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."

Comments

Waste of Time

[spiderbitendeath]

I for one am tired of our DRM loving monopoly overlords!

Re:Waste of Time

[the-amazing-blob]

I for one am tired of our DRM loving monopoly overlords!

You'll regret that statement when the revolution comes.

Re:Waste of Time

[Surt]

It's not a necessary evil. It's just an evil. Let the information be free, but pay for information you find valuable.

No one will be able to make their fortune with proprietary information, but on the other hand everyone will be so enriched that we'll all be sufficiently better off to make paying out for valuable info much more likely. Then people can make a sane living off of producing good information.

It's like writing shareware. If you work at it, and ask for a small, reasonable donation, you can make decent money off of it.

Re:Waste of Time

[cpt kangarooski]

Nobody likes DRM but it's neceassary evil.

It is not necessary; it's just evil.

Now, if there was standard DRM then books would be released electroically that you could search through or have search engines search through.

Actually, this is unlikely. And in any event, the benefit of making the book searchable is dubious given that the DRM could be used to limit your ability to search it, that searching isn't really important for some books (e.g. most works of fiction), and that the DRM could be set up so that it cost you money every time you used the book in particular ways, or at all.

I think that a better solution would be to a) prohibit authors et al from having copyrights if they use DRM at all, b) not just legalize circumventing DRM, but have the government help (with funding, coordination, and dissemination of the uncopyrightable plaintext), and c) to make some other alterations to copyright, such as beefing up deposit requirements (so that electronic copies are on file with the Library of Congress) and shortening term lengths (so that the book will enter the public domain quite rapidly, if the author et al even bothers to pursue copyright to begin with).

Don't be such a defeatist. Stand up for a change, and fight for what you want!

Re:Waste of Time

[X0563511]

OK, 'commie' and 'bastard' are easy to understand. But what is 'pinko' supposed to mean?

Re:Waste of Time

[eln]

You don't see a lot of electronic books because nobody wants them. There have been several pilot programs with textbooks being sold in an electronic format at university book stores. Without exception, the print version sold far more than the electronic version.

Paper textbooks are much easier to read without excessive eye strain, especially when most of the time you're reading them for an hour or more at a stretch. Also, if the book has a half-decent index, many times it is easier to "search" the paper version than it is to use the search engine included in an electronic version.

Until they come up with a computer that looks and feels like a paper book (and is as durable), it's unlikely electronic books will ever sell better or be more available than paper books, DRM or not.

Re:Waste of Time

[Opie812]

This is +3 insightful? More like +3 Pie in the Sky, or +3 Rose coloured glasses.

Re:Waste of Time

[trparky]

Yeah, and when have you ever had a donation? Yeah, I know, you may receive a donation from maybe 1 in every 200 people but the rest are just leeching off of you.

Why does DRM exist? Simple. Because people are dishonest bastards and will rob you blind the first chance they get.

Produce a song? Yep, someone will come along download it and give it to all of his (or her) "friends". Meanwhile, did you get paid for all of your blood, sweat, and tears? Did you get paid for producing that song? Nope. That's why DRM exists, because people are dishonest.

Now, if all people were honest and paid for the things they like (and those said items were sold at a fair price) then we would not need DRM, but since people aren't... we have this shit.

Don't confuse me for an RIAA-shill, I'm just here to say it like it is. Don't like it? Tough! It's the truth. People suck. Am I cynical? Maybe.

Re:Waste of Time

[mochan_s]

Actually, this is unlikely. And in any event, the benefit of making the book searchable is dubious given that the DRM could be used to limit your ability to search it, that searching isn't really important for some books (e.g. most works of fiction), and that the DRM could be set up so that it cost you money every time you used the book in particular ways, or at all.

First of all, it's a better option in terms of electronic searching than just having paper editions of a book out. If you find something in a search engine for the exact item you're looking for, then you'd be very likely to buy a copy of the book or lease the book for whatever. I go to the library and there are more than 2 dozens book about a topic. I have to stick with the classics and ignore all the other ones that might have the exact information I need since I can't sit around flipping pages looking for something.

Secondly, It costs me time and money to go down to the library to find one page out of a book mentioned in a reference.

Yes, I'm talking about textbooks and technical books and not fiction books.

I think that a better solution would be to a) prohibit authors et al from having copyrights if they use DRM at all, b) not just legalize circumventing DRM, but have the government help (with funding, coordination, and dissemination of the uncopyrightable plaintext), and c) to make some other alterations to copyright, such as beefing up deposit requirements (so that electronic copies are on file with the Library of Congress) and shortening term lengths (so that the book will enter the public domain quite rapidly, if the author et al even bothers to pursue copyright to begin with).

Yeah, book publishers are going to really eager to share their electronic version of the book with what you mentioned above.

Don't be such a defeatist. Stand up for a change, and fight for what you want!

I want to easily find information I want that is now currently hidden away in paper textbook which lack of DRM is making the publishers not want to release electronic copies. Yes, DRM is morally disturbing and all but if it's not there we will never see an electronic library ever. It will always be paper books or even only paper books for the overpriced textbooks.

Re:Waste of Time

[mochan_s]

You don't see a lot of electronic books because nobody wants them. There have been several pilot programs with textbooks being sold in an electronic format at university book stores. Without exception, the print version sold far more than the electronic version.

First, they price the electronic book almost as high as the paper book. Secondly, I'm not saying as a student who has to read one book from the top to begining but as a researcher who has to find a specific piece of information on a certain topic.

Paper textbooks are much easier to read without excessive eye strain, especially when most of the time you're reading them for an hour or more at a stretch. Also, if the book has a half-decent index, many times it is easier to "search" the paper version than it is to use the search engine included in an electronic version.

A lot of times, especially in mathematically inclined subjects, a lot of results are not given names just numbers (e.g. Theorem 1.2 etc). A lot of famous results have names but you can find it in Wikipedia if it's famour enough.

Until they come up with a computer that looks and feels like a paper book (and is as durable), it's unlikely electronic books will ever sell better or be more available than paper books, DRM or not.

The barrier of ease of readability is for class textbooks and fiction book. On the other hand take for example, the documenataion in most software. It is included electronically and only a book that you'd expect to be read from top to bottom is included in the software. I remember Visual C++ used to ship with those huge books of the APIs and it took forever to find anything using that book. How many people actually use a paper dictionary anymore? If it's just 1 theorem or 1 chapter that's needed, then you buy a section of the book etc.

Re:Waste of Time

[mochan_s]

It's not a necessary evil. It's just an evil. Let the information be free, but pay for information you find valuable. No one will be able to make their fortune with proprietary information, but on the other hand everyone will be so enriched that we'll all be sufficiently better off to make paying out for valuable info much more likely. Then people can make a sane living off of producing good information. It's like writing shareware. If you work at it, and ask for a small, reasonable donation, you can make decent money off of it.

A famous quote, "nice idea, wrong species".

We're not an ant colony; we're primates who live in small groups. This massive scale social-good schemes don't work for humans since we're genetically made to be working for our own good (or of the group) and not good for the society as a whole.

Re:Waste of Time

[Overly Critical Guy]

It is not necessary; it's just evil.

Yes, it is necessary, or else everything would be pirated to hell and back. And using goofy, loaded words like "evil" just illustrates how juvenile Slashdot becomes when tackling the issue of creators' rights. Basically, you guys want to stack everything in favor of the pirates and against the creators.

Besides, the GPL is essentially a form of DRM (digital rights management).

Re:Waste of Time

[Microlith]

a) prohibit authors et al from having copyrights if they use DRM at all
I guess. But DRM is futile as it is. If people respected (and pushed to fix) copyright then publishers and authors (and the music/movie industries) probably wouldn't think it was necessary. As it is the internet-going masses don't, so both sides have black eyes.

c) to make some other alterations to copyright, such as beefing up deposit requirements (so that electronic copies are on file with the Library of Congress)
This is a perfectly reasonable requirement for copyright.

and shortening term lengths (so that the book will enter the public domain quite rapidly, if the author et al even bothers to pursue copyright to begin with).
14 years is pretty much good enough, maybe a renew to 28 years. But it's rare that an author wouldn't bother with copyright, after all, it takes time to write a book and you need to eat/sleep/have a place to live during that time. Releasing works into the public domain doesn't exactly bring in the money, unless someone else paid you. And then you're writing what they want, not what you want.

Re:Waste of Time

[kyb]

prohibit authors et al from having copyrights if they use DRM at all

Thats actually a really good idea, and makes sense. Copyright is supposedly designed to allow the creator a limited time of monopoly with the trade off being that the works then go into the public domain. If the author uses DRM or any other technique that would protect their works past their time of limited monopoly, then this would interfere with the ability to put the work in the public domain, and in that case, why should the government grant them a monopoly at all?

Re:Waste of Time

[Mprx]

Using goofy, loaded words like "pirated" is just as bad. It's called "copyright infringement" or "illegal copying".

Re:Waste of Time

[man_of_mr_e]

Actually, this is more of a function of the suckiness of the reading tools than of the e-books themselves.

I'm waiting for the day when we have "roll up" and easily transportable e-book readersthat give you the same resolution and readability as paper. Unfortunately, most such attempts so far have not been with pure "e-book readers", but PDA's and UMPC's and the like that are much too heavy, with too small of a reading surface and poorer resolution.

Re:Waste of Time

[MicrosoftRepresentit]

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!"

Re:Waste of Time

[EsbenMoseHansen]

Besides, the GPL is essentially a form of DRM (digital rights[sic] management).

That is just silly. GPL is pure copyright, nothing else. There are no digital restrictions management involved. As with the GPL, copyright should be more than sufficient. The trouble is a matter of enforcement; and in that regard DRM and related laws are just as bad.

If we could make a (e.g. ISO) standard based DRM that everyone could implement then fine, but I fear that is impossible. As it is now, DRM is just vendor lockins in disguise, and I believe the strong reactions you see from many people are caused by this.

This is from someone who *doesn't* pirate, but do watch my DVDs on a linux box (I don't think this is illegal here, but neither am I sure. Another sign that the laws about DRM are bad... I should be able to at least tell if I am breaking the law with such a basic usecase).

Re:Waste of Time

[jonbryce]

One type of electronic book that is very successful is the encyclopaedia.

I can pick up a copy of Britannica from my local Staples for about £10. The paper version costs something like £800.

And at £10, it isn't really worth anyone's while making their own copies of it.

Re:Waste of Time

[cpt kangarooski]

First of all, it's a better option in terms of electronic searching than just having paper editions of a book out.

Yes, but which is better overall? A book that you own, can use without reference to any sort of contract or DRM, can resell, etc. but which isn't electronically searchable, or a book that can be searched, but is also quite limited (perhaps you can only search so many times per day) and which you have to pay for again and again and again?

What I was saying was that while the searchability is great, I don't think that it's worth the downside that comes with DRM.

Yeah, book publishers are going to really eager to share their electronic version of the book with what you mentioned above.

Given a choice between not publishing at all, publishing with DRM and no copyright, and without DRM and with a copyright, I think they'll opt for the third option. Some authors might not publish, true, but I think the loss of their work is made up for by the gains with regard to other works. Remember: the public benefits not merely from having more works, but from having more freedom with regards to works. The ones that opt for DRM are no worry if their works are in the public domain, since there's always some manner of hole present in the DRM and since so many competitors and users would have an incentive to attack it.

The trick is to push for what you want, and to realize there will be some acceptable losses. I mean, if we offered million-year-long copyright, and the law required royalties to be paid whenever someone even mentioned the book by name, I'm sure more people would write. We seem to have decided that not doing that is worthwhile, even though some people haven't published. So what's so magically different about the current system that precludes us from at least considering reducing copyright, losing some authors, gaining some freedom, and seeing if it makes us better off when we compare the losses against the gains?

