Microsoft Admits Vista Has "High Impact Issues"

EggsAndSausage writes "Microsoft has granted, in a roundabout way, that Vista has 'high impact issues.' It has put out an email call for technical users to participate in testing Service Pack 1, due out later this year, which will address 'regressions from Windows Vista and Windows XP, security, deployment blockers and other high impact issues.' It's hard to know whether to be reassured that Service Pack 1 is coming in the second half of 2007, and thus that there is a timeframe for considering deployment of Vista within businesses, or to be alarmed that Microsoft is unleashing an OS on the world with 'high impact issues' still remaining." In other news, one blogger believes that Vista is the first Microsoft OS since Windows 3.1 to have regressed in usability from its predecessor (he kindly forgives and dismisses Windows ME). And there's a battle raging over the top 10 reasons to get Vista or not to get Vista.

Comments

Re:Using Vista for a bit

[eddy]

> Exactly how is it less usable then XP. They pretty much both work.

I think the first post on this page (check out the images) summarize it pretty succinctly:

"Windows Media Player cannot play this DVD because there is a problem with digital copy protection between your DVD drive, decoder and video card. Try installing an updated driver for your video card."

Re:not a llort

[sokoban]

Who the fuck modded you +informative?

This is a joke based on an old anti-Mac OS troll that used to get posted here on /. a whole lot back in the day.

This should be +funny, but I guess a lot of people don't get the joke anymore and think you're serious.
Here's the Original BTW:

I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Mac fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a Mac (a 8600/300 w/64 Megs of RAM) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one folder on the hard drive to another folder. 20 minutes. At home, on my Pentium Pro 200 running NT 4, which by all standards should be a lot slower than this Mac, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.

In addition, during this file transfer, Netscape will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even BBEdit Lite is straining to keep up as I type this.

I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various Macs, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a Mac that has run faster than its Wintel counterpart, despite the Macs' faster chip architecture. My 486/66 with 8 megs of ram runs faster than this 300 mhz machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that the Macintosh is a superior machine.

Mac addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a Mac over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.

NTFS's alternate streams

[r00t]

These are Trouble with a capital "T".

(For those that don't know: a file can have multiple bodies, and a directory can have file bodies too. You can do "notepad C:\WINDOWS:holycrap.txt" to put a stream on the WINDOWS directory.)

Viruses hide in alternate streams. Backup software forgets alternate streams. Web servers and browsers forget alternate streams. FTP servers and clients forget alternate streams.

When next you are running out of disk space, perhaps it is an alternate stream! The file size shown in Windows explorer does not show the alternate streams.

If you really want this load of crap on Linux though... see the user_xattr mount option, which you may set via /etc/fstab or via the tune2fs program.

Re:Using Vista for a bit

[slaker]

Nero. In fact, no software I tried for DVD burning (e.g. DVD Shrink, AnyDVD) worked under Vista. I tried the Enterprise edition, FWIW.
Also, I suspect that upgraders who paid for a multi-year license for their Antivirus software are going to be in for a bit of a surprise.

Re:Using Vista for a bit

[Nasarius]

TortoiseSVN.