Slashdot Mirror

How well would that database hold up in a real world context? That is, how much abuse can it take? I want to deploy a little site that won't ever get a lot of traffic (few thousand a day at most) and don't want to pay for a SQL Server license. The isn't too database intensive, but it will make a query every time a user comes on. I'd rather use Express if I can (free). Is this practical?

Honestly, I haven't actually tried SQL Express. It is the exact same engine as full SQL Server, but obviously with some limitations. Here's a decent comparison of Express vs. full versions of SQL. Assuming your data set is relatively small (4GB or less) and relatively simple (a limit of 1GB of RAM and a single CPU could make intensive queries suck), it should work well enough for you. Worst case, you try it out and find that you need a bigger version of SQL Server. If that's the case, your existing Express database will migrate over to a full SQL Server 2005 installation just fine, since it's the same engine.

Licensing-wise, it looks like what you want to do would be allowed. The only question is whether the Express engine will be robust enough.

Obviously the biggest problem with it all is that it costs money. A lot of money if you want the IDE with all the architecture tools, design tools, testing tools, compilers, SQL server, TFS for source control and deployment, etc. You're locked into a MS environment essentially. And sometimes this isn't a problem at all. Maybe you're developing an ASP.net site or something. But you're spent a lot of money on tools and when multiplied by 50 developers, this can add up to a lot. However, you get MS support and for a lot of business companies with developers that aren't the greatest thing around, this is very valuable.

I think the key here is that it depends on what you're doing. If you're doing small-time ASP.NET work, smaller .NET apps, or even writing games, the Express versions of Visual Studio (including XNA Game Studio) are quite nice and free. If you're doing enterprisey work, you'll probably want the full Architect edition and probably get an MSDN subscription as well. If you just want to do an ASP.NET website with a SQL Server backend, spend your money on SQL Server 2005 (or don't spend your money yet and use SQL Server Express to build your proof of concept) and use the free Visual Web Developer Express.

Obviously the biggest problem with it all is that it costs money. A lot of money if you want the IDE with all the architecture tools, design tools, testing tools, compilers, SQL server, TFS for source control and deployment, etc. You're locked into a MS environment essentially. And sometimes this isn't a problem at all. Maybe you're developing an ASP.net site or something. But you're spent a lot of money on tools and when multiplied by 50 developers, this can add up to a lot. However, you get MS support and for a lot of business companies with developers that aren't the greatest thing around, this is very valuable.

I think the key here is that it depends on what you're doing. If you're doing small-time ASP.NET work, smaller .NET apps, or even writing games, the Express versions of Visual Studio (including XNA Game Studio) are quite nice and free. If you're doing enterprisey work, you'll probably want the full Architect edition and probably get an MSDN subscription as well. If you just want to do an ASP.NET website with a SQL Server backend, spend your money on SQL Server 2005 (or don't spend your money yet and use SQL Server Express to build your proof of concept) and use the free Visual Web Developer Express.

With regard to 17 ways to do something, it's easy. Look at ReadFile vs. ReadFileEx, OpenFile vs. CreateFile vs. CreateFileTransacted - they are all generally doing the same thing. This was caused by freezing the API at various points in time, and when it was discovered that this and that function can't be implemented in existing API then a new method was concocted, with just the parameters for that new function, and so on.

But there are even more fundamental differences, when the whole API gets deprecated. For example, the Waveform API - you still can use it, but it's not nice and does not always offer you the best results. DirectX / DirectSound is more appropriate these days, though XAudio2 is also interesting, though you'd better know about X3DAudio if you are making games, though DirectSound3D could replace it for you. Fortunately, on Vista there is WASAPI in between the stack and the hardware, which only adds fun to the scope of your testing :-)

With regard to 17 ways to do something, it's easy. Look at ReadFile vs. ReadFileEx, OpenFile vs. CreateFile vs. CreateFileTransacted - they are all generally doing the same thing. This was caused by freezing the API at various points in time, and when it was discovered that this and that function can't be implemented in existing API then a new method was concocted, with just the parameters for that new function, and so on.

