Slashdot Mirror
Domain: microsoft.com
Stories and comments across the archive that link to microsoft.com.
Comments · 34,132
-
Re:Windows adverts in a Linux review ..
-
Re:Simple
Can't you just uncheck the "Automatically check for Internet Explorer updates" to stop the redirecting? I think IE is missing some patching and it wants you to update. I remember running into this all the way back with IE 5.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/222639
Or you should be able to disable this in group policy: Computer Configuration -> Administrative Templates -> Windows Components -> Internet Explorer -> Enable "Disable Periodic Check for Internet Explorer Software Updates".
Didn't see anything in the User Configuration but that doesn't mean that it's not hidden somewhere and I missed it. -
Re:general result of change for the sake of progre
In fact there's no need for ActiveX; Microsoft provide the INS/ISP file format for this very purpose, configuring ISP details. Of course it's really laziness to a) turn off the old servers whilst people are still migrating and b) not setup cname records to migrate after a certain time.
-
Re:Don't support monopolyI'll never, ever, ever get an iPod. I'll be damned if I support the Apple monopoly.
iTunes doesn't work with anything other than an iPod... but Windows Media Player will work with ANY device (except an iPod, of course, because Apple decided to cripple it in order to maintain their monopoly). Or I can use WinAmp. Or some other player, so long as it's not from the Apple monopoly.
Microsoft: because it's all about choice. Freedom, and choice. Ahhhh, you're blind. Microsoft is just as much after lock-in as Apple. Forget the past and present anti-trust problems that plague Microsoft... They support a multitude of devices not "because [Microsoft]s all about choice" (to quote you), but rather, they do it because their business model is just different than Apple's. Microsoft decided early on that it'd be better to let dozens of manufacturers fight over the music hardware market, and dozens of online retailers/labels fight over the music sales pie while controlling both markets from behind the scene. It was a good plan, but Apple destroyed it by sucking up nearly all of the market with a non-Microsoft system.
Instead of competing with retailers and manufacturers, Microsoft morphed Windows Media into a framework for them to license and use. You see, all the retailers would need a DRM scheme to effectively sell their music. This would then force all the device makers to choose some DRMs to support and effectively segment the market (market = money). DRM systems are complex to implement and require trust by both consumers and labels. With Windows being ubiquitous on Desktops worldwide, MS was positioned from the start to CONTROL the music/video market through Windows [Media Framework]. WMP supports WMA/V DRM, and since its present on 95% of computers in the world, device makers and retailers almost have to use it to hope to compete with the iTunes lock in.
Microsoft charges device manufacturers and retailers a licensing fee for each and every unit of WMA/V enabled product they ship. The rates are negotiated for each company of course, but are likely higher than the "suggested" sample rates on the Microsoft website. Using the sample rate, a company that offered 2 WMA enabled portable music players could pay $1,600,000 to Microsoft in fee's each year. On top of that, your device has to be "approved" by MS. This means it can't use open source software (even open source decoders or operating systems) and basically makes you pay to be Microsoft's bitch.
Now, after reading the preceding, do you still believe Microsoft is all about choice?? Perhaps you've drank too much corporate cool-aid? Microsoft designed their model around lock in too... it's just more subtle than Apple's model... and it's not even close to as profitable, hence the Zune! MS has now gone into the hardware space itself (a strange move for them considering how they've handled cell phones/Windows Mobile) in an attempt to get closer to an Apple-style lock-in model.
References:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/licensing/agreements.aspx
http://download.microsoft.com/download/d/0/1/d01ec2b5-a42f-4cef-ae27-123c02515fc7/WMDRM10_FinalProduct_v3-20-2006_Sample.pdf
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/portable-media/zune-on-linux-done-kinda-219657.php -
Re:Don't support monopolyI'll never, ever, ever get an iPod. I'll be damned if I support the Apple monopoly.
iTunes doesn't work with anything other than an iPod... but Windows Media Player will work with ANY device (except an iPod, of course, because Apple decided to cripple it in order to maintain their monopoly). Or I can use WinAmp. Or some other player, so long as it's not from the Apple monopoly.
Microsoft: because it's all about choice. Freedom, and choice. Ahhhh, you're blind. Microsoft is just as much after lock-in as Apple. Forget the past and present anti-trust problems that plague Microsoft... They support a multitude of devices not "because [Microsoft]s all about choice" (to quote you), but rather, they do it because their business model is just different than Apple's. Microsoft decided early on that it'd be better to let dozens of manufacturers fight over the music hardware market, and dozens of online retailers/labels fight over the music sales pie while controlling both markets from behind the scene. It was a good plan, but Apple destroyed it by sucking up nearly all of the market with a non-Microsoft system.
