Slashdot Mirror

and there's no good reason to not use it in favor of XP. Well.... aside from the $400 price tag for the non-crippleware version?

Or perhaps it's because they've finally managed to copy the Macintosh's interface design more closely with Aero? Not to say that it dosen't make sense since every major and minor player out there has been offering better alt-tab and/or 3d functions on their desktop for some time. The only -touted- difference is the new driver model (which is why DX10 can't work on XP), but I'm going to go out on a limb here and bet that once DX10 cards actually start coming out there's going to be a bit of a ...... trial period where they work the kinks out.

In either case, getting eye candy, a questionable update in the driver/kernel and a higher price tag don't exactly make an 'upgrade' to Vista an obvious choice, at least right now.

and there's no good reason to not use it in favor of XP. Well.... aside from the $400 price tag for the non-crippleware version?

Or perhaps it's because they've finally managed to copy the Macintosh's interface design more closely with Aero? Not to say that it dosen't make sense since every major and minor player out there has been offering better alt-tab and/or 3d functions on their desktop for some time. The only -touted- difference is the new driver model (which is why DX10 can't work on XP), but I'm going to go out on a limb here and bet that once DX10 cards actually start coming out there's going to be a bit of a ...... trial period where they work the kinks out.

In either case, getting eye candy, a questionable update in the driver/kernel and a higher price tag don't exactly make an 'upgrade' to Vista an obvious choice, at least right now.

Actually you do not have a 'tricksy way to legally obtaining Vista Home Premium OEM upgrade'.

And here's one reason why what you are doing is not legal.

"*Finally, the machines I'm obtaining the CD key from (or COA rather) to upgrade to Vista, really honest to god will never ever be required to run Vista EVER.
You guys know how draconian Microsofts licensing schemes are - the fact of the matter is a large corporation has purchased these machines and said large corporation has it's own corp CD key for XP - if and when they go to Vista, the CD key that will be used will again be a high end volume corp CD key - I'm just liberating the CD keys that we were FORCED to buy in the hardware, think of me as a freedom fighter."

Unfortunately you do not understand the Volume Licensing your company uses. In order for your 'Large Corporation' to install their copy of Windows XP (or any version), it has to have an OEM license on it, please see the last question on this http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/resources/faq.m spx

Q. Can I order a PC with no operating system from a manufacturer and then use my Volume License to install Windows on the desktop?
A. No. Volume License agreements--including Academic, Government, and Public Sector--never cover the initial full Windows Client operating system license. Volume License agreements cover only Windows Client upgrade licenses. Windows upgrades are designed to upgrade previously acquired qualifying desktop operating system licenses. See the PUR for more information on qualifying underlying licenses.

Services For Unix is what you want, and includes an NFS client.

I cant speak to using NIS authentication on NFS ... but I think its possible.

Here's a quick 30 second google hit I get on the subject.

NFSAdmin syntax for Vista
http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsVista/en/libr ary/7375b2cf-c6b8-45b5-abf6-6c10e462defd1033.mspx? mfr=true

has a detailed online help system

has a detailed online help system

No, its not microtransactions. There are six tiers of Vista, similar to the tiering you already see in most name MS products: Home User, Professional, Business, yadda yadda. Each comes with a different feature set and price point. If you want a feature that your version doesn't support (example: you're Home User Basic but you really want the Aero look&feel), you say "Alright, upgrade me to Home Premium!" and pay $LOTS rather than saying "Alright, unlock Aero!" and pay $LITTLE.

You can see the general sketch of the system here: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2006/feb0 6/02-26WinVistaProductsPR.mspx They probably have a product chart somewhere.

Somewhat on topic, apologies to be asking questions rather than spouting opinion :-)

Re: the "Anytime upgrade" pricing schemes revealed here http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2007/jan0 7/01-17ConsumerOptionsPR.mspx
"The manufacturer's suggested retail prices to upgrade to more premium editions of Windows Vista are as follows: Home Basic to Home Premium $79, Home Basic to Ultimate $199, Home Premium to Ultimate $159 and Business to Ultimate $139."