But there are even more fundamental differences, when the whole API gets deprecated. For example, the Waveform API - you still can use it, but it's not nice and does not always offer you the best results. DirectX / DirectSound is more appropriate these days, though XAudio2 is also interesting, though you'd better know about X3DAudio if you are making games, though DirectSound3D could replace it for you. Fortunately, on Vista there is WASAPI in between the stack and the hardware, which only adds fun to the scope of your testing :-)

It's features like this that has turned Java from a hideously verbose language into something that's almost easier to develop in than Ruby (imho), and Visual Studio seems almost antiquated on this subject (there's no excuse for not implementing these features for statically typed languages such as C/C++)

What version of Visual Studio are you comparing against? Visual Studio 2005 (which is the basis for the free Express versions, so you can try it out without risking any cash) has all of the features you claim are lacking. It's maybe not as automatic (VS2k5 won't automatically stub a method for you unless you tell it to do so), but IMHO that's a good thing -- I don't want the IDE second-guessing what I'm doing.

Perhaps you were using Visual Studio for C++ code? It's been a while since I've done any C++, having focused almost exclusively on C# for the last 5 years, but with C# the IDE will catch syntax errors, auto-complete for you if you wish (use ctrl+space to bring up intellisense), stub out methods and interface implementations (ctrl+F10 to open the SmartTag-like dropdown), allow you to easily refactor code into methods or wrap variables into Properties, declare "using" tags if you reference something from an assembly in the project references without declaring its namespace (you can alternatively tell it to use the fully-qualifed namespace if you don't want to add it to your "using" list), etc. I would assume that most of the functionality also exists for C++ projects, but I haven't verified that. The functionality is all there (at least for .NET languages), in the box, without any extra plugins needed, and Visual Studio is lightweight enough that I can run 4-5 instances on a 2 year old laptop with 2GB RAM without any issues at all. VS is also pluggable like Eclipse, so feel free to extend it as you wish.

It's been a while since I tried using Eclipse, mostly because I haven't done any Java work since graduating from college back in 2000. When I did last check it out (probably 2-3 years ago) it was horribly obtuse and bloated. I'm sure things have gotten better over the years, and if I had to start working with Java Eclipse would be my first choice of IDE, but in a Windows C++/C# world I'll choose Visual Studio 2005 every single time. (I'd choose Visual Studio 2008, but I was burned by the VS2k5/.NET 2.0 beta and am now wary of beta versions of Visual Studio -- I'll switch when it ships.)

Not quite.
They offer up to 100Mbit/s which is a trifle better than the 10Mbit/s that I have in Oslo
for the last 7 years :-)
http://www.lundsenergi.se/oppetstadsnat
An open system with optical fibre that cover the city. Not bad :-)
Like a faucet with drinking water in every kitchen and bathroom :-)

"Nätet är konkurrensneutralt, det vill säga det är inte knutet till en enskild tjänsteleverantör. I stället kan du som slutkund välja mellan många tjänsteleverantörer på marknaden av Internetanslutning, IP-telefoni och TV-kanaler."
The network is competition neutral - that is - it is not connected to a sole service provider - Instead you as a end customer can choose between many service providers in the market for Internet connection, IP-telephony and TV-channels (programs)

Seems the City of Lund made a choice that in hindsight is the obvious one.
Saving costs and still retaining the freedom of choice.
Where I live there is optical fibre running underneath the pavement on both sides of the street :-)
Freedom all right, but a bit more expensive.

And yes - their website states that technicians are looking into the problem.
Just don't expect them to be working overtime in the weekend just because Microsoft
chose to release Vista with a new DHCP stack.

Seems to be ill informed journalists:
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=42043

Link to solve the problem:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/92823 3
or if you don't feel like editing the registry buy a router that can deal with it :-)
For most it would be a better option as you might want to attach more computers
later, and SP1 will probably fix it later anyway.
And as a bonus, the router could maybe with some luck deal with future releases from Microsoft :-)

BorkBork urdiburdido :-)

The problem is Vista is setting the DHCP Unicast flag in it's requests, and the DHCP server in this story does not support unicast responses and is consequently giving no response at all.

Microsoft hasn't implemented anything outside the DHCP standard in Vista.

They have adhered to the DHCP standard and the guidelines you have specified above as they have allowed users of Vista to alter it's behaviour with a simple registry setting...

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

But hey lets not let technical facts get in the way of a good ol fashioned anti-MS beat up.

Which is precisely the reason why Vista is not at fault here.

