Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: winsupersite.com

Stories and comments across the archive that link to winsupersite.com.

Comments · 620

  1. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on Microsoft WGA Phones Home Even When Told No

    You can't directly install a fully patched version of Windows. Instead, you have to install what you have on CD, which will at best be the most recent service pack not including patches released since then but is more typically an older service pack or the original version of the OS, and then patch it while it is running.
    Nope, as long as you have another machine with a CD burner available, you can slipstream SP2 into your XP installation disc.

    It's a must if you're installing XP on a computer that's not going to be behind a firewall.
  2. Re:Copy or not by geighaus · · Score: 0 · on Apple, Cisco Settle iPhone Trademark Lawsuit

    From the top of my head

    - Sidebar
    - Desktop search
    Here is a review of Longhorn alpha from 2002. http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/longhorn_alpha .asp

  3. Re:Of course it's in the works! by MojoStan · · Score: 1 · on Vista Followup Already in the Works

    They've probably been fleshing out the feature list for Vista's successor since the first day a developer copy of OS X 10.5 reached the grubby mitts of a Microsoft employee. Don't expect the real work to start until spring, though, when it's released with its 'top secret' features.

    Go ahead and mod me down, bitches, but after this tasty tidbit you know I'm probably right.

    Are you (and the moderators) suggesting that those internal Microsoft e-mails prove that MS "copied" those features from Apple's early demo of OS X Tiger in 2004? Re-read that article without your anti-MS goggles.

    Desktop search, video conferencing, sidebar, and Aero were Longhorn/Vista features that were announced by MS long before that impressive Tiger preview at WWDC. Those e-mails show that MS was very impressed by Apple's implementation of already-planned Vista features, not that they were copying them. Since Apple would release Tiger (with these features) before MS could release their long-delayed Vista, Vista's implementations would be directly compared (by reviewer/consumers) to Tiger's implementations.

    "Longhorn" Alpha Preview (November 2002)

    Except for perhaps Aqua/Aero, none of these features were "copied" from Apple the way Apple fanboys like to claim. At most, they can argue that MS changed their existing implementations of those features to resemble Apple's implementations, but they didn't copy the features themselves.

  4. Re:Fundamentals. by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 2, Insightful · on Vista Followup Already in the Works

    Since Vista launched on the 30th, we've sold all of two copies


    Really? You mean that you checked the inventory levels in the computer, and noticed you only sold two copies? Or, do you mean, "I only noticed two copies being sold". Because, if your store is as big as you claim, you probably don't have access to detailed sales records (unless "work in" means "manage"), and you're certainly not going to be there to see all of the potential sales.

    No one expected Vista to fly off the shelves. Most people don't buy new copies of Windows on their own - they get them with a new PC. The only version of Windows that sold upgrades in substantial numbers was Windows 95, and there is no product that Microsoft could put out that would match the upgrade from Windows 3.11 to Windows 95.

    As far as launches go, this one has been pretty pathetic.


    Really? Because, your rant notwithstanding, the numbers tell otherwise.

    PC sales for the week of Vista's release are up 173% compared to the week previous, and up 67% versus the same week in 2006.

    A lot of the people that are coming in to look at new PC's or Laptops are deliberately avoiding the ones pre-loaded with vista because of all the horror stories they've heard


    A lot of this is because of the massive FUD campaign against Vista that seems to be prevelent in the media. It is too early for most users to upgrade, but Vista isn't going to destroy the internet or eat your children. It's a solid, stable OS.

    Hasn't anyone noticed that people said the EXACT SAME THINGS about Windows XP? Antivirus and CD burning programs were incompatible. Hardware support was sketchy. Games didn't run as fast. Everyone was going to stick with Windows 98, because it was "good enough".

    There were complaints about how much XP Pro cost ($299/$199 upgrade). Five years later, and the "business" version of Vista is still $299/$199 - effectively, it's actually cheaper than XP professional was at launch. And you can still buy Vista as an OEM product, just like XP. Media Center Edition was ~$110 OEM, Vista Home Premium is ~$115. XP Home was ~$90 OEM, so is Vista Home Basic, which - unlike XP Home - doesn't have crippled filesharing or user options.

    The Home premium upgrade refuses to install over an XP pro installation


    Yes, just like XP Home refuses to upgrade over Windows 2000. This is neither new nor unexpected, although, unlike with XP, there is a workaround with Vista.

    and of the two copies of Vista that we've sold, one has come back as unusable


    Apparently, my previous assertion that you don't work at a large store is true - none of the major stores allow customers to return opened software.

    and the other user is considering returning it as he can't even get on the net with it


    At this point, I think you are just making shit up. Because, of course, at a major computer retailer, you not only know everybody who purchased and returned a specific product, you know the customers who have purchased and thought about returning the product, too! Apparently, your "farily large" store also provides free after-sale support! That sounds like the hallmark of a small business, not something like a Best Buy.

    Crap on Vista all you want. You have a choice - buy a Mac or use Linux. Many people will probably do just that. But Vista supports my hardware just fine - ALL of it, and, with two exceptions (UltraVNC and PDFCreator), it supports all of my software too. It's running on my notebook and my desktop right now - I'm typing this comment in Vista. It's Windows, people, with everything that being Windows entails. If you liked XP, you'll probably like Vista. If you hate Windows, buy a Mac or use Linux - Vista isn't going to change anything.
  5. Re:Truth or Dare? by SEMW · · Score: 1 · on Bill Gates Brags About Vista, Reacts to Apple's Latest Ads

    You need some lessons on logic yourself. To quote from your post: "To demonstrate that I was misleading you need to show that Vista doesn't have exploits. Good luck." You're right, the argument from ignorance doesn't fit exactly: your statement actually has two seperate logical flaws. To enumerate:
    1. You equated the assertion "You were being misleading" with "Vista doesn't have flaws", implying that by asserting the former I was also claiming the latter. The two statements are in no way equivalent, and the former in no way implies the latter.
    2. That given, your statement simplifies to: You cannot prove {not A}, therefore {A}. This argument is certainly commonly used (for instance, by religious fundamentalists: "You can't prove God doesn't exist; therefore God exists", but that doesn't make it any less flawed.

