Slashdot Mirror

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/default.mspx

it's at http://www.microsoft.com/

Yes, but Win2K also had EFS. I don't have documentation on-hand but I can almost guarantee it was in there too.

Ah, there it is, cipher.exe was included in a hotfix.

Seriously. And it's not like it's that hard, either. It's not seven-level wipe (actually three level, which from my research suggests nobody could undo even examining every bit in an electron microscope), but all you have to do on a Windows system is run cipher /w C:\ after deleting any files you don't want someone to find.

1. You don't end up with a highly suspicious wipe and reinstall.
2. You don't have to download extra, suspicious software to do the wipe for you as cipher.exe is included with Win2K and WinXP.

Linux, of course, has the shred command anyway. But then, I suppose he's not a geek. It was a pretty stupid move to hire someone like that though without some sort of NDA.

From those pages, it's clear that the "core experiences" of Vista (a.k.a. Vista features included in Home Basic) include "Easier" features like:

• Instant Search
• Internet Explorer 7 with tabbed browsing (also backported to XP)
• Windows Sidebar and gadgets
• Windows Photo Gallery
• Windows Easy Transfer
• new performance self-tuning and diagnostics technologies
• Windows SuperFetch
• new self-healing technology
• new built-in diagnostics

• Windows Defender (downloadable XP version also available)
• Internet Explorer dynamic security protection
• Internet Explorer anti-phishing technology
• Internet Explorer protected mode
• Parental Controls
• User Account Control
• basic backup features

From those pages, it's clear that the "core experiences" of Vista (a.k.a. Vista features included in Home Basic) include "Easier" features like:

• Instant Search
• Internet Explorer 7 with tabbed browsing (also backported to XP)
• Windows Sidebar and gadgets
• Windows Photo Gallery
• Windows Easy Transfer
• new performance self-tuning and diagnostics technologies
• Windows SuperFetch
• new self-healing technology
• new built-in diagnostics

• Windows Defender (downloadable XP version also available)
• Internet Explorer dynamic security protection
• Internet Explorer anti-phishing technology
• Internet Explorer protected mode
• Parental Controls
• User Account Control
• basic backup features

Reblogged from http://drupal.geek.nz/node/48;

Oliver Rist 'reviewed' Mac OS X Leopard and his article was slashdotted.

Disclaimer

I'm writing this on my second MacBook Pro, in our house we also have MacBook white (My fiancee's), an iPod Shuffle, an Airport Extreme base station and an Airport Express with Airtunes. Although I wouldn't agree with you, it wouldn't surprise me if you took me for a JAFAF (Just Another Fucking Apple Fanboy). However I make an effort to keep a realistic view on Apple's products and if I felt that an open source operating system could enhance my workflow as much (or nearly as much) as Mac OS X, I would switch, but currently there isn't. I work on FLOSS all day every day -- that's my job, as a web and drupal developer and consultant.

Response

Oliver is clearly having a bitch in this article, and no doubt intentionally to aggravate JAFAFs and motivate discussion responses and click-throughs on the ads. Hence I won't give him or PC mag the pleasure of a long detailed approach, but merely attempt sieve out the parts inspired by T.O.M., and add my own $0.2; a realistic count of my Leopard experience to date.

"Apple turned a stable OS into a crash-happy glitz fest"

This is clearly a premenstrual hyperbole, proven by;

"A month of using Leopard with the same software I had under Tiger and the OS has dumped six times."

Back in the day when I ran pretend operating systems like those from that scummy vendor in a place near Seattle. The crappy thing crashed at least daily. That would be 'crash-happy'. Not you're slightly-more-than-weekly.

I guesstimate that Leopard has crashed or frozen about 8 to 12 times in the last 5 weeks since I installed it on October 26. Given the weight of use and the limits I take Leopard to, I consider this edging on acceptable, definitely not enough to go back to Tiger. Most of these times I got apple's designer-screen-of-death .

However, all of the applications I used on Tiger, also work on Leopard, and almost all without a glitch. (I don't count Apple's Safari 2, as this has clearly been disabled in Leopard at the call of management at apple and I'm confident that there's no technical reason why it couldn't run on Leopard.)

I repeat; All the applications I used on Tiger work on Leopard.

Komodo IDE had a few issues initially, but Komodo's update has smoothed that out. Parallels on Leopard needs some serious love. I believe it's the cause of at least half of the crashes. I think Skype, or the combination of skype with a bluetooth headset or bluetooth stereo headphones is another combination causing crashes and freezes.

I'd like to emphasize how impressive this is. Take a look at my dock; http://drupal.geek.nz/files/my%20dock.png

I use all but two of these applications daily;

1. Finder
2. Yummy FTP
3. iTerm
4. MAMP
5. Komodo IDE
6. TextMate
7. Stickies
8. TaskCoach
9. Netscape Navigator
10. Firefox 2
11. Firefox 3 beta 1
12. Adum
13. Xmeeting
14. Skype
15. iTunes
16. Activity Monitor

Reblogged from http://drupal.geek.nz/node/48;

Oliver Rist 'reviewed' Mac OS X Leopard and his article was slashdotted.