The Linux DHCP server is at fault, because it's not responding to Vista DHCP requests.

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

http://www.askdavetaylor.com/dhcp_unicast_broadcas t_flag.html

To quote Jim...

This isn't so much a client issue as it is a server issue. In order for your Windows clients to receive DHCP responses by unicast rather than broadcast, you need to configure the DHCP server accordingly to allow clients to request a unicast response.

In Lundis case I suspect their DHCP server doesn't support unicast responses, and their Anti-MS zealot admins don't feel like changing that.

You can just imagine how diffent this would be if it were a new version of Apple OSX and not Vista having issues with their outdated systems.

Broken?

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

http://www.askdavetaylor.com/dhcp_unicast_broadcas t_flag.html

It sets the DHCP Unicast Broadcast flag.

Yeeeeeeep that them Vista DHCP packets be real broked I reckon rightly. Nice thunkin.

Anyway, here's Jim's answer:

This isn't so much a client issue as it is a server issue. In order for your Windows clients to receive DHCP responses by unicast rather than broadcast, you need to configure the DHCP server accordingly to allow clients to request a unicast response. To do so, you must modify the registry on the DHCP server (assuming a Windows-based DHCP server).

1. On the server, open the Registry Editor and navigate to the key HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Servic es\DHCPServer\Parameters.

2. If the IgnoreBroadcastFlag value does not exist in this key, create it as a DWORD value.

3. Set the value of IgnoreBroadcastFlag to to 1 to cause the server to ignore the client broadcast flag and always respond with multicast. Set the value of IgnoreBroadcastFlag to 0 to allow the clients to request unicast.

4. Close the Registry Editor and restart the DHCP server.



Vista's implementation is fine, it's the antiquated software Lundis admin are grimly determined to hang on to that's the problem.

Well the support KB from Microsoft paints a different picture

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

http://www.askdavetaylor.com/dhcp_unicast_broadcas t_flag.html

So basically the problem is that Vista is utilising a part of the DHCP standard that is not implemented on Lundis DHCP server.

It's the Linux system here which is failing to comply with the DHCP standard not the other way around.

I think this would be an entirely different story and an entirely different response from Lundis admin if this issue was with say... a new version of Apple OSX.

They should just update their DHCP server to something a little more up to date and compliant, and stop playing stupid anti-MS political games.

I don't really blame Microsoft for refusing to help your Vista users. As with most companies Microsoft charges for support, they're not going to help your users for free.

What sort of IT Administrators do you have ? Most of the civilised IT world would have a single administrator or at least appoint a single person to consult Microsoft and determine an appropriate solution, in this case a simple reg file distributed on a USB key or a login script would do the trick.

It seems that the /. community has had no trouble in uncovering exactly what this bug is. Why is it so difficult for MS? It's not as if this isn't a known issue with a known workaround. Under those circumstances you fix the bug. I don't see why some people have such a problem with that. It's not even a newly-discovered issue either: the MS article is dated 15 March.

MS is properly implementing a known, albeit outdated, DHCP option. The DHCP server is failing to respond rather than either implement/ignore the valid option. Incidentally, this issue is fixed in ISC http://www.isc.org/index.pl?/sw/dhcp/dhcp-v2.php, so it's also possible that ISP is ignoring an update that will fix the problem. Also, MS has stated which registry key to change to disable the offending broadcast flag option http://support.microsoft.com/kb/928233, so it's not correct to say that MS has not responded. Given that they are RFC compliant, they didn't need to do anything.

Microsoft has known about the problem since March 15, 2007. They even know how to fix it. But they have yet to release a patch.

I think this can be ascribed to malice.

There's 2 sides though:

1: MS is up to old tricks (which isn't flat MS bashing, MS does have a reputation for illicit practices)

2: MS made a legitimate mistake, and this is just a bug. It wouldn't be the first time, and all programmers make mistakes. That said, that it still just so happens to work with MS servers but not Linux servers seems to point away from this option, but I can't say for sure, as light on the details as this story is.

"it's a recognised bug acknowledged by Microsoft as being due to old routers or DHCP servers which do not support the DHCP broadcast flag"

Trust Microsoft to make Microsoft DHCP incompatible with everyone elses ..