    When I wrote that post, I did two quick searches "Vista exploit" and "Vista patch" if I remember correctly. Then I posted links to a first page result from both searches. It's a slashdot post, not a thesis, not a research paper, not professional journalism. You're right. Since this is not professional journalism, mistakes and misleading statements are probably inevitable; hence why comments and corrections are prolofic, informative, and useful. Which is why I replied to your post in the first place.

    Graham Cluley, senior technology consultant with Sophos, calls it a patch for Vista. The unnamed Microsoft spokesman call it a patch for Vista. You think I'm misleading to call it a patch for Vista. Go figure. I think you need a reality check. If two (presumably) professional journalists can report it as a Vista patch and not be called to account, if the Microsoft spokesman called it a Vista patch and hasn't issued a retraction, then I can call it a Vista patch in a slashdot post without accepting your assertion that I was misleading. The entire point is the timing. The spokesperson, tech consultant etc. called it a patch for Vista alsmot a year ago, when 'Vista' was an early beta. They weren't "called to account" back then because, back then, they were correct. Now, however, 'Vista' is a released OS, and the assumption is that people referring to Vista are referring to this.

    Let me try to use a car analogy to make it clearer. If I were to post a statement to the effect that you shouldn't buy a Ford Focus because they have a habit of bursting into flames, and quoted a spokesman as saying that "Last month, it was revealed that all Focuses have a habit of bursting into flames" -- and then, if you happened to read the article, you discovered that it was from over a year before the Focus started being manufactured and referred to not-for-production "concept" cars produced by Ford, and the exploding vulnerability was not present in and unrelated to any Ford Focus you could actually buy; would you not accuse me of being misleading?

    As with this, the Ford spokesperson and the journalist would have been perfectly accurate when they wrote the story, because at the time, the Focus *was* only a concept, and was not in production. Doesn't mean I would not be misleading by selectively quoting them today.

    Since Vista (then Longhorn) was supposed to be RTM in 2005 http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/longhorn_prev iew_2003.asp then a December 2005 patch is relevant to the topic. Oh, come on. Are you serious? You can't argue based on the assumption that a possible alternative history that didn't happen, did happen.
  6. Re:Truth or Dare? by rohan972 · · Score: 1 · on Bill Gates Brags About Vista, Reacts to Apple's Latest Ads

    Actually, the arguement from ignorance doesn't fit at all. You need some lessons on logic yourself. The post I originally replied to was arguement from ignorance, ie: Vista doesn't have exploits because I haven't been given a link to any.

    When I wrote that post, I did two quick searches. "Vista exploit" and "Vista patch" if I remember correctly. Then I posted links to a first page result from both searches. It's a slashdot post, not a thesis, not a research paper, not professional journalism.

    http://www.toptechnews.com/story.xhtml?story_id=41 034 This article (January 18, 2006) it titled "Microsoft Issues First Vista OS Patch" the article in my original post http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1911406,00.as p says "Microsoft Ships First Vista Security Patches" and says "A Microsoft spokesperson told eWEEK that the Vista patches address the same vulnerability that led to the WMF (Windows Metafile) malware attacks earlier this month." (emphasis mine)

    Graham Cluley, senior technology consultant with Sophos, calls it a patch for Vista. The unnamed Microsoft spokesman call it a patch for Vista. You think I'm misleading to call it a patch for Vista. Go figure. I think you need a reality check. If two (presumably) professional journalists can report it as a Vista patch and not be called to account, if the Microsoft spokesman called it a Vista patch and hasn't issued a retraction, then I can call it a Vista patch in a slashdot post without accepting your assertion that I was misleading.

    Since Vista (then Longhorn) was supposed to be RTM in 2005 http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/longhorn_prev iew_2003.asp then a December 2005 patch is relevant to the topic. It's a Vista patch.

  7. Re:the death of Xbox 360 and what that means. by StikyPad · · Score: 1 · on Confidential Microsoft Emails Posted Online

    Microsoft wants gamers to abandon the PC as a gaming platform and go to the 360.

    You might want to let them know.

  8. make your bets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on Vista - iPod Killer?
    Some questions that will help you form a pretty accurate opinion:
    Easy as 1+1, at least two me !
  9. Re:Wake up Bill! by zxnos · · Score: 1 · on Bill Gates Brags About Vista, Reacts to Apple's Latest Ads

    technically correct but, RC1 has been out since september 06. 'vista' debuted 2005-05-05. longhorn since november 2002. i think this gave plenty of time to look for holes.

  10. reality by denilson3 · · Score: 1 · on Vista Upgrades Require Presence of Old OS

    According to:

    http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/winvista_03.as p/

    "How you acquire Windows Vista play a large part in any decision about how you will actually install the operating system. At a high level, you have the following basic choices:

    Clean install. With this method, you boot the PC from the Windows Vista install DVD, run interactive Setup, format the PC's hard drive, and install Windows Vista as the only OS. This is probably the rarest way to get Vista on a PC. You can use a "Full" or "Upgrade" retail version of Windows Vista to perform a clean install, though you will need "qualifying media"--typically a Windows XP or 2000 CD that proves you qualify for the Upgrade version."

