Domain: windowsvistablog.com
Stories and comments across the archive that link to windowsvistablog.com.
Comments · 47
-
Re:Doublethink
There always exists the analog hole. I don't dispute that. But that's not the problem that DRM was designed to solve, and nor can it.
Actually, it is .
-
Re:It's the DRM Stupid!Here is Microsoft's own explanation of how their DRM allows content to turn off capabilities of your computer.
What I hear about - and only hear about because I haven't had to touch a Vista machine - is that people have their video resolution handicapped, and that the latest service pack messes up boot authorization if you have dual boot. Somebody who actually has to touch Vista could tell you much more.
-
Re:multitouch?
I believe that it's multi-finger gestures, although I may be wrong. This video is one of MS's recent demos of Windows 7.
-
Kernel is Being "Refined"
Maybe not exactly what people had in mind, but here's a quote from the Vista blog by Chris Flores:
http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2008/05/27/communicating-windows-7.aspx
Contrary to some speculation, Microsoft is not creating a new kernel for Windows 7. Rather, we are refining the kernel architecture and componentization model introduced in Windows Vista. While these changes will increase our engineering agility, they will not impact the user experience or reduce application or hardware compatibility. In fact, one of our design goals for Windows 7 is that it will run on the recommended hardware we specified for Windows Vista and that the applications and devices that work with Windows Vista will be compatible with Windows 7. -
Re:I think you can BUY your way out too.
You are wrong... if that was true you'd think any built in app (all of which are signed) would be elevated automatically.
Instead signing the binary changes the prompt to say that the program is at least from a verified publisher... but still leaves it to you to decide if you want to elevate or not.
For more info on the kinds of UAC prompts that exists see: http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2007/01/25/accessible-uac-prompts.aspx -
Re:If this is true...
Actually there's a group policy that you can set that requires the SAS before you can enter a UAC prompt to mitigate that threat. It's not on by default because even Microsoft figured it would be too annoying. See here for more details.
But for those customers who are worried about that threat, there's a mitigation that's built in.
The backup and restore privileges are disabled in a UAC token (you can verify this trivially with process explorer). Which means that you need to elevate to enable them. And once you've elevated, there's no point in asking you again, since you're already an admin.
If VMWare is hosting malware that bypasses the SAS prompt, that's out-of-scope for UAC, because you essentially have installed a hardware rootkit. -
Re:Really?
Thanks for quoting the sources of these supposed multiple refutations, pointing out specifically why any of the things I quoted are not true. Oh, I guess I'll just have to take your word for it. Of course.
No, you don't. But if you're interested in the topic you would have already read the refutations. Indeed, you even linked to one yourself.
If they have not convinced you, then there is nothing I will be able to add that will. However, they most certainly *do* refute pretty much everything of note that Gutman claimed.
Nice, that's 2 out of the 4 things I listed - so much for "none of this actually happens".
* Code present in DLLs is only taking up memory if it is executed. No DRM-encumbered media, no code execution.
* To avoid the higher hardware and driver costs involved, don't buy DRM-capable hardware.
* Your laptop battery doesn't drain any faster because if you're not playing DRM-encumbered content, none of the "checking" is happening.In short, if you avoid DRM-encumbered media and DRM-capable hardware, then DRM will have zero impact on you. If you *do* have DRM-encumbered content, then Vista won't limit you with it any more than any other player would.
The DRM argument fails because DRM is either irrelevant (you don't have any DRM-encumbered content, or don't have capable hardware) or useful (because you do have DRM-encumbeed content and want to use it).
-
Re:Really?
No DRM-encumbered media, no DRM. Your argument fails.
Not at all. You are assuming that the design of Windows makes sense, or that it is designed with the end user in mind. Stop making that mistake.
For one thing, the DRM code is still there in many (loaded) DLL's, thus using memory (even if it may not be actively in use in the absence of DRM-encumbered media). The increased costs for hardware and driver development to make all this stuff even work, are paid for by you, the end user. Decreased driver stability due to the entirely new driver model (necessary to support DRM)? Guess who can deal with the problems it causes...yup...that would be you. Laptop battery draining faster because drivers are checking all the time whether protected media is present and whether the system is uncompromised (also happening while no DRM'ed media is actually present)?
