Slashdot Mirror

Yeah,nice idea,but MSFT purposely boned the netbooks so as not to take business from their Vista Business offering. XP Home lacks AD login,most of the Group Policy settings,etc. See this link for a list of differences. Pretty worthless in a business setting. On the other hand the Xandros EEE is just Xandros with a different shell. Now I don't know if they based it on Xandros Home or Business,but I can tell you from experience that Xandros Business plays REAL nice with Windows server based networks. I've never had any trouble logging onto an AD domain with Xandros Business,in fact it would log in faster than my XP partition would.

So if all you are wanting to do with the laptop is work on the road you'll be fine. But if you are going to be logging into the AD Domain at work you'll have to install XP Pro on it or one of the Linux distros like Xandros Business that plays nice with Windows Domains.

No, No, No. NT did not derive from OS/2. And it was never released as OS/2 win nt history. It was supposed to be a new foundation for OS/2 3.0, but never was. All the OS/2 subsystems were switched with Windows equivalents. You might be better off including VMS, instead of OS/2 as the NT team hailed from DEC.

If you're not interested in screenshots you probably shouldn't read articles about screenshots. Just a thought.

Windows fanboy Paul Thurrott has a Windows 7 FAQ, which says there will be complete support for touch-screens (Bill is still all about them tablet PCs), a new Explorer UI, virtualization out of the box and once again they are talking about file system improvements, but I'll believe that when I see it. Basically this release looks like a more limited, like Windows XP, rather than a major update like Windows 2000 and Vista.

Are we talking about the same thing? Vista start menu. XP start menu. See all those little changes? Every single one of them pisses users off. They've made it different for the sake of being different. It's supposed to make users feel that they are getting "something new". It's the same with the control panel.

As for the networking stuff.. you have to dig about 10 layers to get to a list of network connections, then another 10 layers to get to IP settings. Yes, it was already bad in XP, but now they've made it worse in Vista. As for saying that it's "just as good", well that's just not true. Familiarity is worth something. And Vista isn't familiar.

I'm not saying we should upgrade older PCs to Vista if we don't need to (I haven't), but if XP is no longer availabe, Vista shouldn't be too much of a resource hog if the unnecessary eye candy is turned off.

I'm not saying we should upgrade older PCs to Vista if we don't need to (I haven't), but if XP is no longer availabe, Vista shouldn't be too much of a resource hog if the unnecessary eye candy is turned off.

SP3 borrows a Vista feature (presumably the same code) to detect "Router Black Holes".

From http://www.winsupersite.com/faq/xp_sp3.asp

"Black hole" router detection algorithm. XP gains the ability to ignore network routers that incorrectly drop certain kinds of network packets. This, too, is a feature of Windows Vista.

I use Windows Deployment Services (formerly Remote Installation Services/pre 2k3 sp2). Only Gotcha here is that you'll have to learn how to do Legacy Mode for XP.

DO NOT setup WDS in Native Mode.

I also slipstream with instructions found here:

http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/windowsxp_sp2_slipstream.asp

Along with Driver Packs http://driverpacks.net/

Build a CD image slipstreamed with Driver Pack, use this image to build a WDS legacy mode Installer. You'll have to figure out the answer file used by WDS, and the peculiar stuff WDS has, as well as extract from the CD the proper OEMPnPSetup Path created by Driver Packs, from the proper file.

And using AD to deploy MSI files to computers ...

It is a dream using this setup, F12 a couple of times (PXE boot) Type in Username/Password and walk away. When the computer is done loading/rebooting it is ready to use.

Implementation difficulty 8.5 (mostly due to MS WDS)

Usability difficulty 1
(Scale 1 easy, 10 difficult)

I don't use RISprep because I have had nothing but problems with it, but one of my colleagues swares by it for "lab" setups.

This is just an overview, and if you're halfway technical should be able to figure out the details from various online sources. If not, I can be hired to help further.

Prove it!

98 was always meant for home use, and 2000 was always meant of work/business use.

There was certainly no trying to get everyone to install what was absolutely a work OS at home.

Hell, there were hardly even any PCs at the consumer level that even came with 2000!

This is just a wrong argument.

I can site links, can you??
http://www.activewin.com/win2000/index.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_2000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Microsoft_Windows
http://www.winsupersite.com/faq/2000_old.asp
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/WinHistoryDesktop.mspx

Not one of them mentions it was for home use, in fact, quite the opposite.

