Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft to Allow PC Makers to Downgrade to XP

mytrip pointed out a News.com story about a new Microsoft program to allow PC makers to downgrade from Vista to XP if they so choose. They're still pushing the new version of Windows very hard, but the option now exists for PC resellers to offer the now venerable OS. This is especially interesting as the article points out that OEM licenses for XP officially run out at the end of January. "Hewlett-Packard also started a program in August for many of its business models. 'For business desktops, workstations and select business notebooks and tablet PCs, customers can configure their systems to include the XP Pro restore disc for little or no charge,' HP spokeswoman Tiffany Smith said in an e-mail. She said it was too soon to gauge how high customer interest has been. 'Since we've only been offering (it) for about a month, we don't really have anything to share on demand.' A Microsoft representative confirmed there were some changes made over the summer to the options computer makers have with respect to XP, but the representative was not immediately able to elaborate on those changes."

311 comments

  1. "Allow"? by jcr · · Score: 0

    Hasn't Dell been doing this ever since Vista came out?

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1. Re:"Allow"? by eepok · · Score: 1

      No. It took them a while to muscle MS into allowing them to sell XP. Even then, it's only on 1 home laptop option and 3 gaming machines.

      Those ordering for small business have to eat the cost of additionally buying a Windows XP client license in addition to the Vista cost of buying a Dell.

      http://www.dell.com/content/topics/segtopic.aspx/winxp_inspn?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs

      No pretty linkage for you!

    2. Re:"Allow"? by Whiteox · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I purchased a Dell for a customer a few days after Vista was launched in Australia (Jan 31st?).
      I specifically asked for XP, which they gave at the same price, but also gave an opportunity to download Vista Basic for around $47.
      Now that was interesting for me, as I would of been one of the first to demand XP.
      I also refused their offer of a widescreen 19" and went for a standard 19" instead.

      By the way, Dell Sales still have no idea that their onboard sound chip drivers are crappy and buggy.

      I dunno what MS is going to do, but the sales of XP stickered 2nd hand machines here are going to skyrocket, as those who want legal Windows OS that's NOT Vista are going to be hard pressed to find one after Jan 2008.
      Here, you can get a 2nd hand Lenovo/Dell/HP on auction sites for around $200 (Intel 2.4-3.4ghz) with XP productID stickers on them. That at least is worth $150+.

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    3. Re:"Allow"? by briggsb · · Score: 1

      I'm just going to wait for Vista SP1 and have it downgrade to XP for me.

    4. Re:"Allow"? by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      You can buy a PC with XP but XP OEM licenses will become unavaililble at some point (according to the MS site linked in the slashdot summary big brand OEM and retail ones will stop in early 2008 and whitebox ones will stop in early 2009). Of course there will be odd copies of whitebox OEM and retail hanging arround for a long time but that doesn't help big manufacturers much.

      As a customer you have always had downgrade rights with OEM licenses of vista buisness and ultimate but you had to use your own media (forcing you into a telephone activation for each machine unless you already have big brand OEM media of the right brand or VLK media and forcing you to buy at least one copy retail if you don't already have usable media). According to TFA the big brand OEMs can now ship XP media (and even preinstall XP if they wish) with machines that are licensed for vista buisness or ultimate.

      As before home users who buy from the likes of PC world and get vista home basic or home premium OEM are screwed, the only legitimate way for them to downgrade is to buy full retail.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    5. Re:"Allow"? by Allador · · Score: 1

      Are you kidding me?

      Here's a counterexample:

      http://www.dell.com/content/products/category.aspx/latit?~ck=anav&c=us&l=en&s=bsd&cs=04

      Dell offers XP Home or Pro, in addition to all the Vista licenses, on every single model they sell. I dont know where you found that page, or if its even linked from anything anymore, but you went to some great lengths to cherry pick one old/inaccurate page to try to make a point.

      I'm not going to go to the trouble to repeat my research here, but Lenovo, HP, and Dell all offer XP or Vista on every model I could find.

  2. Article has that backwards. by Tatarize · · Score: 5, Funny

    Users are permitted to upgrade from Vista to XP.

    See, fixed.

    --

    It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
    1. Re:Article has that backwards. by heathaze · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Users are advised to upgrade from Vista to XP. I think I caught that one on time :)

    2. Re:Article has that backwards. by Tribbin · · Score: 1

      They love to self-declare what is and is not good for the customer. Remember 'Microsoft Works'?

      --
      If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
    3. Re:Article has that backwards. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and I can't see why they would get that backwards. It's not like this is Soviet Russia.

    4. Re:Article has that backwards. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is this modded as funny? I seriously believe this sould have been modded as Insightful. Vista is garbage.

    5. Re:Article has that backwards. by cloricus · · Score: 1

      I found out yesterday you can no longer buy office 2k3 and must buy 2k7.

      I hope Microsoft also works out this is a huge issue and allows business customers to not be forced to down grade to a confusing bloated office application.

      --
      I ate your fish.
    6. Re:Article has that backwards. by Tatarize · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Yeah, sadly 2k3 and 2k7 are pretty much exactly the same, save 2k7 has more bloat. OOo all the way.