Yes, DRM is morally disturbing and all but if it's not there we will never see an electronic library ever.

No, I disagree. We will see one. But not if we sit on our asses and wait for publishers to offer us one on a silver platter. If this is what you want, you have to figure out how to force publishers to offer it, using copyright as both carrot and stick, or how to economically and lawfully put your own together if they don't opt into it.

Re:Waste of Time

[cpt kangarooski]

Yes, it is necessary, or else everything would be pirated to hell and back.

And piracy is bad, because?

Remember, while I'm a copyright lawyer, I'm also thoroughly a utilitarian when it comes to copyright. This means that I only care about what best serves the public interest (which is divided into three sub-interests: creating and publishing original works, creating and publishing derivative works, and having no or minimal copyright) and not at all about authors or publishers, save for how that might affect the public.

the issue of creators' rights

Their rights are what we choose to give them, and we should only choose to give them rights when, and to the degree that, it serves our purposes to do so. Copyright isn't a civil liberty or an inherent right. It's artificial and granted for the purpose of the public good, like a municipal cable TV monopoly.

Basically, you guys want to stack everything in favor of the pirates and against the creators.

No, only in favor of the public. If the authors benefit from this, good for them. If not, I don't care. I take into account how the public benefit is affected by the benefit of authors (in much the same way that a farmer who raises eating chickens is concerned for the health of his flock up until he's ready to slaughter them, since this is what is best for him -- that the chickens would prefer a long and natural life is of no concern) but I am never going to support giving authors anything that is purely at the expense of the public with no greater benefit involved. That would be waste.

This means that where pirates interfere with copyright that maximally serves the public interest, I am against those pirates, since they are ruining it for the rest of us. But where copyright is excessive (as it is now, IMO) and does not maximally serve the public interest, then some of the piracy is perfectly okay and in fact should be legalized, to reduce copyright down, closer to where it is ideal again. More copyright is not a good thing; in fact, it's generally worse than less.

But it would be quite unlikely for me to support no copyright at all, which is basically what you're accusing me of. I wouldn't say I never would, but the situation that would give rise to that is pretty improbable.

Besides, the GPL is essentially a form of DRM (digital rights management).

No, the GPL is basically a contract. It doesn't interfere with the underlying law, in the way that DRM invariably does. For example, it is possible to reject the GPL, and then use portions of GPL'ed code pursuant to fair use, and still be acting lawfully. Whereas, if a work is DRM'ed, then it is going to interfere with fair uses just as much as with unlawful ones, because it is a simple, stupid restriction that cannot tell the difference.

Re:Waste of Time

[vadim_t]

You know what? I don't give a damn.

If there's any sort of DRM, I don't buy it, that simple.

Re:Waste of Time

[cpt kangarooski]

Given that people have used the word 'pirate' with that meaning since at least 1603, a full hundred years before copyright first existed (1710), I would say that your objection is hopeless, and that it more properly would refer to unauthorized copying, rather than illegal copying.

Here's some pre-copyright examples, which can be found in your convenient, pocket-sized, unabridged OED:

1603 T. Dekker Wonderfull Yeare sig. A4, Banish these Word-pirates (you sacred mistresses of learning) into the gulfe of Barbarisme.

1668 J. Hancock Brooks' String of Pearls (Notice at end), Some dishonest Booksellers, called Land-Pirats, who make it their practise to steal Impressions of other mens Copies.

1703 D. Defoe True-born Englishman in True Collect. I. Expan. Pref. sig. B3v, Its being Printed again and again by Pyrates.

1706 D. Defoe Jure Divino Pref. p. xxvii, Gentlemen-Booksellers that threatned to Pyrate it, as they call it, viz. reprint it, and sell it for half a Crown.

The fun thing to remember is that these uses of the word were during the height of piracy on the seas, and that everyone hated and feared pirates, as they would kill you, ransom you, steal from you, sell you into slavery, etc. In order to imagine how emotionally loaded the word was, if it had been coined today, it would have been 'terrorist,' or possibly 'rapist.'

Re:Waste of Time

[cortana]

If you live in a country when it is illegal to watch your own damn DVDs then you have problems!

(insert anne rand quotation about the imposibility of governing an honest man)

Re:Waste of Time

[cpt kangarooski]

If people respected (and pushed to fix) copyright then publishers and authors (and the music/movie industries) probably wouldn't think it was necessary. As it is the internet-going masses don't, so both sides have black eyes.


I don't know about that. If copyright were fixed, then I bet more people would respect it, and act lawfully. Generally, I think that copyrights boundaries ought to be determined in part, by looking to the norms the public has. If most people copy and distribute works freely over the Internet, then we ought to seriously consider just legalizing that. Yes, it would cost the public in that some authors wouldn't bother to create anymore, but would the gains in terms of freedom with regard to existing works outweigh that loss? If they would, then it's a good idea. Then you end up with a lot of people acting lawfully, but not having to change their behavior, because the law against them turned out to be a bad law that wasn't worthy of their respect anymore.

OTOH, some other boundaries would still be worth having. Legalizing non-commercial infringement by ordinary people doesn't mean that we would have to legalize commercial infringement, or infringement on the part of businesses, etc. And I think that people consider them to be different in terms of their norms.

Besides, the industries will always take as much as they can grab, and they will always try to support those authors and publishers that exist now, even if at the expense of their sucessors. This is because they are only motivated by their own goals, and not what best serves the public or creation as a whole. It's up to us -- the public -- to step forward and make things better.

14 years is pretty much good enough, maybe a renew to 28 years.

Sure, but you're not actually thinking about it, you're just parroting what the terms were centuries ago. That's no good. What you need to do is to think of what terms -- and what restrictions -- will produce the greatest public benefit overall.

Personally, I think that terms should be very short -- 2 to 5 years or so -- but be renewable frequently, up to a maximum term of about 15 to 25 years. This way, if an author doesn't bother to renew, the work hits the public domain that much faster. Little excess copyright is wasted on them to the public's detriment. The overall term length ought to be determined by how long it takes, on average, for most of a work's lifetime economic value to be had by the copyright holder. Actual economic studies place it in the range above. It's not wild-ass guessing. Where an entire class of works tends to 'age' more rapidly, we could even provide for a shorter overall term by having fewer and more frequent renewals. Computer software is a prime candidate for this. That should probably not be copyrighted for more than 5 years.

But it's rare that an author wouldn't bother with copyright,

Hah!

Until quite recently, when you published something, if you didn't register for a copyright, the work immediately entered the public domain. And if you didn't renew, the work hit the public domain then. Most works created, as it turns out, were never worth registering, and those that were, were never worth renewing. Having copyrights granted automatically with very long terms that don't require renewal was probably the second stupidest thing ever in the history of copyright. If it wasn't for the fact that the original proponent of the idea is dead, I'd love to kick him around a little. He's fucked us all up. It's imperative that we get rid of this ASAP.

Re:Waste of Time

[EsbenMoseHansen]

The law in question is about circumventing DRM. I am, since I am using libdecss to view them. Now, our cultural minister has written that this should be legal, but the law is not very clear.

Re:Waste of Time

[Stormwatch]

You'll regret that statement when the revolution comes.

Our DRM-loving monopoly overlords will be the first ones against the wall.

Re:Waste of Time

[Bing Tsher E]

I use a paper dictionary all the time. I have one in my office at work. I like being able to just open it up and find the word I want. I also enjoy thumbing through it and reading about words at random.

It takes mere seconds to look up a word in the dictionary. It is ludicrous to claim otherwise.

Re:Waste of Time

[alexhard]

And as we have ALL seen, this sharing with friends, reselling, and lending has destroyed the book industry, keeps authors in poverty and disencourages new and existing ones to write new books!

Re:Waste of Time

[yorugua]

DRM & WGA: There you go: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/ptech/10/05/microsoft .piracy.reut/index.html

From TFA:

NEW YORK (Reuters) -- Microsoft Corp's upcoming Windows Vista computer operating system will include technology that is designed to prevent pirated copies from fully functioning, the software giant said.

Reduced functionality is already a part of the Windows XP activation process, but Windows Vista will have a reduced functionality mode that is enhanced, Microsoft said on its Web site on Wednesday.

Microsoft said the upcoming releases of Windows Vista and also Windows Server "Longhorn" will be the first two products to ship with the new anti-piracy measures included, but more Microsoft products will eventually adopt the technology.

Windows Vista systems must activate with Microsoft as genuine within 30 days and failure to do so will result in "reduced functionality mode" until successful validation occurs, Microsoft said.

Customers that use genuine versions of Windows Vista will get an enhanced set of features that will not work on non-genuine or unlicensed versions of Vista, it said.

Users of non-genuine Windows Vista software will also be notified by the appearance of a persistent statement in the lower right hand corner of their desktop that reads: "This copy of Windows is not genuine."

A Wall Street analyst said on Wednesday that Microsoft will most likely ship the Windows Vista system on time and meet its deadline for both corporate and retail consumers.

Goldman Sachs analyst Rick Sherlund sent a note to clients saying Microsoft may be ready to send the final test version of its much-anticipated Windows upgrade later this week or next week, indicating that Vista will be available for business customers in November and retail PCs by late January.

Windows Vista, five years in the making, has been postponed by Microsoft several times.

Microsoft Windows sits on more than 90 percent of the world's personal computers and the Windows business accounts for about 30 percent of the company's $44 billion in revenue.

Re:Waste of Time

[Proudrooster]

My sentiments exactly... Vista? "Who cares??"

I think that so few people care about Vista the the Beta is meaningless. I know very few in the core technical community even thinking about Vista. Seems like most are taking a "wait and see" approach. Other than eye-candy and DRM, the product is mostly pointless. Not to mention, every piece of hardware you and your company owns will need to be replaced before running Vista.

I think I would rather save my pennies and go Mac+OSX before investing in Vista. At least on OSX I can do some decent video editing and get a unix shell, plus the machine will look cool on my desk :)

Re:Waste of Time

[KarmaMB84]

It's a bit harder to share a physical book with dozens of people than it is to copy something that is digital or comes on media that can be *easily* converted to digital and have unlimited copies made.

Re:Waste of Time

[Drgnkght]

Your analogy is incorrect. While reselling books hasn't harmed the publishing industry, it is fallacious to compare lending a book to file-sharing. A book is a physical object and unless you can make an exact copy and give it to your friend it isn't the same as "sharing" a music/movie/program file. In the case of an actual book there exists only one copy that is passed from one person to another when shared. No copying of any sort occurs and thus copyright law is not an issue. In the case of file-sharing, the original copy never leaves the sharer's possession. The end result is that the sharer hands out copies to anyone who requests the file. This is a clear (and obvious) violation of copyright.

That being said, I don't like DRM either. It has the potential to violate the legal rights of the users (and almost certainly will given enough time).

Re:Waste of Time

[mochan_s]

Yes, I totally agree DRM is evil and I don't like the idea of paying over and over again to undeserving people or unnatural barriers etc. I agree that there should be a revolution where authors write creative commons books and kill off publishers. I've thought about writing one myself when I go to a level when I'm not a mere TA and full control of the class.

I particularly hate textbooks and their $100+ price for the book version. They're milking it there and they are even further less incentive to change.

But, the sad fact is book publishers are sitting on all this information refusing to release it in a convinient searchable way and they are going to remain that way to the day I die since copyrights are that long if there is no DRM.

