Slashdot Mirror

I noticed that Microsoft's attitude toward Google appears to have changed. Now, they're going to fucking advertise Google!

No school with a CS department worth its salt would end up with a deal like this. If a school ends up with a deal like this, guess what? Their CS department is not very good.

Sadly not true. A counterexample is Cambridge University, where Roger Needham--the head of the CS department--decided to whore out the university's credibility to Bill Gates. The deal was kept very secret, and a lot of people were angry when it was announced, but by then it was too late. Needham got what he wanted, a directorship at Microsoft.

It is good to see that an x64 build is now available with IE7B2.

Shame that as usual the phone support feature is not available in the UK...(not that I really care, FF is fine).

Note that the download link is http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/downloads/defa ult.mspx (where you can choose your desired poison) as opposed to the one in the stub (which links to the technology overview document).

If MS decides to take their marbles and go home, your documents may be unrecoverable

New office format is based on XML. It may not be the Open Document Format (or whatever its called) version of XML, but it is XML and a published standard.

http://www.microsoft.com/office/xml/default.mspx

Does anyone think this is the first time this problem has come up? In the early 90s, a 'big' screen was 800x600 pixels. Lots of people were still using 640x480. That is what all the advice which we have been giving you for a decade about NEVER using absolute positioning and absolute sizes on the Web is all about.

You do not control the size of the real estate your page is rendered on. You do not control the number of pixels per inch. You do not control the visual acuity of your users' eyes. And you never did! If your site does not work as well on a mobile phone as on a 3000x2000 pixel display, then, as a web designer, you've failed. No-one else is to blame, you're to blame. You can't do your job.

Messing about with pixel values is pointless, because if you're using pixel values you have already failed. Of course, yes, there is a problem with the size of graphic elements. That's why we should be using Scalable Vector Graphics wherever possible; this is why it's serious that some browser vendors are still dragging their feet on native SVG support. But that doesn't excuse you, the designer. Your job as a designer is to work with the web you've got, which includes crappy antique browsers. Get on with it.

Does anyone think this is the first time this problem has come up? In the early 90s, a 'big' screen was 800x600 pixels. Lots of people were still using 640x480. That is what all the advice which we have been giving you for a decade about NEVER using absolute positioning and absolute sizes on the Web is all about.

You do not control the size of the real estate your page is rendered on. You do not control the number of pixels per inch. You do not control the visual acuity of your users' eyes. And you never did! If your site does not work as well on a mobile phone as on a 3000x2000 pixel display, then, as a web designer, you've failed. No-one else is to blame, you're to blame. You can't do your job.

Messing about with pixel values is pointless, because if you're using pixel values you have already failed. Of course, yes, there is a problem with the size of graphic elements. That's why we should be using Scalable Vector Graphics wherever possible; this is why it's serious that some browser vendors are still dragging their feet on native SVG support. But that doesn't excuse you, the designer. Your job as a designer is to work with the web you've got, which includes crappy antique browsers. Get on with it.

It's worth a note that what Linus is talking about, is basically what Windows NT does with its "Overlapped I/O" mechanism: the pages containing data are locked in memory and used directly by the kernel, and the application receives a notification when it's done. It's on the honor system for not modifying data that's in use, instead of relying on something like COW. There are a few different notification mechanisms to choose from.

There's a good article that describes how high-performance network I/O under Windows NT works in general.

It's worth a note that what Linus is talking about, is basically what Windows NT does with its "Overlapped I/O" mechanism: the pages containing data are locked in memory and used directly by the kernel, and the application receives a notification when it's done. It's on the honor system for not modifying data that's in use, instead of relying on something like COW. There are a few different notification mechanisms to choose from.

There's a good article that describes how high-performance network I/O under Windows NT works in general.

How do you explain them not telling anybody about this wonderful new security feature? You know, the one that modifies how the OS works at a fairly low level?

Yes, they kept it a very tight secret, by putting the documentation for this feature where you'd never think to look for it: on msdn.

Well milage may vary, but here it took out all machines with HP products (Share-to-web). Theres more info about it here.

He calls upon other browser developers to take part in the discussion so that 'concrete standards in this area can be hammered out'.

Toss in support for animation, full-motion video, and client-side programming in something other than JavaScript, please. And 3D, while we've got the hood up.