      --

      It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
    7. Re:Article has that backwards. by varghan · · Score: 1

      So actually, users get to choose what operating system they use. That's an outrage!

    8. Re:Article has that backwards. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's funny, you seem to be implying that OOo is NOT a bloated piece of shit.

  3. Downgrade? by Tribbin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why do they insist on calling it a downgrade?

    --
    If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
    1. Re:Downgrade? by Nitroadict · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is further proof, if most did not suspect or pondered, imo, that Vista was just released to be released (see: rushed out) due to complications in getting whatever was originally supposed to what the next OS,which "7" is supposed to be: something new, something improved (one hopes :cross fingers:). However, I've stopped bitching at Vista and got a dual-boot of Xp/Ubuntu, so I apologize for getting mildly redundant there... I will probably eat my words when the 2nd service pack comes out, as I'm sure vista will be worked out better by then, but Vista has disappointed me with it's inherent DRM and resource hungry requirements, and random reorganization of stuff compared to XP. :\. They should, while they are at, publicly admit the existence (and perhaps promote) Windows Fundamentals For Legacy PC (essentially XP only it uses considerably less ram and resources). I recently put that baby on my old laptop (Compaq Presario; Anthlon Barton w/ 256 mb RAM) and the thing flies in comparison to the default XP install I had, and was even faster then the custom EUE XP I had installed previously (more stripped down). While it would counter intuitve for M$ to cater to such users of older pc's (therefore they forgo the purchase of more up to date pc's with Vista installed or Vista capable, whatever that means), I think it would be a smart move overall as it might convert a few people who are stuck using Windows 2k on their older laptops/desktops. Also, for some of the remaining ignorant, general users, this might be useful in letting them know just because Vista (or more generally "the new windows") isn't working, that they need not panic and just downgrade. Some PR spin could prevent some of this from M$ admitting, gasp, a few problems with Vista ;D

    2. Re:Downgrade? by Ant+P. · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Same reason they use words like "Genuine Advantage", or "doubleplusungood".

    3. Re:Downgrade? by Jerry · · Score: 4, Insightful
      the next OS,which "7" is supposed to be: something new, something improved (one hopes :cross fingers:).


      When driving down a hiway at night Deer are sometimes caught in your headlights. They stand, transfixed, as you approach. You have to honk your horn and slow down to give them a chance to get out of their trance and leave the road.

      So is it with some folks who, when MS releases PR memos about vaporware, fix their vision on this "future" OS, freezing themselves out of any current improvements. Just what MS wants.

      --

      Running with Linux for over 20 years!

    4. Re:Downgrade? by rucs_hack · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is that Vista isn't being seen as a useful upgrade by microsofts biggest customer, the business world. They don't want it.

      In a few years they will, just like they avoided XP till it had been around for a while. Its not that they don't like it, they just don't feel they can rely on it yet.
      A new OS is a risk, even if it comes from the major player in the OS world. Yup, people here may not like it, but windows is the standard bearer, Linux is still a minority everywhere but serverspace.

      Home users get the fallout from this. The simple fact is that vista would be a big improvement for most home users who are in the 'don't care, so long as my pc works' class. People who don't want it are usually reacting to the negative press and not realising that most of this doesn't really apply to them, vista will do everything they want, since what they want is a pc that will browse the web and play games. XP does this too, but the security model in XP is a disaster, Vista at least improves on it a bit. Linux fans may be angered by this, doesn't stop it being true.

      I don't want vista either, I'd rather stick with XP, but I'll be buying it next year, several copies in fact. So will almost everyone on slashdot, unless they're really linux only bods. Hardly anyone falls into that group at the moment. I like my games, and Linux just doesn't do that well.

    5. Re:Downgrade? by Tribbin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You are talking about the warm fuzzy feeling of words like 'Trusted Computing'?

      --
      If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
    6. Re:Downgrade? by Loadmaster · · Score: 1

      The obvious answer is they want people to buy Vista. The truth is that it should be called cross-grade. I had Win XP Pro and *graded to Vista Ultimate. I like Vista; haven't had any problems with it, but it's just not worth the money for the average user. I've been asked by a couple friends what's better about it. Answer: I don't know. It has a few flashy graphic additions. Oh, it works better with my 360 but still doesn't work with Xvid (rumored fall update). This is what Microsoft's new tag line for Vista should be:

      Vista: It's New. . .er! Now with even more of the same but in Mac style!

      One can only assume the exclamation marks will make people buy.

      Swi

    7. Re:Downgrade? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Because the version number is lower, if there had been one (ok so it's 5.x something if you check)? No, the latest version isn't always the greatest one so if say Ubuntu Gutsy give you problems you'd downgrade from Ubuntu 7.10 to Ubuntu 7.04. It's only a very tired and old slashdotism to mock Microsoft over what's perfectly sensible use of the word.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    8. Re:Downgrade? by Sylver+Dragon · · Score: 4, Informative

      I like my games, and Linux just doesn't do that well.

