Slashdot Mirror

What it should say is, "Your computer might be at risk. Currently downloading: 18,432 viruses, 94% complete. These downloads will automatically install upon completion. For your convenience, you cannot cancel or stop this operation. If you disconnect the network during this time or attempt to reboot, you will be arrested under the DMCA clause that prohibits anti-circumvention with regards to the intellectual property rights of the virus authors. Microsoft. Where do you want to go today?"

Screenshot here.

And what do those screenshots tell us anyways?

They killed Clippy!

Now if that little "Your computer might be at risk" thingie doesn't cry out of an appearance by Clippy, I don't know what does.

What I noted looking at the control panel screenshot, is that it looks a lot more complicate than what I remembered back from the days when I still used Windows (:grins:).

I mean, people always say "GNU/Linux is difficult to master, you need to be a genius to use that"... "what a mess of options, how can I find a way through that"... and then... please compare: Windows (Ok, the "classic view" link is there, but that's just an example) - A GNU/Linux desktop

This seems a common trend while time passes: systems become bigger and more difficult to use if you're not a literate (who, ten years ago, would have cared about what's a gateway being on Windows? who _doesn't_ now?). Good luck for GNU/Linux, then. It has been ten more years of experience in being complex. :-)

Seriously, computer literacy is becoming a prerequisite for every system out there, and this makes switches easier from Windows to anything else. Even if this isn't the matter, they're all becoming "more to read and less to click".

(PS: Counting the seconds before someone says something about how MacOSX solves all these problems by being the most simple system in the world yaddayaddayadda. :-) )

I've seen nicer ones. Where's Longhorn?

The one shot of anything remotely Longhorn looks difficult to quickly scan (see left bar, or even the center area) http://www.winsupersite.com/images/reviews/lh5048_ 02_07.jpg

I understand that this is a beta and all, but why even bother releasing those shots.

click click click, ....nothing.

• It's still using icons from Windows 95 which is what, like 4 or 5 years old now? http://www.support.psi.com/support/common/ra/win95 /mycomputer2.gif
• The folder icons are encrypted with ROT 90
• In Internet Explorer icon, like with every bugfix, has changed

Okay, so this is "pre-beta" (isn't that called "Alpha"?) but what I see from the limited information is that MS is really afraid to take some giant leaps.

Looking at other OS updates that made major improvements (Mac OS -> OS X, OS/2 -> OS/2 Warp, Linux pre-boot floppy -> Red Hat Fedora), they all abandoned antiquated concepts in favor of innovation.

Take for example the "Control Panel". Same old Windows crap. Tons of grouped 'wizards' for managing your system. Why not take a page out of Apple's Spotlight book and allow the user to type in what they are wanting to do "add a user", "change desktop wallpaper" and give them the control.

Other examples? Okay, the Start menu is old and busted. It was in Win95 and it still is. Can't MS, in their innovative, new OS, get with the usability? I'm not saying Apple's Dock or Linux's menu bar and virtual desktops are better, I'm just saying that they are CLOSER to providing an intuitive interface. Why the hell would anyone go to "Start" to logout?

Just consider for a moment that the My Documents screenshot takes your eye on a journey just to figure out what is going on. For navigation we have what looks like a left nav tree structure, but we also have a drop down at the top (above the menu for goodness sakes!) and there is ofcourse the window name, "My Documents". I am assuming there is a third way to navigate, via the left arrow to the side of the drop down - whew, what is a computer novice to do? Then there is all the text - six menu bar options, presumably with drop downs, and four columns of file information (though it is not displaying the files in the columns, it is displaying them in an icons view, leading me to believe this is a mockup and not a real screen). Lastly, there is this summary with a folder icon (won't it ALWAYS be a folder icon? and, what's this, a link to "Show all properties..." Who is designing this screen anyway?

Of course, the file browser isn't what Longhorn is all about, but it does show that MS isn't reaching too far from where their feet are firmly planted and it also shows that integrating system wide searching ontop of this design is going to ADD confusion and complexity, not eliminate it.