I have, let's say a tricksy way of legally obtaining Vista Home Premium OEM upgrade editions (incl cd key), now I'm planning to sell about 10->20 of these and keep two of them for myself.

What I want to know, or do is basically have these 2 vista copies and their respective CD keys and somehow, sadly buy a copy of Vista Ultimate using the overpriced plan above (fortunately I will have money from selling these other copies)
What I do NOT want to do is be installing home premium and "upgrading" it to Ultimate.
I don't want to have to fiddle around and be for example required to provide a home premium CD key, an XP CD key or an actual physical XP CD itself.

The ultimate goal of all this is that I simply want "the best" version of Vista and a full version, I want it hassle free / trouble free and I want to be able to confidently run it without fear of WGA 2.0 or any other kind of anti-piracy, hassle the user, shutdown the system running - I just want it to work!

To give part of my mystery away, let's just say that I'll be getting these copies in the HP Vista upgrade plan from some workstations that have been obtained and only run XP. (please don't respond to me on the ethical issues of it all)

A lot of us here likely have a dodgy copy of XP and got sick of MS's anti-piracy counter measures like SP1 revoking the original pirated corp CD key, SP2 doing the same! and finally WGA - overall keeping XP trouble free and pirated was frustrating and annoying.
(I actually DO have a legitimate key on the bottom of my laptop but Dell didn't ship me a flipping install CD! So I installed the corp edition but my darn retail CD key doesn't work, so I'm effectively an "unwilling pirate")

Now after having typed all that I do want to stress a few things to the slashdot crowd before the flames or jokes come in!

*Firstly, I don't WANT Vista infact I don't intend to install it until I abso-freaking-loutely have to! but when I do, hassle free, best version - up and running would be nice.
*Secondly, yes I know Microsoft is evil, infact I agree and if I can avoid that install I will wait as long as I can - but knowing I'm doing the right thing by them and that I really do have a receipt for my upgrade to Premium and a REAL CD key gives me some leverage over the phone if the system ever does screw up.
*Thirdly, Ubuntu does kick ass and again as per the 2 above, I'll stick with it if I can but having Vista there "incase" (I am a gamer) is handy.
*Finally, the machines I'm obtaining the CD key from (or COA rather) to upgrade to Vista, really honest to god will never ever be required to run Vista EVER.
You guys know how draconian Microsofts licensing schemes are - the fact of the matter is a large corporation has purchased these machines and said large corporation has it's own corp CD key for XP - if and when they go to Vista, the CD key that will be used will again be a high end volume corp CD key - I'm just liberating the CD keys that we were FORCED to buy in the hardware, think of me as a freedom fighter.

I look forward to any comments, anything along the lines of "it shouldn't have to be this way" I certainly won't disagree with! /sigh/

Finally finally btw, anyone else planning to do something similar?

Nearly all SMB port hack affects Win 2K and Win XP, not Win 9x.

Non-Affected Software:
Microsoft Windows 98, Microsoft Windows 98 Second Edition (SE), and Microsoft Windows Millennium Edition (ME)

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/Bulletin /MS05-027.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/Bulletin /MS05-011.mspx

You are probably thinking of file,print, and Internet connection sharing hacks, which would affect Win 9x. That is if file, print, and Internet connection sharing is used. Which would not be wise. It's just not smart to have open ports available for hacking. Win 9x has far fewer open ports than Win 2K and Win XP.

Nearly all SMB port hack affects Win 2K and Win XP, not Win 9x.

Non-Affected Software:
Microsoft Windows 98, Microsoft Windows 98 Second Edition (SE), and Microsoft Windows Millennium Edition (ME)

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/Bulletin /MS05-027.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/Bulletin /MS05-011.mspx

You are probably thinking of file,print, and Internet connection sharing hacks, which would affect Win 9x. That is if file, print, and Internet connection sharing is used. Which would not be wise. It's just not smart to have open ports available for hacking. Win 9x has far fewer open ports than Win 2K and Win XP.

Your humble opinion would be wrong, then. Microsoft stopped issuing security bugfixes for Win9x last year:

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/gp/lifea n18

All you have to do is briefly read any security-vulnerability website, and you'll see why this is a bad thing.

