier, I said that the typical form of outbound protection in client firewalls is just security theater. However, one form of outbound control is very useful: administratively controlling certain types of traffic that you know you don't want to permit. The Windows Vista firewall already does this for service restrictions. The firewall allows a service to communicate only on the ports it says it needs and blocks anything else that the service attempts to do. You can build on this by writing additional rules that allow or block specific traffic to match your organization's security policy. Exploring The Windows Firewall

In one page, Riley covers quite a bit of ground.

That's $200 per year for the developer who self-publishes, plus $200 per year for each user who exercises the right to "installation information" under section 4(e) of the LGPLv3. That can add up quickly.

I dont have a clue what that means.

But its not accurate. It's $200 per BUSINESS per year. (or replace software distributor with business).

So you're giving us another excuse for software to fall unmaintained: "my cert ran out".

I'm not giving anyone an excuse. Thats not at all what I said. I said you dont need to keep renewing your cert for old signings to continue working. You only need to renew if you need to sign new software after your old cert has expired.

VeriSign certificates have special privileges over other CAs' certificates in Windows. Only VeriSign certificates work with the Windows Logo program (including "Games for Windows")

Certificates dont have 'privileges'.

What you're talking about is the qualification testing for higher levels of the logo program (ie, certified for Vista, rather than 'works with vista').

And you dont need a verisign cert to distribute your code, you need one to submit for winqual testing.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsvista/bb981198.aspx

Winqual testing for the 'certified' logo program is NOT the same as signing for distribution.

Signing for distribution can be done with any of these vendors:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms995347.aspx

and the kernel mode code signing that hides the ugly "Test Mode" warning in Windows Vista 64-bit.

This is also not true for hardware. YOu do NOT need a verisign cert for this.

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/winlogo/VistaLogoFAQ.mspx#title110

You DO need (just like software) a verisign cert for winqual testing, if you are doing winqual testing. But you can get your authenticode cert from someone else for cheaper.

Now it turns out that recently (at least its new to me), MS worked out a discounted cert from Verisign, who now offers a combo cert that works for authenticode and winqual testing (if you need the latter), for $399.

It's still more expensive than you need for just an authenticode cert, but its not too bad.

That's $200 per year for the developer who self-publishes, plus $200 per year for each user who exercises the right to "installation information" under section 4(e) of the LGPLv3. That can add up quickly.

I dont have a clue what that means.

But its not accurate. It's $200 per BUSINESS per year. (or replace software distributor with business).

So you're giving us another excuse for software to fall unmaintained: "my cert ran out".

I'm not giving anyone an excuse. Thats not at all what I said. I said you dont need to keep renewing your cert for old signings to continue working. You only need to renew if you need to sign new software after your old cert has expired.

VeriSign certificates have special privileges over other CAs' certificates in Windows. Only VeriSign certificates work with the Windows Logo program (including "Games for Windows")

Certificates dont have 'privileges'.

What you're talking about is the qualification testing for higher levels of the logo program (ie, certified for Vista, rather than 'works with vista').

And you dont need a verisign cert to distribute your code, you need one to submit for winqual testing.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsvista/bb981198.aspx

Winqual testing for the 'certified' logo program is NOT the same as signing for distribution.

Signing for distribution can be done with any of these vendors:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms995347.aspx

and the kernel mode code signing that hides the ugly "Test Mode" warning in Windows Vista 64-bit.

This is also not true for hardware. YOu do NOT need a verisign cert for this.

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/winlogo/VistaLogoFAQ.mspx#title110

You DO need (just like software) a verisign cert for winqual testing, if you are doing winqual testing. But you can get your authenticode cert from someone else for cheaper.

Now it turns out that recently (at least its new to me), MS worked out a discounted cert from Verisign, who now offers a combo cert that works for authenticode and winqual testing (if you need the latter), for $399.

It's still more expensive than you need for just an authenticode cert, but its not too bad.

That's $200 per year for the developer who self-publishes, plus $200 per year for each user who exercises the right to "installation information" under section 4(e) of the LGPLv3. That can add up quickly.

I dont have a clue what that means.

But its not accurate. It's $200 per BUSINESS per year. (or replace software distributor with business).

So you're giving us another excuse for software to fall unmaintained: "my cert ran out".

I'm not giving anyone an excuse. Thats not at all what I said. I said you dont need to keep renewing your cert for old signings to continue working. You only need to renew if you need to sign new software after your old cert has expired.

VeriSign certificates have special privileges over other CAs' certificates in Windows. Only VeriSign certificates work with the Windows Logo program (including "Games for Windows")

Certificates dont have 'privileges'.