Let's call it XAML. Is that good with everyone?

He calls upon other browser developers to take part in the discussion so that 'concrete standards in this area can be hammered out'.

Toss in support for animation, full-motion video, and client-side programming in something other than JavaScript, please. And 3D, while we've got the hood up.

Let's call it XAML. Is that good with everyone?

http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=889320&SD=tech

you can't get the fix unless you are a still supported oem or retail if not please pay $35 for this hotfix.

Just stop recomending OpenGL to everyone, OpelGL is dead in the game development world. DirectX is mutch better, it has everything you need. Math/Grafic/sound/input/networking, justing opengl is dumb. There is no other market other then the windows one when you are creating games.

No i say go whit MDX (Managed Direct X). Just watch tutorial number 4 where he creates a engine from sratch that have mesh,sprite support.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/coding4fun/gamedevelopme nt/rocketcmd/default.aspx

1. Ok, I took the time to look it up. This was a very big deal when it came out, and the list of applications that required patching on that bulletin was on the MS ones - a bunch of other vendors had issues as well. Of course the solution is to bug the developers - but that is only because there are no other options, since most windows software is distributed binary-only. On linux most distros would have striped out the local copies of the libs.

2. Windows has embedded versions in filenames in a few cases, as you've pointed out. However, this has problems. What happens when a new version of the DLL works 90% of the time, but not 100% of the time? In theory all apps should use the newer DLL (so you don't want to put the version in the name), but maybe a stubborn app might need to link to the specific version. On unix the solution is to have libabc-1.2.3.so with symlinks from libabc-1.2.so, libabc-1.so, and libabc.so - then you can link against whichever of the 4 is most appropriate (the last one working with any installed version). The problem with the windows technique of forcing the version in the filename is that it only works if you planned on breaking compatibility from the start - if somebody discovers the incompatibility later then you're up the creek.

I believe recent versions of windows have used a few tricks to let each application think it has its own set of dlls, which partially solves this problem, but it still results in having a lot of extra versions floating around that may or may not be necessary, and which could contain security holes.

Basically the windows model is much more distributed, while the linux package model is more top-down. The latter is better for getting all your security patches from one source, although the windows model scales better (with its flaws), since each vendor carries its own weight - the only problem is that if the vendor drops the ball nobody is around to clean up.

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxp pro/maintain/sp2netwk.mspx "Prior to Windows XP Service Pack 2, Windows XP shipped with Internet Connection Firewall disabled by default. The user either needed to run a wizard or navigate through the Network Connections folder to manually enable Windows Firewall. This experience proved too difficult for many users, and resulted in many computers not having any firewall protection." It's not a big deal really but seems to me that I'm right.

Just stop recomending OpenGL to everyone, OpelGL is dead in the game development world. DirectX is mutch better, it has everything you need. Math/Grafic/sound/input/networking, justing opengl is dumb. There is no other market other then the windows one when you are creating games.

No i say go whit MDX (Managed Direct X). Just watch tutorial number 4 where he creates a engine from sratch that have mesh,sprite support.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/coding4fun/gamedevelopme nt/rocketcmd/default.aspx

The price of the substitute product would have to include the price for a substitute for the hardware as well.

As would the cost of any substitute hardware needed to run Vista *cough* bloat *cough* in an equally productive manner. Also, it is funny the added cost of upgrades down the road never gets counted, or the value of freedom subtracted... ;-)

There are a couple of free compilers to start with as well. The gcc/g++ ones to start with (http://gcc.gnu.org/). I find those to be a tad harder to setup but are completly free and you can look at the code under it (if thats what you want). There is also the visual studio compiler. There is a free learner edition (express) that comes with the gui and the SDKs are fairly straight forward to get and setup (http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/express/default .aspx). I recomend the vs one if you are going to do any sort of directx stuff. Also if you are going to do that I would get a few COM tutuorials to get you into the groove of making and destroying objects.

I also recomend getting a book or two. Even if you just go to the library to get one. There are also a few companies that have released the source to their older stuff (Quake I/II/II, Freespace, etc...).

Above all have fun with it.

it's gotten to where a single bug (even a minor one) can easily swamp our telephones! ... How do they do it with such a shoddy codebase?