Don't get too excited. Remember the Microsoft motto: "Our customers are our beta testers." Remember that Microsoft is the Chief of Grief -- Let someone else have the pain. Wait until the bugs are found; SP3 version 3 may be the one you want.

Windows XP was first released in 2001. Windows XP created severe problems for us until SP2 was released in 2004.

So, Windows XP gave us 3 years of misery and 3 years of relative usefulness, but with extreme vulnerability to malware. And now Microsoft has declared the death of Windows XP in June 2008.

Is it any wonder why people don't want Windows Vista?

An indication of the hassle people had with downloading 3 years of updates is this quote from Paul Thurrott, who is over-the-top pro-Microsoft, and who often apologizes for Microsoft's abusiveness in a way that tries to make abusive behavior sound less destructive: ... the 100+ updates that Microsoft has shipped since SP2 can be a nightmare to deploy.

My opinion is that Microsoft is very badly managed. Windows XP gave us 50% big hassles and 50% mild hassles. Do you want to partner with a company that has so frequently abused you in the past?

"Slipstream" is a somewhat noxiously overblown word for "updated installer image", don't you think? And all the while you scoff at those who don't care to complete the mind-bogglingly long number of steps needed to "slipstream" basic updates into an installer, Linux users have cast off that albatross entirely and simply install the right versions the first time around.

Windows still needs some really remedial rehabilitation of its package management "capabilities", and what you lot call "slipstreaming" just sounds like some long-abandoned ritual to us. I've even heard that Windows guys still primarily use the "executable installer" method of software distribution -- is that actually true? It sounded made-up to me when I heard it; probably just an exaggeration from some half-cocked Linux zealots!

As explained here, and detailed in this knowledge base, MS actually had a halfway decent reason behind it.

Name one thing XP pro can do that XP home cannot that home users would be interested in.

1. Remote desktop
2. Multi-processor (2) support
3. IIS web server
4. File-level access controls
5. Multi-language support
6. Various networking features (granted, in 2001 these wouldn't have been very popular at home)

Oops, you only asked for one. Anyway,

Some more here: http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/windowsxp_home_pro.asp/
and here: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/howtobuy/choosing2.mspx/

even if you just grab ENU. Perhaps they've fixed it now.

(The solution is to slipstream the SP2 onto the CD and make a new iso which would fit, sans SP2)

see e.g. http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/windowsxp_sp2_slipstream.asp for slipstreaming SP2 on an original or SP1 CD.

Highly recommended.

Anyone have bets as to how long before a significant program of widespread use is broken

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.

Beyond that, has there been any actual basis showing that SP1 (of the testers) adds any form of significant performance enhancements?

MinWin already exists for Vista.

MinWin is the kernel, key drivers etc. IIRC it doesn't include Win32 Subsystem. As such it is not possible to make a meaningful windows os with minwin. However it does demonstrate the principle of compentization that MS invested in that allows things like server core to be constructed so easily.

Actually just done a search it seems whilst many are propogating the MinWin fallacy thurrot is reporting it correctly http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/win7_minwin_preview.asp

I don't know why you bother with Windows Vista SP1. Windows XP didn't work fairly well until SP2. Why not let the early adopters have the grief?

Sure, that's only my opinion, but I'm not the only one who thinks that way. For example, see Why all Vista users should upgrade to Windows XP.

A good indication of how Microsoft treats its customers is the fact that it has been more than 3 years since SP2 was released on 8/10/2004. Here is a quote from Paul Thurrott, who is over-the-top pro-Microsoft, and who often apologizes for Microsoft's abusiveness in a way that tries to make abusive behavior sound less destructive: ... the 100+ updates that Microsoft has shipped since SP2 can be a nightmare to deploy.

For those who use Linux, I will explain: Windows often becomes infected with malware. It sometimes becomes unstable on its own, too; Microsoft releases sloppy, unfinished software. So, it is often necessary to re-load Windows XP SP2. Once you have done that, it is at present necessary to re-load perhaps 100 Megabytes of bug fixes that have been released since SP2. That's why delaying Service Pack 3 for Windows XP has been so damaging to customers; customers have paid millions of dollars extra because of the tedious time-consuming task of loading the 100+ updates since SP2, one at a time.

