Slashdot Mirror
Windows Vista RC1 Complete
alienfluid writes to mention that RC1 of Windows Vista is now complete. This 'nearly complete' version of the operating system is already available to beta testers, and will be available to everyone else soon. From the article: "You'll notice a lot of improvements since Beta 2. We've made some UI adjustments, added more device drivers, and enhanced performance. We're not done yet, however -- quality will continue to improve. We'll keep plugging away on application compatibility, as well as fit and finish, until RTM. If you are an ISV, RC1 is the build you should use for certifying your application."
DOOOoooooo DEEEEeeeee DAAAAaaaa Ting
Oh Crap, sorry forgot to turn the volume down.
liqbase
"Bad touch! Bad touch!"
If Microsoft knows that there is more work to do, why call it a release candidate?
This 'nearly complete' version of the operating system is already available to beta testers, and will be available to everyone else soon.
They're making a release candidate available to everyone, or was this just the submitter being imprecise?
How can something "nearly complete" be a candidate for release? Unless they are considering releasing THAT BUILD, it's not a true RC.
One useless "I moved to Linux, HAHA!" post down, 499 to go.
Every one of us was a former Windows user, and had a copy of Windows 2000 or XP which they planned to run under Parallels for connectivity to our company system, but not one of them cared a fig for Vista, and nobody intended to run any kind of Windows natively with BootCamp.
I predict this will be Microsoft's biggest flop ever. You heard it here first.
-ccm
Too much Law; not enough Order.
It's been nearly two weeks since a security patch has been released for Vista Beta. I think we have a winner. A few weeks of clear sailing and this sucker's ready for Gold. I predict all will be quiet on the security front until the Holiday season, when all our high-end fancy new computers come online with nice, shiny new Vistas.
And when I say "our" computers I trust you know exactly what I mean.
On several occasions at Atari, a producer would try to slip in an Alpha-Beta-GoldRelease-Omega build candidate to get their performance bonus even though the title was four months behind schedule. Go figure.
One soul saved, 4999999999 to go.
factor 966971: 966971
And it still has the ridiculus mandatory driver signing, forcing freeware/open source developers to shell out $500 for a certificate if they want to make drivers that work on x64. All for their precious trusted computing. Wouldn't want those evil x64 criminals installing drivers to rip hd-dvds would they?
"This 'nearly complete' version of the operating system...will be available to everyone else soon."
At Microsoft, this can only mean one thing:
"Ship it!!!!"
Redundant? If it's the same version that was released earlier this week, it would be redundant. If not the same version, maybe Jim Allchin is looking at a new Mac OS X "Leopard" build and mistaking it for Windows Vista?
Trackhead, point out on the doll where Vista touched you. . .
In the wallet, of course. M$ is going to waste $6.2 billion promoting what's looking more and more like XP SP3, super digital restriction. While I won't directly pay for that, many will. Schools, government and everyone not bright enough to use free software will pay. They will pass that cost along as taxes and higher prices. As Steve Baller likes to say, the upfront cost of software are just the beginning and all of the tremendous inefficiencies of Windoze will also be passed along in higher prices and poorer service. I don't even want to think of the costs to the economy that comes from Microsoft's inability to design a network safe OS are. All of the above easily adds up to multiples of M$'s annual net revenue.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
"We'll keep plugging away on application compatibility"
Read: We're constructing dirty hacks into our newly written clean code so we don't upset our partners. This of course will cause the same side effects as with our previous versions, but hey... it looks better !!!!
It's newer. The build number is higher.
"You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean."
"It is nice to know that the computer understands the problem. But I would like to understand it too." --Eugene Wigner
I didn't say anything about it being better.
But since you brought it up, I'd like to say that YES, it is much better. Why? Because we have a strong community that cares about the direction the product goes, not just PUSH IT ON EVERYONE.
P.S. - I'm not a fanboy. I'm just happy I don't have to go down the MS road anymore. Apple/Mac can kiss my ass, as well.
Where I've worked, what Microsoft is calling a "beta" or "release candidate" would be considered an alpha release. Beta releases are supposed to be feature complete, but in need of testing and debugging.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
As a Microsoft partner for IPv6 Jumpstart, we installed Vista RC1 on multiple machines this morning. Vista is Microsoft's "IPv6 Optimized" desktop system while XP is "IPv6 Capable" of limited operations. We immediately noticed one important change. IE doesn't crash every 2 minutes! Previously, we had to install Firefox administer to run our IP surveillance cameras, security system, and building automation sensor system because the java web interface constantly crashed the browser in Vista Beta 1 and 2.
