CNET Reviews Windows XP Beta 2

Re:Dumbing it down.... by Anonymous Coward · 2001-03-25 08:24 · Score: 1

I'd rather kill IE 6 for linux

Q. Why would an operating system need 3 gigs of hd by Anonymous Coward · 2001-03-25 08:30 · Score: 1

A. Because it's imitating MacOS!

ba-dump-bump ching!

...but seriously, folks...

Re:Shutting down - foulup central. by Anonymous Coward · 2001-03-25 08:31 · Score: 1

Anyone with access to the machine can just pull the plug. Big fuckin deal.

Re:Shutting down - foulup central. by Anonymous Coward · 2001-03-25 08:35 · Score: 1

Would you rather they just unplugged the computer?

Take a look at kde2.1 and konqueror by Anonymous Coward · 2001-03-25 09:04 · Score: 1

As long as you do not install excessive x-windows fonts, kde2.1 looks real nice. Also konqueror is equal to IE 4. It supports java and javascript and css. The font issue has been worked out with kde 2.1 and many apps like kdevelopment 1.4 and konqueror look very similiar to windows xp when you first use them. ALso kde 2.1 supports anti-aliased fonts with qt 2.4 right out of the box. Its crisp and clear and sweet. It takes more ram but I have 200 megs of it so I did not notice. :-)

However I was told that windows2000 halts and grinds and swaps like mad wiht only 256 megs. Who would of thought just a few years ago that a half a gig of ram would be needed just to run a consumer OS. I remember an old windows95 joke. Q.)Why did ms call windows95, 95? A.) because it took a whole 95 megs of hard drive space!

While this joke is not funny anymore the point that 95 megs of hd space being too big and now mroe ram is required fo w2k then entire hd space then its predecessor is quite amazing.

Anyway try taking a look. Its a littel cutsey and bright but kde2.1 is very modern and light years ahead of gnome.

Re:Take a look at kde2.1 and konqueror by Anonymous Coward · 2001-03-25 12:03 · Score: 1

How come so many people think "a lot" is one word?
Re:Take a look at kde2.1 and konqueror by pod · 2001-03-25 13:43 · Score: 1

icq is a bit more these days, what with the bundled web server and all...
If you want better swap performance create a fixed swap file (min and max the same #). Just defrag your drive first, so it's contiguous.

--
"Hot lesbian witches! It's fucking genius!"
Re:Take a look at kde2.1 and konqueror by plague3106 · 2001-03-25 10:45 · Score: 1

I have 128MB ram, and it doesn't 'swap like mad.' It swaps when i have ALOT of things going at once.

Now the HD size is another matter; a fresh install takes 800MB. That is alot.

Can't comment on the kde thing; i use gnome myself. But i do keep kde around to try now and then.
Re:Take a look at kde2.1 and konqueror by plague3106 · 2001-03-25 23:25 · Score: 1

Why do so many anonymous cowards have nothing of value to add?
Re:Take a look at kde2.1 and konqueror by theancient1 · 2001-03-25 13:13 · Score: 2

Another tip if you ever notice Windows swapping: earlier versions of Windows can really sound pretty bad if you're using the default swapfile settings and have less than 5% of your disk space free. I can't say much about swapping performance in 2000, because I like keeping my disk above 10% free -- but I do have 128MB of RAM, and notice that Windows typically uses all 128 MB with the number of programs I typically have running. (Right now, for example, Explorer is taking 5 MB, Internet Explorer is hogging 21 MB, 7 for Winamp, 5 for ad filter software, 4 for ICQ [that's ICQ 98: a "lite" version])
Re:Take a look at kde2.1 and konqueror by ez_TAB · 2001-03-26 07:48 · Score: 1

To keep NT/2000 from excessive swapping:
Set your pagefile to a different drive than your OS (or whatever drive is highest performing/used least)
-in a partition that has been defragmented (and hopefully devoid of other disk-intensive stuff like video)
-set BOTH your mix/max values to approx. twice your RAM (or a bit more if you've very little ram)
-make sure (again) that your min/max values are the SAME to avoid having to allocate additional swap space on the fly

I'm rather anal about my system performance here, I've got 2000 installed on my 1st scsi drive (a 4gig) and then another small/fast scsi drive that houses my swapfile set to twice my 640MB of ram. IDE drives house all of my data and application. Besides avoiding problems with the pagefile I also get around that ever so slight halt that I've noticed even with intel's busmastering IDE/66/100 drivers when, for instance, I minimize photoshop to jump back into an Ebay bidding frenzy.

--
Quote from ???: "There are lies; there are damn lies; and there are benchmarks."

Re:Man.. that was way harsh. by Anonymous Coward · 2001-03-25 09:17 · Score: 1

This one time I put a warez copy of Photoshop on her computer and there must have been some kind of virus because the next time I tried to boot up it just kept repeating "FREE KEVIN" over and over! Damn that Windows 2K!

Linux however runs like a dream. Except that there are no drivers for my web cam, scanner, sound card, network card, USB port, and printer. Other than that, everything is peachy.

Re:Man.. that was way harsh. by Anonymous Coward · 2001-03-25 09:31 · Score: 1

You pay mucho dollars for Windows. You have a right to expect something. Linux is free - no one is paying the developers. Think, then talk. Works better.

Re:Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · 2001-03-25 11:01 · Score: 1

Well, w2K also has the OS/2 subsystem, the POSIX subsystem, the win95 compatibility layer, the win98 compatibility layer, the nT4 compatibility layer, the DOS 'emulation'.

And SFP will probably take up _at least_ half a gig of that install size.

Re:Oh yeah...Activation.... by Anonymous Coward · 2001-03-25 14:53 · Score: 1

Microsoft seems to always leave in some way of avoiding activation. For Office 2000 and Office XP this is a special CD-key. If you want to run WinXP without activation, you can boot into to safe mode (first boot after install) and with regedit set the value of HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\WindowsNT\Cu rrentVersion\WinLogon\Activation Required to "0".

Re:Not silly by Anonymous Coward · 2001-03-25 19:39 · Score: 1

"By the way, don't forget to count the labor."

Or the time spent ordering, receiving and installing your new hardware/computer just to upgrade your OS.

Don't forget that while this may be fine for single-PC 'joe schmoe' when you have a room full of machines, or a lab full, or a whole bloody site full this becomes an incredibly important factor.

I've upgraded my entire lab's OSes multiple times over the past two years and never once had to change the hardware. And, amazingly, it's got faster. Guess which type of OS it is...it has an 'X' in it, but doesn't come from MS or Apple.

Windows? Pay more for you OS, pay more for your hardware, end up slower than you started. Great stuff.

Re:Automatic Update is a feature? by Anonymous Coward · 2001-03-25 08:35 · Score: 2

I think you're letting your paranoia run away with you. Do you seriously believe MS with 24 billion cash in the bank would bother to chase you down and make you give them a couple hundred dollars for a legal copy of Windows ? I seriously doubt it.

MS has always been and if they stay on track always will place a higher priority on the proliferation of their software over making money on every copy of it.

All actions I've seen MS take to prosecute software pirates have been against people reproducing it and selling it on mass. People who've copied it to learn its features are never going to be persecuted by MS as they are their foot soldiers carrying it into the front lines in the work place.

I think your mistake is that you believe MS is as short sighted as yourself.

The broadening gap. by Anonymous Coward · 2001-03-25 08:47 · Score: 2

I've always had a use for windows despite my Linux leanings. Alway those need to have apps that required booting up into win95 and recently win98. But the other day, I was on irc and somebody mentioned windows XP. And I didn't even know what it was! And even more recently I watched debate over the NET thing and couldn't help but sense that I'd been drifting away from something, since I've not looked into NET that much either. I really don't have an /active/ dislike for MS products. I've just been too busy with Linux to spare much time looking into the other half of the computer world.

Microsoft has been busily 'redefining' things and taking all their followers with them. Meanwhile others like me are drifting someplace else. I make no claim as to which group is drifting in the more appropriate direction, just that the distance is increasing. I get the feeling that when the NET applications begin to come around, that this distance will be something that is a pointed aspect of one's chosen OS. Keep in mind I have no intention of saying what is good or what is bad in this case. Just that there is an irreconsilable gap that is growing that will play a part in all of our futures. I think it's safe to say that Microsoft is the cause of this. They are trying to distance themselves from Linux and it's working. It's as if they're demanding a person to choose one camp or the other. I mean, you're either doing NET with microsoft or not doing it at all!

They're gonna split the world right down the middle. Hard to say just exactly what the impact is gonna be but I can't help but think it's gonna happen. They're embracing and extending to whoever listens. How much effort should the linux world devote to trying to stay compatible with Microsoft? Perhaps that depends on the quality of their endeavors. But if it's just some business game they're playing it seems a waste. A waste of their time and everyone elses.

Re:The broadening gap. by sheldon · 2001-03-25 11:50 · Score: 2

If you think you feel out of touch with Windows by a move from Win95 to Win98...

Your going to be in for a culture shock when Windows XP comes out. NT turned a lot of Win95 assumptions for a loop, and it's taken several years for most developers and admins to really get a grasp of that.
Re:The broadening gap. by Stephen+VanDahm · 2001-03-25 09:37 · Score: 1

I recently got a laptop that runs Windows 98. After running Linux for three years, my Windows skills had deteriorated to the point where I looked and felt like a newbie whenever I sat down in front of the thing. I still don't know how to do some things, because back in my Windows days, I used Windows 95.

In fact, I didn't even know that Windows ME had been released until I saw the upgrades at Best Buy. Maybe I should make some effort to keep up....

========
Stephen C. VanDahm
Re:The broadening gap. by RoscoHead · 2001-03-25 13:02 · Score: 1

I mean, you're either doing NET with microsoft or not doing it at all!

Not necessarily. Check here.

--

Why is there only one Monopolies commission?
Re:The broadening gap. by mikehunt · 2001-03-25 19:31 · Score: 1

I could not agree more.

I've been using Linux for about three years now, although I'm forced to keep a copy of Win98 under VMWare so that I can run MS-Office.

Although I keep as up to date as possible, things like Micrsoft's .net and XP have rarely inspired me to follow a link anywhere to see what all the fuss is about. I'm just not interested anymore!

I guess it just leaves me waiting for the day when Linux gets real office apps that actually work properly and read Microsoft Office format files faithfully. Microsoft compatibility is always going to be a requirement on Linux (or any other OS's) applications purely because of the huge user base.

Holy F*CK by Anonymous Coward · 2001-03-25 08:15 · Score: 3

2GB hard drive space? 128Meg RAM minimum? What are they trying to run here, Nautilus (rimshot)

Seriously though, is this the 'future' of software? Bloatware? Where will this leave users with yesterdays computers? Oh right..

My biggest gripe tho is the 2GB they talk about needed. The biggest, baddest install of Debian I can come up with is smaller then that, and we're talking about enough development tools and libraries to recompile the kernel, the display server, the UI... I don't even want to think how big Visual Studio XP will be. Save me!!!

Re:Holy F*CK by The+Man · 2001-03-25 09:50 · Score: 1

every linux user knows how unstable the GUI (x) can be.....
This varies greatly from one piece of display hardware to the next...on Sun systems, XFree is rock solid for months at a time. Probably the only problems happen on peecee systems, especially on hardware you bought without checking the vendor's policies on making documentation available. It's hardly a shock when a driver written without documentation crashes...it's really a shock that it works at all. Use a Sun and you won't have these problems.
Re:Holy F*CK by Malc · 2001-03-25 13:48 · Score: 1

Compared to my good ole days with a Commodore 64, everything's bloatware! Holy F*CK, what are you whining about? As we use our computers for more and more things, we need to install more and more software. If you have no need for it, don't install it.
Re:Holy F*CK by ajv · 2001-03-25 17:15 · Score: 2

What is your problem? 8 GB hd: less than $USD100. 128 MB of RAM: less than $USD100. I can't see the issue here.
On my dual PPro with 128 MB of RAM and gobs of disk space eaten away from a full SuSE 6.4 install (2.5 GB gone), I find that Nautilus + Netscape + KDE + a few xterms makes Mr Swap nervous, particularly if I don't restart Netscape from time to time.
On my single PIII/800 with 128 MB of RAM, out of the box, 2446 uses 41 MB of RAM. Then I installed Office. On my laptop with 256 MB of RAM as I type this, I'm using 129 MB of RAM, and I have 26 things open, including media player, Outlook, 8 IE windows, and Citrix. The windows directory is using just over 1 GB on disk (about 970 MB in file sizes). The 2 GB gives it some head room to install in and a pagefile. And in case you're wondering, I haven't had a blue screen yet. It even plays my DVDs and gets me over 4 hours of battery life on my new Dell.

--
Andrew van der Stock
Re:Holy F*CK by Skankmofo · 2001-03-25 14:01 · Score: 1

yeah, there are many places where you can buy PC133 RAM for the G4. Check out dealmac.com....a few weeks ago I got some PC100 for my G3, a 256mb DIMM, for $60 including fedex shipping. From what I have seen, the memory for macs is as cheap or cheaper than PC memory. Apple just likes overcharge the clueless about RAM on their store.

--
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep." --Saul Belloe
Re:Holy F*CK by billybob · 2001-03-25 09:09 · Score: 1

a couple of MONTHS ago, you bought a 10 gig for 140??? you got ripped off. last month i bought an IBM 40 gig harddrive for 110. You point still holds that 2 (or 3) gigs isnt that much based upon how much harddrive space you can get these days for so cheap. 3 gigs still seems extreme though. OSX, with all the developer tools, is only about 1.5 gigs.

--
Joseph?
Re:Holy F*CK by iso · 2001-03-25 10:51 · Score: 2

have you actually tried OS X? first of all, it most definitely will install with less than 128MB of RAM: that's only the recommended amount. furthermore, OS X only requires 128MB of RAM when you're running classic, which basically loads OS 9.1 inside of OS X!

without classic you can get by with only 64MB of RAM easily, and 128 is plenty. classic is a memory hog though, but it's not really possible to do much about that as OS 9 is OS 9.

with any luck, most major apps will be carbonized by the end of the year, and classic will be something that MacOS X users only have to use on occasion.

- j
Re:Holy F*CK by smallstepforman · 2001-03-25 10:24 · Score: 1

Funny that. My RevA iMac with 96Mb has the retail version of OS X running. The 128Mb is the recommended amount of memory. I still prefer BeOS, though.

--
Revolution = Evolution
Re:Holy F*CK by Tuzanor · 2001-03-25 12:28 · Score: 1

Does anyone know if apples use regular PC 133 DIMMs? I'm seriously thinking about getting a G4 now, but an extra 128 megs of ram on apple's site is 300 fucking dollars. please, somebody tell me that i can save money and get that 128 for $50...
Re:Holy F*CK by prog-guru · 2001-03-25 10:29 · Score: 1

chris@syrnix:~$ df
Filesystem 1k-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on
/dev/sda1 132207 24155 101226 19% /
/dev/sda6 16871852 801972 15212816 5% /usr
/dev/sdb1 17935960 11465408 6470552 64% /home
~800 MB for OS, gnome, X, development tools and misc apps. Had the base system running in 2.5 minutes too, even faster than a FreeBSD install (usually ~15 minutes).

--
chris@xanadu:~$ whatis /.
/.: nothing appropriate.
Re:Holy F*CK by John_Booty · 2001-03-25 09:50 · Score: 2

Well, 128meg is kind of ridiculous, but... it only costs like $50 these days for 128meg of PC133...

So what's a good amount? 64meg (which costs $35)? I mean if you're going to bash an OS over $15 worth of hardware requirements.... that's just silly...

http://www.bootyproject.org

--

OtakuBooty.com: Smart, funny, sexy nerds.
Re:Holy F*CK by clare-ents · 2001-03-25 23:07 · Score: 2

"
Well, 128meg is kind of ridiculous, but... it only costs like $50 these days for 128meg of PC133...
"

Which will work wonderfully in my laptop....

For a laptop user think 'whole new machine'

--
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. (Einstein)
Re:Holy F*CK by Ig0r · 2001-03-25 08:41 · Score: 2

On my main system I run Debian.
My current disk usage is 1.4GB and that includes everthing (OS, userspace, applications, documents).
From what I remember, a clean install (including X, GNOME and KDE) uses a few (3-5) hundred MB.

--

--
Soma: because a gramme is better than a damn.
Re:Holy F*CK by [egal] · 2001-03-25 08:53 · Score: 1

It's about 1.5GB all inclusive. But it sure as hell looks nice ... I even felt the bit of curruption and had to hury booting back to my shell :)

Well, I won't complain, MS does some good and some bad stuff VS .Net is the good stuff, the rest does not need to be of any interest at all.
--

--
42 cows on a 42km road on their way to 42.org :-)
Re:Holy F*CK by Fervent · 2001-03-25 09:05 · Score: 2

OS X asks for 128MB of RAM and a gig of free hard drive space. Otherwise, the install doesn't even *run*.

--
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
Re:Holy F*CK by motek · 2001-03-25 08:26 · Score: 1

Not that you are not right, but...
I bougth a couple of months ago a harddrive, 10 GB for $139. Now guys at this same joint sell a 20 GB for that much.
So maybe it really doesn't matter. At least not to the new buyers.

-m-

--
I would like to die like my grandfather did - sleeping. And not screaming in terror, like his passengers.
Re:Holy F*CK by motek · 2001-03-25 09:28 · Score: 1

These weren't real bucks. I am from Canada ;-).

-m-

--
I would like to die like my grandfather did - sleeping. And not screaming in terror, like his passengers.
Re:Holy F*CK by prelelat · 2001-03-25 09:35 · Score: 1

Your right that it won't work on smaller/older computers. I had a 486 and had slackware installed on it for a while then red hat and as time progressed I couldn't put newer OS's on it because they were too big to fit even the operating system on them.. I finaly went and got a 1gig for it and everything I wanted on it fit really nice and moved good but I notice more and more that OS's are getting biger leaving out the old computers.

On a side note most people don't use old computers any more becasue there worth nothing. i could get a few 486 for free just about now from companies throwing them out. Plus these computers arn't usualy fast enough to run what you want on them any ways.
Re:Holy F*CK by geomcbay · 2001-03-25 08:32 · Score: 2

You can go get a copy of Visual Studio .NET (That's its name, not Visual Studio XP) right now. Its in Beta 1. Not sure of the exact size in megabytes as I don't have it installed on this machine at home, but it is not significantly larger than Visual Studio 6.0 and may even be a bit smaller.
Re:Holy F*CK by jotaeleemeese · 2001-03-25 16:16 · Score: 1

So what's a good amount? 64meg (which costs $35)? I mean if you're going to bash an OS over $15 worth of hardware requirements.... that's just silly...

I think nobody is complaining about the cost (although $50US is 1/3 of a monthly pension in some country that should remain nameless) but about a philosophy.

It has been said that Linux and Mac users find this amount enormous, in my opinion that points to philosophy design that says "what the heck, why to optimize or make things better if I can just throw resources at the problem".

I think it is highly debatable if that is an approppriate approach to designing something...

--
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Re:Holy F*CK by badfish2 · 2001-03-25 08:37 · Score: 1

The biggest, baddest install of Debian I can come up with is smaller then that, and we're talking about enough development tools and libraries to recompile the kernel, the display server, the UI... I don't even want to think how big Visual Studio XP will be.

How big is the biggest, baddest SusE install? I bet it can easily fit over 7 GB worth of stuff on a hard drive. Surely you can think of something better to bitch & moan about than that.

--
"On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog!" - a dog
Re:Holy F*CK by clontzman · 2001-03-25 23:01 · Score: 1

The 128 Megs "required" is Apple's term, probably because, as you said, you need 128 megs to run Classic.
So, yes, if you have no desire to run Word, Excel, Photoshop, Illustrator or any of the other pieces of software that make owning a computer worthwhile, you can squeak by on 64MB.
To actually use the thing, you do need 128MB.
Re:Holy F*CK by BHearsum · 2001-04-03 02:44 · Score: 1

The point here is that they could make it just as good without taking up 2GB of space its like buying more of something when you already have enough, just because someone says you need it stupid pointless "People are stupid." - Me

Re:Regression by Yarn · 2001-03-25 22:30 · Score: 2

Hmm. Windows 1.03 came on 5 low density floppies,
and I used to run it on a machine with a 20m hard disk.

I think your table should be:
1 5
2 10
3 40
4 120
5 2000

Which leads to: y=0.71e^1.44x

A bit over a terabyte for version 10.

* Starts saving now *
* Stops saving, disk prices will fall *

I'll probably still be running Win98 just for games anyway

--
-Yarn - Rio Karma: Excellent

Looks good by Adam+Wiggins · 2001-03-25 18:05 · Score: 2

Although I would generally be termed a Windows-hater (or, probably more accurately, a "Windows-strong-disliker"), I have to say that this looks like a strong step forward for Microsoft's OS. Interesting that while Apple seems to be moving away from the "dumbed-down" niche of operating systems, Microsoft is moving towards it - which makes sense.

Perhaps MS has finally noted the vast lead in usability that competing desktops (BeOS, KDE 2, and OSX being the primary contenders) have taken over the standard Windows interface. More competition means better interfaces for everyone. Does this mean that (finally!) the consumer is starting to count in this industry?

Oh, _that's_ an oversight... by Chris+Johnson · 2001-03-25 10:14 · Score: 2

"For example, when you click a folder full of music files, you'll see links to publish the entire folder to the Web (using a wizard, of course) and buy music online from WindowsMedia.com. But at this stage--and in the upcoming final version--this feature publishes only to MSN sites or to a local network, not to your own Web or FTP site."

Oh, _that's_ an oversight. I'm sure they'll just rush lickety-split to fix that one and keep their users from being compelled to use MSN for the feature! :P

(BTW, anyone else very weirded out by all the 'now has X feature, like MacOS' talk? When did _that_ start happening?)

Re:Oh, _that's_ an oversight... by Guppy06 · 2001-03-25 11:20 · Score: 1

"Oh, _that's_ an oversight. I'm sure they'll just rush lickety-split to fix that one and keep their users from being compelled to use MSN for the feature! :P"
Look at the interface of XP. Now look at the interface for MSN Explorer. See the difference? Neither do I. I have the sneaky suspicion that MSN Explorer will be "integrated" into XP to some extent. Heck, if they get off the DOJ's hook on the IE integration thing, that's practically carte blanche to integrate MSN as a whole into the OS, forcing owners to subscribe to MSN whether they want to use it or not.

Re:Bloatware extreme by Chris+Johnson · 2001-03-25 10:29 · Score: 2

Actually, the way I heard it was that the Classic compatibility layer (sorta like a virtual MacOS 9) needs the 128 megs. If you only run OSX apps, you can get away with a more Unixish 64M (not bad for a glitzy window manager running antialiased Display PDF on everything)

Re:Automatic Update is a feature? by Wansu · 2001-03-25 23:29 · Score: 2

what if you don't have an internet connection? are you now excluded from running windows if you aren't connected?

... or what if you're connecting via dialup. It seems to me that's going to be a pain unless you have DSL or cable. Updating via dialup will likely be slow. The machine may dial up when it thinks it's out of date, etc. ET, phone home.

--
Wansu, th' chinese sailor

Re:Bloatware extreme by Wansu · 2001-03-26 00:06 · Score: 2

I'll bet unless you have 256Megs of RAM, you'll be seeing lots of your disk drive light. I'll also bet that unless it is preinstalled, most people will not be able to get it to run worth a damn or even half a damn.

If anyone was surprised at how long there were Windows 3.1 systems still in use, just wait. Heck we've never made the move to Win2k. We're still running NT at work.

Does M$ honestly expect people are going to run out and buy a new PC just so they can run this OS? Win2k and WinME have not exactly set the world on fire. Why will WinXP?

--
Wansu, th' chinese sailor

Re:Shutting down - foulup central. by Ian+Bicking · 2001-03-25 12:30 · Score: 2

Actually, my gdm (Gnome -- I guess there's probably other G-ish display managers) has a menu option that allows anybody to turn off the computer. I'm happy enough with it. The lack of such a thing on the console login has caused me problems (mostly when someone who doesn't know better turns on the computer and can't figure out how to turn it off properly).

Others have said it differently, but security is a process. Generally, keeping people from turning off the computer when they are sitting at the computer is false security -- something that's merely obnoxious without providing any security benefit.

I kind of wish Linux was wiser about hardware permissions. Anyone who is logged into the console should have complete access to the sound and any removable drives (floppy, CD, etc), and any other peripherals attached to the computer. Anyone else doesn't really need that access. I don't know how one might do that in Linux...?

Wait a second... by pb · 2001-03-25 08:11 · Score: 2

The *new* Mac-OSish interface?

Gosh, where have I been?
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.

--
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.

Re:Wait a second... by spinfire · 2001-03-25 08:21 · Score: 1

MacOS X

--
isomerica.net | Foonetic IRC

Re:Simple thing to add by demon · 2001-03-25 09:48 · Score: 1

Out of curiousity, I wonder if Linux coders could add one feature Win XP is touting: saving sessions completely, and listing each user with their currently running programs and whether or not they have email -- all in one place.

I doubt it. This looks to be similar (except for the mail and background programs stuff) to something that was done once upon a time on SGI's Irix - visual login. The fact is, that just makes it easier for would-be "h4x0rs" who can get access to the console to find out usernames. One more way to get user-level access, which (on NT/2K) has been nearly as good as Administrator rights, due to design flaws leading to privilege escalation. (Don't get me wrong - Unix and Linux certainly aren't invulnerable to such stuff either, but there are well-known ways of doing it in NT and Win2K.)

I, for one, don't need anyone to be able to walk up to a machine I have an account on, and without even logging in, find out info on what I'm doing. I think it's just a bad idea. (I've been perusing the copy of "Hacking Exposed" I just bought - it's making me a bit paranoid about this stuff. :)
_____

--

Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"

Re:Automatic Update is a feature? by demon · 2001-03-25 12:09 · Score: 1

the hell with linux that can't even upgrade without a reinstall.

Uhh. Are you on crack? I have four words for you: "apt-get update ; apt-get ugprade". And I do this regularly, and I don't have to even reboot the machine.

And I'm sure you can do that with your NT box. (Win2K == NT 5.0. Let's not lie to ourselves.)
_____

--

Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"

Re:Simple thing to add by demon · 2001-03-25 13:19 · Score: 1

Yes, but at least you can secure the SMB server so it won't do stupid things like that. Most admins don't, but just because people don't do it, doesn't mean it can't be done, and doesn't make it any less of a good idea.
_____

--

Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"

Re:"green means go"--complaint about color cues by crayz · 2001-03-25 11:17 · Score: 1

Yeah, OS X has a bigger brightness difference and has a drop shadow around the window. Much better.

Re:Question... by pod · 2001-03-25 13:47 · Score: 1

Reverting back the XP interface to Win2000 will be about as useful as reverting to File Manager (of Win 3.1 fame) in Win95. That is to say you _can_ use your computer after you do it, Just not very effectively.

--
"Hot lesbian witches! It's fucking genius!"

Re:Bloatware extreme by pod · 2001-03-25 13:58 · Score: 1

that's true, but this release of MacOS X (March 24th) is meant to get the OS in as many developer's hands as possible.

That's not true. Developers have had access to OS X for a couple of months now, this is so they can have enough time to build the much needed application base.

--
"Hot lesbian witches! It's fucking genius!"

Re:Bloatware extreme by pod · 2001-03-25 14:02 · Score: 1

This is all great news and stuff (compatibility mode), but it's foolish to just dismiss it. How many native apps are there for OS X right now? Existing users have 3 choices here... not upgrade, upgrade and run compat mode thus necessitating additional hardware purchases, or dual boot. I suppose that's pretty good actually, all things considered.

--
"Hot lesbian witches! It's fucking genius!"

Re:Question... by pod · 2001-03-25 16:10 · Score: 1

The effectiveness here refers to the usability and support aspect. Certain OS and UI features will be unavailable unless you use the XP interface. Some software may not work properly, or not work at all.

--
"Hot lesbian witches! It's fucking genius!"

Re:yeah right.. stable like a house of cards. by jedidiah · 2001-03-26 01:09 · Score: 1

THAT is precisely what a "real OS" is supposed to protect you from.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.

Re:Automatic Update is a feature? by jedidiah · 2001-03-26 01:18 · Score: 1

Dongleware is no more or less prevalent in the Unix world than it is for serious professional grade Windows software actually. Unix vendors have actually started to move away from the dongleware mentality.

OTOH: if Microsoft ceases with their "pirateware" practices, they might actually remove the competitive encouragement that might keep a Unix vendor from indulging in dongleware.

The value derived from your product proliferating is more than the value derived from you getting paid for every single copy in use.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.

Re:Automatic Update is a feature? by jedidiah · 2001-03-26 01:20 · Score: 1

...just so long as they don't conspire to make their particular bit of software "required". Microsoft actually seeks to do this quite actively.

They're less innocent than the garden variety moocher pirate.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.

how will the firewall effect P2P? by Sanity · 2001-03-25 08:51 · Score: 3

I note that there is now a built-in firewall, I wonder what this will mean for P2P applications such as Napster, Gnutella, and Freenet. Will this application permit incoming connections? Will software producers need to get "authorized" by Microsoft to allow the application through the firewall? What does this mean for free software on Windows?

--

Re:how will the firewall effect P2P? by ajv · 2001-03-25 17:06 · Score: 2

0) ICS and ICF are OPTIONAL. Just in case you missed it: OPTIONAL. So is IPv6, but no one here is whinging about that yet, are they?
1) scriptability; use Windows Scripting Host (easy) or Group Policy (a custom ADM / inf file pair will be needed, but do-able) to change the settings of the personal firewall.
2) The way in which the personal firewall work is very similiar to a number of other personal firewalls, and also the old IP filters present since at least NT 3.51 days. Since that was a hoary ol' chestnut needing much hair on the chest to make work, this is too, and is no worse than using Checkpoint's Fw-1 (which admittedly has a range of protocols and services already pre-defined). There is an effort on to improve things here. If you are a beta 2 user, and you don't like what you see, report it to the .security newsgroup for fixing. My personal beef: no pre-done settings in group policy. It would be easy to make happen. So I've logged the bug, and hopefully it'll get fixed.
Now line up, according to the NDA I have to kill you.

--
Andrew van der Stock
Re:how will the firewall effect P2P? by ajv · 2001-03-26 12:16 · Score: 2

Good call.

--
Andrew van der Stock
Re:how will the firewall effect P2P? by Baggio · 2001-03-25 09:36 · Score: 1

Except that will open the possibility for trojans to do the same thing... Isn't that what this firewall is supposed to be preventing?
Time flies like an arrow;

--
Time flies like an arrow;
Fruit flies like a bananna
Re:how will the firewall effect P2P? by pheonix · 2001-03-25 12:23 · Score: 3

You're making the implicit assumption that the interface will allow you to open ports. That's not necessarily a safe assumption to make. Microsoft has been known to do some rather odd things for the sake of "security" or "standards" or "making it easier for the end user". It's no big stretch to assume that they might make it hard or even impossible to open a port by the end user. I can think of a number of ways for them to do this and allow things like web servers that are blessed by MS to work...

Don't you know how firewalls work? Just because every one YOU have used gave you the ability to give ports pass-through capability doesn't mean THIS one will be customizeable at all.
-Jer
Re:how will the firewall effect P2P? by Tim+C · 2001-03-25 18:11 · Score: 2

Dummies are not supposed to run servers.

Er, you do realise that firewalls can block outgoing ports too, don't you?

Not to mention that some clients require the server to make a connection back to them on another port - ftp springs to mind; I've had lots of fun with misconfigured firewalls letting the command connection through, but not the data one... :-)

I don't think MS will use this for anything objectionable, but it certainly puts them in a position where they could do so, if they wished, and it wouldn't be the first time...

Cheers,

Tim

--
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Re:how will the firewall effect P2P? by demaria · 2001-03-25 11:17 · Score: 1

Firewalls are not for protection against trojan programs. Firewalls can prevent, but not stop.

That's why you keep an antivirus program around.
Re:how will the firewall effect P2P? by jedwards · 2001-03-25 09:43 · Score: 1

Anything the user can do, a trojan can do; even if it has to simulate mouseclicks and keystrokes.
Re:how will the firewall effect P2P? by jedwards · 2001-03-25 08:57 · Score: 2

You can get P2P to work with the firewall, you need a bit of knowledge though.
E.g. for napster; go the firewall dialog and hit settings, change to the services tab and hit 'add', enter the port number to open.
It's not obvious how to get here, and you have to know the port number, obviously.
For Napster, you are told this in the Napster config (on the 'sharing' tab), but you still have to know where to look.
If XP takes off, it won't be long until there are hundreds of webpages explaining this to novices.
Re:how will the firewall effect P2P? by edunbar93 · 2001-03-25 10:08 · Score: 1

Oh my god this is the most brain damaged idea in the history of the universe. So fine... set your firewall to allow napster. Then set your firewall for starcraft. And set your firewall for Quake. And set your firewall for ICQ. And set your firewall for IRC. Ad nauseum. Even if it's *easy* to do, users won't know why things don't work when they should. 80% or more of users don't even know what a firewall *is* let alone that it's blocking some certain bit of network traffic on a certain port. I feel very sorry for tech support people at ISP's already.

