Slashdot Mirror

Holy crap!

In what? The 8-inch floppy?

With your 8-inch floppy?

Microsoft actually has a screensaver which does just this: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sysinternals/Util ities/BlueScreen.mspx

Kudos for them for making a joke out of it!

http://download.microsoft.com/documents/useterms/W indows%20Vista_Ultimate_English_36d0fe99-75e4-4875 -8153-889cf5105718.pdf

When I first read your post, I thought, "I'll show him. Microshaft doesn't warrant their products, else technical support would be free." But, to my suprise, Vista (Ultimate, at least) does indeed include a warranty. And it even provides remedies for Microsoft's inability to repair any errors in Vista that are not by design (such as the Digital Restrictions Management software's defectiveness by design).

I thought I'd share this information and admit to my conclusion jump so as to be an example to others:
Always check your facts.

My personal preference is take the screen shot, flip it, then set that as the background. WinXP makes things easy because you can just right click and uncheck "show icons". I do it once or twice a year at work. Doesn't work so well anymore now that all PCs will lock themselves after 10 minutes of inactivity.

As if that weren't bad enough.. you can configure Office 2007 to not use the new file formats! The cheek!

http://technet2.microsoft.com/Office/en-us/library /07946c8e-9311-42a6-979b-5bc89afb7a661033.mspx?mfr =true

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/winfamil y/windowshomeserver/default.mspx

you might have to settle for small business edition...there is no "home server" --> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsv ista/editions/default.mspx

"Fdisk it from orbit - it's the only way to be sure."

Even Microsoft agrees with you. You can't "clean" a compromized machine.

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/community/columns /secmgmt/sm0504.mspx

That goes for other OSes too.

--
BMO

While this guy is complaining about his FILES not being compatible, the software problems are a totally different beast. I have experienced a somewhat similar problem. On MS KB 929992 MS explains how to install Office 2007 side-by-side with an existing installation of Office 2003. The instructions specify how to install it such that you choose to continue using Outlook 2003 or you switch to Outlook 2007 because it says that: "By default, the earlier version of Outlook is removed because two versions of Outlook cannot coexist."

I followed the instructions for the installation so that I would keep Outlook 2003 and would end up with Office 2003 and Office 2007 installed side-by-side. I did this because I have a full retail version of Office 2003, but my key for Office 2007 was free from Microsoft and can only be used to activate ONCE, no more. (For those that attended Microsoft Launch events for Office 2007 & Windows Vista, you got a free key for Office 2007 Professional. You have to download the trial and then activate it using the key.) I did this because I wasn't completely ready to make the switch and wanted to be able to toy with Office 2007 but still use 2003.

Even though everything is suppose to work smoothly here, I left 2007 unactivated and in trial mode. During the installation of 2007, I did not enter a key when prompted. I assumed that only 2007 would be affected, but 2003 was hosed. Now 2007 apps will open but will prompt you to activate every single time, as expected. However, all 2003 apps are hosed, EXCEPT Outlook! If I try to launch any of the 2003 apps, Windows Installer kicks off, and I am prompted to repair the Office 2003 installation. After letting run, it then prompts to activate Office 2003 again! Killing it just starts the repair, re-activate cycle over again.

So much for the side-by-side successful installation.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929992/en-us
(and, yes, I know that the KB talks installing a non-trial version of 2007)

C:\Windows\Installer\ -> Right click -> Uninstall

Don't know which package is the one you want? Use detail view, right click the top bar and add the Subject column.
Don't mess around too much in there but if you want to uninstall something, that's one way. There are others.

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/thankyou.aspx?f amilyId=941b3470-3ae9-4aee-8f43-c6bb74cd1466&displ ayLang=en

Well that was bloody difficult.

You can't sledge a company for providing forwards fucking compatibility for their old products, you anonymous asstard.

Well, this issue got my attention. I immediately updated my downloaded free copy of Ubuntu Feisty Fawn, with all the Microsoft updates that applied. I then brought up the Synaptic Manager. I installed a CD Rip/Tear/Burn program. I then uninstalled it. Just want to say, "Thanks". My Ubuntu is now updated with the latest Microsoft updates.