Look at those music subscription buisness like Real Rhapsody. They are able to offer a library of almost all music they can get their hands on and offer them only because of DRM. I can find some of the most obscure and weird stuff there since they have classical and folk recordings and also local bands from CDBaby which would be impossible to find in P2P which is all geared towards current popular music. Sure, it's not great sounding as CD and all but when you're looking for some specific music or style, it sure beats the hell out of P2P or the CD store. I wish we could have that without DRM but the sad fact is there doesn't seem to be a way (at least in our lifetimes).

Re:Waste of Time

[Sj0]

I think begging the vendor for features you don't need the vendor to have is a bit low. I use msys, and I've got a fairly comprehensive unix shell environment.

Re:Waste of Time

[Sj0]

Naw, they'll be the first ones selling pointy sticks. Nobody will be up against the wall. The revolution will consist of a bunch of young men and women being angry for no discernable reason, getting Jedi Mind Tricked by the corporations and the bureaucrats and the insipid television networks, and going "But there's nothing that can be done...". They'll smoke some pot, laugh at some insipid TV shows, and go back to sleep.

The revolution will NOT be coherent.

Re:Waste of Time

[abigor]

Let me guess: you've never written shareware and asked for donations from it, have you? If stuff is freely available, people are just going to take it, and very, very few of them will have the conscience to pay for it. You sound like someone who's never had to produce anything of commercial worth. Are you a student?

Re:Waste of Time

[cpt kangarooski]

they are going to remain that way to the day I die since copyrights are that long if there is no DRM.

I did say that we need to scale it back.

I wish we could have that without DRM but the sad fact is there doesn't seem to be a way (at least in our lifetimes).

Like I say, it's entirely possible, but we've got to fight for it. If you give up without a fight, then of course you'll lose.

Re:Waste of Time

[Surt]

No, I've made thousands from shareware. It's not easy to make a living with it right now, at least not if you want to live in the US. But in my model, it would surely get easier.

Re:Waste of Time

[Surt]

Actually, you should do some more reading about primate social organization, your statement just isn't factual.

Re:Waste of Time

[Kijori]

I wasn't aware that Monopoly was such a problem!

Microsoft on the other hand...

Re:Waste of Time

[McCarrum]

It's (not) funny because it's true.

Re:Waste of Time

[McCarrum]

Actually, you should do some citation of references about primate social organization, your statement is only another statement until it has some reference.

Re:Waste of Time

[Sj0]

I dunno, I find it pretty funny, listening to it.

What did Man do before mikes became popular?

Re:Waste of Time

[zcat_NZ]

.. and yet most people do.

Copyright should be limited to 'copying for redistribution'. What people do with the stuff they've bought in the privacy of their own home, should be absoultely no business of the original author or publisher.

BTW; you do know that in the UK it's not legal to transfer ('copy') the CD's you've bought and paid for onto your computer, ipod, car MP3 player, etc...?

Re:Waste of Time

[bobsledbob]

Your post should be bronzed.

Their rights are what we choose to give them, and we should only choose to give them rights when, and to the degree that, it serves our purposes to do so. Copyright isn't a civil liberty or an inherent right. It's artificial and granted for the purpose of the public good, like a municipal cable TV monopoly.

More people need to hear this! Seriously, this message is totally lost in 99.9% of discussions on copyright.

Copyright isn't about the artists, so much as it is about creating a market place for an artist's works. If there were no protection, an artist wouldn't create, because afterall one has still got to put bread on the table. With copyright, we the public benefit from the artists ability to create. The primary motive is to benefit the public, not the artist. The fact that an artist can provide food for his table is a happy consequence of the arrangement.

Re:Waste of Time

[ppz003]

> .. Windows Vista will have a reduced functionality mode that is enhanced ...

Leave it to the marketing drones to come up with great lines.

Re:Waste of Time

[Surt]

Here you go:

http://worldcatlibraries.org/wcpa/oclc/13498408
http://worldcatlibraries.org/wcpa/oclc/15696265

http://scholar.google.com/url?sa=U&q=http://links. jstor.org/sici%3Fsici%3D0066-4162(1986)17%253C111% 253ATSOPG%253E2.0.CO%253B2-K
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.114 6/annurev.es.05.110174.001545?cookieSet=1&journalC ode=ecolsys
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0066-4162(1986)17 %3C111%3ATSOPG%3E2.0.CO%3B2-K
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-7294(197912) 2%3A81%3A4%3C818%3ATEOABA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-E

Seriously, anyone who has done even a minimum of reading in primate social behavior will very quickly line up behind my comment.

Re:Waste of Time

[Fordiman]

"Yes, [DRM] is necessary, or else everything would be pirated to hell and back"

*snort* Yeah, 'cos DRM is fool proof and everything. Good one. Had me rolling.

Seriously, what makes DRM a better system than, say, a system which would steganographically embed the buyer's customer ID into every song, movie and program they download? If the file shows up in the wild, the customer could be held responsible (as he should be). Meanwhile, users don't get restricted to how they can use the stuff they pay for.

"Besides, the GPL is essentially a form of DRM"

Expanding the concept of DRM into the world of legal documents opens a can of worms you don't want to taste.

Still, using a purpose-based definition (DRM is a method of preventing the duplication of digital media by unauthorized persons), I fail to see how the GPL would count as DRM. That's like saying that Creative Commons is a form of DRM. The fact is that Copyright, legally, makes copying an infringement. In order to alleviate this for a products consumers, GPL and CC explicitly allow copying.

You already knew that, of course; you're just being smarmy. I get that, but a misdirection like that can't go uncommented.

Re:Waste of Time

[bit01]

It's a bit harder to share a physical book with dozens of people than it is to copy something that is digital or comes on media that can be *easily* converted to digital and have unlimited copies made.

Irrelevant. The internet is a tool for both buyer and seller. While it makes it easier for somebody to copy it also makes it easier for the seller to market to a large audience.

---

Open source software is everything that closed source software is. Plus the source is available.

Re:Waste of Time

[bit01]

Why does DRM exist? Simple. Because people are dishonest bastards and will rob you blind the first chance they get.

Would those be the dishonest bastards buying the software or selling the software?

DRM allows the seller to change the rules after the sale. In a functioning free market economy with so-called property rights that is a very bad thing.

---

Unregulated DRM = Total Customer Control = Ultimate Customer Lockin = Death of the free market.

Re:Waste of Time

[jonadab]

> And in any event, the benefit of making the book searchable is dubious given
> that the DRM could be used to limit your ability to search it, that searching
> isn't really important for some books (e.g. most works of fiction)

Actually, I *frequently* find myself flipping back through earlier pages of a work of fiction, looking for an earlier reference to something, trying to remind myself of certain details. I would be very pleased to have all books be searchable.

I am not, however, entirely sure what this has to do with Windows Vista. Hopefully nothing, because although I'd like to have my books be searchable, I don't think I want to switch operating systems on my computer to get there.

Not the last Beta

[rlp]

There will be a release candidate 3 Beta released as well. You'll just have to pay money for it in stores.

Re:Not the last Beta

[voice_of_all_reason]

I honestly don't get this whole "release testing versions to the world" idea.

As long as this doesn't contain any bugs you can't deal with, can't your everyday non-pirate windows fan just download this version and keep it after vista comes out in stores? What's stopping them? It stops functioning after a certain time? It doesn't allow windows updates? Heck, those have got to be pretty persuasive arguements for saving a hundred bucks or two.

Re:Not the last Beta

[Anonymous Coward]

It stops functioning after a certain time?

This is correct. It works until mid 2007.

I honestly don't get this whole "release testing versions to the world" idea.

There's a sub sandwich shop here that gives away free sandwich coupons every couple of months-- use as many as you want as often as you want. If you get addicted, you'll end up being their customer when it's no longer free.

Re:Not the last Beta

[nickheart]

Well yeah, they have to release a candidate with the new startup chime.

Re:Not the last Beta

[Che Guevarra]

ET phone home.

Not specifi to your question but:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060705-7188 .html

Re:Not the last Beta

[voice_of_all_reason]

Okay, that makes sense. Thanks, I learned something new tonight.

Re:Not the last Beta

[strider44]

There's a sub sandwich shop here that gives away free sandwich coupons every couple of months-- use as many as you want as often as you want. If you get addicted, you'll end up being their customer when it's no longer free.

The heroin they put in their sandwiches helps.

Re:Not the last Beta

[faolan_devyn_aodfin]

There's a guy on the street corner where I live that gives away free crack coupons every couple of months--use as many as you want as often as you want. If you get addicted, you'll end up being his customer when it's no longer free.

fixed that for you.

Re:Schedules slip, milestones change meaning

[Anonymous Coward]

If they don't fix bugs between RC's then what, pray tell, are they supposed to be doing? Just printing the same discs over again with RC2 instead of RC1? BTW smart guy, they don't add features after RC1.

Re:fisht post

[kantier]

Windows RC2 and no discussion thread on /.

there's no discusion because the install takes too long

If they are fixing bugs and changing features in a RELEASE candidate, perhaps what they actually released was a beta. It's not surprising that their schedule slip a few months back has pushed them into perpetual RC mode. Faced with schedules that aren't likely to change very much, it's better to slap 'RC' on a beta than to try to explain to management why the beta cycle is lasting almost a year.

I bet they'll call it "gamma" after the RC cycle...

Raised the bar?

[NaCh0]

Higher than what?

Re:Raised the bar?

[Foofoobar]

Raised the bar off the floor is how that sentenced goes I believe.

Re:Raised the bar?

[Ant P.]

Higher than 128MB VRAM!

Re:Raised the bar?

[SeaFox]

It wasn't a bar so much as a tripwire. Now it cuts you off at the knees.

Link to ISO

[PixelJonah]

Here's the direct link to the 2552.6GBGB ISO image: Vista RC2 build 5744.

Re:Link to ISO

[Anonymous Coward]

2552.6 gigabytes squared? Who said Microsoft cannot come up with something novel.

Re:Link to ISO

[PixelJonah]

Whoops, 2552.6GBGB is of course supposed to be 2552.6MB. So much for preview. ;)

Re:Link to ISO

[MonkeyBoy]

2.55TBs?!

Now that's some serious code bloat.

Re:Link to ISO

[edbob]

Just wait for the next version of Windows. It might not be that unrealistic.

Re:Link to ISO

[rayde]

here's the x64 version...

Re:Link to ISO

[davidsyes]

Gotta be one BIG ASSED patch...

I saw a co-worker using it. I wasn't very impressed. I told him about KDE (in generalizations) having up to 16 virtual desktops, the ability to Ctrl+Alt+Tab out to a console, the ability to do other things, and told another co-worker how one can double-click on Konqueror's title bar and how she could shade/scroll up, Alt+Right+Click mouse-drag to resize an app in the event one has shaky hands....

My team mate's main comment about vista was, "Man, I bet Apple's gonna be piss about this..." (the Apple-like widgets and dials on the screen). To which I responded, "And this from the company that claims it INNOVATES. Hell, they copy what they cannot think up and buy what they cannot create. That's innovation for you..."

Now, he's looking forward to us spending time outside of IT-related tasks to installing various Linux distros on systems so he can broaden his scope outside of windoze...

Nothing like viral marketing. I even showed a Dell tech rep today my Linux Format and Linux User mags, and HE was surprised to see Compiz and other 3D GUI features LINUX is alREADY deploying ahead of vista... It seems he, too, is going to spend time checking out Linux.... Nothing like viral marketing...

DS

Re:Link to ISO

[oddfox]

Thank you so much for the link, saved me the trouble of finding a torrent! It's running very beautifully now on my system alongside XP. :D

Re:Link to ISO

[davidsyes]

OK, this is one of the times I'll swear and be blunt because sometimes it is warranted.