2 support request(s) submitted online or by a phone call are included at no charge. Unlimited installation support is available by phone at no charge.

All additional support requests are $35.00 US per request during business hours or use an existing contract.

Linux does not have the same design. COW may or may not be appropriate. User code does not normally need to be aware of read ahead and write behind. Does it really need to be aware of COW?

Recently, I saw the creator of mach. I asked him if he ever uses mach any more. He said no. :)

How about Corporate: Microsoft provide a server program that you can install that downloads the updates and stores them locally.

Your corporate administrator then configures that server and manually approves and rejects updates to be deployed though the Automatic Update clients connected to your server. (Optionally approving a patch for deployment to only certain groups of computers, say the IT Department could be beta testers.)

It's called Windows Software Update Services, and has been out for quite some time. In other words, all you're asking for in the first half already exists. :-)

The second part you're talking about is deployment of patches that aren't released through automatic updates - and yes, I agree, they're often problematic. It sounds like you manually installed a non-security hotfix, which was then clobbered by a later security patch (and the bugfix wasn't included in the security patch).

Microsoft seem to believe that non-security bugfixes don't belong in security patches unless a lot of people are affected, but it means that for people that need those security patches and bugfixes, it becomes quite a mess trying to maintain them (and may require manual management, as you've found the hard way. :-( ) I think they're tryng to be cautious, which I can understand (although they've in theory fixed this for XPSP2 and 2K3, as those patches are supposed to include "general distribution release" and "quick fix engineering" versions, automatically installing the QFE version if there already is a QFE hotfix installed, otherwise installing the GDR version.)

A classic example of all this is that there's a registry key you can set that causes IE patches to install bugfixed versions. (I'm not kidding.)

How about Corporate: Microsoft provide a server program that you can install that downloads the updates and stores them locally.

Your corporate administrator then configures that server and manually approves and rejects updates to be deployed though the Automatic Update clients connected to your server. (Optionally approving a patch for deployment to only certain groups of computers, say the IT Department could be beta testers.)

It's called Windows Software Update Services, and has been out for quite some time. In other words, all you're asking for in the first half already exists. :-)

The second part you're talking about is deployment of patches that aren't released through automatic updates - and yes, I agree, they're often problematic. It sounds like you manually installed a non-security hotfix, which was then clobbered by a later security patch (and the bugfix wasn't included in the security patch).

Microsoft seem to believe that non-security bugfixes don't belong in security patches unless a lot of people are affected, but it means that for people that need those security patches and bugfixes, it becomes quite a mess trying to maintain them (and may require manual management, as you've found the hard way. :-( ) I think they're tryng to be cautious, which I can understand (although they've in theory fixed this for XPSP2 and 2K3, as those patches are supposed to include "general distribution release" and "quick fix engineering" versions, automatically installing the QFE version if there already is a QFE hotfix installed, otherwise installing the GDR version.)

A classic example of all this is that there's a registry key you can set that causes IE patches to install bugfixed versions. (I'm not kidding.)

I've already encountered two computers on my companies network that were having this annoying problem. There are probably other systems that will pop up with this problem next week. Here's a few different temporary fixes, but I'm not sure how effective they are for more than a few days (or atleast until Microsoft offers a patch):

1. Directly from MS.

2. Rename C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32\VERCLSID.EXE to something else (i.e. VERCLSID.OLD) and turn off automatic updates.. otherwise it will try to update Windows again and re-add the executable.

3. Reinstall the HP application. I didn't think that this would work since it appears to reinstall Share-to-Web software, but everything seemed fine afterwards.. so far for one day atleast.

The real annoying thing about this bug is that I think it effects everything using the explorer shell. Click on the arrow at the end of your address bar in IE? Locks the app. Click on arrow to expand your drives while trying to attach a file to email? Locks the app. I'm sure it does the same thing all over the OS when you are trying to do the same function, but those are the only two I really came across before I wanted to fix the problem ASAP.

Actually the screenshots that Paul Posted are already outdated, this is why it is called a BETA.

No they aren't. You're either stupid or in denial. Incidentally, I love the capitalisation on the second P. Paul Posted. It's like some kind of...I dunno. But it's quite funny...