I guess you can spot the trend by now. -
Re:How about ...
According to Brandon LeBlanc on the Vista Blog, "SP1 doesn't deliver any new drivers within the service pack itself." This stands true for both the 32 bit and the 64 bit versions.
For bonus amusement, look on the page for the inane threats from one "drqc terry". -
Re:12 blog comments = news ?
You know... I have no problem with the whole blog thing, and there is a "possibility" of finding some news at some of them I suppose.. but this blog has a whopping 182 comments on the SP1 release.. of which there were the "dozen" problems.. This isn't any gage of anything.. and to top it off.. the blog is not at the link in the Slashdot submission.. it's at.... http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/default.aspx
-
automatic updates?
I believe MS said they would not roll it to fully automated updates till they fixes some driver installation problem that was displayed in the RC.
They however failed to tell what drivers were affected, and how you can manually fix it. Yanking the power cord certainly is not the method MS would recommend. It htink you need the install disk and run some kind of recovery mode. (that is how it worked under XP.
The linked forum post is referring to a RC, not to the RTM.
http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2008/02/11/windows-vista-sp1-availability-for-technical-customers.aspx
"For broad availability, we are still planning to release in mid-March, since we want to be sure that everyone has the smoothest experience possible.". You can have it earlier if you are want to touch buttons....
windows update is only pushing
the final two of three prerequisite updates needed to install Windows Vista SP1
basically it says you still need 2 more reboots before you can have sp1 automatically. -
automatic updates?
I believe MS said they would not roll it to fully automated updates till they fixes some driver installation problem that was displayed in the RC.
They however failed to tell what drivers were affected, and how you can manually fix it. Yanking the power cord certainly is not the method MS would recommend. It htink you need the install disk and run some kind of recovery mode. (that is how it worked under XP.
The linked forum post is referring to a RC, not to the RTM.
http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2008/02/11/windows-vista-sp1-availability-for-technical-customers.aspx
"For broad availability, we are still planning to release in mid-March, since we want to be sure that everyone has the smoothest experience possible.". You can have it earlier if you are want to touch buttons....
windows update is only pushing
the final two of three prerequisite updates needed to install Windows Vista SP1
basically it says you still need 2 more reboots before you can have sp1 automatically. -
Vista SP1 available later this month
Looks like microsoft changed their mind after all the feedback:
http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2008/02/11/windows-vista-sp1-availability-for-technical-customers.aspx -
Re:Do they even care anymore?
My only guess for this behaviour ( desrcibed here: http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2008/02/11/windows-vista-sp1-availability-for-technical-customers.aspx is that they either think (or know) that most of their MSDN and Technet customers are also VLP customers. Otherwise this is a completely assinine move on microsofts part.
-
Re:Well, I'm sure it will be stable!
Anyone have bets as to how long before a significant program of widespread use is broken
That's quite tongue-in-cheek since an xorg-server-core update broke half a dozen applications of widespread use in about 5 seconds. Microsoft has a much more thorough testing process, and a much larger testing base. The public beta method Microsoft uses means that nobody should have trouble with the service pack once it's installed correctly. Also, one of the ideas behind Vista SP1 is increased compatibility:Application compatibility, too, improves significantly with SP1. While this area includes consumer-oriented applications, incompatible enterprise applications were the big deployment blockers over the past year. In the past year, Microsoft and its partners have remediated over 150 enterprise application blockers: These are applications that previously prevented one or more corporations from upgrading to Vista.
D'oh!Beyond that, has there been any actual basis showing that SP1 (of the testers) adds any form of significant performance enhancements?
Paul Thurrott's Vista SP1 FAQ
If you read the whitepaper (a, b) for Vista SP1 performance wasn't high up on to-do list. Personally, Vista runs fine for me (except for file copying, where Microsoft fucked up big time). I put Vista on a Duron 850 with 512mb of RAM for shits and giggles, and it ran like a dog with three legs. I put Windows XP on there and it ran acceptably. I run Vista on a 1.8Ghz dual core machine with 1GB of RAM and it runs plenty fast. -
Re:Vista Annoyances- it is like they read my mind
don't shut down, just send to hibernate, not sleep, hibernate. no need to restart pc each day. hibernate gives vista a more tv like operation. also, don't cheap out on the ram...