Microsoft shut down Autopatcher, which was created by volunteers. Autopatcher was a method of making installing the patches semi-automatic. I think that shows the true situation: Volunteers have to do needed work. Microsoft, which could have delivered updates using the same method, avoided making it easier and cheaper to use Windows XP.

Why buy a new product from someone who has frequently abused you in the past?

This is the overall issue, in my opinion: Microsoft somehow established, during the DOS days, that it could charge the full product price for what are actually quite minor updates. (Many people are still using Windows 2000.) So the company makes a huge amount of money each time it brings out what is actually a new version of Windows 2000 with a new name. But things have changed. Users tend to be more technically knowledgeable now. They see no reason to change if what they have now is adequate, if somewhat annoying and expensive to maintain.

Windows 98 was an abuser's dream: It had an unstable file system, insuring that everyone would want to upgrade. Abusive company managers try to delay delivering a stable system, since most people don't want anything more from an operating system than stability.

It took Microsoft 3 years to make Windows XP stable and usable with less pain -- there were 3 years from the first release of XP until SP2 was released. Three years of pain, and since then only three years of relative stability? Is that acceptable, 50% pain? Why start the pain again, with Vista?

Microsoft needs the computer builders to advertise its new update of Windows 2000, called Windows Vista. Computer builders want to sell new computers. That's why Vista uses more resources. Vista is partly an attempt to make the present hardware obsolete.

However, people are beginning to understand better, and they are more difficult to manipulate now.

It seems sensible to me to wait to use Windows Vista until Vista SP2 or SP3 is released, and then a few months after that, to learn if the service pack works well.

Quote from Slashdot's story: "Microsoft also issued a new build of Windows XP SP3 this week, but it's getting next to no publicity out of Redmond..." Maybe so, but I can't find it. I found only an 12/10/2007 SP3, a release candidate, which is supposed to be an advanced beta version.

Examining the Air's cross-section, and calculating the top and the bottom back, front, and midsection separately as discrete elements, and accounting for the radius curves along the sides, I got a combined total of 56.81 cubic inches. Larger than 52.6, but still smaller than the Eee.

Of course, that got me wondering if what was fit for the goose was fit for the gander, and lead me to search out a cross-section of the Eee, which isn't a simple trapezoid either. In fact, the Eee bulges rather sharply about a third of the way back to nearly its maximum thickness, which means it too is larger than I first calculated.

Shall we run those numbers?

It is my understanding that it is files with Alternate Data Streams being stored on a shared folder on the server that may get corrpupted. It looks like the file storage is impacted, not the backup/restore functions.

I have not been able to find information on Alternate Data Streams in Samba.

-AC

You release that they begin work on the next version of the OS soon after they launch the one they just completed, right? Aero was being worked on at least as early as 2003. Horrid linux UI (or lack thereof) is one of the reasons I dropped Linux.

Actually, you're not completely off base. SP1 will be refreshing the kernel to bring it up to date with the Server 2008 kernel, which has been in continuous development. See: http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_sp1_inside.asp

Hmm, I think this one is more thorough:
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_sp1.asp

Also note that this SP will contain hundreds of fixes as usual (especially retroactive changes and hotfixes released over the year on MSDN), so this are the major, most noticeable ones.

I've never used nLite, but I have slipstreamed manually before. It's not hard at all! You can find a nice walk-through on performing your own slipstreaming and ISO building (bootable) here. The instructions are practically spoon-fed. =)

Yes, retail buyers can do that one time. I have a hunch that most owners of XP got the OEM version and don't have that right (how many people are still using 7+ year old desktops?).

People (i.e. you 95-percenters who created this problem) are going to going to buy new PCs (and get Vista) then go out and buy a copy of XP. Pity poor MS, who gets paid twice for one PC! Maybe old Ballmer's a lot brighter than I ever give him credit for.

-a.d.-

This seems semi-ridiculous.

But I'll say the same thing here that I did last time. Basically, the reason that SP1 isn't as big as deal as a "Service Pack" normally is, is that the two "main" updates that will provide a different end-user experience have already been released.

The main "other" thing that SP1 will offer, which apparently wasn't confirmed by Nick White's post, is Paul Thurrott's statement (echoed by others, but which he has now stepped back from until he can get confirmation) that Vista SP1 will include a kernel update to 6.1. This would be the same kernel that will be in Windows Server 2008.