Instead of competing with retailers and manufacturers, Microsoft morphed Windows Media into a framework for them to license and use. You see, all the retailers would need a DRM scheme to effectively sell their music. This would then force all the device makers to choose some DRMs to support and effectively segment the market (market = money). DRM systems are complex to implement and require trust by both consumers and labels. With Windows being ubiquitous on Desktops worldwide, MS was positioned from the start to CONTROL the music/video market through Windows [Media Framework]. WMP supports WMA/V DRM, and since its present on 95% of computers in the world, device makers and retailers almost have to use it to hope to compete with the iTunes lock in.
Microsoft charges device manufacturers and retailers a licensing fee for each and every unit of WMA/V enabled product they ship. The rates are negotiated for each company of course, but are likely higher than the "suggested" sample rates on the Microsoft website. Using the sample rate, a company that offered 2 WMA enabled portable music players could pay $1,600,000 to Microsoft in fee's each year. On top of that, your device has to be "approved" by MS. This means it can't use open source software (even open source decoders or operating systems) and basically makes you pay to be Microsoft's bitch.
Now, after reading the preceding, do you still believe Microsoft is all about choice?? Perhaps you've drank too much corporate cool-aid? Microsoft designed their model around lock in too... it's just more subtle than Apple's model... and it's not even close to as profitable, hence the Zune! MS has now gone into the hardware space itself (a strange move for them considering how they've handled cell phones/Windows Mobile) in an attempt to get closer to an Apple-style lock-in model.
References:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/licensing/agreements.aspx
http://download.microsoft.com/download/d/0/1/d01ec2b5-a42f-4cef-ae27-123c02515fc7/WMDRM10_FinalProduct_v3-20-2006_Sample.pdf
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/portable-media/zune-on-linux-done-kinda-219657.php -
Re:Straw Man?If you take a look at the link included with the post issued by your GP (http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=090DEAF6-2EAA-4AAA-8B3B-2E199DB4A97D&displaylang=en) you'll see that Microsoft did, indeed, promise that Vista SP1 would improve performance, as stated in the following (taken directly from the overview paragraph on that page; emphasis added):
In addition to previously released updates, SP1 will contain changes focused on addressing specific reliability and performance issues, supporting new types of hardware, and adding support for several emerging standards.
Therefore, this article cannot be, by any stretch of the imagination, considered a straw man argument.
-
Re:Are we shocked?Perhaps you could stick to XP, but the EOL is approaching very fast. End of Life for XP is still 7 years away.
-
Re:Straw Man?No, you shut the fuck up.
Windows Vista SP1 is an update to Windows Vista that addresses feedback from our customers. In addition to previously released updates, SP1 will contain changes focused on addressing specific reliability and performance issues, supporting new types of hardware, and adding support for several emerging standards. SP1 also addresses some management, deployment, and support challenges.
-
Re:Straw Man?
Yes, they did. In the SP 1 white paper. They talk a lot about some of the specific improvements, and are sort of vague on exactly why there'd be an overall performance increase. They certainly give the impression it would improve overall performance.
-
Re:This is irrelevant
I call bullshit.
You do well calling bullshit on "anyone reading slashdot already has 4GB or more", however you shouldn't be so absolute in your next statement:desktop versions of 32 bit windows do not support more than 4GB of physical address space meaning ram usable to the OS is limited to some figure below that (exactly how much depends on the exact hardware configuration).
Since I hope that you neither omit Windows 2000 and Windows XP from the "desktop versions of 32 bit windows" set, nor are you ignorant about PAE, I have to assume that you talk about incompatibilities with drivers that make Windows report a little more than 3 GiB or RAM available even if there are more; I was of the same opinion as you are, yet a sysadm at a client site shut me up by showing me a system with 6 GiB of memory running WinXP. It was a Dell blade server, can't remember which model though. System properties showed 6 GiB of memory installed. And yes, it felt and was sluggish-- but it had more than 4 GiB of usable memory. -
Re:Or....
It depends on the search really. I always treated the "I am lucky" button as an "I am sure" button - if you know the first result will lead to the page you want you save loading time and a click. Since the same function is integrated in the Firefox address bar, I'm now using that instead, e.g. "ubuntu" will get you to http://www.ubuntu.com/, microsoft will get you to http://www.microsoft.com/en/us/default.aspx, "yarr" will get you to http://www.yarr.org.uk/ etc.
