Slashdot Mirror
Early Testers Say Vista RC1 Not Ready
digihome writes "A number of partners and analysts who have downloaded Vista RC1 say the code is solid but they are not convinced it will be ready for release this fall. A Directions on Microsoft analyst said, 'I would call this at best a Beta Three and not a Release Candidate One.'"
release canditate unsuitable for release? microsoft!
Always back up, never back down. ---- Think you're cool 'cos your uid is prime? Take mine, modulo the one digit integers
how can it be not ready? they're always keeping a tight schedule that never falls behind. Duke Nukem anyone?
(Futurama) Fry: "My folks were always on me to groom myself and wear underpants. What am I, the pope?"
I'm getting really tired of people predicting how vista or anything will do based on anecdotal evidence.
Everyone that disagrees with me is a paid shill
I never understood this MS terminology. From my point of view a Release Candidate is in a shape that I could just recompile the software without the debugging symbols if no major bugs are reported. No one considers this to be even a remote possibility in case of Vista RC1. My guess is that they will also need a RC2, RC3 and maybe even RC4 and than a RRC1 (real Release Candidate) before shipping.
There is way too much bloat and way too little pro-consumer changes in Vista.
I for one am jumping ship. I haven't decided whether to switch to Linux or OSX (I'm a professional web developer, and the GIMP and VIM just don't cut it), but I will NOT be installing Vista!
Lose Weight and Feel Great with Isagenix
I hope they learned that all this would have been avoided if they would have thought up and designed each feature one at a time in order of importance instead of all at once then hoping the whole mess works together and is secure. It sounds slower in theory but in practice, they've spent probably like 10x longer fixing all the new features and making them work together than it took them to write them in the first place.
now stop reading and go play Dance Dance Revolution!
Seriously, is this really news? We all know Vista is going to be a mess until SP1.
All in all, this looks a lot like OS X's role-out. People really didn't start mass migrating to that OS until 2 years after it's release.
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
Who really gives a shit anyway? I don't.
My experience with RC1 has been mixed. Do I think it's light years ahead of the disaster that was Beta2? Yes, absolutely. It's stable enough to use as an everyday operating system. Is it ready for showtime? Eh. Perhaps. Is it what we have waited six years for? Heck, no. Where are all the interesting bits gone?
The more interesting question is that of nomenclature. I agree that this is Beta3 - but more because an RC everywhere else is something that is ready to go, it just needs spit and polish to get it ready, fix a couple of bugs. Then again, this is what Microsoft is telling people to test their applications against to check for breakages, so yes, I suppose you could call it a "Certification Beta" or what have you. But call it what you may, I think it's the Ultimate version, with all the games, and goodies, that needs more time. Enterprise-wise, it looks stable enough for use - networking is better than XP (even though it's a new stack), group policy has been better fine tuned, UAC is usable enough, and hardware detection is light-years ahead of XP. All of those basic things are ready and if thats what enterprise customers are expected to get, then I think it's good to go, after they fix the occaisonal dialog box with three different fonts.
I just wish there was something truly innovative to encourage an upgrade. Halo 2 doesn't count, especially for business!
Just kidding, the DRM schemes pretty much prevent you from actually doing anything worthwhile with Vista. So, I guess Vista is actually just Windows for Warehouses 2.0 - a product nobody wants, only the dim-witted or ignorant actually buy, and that Microsoft should just flush.
Customers to Microsoft: We don't want no stinkin DRM in Windows. I, for one, would rather use Linux.
how long does it take to recompile windows vista? and how many error messages does it spit out? in my experience in trying to customize parts of the linux kernal, it can only be developer hell.
RC1 performing poorly? Worse than XP? Actually, it does sound quite ready for a release.
RELEASE THE HOUNDS!!!! - Mr. Burns
...and let your users do the Beta testing. Not picking specifically on MS, but isn't that what many software publishers do now?
What if the Hokey Pokey really is what it's all about?
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
If MS hadn't been promising it for so long, it wouldn't be such a disappointment. IE7 is finally out, put it on a client's laptop, and it doesn't look that bad. I haven't seen it do anything terrible yet, but now that I've been using FF, I'm not really excited about the look and feel of it at all. I'll probably have the same 'oh, it looks a bit crayola-ish' reaction to Vista too. Oh well, as long as MS is trying to keep up with the rest of the world, all can't be bad.
Seriously though, all the people that are trying to predict this or that, call it good, or denounce it already.. well, all I have to say to that is wait for Vista SP2 before you make up your mind. That's when all the bugs will be worked out, and by then, two or more Linux distros will be better than Vista. By then, many more people will have figured out that the OpenOffice apps are good enough for what they want, and the little lightbulb in their heads will turn on and they will realize that a computer doesn't need MS products to be useful or relevant.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
True enough, but then again, people will claim the final release not to be sufficiently tested, either. Not that I will be using Vista nor am I a Vista fan (I run Linux exclusively for my own reasons), but people should realize that almost no software released today is free of bugs and exploits. For a codebase that large, I think Microsoft deserves some credit for keeping it as well as they have... while still maintaining legacy compatibility! Not that I am saying they are right for letting it grow so big, they should cut off legacy support in exchange for codebase reliability and the chance to regain their name around the "poweruser" group by removing old exploits, etc, etc. Basically not be bloated, as people claim. Maybe in their next release they will be able to start on a clean slate and have RCs that people don't complain about. Props MS for getting this far. Lets see how it sells. The name Vista/Longhorn have been floating for years... so they can't blame publicity if it isnt a hit :)
As we all know, Vista will have many key upgrades since there are
many important features that will be added after the launch as time passes. (such as Monad)
With only part of the 'features available' at launch, vista is far from 'complete'.
Let's see if it is ready after the final release AND when most of the stuff is complete and has been
properly integrated into Vista.
I would like to see how that new OS works then.
It's right here: http://malfy.org/
Solid crap? or solid gold?
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
It's safe to say that this is the most disputed release of any operating system made by Microsoft. The software giant has not had huge delays prior to this release and therefore it had not yet stressed out a pre-Vista product like it is doing it now.
Microsoft loses whatever they do from now on. If they delay the product even further, share holders will complain and people will lose faith in them. If they release it too soon (i.e. as currently planned), it is likely going to require significant upgrades and probably also a super fast SP1 upgrade. That too will make people upset and techies will have to upgrade computers over and over again.
I am a Windows XP user and I must say that I am satisfied with this product as it is right now. I am not going to upgrade to Vista before we see the first, second and third wave of reactions.