This seems semi-ridiculous.

But I'll say the same thing here that I did last time. Basically, the reason that SP1 isn't as big as deal as a "Service Pack" normally is, is that the two "main" updates that will provide a different end-user experience have already been released.

The main "other" thing that SP1 will offer, which apparently wasn't confirmed by Nick White's post, is Paul Thurrott's statement (echoed by others, but which he has now stepped back from until he can get confirmation) that Vista SP1 will include a kernel update to 6.1. This would be the same kernel that will be in Windows Server 2008.

It's at least worth noting that Paul Thurrott of WinSuperSite has stated in his new "SP1 Revealed" showcase that he is currently unsure whether SP1 will still include a kernel update.

I expect it still will, and they just left it off their press release, but it does seem a little weird that they wouldn't announce it.

An interesting nugget of info for you all, seeing as no-one has mentioned this yet....

The update will bring the Vista kernel to version 6.1. Why is this significant? It's the same kernel version that Windows Server 2008 will be. That means folks, that Microsoft, in effect have used Vista pre-SP1 as a test-bed for their Windows server platform. Servers crashing cause more panic than workstations, and take a guess slashdotters....which market-share are Microsoft champing at the bit for most? I'll give you a clue.....they already own the desktop.

The Vista strategy was "release and fix while in production" and in fairness, 6 months down the line, a lot has been fixed and Vista is shaping up to be a solid platform, but build numbers don't lie.

There, I said it.

*shameless copy & paste*

"Patches can be slipstreamed anyway, and for the mother of all 'off-line patching systems' there's Windows Server Update Services."

Patches can be slipstreamed anyway, and for the mother of all 'off-line patching systems' there's Windows Server Update Services.

That said, the overall rhetoric of this move still isn't nice. AutoPatcher was at the very least, a handy tool for people that didn't know about the above methods, and to leave it 4 years in the game before sending in the lawyers isn't a nice way of treating the user community. A shame if you ask me.

You can create an install disk that "slipstreams" any service packs and hot fixes. Here's a couple of resources:

Paul Thurotte's Windows SuperSite

Some dude's Blog Site (I have never used his scripts and I make no promises that it will work).

Actually the license is simple:

On the non supported platforms, you can install and run Vista in a VM, but you get zero support. On the supported platforms, MS will support you via phone or email support to resolve any issues that crop up.

With the supported versions, you are allowed to do one native install or one vm, except the Enterprise, which is one native and 4 vms per key.

http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_lice nsing.asp

Personally, I did this = Bought my one copy for learning it for field repairs. Bound that copy or Ultimate to my main wworkstation. Each vm is using the trial and the rearm hack. To me I dont need 2 more keys, since the vms dont do anything except extend my workstation to the road. If MS became hostile, I would choose to just run ONE vm, and host it off of a remote VMWare server. Vista does nothing for me that RHEL cannot do, much less at even remotely the same quality as RHEL.

MS to me is running scared and is trying to magically create cash to influx into its next product. Vista == modern day ME. Its a flop. Everybody knows it. Just a matter of time before they are either dethroned or come back to their senses. 98 was good fwiw, 2k rocked, xp was okay, but the other interim releases stunk bad.

I find it interesting that non-geeks are complaining with mostly the same issues as we geeks/nerds are.

I came to this thread late but this guy has more Microsoft fan sites than any Apple fanboy. How about this, or this, or this? He's a one man Microsoft-love flash mob! Or how about Rob Enderle? Yes, Virginia, there are enthusiastic Softie fans out there!

Paul Thurrott.

      http://www.winsupersite.com/

"Originally, we were targeting NT to the Intel i860 (code-named 'N-Ten)', a RISC processor that was horribly behind schedule. Because we didn't have any i860 machines in-house to test on, we used an i860 simulator. That's why we called it NT, because it worked on the 'N-Ten.'"
-Mark Lucovsky
Distinguished Engineer
Windows Server Architect

Maybe. Maybe not. Server Install, Client Install & Configuration [April 18]

Maybe. Maybe not. Server Install, Client Install & Configuration [April 18]

Because it meant the endless tedium of synchronizing my music with the god-awful "drag into Explorer" (or in my case, "drag into Finder") interface.