So it is indeed a function that increases Google's userbase and what more does a company want? -
Re:Office Live Documents? Hmm...
Microsoft already has a product named "Office Live": http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/officelive/FX101465131033.aspx?xid=CDBD3DE7-630E-477D-8B20-FE6BB97DB13D
The only thing these guys did was add the word "documents" to it. -
Re:In a word: "sort of"The real goal of switching to an open, implementable (which rules out OOXML...) standard is to open up the market for software which can edit/display it. Open market = allowing office software other than Microsoft's. And, taking a look at where they take most of their profits from, I say it will be a frigid day in hell when Microsoft stops using every underhanded tactic possible in this fight.
-
MS VS team Blames Google for QA Problems
MS VS 2008 team says Google is at fault for the quality problems in the new release.
http://forums.microsoft.com/msdn/
I speculate it means all the good ones have left for greener ($) pastures. -
Re:Well there you have it
Dont normally read or respond to ACs, but this was a good one. Just wanted to add a few details.
The 4GB (xp) or 4GB (server) limits are not the same in x64 versions.
Even XP x64 supported up to 128GB of memory, and many engineering shops used it extensively immediately after it came out to support large memory situations for ProE and CAD/CAM/CAE stuff.
Windows 2003 Standard supports a max of 4GB for x86 and 32GB for x64.
Windows 2003 Enterprise supports a max of 64GB for x86 and 2TB for x64.
For Vista, all the 32-bit versions support up to 4GB, even the Home Basic. For Vista x64, it goes from 8GB in Home Basic, up to 128GB in Business, Enterprise, and Ultimate.
Everything you wanted to know about it is here.
XP x64 was very doable in a business environment, where you got a supported build from the manufacturer.
Server 2003 x64 is the standard. I dont think we've built or deployed a 32-bit server in several years, and dont really seem them purchased that way anymore.
Vista x64 is stable, as long as you're working with a quality vendor that supports the drivers and such. I have a new HP Compaq 8710w on the way loaded to the gills, and one of the builds on it will be vista x64. -
Re:How are they measuring?
Are you talking about Process Explorer? The page says that it works with Vista.
-
Re:Fool!
If the applications tab, if you choose "End Task" then it does, in fact, send an exit signal to the application. However, if you go to the process tab and "End Process," it kills it dead immediately. There are pretty rare occasions (such as a badly written low-level networking app that has connected threads) where "End Task" doesn't kill the process, and may even hang the process completely, but I've only seen that with a few specific applications.
Process Explorer and pskill are both applications written by Mark Russinovich. He (very literally) knows more about Windows than the people who wrote it, so Microsoft hired him. I think they were embarrassed that an outsider knew their OS better than they did. Anyhow, his applications became Microsoft applications. If you're a Windows user and not familiar with his tools, I highly recommend checking them out. They will make your Windows world much more enjoyable. They can be had here for free, as in beer. -
Re:OpenFiler
Another option for the trashed MBR: if you have a Windows CD lying around, boot into recovery console (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314058), and run fixboot, then fixmbr.
-
Re:OpenFiler
-
FDISK /MBR
-
Re:MOD PARENT DOWN
4) Links to Satan Incarnate.
-
Re:Yes, but... looking in the wrong spot! :)
Here is what you are searching for : http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sysinternals/utilities/processexplorer.mspx
-
Re:How are they measuring?
-
Re:Yes, but... looking in the wrong spot! :)
They should add the "Virtual Memory Size" column in Task Manager and use that for comparison. It better reflects actual memory consumption.
The "regular" "Memory Size" column is the "working set" - so its possible that IE or FF 2/3 took more during page loads that hasn't been reclaimed by the OS because no one neededed it.
To see how this can be bogus, try minimizing all the windows for an app and watch "Memory Size" shrink as the working set is paged to disk. "Virtual Memory Size" won't change. See here for more info.
Additionally, one (probably) should disable toolbars/extensions - depends on what you're trying to test, of course, but IE's more likely to have some bogus BHO or toolbar installed by third parties (like Google, Yahoo, AOL, etc.) that are actively sucking RAM; which affects the steady state.
One could argue that's just the real world - but the intent is to compare *browser* efficiency?
----
graphically speaking -
Re:Fool!
To answer your last question : process explorer is available here : http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sysinternals/utilities/processexplorer.mspx which seems to be part of the microsoft website (if you trust URLs and DNS I mean).