---

--
"No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
Re:how will the firewall effect P2P? by MrBogus · 2001-03-26 06:33 · Score: 1

Since you are on the beta program, I'll kvetch by proxy -- What I'd like to see is the \WINNT\system32\drivers\etc\services file updated with modern services (Napster, Quake, Unreal, etc), and that this is the file is used for the Firewall config GUI. That would make it easier for vendors to support adding their protocols to people's firewalls, and maybe actually attach some functionality to this file.

--

When I hear the word 'innovation', I reach for my pistol.
Re:how will the firewall effect P2P? by BlowCat · 2001-03-25 10:44 · Score: 1

Then set your firewall for starcraft.
... or take that latest and greatest version that does it for you. Dummies are not supposed to run servers.
Re:how will the firewall effect P2P? by tuxrules · 2001-03-25 11:51 · Score: 2

I imagine you'll probably just open up the port number on the firewall (like you'd do with any firewall today.) Who modded this up? Don't people know how firewalls work?
Re:how will the firewall effect P2P? by BlueboyX · 2001-03-25 09:49 · Score: 1

Heck, nowdays there are trojans that can do things users can't do, or at least do easily. Especially if the user is a grandmother...

--
"Never, never suspect the dreams within the dreams of dreaming children." ~The Amazon Quartet
Re:how will the firewall effect P2P? by BlueboyX · 2001-03-25 09:32 · Score: 2

hopefully there will be a way to automate changing those settings. Then it can become part of the P2P installation programs.

--
"Never, never suspect the dreams within the dreams of dreaming children." ~The Amazon Quartet

Re:IE for Linux by jafac · 2001-03-26 08:20 · Score: 2

Yeah, what a way to make $20,000 worth of hardware run like an old 486 with 16 megs of RAM. (which is how IE Solaris performs on a Sun e250).

--

These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.

Re:Bloatware extreme by jafac · 2001-03-26 08:23 · Score: 2

At least 500 meg of OS X (at least the Public Beta) was a few Quicktime demo movies. Easily deleted.

--

These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.

Re:Bloatware extreme by jafac · 2001-03-26 08:25 · Score: 2

Nobody wants to design and build a system, and charge customers up the ass for it, and have them take it home, turn it on and go - heeeey, this has way more RAM and Disk Space than I actually need. When I buy machine #2, I'm going to buy the next model down. . .

--

These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.

Re:Proud of your ignorance? by jafac · 2001-03-26 08:51 · Score: 2

Let's put it this way;

Sherlock Holmes was having a conversation with Watson, who was telling Sherlock about how it was proven that the Earth orbits around the Sun.

Holmes then rebuked Watson for filling his brain with useless trivial information - space that should be devoted to valuable information about the science of criminal investigation, which was the sole topic in which Holmes was interested. Mind you, that one topic led him to amass an enormous quantity of bizarre trivia (manufacturers of shoes by tread, paper by quality determined from microscopic analysis, poisons and drugs, bicycle tires, cigar wrappers, etc.) Such basic facts about our life and universe were of no use to Holmes, the crime fighting genius.

If your life is well served by intimately detailed knowledge of the Unix kernel, then why allow Microsoft's marketeers to occupy any of your mindshare? There's no point to it. Even if the human brain had infinite storage capabilities, it's only alive and aware for a finite time. 16 hours per day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, in 80 years with luck or even less. There's not a lot of time we really want to spend reading useless Microsoft propaganda, especially when they're likely to change the name of the DDE/OLE/COM/ActiveX/DCOM/DNA/NET thingie at their whim.

--

These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.

Re:skins by jafac · 2001-03-26 09:00 · Score: 2

I tried Litestep and it was great, except for one thing, it didn't allow me to change my widgets.

I don't need a frickin maximize widget, I don't think I've EVER used one in the 10 years or so I've been using windows. I prefer CLOSE to be on the left side of the title bar, and minimize could be whereever. The way MS does it is just plain stupid, and has been so since Win 1.0. I was hoping LiteStep would change that , but it didn't.

It didn't get rid of the most annoying (to me) feature of WIndows, and it seems there is no way to do that.

And then you load KDE up in Linux, and you get the same garbage as in Win95. Fuck that.

--

These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.

Re:Bloatware extreme by Defiler · 2001-03-26 03:33 · Score: 1

You can buy two 512MB sticks of PC133 memory for the price of a single copy of Windows 2000 Professional. Requiring 128MB of memory to run WinXP is like requiring shirt and shoes to eat in a restaurant. It shouldn't even need to be mentioned, but some redneck bastard did it once, and now everyone has to post a sign.

Re:Bloatware extreme by Malc · 2001-03-25 13:50 · Score: 1

Win2K won't run on that. I know as one of the memory slots in my laptop failed. I'm down to 64MB and it takes over 10 minutes to boot and log in. I bet the requirements are just another step from Win2K, as it was from NT 4 SP 6 w/ IE 4.

Re:Windows XP (or, yet another eye-candy update!) by sheldon · 2001-03-25 11:40 · Score: 1

Yeah damnit! 640K ought to be enough memory for anybody!

Re:Shutting down - foulup central. by sheldon · 2001-03-26 02:18 · Score: 2

Thank you for the informative post.

It's so rare to see real information on /. :(

Re:XP will be skinnable by DAldredge · 2001-03-25 08:24 · Score: 1

Yes it will, however the skins have to be digital signed by microsoft before you can use them...

Re:system resources? by talks_to_birds · 2001-03-26 04:10 · Score: 1

GDI relates to, basically, all the little widgets, icons, and fonts Windows (at least in Win9x, not sure how WinNT handles this...IIRC, this is a throwback to Win 3.1's paintbrushes and palettes, so NT may be different when not running WOWexec) has to keep track of. GDI is a major component of that number that you see called "System Resources".

Oh, and a hell of a lot of progess we're making, then.

To use your phrase: Bzzzzzt..

Sorry!

Time's up!

Window$ still sucks.

t_t_b
--
I think not; therefore I ain't®

--
I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?

Is this Slashdot?? Times they are a' changin'... by moonboy · 2001-03-25 21:56 · Score: 1

Amazing! Someone says some good things about a Microsoft OS AND gets modded up to 5?!? Holy schnikees!!

Who says we free software lovers are a bunch of communistic, software sharin', long hairs?

I've been coming to /. for sometime now and I never thought I'd see the day. As for me, Linux is all I use at home (yeah, I have to use Windows at work) but I've been getting a bit tired of all the anti-Microsoft rhetoric. Not that all of the same anti-competitive bullshit isn't still going on, I'm just tired of hearing about it.

Just a little refreshing that's all.

--

Co-founder and designer at Music Nearby: http://musicnearby.com

yeah right.. stable like a house of cards. by kidlinux · 2001-03-25 13:24 · Score: 1

If it's based on the Windows 2000 code, I don't know how they can call it stable. I've used W2k on several different computers, and on each one it crashes more than W98 on my machine. My father got a brand new system with W2k, and it's slower than my 2 year old system running W98. A buddy of mine got a brand new computer with W2k, blue screen first time he turns it on, if it manages to boot, it crashes within minutes, constantly freezes up, not to mention it's frustratingly slow. Windows is bull shit, and won't get any better short of a brand new operating system, but I guess then it wouldn't be Windows.
Honestly, the only reason anyone could get excited about a new release of Windows is because it's the only choice they've got when they get a new computer. Sure, Open Source Software and Linux and everything else has come a long way, but it really isn't a choice yet.
When will anybody see the light?

--
-kidlinux.

Re:yeah right.. stable like a house of cards. by shyster · 2001-03-26 02:59 · Score: 1

I'm getting pretty sick and tired of everyone posting their own little horror stories with WinNT/2K/Linux, etc. I propose a rule. Before posting half of a story, you must first find and eradicate the problem. We all know that NT/2K/9x/Linux are all capable of running semi-stable for the average home user. If you encounter otherwise, please fix the issue by whatever means necessary, then you can report back to us and blame it on the OS, drivers, apps, whatever the hell it was.
But you just saying "Windows is slow", "Windows freezes", blah, blah just makes me think that you know absolutely nothing about computers or Windows. You sound like my Grandma! Figure out what the damn problem is, then you can complain...otherwise just say you don't know or care what the hell is wrong and blame it on your damn self!
Re:yeah right.. stable like a house of cards. by TeraCo · 2001-03-25 15:29 · Score: 1

From what I've seen crashes in Win2K mainly occur when a badly designed app tries to do something it shouldn't have. ie: We use a terminal emulation program here that is very old, when my laptop goes into standby, it causes a blue screen as it comes back up from standby and it tries to access the network. Just using standard software [Office 2K, IE5, whatever] it seems pretty standard, of course, I don't have a lot of adventurous hardware.

--
Not Meta-modding due to apathy.

Re:Simple thing to add by evand · 2001-03-25 11:22 · Score: 1

Why does everything have to be in one place all of the time. Is your house organized like that, having everything in one room?

No, but my house doesn't have only one thing in every room, either ;-)

Actually... by Bake · 2001-03-25 09:10 · Score: 1

If I try to eject the CD in Linux when it's mounted it won't eject. And that's the way it's been since I started using Linux some 5 years ago.

Re:Actually... by Fervent · 2001-03-25 09:24 · Score: 2

Don't know what version of Linux you're using. I hit the eject button on my RedHat laptop and the CD spits out -- an error usually comes a few seconds later.
And I'd like to see you try to pull that off with a floppy disk before unmounting it...

--
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.

distros by Bake · 2001-03-25 23:52 · Score: 1

I think I've run most of the common distros, redhat, slackware for a while and now finally debian. But come to think of it, I think it could just be your CDrom that's f*cked because when mounted it is SUPPOSED to have the drive locked.

"green means go"--complaint about color cues by JimBobJoe · 2001-03-25 09:50 · Score: 1

One of the big advantages of the current Mac OS is that color cues are helpful but not necessary. That's a throwback to the time when the Mac OS ran on non-color monitors.

It's a big help to the color blind, who can see shading and figure out that a particular window is the focus, whereas Windows uses color to differentiate between a focused window and a non-focused window.

Mac OS X seems to employ color more and more in functions that used to not rely on color. It may work out ok, as long as it is easily learnable. But Microsoft must not employ anybody color blind because it uses color cues everywhere.

This has always provided a bee in my bonnet...but admittedly I'm not color blind, so I don't know if the rant is justifiable. It just seems to me that keeping in mind that color differentiation can't be discerned by everyone would make much more intuitive interfaces.

Re:"green means go"--complaint about color cues by jedwards · 2001-03-25 09:57 · Score: 1

XP doesn't use colour to differentiate between focussed and non-focussed windows.
See this screenshot.
There's not enough difference in brightness for my liking though.

Re:Chessboard anecdote by Just+Some+Guy · 2001-03-26 03:37 · Score: 2

And for those enlightened souls who point out that disk space is cheap, you still have to do backups on a regular basis. Backup media like Zip disks are still expensive.

I'm asking this in all seriousness. Does anyone use Zip disks for backing up more than some personal data? I used to use Zips, but I decided that $0.10 per meg was a bit too pricy, especially since modern hard drives can be had for less than $0.004 per meg.

Yes, I realize that not everyone can afford a backup tape drive. I was fortunate that I had decided on a particular drive just before my student loan check came through (<grin>). Still, when you can buy a 24GB DDS-3 tape for $20 that will allow you to do an unattented backup of your entire system, those $10 ZIP disks start to look very expensive.

--
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?

Re:MacOS-ish Interface...Uh-huh by cpt+kangarooski · 2001-03-25 18:12 · Score: 2

I've used NeXTStep, you're right in that OS X is based on it, and not on the traditional MacOS UI. But NeXTStep and OS X are near-useless monstrosities. And I've got a rarely-used NeXT Cube and installed (and then removed) OS X on my Mac over the weekend. If it's as stable as Win2K has been in my experience, WinXP is looking pretty good.

Oh, and Steve didn't design it - he's not a designer. (IIRC Keith Ohlfs was at the heart of the NeXTStep UI, as well as WebTV's) In fact, Steve generally does really terrible things when he tries to micromanage. e.g. telling engineers that the chips on the Mac 128k's logic board were too close together to look good, and only relenting when they showed that it wouldn't work how he wanted because he knew nothing about board design. There are tons of anecdotes about Steve's horrible, arbitrary management practices and their effects. Any good history of Apple or NeXT is likely to have some. I suggest "Infinite Loop" and "Steve Jobs and the NeXT Big Thing" for starters.

--
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.

Re:Shutting down - foulup central. by ajv · 2001-03-25 16:51 · Score: 5

Actually, WinXP Pro and Per both contain multi-user bits, both in terms of how X11 does it, and in the TermServices method. As most of you clueless ./ weenies wouldn't have a clue how to make two Xservers work side by side (Ctrl-Alt-F7 / F8 for example), these features are unusual for you guys.

Both Pro and Per allow other users to take control of your desktop using Remote Desktop Connection. This uses RDP, just as TermSrv does

Both Pro and Per use the TermSrv's multiple winstations to have multiple users logged on at once. I've installed software as administrator in one session and read e-mail and surfed the web in another.

The hotkey to go between users and the replacement for SAS is very nice too: Win-L. This allows me to go to the toilet in safety with many fewer keystrokes than before, and even beats the good ol' xlock for non-rodent use.

In addition, NT has always had impersonation. This allows software to run as something else. This is like a more granular version of seteuid(), but nicer and more granular. Most people didn't know about it because it's mainly for programmers. For example, the Server process impersonates you when you connect through ipc$ so that when it tries to do something, it does it with your credentials, not the System's. And unlike Unix, a single process can impersonate many different security principals simulataneously.

For the more Unix like approach to su, such as sudo or priv, in Win2K they gave us some UI and a service to make it easier: runas. Hold down the shift key on a program and use Runas to run as another security principal. This comes through for Pro, but they're busy hiding it in the mom-n-pop Per.

And ever since NT 3.1, services have been running as different users to what you might log in as.

In NT 4.0 reskit, there's a little utility to log in remotely to a command console. This is brought forward in the Win2K reskit. This logs you in without a UI on the remote host, and you can run all your favorite command line tools. Which in NT 4.0 is useless but in Win2K is useful as you can do nearly everything via the cli (the number of cli .exe's jumped from ~80 to over 400). But why you'd want to when you can use MMC on your local box to do ~everything and install the RDP admin service for (1.0 - ~everything), it remains astonishing to me that people would subject themselves to such torture.

All this multi-user stuff works and is very smooth. Now line up, according to the NDA, I have to kill you.

--
Andrew van der Stock

Teaching the Old Hardware new OS tricks by Leapfrog · 2001-03-25 13:05 · Score: 1

Hey, now, that's no fair. Just Friday I installed OpenBSD 2.8 on a 486/33 with a 200MB hard drive. I have also successfully installed Debian 2.0 on a 386/16 with 80 MB of hard drive, and 6 MB of ram. Some of the operating systems out there are still usable, and I can think of two ways right now on my home network in which I am using 486's. I've got an OpenBSD firewall setup (the aforementioned 33) and I've also got a webcam server running boa on a 486/133. Granted, I don't get gonzo amounts of hits (we're talking 5-10 hits per day on a busy day) but I use the firewall constantly on my 10 Mbps connection and I haven't seen any performance hit since the installation. I can even run an IDS on it without much trouble.

Whether or not a 486 is still useful really depends on what you intend to use it for. I find there are lots of uses, none of which are Beowulf clustering, mp3 encoding, playing DVD's, serving as windows NT domain controller (primary or backup), or serving out 100,000+ hits per day. Firewall, limited use web/e-mail/ftp server, sure. Just as long as you don't ask too much it will perform just fine.

For the record, I think that trying to install RedHat is, in fact, asking too much for a 486. Mandrake is all Pentium optimized, so just forget about it.

Just another Old Hardware fiend,
leapfrog

Re:Teaching the Old Hardware new OS tricks by cookd · 2001-03-25 14:29 · Score: 1

Yeah, I run Linux on my old 386sx/16 laptop - 5MB RAM (RAM is MAXED OUT!), 128MB HDD. Kernel recompile takes 18 hours. Man pages take 30 seconds to come up. But most stuff actually runs quite nicely. I just have to use a slightly out-of-date kernel.

--
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
Re:Teaching the Old Hardware new OS tricks by prelelat · 2001-03-27 11:58 · Score: 1

I guess I ment they arn't really good for what I want to run on them.

Also after I installed slackware I did install Red Hat and you just made me aware that mandrake is optimized for the pentium, but I also tried to install freeBSD and it was a no go because I probly put to many packages on there and partitioned it really shitty er something like that but the same partioning worked for slackware. So I dunno it was a 200 meg hard drive so what the hey.

I have anouther old 386 maybe I'll try adding the 200 meg I ripped out of the 486 and install openBSD or something.

Re:Mac OS-ish by bill_mcgonigle · 2001-03-26 11:30 · Score: 1

yes, but it's the same interface as a traffic light which people already know. They need to make a single idiomatic association and they've got it. I like the old style better myself but it's harder for new users to learn.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)

Re:Man.. that was way harsh. by noahm · 2001-03-25 10:06 · Score: 1

main(){for(;;) new long double(1);}

This code will cause Windows2000 to use up all available physical/virtual memory, but it won't crash it. It will eventually mess up the current windows session, but to correct it all I have to do is log out and log in again. Linux will crash dead under this program.

Hmm...I think you've been missing out on something all these years. I think you're talking about Minix, when most of the rest of us here are talking about Linux.

What I mean to say is that no, this code will most definitely not crash Linux. In fact, you make me think that Linux probably handles it better than Win2k. I just ran the code on a 120 MHz machine with 16 megs of RAM, and I didn't even need to log out in order to "fix" things. In fact, just for fun I tried running two simultaneous copies of that program...still no problem.

Consider yourself educated. You're welcome.

noah

UI by RelliK · 2001-03-25 08:56 · Score: 1

Linux, by contrast, has much more stable UIs.

I was with you until this point. Sure Linux has much more stable UI if you are talking about the command line. But when it comes to GUI, well... let's just not even go there. It would have made a lot more sense if you compared it to MacOS, which has had consistent GUI for a looooong time. But I'm sure Mac fans will be happy to point that out.
___

--
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.

Re:IE for Linux by madprof · 2001-03-26 03:38 · Score: 1

Nope, you're wrong.
At least not from my horrendous experience with IE 5 on Solaris. I ran it on a dual-processor E250 with a gig of RAM. It was slower than Netscape 4, considerably.
It took about 10 seconds to start (same amount of time as Netscape, pretty much) and then it froze every 10 page views.
Netscape has been working alright, yes it goes wrong sometimes but not too many times.
IE 5, on the other hand, has been a steaming pile of manure.
On the other hand it works fantastically on Windows. IE 5 is my browser of choice for Windows work almost all the time and when it isn't I am using Mozilla, not NN 4/6.

Re:Bloatware extreme by madprof · 2001-03-26 03:50 · Score: 1

Where are your figures?
This sounds absurd that in 1995 people would be using 286 machines more than any other.
Your point about lots of new people coming in at that time is a good one, but sems to invalidate your other point that the 286 was the most common processor in business machines.

Re:Bloatware extreme by madprof · 2001-03-27 05:41 · Score: 1

Yeah, keeping them is always an idea cos I still don't believe you I am afraid.
Old boxes do not get replaced only when they break they very often are thrown out for being too slow.
To be frank without some large business survey it's impossible to truly tell and we'll never kow the result from 1995 so...let's forget it, eh? ;-)

Re:IE for Linux by madprof · 2001-03-27 05:45 · Score: 1

Would they supply icons for any other desktop environment? Now that Sun have officially embraced Gnome would we see future IEs for Solaris work nicely with that?
I doubt it, but I'd like to be proved wrong.

Re:Automatic Update is a feature? by Glytch · 2001-03-25 22:45 · Score: 1

What? Linux can't be upgraded without reinstalling? You're just plain wrong. Not only that, but Linux rarely even needs a reboot to install software. Let's see, there's the kernel, and... umm... well, just the kernel. I've never used any of the *BSDs, either, but I imagine they're much the same way.

As opposed to, oh say, "windows must now be rebooted for these changes to take effect".

Re:Man.. that was way harsh. by Jonathan · 2001-03-25 09:16 · Score: 2

Uh, dude. I think you've got issues with the software you installed. Not Windows 2K itself.

If the software installed can hang the system that *is* an issue with Windows 2K. Civilized operating systems don't allow user processes to bring down the OS. Buggy Linux software causes core dumps, not system crashes.

Re:Man.. that was way harsh. by Jonathan · 2001-03-25 11:48 · Score: 2

But what if the software he chose clearly wasn't acceptable in Windows 2000?

You are reasoning circularly. Obviously, the software was unacceptable because it crashed the system.

All of the software I use with Windows 2000 has been tested with Windows 2000

Most people simply don't have the option of throwing out their software whenever MS makes a little patch. It isn't reasonable to expect this, particularly when many upgrades aren't free in the Windows world.

You wouldn't expect games written in glib0.4 to run in glib2.1 would you?

No, but they certainly don't crash the system -- they complain about missing symbols. And I certainly don't have to buy new copies to run. The few programs that aren't open source have free updates.

I've had more than a few old Linux apps crash not only the ap but the system itself.

You should put up the binaries for others to test and verify, as this is a truly unusual event if true

Re:Man.. that was way harsh. by Jonathan · 2001-03-25 11:53 · Score: 2

Also, try this one.. it will lock-up every Unix system I've come across:

If this crashes the UNIX systems you use, you have horribly incompetent sysadmins. One can (and should) limit the number of processes that any one user can have simultaneously.

Re:Dumbing it down.... by Rob+Kaper · 2001-03-25 10:22 · Score: 1

IE6 is nice

Does it finally do fixed positioning? This was promised for IE 5.5, but alas. Does IE6?

Re:Dumbing it down.... by Rob+Kaper · 2001-03-26 03:00 · Score: 1

Oh, but to answer your question, IE 6 on my Win2K system does open new windows in a logical order.

I was rather talking about the CSS property to put objects on a fixed (instead of relative) position.

Re:Simple thing to add by Rob+Kaper · 2001-03-25 10:36 · Score: 2

Out of curiousity, I wonder if Linux coders could add one feature Win XP is touting:

saving sessions completely

For shell programs, use screen. For GUI programs, run multiple X servers and lock screen, switch between users with Ctrl-Alt-F7/8/9/etc.

and listing each user with their currently running programs

Login and type ps aux or use a GUI equivalent such as kpm. No need for non logged in users to see all that.

and whether or not they have email

I'm sure scripts exist which examin /var/spool/mail, this will be harder with ~/Maildir systems though.

all in one place.

Why does everything have to be in one place all of the time. Is your house organized like that, having everything in one room?

Didn't you know? by Empty+Sands · 2001-03-25 12:11 · Score: 1

Its patently not an OS any more. Mix in internet explorer, outlook express, media player, directx, .NET components, etc, etc.

What you have can't really be compared to an proper operating system anymore. Certainly not in the *nix fashion where you can chose your options.

One would guess this is why they are loved and hated by so many people. On one hand (ignoring security issues, and BSOD) they put together a well integrated package that seems easy to use, on the other they use this and their market position to destory people who compete.

From reading interviews with Bill and commentry on Microsoft its we can see that they think everything software related competes directly. I'm sure we'll see the same old, same old as they move into the console market with xbox.

Regardless, didn't you know bigger is ALWAYS better. ;)

Re:MacOS-ish Interface...Uh-huh by Art+Tatum · 2001-03-25 09:56 · Score: 1

uh, AfterStep is a knock of NeXTstep, a UI designed by Mr. Steve Jobs himself which was later revamped and rolled out as OS X.

Actually, they're quite different--the NeXTSTEP UI was better.

Re:MacOS-ish Interface...Uh-huh by Art+Tatum · 2001-03-28 05:01 · Score: 1

Actually, it's the vertical menu system and the simplicity of the OPENSTEP GUI that I miss. I don't really like Aqua because it just looks too "cartoonish". It's too curved and colored. But that's just opinion. All the really amazing under-the-hood technology is still there. It would be neat if they offered a way to have the traditional NeXT look, though (including the old dock). Maybe this will happen at some point...

Oh, BTW, it's true that I'm not the real Art Tatum. I wish I were the real Art Tatum but...

Re:It'll suck worse than X-Windows by GypC · 2001-03-26 00:54 · Score: 2

Hmmm... X looks fine to me when I install a True-Type font server like xfstt. I would post a screenshot but I'm at work :P

Re:Chessboard anecdote by GypC · 2001-03-26 01:46 · Score: 2

Really? There's less than 9,223,372,036,854,775,808 atoms in the universe?

Who counted them and when did we find the end of the universe? Man, out of touch for a few days and everything changes...

Re:Shutting down - foulup central. by GypC · 2001-03-26 01:50 · Score: 2

Check out /etc/login.defs ... in Slackware at least.

Re:Shutting down - foulup central. by GypC · 2001-03-26 01:59 · Score: 2

That's an acceptable amount of information leakage for me. After all, in Linux I can use 'ps aux' to see everyone's (including root's) processes... with the arguments they were launched with, how much CPU they are using, etc.

Re:Dvorak Keyboard by GypC · 2001-03-26 02:22 · Score: 2

Why what are you doing with your other hand? >:^D

Re:this is great for Linux by GypC · 2001-03-26 03:02 · Score: 2

You idiot, it is no secret that Western and Caucasian-majority countries have higher standards of living and personal incomes than most other parts of the world. He didn't place any value judgments on their race or culture. He merely picked appropriate names to contrast third-world and first-world countries.

Take your knee-jerk political correctness to some forum where people can't think for themselves and you'll get a much more positive reaction. Or, you could grow up and stop seeing the world in black and white.

Re:One, Two, Three, Infinity by GypC · 2001-03-26 05:43 · Score: 2

Still after 64 iterations the total is a hell of a large number.

Yeah, that is a whole lot of rice. :)

Re:Simple thing to add by GypC · 2001-03-26 07:23 · Score: 2

Gee, that's nice. Gnome and Window Maker both can save session as well, but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about leaving your processes running when you log out, not just remembering what was running and starting it up again.

Re:everything new is.. new again? by GypC · 2001-03-26 07:47 · Score: 2

but it beats anything that Linux has to offer by a long shot.

I don't think so, it's a matter of personal preference isn't it? There are lot of things I like about X (once I get the True-Type font server installed, of course :), especially the way I can integrate my own scripts easily with the UI and not have to use abominations like DOS "batch files" or VBScript. Yeah, I know I can get shell or perl for Windows but it's just not the same, the architecture of Windows distorts my normal scripting flow. I can't live without virtual desktops anymore (and every virtual desktop program for Windows is awful). The network transparency is also nice.

And I think the Start menu sucks ass, by the way. Nothing worse than multiple nested menus.

Windows has good points too, like consistent (for the most part) look and keyboard bindings. But there's just something about Windows that has always turned my stomach... to quote Steve Jobs, "They just have no taste." If I ever really need a state-of-the-art GUI I'll get a Mac (with OS X, of course :).

Sounds like Mandrake's version of KDM by leonbrooks · 2001-03-25 23:45 · Score: 2

It really does. Try it and see!

--
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing

Re:Mac OS-ish by Accipiter · 2001-03-25 09:04 · Score: 2

You'd think so, considering all of the bloody hell that Apple screams when someone creates an interface that even resembles Aqua.

(Note: Aqua may be a word meaning water, but it's still a trademark of Apple Computer Corp. Hell, so is "Apple" for that matter.)

-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?

--

-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't. :P)

Re:Bloatware extreme by Cato · 2001-03-25 20:57 · Score: 2

"I don't know what the current figures are. But on the date that Windows 95 was released, the most common type of non-server computer hardware in businesses was... the 80286!"

The 286 was obsolete by the end of the 1980s - the most common hardware in 1995 was probably either the 486 or Pentium. I had a 486 laptop in 95, and the desktops around me were Pentia.

Re:Shutting down - foulup central. by Erore · 2001-03-26 01:13 · Score: 1

In NT 4.0 reskit, there's a little utility to log in remotely to a command console. This is brought forward in the Win2K reskit. This logs you in without a UI on the remote host, and you can run all your favorite command line tools. Which in NT 4.0 is useless but in Win2K is useful as you can do nearly everything via the cli (the number of cli .exe's jumped from ~80 to over 400).
Just for those who care, O'Reilly has just released it's Pocket Reference of Windows 2000 Commands. Makes learning all those things just a little bit easier.

Security... by mattkime · 2001-03-25 09:46 · Score: 2

I'm not sure I trust the XP login procedure. Does anyone know the details about this? Does it register your password on the net with Microsoft Password? How does it give you "an instant login" to hotmail and msn.com?

--
Know what I like about atheists? I've yet to meet one that believes God is on their side.

everything new is.. new again? by banky · 2001-03-25 08:16 · Score: 1

Once upon a time, there was an old joke: "Windows 95 is MacOS '84". Seems like they once again grabbed MacOS features:
1. The login dialog with all users listed. I sure hope that in a large network, it'll just show the logon name box.
2. The big-ass icons. OSX, anyone?
3. Big, bright, lots of pretty colors. Granted, this isn't a Mac thing per se, but Macs (IMHO) have always been more colorful, ahead of the rather drab PC world.

I'm glad MS finally realized that their interface, while common and consistent, isn't the best. Still, I can't help but think they're just ripping off what has come before them and "innovating" it. YMMV.

--
ZOMG I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS ON MACINTOSH VERSUS WINDOWS, VI VERSUS EMACS, AND HOW YOU'RE NOT A DORK

Re:everything new is.. new again? by Lifewolf · 2001-03-27 01:14 · Score: 1

1. The login dialog with all users listed.

In fairness to Microsoft, this feature has been available through the optional Microsoft Family Logon network client since IE4 for Windows 95.

I sure hope that in a large network, it'll just show the logon name box.

Other articles on XP have mentioned that the friendly, user-list style logon automatically disables itself on machines that log into a domain.

--
"Be Happy or Die." -- AoN
Re:everything new is.. new again? by Bill+Daras · 2001-03-25 08:37 · Score: 2

Once upon a time, there was an old joke: "Windows 95 is MacOS '84". Seems like they once again grabbed MacOS features:
I should probably start out by saying you are really grasping at straws here.
1. The login dialog with all users listed. I sure hope that in a large network, it'll just show the logon name box.
Login Dialog with all the users listed...hmm...I believe I had that in my Linux box before OS X.
2. The big-ass icons. OSX, anyone
Average monitor size and resolution has increased dramtically from when the current icon sizes were set in stone. This is natural progression here, nothing more.
3. Big, bright, lots of pretty colors. Granted, this isn't a Mac thing per se, but Macs (IMHO) have always been more colorful, ahead of the rather drab PC world.
The fact you bothered to include that on your list really shows the weakness of your argument. Using color in a UI is hardly new, or an example of Microsoft "stealing" from Apple.
Re:everything new is.. new again? by Fervent · 2001-03-25 09:06 · Score: 2

I sure hope that in a large network, it'll just show the logon name box.It's an option. You can set it to the default Windows 2000-like logon menu (the nice feature, though is that it saves the state of the session and tells you exactly what is running for each person. That's a nice touch).

--
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.

Re:Man.. that was way harsh. by banky · 2001-03-25 08:42 · Score: 2

OK, fine, I'll bite.

My girlfriend and I both have Dell Inspiron 5000's. Both came pre-equipped with W2k. I nuked it and loaded up Mandrake 7.2.

Once, while playing Hoyle's Card Games, she bumped the CDROM eject button. It ejected. The game hung. The OS hung. She had to reboot (hold down the power button, etc).

Once, while hurriedly opening and closing Word documents, her mouse pointer disappeared. Gone. Poof! OK, fine; "Hit alt-f4, honey, and close Word down." No dice. Hmmm. "Hit the Windows key, honey, see if it comes up." Came up blank. Hmm. "Ctrl-alt-delete?" Now she was pissed at *me*, like I was causing all this. We eventually got it to reboot.

Another time she suspended, and it woke up, started to come back to life, and then just froze.

Mine runs like a dream. I note that XFree86 4.0.2 seems to really detest suspend mode, but that's no real bother for me most of time.

W2k is more stable than NT4, but its not perfect. In fact, its just starting to get usable, and I fear that all this new crap will hurt more than help.

--
ZOMG I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS ON MACINTOSH VERSUS WINDOWS, VI VERSUS EMACS, AND HOW YOU'RE NOT A DORK

IE for Linux by Mooset · 2001-03-25 09:12 · Score: 2

Microsoft makes IE 5 for Solaris (6 is on the way). You can put a Solaris machine on your network (the OS is free now and old Sun hardware is easy to find) and have IE in Linux via X11. A great way to impress your friends.

Re:IE for Linux by The_Messenger · 2001-03-25 20:50 · Score: 1

Oh, fuck off. Everything installs in "/usr/local/microsoft". Each user has a single config file in their home directory. If you want to uninstall, delete the config file and the directory. A hell of a lot simpler than most uninstalled applications on Windows or UNIX, I might add.
Netscape 4 sucks ass. Netscape 6 is actually worse. I know, I didn't think they could make Netscape worse, but six is slower, uses more memory, and the widgets/menus/everything is buggy as hell. And is still doesn't fucking support three-year-old W3C standards!
IE5 is the fastest, cleanest, most standards-compliant browser available for UNIX. Fucking sad but true.