I don't recall NT ever being pitched as a consumer OS --- as for WHS: Windows Home Server Beta 2 Screenshot Gallery Part 2: Client Install & Configuration

If you don't know what RAID is, why would you bother specing a home-pc with hot swappable drives?
"To add storage just slip in another drive and you are good to go."
Yeah, assuming you got a server chassis with hot swappable drives. Which, by definition, the end-user this is targeted at doesn't.

Wrong again. The user doesn't have to spec anything.

Internal/External. ATA/SATA. USB/Firewire. None of this matters to WHS. Everything available is added to the general store.

HP MediaSmart Server Up to 6TB of storage.

Drives are set into cartridges. There's no need for the user to crack open the case. No need need for him to know or care about the system internals. Should hit the market around September.

"Automated backups for every system on the net. Recover older versions of files. Single instance storage"
Yeah, that's a good pitch, too. So far? Vapor-ware!

Not Vapor-ware. A Beta-2. Or else why play for geek-points by leaking the program to the web?

"Remote access and administration. Remote control over the web --- again, intended for users who have no experience in any of this."
Oh, there's a security hole just waiting for a portscan to come along!

"Microsoft is providing WHS users with a free Internet address via Windows Live. This address will give you a remote interface into your entire home network, not just WHS. You will be able to access any shared folders remotely, or even control individual PCs remotely.

This technology, which is based on remote access functionality in Windows Small Business Server, will let consumers do things like upload photos from a kiosk from a remote part of the world, download files they need while on the road, or enjoy recorded TV shows while they're on vacation. Microsoft will also allow you to pick a vanity Internet address through Windows Live Domains if you'd like something more custom.

Incidentally, the remote access functionality is free in that you won't be paying any annual or monthly fees, it's just a part of the benefit of using WHS." Windows Home Server Preview, Windows Home Server Points Way to Next SBS

This is aimed at Fanbois who just don't have the brains to make the leap to Ubuntu or Fedora

It's aimed at users who don't know what a fan boy is and can't tell a Fedora from a Stetson.

I don't recall NT ever being pitched as a consumer OS --- as for WHS: Windows Home Server Beta 2 Screenshot Gallery Part 2: Client Install & Configuration

If you don't know what RAID is, why would you bother specing a home-pc with hot swappable drives?
"To add storage just slip in another drive and you are good to go."
Yeah, assuming you got a server chassis with hot swappable drives. Which, by definition, the end-user this is targeted at doesn't.

Wrong again. The user doesn't have to spec anything.

Internal/External. ATA/SATA. USB/Firewire. None of this matters to WHS. Everything available is added to the general store.

HP MediaSmart Server Up to 6TB of storage.

Drives are set into cartridges. There's no need for the user to crack open the case. No need need for him to know or care about the system internals. Should hit the market around September.

"Automated backups for every system on the net. Recover older versions of files. Single instance storage"
Yeah, that's a good pitch, too. So far? Vapor-ware!

Not Vapor-ware. A Beta-2. Or else why play for geek-points by leaking the program to the web?

"Remote access and administration. Remote control over the web --- again, intended for users who have no experience in any of this."
Oh, there's a security hole just waiting for a portscan to come along!

"Microsoft is providing WHS users with a free Internet address via Windows Live. This address will give you a remote interface into your entire home network, not just WHS. You will be able to access any shared folders remotely, or even control individual PCs remotely.

This technology, which is based on remote access functionality in Windows Small Business Server, will let consumers do things like upload photos from a kiosk from a remote part of the world, download files they need while on the road, or enjoy recorded TV shows while they're on vacation. Microsoft will also allow you to pick a vanity Internet address through Windows Live Domains if you'd like something more custom.

Incidentally, the remote access functionality is free in that you won't be paying any annual or monthly fees, it's just a part of the benefit of using WHS." Windows Home Server Preview, Windows Home Server Points Way to Next SBS

This is aimed at Fanbois who just don't have the brains to make the leap to Ubuntu or Fedora

It's aimed at users who don't know what a fan boy is and can't tell a Fedora from a Stetson.

I don't recall NT ever being pitched as a consumer OS --- as for WHS: Windows Home Server Beta 2 Screenshot Gallery Part 2: Client Install & Configuration

If you don't know what RAID is, why would you bother specing a home-pc with hot swappable drives?
"To add storage just slip in another drive and you are good to go."
Yeah, assuming you got a server chassis with hot swappable drives. Which, by definition, the end-user this is targeted at doesn't.