Wow, you are psychic and know what build of Vista I am testing? That is so cool. Well sadly you are wrong, but I still think it is cool that you believe in your powers. I say you should maybe do your own 900 Ms. Cleo number, I'm sure people here will gladly pay money to hear all your other predictions and hyperbole.

I should have assumed from your philippic post that you would be the kind of person to write posts in your word processor and then point out typographical errors in the post you are responding to as a way of discounting anyone's credibility. I am happy that you can see the red squiggles and correct all your typos before you post. Microsoft Word is grand tool for someone like yourself trying to elevate your perceived level of education. Oh by the way, you missed the red squiggle under 'dunno'.

So I have seen Windows evolve, from the glorified DOS shell that it was to the bloated piece of crap it has become in Windows XP and beyond, and in each release, I have noted what has changed and what has stayed the same.

An awful lot has stayed the same. Many tools did not change at all between Windows NT 3.1 and NT 4 (which explains why NT 4's DUN was such a peculiar anomaly to those who came to it from 9x), and whilst 2000 genuinely offered some much needed polish and useful enhancement (and is, IMHO, Microsoft's magnum opus**), the same cannot be said of that which has followed. It is incredibly striking to see how icons originally used in Windows 95 (or perhaps NT 4 - more likely) are still in Windows Vista a full eleven years later. Despite, as you allege, all this revamping.

You could have easily shortened these paragraphs by just saying you have no freaking clue what you are talking about, but maybe you just love to see your words on the screen. (Queue Carly Simon Music)

Get back to me when you realize there is a difference between DOS and NT. Heck, why don't we try to get you to a 101 course level, get back to me when you can explain the fundamental concepts of the client/server kernel in NT and how this gives NT advantages over both monolithic and microkernel designs.

I think you sum it up quite well where you say that "the parts that haven't are compiled using the new development tools from MS". This is precisely what has happened, and precisely why nothing has changed. Redesign the controls, call it .NET and recompile. Voilà - a new operating system!

Again it would have been easier to say I have no freaking clue.

Actually, this paragraph is truly a work of art. Please don't tell me you serious think Microsoft recompiled Vista in .NET. Actually do tell me that, I want another post from you to forward to my colleagues. They are already about to pee themselves from laughing at this post, and are begging me to bait you into posting another rant from your delusive contentment. Seriously, they are even awarding you the bloviating ass of the day award. (Queue Your Acceptance Speech)

Windows still doesn't have it. Granted, Apple's implementation is not a full DBFS, but to the end user, the result is the same, so it matters little. And Microsoft isn't even including WinFS in Vista anyway! So I am left wondering if you have any idea what you are on about...

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/desktopsearch/def ault.mspx

Once again you are correct; the link above this line also doesn't exist. (Queue Wayne's World Dream Effect Sounds)

Oh, and if you truly think the Apple's Spotlight is even close to WinFS, you are smoking something that is not legal where I live.

In 2002, I bought an iBoo

"The Exchange Heap, which underlies efficient communication in Singularity, holds data passed between processes. ... A process accesses a [memory] region through a structure called an allocation. ... More than one allocation may share read-only access to an underlying [memory] region. Moreover, the allocations can have different base and bounds, which provide distinct views into the underlying data. For example, protocol processing code in a network stack can strip the encapsulated protocol headers off a packet without copying it."

"The Exchange Heap, which underlies efficient communication in Singularity, holds data passed between processes. ... A process accesses a [memory] region through a structure called an allocation. ... More than one allocation may share read-only access to an underlying [memory] region. Moreover, the allocations can have different base and bounds, which provide distinct views into the underlying data. For example, protocol processing code in a network stack can strip the encapsulated protocol headers off a packet without copying it."

Apple's Human Interface Guidelines differ entirely from Microsoft's. For this reason, supporting Windows apps natively under Mac OS X would be a bad idea... unless Microsoft artwork were to be used instead of an "Aqua skin"

a world where high quality software, in a simple package with smiling people on the cover and no marketting speak, could be delivered in bulk, for free, to your home -- with both a live disc to try at no danger, and a full disc for when you want to run it.

And this software would work well, have free online updates and upgrades, and make it so that you could even show your friends who aren't technically inclined how to use it and gain its benefits? How it enables people like me who work on software to easily contribute to improving the lives of thousands of computer users around the world?