Disclaimer

I'm writing this on my second MacBook Pro, in our house we also have MacBook white (My fiancee's), an iPod Shuffle, an Airport Extreme base station and an Airport Express with Airtunes. Although I wouldn't agree with you, it wouldn't surprise me if you took me for a JAFAF (Just Another Fucking Apple Fanboy). However I make an effort to keep a realistic view on Apple's products and if I felt that an open source operating system could enhance my workflow as much (or nearly as much) as Mac OS X, I would switch, but currently there isn't. I work on FLOSS all day every day -- that's my job, as a web and drupal developer and consultant.

Response

Oliver is clearly having a bitch in this article, and no doubt intentionally to aggravate JAFAFs and motivate discussion responses and click-throughs on the ads. Hence I won't give him or PC mag the pleasure of a long detailed approach, but merely attempt sieve out the parts inspired by T.O.M., and add my own $0.2; a realistic count of my Leopard experience to date.

"Apple turned a stable OS into a crash-happy glitz fest"

This is clearly a premenstrual hyperbole, proven by;

"A month of using Leopard with the same software I had under Tiger and the OS has dumped six times."

Back in the day when I ran pretend operating systems like those from that scummy vendor in a place near Seattle. The crappy thing crashed at least daily. That would be 'crash-happy'. Not you're slightly-more-than-weekly.

I guesstimate that Leopard has crashed or frozen about 8 to 12 times in the last 5 weeks since I installed it on October 26. Given the weight of use and the limits I take Leopard to, I consider this edging on acceptable, definitely not enough to go back to Tiger. Most of these times I got apple's designer-screen-of-death .

However, all of the applications I used on Tiger, also work on Leopard, and almost all without a glitch. (I don't count Apple's Safari 2, as this has clearly been disabled in Leopard at the call of management at apple and I'm confident that there's no technical reason why it couldn't run on Leopard.)

I repeat; All the applications I used on Tiger work on Leopard.

Komodo IDE had a few issues initially, but Komodo's update has smoothed that out. Parallels on Leopard needs some serious love. I believe it's the cause of at least half of the crashes. I think Skype, or the combination of skype with a bluetooth headset or bluetooth stereo headphones is another combination causing crashes and freezes.

I'd like to emphasize how impressive this is. Take a look at my dock; http://drupal.geek.nz/files/my%20dock.png

I use all but two of these applications daily;

1. Finder
2. Yummy FTP
3. iTerm
4. MAMP
5. Komodo IDE
6. TextMate
7. Stickies
8. TaskCoach
9. Netscape Navigator
10. Firefox 2
11. Firefox 3 beta 1
12. Adum
13. Xmeeting
14. Skype
15. iTunes
16. Activity Monitor

Reblogged from http://drupal.geek.nz/node/48;

Oliver Rist 'reviewed' Mac OS X Leopard and his article was slashdotted.

Disclaimer

I'm writing this on my second MacBook Pro, in our house we also have MacBook white (My fiancee's), an iPod Shuffle, an Airport Extreme base station and an Airport Express with Airtunes. Although I wouldn't agree with you, it wouldn't surprise me if you took me for a JAFAF (Just Another Fucking Apple Fanboy). However I make an effort to keep a realistic view on Apple's products and if I felt that an open source operating system could enhance my workflow as much (or nearly as much) as Mac OS X, I would switch, but currently there isn't. I work on FLOSS all day every day -- that's my job, as a web and drupal developer and consultant.

Response

Oliver is clearly having a bitch in this article, and no doubt intentionally to aggravate JAFAFs and motivate discussion responses and click-throughs on the ads. Hence I won't give him or PC mag the pleasure of a long detailed approach, but merely attempt sieve out the parts inspired by T.O.M., and add my own $0.2; a realistic count of my Leopard experience to date.

"Apple turned a stable OS into a crash-happy glitz fest"

This is clearly a premenstrual hyperbole, proven by;

"A month of using Leopard with the same software I had under Tiger and the OS has dumped six times."

Back in the day when I ran pretend operating systems like those from that scummy vendor in a place near Seattle. The crappy thing crashed at least daily. That would be 'crash-happy'. Not you're slightly-more-than-weekly.

I guesstimate that Leopard has crashed or frozen about 8 to 12 times in the last 5 weeks since I installed it on October 26. Given the weight of use and the limits I take Leopard to, I consider this edging on acceptable, definitely not enough to go back to Tiger. Most of these times I got apple's designer-screen-of-death .

However, all of the applications I used on Tiger, also work on Leopard, and almost all without a glitch. (I don't count Apple's Safari 2, as this has clearly been disabled in Leopard at the call of management at apple and I'm confident that there's no technical reason why it couldn't run on Leopard.)

I repeat; All the applications I used on Tiger work on Leopard.

Komodo IDE had a few issues initially, but Komodo's update has smoothed that out. Parallels on Leopard needs some serious love. I believe it's the cause of at least half of the crashes. I think Skype, or the combination of skype with a bluetooth headset or bluetooth stereo headphones is another combination causing crashes and freezes.