-
Re:Flawed premise.
I mean, is SSL not good enough for you? You don't trust SSL?
Microsoft warns of hijacked certificates
I *always* trust SSL, especially certificate authority VeriSign. And it'd be stupid of me to download and install on a Windows machine Microsoft's security update.
-
This is an auto-reply email!
Whoa... hold on a second people! Did ANY of you even bother to read the "response" from Microsoft?
"You appear to be reporting an issue with a file type Microsoft considers to be unsafe. Many programs, such as Internet Explorer and Outlook, automatically block these files. For more information, please visit http://support.microsoft.com/kb/925330"
THIS IS AN AUTO-REPLY MESSAGE!!!!!!!!!!! C'mon people? You have NEVER seen this before? This simply means that when he "notified" Microsoft, he didn't bother to zip the
Maybe he should try zipping the mdb file, then try resending!
Sad. -
Re:Memory Leaks
Parent is not bullshitting. I usually leave Firefox running and I place my computers in hibernation. Process Explorer (don't be fooled by the URL: It is a great program developed by Sysinternals that was then cannibalized by Microsoft) reported that Firefox was using ~ 850 MB of private memory. That's pretty bad. But opening Apple's Activity Monitor showed that for the same number of tabs, with similar content, Firefox was using 1.5 GB of RAM. That's even worse.
In my experience, Firefox 2.0 has been the worse version in the responsiveness department. Having a few tabs open slows down the computers significantly. What is even worse is that Firefox keeps crashing while trying to release memory on exit, not just on Mac OS X, but now on Windows XP as well. So, when I restart Firefox, it asks me if I want to reopen all of those tabs, taking even more time and memory in the process.
Firefox 1.5 didn't use to be bad at all, but if 3.0 doesn't fix these issues, I'll jump ship back to IE 7 / Safari. Who cares if it is free as in speech if you can't use it... -
Re:on Windows
One other option is to use the built-in support for that functionality in that alternative operating system.
See here for more details on how to enable "PageHeap", which does exactly what you're describing. -
Re:.NET installer
I wasn't aware that you could use nLite to slim an existing installation ; thanks for that.
To the sibling, I believe that WGA works fine inside a virtual machine, although you might run into some licensing wrinkles (but it sounds like you aren't running any "real" installations). It should also work in Wine, as long as you're in WinXP mode (unless MS have changed the anti-wine checking code).
In addition, the redistributable installer for
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=0856eacb-4362-4b0d-8edd-aab15c5e04f5&displaylang=en -
Re:Reminds me of stuff
Unfortunately MS supports only up to 4gigs of memory up through XP on non-server OSes.
On 32-bit systems, yes. XP 64-bit edition supports 128GB. -
Re:Just the things for Windows 7Remember when there weren't any non-workstation dual core processors yet and MS was saying you'd need one for Longhorn/Vista? Nope. Have any links?
I remember MS marketing whores saying Longhorn/Vista would run great on (take advantage of) dual-core processors, but I don't think they ever said dual-core was needed. Heck, MS's recommended (not minimum) system requirements for Vista Premium/Ultimate is a 1 GHz single-core processor.
-
.mdb is already a code-execution file format.
Stimpy, sometimes your wealth of ignorance astounds me.
Microsoft won't patch this because the Jet format already allows for column type definitions that execute callbacks to calculate the value.
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms684489.aspx
If you can trick someone into opening a malicious -
Re:But I thought that this didn't happen with FOSS
This bug was discovered by third parties because they had access to the source
That's irrelevant, since you don't need the source code to find buffer overflows. It just reduces the time needed to find them.
The bug is already fixed
And a patch has been applied by... everyone?
Even on still vulnerable systems it wouldn't give you root access
You don't need root access to turn a machine into a spam zombie, which is the growth market for trojans nowadays.
It would have to rely on special plugins or user action
We all know users don't install plugins or take actions. Stupid actions, even.
e)The problem is clearly described and documented allowing users to take precautions
Just like Microsoft security alerts, which apparently do nothing to stem the infection rates from emailed and zipped executables that arrive via email and require all sorts of gyrations to install.
Compare this to a vaguely described bug
This doesn't seem vage to me.
enabling arbitrary webpages to compromise kernel space
Kernel space? Hardly. Read the exploit description. It's a bad exploit though.
-
I'm starting to believe the conspiracy theorists
They completely borked asp support in the sp2 release for the otherwise excellent 2003 server.