Yea, it's a damn shame that developers are doing marketters' jobs here. Let's all live in a world where the marketters do the developers' jobs by setting out the game-plan on features and design.

On WinXP, you can go to the Power Toys website at Microsoft.com and download TweakUI for WinXP. After you instal it, and run it, you can go to the "General | Focus " area and check "Prevent Applications from Grabbing Focus", and specify how you want the taskbar to notify you of an application that wants attention ("flash until I click on it" or "flash a specified number of times").

There are also some other cool power toys there... I love the Alt-Tab Replacement they have, and of course I use "CMD From Here" a lot as well.

Check them out.

On WinXP, you can go to the Power Toys website at Microsoft.com and download TweakUI for WinXP. After you instal it, and run it, you can go to the "General | Focus " area and check "Prevent Applications from Grabbing Focus", and specify how you want the taskbar to notify you of an application that wants attention ("flash until I click on it" or "flash a specified number of times").

There are also some other cool power toys there... I love the Alt-Tab Replacement they have, and of course I use "CMD From Here" a lot as well.

Check them out.

On WinXP, you can go to the Power Toys website at Microsoft.com and download TweakUI for WinXP. After you instal it, and run it, you can go to the "General | Focus " area and check "Prevent Applications from Grabbing Focus", and specify how you want the taskbar to notify you of an application that wants attention ("flash until I click on it" or "flash a specified number of times").

There are also some other cool power toys there... I love the Alt-Tab Replacement they have, and of course I use "CMD From Here" a lot as well.

Check them out.

You could also be right on.

What I hear is just from friends that work at the EU, and not having been to Brussels myself in almost two years, I have no way to validate the level of access they have to the case or if what they hear is truly a reflection of the motives.

The only validity I can give to what I hear is the reactions to people going anti-MS then buying Apple or Redhat. But again this could be because Apple is closed and it just all mixes together.

As for controlling the Internet, many have tried with various technologies, from MS to Sun and Java, nothing has had dominance, instead you find these companies reverse direction and go back to the standard bodies.

Even MS is now pushing Standards only Internet design. Sure they want you to run Windows Server with ASP, but even they don't require it.

The new technologies coming from Microsoft stress to even Windows only developers 'stick with standards'.

For example, in showcasing a part of the new WPF Web development tool (a version of Frontpage that is WPF aware), they talk more about ensuring the work meets standards, even accessibility standards more than showcasing the WPF features of the product.

http://www.microsoft.com/products/expression/en/we b_designer/demos.mspx?v=wd_formatting

Even if the client side control or server side control gave any company leverage to control the internet, it doesn't mean the people will just go along with it. We are too fickle, and it is TOO easy for the small developer to develop alternative technologies. And if MS went as far to say, do it only this way, most of us would do it a different way just to screw with MS.

Can you see the Firefox developers going, ok, we are doing everything MS's way, or Apple conforming to a MS only view of the world? And those are more mainstream, just imagine the GNOME and KDE and other open browser or http server technologies and what their reaction would be.

Is it possible, sure anything is, but not likely, I don't see any company ever owning the internet. The internet by definition and how it works almost ensures this will never happen.

People rebel too easily, as we see here on slashdot all the time.

As for MS controling the majority of the client computer technologies, this also means very little. It sounds like a strong argument, but MS doesn't lock anyone to the tools 'included', sure MS doesn't want them to be crap, but they are more to provide basic functionality for the average user, just like FONT support and Calculator.

Even look at Windows Media Player, since it gets the most attention from the EU. WMP supports any codec, not just MS codecs, it also support ANY online music store, not just MS's.

As for content, it also supports almost ANY content and content format, it even allows the Web standards to dictate how content is displayed inside it when browsing for music online, etc.

There is no MS version of HTML for example, and what MS has contributed to HTML, like parts of XHTML, are advances for everyone, not just MS. In fact, most of the other browsers have adopted the standards and started using them before MS and IE even has. I also wouldn't be surprised to see even the WPF/E technologies in use in other browsers before Vista even ships.

Of all things, these are really small things to try to focus on, I could think of better things the EU could focus on with Microsoft and Windows. IE and Windows Media Player are not the threat, and as you notice, people in Europe don't want to buy an N version of Windows, it actually reduces their choice in what software they use.

Take Care...