It seems like Microsoft thinks that if they make the elements large and friendly-looking enough, Windows will magically be easier to use.

Reminds me of how some people think they can make foreigners understand English, if they just speak it loudly and slowly enough.

I especially love how the Start Menu doesn't even have enough room for "Shut Down" to appear next to its shiny, friendly icon without being truncated to "Shut Do..."

Yep, it's a good time to be a Mac user-- and an even better time to become one.

My main issue with Windows is consistency. I am glad to see they are making progress here, with only three differently themed folder icons.

They all are.

(On a serious note, it'd probably be a good idea to fix that--otherwise, grandma's gonna have a hard time figuring out what the "Shu..." button does on her large-text setup...)

Most experienced reviewers clearly shows this:

"Alas, despite the wait, Tiger is a minor revision, like all previous OS X updates."

"Though it is marketed by Apple as a major release, Tiger is in fact a minor upgrade with few major new features for end users (though developers will be interested in some of the low-level work Apple has done with Core Image, Core Audio, and other technologies. That won't stop Apple fans from flocking to Apple Stores on April 29 and standing in line to buy it, even at its inflated $129 price.

...

Ok, so, to bring Longhorn anywhere near the fundamental security that Mac OS X already intrinsically has?

To say nothing of the irony of this statement..."security enhancements"? Over what? Microsoft's previous already-dismal general track record in this area?

improved desktop searching and organizing

Which Apple is already shipping in Tiger, and even Paul Thurrott acknowledges as "exceedingly cool"?

Perhaps this line from the article says it all on this topic:

"In both look and form, the search mechanism is similar to the Spotlight feature in Apple Computer's Mac OS X Tiger, which goes on sale later this month."

and better methods for laptops to roam from one network to another.

...that I can already seamlessly do with Mac OS X's automatic detection of saved wireless network settings, rolling prioritized detection of available network interfaces, and quick switching of locations?

And it goes on like this, mostly as justifications for how Longhorn is really different from Tiger. (No. Really.) The most relevant excerpt is likely "[Longhorn] bears plenty of similarities to Tiger [...]"

Except that one is, you know, shipping this month.

To say nothing of the full-fledged UNIX and X11 environment I have with Mac OS X.

*Yawn*

An interesting previous tidbit from Thurrott:

And since announcing its Longhorn desktop search intentions, Microsoft's worst fears were realized. Other companies began copying the Microsoft desktop search strategy, knowing that the never-ending Longhorn delays would help them get to market sooner and appear to be nimbler and even more innovative, though it's sort of astonishing how transparent that latter claim is. Chief among these competitors are Apple and Google.

Apple CEO Steve Jobs announced in June 2004 that the next version of Mac OS X, due sometime in 2005, will include a desktop search feature called Spotlight. The Spotlight feature set is a rough subset of the desktop search features Gates discussed in late 2003, but presented to the user with Apple's standard graphical excellence. Spotlight, according to Apple, is a "radically new and lightning fast way to find anything saved on your personal computer. Email messages, contacts and calendars, along with files and folders, all show up in Spotlight results." Spotlight's biggest claims to fame, presumably, are its near-instant search results and support for document meta data, both of which are, again, planned features of Longhorn. But no matter. While Apple has been busy copping Windows features since Jobs returned to Apple in late 1996, the company's tiny market share ensures that very few people will benefit from Spotlight, despite Apple claims that it will deliver on desktop search a year before Microsoft ships Longhorn. ...in December 2004.

Then in February 2005, he started to change his tune:

I'd like to highlight some of the features that I feel set MSN Search apart from its competitors, chiefly Google [...]

What happened to Apple?