      I'd be careful on Vista as well, then. My personal addiction has been World of Warcraft for some time, and when I upgraded to Vista on my home system, my frame-rates tanked. My system is not top of the line, nor close even. But it was able to run WoW on OK graphics settings, and get playable frame-rates anywhere but the worst of places, while I was running XP. After a few months of dealing with the performance hit, I downgraded to XP. My frame-rates are back to reasonable, at higher graphics settings than I had been using in Vista (which I had lowered to make the game playable) and higher frame-rates.
      Now, this probably has more to do with the drivers for my graphics card (6600GT) than the OS itself, but it is an issue which will keep me from upgrading.

      --
      Necessity is the mother of invention.
      Laziness is the father.
    9. Re:Downgrade? by calebt3 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I will most likely not buy Vista, even though I am not a Linux-only bod. Economics and (some) respect for the law play pretty big roles in my choice of OS.

    10. Re:Downgrade? by Wowsers · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The simple fact is that vista would be a big improvement for most home users who are in the 'don't care, so long as my pc works' class.

      After playing around with Vista on a friends new highly spec'd machine, I would say most home users are in the 'don't care it runs slow' class. They don't know how fast their new machines could be running (they can't/don't compare a similar machine running something like XP or Linux), Vista's turned their high spec machine into something resembled to running through tar.

      --
      Take Nobody's Word For It.
    11. Re:Downgrade? by Tribbin · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      The following picture I took might make you happy:

      http://art.gnome.org/backgrounds/nature/2481

      --
      If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
    12. Re:Downgrade? by suv4x4 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So is it with some folks who, when MS releases PR memos about vaporware, fix their vision on this "future" OS, freezing themselves out of any current improvements. Just what MS wants.

      I like your analog, but I think the reaction you see is more likely because people prefer to stick to XP until something better than XP and Vista comes along (hopefully 7).

      The only thing that could impress those people, would be faster release of XP SP3, since the sheer amount of patches required after reinstall is incredible.

      I'm in that crowd, and while I'm watching how they go with Vista SP1, I have to say I've pretty much given up on this OS release as a whole.

      Windows 7 will be the product that decides the future of Microsoft. They simply can't afford two crappy releases in a row.

    13. Re:Downgrade? by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 3, Funny

      Windows 7 will be the product that decides the future of Microsoft. They simply can't afford two crappy releases in a row.

      As opposed to how many in the past?

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    14. Re:Downgrade? by Nitroadict · · Score: 1

      You took me too literally lol; I'm not by any means sitting here with baited breathe wondering what M$ will release next, I'm just casually curious as to what might've made it to Vista when it was called Longhorn, etc. Quite the contrary, I've been having a blast learning all I can about linux after getting the dual boot to work (i waited until I got an external hd to back up stuff so I could properly mess around with an install to get it right instead of hoping Wubi works after it failed 2 or 3 times). By no means does having ubuntu make me some type of pro at anything, but I do realize that even for Xp, which is better than vista (considering they are both M$ operating system's, better is a relative term lol...), there exists many "replacements" (:insert different suggestions of linux distros, linux distro+xp dual boot, etc. etc...). I do think that I'm taking the step in the right direction, and it's an about face to many people whom wouldnt want to bother learning anything about how to install ubuntu (which is a breeze to install in most cases) because it sounds hard, or they are lazy, whatever their reasons. I'd be more worried about the non-technical users, i.e. many a family member whom usually depend on one or two members of the house as an unoffical "admin" for computers in the household, who get all swept up in the PR hype in general, and who get ripped off by misinformation from their peers and/or customer service reps at :insert brand store name: Besides, I'm willing to bet by the time this "7" comes out, I'll probably know enough about linux to not really care by then. Unless of course, someone makes a post like this concerning the OS after "7", of which I reply with a similar reply like yours to them, with the irony not apparent ;D.

    15. Re:Downgrade? by teh_commodore · · Score: 1

      I'll downgrade to XP in the same way I'll "downgrade" to a first-class airline ticket or a supersized meal. But then again, it sounds like you're a fan of bloat, so Vista might be the way to go.
      --
      --"insert clever quote here"
    16. Re:Downgrade? by suv4x4 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      As opposed to how many in the past?

      One: ME. But ME was the best time to release a crappy Windows, if I could so say.

      The prosumers and professionals have moved to Windows 2000 which was a great OS, plenty of people kept their Windows 98 which also performed very adequately for the hardware and software we used at those times.

      ME was a blunder, but there was 98 and 2000 to make it subtle and make it easy for Microsoft to swipe it under the rug and forget about it.

      With Vista it's completely different story. Vista is for home users, prosumers and professionals. It has been released after building incredible hype for over 5 years in development.

      Professionals have nothing to migrate to (no 2000 analog) and consumers feel cosy with their XP, but Microsoft was killing XP OEM prematurely.

      Basically they have screwed big time, and they knew it from the very start but hoped marketing and ignorance will buy them some time.

      Do you remember the grand plans Microsoft had for marketing Vista? It was supposed to outdo the Windows 95 campaign in cost, visibility and impressiveness.

      But Microsoft just did a so-so release event and went quiet. They knew they had a turd and opted to save their money for Windows 7's campaign.