Interesting that this announcement from Apple came the quarter after PortalPlayer announced a new technology (called Preface) that's designed to work with Windows Vista only.

So - were they dumped for practical reasons or for punitive reasons? What do people think?

Onto a different aspect of this story - the company being touted as the most likely supplier of replacement chips is Samsung (allready a supplier of a good deal of ipod flash memory). Is it really wise for Apple to trust a competitor with components crucial to Apple's core business? (ipods are Apple's core business now).

Well, I guess Apple are happy doing business like this

"Virtual PC costs a couple hundred bucks, Boot Camp doesn't;"

And unless Apple starts selling OEM compies of Windows with their machines, Apple users will be forced to pay full retail price for Windows, which is...a couple hundred bucks.

What the heck. Virtual PC with Windows XP Pro costs less than Windows XP Pro itself.

Virtual PC + XP Pro: $249
Windows XP Pro by itself: $299

"Virtual PC costs a couple hundred bucks, Boot Camp doesn't;"

And unless Apple starts selling OEM compies of Windows with their machines, Apple users will be forced to pay full retail price for Windows, which is...a couple hundred bucks.

What the heck. Virtual PC with Windows XP Pro costs less than Windows XP Pro itself.

Virtual PC + XP Pro: $249
Windows XP Pro by itself: $299

Personally, I became concerned when I learned that Microsoft had rewritten the TCP/IP stack in Vista/Longhorn and added some of their own protocols.

For those who do not understand, the TCP/IP stack in almost all OSes is based on the original BSD stack. The protocols all have specific rules. Every part of the OSI Layers serves a specific function. It works and should not be monkeyed with.

It is scary when Microsoft decides they can do something better than the IEEE. Anyone remember WINS? How well did that work? It seems they learned their lesson. Now, instead of trying to compete with TCP/IP, they are going to rewrite their own needs into the protocols. This is very, very scary.

Here are the boring technical details.

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/community/columns /cableguy/cg0905.mspx

Be afraid, be very afraid.....

"Give me one link to show that Win2k was marketed by MS at the home market of Win9x users. One link. I dare you."

Nice try. We weren't talking about the "home market", we were talking about Win9x vs. NT. Here's a link to a MS press release that talks about how great Windows 2000 is for laptop use: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2000/n ov00/11-14w2k.mspx

I'm sure that you'd agree that the vast majority of laptop users were not running Windows NT. If you ever actually ran NT on a laptop (as I have) you'd also realize that laptop NT users were very pleased with Windows 2000 when they upgraded.

I'm sure I could find additional links, but the dare was for one.

Why is it that every few months I hear someone clamor for a standard to do this, when there already is one, and it is already supported by 90% of the PCs on the planet?

Check out the ICRA which has been around since the late 90s. A standard which is already supported by Internet Explorer and most commercial internet filtering software.

The "home" edition of Vista won't support the interfaces. So, any software oriented toward home use cannot depend on the feature.

That is incorrect. The grandparent was referring to Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF, codenamed "Avalon"). You're getting it confused with the Aero interface, which is the glass effect and 3D-accelerated desktop.

WPF is the next-generation API for powering managed application UI and graphics (but not gaming graphics; Direct3D will handle that). WPF is something developers will use to create applications, while Aero is a Vista-specific enhancement that requires no additional work by applications.

WPF is already available in beta through the WinFX SDK, and runs on XP SP2 and Vista. There is no Professional requirement, and WPF is fully capable of rendering without hardware acceleration. Moreover, there's a subset of WPF called WPF/e that's crossplatform and will be available at least on Mac and Firefox.

Well, lets see.

A 10-second google search returns:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&client=oper a&rls=en&q=delete+OR+remove+%22local+printer%22+wi ndows+commandline+OR+%22command+line%22&btnG=Searc h

So you can use the same DLL that the GUI calls behind the scenes:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q189105/

Or you can use the built-in prnmngr.vbs that ships with xp:
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/w indows/xp/all/proddocs/en-us/prnmngr.mspx?mfr=true

(and dont forget about prnmngr.vbs' siblings: prnport.vbs and prndrvr.vbs for managing printer ports and printer drivers, respectively)

Or if you really like WMI programming, pick the language of your choice and manage them directly via WMI.