Full Tilt
Where I understand your frustration is that individual media outlets tend to grab evidence that sells papers. Slashdot editors maybe happier reporting this, than the rejected story I submitted yesterday about the future directions on Windows. So yeah, I'm tired of people predicting that it will or won't work. But Microsoft gathers that very anecdotal evidence and understands what needs to be fixed and what doesn't! :)
Based on my experience with Microsoft products (which dates to the early days of DOS) they are never quite ready for the production environment until SP1. To judge based on an RC1 is just silly. At home I have already upgraded to a Linux environment and will not need to throw money at Vista. In the office I will be holding off until SP1 before I even start testing our production software on Vista. It is not worth my time or money to go through the hassle of making a Release Candidate my primary OS (which is what is truly needed to shake the bugs out). I don't forsee even considering a switch until January '08, and that is if they release close to schedule.
No animals were harmed in the making of this sig.
Well, there was that one puppy, but he is all better now.
...I mean, heck, with an MS operating system, "ready" is something like SP2. (joking. mostly.)
Someone who doesn't like Vista and is thinking of switching to Linux or a Mac? I've never heard that one before....
I think the RC nomenclature for Microsoft is when they have something that they can give to ISVs and say, here test your software against this. They've certainly been saying that for Vista, and before that, IIRC, Office 2003.
MS has the luxury of pushing this one out the door on their time schedule unless their is some huge penalty for not doing so. Which I don't see. Investors are happy, PHB's are happy.
Any organization fool enough to buy into their free upgrade license scheme will simply blame it on IT underlings as a bad decision -if- the issue ever came up.
PC manufacturers won't have a great year, but since when does that bother a monopoly?
With that said, I think the more practical solution is to flush another couple million dollars in advertising to compensate for the bad product. The hyperbole machine takes over and every PC mag declares it the best evar!
Good news for me because I'll have another cluster fsck of an OS to babysit here at the office.
Otherwise, Move along nothing to see here.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
and i have some complaints
... remove this or at least give it a "off switch"
first off i have a BSOD problem if I try to logon to my VPN connection
2nd the stupid startup sound
3rd the new UI...is more annoying than helpful... all in all using vista is less effiecent than using XP
the UAC then is still too intrusive.
actually I am happy to see you, however that is in fact a banana in my pocket.
Technically on the previous build, but the problems remained in the following one. ATI did finally release drivers to fix the worst of it. In their press release they say "ATI's latest drivers . . . improve on the leading stability and performance found in previous versions". Now, I will admit they perform better than NVIDIA's, but I don't count failure to resume from suspend as very stable. :-)
I downloaded and installed vista to use its media center functions with my xbox 360. It seems pretty stable to me. Altough it is very very very bloated.
This isn't a beta; this is a release candidate. Despite the feedback from beta testers who wanted a Beta 3 or at least an RC2, Microsoft has released RC1 and already forked an RTM branch off of it. It's full-steam ahead with this thing.
"Sufferin' succotash."
The performance is closer to Windows XP if you factor out the still awful sidebar. In some areas it equals XP's performance, in other areas it still lags a bit behind. Compatability isn't much of an issue either at this point. Honestly, compatability wise, considering the changes under the hood, the changeover to Vista should be a lot smoother than when everyone started transitioning over to Windows 2000 several years back.
The reason why Vista is definitely *not* ready for release though, is the overall design of the OS itself. Vista has no unified feel to its design, and certain key changes from Windows xp feel more cumbersome(or at the very least awkward to get adjusted to).
Vista really does highlight the differences in design philosophy that went into it versus Mac OS X. While technology implementation wise the two OS's are rather similar in what they can offer the user, OS X goes to great pains to offer a unified and relatively easy to use design. Vista, on the other hand, feels exactly the way it was designed: done in pieces by various different groups then pieced together.
The short of it is the core of Vista, baring a few more bug fixes and performance improvements, is certainly there. But, Vista right now is like that unassembled bike you got as a kid for Christmas. All the parts are there but you can't quite get it fitted together right.
In my honest opinion Vista needs about 3 more months and one more major release to get the final kinks out of the system performance and bug wise, but then it needs another 6 months of heavy and pure public beta use and feedback to get the interface and design unified into a user friendly operating system. As it stands right now, I think performance and bug wise Vista should be pretty much ok by the time the consumer release hits in January, but it is going to be far more cumbersome and even less intuitive to use than Windows XP is on release.
You are who you are, let no one tell you different. But, never close your mind to a new point of view.
So, I'm thinking most non-windows folks are having a good chuckle right now because I know I've had little thumbnail previews of everything in KDE for going on 3+ years at least on a sleepy old 1GHZ laptop too.
In the Mac world, I seem to recall that working in -early- OSX versions.
And when longwait releases, vista B.S. eye candy like this will be advertised everywhere as teh newest features with MS*NIX security too!
Staying on the MS crack pipe means more work for me....
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
>Insert comment containing anti-Microsoft propaganda and praises open source software. Throwing in a Mac or Ubuntu ad should help to. Also, this line should contain praises for Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds to ensure that the comment earns the ever-envied +5 Insightful score.
What a cruel thing to say!! Am I really the only one who develops using VIM? Sure, I also use Eclipse, Xcode and the likes but the combination of VIM, Make, Bash, Cscope and &Co. is by no means a flop as a development environment as far as I am concerned. I'd go mad weeding through large sized source trees without Cscope.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Windows has always been late and bashed all over before its release, but somehow people always staunchly defend that same version when a new version nears.
The government can't save you.
If I understand correctly Microsoft is releasing its beta binary only, so how could any of these 'analysts' know whether or not the code is 'solid'?
This is being promoted by Microsoft as a Release Candidate 1. By stamping this a Release Candidate product, the product team is saying "We believe this product is completely finished, polished, optimized, bug free, and ready for mass production. Unless you, our fearless users, discover something, THIS is the product we mass-produce and distribute by the millions."
Except for the inconvenient fact that everyone who has seen it knows that's simply nonsense. In reality, this is a late alpha (unoptimized, feature incomplete, substantial bugs remain) or at best an early beta (feature complete, largely optimized, some bugs remain), but based on reports calling this a Beta is being generous. But to call it a release candidate is absurd. No way! Seriously, we're STILL hearing reports of features being removed from the product.
1) How is it better than WinXP? I mean other than the even-more-childish themes. 2) More importantly, how is it better than Ubuntu, which I switched to a few months ago?
Has a Red Hat, Suse, Debian build ever come out bug free. Hard to say since so many of the packages that you can install via apt or whatever are not really associated. If apache has a bug it's apache's fault, not Windows.