"Windows Vista cannot obtain an IP address from certain routers or from certain non-Microsoft DHCP servers"

Rest of ad hominem ignored ...

was: Re:Nice going, twitter.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/928233/en-us

If the city spent 3 seconds looking into the problem, they'd have found a fix...

> Furthermore, there's a good chance that many people will blame the Linux servers and the company that deployed them, rather than Windows Vista.

As they should.

The fault is in the Linux servers, not in Windows Vista.

Windows Vista correctly implements the DHCP standard BROADCAST flag,
which some poor-quality software mishandles.

Here is the link that Lundis Energi provides to it's Vista users that
explains Lundis Energi's problem with the DHCP BROADCAST flag:

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/92823 3

And here is the link to the DHCP RFC 2131 which shows that Microsoft
Vista is implementing the standard BROADCAST flag correctly and that
the Linux servers are at fault:

http://faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2131.html

he reason is because Lund is a Linux city which has a a Linux server that doesn't like Vista.

Vista sets the DHCP BROADCAST flag.
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/92823 3

This is in compliance with DHCP standards.

Ofcourse the incompetent Admins will blame Vista and not fix the router software.

The problem as reported is that the Vista DHCP client fails to obtain an address from Linux servers running (I'd presume) ISC dhcpd.

When I bought a laptop recently it came with Vista. When I connected it to my network it failed to obtain an address. I assumed there was some misconfiguration problem I was missing, Turns out it's a fundamental difference between the DHCP client in Vista and the one in prior versions of Windows. See this item from Microsoft: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/928233/en-us.

The version of dhcpd I'm using is an old one (2.0). I thought about upgrading it to see if that would solve the problem, but since I wasn't planning on keeping Vista on the laptop, I didn't bother upgrading. All our other machines run Linux and don't have this problem.

I wonder what decision will be made in enterprises running Linux DHCP servers that introduce Vista into the workplace. Will they follow the Microsoft KB item above and "fix" the problem on every new Vista box they buy? Or will the replace the Linux DHCP box with Windows Server?

False statement. BitLocker does not require a TPM chip, a simple USB flash drive can be used in its stead to store the encryption keys.

I must disagree with you about Microsoft's mice; I've had 4-5 of these http://www.microsoft.com/products/info/product.asp x?view=22&pcid=f918997d-8a10-49a2-86d4-350fc658f44 7&type=ovr fail (left, right and/or middle mouse buttons cease working) under normal use (web surfing, windows navigation, NOT gaming). And lets not forget their Habu which wouldn't work as intended if you followed the instructions for installation (something about the driver not recognizing the mouse as a Habu)

Where $strlen is a placeholder for the function declared in stdio.h. Note that at this point the compiler has no idea at all if strlen() is going to be statically or dynamically linked, nor does it matter.

If you use static linking, ld looks at the object files specified on the command line and when it finds strlen in a symbol table, it replaces $strlen with the address of the function. If you use dynamic linking, then the dynamic linker looks at the .so's referenced by the binary, loads the dll if necessary, and replaces $strlen with the address of the function. The end result is exactly the same, the exact same sequence of instructions, and the exact same mapping of the object code into the app's virtual address space. The only difference is when it happens -- run time or compile time -- and this is by design.

In the context of native Win32 EXEs & DLLs your understanding is fundamentally flawed. This article from 1994 covers the details of the PE, which have not changed significantly for native Win32 executables. Section PE File Imports describes Win32 load-time dynamic linking; note especially figure 3, which illustrates that this is essentially a jump table mechanism. Section Differences Between PE and COFF OBJ Files is also worth a read. Win32 executables can also load DLLs using run-time dynamic linking via API functions such as LoadLibrary(). The latter approach to dynamic linking is useful for "plug-in" style implementations.

Static, i.e. build-time, linking is quite different. Section Static Libraries vs. Shared Libraries here, although brief, should make that clear.

- T

It's a better idea to use the systemrescuecd in combination with a usb drive, and have partimage write the image to the usb drive, rather than try to repartition the image on the first go.

Another caveat with any of these backup tools is that they may have issues with Vista, and it's changed format for the MBR. Make sure that any imaging tool backs up the MasterBootRecord as well.
As I haven't done any Vista saves restores yet, I can't talk about that. For XP and earlier I still find the old ghost 2003 app to be the best bet for restore disks.