And in today's review:

Apple decided to adopt a similar approach in various places throughout OS X Tiger--including the Finder, Mail 2, and elsewhere--providing Mac OS X users, for the first time, with true instant search functionality. Similar in execution to the instant desktop search feature Microsoft plans to ship in Longhorn next year, and to third party Windows products like MSN Toolbar Suite and Google Desktop Search, Spotlight works as advertised. It delivers near-instantaneous search results from the places you'd most often need to find files or other information.

[...]

Now, this kind of functionality is exceeding cool, because it's the first step toward divorcing ourselves from worrying about the hard-coded locations of files and other data stored on the computer's file system. If you think about it, it's kind of silly that we have to even worry about such a thing, and though recent file system niceties like the My Documents folder in Windows (simply called Documents in OS X) try to simplify matters, the truth is, computers should be good at finding the information we need. We shouldn't have to do all the work.

Not coincidentally, Microsoft is working on similar, if further-reaching, technology for Longhorn. Apple's solution, however, is here right now and it appears to work quite well. Score one for Apple.

Why the about face?

An interesting previous tidbit from Thurrott:

And since announcing its Longhorn desktop search intentions, Microsoft's worst fears were realized. Other companies began copying the Microsoft desktop search strategy, knowing that the never-ending Longhorn delays would help them get to market sooner and appear to be nimbler and even more innovative, though it's sort of astonishing how transparent that latter claim is. Chief among these competitors are Apple and Google.

Apple CEO Steve Jobs announced in June 2004 that the next version of Mac OS X, due sometime in 2005, will include a desktop search feature called Spotlight. The Spotlight feature set is a rough subset of the desktop search features Gates discussed in late 2003, but presented to the user with Apple's standard graphical excellence. Spotlight, according to Apple, is a "radically new and lightning fast way to find anything saved on your personal computer. Email messages, contacts and calendars, along with files and folders, all show up in Spotlight results." Spotlight's biggest claims to fame, presumably, are its near-instant search results and support for document meta data, both of which are, again, planned features of Longhorn. But no matter. While Apple has been busy copping Windows features since Jobs returned to Apple in late 1996, the company's tiny market share ensures that very few people will benefit from Spotlight, despite Apple claims that it will deliver on desktop search a year before Microsoft ships Longhorn. ...in December 2004.

Then in February 2005, he started to change his tune:

I'd like to highlight some of the features that I feel set MSN Search apart from its competitors, chiefly Google [...]

What happened to Apple?

And in today's review:

Apple decided to adopt a similar approach in various places throughout OS X Tiger--including the Finder, Mail 2, and elsewhere--providing Mac OS X users, for the first time, with true instant search functionality. Similar in execution to the instant desktop search feature Microsoft plans to ship in Longhorn next year, and to third party Windows products like MSN Toolbar Suite and Google Desktop Search, Spotlight works as advertised. It delivers near-instantaneous search results from the places you'd most often need to find files or other information.

[...]

Now, this kind of functionality is exceeding cool, because it's the first step toward divorcing ourselves from worrying about the hard-coded locations of files and other data stored on the computer's file system. If you think about it, it's kind of silly that we have to even worry about such a thing, and though recent file system niceties like the My Documents folder in Windows (simply called Documents in OS X) try to simplify matters, the truth is, computers should be good at finding the information we need. We shouldn't have to do all the work.

Not coincidentally, Microsoft is working on similar, if further-reaching, technology for Longhorn. Apple's solution, however, is here right now and it appears to work quite well. Score one for Apple.

Why the about face?

An interesting previous tidbit from Thurrott:

And since announcing its Longhorn desktop search intentions, Microsoft's worst fears were realized. Other companies began copying the Microsoft desktop search strategy, knowing that the never-ending Longhorn delays would help them get to market sooner and appear to be nimbler and even more innovative, though it's sort of astonishing how transparent that latter claim is. Chief among these competitors are Apple and Google.

