Slashdot Mirror

I'm not sure which of their three shared source licenses it's released under, but it should be one or more (sometimes they dual-license stuff, as with the Windows Template Library) of the three listed here. I think the article just called them "shared source" so I can't tell from that one anyway.

* The rest of the bit about license backup, specifically where it tells you how to back up your licenses, is valuable context.
* The MCE thing was a bug, fix here.

Hopefully people aren't confused by your +5 mod'd post. Regardless of your pro/anti-Microsoft sentiment, if you care about the MCE thing... seems like there's a fix available.

All of which was why dontclick.it originally drove me to add an iGesture touch pad to my Christmas 2003 wishlist. At the same time I chased after my first Tablet PC. I'm happy to report in response to "news" of dontclick.it that consumers thinking differently have some great hardware alternatives, granted some of them may lock you into software "alternatives" the typical /.er might rather avoid. UMPCs with the Touch Pack have taken it to the glorious next level, where finally no other tool (pen) need be held to work with the PC, and sans anything too futuristic still like eyeball tracking lasers or brain implants. Thank you, Microsoft et al. for making it real.

How's it going? For machine performance, worky reasons I do have a desktop, with which I'm still using that iGesture, right now in fact. With a little learning, it's fantastic -- far more comfortable, natural, and powerful than any classic form mouse. Are iGesture pads the future of hardware? Hardly, sadly. Almost all people wouldn't even consider remapping for a Dvorak keyboard or any other arrangement despite numerous benefits, so good luck prying the mouse from their hands.

Aside from the mouse itself, for pure click reduction I doubt the extremity of dontclick.it can be considered a likely end for most of site or application design. One other thing dontclick.it led me to, however, was to more actively reduce the number of clicks in my user interface designs. Back in 2003, this User Interface Engineering post was also new, regarding the practicality of the Three-Click Rule. "Every piece of content should take no more than three clicks to access." The article finds via pointed clicking research that the number of clicks itself is not an issue, but it acknowledges that for designers to focus on reducing clicks is a useful means to the end of better, more user centric design.

As a software UI designer/developer, I keep it in mind. I think in terms of click reduction and it leads to simple, usable sites and software. Thank you, dontclick.it for raising the point, but yes, despite great alternatives in hardware and great intentions in software, most users still must click.

Windows does have a multi-desktop manager. I have 4 virtual desktops running at all times with a tool bar to manage them. Each desktop can have a different wallpaper, share all applications or have them run independently, and you can view a thumbnail of all four desktops at one time by using a hot key [window_key] + V or move to any desktop with [window_key] + [1, 2, 3, or 4]. The utility is called the MSVDM (Microsoft Virtual Desktop Manager) and is one of several power toys for XP. You can find it here: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/power toys/xppowertoys.mspx Look for deskman.exe on the right side of the screen, third item from the bottom.

For virtual desktops in Windows XP look at the windows power toys site.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/power toys/xppowertoys.mspx

You don't get little thumbnails, but you still get virtual desktops.

You mean something like a Virtual Desktop Manager? It may not be the same as Fedora's version but I think that is what you want...

Or, you know, MS's own quasi-virtual desktop manager (doesn't play well with some newer video card drivers desktop changes)

You can look on the right side of the page here: clicky

or if you're willing to paste in a random link to a .exe

http://download.microsoft.com/download/whistler/In stall/2/WXP/EN-US/DeskmanPowertoySetup.exe

You know... just so you know. : )

Or, you know, MS's own quasi-virtual desktop manager (doesn't play well with some newer video card drivers desktop changes)

You can look on the right side of the page here: clicky

or if you're willing to paste in a random link to a .exe

http://download.microsoft.com/download/whistler/In stall/2/WXP/EN-US/DeskmanPowertoySetup.exe

You know... just so you know. : )

"I wish Windows had a feature like Fedora's multiple desktop stuff with the 4 thumbnails, as this would help me split stuff up better since half my taskbar is taken up with quick launch shortcuts or status bar icons I need on display."

MS offer a 'virtual desktop manager' on their XP Powertoys page, but it's a rather lame implementation.

Actually, there is a powertoy just for this: http://download.microsoft.com/download/whistler/In stall/2/WXP/EN-US/DeskmanPowertoySetup.exe Its not perfect, but it does do what it says. Sometimes it removes your background and I'm not sure of a workaround except not to switch desktops.