How about downloading and installing Microsoft Office Compatibility Pack for Word, Excel, and PowerPoint 2007 File Formats? Available here: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?Fa milyId=941b3470-3ae9-4aee-8f43-c6bb74cd1466&displa ylang=en

1. Tetris brand tetromino game is not freeware; it is proprietary commercial software. Lockjaw is not Tetris for the same reason GNU's not UNIX.
2. Freeware tetromino games tend to be able to run without installation on Mac OS X or GNU/Linux more often than on Windows.
3. Unlike Mac OS X and GNU/Linux and unlike previous versions of Windows OS, Windows Vista has a heuristic for detecting programs that look like installers, and it automatically prompts for elevation instead of running the installer as an ordinary user and letting the program install to the user's home folder.

Well, in addition to the path given above, on the Office main page, you could click "Downloads" and see that it's one of the top 5 Office downloads...

Or you could just go to the Microsoft Downloads page directly and note that it's the second most popular download, available right at the top of the page...

Or, you could Google "Office 2007 format" and see that it's in the top 10 results for that query...

Pretty complicated stuff there....

Well, in addition to the path given above, on the Office main page, you could click "Downloads" and see that it's one of the top 5 Office downloads...

Or you could just go to the Microsoft Downloads page directly and note that it's the second most popular download, available right at the top of the page...

Or, you could Google "Office 2007 format" and see that it's in the top 10 results for that query...

Pretty complicated stuff there....

Unless of course your Office 2007 trial edition has expired and won't save documents anymore. (At that point your documents are somewhat 'trapped'. And that's what the article is warning against.)

Bullshit. You can simply install the Microsoft Office Compatibility Pack for Word, Excel, and PowerPoint 2007 File Formats, which will allow you to use older versions of office to load/save OOXML files. So you can use the older version of Office to load any OOXML files you saved with the Office 2007 trial and save them in the old binary format.

Slashdot loses more and more credibility every day with this nonsense.

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?Fa milyId=941b3470-3ae9-4aee-8f43-c6bb74cd1466&displa ylang=en

Wow would you look at that... you don't actually have to upgrade in order to open new Office files! Just another case of Microsoft forcing people to not necessarily upgrade!

I wish that the full blown Office installation would automatically convert legacy Outlook PSTs to the Unicode format for the extra storage space (20GB by default, as opposed to a 2GB limit). It would prevent me from having to do that manually after an upgrade and there's no automated conversion process. I have a problem believing his claims that the trial edition automatically converted the file, but I'll take him on his word. Anyway, you can always export back out to the legacy PST format. He just didn't notice that the PST was in the Unicode format before he uninstalled the trial, since he did the conversion using his own trial installation.

There's also the Windows Installer Cleanup tool for cleaning up failed MSI uninstallations, which is what appears to have been a large part of the problem getting Office 2000 back on to the system. For obvious reasons, Office 2000 doesn't go out of the way to detect Office 2003 installations, so the problem was probably registry cruft (as it is for so many installer issues).

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?Fa milyId=7A4EFC33-0343-4EE4-B0C4-97BD16967A09&displa ylang=en

There you go... for anyone interested!

APK

The entire Office UI team, that's who. Ever seen that Customer Experience Improvement Program that you probably disable? Well, they collected and analysed data, and found that people simply weren't discovering Office features. The Ribbon is a good way to expose these features for everyone. If you take the time to learn it and then customise it, you may easily change your opinion.

If you're having difficulty locating commands, check the Office website http://office.microsoft.com/ for an interactive demonstration: choose the Office 2003 command, and it will show you how to get to it 2007.

This entire "article" is FUD. Say what you will about Microsoft formats, but so long as you're using Word, Excel, or Powerpoint (i.e. not Outlook), there's nothing to worry about. And for the record, I've tried importing the mail from an Outlook 2007 PST file in Outlook 2003, and it works perfectly fine. There's also apparently workarounds for importing 2007 PST files into earlier versions of Outlook - including 2003 into XP, 2000, and so forth - as described here.

This entire "article" is FUD. Say what you will about Microsoft formats, but so long as you're using Word, Excel, or Powerpoint (i.e. not Outlook), there's nothing to worry about. And for the record, I've tried importing the mail from an Outlook 2007 PST file in Outlook 2003, and it works perfectly fine. There's also apparently workarounds for importing 2007 PST files into earlier versions of Outlook - including 2003 into XP, 2000, and so forth - as described here.

I can't speak for the other components of MS Office such as Outlook, Microsoft does provide a compatibility pack for word, excel and powerpoint formats which allow someone with an older version of office (XP) view the newer documents.