Don't be fooled by his attempt to confuse the issue. Microsoft Windows is EXPENSIVE, in my opinion, and becoming more so. We often have had to re-load Windows XP to remove system instability caused by sloppy coding and by system files modified by malware.

It has been more than 2 years since WinXP service pack 2 was released (August 25, 2004), even though updating Windows XP from an SP2 CD requires downloading more than 170 Megabytes of files, a difficult problem when there is no internet connection or only a dial-up connection. The Windows XP updates of just last Patch Tuesday were more than 20 Megabytes.

Microsoft seems to have delayed releasing an SP3 for Windows XP to try to discourage people from using their XP operating system. But the really major problems in Windows XP stopped only after the SP2 was released.

We have had eight different kinds of problems with Microsoft update; Microsoft Update gets my vote for the buggiest Microsoft software, and that's a tough title to get. Other people have many, many different kinds of problems with Windows Update. See, for example, Windows Update Discussion Group.

I'm guessing that tens or hundreds of millions of hours and billions of dollars are lost every year because of the sloppy coding in Windows XP. Steve Ballmer took Bill Gates' position as the Chief of Grief.

Corporate Rule: Never use a new version of Windows until after the 2nd service pack has been released, and others have had a chance to see if there are problems. It is expensive in re-training costs to use a different operating system, so a company that has a virtual monopoly can abuse the customer by releasing unfinished and sloppy software, and still not lose most of its customers.

Remember that the cost of Windows is much more than the cost of the OS itself for many reasons besides the high maintenance costs. Microsoft's biggest customers are the giant computer manufacturers, and they want to manipulate people to buy new computers. So, each new version of Microsoft Windows requires more powerful hardware. Those who use Windows are dragged through the adversarial business schemes of one of the most anti-customer large corporations in the world, in my opinion.

Microsoft Windows maintenance is so expensive that people throw away their computers and buy new ones because the maintenance cost is so high. See, for example, the New York Times article, Corrupted PC's Find New Home in the Dumpster. (Free NYT registration required.)

Many people depend for making a living on maintaining Microsoft Windows. Many of those people have no other way of making a living. They often try to confuse discussions of the maintenance costs of Windows and discussions of Microsoft's adversarial practices; don't be fooled by their misdirection.

Don't be fooled by his attempt to confuse the issue. Microsoft Windows is EXPENSIVE, in my opinion, and becoming more so. We often have had to re-load Windows XP to remove system instability caused by sloppy coding and by system files modified by malware.

It has been more than 2 years since WinXP service pack 2 was released (August 25, 2004), even though updating Windows XP from an SP2 CD requires downloading more than 170 Megabytes of files, a difficult problem when there is no internet connection or only a dial-up connection. The Windows XP updates of just last Patch Tuesday were more than 20 Megabytes.

Microsoft seems to have delayed releasing an SP3 for Windows XP to try to discourage people from using their XP operating system. But the really major problems in Windows XP stopped only after the SP2 was released.

We have had eight different kinds of problems with Microsoft update; Microsoft Update gets my vote for the buggiest Microsoft software, and that's a tough title to get. Other people have many, many different kinds of problems with Windows Update. See, for example, Windows Update Discussion Group.

I'm guessing that tens or hundreds of millions of hours and billions of dollars are lost every year because of the sloppy coding in Windows XP. Steve Ballmer took Bill Gates' position as the Chief of Grief.

Corporate Rule: Never use a new version of Windows until after the 2nd service pack has been released, and others have had a chance to see if there are problems. It is expensive in re-training costs to use a different operating system, so a company that has a virtual monopoly can abuse the customer by releasing unfinished and sloppy software, and still not lose most of its customers.

Remember that the cost of Windows is much more than the cost of the OS itself for many reasons besides the high maintenance costs. Microsoft's biggest customers are the giant computer manufacturers, and they want to manipulate people to buy new computers. So, each new version of Microsoft Windows requires more powerful hardware. Those who use Windows are dragged through the adversarial business schemes of one of the most anti-customer large corporations in the world, in my opinion.

Microsoft Windows maintenance is so expensive that people throw away their computers and buy new ones because the maintenance cost is so high. See, for example, the New York Times article, Corrupted PC's Find New Home in the Dumpster. (Free NYT registration required.)