Apple CEO Steve Jobs announced in June 2004 that the next version of Mac OS X, due sometime in 2005, will include a desktop search feature called Spotlight. The Spotlight feature set is a rough subset of the desktop search features Gates discussed in late 2003, but presented to the user with Apple's standard graphical excellence. Spotlight, according to Apple, is a "radically new and lightning fast way to find anything saved on your personal computer. Email messages, contacts and calendars, along with files and folders, all show up in Spotlight results." Spotlight's biggest claims to fame, presumably, are its near-instant search results and support for document meta data, both of which are, again, planned features of Longhorn. But no matter. While Apple has been busy copping Windows features since Jobs returned to Apple in late 1996, the company's tiny market share ensures that very few people will benefit from Spotlight, despite Apple claims that it will deliver on desktop search a year before Microsoft ships Longhorn. ...in December 2004.

Then in February 2005, he started to change his tune:

I'd like to highlight some of the features that I feel set MSN Search apart from its competitors, chiefly Google [...]

What happened to Apple?

And in today's review:

Apple decided to adopt a similar approach in various places throughout OS X Tiger--including the Finder, Mail 2, and elsewhere--providing Mac OS X users, for the first time, with true instant search functionality. Similar in execution to the instant desktop search feature Microsoft plans to ship in Longhorn next year, and to third party Windows products like MSN Toolbar Suite and Google Desktop Search, Spotlight works as advertised. It delivers near-instantaneous search results from the places you'd most often need to find files or other information.

[...]

Now, this kind of functionality is exceeding cool, because it's the first step toward divorcing ourselves from worrying about the hard-coded locations of files and other data stored on the computer's file system. If you think about it, it's kind of silly that we have to even worry about such a thing, and though recent file system niceties like the My Documents folder in Windows (simply called Documents in OS X) try to simplify matters, the truth is, computers should be good at finding the information we need. We shouldn't have to do all the work.

Not coincidentally, Microsoft is working on similar, if further-reaching, technology for Longhorn. Apple's solution, however, is here right now and it appears to work quite well. Score one for Apple.

Why the about face?

I hope the next Windows interface will be a return to crisp function and logical work flow.

I assume when you say crisp function and logical workflow you mean giant title bars.

The company also plans to have a beta version of Longhorn Server later this year.

"That's our expectation," Price said.

What do these "reference" numbers in the explorer-like app mean? Looks like Inode numbers to me... But it's a good thing they still hide file extensions as those are just too confusing for the casual user, uh-huh.

The user is searching for "report"

Take a look at the bottom of this screenshot.

Two pictures...

H.

the original win95 design was widely criticized. And later I think they made some change to add 1 or 2 pixels of distance between the maximize button and close button. Later in XP they made them had different colors and more far away from each other. For example, there is a Screenshot.

However, in this one, the "X" button is very close to the miximize button and even enlarged.

This makes thinking why.

The document stacks look an awful lot like Apple's piles That search dialog (not just the search box in the upper right) looks like Apple's search dialog from before os 8. Although I must say that those Shorthorn( tm) screen shots do not look as bad as XP.

I do the exact same thing. There should be two separate versions they release: one for ocassional users that like all the flashy GUI features, and one for those who like their computers simple and practical. As far as I know, they're going farther and farther with the hidden file thing, just look at the "file stacking" thing.

Check out this one of an example search results page. Look at the file sizes. They're just duped between sections.. so are the dates! I'm sure you don't have 5 e-mails and 5 totally random files all with corresponding dates and sizes. Seriously, check it out.

Even if the interface work here isn't fake, there has been some copying/pasting going on OR Longhorn doesn't have file size and date functionality yet ;-)

No surprise coming from Thurrott.

Check out this excerpt from a recent review of the MSN Toolbar Suite:

At the Professional Developers Conference 2003 in Los Angeles last year (see my exhaustive coverage of that show), Microsoft chairman Bill Gates touted the searching innovations that would go into Longhorn, the next generation Windows version that's now due in mid-2006. In a way, by detailing the new desktop search features Microsoft was working on so early, Gates had thrown down the gauntlet. In today's PC world, desktop search is a miserable, slow affair, and as Microsoft executives are fond of pointing out, it shouldn't take longer to find a file you know is on your hard drive than it takes to perform a Web search.