As far as ports open, Win9x always had the SMB ports (135/137? can't remember) open by default. That's something you need to clamp down in any Windows installation. Not to mention, Windows XP has Windows Firewall which isn't great, but it does offer another layer of protection versus a Win9x machine that's basically naked.

Rather well actually. Microsoft just released a new tool to help.

Start reading here: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsvista/aa 905068.aspx

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?fa milyid=993c567d-f12c-4676-917f-05d9de73ada4&displa ylang=en

Finally on to Business Desktop Deployment 2007, which is the real deal: http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=62043.

Rather well actually. Microsoft just released a new tool to help.

Start reading here: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsvista/aa 905068.aspx

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?fa milyid=993c567d-f12c-4676-917f-05d9de73ada4&displa ylang=en

Finally on to Business Desktop Deployment 2007, which is the real deal: http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=62043.

Rather well actually. Microsoft just released a new tool to help.

Start reading here: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsvista/aa 905068.aspx

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?fa milyid=993c567d-f12c-4676-917f-05d9de73ada4&displa ylang=en

Finally on to Business Desktop Deployment 2007, which is the real deal: http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=62043.

Do you really want more versions of Windows than this? http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2006/feb0 6/02-26WinVistaProductsPR.mspx

In order to qualify for the Windows logo, games need to allow being run from a limited user. It's 3.4 on that list.

So when buying games, CHECK FOR THE WINDOWS LOGO! It means that the game has to properly support limited user accounts, and generally has to meet certain quality requirements.

Developers have been required not to require admin rights at least since Windows XP came out. There's no excuse for any developer not to run without admin rights.

The only thing that might break with that is games that auto-update (like most MMORPGs). The update process might require admin privileges for obvious reasons. However the game should still run in a limited account.

This page has a listing of some free/open windows drivers, including three for ext2, one FFS, ReiserFS, AFS, and two user-mode driver system frameworks. They also have a clean-room free ntifs.h, although I prefer a more ReactOS style environment, which includes FAT and CDFS drivers. For that matter, I'm about 70% into writing my own.

The IFS kit is now $109 and its documentation is now available online, including a design guide. The only thing about it is that the IFS docs concentrate on file system filters, not full FS drivers. Even so, if you implement the major IRP functions one at a time (read, write, enum directory, etc: each of which is documented), it's really not bad. Some of the functions are complicated (moreso than a VFS FS) but writing regfs has gotten me to the point where I can see how it all fits together. I find the architecture very usable, if overly complex. I haven't had to put in any magic app-specific hacks (at least not yet) to get them to work, even for Explorer.

This page has a listing of some free/open windows drivers, including three for ext2, one FFS, ReiserFS, AFS, and two user-mode driver system frameworks. They also have a clean-room free ntifs.h, although I prefer a more ReactOS style environment, which includes FAT and CDFS drivers. For that matter, I'm about 70% into writing my own.

The IFS kit is now $109 and its documentation is now available online, including a design guide. The only thing about it is that the IFS docs concentrate on file system filters, not full FS drivers. Even so, if you implement the major IRP functions one at a time (read, write, enum directory, etc: each of which is documented), it's really not bad. Some of the functions are complicated (moreso than a VFS FS) but writing regfs has gotten me to the point where I can see how it all fits together. I find the architecture very usable, if overly complex. I haven't had to put in any magic app-specific hacks (at least not yet) to get them to work, even for Explorer.

If a native app can analyze the disk volume directly it can identify malicious drivers and reveal them to a friendly Win32 application that can remove them after a reboot. This works for user mode and kernel mode rootkits, but if there's a BIOS rootkit you're pretty much screwed. See my previous post, Norton AntiVirus 2007 operates in this way.

Would using Microsoft Services for UNIX help you port it?

The page cannot be found

Please try the following:

• Make sure that the Web site address displayed in the address bar of your browser is spelled and formatted correctly.
• If you reached this page by clicking a link, contact the FEC to alert them that the link is not working.
• Click the Back button to try another link.

Technical Information (for support personnel)

• Go to Microsoft Product Support Services and perform a title search for the words HTTP and 499.
• Open IIS Help, which is accessible in IIS Manager (inetmgr), and search for topics titled Web Site Setup, Common Administrative Tasks, and About Custom Error Messages.