This is a major disadvantage, but also a major advantage that both Windows and Mac to some extent share.
With any software you have to get it out the door. It'll never be perfect, and no matter how long they wait there will be an SP1 fairly soon.
To me what RC1 means is that nothing big and fancy is going to get ADDED. What you see if pretty much what you get. If a major flaw is found they might rearrange a piece of functionality, but most things are going to be bug fixes.
While in Beta they might completely take something out. In RC you probably are not going to get away with it, although you migth "delay" something to SP1 like Microsoft did with database mirroring in SQL 2005 in order to get it out the door.
As much as I hate patching, I'd rather get it out in the field and get some use out of it. Early adopters will get hit the hardest, but that is what they expect. Dell and the other manufactors will be the ones finding most of the bugs from now on anyways.
Seriously, were we expecting them to fix anything? Honestly the security alone is still completely busted, the graphics are the only draw, wait is this a 360 game? (I love the 360 but I see a couple graphics over substance there).
Then again Microsoft has always done a couple Release candidates, but even so from the sound of it there's still more then enough security holes to last the IT industry years of work before Microsoft's next failure in Operating systems. It's one thing to try to imitate OSX, but they ignore the core of OSX's beauty, a *NIX backbone that has been constantly worked on, and any user can improve it. Just releasing a version of Windows with a better but more hardware dependant front end, do we really need a OS that is double the Hardware recommendation as the predecessor? Then we have Microsoft trying to force users to upgrade to it to get DirectX 10 for their gaming needs which ends up hurting their position. Besides which most gaming companies will not ignore the fact that those who still use XP can't use DirectX 10, either they will allow legacy compatibility, or they will just continue to use 9.3c.
Personally I will not upgrade til long after the abnormally high price drop, and long after DirectX 10 is out and has been engineered to work on XP as well either through public demand or hackers who see the need.
Good bait catches fine fish.
There are thumbnails in Windows XP, though just for pictures and videos (some document previews are also visible in the side pane).
RC means just what it says: A candidate ready for release. In fact a couple times RC1 and final have been the same thing, because no problems were found in RC1.
This time they are just lying. It's Beta 3 but they don't want to call it that since people are so discontent with how behind schedule they are.
Look at what Apple has been able to accomplish by mixing the code and culture of thir own system with that of NeXT and with that of the FOSS community. Eighty-six million lines of code from all of these sources comprise their marvelous operating system, a great success that continues improving across the board.
When will Microsoft, with all its economic power and marketing prowess, realize that they need to take the plunge and go open source? When will they realize that by mixing all of their software with lots of stuff from the FOSS community, they can grow the functionality of their software by orders of magnitude while increasing its stability?
As if this is a newsflash. I don't consider this to be relivant. Someone always feels every operating system isn't ready. If we all went by this then nothing would ever be released. RC1 looks good by my accounting. A few more bug fixes and it's good to go. If you don't like windows then choose another OS.
... that one of the guys quoted says he installed it on a Mac with Bootcamp. Running a beta OS with a beta boot manager?
``If they release it too soon (i.e. as currently planned), it is likely going to require significant upgrades and probably also a super fast SP1 upgrade.''
This wouldn't be so bad if they hadn't been trying to shake their reputation for buggy, unstable, and insecure software. However, they _are_ trying to shake that reputation, and therefore Vista must be solid from the get go. This, and the fact that they probably underestimated the effort of re-creating their OS, is probably why they have no choice but to delay and drop features.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
You yourself admit it's a third-party plugin that has problems. Maybe it's a bug in Microsoft's own API impelmentation and DivX uses it as it should be used... but it could also be just as likely (if not moreso) that DivX might have cut corners and not followed the API as Microsoft designed it. That may have worked fine in XP but Vista might handle the API differently enough that the hacks no longer work. You can't know who's fault it is for sure unless you disassemble everything and take a look at it in assembly code. I'm guessing you haven't done this, so until you do or read something by someone who has, please don't assume it's Microsoft's fault and go on a bashing spree.
On a related note, imo DivX codec sucks, I installed it once and then every time I played a DivX video it chugged away, and popped up a TRAY ICON. Why does a codec need a TRAY ICON. What's worse is when Picasa indexed my videos and DivX slowed it's indexing down to a crawl while it's icon constantly poked in and out of my system tray. I'll stick to whatever superior codec [url=http://www.mplayerhq.hu/design7/news.html]mpl ayer[/url] ships with (probably XviD).
Aug 1996 NT4
Dec 1999 NT5.0
Oct 2001 NT5.1
Dec 2006 NT5.5
Most disputed release? What about Windows ME?
the more they over-think the plumbing the easier it is to stop up the pipe
Well good thing it's shipping in January then! That gives them 2-3 more months to work on it!
"This isn't a beta; this is a release candidate. Despite the feedback from beta testers who wanted a Beta 3 or at least an RC2, Microsoft has released RC1 and already forked an RTM branch off of it. It's full-steam ahead with this thing."
Let's keep in mind that this is the company that survived after releasing Bob and Windows ME.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
since most of the new features of vista seem to be either eye-candy, or not THAT difficult to recreate, does anybody know whether there's any way to make XP 'feel like' vista? not only backgrounds and color schemes, but stuff like the panels and all that? some explorer.exe replacement?
somewhere a dog bit a man.
If so, then how many more Betas do you think they need?
Past a certain point they'd better start working on Vista 128-Bit Edition.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Exactly. Microsoft nearly had a beta-tester revolt on their hands with Windows ME.
What's the link on the future direction of windows? Sounds like an interesting read.
How to use coral cache: http://slashdot.org.nyud.net:8090/~oscartheduck
regsvr32 /u shmedia.dll
Start/Run and voilà all those crappy media preview stuff is gone while image thumbnailing still works.
It's better to let that COMponent uninstall itself than to hack around in the registry yourself.
I predicted that Windows ME will be a disaster and that the consumer successor based on NT would be the better replacement.
I predicted that I would stop using future Windows products if the NT successor (XP) required activation.
I predict that Vista upon release will be an abomination for the average end user and it won't get fixed until the first service pack where backwards compatability and user experience will take center stage. With that, you're looking at 2008 for a successful release date of a usable product - that is if Microsoft will allow licenses of XP to be sold until then.
Your local big box computer store will be the ones to suffer as they won't be able to swap an HP laptop with Vista for an iBook running Leopard that will also run Windows apps natively.
if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
Thinking about all the pain you describe just makes me want to put on a black turtleneck, grab people by the shoulders, and tell them "For God's sake, life is too short! Get a Mac!"