--

--
--
I like to watch.
Re:IE for Linux by The_Messenger · 2001-03-27 04:25 · Score: 1

Then maybe I'm just lucky. The last time I was using it (on a Blade 1k with 256MG RAM), it started in three or four seconds, and worked beautifully the entire time. It was faster in all respects, and didn't have the awful widget bugs that Netscape 6 does.
I was also impressed with the fact that Microsoft included a CDE "action" (.dt file) and icon set.

--

--
--
I like to watch.
Re:IE for Linux by phaze3000 · 2001-03-26 01:31 · Score: 3

Try Konqueror 2.1 - it's fscking amazingly quick at rendering, and is far more standards compliant that IE5.5.
I really can't over-state how great it is..

--

--
Blaming GW Bush for the Iraq war is like blaming Ronald McDonald for the poor quality of food.
Re:IE for Linux by Joey7F · 2001-03-25 19:29 · Score: 1

Why do you need IE for linux? Opera and Konqueror are both faster and have been already ported.

I would like to see IE for linux only because that means that Microsoft has been broken up ;-)

--Joey
Re:IE for Linux by Joey7F · 2001-03-26 03:51 · Score: 1

I load theforce.net on Ie and it takes about 6 secs. I load theforce.net on Konqueror and it takes about 3 seconds.

I would use konqueror under windows if they offered that support.

--Joey
Re:IE for Linux by Joey7F · 2001-03-26 06:08 · Score: 1

This is actually an interesting experiment, I am going to do the load times (w/a stopwatch)myself. but first I have some hw to do.

--Joey

Re:Shutting down - foulup central. by CoolVibe · 2001-03-26 00:14 · Score: 1

If I can get to the console I can always press the *real* power button. Even as a mere user. Microsoft will never learn...
</sarcasm>
--
Slashdot didn't accept your submission? hackerheaven.org will!

Re:Shutting down - foulup central. by dwlemon · 2001-03-25 10:28 · Score: 1

I'm more concerned with the lack of underscores (Alt-key shortcuts) for anything on that screen.

Something free software tends to overlook as well.

Re:Automatic Update is a feature? by RAruler · 2001-03-25 10:01 · Score: 1

If you're not connected to the Internet, you get to call Microsoft. Tell them the details, and they give you an Auth. Code. Enter that in, and your good to go.

---

--

--
Insert Witty Sig Here

Re:Automatic Update is a feature? by domc · 2001-03-25 20:48 · Score: 1

Yeah, but how often do you see it in the GNU world?

domc

Re:You people don't get it.... by domc · 2001-03-26 05:39 · Score: 1

Dude...Mozilla isn't even in beta yet, and it's getting better every day.

ALL YOUR RIMJOB ARE BELONG TO MY ASS!

Re:Shutting down - foulup central. by Dionysus · 2001-03-25 08:43 · Score: 1

Windows XP is meant for the home user, so it doesn't have to have the same multiuser capabilites that Linux or other UNIX'es do.

All a home user really needs is a separation of the user folders (like email folders, documents etc), and this has been supported at least since Win98, because most likely, no more than one person will be logged into a system anyways.

Also, even a non-root can shut down a Linux box. Ctrl-Alt-Del will reboot my Linux system as a user. And with GNOME ( and perhaps KDE?), there is a menu option to shutdown as user. (Yes, it can be disabled, but dists. like RedHat and Debian turns this feature on by default).

--
Je ne parle pas francais.

Re:Shutting down - foulup central. by Kismet · 2001-03-25 23:38 · Score: 1

As most of you clueless ./ weenies wouldn't have a clue how to make two Xservers work side by side (Ctrl-Alt-F7 / F8 for example)

Out of curiosity, how do you do this?

Re:Man.. that was way harsh. by Miguelito · 2001-03-25 14:56 · Score: 1

it will lock-up every Unix system I've come across:

Then you haven't come across Solaris.. or any other Unix with some decent limits set.

--
- My favorite error message: xscreensaver, running on an old Sparc 5 w/ 8bit color: bsod: Couldn't allocate color Blue

Re:Man.. that was way harsh. by Miguelito · 2001-03-25 15:03 · Score: 1

As for the mouse pointer disappearing in Word, she should get her eyes tested and he shouldn't be so quick to try and reboot.

So I suppose that would include myself, my parents, sister and brother in law, and at least a dozen friends and coworkers who have had this happen to them at least once in the last two or three weeks? I've had the mouse pointer vanish on my 9x, NT4, and w2k boxes plenty of times. And no, I never pulled the mouse out to cause it.

--
- My favorite error message: xscreensaver, running on an old Sparc 5 w/ 8bit color: bsod: Couldn't allocate color Blue

Re:Much better review out there, see link below by Miguelito · 2001-03-26 05:03 · Score: 1

but when giving this site a quick look, I couldn't help thinking of this.

That's ok.. I tried for 2 hours on and off (every 15 minutes or so I'd click the link when taking a break from the work I was doing) yesterday before it finally gave me the page instead of:
HTTP 1.1 Server Too Busy

I get that all the time from msnbc too, whenever a big news story breaks... CNN might slow way down.. but at least I get the page instead of either the above message or error messages intended for one of the site's admins.

--
- My favorite error message: xscreensaver, running on an old Sparc 5 w/ 8bit color: bsod: Couldn't allocate color Blue

Re:Man.. that was way harsh. by Miguelito · 2001-03-26 05:12 · Score: 1

I have a similar problem with w2k and my TEAC CD-R55S SCSI CD-R drive. Linux works fine with it, as does 98. However, 2k hangs hard when I put any normal disc in the drive. The other 2 CD-ROMS on the chain are fine... This happens with all drivers including the latest Adaptec drivers for SCSI host and other hardware.

What's really odd is that I can still use W2k and EZ-CD Creator to burn disks on it just fine.. but if I burn a disc, then close it again when the burn it done (I always have it eject when done burning since I usually max my tv tuner window) it'll make the box hang.

--
- My favorite error message: xscreensaver, running on an old Sparc 5 w/ 8bit color: bsod: Couldn't allocate color Blue

Re:Much better review out there, see link below by Miguelito · 2001-03-26 14:29 · Score: 1

I'm not entirely sure which is better: to serve the number of connections the machines can handle adequately, and fail others, or to serve all of them poorly. Probably the first,

I think the 2nd is better, as long as it's not a constant thing. Often, when sites get overloaded (like cnn during a huge story) you'll get the html, or at least enough to see the story... but the pics will slow down. That's easy enough to cancel out. With the "site too busy" error, you get squat.

--
- My favorite error message: xscreensaver, running on an old Sparc 5 w/ 8bit color: bsod: Couldn't allocate color Blue

Re:Automatic Update is a feature? by Zico · 2001-03-25 11:18 · Score: 1

Maybe they chose "-1, Troll" because Slashdot hasn't made "-1, Completely False" an option yet?How would you have suggested it be moderated?

Cheers,

Go to the page below by Zico · 2001-03-25 12:25 · Score: 1

Paul Thurrott has a page specifically dedicated to that question: www.winsupersite.com/showcase/windowsxp_home_pro.a sp. In fact, judging from all the misinformation I've been seeing from posters after reading the C|net review, I'd highly suggest that anyone looking for XP info go check out his Windows SuperSite page, where he has an incredible amount of into about WinXP Beta 2. And at least his are based on the current build, which C|net obviously didn't bother to do, judging by the build number shown in their screenshots.

Cheers,

Re:Question... by Zico · 2001-03-25 12:48 · Score: 1

The fact that you think it should've been done long ago, or whether people will notice or not has no bearing whatsoever that finally moving away from the 9x line is a huge change.

XP Home/Pro isn't all that big of a change from Win2K Pro, and Microsoft even says this, although on the server versions, the changes might be bigger depending on how much of the .NET framework they include — it's not going to be shipping at the same time as the Home/Pro versions. But Win2K was never marketed to home users.

XP is not a major step toward .NET. Like I said, the article's pretty poor. You can get much better info (including a reviewer who actually used the build that he's reviewing, instead of c|net's outdated build) at www.winsupersite.com.

Cheers,

Re:Automatic Update is a feature? by Zico · 2001-03-25 12:55 · Score: 1

Windows Update has nothing to do with piracy checking. This being the case, everything that the simpleminded original poster said was completely false. I'm pretty impressed that you want to knock me out — will your parents extend your curfew for a couple of hours so you can try?

Cheers,

Re:First Truly Irrelevant Windows by Zico · 2001-03-25 13:23 · Score: 1

That's nice, but you do realize that about 99 percent of the population would say the exact same thing about any Linux release, don't you? Now that's irrelevance.

Cheers,

Re:Much better review out there, see link below by Zico · 2001-03-26 03:55 · Score: 1

Heh, nah, I don't think he's a fanboy, no matter how enthusiastic he was about XP. I haven't gotten as excited as him about XP, and I was actually kinda surprised by his level of enthusiasm, but maybe it's because it's not my regular OS (where you might only realize how great something is until after you use it for a while then can't stand using anything else — kinda parallels my initial reaction to wheelmice), and I haven't tried any builds since Beta 1. I noticed that he points out the features that he thinks are mistakes and urges Microsoft to change.

He's a hard read sometimes; it seems like there are a lot of times that he'll gush over something that doesn't interest me at all, and at other time he'll fuss over such a small thing that I wanna give him a good shake. Anybody who reads the editorials that he writes for the Win 2000 Magazine newsletters knows he doesn't mind going after Microsoft, and I'm about 95% sure that he was advocating their breakup by the feds. I can go back and check for certain if anyone cares.

But, since the reason I posted that link was strictly for all the informational content that he's made available, I think there's plenty of info to be had even when you tune out the opinion-based stuff, definitely a lot more than I've seen at any other sites, c|net and any of Microsoft's own sites included.

Cheers,

Much better review out there, see link below by Zico · 2001-03-25 13:11 · Score: 5

Check out Paul Thurrott's review at his WinSuperSite page: www.winsupersite.com. Whether or not you share his enthusiasm for WinXP Beta 2, at least he presents an enormous amount of information about it (I haven't even read it all yet). From some of the misinformed posts based on the c|net review (which apparently, from their screenshots was based on an older build) to questions I'm seeing asked which I remember seeing answered by Paul, I'd say that he did a more thorough job of it.

(Note that Paul's isn't technically the latest build either. His was based on build 2462, but MS made a last minute change and released build 2462a as Beta 2.)

Cheers,

Re:Much better review out there, see link below by Balinares · 2001-03-25 23:18 · Score: 1

Check out Paul Thurrott's review at his WinSuperSite page: www.winsupersite.com.

Well, I hope that won't come accross as flamebait or troll or whipped cream-covered anvil, but when giving this site a quick look, I couldn't help thinking of this. Am I just a desperately paranoid geek of sorts who needs to get a life, :) or did someone else feel the same about it?

Thanks for the pointer anyway, Zico -- the site definitely looks worth reading, biased as it probably is!

--

-- B.
This sig does in fact not have the property it claims not to have.

Re:Shutting down - foulup central. by Raven667 · 2001-03-25 13:50 · Score: 2

I kind of wish Linux was wiser about hardware permissions. Anyone who is logged into the console should have complete access to the sound and any removable drives (floppy, CD, etc), and any other peripherals attached to the computer. Anyone else doesn't really need that access. I don't know how one might do that in Linux...?

Poke around in the PAM configuration. I believe the pam_console module can do this, but I can't check it right now. Otherwise you could use the pam_group module to add users who login to the console to the "console" group which has rw access to the various devices (audio, video, cdrom, etc.). I do wish this was taken care of in a more elegant manner by the distro makers though, it is a pain to implement this after the fact. I usually create seperate groups and add myself to them, one group for each device that I need access to.

--
-- Remember: Wherever you go, there you are!

Re:Mac OS-ish by Sloppy · 2001-03-25 23:41 · Score: 1

Actually, to me, it looks more like Sim City 3000 than MacOS.
---

--
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.

Re:Again, it's not bloatware, here's an eye opener by Sloppy · 2001-03-26 00:02 · Score: 1

Cost of hard disk storage is only one measurement, though. For example, in 1993, a regular person could afford to buy a tape drive that could back up their hard disk. Don't try that in 2001, because you'll need a jukebox setup that costs several thousand dollars.

While I don't consider bloat to be inexcusable, it's still a bad thing. And if hard disk technology has increased capacity per dollar by a factor of X, then the user should get an increase of X, not just X divided by the bloat factor. This is part of the reason that modern day computers, while being so much faster then ten-year-old computers, don't actually feel or work much faster. And it's one of the reasons that an Amiga user sits down in front of a new computer that is ten to forty times as fast as his Amiga, and then complains that the newer faster computer is so darned slow.

---

--
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.

Re:Mac OS-ish by NMerriam · 2001-03-25 11:35 · Score: 2

The rubber duck (as well as the badminton birdie and most of the other icons) are stock photos. You can buy the same set of images (plus 25,000 more!) and use them for your interface for about $49.95 on a six CD set....

---------------------------------------------

--
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.

Re:Shutting down - foulup central. by Roofus · 2001-03-25 09:44 · Score: 2

Besides the obvious reponse that others have given (if they sit at the machine, they can pull the plug), W2k has a security option to require a user to login before being able to shut it down. I think your making too much out of a few *BETA* screenshots.

Re:Dumbing it down.... by Eivind · 2001-03-25 19:19 · Score: 1

Incidentally, that's just precisely what wine does. It uses plain ascii, one line for each key, and nedsting by indenting. Simple and relatively foulproof, can easily be edited with any run-og-the-mill text-editor.

when will WinXP B2 be placed on MSDN Online? by pnkflyd51 · 2001-03-26 06:37 · Score: 1

Hi-

I've seen a lot of comments that WinXP beta 2 will be made downloadable for MSDN Pro and Universal members. WHEN?!?!?! Anyone know?

Thanks!

Re:Mac OS-ish by Mr.+Piccolo · 2001-03-25 10:28 · Score: 1

I don't see the resemblence, except for the rubber duckie.

BFD.

P.S. OSX looks better :-P

--
Glückwünsche, haben Sie Slashdot ermordet, indem Sie zum korporativen Druck beugten und Subskriptionen einlei

Re:Try QNX RTP by Mr.+Piccolo · 2001-03-25 10:53 · Score: 1

Yeah, now if only my network card ran for more than 5 seconds at a time before I have to slay and restart its server, it would be perfect!

If the FreeBSD folks can write a driver that works with RealTek 8139 cards, why can't QNX?

--
Glückwünsche, haben Sie Slashdot ermordet, indem Sie zum korporativen Druck beugten und Subskriptionen einlei

Re:Man.. that was way harsh. by great+om · 2001-03-25 12:01 · Score: 1

I remember a library called winG that, if i recall correctly functioned as a primative Direct3D library under win 3.1 (it wasn't made by m$)

--
------- Oh damn.... the Sigfile escaped... -Great OM

Re:Bloatware extreme by Arandir · 2001-03-25 09:36 · Score: 2

This is just continuing a trend that has been ongoing for two decades.

Most of you youngin's don't remember the early days of computing. Rest assured that it's not much different from today. You went and bought a brand new IBM PC with 48K RAM. Then you rudely discovered that all the programs needed 64K. So you upgraded and discovered that programs needed 256K, so you upgraded again. And again. To 640K, 1MB, 2MB, 4MB. A mere six years ago 4MB to 8MB was sufficient for DOS/Win3.1. OS/2 was considered a memory hog because it wanted 16MB. Then you had to upgrade yet again, to 16MB, 32MB, 64MB, and 128MB. Six years and the memory considered "barely adequate" has doubled five times. At this rate you will need Four Gigabytes of RAM in the year 2008!

The developers (and their tool manufacturers) are at fault for ignoring the user. When they want to know what the minimum requirements should be, they don't find out what the users actually have. Instead they go to Circuit City and Best Buy and see what the less-than-two-day-old systems are shipping with.

--
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned

Re:Bloatware extreme by Arandir · 2001-03-25 13:12 · Score: 2

They think about what most of their users are likely to have as hardware and what features their users would like to see.

I don't know what the current figures are. But on the date that Windows 95 was released, the most common type of non-server computer hardware in businesses was... the 80286!

The entry of *new* customers into the market has been driving the Microsoft profits since 1981. Well, the market it levelling out, and in not too long of a time, this year or next, the majority of computer users will not be newbies. That's going to kick Microsoft right in the teeth. For once they're going to have to market to the second and third time owner of Windows instead of relying on preinstalls for the majority of their sales.

--
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned

Re:Bloatware extreme by Arandir · 2001-03-26 05:24 · Score: 2

It's a technology fact that as hardware power goes up, software requirements and features do as well.

Non sequitur. If the speed limit increases does technology demand more horsepower for the automobile? Of course not!

The technology doesn't drive software requirements, marketing does.

--
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned

Re:Bloatware extreme by Arandir · 2001-03-26 05:56 · Score: 2

I wasn't talking about the home consumer market, or the power users, or the developers. Reread my post again. I was talking about the hardware in businesses. You know, that box that the secretary was using WP 5.1 on to type up reports...

Unlike you, businesses don't throw away $1000 to $5000 investments just because Bill Gates says so. The CEO's Assistant may get the newest box at Office Depot, but his/her old box is still being used somewhere in the company. The old boxes only get replaced when they break. And remember, businesses include more than the Fortune 500. It includes the everything from IBM to the corner liquor store and the family farm.

I'm sorry, but I don't have the figures. It's been six years, so I doubt I can find that Business Week, as the trashman has long since come and gone. I know, I should keep all my old magazines for times such as these...

--
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned

Shutting down - foulup central. by WasterDave · 2001-03-25 08:27 · Score: 3

I notice on the screenshot for the login page two things:
(1) The number of running apps that some users have open, including the Administrator.
(2) A button to shut the machine down.

Does this mean that non root^H^H^H^HAdministrator users can shut down higher privaleged (sp) programs? And services? All this time after the original release of NT (1994?) do Microsoft still not understand multi user OS's?

Dave

--
I write a blog now, you should be afraid.

Re:Shutting down - foulup central. by Klaas · 2001-03-26 01:18 · Score: 1

yeah, ctrl-alt-del shuts down my linux box (safely) as a user. and it did it out of the box (that is, out of the distro install...)
But then again, I know how to change that. Or at least, It's in /etc/something and I've seen it before, so I could find it again.
And why wouldn't I want that to work? ctrl-alt-del doesn't exactly work remotely, and my computer is sitting to the left of my keyboard, and to the right is the outlet it's plugged into. If someone (say, a computer non-savvy roomate who wants to use my computer as his hotmail terminal) wants to shut down my computer, he is going to be able to. Why not provide him a way to do so without making me have to fsch?
Re:Shutting down - foulup central. by jmauro · 2001-03-25 10:41 · Score: 1

it does if you use vnc.
Re:Shutting down - foulup central. by alecto · 2001-03-25 10:05 · Score: 1

Hope it never catches on fire. What on earth could be that important in a high school?!
Re:Shutting down - foulup central. by alecto · 2001-03-26 08:31 · Score: 1

/me slaps self on forehead
Oh--I thought that the staff at the high school had modified and hard wired it, not that it came that way. Thanks!
Re:Shutting down - foulup central. by I_redwolf · 2001-03-25 09:08 · Score: 1

So what? I've been able to do the same such things with Xwindows for like 10 yrs now.. What's your point?
Re:Shutting down - foulup central. by I_redwolf · 2001-03-26 02:23 · Score: 1

Yes it does, if you know what you're doing you just run the program as a process any normal process in the background when you are done. Move to a diff server.. xhost + and type fg.

Heh.. X has done this forever
Re:Shutting down - foulup central. by I_redwolf · 2001-03-26 02:25 · Score: 1

It's X and it doesn't require any code.. Once you write a client thats IT
Re:Shutting down - foulup central. by be-fan · 2001-03-25 09:05 · Score: 2

Running Windows XP? Home edition? Not everything is a *NIX server folks.

--
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Re:Shutting down - foulup central. by DebtAngel · 2001-03-26 04:34 · Score: 1

*Reads the Run As... bit*
*tries it*

Son of a....

--
Is this post not nifty? Sluggy Freelance. Worshi
Re:Shutting down - foulup central. by biglig2 · 2001-03-25 17:09 · Score: 1

Actually they have two "client" XP's; XP Pro is for business and XP Personal for home. You wouldn't want to use Personal in a business as it can't particip[ate fully in MS networking etc.

Hey, isn't everything in Linux user-configurable? You've got the source!

--
~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
Re:Shutting down - foulup central. by SuiteSisterMary · 2001-03-25 09:50 · Score: 2

And in Win2k, you can use policies to determine exactly who can shut the machine down when. A non issue, considering that if it's not locked away in a rack, you can just hit the power switch.

--
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Re:Shutting down - foulup central. by jedwards · 2001-03-25 08:36 · Score: 2

No.
The right to shutdown the machine is assignable on a user and group basis.
See "local security policy" under admin tools.
By default though, non-admin user's do have the rights to shutdown (on professional, at least)
Re:Shutting down - foulup central. by main() · 2001-03-25 15:31 · Score: 1

I also notice they pop up a list of "recently" used usernames in the login screen ;-)

Yeah, like we shutdown finger and disabled EXPN for no reason whatsoever...

Si

ps. To be fair, I remember seeing something similar in an xdm frontend once so its not only MS who made this mistake.
Re:Shutting down - foulup central. by Ig0r · 2001-03-25 08:46 · Score: 2

Having access to a monitor and keyboard/mouse doesn't mean you have access to the system. And even if you do have access to a system, it could just be a remote dumb terminal.

--

--
Soma: because a gramme is better than a damn.
Re:Shutting down - foulup central. by shepd · 2001-03-25 08:55 · Score: 1

I guess you've never seen a computer hardwired to the electrical system...

I have. They lopped off the end of the power cord and maretted it straight inside the power supply. I assume the other end of the cable was "protected" in some way as well. IIRC, this computer was an NCR donation to my high school.

So, unless you enjoy 120v coursing through your body, no, you cannot just pull the plug on a well thought out system.

--
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
Re:Shutting down - foulup central. by shepd · 2001-03-26 04:18 · Score: 1

It was a donation -- it came that way...

Probably NCR did it to protect some cash machine (their main source of $$$). I dunno why really.

It likely wasn't CSA/UL/CE certifiable wired in that manner. It did get hotter than most computers I've ever seen; it was built in the worst way. It used a passive mainboard with the processor card slotted into it. Problem was it is a desktop case and the processor card rubbed against the top of the case, meaning heat trouble (it was full length). :-)

Just a tidbit of information, that's all.

--
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
Re:Shutting down - foulup central. by Fervent · 2001-03-25 09:11 · Score: 2

First, Windows XP is supposed to combine both the business and consumer sides of the OS, so no, it's not only for the home.
Second, the Ctrl-Alt-Delete thing to restart in Linux is user-configurable. You can turn that off for added securtity

--
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
Re:Shutting down - foulup central. by thechink · 2001-03-25 08:50 · Score: 2

A non-root user on my Linux desktop computer can shut down the machine, that's the default setting.

In Windows 2000 Professional a non-admin user can also shut down the computer, also the default.

I both cases that default can be changed, I'm sure it can be changed in XP.
Re:Shutting down - foulup central. by Elendur · 2001-03-25 11:27 · Score: 1

In Win2k the shortcut keys are not underlined until you hit Alt. It is possible to change that so that they're always underlined. I assume the behavior is the same in XP.
Re:Shutting down - foulup central. by NineNine · 2001-03-25 09:29 · Score: 1

That's standard for Microsoft non-server OSes. It's always been like this. It's for ease of use. NT Server/W2K Server don't do this.
Re:Shutting down - foulup central. by grammar+fascist · 2001-03-26 03:38 · Score: 1

You can edit /etc/X11/xdm/Xservers (or /etc/X11/kdm/Xservers) to add another one. Put the second on :1. When you start xdm (or kdm), you'll have two X servers running.

--
I got my Linux laptop at System76.
Re:Shutting down - foulup central. by grammar+fascist · 2001-03-26 03:46 · Score: 1

Heh. If you have physical access to a Linux box, you can gain root access easily.

At the lilo prompt, enter (probably) "linux init=/bin/bash". Remount the root filesystem read-write with "/bin/mount -n -o remount,rw /". Edit /etc/passwd, and replace the root:x: (the password bit) with root::. (You may have to "mount -a" to mount /usr/bin to get vi or pico, or whatever.) Unmount everything but /, remount that in read-only mode. Hardware reboot. Next time you start it up, there's no root password.

--
I got my Linux laptop at System76.
Re:Shutting down - foulup central. by ConsumedByTV · 2001-03-25 14:02 · Score: 1

Yea, but also in win2k, you cant always kill a process at all.

Fight censors!

--

"Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness." - M
Re:Shutting down - foulup central. by ConsumedByTV · 2001-03-25 17:23 · Score: 1

Yea I am talking about services but also user processes. I crashed Explorer and even though I killed it, it would debug it. I should be able to kill it no matter what its doing, and when its using 189 megs of ram and climbing at 1 meg a sec. IT should die when i tell it to.

Fight censors!

--

"Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness." - M
Re:Shutting down - foulup central. by Petrophile · 2001-03-25 08:39 · Score: 1

Apparently, XP allows you to "disconnect" from your login session (kinda like Terminal Server does), and login as another user. Presumably your session state is then swapped out to disk. Similar to using virtual terminals on Linux, I imagine.

Agreed that "N programs running" is a bit of information leakage - hopefully you can disable that.

NT has always allowed unprivledged shutdown (of the machine) from the login screen. Administrator change enable/disable this from the registry. I don't know where'd you get the idea that nonprivledge users can kill other user's processes - NT has never worked that way.
Re:Shutting down - foulup central. by Ayende+Rahien · 2001-03-25 16:31 · Score: 1

You are talking about services, which you need to kill from the services MMC.

--

--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?
Re:Shutting down - foulup central. by Ayende+Rahien · 2001-03-25 16:33 · Score: 1

Press ALT, and you'll see it, you can also change it so you will always see the underlines.

--

--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?
Re:Shutting down - foulup central. by Ayende+Rahien · 2001-03-25 16:36 · Score: 1

Um, yes it does.
It's the home version we are talking about, but it's still based on the same kernel as XP Server & XP Advance Server will be.

--

--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?
Re:Shutting down - foulup central. by mech9t8 · 2001-03-25 08:43 · Score: 1

Um, no it doesn't mean that at all. Why would listing the programs running imply control over them?

It just means that if Dad walks away from the machine with 10 programs running, and Jr walks up to use the machine, he can see Jr has 10 programs running and know that Counterstrike probably isn't going to have a good frame rate at 1280 resolution... Also helpful, Mom can walk up and see if she has new e-mail without logging into the machine.

As a regular user of Terminal Services, I can tell you that MS handles multiuser OS functions beautifully. You can even run a session at work (these are, of course, fully GUI sessions which run acceptably even over a modem), Disconnect (which leaves the session running), and log into the same session from a completely different machine with everything still running just the way you left it...

--
Assume that there are valid arguments against your position.

--
Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.
- Nietzsche
Re:Shutting down - foulup central. by mech9t8 · 2001-03-28 01:53 · Score: 1

Well, that's remarkably easy if you're a UNIX geek that knows all those commands. Which would probably only include a subset of UNIX geeks.

10 years and you still gotta know commands like 'vnc' and 'fg'? That's why Linux isn't taking over the average desktop any time soon.

My Mom could use the Windows XP terminal services. Any computer-literate person could use Windows terminal services in 2 seconds without having to think of looking up MANs and HOWTOs and newsgroup postings...
--
Assume that there are valid arguments against your position.

--
Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.
- Nietzsche
Re:Shutting down - foulup central. by mech9t8 · 2001-03-25 08:48 · Score: 2

> By default though, non-admin user's do have the rights to shutdown (on professional, at least)

It's probably assumed on workstations you've got access to the physical machine... which means you've got access to power off no matter what. So you might as well let them close the system properly.

On Windows Server systems, only Admins have Shutdown priviledges...
--
Assume that there are valid arguments against your position.

--
Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.
- Nietzsche
Re:Shutting down - foulup central. by dot11 · 2001-03-25 23:58 · Score: 1

like
X :0 & X :1
or let xdm/wdm manage two screens...
Re:Shutting down - foulup central. by TeraCo · 2001-03-25 10:38 · Score: 1

Yes, but remember, Win XP isn't supposed to be a big stable *nix type OS, that is what Win2K is. This is for home use. You can't compare apples and oranges and say "Hey, this apple doesn't taste orange enough for me."

--
Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
Re:Shutting down - foulup central. by TeraCo · 2001-03-25 21:03 · Score: 1

Yes, but it doesn't have to offer all of the security and things that an office OS has to.

--
Not Meta-modding due to apathy.

skins, all I ask... by dutky · 2001-03-25 23:05 · Score: 2

I just want to be able to rearrange the window control buttons (close, minimize, maximize, and the tiny icon) in the title bar. I can do this in X Windows with most window managers. I can even do this on the Mac, with the right extensions. If the skinning feature of Win Xp will allow me to move the close button to the left side of the title bar, I will be happy to suffer through almost anything else. (DISCLAIMER: I don't willingly suffer the Windows blight, but my job essentially requires it)

Ding-Dong the DOS is Dead! by meldroc · 2001-03-25 12:52 · Score: 3

The one basic change that I've noticed that many people have overlooked is that Win XP is using the Win NT/2000 kernel and finally retiring the MS-DOS/Win 3.1 codebase. Say "So long" to all the MS-DOS drivers that mucked things up. Kiss goodbye to hidden pieces of 16-bit code lurking inside of Windows' innards. I won't miss having to put up with an OS that swiched to cooperative multitasking and froze everything while one misbehaved program refused to relinquish control. Good riddance to holes in the memory protection architecture that allowed misbehaved programs to scribble on the kernel.

It only took fifteen years after Intel released the 80386 (first x86 CPU with 32-bit addressing & registers, virtual memory, a usable protected mode (though Protected mode and virtual memory date back to the 286) for Microsoft to remove all the 16-bit code from its OSes and move to a more worthy architecture.

--

Meldroc, Waster of Electrons

Re:Ding-Dong the DOS is Dead! by John_Booty · 2001-03-25 13:33 · Score: 2

The one basic change that I've noticed that many people have overlooked is that Win XP is using the Win NT/2000 kernel and finally retiring the MS-DOS/Win 3.1 codebase

Maybe most people overlooked it because it happened like... erm.... 8 years ago or so when WinNT was released? It's really nothing new at this point... well, unless you're talking about the fact that they've finally released a "home" OS without any 16-bit code... but that's not what you said...

http://www.bootyproject.org

--

OtakuBooty.com: Smart, funny, sexy nerds.
Re:Ding-Dong the DOS is Dead! by fatmantis · 2001-03-25 13:44 · Score: 1

NT 1.0 (aka OS/2) came out in 1989, a scant 2 years after the 386 was released retail. nice try though.

--

::I will not moderate my opinions for your stinking karma

Re:Man.. that was way harsh. by Wojtek · 2001-03-25 10:48 · Score: 1

Fantastic, you've got 3 months uptime on your small webserver in the corner of your bedroom. Now go run win2k on a production database server with 20,000 transactions an hour. You can't do that. I have, and those systems have been up since 97. They're due for their ups's being replaced soon.
This will be the first downtime these machines have EVER seen. Microsoft cannot claim this of any of it's product.

FYI the systems are custom built Dual PII-300 systems running debian 2.1 and a 2.0 kernel.

Re:As requested by vherva · 2001-03-25 13:35 · Score: 1

Excuse me, but that's bullshit.

Cygwin doesn't slow anything down, when you don't use it. Even when you do, it doesn't. Sometimes some programs decide to hog 100% cpu time, which of course brings Windows to its knees - but this is a weakness in the NT scheduler. (Try DOS edit for an example.) Cygwin programs rarely do that, however.

I use zsh instead of bash (I absolutely love it), and I have that "zsh prompt here" in Exploder context menu.

I think I couldn't live without cygwin anymore. Give it a shot before you judge, you might like it (especially if you have unix background). The installallation is a breeze: just go to http://sources.redhat.com/cygwin and click install (I love the installer.)

--
-- v --

Re:As requested by gwonk · 2001-03-26 00:09 · Score: 1

There seems to be a major conflict between CygWin and McAfee VirusScan. If you are using McAfee, turn it off and try CygWin again. I'm not sure who is in the wrong, but I have not seen the problem with Symantec AntiVirus. I assume that McAfee is not playing nice.

g

Re:Man.. that was way harsh. by seth_hartbecke · 2001-03-25 14:13 · Score: 1

> Have you even RUN Windows 2000?

Well...no. I'll have to admit that I have not. Not for lack of trying, however. Recently at work I attempted to setup Windows 2000 inside VMWare, the setup program refused to work. So I decided to upgrade VMWare and grabbed the most recent VMWare 2.x...still no luck. Ok, so I threw the emulation idea out the window and got my hands on an old 300MHz computer and the setup program locked on the first boot disk.

