Slashdot Mirror

He's not just an engineer at Microsoft. Until recently he was the co-president of Microsoft's platforms & services division.

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/jim/defaul t.mspx

So now I understand, you think I was misleading. Well, since I acknowledged in my original post that it was already patched, and the download page at Microsoft is titled "Security Update for Windows Vista December CTP (KB912919)" I hardly think I was misleading about it. If Microsoft says it's a security update for Vista, I believe them.

The original mailbox must still be present in the original database and must still be connected to an Active Directory user account.

No, in order for somebody to give, a) they must want to help their fellow human beings

Taking this further, you don't need *Microsoft* to sign the drivers, you can sign it yourself if you'd like (using authenticode).

They just need it to be *signed* for 64-bit. Of course, if you'd like your hardware to be "logo'd" for Windows Vista (to use the label), you need to go through Microsoft. Here's the Windows Logo Program link

The second phase of the translator project, including translators for Spreadsheet (Microsoft Office Excel®) and Presentation (Microsoft Office PowerPoint®), will begin in February. Regular customer technology previews will be posted to SourceForge.net beginning in May 2007, and the final versions are scheduled to be available for customers in November 2007.

Anyone else feel chills? Remember how good the Import/Export of .WPD files was in Word? I'm guessing that this will be of similar quality. At least it's OSS. But I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for this to bridge the gap between ODF and OpenXML. Best is to use OpenOffice and save as .DOC if you have to. Here's the Microsoft Press Release about it.

Vendors are bound by Microsoft's Windows Life-Cycle policy (see http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle/default .mspx )

What it boils down to is that after Vista is out for 12 months, OEM's will no longer be able to offer Windows XP.

I can't seem to find on MS website when the support cycle for XP is to end. Does anyone know when they will stop patching XP?

Honestly, I'd rather do an apt-get dist-upgrade once every six months than be forced to pay to upgrade when my system is no longer supported. My .02 worth. Someone should put together a version of APT that will upgrade Windows to Linux. Hmmmm. :)

You're the ONLY one who got it, or at least posted that way.

Vista Comparisons Yeah, REAL informative.

Here's another example of one of my gripes using that cart that a "trained monkey" can use: it looks like only "Home deluxe" and "Ultimate" allow the burning of DVDs, so if I want to burn a Fedora DVD, I need those versions of Vista.

Anyway, you got the point unlike the parent.

1) Ask no questions except to put in the install key upfront. Run everything else with basic assumptions. Run the config AFTER installation.

Uhh, have you actually installed Vista, or are you making things up? Installation consists of: 1) choosing your language, 2) entering the product key, 3) selecting the partition, 4) entering a username, 5) entering a computer name, 6) selecting Windows Update settings, and 7) changing the time. I agree that it could be simpler, but I can breeze through all those questions in less than a minute. And the questions are only asked in two blocks: before copying files, and after copying files and setting up hardware.

2) Allow for the easy and well documented input of a param file to create an install script on the fly.

Get the Windows Automated Installation Kit, which fully documents the XML install script format. Windows installation has been automatable for generations now.

Exchange has supported IMAP4 out of the box since at least Exchange 5.5. See "IMAP4 Connectivity" on this page. I think your company finally made a business decision to allow IMAP access.

In addition to probably dozens of books about the topic, you'd look here:

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa383749. aspx

Win32 API Complete Reference.

Would you be so kind as to point out where exactly it says that Office is not supported on Microsoft Windows Vista Home Basic? Office 2007 System Requirements

Not that different from the current situation. My wife's XP machine regulaly trashes hard drives. I have to start from her HP recovery disc, install it, then install 35 "critical updates" before it realizes that Service Pack 2 is out there. Then I install SP2, and 65 more critical updates.

I don't think this guy is a professional. I really don't. His writing sounds like he's more interested in trolling Linux users than actually imparting wisdom.

So I'll bite.

A professor of mine once said, "I use operating systems for what they're good at, not what they're bad at..." This guy could use that advice. At the time, the college was a mixture of Windows NT and Linux machines - the Linux boxes were used for file and print sharing, and the NT boxes for Exchange.