:-) Vista Hibernate /btw, sleep is good but hibernate is better for overnight. -
And be fair to people with low incomeIf more people here that are Windows users for gaming, etc would take an hour and install Vista for themselves For many of us, installing Windows Vista would take much longer than one hour. Windows Vista has an order of magnitude higher system requirements than the Windows 5.x operating systems (Windows 2000 and Windows XP) that most Windows PCs run, and a lot of paid-for PCs wouldn't score much above 1.0 on the Windows Experience Index. Unlike some software, computer hardware is not small-f free, and a lot of us make well under 10 USD per hour after the overheads for tax, rent, food, and utilities are taken off.
-
Re:Of course..It's not about changing time, only the time zone. If Windows would store the system time in UTC this would only change the way the time is displayed to the user, not the internal time.
There is nothing sensitive about that. Windows system time has always been in UTC. By default before Vista both changing the time and changing the time zone required that the user running the program be in the admin group (though Admins could change this and let anyone do it), but in Vista Microsoft changed things so that unprivileged users could change the time zone -
http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2007/01/23/security-features-vs-convenience.aspx To do this, we had to go through the various system tasks that users perform and for each one ask the question: "should the user have to be an administrator to complete this task?" What we found was that in Windows XP there were many cases where we required the administrative privilege if the user was making a change that impacted the entire system (rather than just their user account). We subsequently learned that this was too broad a distinction and in fact, with some common sense rules, we could protect the system while still making it usable. We also found that there were many cases in previous versions of Windows where we had lumped things together when instead only part of the task really should have required the user to be an administrator. For example, in Windows XP you had to be an administrator in order to change the time or the time zone of the system. The reason that time functions are usually restricted is that you can do some pretty sneaky things if you can change the system time -- like trick system logs or backdate emails. But as it turns out, changing the time zone of the machine so that a business traveler based on the West Coast goes to their meetings at the right time when they are visiting New York really doesnt need to be protected -- so in Windows Vista, we split that out and now allow a standard user to change the time zone. If you have a Vista machine, try it. Right click on the clock in task bar and choose Adjust Date and Time. Changing the time requires a UAC prompt, changing the time zone does not.
Incidentally Windows system time is stored as a 64 bit count of 100ns intervals since 1601. Why 100ns? Larry Osterman said
http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2004/08/25/220195.aspx#220259 Because 100ns is "good enough". You can represent any date from the 1601 to the year 20,000 in 64bits worth of 100ns units.
1ns is too small, it runs out in 200 years. 1000ns is too granular for some clock speeds (it's 1/10th of a millisecond). Interesting, eh? 200 years was regard as too short a lifetime for NT based OSs and APIs, Dave Cutler probably expects NT to have a thousand year reign ;-) . And 1000ns was too granular. Some book I read commented that the range of FILETIME is ok, but "in twenty years 100ns will be seen as hopelessly coarse"
Unix by contrast uses a 32 bit count of seconds which is both too coarse and will run out in a mere 30 years. -
Re:Vista is #10?
Well, considering Vista's "Content Protection" is talked about very specifically by Microsoft itself, including Windows Vista Content Protection - Twenty Questions (and Answers), it would appear that nobody including Microsoft is denying its existence in Vista, or that it goes far beyond what any previous operating system would do with regard to "Content Protection."
Here's a quote specifically from the the link above, which is provided by Microsoft itself:
"Windows Vista includes content protection infrastructure specifically designed to help ensure that protected commercial audiovisual content, such as newly released HD-DVD or Blu-Ray discs, can be enjoyed on Windows Vista PCs. In many cases this content has policies associated with its use that must be enforced by playback devices. The policies associated with such content are applicable to all types of devices including Windows Vista PCs, computers running non-Windows operating systems, and standalone consumer electronics devices such as DVD players. If the policies required protections that Windows Vista couldn't support, then the content would not be able to play at all on Windows Vista PCs."