Actually Windows does have a add in that will allow you to have multiple desktops. It is one of the powertoys that Microsoft has developed.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/power toys/xppowertoys.mspx

In Windows, at least, there are class drivers for a variety of USB device classes.

What is the future for XUL? Are there plans to allow XUL to perform over remote HTTP, fixing the current security problems?

It seems to me that a lot of work has already gone into XUL and so much was achieved in this area, yet few advancements have been made over the last few years. Many believe that there is a true opportunity here to provide a platform for networked application delivery, but will XUL be a true competitor to Flex and/or XAML?

/dave

Monopolists don't have the same rights than other people.
You're right, but I'm amazed at how many people pretend to understand what restrictions are actually imposed. It's complicated. You're not a lawyer. Even lawyers don't fully understand it because it's not black and white.

One thing is this: using their OS monopoly to impose their AV solution.
This is almost like saying that they're also imposing their file system solution too because they won't expose certain API's.

That is anti-competitive.
They're so anti-competitive that they even advertise for Vista antivirus competitors right on their web site.

Does anyone actually leave windows firewall on anyways? Its one of the first things to go when I have to use windblows xp.

For friends and family (until recently) had no choice to leave it on but turned off. Computer browser stopped or simply wouldn't work and when Joe Clueless tries to access his pr0n^H^H^H^H^Hwedding pictures on other PC the Computer Browser service wouldn't access the other PC. For some reason firewall had to run (even if turned off) for Computer Browser to function properly. I think this "feature" has been fixed as an SP2 post fix.

Also, my sister doesn't have a router, she uses a dialup for her net so I left firewall on. It's primitive but it does the job.

Many times the will of hardware manufactures to create drivers for Windows is cited as THE reason why there is no or only weak support for devices in Linux. While of course this is A reason there are others. Microsoft helps hardware manufactures creating the drivers. As a manufacturer one can use the Windows Driver Kit or the Driver Development Kit which provides a manufacturer with the interface the driver has to implement, test tools, and so on. Similar DDKs exist for Mac OS. There is no such thing for Linux. And even if there was then quite likely it had to be different for the various Linux distributions and/or kernel versions. It's a pita to maintain a device driver for Linux.

Not only should you not get WMP11 intentionally, the fact that there's a RTM for it should make you think about turning off Windows Update (if you haven't already). At least make sure you have a disk-image backup before installing it, or you'll probably be kicking yourself down the road.

From http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/play er/11/readme.aspx:
"Windows Media Player 11 does not permit you to back up your media usage rights (previously known as licenses)."
"Digital media files must be in stored in monitored folders for media sharing to work properly in Windows Media Player 11."
"Content that is protected with media usage rights cannot be played in Windows Media Player 10 if a computer already has the Windows Media Format 11 Runtime installed."

The following issue from the Beta release isn't mentioned in the official release notes, but the fact that it appeared in the beta indicates that MS was preparing their DRM platform for a new time-limit "feature" that can be applied to recorded TV on their Media Center products (at the request of broadcasters, of course):
"Recorded TV shows that are protected with media usage rights, such as some TV content recorded on premium channels, will not play back after 3 days when Windows Media Player 11 Beta 2 for Windows XP is installed on Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005. No known workaround to resolve this issue exists at this time."

At time of posting, this could still be found at:
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:Eah4zybQy4sJ:w ww.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/player/11/re adme.aspx

I'm not pulling that speculation out of my butt, either. They already add more restrictions to DVD playback than any other software or consumer DVD player does. DVD playback is prohibitied in Media Center Edition when your display device is set to > 640 x 480 resolution (as is the case for HDTV use):
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/894323

Even today, as of Rollup 2, Media Center Edition renders recorded TV unplayable after two weeks when the broadcaster requests it:
http://thegreenbutton.com/forums/rss.aspx?ForumID= 49&PostID=144193

I would be extremely surprised if down the road a bit we don't discover that WMP11 is a trojan horse for a slew of previously unheard of content restrictions.