Many people depend for making a living on maintaining Microsoft Windows. Many of those people have no other way of making a living. They often try to confuse discussions of the maintenance costs of Windows and discussions of Microsoft's adversarial practices; don't be fooled by their misdirection.

The specific window redraw issues in Visual Studio 2005 were fixed in VS SP1 (at least in my experience). The issues only showed up on Vista, but it appears it was actually a VS 2005 issue.

Try loading the SP from http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?Fa milyId=BB4A75AB-E2D4-4C96-B39D-37BAF6B5B1DC&displa ylang=en/ and see if it fixes the issue.

> Is it possible to determine how many window handles have been allocated to a program?

Process Explorer. You can even break handles with it if you're sure they're not going to be used anymore (I used do this all the time with TortoiseCVS, but more recent versions seem to clean up better).

There's also a command-line tool from the same place (sysinternals) that lists handles, called strangely enough, "handle.exe". I find I have to run that one as the system user (which you can do with psexec -s from the pstools suite) in order to get much use out of it though.

vista really chews the memory up, I hope they fix that first off..

vista really chews the memory up, I hope they fix that first off..

Here's my unofficial mini-service pack for Vista. :-p

1. Type services.msc in the start menu search box and go there.
2. Open and set "Windows Search" to "Inactive" as its start mode and stop the service, unless you use Vista's search facilities and not a third party tool like Total Commander or Directory Opus, etc.
3. Open and disable "Superfetch" in the same way, unless you trust it to actually make things run faster and predict your usage behavior. Keep in mind that it'll keep caching data to RAM in its "prediction" process. Even data files, not just executables and DLL's. This can be especially nasty when it starts caching 100 MB-sized files you have downloaded with P2P apps because it think you'll run them soon, or something.
4. Try putting in a ReadyBoost-compatible (you probably won't know if it is until you've tried :-p) USB memory stick and have Vista manage it as extra RAM. It's not really RAM-fast or anything (but it doesn't seem to make things worse at least), but especially seeemed to cut a bit on hard drive access. I'm not sure, but it's possible it relocates some of its swap file to it as ReadyBoost kicks in.
5. If you haven't got these installed (you'll notice if it tells you they can't be installed on your OS), download and install these Vista hotfixes performance and reliability and compatibility and reliability. Among other things included is fixes to the Vista memory manager and many users have reported both cut memory usage directly after boot up, and better 3D benchmark scores. It also fixes the infamous "slow file copy" bug of Vista.

Now try use it for a day or so, and hopefully your hard drive access has been cut. As long as you don't use the Vista desktop search, no disabled services above really impact the ability of Vista to function as normal, and you can always enable them again if you notice no improvement. Something else that access your drive a lot at a few times is the System Restore feature that also runs as a service, but I don't recommend disabling that one since it'll also disable your ability to restore your OS state to an earlier date if, say, an application or driver install would go horribly wrong.

vista really chews the memory up, I hope they fix that first off..

Here's my unofficial mini-service pack for Vista. :-p

1. Type services.msc in the start menu search box and go there.
2. Open and set "Windows Search" to "Inactive" as its start mode and stop the service, unless you use Vista's search facilities and not a third party tool like Total Commander or Directory Opus, etc.
3. Open and disable "Superfetch" in the same way, unless you trust it to actually make things run faster and predict your usage behavior. Keep in mind that it'll keep caching data to RAM in its "prediction" process. Even data files, not just executables and DLL's. This can be especially nasty when it starts caching 100 MB-sized files you have downloaded with P2P apps because it think you'll run them soon, or something.
4. Try putting in a ReadyBoost-compatible (you probably won't know if it is until you've tried :-p) USB memory stick and have Vista manage it as extra RAM. It's not really RAM-fast or anything (but it doesn't seem to make things worse at least), but especially seeemed to cut a bit on hard drive access. I'm not sure, but it's possible it relocates some of its swap file to it as ReadyBoost kicks in.
5. If you haven't got these installed (you'll notice if it tells you they can't be installed on your OS), download and install these Vista hotfixes performance and reliability and compatibility and reliability. Among other things included is fixes to the Vista memory manager and many users have reported both cut memory usage directly after boot up, and better 3D benchmark scores. It also fixes the infamous "slow file copy" bug of Vista.