Just because you have yet to run into Vista's DRM or that you don't deal much with A/V content that would cause you to notice limitations when using Vista doesn't mean that it isn't a significant issue for many people. Oh, and if you read the questions Microsoft responded to in the Vista blog you will also notice that Microsoft does admit the DRM will increase CPU resource consumption.
Wired also has an article covering Vista's DRM that specifically addresses criticism of Vista's DRM and Microsoft's response to that criticism. And if you'd like to see what your boss is reading, Forbes also has an article on Vista DRM entitled "Why Vista's DRM Is Bad For You."
Perhaps you should do some research before you post.
-
Re:Times
There had been *no* official publicly announced release dates, until possibly this one, and even that's dubious. Internet news services desperate for scoops are not official announcements.
The issues raised are hardly evidence of the serious flaws you implied.
-
Re:Great work guys!
This is a review from PCWorld. Granted, they're not the most reliable source on earth, but hey, those where the only highlights mentioned. No performance changes? UAC annoyances under control? Improved speed on top-of-the-line hardware?
I guess will see when it's out. The official info is fuzzy, to say the least. -
Re:"Instrumentation"
Depends on what you think it means.
If you opted-in for the Customer Experience Improvement Program, then it records a bunch of data about your system and how you use it and uploads it to Microsoft.
A couple of key points:
1) It's opt-in, so it's not sending data unless you said to do so.
2) It's anonymous. It does not collect any information that can be used to identify you.
http://www.microsoft.com/products/ceip/en-us/default.mspx
http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/pages/windows-vista-service-pack-1-beta-whitepaper.aspx -
Re:The problem with Ed Bott's response
> No one outside of the core development team at Microsoft can claim any competence on the DRM implementation
And yet, even when they reply you won't believe it. Gutmann's sensationalism makes much better headlines. -
Re:It means "XP" to me
It's sad that you got modded up, but at least the moderator was smart enough to use "underrated" to prevent from being M2ed for modding up crap.
It's not like Microsoft is not releasing bug fixes until Q1 2008
RTFA. That's exactly what's happening. Straight from the article, straight from Microsoft's product manager himself:
SP1's purpose is not primarily as a feature-delivery vehicle but as a way to improve the user experience and enhance it in some areas.
... On the other hand, security may be a greater concern, and numerous I.T. professionals and system administrators have provided ideas for enhancing the security advances fundamental to Windows Vista. Among these was the ability to extend BitLocker encryption beyond the bootable volume to other partitions on your hard disk, as made possible by SP1.
:headdesk:
Yes, that's right, you'll have to wait until Q1 2008 to be able to encrypt more than one partition. Read the whitepaper they link to: it provides a nice list of the bug fixes you'll have to wait to get. -
Re:vista sp1
Because I can slipstream it into my original CD, and should i need to re-install, I won't have to redownload all the updates.
From http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/pag es/windows-vista-service-pack-1-beta-whitepaper.as pxSP1 will change a significant number of files; customers cannot apply SP1 to offline Windows Vista images.
andSlipstream. The slipstream version of Windows Vista SP1 is media that already contains the service pack, which companies can use to deploy the operating system to new computers or to upgrade existing computers. Availability will be limited. Microsoft will update Windows Vista retail media with Windows Vista SP1 slipstream media in the future. Slipstream media will also be available to Volume Licensing customers.
Even if they have not officially stated the SP1 will not be slipstreamable those quotes are starting the make me a bit worried. Luckily first paragraph might simply be badly worded and the second might be referring to free copies of a Vista SP1 dvd so we will just have to wait and see. -
Re:A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protec
If I recall, some of this was discredited later.
You mean the part where Microsoft replied to this article with the usual corporate/marketing-speak and then got utterly slaughtered (in the comments and in other media subsequently reporting about that), not just in some random blog, but on their own Vista blog (which they fully control)? -
Re:what a shitty BF though..
At the moment, it's 5.9. 6.0 and up is undefined and reserved for future hardware changes. (P.S., this is the first result for the query "vista experience scale" on Google.)