    17. Re:Downgrade? by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      I'll downgrade to XP in the same way I'll "downgrade" to a first-class airline ticket or a supersized meal.
      Not to pointlessly pick at your analogy, but upgrading to Vista is more like upgrading to a supersized meal. It's bigger, makes you (or at least your computer) more bloated, it's more expensive, and it builds unhealthy habits (in Vista's case, continuing the MS monopoly). :)
      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    18. Re:Downgrade? by teh_commodore · · Score: 1

      vista will do everything they want, since what they want is a pc that will browse the web and play games. XP does this too, but the security model in XP is a disaster, Vista at least improves on it a bit. as I'm sure it is with most /.ers, I've had to help all sorts of friends, friends of friends, parents, and friends' parents with their various computer problems. One of the things that has become very clear over the last few months is that I can only get their computers to "do everything they want" by changing a lot of things that the average user doesn't really know how to do. It's really frustrating to see someone with a brand-new, right out of the box Vista machine not be able to load their fantasy football page with cable internet without it taking dial-up speeds. Also, even if they only want to use their machine for menial tasks, Vista still asks them to approve or deny every little action.
      --
      --"insert clever quote here"
    19. Re:Downgrade? by OakDragon · · Score: 1

      As opposed to how many in the past?
      One: ME. But ME was the best time to release a crappy Windows, if I could so say.

      Well, there's also Microsoft Bob.

    20. Re:Downgrade? by xednieht · · Score: 1

      The next OS on the PC platform is going to be OSX, then MS will be relieved of its role as the red-headed step-child

      --

      Hope is the currency of fools
    21. Re:Downgrade? by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Windows 7 will be the product that decides the future of Microsoft. They simply can't afford two crappy releases in a row.

      It's too late for that, MS already has a string of bad releases. The only MS Windows version I have not had trouble with was NT 4.0. While I haven't, and refuse to, use Vista the very first tyme I used XP it was on a brand new Dell. I pushed the power button and waited, and waited, and waited. Five minutes later I gave it the three finger salute, once, twice, then a third tyme before I held in the power button. Once, and the first tyme at that, was enough for me.

      Falcon
    22. Re:Downgrade? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ...the security model in XP is a disaster, Vista at least improves on it a bit. Linux fans may be angered by this, doesn't stop it being true. If Vista does that better than XP for desktop users, why would that anger me? What does the security model in Vista or XP have to do with Linux?
    23. Re:Downgrade? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because M$ still can't get over that whole 1984 thing: War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength... Up is Down

    24. Re:Downgrade? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe people that don't want vista are responding to my telling them that I will not support their vista machines with Matt's Family And Friends PC Support service under any circumstances

    25. Re:Downgrade? by bendodge · · Score: 1

      I think Vista is going to be the next Windows ME/2000 - a flop that bridges the gap between the really good versions (98SE, XP, 7?).
      It implements many new technologies and ideas, but is too clumsy and buggy to achieve the "standard" position. It will simply be shoved under the rug when the solid version arrives. (At least, that's my opinion.)

      --
      The government can't save you.
    26. Re:Downgrade? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      That depends on how you count them, relative to the past releases and relative to the competition or on some absolute scale. I can't speak for Windows up to 3.1, but at that time I was using DOS which had very obvious shortcomings. I remember the early days of Win3.1/95/98 and each was an improvement on the last. I also had OS/2 and remember why I stopped using it, and I do remember the local hacker who was desperately trying to compile Linux so ca. 1996-1997. I do remember the early days of plug-and-pray, but I also remember having to set up IRQs and IO addresses myself, or even through damn jumpers on the cards.

      The only release I know of that sucked worse than the last was ME, and to this day I swear that was a money grab release before they introduced the home market to XP. I've only used NT on a few occasions, but from what I heard it was limited but stable. Windows 2000 is of course the peak for minimalism - simple and stable *enough*, I don't want to get into a 7 9's discussion, and I don't know the server editions which I assume is what you'd use for that anyway. XP was hardly an upgrade from 2000 at all, but it was new to the home market and if you put it in classic mode it was no worse (except for activation), and they've added several meaningful things like the SP2 firewall (better late than never).

      For me, XP runs the applications I want, it's stable (least to the order of power outage or hardware failure stable) and the navigation works. Perhaps Vista sucks so bad but I doubt it, it's that XP (and 2000 before that) already does everything I want it to do. So does the Linux and Mac desktop, short of some applications I'm very fond of. So why should I even bother to think about Vista? Unless I hear it's so superstable it runs when the power's out and that the UI gives you an orgasm, it's not going to make my life any better.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    27. Re:Downgrade? by jack455 · · Score: 1

      nice photo

    28. Re:Downgrade? by jack455 · · Score: 1

      With Ubuntu they sell 7.04 as long term support

      While they still upgrade 7.10 to whatever, enterprise folks still get 7.04LTS, which is entirely different than what MS is doing to their customers who are *relatively* better off with XP, but not given enterprise suppport.

    29. Re:Downgrade? by jawtheshark · · Score: 1

      I think Vista is going to be the next Windows ME/2000 - a flop that bridges the gap between the really good versions (98SE, XP, 7?