"Sufferin' succotash."
...it's not as bad as Windows ME. Anyone remember that disaster of an OS?
Heh... I guess I should reload the page before posting when I've been AFK for a while, since someone else said the same thing... but it is true.
~Philly
it's not easy to keep up. here is a cheat sheet I use when ignoring krapware from un-trustworthy vendors
Useless crap release=RC1
generally useless crap release=RC2
Can now run most viruses=RC3
Fully ownable by 1st year CS students=Vista
"I would call this at best a Beta Three and not a Release Candidate One."
Why not? In Microsoft world, "Final Release v" = "Release Candidate v" for v=1,2. "Version 3" = "Final Beta".
--
make install -not war
Does a zero-valued read-only file in place stop the offending noise?
Er..... some bible quote to do with a final empire? It is way over my head. Care to enlighten me?
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
all in all using vista is less effiecent than using XP
... use XP.
Seriously, why does everybody have to use the newest piece of every damn software package? Just use what works, and get on with your lives. Do you people "upgrade" your car every model year, too? Jesus...
Actually, thumbnails of open document files show up like previews of images here. Same with some powerpoint files. I'm guessing that's installed with OpenOffice, though.
'I would call this at best a Beta Three and not a Release Candidate One
.NET 3.0 and other new API systems are finalized for syntax, so developers can start testing new products against the OS and not have to worry about API changes.
.NET 3.0 APIs were changing on a monthy basis up until July, as you will notice that there were .NET3.0/WinFX releases each month, with the APIs for the developers changing. And that is just ONE new API subsystem of Vista.
Ok, why is this a RC and not a Beta? Well in the MS world since about 1992 that I can personally 'testify' to, a product makes the RC milestone when it is feature complete from a DEVELOPER standpoint.
This means that the product is feature complete and 99% of the OS bits and all the APIs are how they will be in the final release.
Why was Beta2-Pre-RC1 NOT a RC. Simple, from a developer's standpoint the OS was not feature complete.
RC1 is the FIRST release that that
Sure things will be optimized, and this will be polished, but this IS A RC solely based on the definition that MS has used FOR YEARS. It is feature complete for developers...
(So aside from all the Joke at MS and other FUD, this is technically a RC, and even though it is not a 'finished' polished product, it is the first feature complete versions, especially from the API standpoint.)
This is NO different than they did with Win2k RC1 which was actually less stable than Vista RC1, but AGAIN it was API feature complete for developers, hence why it was called a RC and not a Beta, just as this release.
As for proof of this, look at the Win2k Beta history, or even lookt that Vista Beta History, the
So once again repeat,"This is a RC, this is a RC because it is API and Developer complete."
PERIOD.
It killed my machine, anyway ...
"Cats like plain crisps"
Apple user trying to install Vista on MacBook:
... that was impressive," said Ken Winell, principal of ExpertCollab, a Microsoft solution provider in Florham Park, N.J. "On a Dual Core Centrino machine, Vista RC1 seems to have improved performancewise, however, it still seems slower than WinXP."
"I tried to install Vista RC1 onto a MacBook with Bootcamp and do the upgrade. It all worked except for a couple of Apple drivers
Does Vista have to run on Apple hardware to be considered "ready"?
--
How is this a problem for non-Enterprise users:
"One Microsoft analyst suggested the code is in good shape but he is not convinced that Vista Enterprise will be ready for volume licensed customers in November."
--
Someone who cares about tablet (lack of) functionality:
"There are still major concerns about hardware and software interoperability, including the inability to get the tablet functionality working correctly,"
Show stopper? I think not?
--
In other words, Vista should be ready if you are NOT an Apple, tablet, or Enterprise user, unless of course you are tired of being treated as a guinea pig.
The real question should be, "When (not if) Vista's bugs are ironed out, is it worth upgrading to Vista if Windows XP is still an option for a lesser price (assuming of course you want to stick to MS)?"
The real final of a MS OS isn't tagged RC1 but SP1.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The price is a little high (okay, a lot high). That, and the lack of compelling new features, means that most individuals won't feel the need to run out and drop several hundred bucks. People will "upgrade" to Vista when they buy a new computer and it comes pre-installed - the same way they upgraded from 9x to XP. That has worked for Microsoft in the past. The big question in Redmond is: When will the big IT contractors and consultants start pushing Vista to their corporate customers? Those guys are getting more and more conservative. I work in an organization that uses Windows 2000. It took quite a while to get all the bugs worked out and now it basically functions and nobody really wants to mess with it. At our last IT planning meeting (read "contractor sales pitch") the lead contractor never mentioned the word Vista.
I'm a software visionary. I don't code.
Must upgrade to Maximum Bloatware(tm) NOW.
Apple obviously puts a lot of thought into how stuff fits together on their desktop, and their laptop just freaking works with everything. Wireless? No problem! Connecting to the Internet through my bluetooth enabled cellphone? No problem! Naturally the iPod works like a charm. Those media-rich web pages that I don't tend to browse on my Linux (or Windows) machines? No problem! Back in the day you could configure Linux to handle more file formats than Windows was capable of, but all that stuff just seems to work out of the box with Apple. It's an impressive experience and whenever anyone asks me what machine to buy, I tell them they should go for an Apple.
That's not to say I've got a love affair with Apple going on. My big desktop machine is Linux and will remain so for the foreseeable future. I also still do most of my non-web development work with Linux. I use the Apple laptop for a lot of experimental ruby on rails stuff. It's got all my favorite UNIX utilities on it, too. Ever try to get all your favorite UNIX utilities on Windows? Sure you can use Cygwin but that always feels hackish at best.
Of all the operating desktop environments I've used over the years, OSX feels like the nicest. I was using it pretty much the minute I had the laptop out of the box. Naturally your mileage may vary.
All that being said, my room mate has a Mac mini for some media work she does but she still prefers her windows PC for most things. It's possible that if you're only used to the one environment nothing else will do. I've used so many desktop environments over the years that the transitions don't feel so awkward anymore. And there are still things in the latest version of Windows that have been bugging me since 3.0 days (And which OS/2 happily copied.) I don't expect those to change when Vista comes out.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
"Windoze" and "M$" in the same post! Good stuff, but you forgot to mention the BSOD and MS Bob.
read about paul thurrott's x64 report for rc10 2.asp
http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/winvista_rc1_
Welcome to Hell: Software compatibility and Vista x64
You think you're tough? Then try running Windows Vista in x64 mode: It can make a grown man wail like a little girl whose brother just catapulted Barbie over the fence. What's insidious about it is that the first impressions are deceptively good: After installing the thing in under 30 minutes and watching it recognize every single piece of hardware connected to my PC, I started installing applications thinking that this, finally, might be the time to move fully to x64 on my desktop machine.