Wrong again. The user doesn't have to spec anything.

Internal/External. ATA/SATA. USB/Firewire. None of this matters to WHS. Everything available is added to the general store.

HP MediaSmart Server Up to 6TB of storage.

Drives are set into cartridges. There's no need for the user to crack open the case. No need need for him to know or care about the system internals. Should hit the market around September.

"Automated backups for every system on the net. Recover older versions of files. Single instance storage"
Yeah, that's a good pitch, too. So far? Vapor-ware!

Not Vapor-ware. A Beta-2. Or else why play for geek-points by leaking the program to the web?

"Remote access and administration. Remote control over the web --- again, intended for users who have no experience in any of this."
Oh, there's a security hole just waiting for a portscan to come along!

"Microsoft is providing WHS users with a free Internet address via Windows Live. This address will give you a remote interface into your entire home network, not just WHS. You will be able to access any shared folders remotely, or even control individual PCs remotely.

This technology, which is based on remote access functionality in Windows Small Business Server, will let consumers do things like upload photos from a kiosk from a remote part of the world, download files they need while on the road, or enjoy recorded TV shows while they're on vacation. Microsoft will also allow you to pick a vanity Internet address through Windows Live Domains if you'd like something more custom.

Incidentally, the remote access functionality is free in that you won't be paying any annual or monthly fees, it's just a part of the benefit of using WHS." Windows Home Server Preview, Windows Home Server Points Way to Next SBS

This is aimed at Fanbois who just don't have the brains to make the leap to Ubuntu or Fedora

It's aimed at users who don't know what a fan boy is and can't tell a Fedora from a Stetson.

I'm sorry, but this OS sounds like a stinking pile of M$ Bob manure. Anyone with an inkling of familiarity with *nix already has this and more for a lot less. Heck it's so bad, I think Microsoft would be better off not exposing it's customer base to this market. The Home server is so easily replaced by a more powerful/flexible Linux implementation that Microsoft is effectively putting a stock '71 pinto in the Indy 500, it's sad, nothing else.

Actually, I thought about the Apple TV when I was posting that. It's almost there. Although according to Paul Thurrott, it runs quite hot. I don't really know myself, as I haven't ever seen one running. Of course, he is a big time MS shill, so he can't really be trusted all that much. Can anybody confirm how hot/cool the Apple TV runs?

The x86 dominance is basically a result of two crooked architecure holding each other up: if MS DOS wasn't so crappy that it depends on x86 then the processor could be changed. If x86 wasn't too crappy to properly emulate it, then MS DOS or it's successors could be changed.

It's too bad you don't know what you're talking about. Windows NT is quite portable. It was originally conceived to run on the N-Ten (i860) and it has also been ported to (and abandoned on) PowerPC and DEC Alpha. And there are multiple x86 emulation technologies including JIT recompilation. On top of that AMD is about to bring out platforms which support asymmetric multiprocessing; not that they're the only ones to ever do that, but they're using the same socket for all of them. That means that you could ostensibly have x86/AMD64 and another architecture in the same system so you could run your legacy code.

x86 is still popular because there is no compelling reason to stop using it. Sure, the instruction set is pretty lame, but who cares? Both the hardware architecture and the software tools have been developed to work around those limitations. And AMD64 was designed to address many of the problems present in x86, including the lack of registers and many of the most stupid instructions.

Vista Tanks mightly, OS X and it's successors become the dominant OS in 10 years. Those are instructions set agnostic, and have been proven to be able to run on multiple platforms with pretty little effort, and does so atm run on 3 different instruction sets: x86, POWER, and the iPhone on ARM.

Again, Windows NT runs on x86, PowerPC (psst, PowerPC and POWER are not quite the same thing - only the PPC601 has a full POWER instruction set) and DEC Alpha. It could be ported to other platforms at need, especially since chunks of the OS (not the kernel stuff, but associated services) are being moved to .NET. Port the CLR, and big chunks of the applications will come along with.

x86 is dominant simply because it offers the best price-performance ratio for general computing tasks. It does this due to momentum. There is little to no reason to abandon x86! In fact, if you go 64 bit, you're not even USING x86 instructions unless you're also executing 32 bit code. You're using AMD64 instructions and that eliminates much (but not all) of the stupidity of x86.

