Slashdot Mirror
Windows Vista RC2 Available
GarstMan writes to mention that Microsoft has released what it hopes will be the last version of Windows Vista to go through the testing process. From the article: "This new build of Windows Vista offers users a higher level of performance and stability - improving what was established in Windows Vista RC1. We were able to also fix many of your bugs reported from RC1 and implement them for RC2. Thank you to our beta testers for the bugs and feedback you submitted for RC1. The improvement shows as we raised our quality bar even higher! Platforms and Services Co-President Jim Allchin has just posted a special announcement letter of RC2 to Microsoft Connect for the Windows Vista Technical Beta Testers."
First build that i've installed with 0 issues on 3 pcs and one of them being my frankenPC that always gave me hell.
Usually 180 days is what they set it at. That could be disabled, but then so could the activation of release Windows so why bother? Also, it activates itself so you have that to deal with as well.
The reason they release it to the world is to try and catch more bugs. It's not like they don't test their OS internally but there's such a massive number of system setups out there they can't test all permutations. Also it's equally (maybe even more) targeted at allowing people to test their setups with Vista, start to figure out what they are going to need. I've been doing application compatibility testing at work with Vista, I want to have an idea what the problems might be so when the first Vista system rolls in, I'm ready to support it.
What you consider to be fair use doesn't matter, as it turns out you are not emperor and do not make the laws. That is most certainly NOT fair use. Fair use info can be found here: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use _Overview/chapter9/index.html. It's somewhat complex but what it comes down to is fair use allows you to use parts of a copyrighted work without permission for the purposes of commentary, criticism, parody and such. It does not allow you to make as many copies of something as you want just because you feel like it. That's infringement.
I once had the idea that any OS that one installs on a PC needs to more or less match the time the PC was put on the market so as to provide drivers for the hardware, etc. A Pentium II equals Windows 98.
I have had lots of problems getting linux 2.6 kernel OS's to run fast enough on Pentium II's, for instance.
If that meant putting SuSE 6.3 on one of those, then that's what I did.
From the get-go Microsoft said that Vista would require a lot more in the way of memory, graphics, processor speed than previous products. I think they have backed off somewhat on that, with a tiered setup, allowing for some older boxes. I know XP has been factory-installed on machines with only 128 MB of RAM, with the result running way too slow. Getting that price way down, apparently.
I stick with a 2.4 kernel for my knoppix remaster Rapidweather Remaster of Knoppix Linux and I am able to get the latest web browsers, Firefox 2.0, Opera 9, Flock (based on Mozilla 1.5.0.7) to run on Pentium II and AMD K6-2 with 128 MB of RAM. The on-chip cache seems to make a big difference, those processors with only 64 K cache run slower than those with 512K, some almost unacceptable if running only 266 MHZ.
I get good results with AMD running 400 MHZ/ 128MB RAM, and excellent results with 256MB RAM.
The SuSE 6.3 installs won't run the latest web browsers, and it takes a lot of time to configure. I usually dd the install to a new HDD to save time. Generally too much trouble compared to the livecd linux.
I'd like to install this trial Vista, but don't have a spare box of sufficient power, and I know this OS will time out soon, and most likely won't give the protection against viruses, trojans, etc. than I have already with my remaster.
I'm able to run Google Earth using my remaster, with a "knoppix.img" for the ~/ on a spare HDD partition.
Google Earth runs just fine, although I have discovered, like others, that the maps are old.
This box I'm using now has a P4 HT, with 1 GB RAM, 128MB ATI, plenty for Vista, but installing the Vista RC would probably hose my XP Pro install here. I rarely use it, but did pay for it in the beginning. Had to fix it a lot, one time had to reinstall. Too much trouble overall, and wouldn't expect Vista to be any different over a few years use.
Main thing I like about running my remaster using a "fromhd=/dev/hda3" setup, with a "knoppix.img" is that the hard drive activity is way down, compared to running XP. The drive stays really quiet, much easier on the box as a whole. I have 320GB of HDD space, and I would imagine that Vista would work those drives over pretty good, compared to what I have right now.
I know I am missing a wonderful "out of box experience" with the Vista install, but I like to get results quicker than that, so that's why I use a livecd linux.
-- Rapidweather
Rapidweather's Linux Screenshots.
Vista is so big and bloated that Microsoft's own developers don't understand it completely and consider it overly complex. It's so bad that they've already publicly discussed starting over for the next one (codenamed "Vienna") and just running pre-Vienna apps in a virtualized sandbox.
"Sufferin' succotash."
No it wasn't, you're first thought was "oh excellent a Vista article, another chance to karma whore with some tired geek tough talk about how I don't care about Vista, the OS I will be pirating the moment it is released!"
Despite claims of developers from video card vendors who have posted on here about Microsoft's DirectX installer for Windows XP?
Do not believe it "can't" be done for a single second. It's (allegedly) already been done, is supposedly stable, and they just won't release it to the public. Of course, these claims have yet to be substantiated, but really, how many here think it is impossible for them to implement the DirectX API for Windows XP?
You know, if it is true, I truly hope that DirectX 10 for XP gets leaked out to a few torrent sites.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50