Put this on your DC, it works great. With the right setup and administration you can save lots of internet/network bandwidth by serving updates off the DC instead of off the real Windows Update. You can also choose to not deploy updates, if they conflict with software or are problematic in other ways.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/updat eservices/default.mspx

I hope that you're joking. If not, you might find more comfort in the Microsoft Get The Facts web site.

That's a really complicated way to manage this for 35 machines.

I would suggest you to use WSUS to manage your Windows Updates. If that's too much for you, you can also use the IE 7 Blocker Toolkit.

Administrating a windows network requires just as much technical competency as does administrating a linux, solaris, mac or whatever network.

That's a really complicated way to manage this for 35 machines.

I would suggest you to use WSUS to manage your Windows Updates. If that's too much for you, you can also use the IE 7 Blocker Toolkit.

Administrating a windows network requires just as much technical competency as does administrating a linux, solaris, mac or whatever network.

We warned our customers' admins about this back in August but they ignored us... until October 18th. Then they started submitting Prio-1 tickets, the fuckwits.

But can microsoft reasonably argue that the windows powertoys do not add new features?
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/power toys/xppowertoys.mspx

I think that apple is just trying to eek out a profit

There is a policy setting for the hidden shares that admins can use or you can edit the registry http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KB; en-us;Q288164 so there is no need for a batch file

I have used the free encoder: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/forp ros/encoder/default.mspx to transcode various content to various bit rates and run them over various wireless networks. The network requires good throughput and (low) jitter.

It works very well. I have watched it on giant plasmas, large lcds and even once a digtial cinematic projector (via dvi) to a very large screen.

Going forward, dumb TVs will go dodo bird, eventually. Why wouldn't you want an Internet connected TV? Of course, this will be years and years. If the text or pictures are too small in IE 7 just hit Ctrl + a few times, I personally have used a Windows Media Center as my only TV for two years or so. Standard and over the air HD tuners. Good times.

So, for example, if Microsoft includes BSD code in windows (search for Greg Roelofs in that link), the article implies that it might be perfectly legal for you, me, and anybody else to start pirating WIndows.

Believe me when I say that this would cause a massive lawsuit (or even criminal charges), which would in no way involve the original author Greg Roelofs...

Seems to work in Wine for me; I tested with wine-0.9.29+.

Note that you should install the Windows version
of either IE or Firefox before installing PureEdge Viewer,
since it's mostly a browser plugin.

The PureEdge Viewer installer requires but does not
bundle an msvc runtime library, MSVCP60.dll. To work
around this, download VC6RedistSetup_enu.exe from
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/259403 and run it. This
creates the file vcredist.exe, an installer for msvcp60.dll.
But you probably have to run winecfg and pick "win98"
before running vcredist.exe, else it will think you don't
need that file.

I didn't install Firefox first, and learned about the
plugin by reading the PureEdge Viewer readme in
~/.wine/drive_c/Program\ Files/PureEdge/Viewer\ 6.0/Readme/readme_en_US.txt
so I ran and installed Windows Firefox 1.5.0.8 in Wine, then did
cp ~/.wine/drive_c/Program\ Files/PureEdge/Viewer\ 6.0/Plugin/npmfv.dll
      ~/.wine/drive_c/Program\ Files/Mozilla\ Firefox/plugins/
and restarted Firefox, and verified that the new plugin
showed up in about:plugins. It seemed to work fine, i.e.
when I downloaded an application from grants.gov using
Windows Firefox in Wine, Firefox offered to display
it using the PureEdge plugin, and it seemed to let me
edit the right fields.
But I've never used it before, and I only just barely
tested it, so there are probably problems lurking.

For completeness, Wine's page about PureEdge Viewer is at
http://appdb.winehq.org/appview.php?iAppId=2073
Crossover's page about it is at
http://www.codeweavers.com/compatibility/browse/na me?app_id=2179
- Dan Kegel

Instead of caring what other people think, why not just find out and explore yourself with their free test drive.

http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/products/HA10168 7261033.aspx
It doesn't have save or print functions, but we all know how they work.