      Please don't put ME and 2000 in the same bucket. They are very different beasts. ME was the version after 98, the 9x line died with ME (it stands for "Millenium Edition"). Win2000 on the other hand was the successor of Windows NT 4.0. WinNT 4.0 on itself was a good Windows version, if you knew its quirks. Windows 2000 was a great upgrade on WinNT 4.0, because it added USB support, Plug n' Play, and many other features. Note that the NT line (which includes Win2000) was means for professionals and business users. The 9x line was meant for home users.

      XP was the Windows release that merged the home user line with the professional line (Essentially taking the codebase of the professional line for all future OSe). Sure, there are different editions for different usages, but in the end it's the same core. I also want to remind you that many IT professionals found Windows XP a downgrade to Windows 2000. Most of us, in the end, found some features that we really liked, turned of the Fisher Price interface and made it act like Windows 2000 with some extra services that are useful.

      To this day, many businesses keep running Windows 2000. It was one of the greatest OSes from Microsoft. I say this to you as someone who dislikes Microsoft, but at least I can admit when they did something right.

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    30. Re:Downgrade? by Raphael+Emportu · · Score: 1

      First thing my 'Basic Home' customers ask me is why VISTA is asking them for permission for everything they ask it to do. Is this what you mean by 'vista will do everything they want', they have lot's of problems with USB modems that don't work, printer drivers that don't work, is that what you mean by 'the security model in XP is a disaster, Vista at least improves on it a bit'. Somethings you say make me wonder if MS is expanding their 'Genuine Votes' program.

    31. Re:Downgrade? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      My son runs WoW under Ubuntu Linux using Wine.

    32. Re:Downgrade? by nebosuke · · Score: 1

      You misunderstood your parent post. To clarify, he meant that Vista -> 7 would be analogous to ME -> 2000.

      In other words, total ass -> surprisingly good.

    33. Re:Downgrade? by jawtheshark · · Score: 1

      Ah, I see now... I didn't read it that way, the slash indicated to me that he meant the two together. My bad.

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    34. Re:Downgrade? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck you, you fucking crippled motherfucker.

    35. Re:Downgrade? by backwardvisionary · · Score: 1

      Its not that they don't like it, they just don't feel they can rely on it yet. A new OS is a risk, even if it comes from the major player in the OS world.
      Since when businesses don't take risk ? They either die or take calculated risks every day, when benefits overtake inconvenients. The point is Vista benefits now are far lower than its related costs and risks -- or actually certitudes -- that it will bring to IT and users trouble, more work, for very very little -- if any -- advantage in daily tasks. That's why IT, they (we!) do NOT like it.

      The simple fact is that vista would be a big improvement for most home users who are in the 'don't care, so long as my pc works' class. (...) since what they want is a pc that will browse the web and play games. XP does this too, but the security model in XP is a disaster, Vista at least improves on it a bit.
      Wrong ! Regardless of how hard MS tried to technically remove built-in security flaws from XP, the focus of hackers will move to Vista, and these are quicker than MS updates (amusingly XP might actually become indirectly a safer OS). Keep in mind that most of the hackers are mafia or government-funded and have on hand the computers required to decrypt the keys opening the hidden gates that MS had to keep for government intelligence agencies. Actually they already did.
    36. Re:Downgrade? by ModMeFlamebait · · Score: 1

      With Ubuntu they sell 7.04 as long term support
      -1, Wrong. 6.06 was the first LTS release, the next one will be 8.04 AFAIK.
      --
      Pavlov. Does this name ring a bell?
    37. Re:Downgrade? by double_plus_ungod · · Score: 1

      you called?

      oh, nevermind.

    38. Re:Downgrade? by sjames · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Now, this probably has more to do with the drivers for my graphics card (6600GT) than the OS itself, but it is an issue which will keep me from upgrading.

      I'd say they're closely related. The driver is the most direct problem, but the crazy new requirements Vista puts on drivers to make sure nobody makes fair use of any IPee is a likely reason for the new driver problems.

      Fundamentally, Vista WILL steal cycles from your game to run DRM threads at a higher priority. MS has gon way out of their way to assure that the cycle stealing is non-optional.

      Put another way, it will use your cycles from your CPU to actively prevent you from doing what you want with your computer. It's no wonder people want to "downgrade" to an OS that, in spite of many flaws, doesn't do that.

    39. Re:Downgrade? by sponga · · Score: 1

      You should have just dual-booted and gone back every couple weeks to test out new drivers, but that might be a hassle and if you have patience than wait it out.

      Nvidia has turned out some nice Vista drivers after fiasco toward the first couple weeks and even XP users are a little mad that Vista seems to be getting more updates now or atleast quicker.
      MS also turned out a couple performance patches and compatibility patches to make things run smoother; which that recent performance patch helped out with. No more slow file copying although that will be the new blue screen joke around here.

      Really you only take a (high end)5%-20%(lower hardware) loss in FPS; but at the end of the day all you really need is those minimum 30 fps to get a smooth feel for the game.