-
Re:5.9?
The sort of geek that rounds to the nearest 0.1, and then doesn't define what is required to obtain a 6?
Check out:
http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/pag es/458117.aspx
Yes, Microsoft only have enough benchmarks to say that something "really surpasses the 5 benchmark by quite a lot". Apparently getting a 6 would require them to define what a 6 "meant" in terms of Windows usability, and beyond 5.9 they haven't thought of anything a more powerful machine could do better.
Frankly, I find the concept that Microsoft might run out of CPU-intensive eyecandy this quick to be pretty suspect. Having used Vista, I wouldn't have though it was possible to get it to run seamlessly any time in the next 3 years! -
Speed not sizeFrom "Windows Experience Index: An In-Depth Look"
The disk score measures disk bandwidth (in Mega Bytes per Second). The conversion to an index number is set up in a way that all modern disks will score at least 2.0.
-
Re:Wow, so many Vista Experts on SlashDot
Fact#1: No, DRM has nothing to do with file copying, that is FUD. There is a known bug about the 'estimation' process, and you can find a hotfix on the net as one of my techs just reminded me. The DRM in Vista is 'protected processes' i.e. processes that no other process can gain access to even with admin rights. This is part DRM implemntation and part security. However it does not come into play when copying files, DRMed files are internally flagged, and copy as regular files, it is when they are tried to be played on another computer does the DRM check ever happen. Also this is just WMA, WMV, and works like XP. And the playback 'protected pipelines' truly don't come into play on copy media.
Fact#2: Aero does NOT consume more battery power. Aero was a concern in Beta, and there were some bad GPU drivers 'in beta', but since the release of Vista, this is SO not the case. Go find articles where people actually test this. There are 'reasons' why Aero makes up for itself by saving performance in diferent areas. If you think about it, the composer is keeping vector and bitmap applications from having to redraw the window all the time, so this would help offset other GPU usage. Pushing Vector and Bitmap data from RAM to the screen is NOT sucking or using much 3D power, truly...
Here are the first Google links I found, go find others, I think even a few gaming mags and Toms have done reports on this as well refuting the Aero battery drain myths.
http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/arc hive/2007/05/14/aero-and-battery-life.aspx
http://weblog.infoworld.com/enterprisedesktop/arch ives/2007/05/the_vista_aero.html
Fact #3: There is still issues with file security where the don't give the administrator of the computer access to certain directives. You have to go in and change ownership, give me a fucking break. Like I want to spend time a clients house to deal with that shit?
This is somewhat true, but this is called security. I know it is new to the Windows world and strange to everyone else because MS has not given Windows Vista users an equivalent to root account, as even as Administrator with UAC off, certain system level files have higher security. However, as you state, you can take ownership and do what you want with them. So MS actually putting 'better' security in an OS is bad how again?
Games seem to run slow on my machine, maybe I need more memeory, but I have two gigs... I get 10 frames per second less on all my games. But it could be my machine, it seems more like a driver thing though.
Actually you should check out drivers, and see if newer versions don't pull a bit more performance out of your system.
Here are a couple of tips.
ATI Cards, version 9.2 seems to be faster for lower end cards.
ATI 14xx - 29xx the newest driver is faster.
NVidia FX 5xxx series 97.19 is currently the fastest driver.
NVidida 6xxx-8xxx usually the latest or one of the latest beta drivers are the fastest. (Find new and Beta NVidia drivers on www.laptopvideo2go.com, even for desktops, as they seems to stay up on versions and also offer updated INFs for non-standard chipsets.)
The January drivers or the in box Vista drivers are truly slower than XP, this is accepted by everyone. However, the Feb-Current drivers for Vista are on par with XP for most people in terms of performance. Like I said the WDDM required ATI/NVidia to write the drivers from scratch and since then they have been fixing and profiling games for optimal performance, which they had the luxury of years of testing on XP that no longer applies for the Vista Drivers.
Our techs tend to dispell the 'games are slower' on Vista by demonstrating a DirectX game and an OpenGL game running in a Window with Aero enabled, and sho -
Sorry to disappoint . . .