Big mistake. Applications like Microsoft Office work just fine on the x64 versions of Windows Vista, but almost nothing else does. Adobe Photoshop won't install at all, citing an unspecified compatibility issue. Ditto for Virtual PC 2004. And AnyDVD. And Nero. And iTunes.
Yikes.
Then there are the applications that install just fine but silently fail in different ways when running. The Flickr Uploader application is a good example: This one installs as you'd expect. But when you right-click an image file to upload it, there's no Send to Flickr option in the pop-up menu. The reason is simple: Shell extensions for 32-bit applications won't work in x64 Windows versions. So applications like WinZip and WinRAR will have similar issues.
Quite quickly, it became obvious that x64 was going to be a nonstarter for me. So I wiped out the install and reinstalled the 32-bit version. And now, everything works. I'm so glad that only lasted half a day. Learn from my mistakes and just skip x64 unless you really know what you're doing. Or maybe you just hate yourself.
It seems that they'll need to get it out a bit rushed, however it turns out. Here's the problem. If they take too long to get it out (i.e. Longhorn), then by then consumers will expect lots of new features, or it'll be obviously inferior. So they have to go back and spend their time on the new features, instead of polishing what they had and releasing it. This could happen over and over if they weren't careful, and they're not making money off it until it's out in the market.
Solution: get it into the market, crud or not, and polish it as they go. I'm all for them releasing it sooner, even if it's not perfect. Until they do release it, they're not even on the playing field for next-gen UI.
Toward the end of its life, a Microsoft OS becomes fairly reliable and stable.
This is bad, because people might decide it's worth sticking with indefinitely.
Therefore, themasses must be goaded into upgrading to a shiny! new! OS which is a 1.0.0 release at best and will require umpteen more rounds of patching.
This is, of course, accomplished by EOLing past versions, and pointing out that oh, by the way, the latest batch of 43 security vulnerabilities has been in every version since Windows 3.11 and will only be fixed in this shiny! new! version.
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
From http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/linux/docs/HOWTO/Advoca cy
If they release it too soon (i.e. as currently planned), it is likely going to require significant upgrades and probably also a super fast SP1 upgrade.
Well that sounds like a brilliant idea. How many times do you hear people say "I'm not installing that until SP1 is out!"
Might be the best way to enforce rapid worldwide adoption of the OS.
I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
Thumbnailing in Explorer windows has been around since the first release of IE4, back in 1997. It's not a new feature to Windows.
In the Mac world, I seem to recall that working in -early- OSX versions.
And it was frighteningly buggy in them, as well. Particularly dealing with "different" codecs like DivX and friends.
Compiz is still early in development (buggy and hard to install) and undergoing constant changes, but it finally makes Linux look competitive on the desktop. Without Compiz, Linux is the blandest of 3, even though you can easily modify themes, it doesn't help much. With it, it looks better than OS X. It even works on 5 year old video cards (unlike Vista). I hope in 6-12 months, Compiz will be stable enough to be default in major distributions.
. avi
Linkz:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compiz
http://www.freedesktop.org/~davidr/xgl-demo1.xvid
http://www.youtube.com/v/DUSn-jBA3CE
http://compiz.blogspot.com/
It seems that from what they're saying, "RC" or "release candidate" is used to describe Microsoft software that is barely feature complete, and slow/buggy.
Feature complete, but still with known serious bugs is not worth of being called a "release candidate" in my opinion - this is what BETA software usually is.
"release candidate" should be used to describe software that has few known serious issues (it's called a "release candidate" because unless someone reports a serious showstopper, it actually *becomes* the release). Is it any wonder then, that the eventual released software is usually slow and buggy? That they're calling this sort of software a "release candidate" is a bit of an insight into just how unimportant shipping a quality piece of software is to the company.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Say what you want to about mac, but every one I ever had the sound worked perfectly out of the box, the screen res was perfect, anything I plugged into it didn't need any tweaking to make it run, and etc. Every time, every one. Always worked as advertised.
Now, I use linux now, but pretty much have to always try and fix something, no matter what distro or what version-something is always not quite ready for primetime. Last years distro sound worked well, but now the printer is fucked, or whatever. It never ends and is no better than it was 5 years ago, if anything worse because it is so much more fragmented and complex. It's the never ending shinier beta operating system. Ya, it's free or cheap..that's about it. Servers-fine, desktop-please....even the best out there are sub beta.
It won't change either, because it is little creep ego driven. "Me, too, mommy!" operating systems. No professional cohesion to it. And any attempts at it by professional companies get hooted at by the fanboys and they get accused of "selling out" by the same little creepy fanboys.
Windows, no idea, the few times I have been forced to use it, (and even DOS way back) it made me want to go wash my hands all the time. For real, it's just a dirty little half baked ill designed OS no matter how improved they say it is. That it got so popular is an indicator of how criminal business is rewarded around the world and how gullible most people are.
Why don't I use Mac now? Steve Jobs and Apple are rich enough and decided to go to the creepy little ego driven way of running an operating system and they simply refuse to get real on prices. Then they steal and give not much back with code. Thieves and creeps-bleech. I'll pass. Linux to me is the lesser of evils, it's not great, just the least sucky all things considered. The more they get rid of dinosaur Unix cruft the better.(this is 2006, there is no longer any need whatsoever for shared libraries and all the problems they cause. We have fast enough processors, plenty of RAM and hard drives are huge, and you have the ability to only update the diffs, no need to swap out all the code. That is Unix cruft from 20 years ago, get rid of it please)
There needs to be another revolution in computers and operating systems, but darn if I can think of how to go about it, just not anything like it is now. If I knew I would do it, I admit it is not my forte, I am just a consumer, but I know enough "consuming" to know that hardly anyone anymore is really satisfied with computing, it seemed to reach a zenith a few years ago and is now de-evolving backwards again. Perhaps really take a look at the "computers as appliances" angle again, pick the modules you want, they all run a secure embedded system, and slap them together to make the computer you want for what you need to do. It's *almost* there with just buying a bare mobo and working your way up, but still not quite. It needs even more reliable and secure plug together modules. Peripheals all need their own embedded OS, they should "just work" all by themselves and/or in conjunction with other modules. Better standards so any module can talk to another module, with permission. Along those lines. USB and Bluetooth are sort of the idea, but it needs to be taken way beyond that.
