Slashdot Mirror
Windows Vista RC2 Available
GarstMan writes to mention that Microsoft has released what it hopes will be the last version of Windows Vista to go through the testing process. From the article: "This new build of Windows Vista offers users a higher level of performance and stability - improving what was established in Windows Vista RC1. We were able to also fix many of your bugs reported from RC1 and implement them for RC2. Thank you to our beta testers for the bugs and feedback you submitted for RC1. The improvement shows as we raised our quality bar even higher! Platforms and Services Co-President Jim Allchin has just posted a special announcement letter of RC2 to Microsoft Connect for the Windows Vista Technical Beta Testers."
I for one am tired of our DRM loving monopoly overlords!
Sometimes when I'm working on projects things disappear, I suspect gremlins.
There will be a release candidate 3 Beta released as well. You'll just have to pay money for it in stores.
[Insert pithy quote here]
Here's the direct link to the 2552.6GBGB ISO image: Vista RC2 build 5744.
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.
-Ryan
AUWYHSTOT (Acronyms are Useless When You Have to Spell Them Out Too)
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!"
offers users a higher level of performance and stability
ie: We added -DNDEBUG to the compiler command line.
Now this is the kind of honesty you have to appreciate.
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
http://download.windowsvista.com/preview/rc2/en/do wnload.htm
enjoy
bæ8Ã0sÃOE?5r©oÂÃ?âz:ÃÃAÃ?ÃOEÂ6fXÃ?]Â
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'?
First build that i've installed with 0 issues on 3 pcs and one of them being my frankenPC that always gave me hell.
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"
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
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
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.
Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest. -- Mark Twain
Sorry.
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
Usually 180 days is what they set it at. That could be disabled, but then so could the activation of release Windows so why bother? Also, it activates itself so you have that to deal with as well.
The reason they release it to the world is to try and catch more bugs. It's not like they don't test their OS internally but there's such a massive number of system setups out there they can't test all permutations. Also it's equally (maybe even more) targeted at allowing people to test their setups with Vista, start to figure out what they are going to need. I've been doing application compatibility testing at work with Vista, I want to have an idea what the problems might be so when the first Vista system rolls in, I'm ready to support it.
What you consider to be fair use doesn't matter, as it turns out you are not emperor and do not make the laws. That is most certainly NOT fair use. Fair use info can be found here: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use _Overview/chapter9/index.html. It's somewhat complex but what it comes down to is fair use allows you to use parts of a copyrighted work without permission for the purposes of commentary, criticism, parody and such. It does not allow you to make as many copies of something as you want just because you feel like it. That's infringement.
... 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.
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.
Maybe not
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
I'll try Vista. But first I gotta drink a quart of whisky and nail my penis to a picnic table.
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.
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.
"Sufferin' succotash."
Yeah, but getting it from the source doesn't give you that "OMG WAREZ" feeling that downloading off a shady BitTorrent tracker does.
Vista is so big and bloated that Microsoft's own developers don't understand it completely and consider it overly complex. It's so bad that they've already publicly discussed starting over for the next one (codenamed "Vienna") and just running pre-Vienna apps in a virtualized sandbox.
"Sufferin' succotash."
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.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.