What you're talking about is the qualification testing for higher levels of the logo program (ie, certified for Vista, rather than 'works with vista').

And you dont need a verisign cert to distribute your code, you need one to submit for winqual testing.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsvista/bb981198.aspx

Winqual testing for the 'certified' logo program is NOT the same as signing for distribution.

Signing for distribution can be done with any of these vendors:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms995347.aspx

and the kernel mode code signing that hides the ugly "Test Mode" warning in Windows Vista 64-bit.

This is also not true for hardware. YOu do NOT need a verisign cert for this.

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/winlogo/VistaLogoFAQ.mspx#title110

You DO need (just like software) a verisign cert for winqual testing, if you are doing winqual testing. But you can get your authenticode cert from someone else for cheaper.

Now it turns out that recently (at least its new to me), MS worked out a discounted cert from Verisign, who now offers a combo cert that works for authenticode and winqual testing (if you need the latter), for $399.

It's still more expensive than you need for just an authenticode cert, but its not too bad.

The problem is that to set up that CAPTCHA you have to have a person sift through a huge picture archive of cats and dogs and mark each one.

Or you can be smart and realize that sites like petfinder already have to sift through.

http://research.microsoft.com/asirra/

over 3 million photos in the dataset.

Or there just needs to be a very large database of possibilities. Microsoft's Asirra is one of these with a finite number of items, but due to the nature and number of the items, a computer will have a difficult time breaking it.

You're simply talking out of your ass and you're giving the typical knee jerk reaction against Microsoft products. You do not have a single example of where Windows XP SP2 firewall is vulnerable to a remote exploit and there isn't a single example of hackers getting through it if all ports are closed.

Microsoft disagrees with you:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/ms08-001.mspx

Note that XP SP2 and Vista are both vulnerable to those two exploits, THROUGH the default-enabled firewall, for a full remote exploit vulnerability, using only TCP/IP - AKA only the network cable needs connected to a network, with at least one other machine exploiting this. That is possible with a network of two computers!

Uh, you miss the point. Entirely. It isn't a plea for text-based reading or gateway software. It was a comment that had nothing to do with text-based reading (or gateway software). It is pointing out (and laughing, in a sad, hollow way) that they are finally moving toward having in a web forum the kind of functionality that late 80's news reader software had.

Sigh.

My point was that that given the innability to provide 80s functionality, it just might be behoove those caught up with the excitement and rapid progress of the New and Improved to revisit the original Old and Outdated which provided that functionality in the first place.

The possible merits of the above may escape you, of course, but that's not to say they don't exist. The happy users of Gmane would most definitely disagree with you, as would the minions taking advantage of Microsoft's own support forums.

As for the latter, I doubt Microsoft's gateway setup was implemented as a response to what you perceive as a "plea" for text-based reading. In fact, it's rebranded and sold as a bonus for their Technet, etc. subscribers. Go figure. Someone making money using something from the 80s that doesn't require Web 2.0, or playing music in a cover band at weddings.

or, from a gaming perspective: a toolkit and development studio that is more or less drag and drop vs. an extremely difficult though flexible system that requires (at least required ME to) relearning how to program for multiple cores. In my personal opinion (having programmed for 14 years now) DirectX is MUCH easier than OpenGL.

Again, this is personal preference, but if you want relevancy then you can't ignore the gaming!

You remember incorrectly.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx#physical_memory_limits_windows_vista

Home Basic is capped at 8Gb, Home Premium at 16Gb, and Ultimate and Business at 128Gb

I don't think it gets much easier than this:

What Is Service Pack 3?

Read the XP SP3 white paper.
Steps to take before you install SP3
Download SP3 from Windows Update
Order SP3 on CD-ROM
Download and deploy SP3 to multiple computers [Network Installation for the IT Professional]
Free [basic] unlimited installation and compatibility support
---your choice of e-mail, online chat, or toll-free telephone.
TTY/TDO service for the hearing-impaired

The best thing to do would be to download and burn an offline SP3 updater on a good PC, and install that before connecting to the net.

Sadly this is not very well known especially amongst those who need it the most, and MS doesn't go out their way to make it very clear either. So geeks, do your duty and inform those who you suspect could use it.

This would be all fine and dandy and all, but who has access to two computers at home? Work computers do not count as most of them probably do not have burners.

The best thing to do would be to download and burn an offline SP3 updater on a good PC, and install that before connecting to the net.

Sadly this is not very well known especially amongst those who need it the most, and MS doesn't go out their way to make it very clear either. So geeks, do your duty and inform those who you suspect could use it.

This would be all fine and dandy and all, but who has access to two computers at home? Work computers do not count as most of them probably do not have burners.