By day I'm a developer on the Microsoft platform. By night I'm an XP Media Center Edition user who's scared & angry enough to invest research time I don't have into MythTV & [Ubuntu || Mandriva || Fedora]. As far as home usage goes, I'm sorry, but this former Redmond fanboy / apologist is done with MS.

Not only should you not get WMP11 intentionally, the fact that there's a RTM for it should make you think about turning off Windows Update (if you haven't already). At least make sure you have a disk-image backup before installing it, or you'll probably be kicking yourself down the road.

From http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/play er/11/readme.aspx:
"Windows Media Player 11 does not permit you to back up your media usage rights (previously known as licenses)."
"Digital media files must be in stored in monitored folders for media sharing to work properly in Windows Media Player 11."
"Content that is protected with media usage rights cannot be played in Windows Media Player 10 if a computer already has the Windows Media Format 11 Runtime installed."

The following issue from the Beta release isn't mentioned in the official release notes, but the fact that it appeared in the beta indicates that MS was preparing their DRM platform for a new time-limit "feature" that can be applied to recorded TV on their Media Center products (at the request of broadcasters, of course):
"Recorded TV shows that are protected with media usage rights, such as some TV content recorded on premium channels, will not play back after 3 days when Windows Media Player 11 Beta 2 for Windows XP is installed on Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005. No known workaround to resolve this issue exists at this time."

At time of posting, this could still be found at:
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:Eah4zybQy4sJ:w ww.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/player/11/re adme.aspx

I'm not pulling that speculation out of my butt, either. They already add more restrictions to DVD playback than any other software or consumer DVD player does. DVD playback is prohibitied in Media Center Edition when your display device is set to > 640 x 480 resolution (as is the case for HDTV use):
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/894323

Even today, as of Rollup 2, Media Center Edition renders recorded TV unplayable after two weeks when the broadcaster requests it:
http://thegreenbutton.com/forums/rss.aspx?ForumID= 49&PostID=144193

I would be extremely surprised if down the road a bit we don't discover that WMP11 is a trojan horse for a slew of previously unheard of content restrictions.

By day I'm a developer on the Microsoft platform. By night I'm an XP Media Center Edition user who's scared & angry enough to invest research time I don't have into MythTV & [Ubuntu || Mandriva || Fedora]. As far as home usage goes, I'm sorry, but this former Redmond fanboy / apologist is done with MS.

For more information on this topic, straight from Microsoft:

http://download.microsoft.com/download/c/2/9/c2935 f83-1a10-4e4a-a137-c1db829637f5/10-03-06SoftwarePr otectionWP.doc

"The change of a single component multiple times (e.g. from video adapter A to video adapter B to video adapter C) is treated as a single change." - Microsoft

As long as the above still holds true, you could update your video card multiple times and it would still only register as that one significant change. If however, you also upgraded your soundcard it would register as a second change and would require reactivation.

"Approximately 2 percent of activation requests are due to hardware changes or other reactivations." - Microsoft

I'd wager that most people who are the kind of folks to upgrade their hardware also have corporate licensed editions of windows or are smart enough to know how to reload XP Pro or at least smart enough to pick up a phone and call Microsoft.

"The change of a single component multiple times (e.g. from video adapter A to video adapter B to video adapter C) is treated as a single change." - Microsoft

As long as the above still holds true, you could update your video card multiple times and it would still only register as that one significant change. If however, you also upgraded your soundcard it would register as a second change and would require reactivation.

"Approximately 2 percent of activation requests are due to hardware changes or other reactivations." - Microsoft

I'd wager that most people who are the kind of folks to upgrade their hardware also have corporate licensed editions of windows or are smart enough to know how to reload XP Pro or at least smart enough to pick up a phone and call Microsoft.

http://techreport.com/onearticle.x/11109
"Furthermore, users who go through such upgrades will be allowed to re-active their copy of Vista up to 10 times."

I really dont think its as big of a deal as a lot of people are making it out to be. Here's an example of how it worked in XP:

"User swaps the motherboard and CPU chip for an upgraded one, swaps the video adapter, adds a second hard drive for additional storage, doubles the amount of RAM, and swaps the CD ROM drive for a faster one.

Result: Reactivation is NOT required."

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxp pro/evaluate/xpactiv.mspx

Again you'd have to change so much hardware, it would be no different than installing on a new machine. And you can just call them and they give you a new key in just a few minutes... not a big deal.