Apparently the three guys in the photo are on Microsoft's Anti-Piracy team, and the other three photos are of art that are in the public domain. From the Vista Team Blog: http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/ar
c hive/2007/06/13/the-devil-is-in-the-details.aspx -
Re:Avoid CLick through
This isn't an anti-piracy measure, Microsoft is actually pretty upset about it.
Some would disagree. -
Re:What about the adoption of 64-bit?You might have missed the article from a few days ago but Microsoft already announced that the next version of Windows will be 64-bit only. http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/17/14522
2 8 -
Re:Why Upgrade at all?
In these days of global warming, and all the mass hysteria about it, and companies/governments trying to reduce carbon emissions...
We have microsoft, come out with a new hugely bloated OS that will result in lots of old computers being dumped, and will consume far more electricity than previous versions. Microsoft aren't doing their bit to reduce global warming, they are making the problem much worse.
Interesting. Care to share any hard data supporting that?
My understanding was that updates to the power management system in Vista where rather significant, and aimed specifically at reducing the power consumption of modern hardware. There was an old post about it on the vista team blog, with the details and relevant links (whitepaper, etc): http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/arc hive/2006/12/08/windows-vista-power-management.asp x
Are you aware of any bugs, or any benchmarks that indicate the contrary?
I've heard/read about people claiming that the power-management changes confusing and/or overhyped, but I don't think I've read of any supported claims that Vista consumes more electricity than XP on the same hardware so far. -
Groklaw coverage
Is this not the same thing Groklaw covered quite sometime back? There are several updates in the link, including a clarification from Allchin on that 'I'd buy a Mac' quote.
-
Re:My impressionsAbout the hibernation...
http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/arc hive/2006/12/08/windows-vista-power-management.asp x While Hybrid Sleep can be used on a laptop computer, it isn't as applicable to laptops for a couple of reasons. First, a desktop is vulnerable to power loss, while a laptop can of course run on its internal battery. A laptop can also detect or even wake up from standby when the battery is low so Windows can save everything to the disk before the battery is completely drained -- and remember, in the sleep state all the battery needs to do is to refresh the RAM, which takes very little power. Also, mobile users want a grab-n-go usage model, so taking extra time after the laptop lid is closed spinning the disk to write out a potentially large hibernate file could be a problem. Lastly, after a laptop has been in sleep for a while, the system will wake up and immediately go into the hibernate state. This state uses absolutely no power, so even the minimal battery drain used in standby is removed. If the system is in this power state when the user wants to use the system, then the system state is restored from disk. So basically... close the lid and stop trying to micromanage the power-saving mode of your laptop! :) -
Vista in just 2 URL'sA Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection - and yes, an increased cost of video cards is very much relevant to me as a gamer - as is bad sound support, such as lack of EAX.
The completely spin-doctored reaction by Microsoft didn't help much. Be sure to read the comments on that one..they're basically getting slaughtered on their own weblog.
Just a highlight I'll quote here:Question: Will the Windows Vista content protection board robustness recommendations increase the cost of graphics cards?
Says it all for me, really.
Answer by MS: evades the question, but suggests the answer is no.
Answers from an ATI presentation:
"These costs are passed on to the consumer"
"This cost is passed on to all consumers"
"This cost is passed on to purchasers of multimedia PC's"
"Costs are passed on to consumers"
"Costs are passed on to consumers, especially early adopters" -
Re:Some...
I'd suggest that you watch the video. It's not the 3D graphics that he's talking about.
Also, I've had OS X on my laptop since July of 2001. Aqua was first released to the world in an OS X alpha build presented at MacWorld in January of 2000. According to the Wikipedia article (if we can trust that), work on Vista started in May of 2001. And Aero (even if not by that name) has only been in Vista since build 4074 (according to the Wikipedia article on Aero); Paul Thurrott's images of that build are dated May 5, 2004.
So, some might "remember" that even before OS X was launched for its first version, the "Vista Road Map" had been published clearly stating that Aero has always been slated as part of the operating system - but they'd be remembering wrong.