Combine either of these (plus I'm sure there are others that I dont know about) with either RunAs.exe or RaiseMyRights, depending on whether you need the removal to be done globally or for that non-priv'd profile.

Well, lets see.

A 10-second google search returns:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&client=oper a&rls=en&q=delete+OR+remove+%22local+printer%22+wi ndows+commandline+OR+%22command+line%22&btnG=Searc h

So you can use the same DLL that the GUI calls behind the scenes:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q189105/

Or you can use the built-in prnmngr.vbs that ships with xp:
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/w indows/xp/all/proddocs/en-us/prnmngr.mspx?mfr=true

(and dont forget about prnmngr.vbs' siblings: prnport.vbs and prndrvr.vbs for managing printer ports and printer drivers, respectively)

Or if you really like WMI programming, pick the language of your choice and manage them directly via WMI.

Combine either of these (plus I'm sure there are others that I dont know about) with either RunAs.exe or RaiseMyRights, depending on whether you need the removal to be done globally or for that non-priv'd profile.

Actually, in NT's case ACLs are an OS feature because all kernel objects exported to user mode (including events, mutexes, semaphores, processes, threads, sections, files, and registry keys) have a security descriptor, which includes a discretionary ACL that controls access, an owner and a system ACL that controls auditing (and mandatory access controls in Vista). The behavior and interface for all SDs in NT are the same. The fact that some filesystems like FAT don't support ACLs means that they are crippled in NT, not that some filesystems like NTFS support ACLs and so are special.

That said, ACLs are a good example of something that's well done in general on NT but are way too complicated for home user use. The old UNIX ogw/rwx would've been much better. NT's security model is too complicated for most software devs too; most assume full access to everything and leave new objects with default security.

One small correction: NT 3.1 released in 1993 and had all of the features you mentioned, except for OpenGL which was added for NT 3.5 in 1994.

Microsoft released an OS ahead of its time for general purpose desktop use in 1993 that was a bit too heavy (16MB minimum was a lot; people choked on Win95 needing 4-8MB two years later) and has made some improvements since then. Windows 2000 added the modern plug and play and USB support that NT has now (Linux didn't have plug and play, power and ACPI support as good in 2000, maybe even now). The kernel hasn't changed much (biggest change was the plug&play system) since its first version even when compared to Vista, because it was done properly in the first place. The subsystems that aren't so well done like the Win32 environment and even the shell (a security disaster and way too single threaded) are apprently the sames ones that will be in Vista. Originally I had heard that these were being completely rewritten, with Win32 being superceded by .NET, but those were the first features to go in the big 2004 restart.

One of the big features of Vista is supposed to be the addition of a resolution-independent scaling layer. The sad thing is that the GDI in NT 3.1 supported page-space scaling (same thing that's used to scale for DPI on printers, which is just another display device). There is also support for world transformations (that no one uses because 9x doesn't support it) that can scale and rotate all GDI output (drawing, bitmaps, fonts, etc.) that could surely be extended to the entire screen. Microsoft just has never bothered to go that last step to actually use it.

All of the new security stuff (with the exception of mandatory access controls) is done in user mode, mostly in the shell. LUA was very much supported in NT 3.1. What Vista is adding is a hack layer that lets apps think they are running as admin when they really aren't and popping up a dialog when that doesn't work. Microsoft could've been implementing role-based security control (i.e. your email app has the intersection of access between you the user and what email apps can do) since NT 3.1 with optional SIDs or even better the deny-only SIDs introduced in Windows 2000. AFAIK, no mainstream desktop OS is doing that right now. Microsoft should be doing something new and exciting but instead they are struggling with minor improvements. I know that they have a LOT of compatibility baggage to lug around, but there must be something bigger holding them back.

One small correction: NT 3.1 released in 1993 and had all of the features you mentioned, except for OpenGL which was added for NT 3.5 in 1994.

Microsoft released an OS ahead of its time for general purpose desktop use in 1993 that was a bit too heavy (16MB minimum was a lot; people choked on Win95 needing 4-8MB two years later) and has made some improvements since then. Windows 2000 added the modern plug and play and USB support that NT has now (Linux didn't have plug and play, power and ACPI support as good in 2000, maybe even now). The kernel hasn't changed much (biggest change was the plug&play system) since its first version even when compared to Vista, because it was done properly in the first place. The subsystems that aren't so well done like the Win32 environment and even the shell (a security disaster and way too single threaded) are apprently the sames ones that will be in Vista. Originally I had heard that these were being completely rewritten, with Win32 being superceded by .NET, but those were the first features to go in the big 2004 restart.