Dammit, twitter. Every time I stumble on one of your posts, it's like an icepick in my ear.
Typos aside, that's the one fair statement in the whole post. Microsoft has monopoly power, so there's nowhere to go but down.
Ah, typical twitter logic. "Hmm, I want to get my software on 90% of desktops in the world. I'm not building it for that nasty, tricksy Windowses. If I make it cross-platform, somebody might run it on Windows anyway. I know! I'll write it for Linux, then wait for 90% of the desktops in the world to convert! And if anybody asks for a Windows version, I'll tell them to fuck off! Then they'll convert to Linux for sure!"
Oh, bloody hell. I fell into a decade-long coma again? The first time, The Police broke up. Now Linux has conquered the desktop and Microsoft went Chapter 11, and they're just building keyboards and mice for Sun?! At least my hairstyle is back in fashion again.
Of course, the only reason you picked that quote from the parent post in the first place was because somewhere, deep down, you recognized yourself in it.
This sig intentionally left blank.
Microsoft just actually released an SP2B for XP. Not SP3, but SP2B reduces the number of updates after the initial install.
2 E16832116059 o ws-xp-sp2b-makes.html
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N8
http://labnol.blogspot.com/2006/07/microsoft-wind
Dammit, twitter. Every time I stumble on one of your posts, it's like an icepick in my ear.
Truth hurts? Sorry, most people don't have that problem. Microsoft is a shrinking legacy. Talk to IBM, Lowe's, Chrysler or any of the many big companies tired of wasting money on software that does not work. One day, the message will get past all the built up wax down those ears of yours, but I'm not sure there's anything left on the other side.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
No, just the cognitive dissonance of how someone who, by all evidence, knows Linux well can allow their primitive, reactive hindbrain to lash out at every post about Microsoft with such aggression and hatred.
This sig intentionally left blank.
Geez, mate, no offence -- but you are *so* boring.
Have you ever realised that saying that "everyone" has done something, when in fact only a small proportion of people have done something, doesn't make it true?
Or that you wouldn't have people following you around calling you out on your bullshit if you didn't TALK such a load of BS?
By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
I love the new Remote Desktop in Vista. Beats the XP one hands down. Working remotely I couldn't stand the pain of not having the cleartype. In Vista, Cleartype and even Aero work over the remote desktop (you have to do Vista to Vista remote desktop to experience Aero). Now isn't that cool? My remote experience is so close to local that it's easy to forget that at times.
The only area where XP is still preferable to Vista is device drivers. RC1 is better than Beta 2 in that respect, but still not acceptable. In fact the only reason I'm not running Vista full time is drivers. I couldn't make any of my sound cards work (SB Audigy & Intel HD Audio). ATI TV Wonder doesn't work either. That pretty much leaves my home PC audioless and videoless under Vista.
I did not HAVE "DOS and Win3.1 stuff", I had been using Linux on my first PC (4M RAM) for 18 months. Win95 absolutely, positively sucked. It did not shut down properly. The file system was an ugly kludge. The mem protection was good on paper, the thing crashed all the time.
My sound card and ethernet card used ISA, and were not plug-and-pray. During the period of PnP getting more popular it was more hassle than it was worth - instead of making things easier it COMPLICATED things.
Win95 did not have good parallel port support or good floppy support. SCSI support was abysmal, the machine usually crashed half way between burning CDs. I had to use cdrecord under Linux (and my drive did not support DAO writing at the time).
What else... oh I know! Win95 had the habit of fucking up partition tables if it encountered partitions with unknown signatures (Amiga ones, for example).
It was hell. Win95 had no redeeming qualities.
'Once scientists, even the dim-witted social scientists, get muzzled, the Western Civilization is finished.' - oldhack
Why do you think the installation procedure important? No one ever installs windows except when something goes totaly wrong, and even then the installation is easier because all the proprietary drivers are usually present on the restore disk.
You must not have many friends, and you're probably an extremely annoying person to be around. I'm basing this assumption on the fact that you're repeating yourself in ridiculous excess, and also, you use the term "FUD" in all seriousness. Please, remove yourself from the gene pool, Mr Super-annoying-MS-fanboy-nerd! PERIOD.
Difference is that Vista is a replacement for their current product. When someone wants to buy an OS from MS, Vista is the thing they will get. Now, with ME and Bob, difference was that they weren't the only choice. Bob was released alongside other MS OS'es. Users could use something else than Bob. ME was a replacement for consumer-Windows, but users still had Windows NT/W2K as an alternative. With Vista, the only alternative to Vista is a different version of Vista, and nothing else. Well, the user could just stick to their current OS, but that's hardly an ideal solution for MS.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
"Microsoft has always rushed it. No new version of Windows has ever been ready for primetime."
And how is that different from any other OS company?
Mac OS 7.0 sucked. It took 7.1 to make it viable.
Mac OS 8.0 sucked. It took 8.1 to make it usable.
Mac OSX 10.0 sucked. OSX wasn't good until OSX 10.2.
And Linux is no better on that score, so save it.
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
Hmm, the release of Vista isn't ready? At least it should go well with Firefox 2.0.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Wow a poorly written, bloviating rant from an anonymous post... And yet with nothing to refute a fact or ad a fact. What is the word, oh ya, trolling...
How original.
You'd think that any reasonably powerful computer being made less than half a year before the release of Vista would be "Vista ready". That's right up there with TVs that are "Xbox (360) ready". I even saw an ad for jeans that are designed to hold iPods (they have pockets!) What's next, a cake that's "birthday candle" ready?
"When the atomic bomb goes off there's devastation...but when the atomic bong goes off there's celebraaaaation!"
At least educate yourself on the proper usage of FUD.
Microsoft could stamp their logo on a soggy bag of fermented doggy doo-doo and the lusers would still queue-up a line six blocks long to buy it.
*sigh*
Regards;
I thought that was the point of a beta. Alpha "This looks good", Beta "This is how it'll be, but we need to iron the bugs out", and RC "I think we've ironed out the bugs now!"
Seriously, if I label something RC, it means I think it's done, and it's only because I've labelled things "done" in the past, only to find out that everyone and their uncle uncovered new and exciting bugs.
Ok, why is this a RC and not a Beta? Well in the MS world since about 1992 that I can personally 'testify' to, a product makes the RC milestone when it is feature complete from a DEVELOPER standpoint.