      WoW is a big game but lets not use it as the only game; there are hundreds of other games that now work on Vista and more are being made compatible everyday.
      Anybody who is a Windows user or visits friendly MS forums and doesn't get caught up in the fear mongering of the DRM screamers killing my performance knows where the real problems are and have been working to solve them for awhile.
      Such as punkbuster not working on Vista for awhile which would basically not allow you to play online by constantly kicking you; thankfully we didn't sit with our thumbs/heads up our asses like a lot do around here and worked to get the issue solved.

      Nvidia was the problem in the chain and ATI already had solid/stable drivers the first 3 months, but Nvidia is on top of the game especially with their latest beta drivers to give you a decent performance boost on Bioshock and the Enemy Territory:Quake Wars demo as I play them on Vista.

    40. Re:Downgrade? by jokersmild · · Score: 0

      Always remember that Linux has hotter chicks than Windows. http://picasaweb.google.com/odomsbar/ShillBuntu/photo#5109021605894539714

    41. Re:Downgrade? by ejp1082 · · Score: 1

      Well, Vista's yet to give me an orgasm, but the UI does offer two HUGE improvements over XP:

      1. They fixed the alt+tab interface - you can actually see what you're switching between, and the desktop is one of the options. (The aero windows button+tab is even better; much better even than expose on the Mac).

      2. The start menu. Hit the windows button, type the name of the program you want, hit enter. Don't need to touch the mouse, don't need to navigate countless inscrutable menus organized by the name of the software publisher.

    42. Re:Downgrade? by Foofoobar · · Score: 1

      So... Microsoft Bob was a winner in your mind??

      --
      This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
    43. Re:Downgrade? by jack455 · · Score: 1

      Oops, I should've been more careful.

  4. Downgrade? by CaptainPatent · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'll downgrade to XP in the same way I'll "downgrade" to a first-class airline ticket or a supersized meal.

    On the other hand though, it is Microsoft making a correct move by giving consumers what they actually want while keeping the marketing in line with their "forward thinking."

    --
    Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
  5. Not the whole time by localroger · · Score: 5, Informative

    Originally, Dell switched entirely to Vista just like everyone else. Then after a month or two they strong-armed M$ into letting them offer XP to their business customers. (I would love to have been a fly on the wall listening in to the conversation that got that concession out of M$.) This is just M$ offering the same thing to other vendors, who are probably losing a lot of business to people who want XP and can only get it from Dell.

    --
    Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
    1. Re:Not the whole time by Ferzerp · · Score: 1, Troll

      This is flat out incorrect.

      As a business customer, XP has never been unavailable to me.

      Furthermore, Vista (other than basic) OEM has always had downgrade rights as part of the license.

    2. Re:Not the whole time by Ferzerp · · Score: 0, Redundant

      And yes, I mean through Dell.

    3. Re:Not the whole time by hurfy · · Score: 1

      At least the local shop has no problem building me a XP box. New laptop last week was offered with either Vista-sucky edition or XP-home or an upgrade to XP-Pro. Salesman laptop died and i got a new one built in 4 hrs :)

      Even comes with a windows CD. Of course the multiple choice OS means they usually load one up by hand so some settings can be a bit inconsistent, but i change most of it anyways.

    4. Re:Not the whole time by nategoose · · Score: 1, Informative

      According to my reading of the article this actually seemed to be about OEMs enabling customers to "downgrade" to XP after purchasing a system with Vista business or ultimate by providing the customer with a copy of XP to install. If so it'd be good for customers because they could see which works out for them and then eventually move to Vista totally if it improves to meet their needs.

    5. Re:Not the whole time by crymeph0 · · Score: 4, Informative

      It depended on the PC model. Where I work, we have a small business account with Dell. We could get XP on higher-end workstations we use for 3-D modeling and the like, but we had to get Vista on the lower-end PCs we use on the factory floor, until Dell relented a month or so after Vista hit. I know our IT guy sent some very strongly worded emails to our Dell sales rep asking for XP on all computers, and I'm sure they were getting the same from many of their business customers.

      --
      It should be illegal to say that freedom of speech should be limited.
    6. Re:Not the whole time by Propaganda13 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's good for Microsoft because people spent the money on business or ultimate then in April 2009 support runs out. The person will either need to change to Vista for support or pay for additional support.

    7. Re:Not the whole time by suv4x4 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      (I would love to have been a fly on the wall listening in to the conversation that got that concession out of M$.) This is just M$ offering the same thing to other vendors, who are probably losing a lot of business to people who want XP and can only get it from Dell.

      Me too :(

      You know, many experts predicted people will skip Vista and go for the next Windows (if for any at all). And those aren't the kinda experts which damn the latest Windows version each time as a sport.

      I'm a Microsoft fanboy, but I also feel my stomach turning upside down seeing what they did with Vista as a whole.

      And the fact this happened means people actively reject Vista en masse, for Microsoft this means they will have to do big time correction on their Vista projected sales (which included all previously guaranteed OEM sales). One more step into confirming this "people will skip Vista" theory.

    8. Re:Not the whole time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative


      Originally, Dell switched entirely to Vista just like everyone else. Then after a month or two they strong-armed M$ into letting them offer XP to their business customers. (I would love to have been a fly on the wall listening in to the conversation that got that concession out of M$.) This is just M$ offering the same thing to other vendors, who are probably losing a lot of business to people who want XP and can only get it from Dell.