Amazing some disgruntled asshole can have the balls to call "troll" on a FACT to which he or she did not witness. I DID indeed do these things at work. I am NOT ashamed of it. There is NOTHING false in what I wrote above, and how DARE YOU call troll on that which you can neither verify nor refute. Just because you take issue with that I did doesn't mean "troll" should be allowed to stand as the final call. Dumbass/es. I suppose this is a gang-up score/rating, anyway. Sheesh....

Which brings up a point. If an ingrate can mod someone as "-1, Troll" and it stands indefinitely, without the system being made to call upon other evaluators, then something is wrong. How can ONE moderator/commentator, in a sea of responses, be allowed to stand? Something like, "Troll, Pending" should be implemented, or the "Troll" rating reverted to 1, or 2, after x number of posts that ignored it to elicit MORE response. Also, the WEIGHT of scoring should be FIXED.

If 500 people READ (code can check for this) and only 5 respond to a comment, and the scoring is going up and down, then magnitude and points tally should carry sway. Simply allowing a few responders a final vote JUST because they were the most recent is exemplary of a system of "last vote stands" rather than "magnitude"/"sentiment" stand.

I call for an RFP/RFC to consider upgrading the scoring system to weed out those who carry too many points and who slap troll. It would help if people with more courage would sometimes respond. In that vein, then the upgraded scroing system should heuristically show how the comments slewed and swung up and down. Now, Slashdot coders, if you haven't thought of that, I suggest you get VA Software to rush and patent the idea and turn it over to open source. If the idea is NOT yet patented, then my writing of it here should suffice for "prior art" at an early stage. Assuming some corrupt judge and greedy companies don't overrule.

Re:Link to ISO

[Reziac]

Have you got the 64bit link handy? thanks!

(Now to find someone with the conneciton to fetch 'em for me... no broadband here :(

Re:Link to ISO

[bit01]

You were probably mod'ed down by M$ astroturfers. Judging by the posting order M$ pays for /. subscriptions for their astroturfers so they've got early access to stories and mod points.

M$ appears to have been paying for more marketing fraud recently with vista release iminent and they don't want you diluting their marketing propaganda with (gasp!) alternative points of view.

---

Marketing talk is not just cheap, it has negative value. Free speech can be compromised just as much by too much noise as too little signal.

Torrent?

[tyler_larson]

Torrent for the rest of us?

Re:Torrent?

[RockClimbingFool]

Give me a break. I haven't found a faster place to download from than Microsoft. Period. I think they have the largest pipe to any random downloader there is.

Re:Torrent?

[HUADPE]

Seconded, I just downloaded it (before realizing I lack blank DVDs) and i got 31Mb/s.

Re:Torrent?

[Overly Critical Guy]

Let's hear it for Akamai! Microsoft has been using Akamai for every public Vista release. More amusing is that Akamai is running on Linux.

Re:Torrent?

[stinerman]

Yeah, but getting it from the source doesn't give you that "OMG WAREZ" feeling that downloading off a shady BitTorrent tracker does.

Re:Torrent?

[Tim Browse]

I can't recommend that Akamai downloader though. When I downloaded RC1, my router died about halfway through and needed a reset. The download manager could not cope with this. It said a serious error had occured and the download could not be continued. Despite the fact that I could restart the download via the manager or http fine. So I had downloaded 1Gb or so of Vista, and had to chuck it and start again.

I used straight http via Firefox the next time. Worked fine.

Re:Torrent?

[Bing Tsher E]

I always use wget to grab stuff from Microsoft. I can't imagine why I would ever connect to a Microsoft server with any of their insecure OS software.

Re:Torrent?

[Tim Browse]

So, er...what exactly are you downloading from Microsoft then?

Re:Torrent?

[Bing Tsher E]

Right now the Vista RC2.

One can't know complete and utter garbage without checking it out. And I have a safe subnet of machines to run it on. Windows machines don't need to connect to the Internet. Really, that's like the time I drove my '72 Beetle (it had problems, and would only go up to 45 MPH) on the freeway.

Re:Schedules slip, milestones change meaning

[rritterson]

I agree with the assessment that Microsoft's labeling of RC's is a bit silly.

But "If they are fixing bugs.... perhaps what they released was a beta" takes it a little too far. If they didn't fix any bugs, it would be simply a Release, not a Candidate.

Re:fisht post

[kusanagi374]

I bet they'll call it "gamma" after the RC cycle...
 
Yes, then they'll call it delta when they release it for volume licensing and... semi moronic epsilon when its out in the wild for home consumers.
 

"O wonder!
How many goodly features are there here!
How beautious vista is!
O brave new windows,
That has such features in't!"

Re:Bigger. Fatter. Slower.

[eebra82]

No, but your brain would certainly need one. Your joke isn't ready for release yet.

Offers users a higher level of performance ...

[Anonymous Coward]

offers users a higher level of performance and stability

ie: We added -DNDEBUG to the compiler command line.

No one has commented on this yet?

[physicsphairy]

We were able to also fix many of your bugs reported from RC1 and implement them for RC2.

Now this is the kind of honesty you have to appreciate.

Re:No one has commented on this yet?

[noidentity]

I'd like to report a bug to be implemented: instead of booting into Vista, boot into Mac OS X. I hope this is in time for RC3b1rc1b2.

Re:No one has commented on this yet?

[SAHChandler]

Screw Macs. Linux is much better. Although I will admit that the amount of stuff Microsoft has done to Windows is much like the difference between DOS and Win 95. Completely NEW crap.

here it is

[axonis]

http://download.windowsvista.com/preview/rc2/en/do wnload.htm enjoy

Re:here it is

[simontek2]

Holy schnikes, an app that works with firefox? I may love linux, but I want to see the improvements that MS made. I have only seen Screen shots of vista. so might as well play.

PS Who the hell makes these log-in graphics? can you read them? (logging into /.)

Can't WAIT!!!

[slightcrazed]

I for one am very much looking forward to using Window's Vista once it is fully released. There seems to be much to look forward to; new features, better stability, better performance. I'm reading up on it right now on the Microsoft Website, and I can't wait to install it on my old Acer laptop. She's only got a 1.5 ghz celeron and an old intel graphics chip, but I'm sure that..... .....wait, what do they mean by 'Minimum system requirements'?

Re:Can't WAIT!!!

[rapidweather]

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

Re:Can't WAIT!!!

[ozmanjusri]

I have had lots of problems getting linux 2.6 kernel OS's to run fast enough on Pentium II's, for instance.

The 2.6 kernel is fine on older hardware. Most of the performance problems come from trying to run modern desktop environments on top of it. I've got Vector Linux running on a PII 233 with 64MB. It's no rocket, but works well enough.

Re:Can't WAIT!!!

[fred133]

Now we should be nice here,after all MS has brought us OS's like,BOB,and Win95A.
Actually, I started downloading RC1 the other day and 2-3 days later I put it on
my 1 gig athlon,with 512,and a Number 9 S-3 video card, and I got a score of, 1, on their compatibilty tester,but it really didn't know WHAT to do with my Diamond DTV 2000 capture card,But, it didn't crash.All on all,it's just souped up hybrid of XP and Media center that needs more horsepower than the average user has right now.(Can you say,Bloatware?)
Oh, let's build something where everyone needs to upgrade their hardware,
(the economy needs a kick in the ***)
"Hello,is this Dell? I need a new machine 'cause I want to load Vista,How much will that be?"

Re:Can't WAIT!!!

[Athanasius]

Aye, my PII-400 with 384MB RAM makes a brilliant firewall/router/nfs/smb/shell machine. The only problem I have is staying on 'old' kernels because it's so stable and I don't want to reboot it. I really should update it to something more recent (but given I keep an eye on linux-kernel and BUGTRAQ I'm fairly confident it's not affected by any currently patched holes, like all that SCTP stuff? I don't use it, not even loaded the module if I even compiled one).

Of course it wouldn't crawl *too* much if *I* used it for a desktop either, but then I still use fvwm2 rather than KDE/Gnome with all their cpu-murdering bells and whistles.

Re:Can't WAIT!!!

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

I've run Vista on a dual-800MHz PIII system with a PCI ATI Rage card. No, the fancy 3D interface doesn't work. Yes, the OS works fine. Of course, having 512M of memory can't hurt.

2.5 Terrabytes?

[The Real Toad King]

Here's the direct link to the 2552.6GBGB ISO image: Vista RC2 build 5744

What? Did they encode it all in ASCII 0s and 1s?

Re:2.5 Terrabytes?

[Anonymous Coward]

They just set the font size up way too high.

Works great.

[cybrthng]

First build that i've installed with 0 issues on 3 pcs and one of them being my frankenPC that always gave me hell.

Re:Works great.

[jamesh]

Bill? Is that you?

(just kidding :)

Re:Works great.

[grammar fascist]

And Bill, we know you're having marital problems, but "frankenPC" is probably going a bit far.

Re:Works great.

[Afrosheen]

Yeah, we'll see you at the USB demonstration. Hopefully they won't laugh this time.

Re:Works great.

[MickDownUnder]

Looks like Vista has tightened his bolts.

Re:Works great.

[McCarrum]

You bastard.

I just snorted milk out of my nose and onto my keyboard.

+1 Virtual Funny

Can you beat a dead horse anymore???

[cybrthng]

RC = Frozen API

RTM = Release

Release candidate means "You can build your release software against this version as the API is frozen and we are just working out the kinks"

Re:Can you beat a dead horse anymore???

[Waffle Iron]

No, RC is supposed to mean "We expect that this exact disk image will be the RTM unless the next round of testing finds a showstopper bug". Otherwise it wouldn't be a "candidate for release".

There isn't a single person on this planet, either inside or outside of Microsoft, who expected that Vista "RC1" had even an inkling of a chance of being the actual RTM image. That makes it just another beta release, nothing more, nothing less.

Re:Can you beat a dead horse anymore???

[Allador]

That may be your definition of RC, but cyberthing has it right wrt MS software.

RC for MS software has a very specific and exact meaning. If you're an ISV, its what you really start cranking on to make sure your software will work properly, and the APIs and general functionality will stay the same.

You dont have the same guarantee with a Beta .... there could be drastic changes to the underlying mechanisms and APIs.

So while the way you personally define the phrase 'Release Candidate' may mean 'ready to ship unless we find showstopper bugs' thats not what it means with MS products. And since its their product and their process, in this specific context, they get to define the lingo.

All meanings are contextual and relative. Remember Lewis Carroll's thoughts on the subject (speaking through Humpty Dumpty):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humpty_Dumptyism
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to meanneither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be masterthat's all.'

Re:Can you beat a dead horse anymore???

[Waffle Iron]

You dont have the same guarantee with a Beta .... there could be drastic changes to the underlying mechanisms and APIs.

It doesn't matter how Microsoft defines "beta". The real definition of beta is that the software is feature complete and is in the final stages of testing (but not yet a possible RTM like RC really means). If drastic changes to the underlying mechanism and APIs are still possible, the software is still alpha, or more likely, it's not even out of the design phase yet.

By buying into these bogus definitions, you've been hoodwinked by Microsoft's marketing department into paying good money for unfinished goods.

Re:Can you beat a dead horse anymore???

[Superfarstucker]

Does it really matter? As long as the term is well defined in the context it is being used in (and this is most certainly the case). Definitions are relative metrics, there exists no "real" or "absolute" definitions outside of very specific contexts. Software Development release jargon is not one of those contexts. Get over it.

Re:Can you beat a dead horse anymore???

[gronofer]

Microsoft is way out of line on this one. 'Release Candidate' obviously means it's a candidate to be released, and if this wasn't the case it shouldn't have been labelled that way. It doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the company (not that I had any in any case).