I'd like to emphasize how impressive this is. Take a look at my dock; http://drupal.geek.nz/files/my%20dock.png

I use all but two of these applications daily;

1. Finder
2. Yummy FTP
3. iTerm
4. MAMP
5. Komodo IDE
6. TextMate
7. Stickies
8. TaskCoach
9. Netscape Navigator
10. Firefox 2
11. Firefox 3 beta 1
12. Adum
13. Xmeeting
14. Skype
15. iTunes
16. Activity Monitor

It's freakin' obvious to anyone who uses both operating systems that Windows Service Packs are not equivalent to OS X versions. Windows Service Packs add far fewer "features" than new OS X versions. The features SPs do add would be considered minor compared to the major features added to new OS X versions (although Apple does list many "minor" features in their "300+ New Features" list).

On the other hand, Windows Vista added more major features to Windows XP than OS X Leapord did to Tiger. Of course, Microsoft had a lot more time between Windows versions.

toleraen did bring up a good point about OS updates, but mislead about how much OS X users had to pay to keep updated ("four $129 software updates"). Microsoft's lifecycle policy for Windows versions is: at least 5 years of mainstream support for "home" and "pro" versions, plus an additional 5 years of extended support for "pro" versions (an exception was made for Windows XP "home" versions).

AFAIK, Apple does not have an "official" lifecycle policy, but they provide very few updates for past versions after releasing the 2nd new version after that past version. It is misleading to say that OS X users are required to pay $129 for each new version to stay updated. Skipping one OS X version is perfectly okay if OS X users want to stay supported and updated. Since OS X was released in March 2001, users could have skipped 10.2 and 10.4 and stayed supported and updated.

However, that's nothing compared to the updates MS provides for XP. MS released Windows XP in October 2001 and will provide security updates, non-security hotfixes, design changes, and feature requests until April 2009. They will continue to provide security updates until April 2014.

It's freakin' obvious to anyone who uses both operating systems that Windows Service Packs are not equivalent to OS X versions. Windows Service Packs add far fewer "features" than new OS X versions. The features SPs do add would be considered minor compared to the major features added to new OS X versions (although Apple does list many "minor" features in their "300+ New Features" list).

On the other hand, Windows Vista added more major features to Windows XP than OS X Leapord did to Tiger. Of course, Microsoft had a lot more time between Windows versions.

toleraen did bring up a good point about OS updates, but mislead about how much OS X users had to pay to keep updated ("four $129 software updates"). Microsoft's lifecycle policy for Windows versions is: at least 5 years of mainstream support for "home" and "pro" versions, plus an additional 5 years of extended support for "pro" versions (an exception was made for Windows XP "home" versions).

AFAIK, Apple does not have an "official" lifecycle policy, but they provide very few updates for past versions after releasing the 2nd new version after that past version. It is misleading to say that OS X users are required to pay $129 for each new version to stay updated. Skipping one OS X version is perfectly okay if OS X users want to stay supported and updated. Since OS X was released in March 2001, users could have skipped 10.2 and 10.4 and stayed supported and updated.

However, that's nothing compared to the updates MS provides for XP. MS released Windows XP in October 2001 and will provide security updates, non-security hotfixes, design changes, and feature requests until April 2009. They will continue to provide security updates until April 2014.

It's freakin' obvious to anyone who uses both operating systems that Windows Service Packs are not equivalent to OS X versions. Windows Service Packs add far fewer "features" than new OS X versions. The features SPs do add would be considered minor compared to the major features added to new OS X versions (although Apple does list many "minor" features in their "300+ New Features" list).

On the other hand, Windows Vista added more major features to Windows XP than OS X Leapord did to Tiger. Of course, Microsoft had a lot more time between Windows versions.

toleraen did bring up a good point about OS updates, but mislead about how much OS X users had to pay to keep updated ("four $129 software updates"). Microsoft's lifecycle policy for Windows versions is: at least 5 years of mainstream support for "home" and "pro" versions, plus an additional 5 years of extended support for "pro" versions (an exception was made for Windows XP "home" versions).

AFAIK, Apple does not have an "official" lifecycle policy, but they provide very few updates for past versions after releasing the 2nd new version after that past version. It is misleading to say that OS X users are required to pay $129 for each new version to stay updated. Skipping one OS X version is perfectly okay if OS X users want to stay supported and updated. Since OS X was released in March 2001, users could have skipped 10.2 and 10.4 and stayed supported and updated.

However, that's nothing compared to the updates MS provides for XP. MS released Windows XP in October 2001 and will provide security updates, non-security hotfixes, design changes, and feature requests until April 2009. They will continue to provide security updates until April 2014.

Mr markting man is right. You can run ANY version (well, not always 64 bit...) of vista on a "capable pc. But as the MS page explains you will experience only core functions (=same as "vista basic).

There is no point buying premium, or ultimate on a capable pc, you pay too much ,UNLESS you upgrade hardware later.

I am sure some people here can come up with a better word than "capable".

Compare the list of "improvements" (Apple's term) for the OS X 10.5.1 update (25 improvements) and the list of "fixes" for Windows XP Service Pack 2 (more than 800 fixes). Service Pack 2 also added "features" in addition to the "fixes."

Yes, XP SP2 was a biggie as far as Service Packs go. It had been 23 months since SP1.

Compare the list of "improvements" (Apple's term) for the OS X 10.5.1 update (25 improvements) and the list of "fixes" for Windows XP Service Pack 2 (more than 800 fixes). Service Pack 2 also added "features" in addition to the "fixes."

