Every Vista Computer Gets Its Own Domain Name

c_forq writes, "According to APC magazine, every new Windows Vista computer will be given its own domain name to access files remotely. There is a catch though: to use it one must be using IPv6. Is the push for Vista also going to be the push finally to switch everything from IPv4 to IPv6?" Microsoft, meanwhile, is trying to convince businesses to adopt both Vista and Office 2007 at once. An analyst is quoted: 'In all likelihood, enterprises will tie deployment of both Vista and Office 2007 with a hardware upgrade cycle.' His reasoning is that it will be easier for companies to handle one disruption to IT systems than two. Or three.

Comments

I have been waiting this...

[Anonymous Coward]

This makes my botnet administration much easier.

Both at the same time, eh?

[DaveM753]

> "it will be easier for companies to handle one disruption to its IT systems than two. Or three."

I couldn't agree more: switch to BOTH Linux and OpenOffice.org 2.0 at the same time.

IPv6 adoption.

[caluml]

Anything that gets IPv6 in use.
When is Slashdot going to drag itself into the 21st century, out of interest? It's not that hard. And you can use a tunnel broker if your ISP don't supply native v6.

Re:IPv6 adoption.

[dissy]

Sorry, whats wrong with IPv4 and what problems that I have will be fixed with IPv6? You really want to start having to remember 8 groups of four hexidecimal digits just because "it da futar!"?
Name one practical, real world use, that isnt solved by natting.

The thing wrong with IPv4 is that it is expensive if not impossible to get a large block of IP addresses, one for each machine you desire you connect to the internet.

Now, maybe you only have one machine yourself, but that in itself proves your lack of qualification to give input on this subject. It is also not the target crowd for slashdot.

If you have 50 systems and want them all on the internet, NAT does not allow you to do that. It really only allows 1. The point is sometimes 1 isnt enough, and you need more systems on the net at the same time. So NAT has to be ruled out.

Even if you want to attempt to claim port forwarding works with NAT to fake it, you fortunatly provided my argument that it doesnt.
If you have 200 web servers, port forwarded from one IP, you yourself say you would hate to remember all those ports and which machine they go to, by your complaint at remembering IP addresses in IPv6.

Fortunatly the rest of us use DNS, which lets us not have to remember IPs. DNS doesn't much help with port mappings like you prefer to use.

The point is, your usage of the internet is very very limited, and atypical of the people here on slashdot.

Office2007

[ElephanTS]

I've heard you can type much faster in Word2007. If that's not a reason to upgrade I don't know what is.

Re:Office2007

[Eberlin]

Liu kang ripe vedder width thee boys re-cog nation soft where ink clue dead width Vista!!!

Upgrade cycles

[fohat]

I don't think it is all that wise to upgrade both an OS and a full Office suite at the same time. It's really best to roll out one thing at a time, and make sure it all works. The UI changes alone are going to freak users out. I know of places that are just now rolling out XP, and they are doing it one section at a time. The more testing you do, the safer you are.

Who knew?

[zptao]

Vista will actually be useful... 1) Fueling hardware upgrades 2) Encouraging, on a huge scale, migration to IPv6 3) Fixing a great deal of the holes in WinXP 4) Allowing hardware changes without requiring new installations of Vista 5) etc...

Why upgrade?

[Carrot007]

Please try to convince my company to upgrade!

Every day I use such great microsoft products as NT 4, Office 97 (with outlook upgraded with the free 98 (about a year ago, OL 97 before that), IE 5.5, or is it 5.0? I forget.

Simple truth is most companies have no reason to upgrade. It aint gonna make them more money.

Misleading Headline

[jonadab]

The headline doesn't actually say DNS, but it implies it. But the article makes it clear that it's not actually an internet domain that is being offered, but a "Windows Internet Computing Name", which is resolved using a protocol other than DNS (specifically, PNRP, whatever that is).

Re:domain names

[ShaunC]

I say we just have ICANN create a new TLD, .bot, for all Windows machines...