So RC is no longer an acronym for "release candidate," since by MS's newspeak definition RCs are not candidates under consideration for release? In other news MS has decided HTML no longer stands for Hyper Text Markup Language, but now means "stuff you see in explorer" and MS has declared themselves fully compliant with this new definition and their marketing department is now claiming 100% accurate HTML rendering.
I don't care how long MS has been using marketing terms to try to call a chicken a goose. If it is not a candidate for release, it shouldn't be called an RC.
"I am a Windows XP user and I must say that I am satisfied with this product as it is right now. I am not going to upgrade to Vista before we see the first, second and third wave of reactions."
This seems to be the reaction of most knowledgeable industry insiders. My question is, if everyone is going to wait, who is going to test this product out? Laughable...
Opinion:=TMyOpinion.Create(Me);
thought that was the point of a beta. Alpha "This looks good", Beta "This is how it'll be, but we need to iron the bugs out", and RC "I think we've ironed out the bugs now!"
Seriously, if I label something RC, it means I think it's done, and it's only because I've labelled things "done" in the past, only to find out that everyone and their uncle uncovered new and exciting bugs.
This may be true in the company you work in, or with other betas you may have been involved in.
However, I can attest that RC does NOT mean it is Release Quality, it is usually a 'developer' milestone for software and HARDWARE vendors to position themselves behind.
This has been true of EVERY MS Beta I know of since 1990, and also products from other companies like from Corel to Adobe to even Apple that I have been a beta tester in.
MS has made this VERY clear in their press releases, as they have with all their previous OS and Application Betas that also hit RC status. If you think it means RELEASE COMPLETE, then people are either misleading you or you are just not paying attention.
Vista RC1 doesn't even have all the 'visuals' or 'sounds' that will be in the RTM, it doesn't even pretend to be a RELEASE QUALITY or FEATURE COMPLETE from an end user's standpoint build.
Just like Win2K, RC1 was the time software and hardware developers put effort into ensure compatibility and driver availability, just as you will see with Vista RC1.
This is not news, nor MS trying to pull a fast one, this is as standard as it gets. Truly...
"Difference is that Vista is a replacement for their current product. When someone wants to buy an OS from MS, Vista is the thing they will get."
I think it's premature and inaccurate to predict the disappearance of the Server products or even XP.
There are more installed copies of Windows XP right now, than there had ever been copies of all other desktop OS's put together before XP. (I'm not sure which embedded system currently has the overall title for that.)
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
So RC is no longer an acronym for "release candidate," since by MS's newspeak definition RCs are not candidates under consideration for release? In other news MS has decided HTML no longer stands for Hyper Text Markup Language, but now means "stuff you see in explorer" and MS has declared themselves fully compliant with this new definition and their marketing department is now claiming 100% accurate HTML rendering.
I don't care how long MS has been using marketing terms to try to call a chicken a goose. If it is not a candidate for release, it shouldn't be called an RC.
You can pretend that this is MS screwing with the English Lexicon or MS is trying to pass a painted pig off as a Horse, but the reality is this is a very common usage of a RC milestone naming.
During the BETA process a lot of internals change to match the design goals of the Alpha builds. In Vista alone, the WPF/.NET 3.0 APIs have shifted almost monthly during the course of the last year. A lot of Vista changes have been for compatibility and security and have DIRECTLY affected how Drivers work and software works. Even Drivers compiled for the January Beta of Vista (depending on the Driver) would very much fail due to the internal changes to even the July Vista Release. This is how Betas work.
(Watch the Leopard Beta if you don't believe me, and yes I have tech members participating.)
Now that Vista is at RC1 nothing major should change internally that would affect software or driver development. Hence why it is a RC milestone.
People also act like this is a marketing ploy or a gimmick, yet MS has been very clear about this in the release notes and in the press. Just as they were with WinNT3.1 RC1, Win98 RC1, Win2k RC1 as well, the same bar and naming conventions were used then as well.
So if Microsoft is messing with the language, you should have told them this 15 years ago when they started this practice and THEIR definition of what a RC is.
Also while people are smacking on MS for calling this a RC, they should also call up Corel and correct them, as well as Novel, Adobe, and even Apple. As well as MANY Open Source projects that I am personally involved in that go to RC when they are no longer changing internally, but NOT YET RTM quality.
This is not a MS issue, rather a public perception issue.
The strange thing is I am here trying to help people understand a standard terminology in defense of Vista being dubbed RC1, and yet it is more stable and secure than a lot of RTM OSes (including WinME, Win2K, and even the latest pay for bug fixes version of OSX 10.x).
At least educate yourself on the proper usage of FUD.
A post spreading 'Fear' about Windows Stability and quality level because it is called a RC when it is still not completely RELEASE QUALITY with a RC tag.
A post with 'Uncertainty' about Windows RC1 status, when it is actually the accurate term for the milestone.
A post with 'Doubt' about the quality of Windows being called a RC when it is not fully optimized nor has the final visuals or sounds, even though it is API and Developer complete, which is what a RC is.
I think I know what FUD is, and bashing the RC naming of the 5600 build of Windows is exactly FUD. It is also false, misleading and full of crap, while spreading FUD about the build quality and/or naming of the Vista Build.
Now with that said, if you would have taken the time to read my post it brought up other issues of FUD that have been spread about Vista, and wasn't even specifically nailing this area of FUD, but it STILL is FUD.
Wow... a topic about a Windows OS not ready for release turning into a Linux v. Windows slagfest. *Yawn* Can't slashdot just cut and paste this from any other Windosw release topic?
Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. - Martin Luther King, Jr.
You can pretend that this is MS screwing with the English Lexicon or MS is trying to pass a painted pig off as a Horse, but the reality is this is a very common usage of a RC milestone naming.
...for companies run by the marketing department.
Watch the Leopard Beta if you don't believe me, and yes I have tech members participating.
Betas are normally feature complete for some predefined set of features and are often presented to a subset of the public for testing of a subset of the final features. That is fine, since "beta" is a fairly nebulous term, not an acronym for a specific thing. The Leopard beta is the same type of beta we have shipped at most companies I have worked at. I've never worked at a company that gave users something we call an RC, but which we were not actually considering as a candidate for gold master. We often have four or five RCs, as we get critical bug reports, but without those reports, we'd be shipping, and we don't know about those bugs before we cut an RC, or it would be an incremental build between RCs, not an RC.
People also act like this is a marketing ploy or a gimmick, yet MS has been very clear about this in the release notes and in the press.
I've seen dozens of articles and press releases from MS. None of them mention that the RC isn't really a release candidate, but is actually not being considered as a final release. Maybe they mention it in their dev note, but it certainly is a PR move it intentionally misrepresent a build as an RC, when it is not a candidate for release, just as it is PR to call a war a police action.