  11. Re:How to stop the bots by Bodhammer · · Score: 3, Informative · on 25 Percent of All Computers in a Botnet?

    You can make yourself Slipstreamed XP Install disks with SP2 so you don't get infected. See
    http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/windowsxp_sp2 _slipstream.asp or http://www.theeldergeek.com/slipstreamed_xpsp2_cd. htm. It is well worth the time. Make a disk for next time.

  12. Re:He left a backdoor by Caffeinate · · Score: 0, Flamebait · on Alan Cox Files Patent For DRM
    Which, BTW, you can only do once.
    Contrary to the FUD being spewed around by the anti-Microsoft drones, the licensing in Vista is not as Draconian as you might think. Link: http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_lice nsing.asp
  13. Re:Opportunity for Hardware OEMS and Linux! by I'm+Don+Giovanni · · Score: 1 · on Windows Home Server Details

    If you read the article, you'd see that HP is already signed up to sell MS Home Server machines.
    http://www.winsupersite.com/images/reviews/whs_04. jpg

  14. Lame article by lednik · · Score: 1 · on The Home Server Cometh

    The article linked to is lame. There are dozens of articles out there on MS announcing Windows Home Server out there. Why pick this one? For example here are a couple of articles that actually have real informaiton in them: http://www.itjungle.com/two/two011007-story01.html http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070108-8573 .html http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/whs_preview.as p

  15. Thurott vs. Welch by LKM · · Score: 1 · on Mac OS X Versus Windows Vista
    [Thurott's] biased too, but no more than Welch (actually, nowhere near as much as Welch).

    Thurott's site: winsupersite.com
    Welch's site: bynkii.com

    Nuff said. Actually, not nuff: I've never seen anyone more mean-spirited towards Mac users and Apple in general than Welch. He's a lot of things (definitely a Mac geek, among less nice things), but most certainly no Apple fanboy.

  16. Re:Shortcuts don't work. by SEMW · · Score: 1 · on Office 2007 — Better But a Tough Switch

    Since there is no _F_ile menu, the alt+F is not a shortcut to any visible UI element. It may not stand for anything much any more, but that doesn't mean you lose the visual cues of the F in File -- have a look at this screenshot of what happens when you press alt; it gives you the visual cues.

    And what about localized versions? It wasn't always alt+F in all languages. I've never used them, but I imagine the localised versions will have the same keyboard shortcut they did in previous versions of office. Since, as you say, there's nothing markedly 'f'ish about the office menu, there'd be no reason for them to break the muscle memory of people used to pressing alt+whatever for file menu/office menu commands.
  17. Re:Like changing all the keybindings of emacs by SEMW · · Score: 1 · on Office 2007 — Better But a Tough Switch

    which makes them useful only as long as you remember what you used in a previous version of Office Not really. If you don't remember what you used in a previous version of office, you use the new ones. Have a look at this screenshot of what happens when you press 'alt'-- the little letters on top of the tabs represent the key you can press to switch to that tab, upon which you get this. Sure, Alt+F doesn't make a vast amount of sense for the office menu; it's probably that because that's what everyone already knows; but alt+H for the Home tab etc. make sense. And of course, if you do still want to use the old ones (e.g. alt+e for edit menu) rather than the new ones, they still work; and if you don't remember the old ones, use the new ones.
  18. So just take the "N" version by tepples · · Score: 1 · on ESR's Desktop Linux 2008 Deadline

    My first requirement as a software user is that doesn't steal my freedoms to share, copy, study, modify, redistribute (etc) it. If I can't do that with it, it's not working. There's a saying about he who would swap eye-candy for essential freedoms deserving neither.

    Then you are seeking to buy into Linspire N, not Linspire Media Edition. Most entertainment works that can be viewed only through the proprietary codecs that the article mentions are themselves proprietary anyway.

  19. Re:NT by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 1 · on Vista vs. Cairo - A Microsoft History Lesson

    No, I wasn't on the team, but I did read interviews with both Mark Lucovsky and Dave Cutler where they both mentioned this. The Wikipedia article is accurate.

    http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/winserver2k3_g old1.asp

    "Finally, it was time to start writing some code. "We checked the first code pieces in around mid-December 1988," Lucovsky said, "and had a very basic system kind of booting on a simulator of the Intel i860 (which was codenamed "N-Ten") by January." In fact, this is where NT actually got its name, Lucovsky revealed, adding that the "new technology" moniker was added after the fact in a rare spurt of product marketing by the original NT team members."

    And in case you don't trust Paul Thurrott, here's slides from one of Locovsky's presentations:

    http://www.usenix.org/events/usenix-win2000/invite dtalks/lucovsky_html/tsld006.htm

  20. Re:Some... by Reverberant · · Score: 2, Informative · on David Pogue Takes On Vista

    might [sic] remember that even before OS X was launched for its first version, the "vista" "road map" had been published clearly stating what major components would be part of Vista... "Aero" has always been slated as part of the opertating system.

    The earliest I can find of any discussion of Longhorn's "advanced user interface" as part of the roadmap appears to be about 2003 timeframe. Aqua was publicly revealed at Macworld 2000 San Francisco.

  21. Why? by drix · · Score: 1 · on Why Does Everyone Hate Microsoft?

    I hate Microsoft because they aren't innovators. They piggyback off of others' great ideas and then employ their own special brand of legal/political/economic strongarming/weaseling/nepotism/FUD to gain advantage. Combine that with an incredibly arrogant marketing machine and you the recipe for odiousness.