It took me about 8 hours over the course of a week to feel comfortable with the new layout. For Excel and Powerpoint users, its a HUGE productivity improvement in terms of quality and automation. "Live preview" alone would save most companies a chunk of their licensing costs. Honestly people waste a lot of time creating the look of the document in terms of fonts,colors, and style. Multiply that with the number of documents you do that with for the whole year. You save days!


Additionally, for businesses, if you still think office as a desktop productivity suite, its much more now. It's really one of the best collaboration and development platforms available for your business. You just need to leverage it and understand how you can deploy it as such. Use Sharepoint Server to extend office to your backend.

http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/sharepointserver /FX100492001033.aspx


In the end it comes down to solving a business need rather than playing features games. I know a few companies who did a pilot for OpenOffice, loved it at first, didn't like the performance, and for them, that was more important.

Instead of caring what other people think, why not just find out and explore yourself with their free test drive.

http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/products/HA10168 7261033.aspx
It doesn't have save or print functions, but we all know how they work.


It took me about 8 hours over the course of a week to feel comfortable with the new layout. For Excel and Powerpoint users, its a HUGE productivity improvement in terms of quality and automation. "Live preview" alone would save most companies a chunk of their licensing costs. Honestly people waste a lot of time creating the look of the document in terms of fonts,colors, and style. Multiply that with the number of documents you do that with for the whole year. You save days!


Additionally, for businesses, if you still think office as a desktop productivity suite, its much more now. It's really one of the best collaboration and development platforms available for your business. You just need to leverage it and understand how you can deploy it as such. Use Sharepoint Server to extend office to your backend.

http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/sharepointserver /FX100492001033.aspx


In the end it comes down to solving a business need rather than playing features games. I know a few companies who did a pilot for OpenOffice, loved it at first, didn't like the performance, and for them, that was more important.

Keep your lollypop... you'll need it on the monthly MS reboot day...
...btw. I didn't see a update for that critical MS Word bug on the last MS reboot day... I just love MS workaround, don't you ? Lucky you... you are safe running 2007...
--
This place will contain a MS Office for Linux commercial whenever the release date is known.

The download link is http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?Fa milyId=941B3470-3AE9-4AEE-8F43-C6BB74CD1466&displa ylang=en

Compatibility Pack for 2007 File Formats.

Also see Word Viewer 2003, Excel Viewer 2003, Visio 2002 Viewer, Word 97/2000 Converter for Word 6, etc.

Disclaimer: This is not an endorsement of closed formats; rather, an alternative for staying software version/vendor-independent.

Compatibility Pack for 2007 File Formats.

Also see Word Viewer 2003, Excel Viewer 2003, Visio 2002 Viewer, Word 97/2000 Converter for Word 6, etc.

Disclaimer: This is not an endorsement of closed formats; rather, an alternative for staying software version/vendor-independent.

Compatibility Pack for 2007 File Formats.

Also see Word Viewer 2003, Excel Viewer 2003, Visio 2002 Viewer, Word 97/2000 Converter for Word 6, etc.

Disclaimer: This is not an endorsement of closed formats; rather, an alternative for staying software version/vendor-independent.

Compatibility Pack for 2007 File Formats.

Also see Word Viewer 2003, Excel Viewer 2003, Visio 2002 Viewer, Word 97/2000 Converter for Word 6, etc.

Disclaimer: This is not an endorsement of closed formats; rather, an alternative for staying software version/vendor-independent.

Compatibility Pack for 2007 File Formats.

Also see Word Viewer 2003, Excel Viewer 2003, Visio 2002 Viewer, Word 97/2000 Converter for Word 6, etc.

Disclaimer: This is not an endorsement of closed formats; rather, an alternative for staying software version/vendor-independent.

Compatibility Pack for 2007 File Formats.

Also see Word Viewer 2003, Excel Viewer 2003, Visio 2002 Viewer, Word 97/2000 Converter for Word 6, etc.

Disclaimer: This is not an endorsement of closed formats; rather, an alternative for staying software version/vendor-independent.

They have something similar to that.