The best thing to do would be to download and burn an offline SP3 updater on a good PC, and install that before connecting to the net.

Sadly this is not very well known especially amongst those who need it the most, and MS doesn't go out their way to make it very clear either. So geeks, do your duty and inform those who you suspect could use it.

The best thing to do would be to download and burn an offline SP3 updater on a good PC, and install that before connecting to the net.

Sadly this is not very well known especially amongst those who need it the most, and MS doesn't go out their way to make it very clear either. So geeks, do your duty and inform those who you suspect could use it.

If all you got is a pre-SP2 OEM image, you should really download the SP2 (or better SP3) offline installer and burn it to a CD. Install it after restoring the OEM image and before you connect the network and you won't have any problems.

12. Home User Licensing

A quick google search comes up with: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-vista/get/licensing.aspx

Have more than one PC that is ready to run Vista? Once you're running Windows Vista on one computer, you will probably want to run it on other computers you own. Now it's easy to get the additional licenses you need to put Windows Vista on your additional computers. (You will need one license for each computer running Windows Vista.)

So if you have brought one copy of Vista you can then buy more copies at a reduced price which seems to be what the author wants...

Vista has exactly what you are describing, easy backups of anything to external or internal drives: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-vista/features/backup.aspx You select to either backup certain files or entire drives (even your boot drive) simply by clicking backup then selecting any drive with enough space (or external drive) to save the backup and you can continue working while Vista is doing its thing. Restoring is just as easy.

That's controlled by the application, not the OS. Good applications will open the dialog on the same monitor their main window is on, and position it at least remotely close to the main window. Bad applications will just open it on the default monitor regardless. Really bad applications (I'm looking at you, SQL Server Management Studio*!) will just blindly and stupidly open windows on monitors that aren't even plugged-in or enabled.

In any case, sorry to say you can't blame the OS for this one.

* See: http://forums.microsoft.com/forums/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=3313109&SiteID=1

Here's a list of things Windows 7 MUST have, if people are to take it seriously:

How would these features matter to a wide variety of people? Most of them wouldn't make a significant difference for the majority of desktop and server usage. How many people would understand, care, and take Windows seriously because these features were included?

True QoS, not just RSVP (which almost nobody uses and which doesn't scale)

Why do I care?

True pre-emptible support (you need this for better multimedia)

The Windows kernel is already preemptible since at least Windows 2000. What exactly are the deficiencies in the current Microsoft implementation, and how is multimedia usage impaired?

True host security using mandatory access controls and role-based security models (B3 or better, on the Orange Book scale)

How would this enhance gaming, multimedia, or scientific use?

True network security (Microsoft has more programmers than the OpenBSD team, so can audit more code more thoroughly)

What are the current deficiencies in Windows network security?

True logging filesystem (journaling doesn't cut it any more with data centers)

How would this enhance gaming or multimedia use?

True object-oriented desktop (associations by file extension? CP/M called and wants its ideas back)

Can you propose something better than file extensions that won't break compatibility with every other operating system? Would the average user notice anything different than the current implementation of "hide extension"?

True high-performance networking (where's Microsoft's WEB100? you seen much VNIC or RNIC support either?)
True clustering (sorry, recompiling MPICH and calling it Windows Cluster Edition doesn't cut it)

How would this be useful to anyone besides those running high-end clusters (that is, a few)?

Windows has absolutely TERRIBLE event logging capability and error reporting. There are virtually no useful security audit functions included with the operating system. Virtually, all useful information gleaned from MS event logs is via 3rd party products or home-brew scripting. EventComb is ancient add-on garbage. I do not think that -useful- error and audit log entries are too much to ask.

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/archive/winntas/support/usesecur.mspx?mfr=true
"You can effectively monitor logons and logoffs if you know what to look for and where to look."

WHAT?! If there were ONE thing in a operating system security log that I would make an 'easy button' for, it would be who logged in, when, and when did they logout.

Suggestion number 12, Home User Licensing, already exists in a way. If you have a Vista license you can buy additional licenses at a reduced price, provided the new Vista licenses are of the same type as the one you already have.

There is more information on the Microsoft website.

Another alternative is buying upgrade licenses for computers which already have valid Windows licenses for Windows 2000 or Windows XP.

- Jesper

First thing to do is fix windows then. If you want backups to work, firstly make the install use less disk space.

Yes, I know disk space is cheap nowadays, but Vista happily hogs 6+Gig in its 'uninstall' WinSxS directory. Fancy backing that lot up every time.

Does Windows PowerShell (Monad) not fit the bill for you? (I personally use cygwin too.) Even so, the world of graphical developers needs to remember that a GUI is nice, but a GUI that also takes command-line parameters and documents those parameters is even better. Without that, there's not much a command-line can do to glue those apps together.