Windows already offers this on XP.

I'm sure there are tons of buyers out there (e.g., the government) to offset the potential 'pedophiles and terrorists.'

PatchGuard is about stopping modifications to the kernel's internal structures, like the syscall table and the kernel's image. It has nothing to do with loading drivers that use only the kernel's public interfaces.

However, Microsoft HAS decided that only kernel-mode drivers signed with a SPC (software publishing certificate) can be loaded on x64. Microsoft doesn't charge anything for a SPC directly, but you do need to buy a cert from a commercial CA like Verisign. There is also an option that the user can specify during boot-up to disable the signature checks.

I, too, am worried about how inconvenient or expensive it will become to use free/open source drivers in Vista like Daemon Tools and OpenVPN. Although since I reboot so infrequently, I can live with setting the "Disable driver signature enforcement" every time I restart the OS. It's annoying, but usable. The thing is, disabling digital signature enforcement probably breaks all 'protected content' apps... I'm not sure if that's a bad thing or not.

PatchGuard is about stopping modifications to the kernel's internal structures, like the syscall table and the kernel's image. It has nothing to do with loading drivers that use only the kernel's public interfaces.

However, Microsoft HAS decided that only kernel-mode drivers signed with a SPC (software publishing certificate) can be loaded on x64. Microsoft doesn't charge anything for a SPC directly, but you do need to buy a cert from a commercial CA like Verisign. There is also an option that the user can specify during boot-up to disable the signature checks.

I, too, am worried about how inconvenient or expensive it will become to use free/open source drivers in Vista like Daemon Tools and OpenVPN. Although since I reboot so infrequently, I can live with setting the "Disable driver signature enforcement" every time I restart the OS. It's annoying, but usable. The thing is, disabling digital signature enforcement probably breaks all 'protected content' apps... I'm not sure if that's a bad thing or not.

PatchGuard is about stopping modifications to the kernel's internal structures, like the syscall table and the kernel's image. It has nothing to do with loading drivers that use only the kernel's public interfaces.

However, Microsoft HAS decided that only kernel-mode drivers signed with a SPC (software publishing certificate) can be loaded on x64. Microsoft doesn't charge anything for a SPC directly, but you do need to buy a cert from a commercial CA like Verisign. There is also an option that the user can specify during boot-up to disable the signature checks.

I, too, am worried about how inconvenient or expensive it will become to use free/open source drivers in Vista like Daemon Tools and OpenVPN. Although since I reboot so infrequently, I can live with setting the "Disable driver signature enforcement" every time I restart the OS. It's annoying, but usable. The thing is, disabling digital signature enforcement probably breaks all 'protected content' apps... I'm not sure if that's a bad thing or not.

Or this:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/default.mspx

What could you possibly be talking about? Direct disk access means bypassing the filesystem and reading and writing to the sectors directly. This requires administrator privileges for good reason: it bypasses file security, file locks and all the other nice things that filesystems do. No user application requires the ability to bypass the filesystem. Don't you need to be root to access a mounted block device on a UNIX? It's the same thing. The fact that it's possible to modify the kernel when you have admin privileges (and physical access for that matter) is hardly suprising, and in fact is unfixable (short of full TCPA).

PatchGuard is only there to discourage apps that hook the syscall table (an inherantly unsafe operation) and make other modifications to the kernel's private, volaitle internal interfaces. When Windows NT was written, the MS devs never expected 3rd party devs to go poking around with the kernel's private interfaces, and are rightly disgusted when those 3rd party software programs cause problems because of it. Compare this to Linux: you are free to maintain your own custom build of the kernel, but in the mainline, all the kernel interfaces are so volaitle, every minor revision is binary incompatible with the rest. You'd never get a device driver accepted into the mainline if it depended on private interfaces that break every revision, even on a source level. Microsoft is well within their prerogative to make changes the Windows kernel's internal, private interfaces. This doesn't work too well when 3rd party apps are dependent on them never changing, especially when Windows crashes because of it. PatchGuard is a technical speed bump to make it harder for 3rd party software companies to screw with the kernel's internals. Microsoft knows that it's an unwinnable arms race, but hope that the 3rd parties will decide it's just easier to stick to the kernel's public interfaces. Microsoft is willing to create new stable public interfaces to support the necessary behavior.