Yes, XP SP2 was a biggie as far as Service Packs go. It had been 23 months since SP1.

Windows Vista minimum supported system requirements

Home Basic / Home Premium / Business / Ultimate
* 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
* CD-ROM drive

I appreciate the compliment, but I think a stronger dose of reality is in order.

The geek is absolutely hopeless when it comes time to understand and communicate with end users.

Case in point:

OpenOffice.org vs. Microsoft Office Online

Office Online rarely puts you more than one click away from an attractively presented tutorial or a genuinely useful download. Tens of thousands of downloads. "You can do anything in OpenOffice." Microsoft makes it easy.

OpenOffice.org is the marquee open source project. But its public face is Amateur Night and that is inexcusable.

According to MS, in order to license the current version of exchange it will cost you $4000 per server + $97 per user + some unnamed fee if you want to interconnect with other companies servers

a shitty Web interface that has not kept up with the regular client

People with smartphones also end up costing you extra for connectors that allow them to access some of the functionality of your Exchange server

Not the complete story

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb851487.aspx

Exchange 2007 sp1 brings PF back into gui management. In a bit of a twist for microsoft they built they UI on top of the command line interface of exchange (Probably in some vain attempt to get props from /. readers), so the several things including public folder gui didn't quite make it in before RTM.

I'm certain feedback from waves of confused Exchange 5.5 admins made sure the GUI was in sp1.

I find it a much needed improvement. Some of the functionality is gone but it can be reproduced with a little work on the sharepoint side. BTW you can play with exchange 2007 at http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/exchange/virtuallab/default.mspx without having to build your own

Sure about public folders?

http://www.microsoft.com/exchange/evaluation/topquestions.mspx?wt.svl=overview

Q. What is happening with Public Folders?
A.

Public Folders are included and supported in Exchange Server 2007. Microsoft has communicated that future releases of Exchange Server may not include public folders. If you use Public Folders, read the Exchange Team Blog on the topic of public folders for more guidance.

Also, Windows Security Center (also in XP) includes Microsoft's free antispyware and firewall. Microsoft cannot include their own antivirus for antitrust reasons, but AVG Anti-Virus Free Edition is available right from Windows Security Center, so those McAfee and Symantec products aren't needed.

The only reason Joe Sixpack is *expected* to buy antivirus/antispyware subscriptions is because McAfee and Symantec pay PC builders (like Acer and eMachines) to include their unneeded "trial" versions. They could just include AVG for free or start Security Center at first boot (with that button to download AVG), but some PC builders are cheap and take McAfee's/Symantec's payola.

Also, Windows Security Center (also in XP) includes Microsoft's free antispyware and firewall. Microsoft cannot include their own antivirus for antitrust reasons, but AVG Anti-Virus Free Edition is available right from Windows Security Center, so those McAfee and Symantec products aren't needed.

The only reason Joe Sixpack is *expected* to buy antivirus/antispyware subscriptions is because McAfee and Symantec pay PC builders (like Acer and eMachines) to include their unneeded "trial" versions. They could just include AVG for free or start Security Center at first boot (with that button to download AVG), but some PC builders are cheap and take McAfee's/Symantec's payola.

I believe MapPoint Location Server had these same features based on GPRS/GSM available back in 2004. For a price of course :)

The fact you're looking up code on the internet when your job would quite possibly make me feel as if you didn't understand basic coding, and were an incorrect fit for a particular agency.

I consider myself a pretty good coder, but when I recently was tasked with writing a wrapper to run a shell command and capture stdout, stderr, and redirect a file into stdin. I wasn't sure where to really start...

This MSDN article (which I found via google) went a long way towards covering the topic:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/190351

And that sample code proved invaluable. It easily saved me several hours. Code like that is very domain specific, and unless you've spent a lot of time around pipes and create process win32, it doesn't matter how good you are at understanding basic coding, or even advanced coding.

I'd managed to write a basic version of what I wanted using ANSI C's popen but was running into popen's limitations (like the dos box window flashing open). From reading I knew that CreateProcess in the win32 api gave me the control I needed to suppress the window, and this example REALLY helped me out.

Looks like one presses ctrl+shift (or equivalent) then some key indicating which accent you want, which induces a modal change. The next character typed acquires the selected accent. Actually it would be nice to have this on standard US keyboards also; it would make it easier to type the occasional email in French or whatever.

You already do. Check out the Microsoft Keyboard Layout Creator (for Windows 2000, XP/2003 and Vista).

In fact, if you're running Windows then you've already got several keyboard mappings installed following the same pattern, even though you don't use them.

If you look at the website, "inventive step" appears to have been the replacing of the normal keys next to the shift keys with a second shift. They call this "4 shift-keys". I'm assuming they mean four modifier keys. Is it possible to patent using a number of modifier keys? Heck, doesn't MS's keyboard layout tool already let you do that anyway? (It's not installed on this computer and I don't have admin rights -- I'll check at home tonight.) I bet their "software component" was written in MSKLC. Oh, I so hope it is... that must surely constitute prior art in itself....>/p>

HAL.

As for some of the decisions, they are not just about pure speed. There are more considerations.

Value types: This allows the choice of the best semantic match is. Also, this does help with native interoperability, as in some cases, you can model a C struct in C# and pass it back and forth with a lower cost. Also, the complexity cost you note is small, as even Java still has value types. If you have to deal with both, then adding in structs isn't that costly, from a language and runtime view.