How could any test plan have missed that little one. Anyone running any kind of real asp app would be dead in the water with this one. Either they were grossly incompetant, or they purposely nuked asp. Months later and you still have to make a special support request for this patch. -
Re:How many IT professionals...
I have a Vista box at work, which I am using for testing along with Office 2007. One thing that stands out from an IT perspective is the fact that NONE OF THE RESOURCE KIT TOOLS WORK WITH VISTA. Well, most of them don't. A lot the command line tools which you absolutely must have to do any REAL administration work on a Server 2003 domain do not run under Vista. I think this is due to a change in the network driver API and they moved some system libraries around, among other things.
Even with the fix in the above knowledgebase, you have to work around a lot of issues. Now, I have disabled all of the fancy graphics, so it runs pretty good. The major differences are the file browser, they are finally moving away from "Drive Letters"! Also, the "start menu" is improved. Performance-wise, it doesn't seem that much better than XP, because you have a lot of extra stuff running.
Vista is the last 32-bit OS Microsoft will release, as they have said publically. The 64-bit kernel has a lot of new stuff that the 32-bit does not, since they have been concentrating all development on that side of things. Vista is mainly a beta test of the new interface, while they finish the new kernel. If you have messed with the 64 bit versions of Vista, you will see how unstable it is
Of course, Server 2008 is being released simultaneously with Exchange and probably a new SQL server, and all of these are moving to 64 bit also. Obviously this is necessary as we hit native addressing limits. They need to do this since they are moving to a flash-based system for the OS. Basically, a big flash disk will be addressed like regular memory. The flash disk will hold the OS files, drivers, DLL's, etc. that are rarely written, with magnetic storage for long term data storage. You've heard of "readyboost", well, that's an automatic version of same. They are going to have a new "system score" which will require you to have onboard flash for a disk "cache". Since 64 bit will allow a theoretical maximum of 2 billion+ Gigabytes, we are probably set for 20 years at least.
So, no, do not run Vista at your company, unless you have sales people that want to look flashy. Sure, it's usable, it works ok, but I wouldn't want it as my primary box just yet. -
Re:Oh, yes, that's what we always say.The makers of drivers and"important programs" want to sell their stuff. Why on earth should the target a small market instead of a large one? Because they predict that after several years, the Windows XP market will have become "a small market". As of November 2007, does a market of commercially significant size still run Windows 98? And given that mainstream support for Windows XP ends in April 2009, how many people will still be running Windows XP in 2012?
-
Re:Well there you have it
Cons: memory usage...
As another news site points out and microsoft themselves agree, Vista, on a per box basis, uses more memory to boot than a supercomputer...
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/systemrequirements.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/ccs/sysreqs.mspx
Oh and don't look at the disk space requirements, they are truly frightening -
Re:Well there you have it
Cons: memory usage...
As another news site points out and microsoft themselves agree, Vista, on a per box basis, uses more memory to boot than a supercomputer...
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/systemrequirements.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/ccs/sysreqs.mspx
Oh and don't look at the disk space requirements, they are truly frightening -
Re:TimesSP1 was scheduled for release this past summer (from MS announcements shortly after Vista Consumer release).
SP1 was then delayed to "by the end of the year" (from comments made a month ago)Not so -- until recently MS kept very quiet about the release date of SP1 -- the tech jouranls & blogs were all over MS for not announcing the date.
SP1 (from MS's latest comments which you can find here: http://www.itworld.com/Comp/2218/071115vistaskip/) is now scheduled for release in Q1 2008.
This is the only factual thing in your post.
What really interests me is that they are quite well aware of the need to address these issues quickly if they want to see a greater adoption of Vista by businesses and/or home users considering upgrading - yet the release date, for a Service Pack that only addresses some of the issues, keeps slipping. SP1 addresses a lot more than "some of the issues". You can read the list here: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=090deaf6-2eaa-4aaa-8b3b-2e199db4a97d&displaylang=en (pdf or xps). To save you some time, the list of fixes are on pg 8 through 11 (it's a high-level list).
....it kinda scares me that they need to put in so much time to fix the issues that they are addressing - and scarier still, that in trying to do so, their release date keeps slipping... it kind of makes me think that when they looked at the issues and underlying code, they collectively said "Wow, this is really a mess... we need a LOT more time than we thought if we are gonna fix this" (well, I think doubling the release time is a LOT more time... though considering their recent OS release schedule, they may disagree).