However, Gates was also giving his competitors a leg up on Microsoft. And since announcing its Longhorn desktop search intentions, Microsoft's worst fears were realized. Other companies began copying the Microsoft desktop search strategy, knowing that the never-ending Longhorn delays would help them get to market sooner and appear to be nimbler and even more innovative, though it's sort of astonishing how transparent that latter claim is. Chief among these competitors are Apple and Google.

Apple CEO Steve Jobs announced in June 2004 that the next version of Mac OS X, due sometime in 2005, will include a desktop search feature called Spotlight. The Spotlight feature set is a rough subset of the desktop search features Gates discussed in late 2003, but presented to the user with Apple's standard graphical excellence. Spotlight, according to Apple, is a "radically new and lightning fast way to find anything saved on your personal computer. Email messages, contacts and calendars, along with files and folders, all show up in Spotlight results." Spotlight's biggest claims to fame, presumably, are its near-instant search results and support for document meta data, both of which are, again, planned features of Longhorn. But no matter. While Apple has been busy copping Windows features since Jobs returned to Apple in late 1996 [!!!!!], the company's tiny market share ensures that very few people will benefit from Spotlight, despite Apple claims that it will deliver on desktop search a year before Microsoft ships Longhorn.

The gall astounds me. But hey, he actually believes it.

Didn't Apple patent "stacks"?

Looks like the biggest selling point in the screenshots for longhorn is its new fast "searching" "feature" that looks remarkably like apple's new "Spotlight"...

(Sarcasm)But hey, if you cant beat them... cheat them.(/sarcasm)

Looks like the biggest selling point in the screenshots for longhorn is its new fast "searching" "feature" that looks remarkably like apple's new "Spotlight"...

(Sarcasm)But hey, if you cant beat them... cheat them.(/sarcasm)

My basis on thinking that it'll be more stable and secure is that - if I've gotten this right - major parts of the actual architecture will run as managed code and it will therefore be easier to 'throttle' any bugs or exploits.

I love Linux as much as anyone here, but seriously, saying that "3D stuff on the desktop isn't anything new and we have it already running on linux." is just meaningless. Lots of technologies already exist. However, the vast majority don't use them. Are you willing to bet that even 5% of Linux *desktop* users use "3D stuff on the desktop"?

WinFS may not be coming, but there's certainly plenty of stuff available. Paul Thurrott has a nice article about some of the new stuff, and I like the look of things like Stacks. (Advocates, take note; Paul Thurrott is a semi-Microsoft advocate. ;)) Syncing and searching are always nice, as is competent permissions - Windows will actually put up a dialog asking for temporary administrator permissions when doing stuff like installing programs; the way it's done in OS X, BSD and *nix, and about damn time, too. (The link above had a screenshot of this earlier and I think it's been removed.)

Microsoft might have had to tighten a lot of security screws all over the place, and might have had to restructure a lot of the internals as well, but I don't think the "Applications" team have been noodling since the release of XP.

Otherwise we'll have to wait until it's released to say anything good or bad about Longhorn. In the meantime there are anough things to say about XP. Both good points. But all I'm saying is that for something that will have been in development for over five years (at the time of release) by one of the largest companies in the world should not reasonably be assumed to be as crappy (or even half as crappy) as a rushed Windows version that too at most two years to finish and mainly served as a good reason to upgrade to XP**. I don't want to glorify Microsoft - they've done enough to warrant my outright hatred and very little to make up for it - but I'm just saying that it's not very logical to underestimate them either.

(In the interest of full disclosure, I'm writing this on a Mac, and my other two computers run XP and Fedora Core respectively. I try not to be biased but judge everything on its merits rather than on its supporters or its history. I've also never tried out Longhorn myself.)