Complaining that Linux doesn't support Exchange is like complaining that Windows can't read your ext3 formatted floppy, or that it can't see your NFS shares. Windows wasn't built to use UNIX filesystems; Linux wasn't built to use Exchange.

So why don't we turn the argument around: Microsoft failed to build software that interoperated with UNIX. After, their web site says it does. I think the real failure here is Microsoft's: Office doesn't support OO.org file formats. And they don't support using the UNIX mail command, either. I mean, clearly, this is all Microsoft's fault because their software doesn't do what it wasn't designed to do, right?

I don't have problems using Linux and Windows, mostly because I've come to know the strengths and shortcomings of each. I'm not going to bang my head against a wall because Windows doesn't support OO.org file formats, or because Linux doesn't support Exchange.

Instead, I'm going to use the right tool for the job.

WindowsSecrets.com's latest newsletter also has this information. "The secret is that the setup program in Vista's upgrade version will accept an installed copy of XP, W2K, or an unactivated copy of Vista itself as evidence of a previous installation." (Emphasis theirs!) They also address the ethics issues.

Why is this important? Because a clean Vista install is strongly preferred to an in-place upgrade install (munging your existing XP installation so it's now a Vista installation); but Microsoft does not allow this: "you cannot use an upgrade key to perform a clean installation of Windows Vista". This same Microsoft Knowledge Base article then provides a workaround, the same thing discussed by DailyTech and WindowsSecrets: "Start the installation from a compliant version of Windows, such as Windows Vista, Microsoft Windows XP, or Microsoft Windows 2000. After you have started the installation, you can select Custom at the installation choice screen to perform a clean installation."

I'm glad for this particular huge security hole, but it makes me wonder how many more they are.

Bud Light Presents...
Real American Heroes (reaaalllll american heroooessss...)
Today we salute you, Mr Computer Software Exploit Finder (computer software exploit fii-inder)
While others are wasting away their lives drinking, dating, and and having fun, you're hunched over a screen, plowing through code.(hunch plow hunchie plow)
You may not have seen the sun in days, but thats ok- you do this for the greater good.(greaaater goooo-ooodd)
Only YOU could realize that a carefully crafted web favorites icon could potentially bring the world to its knees.(Down on its kneeee--eesss)
So crack open an Ice Cold Bud Light, Oh Overload of Overflow, because without you, CmdrTaco would have to get a real job.

Before, the installer installed individual files from the disc which cause among other things pretty bad seek times.

With Vista, the installer now simply decompress an image file to your hard drive.
One can read on about WIM here and how to create and manipulate such images yourself: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsvista/aa 905070.aspx
A less technical article here: http://www.apcstart.com/3834/inside_vistas_new_ima ge_based_install

...in a special press conference they held today. The whole conference video can be seen online here. (Note to Windows Vista users: turn off your microphone and speakers at the time 2:35 into the video where the spokesperson says "...this vulnerability can be used to execute dangerous commands, such as: "DELETE C:\*.* /S /Q /F" by playing special wave file...").

But what about SharePoint (it's free on any Windows box) with the Help Desk template.
It's easy to install and is extendable.
No, it's not open source. But it's free as in it don't cost nothing (beyond the server license, that is.)

Georgia institute of Technology is playing around with some robotics (made by Microsoft :( ) for their introduction to Computer Science class. These robots will probably be simple enough for your class, but more advanced than legos. while I hate (really hate) to be an add for Microsoft, here are the links to the info http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2006/jul0 6/07-12PersonalRobotsEducationPR.mspx http://www.roboteducation.org/ this program is just starting up, but you should keep an eye on it. If microsoft doesn't screw this up, then this will probibly be helpful to you. as far as cheep goes, i can't tell you how good this will be. (crazy thought) you might be able to contact m$ and they may be interested in starting something like this in the high schools. so they might have money set aside just for that. you might get lucky. I doubt it, but you might. there is no harm in trying. good luck, i hope this helps.

How does comany X get any credit? No one else at the company is giving away money.

I beg to differ.

From the link:
The generosity of our employees has made Microsoft number one in per capita employee giving among major companies in the United States.