Now please don't assume that I can't install an OS. With a good network connection I can have a debian net install up and running in a few hours. In the past I have installed both redhat and slackware. I've even installed Solaris on brand new bare Sun boxes (still trying to convince the boss to let me install linux on one of them, just to do it). And yes, I have installed windows before.

I know that many of you are yelling at your computer right now saying "but you need to check the hardware compatibility list," the simple fact is windows needs seriuos work. I don't doubt that it's getting better, but it has lots of problems. The biggest problem being that they will not admit their software has problems (at least not untill the next newer version needs to be marketed and they need to convince the existing install base to upgrade).

So for now I'll continue doing all my everyday things in Linux (yes, Linux. I made the switch to using Linux everyday 3 years ago) and only using windows to check my email at work. BTW: any exchange admins care to help me convince my exchange admins to turn on the IMAP stuff? I'm sure there is one little checkbox that, if checked, would allow me to perminatally power down my email box at work.

--
END

First Truly Irrelevant Windows by Plugh · 2001-03-25 11:13 · Score: 2

I'm sure my experience is identical to that of many Linux users: Win98 was the last windows I bought. I was dual-booting Linux at the time, fiddling to get my modem working and to connect to my ISP (Compuserve).

Well, about 12 months ago, I realized it had been a year since I'd booted Windows at all, and I wanted a few gigs of disk space back. So I reformatted the partition to ext2 and that's that. I have neither the reason nor the means to boot Windows, period. (Well, I'm sure the Win98 CD is lying around somewhere, but why the hell would I go through the hassle to install it?)

So, a new Windows finally comes along. Who cares? Who cares if the interface is new and improved? When I want a new interface, I download something interesting from e.themes.org -- and can get a new theme every day, if that's what I want. Thanks to TurboTax Online, the one reason I thought I'd have for using Windows this year disappeared. Games? Yeah, there are a few Windows-only games I'd like to play, on the other hand, Nethack is my favorite game and all it needs is 80x24, baby :-)

So there's a new Windows. Who cares? I'm a non-smoker. The new Windows is as relevant to me as a new flavor of Marlboro.

--
Part of the Second American Revolution!

Re:First Truly Irrelevant Windows by Malcontent · 2001-03-25 15:02 · Score: 2

That 99 percent is perfectly happy eathing whatever shit is shoved down their throats by MS. They don't give a crap about anything except maybe who won the best picture oscar.

Lucky for us they don't hand out at slashdot either. Except for a few paid astro turfers anyways.

--
War is necrophilia.
Re:First Truly Irrelevant Windows by Gnight · 2001-03-25 12:21 · Score: 1

You said it all man... I'm touched.

But really that is my story too, almost exactly. I just don't need windows 98 anymore, and if I do need it I can always just walk over to the other room and use it on the other computer ;)

Boy did it feel good to format that partition, now I have 2.6 more gigs for porn!

-Gnight

Re:Man.. that was way harsh. by jonathanclark · 2001-03-25 11:27 · Score: 1

Also, try this one.. it will lock-up every Unix system I've come across:

main() { while (1) fork(); }

--
-- Virtual Windows Project

Re:Automatic Update is a feature? by Tony-A · 2001-03-25 14:14 · Score: 1

Windows. The 50 cent operating system.

on making windows usable from a unix perspective.. by ivar · 2001-03-25 19:10 · Score: 1

An older, but still very good resource on making NT usable from a Unix perspective might prove useful, though it might need a proper update for winXP..

Re:i dont allow that :P by spudnic · 2001-03-25 14:16 · Score: 1

I never really understood the purpose of desktop icons, or desktop wallpaper for that matter.

After the system is up for 10 seconds, I rarely see the desktop again for a couple of weeks until I reboot for some reason (W2k).

--
load "linux",8,1

Re:Bloatware extreme by kren2000 · 2001-03-26 01:00 · Score: 1

Top dollar? I'm a Select Developer ($500/yr) and we received the new MacOS X seed last week via fedex. If you consider that we get seeded with all the latest software, the $500/yr is a bargain.

Karen

--
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GAT d-- a? C++ UX+ L++ P++ E--- W+++$ N++ o-- !K !w O---- M++$ !V PS++

Re:MacOS-ish Interface...Uh-huh by miahrogers · 2001-03-25 08:56 · Score: 1

Aqua is a very good UI. Have you used it? Apple is making strides once again, of course there are problems, for example animation is annoying when you're trying to run effects on 600 meg audio files and it's slow.

I have been using osX intensely since the Public Beta, and I have used OSX PB, OSX build 4K17, and Build 4k78 (the final version). It has steadily improved. Apple has produced an operating system of the future, and it can do things with graphics that would amaze you. Under normal conditions the Aqua interface is incredibly fast and responsive, and quick to navigate.

I also don't know what you're talking about with people saying the osX cds were fake.. I think some people were surprised that apple left the build id (4K78) in the "about this computer" Window. Some people thought apple mistakenly shipped two versions, but that is far from shipping a "fake" osX.

Again, it's not bloatware, here's an eye opener. by CDanek · 2001-03-25 23:21 · Score: 1

From Joel on Software:

Version 5.0 of Microsoft's flagship spreadsheet program Excel came out in 1993. It was positively huge: it required a whole 15 megabytes of hard drive space. In those days we could still remember our first 20MB PC hard drives (around 1985) and so 15MB sure seemed like a lot.

By the time Excel 2000 came out, it required a whopping 146MB ... almost a tenfold increase! Dang those sloppy Microsoft programmers, right?

Wrong.

It's not bloatware, take moore's law into account. by CDanek · 2001-03-25 23:18 · Score: 2

Compare this to the average hard drive size available and you'll quickly discover the relative size of OS's is actually getting smaller as functionality increases.

Re:Mac OS-ish by Azza · 2001-03-25 09:57 · Score: 2

That's the weakest argument I've seen yet. Gee, the folder looks like a folder, the magnifying glass looks like a magnifying glass, the off button looks like an off button. Apart from the duck, they're both simply copying real-world items to use as metaphors for system features.

Re:As requested by yomahz · 2001-03-25 14:35 · Score: 1

OMFG

Why wasn't I ever informed about cygwin! Christ, this is possibly the best day of my life (that's not saying much).

--

A mind is a terrible thing to taste.

--
"A mind is a terrible thing to taste."

Re:Question... by el_chicano · 2001-03-25 23:21 · Score: 2

Certain OS and UI features will be unavailable unless you use the XP interface. Some software may not work properly, or not work at all.

And exactly how can that be considered a feature? Sounds like XP is not really 100% backward compatible...
--
You think being a MIB is all voodoo mind control? You should see the paperwork!

--
A man who wants nothing is invincible

Re:Mac OS-ish by el_chicano · 2001-03-26 03:25 · Score: 2

Apart from the duck, they're both simply copying real-world items to use as metaphors for system features.

Except that Microsoft's desktop metaphor somehow seems more innovative than Apple's! :->
--
You think being a MIB is all voodoo mind control? You should see the paperwork!

--
A man who wants nothing is invincible

Dumb argument... by Junta · 2001-03-26 01:35 · Score: 1

Are you actually color blind? I would guess not. I am red-green colorblind (relatively common). The color schemes used to signify active/inactive windows has no problem with red/green, the most common, and I don't see a potential problem for blue/yellow. The extremely rare dichromat is the only possible problem, but even then the colors are customizable, and shades can be used. Also, the "greeen means go" reference just refers to the start button being colored green in addition to lettering, and I don't think anyone will have a problem with this. These companies do a lot of research, and colorblindness is a big part of every interface designers design process. I really dislike XP on other grounds, but use of color to accentuate is not that bad..

--
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.

What about WPA? by Junta · 2001-03-26 01:48 · Score: 1

I haven't seen nearly as much uproar about WPA (The "Product Activation" scheme, where every install sends all kinds of data to Microsoft about the installation to prevent any sort of privacy). After the intel Processor ID fiasco with privacy, you would think everyone would be up in arms over this one. This includes more than just a number, from my understanding, so I would assume that this other data is non trivial... Is the world ready to trust Microsoft with such information? I certainly am not. Probably makes installation a nightmare too, as it would require a net connection of some sort. There has to be some other, non-intrusive anti-piracy scheme they could come up with. In my view, a company should respect consumer privacy first, and then worry about piracy, especially a company with money to burn like Microsoft, piracy may be rampant with their products, but their bottom line seems to be strong still yet.
Also, I wonder how good the backwards compatibility is. For example, some programs in win2000 after installation could only be used by installer, no matter what. Will this also be the case in XP, that registry entries will be the same as to cause such a problem?

--
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.

Re:Free Solaris my ass by NovaX · 2001-03-25 12:02 · Score: 1

Can you use a NetBSD box with Sun emulation in order to get IE5 up? I believe Net/Open/Free all have this emulation support.

-----------------------------------------

--

"Open Source?" - Press any key to continue

Re:Defragged swapfile in Windows by Tower · 2001-04-05 21:40 · Score: 2

or use one of the real tools that *will* move the swap file (usually to the top end of the drive, with the rest of your files at the bottom. The defrag tools that come with Windows are just crippled versions of the Norton tools anyway.

You can also boot into dos mode and delete the swap file, and when it recreates, it should be contiguous...

The other (and nicer) option is to create another partition for the swap file, and never worry about it again... of course, you can't take a full memory dump on a blue screen if the swap isn't on the boot partition, but hey... that's a lot of time to waste for something that you are almost guaranteed never to use...

The 3x physical ram can be a problem too (especially for those of us with 768MB of physical) :)
--

--
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."

Re:WMA smaller than MP3 ?! by irishmikev · 2001-03-25 22:22 · Score: 1

I always ripped my stuff at 256...until I got a portable MP3 player with 64 mb of ram. Sort of changes your priorities when ripping. Now I have a "portable" folder that I do a second rip of everything at 96 in....

Default color scheme? by Symbiosis · 2001-03-25 13:39 · Score: 1

I certainly hope some prankster at C|Net was messing with the display settings before they took these screenshots, because the text is unreadable! I know not whose idea it was to use white (yellow-ish?) text on a off-white (tan-ish?) background, but they must certainly suffer from some sort of mental deficiency. At least, that's what the psychologists I made up say... ;-)

-------------------------------------------
I like nonsense, it wakes up the brain cells.

--

-------------------------------------------
I like nonsense, it wakes up the brain cells.
-- Dr. Seuss

Re:Default color scheme? by Hornes · 2001-03-25 18:22 · Score: 1

Actually, I think the black color was specified as translucency, (which would explain it) but I didn't actually check the file. At any rate, they seem to be mixing in really hideous colors together. Green start button with a blue taskbar and red buttons on the windows?? Is this Romper Room?

I think OS X's default blue and grey is really non-offensive and a good choice. And I have no real problem with previous versions of Windows colors, though I'm really sick of the default greenish aqua background that people never ever change. I was happy to see the wonderful gradient in Win98 -- great prettiness.

Oh well, I think the issue is somewhat moot given that XP is going to have skins... I guess time to invest in those RAM companies.

All in all, XP seems potentially prettier than 20th century Windows, but it is in no way near the quality of OS X.

Very interesting by Tofuhead · 2001-03-25 09:31 · Score: 1

Anyone else notice the box on that article titled "New in XP?" Under "Pros," it lists something quite surprising: "Stable and dependable." Besides that, it lists two other items that have been in previous Windows releases, not to mention other OSes.

CNet rocks.

< tofuhead >
--

--
It is still the dark of night.

You can't steal free _beer_ by Tofuhead · 2001-03-26 04:49 · Score: 1

Great links. Sorry for using the term "free" so freely, but I'm talking beer here, as was the person I was replying to. That's how Microsoft considers their Windows installations/licenses; everything is beer to them. Sell your retail-purchased, unused Windows license to a friend and somehow you've just pissed in MS's...well, you get it. Copy a linux distro to 500 CDRs and tell me if you've stolen linux.

That's what fists are good for...protecting your beer. Speech is best protected by speech, as your links prove.

< tofuhead >
--

--
It is still the dark of night.

You can't steal free software by Tofuhead · 2001-03-25 09:20 · Score: 3

Well we wouldn't want people to steal something that they have not paid for. The MS programmers need to receive payment to take care of their families and if you steal the software that they make you are going to hurt them in the long run. This is one reason why MS takes precautions to keep theft at a minimum.

Well then what else are they supposed to steal? Stuff they have paid for? Whoops, I forgot that with Windows EULAs, that's exectly what MS would like to have us believe they're doing, especially if they're doing so much as (gasp) buying Windows from a friend who got (read: bought) it with his PC but never once used it.

See, that's the great thing about free software: There's no paranoia over making sure you're "legal," because there's no way to steal it. Unless, of course, someone's trying to swipe my FreeBSD CDRs, in which case all their bruise are belong to my fist.

< tofuhead >
--

--
It is still the dark of night.

Re:You can't steal free software by Chester+K · 2001-03-25 10:39 · Score: 3

See, that's the great thing about free software: There's no paranoia over making sure you're "legal," because there's no way to steal it.

Actually, you don't need to worry if you're "legal" because Slashheads will worry for you.

--

NO CARRIER

Re:Mac OS-ish by Malcontent · 2001-03-25 14:39 · Score: 2

Yes because nobody in MS has the imagination to actually think up new icons. They have to spend $50.00 like the rest of the world.

--

War is necrophilia.

Typical MS tactic. by Malcontent · 2001-03-25 14:50 · Score: 2

Your typical MS luser of course would never be able accomplish such a thing so it will be a great way for MS to sabotage free software or any competing p2p protocol. Ms protocols get opened up by default and anybody else has to convince the dumb MS lusers try and change something they don't understand.

--

War is necrophilia.

nope, its them by Juln · 2001-03-26 01:43 · Score: 1

Everything about windows gets more unix like.

This time, they changed the skin on their window manager.

--
Juln

Re:this is great for Linux by Grendel+Drago · 2001-03-25 12:49 · Score: 2

Bingo!

I can strip down to icewm and run Opera. Can a WinXP user strip down to a non-bloaty interface and not run IE6?

-grendel drago

--
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca

Re:Automatic Update is a feature? by Betcour · 2001-03-25 15:06 · Score: 1

and if you steal the software

Pirating is not stealing. Stealing takes away something from someone. Making an illegal copy might take away a sale from the publisher - or it might not. Because you make an illegal copy of something doesn't mean that, if you were honest, you'd buy it. I'd say that if pirate had to pay for all their software, they would not purchase more than 5% of what they pirate. Hence 5% of what they pirate is stealing, the remaining is not. Most downloaded warez end up unused on a CD-R or in /dev/null.

More than that, but piracy is actually helping some publishers, because if everyone had to pay for it's Windows/Office license, Linux/Staroffice/Koffice would have a much higher market share... and when people use Office at home, they also ask for the same software at work (and the company then buys it because businesses usually avoid piracy).

Of course MS/Adobe and other publisher would like you to think it is the same as stealing, because then they can claim trillion of dollars of loss and lobby for thoughter law on piracy.

Re:Automatic Update is a feature? by Betcour · 2001-03-25 20:25 · Score: 1

No - because even if it bounces you can still frame it and hang it in your living room :)

Re:skins by micahjd · 2001-03-25 08:33 · Score: 2

that new interface looks like a skin to me... and yet Microsoft still hasn't thought of a skinnable UI

There must be some reason they don't include a customizable UI. I know it's not a hard thing to do. I'm the author of the Open Source GUI PicoGUI and it must have taken about 1000 lines of C to write a fast theme interpreter. Maybe they just don't like giving people choices? Or maybe they want Windows to have a distinct look so they can target their advertising to it and make people upgrade to make their desktop pretty.

Oh well. I like enlightenment :)

--
-- 2 + 2 = 5, for very large values of 2

Re:skins by micahjd · 2001-03-25 09:39 · Score: 2

Well, I don't use windows except when absolutely necessary, so I may be wrong. But, from what I've seen the windows 'themes' only let you change things like wallpaper and color schemes. I'm talking about an interface that lets you completely reprogram the look and actions of every single UI element. In many GUI systems I've seen (enlightenment, sawmill, picogui) there is no built-in look, everything is defined by a theme file. Everything is customizable.

--
-- 2 + 2 = 5, for very large values of 2

Re:Automatic Update is a feature? by thraxil · 2001-03-25 09:58 · Score: 1

what if you don't have an internet connection? are you now excluded from running windows if you aren't connected? that sounds pretty silly to me. for one thing it means that no windows XP machine can be "air gap" secured, so you'll need to run another OS to store your really sensitive data.
--

--
Smokey the Bear says, "Strip mining prevents forest fires!"

Re:skins by Amoeba · 2001-03-25 08:46 · Score: 2

In fact, the design and method MS is using to implement "skinning" has caused some concern in the community of various commercial and open-source Windows shell replacements. There was recently a thread on the Litestep mailing list about some of the contortions that will now be required to do what was previously a simple modification to the registry (or .ini files for the 9x OS versions) to replace the explorer.exe shell.

Sure you can still skin windows but with XP MS is apparently moving towards requiring the explorer.exe shell in order to do so.. thus leaving the user without a choice again. Well, a choice dependent on the terms and whims of MS. And explorer.exe is notoriously bloated and slow, especially in comparison to the Litestep shell (which is a shell based upon module loading in essence)

I don't see this as a good thing.

I would highly recommend to those who still use Windows at all to investigate some of the various shell replacements out there. I avoided Windows like the plague after becoming used to how *nix will allow me to setup a shell to work the way I want to work and not the other way around. Litestep in particular is the only reason I have MS on one of my boxes, it's that sweet.

Plus I still get a kick out of people asking me how I managed to get Office working in Linux. :)

--
Do not taunt Happy-Fun Ball

Re:Dumbing it down.... by NetJunkie · 2001-03-26 03:49 · Score: 1

Works fine with my VIA chipset board, KT7 with KT133, and my SoundBlaster Live. I upgraded the included Live driver to the latest from Creative.

Oh yeah...Activation.... by NetJunkie · 2001-03-25 08:08 · Score: 3

The current builds have to be activated, just like a retail copy. When I've done the activation is has been quick and easy. If you don't have an Internet connection you have to call...but since mine are connected I just do it over the internet.

Also, there is a difference between activation and registration. Registration is optional...that's where you fill out the form and send them info about you and your system. If you do not activate the system it will start warning you in a week. If time runs out the system won't be useable until you do activate it.

Re:Oh yeah...Activation.... by ahaning · 2001-03-25 08:49 · Score: 1

If you don't have an Internet connection you have to call.

How do they activate your system if they can't have their servers talk to your machine?

kickin' science like no one else can,
my dick is twice as long as my attention span.

--
Withdrawal before climax is very ineffective and those who try this are usually called "parents."
Re:Oh yeah...Activation.... by ahaning · 2001-03-26 00:50 · Score: 1

In that case, it should be simple enough to generate a code that would work.

I'm not seeing how this activation thing is so great. Anyone could write a program that generates the codes. I would think that they'd want to send you some special CD or such that you would have to insert that would be able to validate your copy or something.

Offline activation doesn't seem too reliable.

kickin' science like no one else can,
my dick is twice as long as my attention span.

--
Withdrawal before climax is very ineffective and those who try this are usually called "parents."

Dumbing it down.... by NetJunkie · 2001-03-25 08:05 · Score: 5

I've been using the beta of XP, and so far it has been stable...especially for a beta. The interface takes some getting used to, and frankly, I find it a little too cutesy. Also, they have dumbed down a lot of the file options so that a user will have to try and delete important things. So, you have to spend the first 15 mins after an install turning off these self-protection options.

Games have been working fine.... IE6 is nice (I'd kill for IE under Linux).... The install was easy.... And the stability is there.

Re:Dumbing it down.... by dbrutus · 2001-03-25 09:32 · Score: 2

Since IE 5 for Mac OS X doesn't seem to have a system registry (and the Mac OS X version would probably be the code base from which a linux port would be made), I would guess that a registry is unnecessary for IE.

Now the whole, XP thing is likely to be interesting, since this is the, what 7th Windows operating system (98, 98SE, NT 3.1, NT 3.51, NT 4, Win2k, ME) that is trying to match the stability of Unix. I wonder if they've made it this time.

Not

DB
Re:Dumbing it down.... by bgraziano · 2001-03-25 13:09 · Score: 1

Actually I think it's the 5th in the "industrial strength" operating system saga. NT 3.1, NT 3.51, NT4, Win2K and now WinXP. The various flavors of 95 and 98 came from a different code base. It also makes me wonder how much time they spent considering possible abbreviations when they named this version of Windows.

--
SQLTeam.com - For SQL Server developers and Administrators
Re:Dumbing it down.... by DrSkwid · 2001-03-27 17:54 · Score: 1

my faveourite bit is the splash screen

windows 2000 ... built on NT Technology

Which is, er, Windows 2000 ... built on New Technology Technology

a bit like my Personal Identification Number number
.oO0Oo.

--
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Re:Dumbing it down.... by NumberSyx · 2001-03-25 23:40 · Score: 1

Linux does have registry, it is called /etc .

Jesus died for sombodies sins, but not mine.

--
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development
Re:Dumbing it down.... by Ig0r · 2001-03-25 10:02 · Score: 1

The registry is, AFAIK, a set of two binaries stored in \windows\user.dat and \windows\system.dat

--

--
Soma: because a gramme is better than a damn.
Re:Dumbing it down.... by shepd · 2001-03-25 08:43 · Score: 2

I'd kill for a system registry for linux. That way IE6 would be that much easier to port to Linux!

[/sarcasm]

--
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
Re:Dumbing it down.... by lucius · 2001-03-25 09:16 · Score: 1

speaking of registries, does anyone know how the windows regstry is stored? Is it in a plain file? If so which one; if not where?
Re:Dumbing it down.... by lucius · 2001-03-25 12:15 · Score: 1

Thanks:-)
Re:Dumbing it down.... by evocate · 2001-03-27 00:17 · Score: 1

You kill for IE under Linux, but would you pay for it? And would you use it without the access to the source?
Re:Dumbing it down.... by shotfeel · 2001-03-26 04:18 · Score: 1

the Mac OS X version would probably be the code base from which a linux port would be made
I'm not so sure about that. Sitting between Darwin (the unix core, if you will) and IE, is Apple's Carbon API. So you'd have to port significant portions of Carbon to Linux to get the IE port to run. Seems like there would be easier ways to do it.
Re:Dumbing it down.... by shyster · 2001-03-25 23:16 · Score: 1

Does it finally do fixed positioning? This was promised for IE 5.5, but alas. Does IE6

Try NetCaptor and be done with opening up seperate windows for each IE incarnation. Right now I have 6 sites open in one window and can switch back and forth quite easily. And it uses roughly the same amount of memory as 1 IE window, and scales better for more sites.
Oh, but to answer your question, IE 6 on my Win2K system does open new windows in a logical order.
Re:Dumbing it down.... by shyster · 2001-03-25 23:39 · Score: 1

That only applies to the Win9x kernel. The WinNT kernels have a more complicated hive structure, here's the breakdown for Win2K (NT is similar, but I think some files may be named differently or stored in a different place...)
The files are stored in C:\Winnt\system32\config.
DEFAULT=HKU\.Default
SAM=HKLM\SAM
SECURITY=HKLM\Security
SOFTWARE=HKLM\Software
SYSTEM=HKLM\System
There's also .log and .sav files (logs are changes to registry since last boot and .sav are last known goods).
Then, there's a file in C:\documents and settings\
ntuser.dat=HKCU
But, for even more registry goodness, I've got more for you! Check out the associations in the registry itself...
HKCU=ntuser.dat=HKU\[SID]
HKCR=HKLM\Software\Classes+HKCU\Software\Classes
HKCC=HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\HardwareProfile s\Current
That's all for Win2K Registry tutoring today folks. Tune in next week for to learn the reason why M$ came up with the registry to begin with! (Hint: I have no earthly idea...something about a non-relational, non-indexed, non-organized by rows and columns database was easier than a few plain-text .ini files....)
Re:Dumbing it down.... by majestyk2000 · 2001-03-26 05:23 · Score: 1

I've used the SPAN STYLE="position: absolute" type tag for a long time, and it works either in IE or in Netscrape.
Re:Dumbing it down.... by Graspee_Leemoor · 2001-03-25 09:03 · Score: 2

Wine creates a registry to run Windows apps with. I don't know if it keeps it in a db or uses a flat plain old file, but there you go.

Graspee
Re:Dumbing it down.... by Ayende+Rahien · 2001-03-25 16:08 · Score: 1

Since registry is just for data storage, you can change the APIs pretty easily.
/Registry
/HKCU
/HKLM
Etc, with text files for the values.
Shouldn't be a problem to implement.

--

--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?
Re:Dumbing it down.... by TeraCo · 2001-03-25 15:03 · Score: 1

> They compete with the crashing by making sure that when the borser crashes it takes down the entire system with it.
You know.. you can turn that off.
Or didn't you?

--
Not Meta-modding due to apathy.

Man.. that was way harsh. by citizenc · 2001-03-25 08:26 · Score: 3

I'm sure your post won't be the first -- I don't understand why everybody keeps slagging on MS. I'm currently running Windows 2000 Server as my webserver in the corner of my room; it runs Apache, an FTPdaemon, and ActivePerl, and has had an uptime of almost 3 months, completely error free.

I'm getting really tired of people just blindly assuming that Microsoft is going to turn out a poor piece of software. Have you even RUN Windows 2000? It is the most stable operating system I have ever seen, and yes, I've run Linux as well.

This isn't flame bait, or a troll, or anything else -- it is simply my opinion.

------------
CitizenC

Re:Man.. that was way harsh. by plague3106 · 2001-03-25 10:57 · Score: 1

Well, its the expectation that MS built for themselves. I can hardly blame anyone for believing MS puts out shit; thats mostly what they have done.

Yes, win2k is finally a decent OS. But it still has its little problems that prevent me from calling it stable. Stable means being able to put my computer into standby and having all the devices work fine and i can access smb shares without problem when i wake it up. It means not 'forgetting' to shut of my monitor sometimes. It means not ignoring my first ctrl-alt-del to unlock the computer after it wakes up. It means not having errors in the logs about a performance library failing to load b/c of unknown problems in the library.

Sure, these things might be little. And quite honestly if these re the only problems with win2k, i'll gladly take that over win9x. Even if i can't run some win95 programs. But unfortunatly it still makes me a little paranoid; what else might it be 'forgetting' or screwing up thta i don't know about? Contrasting that to my linux box, which works the same, each and everytime.
Re:Man.. that was way harsh. by flatrock · 2001-03-25 22:25 · Score: 1

Mucho dollars? My copy was $130. It cost me more than that to have a guy come out to my house and tell me my furnace didn't work because a bird was stuck in the exaust. For the average person who can afford a computer, is $130 really that much to have an OS you don't have to spend half your time tinkering with. Sure you have to spend an hour customizing it once you install it, and you have to update drivrs once in a while. But for the most part it's not hard to figure out. Isn't an OS wort the price of 3 computer games you play on it?
Re:Man.. that was way harsh. by flatrock · 2001-03-25 22:37 · Score: 1

Something you are installing is corrupting the registry. Take a good look at the software and drivers you are using when things go bad.
Re:Man.. that was way harsh. by flatrock · 2001-03-25 23:23 · Score: 1

Sorry you had such bad luck with it. I've installed it dozens of times, and never had it lock up on the boot disk. Most of my test machines are slower than 300 MHz. I've never looked at the hardware compatability list, because I haven't had problems. I'm not doubting that your problem exhists, but it's by far the exception rather than the rule.

Glad to hear that Linux works for you. That's what it's all about, use what works.
Re:Man.. that was way harsh. by David+Ham · 2001-03-25 13:26 · Score: 1

no offense, but 3 months is pretty much nothing as far as uptimes go. yes, it's good for windows. yes, w2k is more stable than nt or 9x. no, it still doesn't come close to my slack box at home that's been up for 160 days now, which is measly compared to some of the bsd/linux boxen on uptimes.net... not to flame or troll or anything, but if linux didn't run stable for you, it's because you didn't know how to configure it properly. i've never hung linux so bad that i couldn't get it back without rebooting. i can't say the same for any version of windows... and yes, i run windows at work on database servers and desktops as well, so i know what i'm talking about. don't tout w2k as the best thing to hit computing - it has its strong points, but it will never compete with unix as far as stability goes.

--
you must amputate to email me

--
--
you must amputate to email me
i read all replies to my comments
Re:Man.. that was way harsh. by kot · 2001-03-25 09:59 · Score: 1

I've had to reinstall Windows 2000 Professional
3 times now, because it crashes, and then
doesn't come back up complaining about a corrupt
hive file :(
2 of those times the shutdown went smoothly -- it
just never came back up. The third crash happened
when netscape died, taking windows with it.
Also, it won't reinstall with linux on the system.
Keeps asking for some driver disks.
When linux is not there, it'll reinstall just fine, without any additional driver disks.
Re:Man.. that was way harsh. by wiliano · 2001-03-26 00:02 · Score: 1

Uuuhhh, most companies don't run a webserver out of the corner of their room ;-). This might not be a good analogy, but I'm sure I would get pretty good uptime if all I did was turn the computer on and leave it alone. I personally haven't run windows 2000, I've had enough of NT 4.0 (man that was a dog for development). However, my friend is an IT Director at a pretty large state university, and they will not install windows 2000 because of all the problems it causes. -Willy
Re:Man.. that was way harsh. by ralmeida · 2001-03-25 19:24 · Score: 2

I don't understand why everybody keeps slagging on MS. I'm currently running Windows 2000 Server as my webserver in the corner of my room; it runs Apache, an FTPdaemon, and ActivePerl, and has had an uptime of almost 3 months, completely error free. Yes, but what we are trying to say is that with Linux your webserver could be a simple 486.

--

--
This space left intentionally blank.
Re:Man.. that was way harsh. by Ira-Waru · 2001-03-25 13:10 · Score: 1

I'm getting really tired of people just blindly assuming that Microsoft is going to turn out a poor piece of software.

Hmmmm. Why would we assume that everything Microsoft turns out will be crap?

How about 25 years of precedent?

--
Such a price the gods exact for song: to become what we sing - Pythagoras
Re:Man.. that was way harsh. by lowe0 · 2001-03-25 23:10 · Score: 1

I can't tell whether or not this guy's tone is sarcastic commentary or how he really is thinking (I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume the former), but he has a point.

I'm about to dip my feet into the Linux pool (if my girlfriend ever gives me my spare PC back) and I'm not expecting my machine to at all be stable. I foresee horrible, mangled, train-wreck style crashes ahead, and why? Because I don't know Linux. I admit it. I don't know the first thing about what I'm doing. I have some SunOS 5.6 experience, and that's about it.

I get the feeling that some of those people out there who can't get NT stable just plain don't know NT. My PC here at work, despite being pure crap (PC Chips motherboard, anyone?) has not frozen ONCE since the day I installed Win2k. Daily freezes were the norm in Win98. My primary home PC (also Win2k Pro) only freezes when I do something stupid with a beta driver.

Now, I know that there are some Linux users here who also know the NT side of things, but the vast majority of the "Win2k sucks!" crowd probably wouldn't know the first thing they were doing. I know that when I start on Linux, I won't know the first thing about what I'm doing. And like some Win2k experiences around here, it isn't going to be pretty.
Re:Man.. that was way harsh. by Drone-X · 2001-03-26 00:17 · Score: 1

The only operating systems I've gotten to install on my Athlon 700 with an Asus K7V, Adaptec 29160N, GEforce 2 MX, and SoundBlaster Live Gold! (sic) are Windows Whistler Beta 1, and Windows Millenium Edition.

That's funny. On my Athlon 700 with an Asus K7V, Matrox G400 Max and SoundBlaster Live Gold I could *not* install Windows Millenium and Windows 2000 (well, win2k hardly counted as an install.. see below).

The Windows Me installer would simply crash before even starting scandisk. Windows 2000 did install but did not recognise: my soundcard, DVD-Rom drive, CD-RW drive (plextor) and 56K modem (at the time). The only option left was installing drivers from floppy but I felt an fdisk was simpler.

Things that I could install include: Windows 98, BeOS and Linux (SuSE, Mandrake, Progeny and Debian installs).

Redhat finds but can't initialize my NIC. Debian doesn't even find it.

I'm not sure about this one but I would expect both intalls to have the same cards compiled into the kernel. Your card is probably just not supported.

Also, I've had situations where I ran a particular program and it would panic linux reliably.

Are you talking about actual kernel panics? If so there's probably something very wrong with your hardware. The only crashes I've had are X-Windows lock ups (which could probably be solved by programming a joystick or by using telnet/ssh as those function without X) and crashes caused by trying to mount a bad CD (which is a kernel problem I suppose).

--
Monkey sense
Re:Man.. that was way harsh. by Drone-X · 2001-03-27 22:55 · Score: 1

I have the same card (I think... I'm sure about the 3c905 part, don't know what the TX is) and no problems... oh well.

--
Monkey sense
Re:Man.. that was way harsh. by clare-ents · 2001-03-26 00:00 · Score: 2

"
I don't understand why everybody keeps slagging on MS. I'm currently running Windows 2000 Server as my webserver in the corner of my room; it runs Apache, an FTPdaemon, and ActivePerl, and has had an uptime of almost 3 months, completely error free.
"

Perhaps it's because you chose a free webserver instead of the one you've paid for [indirectly] IIS? Or you're using a free language instead of VBScript?