    I mean, can you name a single idea that originated within Redmond (i.e. was not acquired) that went on to become as successful as Microsoft claimed it would be? The Zune is a great example. All indications are it's a laughable piece of shit, and yet here you had that asshole Ballmer popping off for a year beforehand about what a kickass iPod crusher it's going to be. Let's see, more failures: WinFS, MS Bob, UltimateTV... oh damn, there's even a WikiPedia category for this, so I'll save my breath.

    Such arrogance leads to complacency, and product quality suffers. All indications are Windows Vista is perhaps the largest clusterfuck ever to grace the commercial software industry. I'll bet a lot of people around here hate Microsoft in advance for the man-years of our lives we're going to lose fixing, deleting, and/or otherwise dealing with that piece of shit in situations where we have no choice: at work, at home, on Mom's computer, wherever. Just like we've been doing since Win 3.1. Cross-apply everything I just said to Internet Explorer, if you've ever designed web sites for a living.

    I will give Microsoft credit for one thing: Office is pretty damn good. Whoever runs that division, props. There are some ludicrously half-baked features in there, like master/subdocuments in Word, the whole Word styling engine, all of Frontpage and Infopath, but the core apps are pretty good.

  22. Re:Vital... by SEMW · · Score: 1 · on DIY Service Pack For Windows 2000/XP/2003

    Well, it's not completely automated, no. It does involve typing a few commands into a command prompt (six in total); but that shouldn't really be a problem for most of the people on Slashdot. Full instructions here (it looks like quite a long page, but the bottom 2/3 is just screenshot-by-screenshot guide on how to burn a bootable CD in 3 different CD burning programs, so it's not as long as it looks).

  23. Re:Does MS offer this by SEMW · · Score: 1 · on DIY Service Pack For Windows 2000/XP/2003

    "Free" would mean completely without cost, and therefore something is not "completely without cost" if you're paying shipping/handling costs. I didn't pay shipping and handling costs. At the time, I didn't have a credit or debit card and thus had no means with which to pay shipping and handling costs even if I had wished to out of the goodness of my heart. I did not, in fact, pay any costs. Nor did anyone. I think they've started charging for shipping now, but they certainly didn't when they released SP2.

    Second, shipping CDs is fine and dandy, but in this day and age, it's not so clearly "better" than a convenient high-speed download. Uhh... Huh? They do offer a high-speed download. They do for all their updates. They've always done so. It's called Windowsupdate. The point was that if you can't download, for whatever reason, you can order a CD as an alternative. And yes, obviously you can download updates as self-contained packages, and burn them to CD to be installed; it's called a 'network installation' (e.g. SP2 can be downloaded here). You can even 'slipstream' updates into a custom installation CD (instructions here) if you want.
  24. Windows Vista ReadyDrive by wbren · · Score: 2, Insightful · on Why Do Computers Take So Long to Boot Up?
    Windows Vista's ReadyDrive feature is supposedly going to improve boot times, assuming you have a hard drive that supports it. Since the ReadyDrive hard disks are not available yet, I don't know how well it works, but you can read some more about it here:

    http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/winvista_05c.a sp

    Windows Vista natively supports a new generation of hybrid hard drives coming soon from Samsung and other companies via a feature named Windows ReadyDrive. I haven't been able to test this feature yet because these hard drives aren't yet available, but here's how it works: The hybrid hard drives combine a standard hard disk with large amounts (1 GB or more) of non-volatile flash memory. This memory acts a cache of sorts, providing a number of benefits. First, the system will boot up and resume from various sleep states much more quickly, allowing users to get back to work more quickly. Because the hard drive, with all its moving parts, spins up much less frequently, you'll experience better overall performance and better overall battery life. (For this latter reason, the first generation hybrid hard drives will likely target the notebook market and not the desktop PC market.) Hybrid hard drives should also be more reliable than their standard drive cousins, again, because the moving parts won't need to spin up so often.

    Interestingly, previous generation operating systems won't be able to utilize these hybrid hard drives unless of course the drive makers include drivers in the box to enable that support. But Vista supports this technology out of the box, so there's nothing to add or configure. If you have such a drive, Windows ReadyDrive will just work. It's a win-win.
  25. Off everyone's list by Serious+Callers+Only · · Score: 1 · on iPod Has Nothing To Fear From Slow-Starting Zune

    Well that's no surprise - have you seen the reviews on Amazon? . I'm not sure I'd buy a product like that given that most of the reviews are so negative.

    Even Paul 'WinSuperSite' Thurrott thinks it's a disaster :

    http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/zune.asp

    What amazes me is that they managed to get so many things wrong on the software side of it, even when the hardware is quite decent. But there's nothing quite like the stupidity of a committee, maybe the software design process was something akin to that used for Vista.

  26. Does iTunes work with Vista? -- Yes. by norminator · · Score: 2, Informative · on Zune Not Compatible With Windows Vista

    Yes. No mention of whether the iPod functions with iTunes under Vista, but iTunes itself seems to work.

  27. Re:If Zune isn't compatible... by 8127972 · · Score: 4, Informative · on Zune Not Compatible With Windows Vista

    From http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/winvista_beta2 _04.asp

    "Apple iTunes and QuickTime Pro 7.1
    Works: Yes (with problems)
    Notes: iTunes installs but behaves strangely. The desktop and Quick Launch toolbar icons for the application are blank and cannot be fixed. Performance is horrible, even more so that iTunes' usual problems. Both iTunes and QuickTime Pro are incompatible with the Windows Aero user interface; when they are running, Windows Vista reverts to the Windows Basic UI. (See below for more information.)"