Now try use it for a day or so, and hopefully your hard drive access has been cut. As long as you don't use the Vista desktop search, no disabled services above really impact the ability of Vista to function as normal, and you can always enable them again if you notice no improvement. Something else that access your drive a lot at a few times is the System Restore feature that also runs as a service, but I don't recommend disabling that one since it'll also disable your ability to restore your OS state to an earlier date if, say, an application or driver install would go horribly wrong.

Service Pack 1 won't exactly make Vista more desirable as an OS; but it is a psychological landmark that says "we worked most of the bugs out and we're finally done with it". Businesses may bite; but I'm not 100% convinced that Vista is better than XP quite yet.

This SP full of patches still probably won't prevent people from deleting their Recycle Bin, end the UAC nazi tyranny and let admins do admin things with computers. Once MS figures-out a way to make Vista useful without all those annoyances and brick walls, then I may give it another look.

I know I'm going to -1 Flamebait hell for this; but if a Windows box has to be insecure in order to be useful, then so be it.

Unless you are saying you need more ram (which may be true), this is why Vista always has all of the memory utilized

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsv ista/features/details/superfetch.mspx

SuperFetch

Windows SuperFetch enables programs and files to load much faster than they would on Windows XP-based PCs.

When you're not actively using your computer, background tasks--including automatic backup programs and antivirus scans--run when they will least disturb you. These background tasks can take up system memory space that your programs had been using. On Windows XP-based PCs, this can slow progress to a crawl when you attempt to resume work.

SuperFetch monitors which applications you use the most and preloads these into your system memory so they'll be ready when you need them. Windows Vista also runs background programs, like disk defragmenting and Windows Defender, at low priority so that they can do their job but your work always comes first.

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle/service packs.mspx

It's planned for 1JHCKY 2008...

SP3 for Windows XP Professional is currently planned for 1H CY2008

http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com/

  Thank you for your interest in obtaining updates from our site.

To use this site, you must be running Microsoft Internet Explorer 5 or later.

To upgrade to the latest version of the browser, go to the Internet Explorer Downloads website.

If you prefer to use a different web browser, you can obtain updates from the Microsoft Download Center or you can stay up to date with the latest critical and security updates by using Automatic Updates. To turn on Automatic Updates:

      1. Click Start, and then click Control Panel.
      2. Depending on which Control Panel view you use, Classic or Category, do one of the following:
                    * Click System, and then click the Automatic Updates tab.
                    * Click Performance and Maintenance, click System, and then click the Automatic Updates tab.
      3. Click the option that you want. Make sure Automatic Updates is not turned off.

you still can ( http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?Fa milyId=049C9DBE-3B8E-4F30-8245-9E368D3CDB5A&displa ylang=en ) and most recent XP cds have SP2 slipstreamed anyway.

the trouble is service pack 2 is getting pretty old and there have been many security fixes since its release. You could use a firewall to protect the machine while getting them but while MS turned on the firewall by default in SP2 they also watered down its security level (i'm not sure if this can be changed but by default the SP2 firewall trusts everything on the local subnet)

Want to support the Autopackage folks? Email Microsoft and tell them what you think. Be polite or as rude as you want, but let them know you think they are MORONS for shutting down Autopackage and that it is a disservice to paying customers (especially rural customers and commercial broadband customers dealing with "unpublished" caps) and only legitimizes slipstreamed "Pirate" versions of Windows.

You don't even need to call anymore, just go to this form and you can get the non regression tested hotfixes by email! Include platform because they will want it even if there is only one applicable fix in the KB article.

MSDN's Version:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-US/library/aa387102. aspx

My modified version that forces cscript.exe and adds an /auto switch:
http://b0n.us/WUA_SearchDownloadInstall.vbs

It usually takes 3 times with reboots in between to get all the patches.

It will use your WSUS settings and get the patches from a local server if you have one.

Yes, they are VBS, don't run them without reading them and understanding them!

jorgie

That's a fantastic post that accurately describes my feelings on my recent switch to OS X. Despite some initial discomfort, I, too, have quickly grown to love my new Mac Pro.