Re:Can you beat a dead horse anymore???

[oddfox]

There are plenty of people testing Vista who didn't pay a dime to have the privilege of doing so, myself included. Being a member of the other programs that grant eligibility have many other bonuses even without being given access to virtually every build of Vista that Microsoft makes public. Being in the CPP doesn't guarantee you an invitation to test every public build, but it does give you a key that you can use for those builds in addition to the ones that you get specifically invited to.

Anyways, arguing about this terminology is stupid and does nothing but create yet another lame flame war revolving around something Microsoft has done. To pretend that they're using these admittedly less-than-accurate names for these builds in an attempt to garner more money is absurd at best. If anything it's to eliminate the idea that Vista is going to be delayed yet again for a significant amount of time, and it looks very likely that Microsoft is going to meet their deadline quite easily.

Re:Can you beat a dead horse anymore???

[Waffle Iron]

The problem is that their "final releases", which you certainly have to pay for, are usually at a level that everyone else defines as betas. Microsoft's term for an actual final release is "Service Pack". To support this scheme of early revenue generation, they arbitrarily redefine all those other software development terms.

Re:Can you beat a dead horse anymore???

[MickDownUnder]

Or he just has a clue as opposed to you.

Re:Can you beat a dead horse anymore???

[oddfox]

That's nice.

Re:Schedules slip, milestones change meaning

[Rogerio Gatto]

If they didn't fix any bugs, it would be magic, not software :-) I have never rolled out a piece of software that didn't have any bugs. Sometimes it takes a long time to find out, but they're there for sure.

Re:Schedules slip, milestones change meaning

[megaditto]

RTFA:

We were able to also fix many of your bugs reported from RC1 and implement them for RC2.

Takes time to implement some good bugs, or else the users would not stay hooked to the "Patch Tuesday"/WGA

Re:Schedules slip, milestones change meaning

[Sycraft-fu]

Well I'll give him credit, RC1 didn't deserve a RC tag. It really wasn't ready for release. It's pretty damn good, but clearly not 100% finished and they knew it. Beta 3 would be a proper name. This here might actually be a real RC, as in they may really think it's ready to go. RC is supposed to mean "We think this is ready to ship as is, and just want a final bug check."

But you are correct, had there been no bugs there'd be no RC2, RC1 would be made a release.

Perfect Timing

[JerkyBoy]

Nice how this follows on the heels of the previous story appropriately titled, "Any Prospect of Serenity Sequel Quashed." I'm _finally_ happy with the stability of Windows XP, and they want to go start the whole patch circus over again. I'm holding onto my copy of Windows XP until they pry it from my computer with a screwdriver.

Re:Perfect Timing

[ZeroExistenZ]

You're going to end up like those poeple still running Win 3.11...

Re:Perfect Timing

[Zontar The Mindless]

I'm holding onto my copy of Windows XP until they pry it from my computer with a screwdriver.

Funny, I feel the same way about my copy of Windows 2000.

(Well, on *that* machine, at least... on the other 6, I run Linux.)

Re:Perfect Timing

[MonkeyBoy]

I suspect the screwdriver they're going to use is DirectX 10, since Microsoft claims they can't make it work under Windows XP.

If you play games, like 99% of Windows XP users do, sooner or later you'll need DirectX 10 to play a game.

'course if you don't play games, you should really buy a Mac.

Re:Perfect Timing

[kimvette]

I suspect the screwdriver they're going to use is DirectX 10, since Microsoft claims they can't make it work under Windows XP.

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.

Bugs

[tawhaki]

We were able to also fix many of your bugs reported from RC1 and implement them for RC2.

I thought the bugs were already in RC1, why did they need to implement them again for RC2?

Re:Bugs

[master0ne]

no they just had to re-impliment the bugs that didnt work properly (ie the buggy bugs) and made sure these new "features" made it into the final release, oh that and they removed the back door in the kernel to slip around the drm protected content ;)

Re:Bugs

[cciRRus]

Those are no bugs. Those are features!

Re:Troll?

[toadlife]

OK, I suppose the constructive thing to say is, "Best Windoze evar!" Otherwise I'm a troll:

Well, if they could, they would mod you "-1 Raving Lunatic", or "-1 Rabid Zealot", "-1 Gargantuan Asshole", but they can't so they have to settle for "-1 Troll".

Sorry.

It's time limited

[Sycraft-fu]

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.

Re:Schedules slip, milestones change meaning

[nine-times]

If they didn't fix any bugs, it would be simply a Release, not a Candidate.

So I guess the question is, is it a candidate for not fixing any bugs? If not, it's not a release candidate.

Re:Vista violates Fair Use

[linuxgurugamer]

I don't like MS any more than you, but from what you are saying, you are a pirate. Windows is NOT open source, and does not have an open license. Like it or not, the license only allows you to install it on a single computer. Installing it on multiple computers is just plain wrong and illegal.

Re:Vista violates Fair Use

[n0dna]

It turns out that what you consider to be "Fair Use" is both wrong and unimportant.

The license agreement says "one machine."

Good for how long?

[BeeBeard]

When does RC2 expire? May of next year as well?

Re:Good for how long?

[Ucklak]

Wasn't there some trick to extend these `time limited` offerings from Redmond where you set the time server to your local machine and set your year to something past 2072?

Re:Good for how long?

[zlogic]

I think RC2 accepts RC1 serials; if that's the case, it'll expire somewhere around June 2007.

Well guess what?

[Sycraft-fu]

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.

Re:Well guess what?

[Eravnrekaree]

Perhaps fair use was the wrong term. Copyright law, does allow you to make copies for your own personal use, as long as you are not distributing them to other parties. I dont feel bad about using the same copy of windows on computers that I own. I believe Microsoft has a near monopoly on OSs and charges way too much for Windows, and Bill Gates has way too much money.

Perhaps this is asking for too much...

[GFree]

... but is there anyone on Slashdot who is NOT an evangelical geek who's tried one of the Vista RCs and has something useful to say about it? This joking/FUD is getting tiring.

For once I'd like to see an opinion from someone who tried Vista without any biases.

Re:Perhaps this is asking for too much...

[skiflyer]

I tried it to see if my software would work with it... I want to like it, so I'm biased, but not in the direction you're thinking.

I personally think MS gave up two of their biggest advantages, it won't wrong legacy software easily & it doesn't feel like Windows. I imagine alot will get fixed before release... but as of yet, it's been a pain in my rear.

Even running it as admin I got lots of Access denied in the command prompt. The installer for my software failed, but for some reason Vista hid the failure so it continued on to the "Install Successul!" message. Then the software ran fine, but couldn't write to the ProgramData\MyCompany folder (the new equivalent to AppData)

I wanted to turn on my second monitor, so I tried to right click the desktop, didn't work had to go to the control panel... at which point it worked fine.

Anyway, I ran it for all of an hour, downloading RC2 now to install tomorrow, curiou to see the changes & delve into it more. I really wish they'd've made running as Admin harder, then really made it an Admin account instead of this split authentication concept... I'm strongly in favor of the standard Linux approach to security (Even Ubuntu's sudo crap drives me crazy), but I'll keep giving it chances since I write software for commercial use and I need to make sure it works for all my customers... otherwise my general impression is I'd stay on XP or 2k for awhile longer.

Re:Perhaps this is asking for too much...

[Overly Critical Guy]

There's really not a lot to say about it. A few things become abundantly clear when you use it:

1.) It feels very much like a redressed XP. It behaves the same as previous versions of Windows have. There are even dialogs dating back to Windows 3.1, like the Install Font dialog.

2.) UAC is incredibly annoying. You'll see. You will hate it.

3.) Something feels weird about it. I often find myself wanting to go back to XP. It might be the inconsistent interface that I'm not used to, or the overuse of gaudy visual effects (the animated ribbon swoosh used everywhere looks straight out of a 1980s public access channel logo). Maybe it's the nasty colors used everywhere in the the aquamarine/sea-green theme that is Aero.

It's a weird feeling to use Vista, like it should have been out three years ago. It feels very dated in places.

Re:Perhaps this is asking for too much...

[Afrosheen]

Actually I think linux distros should borrow the Mac approach to user security. You can have as many users as you want but in order to install/remove software, you have to enter the equivalent of a root password. It's pretty good about not letting generic users change things that have been locked, and the icons and sound effects reinforce the fact that things are locked or unlocked. Plus you have the keychain that can save all passwords...and you need a password to unlock it.

  Konqueror does something similar (sometimes) but that's not system-wide enough for me. It sucks when you lose the key to the castle but hey, it's better than leaving the front gate unlocked and the moat empty.

Re:Perhaps this is asking for too much...

[Canar]

Apparently you've never used ubuntu. It does exactly what you're describing. All system functionality is accessed by entering the root password. Many configuration screens are inaccessible without it.

Re:Perhaps this is asking for too much...

[elmartinos]

I have been using Ubuntu for a while and I have never, ever used the root password. You use sudo, and there you have to enter your user's password.

Re:Perhaps this is asking for too much...

[skiflyer]

yes apparenlty since I disagree with you I haven't used it... please. I've used it and I dislike it. What you're saying is only true for the graphical interfaces, for the shell you're forever typing sudo and re-entering the password.... oviously there are ways around this and re-instating the root account which is what I do on my ubuntu boxes.

Re:Perhaps this is asking for too much...

[Athanasius]

Admittedly so long as the normal user account's password is chosen well, never sent in plaintext over the network etc there's not much problem with this, but... ... that just means someone ONLY needs to compromise the/a user account to get root! It's the reason I have a seperate uid 0 account on my web/shell host machine for me to root with[0], rather than use sudo. Particularly as there is the vague chance that I'll now and then need to access my normal account from somewhere where I can only non-SSL telnet/pop3/imap/whatever. This way I can do that, in the knowledge someone might sniff the password and compromise *my* account, but they won't get root from it.

[0] Separate account so I can change the password without affecting the other admins of the machine. We used to all have our own uid 0 account, but the rest of them seem to prefer the sudo 'risk'. The one paying for the machine knows the actual root password.

Re:Perhaps this is asking for too much...

[Canar]

When I enter a password after executing sudo , that is for all practical purposes a root password. You can be pedantic if you like, but the thrust stays the same: no superuser access without password entry.

Re:Perhaps this is asking for too much...

[Canar]

Type "sudo bash". Enter root password. Voila! Instant root shell access. If you couldn't figure that one out yourself, go back to Windows or Mac. You'll be happier there.

Re:Perhaps this is asking for too much...

[div_2n]

I would, but all of the features that would be worth my time were dropped in the development process and I have zero desire to "review" a new interface.

Re:Perhaps this is asking for too much...

[skiflyer]

I went back to Debian etch, I'm happier there... but nice troll.

Re:Perhaps this is asking for too much...

[bit01]

If you want M$ propaganda head over to microsoft.com. Vista is about the most nerd unfriendly OS there is.

---

The majority of modern marketing is nothing more than an arms race to get mind share. Everybody loses except the parasitic marketing "industry".

Re:Sad

[chawly]

Sad indeed. I think kantier, spiderbitendeath, network23, twitter, and Che Gueverra might like to know the name of the mindless, verbally incontinent twit who is using a public forum to call them morons. What's your name, spineless ? I want to send you a Christmas card - a real cheap one.

Re:Schedules slip, milestones change meaning

[jlarocco]

If they don't fix bugs between RC's then what, pray tell, are they supposed to be doing? Just printing the same discs over again with RC2 instead of RC1? BTW smart guy, they don't add features after RC1.