  28. Re:If they had to install(!) Windows ... by Phisbut · · Score: 1 · on Why the World Is Not Ready For Linux
    That's not true. The retail versions of XP now come with SP2 slipstreamed into them.

    The retail CD I bought in 2002 doesn't have SP2. Why should I pay a second time to use the software I bought before?

    You can also do it your self. The Service Pack installers provides the ability to slipstream it to an XP cd that you've copied to disc. You then burn this back to disc and viola, you have an XP install disc with SP2 already applied. Just Google for 'SP2 slipstream'. Here, I did it for you, http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/windowsxp_sp2 _slipstream.asp.

    Hey, guess what, the "tutorial" you linked to requires Windows XP to be installed before you can slipstream SP2 to the CD. So the steps to install WinXP-SP2 on a PC are :

    1. Install Windows XP pre-SP2 on secondary PC
    2. Download SP2 on secondary PC
    3. Slipstream SP2 to a CD
    4. Uninstall Windows XP on secondary PC (remember, your license forces you to uninstall if you install on another machine)
    5. Install Windows XP with slipstreamed SP2 on target PC

    Talk about user-friendly. I hope you didn't have plans for the evening. And if you don't have the luxury of another PC hanging around for step 1, then you're shit out of luck, because you already can't install Windows XP on your current PC.

    Also, if you are a Volumne license customer or have an MSDN subscription, you will get media and ISO downloads for XP with SP2 already applied.

    Right... Uncle Fred most probably has an MSDN subscription... obviously... What kind of world do you live in?

  29. Re:If they had to install(!) Windows ... by Coward+the+Anonymous · · Score: 1 · on Why the World Is Not Ready For Linux
    To all you who say "Ya, but you were using a pre-SP2 Windows CD! How silly!"

    You have NO CHOICE. Microsoft makes it impossible to obtain a newer ISO image of ANY of their OS installers, even though you have the license (and therefore the right) to install it.


    That's not true. The retail versions of XP now come with SP2 slipstreamed into them. You can also do it your self. The Service Pack installers provides the ability to slipstream it to an XP cd that you've copied to disc. You then burn this back to disc and viola, you have an XP install disc with SP2 already applied. Just Google for 'SP2 slipstream'. Here, I did it for you, http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/windowsxp_sp2 _slipstream.asp.

    Also, if you are a Volumne license customer or have an MSDN subscription, you will get media and ISO downloads for XP with SP2 already applied. Where do you think those ISOs you're downloading come from?
  30. Re:Er.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on Microsoft Will Allow Vista Reinstalls

    It seems you didn't read the Thurrott's article on the subject...
    The license was always clear on the subject, only some "online pundits" did see a change in Vista's license...
    </sarcasm>

  31. Re:Why is the delay such a big deal? by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1 · on Vista Gets Official Release Dates
    Of course XP "stagnated". You expected them to start releasing a new OS via patches or something? Once it's out, expect no more features.

    Stagnation denotes a longer period of inactivity. The last time Windows saw a major release, the September 11th attacks hadn't even happened yet. Five years is an incredibly long time to give customers nothing, and they paid for it with ancient technologies (for comparison, Apple had a next-generation, vector-based graphics API on the market in 2001, hardware compositing in 2002, and so forth) and security vulnerabilities for half a decade.

    Since you apparently need to be reminded:

    stagnate |?stag?n?t| verb [ intrans. ] cease developing; become inactive or dull

    And there were significant improvements over its lifetime.

    Could you name these significant improvements beyond a Security Center or a firewall?

    Aero is not shipping "in less than what was promised". That's the first such claim I've heard so far.

    You need to read Paul Thurrot's Road to Gold article where he specifically mentions that Beta 1 showed the same Aero Glass as before despited promised improvements from Microsoft: "Aero Glass all around (and curiously nearly identical to the final Aero version, despite promises that improvements were coming)."

    Indigo was NOT canceled!

    Indigo lost several major features like Hailstorm and morphed into the less exciting Windows Communication Foundation.

    And you're ignoring the other pillars (lie about one half, and then conveniently don't mention the other?)

    Those are the three "pillars of Longhorn" that Microsoft advertised at WinHEC '04. Take it up with Microsoft.

    WinFS was scrapped AFAIK, and that's the ONLY point you have (although hardly a big deal). The rest is 100%, totally unfounded FUD.

    Hardly. Vista is shipping in severely crippled form compared to what was promised in 2004. Even the original Sidebar was scrapped and restarted in 2005 in response to the reaction Apple's Dashboard was getting and the inability to deliver on the original promises of the Sidebar (namely, getting rid of the crowded system tray on the taskbar which still exists in Vista). The original Sidebar was a notification center based on XML "tiles." I even worked with the SDK back in 2002. Today's Sidebar is nothing more than a lame Gadget tray.
  32. Re:Hardware DRM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on Want To Know About the New Apple MacBook Pro?
    Compared to Vista and its high prices, draconian EULA, separate purchase required for 64-bit support...
    Why do Mac fanbois keep spreading this Vista FUD about "seperate purchase required for 64-bit support." It's been said again and again that 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Vista will be in the same box, no seperate purchase required. 32-bit or 64-bit will be an installation option, not a purchase option. Get it?

    If you think this would be so bad, why don't you mention the fact that the new MacBook Pro has a 32-bit version of OS X installed and a seperate version (Leapord) needs to be bought to have 64-bit OS X?