The only thing I can think of that you might be talking about for reduced performance is if you meant no intermediate buffering when you said "direct disk write". The FILE_FLAG_NO_BUFFERING and FILE_FLAG_WRITE_THROUGH buffering options are unrelated to direct disk access (which actually means bypassing the filesystem to access the block device directly). Write through and unbuffered IO aren't going anywhere.

As for special hooks that MS applications get into the OS that no one else gets, how about an actual example?

I'm not sure what effect PatchGuard and its related technologies will actually have on security, but they certainly do cause certain hardware configurations to become unusable and confiscate a great deal of power in Microsoft's hands. I wanted to experiment with an M-Audio Delta 1010LT pro audio card on Vista 64-bit, but M-audio hasn't released any signed drivers for that particular card and has stated that they will not do so until Vista is officially shipped. Theoretically, it shouldn't have been possible for me to install the 64-bit XP drivers in their place, and it actually wasn't without some hacks. However, the necessary hacks are laid out in great detail in a public MSDN document and actually automated by some scripts in the latest Windows DDK: http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/64bi t/kmsigning.mspx I just followed MS' tutorial on disabling driver signature enforcement and had the XP 64-bit drivers installed in about an hour, after self-signing them using automated tools. So, I'm skeptical of the strength of these new security measures. By the way, the XP drivers didn't work after all. :-)

As soon as Microsoft Update downloads and installs IE7 on every Windows machine with automatic updates enabled, this race will be over.

If you'd like Microsoft to sell IE separately from windows, perhaps that's what should have been asked.

Huh? What are you talking about? It's right here; you can download it at no cost.

Yes, actually.

http://documentation.openoffice.org/manuals/OOo2.x /user_guide2_draft.pdf

At a svelt 587 pages, it is exactly 496 pages longer than the Office 2003 Manual, located here: http://download.microsoft.com/download/0/f/1/0f1d5 b1f-53bc-47c3-bf6f-ac6d67cf9766/Office2003Guide_WP .doc .

I know size doesn't count for everything, but still; it's there, it's significantly better than the OEM MS Office manual, and it is accompanied by fantastic community support, including developer feedback.

The problem with being the #1 browser in the world is that if they did decide to fix everything all at once, then they break a LOT of websites.

The funny thing is, they're still breaking pages just by updating smaller parts their of CSS implementation, but only those pages that are in the standards compliant mode (CSS1Compat). It's effectively impossible for them to change the rendering engine without breaking a lot of things for a lot of people, because many pages use user-agent sniffing and not CSS hacks (those don't apply to IE7 outside of quirks mode), or use conditional comments that include IE7 to feed different versions of CSS. This means that even if they achieved CSS support parity with the modern browsers, and fixed all the CSS hacks (as they already did), IE7 would still sometimes get the old CSS meant for earlier versions, and break pages.

This is what they get for taking so many years with fixing CSS in IE! Not that they've improved it much if you look at this chart. The IE 6 and 7 columns look practically the same. So, IE7 is still not a modern browser in this regard. And this is why IE7 just means another bug-ridden rendering engine to support if you develop in standards compatible mode, until IE6 is dead. And looking at how even fifth generation IEs are still around in significant numbers, I wouldn't hold my breath on IE6 going away in the next few years, Windows Update or not.

My guess is that the survey site was using some ActiveX component. These were only ever supported in Windows.

Not quite. Microsoft used to ship ActiveX for MacOS as well, but it was never ported to OS X.

One of the main differences between IE 5.1 for Mac Classic and IE 5.2 for Mac OS X (other than the UI) is that the Mac Classic version still had ActiveX support. You can actually see this side by side if you have a PowerPC-based Mac that came with OS 10.3 or earlier (10.4 stopped shipping with IE, though Safari had long since been the default), and you installed the Classic environment. Just open up both browsers and compare the preferences.

IE5/Mac is unsupported by MS, no longer available for download, and its rendering engine is very different from and more buggy than in IE on Windows.

go read the privacy policy and especially the bit about "protecting microsoft and its partners/agents property"

its not a phishing filter its a MS revenue protection tool

The fixes I described dont apply to the software user, they apply to the ISV. If this is a problem, then only use applications whose source you have access to. While this isnt universally possible, it is possible in many scenarios.