2004 Corporate match for employee giving $24,200,000

It's to make sure the downloads aren't watchable any further than their terrestrial broadcasts.

They are required to do everything they can to protect their broadcasts, and at the same time to ensure access to them by the public. They have to use DRM, as it's there.

Suggesting it's anything to do with Microsoft is ridiculous, as there is no evidence what-so-ever to support such a claim.

But I'm honestly curious. What was the Right Thing in *your* opinion? How should Microsoft have responded to the court decisions? What should we have done?

All the points you made were technical improvements. Yes, Microsoft software tends to be marginal, but it's the fact that it is *forced* on many of us is the real problem. Even if the software is perfect, many companies have now given their whole computing future to a single company. The OS? Microsoft. The office suite? Microsoft. The development tools? Microsoft. The database server? Microsoft. Various methods were used to get to this position, and improved engineering had little to do with it in the mid-1990s when this monopoly was carefully being built.

What should you have done? Lots of things, but for starters, someone should have been jailed for the so-called School Agreement that says (quoted from your website):

Count the number of eligible PCs you have. (See below for a definition of an eligible PC.) Then choose the application, system, and Client Access License (CAL) products you want to be licensed to use.
[...]
Eligible computers include: 100 percent of academic institution owned or leased Pentium II, iMac G3, or equivalent or better computers.


To paraphrase, if I donated 100 Linux / OpenOffice PCs to my local school, Microsoft would still get an annual fee for each of those PCs, even though Microsoft did nothing to earn that money. That, my friend, is taxation. And Microsoft's lobby would prevent any public officials from having this lock-in overturned.

Oh, well, I'm not worried... the farther Microsoft goes, the farther it will fall. It happened to IBM. If the timing is right, Gates' historical reputation will be as tarnished as Rockefeller's still is, regardless of how much money his heirs gave away.

It's easy and takes around 15 minutes...

Actually, it will take you to http://research.microsoft.com/URLTracer/Help.htm

In regards to service dependencies in Windows, you are not stuck with what the vendor gives you. If the vendor doesn't do it right, it can be configured manually by the admin afterwards.

If the services don't have dependencies properly set, but (by luck) start up in the right order after a reboot, then all you have to do is find the order in which they start and write a script to restart them accordingly. This can be found easily with a little sysinternals utility called loadorder.

We actually have one of those "million dollar apps", that we recently moved from HPUX to Windows. This app requires the restarting of several services when certain configuration changes are made. Restarting the entire machine takes about five minutes whereas restarting the services takes only one. One of our websites uses this machine's services as a back-end, so that four extra minutes of downtime is not good.

From MS's MPA FAQ:

Can I change or upgrade my hardware components?

MPA can tolerate some change in hardware components by allowing a degree of difference between the current hash value and the hash value that was originally activated. Users can change hardware components without having to reactivate the product. If users make substantial changes to their hardware components, even over long periods of time, they may have to reactivate the product. In that case, users may have to contact a Microsoft customer service representative by telephone to reactivate.

all it takes is a phone call.

So why are they ranked the top company in a reputation survey? Seems a little silly since although Gates made his money from Microsoft, his spending is not related to the company.

um. $28.8 Billion. The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation has disbursed billions of dollars, so it isn't all talk either.

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/billg/bio. mspx (mostly because no one who hates him will take it seriously)

This is a decent option for some buyers to consider. I don't see any "system" purchase requirements for the free Vista upgrade from retail versions of XP. For about $190/$280, we can purchase retail versions of XP Home/Pro and get free upgrades to Vista Home Basic/Business. This is about $100/$140 more expensive than the OEM versions, but these retail versions can be transfered to your next computer. If you're planning on changing motherboards before the next version of Windows, then the retail price premium might be worth it.

Unfortunately, XP Media Center Edition is not sold in retail versions and XP Home retail cannot get a free or discounted upgrade to Vista Home Premium.