REM grab http://download.microsoft.com/download/win95upg/to ol_s/1.0/W95/EN-US/olddos.exe
REM for the qbasic.exe

SCREEN 13
WINDOW (-2, -2)-(2, 2)

FOR x = -2 TO 2 STEP 4 / 320
FOR y = -2 TO 2 STEP 4 / 200
u = 0
v = 0
FOR i = 0 TO 256
                REM (u+vi)^2=u*u-v*v +2uvi
                ut = u * u - v * v + x
                vt = 2 * u * v + y
                u = ut
                v = vt
                c = i
                IF (u * u + v * v) > 4 THEN i = 256
NEXT i
PSET (x, y), c
NEXT y
NEXT x

... my disks are encrypted

What good points? It has a resource intensive "shiny" interface. It has levels of DRM heretofore unseen in an operating system. It is claimed that it is secure, yet still has gaping security holes. It is claimed that it is safe, yet has to be made un-safe for users to be able to do anything with it. It is expensive, clunky, space consuming, privacy invading, insecure, unsafe, and is more interested in protecting the interests of major Hollywood distributors than its users.

Care to highlight why I'd want to use Vista?

What good points? It has a resource intensive "shiny" interface. It has levels of DRM heretofore unseen in an operating system. It is claimed that it is secure, yet still has gaping security holes. It is claimed that it is safe, yet has to be made un-safe for users to be able to do anything with it. It is expensive, clunky, space consuming, privacy invading, insecure, unsafe, and is more interested in protecting the interests of major Hollywood distributors than its users.

Care to highlight why I'd want to use Vista?

If only the subject had left out the "4." "PHP End of Life." I'd cheer for that. I'd say good riddance to a braindead language.

Are you saying Microsoft is a braindead company for tying up with Zend to enhance PHP on Windows servers? Microsoft and Zend Technologies Announce Technical Collaboration to Improve Interoperability of PHP on the Windows Server Platform

"Surface is the first commercially available surface computer from Microsoft Corp. It turns an ordinary tabletop into a vibrant, interactive surface. The product provides effortless interaction with digital content through natural gestures, touch and physical objects. In essence, it's a surface that comes to life for exploring, learning, sharing, creating, buying and much more. Soon to be available in restaurants, hotels, retail and public entertainment venues, this experience will transform the way people shop, dine, entertain and live." http://www.microsoft.com/surface/ How else to better serve the advertising that they want, and do an end run around web based advertising. They say it will know when you put down a beer, or far more if they pair with rfid tags, or whatever on the surface and can run advertising based on that. I don't think even MS has the balls to put something like this into the home yet. But 'surface' is geared towards the commercial environment, and hey, I hear they have ads in\on urinal cakes now...

When I first heard the name "Windows Genuine Advantage," I thought, "hey, great; I've finally got an advantage over those smug Mac OS X and LInux users!" Then, of course, came the awful truth.

When I first heard the name "Trusted Computing," I thought, "hey, great; does this, like, mean I can make clicky-clicky on links in the sketchiest of web pages without gasping in shock at the horrors of pathological proctology?" Then, of course, came the awful truth.

This evening, upon reading the name "Advertising Services Architecture," I thought, "hey, great; is this a cool new enabling technology that will this help me sell more stuff and make more money on eBay?" Then, yet again, came the awful truth, as pointed out in the link to this article.

As far as I know, these are but three of the 100 reasons I'll be speechless for Microsoft Vista. Or saying "Wow!" But: Is there some context in the English language in which "Wow!" means "I've got an axe buried in my head?" (Being speechless does, after all, seem to be an appropriate response to such trauma, and so I was trying to make the connection between the two.) Because after all the all the aforementioned truths, after finding out that this vast infrastructure for which I'm paying has nothing to do whatsoever with that for which I want to use a computer, well, that's kind of what I imagine it feels like.

Note that people have many, many different kinds of problems with Windows Update: Windows Update Discussion Group.

I'm guessing that millions of hours are lost every year because of the sloppy coding in Windows XP. Bill Gates is the Chief of Grief.

yeah well, I feel the "need" since it affected several hundred of my HP desktops,

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/925902

that was "news" indeed.

try to keep up next time, mmkay?

If you follow the update KB article, you'll find MS has already found issues with the update.

See:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/928365/

Which leads to:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/923100/
and
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/934711/
and
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/923101/
and
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/934793/
and
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/931846/

923100 says if you get hosed doing the update, uninstall .NET 2.0, reinstall .NET 2.0 and try to update again. Sounds kind of cyclical to me.

If you follow the update KB article, you'll find MS has already found issues with the update.

See:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/928365/

Which leads to:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/923100/
and
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/934711/
and
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/923101/
and
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/934793/
and
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/931846/

923100 says if you get hosed doing the update, uninstall .NET 2.0, reinstall .NET 2.0 and try to update again. Sounds kind of cyclical to me.

If you follow the update KB article, you'll find MS has already found issues with the update.

See:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/928365/

Which leads to:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/923100/
and
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/934711/
and
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/923101/
and
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/934793/
and
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/931846/

923100 says if you get hosed doing the update, uninstall .NET 2.0, reinstall .NET 2.0 and try to update again. Sounds kind of cyclical to me.

If you follow the update KB article, you'll find MS has already found issues with the update.

See:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/928365/

Which leads to:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/923100/
and
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/934711/
and
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/923101/
and
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/934793/
and
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/931846/

923100 says if you get hosed doing the update, uninstall .NET 2.0, reinstall .NET 2.0 and try to update again. Sounds kind of cyclical to me.

If you follow the update KB article, you'll find MS has already found issues with the update.

See:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/928365/

Which leads to:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/923100/
and
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/934711/
and
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/923101/
and
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/934793/
and
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/931846/

923100 says if you get hosed doing the update, uninstall .NET 2.0, reinstall .NET 2.0 and try to update again. Sounds kind of cyclical to me.

If you follow the update KB article, you'll find MS has already found issues with the update.

See:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/928365/

Which leads to:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/923100/
and
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/934711/
and
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/923101/
and
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/934793/
and
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/931846/

923100 says if you get hosed doing the update, uninstall .NET 2.0, reinstall .NET 2.0 and try to update again. Sounds kind of cyclical to me.

No, it's just an uncommon issue. On the NT admin mailing lists I'm on, only a handful of people have reported problems. Most responses to the thread have been "1000 systems patched here, no problems reported" and the like.

The patch is also nearly 15 MB, which is huge for a patch. Some people have just been having problems with their AV scanners locking the file to scan while Automatic Updates wants to begin installing it (see MS KB 883825). That's not a MS issue. It's arguably not even an AV vendor issue. Mostly it's an issue with admins not excluding the updates download directory.

When this 100% cpu utilization was happening I called up Process Explorer http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sysinternals/util ities/ProcessExplorer.mspx

That's all these stupid jack-asses can say! "command-line environment! command-line environment! command-line environment!" I could train a parrot to do your job! Windows XP has a command-line environment! Mac OS X has a command-line environment! All flavors of Linux (Ubuntu included) have a command-line environment, as do BSD, Minix, Solaris, Plan Nine from Bell Labs, and every computer that has ever been invented from a mainframe to a digital wristwatch and every computer that will ever be invented for all of eternity! GOD HIMSELF COULD NOT BUILD A COMPUTER WITHOUT A COMMAND LINE ENVIRONMENT, AS HE COULD NOT CONSTRUCT A LIFE FORM THAT DOES NOT EAT, BREATHE, AND REPRODUCE!

Every time you UTTER THE PHRASE "command-line environment" as a liability, you have instantly and irrevocably discredited yourself from all possibility of knowing your ass from a hole in the ground! Next story!

Windows is affected, but not Vista.
Vista changed to counting actual CPU cycle count register. The goal was to prevent process starvation in high I/O situations, but it also addresses this issue as well.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/technetmag/issues /2007/02/VistaKernel/

The fact that the email is not being sent is the sender's fault. This article is not true. I contacted Hotmail about my email being blocked. They were professional and gave me a list of things that I needed to do in order to resolve the issue. For email to get to Hotmail users, the sender must following the rules of the Sender ID Framework, which involves changing some DNS settings. More information about that can be found here:
http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/safety/technologie s/senderid/default.mspx

Senders are not required in any way to purchase a certificate from this third party company mentioned in the article.

I read it here on Slashdot. You had to pay for the license, but since it was a term of the EU agreement, Microsoft was going to release source for many key portions of Windows.

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2006/jan0 6/01-25EUSourceCodePR.mspx

Oh,

And you can't use Office in a medical device or nuclar recator, either:

http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/products/HA10210 3171033.aspx

MSDN didn't work with Firefox for a while back in the 1.x days. I had IETab to fix that. Seems to work fine for me now though. The local Intranet at work here doesn't get the menus working right (they unroll in the top left hand corner of the screen, no matter where they were supposed to) which makes browsing the intranet a hassle. Other than that I have no issues either.

Most people using Firefox wouldn't be browsing MSDN anyway, and only IT people where I work would be able to have Firefox installed, so its not really a big deal.