It's not entirely true that the new formats will force you to upgrade. There is the Office Compatibility Pack which allows Office 2003 + XP to open and save OpenXML formats as well as convert between them.
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/products/HA10168 6761033.aspx

Adding to that is the fact that PHP has never had a sane database interface, even though it's freakin' designed to interface with databases! Code like: mysql_query("SELECT * FROM foo WHERE bar='". sqlClean($bar). "'") is just plain hard to read and is just plain prone to error. Give me something like query("SELECT * FROM foo WHERE bar=?", $bar) any day. The compiler should do the heavy lifting for me -- as a programmer I should worry about solving problems. Navigating through spaghetti like "'".clean($var)."'" is not something I ever want to do.

Thanks for saying that. It is one of the things that I hate the most about PHP (manually quoting data for the database). This is from http://dev.mysql.com/tech-resources/articles/4.1/p repared-statements.html. stating how you have to use a different (and only included with PHP5) interface to use prepared statements and bind parameters.

Another API that has prepared statement support is PHP. PHP 5 has a new MySQL interface called "mysqli". You can read more about the mysqli extension in the mysqli section of the PHP Manual. The API provided by the mysqli extension is also nearly a one-for-one match with the C API, so the documentation for the C API may also be useful in learning about the PHP API.

Those of you that are Perl or Java users have had prepared statements for quite a long time. However, those were client-side prepared statements. The client-side prepared statements provide the same security benefit, but none of the performance increases. Don't worry though, MySQL Connector/J has support for server-side prepared statements in the new 3.1 release. Perl's DBD::mysql driver will have support in the next release of the 2.9 tree. The best part is that your code is already written to use them, so all you have to do to take advantage of the new feature is to upgrade the driver behind the scenes.

It's not like they (PHP devs) had nothing to learn from, I believe ODBC had query parameters before PHP3 was released. Maybe it's because the PHP team insists on making the database libraries as close as possible to the C libraries they are based on, but bind parameters (even emulated, client-side ones) are easier to use and less error-prone than escaping the values one-by-one.

On Windows, lot of applications make subtle implicit assumptions about the high bit always being clear in pointers

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366521. aspx

In fact, there's a special flag, LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE that you need to set in the PE header if you know your application doesn't make this assumption. Then, if /3GB is set in boot.ini, or someone runs your application on x64 Windows, the OS will pass you addresses above 2GB, otherwise you only get 2GB of address space.

http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2004/08/ 12/213468.aspx

The headline and summary are 99% wrong.

Outlook 2007 supports HTML and CSS quite well. Many of you should know this, as you've had the chance to beta test it for about a year now. I have, and all of the HTML newsletters I subscribe to look just fine in Outlook.

In fact, Microsoft has even gone a step further and provided a free CSS/HTML validator that developers can use to make sure their messages will be rendered correctly.

>It has ALWAYS used Word to render the HTML.
"Microsoft Office applications, including Outlook, use Internet Explorer to render HTML in various parts of the applications. Microsoft Outlook does not contain any core code designed to render HTML. Instead, when HTML needs to be rendered, Outlook can use Internet Explorer in one of two ways:..."
>if the JS were activated that geeks are getting up in arms about
Nobody sane advocates JS in email. The complaint is about not having CSS.

Why not use Frontpage Expression Web or Sharepoint? Oh, are they not included in Office? This can't be for real. I'm appalled that Word doesn't support CSS, but if MS really plans to use an HTML renderer that is so far from being standards-compliant for Office, how can they hope to be competitive? (yes, I agree that HTML mail is silly and bloated, but many people still like it on some level)

Why not use Frontpage Expression Web or Sharepoint? Oh, are they not included in Office? This can't be for real. I'm appalled that Word doesn't support CSS, but if MS really plans to use an HTML renderer that is so far from being standards-compliant for Office, how can they hope to be competitive? (yes, I agree that HTML mail is silly and bloated, but many people still like it on some level)

I know this is slashdot, and nobody really like Microsoft or read the story, but the summery is wrong.

Here http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa338201. aspx is a list of supported css and html in Outlook.
The things missing are tags such as form and object, and some javascript support, but nobody is going to blame microsoft for not supporting onClick in emails. And yes tables are supported.