But if you're still experiencing DLL hell, then the problem isnt with windows, its with the companies or open-source projects developing your software.

There are numerous mechanisms to resolve this. Here are some links:

DLL Redirection
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/dllproc/ba se/dynamic_link_library_redirection.asp

Registration Free COM
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/dndotnet/h tml/rfacomwalk.asp

Good Blog summarizing this stuff:
http://blogs.msdn.com/junfeng/archive/2006/01/24/5 17221.aspx

Basically, this problem has been solved for years ... there are just alot of fairly crummy ISV's that dont bother to learn their trade very well.

The dotlocal stuff in particular is fantastic, and helps you make completely local and portable applications, which will work just by dropping the flat of files, no installation necessary.

You're right though in that its not easy to solve as the application consumer. It _is_ easy to solve by a competent ISV though.

The fixes I described dont apply to the software user, they apply to the ISV. If this is a problem, then only use applications whose source you have access to. While this isnt universally possible, it is possible in many scenarios.

But if you're still experiencing DLL hell, then the problem isnt with windows, its with the companies or open-source projects developing your software.

There are numerous mechanisms to resolve this. Here are some links:

DLL Redirection
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/dllproc/ba se/dynamic_link_library_redirection.asp

Registration Free COM
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/dndotnet/h tml/rfacomwalk.asp

Good Blog summarizing this stuff:
http://blogs.msdn.com/junfeng/archive/2006/01/24/5 17221.aspx

Basically, this problem has been solved for years ... there are just alot of fairly crummy ISV's that dont bother to learn their trade very well.

The dotlocal stuff in particular is fantastic, and helps you make completely local and portable applications, which will work just by dropping the flat of files, no installation necessary.

You're right though in that its not easy to solve as the application consumer. It _is_ easy to solve by a competent ISV though.

... to sell songs directly among devices, without assistance from the online store, and giving users incentives to participate in the distribution chain (an improved business model IMHO). Check out this paper published at NOSSDAV 2006: http://research.microsoft.com/users/darkok/papers/ nossdav.pdf

You can use it for free, catch is you can only store 4GB of data. I think this was to compete with MSDE which stores max 2GB.

Encryption is a technology used to implement DRM. Vanilla encryption becomes unmanageable when I have to distribute and manage keys for every document. This isn't just public-key cryptography, where I'm signing the document with my private key, and anyone can validate that the document is mine and hasn't been tampered with. This is 1) (the equivalent of) encrypting the document with each recipient's public key so that each of them (and nobody else) can read it, and 2) ensuring that they can't forward the decrypted document to someone I didn't authorize.

Microsoft is already highly active in this area. As far as I can see it's "under the radar" of the open source world, which is a shame, since businesses are finding this functionality to be increasingly valuable (think Sarbanes-Oxley, HIPAA, etc.). A couple of useful links for the Microsoft flavor of this technology:

• TechNet documentation on the Rights Management Services included in Windows Server 2003 (ironic that the acronym is RMS, isn't it?).
• Examples of how Office integration with RMS can meet the requirements I outlined in my post.

Since this is Slashdot: No, I don't work for Microsoft, own their stock, or have friends/family/etc. who do either. I have no particular interest in seeing their solution dominate. I simply find the technology valuable; if that valuation causes FUD in some people, there's not much I can do about it.

/B

Encryption is a technology used to implement DRM. Vanilla encryption becomes unmanageable when I have to distribute and manage keys for every document. This isn't just public-key cryptography, where I'm signing the document with my private key, and anyone can validate that the document is mine and hasn't been tampered with. This is 1) (the equivalent of) encrypting the document with each recipient's public key so that each of them (and nobody else) can read it, and 2) ensuring that they can't forward the decrypted document to someone I didn't authorize.

Microsoft is already highly active in this area. As far as I can see it's "under the radar" of the open source world, which is a shame, since businesses are finding this functionality to be increasingly valuable (think Sarbanes-Oxley, HIPAA, etc.). A couple of useful links for the Microsoft flavor of this technology:

• TechNet documentation on the Rights Management Services included in Windows Server 2003 (ironic that the acronym is RMS, isn't it?).
• Examples of how Office integration with RMS can meet the requirements I outlined in my post.