However, you could now move to Linux / BSD and save yourself a copy of Win2K advanced server - $1200 for a 10CAL version.

"
I'm getting really tired of people just blindly assuming that Microsoft is going to turn out a poor piece of software.
"

I suspect this is slightly due to unfair sampling, most linux users I know are regarded as 'my mate who knows about computers' and only usually see windows boxes after a clueless friend has trashed it and they are left with the job of attempting to fix it.

--
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. (Einstein)
Re:Man.. that was way harsh. by drinkypoo · 2001-03-27 01:00 · Score: 1

I'm not sure about this one but I would expect both intalls to have the same cards compiled into the kernel. Your card is probably just not supported.

It's a well-known card. Windows identifies it (and installs a driver which ships with WinME) as "3Com EtherLink XL 10/100 PCI NIC (3C905-TX)". Loading the appropriate driver on linux causes it to give an error regarding interrupt zero. I have very little desire to fix this problem; I shouldn't be having it in the first place. Either the PCI subsystem or the Vortex driver is fucking up.

Now sure, I know 3com NICs basically suck ass these days; Personally, I've had better luck with LITE-ON PNIC Tulip clones, even though everyone says that they suck balls. But anyway.

--
ALL YOUR KARMA ARE BELONG TO US

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Man.. that was way harsh. by drinkypoo · 2001-03-25 12:07 · Score: 2

If the software installed can hang the system that *is* an issue with Windows 2K. Civilized operating systems don't allow user processes to bring down the OS. Buggy Linux software causes core dumps, not system crashes.

I've had linux kill itself, not be installable, or otherwise be unsatisfactory on systems on which Windows 2000 or 98 was 100% stable (as far as I had used it, and I tend to go a little crazy.) I've also had systems upon which the only OS I could get to install properly was a certain flavor of Linux, or Windows 2000, or - get this - The only operating systems I've gotten to install on my Athlon 700 with an Asus K7V, Adaptec 29160N, GEforce 2 MX, and SoundBlaster Live Gold! (sic) are Windows Whistler Beta 1, and Windows Millenium Edition.

Redhat finds but can't initialize my NIC. Debian doesn't even find it. I haven't tried OpenBSD, but what I wanted was a dev environment for Linux/Dreamcast, and I figured linux on x86 would be the second best thing for that. Too bad I can't get linux to install on this sucker. I guess it's time to drag that old P90 board out of storage and build another PC.

Also, I've had situations where I ran a particular program and it would panic linux reliably. I've also had any number of programs which would fry windows. In all of these cases, it was probably a driver issue of some sort, but I'm not good with a debugger. I've noticed that it's much harder to stop a runaway windows box, but linux will blow up if you do something stupid to it, too.

--
ALL YOUR KARMA ARE BELONG TO US

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Man.. that was way harsh. by Rura+Penthe · 2001-03-25 08:45 · Score: 1

I agree that MS gets attacked unduly at times, but people have vastly differing experiences. My Abit BP6 was nothing but trouble under Win2k (b2 and release, never used SP1). I crashed on a daily basis, frequently crashing the task manager when I tried to kill a process. Since moving it to linux I have had nearly zero problems (other than diving headfirst into Debian with no prior linux knowledge, haha!)

I will not deny that the majority of people have had a great experience with Win2K, I'm just not one of them. :)
Re:Man.. that was way harsh. by brad3378 · 2001-03-25 19:13 · Score: 1

Great point man!

I can't tell you how PISSED off I get when I attempt to run the latest ATI all-in-wonder TV software and it BSOD's my system (windows 2000 pro on dual 533 celerons)

Or worse yet, when the whole damn box locks up when I put a disk in the CD-ROM drive.

If somebody can tell me what I need to do to fix either problem, I'll send them a shitload of Karma!

--
Re:Man.. that was way harsh. by brad3378 · 2001-03-25 19:32 · Score: 1

I've been fortunate enough to not experience the disappearing mouse pointer, but...

I have had my computer (windows 2k pro on dual 533 celerons) lock up because of CD-ROM problems. It doesn't lock up when I eject a disk, but it will completely lock up when I put a disk in.

It's not like I needed my CD-ROM though. I just grab files off the network, or use my Linux box to dump files to a removable hard drive & reboot the Windows box. A Major inconvienience, but it is a work-around.

As I stated earlier, I'll donate major Karma to the guy/gal that helps me fix this!

--
Re:Man.. that was way harsh. by de+Selby · 2001-03-25 08:51 · Score: 1

I think slashdotter's just hate the "home user" target that MS always aims for--even for server products. It makes no sense... I personally find it a little degrading and it makes using the products more difficult.

I haven't tried W2K in a while, but when I did, it was fairly unreliable (almost 95/98/ME unreliable)--until it was configured _just_ right. It was mostly bugs in the OS freezing it in regular fashion. To get some reliability, I simply had to avoid a few things...

I actually hope things have improved. But with the 50,000 item bug list for '95, and the code base for the 2K series being dozens of times larger, I have my doubts.

I though the 9x quality problems would flag the need for a more simple and elegant design, but instead MS makes a huge, complicated, monolithic THING! Oh well.

P.S. Has anyone else noticed that 3.1 seemed the fastest and most reliable MS OS (not including DOS)? (Win '95 in second, '98 in third, ME fourth.) Do my observations here have any base in your reality, or just mine?
Re:Man.. that was way harsh. by de+Selby · 2001-03-25 10:07 · Score: 1

"You seem to be basing your estimate of the reliability of MS OSs on their age."

Age is not where the estimate came from; it's the pattern that was produced. By my observations--and troubles--each versions of windows adds more features and incorporates more into it's core (IE, directX, utilities, etc.). This introduced complexity, bugs, and unreliability; ever increasing with each version.

"Maybe it's because you have run increasingly complex software- maybe it's because you started building your own machines."

I admit, I have been running increasing complex software--against my own wishes. But I've been building my own machines since 400BC.

"It is a FACT that Win2K is the most stable OS Microsoft has ever produced. The only people who moan on about it being unreliable are using it on hardware not on the HCL..."

I agree to a point. Win2K *is* less likely to commit uptime suicide like the Win9x series does. But the hardware troubles shouldn't be ignored. Win2K is WAAY too sensitive to bad hardware! Most of the bad hardware that kills W2K will run most any other OS just fine--yes, even Win'9x.

(Personally, I consider DOS to be Microsoft's fastest and most reliable OS. Apps can kill themselves, but they OS will never do it for them.)

==============

For note to other posters:

I didn't put 2K or NT in my list because I'm talking about past OS's. I consider 2K to be focused in the present. And I haven't used NT for more than an hour or two in my life--not at all on my box.

All my OS installs were fresh, on GOOD hardware.
Re:Man.. that was way harsh. by de+Selby · 2001-03-25 10:11 · Score: 1

"I regularly have uptimes of a week or so, but tend have reboots forced on me after the app I'm working on hangs or graphics glitches start appearing in the UI (developing games tends to put pressure on DirectX and the video drivers)."

I get uptimes of a month--and I'm the one complaining about reliability!
Re:Man.. that was way harsh. by de+Selby · 2001-03-25 10:19 · Score: 1

If memory serves... I don't think Win3.1 offered direct video access like DirectX and GL required/offered until Intel (reluctantly) gave MS the code that eventually was incorporated in the Win'95 video subsystem...

True or not, I concede that graphics on 3.1 sucked ass.
Re:Man.. that was way harsh. by Fervent · 2001-03-25 09:00 · Score: 2

Uh, dude. I think you've got issues with the software you installed. Not Windows 2K itself.
I also have run Win2K perfectly for the past few months, with nary a crash (perhaps once or twice, and only when I've been doing really stupid shit like trying to run two copies of Quake 3 as different processes). Hoyle's shouldn't cause an error -- although I have heard some games don't like the CD pulled in Windows 2000 (although, I'd like you to try that, without unmounting, in Linux and see what happens. You'd get some pretty similar, nasty results).
Other than that, did your girlfriend (seems like a moron -- no offense), bump the CD-ROM tray hard enough to unseat it. Did she install Comet Cursor or another pointer manager? Did she disconnect the mouse (Windows 2K detects this and removes the mouse pointer. A nice touch that Linux doesn't have, I may add). All of these things could have caused problems.
I've never had a single issue with word. And if I did, I'd just drop to the Task Manager or even the Command Prompt and kill the process. Just like in Linux.

--
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
Re:Man.. that was way harsh. by Fervent · 2001-03-25 09:02 · Score: 2

Um, I wouldn't put Win3.1 in the same league. Try running a few games using WinGL and you'll probably toast the machine.
Have you tried installing Windows 2K in a fresh install? Like Linux, upgrading Windows 2K over a previous version is just asking for trouble.

--
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
Re:Man.. that was way harsh. by Fervent · 2001-03-25 09:22 · Score: 2

But what if the software he chose clearly wasn't acceptable in Windows 2000? If there were warning flags all over the place, and he just chose to ignore them (I'm thinking of the card game).
All of the software I use with Windows 2000 has been tested with Windows 2000. And guess what? It all works correctly. You wouldn't expect games written in glib0.4 to run in glib2.1 would you? I've had more than a few old Linux apps crash not only the ap but the system itself.

--
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
Re:Man.. that was way harsh. by Fervent · 2001-03-25 21:18 · Score: 2

This is a good post. Someone mod this up.

--
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
Re:Man.. that was way harsh. by Fervent · 2001-03-25 21:20 · Score: 2

It's a little hard to think you're "non-biased towards Linux" when you have such a low user ID. Perhaps you'd like to converse without the bias?

--
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
Re:Man.. that was way harsh. by Fervent · 2001-03-25 21:22 · Score: 2

Um, it's a little hard to think you're "non-biased towards Linux" when you have such a low user ID. Perhaps you'd like to converse without the bias?

--
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
Re:Man.. that was way harsh. by Some+Dumbass... · 2001-03-25 09:27 · Score: 1

I'm getting really tired of people just blindly assuming that Microsoft is going to turn out a poor piece of software. Have you even RUN Windows 2000? It is the most stable operating system I have ever seen, and yes, I've run Linux as well.

First of all, don't ever say "blindly". You have no idea who's making those comments. Your comment about someone's "blind assumption" makes a blind assumption about their background and experience! The irony is just horrific. So don't say "blindly". Some Slashdotters dislike Windows 2000 because they've used it and it didn't work out for them.

This isn't flame bait, or a troll, or anything else -- it is simply my opinion.

This is the core of the issue. Of course it's your opinion! And other people's opinion is that Windows 2000 sucks. Some people have used it and disliked it, some people have read things about it that we don't like (I'm not very impressed by an OS requires 64 MB of RAM minimum and costs $400), and some people have used and don't like other MS software. For that matter, some people don't like their attitude towards security, towards bug fixes, towards market competition, etc.

My point is, your post assumes that negative opinions of Windows 2000/XP/other MS software are unjustified. You're assuming that anyone who dislikes MS-whatever can't possibly have a good reason. In fact, as abrasively as that last fellow wrote, his (or her, but probably his) reasons for having a negative opinion of Windows XP may still be perfectly valid. And even moreso for the calmer heads on Slashdot. Do you actually know, for a fact, than anyone on Slashdot blindly assumes that MS will turn out poor software? Is it not possible that we have evidence of that claim, rather than just opinion? (I would remind you that even people who choose to run a non-MS OS at home often have to use one at work).
Re:Man.. that was way harsh. by Some+Dumbass... · 2001-03-25 12:57 · Score: 1

although I have heard some games don't like the CD pulled in Windows 2000 (although, I'd like you to try that, without unmounting, in Linux and see what happens. You'd get some pretty similar, nasty results).

I'm a bit curious about this comment. If I have the CD mounted in Linux, it won't eject, at least on my install. Let me clarify: pushing the eject button does nothing when the drive has a mounted CD. Using the virtual "eject" button in one of my dock apps also does nothing.

What kind of Linux install do you have that allows your to eject mounted CDs? You might want to report it to the maker of your distro: it's probably a bug.
Re:Man.. that was way harsh. by NonSequor · 2001-03-25 09:33 · Score: 1

Mine runs like a dream. I note that XFree86 4.0.2 seems to really detest suspend mode, but that's no real bother for me most of time.
That's okay with me because I really detest suspend mode. I hate all power saving features. It's understandable on a laptop or in a place that is seriously lacking power plants, but otherwise their stupid.
Oh, and don't give me any of that environmental garbage. I'm the sort of person who believes that we should kill off all of the animals (not counting humans (well, maybe counting some humans)) just for the fun of it.

Er... Well, y'know. You can't make an omelette without um... destroying a forest. Or something.

--
My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
Re:Man.. that was way harsh. by NonSequor · 2001-03-25 09:44 · Score: 1

Ack! I could have sworn that I closed that tag.
Er... Well, y'know. You can't make an omelette without um... destroying a forest. Or something.

--
My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
Re:Man.. that was way harsh. by hammock · 2001-03-25 12:24 · Score: 2

http://freshmeat.net/projects/forkbombdefuser/

It's licensed under the GPL.
Fork Bomb Defuser (rexFBD) allows you to configure the max_forks_per_second and max_tasks_per_user parameters, at the time of loading the module. Any possible Fork Bomb is detected using these parameters and is defused (deactivated) in real time. The uid of the user who started it, as well as the time it was started is logged in /var/log/messages for the system administrator to take action.
Re:Man.. that was way harsh. by skt · 2001-03-25 09:55 · Score: 2

I'm currently running Windows 2000 Server as my webserver in the corner of my room; it runs Apache, an FTPdaemon, and ActivePerl, and has had an uptime of almost 3 months, completely error free.
Wow, I really hope that you did not buy Windows 2000 server for the sole purpose of running just apache, ftpd, and activeperl. My P166 box running linux can do that (and more) with 48MB of ram.
Oh, the software costs = $0. Also, no need to purchase RAM or a bigger HDD.
Re:Man.. that was way harsh. by fmaxwell · 2001-03-25 13:40 · Score: 2

You pay mucho dollars for Windows. You have a right to expect something. Linux is free - no one is paying the developers.
I don't want a commercial OS that is unstable. Nor do I want a free OS that is unstable. I want a stable OS and I'll pay for it if I have to. Is that asking so much?
Re:Man.. that was way harsh. by fmaxwell · 2001-03-25 13:43 · Score: 2

Where can I find Windows drivers for my "64-bit Alpha"?
Why would you run a 2-bit OS on a 64 bit CPU?
Re:Man.. that was way harsh. by jsse · 2001-03-25 10:57 · Score: 1

I'm currently running Windows 2000 Server...it runs Apache, an FTPdaemon, and ActivePerl, and has had an uptime of almost 3 months.

I really sick of hearing people like you boasting the uptime of their servers running simple applications. Of course, it doesn't apply to MS fans only, I know many people boast their high Linux/BSD server uptime while the most complicated apps they are running is Gnome.

Win2k is running like snail with 64MB Ram - even with no third party apps running! I admin a LAN with heterogenous environment and I'm pissed when I'm forced to give the top of the line hardware to Windows servers for non-critical system while giving lesser hardware to critical Linux/BSD servers

Windows servers, NT or 2k, used up a lot of resources which could be used in other critical part otherwise. Some time I don't even know what resources taking up loading - the task manager just show everything below 1% while the system runing like snail? I don't think it's very convincing.

Try run a SQL server with web acess, tell me if it could still stay up to 3 months. For your information, the Oracle database running on my Debian server which actually process real business transactions over internet has been up for 5 months, but I still don't think that's something need to boast of.
Re:Man.. that was way harsh. by Archanagor · 2001-03-26 04:58 · Score: 1

I had a CD-ROM drive that would do this almost every time. It would also freak out under linux and refuse to open (even if the drive wasn't mounted) Replaced the drive. solved all problems.

---

--

The (Hopefully) Great Slashdot Blackout
Re:Man.. that was way harsh. by Ayende+Rahien · 2001-03-25 17:05 · Score: 1

It use up all the memory, and you've to kill it, and all the resources it took will be freed.
I like this better, BTW.
void main (void) {while (malloc(0xFFFF)); }

--

--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?
Re:Man.. that was way harsh. by Kevin+Mitnick · 2001-03-25 14:37 · Score: 1

Sorry about that bud...

Re:MacOS-ish Interface...Uh-huh by PurpleBob · 2001-03-25 14:48 · Score: 1

Aqua is a very good UI.

A former Mac interface designer seems to think otherwise.
--
Obfuscated e-mail addresses won't stop sadistic 12-year-old ACs.

--
Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota

I really loved... by Chris+Brewer · 2001-03-25 08:36 · Score: 1

The screenshots of the dialog boxes (I assume that's what they are) with the white text on the slightly off-white background. Good one cnet/MS...

Or is this just 'disabled' items because they haven't implemented them yet...

--

--
Consultancy: If you're not part of the solution, there's money to be made in prolonging the problem

Re:I really loved... by Fervent · 2001-03-25 09:13 · Score: 2

Disabled. Haven't implemented them yet. The options work but the text to further describe them apparently hasn't been finalized (you try explaining to your mother why she needs a firewall).

--
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.

One good thing by StrawberryFrog · 2001-03-25 15:57 · Score: 2

This is on the NT codebase.

No longer will we have to, after writing our apps under the stable-by-comparison Win2K, have to test, debug and tune under the P.O.S. 95/98/ME OS.

--

My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog

Re:The Jelly Brain Crusade? by psergiu · 2001-03-25 16:27 · Score: 2

> >...rips CD...
> Great copyright control. Won't the RIAA be happy now.

i love the part with "When you enter a folder with mp3 files it presents a option to Upload to the Web" or smth. Who needs napster? We have WXP :)
--

--
1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.

Re:Automatic Update is a feature? by CmdData · 2001-03-25 08:14 · Score: 1

Well we wouldn't want people to steal something that they have not paid for. The MS programmers need to receive payment to take care of their families and if you steal the software that they make you are going to hurt them in the long run. This is one reason why MS takes precautions to keep theft at a minimum.

Re:Firewall!? by CmdData · 2001-03-25 09:21 · Score: 1

yeah you can. It steps you through a wizard tht asks you questions with context help. Even your grandmother could setup a firewall using MS WinXP.

Re:I'm not getting Windows XP. by dbrutus · 2001-03-25 10:23 · Score: 1

At a certain point they are just not going to make Win2k stuff anymore. Just look at Win 3.1 for an object lesson on how far behind you can fall with that sort of strategy.

Face it, if you go Windows, Bill Gates makes it his life mission to get you to upgrade your OS. Steve Jobs, OTOH wants you to buy a new box.

DB

Re:I'm not getting Windows XP. by dbrutus · 2001-03-25 23:31 · Score: 1

I think your mind is a bit on the short attention span side. Sticking to an OS for awhile is just fine and dandy but Mr. Gates doesn't like that and he'll try to make your life miserable as soon as possible so you start sending him more money.

If you are going to inhabit the MS universe, it's not a wise strategy to stray off the paths they set up for you.

DB

Re:Windowsmedia.com Link by dbrutus · 2001-03-25 10:18 · Score: 2

I'm sure that you could fix that with a dns hack, pointing windowsmedia.com to the site of your choice. Let's face it, no marketing scheme over the internet is safe from somebody who controls the physical box and the dns servers it points to.

DB

Re:more fun! by dbrutus · 2001-03-25 10:21 · Score: 2

Just make sure that your particular jurisdiction has appropriate laws. DO NOT reverse engineer anything in a jurisdiction where it is illegal. Of course that brings up the point, if the computer you are reverse engineering is in a jurisdiction where reverse engineering *is* legal, whose laws apply?

DB

Re:Automatic Update is a feature? by plague3106 · 2001-03-25 10:29 · Score: 1

Uh, where did you see that little fact?

Re:Question... by plague3106 · 2001-03-25 10:40 · Score: 1

I agree, it does seem like there isn't much new, except the gradual move to .net.

I got the impression from the article that this is mostly a facelift. They are reorganizing the start menu and folder windows, oh boy, just like the move from win3.1x to win95 (thats not to say that win95 didn't change alot of other stuff, but XP does not seem to be as much of a change).

Re:Question... by plague3106 · 2001-03-25 11:59 · Score: 1

Even thought it should have been done long ago. Besides, most people won't know the difference, and i bet alot use NT already at work.

Anyway what i meant was going from 2000 to XP is like going from win95 to win98. Nothing much to see.

http://www.cnet.com/software/0-429669-8-5194258-3. html?tag=st.sw.429669-8-5194258-2.arrow.429669-8-5 194258-3. Thats where i got the .net stuff from. Its the third page of the article, maybe you should try reading it.

Re:Question... by plague3106 · 2001-03-25 23:41 · Score: 1

The way i see it there were two lines; they just discontinued one. The fact that they are changing who it is marketed to is not that big a deal. Its something thats been around a while, and they haven't changed it much. Changing the market or how many people have something doesn't mean the product is any better then when they didn't market in that way.

You say that XP won't be much of a change from win2k yet you still maintain that it is a huge change. wierd.

i looked over the review you pointed to. It seems to be the same as far as what it covers, and at the end he says 'he is blown away by it.' But then i doubt he's always blown away by the latest MS thing, which doesn't suprise me since very few articles give an honest opinion. I don't see how he is blown away by mostly cosmetic changes. And i never said it was a major step to .net, but it is a step. I'm not exactly sure how you can confirm it either, being that .net largely doesn't exist yet.

Re:Mac OS-ish by Jace+of+Fuse! · 2001-03-25 09:54 · Score: 2

Actually...

The rubber ducky is someone's own self selected (I assume) ICON, much like the log-in screens of many multi-user desktop environments. It's not just a mirror image of the one used by Apple, as one might immediately think. Close examination will reveal that.

As for the O/I power icon. As far as I know a 1 inside of a 0 has been a universally accepted power-button indicator since Ugh first chisled his first power button out of stone and showed it to the rest of the tribe.

"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"

--

"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"

Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.

Tell me whether Windows XP is stable and secure! by n3bulous · 2001-03-25 08:19 · Score: 1

This is the name of the link to take you from page n-1 to n. The last page doesn't say anything about XP being secure, so I guess we all know what to expect!

--
"The area of penetration will no doubt be sensitive." ~ Spock

Re:Preinstalled, ideally. by wcb4 · 2001-03-25 22:40 · Score: 1

while my machine can boot from cd, the win2k install cd *I* had was not bootable either...so I too had to use floppies too. no biggie. I had to boot my linux machine from a floppy to install linux too.

I think....therefore I am

--
I reject your reality ... and substitute my own.

Re:Bloatware extreme by Datafage · 2001-03-25 15:27 · Score: 2

Comparing XP to 95 is purely insulting.

-----------------------

--

Nicotine free Amish .sig.

Re:Bloatware extreme by Datafage · 2001-03-28 05:12 · Score: 2

In that case, I offer my most humble apologies, it had seemed you were serious, and that would have been just incredibly stupid.

-----------------------

--

Nicotine free Amish .sig.

Preinstalled, ideally. by friode · 2001-03-25 08:39 · Score: 1

Microsoft says you'll have the best experience only if you buy a brand-new system with XP preinstalled.

Of course you will. Then you don't get to find out how difficult* windows is to install from scratch.

* About as difficult** as Debian, in case you were wondering.

** That is to say, practially impossible if you don't know what you're doing, difficult if you think you know what you're doing, and an absolute piece of cake*** if you've done it before.

*** Until you hit hardware conflicts or crappy drivers, then you're toast.

--
There may be many reasons not to kill you, but among them is not that you'll be missed by NASA - The Long Kiss Goodnight

Re:Preinstalled, ideally. by friode · 2001-03-25 10:04 · Score: 1

Yeah, actually. I've installed several versions of windows and linux, on a variety of boxes. The point was that it's not surprising that Microsoft suggests having windows pre-installed, given what a pain in the ass it is to install it manually for most lusers. Oh, and that windows is about as hard (or easy) to install as linux is. Understand that?

--
There may be many reasons not to kill you, but among them is not that you'll be missed by NASA - The Long Kiss Goodnight
Re:Preinstalled, ideally. by friode · 2001-03-25 10:16 · Score: 1

Fact 1: My mother couldn't install Debian to save her life. Or Windows.
Fact 2: Several friends of mine have muddled through windows installs, with 95% success, needing help only for things like getting a new modem driver or running dxdiag to check out problems with directX. A couple of those have also muddled through Debian and RH installs, needing only minimal tweaking at the end (simple security measures, xf86 configuration).
Fact 3: I have no trouble installing either, unless there's hardware problems or crap drivers.

From this, I conclude:
a) If you don't know what you're doing, installing either OS is impossible.
b) If you have some good user knowledge, but little administrator knowledge, you can almost install either OS.
c) If you have good adminstrator knowledge, you can install either OS easily.
d) If you have hardware problems or bad drivers, you're going to have difficulty installing either OS, pretty much regardless of how literate you are.

--
There may be many reasons not to kill you, but among them is not that you'll be missed by NASA - The Long Kiss Goodnight
Re:Preinstalled, ideally. by Fervent · 2001-03-25 09:15 · Score: 2

Uh... dude. I shoulda had you here when I tried to explain how to install Debian to my mom. And this is someone who's fairly literate, and installed Windows 2000 on her own machine (without my help).
I think you need to backup your statement with facts.

--
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
Re:Preinstalled, ideally. by Yunzil · 2001-03-25 23:50 · Score: 1

I thought that line was funny too. I've bought two systems in the last few years, one with 95 installed, and the other with 98. Both times I had to completely clear off the HD and start over from scratch before the system worked acceptably. If they can pull this off with XP I will be surprised. :)
Re:Preinstalled, ideally. by ConsumedByTV · 2001-03-25 15:31 · Score: 1

and you had to boot from floppys?

Fight censors!

--

"Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness." - M
Re:Preinstalled, ideally. by TeraCo · 2001-03-25 10:52 · Score: 1

Are you kidding? Choosing a standard install of windows, with standard networking. That's something like 5 or 6 mouse clicks and 30 minutes of waiting. Of course, everyone likes to click the advanced options and wade through all of the clients, drivers, protocols etc, but if you don't want to do that, it is very easy to setup the defaults. [Experience from Win2K installs]

--
Not Meta-modding due to apathy.

New Features by flatrock · 2001-03-25 22:00 · Score: 1

What new features are you looking for? I always hear that Microsoft code is too bloated, and then people complain that there's no new features.

The new features going from 95 to 98 to ME for the most part haven't been that visible to the average user. Microsoft has been merging the Win9X driver model with the NT one. They've been making the NT user interface more usable by home users, and they've been working on makeing the interface more consistent. What does this deliver to their users?

How about an OS they use that's the same at both home an work? Most people don't want to tinker with their computer at home. It's a tool they use to browse the internet, word processing, and touch up the photos they took with their new digital camera.

How about a OS that plays games yet doesn't crash all the time. It even has a journeling file system so, if you get some bad drivers that crash you don't have to reload/restore the system because all the dlls got trashed.

There's also a benefit for those of us driver writers that won't have to write a seperate win9x driver and waste development time. Of course we now spend it trying to update our driver to work with the latest Linux kernel, but you can't have everything.

Rants and things we're sick of hearing about by flatrock · 2001-03-25 22:52 · Score: 1

While we're on the subject of things we're sick of hearing about.

Win2k is running like snail with 64MB Ram - even with no third party apps running!

256MB of SDRAM costs $75, this is a server, so I guess you should spend the $90 for ecc, but get over it. Don't spend hours trying to optimize things to save less than $100. I think it's great that Linux can run well on a lower end system. There are design tradeoffs that were made to achieve this. I'm glad Linux works for you. Right now I'd personally love a more bloated version of Linux with a binary driver interface, but that's my problem.

Re:Rants and things we're sick of hearing about by jsse · 2001-03-25 23:34 · Score: 1

256MB of SDRAM costs $75, this is a server, so I guess you should spend the $90 for ecc, but get over it. Don't spend hours trying to optimize things to save less than $100.

It's very unlikely you could add anything you want to a corporate server which runs $100,000+ worth of data, even at your own expense. You need to justify everything you do to corperate assess. Running enterprise system isn't like running home LAN, unless of course you are the big boss of the company, so big that you report to no one.

In many case when you want to upgrade your Linux/BSD servers when new hardware arrives, priority is given to Windows NT/2K, simply because Windows suck at anything less. It's so annoying - Don't ask me why should we use NT/2K - I'm not the big boss.

You must be a student or haven't been worked for any commercial sector yet. When you graduate and get a real job you'll understand how ridiculous comerical world is.

Re:Bloatware extreme by flatrock · 2001-03-25 23:33 · Score: 1

Try running Win95 with 16MB of RAM. It's slow enough to be unusable. Why was such a low about of RAM speced as a minimum requirement? Be cause RAM was really expensive in 1995 and 1996. It's relatively cheap now, so they are making the minimum requirements something that's a little more usable. Spend the $75 and get 256 MB of SDRAM. If you can't afford the RAM and the price of the OS, then stick with whatever you have now.

Now that I have everything working fine under w2k by Vicegrip · 2001-03-25 14:30 · Score: 1

I have absolutely no intention of switching to XP anytime soon at all. Not to mention this new "os enabling/disabling copy protection feature" now forced unto everyone who wants to use the os and yet another version of NTFS that breaks Partition Magic again ... Man I can hardly wait for the next version of Redhat.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/17438.htm l

I'm happy with win2000-- why don't you fix the bugs in that first (aka sp2)... I don't want a new dumbed down (or what I fondly term: shoot yourself in the foot technology) version of Windows I want fixes for what I've already fucking paid for.

--
Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.

Re:Bloatware extreme by SectoidRandom · 2001-03-25 11:51 · Score: 1

I think its easy to see where these requirements come from for both XP and OSX, its a matter of support. If you have ever tried helping someone over the phone who knows next to nothing about pc's install Windows2000 on a computer with *just* under the bare minumum requirements you may understand.

Personally after three years of supporting hundreds of different corporate and home users with every type of pc (windows) problem, i now truly believe there should be one type of computer for 'users' and only one. "No im sorry 64meg ram was two years ago, i just bought 256meg for $150, why cant you?", you want to run new software, well thats what you need then..

No okay, more seriously new software needs new hardware, its as simple as that, if you want to connect your digital camera / scaner / (win-)dsl modem, then you need some more memory, if you dont need those things, then why dont you stick with win98, or even better NT.

Re:Windows XP (or, yet another eye-candy update!) by SectoidRandom · 2001-03-25 12:23 · Score: 1

Everyone seems to be bashing the 2gig's thing, if you have seen many M$ apps/os's installing lately they will all say 'requires xMB free to install', but most of that is just for the install. MS seems to love their temp files and such, but with the exception of 'restore files' (to uninstall) Im sure the final size USED (not size required to install) will be at or below the 1 gig mark!

Oh and when talking about stability, I dont thing enough was said at all in the review to draw any conclusions either way, but considering what this whole thing is, ie Windows2000 with new UI + tweaks, you should be able to easily imagine how stable the thing should be (based on Windows2000). With the exception of the apps of course, personally I never found MediaPlayer to run stable since version 6.4! :(

Re:skins by robbieduncan · 2001-03-25 20:06 · Score: 1

In fact Microsoft have signed up Stardock (who make WindowBlinds) to be the official suppliers of third party skinning for XP. This is because they will not be opening their own API's. This was reported on The Register previously (link) (link) (link)

Re:Bloatware extreme by iso · 2001-03-25 11:06 · Score: 2

Apple of all people to ship brand-new, just-announced computers with the ability to run their own OS, but that isn't happening.

that's true, but this release of MacOS X (March 24th) is meant to get the OS in as many developer's hands as possible. Mac users like a complete system, with all the bells and whistles (why else would the major complaint be a lack of a DVD movie player?) the only way to do this is to ensure that all developers have enough time to use the final APIs and development environment before the "real" release at Macworld New York this summer. this is also why OS X comes with a separate "developer tools" CD.

when it comes down to it, this was the best way Apple could do it. it pleases the developers and gets a great OS into the hands of the early adopters without forcing the average Mac user to put up with a "just the OS" (and no fancy apps) on their new Mac. (of course almost all old apps can run through classic, but native apps are much nicer).

but don't worry, apple will get around to bundling OS X on all their new shiny boxes this summer! ;)

- j

Re:Bloatware extreme by iso · 2001-03-25 22:10 · Score: 2

That's not true. Developers have had access to OS X for a couple of months now, this is so they can have enough time to build the much needed application base.

actually yes it is true. i'm a developer, and i never had a copy before now. why's that? because only some of the top-dollar ADC members got copies, and it wasn't even all of them! this release gets it in the hands of, as i said, as many developer's hands as possible, which includes people like me, who don't work at Adobe.

- j

Re:Dvorak Keyboard by graniteMonkey · 2001-03-26 00:10 · Score: 2

That link really interested me, so I gave it a quick google search. Here's a link to a picture of the layouts, in case you were wondering like me what they look like. It looks like you can do the layout on a standard keyboard. Might be really interesting to try. I know I'm tired of shuttling back and forth between the keyboard and my mouse/trackball! enjoy, anyway.

--

This is a manual virus. Copy it to your sig and help me spread!