"As for the future, your task is not to foresee it, but to enable it." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery
The subscription model is in tatters.
If you recall, it was around this time a couple of years ago that we started hearing about the subscription model and Software Assurance. This was supposed to make life easier for everyone by giving Microsoft a continuous stream of money and receiving from them a continuous stream of the latest and greatest. But Vista, which was promised within the contract period of software assurance, is still months away, and corporations have basically thrown away money for no upgrade. From what I've read, Software Assurance was a bit of a flop because people didn't like the idea of paying money and not necessarily receiving anything in return.
I've started to get a little curious about your other question. Who on earth is going to buy the upgrade when it's painfully expensive (looks like $200-300), and there are darn few computers for sale today that can run it?
if you visit Dell's web site (and if you do you're a major masochist, sadly - it's terrible), the cheapest notebook computer(*) that's "vista capable" is $969 after discounts. They are still selling $499 notebooks, which are obviously badly underspecified for Vista.
What happens when Vista is introduced? Is this the death of the $499 notebook?
Okay, notebooks are expensive. They are selling sub-$300 desktops. What's the cheapest desktop that can run Vista? If you take the 1GB ram requirement seriously, it's the high-end Dimension E310, at $748. They are clearly doing their best to cheap out this system; it includes a 15" flat panel monitor, a species that I thought was virtually obsolete. And yet it's still more than double what their cheapest system costs.
Now, I guess you can run "Vista Basic" on low-end systems, but Microsoft has given me the impression that this is the option for wimps and masochists (those that have not yet been suitably satisfied by Dell's web site).
I remember that when Windows95 came out, all systems available in the stores on introduction night(**) were more or less capable of running it, and had been for some time. this seems to be the first version of Windows that truly requires all-new hardware just to function at a minimal level.
So what's going on here? Does anyone know the reason they decided on a system with such ghastly requirements?
D
(*) If I were a REAL masochist, I would have gone to all the sites (home & home office, small and mid-sized business and large business, and priced every one of them. However, sadly I am not that mean to myself just to make a point on Slashdot. I stuck to Home & Home Office. You know, it's almost worth the extra $100 a Macbook costs to see a clear web page that shows you their only price and makes it dead simple to buy stuff.
(**) Ah, the days when we felt something like enthusiasm for Microsoft's products!
"Is this pre-RC1 that just came out earlier this week or is there another version coming out?"
Pre-RC1 (aka. August CTP) is build 5536. RC1 is build 5600.
Carpe Cerevisi - Seize the Beer
500 useless posts on the wall ;)
500 useless posts,
Mod one down to the ground
499 useless posts on the wall..
Actually, if you read the pages while you're going to download the ISO, it's not quite RC yet. They specifically call it pre RC, which is just a way of saying "This is still beta, but we don't want to say that, we need to restore some faith, so this is the almost RC version. Thank you."
The sadness does not hide the truth.
PS: That is what part of the alphabet would look like if the letters "Q" and "R" were removed.
From the email invitation:
"Thank you for participating in the Windows Vista Beta 2 Customer Preview Program (CPP). Your help is playing a critical role in improving the overall quality of what we believe is one of the most important OS advances in the history of PC computing. As a participant in the Beta 2 CPP, you will be able to download Windows Vista Release Candidate 1 (RC1) as soon as it becomes available.
In the mean time, we are inviting a limited number of CPP participants to help test a pre-RC1 build. Your timely feedback on this build will help us improve the quality of the final RC1 release that will be available to millions of customers in the coming weeks."
That reminds me of when I was working at Actiontec and I'd be working on authoring a hybrid "Gold Master" release to go off to the duplicator for 100,000 copies, and then marketing would come down the hall and have some text changes and image changes 5 minutes before the FedEx guy was going to show up, 60 minutes before FedEx closed. I'd then have to manually insert these files (then rework CVS from the changes they had me put into the tree I had checked out), and this was "Golden Master R2". So, somebody would literally be waiting with a car ready to speed off to the nearest FedEx center to hand-deliver the CD to them for shipping. Then Marketing would come back and say "SHIT! We forgot something blatantly obvious that was decided 30 minutes ago between me and another clueless top-dog suits!! I'd have to author hybrid CD Golden Master R3 and upload the ISO to them, and they'd be finished downloading it before they even received Golden Master R2 from over-night FedEx. But an ISO wasn't enough, they also needed 5 copies of Golden Master R3 over-nighted too. Then the project would be put on hold for 2 months because of a hardware issue, which would give everybody time to slip in more fixes for the "New Golden Master", and the cycle would repeat. I tried to explain the principle of the release canidate, but they wouldn't hear it. Snafu, I tell you. I sure don't miss those days.