Since this is Slashdot: No, I don't work for Microsoft, own their stock, or have friends/family/etc. who do either. I have no particular interest in seeing their solution dominate. I simply find the technology valuable; if that valuation causes FUD in some people, there's not much I can do about it.

/B

Read what you have quoted carefully.

Depending on which edition of Windows you are running and the edition of Windows Vista you would like to install,...

That there is your "escape" clause....

As has been the case for all Windows upgrade programs, a fresh install on a clean new HD is available only with a new retail copy of the OS, not an upgrade disk.

The word "edition" refers to "Home Basic Edition," "Business Edition," et. al. The word "version" refers to "upgrade version" and "retail version." Read the page that quote came from and it's very obvious that you're misinterpreting the word "edition."

If you've got money, you can always try products like CleanSlate, DeepFreeze, or DriveShield. I've used them all in a public setting and prefer DriveShield--it's been very reliable and they have a new product that'll open up at night to let the machines pull down updates. An excellent free choice is to use Microsoft. They've got a product called Microsoft Shared Computer Toolkit that's available for free and came out of the original Gates computer grants to schools and libraries. The original setup has been honed over the years and this product made available for download. Take a look at it. http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?fa milyid=7256D456-E3DA-42EA-857D-92B716077A84&displa ylang=en

You do need to tune it. Use ClearType Tuner.

But then if you are a big enough shop that you are worried about the impact to your business apps, just block IE7 in AD with Microsoft's IE7 Blocker Toolkit. Or simply do not approve that patch in WSUS... you are using Micrsoft's free WSUS to regulate what patches hit your enterprise, right?
http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=65788

Dude, ever hear of integrating hotfixes? Just like slipstreaming Service Packs, only smaller. When I deploy an XP machine, it doesn't need ANY updates. It's hours faster, and takes a large burden off your internet pipe.

It's written for 2k, but works for XP too...
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/downloads/ser vicepacks/sp3/hfdeploy.htm

Sorry mate but pirates are not the only ones to slipstream updates into installation media. Sounds like you've been following too much hype. Get with the program ;)

See Microsoft's own KBA:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/814847

I work with companies who do it quite often. When imaging isn't used, it beats having to install the OS and wait through all the screens and clicks, AND THEN install the service pack.

To the original poster: If you look around, you will find out how you can slipstream most updates into an installation package. Look into "nLite"

Also read up on
http://www.petri.co.il/forums/archive/index.php?t- 5079.html

Yeah, I definately want to get that from thepiratebay.

There's no Other source for the Remote Desktop client.

~X

To repeat the question, Will the upgrade install on a bare new hare drive or does it need a pre-qualified install of the prior version? Using the Genuine Windows sticker number is not a problem.

From my experience (upgrade versions of Windows 2000 and XP), qualifying prior versions have never needed to be "installed" to perform a "replace/fresh/clean/start-from-scratch" install using an upgrade version. When installig on a bare hard drive, the upgrade version might ask you to pop in the previous version's CD for proof. I didn't use the upgrade version of Windows 95 like you did, but didn't it ask if you wanted to wipe the hard drive and start from scratch (instead of upgrading "on top" of the old installation)?

Just like previous versions of Windows, Windows Vista upgrade versions will still allow clean installations and in-place upgrades (that's what Microsoft calls them). MS describes these options on this page: Upgrade Planning for Windows Vista.

Heck, I'll just cut-and-paste the relevant info from that page:

The options

You can upgrade from your current edition of Microsoft Windows XP or Windows 2000 to a corresponding or better edition of Windows Vista by purchasing and installing an upgrade copy of Windows Vista. Depending on which edition of Windows you are running and the edition of Windows Vista you would like to install, you have two options for the installation process:

In-place upgrade
You can upgrade in-place, which means you can install Windows Vista and retain your applications, files, and settings as they were in your previous edition of Windows.

Clean install
Upgrading to Windows Vista with a clean install means that you should use Windows Easy Transfer to automatically copy all your files and settings to an extra hard drive or other storage device, and then install Windows Vista. After the installation is complete, Windows Easy Transfer will reload your files and settings on your upgraded PC. You will then need to reinstall your applications.