Re:skins by bandannarama · 2001-03-25 12:59 · Score: 1

The reason MS doesn't support skins is simple: Skins are a nightmare for corporate training and technical support. While they are acceptable for strictly consumer-focused products (see Windows Media Player), WinXP must also serve the corporate market.

IMO, the emphasis on customizability in the development effort around Gnome and KDE will impede their acceptance in corporate and other markets where end-user support is an issue. Customizability is precisely the kind of thing corporate IT departments do not want. While it is true that IT departments can choose to deploy versions that are not customizable, what they really want is to be able to leverage training and experiences that their users have gained elsewhere. For this reason, on a resume, "Win98 experience" means something relatively meaningful, but "Linux experience" or "Gnome experience" can have much broader (and potentially less valuable) meanings.
----
-- Bandannaman

--
Bandannarama

Re:Bloatware extreme by donutello · 2001-03-25 10:34 · Score: 2

Or maybe they actually think about these things. They think about what most of their users are likely to have as hardware and what features their users would like to see. There's always a tradeoff between making an application compact and efficient and coding new "cool" features. Also, there's a tradeoff between supporting older machines and implementing an application with better features. Most mature software companies study the market and make decisions about the appropriate value at which to make that tradeoff.

--
Mmmm.. Donuts

Re:Better Administration Potential by Judg3 · 2001-03-25 13:28 · Score: 1

Opps, I read that and realized your right, and I didnt clarify myself, sorry.
The XP perfmon does dual graphs instead of multiple values in the same graph.. Say you can have Graph #1 show the proc time of your IIS services on one machine and graph #2 for the same on a diffrent machine.
So very similar, yet diffrent, get it?

Oh, and from what I've seen you can play them back. We use it with Crystal Reports though to graph certain values of our software across all machines, trying to find a bottleneck..

----------------------------------

--
Looking for hardware (Currently need: Large Etch-a-Sketch) Have one? See my journal!

Better Administration Potential by Judg3 · 2001-03-25 10:44 · Score: 2

The one thing I really love about XP is the monitoring/administration aspect.
Take Performance Monitor.. In NT/2000 it cant do to much, sure it can save a set of stats to a csv or binary file, you can look at a machine live, but thats about it.
One of the best parts of XP is it's PerfMon.. It can write counter values to a SQL server, monitor 2 machines side by side..
I'm actually starting to enjoy monitoring and administrating Windows systems now.. And when you have over 2000, thats an amazing thing to say. Hell, the admin portion of Windows just keeps getting better and better. I love it.

----------------------------------

--
Looking for hardware (Currently need: Large Etch-a-Sketch) Have one? See my journal!

Re:Better Administration Potential by MrBogus · 2001-03-25 12:59 · Score: 1

NT Perfmon has always allowed you display multiple computers in the same window.

The windows 2000 version really is annoying, but that's mostly because of that POS &#$(# management console thing. I pray that they'll fix that.

SQL Logs will be cool -- hopefully they'll be a way to play back the results.

--

When I hear the word 'innovation', I reach for my pistol.

Re:Charging for support by biglig2 · 2001-03-25 20:20 · Score: 1

They have removed key features; like Windows ME, XP-Personal cannot participate in a Microsoft NEtworking Domain. I ain't gonna install XP-PE for the same reason I won't let my users have ME on their machines.

--
~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?

Windows XP Pro vs Windows XP Home? by god_of_the_machine · 2001-03-25 09:37 · Score: 1

One intesting question that I have never seen resolved, including in the article: What is the difference between Windows XP Home and Windows XP Pro? (besides the price)

Because I imagine they want WinXP Pro to replace NT/2000 workstations, and WinXP Home to replace Win9X PCs... but I have yet to see a projected feature breakdown. Any insight from anyone out there?

-rt-

--

-rt-
** Evil Canadians are taking over the world. Learn about the conspiracy

Re:Windows XP Pro vs Windows XP Home? by 1g$man · 2001-03-25 10:03 · Score: 1

On difference that I know of is that the Home Edition supports ONLY 1 CPU while the Pro edition supports 2 (Server 4, more expensive versions support more yet).
Re:Windows XP Pro vs Windows XP Home? by NonSequor · 2001-03-25 10:19 · Score: 1

I'm guessing that they won't make the mistake of making multiple CPUs enabled by a registry key this time. This whole thing is pretty silly, essentially they seem to be charging large amounts of money for the same software compiled with different defines set enabling certain things.
Er... Well, y'know. You can't make an omelette without um... destroying a forest. Or something.

--
My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
Re:Windows XP Pro vs Windows XP Home? by Guppy06 · 2001-03-25 11:16 · Score: 1

... and this surprises you? "Upgrades" are about 50% the price of the full versions of Microsoft OSes, and yet the disks are identical except for the slight change in the setup code that looks for WIN.COM. One could, hypothetically speaking (*cough cough*) upgrade 95 to OSR2 by just erasing WIN.COM.

Re:Will this one please just work? by RussGarrett · 2001-03-26 01:23 · Score: 1

NT4.0 on MS approved hardware crashes like a sick dog driving a ferrari

I will be hiring a sick dog immediately to drive me around:

Dell Poweredge 1300 - Windows NT 4 Server - Uptime 6 months.
Dell Poweredge 1300 - Windows NT 4 Server - Uptime 3 months.
Dual PII 450 256Mb - Windows 2K Advanced Server - Development Server - Uptime 1 month
Dual Celeron 366@550Mhz 128Mb - Windows 2K Pro - It's never crashed.
PIII 800 128Mb - Windows 2K Pro - again, never crashed
Dell Inspiron 7000 - Win2K Pro - Win2K is the only OS to work with Power management on this thing.

Flame and counter-flame, post and counter-post. Stab and counter-stab. You're doing it. I'm doing it. The whole of bloody Slashdot's doing it. My OS is better than yours. My OS has a passing resemblance to MacOS, so it must be crap (no offence to Mac-users anywhere. I am one).

Win2K is the best desktop operating system I have seen.
BSD is the best server operating system I have seen.
Linux is the best operating system I have seen for those who like their OS rough, ready, in-your-face and easy to fiddle with.

The truth is that Windows (at least 2000):
Is easy to install
Has utterly unrivaled hardware support (When XWindows will work first time with every system in this room, I will worship Linus)
Has the best GUI (KDE is coming closer)
Is stable. It is. Really. Try it. I dare you.
It's polished. It doesn't dump you to a command prompt each time you boot. It has the fancy menus. It has all the tools installed as standard.
It is supported. The Microsoft Knowledge base is marvellous. It's easy to support. You know what's gone wrong (if it's gone wrong).
That's why I pay $200 for windows as opposed to nothing for a free operating system.

May I also add that my main workstation (the dual celeron) currently quaruple (!) boots Win2K, BSD, QNX, and BeOS.

I agree...Win2000 is nothing to laugh at by MrSndrs · 2001-03-25 13:02 · Score: 1

I've been running Windows2000 on my desktop for months and I've had fewer problems than I can count on one hand. Even when applications crash badly they rarely take the OS along with them. Contrast this with Windows9x, which crashed 4 times the day I pulled my PC out of the box. It is obvious that every Slashdot poster who bashes Windows2000 on the grounds of stability has never used it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big Linux fan. I'm posting this from a Mozilla0.8 nightly build on Debian. But it took me weeks to get Linux (and its apps) up and running the way I wanted it. Windows2000 I installed in a day and had configured the next day. There's a lot to be said for Windows2000 usability (which is a valid concern with XP). Reliability, though, is a non-issue.

MrSndrs

Re:Will this one please just work? by jacobcaz · 2001-03-25 15:30 · Score: 1

Why do so many people have problems with their grandmother (or mother, father, etc.) breaking their Windows 9x computer on a daily basis??

Is it possible that the person setting up the machine (i.e. the poster) is to blame?

My parents are not computer people. They have Windows 98 on their computer. I installed it and they call me when they have problems.

Guess what... They don't call me that often!

The simple fact is, if you don't do something brain-dead when installing Windows, it's a fine operating system. It may have stability issues with buggy software, it may have it's own stability issues, but over the long run it does what it should and it works.

I use FreeBSD and Windows. I use FreeBSD on my server-type computers and Windows on my laptop and personal work machines.

Do I get better uptimes with FreeBSD? Sure! Do I care that I may have to reboot my Windows machine a once or twice a week? Nope - it hasn't stopped me from getting my work done.

Please - learn how a computer and an operating system works before spewing garbage about setting up your (mother, father, etc.) with Linux because Windows is so unstable!
-----

As easy to install as Linux by cworley · 2001-03-25 13:05 · Score: 1

Difficult upgrade
...if you're upgrading, you must have Windows 98 or above.
In fact, Microsoft says you'll have the best experience only if you buy a
brand-new system with XP preinstalled. That's a pretty hefty
investment in an untried operating system. Unless you're planning to
buy a new system when Windows XP hits the shelves, your XP
experience likely won't be as smooth as Microsoft hopes. ... it's not
an upgrade you should consider lightly.

We keep hearing that Linux is hard to install.

User's think it's a problem with the OS, but that's totally misguided. The real issue is that OS's are tough to install and integrate on raw Open Hardware systems (search for "Compaq" to see how they reverse engineered the PC bios, igniting the Open Hardware revolution), and Microsoft doesn't allow the major OEM's to install anything but Windows (See the "Findings of Fact" [section V.C.4 for a most interesting study] in the Microsoft antitrust trial).

Try installing Windows on a raw system (with no OS or other OS). It is just as difficult.

Now they come up with an OS that only installs on very specific hardware, and only atop W98.

My guess is: Windows' lemmings won't complain a bit (they never do; they just get their brother-in-law to fix it for free).

--
When I die, please cast my ashes upon Bill Gates -- for once, make him clean up after me!

Re:As easy to install as Linux by cworley · 2001-03-25 21:47 · Score: 2

Bull.

I spent a week installing Win98 on an old P200 w/ no existing OS.

--
When I die, please cast my ashes upon Bill Gates -- for once, make him clean up after me!
Re:As easy to install as Linux by cworley · 2001-03-27 02:57 · Score: 2

>"True, that doesn't include setting up every imaginable now-defunct company's mysterious hardware"

I absolutely agree with you. Most users install Linux an an old machine to try it out, and then complain that the installation of Linux is a nightmare.

It's not, it's just a warped view. Linux typically gets installed on old equipment starting with another OS installed, while Windows comes pre-installed or upgraded on a machine already running Windows.

I can install Linux quickly on x86 machines that would never install Windows (for example, my laptop has neither a floppy drive nor a CD -- but I was able to install Linux).

I've got a machine (currently catching dust) that my brother-in-law wants to give to his brother once I install Windows on it -- but I can't find a DOS based CDROM driver for this old machine so I can start the installation. I could have this thing running as an xterminal in my house in under five minutes.

But, my point is, Linux gets a bad rap that's not justifiable -- Windows is harder to install, and, as the article points out, is getting worse.

--
When I die, please cast my ashes upon Bill Gates -- for once, make him clean up after me!
Re:As easy to install as Linux by shyster · 2001-03-26 01:46 · Score: 1

I spent a week installing Win98 on an old P200 w/ no existing OS.

My god man, what the hell were you doing?!? Like others have said before, you either had bad hardware (hint: replace it or disable it) or crappy drivers added later (if the it's add-on drivers, then technically you did get Win98 installed, just not whatever hw device gave you fits.) If your drivers are that bad, I'd replace the hw as well!
I can install Win95/98/ME/NT/2K 6 times a day with nary a bat of the eye and time left over to read /.. True, that doesn't include setting up every imaginable now-defunct company's mysterious hardware or installing office apps, etc. (unless it's from an image), but for most common hw where drivers are included with the OS (a lot of them) or major manafacturer's hw, you should hardly ever have a problem....
Re:As easy to install as Linux by shyster · 2001-03-30 04:10 · Score: 1

I've got a machine (currently catching dust) that my brother-in-law wants to give to his brother once I install Windows on it -- but I can't find a DOS based CDROM driver for this old machine so I can start the installation. I could have this thing running as an xterminal in my house in under five minutes.

There are ways around that, you know. Temporarily replace the CD-ROM, move the HDD to another machine, use an external // port CD-ROM, cable 2 machines together thru // or Serial port and run Laplink; if it's got DOS, install MS-LANMan and do it over the network; copy the .CABs to another HDD and install as a slave; blah, blah, blah. It's only another 15 minutes worth of work.
Re:As easy to install as Linux by Ayende+Rahien · 2001-03-25 16:41 · Score: 1

Stick CD in the drive, follow instructions...
Done.
About the hardest part is choosing the partition to install on.

--

--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?

Re:Defragged swapfile in Windows by bobv-pillars-net · 2001-03-26 03:53 · Score: 1

Just defrag your drive first, so it's contiguous.

Actually, it won't. Since the standard defrag tool won't touch the area currently occupied by swap, when you reboot and recreate the swap file, it'll probably re-use the same (fragmented) space the old one was in.

So here's the fix: Defrag it twice. Once in regular mode, then set min & max to zero, reboot into safe mode, and defrag again. Then set your min & max to around 3 X Physical RAM and it'll be contiguous.

--
The Web is like Usenet, but
the elephants are untrained.

Windows XP beta 2 by skrowl · 2001-03-25 21:46 · Score: 1

I'm very impressed with the XP beta. It's more stable than the windows 2000 beta was at this point, and it has a couple neat new features.

Look for driver rollback if you install a bunk driver.
Also, try compatibility mode to allow you to run programs that wouldn't work on windows 2000... I was unable to get ANYTHING to crash! Very impressive for a beta release.

The only downside is that you need a computer with alot of power.

____________________
Remember, not all /. users hate Windows or think Microsoft is out to get them!

--

Prevent linux based DDOS's!
http://linux.denialofservice.org/

The new empire's foot soldiers.. by T.Hobbes · 2001-03-25 08:35 · Score: 1

from the article:

The new software plays DVDs and also rips CD audio into well-compressed WMA files (a proprietary format that combines good sound quality with smaller file sizes than MP3).

And I'm sure microsoft will be as open with their wma format as the mp3 format was.

Yawwwwnnnnnnnn.. Same OS, Less freedom, more $$ by TheCeltic · 2001-03-25 09:52 · Score: 1

Ok, so why would anyone want to buy a more bloated OS that has requires Micro$oft to "unlock" it for use and that has an unfamiliar interface? For the "web" interface? Not.. seems the same old "pay more, get less, have less freedom" scheme that M$ delivers so well.

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= - The Celtic - =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Re:Automatic Update is a feature? by Benley · 2001-03-25 08:23 · Score: 2

It even goes beyond that. In order to even use the system *at all* for more than 14 days, you must "activate" the system with Microsoft. You can generate a key with any number of keygens, but if it isn't one that MS's servers like, they won't let you run their OS.

It sucks, but that's what they are up to. The goal, I suppose, is to stop people from casually warez-ing their operating system. I fully expect Office 10 to be this way, as well as any further major MS software releases.

Re:Bloatware extreme by Bill+Daras · 2001-03-25 08:43 · Score: 1

Why would an operating system need 3 gigs of hd space and 128 megs ram minimum!? That is insane.

Yes, it is. But it's becoming the trend these days. OS X has the same system requirements, of course it would make sense for Apple of all people to ship brand-new, just-announced computers with the ability to run their own OS, but that isn't happening.

MacOS-ish Interface...Uh-huh by Bill+Daras · 2001-03-25 08:22 · Score: 2

Mac Zelots have been freaking out ever since the first screenshots of WinXP, making ridiculous claims about Microsoft "stealing" from them.

These are the same people who thought that Apple was shipping "fake" OS X CDs in the retail box to "fool" people until some super-secret "real" release that was to occur sometime after it began appearing on store shelves.

As much as I detest the "everything is a web page" Windows UI, I find few similarities between it and that near-useless monstrosity known as Aqua.

MS simply took the standard Windows appearance, rounded off all the corners, made liberal use of the color blue, replaced the Start Menu with and ugly Start Slab, while sticking the MacOS 9 Rubber Ducky in the public screenshots. Probably in an attempt to bait the Mac Zelots looking for *something* to justify their often irrational and passionate hatred of Microsoft, which is at times, probably enough to make even Linus groan. (The Duck most likey came from a royalty-free clipart collection, the kind that many businesses use.)

Luna is hardly MacOS-ish. It is an even uglier version of the same UI they have been using since 1995, which despite the claims of fanatics, is not very close to the classic Mac UI at all, and even further from Aqua.

The only similarities that I *can* find are that both Luna and Aqua are worse than their predecessors (though Aqua is prettier than Platinum). UI design seems to have taken a nosedive in the past year. The big commercial UIs look and function like really bad GNOME and AfterStep hacks.

Re:MacOS-ish Interface...Uh-huh by Frymaster · 2001-03-25 08:41 · Score: 2

The big commercial UIs look and function like really bad GNOME and AfterStep hacks.
uh, AfterStep is a knock of NeXTstep, a UI designed by Mr. Steve Jobs himself which was later revamped and rolled out as OS X.
near-useless monstrosity known as Aqua.
You've never used OS X have you?

--
2 1337 4 u!
Re:MacOS-ish Interface...Uh-huh by Frymaster · 2001-03-26 15:48 · Score: 2

well, i was going to ask if you were the art tatum... but then i remembered he was dead (although yer user number is low enough to put you in the right age bracket :) ). just to cover my bases if you are, though:
a) posting from beyond the grave is an awesome feat. kudos
b) reading sheet music written in Braille while playing the piano is another awesome feat. more kudos.
c) i don't think you sound like Earl Hines, no matter what Down Beat might say...
in all seriousness, I use both NeXT (well, OpenStep) and OS X at work (that's right, the lan with seven operating systems... the perils of organic growth!) and while i've always liked ostep for it's smoothness and obvious features i still think that os x has managed to take the good without making us suffer the bad of ostep (nameless icons, tear off menus that build up like empty pizza boxes in a dorm room &c.) os x has the feel of being built from the bottom up in a rational, well-thought-out way... especially refreshing in light of the cruft that has acrued in the arabic-numeraled mac oses over the last 17-ish years (I found a copy of font/da mover in my utilities folder last week). give this a read. it's a convert-maker.

--
2 1337 4 u!

Windows XP and the Seattle Earthquake... by Harpua · 2001-03-25 10:33 · Score: 1

Many people noticed footage on CNN with Bill Gates during the most recent Seattle earthquake. Bill and another Microsoft employee were in the middle of a demonstration of the new features of Windows XP, specifically some of the digital photography enhancements. After the cameras came back on, the demonstrator mentions "Linux can't do that...the Macintosh can't do that!"

Re:Windows XP and the Seattle Earthquake... by The-Zaphod · 2001-03-25 12:05 · Score: 1

That wasn't an Earthquake, it was Windows XP crashing!

--
"No A Zaphod, didn't you hear we come in 6 Packs Now"

Re:Again, it's not bloatware, here's an eye opener by Nyarly · 2001-03-26 08:08 · Score: 2

For thsoe of you who prefer not to browse off a topic, the argument seems to be that the plumet in storage prices justifies bloat, which then can be used to pack more features into a quicker release. Oh, and thinking that bloat is an issue is a sign of mental disease.

Short version, this is not a developer's article, or even really a geek's article. The straw man example is an app to sift Windows Registry for extra crud and clean it out. The app requires a full meg of storage, which Joel feels is entirely reasonable for a (in his opinion) useless piece of software.

However, it seems to me that all the arguments against Java apply to bloatware, without the pros. I mean, you can say that the speed of modern processors overcomes the mollases-like speed of a JVM. But, frankly, if speed is at all important, that makes about as much sense as saying "knowing algorithms isn't worth squat, just code the first thing that comes to mind." I mean, do you have the fast proc to overcome human suckage, or to blaze away. Me, I want to blaze away, which means there needs to be less human suckage, if you see what I mean.

Bloatware is pure human suckage, without the whole portability benefit.

--
IP is just rude.
Is there any torture so subl

Re:As requested by Rotten168 · 2001-03-25 13:10 · Score: 1

INSTALL: CygWin32

Ugh... CygWin slows Windows down to a crawl and that's true for many people I've heard from online.

There's a regular BASH shell that doesn't use funky colors and isn't as confusing available somewhere online (but I'm too lazy to find it).

system resources? by tps12 · 2001-03-26 01:42 · Score: 1

I like the thing about how asking you if you want to put all your desktop items in a folder is "a great way to conserve system resources." Let's see, system resources: cycles, memory, drive space, and, oh yes, desktop space, precious desktop space! My box is pretty slow, maybe I need to add 4 inches on to the right of my desktop... then knock out this wall and add a guest bathroom. I hear the next version of Windows will conserve resources by featuring, in addition to the Desktop, the Floor, Behind the Couch, and the Junk Drawer. Innovation!

--

Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)

Re:system resources? by shyster · 2001-03-26 02:29 · Score: 1

I like the thing about how asking you if you want to put all your desktop items in a folder is "a great way to conserve system resources." Let's see, system resources: cycles, memory, drive space, and, oh yes, desktop space, precious desktop space!

That would've been funny if you knew what the hell you were talking about. Unfortunately, you obviously have no clue.
What do you think keeps track of those icons? What's that you say? Your mother? Nope, sorry...it's "cycles" and "memory".
Where do you think those icons are (permanently) stored? What? Your junk drawer? Bzzzzt. Wrong again, it's "drive space".
GDI relates to, basically, all the little widgets, icons, and fonts Windows (at least in Win9x, not sure how WinNT handles this...IIRC, this is a throwback to Win 3.1's paintbrushes and palettes, so NT may be different when not running WOWexec) has to keep track of. GDI is a major component of that number that you see called "System Resources".
Don't believe me? Clean boot your Win9x system and check your resources. Now delete all your icons from the Desktop. Now change to no wallpaper and a solid color background. Get rid of your Desktop theme and change to standard Windows fonts. Reboot and check those resources again. For most people, you would have just gained 1-2%.
Re:system resources? by shyster · 2001-03-26 05:02 · Score: 1

If you don't want compatibility, go for the WinNT/2K Kernel! Geez...how hard is this to understand? You get upset because there's limitations imposed by legacy code, or you get upset because in "upgrading" M$ breaks something that used to work. Guess what...can't have it both ways. That's probably one of the main reasons M$ is recommending a new PC for XP. So people like you can stop complaining about legacy code/your hw don't work.

Er, don't touch that. by rograndom · 2001-03-25 08:33 · Score: 5

Fill up your desktop with unused icons, and Windows XP asks you whether you want to keep them, then sweeps them into one tidy folder.

Hey! I wanted to keep those *there*.

"No David, I think you want to keep them *here*."

--

Stupid Cheap Guitars

skins by Khopesh · 2001-03-25 08:14 · Score: 1

that new interface looks like a skin to me... and yet Microsoft still hasn't thought of a skinnable UI. pretty sad, especially given how ugly the new default look is. ...then again, WindowBlinds is alway an option.

--
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.

Re:skins by MidnightLog · 2001-03-26 01:16 · Score: 1

Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner!
As a contract programmer, I've been to a few different companies. None of them want you to install software on the company PC's (which is understandable). Most of them don't want you to change the config. (even desktop colors) because you might break something. My current client, however, is the first one that has locked down the PC's (using the Policy Editor) so that the user can't change anything. I had to jump through hoops so I could remap the keyboard when running some terminal emulation software. I can understand why a little control is necessary, but one size does not fit all!
As a side note, I don't understand why "Win98 experience" has any meaning.

--
To understand what's right and wrong, the lawyers work in shifts ...
Re:skins by NineNine · 2001-03-25 11:39 · Score: 1

That's simple. It's marketing. Brand recognition. You see a desktop, and you INSTANTLY know that it's Microsoft Windows. On top of that, users don't get confused. Any grandma can sit down in front of a Windows box and know what to do. There's no confusion in different looking desktops.
Re:skins by shyster · 2001-03-25 23:50 · Score: 1

There must be some reason they don't include a customizable UI.

I've got a few reasons.
For the WinNT/2K kernel, they're mostly used in businesses. Personally, I'd rather my employees spend their time working (and reading /.) than trying out the newest l337 shell. Not to mention the huge ass-load of increased support costs, headaches, and frustrations.
For the Win9x kernel that are aimed at the home user, there's a few reasons there too. First, there's the matter of support (who here doesn't have to support friends and family from time to time? And of course, M$ itself does support, as do most PC OEMs...can you imagine the pain in the ass it would be with fully customizable UI's?). Second, there's plenty of shells out there (Litestep, DarkStep, WindowBlinds, Talisman (my favorite concept...it's all more or less HTML), etc) if you're good enough to work in a custom shell and support it yourself (as most /.'ers are), then you should be able to install/configure it yourself. I don't want every Joe Blow being able to bring up the new UI Customization Wizard and eff up their UI and then call me for help.
Desktop Themes is all the customization most people need or deserve....
Re:skins by geomcbay · 2001-03-25 08:24 · Score: 2

What are you talking about? Windows XP includes several "skins" and is as fully skinnable by third parties as most modern X window managers are.

Re:Will this one please just work? by swordgeek · 2001-03-25 10:43 · Score: 2

Huh? I don't get it. Windows released a very stable, lightweight, bombproof OS YEARS ago! Just because DOS won't do what you want it to...

Seriously, you're right. NT4.0 on MS approved hardware crashes like a sick dog driving a ferrari. 95/98 on normal hardware is an order of magnitude worse. HOWEVER...

There's the UI question. Win98 _without_ ActiveFuckup is still the best UI going for most day-to-day stuff. Linux pretty much sucks in that respect, unfortunately. Mac could be far better than any of 'em, since the OS was designed around the GUI, rather than the other way around; but it isn't.

Honestly, computers aren't idiot proof yet, and MS is lying through their teeth everytime they come out with "an EVEN MORE idiotproof" OS. Balls!

--

"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban

Re:Mac OS-ish by OrionFl79 · 2001-03-26 00:30 · Score: 1

Simple. Drag your start bar up to the top of the screen, move the desktop icons from the left side to the right, and then what does it look like to you??

--
Live to be happy!! OR ELSE!! :)

Those aren't B2 shots by fliplap · 2001-03-25 08:42 · Score: 1

Not only are those not beta 2 screenshots, they're not even the latest external interm builds. The previous interm build to b2 was 2458, those screenshots are of build 2428. This is noticable because of the scroll bars and in one of the screen shots you can make out the number 2428 in the lower right hand corner. Considering Beta2 was just released a few hours ago, you can tell they've based this entire review on 2428.

Re:Bloatware extreme by fliplap · 2001-03-25 08:49 · Score: 1

Because most new computers have at least that, and ram is cheap. Plus i have it installed on a 2.1gig 64meg laptop, disable a few services and it runs...well it runs. I'm only using it because i'm a tester, as soon as i get my final boxed its going right to compusa for an exchange.

Innovation... by psin+psycle · 2001-03-25 10:58 · Score: 1

You know, m$ does do alot of innovating. All from the cnet article:

Windows Me-like interface
Much like Apple's OS X, Windows' new desktop is designed to clear the clutter
the Windows XP Start button and Taskbar look superficially similar to Windows 98's
The first time you open that left-hand panel, a balloon help feature (like the one Apple's Mac OS has provided for the last decade) provides a quick hint about what to do next.
In the fun department, Windows XP borrows a slew of ideas from Windows Millennium Edition and a few from Apple
(witness the resurfacing of the Windows Movie Maker, clever video-editing software that mimics the popular iMovie).
Like Windows Me, XP easily displays scanners and digital cameras in its list of storage devices in My Computer
Windows XP prominently features one of Windows Me's selling points: System Restore, a backup and restoration program that erases that uh-oh moment when you realize you've installed something that messes up your computer.
Windows XP automatically polls Microsoft's Windows Update site while you're online (another top feature of Windows Me)

Of course, I'm probably just trying to make ms look bad :)

--
Need a website host? Try out http://WebQualityHost.net

Re:Innovation... by psin+psycle · 2001-03-25 11:15 · Score: 1

heh...
Can't remember back to your own troll ^H^H^H^H^Hpost on Sunday March 18, @02:20PM MST huh?

--
Need a website host? Try out http://WebQualityHost.net

Re:Mac OS-ish by DrSkwid · 2001-03-27 17:59 · Score: 1

Note: Aqua may be a word meaning water, but it's still a trademark of Apple Computer Corp. Hell, so is "Apple" for that matter.

Why is this noteworthy? Trademarks and in conjunction with the field of trade. Do you truly believe that I can advertise the "Dr Skwid Apple Computer" and not confuse people?
.oO0Oo.

--
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter

Re:Mac OS-ish by DrSkwid · 2001-03-27 18:02 · Score: 1

How many censors have you hit?

ConsumedByTV censors censors?

Editors, Directors, Reporters and the participants all censor themselves and others too.

Complex innit
.oO0Oo.

--
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter

Re:Mac OS-ish by DrSkwid · 2001-03-27 18:03 · Score: 1

so does Green for Go mean "close the window" and Red means "I want to Stop on this page so maximise it" ;-)
.oO0Oo.

--
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter

Re:Dvorak Keyboard by alexburke · 2001-03-28 13:14 · Score: 1

Well, at least *one* person got it...

--

Dvorak Keyboard by alexburke · 2001-03-25 14:35 · Score: 2

I was reading the CNET review, and clicked on the Dvorak link on the second page (Interface section).

In addition to the standard Dvorak keyboard, there are two additional Dvorak keyboards, a left-handed and right-handed keyboard. These keyboards are designed for people who have only one hand for typing.

This begs the question: Why aren't these keyboards standard issue for geeks like us?!

(Sorry.)

--

Re:Bloatware extreme by smallstepforman · 2001-03-25 10:25 · Score: 1

I've got the retail version of OS X running on a 96Mb RevA iMac.

--
Revolution = Evolution

128 minimum isn't unusual by StandardDeviant · 2001-03-25 10:56 · Score: 2

In terms of usability anyway. I've heard many people say that the practical usability RAM minimum for Solaris 8, for example, is 128 even though the listed minimum is 64. 3 gigs is sort of big, but still, the recommended minimum for Solaris 8 is 2gb... And while I can run Linux on 16mb ram and 540meg disk, it's a lot more functional with 64mb+ ram and 4gb+...

And lordy, let's not get started on how much ram you need to run something like oracle! ;-)

--
News for geeks in Austin: www.geekaustin.org

--

News for Geeks in Austin, TX

Re:128 minimum isn't unusual by Elendur · 2001-03-25 11:30 · Score: 1

The article says that the recommended min for WinXP is 2gb. The original poster made an error.

Windowsmedia.com Link by Wateshay · 2001-03-25 08:27 · Score: 1

Does anyone else find it slightly disturbing that the operating system has built into it the ability to purchase cds from windowsmedia.com? It seems like it's IE all over again, although this time I would say it is even worse. Does anyone out there know if that is a customizable list of web links, or if the OS is permanently configured to allow you to purchase easily from windowsmedia.com, and only from windowsmedia.com?

--

"If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for everyone else."

Re:Automatic Update is a feature? by SuiteSisterMary · 2001-03-25 10:01 · Score: 3

It sucks, but that's what they are up to.

Yeah. Thank god that in the commercial UNIX world, you never ever see companies selling licenses that need to be activated. Why, worse yet, they might even tie licenses to the hostid! Wait a minute.....

--
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.

Question... by Dlugar · 2001-03-25 08:32 · Score: 1

How much un-dumbing down of the OS can you do? The first thing I always do when I install a Windows 98 system is to install TweakUI, turn off all the stupid protections that the file manager gives you (i.e. show hidden files and file extensions), and so forth.

Compared to that classic MacOS, I think that the Aqua (MacOS X) interface is a little too cutesy for my tastes, but just looking at the screenshots of Windows XP makes me want to gag. How customizable is that stuff? If I had to be stuck with that ugly blue taskbar and green start menu I think I would commit suicide.

So how customizable is this OS? Can I get rid of all their new cutesy things? And are there any amazing new features, or did they just make the icons bigger and (sort of) prettier? (The article doesn't seem to mention anything special other than 1) based on w2k and 2) lots and lots of Wizards. Great. Just what I want more of.)

Dlugar

--
Computer Go: Writing Software to Play the Ancient Game of Go

Re:Question... by Fervent · 2001-03-25 08:54 · Score: 2

You can turn it completely back to Windows 95 classic mode with a few option tweaks, according to the CNET report.
I find it a little too cutesy as well, but I'd kill to have a Windows 2000 with backward compatibility with some software.

--
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
Re:Question... by scottnews · 2001-03-25 10:00 · Score: 1

The most recent (March) compatibility update adds a feature to the properties page for shortcuts that allows you to run the program in a choice of compatibility layers (win95/win98/nt4sp5).

With Windows 2000?

I don't see that anywhere.
Re:Question... by scottnews · 2001-03-25 10:11 · Score: 1

Nevermind
Re:Question... by Ayende+Rahien · 2001-03-25 15:55 · Score: 1

It's fully customizable.
It takes about 5 minutes to find & customize it to the old look. And unlike what people said, it's just as useful as Win 2K is.

--

--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?
Re:Question... by Ayende+Rahien · 2001-03-25 15:57 · Score: 1

Why would you need 2K emulation? XP *is* 2K, in any way that means something.

--

--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?