(** The Douglas Adams in me wants to add "where of course new exploits await your pleasure" here, but I opted against it because this comment is long enough already... what's that? Oh. Crap. ;))

This is only slightly off-topic (it is the future competition, after all), but submissions on this to Slashdot are being rejected.

Never-before-seen shots of Longhorn:
1
2
3

There are others from Winsupersite, including a dialog that pops up totally ripped from OS X asking you for the admin password when you install a program, and shots of Windows paint with translucent borders and titlebars, blurring the image behind it like glass.

This is only slightly off-topic (it is the future competition, after all), but submissions on this to Slashdot are being rejected.

Never-before-seen shots of Longhorn:
1
2
3

There are others from Winsupersite, including a dialog that pops up totally ripped from OS X asking you for the admin password when you install a program, and shots of Windows paint with translucent borders and titlebars, blurring the image behind it like glass.

This is only slightly off-topic (it is the future competition, after all), but submissions on this to Slashdot are being rejected.

Never-before-seen shots of Longhorn:
1
2
3

There are others from Winsupersite, including a dialog that pops up totally ripped from OS X asking you for the admin password when you install a program, and shots of Windows paint with translucent borders and titlebars, blurring the image behind it like glass.

• He talks about installing SP 2 after installing XP. That's fine, if you have an SP 1 CD. But if you have a pre-SP1 CD like I do, XP will not recognize any hard drive space over 127 GB. You can't partition it or anything. XP thinks the drive is 127 GB and you're stuck. The solution (and probably a better idea even if you have an SP1 disc) is to Slipstream SP2 onto your XP install disc. Here is an explanation of the process. Basically, you integrate SP2 into XP and burn a new CD. So when you install XP, it is automatically SP2 and recognizes the full size of the hard drive.
• My system would not Standby properly. The fans were still on, which defeats the purpose of putting the system into Standby. You have to go into the BIOS and enable S2 or S3 Standby mode if you want the system to appear off in Standby mode, but still have 5 second startup.
• For some odd reason, my motherboard BIOS didn't have USB 2.0 defaulted on. I have no idea why they would do that. Make sure it is changed to enable USB 2.0 support.
• Don't forget the Administrator password. I had to do a reinstall because I forgot it. Luckily, I hadn't transferred any info at the time.

had MS ever successfully supported a desktop/workstation OS on a non-x86 architecture for any real length of time?
Is the answer still yes?

Yes.

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

Or any other of 1000s of articles re: PPC / MIPS / Alpha versions of NT.

Why not do a Google search and find the answer yourself instead of blustering from a position of ignorance?

Aside from the fact that "while the rest of the world continues to work" is blatantly untrue - I've found the Winboys are far bigger cheerleaders and blinkered than the Mac fanboys. (Article of evidence No. 1: Paul Thurrott. Case closed.)

I'm not defending zealotry, but sometimes those with a minority voice HAVE to speak a bit louder in order to be heard:

Many work environments force a system on you, and if you've got an IT Manager who has the attitude "No Macs ever, over my dead body, I hate them and everyone who uses them" then it's hardly surprising the little Mac'ites get a bit vocal!

What about Paul Thurrott? He's (from what I remeber), quite a hardcore Windows man, about as militant as they get.

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

Windows NT was originally developed for Intel's x86 successor processor, the i860, which fizzled due to project management problems at Intel. This processor was, for the time, a fully-featured RISC processor which indeed implemented protected mode. Windows NT was originally a microkernel which pro-actively utilizes multitasking to offload kernel chores into userspace wherever possible. Over time the microkernel functionality, including the display server, would all be eliminated as everything was eventually factored into the kernel itself.

Windows NT was designed with isolated (and therefore relatively trusted) business networks in mind. Although not initially designed as such, mid-90's releases featured multi-user support( although not in the traditional sense of a time-sharing operating system) through NT LAN Manager, allowing centralized administration and logins on a business network. And indeed, the 4.x series brought full multi-user support with Terminal Server Edition.