Hah, your comments are getting more fanboyish as you speak. Even in North America, PS3 is still tricky to get ahold of... Even Microsoft fanboys Paul Thurrot says so.. http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/ps3.asp "Availability, as I write this, is still an issue: The console has yet to ship in Europe and other major markets, and in the US, finding a PS3 is like winning the lottery: You have to be really lucky, and in the right place at the right time, " Still I suppose Microsoft ARE paying you for your viral marketting, I doubt you would do it for free...

To know why the PS3 will have a hard time succeeding, see the following link:

http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/xbox360_vs_ps 3.asp

In many cases, the decisions made by the Xbox 360 team seem much more sensible than those of the PS3 team. Looking at this table, it's not hard to understand why the Xbox 360 is much cheaper and came out earlier than the PS3.

I think it's difficult to even suggest that Vista offers a "pretty face". A large number of bloggers have written about the rather poor appearance of Windows Vista.

http://www.lockergnome.com/nexus/blade/2006/10/26/ vista-the-good-the-bad-the-ugly/
http://pinderkent.blogsavy.com/archives/56
http://chris.pirillo.com/2007/02/27/windows-vista- im-breaking-up-with-you/

And it's not like Microsoft was unaware of the problems. We had people pointing out many of the visual flaws throughout the development process:

http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/winvista_5231. asp
http://www.siliconvalleysleuth.com/2006/01/the_tru th_about.html

These days, with GUI-installed Linux distributions, Linux suffers from the same problem Windows used to be derided for: services are on by default.

Something I wrote for my website but haven't posted yet:

Linux is much more secure than any version of Windows, both in design and in practice. There simply isn't any significant malware (viruses, spyware, adware, trojans, worms, etc.) for Linux. There have been no widespread viruses or spyware for Linux in all of its history. There are several reasons for this.

Linux inherits from its Unix ancestors a robust, well-polished security model that has weathered a large number of attacks. One of the key elements of this model is notion of "normal" vs. "privileged" users. Windows, which has grown slowly and painfully out of DOS (a single-tasking, single-user system) has none of this history and its security suffers greatly.

It's easiest to explain this by contrasting the schemes. Consider, say, Windows 98. Anyone using the system can do whatever they like to any part of the system including the fundamental operating system software. If you delete the wrong file, your computer is useless until you reinstall. More dangerous still, if any malicious program gets onto your machine, by any means at all (email, visiting the wrong website, downloading a program from the net), they can do anything to your computer. (And they do.)

Windows 2000 and Windows XP are supposed to be better in this regard. The operating system can support "regular" users with limited privileges and "administrators" with more capabilities. However, Microsoft had a problem with this - most of the software developed for Windows requires more privileges than a regular user has. In practice, most software simply won't install or work properly for a regular user. So, in the real world, most people run with full administrator rights, and the situation is exactly the same as Windows 98 and its cousins.

One of the main problems with this is that malware is no longer written primarily by adolescent pranksters. Malicious programs are now big business. Once they have taken over your computer, there are many ways to make a profit. First, they can use your computer to send spam email. They can also use your computer to host a website selling things advertised with spam. They can pop up advertisements on your screen regularly, and redirect your web surfing to sites they want you to visit. They can also use your computer as part of a Botnet, carrying out extortion against other websites. And, since they usually modify the fundamental operating system when they install themselves, they can be impossible to remove without wiping the system clean and starting over.

Microsoft has recognized this problem and is trying to address it in Vista. The main feature intended to address this is called "UAC", or "User Account Control", where users run without full permissions, but when a program needs to do something that requires more permissions, Windows stops and asks the user if they wish to allow it. However, because of the history of Windows detailed above, almost anything you can think of - even just removing a shortcut from your desktop - requires extra privileges. So the warning popups arise constantly as you use the computer.

Don't just take my word for it. See what a Windows fan has to say.

In Linux, normal user accounts do not have the ability to change anything in the system willy-nilly. Even if a malicious program were to get onto the machine, it couldn't alter the OS or damage critical system files. Indeed, it would not even be able to alter the files and data of other users on the system.

But this limitation, unlike Microsoft's attempts, is not opressive. When one needs to do some