Re:As requested by Tuzanor · 2001-03-25 12:04 · Score: 1

where do you turn on Anti-aliased fonts in both windows 2000 and windows 98???

UPX makes windows apps 50% smaller by yerricde · 2001-03-25 10:54 · Score: 2

My biggest gripe tho is the 2GB they talk about needed

The win32 console application UPX compresses Windows applications and libraries to 50% of their original size or smaller.

--
Will I retire or break 10K?

You may not be reading top correctly. by yerricde · 2001-03-25 11:04 · Score: 2

once you get X going I'm up to more memory usage than in windows.

It takes a bit of trickery to extract useful information out of top. For example, if you look at the wrong column, multithreaded programs (e.g. Mozilla), programs that map files into memory, programs that use lots of shared libraries (e.g. GNOME applets), and programs that map peripheral address space (e.g. X server) appear to be using several times more memory than they are.

--
Will I retire or break 10K?

Modularization is a Good Thing. by yerricde · 2001-03-25 11:20 · Score: 2

Also, there's a tradeoff between supporting older machines and implementing an application with better features.

Make it like Mozilla, where you can compile out the "features" you don't want (also on windows) and get down to the one feature that matters: fast conforming browsing, leaving the bloat for those former AOLers who don't give a fig. Apps written in a modular fashion (where dead code can be removed in the install-linker) have only those features that you want. Who here still runs the standard Slack/RH/Debian "kernel with everything"?

--
Will I retire or break 10K?

Charging for support by yerricde · 2001-03-25 11:26 · Score: 2

essentially they seem to be charging large amounts of money for the same software compiled with different defines set enabling certain things.

They charge more for the advanced features because

users with the money to buy more CPUs more likely have the money to buy a more advanced OS, and
the income that the home version brings in isn't enough to pay developers to develop advanced features and pay staff to support those features.

--
Will I retire or break 10K?

Re:Charging for support by MrBogus · 2001-03-25 12:37 · Score: 2

Look at it this way, unless there is some other braindamage in there, they've just cut the price of the client OS by $100, *except* for the few users with two CPUs. (This is assuming Personal is priced at WinME and Professional is priced as 2KP/NTW)

I'm one of those users, but $100 more for a handful of machines is not going affect their bottom line at all. In fact the cost of packaging and promoting this special 2 CPU workstation version is probably going to cost them more money than they make!

Maybe they think they can get corporations to buy the "Professional" instead of the "Personal" edition, but unless they start removing some key features from Personal, or put a nasty licence clause in there, it ain't gonna happen.

--

When I hear the word 'innovation', I reach for my pistol.

Windows HAL by Puck3D · 2001-03-25 14:05 · Score: 1

What's after Windows XP Windows HAL? From the looks of it XP completly takes over your system. I think Windows 200 is going to be my last Windows purchase. The thing I hate the most is that I can upgrade Windows while one th internet, of course I'm on a speedy 56k modem so my internet connection can be even slower that usual downloading 200 patches to fix XP. Woohoo!

Re:As requested by legLess · 2001-03-25 14:36 · Score: 2

Nice list - looks much like mine. You should check out WinKey - it lets you assign any shortcut (including some window controls) to a keyboard combo with the Win95 key. They haven't updated it for years, but it works perfectly on Win2k. It's literally the first thing I install on a new box - I can't live without it. It takes ~2.5MB RAM and, in over 3 years and a few dozen machines, I've not seen it crash once.

question: is control controlled by its need to control?
answer: yes

--
This isn't as much "normalization" as it is "don't take so many drugs when you're designing tables."

this is great for Linux by small_dick · 2001-03-25 09:04 · Score: 1

Linux seems to run on more and more systems as time passes, yet still has fairly moderate requirements.

I don't you'll ever see Linux distros "recommending" you buy a new pc to get the "...full experience...".

contrast this with windos, which appears to require ever increasing requirements, to the point where only the newest, fastest machines will run it...plus MS appears to be moving towards "pre installed" only os releases.

this is great for linux...free, low system requirements...espescially for people outside the the "west" -- who tend to have less money to go pissing away for a new PC every year or two.

little Achmed or Pei-Pei can do their CS homework on Linux...while Johnny and Shawna relearn the OSX interface.

--

Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.

Re:this is great for Linux by erayzer · 2001-03-25 12:15 · Score: 1

"little Achmed or Pei-Pei can do their CS homework on Linux...while Johnny and Shawna relearn the OSX interface."
br> Seems stereotyping is alive and well.

Regression by Enonu · 2001-03-25 10:55 · Score: 5

Modeling the installation requirements with the following:

1.00 50
2.00 120
3.00 320
4.00 650
5.00 2000

where the first column is Windows generation, and the second column is minimum installation size requirements, produces the following exponential equation:

y = 19.865 * e ^ (0.9067x)
R^2 = 0.9964

Skip to genation 10 to shit your pants. I know this data isn't anything conclusive, but it's fun nonetheless.

Re:Regression by Kjella · 2001-03-25 21:20 · Score: 1

Yeah but by then you'd have lost all your DivX (MPAA), mp3s (RIAA) and pr0n (copyright violations) due to CPRM anyway, so you'd have lots of space :)

Kjella

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Re:Regression by Halcyon-X · 2001-03-27 14:49 · Score: 1

Actually I was able to fit Windows 3.1 with Write and PBrush onto a bootable diskette!
Windows 95's minimum install is 40MB, as far as I know. I've been able to whittle it down much further...
I have a lot of spare time! ;)

--
.sig: Open Source, Open Mind
Re:Regression by Sealoth · 2001-03-25 22:23 · Score: 1

It's much much worse than that. Versions 1, 2, and 3 were smaller than that. 2 ran on my dad's IBM XT with a 20 MB hard drive, and 3 ran on my old 486 with a 250 MB hard drive. This is going to make that curve quite a bit steeper.

--

All information in this post is true in some sense, false in some sense, and meaningless in some sense.

Re:CNET writers on drugs by rgmoore · 2001-03-25 08:40 · Score: 1

Secure, stable Windows 2000 code base
Right. Oxymoron alert!

Well, stability is relative. The Unix systems that you probably regard as incredibly stable would be considered dangerously unstable by mainframe people. Win2000 may not quite reach the level of stability found in *BSD or Linux, but it sure beats the hell out of the old DOS based systems. Going from "crashes for no obvious reason" to "crashes only when severely stressed" is a huge win.

--

There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

Re:Bloatware extreme by theancient1 · 2001-03-25 15:08 · Score: 1

At least with OS X you can see why it needs so much processing power to do all the animations and stuff... but what exactly has been added in XP that requires 8 times more memory than 95 did? The interface has barely changed at all since then. If I'm going to have to buy a fancy new computer to run this thing, my windows better schloop into a little icon like they do in OS X!

Re:Bloatware extreme by theancient1 · 2001-03-26 15:44 · Score: 1

I guess I should have put in a humour disclaimer. :) I was trying to imply that since XP will be a consumer OS as well as a business OS, it might not look 8 times as good for your average consumer. (Yeah, there's the movie maker idea, the media player, and so on... but again, it was supposed to be funny... ah, well.)

They can still screw it up. by tcc · 2001-03-25 09:26 · Score: 1

just put the digital right management stuff and non-authorized mp3 screetching sound in the speakers (and all those rumored copy protection schemes) and you'll get bad publicity, especially that every joe nobody knows about mp3 since the napster episode.

--
--- Metamoderating abusive downgraders since my 300th post.

Luna? by 0000+0111 · 2001-03-25 09:51 · Score: 1

As in Tuna? Or as in Aqua? Let me guess, it's based off of a totally new and innovative core foundation called, Sherwin. Right? And the graphics API is Schwartz? Right? Wrong! But you're probably happy as Hell that I made the comparison right? Microsteal, you suck sometimes. Whoever thought it should be called Luna should be fired based upon sheer principle. Look, you guys make a great OS on your own. No, let me restate that. You make an OS so great that almost every PC user in the world uses it. Why couldn't you just name it Chuck or maybe Star Dust or maybe Jadice or Diamond? Lord knows you have the financial resources to hire someone to come up with a clearly originally inspired name. Sheesh!

Re:Bloatware extreme by Salsaman · 2001-03-25 16:41 · Score: 2

It's only becoming the trend if you ignore Linux (and probably BSD). In fact, using cramFS, the space requirements for Linux are actually going down, not up.

The Jelly Brain Crusade? by Mathness · 2001-03-25 10:38 · Score: 1

Allow me to comment on the CNet piece in reverse order.
>have the best experience only if you buy a brand-new system with XP preinstalled
So bying the same computer, as I have, only *with* WXP on it. I get a better computer/OS?

>2GB of free disk space
Huge+bloated. As long a my 6.4G HD lives, I am not going to change it. Enjoy what you have before upgrading, I say.

>This beta crashes now and again and lacks some features, just like, well,
Just like every other MSW since 3.11 ...

>...rips CD...
Great copyright control. Won't the RIAA be happy now.

>But no one can say XP isn't fun
Well, it isn't. An OS turned to an entertainment center is a waste of efford.

>Far better networking....and it's more secure
easier to configure == more secure?
The firewall is probably as secure as W98 when it got out. But a good idea though.

>major step toward Microsoft's murky .Net strategy
I think this concept should be avoided at all cost. Do you trust a closed standard?

>Supersimple search...cartoon dog
Oh great. Next they will have Win find Waldo for me.

>Incomplete control
You got it.

>Easier My Computer
What's next. My OS, My Windows, My Crash, My Virus, My Warez, My MP3, My Grammar, My Spelling?

>Multiuser mayhem
The new game from MS?

Why all these guides, wizards and gueesing, when the user is idle for a moment (overstatement on my part I know). Afraid the user will think for themselves? No, let the OS decide I wanted to go to a sub dir, and not add a folder. I *might* had thought of going there. OS=Smart, User=Dumb. This will do wonders for the .NET plan, all users using the only OS at MS via the internet. Paranoides unite.

On the whole, I will stike with the W98SE. A wee bit more trustworthy.

Yes, I am Linux user. How did you guess?

--
Carbon based humanoid in training.

Re:Bloatware extreme by mathgod79 · 2001-03-25 15:14 · Score: 1

Um, you must have some other problem there. I have Win2k Advanced Server installed on my Pentium 100, 64MB of ram. I have IIS running (for perosnal use mostly), and an e-mail server. The machine takes about 3 minutes to boot. It is slow if I try to use IE or something, but as a server, it's fine, seeing as I have other systems with Win98se, Win2kPro, WinXP, and Redhat to use as clients. It could be some misc bug causing slow bootup, Win2k SP2 seems to boot lots faster though (I have an old beta release), so maybe SP2 will help your boot time when it comes out (soon). -Mathgod79

Innovation and the Microsoft way. by Tokerat · 2001-03-25 19:59 · Score: 1

Anyone with any sense can see clearly what Microsoft is trying to do here, obviously this is quite a take-off on Apple's new OS.

I'm not mad, at all, in fact, quite amused, at Microsoft's attempt to "keep up".

1. Interface redone? Plenty of eye candy? Given a cheesy 4 letter word for a name? Apple did it first, and Microsoft continued to "innovate."
2. Balloon help. Apple did it first, Microsoft continues to "innovate." (I especially enjoyed this CNET bit: "The first time you open that left-hand panel, a balloon help feature (like the one Apple's Mac OS has provided for the last decade) provides a quick hint about what to do next.")
3. Folder-to-Web. Wanna make your files accessable from anywhere? Sounds like iTools to me.
4. New media player is designed to work better with MP3s and burn CDs and stuff? Big blue and silver window? iTunes? ANd what's this about a new compressed music format? I'm sure you'll pay big bucks to use that thanks to .Net
5. The Compatability enviroment? You mean the Classic enviroment?
It's great that MS can add so many new, great things to their OS. Now if only they could come up with their own ideas instead of trying to be the Apple, but "more innovative." 128 meg or ram? Ok, u got me there, Apple missed out on the memory requirements too, but 2 gigs? Outrageous. And do you think that "Luna" is going to make your computer fast? Aqua is speedy because it's a whole new graphics engine. Windows? Same old shit. New face.

So when your computer suddenly updates automatically and starts using .Net and you pay to use Windows by-the-minute, don't come crying to me.

--
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?

Re:As requested by e_n_d_o · 2001-03-25 12:21 · Score: 1

In W2k: It's in the "Display" control panel, which is most easily accessed by right-clicking on the desktop and choosing "Properties". Click the "Effects" tab and then check "Smooth edges of screen fonts" This feature works pretty well, as it doesn't try and smooth fonts less than about 16pt.

I think its in the same place in Win98, but I've never been able to stomach actually using 9x so I don't know for sure :)

Another setting that's nice to check if you're running 16-bit color or higher is "show icons using all possible colors"
---

Re:Chessboard anecdote by |guillaume| · 2001-03-26 02:46 · Score: 1

WRONG.

According to the nice table of large numbers in Bruce Schneier's Applied Cryptography, there is 2^265 atoms in the universe (excluding dark matter), which is a lot more than 2^64 + 2^63 + ... + 2^0.

Guillaume

--

give me all your garmonbozia

Re:Automatic Update is a feature? by Ig0r · 2001-03-25 08:50 · Score: 2

MS has never taken any real precautions against copyright-infringement against their OSs (or Office/dev tools).
Lots of their vendor-lock is from people who start out on stolen copies of windows and office and then get sucked in to keeping the format. In effect, they *gain* market by being lax on personal infringers (then they get a choke hold on businesses whose employees use MS products).

--

--
Soma: because a gramme is better than a damn.

This is great for free software! by Lord+Ender · 2001-03-25 10:08 · Score: 2

This is excellent. I know lots of people who cant afford $200 for an operating system. I mean I live in a poor area where a lot of kids who have computers only have them because people donate their old PCs to them. These kids DO infringe copyright to get windows on to their computers.

I am sure there are lots of people like this.

But, if they had no choice but to pay the microsoft tax, there is no doubt in my mind that windows market share will go WAY down. By at LEAST 10% very quickly. More people will be using free software thanks to Microsoft. I can't wait.

--
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.

Re:This is great for free software! by fors · 2001-03-25 15:25 · Score: 1

They have one really big thing to lose. I can see the articles now.
In the news today: Microsoft loses market share. In the six months since Microsoft introduced it's new operating system WindowsXP, it has gone from a 95% market share to an 85% percent market share. Analyst have been quoted as saying that Microsoft dropped the ball and introduced too many new features in their latest release. We decided to get to the bottom of this and find out first hand why people have switched. Our first stop was at a local high school where we talked to a student and self proclaimed geek. He has asked that his name not be revealed, the reasons will become apparent during his story. The student said that when XP came out his parents decided that although they know nothing of computers they couldn't deprive him of the educational benefits of using Microsofts latest wonder. So they gave him $200 and sent him to the computer store to purchase the software. He used the money to purchase ecstasy and weed and stayed high all weekend. When he got home he installed Linux which allowed him to perform all the tasks that he needed a computer for and did it less annoyingly. His parents (not being very technically inclined) never noticed the difference. He also put us in touch with several students that have switched to Linux for the simple reason that their families can not afford systems that will run XP and they have work to do. Over the course of two weeks we interviewed people from all walks of life and that have left Windows behind and the reason was in almost all cases "Why pay $200 for an Operating system that will break your budget for both software and haredware when all the functionality is available for free." Not one person felt that it was a compelling upgrade. They all said "Well, if we have to learn a new interface anyway, why not save some money and learn Gnome or KDE."

--
"If there is nothing you are willing to die for, then you are not really alive." Myself
Re:This is great for free software! by TeraCo · 2001-03-25 14:56 · Score: 1

Umm.. I feel I have to point out: The 10% that you claim will leave are the 10% that aren't buying it anyway, Microsoft lose nothing except the feeling of being shafted.

--
Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
Re:This is great for free software! by TeraCo · 2001-03-25 20:56 · Score: 1

SME [Small-Medium Enterprise] and larger don't ask to deploy computers. Their account execs meet the Microsoft account execs and say "How much is your newest most stable product".
Microsoft then say "Ok, here is a corporate licence for X million dollars a year. Thx bye."
The reality is any reasonably large company is going to have a CIO, and that CIO is not going to trust free software, after all, that's why they have a multi-million dollar IT budget right?
Servers, on the other hand, are slightly different.

--
Not Meta-modding due to apathy.

XP will be skinnable by InfiX · 2001-03-25 08:21 · Score: 1

WindowsXP final will be skinnable. just thought i'd point that out...

Re:XP will be skinnable by Fervent · 2001-03-25 09:03 · Score: 2

Huh? Where did you get that information?

--
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.

Auto logon by [egal] · 2001-03-25 08:45 · Score: 1

XP also incorporates online authentication using Microsoft's Password, so once you get online with Windows XP, you're automatically logged in to any Microsoft partner sites you visit

As a paranoid person I am, I got scare out of my mind when I read this! Hell, where are the classic security features like multiple credentials and so on? Does SSO realy gets the ups? I hope not, imagien a user on the phone: "Hi, I'm calling to ask why I'm asked a password, what is this?"

No, I hope they turn this feature off, its too dangerous for the avarage user. If they do that much protection-off-the-user-itself-stuff, this should be included. BTW there goes the privacy of milllions of users... oh brave new user, be my consumer!
--

--
42 cows on a 42km road on their way to 42.org :-)

Re:Auto logon by NineNine · 2001-03-25 09:33 · Score: 1

It just used the MSN password. It's the same thing as every other web site. Last I checked, I'm logged in to Slashdot every time I visit...

Windows XP Beta2 by hardburlyboogerman · 2001-03-25 21:23 · Score: 1

Great! More of M$'s bloatware.Each newer version of Windows eats much more HD space and is less stable.And M$ expects this to do? I don't think so. The more I see of Windows,the better I like Linux. With no choice of OS with major PC brands,XP will be dominate(until PC users FINALLY wise up.) With the limited life if you do not check in with M$,XP will be slow to take over.I,for example,do not allow Windows (on my daughter's machine)to contact M$.(I update manually and with a close eye on privacy)My personal PC? Linux only. I have been accused of being a bit of a pack rat by my better half.(I don't throw out the older stuff due to my work with the Computers For Kids church-based project,providing computers for low-income children at no cost.Some of the donated machines are very old.) For my use,XP is not an option.M$ can stick it into their corporate where-the-sun-don't-shine area. If and when Windows gets decent stability and is not reporting to M$ every other second,I might reconsider.But not at this time.

--
Geek Hillbilly

I've said it before... by Gnight · 2001-03-25 10:43 · Score: 1

...and I'll say it again. Microsoft Windows XP is a patronizing operating system. The interface in patronizing, the look and feel, the organization; even the wording of dialog boxes are patronizing.

"If you click this big red button that says 'power off computer' you might lose any saved settings in your programs, are you SURE you want to turn off your computer?"

Jesus! Software like this makes me feel stupid and powerless when I use it!

Say it with me now, "No more automation! No more wizards! Down with little colorful icons!!!"

Sheesh, I'm gunna go use vi or recompile my kernel now...

-Gnight

Re:I've said it before... by robert-porter · 2001-03-25 13:49 · Score: 1

gcc warning 432: assigning int * to char *

Jesus software like this makes me feel stupid and powerless when I use it!

I forget what the actual gcc warnings look like I haven't used gcc in like 4 months.

Windows XP (or, yet another eye-candy update!) by EvlPenguin · 2001-03-25 08:40 · Score: 1

"Dependability and prerelease software are two concepts that don't belong in the same sentence"

Dependability and MICROSOFT are two words that don't belong in the sentence, save the occasion when the obligitory "lack thereof" is used.

When the article starts talking about the things that are really important, like stability and speed, the results of their findings are instantly dismissed because it's beta software. Well, um, beta should have a few bugs, granted, but it's not alpha software, where the entire thing crashes at every turn! It should have atleast _some_ stability.

"You need, essentially, a new or extremely recent computer, 128MB of RAM (at least; our test laptop was decked out with 320MB), 2GB of free disk space, and, if you're upgrading, you must have Windows 98 or above."

Two gigs?!?!? TWO GIGS!?!??! As if the RAM requirement wasn't horrendous enough. Two gigs is a lot for an OS to take up, even the most bloated. Even though most hard drives are atleast 30-40 GB these days, 2 GB is just insane. They go on to say:

"In fact, Microsoft says you'll have the best experience only if you buy a brand-new system with XP preinstalled."

If this isn't "you-scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-yours" politics I don't know what is. Seriously, the tight relationship between Microsoft and hardware vendors could not be any more clear, and it really is a shame that the vendors would allow _any_ third party to have a big say in their chip design.

All in all, the only real diffrence I have seen since Win95 is more and more sounds and eye candy when you click on widgets and animated paperclips.

New and improved, eh?

--

--

--
#nohup cat /dev/dsp > /dev/hda & killall -9 getty

Re:Windows XP (or, yet another eye-candy update!) by MrBogus · 2001-03-25 12:31 · Score: 1

I just ran Minesweeper for the first time in about 7 years, and it seemed exacty the same to me.

--

When I hear the word 'innovation', I reach for my pistol.
Re:Windows XP (or, yet another eye-candy update!) by Elendur · 2001-03-25 11:39 · Score: 1

Actually, the Win2k version of Minesweeper is much nicer than the version in 95 or 98. I haven't tried ME.
Re:Windows XP (or, yet another eye-candy update!) by Elendur · 2001-03-25 13:33 · Score: 1

If you run the win2k and 98 ones side by side you'll see that the 2000 one has numbers and symbols that are much easier to see and recognize quickly.
Re:Windows XP (or, yet another eye-candy update!) by jsburke · 2001-03-25 09:38 · Score: 1

If you use Windows and you haven't noticed any change in the platform since Win95, you haven't tried to run an FTP, mail, or web server, develop transactional, distributed, or component-based software, burn a CD, play a DVD, share an Internet connetion, secure your computer, or do any of a hundred other things Win2k allows you to do. But I guess if you're happy with Minesweeper, that's cool.
Re:Windows XP (or, yet another eye-candy update!) by Ayende+Rahien · 2001-03-25 16:43 · Score: 1

> When the article starts talking about the things that are really important, like stability and speed, the results of their findings are instantly dismissed because it's beta software. Well, um, beta should have a few bugs, granted, but it's not alpha software, where the entire thing crashes at every turn! It should have atleast _some_ stability.

I'm using XP 2296 (when it was called Whistler).
My uptime is 22 days, 18 hours, 44 minutes, 46 seconds.

--

--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?

Re:Mac OS-ish by commodoresloat · 2001-03-25 09:10 · Score: 2

Check out this picture comparing the 2 interfaces. Micros~1 even stole Apple's rubber duckie!!!

Re:KDE 2 is bloated, too by Abreu · 2001-03-25 17:35 · Score: 1

Ok, take out paper and pencil:

1.- Choose Expert Install
2.- Confirm Expert Install
3.- Choose Keyboard, mouse, etc
4.- Then you get to a "Miscellaneous options" screen before going to the DrakX partitioning part.
5.- Here you check on "Use Hard Drive Optimizations", Choose security level (add paranoia to taste) AAAND...
6.- You specify how much memory you got if by any chance the installer cant recognize it.

See, it wasnt that hard...

I would admit that KDE 2 is a bit of a hog, but then again my graphics card is a piece of crap that came embedded to the motherboard (im saving for a motherboard and graphics card upgrade, any suggestions?)

------
C'mon, flame me!

--
No sig for the moment.

Re:Simple thing to add by MrBogus · 2001-03-25 12:24 · Score: 1

If you can get a SMB connection to a NT box, it will happily cough up a list of all the user names and descriptions without any authentication required.

So putting a GUI on it really isn't going to slow down hackers.

--

When I hear the word 'innovation', I reach for my pistol.

Re:Simple thing to add by MrBogus · 2001-03-25 16:23 · Score: 1

IIRC, locking that down was a new feature in NT4 SP4 or something. There's probably very good reasons that it isn't enabled in firewalled environments.

--

When I hear the word 'innovation', I reach for my pistol.

Re:Bloatware extreme by MrBogus · 2001-03-26 06:22 · Score: 1

Actually 286 and even 8086/8 computers were being sold by major vendors like IBM and Compaq until Windows 3 started to get popular in the early 90s.

There was a time when you could see both a 486 and a 8086 on the same price sheet. For DOS programs, the 486 really wasn't that compelling.

--

When I hear the word 'innovation', I reach for my pistol.

I Don't Know by Amigori · 2001-03-25 08:42 · Score: 2

I haven't had a chance to try out XP and I keep reading mixed reviews of it. Currently, I'm running Win2k, BeOS, and OpenBSD and am very impressed with all three. Win2k is the best version of Windows ever, IMO. I find it stable, your milage may vary, fairly easy to use, and all kinds of cool tools to use. BeOS is just very plesant to use. It fast, colorful, user-friendly, and light on the hardware requirements. Most of the programs I use in windows, I have found a comparable solution for Be.

I'm starting to like the BSD's more than Linux cause of the central standards bodies. Sure you can say Linux has Linus, but he represents mainly the kernel. Linux, IMO, is branching in too many directions for me. But hey, a server version isn't an appropriate solution for an embedded system and I need a workstation solution.

Anyways, from reading the CNET article, I will not be upgrading my Win2k partition to XP. I don't like the copyright management crap, the phoning home to MS for verification/updates, the new interface looks too cute for me, the hardware reqs. are way too high (maybe its getting time to upgrade), and its an MS OS.

Amigori

--
"The quality of life is determined by its activites."--Aristotle

Re:Automatic Update is a feature? by pacodelucia · 2001-03-25 11:59 · Score: 1

I think that what should a computer do.. do things automatically with the least human interaction. to make to easier. for humans (im spelling out for you). and that where i think windows is going. the hell with linux that can't even upgrade without a reinstall.

Re:CNET writers on drugs by Grim+Metamoderator · 2001-03-25 08:23 · Score: 1

You're an AC. Why should I bother to tell you anything?

Re:CNET writers on drugs by Grim+Metamoderator · 2001-03-25 09:20 · Score: 1

Yes, I have used Windows 2000, or at least, tried to. The setup program crashed and burned, taking out the Windows 98 partition as well (and not just the partition table -- even after that was repaired, Windows 98 would not boot). So I figured, okay, let's try installing Windows 2000 on a blank machine. The setup program still crashed, but seemed to recover and complete after a reboot. So then I thought I had Windows 2000 up and running, but within ten minutes it began behaving very strangely (for example, message boxes and menus had totally wrong text obviously loaded from the wrong resources). So I can't say I was impressed, other than with Microsoft's ability to create unstable OSs -- a game at which they far exceed anyone else in the business.

Re:CNET writers on drugs by Grim+Metamoderator · 2001-03-25 11:03 · Score: 1

I put the CD in my computer's CDROM drive and ran the setup program on it. I suppose, in the case of a CD from Microsoft, that does qualify as stupid.

Re:CNET writers on drugs by Grim+Metamoderator · 2001-03-25 11:05 · Score: 1

No way. Unless Windows 98 counts as a virus, which I suppose is arguable.

Re:Mac OS-ish by Fervent · 2001-03-25 08:55 · Score: 1

Hehe. That was worth a mod point.

--

- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.

Re:Tell me whether Windows XP is stable and secure by Fervent · 2001-03-25 09:08 · Score: 2

Hopefully it'll be as stable as Win2000 (my Win2000 box is still my box of choice), but I can't help but think with all those new flashy graphic menus...

--

- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.

Re:Bloatware extreme by Fervent · 2001-03-25 09:09 · Score: 2

Not terribly insightful. It's two gigs.

Not to mention that OS X requires 1 gig and the same amount of memory for its default install...

--

- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.

Simple thing to add by Fervent · 2001-03-25 09:17 · Score: 2

Out of curiousity, I wonder if Linux coders could add one feature Win XP is touting: saving sessions completely, and listing each user with their currently running programs and whether or not they have email -- all in one place.

Wouldn't that be the bomb with developers, who could create different versions of their programs and run them not only in separate memory, but different user spaces as well?

--

- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.

Re:Simple thing to add by Fervent · 2001-03-25 21:29 · Score: 2

Why does everything have to be in one place all of the time. Is your house organized like that, having everything in one room?
No, but I'd prefer not having to yell to each of my brothers and sisters, finding out who has the phone if I could help it.
The other main reason is simplicity. I see no security risk in listing other people's (currently stopped) processes, all in one place. Sure, you could do the same thing with multiple utilities (as I'm sure some low-user number Linux heads do -- Goddamn they're out in full force for this article), but most newer users wouldn't have any idea what you're talking about. Telling my mom to "look at the front screen" is a lot easier than saying "change to a virtual terminal, run ps, etc."

--
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.

Re:Mac OS-ish by motek · 2001-03-25 09:24 · Score: 1

I don't know about the duckie, but the 'switch-off' button, the comparison points at...
Well, let me do a quick check, and ... Yes! every remote I own has such a button.

-m-

--
I would like to die like my grandfather did - sleeping. And not screaming in terror, like his passengers.

Mac OS-ish by motek · 2001-03-25 08:11 · Score: 5

I fail to see, how the interface is "Mac OS-ish". Has the use of silly pastel colors been copyrighted by Apple?

-m-

--
I would like to die like my grandfather did - sleeping. And not screaming in terror, like his passengers.

Re:Mac OS-ish by ConsumedByTV · 2001-03-25 10:32 · Score: 1

The duck icon has been part of the mac os login screen as an icon that a user can choose since they put the login prompt in with os 9. This duck icon is built in and a user has to choose it, but its there by apples choice. It does seem kinda funny that a childs consumer culture icon would be some geeks icon.

Fight censors!

--

"Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness." - M
Re:Mac OS-ish by Archanagor · 2001-03-26 04:24 · Score: 1

Ooh.. and I love their completely arbitrary titlebar buttons. Poor choice. What does green do? Maximize? Turn something on? What does Yellow do? Slow the program down? Pause the program? Minimise the window? What does Red do? Stop the program? Close the program? Minimize the program? Hide the program? What if you're colorblind and can't distinguish between the colors? Poor UI design if you ask me.

---

--

The (Hopefully) Great Slashdot Blackout

Re:Remember the big NT4 obstination? by ickyfreak · 2001-03-25 11:11 · Score: 1

ya we still use nt4 at our school (only last week we upgraded to SP6) :)

--

---------------
100% Australian

we asked for it by shokk · 2001-03-25 20:54 · Score: 1

Remember how everyone complained that each successive version of Windows was just a few subtle features and that there were no big interface changes?

Looks like we didn't know what we were asking for. We were expecting Microsoft to get it close to right a second time. Too many wizards give me the chills, so I'll stick with the Win95 interface and hope this goes the way of the channel bar.

--
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."

Re:Automatic Update is a feature? by sulli · 2001-03-25 09:47 · Score: 2

Well, I'm not buying that.

--

sulli
RTFJ.

The entire story was a troll... by Daemosthenes · 2001-03-25 09:00 · Score: 1

Good lord...I look up and see that over half the comments are "Linux is better than Winblows" or "Linux is gonna be hurtin when XP comes out". My friends, it appears that YHBT by this story. In fact, I believe that YHL. Why don't you all just HAND. Or if you don't want that, why don't you all start a flamewar concerning ninjas vs. pancakes; it makes about as much sense as flaming about Linux vs. Windows.

Re:The entire story was a troll... by Daemosthenes · 2001-03-25 09:12 · Score: 1

Nah. I always enjoy using them...it's quite fun sending people scrambling all over the web to figure them out if they don't know already. Sorry if you thought it dumbed down the post (gee, that phrase has been used a lot throughout the thread) but the message remains the same.
Re:The entire story was a troll... by NonSequor · 2001-03-25 10:11 · Score: 1

Oh, you had to get me started on ninjas vs. pancakes. Pancakes are always far more powerful than ninjas. The ninjas see the pancakes (and even before that they smell them) and find them irresistible and eat so many of them that they become morbidly obese thus neutralizing the skills that took them so many years to obtain. I mean, who doesn't love pancakes? No ninja stands a chance against a well prepared stack of pancakes.
Er... Well, y'know. You can't make an omelette without um... destroying a forest. Or something.

--
My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
Re:The entire story was a troll... by ShayAllen · 2001-03-25 10:39 · Score: 1

IMHO, you have just defeated your own argument. The ninjas might have been seduced by the pancakes, but 'twas the pancakes that were eaten. Of course, I am not taking into account "bunny" pancakes, which reproduce very quickly. Many a ninja has been smothered by this formidable foe. It all depends on the situation- the skill of the ninja versus the "order" of pancake.

--
"Who ever heard of a suitcase being dominated by minds from an alien star-system?" -- Philip K. Dick

Re:lol I agree by bv3nut · 2001-03-26 11:42 · Score: 1

I think you might mean the Quick Launch toolbar.

Re:Chessboard anecdote by szap · 2001-03-27 13:00 · Score: 1

Off by one (shift) error: it should be:
2^63 + 2^62 + ... + 2^0
which is 2^64 - 1 =~ 1.8e+19
which is more than what's mentioned in the post up there.

Re:Chessboard anecdote by SpryGuy · 2001-03-26 08:13 · Score: 1

That's what CDR and CDRW are for. And you only back up what you need to... not anything you can just re-install (just backup the settings and datafiles).