It's an RC. Release Candidate. By traditional labeling, a release candidate is a possible release. You release the RC, and in a few days/weeks/months, if no "major" bugs are found, you release it without change. Anyone who tried RC1 can tell you that it was most certainly NOT ready to release without change.

Right about now a million MS fanboys are screaming "But people found bugs, so they needed to fix them and make a new RC." But some of the bugs that were "found" and features that were missing were so glaring and obvious, there's no possible way MS expected it to be an actual release. I hate MS as much as the next guy, but they're simply not dumb enough to think RC1 could have been the real release. In the entire rest of the computing world, that's called a "beta." Like it or not, that's just the way it is.

Opera, for example, uses their final release candidate as the final release. Just check out their weekly builds. September 18 was RC1, September 19 was RC2 (with a single bug fix), and on September 21 RC2 was released as 9.02. Same build number and everything. That's how it's supposed to be.

Re:Bigger. Fatter. Slower.

[notanatheist]

Well, Intel will have them ready for general consumers about the time Vista is released. It'll take two for the OS, one for the AV/malware apps, then you get one for whatever programs you want to run. Notice how 1GB of RAM is becoming more common in mid-range systems? You'll want it as a minimum for Vista. These days I only keep 512 and 1GB stick of RAM in stock. Now if those 2GB prices would hurry up and drop....

Give it a try before you trash it

[agressiv]

While I'm sure I'll get some fairly smart-ass responses to this post, most of you trashing Vista probably haven't even touched it. Sure, some of the comments are funny, but most of its mindless trolling. Its more of contest for a "+1 Funny" than anything else.

For those of you who have tried it (at least since RC1, everything before that was junk), and don't like it, then its not for you. Stick with whatever you have and move along. Your decision to not purchase Microsoft software will send a message.

For those of you haven't, give RC2 a try, its free - at least for about 8-9 months or whatever. You can then judge all its flaws and gasp, maybe even give feedback to Microsoft so that maybe they can do something about it. Just make sure you are constructive rather than "get rid of DRM" which probably won't accomplish much of anything.

agressiv

Re:Give it a try before you trash it

[agressiv]

We'll be interested in hearing more about your opinion when you graduate and get a job in enterprise-level IT.

Nice try, but I've been here in the corporate sector for years. The company I work for happens to use Windows as a platform. Ironically, it will be some time before we use Vista though, since our fleet isn't up to spec and it doesn't really buy us anything at this time.

Longhorn, however, will go in fairly quickly in some areas, due to the "free" Citrix-like improvements (read about that feature here

I dont have time to be a full beta tester, so getting paid to beta test won't be an option for me. I do have some hardware that I can test stuff on (whether it be vista or the latest linux distro) because that stuff is fun to me, and I always like to learn about new technology.

If you haven't used it yourself, don't say that the release candidate is beta quality - try it yourself and post your observations.

agressiv

Re:Give it a try before you trash it

[zlogic]

DRM? What DRM? I'm using RC1 right now and I don't see any sign of Trusted Computing or whatever kind of DRM there may be. What's more, I've heard people whine that it doesn't support unsigned drivers - well, I have an old Geforce 4 MX440 videocard (not supported anymore) and a hacked driver combining things from the XP Forceware, Vista Forceware and a custom *.inf. Windows shows a warning message that the driver's unsigned, and that's all. Works perfectly.

Re:Give it a try before you trash it

[baeksu]

For those of you haven't, give RC2 a try, its free -

As they say here: It's only free if your time is worth nothing.

Can I install it safely without it messing my partitions (And I do mean extended partitions as well as grub)?

Can I roll back my windows partition (yes, I have only one primary partition to fool around with) to XP with my settings intact?

If not, it doesn't sound like a way to try out a beta OS that will be non-functioning within a year.

Re:Give it a try before you trash it

[fermion]

I am sure, just like every version of windows it will be a tolerable and reasonable OS. It will have some things that are annoying, and many things that are plain a waste of time, but for people who need a machine to run a few simple apps, or to operate as a dumb terminal for a remote server, it will be just fine.

I think that the reason so many people disrespect the OS is that MS made man claims that it cannot deliver. It missed so many deadlines. It basically made a laughing stock of itself. No one else's fault.

What I would like to see, as IE is pushed as an application front end, and developers are meant to push IE only applications, is an OS with significantly reduced support costs, and significantly reduced updates. For example, my machine has almost no support, and I have no root access. So when things need to be updated, or something else changes, I may get notices for weeks that I can do nothing about, and the notices cannot be turned off.

Again, having used MS OS since MS DOS 2.0, I can honestly say that most MS OS were quite sufficient for the job. Although it took them 10 years to develop an truly usable and reliable OS (1985-1995), and another 5 years to implement a real memory manager, there was progress all the way. MS Windows XP, though imperfect, is an achievement, especially given that MS has to support past mistakes and inferior hardware.

I think what people are chafing at with Vista is that this is the first major release where the improvements are not so apparent. It is certainly not the difference between Windows 95 and XP.

Re:Give it a try before you trash it

[cirisme]

Just do what I do and install it in VMWare. You won't get the shiny Aero effects, but you can atleast test the functionality/compatibility.

Re:Give it a try before you trash it

[drsmithy]

Although it took them 10 years to develop an truly usable and reliable OS (1985-1995), and another 5 years to implement a real memory manager, there was progress all the way.

You completely ignore Windows NT before XP.

I think what people are chafing at with Vista is that this is the first major release where the improvements are not so apparent.

That's because the vast majority of them are not (and can not be) visible to the casual user.

The changes from XP (strictly, Windows 2003) to Vista, are *signficant*. Well and truly on the scale of Windows NT 4.0 to Windows 2000. If you'd like a comparison on another platform, they're on par with the changes Apple did to NeXT to get to OS X.

It is certainly not the difference between Windows 95 and XP.

Windows 95 and XP are completely different OSes. Vista, OTOH, is a (major) revision of XP.

Re:Give it a try before you trash it

[kimvette]

FWIW, sometimes the blunt approach works.

A short "get rid of DRM" from one or two people isn't going to change anything; but neither is a couple of feature requests here and there. They will know exactly to what you are referring, but they simply won't care.

Hundreds of brief "get rid of DRM" messages from hundreds of people might get looked at, maybe even noted as a potential support issue, but will not change the product. They will know exactly to what you are referring, but they simply won't care, because a few hundred users would be representative of only a few percentage points of the market; they can stand to lose 3-5% of their market compared to not forcing an upgrade cycle with this new release.

Thousands of brief messages with a short and sweet "Get rid of DRM or I/We/our company/etc. Will not buy Vista, but will look at Mac OS X and Linux as alternatives" will force their hand into dropping DRM from the operating system, because so few customers bother to provide feedback that thousands of responses from separate organizations/families/companies will be representative of a very large percentage of the target market, and in the face of making only $30bil next year from Vista sales vs. $200bil, they will have to drop DRM, or answer to shareholders when they start asking why instead of 98% of new computers shipping with Vista, but 30%+ are shipping with OS X or Linux instead.

So, go right ahead, and send them a "drop the DRM or I|We|my company|our organization|other is|are switching to OS X|Linux|BSD|other when Vista is released" because if enough people do it, they WILL take notice out of sheer necessity to maintain revenue growth.

Re:Give it a try before you trash it

[rtechie]

The clear dishonesty in releasing a beta that is called a release candidate is at issue.

And no software company has EVER come out with ANYTHING called a "Release Candidate", right? The very NEXT story on /. was about the Firefox 2 Release Candidate for God's sake! Here's a relavent articlehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_version.

OK, You've Convinced Me...

[littlewink]

I'll try Vista. But first I gotta drink a quart of whisky and nail my penis to a picnic table.

I'll give it a shot...

[YellowFellow]

Sure, first off, I should say that I've just recently quit the IT field because of burnout. (Only 14years but it was long enough).

I've had multiple certifications. (including redhat, apple, microsoft)
I've used the betas and RC1, and found the loss of performance a downside. Everything on XP is crisp and quick. Running from the same system, an Athlon 3200+ 64bit with 1gb RAM and 7200rpm SATA II drives.. Not only that but many changes in how you get things done in Vista that are counter-intuitive to everything 95/98/200/XP taught us. Nothing wrong with new, but Jesus!

Using the system for a couple of weeks and installing software from major vendors caused massive slowdown and lock ups. Like most, I'll be giving it another shot when it's released, and then again after a service pack. But I still don't think it's ready. I haven't tried RC2 as of yet.

I hope this was dry enough, and unbiased enough.I currently run the following OSes...

1) Debian (stable) (main machine)
2) Slack 11 (just trying it out having used since 9.1?)
3) Windows XP (Gaming machine / Photoshop machine (yes, i'm also learning to use the gimp, but I've been using PS since 2.0, I'm kinda used to it)
4) Windows Vista RC1 (soon to be RC2) as a dual boot with the XP Machine for testing purposes.

My suggestion is, give it a shot. Some people like it, some don't. But you won't truly get an unbiased opinion from anyone. (not even yourself)

Time for some whiskey... :P

Re:fisht post

[zxnos]

perhaps the parent works on i.e., codes for vista?

Can someone please explain...

[JustNiz]

Why I can play Halflife 2 and get an excellent framrate at 1920x1200 with all image qualites maxxed out, and all sorts of traditionally GPU-intensive fire/smoke/reflections moving around on the screen, yet just running the Vista desktop and dragging a window or two around is like walking through mud...

Re:Can someone please explain...

[drsmithy]

Why I can play Halflife 2 and get an excellent framrate at 1920x1200 with all image qualites maxxed out, and all sorts of traditionally GPU-intensive fire/smoke/reflections moving around on the screen, yet just running the Vista desktop and dragging a window or two around is like walking through mud...

Because you're lying.

Re:Can someone please explain...

[robpoe]

He probably isn't.

I have serious issues with Steam games .. it's a surprise that he got it to run at all...

And I had the same usability issues with RC1 too.

Downloading RC2 and we'll see...

Re:Can someone please explain...

[drsmithy]

He probably isn't.

Note that he's talking about "just running the Vista desktop and dragging a window or two around", not playing games.

Any PC that can play HL2 well at a huge resolution like 1920x1200, laughs at the minimum requirements to get decent performance out of Vista and Aero.

So, he's lying about the performance of either HL2 or Vista.

Re:Can someone please explain...

[Barlo_Mung_42]

I agree. I just finished HL2 Ep1 on my 2+ year old system runing Vista RC1.
The game is choppy at times but the OS is fine.

Re:Can someone please explain...

[JustNiz]

No, I'm really not lying. XP and even Halflife 2 under XP is way faster than just the Vista RC1 GUI. why don't you check it yourself before making wild accusations?

Re:Can someone please explain...

[ChronoReverse]

I am running RC2 (freshly installed taking 20 minutes) on a onboard integrated 6150 graphics chip that will run HL2 at low quality and low resolution barely passably.

Dragging around windows is not laggy at all. And it's nice that I can do that with the contents visible without spiking the CPU usage to 100% (uses about 25% CPU).

So you're either lying or you've simply installed the wrong drivers (I'm using the ones that came with RC2).

Woo woo!

[BeeBeard]

Mod parent up, s/he's got a great point! I haven't tried Vista yet, but initial takes on the RC1/RC2 releases have been positive. From a software compatibility perspective, you might as well be running RC2 now if you know for sure you're going to just be buying Vista anyway when it hits the shelves: Whereas the old betas were fairly crash-prone and didn't run much besides Office, the RC releases are apparently much more polished and well-suited to everyday use. Windows beta testing superstar Paul Thurrott has been throwing everything he can at the 32-bit RC releases and has yet to find an application that doesn't work (we shall see if the same thing holds true for games).