JIT-only: The ability to pre-compile to native code helps with native interoperability and performance. It can affect startup time, but there are techniques to deal with this a bit. I think MS thought the added complexity of interpretation+hotspot compliation wasn't worth it for them. It was a tradeoff, but I don't see it as a drastic one. Also, C# can still code-pitch if needed. It is probably harder.

Real Generics: To be honest, I can't say that Java Generics are all that great, from a programming model. Sure, they don't technically cost anything, because they go away. Which causes real problems and limitations. For example, C# 3.0 can do a ton of type-inference and more functional-like program as the type information of a delegate (or lambda expression) is kept and passed. Also, I'd like to see the reference for the CLR only inlining one deep.

Embedded Native Code: Well, faster access to native code can make a huge improvement in performance, and this is a real problem with the Java runtime. JNI has some real issues in terms of usability from a programming standpoint. The CLR makes it must easier to call into a native function if you need to, and that's often a really useful point. Not just for Windows, but for OS/X, for Linux, etc.

The GC: Sure, it is more complex, but there isn't much evidence that it is slower because of it. Again, if fast native interoperability is a goal, then this may be a cost, but it may be a good one.

Yes, the CLR is more complex. That is because it can actually model more aspects of an executable. It has pointers. It has "unsafe" code. You can compile any C/C++ program that compiles in Visual Studio 2005/2008 to the CLR with a few switches. In some cases, the performance hit is surprisingly small versus the native code. With the Phoenix project, the .Net CLR has access to the same optimizations that the native C/C++ compiler has.

All in all, the CLR, C# do represent some interesting ideas and is a very valid platform. The MS equals sucks argument just doesn't hold here. But, it's just an opinion.

About the ARM core:
Keep in mind, that programs written for ARM tend to be written in low-level languages, to squeeze that last bit of power out of that poor CPU.
Sticking 16 cores on a CPU is not a guarantee for a faster CPU. Four cores is the most Windows can effectively manage (after 8 cores, the increase in power is marginal).
I'm sure Linux can handle those cores more effectively, but Joe Average has no use for them.
I don't think all my 3 Firefox windows, my Outlook and my Word/Excel need their own CPU to run effectively.

The Niagara CPU from Sun is a wonderful piece of multithreading technology.
I'm sure Apache/Bind/Postfix/Oracle/JBoss will run at blazing speeds with all those simultaneous threads,
    but it's only useful in servers that have over 25 transactions going a second.
My website does not get that much traffic.

And about Unix/Linux:
You might want to check out the history of UNIX.
It wasn't meant to be big or reliable.
It became popular because it was the cheapest O/S you could stick on your hardware.
It was based on 3 rules:
  "Being small and simple is more important than being complete and correct."
  "You only have to solve 90% of the problem."
  "Everything is a stream of bytes."

More quotes "UNIX Haters Handbook":
Modern Unix1 is a catastrophe. It's the "Un-Operating System": unreliable, unintuitive, unforgiving, unhelpful, and underpowered. Little is more frustrating than trying to force Unix to do something useful and nontrivial. ...
The original version of Unix sent outside of Bell Labs didn't come on distribution tapes: Dennis Ritchie hand-built each one with a note that said, "Here's your rk05, Love, Dennis." (The rk05 was an early removable 230 System Administration disk pack.) According to Andy Tannenbaum, "If Unix crapped on your rk05, you'd write to Dennis for another.")

Those that have actually read all of the above and enjoyed it need to go to:
http://research.microsoft.com/~daniel/uhh-download.html
(It's free, as in beer)

you can find fix here: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/downloads/ie/getitnow.mspx

http://www.microsoft.com/msft/earnings/FY07/earn_rel_q4_07.mspx

Research. Do some.

If you bothered to read through the link provided, you would find the information about UAC. Better still, google "mark russinovich" UAC That should give you a few more references.

Protected Video Path (multiple components within this generic description) : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_Media_Path

Protected Audio Path (more components in this generic description) : http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa376846.aspx

I'm sorry to burst your vista mindwarp bubble, but there are a couple of well-designed viable alternatives that don't treat the consumer like the enemy.

in a speech at Google last week Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama called for data to be stored in 'universally accessible formats.

With the availability of the free (as in beer) Word document viewer, it's arguable that Word .doc files are in fact universally accessible already, for some reasonable definition of universal (cf. universal telephone access). You might argue that people still have to buy Windows, which could constitute an obstacle to universal access; but going one level further, they also have to buy a computer regardless of which OS runs on it, so even a free software solution isn't actually without cost.

That would explain this Vista site then.

Outlook and Exchange is highly compelling over any other options

*Are* there other options? Off the top of my head, I don't even know of any other enterprise-class fully automated virus retrieval and installation systems.

Even though Windows 2000 will continue to get security updates and paid support until July 2010, I think the installed base is getting too small to be worth supporting (for many developers). That's a shame (for me) because I enjoy using my Windows 2000/Kubuntu desktop more than my Windows XP notebook.