So if Microsoft is messing with the language, you should have told them this 15 years ago when they started this practice and THEIR definition of what a RC is.
Every time I've heard of MS shipping code they call an RC, but which is not, I complain.
Also while people are smacking on MS for calling this a RC, they should also call up Corel and correct them, as well as Novel, Adobe, and even Apple. As well as MANY Open Source projects that I am personally involved in that go to RC when they are no longer changing internally, but NOT YET RTM quality.
If any of these companies ship code as RC, that is not a release candidate, then I do blame them, but I've never seen it. The quality of the code is not the question. I don't care if you think it is "RTM quality." What I care about is if it is actually a candidate for release. If not, then they are being deceptive, because they are using an acronym that stands for something they are not providing.
The strange thing is I am here trying to help people understand a standard terminology in defense of Vista being dubbed RC1, and yet it is more stable and secure than a lot of RTM OSes (including WinME, Win2K, and even the latest pay for bug fixes version of OSX 10.x).
The strange thing here is you can't seem to get it through your head that RC does not mean some given quality or stability level. It means Release Candidate. All the OS's you list are gold master, not RCs. They presumably were RCs previous to being GMs because they were candidates being considered for release because they were released. It doesn't matter if that release is buggy or won't even run, so long as they are actually planning on shipping that way. RC is a term used to describe where in the process code is, and thus what the final code is likely to look like and how soon it is likely to appear. If you aren't at that stage of the cycle and you call your build an RC anyway in order to trick some into thinking you're closer to being done than you are, then you are being deceptive and misusing the term. There is no ambiguity about it. It's a fricking acronym!
Well, no-one is going to run Windows Server as their desktop-OS, whereas NT was a decent desktop-OS back in the day. As to your comments regarding XP.... Well, I DID say that the user could just stick to their current OS, but that's not something MS would like the user to do. They would like them to upgrade to Vista instead.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
Let's talk about irrational hatred and Microsoft, they go hand in hand. Microsoft hates just about everyone. They hate Google, iPod, Korn and most of all they hate free software. Microsoft hates just about everything cool that's been done in computing that they don't own. People realize this and that's why there are fewer and fewer people willing to ensnare themselves in a business model that includes Microsoft dependency. When Microsoft does own something they hate the people who use it. Do you know of any other company that has bothered to sue public schools? Is there any other industry that treats it's users as hostile criminals who want nothing more than to steal their precious IP? When you treat your customers like criminals and drive all the cool stuff off your platform you will be left with a bare platform that no one uses. Non free software is built on anti-social principles that will ultimately be out competed and rejected.
My promotion of free sotware is not based on a hatred of Microsoft. I do hate that company because of the evil things they have done to promote their second rate software, but that's a shallow and short term motivator. I promote free software because it works and it's moral. Those are things that will not change.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Here we go again, every so often some GNU/Linux shill does a rehash of the old "Windows is not yet ready for the desktop" story. Windows can't do this, Windows hasn't got that.. blah blah blah. Get over it people. Windows is not GNU/Linux. You need to remember that! :) IANAT (I am not a troll)
RC is a term used to describe where in the process code is
I'm sorry you don't get it...
Alpha = First draft of features and code goals
Beta = Migration through features and code goals, things shift, especially in an OS.
RC = A point where vendors, (OEMS, ISVs, Hardware Drivers, Software Developers) can bit check their products against a 'Release Candidate' that finalized drivers and software can be tested against. This is why it is called a Release Candidate - NOT a Beta and where the distinction lies.
If Release Candidate ALWAYS meant what you think it does, then there would NEVER be RC1, RC2, RC3 - as the later two would be redundant. Get It?
And if not, I'm sorry you are new to this or just want to play devils donkey. I have been involved in development far too long to argue such idiotic semantics over terms that are fairly standard if you have worked with Microsoft for the past 15 years.
If you want to call Vista Crap, then call Vista Crap, don't tip toe around saying that RC1 isn't RTM Quality. RC1s are never RTM Quality no matter what company is producing it - PERIOD
I'm not trying to say that Linux is particularly good with WiFi, just that Windows's wireless networking is as screwy as the rest of the OS.
:)
Don't worry, in vista they have managed to get the latest bsd networking code including the wifi stuff
If Release Candidate ALWAYS meant what you think it does, then there would NEVER be RC1, RC2, RC3 - as the later two would be redundant. Get It?
Nope. Do you know what the term "candidate" means? It's just like a candidate in an election, except serial instead of parallel. Here is release candidate 1 (rc1) we'd like to ship him to customers. Oops, it has a critical bug dealing with ethernet interfaces and a few minor bugs. Okay we fixed those and have cut a new version of the code we've frozen in our versioning. It is called rc2 and we'd like to release him to customers. Oops, one of our pre-release test customers we sent it to says it crashes under high load. Okay we fixed that and have cut a third candidate for general release. It is called rc3. After two weeks with QA and pre-release customers, we have found seven minor bugs, none of which are critical. Lets ship this code as the gold master and get it printed while we start writing a patch to fix those minor bugs which we can ship after the general release.
Where the hell do you people work that you don't know this? Every development house I've ever worked has used this terminology. I think it is coded as the default in bugzilla even. Even if you've never worked at a development shop, all you really need is a dictionary. RC means release candidate. It is a candidate for being released. It is inherent in the term "candidate" that there may be other candidates.
And if not, I'm sorry you are new to this or just want to play devils donkey. I have been involved in development far too long to argue such idiotic semantics over terms that are fairly standard if you have worked with Microsoft for the past 15 years.
I'm not new to anything. Just because MS willfully misuses a term in a way not standard in the industry and which contradicts the meaning of the acronym they never spell out does not mean we should go along with it and start calling cats "dogs" and bugs "spontaneous features." The fact that you are so blind to their redefining a term for marketing reasons is sad. Maybe you should stop drinking the kool-aid.
If you want to call Vista Crap, then call Vista Crap, don't tip toe around saying that RC1 isn't RTM Quality.
I said nothing of the sort. In fact, I specifically said I haven't spent enough time with the RC to judge the quality. What I said was it is misleading if they are misusing the term, as many claim they are.
RC1s are never RTM Quality no matter what company is producing it - PERIOD
Bullshit. Everywhere I've worked an RC has always been a finished, polished release. By the time it hits RC1, it has the help system written and built in and a draft of the manual is downloadable by the users. Any given RC may not be what walks out the door, but they are all under consideration for the job and one of them eventually becomes GM.