      Official policy states that we are NOT allowed to give people people a replacement license from Vista to XP or XP to Vista. This is called an OS Swap, and in the olden days before Vista came out and went over like a lead baloon, it was fine. Bought a system with WinXP but really need Win2k? Ok, sure, fine. XP Home but really need XP Pro? Not a problem at all.

      We can still do XP to XP and Vista to Vista, but whatever concession we had to make with Microsoft to offer XP again must have included a "But you (Dell) agree NOT to let them escape Vista hell without them buying a retail copy of XP, so we (MS) get paid twice" clause.

      There are workarounds -- if it's under 21 days, we've been telling people to return and reorder the system properly (costing us $Shitloads$) or if the customer really wants it, we can exchange the entire system and instruct the exchanges team to do XP instead.

      My gut guess is that Microsoft just doesn't want word to get out that all these "sales" that MS is writing down on systems that shipped with Vista are being wiped clean and having XP put on them the second they POST for the first time.

      Which, BTW, is exactly what's happening. Our #1 call on Vista, outstripping everything else by a LARGE margin, is "How the hell do I delete this piece of crap and put XP on the machine instead?"

    9. Re:Not the whole time by Ferzerp · · Score: 1

      I could get XP on any model. It was a concern of ours since none of our apps are certified for Vista yet.

    10. Re:Not the whole time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      LOL! "Multiple choice. XP *or* Vista." Shoot me now.

    11. Re:Not the whole time by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      but originally, Microsoft was going to cut everybody off from XP completely. In my workplace, we'd LIKE Vista, but practically we need computers NOW and don't want to waste weeks proving out software for one PC. Paying for Vista now and getting XP also in the box is win-win for everybody. Win that M$ gets the credit for a Vista shipment so ISVs will develop faster. Customers are happy because they can use their PCs now... except for OEMs having to support and write drivers for hardware they were trying to upsell.

    12. Re:Not the whole time by Carrot007 · · Score: 3, Funny

      > In my workplace, we'd LIKE Vista

      Please tell me where you work so I can avoid it.

      Cheers.

      --
      +----------------- | What is the question!
    13. Re:Not the whole time by speaker+of+the+truth · · Score: 1

      For most people that's the only choice they WANT.

      --
      Using openSUSE instead of Windows since 9th of October, 2007 and liking it.
    14. Re:Not the whole time by speaker+of+the+truth · · Score: 0, Troll

      What's so bad about this Vista anyway besides the DRM shit?

      --
      Using openSUSE instead of Windows since 9th of October, 2007 and liking it.
    15. Re:Not the whole time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no need for strongly worded emails, since you can downgrade Vista Business and Ultimate to XP for free for quite a while. Essentially you're throwing away a free license to upgrade to Vista later if you order your computers with XP instead of Vista. With Dell computers you won't even have to bother to get new license keys from microsoft, as XP will be pre-activated after installation from Dell OEM CDs.

    16. Re:Not the whole time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interestingly, I see this as a trend. I'm mostly a Macintosh consultant to education accounts; but the past few weeks I've been making a point of asking customers about their Vista plans (yes, even the most dedicated Mac districts have a strong Windows presence). The answer has been almost completely along the lines of "Never. It offers nothing we want, has lots of what we DON'T want, and is a huge support hassle."

      is it possible this entire, costly, lengthy, product introduction could fail?

    17. Re:Not the whole time by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      For most people that's the only choice they HAVE.

      Fixed that for you.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    18. Re:Not the whole time by Echolima · · Score: 1

      Microsoft

    19. Re:Not the whole time by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      everybody LIKES new and shiny. It's fun to get new computers. On the other hand, Vista has taken a lot of work to get working for the IT staff that use it as more of a toy. We can't give it to regular users in that condition so we've got to wipe it and put the XP site-license on to get real work done.
      note, I'm not the windows fan... I showed them my new macbook once... and I think they'll hurt it if they see it again.

  6. buggy! by grumpyman · · Score: 3, Funny
    that OEM licenses for XP officially run out at the end of January.


    See, I know MS develops buggy code. Even their license generator stop working!

    1. Re:buggy! by Faylone · · Score: 1

      It's cliche, but "It's not a bug, it's a feature"

  7. I just setup Vista for a friend by canuck57 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I understand the plight. After setting up Vista for the first time the other night I could not believe the amount of GUI changes in Vista. Especially when it came up on a cable modem PPPoE. Took me an hour to figure it out, it though we had a DSL dial up. Don't look for properties any more in the OS, they are now calling it "Settings" and is where the help used to be on many screens.

    People would have less learning UI if they loaded Fedora 7 or RHat.

    Sure glad I bought my last PC when I did. Still had XP on it with a promise of a free upgrade. Have the new disks. Just never applied the upgrade. Will not be applying any time soon either.

    1. Re:I just setup Vista for a friend by ACS+Solver · · Score: 1

      And keep in mind that MS actually dropped the idea of a complete GUI overhaul in Vista. Chances are they'll still do such an overhaul for Vienna.