I hate Finder almost as much as I the Dock. They're both useless for any sort of development environment. The Dock is quickly overwhelmed by sheer numbers, as you must mouseover the icons to get any sort of textual description. Worse, you only get 1 icon per application, regardless of how many windows it has open. The result is cumbersome application switching. Finder, on the other hand, just comes across as a bit half-assed. You'll probably prefer the shell for anything but the most basic of file operations. (No cut & paste for files? C'mon, you're going to make me open a second Finder window, browse to the other folder, then come back here and drag the files over?)

Fortunately there are some fantastic pieces of shareware and freeware to (mostly) fix these issues. I almost never even see the dock any more.

If you haven't already, get QuickSilver, NOW. ...seriously, go get it. I'll wait.

...good.

Now get DragThing. This will replace the dock. You can make sliding drawers, floating panels, or something in between that can hold icons and folders. It also provides panels for a list of all the windows and/or apps that you currently have open, with or without text. I bought DragThing without thinking twice.

Witch is free and crucial for application switching, too.

With these two apps, I'm just as fast moving from one application to the next as on windows. Also, PathFinder seems to be okay as a semi-replacement for Finder. I'm still in the shareware trial period...haven't decided if I'm going to buy it yet though.

You can watch system resources with Menu Meters. I find that OS X does a fantastic job of splitting work up among my 4 processor cores; much better than windows.

Oh, and if you still have to administer windows machines, Microsoft makes a Remote Desktop Client for OS X. Also, Microsoft Entourage is good (maybe better than Outlook) if you still have to use an Exchange server.

That's a fantastic post that accurately describes my feelings on my recent switch to OS X. Despite some initial discomfort, I, too, have quickly grown to love my new Mac Pro.

I hate Finder almost as much as I the Dock. They're both useless for any sort of development environment. The Dock is quickly overwhelmed by sheer numbers, as you must mouseover the icons to get any sort of textual description. Worse, you only get 1 icon per application, regardless of how many windows it has open. The result is cumbersome application switching. Finder, on the other hand, just comes across as a bit half-assed. You'll probably prefer the shell for anything but the most basic of file operations. (No cut & paste for files? C'mon, you're going to make me open a second Finder window, browse to the other folder, then come back here and drag the files over?)

Fortunately there are some fantastic pieces of shareware and freeware to (mostly) fix these issues. I almost never even see the dock any more.

If you haven't already, get QuickSilver, NOW. ...seriously, go get it. I'll wait.

...good.

Now get DragThing. This will replace the dock. You can make sliding drawers, floating panels, or something in between that can hold icons and folders. It also provides panels for a list of all the windows and/or apps that you currently have open, with or without text. I bought DragThing without thinking twice.

Witch is free and crucial for application switching, too.

With these two apps, I'm just as fast moving from one application to the next as on windows. Also, PathFinder seems to be okay as a semi-replacement for Finder. I'm still in the shareware trial period...haven't decided if I'm going to buy it yet though.

You can watch system resources with Menu Meters. I find that OS X does a fantastic job of splitting work up among my 4 processor cores; much better than windows.

Oh, and if you still have to administer windows machines, Microsoft makes a Remote Desktop Client for OS X. Also, Microsoft Entourage is good (maybe better than Outlook) if you still have to use an Exchange server.

That's your experience. Like I said, I run from a limited user account exclusively and I *do* use Norton AV. Something I forgot to mention... my 5 year old son has had a limited user account since before he was 2 and has been surfing on his own since then and hasn't accidentally infected me with anything yet. Of course, I have him set up with firefox and he doesn't stray to far from Nick Jr, PBS, Lego.com, etc which probably helps.

As for the games - yours must be extremely old games. For the first 2-3 years of XP there were 2-3 games that I had to run as admin although there were several toddler and kid titles that required admin. Of these, two were quite old and one required admin because it used punk buster. For the last few years there was only one game that I needed admin right for and PB just updated their software so even that one doesn't require admin anymore. When *I* wanted to run one of these games (in the past) I simply right-clicked on it and chose "run as:" and selected my admin account and entered my password (i.e. like "su"). That really wasn't too hard. For games that need write/modify access to my programs (again, older games) I simply used the calcs command (at command prompt) to grant the limited user full access to the games directory. I couldn't even remember the name of that command since I haven't had to use it in so long.

Why fund it? They already make and give out WSUS for free.