This is a decent option for some buyers to consider. I don't see any "system" purchase requirements for the free Vista upgrade from retail versions of XP. For about $190/$280, we can purchase retail versions of XP Home/Pro and get free upgrades to Vista Home Basic/Business. This is about $100/$140 more expensive than the OEM versions, but these retail versions can be transfered to your next computer. If you're planning on changing motherboards before the next version of Windows, then the retail price premium might be worth it.

Unfortunately, XP Media Center Edition is not sold in retail versions and XP Home retail cannot get a free or discounted upgrade to Vista Home Premium.

So when that page says "Receive an Express Upgrade to Windows Vista when you buy a qualifying PC running Windows XP," they are actually referring to an OEM versions of Windows that was preinstalled by the system builder that built that "qualifying PC." They don't mention OEM versions of Windows because that page was meant for normal retail buyers, not system builders, and retail PCs have OEM versions of Windows preinstalled. They don't mention standalone retail boxed versions of Windows XP because they don't qualify (you're supposed to buy a "system").

My description is pretty confusing. A better description of OEM can be found from this Ars Techinca article: Buying OEM versions of Windows Vista: the facts

I hate linking to an example at an online store, but here's one: Microsoft Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005 SP2b w/Upgrade Coupon for Vista - OEM

I like Newegg, but that page for XP MCE OEM does not say anything about the difference between OEM versions and retail versions. It just has the letters 'OEM' tacked on to the name of the product.

People seem to constantly suggest that the future is either with thin clients or with thick clients, but they never really explain why.

I think this is a false dichotomy. Thin clients and thick clients each have their uses. Thin clients are great as some things (deployment, maintenance, cross-platform capabilities, client security, etc.), where as thick clients are great at others (leveraging the local machine, UI flexibility, speed, privacy, etc.)

The successful applications utilizing AJAX are those applications which really don't need to the capabilities of the local machine. Those that try to do what a local app is much better at are doomed to fail, at least for the time being. (AJAX office suites, for instance.)

I see the line between these two kinds of applications slowly but surely blurring. I really doubt that HTTP/Javascript/XML will take us a whole lot further than we're seeing now. It just wasn't meant for this kinda stuff. While the various implementations of "rich" web applications are quite ingenious, they're hacks, and hacks can only take you so far.

Instead, I see HTTP and the browser being the primarily delivery mechanism for rich applications running inside a sandbox on the client. Essentially the Java model, but done right. (And, perhaps more accurately, done at the right *time*.)

You can see the beginnings of this with technologies like XUL, ClickOnce, XAML, XBAP, and WPF/E.

It's just a matter of time before these things catch on.

Possible drawbacks:

• OEM versions of Windows (which cost much less than retail) do not get phone/e-mail support from MS. I assume this is not a big deal to Slashdot readres because we should know how to use MS's support web pages, knowledge base, and Microsoft Update. However, it's worth mentioning if you're planning on installing it for a novice friend.
• OEM versions can only be used on one computer and cannot be "moved" to your next computer. MS has been pretty lax on this requirement for XP (just call them and they'll re-activate for you), but I've read that they might be more strict with Vista (I hope not).
• It looks like upgrade versions of Vista will require a previous version to be installed before you can install Vista. Previous to Vista, upgrade versions of Windows only required the user to briefly insert a previous version's CD. If you have a RAID setup, this might mean you need to go through XP's shitty RAID setup before installing Vista (which fixes this RAID issue). Note that, contrary to some news headlines, Vista upgrade versions will allow "clean" installs (format hard drive and start clean).

How long ago did you purchase your copy of XP? There is a Technology Guarantee which will get you a free copy of Vista for $10 s/h if you bought a retail full or upgrade. If you purchased OEM you should have received an upgrade coupon for the same promotion. If you're not eligible for either option, then I guess you're screwed just like if you purchased a Mac just before price drops and new products.

http://www.microsoft.com/athome/techguarantee/worl dwide.mspx

I'm anchoring on your post because you've hinted at what I think this whole discussion is missing: there are several reasons to run more than one sequence of instructions simultaneously, and some of the problems are much easier than others.