Well, if you can believe Jim Allchin:We changed dramatically the development process that was being used and we reset the Windows Vista development project in mid-2004, essentially starting over.
I don't know, isn't June 28th, 2004 just about mid-2004? -
Re:If anybody...
Okay, let's look at each of those links in turn:
1) 1digit.blogspot.com: (December 2nd) "Microsoft said today that consumer versions of its next-generation version of Windows would not hit the market until January 2007, dashing plans that it would be on PCs for sale during the 2006 end-of-year holiday season."
Actually, MS had announced the January date much earlier than that: http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/arc hive/2006/11/08/windows-vista-releases-to-manufact uring.aspx
From that same page: "And just what is this so-called RTM? It's the major milestone where we can confidently say that Microsoft is done with Windows Vista and will be handing it off to our industry partners: PC makers, ISVs and IHVs." What does "Microsoft is done with Windows Vista" mean to you? To me, it means their part of the code is complete. If hardware manufacturers improve some drivers between now and January 30th, that's fine, great, and I'll update appropriately - but that's entirely different to the picture you paint. Of course, you appear to believe you know more about what Microsoft release than they do...
2) www.cio.com entry: Well, that's from July 11th, well before the November release, so is irrelevant: There's nothing in there which suggests the code in the November release is different to the code in the January release.
3) Washington Post: Again, nothing in there suggests to me that there's any difference between the November and January releases.
And yes, it states that hardware support and software compatibility support was a factor in the fact that Vista has released later than was originally intended. That's *not* the same as saying that there are any compatibility issues which produce a delay between the November release and the January release.
You seem to want to treat the word "delay" as if it always means "delay after shipping to businesses but before shipping to consumers" whereas in almost every case shown so far it actually means "delay between when we originally intended to release Vista and when we actually shipped it". Can you see the difference? -
You might want to get updated on your facts...
Microsoft changed their EULA so users can have unlimited license transfers: http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/ar
c hive/2006/11/02/news-revision-to-windows-vista-ret ail-licensing-terms.aspx -
Re:Huh?
Just know that while your 16 bit apps will run under Vista, but this is only true for the 32bit version of Vista, as your programs will always fail to run in the 64bit version...
I'm pretty sure a software emulator or virtualization can be used to run those 16-bit apps in the 64-bit version of Vista. Maybe this is one reason Microsoft bought Virtual PC and now offers it for free.Their Virtual PC home page says: "Microsoft will also offer the free download of Virtual PC 2007, with support for Windows Vista, available in 2007." Their Vista Team Blog page about Virtual PC 2007 Beta says: "For those not familiar with Virtual PC, it also works the other way around--you can run Windows XP or an earlier OS on Windows Vista. This can be helpful if you have an older application that does not work well in Windows Vista."
-
-1, Outdated
According to this, the startup sound can now be disabled. If you want a different startup sound, you can disable the "Windows Startup" sound, and specify a custom wav file for the "Windows Logon" event.
-
Re:Are startup sounds really necessary?
On older builds of Vista it was impossible to get rid of this sound, but after enough complaining they added a checkbox in the Sound control panel.
The sound you linked to wasn't the startup sound in the classic sence i.e. the one that means "I'm logging on, just so ya know", but instead informs you when Windows is loaded and waiting for you to log on i.e. "Hey, you can log on now". Alot of Linux distros can do this, but it's turned off by default. -
Re:Are startup sounds really necessary?
How about getting rid of the sound? What else does a startup sound inspire other than the sour feeling of having to restart the PC all the time?
On older builds of Vista it was impossible to get rid of this sound, but after enough complaining they added a checkbox in the Sound control panel. See this for more details.
-
Computers need antivirus software even with Vista
Jim Allchin has clarified his comments which were mis-interpreted.
Read here
http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/arc hive/2006/11/10/windows-vista-defense-in-depth.asp x
Jim has stated customers will need antivirus software, even with Vista. -
Hah ! Allchin Recants....
On BetaNews, it turns out Allchin has lost some bravado and is now blogging about his new insight.
-
Vista EULA just revised wrt # of installs