Excerpt from running "dict vista":
In the groves of their academy, at the end of every
vista, you see nothing but the gallows. --Burke.
[1913 Webster]
The shattered tower which now forms a vista from his
window. --Sir W. Scott.
[1913 Webster]
Rather fitting images for something screwing its users with WGA, DRM, etc.
I've been using the "Pre-RC1" build since the invites went out last week. I'm typing this post on a Vaio VGN-SZ220/B which is running Vista. The build is immensely improved since beta 2; performance and compatibility are leaps ahead of B2, the taskbar actually works, bundled drivers and DX10 are usable out of the box for playing WoW and HL2. So... nicer looking than XP, better out of box compatibility, significant UI improvements, even a better (flatter) filesystem layout. Web browser, mail, media, simple word processing, simple games, calendaring, etc. etc. are included. Except for the office applications, Vista (as shipped in sort-of-almost-RC1) does everything that Ubuntu does with the default install, and is coming closer to OS X. Why is it that if Microsoft ships anything but a bare OS, they're ridiculed for shipping bloatware, while Apple and every Linux distro on the planet can get away with bundling out the wazoo?
I'm far from a MS fanboy, as the mini and Slackware boxes on my desk attest to, but if they make a significant improvement to their OS, I think the last thing they deserve is ridicule and derision. I also think statements like "I for one don't plan on giving Microsoft more money for their software until they release an OS that is totally useful and original." are just a reflection of the blind anti-MS zealotry that's too common here. You've just asked for a software panacea, and one that uses none of the metaphors and conventions that make desktop operating systems accessible to average users. Why not just ask them to prove the existence of God while you're at it? Sorry about the rant, but, Jesus, sometimes this place is like Michael Moore making a film about Bill Gates.
Arr! The laws of physics be a harsh mistress!
Pull your heads out of your asses and sell OS-X for generic PCs. You could clean up at $300/copy. Virtually no marginal cost. It'll replace the iPod revenues you're losing because everyone who wants one, has one. But nooOOOooo. You're so hell bent on emulating the losing business model followed by Sun. Oh, please... what do we have to do? Fly out there, slap you in the face and put smelling salts under your noses? The gorilla has eaten a bad bannanna. He's down. He won't stay down forever. You'll look back on this, and you'll never forgive yourselves for not having kicked him while he's down, cuz you know he's gonna get back up.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
The last time I installed Ubuntsu on my Vaio Type U, suspend to RAM did not work at all. Furthermore, I found out that in order to use hibernation, I have to download the source code of Software Suspend 2, apply patches to the kernel source and recompile the kernel, which is quite ridiculous to demand from a user of a desktop OS. After the installation of the software, I found out that the performance of it is not as good as the hibernation function of Windows XP. Suspend to ram/disk is such a basic functionality, and I just could not believe that nobody figured out how to make it work without problems. Moreover, I had to struggle with configuration files for two days to make my Bluetooth adapter work. I was sick of XP and almost ready to switch to Linux, but these experiences really turned me off.
Linux seems to be an excellent server OS and the dedication of volunteers working on it is quite admirable, but, as a desktop OS, it is simply not in the same league as Windows XP and Mac OS X.
When Vista releases I'll be putting it on my computer at work. Might even stick the RC on there, we'll see. After I've validated all our apps, and had sufficient time I feel it's ready (month or two probably) I'll roll it out to the first of our labs. The rest will follow in a couple months. I expect to have Vista on 200 or so lab machines fairly soon after it's release.
I realise that you may think you and 6 friends are a statistically significant sample, but you actually aren't.
My prediction on Vista is let's wait and see. Seems ot me most of those predicting it'll flop are doing so because they WANT it to flop, not because they've any real valid reason to believe it will.
Despite your perception, it does have many things going for it. One is simply that OEMs are going to switch and start shipping it. However these is legit reasons for people to be excited. Game devs are just going bonkers over DX10. Epic has already declared that while UT2007 will run just fine on DX9, you'll need 10 for all the features to work.