  33. Re:Giving Away Windows Licenses? Give me a break.. by scrambledheads · · Score: 1 · on Microsoft's IE Team Leader Answers Slashdot Questions

    Thanks and I for one will be keeping a close eye on that as I've mailed people (including Paul thurrot - http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_lice nsing.asp ) about this, commented about this on many a blog including IE's and no one (at Microsoft - so far) seems to accept that charging and/or charging excessively ie more than once (multiple versions of XP/Vista) can make no sense. We want to make pages that work in your product (or multiple versions of it IE5, 5.2, 5.5, 6 and 7) but we're (developers) expected to fork out for a copy of the OS each time to do it? and previously pay for Virtual PC.

  34. Re:But does it run MacOSX 64bit by MojoStan · · Score: 1 · on Apple Unveils MacBook Pro with Core 2 Duo
    OS X Leopard will be fully 64-bit, and unlike Windows, will ship on one 32-bit/64-bit Intel/PPC universal binary disc, so you don't have to buy separate versions of 32-bit and 64-bit.

    Not disagreeing, but just nitpicking (or clarifying): while Windows XP 32-bit and 64-bit are separate "products," Windows Vista will ship with both 32-bit and 64-bit versions on the same DVD (and will ship before Leapord). From Paul Thurrott's Vista Product Editions page:

    "Windows Vista is also being positioned as a transitionary product for the x64 platform: Almost all Windows Vista editions will be offered in both x86 (32-bit) and x64 (64-bit) versions, and these versions will ship in the same box. So, for example, when you purchase Vista Home Premium, the version you get will depend on which type of PC you have: If it's an x64-based PC, the x64 version will be installed. Microsoft expects to transition its client product lines completely to x64 after the release of Windows Vista."

  35. Re:Also shows... by damien_kane · · Score: 1 · on iPods Come Complete With Windows Virus

    Yeah, everyone knows the pirated windows CDs work much better!

    It doesn't have to be pirated.

    Learn how to slipstream your own version of XP + SP2 Here

    There's even a wealth of information from Microsoft's own domain...

    It's entirely legal, and, in fact, encouraged (as you now don't have to put an unpatched version of Windows out on the net anymore, not that you should be doing it withouth a firewall to begin with).

  36. Re:The problem by Bueller_007 · · Score: 1 · on Windows XP SP1 Support Ends Tuesday

    From Paul Thurrott: ...But although XP SP2 would indeed add new features, to the chagrin of users who took Microsoft's legendary but oft-abused "no new features in service packs" promise at face value...

    http://www.winsupersite.com/faq/xpsp2.asp

  37. Re:One reason is disk space by RuBLed · · Score: 1 · on Windows XP SP1 Support Ends Tuesday

    I believe for current installations of Windows SP1, they only had provided a Windows XP SP2 Update CD. I agree with you that it is huge and takes a lot of disk space and time to install. But all the "new" OEM and retail Windows XP CDs now contains the SP2 already.

    You could basically just make one. It is called slipstreaming and don't ask me why it is called like that :).

    http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/windowsxp_sp2 _slipstream.asp

    It is basically putting all the updates of SP2 and joining it with your Windows XP Installer. Afterwards, viola! You have a Windows XP SP2 Installer (Burn into a new cd). It won't take that much space when you do a clean install compared to doing an SP2 update of an exisiting XP installation.

    just my 2 centavos

  38. Re:One reason is disk space by ChronoReverse · · Score: 3, Informative · on Windows XP SP1 Support Ends Tuesday

    You can slipstream service packs into the Windows CD.

    http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/windowsxp_sp2 _slipstream.asp shows you how.

  39. Re:I'm safe, right? by slowhand · · Score: 1 · on The BBC's Honeypot PC

    Safe... I can't say. But for a big time saver you should SLIPSTREAM an install CD/DVD which consists of applying service packs and patches to the contents of the original disk, then burning it to a fresh cd. Next load requires no long wait to download SP2 and what patches you've already slipstreamed.

    see http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/windowsxp_sp2 _slipstream.asp

    Then, you can also use the non-destructive, no reformat rebuild to replace damaged or corrupted files using this method http://www.informationweek.com/LP/showArticle.jhtm l?articleID=189400897&pgno=1&queryText=

  40. Woo woo! by BeeBeard · · Score: 2, Informative · on Windows Vista RC2 Available

    Mod parent up, s/he's got a great point! I haven't tried Vista yet, but initial takes on the RC1/RC2 releases have been positive. From a software compatibility perspective, you might as well be running RC2 now if you know for sure you're going to just be buying Vista anyway when it hits the shelves: Whereas the old betas were fairly crash-prone and didn't run much besides Office, the RC releases are apparently much more polished and well-suited to everyday use. Windows beta testing superstar Paul Thurrott has been throwing everything he can at the 32-bit RC releases and has yet to find an application that doesn't work (we shall see if the same thing holds true for games).

    That's pretty impressive for Microsoft, especially considering how poorly major Windows updates have been handled in the past. Does anybody still recall the Windows 98 --> Windows 2000 transition? It was pretty ugly stuff. Even a year after the Win2k release, drivers were still breaking, plenty of older software had weird compatibility issues, etc. It seems that Microsoft is really trying to avoid a repeat performance.

  41. Re:You'd think they were building killer cyborgs.. by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 1 · on Is Microsoft Using RIAA Legal Tactics?

    I wonder...why is that, exactly? Why is Vista such a massive project? It's a serious question. I mean, it's not like they're building HAL-9000 here. It's an OS. A microcomputer OS. Which really, as far as I can tell, doesn't do a whole lot more than a bunch of other OSes that are on the market already. What does it do that's so much more complex, fundamentally, than what OS X does? Or Linux? Or any number of other OSes? Why, exactly, is it such a freaking huge project?