Screw 'em. I like Opera better than Internet Explorer 7. Foobar2000 over Media Player/iTunes. COMODO Firewall Pro over Windows Firewall. TrueCrypt over BitLocker. AVG/Spybot over Norton/McAfee/Symantec. 7-Zip, IrfanView, Picassa, VLC, Media Player Classic, Quicktime Alternative, QuickPar, ImgBurn, VirtualDubMod, BitComet, Skype, Google Desktop Search, ... and that's just some free (beer) stuff available for Windows 2000.

Even though Windows 2000 will continue to get security updates and paid support until July 2010, I think the installed base is getting too small to be worth supporting (for many developers). That's a shame (for me) because I enjoy using my Windows 2000/Kubuntu desktop more than my Windows XP notebook.

Screw 'em. I like Opera better than Internet Explorer 7. Foobar2000 over Media Player/iTunes. COMODO Firewall Pro over Windows Firewall. TrueCrypt over BitLocker. AVG/Spybot over Norton/McAfee/Symantec. 7-Zip, IrfanView, Picassa, VLC, Media Player Classic, Quicktime Alternative, QuickPar, ImgBurn, VirtualDubMod, BitComet, Skype, Google Desktop Search, ... and that's just some free (beer) stuff available for Windows 2000.

Even though Windows 2000 will continue to get security updates and paid support until July 2010, I think the installed base is getting too small to be worth supporting (for many developers). That's a shame (for me) because I enjoy using my Windows 2000/Kubuntu desktop more than my Windows XP notebook.

Screw 'em. I like Opera better than Internet Explorer 7. Foobar2000 over Media Player/iTunes. COMODO Firewall Pro over Windows Firewall. TrueCrypt over BitLocker. AVG/Spybot over Norton/McAfee/Symantec. 7-Zip, IrfanView, Picassa, VLC, Media Player Classic, Quicktime Alternative, QuickPar, ImgBurn, VirtualDubMod, BitComet, Skype, Google Desktop Search, ... and that's just some free (beer) stuff available for Windows 2000.

main feature of XP SP3 ... a new sequence of activation keys

Actually, XP Pro SP2c (which is already being sold) allows additional keys: http://oem.microsoft.com/downloads/public/seo/winxp_sp2c.htm .

Windows NT has always supported multiple desktops under the hood, and MS has had a powertoy that exposes this for ages.

There's many other third-party virtual desktop managers around, if you look, even for Vista.

It comes with Windows Vista Business. Vista requires 40GB of hard drive space if you intend to use it to run applications. (Otherwise it's stuck only being suitable for "booting the Operating System, without running applications or games" - really!)

If you were to blow away Vista and replace it with XP or Linux, then 32GB would be fine for general office work. But since it comes with Vista, you apparently won't be able to actually use it.

Which, having tried Vista out, is sadly quite likely to be true. I just checked, and C:\WINDOWS takes up 13GB of space just for the system. Keep in mind that Windows also spreads files out in C:\Program Files which I'm NOT counting, since I can't separate out the applications I've installed and what it's installed.

And before anyone asks, no, I'm not accidentally counting the page file. That's in C:\pagefile.sys. And Vista also has a SEPARATE hibernation file it creates, which will require another 2GB for this laptop.

So, yes, for Vista, 32GB is quite small, to the point of almost being unusable - according to Microsoft themselves, who list the minimum space requirement as 40GB for Vista Business.

PAE doesn't work for Microsoft's desktop OS's, only for their server versions, and Vista. But your chipset has to support it. Remember, PAE causes a performance hit when it's enabled, as well as some drivers can't do DMA accesses when PAE is enabled (which can cause all kinds of effects).

First off, let me address the accusations of being a shill. I used to be an Apple fanboy. My first job was at a gray market Apple shop between 96 and 98. After that, I got a job at a local ISP because they needed someone that knew Macintosh. There, I started toying with Linux and FreeBSD. Everyone there was into OSS and hated Microsoft. After some sour incidents with that company, I landed a job in 2000 with an outsource partner for MS, supporting Windows 2000. I got the job due to my customer service, dial-up, and DSL experience that they wanted. I was actually very impressed after learning the NT family and gradually made a switch to using Windows at home as I became more knowledgable. I then went on to support NT4 Server, networking, and corporate infrastructures running on NT. Also, I supported Services for Unix, Services for Macintosh, and MS Proxy/ISA. I had a lab box at my desk multibooting into several OSes and a G3. I've never had any stock in Microsoft or anything for that matter except my 401k of which I didn't start until years later. After that company got bought out by a sweatshop and things went downhill, I left in 2002 to be a sysadmin/netadmin/security/telephony guy for various companies. Two years ago, I started working in IT for a credit card processor. Less than a year ago, I changed jobs within the company to developer support where I help developers of POS systems integrate to our gateways. It's been a nice break from the IT world. So in closing, I'm not a shill by any stretch of the imagination.

"Then why is it that if my C: drive (partitioned into Windows C: and Linux HDa) gets too fragmented the damned thing refuses to boot..."

That's f*ing crazy. If you were running NT4 pre-SP4, I'd suggest that you used a 3rd party app to make a system partition greater than 8GB and your boot files got moved beyond the 8GB boundary when defragging (Link. However, XP is unaffected by that and I've never heard such a ridiculous claim. What stop codes are you getting before it automagically reboots? I've honestly seen a lot of positive comments on the performance and stability of 2000 and XP, even from the Slashdot crowd. Regarding NT (3.51 and 4) and 2003 (NT5.2), they're also very stable, but not used as much by end users.