The drastic change in requirements, which I noted in my first post, was a move from isolated, relatively trustworthy business networks to the commodity Internet, a completely untrustworthy network. This was coupled with development of a browser which, sadly, was designed with ease-of-use in mind over security, for tasks as dangerous as installing software and upgrading the operating system, something previously unheard of via the web.

These two problems, the dramatic design paradigm shift in NT from isolated business networks to the commodity Internet and the misprioritization of IE's design and implementation goals, which accomplished their short-term business ends (crushing Netscape) extremely well, are the reason Windows is being plagued by the problems it has today.

Microsoft did FAR more than just update the interface for their search engine. The entire search engine was rebuilt from the ground up and added some rather interesting, albeit relatively unknown, capabilities and it's only going to get better from here.

> Even though the only difference is a web server

There are many differences. Quite a few are not relevant to most users, but the fact that single session terminal services is available in XP Pro is the principle difference for me. No, VNC is not an adequate replacement.

Before you all get all frothy about Dvorak's predictions, look back at his recent posts and ask yourself the question "does this guy know what the hell he's talking about?" You'll see that he's frequently wrong. He's also got some very odd and misguided opinions. I used to read (and enjoy) his column years ago. But those days are long gone. I clump him right up there with other frequently wrong columnists such as Rob Enderle and Paul Thurrott.

Check out this gem! This thing has Solitaire on the Start Menu!!!

Hey, you guys like to say exploits in Linux widgets like XPdf aren't Linux flaws, so it cuts both ways.

Bullshit. /. has 1000's of readers. Some refer to Linux-the-OS, others refer to Linux-the-kernel. No double-standard, just a variety of opinions. As you'd expect on a discussion site that isn't a lying marketing tool.

---

Commercial software bigots - a dying breed.

PSP to Recieve Television Broadcasts

The Xbox extender along with the Windows Media Center allows you to watch TV over wireless connections.

Following the first link in the story leads you to this picture (eventually):
http://www.winsupersite.com/images/reviews/war_tea m_85.jpg

Isn't that a penguin?
Isn't that Tux?
What's he doing there?
Spying?

Or... noo. They hold him captive??!

That article offers an interesting insight into the Microsoft development process.

I know that even sizeable open-source projects can be ridden with political complications, but this article gave me a new sense of how people interact when working on big projects.

Todd Wanke seems like a good guy, but using the article as a vehicle for his sappy management practices wasn't very appealing.

Even if you went back through every piece of mail I wrote for Windows Server 2003, and Windows XP SP2, you'll never see the word "I" in any of those emails, unless there was a specific reason for it. I'm just a believer in that if you want to get things done, the best way to do it is as a team.

Also not appealing is Jim Allchin's satanic gaze. Jesus.

Too much hype. Too much bullshit. Too many acronyms. I'm sticking to free software people.

no really /cheeky schoolboy name jab

...about forthcoming-product secrecy, since their stuff has been ripped off more than any other tech company I know of.

Hell, Microsoft fanboys go so far as to imply Microsoft came up with some stuff first, and say Apple is the copier!

And then consider that competitors such as Apple and Google tried to preempt Microsoft by announcing similar features, and yet were both unable to deliver final versions before Microsoft simply shipped the MSN Toolbar Suite.

http://www.theeldergeek.com/slipstreamed_xpsp2_cd. htm

http://www.neowin.net/articles.php?action=more&id= 94

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

Does that mean I have to install XP, download SP2. Burn the SP2 archive onto a CDROM, reinstall XP with the network cable disconnected, and then patch? Geez that'll get old fast

You can slipstream the SP2 patch into SP1 or a plain Windows XP CD. This will allow straight installation of Windows XP + SP2 already integrated. This basically involves running the SP2 installer on a copy of CD files, and then burning the resulting files to another CD. This page has more information on slipstreaming SP2. This comment has reached its end.