For one thing, there is a huge difference between dividing a task into independent parts that can run in parallel, possibly combining the results afterwards, and running multiple concurrent, interacting threads. There is also a huge difference between explicit parallelism (a request comes into the server, and it fires off another thread to handle it) and implicit parallelism (I've got this expensive mathematical algorithm represented sequentially, and the compiler is going to spot opportunities to run parts of it in parallel and then combine the results).

Of these, explicit parallelism is easy, but both implicit parallelism and explicit concurrency are hard. (Implicit concurrency doesn't really make sense with these definitions.)

You described pure functional languages as "ideally suited for parallel processing". In a sense, yes, because of their underlying model they lend themselves to parallel processing. However, explicit parallelism is easy anyway, and sadly current research suggests that the scope for implicit parallelisation of algorithms is relatively limited in many applications. I'm not sure the big advantages coming from the functional programming world are because of this, though of course if someone does find a way to cost-effectively run algorithms in parallel for relatively short computations that might all change.

What is really interesting to me in the functional programming world isn't the "pure" concept of having no side effects, but rather the type systems that represent side effects explicitly, of which perhaps the best-known example is the monadic I/O concept in Haskell. See Simon Peyton-Jones's excellent paper Tackling the Awkward Squad for background on this and related areas.

My personal take is that this is too cumbersome to use in everyday programming as it currently stands. Indeed, the same view was expressed by several senior Microsoft programming language architects in a recent interview. IIRC, they gave the example that if you wanted expr1+expr2 for non-trivial expressions, you shouldn't always have to compute expr1 and expr2 and then combine the results in an explicit order just to satisfy the language's composition rules.

However, the principle of tracking side-effects and ordering them explicitly when it matters seems very sound. Ultimately, anything your program does matters only to the extent that it influences observable side-effects, and any internal computations can be arbitrarily reordered and parallelised as long as the side effects still come out the same.

From here, we can make the big jump to concepts like transactional memory, where related side effects that affect shared memory areas are grouped into database-style transactions, and the run-time framework ensures that either all related side-effects take effect together, or none do at all, as observed from any other thread that shares the memory space. I'm not really doing the concept justice with this summary: it is a vastly better approach to shared state than the classical thread-locking mechanisms, in expressive power, in safety, and in composability. The name of Simon Peyton-Jones appears often in the literature here as well, and I thoroughly recommend the work he and his colleagues have been doing to anyone who's interested in how we might deal with today's concurrency problems when our programming tools have grown up.

Similarly, you can start thinking of concurrent threads as sequences of actions whose side-effects may be arbitrarily ordered by default, and inter-thread communication as a mechanism to impose ordering where it is required.

The sorts of prototype implementations flying

Since XP support is due to last until 2011, I'll let you know how it is in about four years.

MS's support lifecycle policy states that "home" and "pro" versions of Windows get a Mainstream Support phase of 5 years after general availability (12/31/01 to 2006) or 2 years after the next product is released (1/30/09), whichever is longer. MS recently added an additional 4 months to XP's Mainstream support phase, which now runs until April 2009.

The support lifecycle policy states that "home" versions of Windows are not supposed to get an Extended Support phase (includes free security updates) like the "pro" versions get, but last week MS added Extended Support to XP Home and Media Center to match XP Pro's support. The policy states that Extended Support lasts 5 years after Mainstream Support ends, so that means XP will be supported until April 2014.

Since XP support is due to last until 2011, I'll let you know how it is in about four years.

MS's support lifecycle policy states that "home" and "pro" versions of Windows get a Mainstream Support phase of 5 years after general availability (12/31/01 to 2006) or 2 years after the next product is released (1/30/09), whichever is longer. MS recently added an additional 4 months to XP's Mainstream support phase, which now runs until April 2009.

The support lifecycle policy states that "home" versions of Windows are not supposed to get an Extended Support phase (includes free security updates) like the "pro" versions get, but last week MS added Extended Support to XP Home and Media Center to match XP Pro's support. The policy states that Extended Support lasts 5 years after Mainstream Support ends, so that means XP will be supported until April 2014.

PowerShell/Monad is downloadable from the Microsoft Website:

For x86: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?fa milyid=C6EF4735-C7DE-46A2-997A-EA58FDFCBA63&displa ylang=en

For x64: http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkID=79517

It's out-of-box, but works very nicely.