I wouldn't know, but from what I've read just about everyone but you Microsoft employees/stockholders think it's a bloated piece of candy flavored shit. Personally, I think anything that makes your computer run SLOWER can hardly be caled an "upgrade". "Upgrading" from XP to Vista would be like "upgrading" my car from a fuel injected V-6 to a carburated 4 cylinder.

I didn't say it's a great OS. I said it's decent. I have my complaints and resource hogging is the biggest. To get my Vista install almost up to speed where my XP SP2 install was, I had to go from 1GB of RAM to 2GB. However, the caching that is performed using that available memory is making it fast as fuck. I'm thinking about going to 4GB to give it even more for caching. Being able to detect available memory and automatically turn off resource hogging components would be great. It already does this for the GUI. However, search indexing kills the HD and caching kills the memory. Any way, they rewrote so much of the kernel in Vista compared to prior NT releases, that it's going to take some time and revisions to get it right. Despite the current flaws in Vista, rewriting those components for the needs and demands of today and tomorrow is a smart move. Creating more eye candy for Joe User is a smart move. Hell, I like the bling eye candy, drooling over some Linux desktop environments and OS X. Would I suggest Vista for most users? Not yet. I'd recommend sticking with XP until they've got Vista smoothed out.

"You say that like the ONLY reason all viruses are for Windows is market share. Yet there isn't a single virus out there for Mac or Linux. It's not like there are only 500 Macs and 10 Linux machines out there. there a

But...How long are those "volume" licenses good for, and what about any/all allowed uses or limitations? The devil in in the EULA details.
The OS and Office volume licenses are probably good however long they are being used on a per system basis. But the other items you list probably are not.
For Example: MS SQL Server licenses are NOT necessarily permanent licenses and there are Vast price differences between "development" MS SQL Server licenses and deployed "production" MS SQL Server licenses... (often the difference is between hundreds of dollars and many thousands of dollars).
Case and point for many to move to MySQL and/or other open-source SQL Server Applications for this rea$on...
As far as CALs go, it is another way they stick it in and break it off. Here is a reply to a CAL question post from MSDN Forums: http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=357905&SiteID=1
"Generally speaking, a license (a CAL) is good for as long as you use the product, but will only cover future releases when accompanied by Software Assurance, which is a subscription expense that covers a certain term (1 year, 2 years, etc.). For more information, see: http://www.microsoft.com/licensing. "
Great! Pay for the CAL, pay for it AGAIN if the Server side gets upgraded, unless you pay for a "Software Assurance" subscription...
-All good reasons to deploy open-source in the first place and develop any custom network client/server software to work within documented open source standards.

But...How long are those "volume" licenses good for, and what about any/all allowed uses or limitations? The devil in in the EULA details.
The OS and Office volume licenses are probably good however long they are being used on a per system basis. But the other items you list probably are not.
For Example: MS SQL Server licenses are NOT necessarily permanent licenses and there are Vast price differences between "development" MS SQL Server licenses and deployed "production" MS SQL Server licenses... (often the difference is between hundreds of dollars and many thousands of dollars).
Case and point for many to move to MySQL and/or other open-source SQL Server Applications for this rea$on...
As far as CALs go, it is another way they stick it in and break it off. Here is a reply to a CAL question post from MSDN Forums: http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=357905&SiteID=1
"Generally speaking, a license (a CAL) is good for as long as you use the product, but will only cover future releases when accompanied by Software Assurance, which is a subscription expense that covers a certain term (1 year, 2 years, etc.). For more information, see: http://www.microsoft.com/licensing. "
Great! Pay for the CAL, pay for it AGAIN if the Server side gets upgraded, unless you pay for a "Software Assurance" subscription...
-All good reasons to deploy open-source in the first place and develop any custom network client/server software to work within documented open source standards.

Wow. I mean, wow. If it werent for the fact that this is Slashdot, I would be surprised that you got modded up for such an obvious piece of reverse-FUD.

I didn't RTFA (I must not be new here) but people don't choose Macs because of any of the Apple's features. People choose Macs for stability and freedom from viruses and other shitware (the reasons we wipe Windows and install Linux) and because some high end graphics programs either aren't ported to Windows or are ported badly.

As another responder said, this is no longer the early 90s. Most high-end graphics programs are made natively for Windows at this point and are no longer ports. Businesses are out there to make money. It makes sense that they would put development effort into software that will run on the OS with the highest market share. Welcome to the real world.

The best way to make your Windows more "like a Mac" is to install Linux for its stability and freedom from shitware. That said, if I ever buy another whole computer (which I haven't done since 1987, I just upgrade parts as needed) It will be a Mac.

WTF? No, really. What kind of argument is that? I ran Mac OS 7.3 thru 8. I've tinkered with OS X a bit and think it's really awesome. However, the Windows versions built upon the NT platform (NT, 2000, XP, 2003) are very stable. Vista is decent (Been running x86 and x64 for about seven months now), but needs a lot of work to catch up to the solid nature of XP SP2.

