Slashdot Mirror
Vista's 'Next Gen' TCP/IP Stack
boyko.at.netqos writes "Microsoft's new Vista TCP/IP stack might be beneficial to businesses looking to increase use of their IT infrastructure... if they did it right. Ted Romer at Network Performance Daily writes: '[Vista] now allows us to throttle outbound traffic at a client or server. For example, you can throttle the bandwidth of a particular subnet to a particular server, giving some departments more access to the servers that they need. You can even restrict outgoing bandwidth for certain peer-to-peer applications like bit torrent. This shaping can also be handy when applied to servers, allowing less bandwidth for certain users/departments, and more for others. While consumers may debate whether Vista is a worthwhile upgrade, I believe it to be important for enterprise customers who will best be able to put Vista's capabilities to their fullest potential. Of course, I'm getting it for DirectX 10 games, but that's just me.'"
because it sure reads like one
Microsoft is desperate to get business interested in their Vista product so will trot about all manner of reasons to buy it, but business are not biting, unless this Vista can make workers type faster or calc spreadsheets quicker or email faster than there is NO productivity gains unless wowing the coworker with a 3D AIGLX/Beryl like desktop counts as productive
if an Enterprise is worried about client bandwidth they would already be using a tool dedicated for the job like, say a Router
OK - it is nice, but it certainly is not new.
traffic shaping still isn't a breeze to setup under linux and keep in mind in many windows-centric environments, people just don't have the linux experience.
Are you speaking from experience on both fronts? (honest question) Is the vista shaping that difficult?
Linux is great for many things and many people, but sometimes the simpler solution works for a lot of people.
The network has different characteristics depending upon what point you are at on it.
... and then put a shaping router on the WAN links.
The WAN routers see the low bandwidth, higher latency serial links and such.
The servers/workstations see the high bandwidth, low latency ethernet links.
Do you really want your server(s) calculating its(their) window(s) based upon whether the request is originating across the WAN or next to it on the LAN?
This sounds like a good idea when you're talking about a single workstation, at home, connected to a cable connection or xDSL or whatever. But it sounds like soooooo many problems in the corporate environment.
Right now it is easy to find the server/workstation that is flooding the network. It's going to be very difficult when you have hundreds(thousands?) of machines that are ALL trying to maximize their bandwidth usage.
Personally, I'd prefer the ability to set the LAN parameters for the machines
It's a big deal because now, viruses and malware can slow your network access automagically, so that it'll take weeks for you to download those security patches and antivirus signatures that you should've already downloaded. :-)
Even in Windows-centric environments, many businesses do not and will not use a Windows PC to do things like traffic shaping. Firewalls, routers, etc. of any type are generally going to be dedicated-purpose devices from companies like Cisco, Juniper, CheckPoint, etc., not PCs or other general-purpose computing devices, and usually not even PCs running Linux. Why? Better performance, better security, ease of maintenance, higher reliability, the list goes on.
My blog
If "easier to use" means "requires less knowledge", then Linux might not be "easier to use". But if "easier to use" means "consistently behaves the way a knowledgable person expects", then Linux is much "easier to use".
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
Why is this called "next-gen"? There is nothing "next-gen" about this. If anything, Microsoft is finally catching up with the rest of the world in this department.
Such stuff was possible with Linux (and, I'm sure, BSD) servers for years. I know for sure because I used to have such a setup (to do traffic shaping on our -then- relatively slow internet connection shared by too many people) on a Linux server, more than 5 years ago!
Please stop this silly use of marketingspeak of calling something "next-gen" when in fact the company under consideration is just finally catching up with what the rest of the world has been doing for ages.
Every expression is true, for a given value of 'true'
Seriously, apple announces multiple desktops and have this site has a heart attack.... then praises Steve Jobs for being an inventor, a genius, etc. Meanwhile Windows has had those features for years, hell, Unix has for decades!
It seems that you must be a shill since even a fanboi would not make such an outrageous claim. MS Windows has _never_ had multiple desktops. They released a crappy powertoy for XP that supposedly emulates multiple desktops but the apps never play along nicely since MS Windows was _never_ designed with multiple desktops in mind.
strike
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
Yes, and it looks like you've just proven this point yourself. Thanks for pointing it out yourself, here goes:
Has been available in every other OS I know of for years. Microsoft is finally catching up here.
Whatever. I think it's a privacy-sensitive thing that I'd want to disable ASAP, but ok. So, you can set an arbitrary picture as your login icon. Stop the presses! Groundbreaking developments!
See above, only even more so.
So again, if what you say is true, Microsoft is finally catching up to other OS's here once again. Btw. in fact I don't agree with you, I have used the same 19" CRT on a Mac Mini and a Windows/Linux machine, and the pictures look exactly the same (you just have to calibrate the screen right).
!? Since when has Windows had multiple desktop built into the OS (without installing 3rd party applications, specific video card drivers or funny power tools that nobody ever bothers with - not least because many applications tend to act in very strange ways when you try to use it)? Also, if Vista finally supports this, Microsoft is, once more (how often do you want to point this out?) finally catching up with what has been taken for granted in every other major OS for ages.
So far, my reaction to Vista (and yes, I tried to run RC2 on my AMD64 3500+ with 1GB RAM) is that it's completely underwhelming. The only thing that is overwhelming about it are the memory requirements - it managed to use 600+ MB right from booting it up!
By the way, you also forgot to mention a few more "features", such as the fantastic customer-friendly Digital Restriction Management schemes, activation schemes that might disable your computer, etc. etc. just to name a few.
Every expression is true, for a given value of 'true'