That's pretty impressive for Microsoft, especially considering how poorly major Windows updates have been handled in the past. Does anybody still recall the Windows 98 --> Windows 2000 transition? It was pretty ugly stuff. Even a year after the Win2k release, drivers were still breaking, plenty of older software had weird compatibility issues, etc. It seems that Microsoft is really trying to avoid a repeat performance.

Re:Woo woo!

[Afrosheen]

Um, you shouldn't be saying "the RC releases". You should be saying 'this latest release' or RC2. Remember, there wasn't even supposed to be an RC2, Microsoft released it because RC1 was shit. Nearly everyone in the tech press was screaming and crying about everything wrong with it. Stability. Speed (or lack thereof). Compatibility. The list just went on and on. So, Microsoft fixed some more bugs and released, publicly, the RC2. This was more of a PR move than anything.

  However, I will say that I'm downloading it now, and seeing if it's much better than RC1. I used RC1 for a little while and just like the press said, it sucked. Here's hoping that RC2 is improving and that I can actually find a reason besides DirectX10 that Vista is even a work in progress.

Re:Woo woo!

[Tim Browse]

Windows beta testing superstar Paul Thurrott has been throwing everything he can at the 32-bit RC releases and has yet to find an application that doesn't work

Define 'work'.

And try:

• Install Office 2000.
• Run Word.
• Hit Ctrl-F to bring up the Find dialog.
• Watch the dialog appear painfully slowly as its zoom animation screws over Vista's DWM.
• Close the dialog.
• Watch in awe as most of the contents of the dialog are left behind on screen.

And this is Office. Microsoft Office.

Re:Woo woo!

[Athanasius]

Duh, you're obviously meant to upgrade to Office 2003, or whichever is latest, in which this will[0] be fixed.

[0] May be lies.

Re:Woo woo!

[kimvette]

Try this:

• 
   
• Install SuSE 10.1
   
• Install XGL
   
• Configure compiz
   
• twirl desktop around, notice speedy performance even with lowly embedded Intel chipsets
   
• Use kompose - notice windows draw, animate and redraw VERY quickly
   
• Enable transparancy and open about 12 windows with various levels of translucency - OK, it's not speedy then, but neither is it unusable. With a lowly Nvidia 5200 or 6600, it's downright blazingly fast
   
• Notice as you move windows around they wiggle, and even on the embedded chipset the animation is very smooth
   
• Use the new task switcher - notice the thumbnails draw very quickly, and as you tab between apps there is zero lag
   
• Notice at NO time did any applications leave droppings/ghosts behind during these tests
  

This is OSS vs. Proprietary software, folks, and while XGL is not fully functional yet, it's extremely efficient and stable, stable enough that I put it into production on one desktop (can't on the others until it's fully integrated with X.org). OSS is buggy? Uh, er, right. Yeah, some stuff (in alpha) is, but much of it isn't. So many projects depend on X.org (and soon XGL) that the base OSS projects will often be far more stable than proprietary offerings.

Re:bloated software

[Overly Critical Guy]

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.

Re:Schedules slip, milestones change meaning

[PhrostyMcByte]

Microsoft uses RC when the APIs are in RC, to let developers know they can start developing stuff for it without worrying about future API changes. They call the real release candidates you are refering to "escrow" builds.

Re:Schedules slip, milestones change meaning

[kevmo]

On the other hand, Firefox 2 went a couple weeks between RC1 and RC2. Make a comparison in scale for Firefox versus Vista, and then comparing a couple weeks to a month doesn't seem like as big of a difference. Different companies have different ways of doing things - one persons RC2 is anothers Beta, and so on.

Really though, it's just semantics and marketing. Does it really matter whether it is called RC2 or Beta4 or Omega Omicron 53alpha? In the end, it's just a product that isn't quite ready for sale. I think it's a good thing to try to fix all the serious bugs they can before boxing it up and selling it.

[Disclaimer: I am a software developer (not Vista) with Microsoft, these comments are my own, and are supplied without warranty and with no rights conferred]

Meh, probably

[BeeBeard]

There probably is some trick like that out there, or at least a handful of Vista cracks, but I'm not too interested in finding them. If the May/June expiration date holds for this release as well, then I'll be pleased--that's a more than generous amount of time to test-drive the OS. It's free-as-in-no-purchase-necessary software, after all, and it just seems a little skeezy to want to compromise it like that. It just feels too much like stealing shareware (and a shareware-quality OS, too ;)

I've had reasonable success

[Superfarstucker]

I've used both 64 bit and 32 bit RC1 images and they work well. I encountered some problems with driver signing in the 64 bit version simply because few of the 64 bit drivers are signed (they're under development). Disabling driver signing didn't seem to work. The system worked flawlessly otherwise. I just had no sound, funny, I have the same problem with linux. Of course, I can't say I spent much time testing the stability, but it seemed nice enough. I can't say that anything felt significantly different, but there were some nice changes and the default window decorators are a huge step up from the default xp theme. Nothing felt noticably faster or slower. Apparently most of the significant changes are under the hood. I'll tell you what the killer app is though. DirectX 10. I think spyware and "z0mg pwn3d" will be a thing of the past. There exists more than a few soft spots in the new security model, that much I am sure, but in comparison Window's XP is "running around naked." Simply sandboxing IE will make a huge difference. The piece of software pretty much meets my expectations for what the next iteration of windows should be. Yeah, it doesn't really work on 512 MiB of memory, but neither does linux with gnome or kde.

I'm starting to like it...

[cookd]

About 1 week ago, I installed RC1++ (RC1 refresh, 5728 or something like that). It installed smoothly on my computer at home (previous builds of Vista have given me tons of driver problems).

I can dual boot between XP and Vista. I was originally planning to just use Vista for testing (the program I work on is not yet 100% Vista compatible, so I need a Vista machine to use for testing my fixes). However, it has worked well enough for me that I haven't booted back to XP all week. That says a lot.

One thing I've learned about Vista is that there are a few places where a driver problem will drag your performance down. For example, the system does more disk flushes than XP. One driver was not handling the flushes well, and the result was that previous versions of Vista felt terribly slow. I was blaming it on the Video card, but it turned out to be the RAID driver. Once that driver got updated, the performance (along with my opinion of Vista) went up about 3 notches.

There are definitely pros and cons.

Pro: Vista looks nifty, runs smoothly and has a nice feel to it. It just looks and feels polished to me, if you care about that kind of thing. The machine I've been using gets a performance rating of 4 or 5 on everything except the graphics card, which rates a 2, but the Aero interface is still fast enough that I can leave it on. (Occasionally, dragging a Window is a bit sluggish, but most of the time it is fine.)

Con: Lots of things are in new places. I know my way around XP like... Well, pretty darn well. I don't know my way around Vista. On the other hand, there are search boxes in convenient places in Vista, and you can search for things like where to find setting X or how to fix problem Y.

Pro: Console window is improved. The console behaves the same, but I can put a TrueType font on my console window and it still scrolls faster than it did in XP with a bitmap font. Scrolling the console window at max speed no longer takes 100% CPU.

Con: I still don't like the UAC prompt that pops up whenever I do anything that requires administrator privileges. I've gotten used to it, though. (Basically, I think of it as automatic SU without a password requirement.) It actually makes sense to have something like that, and it allows me to run at reduced privilege and still have easy access to Admin tasks. On the other hand, it could still use some work. For example, I wish the "control panels that require administrative privileges" were all grouped together so I could just click on one UAC prompt and be done with it. As it is, I have to accept one UAC prompt here to change setting A, another UAC prompt for setting B, another over there... And if I want to copy a file to a restricted location, then rename it, then edit it, I have to approve 3 different UAC prompts. However, once I got the system set up the way I like it, the prompts come up more rarely, and the occasional UAC prompt for something significant become natural.

The only issues I have are with a few programs that don't behave well without Admin privileges. Upgrades are coming soon for them, and I have figured out workarounds for now. This is probably a good thing, as it will give software vendors a good kick in the pants to get their programs fixed to not require admin.

Re:Troll?

[jb.hl.com]

Twitter, just because your anti-Windows shit gets modded down doesn't mean that pro-Windows shit is all that's wanted here. A troll moderation should be a loud and clear wake up call that yes, you can say that Windows is shit and Linux is awesome, so long as you do it in a factual and rational manner, which means backing up your assertions and not indulging in stupid name calling. As soon as you come to realise this, you'll stop getting modded down.

Better be stable!!!!

[Thaidog]

RC1 stays up for about 15min... then crashes over and over again. Oh yeah it looks great... for 15min at a time! OH WOW Windows that look like real windows! I get it hahahah...crash.

Re:Schedules slip, milestones change meaning

[jlarocco]

On the other hand, Firefox 2 went a couple weeks between RC1 and RC2. Make a comparison in scale for Firefox versus Vista, and then comparing a couple weeks to a month doesn't seem like as big of a difference. Different companies have different ways of doing things - one persons RC2 is anothers Beta, and so on.

Yeah, like I said, not all projects can go from RC to release in a couple days. Software with as many users as Firefox or Vista should probably wait a little longer. I don't use Firefox and don't follow its development too closely anymore, so I'm going to take your word, but in any case, "release candidate" has traditionally meant "possible release". If Firefox is as guilty as Microsoft, so be it.

Really though, it's just semantics and marketing. Does it really matter whether it is called RC2 or Beta4 or Omega Omicron 53alpha? In the end, it's just a product that isn't quite ready for sale. I think it's a good thing to try to fix all the serious bugs they can before boxing it up and selling it.

Well, a rose by any other name... and all that. But, yeah, it's marketing. PHB hears "RC2" and thinks "It's just about done", PHB hears "beta3" and thinks "They still have to get the bugs out." If MS is good at anything, it's marketting. Personally, I'd prefer they had all the features added and most of the known bugs out before they told me it was ready for release, but hey, that's just me.

[Disclaimer: I am a software developer (not Vista) with Microsoft, these comments are my own, and are supplied without warranty and with no rights conferred]

[Disclaimer: I've had more beer than I care to mention. All comments are my own, are probably stupid, and should probably be taken with a grain of salt :-)]

Re:bloated software

[TrancePhreak]

This blog is terrible. He tries to argue that because the developers produced low lines of code per year that they are going to explode. Isn't that part of the point of some of the new technologies in Vista and .net? Lower amounts of code needed to do the same windowing stuff in 98/XP? Aren't lower lines of code often a side effect of using high level languages? I'm sure large parts of 98 or Win 3.1 were in assembly, something not really needed in this day and age. All in all, a really terrible blog, as most blogs are.

Re:bloated software

[Anonymous Coward]

baaahh.... that's not that surprising that they don't understand completely... you reckon many people fully understand the linux kernel?.. vista (or nt,2000,xp) are massive ('distributed') projects!

Re:Schedules slip, milestones change meaning

[man_of_mr_e]

You're right, of course, but you seem to attribute some sort of malice or sneakiness to the issue. Microsoft typically plans at least 2 RC's. The first is never expected to be a real "release candidate", but instead signifies that a milestone has been reached and it's the beginning of the "endgame" for lack of a better term.

You might call RC1 as the "Beta RC". When the bugs in the "Beta RC" are fixed, then it will be a real RC. No new features (unless it's something showstopping that they have learned their customers won't buy if it's not in there), and just firming up the release for shipment.

In previous beta cycles, they actually called it RC0. I always thought that was a bit weird though. Unfortunately, sometimes you have to scare the beta testers into reporting bugs they may be sitting on. RC1 signifies to the beta testers "We're going to ship like this if you don't submit your bugs", and there is typically a HUGE influx of new bugs reported when RC1 is called and shipped.

Re:Troll?