Did you ever stop to think that malware writers are out to make money or to infect the most computers possible? Again, market share drives developers. There's also a surprising number of rootkits out there for Linux. Don't believe me? Google it. There has been malware written for the Mac mostly as proof of concept, to get the author some name recognition and fame because of the common misunderstanding of security. Apple + low hack factor = high profile media coverage when exploit is written. Guess what, Joe Bob OS has no known vulnerabilities and zero written exploits. It's the most secure OS ever! And what about QDOS/MS-DOS? OMG, they're teh l33t! *sigh*

I'm amused by the car commercial where they're touting its bluetooth, "powered by Microsoft". No way in hell I'd buy one, just because it's "(under)powered by Microsoft." ! I've been using Microsoft's OSes and programs for a quarter of a century, and they used to be the best quality out there. The quality has been declining for all that time, IMO right now Microsoft's OSes and programs are by far the very worst either on or off the market.

You know those people that think they're really technical and everyone just kind of rolls their eyes and listens because they might pick up some ignorant crap to quote and laugh about later? That's you.

You talk about Microsoft like it's a single person or perhaps a hive mind. Do you think the cars with their software are running the same Windows you've used? No. They're actually running on Microsoft's embedded platform. They're running Windows Automotive on Windows CE 5.0. Guess what, Windows CE is made by a division separate from the others. Same deal with Windows Automotive. They've got their own staff with different individuals. Or do you have lots of experience with their embedded product and came to an intelligent conclusion that the quality is terrible? *rolls eyes*

Wow. I mean, wow. If it werent for the fact that this is Slashdot, I would be surprised that you got modded up for such an obvious piece of reverse-FUD.

I didn't RTFA (I must not be new here) but people don't choose Macs because of any of the Apple's features. People choose Macs for stability and freedom from viruses and other shitware (the reasons we wipe Windows and install Linux) and because some high end graphics programs either aren't ported to Windows or are ported badly.

As another responder said, this is no longer the early 90s. Most high-end graphics programs are made natively for Windows at this point and are no longer ports. Businesses are out there to make money. It makes sense that they would put development effort into software that will run on the OS with the highest market share. Welcome to the real world.

The best way to make your Windows more "like a Mac" is to install Linux for its stability and freedom from shitware. That said, if I ever buy another whole computer (which I haven't done since 1987, I just upgrade parts as needed) It will be a Mac.

WTF? No, really. What kind of argument is that? I ran Mac OS 7.3 thru 8. I've tinkered with OS X a bit and think it's really awesome. However, the Windows versions built upon the NT platform (NT, 2000, XP, 2003) are very stable. Vista is decent (Been running x86 and x64 for about seven months now), but needs a lot of work to catch up to the solid nature of XP SP2.

Did you ever stop to think that malware writers are out to make money or to infect the most computers possible? Again, market share drives developers. There's also a surprising number of rootkits out there for Linux. Don't believe me? Google it. There has been malware written for the Mac mostly as proof of concept, to get the author some name recognition and fame because of the common misunderstanding of security. Apple + low hack factor = high profile media coverage when exploit is written. Guess what, Joe Bob OS has no known vulnerabilities and zero written exploits. It's the most secure OS ever! And what about QDOS/MS-DOS? OMG, they're teh l33t! *sigh*

I'm amused by the car commercial where they're touting its bluetooth, "powered by Microsoft". No way in hell I'd buy one, just because it's "(under)powered by Microsoft." ! I've been using Microsoft's OSes and programs for a quarter of a century, and they used to be the best quality out there. The quality has been declining for all that time, IMO right now Microsoft's OSes and programs are by far the very worst either on or off the market.

You know those people that think they're really technical and everyone just kind of rolls their eyes and listens because they might pick up some ignorant crap to quote and laugh about later? That's you.

You talk about Microsoft like it's a single person or perhaps a hive mind. Do you think the cars with their software are running the same Windows you've used? No. They're actually running on Microsoft's embedded platform. They're running Windows Automotive on Windows CE 5.0. Guess what, Windows CE is made by a division separate from the others. Same deal with Windows Automotive. They've got their own staff with different individuals. Or do you have lots of experience with their embedded product and came to an intelligent conclusion that the quality is terrible? *rolls eyes*

Perhaps the fact that Microsoft has a fairly major office in Fargo, North Dakota is testament to how similar North Dakota is to Siberia.

Both areas share a few commonalities: cheap labor, cheap electricity and rural enough to be isolated from any major events that tend bigger cities tend to be prone to. Microsoft sees this and is using it to their advantage, just like any other company would.

I still think the start button/task bar combination is a more logic division of "new things to do" and "things I'm working on now" than the Dock.

And "install Linux"? Please. At work we run Linux desktops, Red Hat w/ Gnome. How much research would it take to find out why I can't copy and paste image data as well as text? How many decades has Mac and Windows been having clipboards that handled both seamlessly? (Ever since The Unix Haters Handbook pointed out how the clipboard does a fair chunk of what I'd otherwise do with pipes and files, (albeit in a less automatable way...) Anyway, having not being able to have "cut and paste graphics" on my "something I can take for granted list" is a loss.

How long until MS puts out some hit game that requires Vista to run?

does anyone see Bill and Company significantly improving Vista before they stop supporting XP?

Microsoft Support Lifecycle