Try NTFS-3G.

Also, blame Microsoft for not releasing the technical specs behind the FS. Reverse-engineering a filesystem (especially one that MS likes to change often) isn't exactly easy.

Finally, you can always reformat "larger USB drives" into a FS that's more efficient (ext3, reiserfs).

This MS KB may help.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/932134

There is also an MS KB related to the broadcast flag which may be what is being referred to.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/928233

This MS KB may help.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/932134

There is also an MS KB related to the broadcast flag which may be what is being referred to.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/928233

Microsoft has already realized that OOXML is unimplementable

...Was it the statement that the OOSML SDK "will definitely be 100% compliant with the final ISO/IEC 29500 spec, including the changes accepted at the BRM" (Doug Mahugh) that tipped you off that "Microsoft has already realized that OOXML is unimplementable"? Or was it the one about "We are committed to supporting the Open XML specification that is approved by ISO/IEC in our products (Chris Capossela)?

And what exactly is it about OOXML that is so "unimplementable" exactly? ISO 29500/Transitional is pretty close to ECMA 376, which is what Office 2007 (and everyone else) already implements; and the Strict version is much, much simpler to implement than Transitional; since it's basically Transitional with all the deprecated crap (VML, FormatLikeBabbageDiffEngine) stripped out.

It's still available, if anyone cares (unlikely): http://support.microsoft.com/kb/99891

(eyes the stack of WFW3.11 disks he bought years ago at a computer show, the functioning Toshiba 1910CS 33MHz Win3.1 laptop in the bookcase, the Zircom parallel-port Ethernet adapter on the shelf, and his home network)

Hmm...........

(I wonder if those thingies some folks use for their sigfiles that report your IP/ISP/browser/OS can recognize a WFW system. Might be fun if they couldn't)

---PCJ

One of the big problems with MS is the tendency to want to squeeze the same type of desktop into any environment whether or not it makes sense.

Really? Check this out: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms723891(VS.85).aspx .

I presume you mean Windows CE?

No, he means Windows Embedded. Duh.

http://www.microsoft.com/Windows/embedded/default.mspx

Nice job with the pointless off-topic MS rant.

What's really funny is that I bet those machines run Vista.

And Vista has the Stereo Mix functionality built into the OS!

Actually, you don't even have to build the stripped-down image. You just install Windows XP Embedded or Window Embedded Standard. (This version of Windows isn't available to the general public; this was an issue during the antitrust trial.) Interesting that it wasn't used for the ATM. Perhaps because the Embedded license fees are a little stiff: $1K for the runtime, and $90 for each machine. I think OEM rates for desktop Windows are much lower than that.

Next time I use an ATM with a touch screen, I am so repeating your experiment!

>I presume you mean Windows CE?

No, he means Embedded Windows, like Windows XP Embedded: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/embedded/products/whichproduct/default.mspx.

(What scares me is that you work on embedded systems and have never heard of it. I've never even touched embedded systems work and I know about it.)

It's still available, if anyone cares (unlikely): http://support.microsoft.com/kb/99891

You can't install a Windows boot drive to a single volume larger than 2TB, even though by default that's what Windows setup will try to do with this drive in a system (by itself). I can't wait for the tech support calls to come in!

Using GPT Drives

Itanium is looking pretty good now, eh?

-S

Well,it may be the arch,or it may be Vista's task manager lying to you.I have noticed Windows Task Manager is rarely honest.Have you tried process explorer from Microsoft's own technet? it is a single executable and gives you the option of replacing task manager if you'd like,and it gives you more detailed info than task manager.

But the numbers I gave for AVG and Avast came straight from process explorer running on Win2K Pro. Specifically,it came from process working set size. But I noticed that Windows task manager typically under reports RAM usage,why I don't know. But process explorer works on Vista so give it a try and see what it says the process working set is. Because what I reported was simply what process explorer showed me.And I know it was accurate because when I killed AVG the memory counter on my Aston desktop dropped by about 65Mb. And I tried switching back to explorer from Aston,no dice.AVG worked great on this machine until 8 came out and I haven't been using anything new. But as I said this is my experience on Win2K Pro and XP,YMMV

Wow, that sounds just like Microsoft's Virtual Worlds that they were running between 1995 and 2000!

Cool to see cutting edge stuff coming from Google.

I haven't taken the time to see what this new recommended fix does. Anyone have details on how it makes the query response harder to fake?

Sure. The security update addresses the vulnerabilities by using strongly random DNS transaction IDs, using random sockets for UDP queries, and updating the logic used to manage the DNS cache.