[Javaman59]

Yeh.. I thought it was funny.. People should be careful about modding down - any sort of lively discussion is going to have some hits and misses, and if people get scared of missing, then they won't contribute (without checking everything 3 times, and asking their mom if the post is OK).

I mostly defend Windows, but I thought your post was witty, and quite apt... nothing wrong with poking holes in the corporate blah blah

I Paid for the 1st beta....

[Library Spoff]

...when it came out as I wanted to see it and the downloads were mobbed.
I got RC1 dvd in the post at work *this morning*

(and yes, perhaps I do have more money than sense - but I blow cash on other crap, so what the hell)

Re:Schedules slip, milestones change meaning

[GrahamCox]

features [...] were missing ... In the entire rest of the computing world, that's called a "beta."

Actually in the rest of the computing world a program that isn't feature-complete is called an "alpha". A beta is supposed to be feature complete but might not yet work properly, and an RC is supposed to be (nearly) finished with only the most deeply subtle bugs yet to be discovered and worked out.

Re:Waste of Want.

[cpt kangarooski]

I want all legal services to be free.* Were do I go to fight?

Your state legislature and state bar are good places to start.

Of course, plenty of legal services are already free -- criminal defendants can have free lawyers, if they want them, and most states require that lawyers licensed to practice there do a certain number of pro bono hours every year, meant to help those who can't afford it. And there are legal aid groups which do the same sort of thing. Contingency fees are there to help clients who can't personally pay for a lawyer, but who have a good case where the lawyer thinks there will be money later, and where both are willing to take the relevant risks. And this isn't like medicine; you can always represent yourself.

But maybe you could have a single-payer legal system, just like a socialized health care system. So long as lawyers got paid their hourly fees by someone, and it was in an ethical fashion (we're acutely aware of the danger of being paid by someone who's not the client -- it can lead to ethical breaches where you don't put the client first and foremost), and people had just as much freedom with regard to their legal matters as they do now, I doubt we'd really care.

Re:Waste of Download.

[penix1]

Not the original poster but what the hell, I'll give it a shot...

Now back to the main story. Since you all are running Linux and piss on MS on a regular basis. Why should what MS does even bother you?

From a copyright / DRM standpoint, whatever a large politically connected entity like Microsoft does to protect their "Intellectual Property" should worry those who value freedom. Don't think for a moment that Microsoft doesn't push Congress for more extreme measures than even the DMCA gives them. Why else do you think Microsoft is pushing for global software patents so hard?

Money buys large corporations many a legislator and gives them a legal advantage that normal people can never match. They can tie up the legal system for years until they get laws that favor their position pushed through.

In short, it pays to raise a stink when any large corporation unfairly games the system as much as Microsoft does.

B.

Re:Troll?

[kjart]

No, that would've been trolling as well. Generally stepping to the furthest reaches of either extreme will fall into that category.

Re:bloated software

[master_p]

from the blog:

The largest software project in mankind's history now threatens to also be the longest.

Vista will be the largest software project until this is released...

Well, Vista will be the largest software project!

Re:Schedules slip, milestones change meaning

[DreadfulGrape]

Indeed. I had to resist the urge to hurl when I read the quote, "The improvement shows as we raised our quality bar even higher!"

Ugh....

Why so much hostility towards their terminology?

[jorghis]

Why does it matter how Microsoft defines their terminology? So many people here seem to be irate at the fact that Microsoft uses the term "Release Candidate" in a different way than they do.

All the are saying with is that its a version with frozen APIs unless a fundamental problem with the API's design is found which is unlikely. They use the term "Release Candidate" for that. Why are there all these "+5 Insightful" posts ripping on them for doing that? They arent doing anything sneaky, dishonest, or even anything that could be considered bad software development. (at least as far as their development cycle goes) They are just trying to give the bazillions of third party developers for windows something to develop against before release.

Re:Unedited notes ...

[LifesABeach]

Bravo!

I just got RC1!

[wvitXpert]

Hey! I just got my RC1 in the mail and RC2 is already out!? BTW, did anyone else order the Beta 2 DVD and Microsoft sent you a RC1 disk even though you never ordered it?

Re:Schedules slip, milestones change meaning

[I'm Don Giovanni]

Anyone who tried RC1 can tell you that it was most certainly NOT ready to release without change.

I wouldn't necessarily agree with that, considering that Apple released what was essentially betaware as OSX 10.0. If OSX 10.0 was "releasable without change" as judged by Apple, then Vista RC1 certainly qualifies as such as it blows OSX 10.0 away in terms of "releaseworthiness".

Re:Why so much hostility towards their terminology

[tpgp]

So many people here seem to be irate at the fact that Microsoft uses the term "Release Candidate" in a different way than they do.

Which word do you not understand? Release or candidate? Surely you see that those two words imply that its, well, a candidate for release?

All the are saying with is that its a version with frozen APIs unless a fundamental problem with the API's design is found

It's not "API stability candidate" is it?

Re:bloated software

[MickDownUnder]

The best comment submitted !!!

MOD PARENT UP !

Hilarious....

And I think Joel is absolutely right bloatware rants being a symptom of a mental disorder... All these rants about bloatware are just that rants...

Half of these whiney bitches above use windows and they'll all end up on Vista because it has some functionality not available on XP... or someone will write a program that utilises new features in Vista and they will buy Vista to use the new program.....

Re:Why so much hostility towards their terminology

[jorghis]

It implies that the API is a candidate for release. What is wrong with that? It seems like everyone here is arguing over semantics. Even if you are right about the grammer, what does it matter? Do you also scream in protest because google didnt spell itself accurately? (the real word is googol if I remember correctly) Do we have long threads of posts on slashdot devoted to the fact that google has charged advertisers to have their stuff displayed on products that they were still referring to as beta? Of course not, because its silly to argue over how different companies use the terms engineering release, alpha, beta, release candidate, etc in different ways. Why do we condemn MS then? Microsoft is better than most because their cycles are actually very well defined. This makes it easier to develop software for upcoming MS releases.

No it doesn't

[Sycraft-fu]

Sorry, you don't get to redefine the law just because you feel that "Bill Gates has way too much money." You are allowed to make copies, but for limited reasons. There's archival (a backup), time shifting (recording a TV show to watch later), and space shifting (moving an old VHS tape to a new format like DVD). There's no "Installing it on all my computers because I want to," provision. That's infringement. You aren't going to get arrested or sued for it or anything, MS doesn't go after individuals like the MPAA, but it is illegal and they are within their rights to try and stop you.

If you don't like it, that's fine, but don't pretend the law changes just because you don't like the way it is.

New Boot Sector + Dynamic Drive Overlay = Trash

[Jonah Hex]

I've got a MSI mobo (K7N2G-ILSR) that for some odd reason requires the DDO from Western Digital to be loaded to see my full 250GB. Since Vista replaces the boot sector with a new one it trashed the DDO and only showed the drive as around 32GB. :( I think I'll wait for a new computer before trying it again.

Jonah HEX

Disclaimer

[MickDownUnder]

MSDN blogs is a publicly accessible blogging system.

You can join here

Microsoft should really have a disclaimer in there so people can't be misled into thinking this is actually an official representitive of Microsoft.

It's pretty obvious this guy isn't a microsoft employee and that half of what he's saying is probably bs.

I think the real reason why Vista has taken so long is WinFx is not just a wrapper around old windows code, it's a complete re-write a totally new windows api independent of the old win32....
That's pretty full on... it's basically a re-write on XP + extra features. Think about it XP was the culmination of 15 years of development.

What did they mean by implementing?

[Mondor]

I'm sorry for my English, but I can't understand this phrase from TFA: "We were able to also fix many of your bugs reported from RC1 and implement them for RC2."

Do I get right, that they fixed some bugs from RC1, but nevertheless implemented these bugs in RC2? Why?

Re:What did they mean by implementing?

[Mondor]

Moreover, why did they say "many of your bugs"? Why my bugs? I haven't even touched Vista, but I already made some bugs? I won't posess MS logic...

Re:Why so much hostility towards their terminology

[tpgp]

Of course not, because its silly to argue over how different companies use the terms engineering release, alpha, beta, release candidate

Bullshit

MS's own glossary says:

release candidate
A version of a build that has been tested and is ready for release.

Do you also scream in protest because google didnt spell itself accurately?

Retarded. Googol is a word, Google is a brand.

For now RC2 is rotten

[matgorb]

RC1 was fine on my system, this pseudo RC2 is rotten, Firefox can't even run after trying to install flash, the system doesn't keep the settings I change, I am going to try a re-install, because I can't believe it to be that bad.

Re:Woo woo! - ASTROTURFER

[bit01]

Every word in this, and other, posts screams M$ marketing parasite.

---

Don't be fooled, slashdot has many lying astroturfers fraudulently misrepresenting company propaganda as third party opinion. FUD too.

Mod parent up....

[rtechie]

The absurd anti-MS bias on /. is beginning to get to me. The fact is that the vast majority of readers and posters to /. are using Windows. And even if you're a rabid anti-MS zealot, virtually all computer professionals, etc. will be forced to use Windows at some point, and knowing something about the changes coming down the pike MIGHT prove useful.

If you want to complain about Vista, you should complain about the product based on actual experience. And you should try to do so constructively.

I can't say much because none of the betas I've tried (haven't tried RC1 or RC2 yet) would install in my 2 test rigs because the installer didn't like different bits of hardware (a RAID card and a video capture card) and I wasn't willing to yank cards just to test Vista. BTW, This is all hardware for which Vista drivers are not yet available. But I blame Vista for the installer just puking rather than igonring the non-essential hardware.

Re:Troll?

[bit01]

As soon as you come to realise this, you'll stop getting modded down.

Nonsense. M$ astroturfers mod down/up anything that dilutes/promotes their content-free propaganda, factual or otherwise, all the time.

M$ appears to have been paying for even more astroturf recently with vista release soon. The fact that twitter balances out even a tiny amount of that propaganda is a plus, not a minus.

---

Vista: Billions of marketing words and no delivered product.

Re:Troll?

[jb.hl.com]

Evidence, please, of Microsoft employees astroturfing Slashdot? Not any other forum, Slashdot. Twitter doesn't count, it has been well established that the people modding him down and calling him out on his constant bullshit and FUD aren't even near to being Microsoft employees.

Quite frankly, I'm not concerned whether twitter or anyone else bashes Microsoft or promotes Linux, or vice versa. It's making things up and spouting FUD to do so which I dislike.

Re:Troll?

[dedazo]

I just pictured 'bit01' here, canuck57 and twitter getting together for a paranoid zealot party, complete with a fun contest to see who can figure out the best way to pronounce "M$" so it can be used in casual conversation.

Sometimes I wonder where these people come from.

Re:Link to ISO Mod parent UP

[davidsyes]

I think he's on to something. It would, however, prove interesting if ms yanked their astroturfing surfers' subscriptions. I wonder how much funding slashdot would loose and if it would be significant or insignificant.

Re:Troll?

[bit01]

Well, being accused of being in a minor clique makes a change from being accused of groupthink.

Having an alternative point of view is not zealotry and anybody who thinks it is is well on the way to being a zealot themselves.

---

Paid marketers are the worst zealots.

Re:Troll?

[dedazo]

Having an alternative point of view is not zealotry and anybody who thinks it is is well on the way to being a zealot themselves.

Failing to tirelessly characterize Microsoft (or "M$") as the spawn of Satan is not "astroturfing" and anybody who goes around claiming otherwise is well overdue for their zealot honor badge.

Re:Schedules slip, milestones change meaning

[shrubya]

Good catch. But it's only a runner-up compared to "our enemies never stop thinking about ways to harm our country, and neither do we".