[yes, I work for Microsoft]

PowerShell/Monad is downloadable from the Microsoft Website:

For x86: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?fa milyid=C6EF4735-C7DE-46A2-997A-EA58FDFCBA63&displa ylang=en

For x64: http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkID=79517

It's out-of-box, but works very nicely.

[yes, I work for Microsoft]

The only problem I see with that is that the partner program requires that you sell your services or goods outside of your business. As I am someone doing this stuff at home and don't sell anything (although I do give away free access to my systems to my friends and family), and there isn't any legitimate way of making it seem that I do, it would appear that I don't qualify.

If you are willing to spend $500, sign up to be a partner...it's free and buy the Action Pack: https://partner.microsoft.com/actionpack
It costs less than $500 and includes piles of licenses, etc for guys like you.
josh

Vista has the same cmd shell that has been shipping since MS moved to the NT line in win2k. It is NOT the DOS shell and has very little similarity to it other than the aliased command names. You can find a lot of things you want from a unix shell, if you care to look (albeit with strange name/syntax at first, if you are used to the unix commands)

I do agree that it is not as good as bash. However there are a couple of things you can do to make it more powerful, for example getting the MS unix subsystem (as oppose to the win32 subsystem), getting cygwin (you know where to get that), or getting monad.

But let's be frank, most users don't really say "game over" when they install vista and type "bash" and see that it's not there.

Vista has the same cmd shell that has been shipping since MS moved to the NT line in win2k. It is NOT the DOS shell and has very little similarity to it other than the aliased command names. You can find a lot of things you want from a unix shell, if you care to look (albeit with strange name/syntax at first, if you are used to the unix commands)

I do agree that it is not as good as bash. However there are a couple of things you can do to make it more powerful, for example getting the MS unix subsystem (as oppose to the win32 subsystem), getting cygwin (you know where to get that), or getting monad.

But let's be frank, most users don't really say "game over" when they install vista and type "bash" and see that it's not there.

You seem to be right about that; when I went to the MS website, to see the video mentioned on a post right below, I found out that the actual address for it is:
http://www.microsoft.com/winme/0701/29339/GA_Launc h_MBR.asx

The 'winme' could stand for windows media but it sure is a strange coincidence.

Windows 3.1, 95, and 98 didn't run in real mode either. Starting with 3.1, Windows required a 286 because it only ran in protected mode (called "Standard") and virtual 8086 ("386 enhanced") mode. Unless, of course, you mean during the DOS boot sequence which has no bearing on system performance once the 32-bit kernel is loaded.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/78326
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/79749

Windows 3.1, 95, and 98 didn't run in real mode either. Starting with 3.1, Windows required a 286 because it only ran in protected mode (called "Standard") and virtual 8086 ("386 enhanced") mode. Unless, of course, you mean during the DOS boot sequence which has no bearing on system performance once the 32-bit kernel is loaded.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/78326
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/79749

You don't need URM [DRM] to prevent deletion of "core windows files". Plus, XP already does it..

And URM [DRM] isn't responsible for "annoying extra layers" during the deletion of recipes. That is the purview of MessageBox calls in Explorer. URM [DRM] prevents you from doing things at all, and let's face it; the prospect of losing control is never a welcomed thing, especially for an old person.

As for this whole vista release thing, it's nothing but a disappointment in my view. As many others have pointed out, it's only a matter of time before a really useful piece of software *requires* vista. I'm in a situation right now where I'm going to have to go from 2000 to XP in order to use some new software.

Note that I don't think OS upgrades are necessarily a bad thing - in fact they're usually a *good* thing. The problem that I have with the newer versions of Windows is all of the crap that MS is slipping in behind the scenes. Sure, I'll buy a new OS with better stability (they've come a long way since Win98) better multimedia capabilities built-in to the OS, etc. Forced DRM, product activation, "Trusted" computing, and gestapo paperwork checks in order to download patches? No thanks. Hopefully by the time XP is no longer supported, I'll be able to do everything I need to on Linux.