Posted by
ryuzaki0
on from the blue-screens-everywhere dept.
Imran wrote: "CNET has an in-depth review of Windows XP's second beta release, with focus on performance, stability, and the new Mac OS-ish interface. Lots of screenshots, too."
Re:Shutting down - foulup central.
by
ajv
·
· 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
Much better review out there, see link below
by
Zico
·
· 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.)
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.
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.
Why would an operating system need 3 gigs of hd space and 128 megs ram minimum!? That is insane. You need to build a system to use the os, rather than getting an os to use a system.
I admit the hd requirement is probably for their goback feature, which can proabably be reduced if necessary (the gateway goback program has an option to reduce or enlarge the size of the database, limiting or increasing the extent to which you can 'goback' to).
But why is everything else so nasty that even ms admits that it will only work good preinstalled on a new computer?
My only explanation is that they made this bloatware in order to get people to pay extra for an outrageously powerful system, since right now most people are either happy with what they have or are paying $450 for a low-end (only 450 Mhz!) Gateway...
--
"Never, never suspect the dreams within the dreams of dreaming children."
~The Amazon Quartet
Slashdot Mirror
Both Pro and Per allow other users to take control of your desktop using Remote Desktop Connection. This uses RDP, just as TermSrv does
Both Pro and Per use the TermSrv's multiple winstations to have multiple users logged on at once. I've installed software as administrator in one session and read e-mail and surfed the web in another.
The hotkey to go between users and the replacement for SAS is very nice too: Win-L. This allows me to go to the toilet in safety with many fewer keystrokes than before, and even beats the good ol' xlock for non-rodent use.
In addition, NT has always had impersonation. This allows software to run as something else. This is like a more granular version of seteuid(), but nicer and more granular. Most people didn't know about it because it's mainly for programmers. For example, the Server process impersonates you when you connect through ipc$ 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
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,
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.
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
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.
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.
Why would an operating system need 3 gigs of hd space and 128 megs ram minimum!? That is insane. You need to build a system to use the os, rather than getting an os to use a system. I admit the hd requirement is probably for their goback feature, which can proabably be reduced if necessary (the gateway goback program has an option to reduce or enlarge the size of the database, limiting or increasing the extent to which you can 'goback' to). But why is everything else so nasty that even ms admits that it will only work good preinstalled on a new computer? My only explanation is that they made this bloatware in order to get people to pay extra for an outrageously powerful system, since right now most people are either happy with what they have or are paying $450 for a low-end (only 450 Mhz!) Gateway...
"Never, never suspect the dreams within the dreams of dreaming children." ~The Amazon Quartet