An OS Installation of 1Gig doesn't have ANY effect on a *smart* backup procedure. Why backup things that are already backed up on the install CD??

- Spryguy

--

- Spryguy
There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't

Re:lol I agree by SpryGuy · 2001-03-26 09:12 · Score: 1

"The other thing that irritates me is that every program seems to thing it is entitled to have a system tray icon."

WindowsXP lets you manage your system tray. Unused icons in the tray can be hidden, and you can control which ones are hidden or displayed on a per-icon basis. Totally flexible and configurable. It lets you clean up all that crap. Of course, the crap is still running in the background... to totally get rid of it, you have to configure the application itself (or potentially uninstall it).

- Spryguy

--

- Spryguy
There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't

Hmmm... by 2nd+Post! · 2001-03-25 09:50 · Score: 2

But isn't OS X actually 2 OSes and 2 UIs + a whole slew of *stuff*, to XPs OS + UI + stuff?

Apple has the BSD OS, atop which sits their Aqua UI; then there's their Mac Classic virtual OS and the Classic UI, + a bunch of Unix apps, their mail app, IE, and GNU stuff...

Where Microsoft has it's two UIs, Luna and Classic, their one OS (W2k++), + IE, the photo stuff, and their versions of GNU and Unix apps?

I think Mac OS X gets much smaller without the ~350mb of Classic, doesn't it?

Geek dating!

--

GPL Deconstructed

Even better for the Mac crowd =) by 2nd+Post! · 2001-03-25 10:00 · Score: 2

If you're going to learn a new UI in the first place... or need to buy a new PC... though there's still the curse of less software Macs can finally tap into the whole OS/GNU software thing, because of the BSD underpinnings.

As well as the case that for any real Windows software requirements, there's always VirtualPC + W2k, which may still take less resources and outperform a Windows XP install!

Geek dating!

--

GPL Deconstructed

But.. by 2nd+Post! · 2001-03-27 06:21 · Score: 2

With OS X you can actually boot into OS 9, if you so wish.

With W2k, you can't 'boot' into the OS/2, the POSIX, the Win95, Win99, or Dos layers.

In my original post, I was speculating on the fact that you could actually throw out the OS X and keep the OS 9, or throw out the OS 9 and keep the OS X; You can slim down and pare the Mac OS to something much more reasonable, where with XP, 3gb is 3gb, unless you want to pare down to Win2k instead, or Win98 (which isn't technically 'paring')

OS X needs 1.5gb, but ~350 is Classic; that drops it to 1.2gb

From there we can compare that WinXP is still more than twice the size of OS X =)

Geek dating!

--

GPL Deconstructed

Can I sing it now? by NeuroManson · 2001-03-26 05:07 · Score: 1

(sung to 'Blame Canada' from South Park: Bigger, Longer, & Uncut)

Times have changed
PC's are getting worst
When I open my browser
I just want to scream and curse!
Should we blame the hackers?
Or blame cryptology?
Or should we blame the IBM PC?

Heck no! Blame Microsoft!

Blame Microsoft!

With their corporate HQ
And coders chugging lots of Dew

Blame Microsoft!
Blame Microsoft!

Another General Protection Fault
It's Microsoft's fault!

Don't blame me
My favorite is a Mac
If I saw a file extension
Then I'd have a heart attack

And I have Linux
I bought it right off the shelf
But when there's a problem
Tech tells me to fuck myself

Well, Blame Microsoft!

Blame Microsoft!

And their nerdy little boss
Offing him would be no loss

Blame Microsoft!
Blame Microsoft!

It's not even a real OS anyway

I once had an Amiga
The fastest one it's true
It's now a pair of bookends
It's a good thing that I bought two

Should we all blame Commodore?
Should we blame the stores?
Or should we all try blaming ol' Al Gore?

Heck no! Blame Microsoft!

Blame Microsoft!

With their icky old XBox
And their poor excuse for SOCKS

Blame Microsoft!

Shame on Microsoft!

The bugs we must stop
The sales we must top
Blue screens and DOS
Get rid of their boss

We must blame them and whine and cuss
Before they stick us with WindowsXP Plus!

--
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!

Re:Bloatware extreme - Not Quite... Really... by NeuroManson · 2001-03-26 05:21 · Score: 2

Oh you younguns today *snicker*... I've dealt with Windows 2000 AND Windows ME (crap) when they first came out, and had to swat some Linux users with a cluebat when they bitched and moaned about the (then) 600 meg install footprint that both required...

Do you really want to know what the true install footprint of Win2K/WinME is? 300 megs, including media player, IE, etc... About 50-100 megs above that of Win98...

For those saying it's still too large, try installing the full Redhat Server w/Apache and whatnot, you'll note that it's twice the install base...

Now then, since that's out of the way, you're probably wondering (since most *nux bigots never even touched a Windows 2000 system) what that remaining 300 megs (600 w/WinME's rollback feature) is for... Well, ever install something, ANYTHING into your system, new NIC, video card, sound card, etc, and get a 'Please insert your Windows 9x installation disk' prompt? That's because all the drivers/VXDs/DLLs for Win9x were stored, whereas Windows 2000/ME and XP will be dumped to a system directory for future use...

Call it a time saver and a space waster, when it dumps 250 megs of drivers you'll probably never use onto you HD, but it IS nice to not have to constantly remind Windoze where it's own drivers are stored... It would have been much better though, if Windows 2000/ME would have given you the option to delete drivers that you KNOW you don't use, and that you probably won't ever use...

--
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!

About the product activation.... by verbot · 2001-03-25 12:31 · Score: 1

Perhaps someone here knows the answer to this question:

If I had WinXP installed on my machine (activated), and my hard drive were to suddenly die, how would I go about activating a new copy of WinXP? For if I were to install in on a new hard drive, it would still be listed as "already activated" in the Microsoft database. Is it going to be a major hassle proving that this isn't a second computer I'm installing the OS on?

Re:Not silly by BlowCat · 2001-03-25 20:44 · Score: 1

QNX?

Not silly by BlowCat · 2001-03-25 10:37 · Score: 2

if you're going to bash an OS over $15 worth of hardware requirements.... that's just silly...

Well, suppose that the motherboard requires SIMMs. It's not $15. Changing the motherboard is pretty much changing the computer.

By the way, don't forget to count the labor.

Old computers by Halcyon-X · 2001-03-27 14:47 · Score: 1

Or.... old computers could just run older Windows versions!

"Oh, but some older Windows versions don't support USB and other hardware"

Well, neither did your old computer...

"But will older Windows versions still run my Win32 software?"

Well... as far as I know ever since Windows 95 it's pretty much been cross-compatible.

--

.sig: Open Source, Open Mind

Re:CNET writers on drugs by Alioth · 2001-03-25 08:45 · Score: 2

Windows XP promises to be a stable,

Compared to previous Microsoft OSs, maybe, though Windows 2000 may have signaled a change in this trend.

I disagree. I've been using Windows NT 4.0 since it came out and it has proved to be very stable. I use an NT system for software development: high loads, lots of compiling, running lots of beta (and sometime buggy code) on it and NT doesn't crash. I use one system as a server and its uptime is measured in months (the intervals between power outages). Windows NT even has a half decent command line interpreter (although I hate batch files, and use perl or a shell script run under bash instead).

On the other hand, I do love Linux and I'd rather be developing software on a Linux system. (I actually try and make my WinNT system as unix like as possible, because I find I'm more productive that way). Linux is a lot more efficient for a start. At the same time, I recognise NT is a good operating system. OS zealotry is generally not productive, and I have no problem recognising that both Linux and NT are good operating systems.

I'm sure XP will be a good OS too.

--
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows

I'm not getting Windows XP. by AFCArchvile · 2001-03-25 08:36 · Score: 1

I don't care how much they tout the new "features", or how much they try to force us to upgrade; I'm sticking with Windows 2000.

Why? All I need is the 5-word, 25-character product key (and not some hardware-generated code) to install Win2K fresh, and I don't have to deal with a dumbed-down, "Steve Jobs and the Mac Users" interface. Windows 2000 serves me well, and I'm sticking with it. Hell, I don't even know if I want to install service packs anymore.

--
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer

Re:I'm not getting Windows XP. by Ayende+Rahien · 2001-03-25 16:39 · Score: 1

2K & XP are extremely similar to each other.
XP is not even NT6.
If it's going to work on XP, it's likely to work on 2K as well.

--

--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?

Remember the big NT4 obstination? by AFCArchvile · 2001-03-25 10:08 · Score: 1

When Win2K was released, many companies and organizations remained with NT4 for a while (my college is STILL using NT4 all over the place, for example, but the IT head is playing around with Win2K and has built a prototype Win2K workstation already). After much time, organizations finally upgraded, seeing that Win2K was indeed much better at almost everything than NT4 was.

With WinXP, the situation is alike and different at the same time. Sure, they'll miss out on the "new features", but then again, if they stay with NT4/Win2K, all of their machines won't be connecting to Microsoft at random times, thereby saving much network traffic on the intranet. Furthermore, the new GUI would involve having to relearn the entire OS all over again; companies can't afford to waste time just to get their employees to learn a new interface. Also, the automatic updating would be an IT nightmare; what would happen if some hacker uploaded a trojan onto Microsoft's XP update server, and then every XP machine on the planet had a hard-drive erasing, EEPROM flashing virus?

This is why I advocate remaining with Windows 2000, and only upgrading NT4 to Windows 2000. Windows XP is simply full of glitz and promises, signifying nothing.

--
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer

Re:Remember the big NT4 obstination? by AFCArchvile · 2001-03-27 08:23 · Score: 1

Watch out, SP6 is also called "the service pack that broke it all". Hence why they later released SP6a.

--
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
Re:Remember the big NT4 obstination? by Guppy06 · 2001-03-25 11:13 · Score: 1

"what would happen if some hacker uploaded a trojan onto Microsoft's XP update server, and then every XP machine on the planet had a hard-drive erasing, EEPROM flashing virus?"
Cracker, shmacker. Installing NT 4.0 service packs have been known to crash servers (I know, I've done it before. My boss had to re-install Server 4.0 to get the web server up again). Now, I don't know if this same problem happens with 2000 (only one SP so far, anyway) or XP, but that's not a very good track record to go with.
If XP is designed to try to install this stuff automatically over-night or over the weekend, that would be a very ugly situation for an IT manager to come in to on a Monday morning.

Re:CNET writers on drugs by graystar · 2001-03-25 08:32 · Score: 1

I think this sums up the bloatware, logrolling fact :

"In fact, Microsoft says you'll have the best experience only if you buy a brand-new system with XP preinstalled. "

--
-- Cheer, Cheer, The Red and the White.

snore by zandar76 · 2001-03-25 15:09 · Score: 1

Yeah yeah, Microsoft is bad, Linux is good. Microsoft is mean, Linux is nice. Microsoft is buggy software, Linux is perfect software. 500 posts by Linux enthusiasts bashing beta software they haven't used proved that to me.

Some observations by MidnightLog · 2001-03-26 01:02 · Score: 1

Icons along the top let you browse your hard drive, change your view, search your computer, or navigate forward, back, and "up" (that's the only confusing icon in the bunch--it takes you "up" a folder level).

I disagree, "up" is the only intuitive icon in the bunch, it takes you up a folder level, like you would expect. What the hell do "forward" and "back" do? Of course, I think the web page metaphor is a bad fit for file management. OTOH, I think the explorer metaphor popularised in Windows 95 is a good fit. Microsoft's annual interface changes are annoying.

For example, when you click a folder full of music files, you'll see links to publish the entire folder to the Web (using a wizard, of course) and buy music online from WindowsMedia.com. But at this stage--and in the upcoming final version--this feature publishes only to MSN sites or to a local network, not to your own Web or FTP site.

...

The new software plays DVDs and also rips CD audio into well-compressed WMA files (a proprietary format that combines good sound quality with smaller file sizes than MP3).

Anyone up for some "Embrace and extend"?

I don't know if this is a special CNET theme or the standard one, but I can't read half of text in the screenshots (on tabs, in hints, etc). What is up with that?

--

To understand what's right and wrong, the lawyers work in shifts ...

Re:Try QNX RTP by Elendur · 2001-03-25 11:36 · Score: 1

From what I've seen of it, it looks great, but BeOS supports my network card (via-rhine) and my USB mouse. QNX supports neither. Any idea when they plan to get that in there?

Re:Automatic Update is a feature? by marc987 · 2001-03-25 09:19 · Score: 1

Let them eat cake

Re:lol I agree by NonSequor · 2001-03-25 10:03 · Score: 1

No, I can understand. I find it annoying that my family never cleans up their desktops and start menus. I always had to spend a little while every so often getting rid of stuff I didn't need and making things more organized since I always found a start menu which fills the screen hard to navigate. When I do run Windows, I usually delete most of the icons that get added to the desktop. The other thing that irritates me is that every program seems to thing it is entitled to have a system tray icon.

Er... Well, y'know. You can't make an omelette without um... destroying a forest. Or something.

--
My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.

Re:CNET writers on drugs by NonSequor · 2001-03-25 10:28 · Score: 1

Yes, I completely agree. Windows NT4 is definitely as stable as Windows 2000, if not more. I have personally had more BSODs on my home Windows 2000 system compared to my NT4 box at work.
The funny thing about Win2k (just from what I've heard, I haven't used it) is that it seems to vary wildly depending on what hardware its on. Some people say it works very well and is incredibly stable. Others say that it is crap and doesn't work right. I have heard as many good stories as I have bad stories. Maybe it's just that certain drivers aren't as good as others, or maybe it's because the magic that holds Win2k together only works properly under the right conditions.
*Shrug*

Er... Well, y'know. You can't make an omelette without um... destroying a forest. Or something.

--
My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.

OS suckiness can't be discerned by everyone. by Kasreyn · 2001-03-25 20:22 · Score: 1

This is why MS has made it big.

The vast majority of users are what I call "OS blind". This is an affliction where they do not have the mental or perhaps educational tools to tell a useful OS from a worthless bloated toy OS. The end result of color blindness or OS blindness are the same: Microsoft could care less about the minority of users who might be dissatisfied with their product, as long as Joe Sixpack can download from windowsmedia.com and get his email and pr0n.

-Kasreyn

--
Kasreyn: Cheerfully playing the part of Devil's Advocate to hairtrigger /. flamers since 1999.

Redhat?? by NineNine · 2001-03-25 09:28 · Score: 1

I just installed the first CD of RedHat last night, and the install was '999 MB'. That seemed a bit big to me...

can you hear MS plotting to control all your Data? by BroadbandBradley · 2001-03-25 22:11 · Score: 1

seems like the whole focus is to change Windows into a 'terminal' for getting at your data that's being safguarded by MS. now instead of just being compatable as a reason to upgrade your OS, you will need to just pay MS for using and keeping data on file for you.
MS, here are my nuts, please be gentle with them, no wait let go, let go!!! MS has me by the balls and won't let go.
Who will save us? our hero Tux will get a whole slew of new devotees as people strain to get their balls back from MS.
note to those who don't have balls, just imagine that MS has you by the..uh, by the short hairs? no it's a 'got you by the balls' thing, no other way to explain it.

--
"The Most Fun Possible on 4 wheels" is at SunBuggy in Las Vegas

KDE 2 is bloated, too by mike449 · 2001-03-25 10:21 · Score: 1

I installed Mandrake 7.2 recently. It did not recognize my 256Mb at first, and was swapping in 64Mb like crazy. I looked at RAM usage, and X used 73Mb (defauld install).

Re:KDE 2 is bloated, too by Anonymous+Admin · 2001-03-25 10:57 · Score: 1

That 73MB includes your video ram.

Re:Bloatware extreme by silverpelicanfeather · 2001-03-25 09:10 · Score: 1

Ya, but what's the point if the only thing that runs is the OS? I have 8 gig and that's been fine for everything. I am not going to be a customer for this bloatware.

Re:Automatic Update is a feature? by JAVAC+THE+GREAT · 2001-03-25 10:08 · Score: 1

So what's to keep someone from generating a fake Auth Code?
---

--
Know someone who is stealing cable? Report them!

Luna? by nidarus · 2001-03-26 09:29 · Score: 1

Am I the only one to notice it, or did Microsoft adopt Apple's habit of giving names to its interfaces?

I mean, there was Platinum, but was there a name for the "3.11 look"? I don't think so. Now, when the "Aqua" look gets so much hype, Microsoft decided to ride this wave by making their own, similiarly pseudo-latin-named interface that looks like the graphics designer team was twice the size of the programming team.

On the other hand, Microsoft never really knew how to copy stuff (not on the first time, anyway). I mean, "Aqua" really looks like drops of water. "Luna"?. Does it look even remotely like the moon? I mean, heh?

Re:Automatic Update is a feature? by ConsumedByTV · 2001-03-25 14:58 · Score: 1

shut up they might hear you!

Fight censors!

--

"Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness." - M

Re:Bloatware extreme by shyster · 2001-03-26 00:01 · Score: 1

Disable unused services.

Re:Bloatware extreme by shyster · 2001-03-26 00:07 · Score: 1

I do remember the early days of computing. And a $1000 machine then got you lower on the relative hardware slope than a $1000 does today. There's no reason to complain here, folks. If you don't have the hardware and don't want to upgrade, don't run it.

You re not losing out on anything here. It's a technology fact that as hardware power goes up, software requirements and features do as well. You can keep your 286/386/486 and run everything you ever ran on it before. Your 386/16 with 4MB of RAM will do everything just as well as it did in the 80's. You can run MS-DOS 5.0 with DOSShell and play PoliceQuest and Leisure Suit LArry all day long (and, if you want to browse the web, check out Arachne).

Re:Again, it's not bloatware, here's an eye opener by shyster · 2001-03-26 00:12 · Score: 1

This is part of the reason that modern day computers, while being so much faster then ten-year-old computers, don't actually feel or work much faster. And it's one of the reasons that an Amiga user sits down in front of a new computer that is ten to forty times as fast as his Amiga, and then complains that the newer faster computer is so darned slow.

I'll say it again. That's because people are asking their computers to do more. Don't believe me? Compare your PIII-500 with 128MB of RAM running Win2K Pro to your old 386/16 with 4MB of RAM. So, you're PIII feels slower huh? Well, there's an easy fix...

Simply put DOS and WordPerfect on you PIII, and Win2K on your 386. Now which is faster? Oh...but you miss Win2K? You miss Office 2K and Outlook reminding you of shit? Well...guess what, all that crap comes at a price. In this case, it's hardware. Deal with it.

Re:Automatic Update is a feature? by shyster · 2001-03-26 02:34 · Score: 1

So if someone walks off with the payroll checks for a .com Internet startup, it's not really stealing because the checks would have bounced anyway?

IANAL, but I don't think that would be stealing if it was common knowledge that the checks were worthless (besides the paper they were printed on anyway). A check is a negotiable instrument. If there's no money in the account, it's non-negotiable. The only thing gained from taking the checks is the paper they're on.

Re:CNET writers on drugs by shyster · 2001-03-26 02:51 · Score: 1

but it sure beats the hell out of the old DOS based systems

DOS? Unstable? WTF are you talking about? DOS was the most stable OS MS ever produced.

LOL by ljaguar · 2001-03-25 09:22 · Score: 1

This is by far the most funny AYBase joke I ever heard.

More XP Reveiws - networking by Agent137 · 2001-03-25 09:30 · Score: 1

It's about time someone reviewed Windows XP. I have had networking reviews up on my web site, HomeNetHelp.com for a LONG time. Loads of screen shots and how-to's.

Home Networking with Windows XP
http://www.homenethelp.com/web/review/whistler-net work1.asp

Bridging Networks with Windows XP - an article about the new software based network bridge built in.
http://www.homenethelp.com/web/howto/windows-xp-br idge.asp

Re:Give me more! by hammock · 2001-03-25 11:59 · Score: 1

To stop links like this from assaulting you, do the following:

Windows 9x
Add to C:\WINDOWS\HOSTS
127.0.0.1 goatse.cx www.goatse.cx
127.0.0.1 comp-u-geek.net www.comp-u-geek.net

Windows NT/2000
Add to C:\WINNT\SYSTEM32\DRIVERS\ETC\HOSTS
127.0.0.1 goatse.cx www.goatse.cx
127.0.0.1 comp-u-geek.net www.comp-u-geek.net

This redirects the http request to your local machine, making the actual abusive sites unreachable.

icon sizes are hardly set in stone. by loucura! · 2001-03-25 10:10 · Score: 1

Even in Windows (Insert whatever version, blah blah) you can edit the size of your icons through the control panel.

--
Black and grey are both shades of white.

Re:CNET writers on drugs by skt · 2001-03-25 10:19 · Score: 1

Yes, I completely agree. Windows NT4 is definitely as stable as Windows 2000, if not more. I have personally had more BSODs on my home Windows 2000 system compared to my NT4 box at work.

I have been using NT for about two years at work and I am yet to see a BSOD. In those two years, I had one forced reboot and that was when my uptime reached 130 days and the memory leaks caught up with me :( So I really have nothing to complain about regarding Windows NT either, I believe that it is Microsoft's best OS for business.

Windows 2000, however, tends to generate many more BSOD than NT ever did. My home box has died at least three times in the six months it has been up. Even if the cause is buggy drivers, Microsoft is still at fault since they are signing these driver releases now. Hardware manufactures have also had plenty of time to get the bugs worked out of the driver releases, so there is no excuse for a crasher this late in the release.

I have also been trying to make my NT box more unixlike (good information here):

cygwin + vim + netscape + perl + $HOME = a useful windows box!

Re:fp by fmaxwell · 2001-03-25 12:46 · Score: 1

You are such an incredible loser! You seem proud that you are so pathetic that you saw the story before those of us with lives did.

windows is finally fubar by spacewhale · 2001-03-26 00:07 · Score: 1

I'm sorry, but Windows is beyond rescuing. If Micro$oft had any sense at all, they'd rewrite the whole thing and give it a new name. I don't really care though; I dumped M$oft about a year ago. PS as if a lightning strike from Gates, IE (had no choice, I'm at school now) just crashed randomly as I was typing this the first attempt.

--

- "Ford, you're turing into a penguin. Stop it." Go Prefect!

Call me an idiot... by Protohiro · 2001-03-25 08:54 · Score: 1

Just like to point out that OSX final was released yesterday...no sense in caring of course, its all much more interesting to see screen shots of WindowsXP...

---

--

---
"Against stupidity the very god themselves contend in vain" -Johann Schiller

Seems Bill Gates has lost his mind by Husaria · 2001-03-25 09:37 · Score: 1

Tell me, who in their right mind is going to buy a completely new PC for an operating system. Unless MS comes up with some brillant marketing scheme to get people to buy computers as well, XP will be a mere speck on the OS world for the forseeable future. Maybe in two years, XP will be all the rage, but most people aren't going to upgrade their computer for XP.
My computer, which I bought almost a year ago, would meet these requirements, but barely!
I am going to upgrade my computer this winter anyway, but with XP coming out, I might as well anyway, (I don't pay for MS products, because our school gets free MS software for distro)
Another reason why to switch to Linux.

--
Slashdot Hypocrisy at work?

Re:implications... by jsburke · 2001-03-25 09:42 · Score: 1

Um, no. They encrypt the password, so without a lot of effort, nobody between your computer and their mainframe can see it.

What about sanctioned countries? by amirboy2 · 2001-03-25 11:16 · Score: 1

In Iran for example, people have no choice but to use warez versions of Windows if they wish to use windows. This system would lock out whole COUNTRIES of computer users from using Windows. This is a Very Very Good Thing (tm).

--

I like meat helmets.

Re:shut up jew by amirboy2 · 2001-03-25 21:25 · Score: 1

I dont want to get into a racial conflict/war with you but there are MANY computer users in Iran.

Also there is no proof that Iran is in anyway involved in any bombings at Isreal eventhough we despise your racist and illegal country. Isreal would be gone right now if the Isrealis didn't eat out of the US's ass so much.

I also have no idea about which US embassy your are talking about. I guess you've been brainwashed by the media too much. Keep in mind that the worst bombing in US history was done by an American soldier (Oklahama).

Anyways think before you spit out anymore racial slurs. (BTW, i didn't post those anti-semetic comments)

--

I like meat helmets.

Your not racist, just blind by amirboy2 · 2001-03-26 05:55 · Score: 1

Maybe it was my racist imagination when a US vessel shot down an Iranian passenger jet over Iranian waters, killing over 300 innocent people. Or when the US sold Chemical and Biological weapons to Iraq so they can bomb Iranian troops. I hope you know everyday iranian doctors who treated the injured soldiers die of different cancers, and children are born deformed because of the American/German chemical weapons used.

Or in the 1950s when it was Iran's almost only chance at becoming a democratic nation, the CIA paid criminals to start riots so they can send tanks in and call a coup d'etat.

Or when MOSAD sent troops into south africa to teach the "law enforcement" there how to kill the blacks. I guess they had the experience.

You Isrealis think you're so oppressed when its the Arabs that are really dying. Who do you think Osama Bin Laden is good for, the Arabs? wrong. Ask anyone older than 15 and they'll say the guys a CIA funded lunatic. The US is having a hard time going out of the cold war, I guess they always to demonize someone.

Oh and one more point, Iran is an extremely tolerant country. Islam is an extremely tolerant faith. Read your history and you'll see who gave the fleeing jews sanctuary only a couple hundred years ago.

--

I like meat helmets.

Re:Automatic Update is a feature? by Archanagor · 2001-03-26 03:17 · Score: 1

Not only that... But some dialups are notorious for busy signals. It'll make install real painful.

---

--

The (Hopefully) Great Slashdot Blackout

Re:Automatic Update is a feature? by Archanagor · 2001-03-26 03:29 · Score: 1

I wonder .... Does this mean that I will need to buy more copies to run it on more than 1 computer?

Now That SUCKS.

I don't necessarily mind the piracy protection. But I'm damn sure as hell not going to fork over $400 bucks, just to have windows on my laptop and desktop computer.

Oh. And because everyone will have a legal version of the software, will the price finally come down from the statosphere? Most certainly not! They will just have thicker pocket linings. Pricing on software is already out of hand. Now that everyone that can't afford it, but needs it, can't borrow software anymore. It should come down in price.

Ok. Really. I'm not peeved ... :)

This rant has been brought to you by Archanagor

---

--

The (Hopefully) Great Slashdot Blackout

Re:you have moved your chair... by Archanagor · 2001-03-26 03:36 · Score: 1

Reality hurts.

---

--

The (Hopefully) Great Slashdot Blackout

Re:Aaaargh! You guys are so fucking stupid! by selomon_of_levi · 2001-03-26 04:11 · Score: 1

MS's _ENTIRE_ tcp/ip stack is from BSD, install Win for Workgroups 3.x and read the tcp/ip related Helps and docs and find out yerself. I dunno if it still is, I never used the net until the Win95 betas that my mom's friend had installed on her then-new PI 166/80mb box that I'm on right now (no the betas aren't still here, I'm do have winblows 98 tho...).

--
my Karma ran over my Dogma

Chessboard anecdote by nicestepauthor · 2001-03-25 23:43 · Score: 1

I remember reading a story about the man who invented Chess asking for a reward from the caliph. He wanted one grain of wheat to be put on the first square of the board, 2 on the second, 4 on the third, 8 on the fourth, 16 on the fifth, etc. doubling each time. By the time you reach the 64th square you need more grains of wheat than there are atoms in the Universe.

And for those enlightened souls who point out that disk space is cheap, you still have to do backups on a regular basis. Backup media like Zip disks are still expensive.

I'm happy to keep my Pentium with 64 mb of RAM (upgraded from 32) and 8 gigs of disk space (upgraded from 2). Heck, I still have my 486 running Linux with under a gig of disk, 20 mb of RAM, and it is a useable desktop.

One, Two, Three, Infinity by nicestepauthor · 2001-03-26 03:50 · Score: 1

The anecdote was from a book I read as a kid. Title was "One, Two, Three, Infinity" and George Gamow was the author. Details are from my memory, which is obviously faulty. Still after 64 iterations the total is a hell of a large number.

One gig of disk space for an OS with no applications is ridiculous. At this rate if we ever do build a computer as powerful as HAL 9000 we'll need it just to run the latest version of office.

Windows eXtra Profit by The_Dougster · 2001-03-25 10:33 · Score: 1

For Great Justice!

All your Windows are belong to us!

Ha ha!

--
Clickety Click ...

Re:Automatic Update is a feature? by mazor · 2001-03-25 15:29 · Score: 1

So if someone walks off with the payroll checks for a .com Internet startup, it's not really stealing because the checks would have bounced anyway?

-mazor

Re:Automatic Update is a feature? by mazor · 2001-03-25 15:33 · Score: 1

When you call MS to get an auth code, your machine spits out a machine key that you read to the MS operator on the phone. They generate an auth code using the machine key you provide. They are cryptographically related. If you give MS a fake machine key, the auth code you get back won't work. If you fake the auth code, it won't match the machine key of your machine. It's kind of like challenge-response handshakes in secure logins, only done manually.

-mazor

128 megs of RAM by JohnnyKnoxville · 2001-03-25 08:35 · Score: 2

to bring you a blue screen in record time.

Re:Automatic Update is a feature? by snoop_chili_dog · 2001-03-25 11:38 · Score: 1

Consoles don't sell games. Games sell consoles. It's the same way with operating systems. MS doesn't make that much money off of their OS. Remember when the courts decided people could ask for a refund on windows if it was included out of the factory. How much was that? 50 cents? They make their money off Word, Excel, etc. They don't care if you steal the OS. It just means you might buy their software.

--
But Yogi, the RIAA won't like that.

There's only one true multimedia-friendly OS... by badfish2 · 2001-03-25 08:39 · Score: 1

and it's BeOs.

--
"On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog!" - a dog

Targetting a narrower market? by Balinares · 2001-03-26 00:51 · Score: 1

Now, that's actually an interesting marketing move. If they manage to keep the bloatware to a minimum, and if it keeps its promises (which is a big 'if', granted), XP should make Joe Newbie very happy. Fine with me as well, if I no longer have to spend days debugging my momma's computer.

The Net integration and MS Passport stuff might be a problem for non-Windows users -- MS's goal is to decommoditize protocols and apps, as they themselves state. But then -- those might not be protocols and apps we need. Hopefully. The whole integration and dumbing down thing could even turn the average tweaking user (gamer, or simply computer knowledgeable user) away from XP.

And that could be open source OSes such as Linux's chance. Linux, FreeBSD and their kin just don't compete in the same league. There is a big market for dumbed-down OSes, definitely. There is also a distinct market for tweakable and fun-to-use (which is different from easy-to-use!) OSes. And the distinction between those two specific markets is becoming much clearer with MS's last move; by moving away from the compromise between tweakability and easiness of use that Win9x was, MS might open an empty spot for, well, something else to fill.

In an hypothetical future, beginners and the vast market of people who don't want to be bothered with technical stuff will use XP. Excellent. More knowledgeable users will prefer one of the 'easy' Linux distros (Mandrake and the like). Hardcore users will always go on doing hardcore things, Linux-from-scratch and stuff, no matter how hypothetical the future. :)

Well -- what a nice utopia it would be. Cute, stupid OS for people who want just that, some free Unix-like for the average desktop user, with, hopefully, minimum open-source-provided interoperability between the two worlds. Too nice to be true, and not likely to happen that easily. But well, we can dream, can't we? :)

--

-- B.
This sig does in fact not have the property it claims not to have.

Just more typical microsloth by bobthebat · 2001-03-25 09:55 · Score: 1

my god, that there is even any discussion over whether microsoft is a monopoly boggles the mind. of course they want you to buy it preinstalled, heck at most electronics/computer stores, you cant even buy a computer without winblows er.. i mean windows preinstalled. oh and look, they have a built in dv editor, what, a year after apple released imovie? microsoft tries to make their software smarter than their users, and it ends up getting in the way, and sucking. blech.

WMA smaller than MP3 ?! by rdpate · 2001-03-25 21:41 · Score: 1

The new software plays DVDs and also rips CD audio into well-compressed WMA files (a proprietary format that combines good sound quality with smaller file sizes than MP3). --http://www.cnet.com/software/0-429669-8-5194258- 4.html

Excuse me? WMA is (possibly encoded*) MP3 with copy-protection information. Windows Media Player, at least the one that came on this WinME paperweight, didn't specify many options (such as bitrate/sound quality) when encoding. I was surprised, since every encoder I've used before has given a plethora of options. So I looked at the files it saves--and they're ~2k bigger than the same songs as 96kbit MP3 files. (Since then I have found the option to change sound quality, 96kbit is the default setting for WMP.) Because it is a static amount for each file, I've come to the conclusion that WMA IS MP3 (possibly encoded*), with added bytes so the lawful owner of the CD--me--who has the rights to make and play these files, suddenly is subject to what Microsoft's software would like to allow.

In short, MP3 will always be smaller than WMA, unless it is of better sound quality. Of course, its trivial to re-encode an MP3 file to a lower quality (even though not many programs are out there to do it--in most cases, why would you want to?).

*I don't have that verified, just my opinion or something I think I might have read.

well, it is a MS product by BlueboyX · 2001-03-25 08:21 · Score: 1

They said that it was based off of windows2000... wouldn't that imply that it has simailar stability and security issues?