So ask yourself: Are your predicting failure because you have a real reason, or because you hate MS?
The last time I installed Ubuntsu on my Vaio Type U, suspend to RAM did not work at all. ... Suspend to ram/disk is such a basic functionality, and I just could not believe that nobody figured out how to make it work without problems. Moreover, I had to struggle with configuration files for two days to make my Bluetooth adapter work.
Those are not Linux problems, they are Sony problems. Sony, obviously, knows how to make their hardware work which is why those things sort of work under Windoze. I say sort of because XP is neither stable nor network safe, so nothing Sony does for it will last long. It would be nice of Sony to put their effort where the market is moving or at least to give out the information needed for others to make drivers. What you really should ask is why it's possible to buy that computer with Windoze but not with any of the much less expensive alternatives. That's right, the anti-trust violations M$ was busted for years ago.
The best way to move the market and please yourself is to buy stuff that works. It takes research effort up front but you will recoup that many times over the life of the machine. More importantly, you send the only message markets understand: money. I'll research the specific model before I buy. The easiest research is to take a live CD to the store. If it runs and things work, I might buy the machine. Anything else is a gamble.
I've been happy with used thinkpads. I've gotten them from Certified Used and Local Stores. Power management works well with all of them with nothing more than Debian right out of the box. The machine I'm writing this on has a good 66 days of uptime under Etch and I booted it last only because I wanted to use it's optical drive to install to another hard drive. Sarge just never goes down. Anything from a PII with 256 MB and better is usable for normal everyday use, though I've migrated to 1 GHz class processors. All I miss are software related to video editing and accelerated graphics which are all patented and NDA'd to hell.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Thats fine, except that the intel version of OSX only supports a limited amount of PC hardware. OSX does not have drivers for motherboard chipsets on which apple does not currently bundle their OS with. If they released it now, it's likely they'd get a whole lot of pissed off customers, especially ones running AMD systems where it would likely crash during setup. To develop their OS to work on the vast amount of hardware that is out there, or convince IHV's to develop drivers, would cost Apple a hell of a lot of money and force them to make changes to their development cycle.
It's not just motherboard chipsets but also support for things such as sound cards, network cards, IDE controllers, etc that would need to be developed.
Don't get me wrong, OSX is a fantastic OS! But, it has a long ways to go in terms of hardware support and Windows is way ahead on that front. To catch up with Microsoft, would cost Apple a LOT of money and as a matter of fact, the OS would suffer from similar instability issues that have plagued windows for a very long time.
Try another distro. I tried a few, and SUSE was the only one that detected and worked with the wireless (using WPA-PSK right "out of the box", compared to the horror that is Ubuntu) and audio on my laptop. It also uses KDE, which I prefer, and suspend/hibernate works fine.
Maybe I've had unusually bad experiences with it, and maybe my dislike of Gnome makes me biased, but I don't understand the popularity of Ubuntu. I certainly wouldn't introduce anyone to Linux using it. Besides SUSE, I've also used MEPIS on some systems...its LiveCD works well, though it doesn't boot with WPA-PSK ready.
Can anyone explain how Vista will flop given such low computer literacy? To those not yet opposed to DRM consider the following quote:
Help oppose DRM by signing up at http://defectivebydesign.org/.
There are still many /.ers not opposed to DRM and yet who are unfairly flamed when in fact they need further education. In particular, learn more about ethics. Reflect on the long struggles to gain your freedoms and rights and how easily they are being snatched away from you (think of a boiling frog http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog).
The astroturfing on blogs like /. is worse than ever. So many corporate shills appear that an "Astroturf" moderation category for /. is long overdue.
Methinks such comparisons are not so black and white.
How about this one:
Most of the complaints against Vista that I've seen were along the lines of:
1) Vista doesn't appear to do much more than XP. Why should I buy it?
2) I'm worried Vista will run slower on my existing computer.
3) Why can't I just skip a cycle, and get Windows 2010 when it comes out?
An OS is not like a car. It doesn't wear out. You don't have to replace the brakes after 60,000 kilometers. If a new iteration of operating system does not improve on the old in the eyes of Joe User, why shouldn't (s)he have the option of sticking with what (s)he is already using?
I was unsure at the time whethor you were astroturfing or just whoring. I took a stab in the dark. I guess I was wrong, and it's the latter. Then again, maybe you're just a moron.