One of the big features of Vista is supposed to be the addition of a resolution-independent scaling layer. The sad thing is that the GDI in NT 3.1 supported page-space scaling (same thing that's used to scale for DPI on printers, which is just another display device). There is also support for world transformations (that no one uses because 9x doesn't support it) that can scale and rotate all GDI output (drawing, bitmaps, fonts, etc.) that could surely be extended to the entire screen. Microsoft just has never bothered to go that last step to actually use it.

All of the new security stuff (with the exception of mandatory access controls) is done in user mode, mostly in the shell. LUA was very much supported in NT 3.1. What Vista is adding is a hack layer that lets apps think they are running as admin when they really aren't and popping up a dialog when that doesn't work. Microsoft could've been implementing role-based security control (i.e. your email app has the intersection of access between you the user and what email apps can do) since NT 3.1 with optional SIDs or even better the deny-only SIDs introduced in Windows 2000. AFAIK, no mainstream desktop OS is doing that right now. Microsoft should be doing something new and exciting but instead they are struggling with minor improvements. I know that they have a LOT of compatibility baggage to lug around, but there must be something bigger holding them back.

all new software from Microsoft will ONLY work correctly on the new Vista OS. Want to run Visual Studio XXII? Sorry, built especially for Vista. Office 21? Sorry, Vista only. Halo 2 for the PC, sorry...well, you get the point.

Visual Studio 2005 works with Windows 2000, XP, Server 2003, and Vista. Office 2003 works with Windows 2000 and XP.

On the other hand, Windows Media Player 10 requires XP, even though there's no good technical reason why it won't work with Windows 2000.

all new software from Microsoft will ONLY work correctly on the new Vista OS. Want to run Visual Studio XXII? Sorry, built especially for Vista. Office 21? Sorry, Vista only. Halo 2 for the PC, sorry...well, you get the point.

Visual Studio 2005 works with Windows 2000, XP, Server 2003, and Vista. Office 2003 works with Windows 2000 and XP.

On the other hand, Windows Media Player 10 requires XP, even though there's no good technical reason why it won't work with Windows 2000.

You might want to give Win PE (Microsoft Windows Preinstallation Environment) a try.

http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/programs/sa/ben efits/winpe.mspx

If that doesn't work for you, then by all means take a look at BartPE, as the person above recommended.

http://www.nu2.nu/pebuilder/

Good luck!

The corporate world will jump on the upgrade bandwagon for 2 simple reasons:
1) New PCs will be shipped with Vista
2) XP (security) updates will be discontinued.

1) The corporate world uses volume licenses. The vast majority of PCs they order (using special corporate accounts with the PC maker) have no OS on them. They can continue to use their Windows XP volume license on new PCs.

2) XP Pro updates will be discontinued in 2011 at the earliest.

In Unix, I can assign a file an owner, one or more groups, and the type of access I want groups, owner, and everyone else to have to that file.

You can do this in Windows too.

I can also be logged in as a user, and then also log in as root if I need to make some system changes, without logging off as a users. In Windows, I must go through an annoying process of switching accounts to log in as an administrator.

They've finally fixed this in Vista from what I've heard. They've named it User Account Control. Basically it will only run the programs that needs admin access in the context of an administrator account, after asking you first.

I know that modern applications are not supposed to write to the Program Files directory and are supposed to write to the Application Data directory under the users specific directory... unfortunatly, the majority of software programs are not created to do that!

So it's Microsofts fault that application writers ignore Microsofts advice for how to write "proper" installers for Windows? Yeah backwards compatebility is an issue, but it's been like 6 years since the "Documents and Settings" directory was born.

Why can't Microsoft just borrow the Unix permission system, it is not like it is patented or anything?

It already has a superset of the Unix permission system, so I don't see how this is neccessary? For a file (or registry key etc), you can set permissions for any number of groups and users, and in a much more fine grained manner than the standard Unix way (unless you're using POSIX ACLs).