    Consider the following links:

    "By the time it was released, Microsoft Windows NT 3.0 consisted of 5.6 million lines of code spread across 40,000 source files. A complete build took as many as 19 hours on several machines, but the NT development team still managed to build every day (Zachary, 1994)." -- Best Practices

    'There are no other software projects like this," Lucovsky said, "but the one thing that's remained constant [over the years] is how long it takes to build [Windows]. No matter which generation of the product, it takes 12 hours to compile and link the system." Even with the increase in processing horsepower over the years, Windows has grown to match, and the development process has become far more sophisticated, so that Microsoft does more code analysis as part of the daily build. "The CPUs in the build lab are pegged constantly for 12 hours," he said. "We've adapted the process since Windows 2000. Now, we decompose the source [code] tree into independent source trees, and use a new build environment. It's a multi-machine environment that lets us turn the crank faster. But because of all the new code analysis, it still takes 12 hours."' -- Windows 2003 Server, The Road to Gold

    Now, take what that says into consideration. Effectively, Windows is one giant source tree. Even though they're able to decompress the source tree into a few sub-trees, you've got one giant source tree. That's a horribly bad thing. There's two main reasons for this.

    One, by having everything in the same tree, programmers have a tendency to create all sorts of deep dependency issues in attempts to "speed up" the system. It's these sort of problems that push people against monolithic designs, as those "speed up"s tend also create all sorts of virtually untrackable bugs. It's one major reason that Xorg was split up into modular parts.

    Two, by having everything in the same tree, it becomes incredibly difficult to make modifications and improvements in the design. This is partially due to the fact that compile times have a tendency to be dragged out as excessive linking has to be accomplished each compile. And it's partially due to the fact that monoliths are incredibly difficult to adequate comprehend. This latter part means that a person searching to make an addition ends up spending possibly hours trying to figure out just where the changes should be made. Those unwilling to devote the time to do the "right" thing end up just shoving a solution in as a hack and forcing it to run even when the run location is bad. And as we all know, hacks have a tendency to not be fixed. With Microsoft's anal-retentive backwards-compatability standard, this can lead to having to *maintain* such hacks because they become a standard part of the API for people.

    Now, you might ask why Microsoft doesn't just divide up this large project into a collection of smaller projects. There's probably five main reasons for this. The first I've already touched on, such would almost certain break compatability. This comes down to the fact that when a hack is included, it almost always resides on the wrong side of what should be a clean break between two different interfaces. The result, then, is that the hack would require a stub across the break, and even with that in place, the timing change (which could involve a memory swap now that the main chunk of actual cod

  42. Re:It's a shame by SEMW · · Score: 1 · on 10-Day Gentoo Installation Agony

    Versions of Windows XP bought in the last couple of years include SP2 by default. A fresh install of a current version thus has the firewall switched on by default. You can hardly compain that a version bought in 2001/2 has vulnerabilities that are fixed in the current version; that's why it's a newer version, because (some of) the vulnerabilities are fixed. Incidentally, I believe exactly the same is true for the Mac: versions prior to Tiger did not have the firewall switched on by default.

    Incidentally, XP prior to SP2 still had a rudimentary firewall, which whilst it isn't anywhere near as good as the SP2 one, it'll still protect you fine from external attacks whilst you download SP2. And in fact, if you're so worried about it, it only takes half an hour or so to slipstream SP2 into your Windows CD. Or if you don't want to do that, Microsoft will happily send you a service pack 2 disk.

  43. Re:No linux is ready to pick up users by DrXym · · Score: 1 · on Can Linux Pick Up Users Abandoning Win98?
    Why should any Linux distro do that, when Microsoft never has ?

    Microsoft does allow operating systems to be upgraded. They even sell a retail version of XP that is for upgrade only. It may well be that you can't upgrade from an OEM CD, but that is not meant for upgrading. Here is an article that describes what the upgrade version does. It even provides a way to uninstall XP and revert to Win98 if you have a problem. Does Linux come anywhere near to that?

    I can't see why people who give their time for free should do so much more than a company who have made so much profit by not providing that service

    Unfortunately you are wrong since XP upgrade goes to extreme lengths to make the upgrade simple. Server upgrades also ship with various tools to help things go smoothly. As for these "volunteers", anyone employed by RedHat, Novell, IBM, Sun etc. is not a volunteer. Is there no value at all to these companies in producing a version of Linux which makes upgrading from NT or W2K a snap? Is there no value at all to volunteers Ubuntu which supposedly prides itself on making stuff easy to make stuff easy?

    "Where is the install that dual boots between Linux and Win98 from the same disk?" At a guess, ALL OF THEM !

    Nonsense. Win98 users typically have partitions occupying the whole of their disks. Which Linux repartitions their FAT32 partition installs Linux in the free other half and then offers dual boot? Which Linux offers to install in the FAT32 partition and offers to dual boot between them?

    "Where is the Linux install that works on FAT32 and preserves the existing disk contents?" At a guess, ALL OF THEM ! except that Linux won't be running on FAT32, but it can read and write to it fine. Where is the microsoft install that keeps the existing disk contents ?

    See above. Unless Linux makes space for itself on the disk, the answer is none of them do. The "express" install wipes everything on the disk. The custom install expects you to delete the partitions for yourself.

    "Where is the install that replicates their existing printer.". Apart from windows not doing that anyway, all I had to do with Fedora, was (after installation was finished) turn on the printer, and check for new hardware.

    If Fedora can do it after installation, why can't it do it during installation? Why can't it see that the user's ISP or network settings are this or that and replicate them? The answer is that it could.

    You just want everything done for you it seems, and from your attitude, you have never installed windows in your life.