It makes me seriously wonder how severely wrong some of their programming decisions (or "push it out the door, ready-or-not" decision) with Vista really were - and how adequately a Service Pack can really address those issues. (is this gonna be just another band-aid?) They didn't announce a date earlier, so there's no slip. You're out-FUDing MS dude.. and you get rated 5, Insightful for that. Oh well, this is -
Re:Well if you read what I wrote
I must say that I really am happy to find that you could come around like this, rather than the usual flamewar escalation I find on slashdot. As well, I would add that I found the "fapping" comment rather less than mature myself, and it certainly didn't do much to start the conversation in the right direction.
As for the MS-Surface, I've seen demos before here and overall was quite impressed with the possibilities of the technology. In fact, it's one of the few MS initiatives that I've seen that has impressed some of my more anti-MS pro-Linux friends or co-workers.
While I'd like to see tech like this become commonplace, I think we'll probably have to wait a few years before the price-point drops enough to make that feasible, but hey even digital projects, DVD-RW drives, and many others use to be prohibitively expensive, so if it catches on then it could come around quite quickly.
Anyhow, thats for turning what was an ugly situation back into a mature discussion. We need more of such attitude on -
Re:Yes, but...
Yes.
And might I say you asked for that one? -
Re:Blocked program at start-up
Hiya Mr AC. If you read Microsofts KB Article on the issue, you'll see they have three solutions: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/930367
Method 1: Run the blocked program or the blocked service
Fixes the issue once - will need to be clicked on each boot.
Method 2: Disable the blocked program or the blocked service
But I want to run it... so useless.
Method 3: Remove the blocked program or the blocked service from the startup process
See above. I want to run it.
To quote an MVP from http://forums.techarena.in/showthread.php?t=719268&page=2
How one allows blocked startup programs that ask for admin privileges when the system starts is done the same way, but those programs might not have a checkbox like the System Configuration Utility. It can't be disabled on an individual program basis. It's triggered because the program is asking to run with admin privileges.
(Emphasis mine)
So even adding it to the Windows Defender list wouldn't appear to help, as it would be a UAC issue. However, assuming your solution did help, let's reflect. Many people (myself included) want an "Remember this choice" tickbox to appear in the contect menu of the tray icon. That's two clicks.
To add a program to the ignore list, you must: Start Menu > Control Panel > Change startup programs > Tools > Options (Ignoring Allowed Items, as it only lists allowed, and doesn't allow adding new ones) > Add to "Do not scan these files or locations" via file dialog.
Not really the ease of use people are looking for. -
Re:Main changes coming with SP1
Oh and also note that you can already get some of those more important Vista fixes:
- Compatibility and Reliability Pack: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/938194
- Performance and Reliability Pack: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/938979
If you play games, also pay attention to this one:
- Memory management update: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/940105
This one is also a general compatibility update -- check the software list if you need it:
- http://support.microsoft.com/kb/932246 -
Re:Main changes coming with SP1
Oh and also note that you can already get some of those more important Vista fixes:
- Compatibility and Reliability Pack: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/938194
- Performance and Reliability Pack: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/938979
If you play games, also pay attention to this one:
- Memory management update: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/940105
This one is also a general compatibility update -- check the software list if you need it:
- http://support.microsoft.com/kb/932246 -
Re:Main changes coming with SP1
Oh and also note that you can already get some of those more important Vista fixes:
- Compatibility and Reliability Pack: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/938194
- Performance and Reliability Pack: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/938979
If you play games, also pay attention to this one:
- Memory management update: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/940105
This one is also a general compatibility update -- check the software list if you need it:
- http://support.microsoft.com/kb/932246 -
Re:Main changes coming with SP1
Oh and also note that you can already get some of those more important Vista fixes:
- Compatibility and Reliability Pack: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/938194
- Performance and Reliability Pack: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/938979
If you play games, also pay attention to this one:
- Memory management update: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/940105
This one is also a general compatibility update -- check the software list if you need it:
- http://support.microsoft.com/kb/932246 -
Re:Windows XP SP3 please
But installing a fresh XP and having to install 80 odd updates is a PITA.
It sure is.. that's why you either slipstream the updates into your installation disc, or create a standard image using the sysprep utility. Even for a small sized business it doesn't make sense to do a clean install of XP on every machine. It takes too much time and is a waste of company resources. -
Re:and then....
Exactly. Buying for a copy of windows doesn't entitle you to any kind of support. Here's the kind of support that microsoft makes available. After that, you're left scrounging newsgroups, websites, or paying through the nose.
-
Re:Reference counting