    BTW this subject is called "Can Linux Pick Up Users Abandoning Win98?" and from your attitude, the answer is no. Faced with the RTFM jerk mentality shown by Linux they'll pick Windows every time.

  44. Re:Classical MS action... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on Microsoft Launches the Zune

    Lots more photos showing the zune in action here:

    http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/zune_gallery_ 01.asp

  45. View/organize by album cover: ripped off Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on Apple Announces iTunes 7, Movies, Set-Top Box
    The new music view/organize modes in iTunes are great. One is divided by albums, showing a small image of the album cover along with all the tracks. The other looks like they licensed "Cover Flow", it looks like flipping through albums in your old physical collection. Definitely better visual feedback then scrolling through a huge text list of songs.
    I'm kidding about Apple ripping off Microsoft (organizing by album art is so obvious), but you all know Apple fanatics would be accusing MS of ripping off Apple if Microsoft implemented their album art view and stacks view after Apple showed their implementation today.
  46. View/organize by album cover: ripped off Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on Apple Announces iTunes 7, Movies, Set-Top Box
    The new music view/organize modes in iTunes are great. One is divided by albums, showing a small image of the album cover along with all the tracks. The other looks like they licensed "Cover Flow", it looks like flipping through albums in your old physical collection. Definitely better visual feedback then scrolling through a huge text list of songs.
    I'm kidding about Apple ripping off Microsoft (organizing by album art is so obvious), but you all know Apple fanatics would be accusing MS of ripping off Apple if Microsoft implemented their album art view and stacks view after Apple showed their implementation today.
  47. I disagree with this article by Jugalator · · Score: 3, Insightful · on Windows Monoculture Myopia Revisited
    The difficulties in developing Vista stemmed from its monolithic structure and the need for 'backwards compatibility', ie ensuring that software used by customers on older versions of Windows will work under Vista. This vast accumulation of legacy applications acts like an anchor on innovation. The Vista trauma has convinced some Microsoft engineers that they will have to adopt a radically different approach.

    I can't really agree with this. The major problems came when Microsoft decided, after about two years in development since the start in ~2002, that they were to change the foundation of "Longhorn" from Windows XP SP2 to Windows Server 2003. This was also by the time Microsoft changed their goals of what their next OS should be. Yes, when it was in the middle of development! Development managers may start feeling dizzy now and consider leaving Microsoft. :-p Needless to say, when you do this in any kind of large project and most definitely the largest operating system in the world, you'll have a big price to pay.

    I wouldn't even want to do it in a personal software project.

    To see the problem, check out this build 5048 review (build 5000 was the kernel switch) with screenshots. It looks almost like "old Windows" again with mostly the same old features after a few years in development? Windows enthusiast Paul Thurrott is screaming blood. What happened to the progress they had made? Well, they had to strip a ton of features to get their stuff working again. Say hello to huge two year delays, feature cuts, and sweating.

    So Vista seems to me to be more about a planning/design mistake than a complex beast that will take around 5 years to get out the door. Vista has actually only had around 2-2.5 years of uninterrupted development on the correct kernel and with the final goal of what it should even do!

    I'd like to object to the article and actually claim I'm impressed by how quickly Microsoft put together something that looks to even end up as stable during that short time with this many features, given the stupidity that went on in planning. Or rather in-development-planning.

    Of course, WinFS and other technologies had to go due to this wild change of focus in mid-development, but that's not surprising or a lack of efficiency due to having think of backwards compatibility, like this article claims.

    But it's at the same time very visible how Microsoft is struggling, and I'm doubting we will see a clean release of this one when it "goes gold".
  48. Re:Huh? by Squirrelgirl · · Score: 1 · on Windows Vista RC1 Impresses Critics

    Vista defrags in the background on idle according to this: http://winsupersite.com/reviews/winvista_5365.asp

  49. Re:so, is MS okay to bundle now? by johneee · · Score: 1 · on Business 2.0 Says 'Boycott Vista'

    I won't send you to the 'new features in Vista' page that is on Wikipeda since that gets trotted out every time this subject comes up.

    But here's a Thurrott article about some of the good things in Vista that kind of counterbalances his post about all the stuff he hates...

    http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_rc1_ best.asp

    He may be overly sensational, but he seems to be overly sensational on both sides of the subject pretty much equally.

  50. so, is MS okay to bundle now? by yagu · · Score: 4, Insightful · on Business 2.0 Says 'Boycott Vista'

    Is the decree of consent over? In Paul Thurrott's article, aside from the refreshing observation Mr. Thurrott is willing to critique as well as fawn, I find it notable he picks one example where MS has been inconsistent and stupid (I agree) with their navigation ergonomics.

    From his article, it's pretty clear MS is shipping a DVD maker, and from just one screen it appears to be a video/other type of application. Is this now considered de rigeur intrinsic Operating System? I know the definition of OS has blurred and been trickier to pin down, and I would expect an OS to have the appropriate drivers to allow burning of a DVD (it is after all, a component of the OS, or at least drivers for a DVD burner are).

    If I were ROXIO or NERO, I'd be pissed, this looks like a de facto and direct competitor product, and if it's bundled as "part of the OS", it would seem close to the line of leveraging again.

    And later in Thurrott's article he mentions the builtin virus checking -- something previously discussed on slashdot -- this also seems like another market niche MS is conveniently incorporating as part of their OS.... (how about making an OS much less susceptible to this in the first place?).

    Is MS free to do this now?

    As for boycotting Vista, I wish the world would consider, but it won't. And, I'll have to have some Vista machine and exposure to continue to pretend to support friends and family. Everything I've read about Vista bolsters the view there is not much new worth the upgrade, and there's enough annoying to induce a ferocious case of buyer's remorse.