      I wonder how the users will respond. On the one hand, your average user takes a lot of time to adapt to a complete GUI change. On the other hand, sometimes these changes are really good (think Windows 3.1 -> Windows 95).

    2. Re:I just setup Vista for a friend by Sylver+Dragon · · Score: 1

      My personal rule of thumb for dealing with the Vista GUI has been, expect to have to dig through one more layer than normal to get anything done. If you haven't yet, try changing folder permissions in Vista. I have a bad habit of doing the following:
      Open Properties, go to security tab, click edit, click allow on the UAC pop-up, try to make a change and realize that the permission is inherited, close the edit box, click advanced, click allow on the UAC pop-up, uncheck inherit, click copy, close the advanced box because I really do just want to add modify and not all of the sub-permissions directly, click edit, click allow on the UAC pop-up, and finally, make my change.
      In XP, there is no edit button to make changes, and the need to exit the edit dialog, go the advanced dialog and then come back to the edit dialog; is gone. Sure, if I picked up on the fact that the check boxes were greyed and so inerited, I'd save myself the headache; I don't see why it's necessary in the first place. Let me do my edits and ask me to allow admin rights when I attempt to write them back.

      --
      Necessity is the mother of invention.
      Laziness is the father.
    3. Re:I just setup Vista for a friend by L0rdJedi · · Score: 1

      In XP, there is no edit button to make changes, and the need to exit the edit dialog, go the advanced dialog and then come back to the edit dialog; is gone.

      Um, no it's not. In XP, it's an Add button and it still doesn't work if the permissions are inherited. It'll let you add the person, but the moment you click ok, it'll error out telling you the permissions are inherited and that you have to copy them or remove them first. So you still have to go to the Advanced button and copy the permissions over before adding/changing any others.

      Sure, if I picked up on the fact that the check boxes were greyed and so inerited, I'd save myself the headache; I don't see why it's necessary in the first place. Let me do my edits and ask me to allow admin rights when I attempt to write them back.

      As I said, XP doesn't even attempt to do this. And how would it know if you want to add new permissions or just completely change the inherited permissions? Sounds like you want a computer that can read your mind and not one that will do what it's told. Maybe you should just learn to realize that greyed check boxes are inherited permissions.

    4. Re:I just setup Vista for a friend by Mex · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do me a favor. When your friend inevitably calls you up for help with his new Vista OS, tell him you can't help him because you don't know this new OS, and have him call Microsoft for support, as it should be.

  8. Coming Soon.. by carlvlad · · Score: 0

    Microsoft pushing Vista for OLPC..

    1. Re:Coming Soon.. by rts008 · · Score: 1

      LOL!! My mental 'cue card department' visions of this almost had me wetting my pants from laughing so hard.

      Picture this:

      A nice little laptop- not fancy, but serviceable...a small but okay battery- gets 2 hours on a full charge...built-in hand crank generator....Hmm!! Need more power!....Ahaa! A human sized hamster wheel hooked to a large generator!...that can be broken down into it's own cart! *hears Frank Zappa's 'Dynamo Hum' in background*....Yes! Yes! The crowd roars!!!

      *wakes up*

      Thanks for the good old fashioned 'belly laugh' you provided, much needed after a hard evenings work, trying to relax on /. (Relax on /.? What am I thinking?!!?!?)

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
  9. XP is insufficient, Vista is ridiculous by White+Flame · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I need to buy a new system (current motherboard got damaged, might as well upgrade), and I've been weighing my options. Vista is simply not an option at all. XP Pro 64-bit is orphaned, with virtually nonexistent driver support. XP is 32-bit, and I already was running Win2k with 4GB of RAM (well, as much as it will use of that) and need to grow.

    After all these years of Windows desktop and Linux here & there on servers and VMs, I'm going to finally make the jump the Linux desktop, VMWare'ing Windows where I need it. I don't play PC games anymore (besides minesweeper), I'm going to get a quad CPU with 8GB of RAM, and Microsoft simply isn't offering anything viable for that configuration.

    1. Re:XP is insufficient, Vista is ridiculous by Curate · · Score: 1

      Why is Vista "simply not an option at all"? If you're getting a quad CPU with 8GB, Vista will run extremely well on that, probably faster than XP.

    2. Re:XP is insufficient, Vista is ridiculous by White+Flame · · Score: 5, Informative
      • I don't care if Vista will run "extremely well", it will take up far more resources than any other option, and I'm running very CPU and memory intensive applications. I'm getting a powerful machine to run my applications, not just to run a lumbering OS.
      • I have a bunch of peripherals and don't want to risk driver problems.
      • I do not want to be encumbered with DRM and other "trusted computing" issues with basic system configuration, troubleshooting, and software development, nor in my media recording, archives, and playback.
      • I run a lot of not-very-mainstream software that doesn't explicitly support Vista yet, but does support Win32 and Linux.
      • In the little that I've played around with doing simple things on Vista on store display boxes, it has either crashed or thrown security exceptions at me. I think it reflects a lot of the negative responses I've seen here from Vista users here and elsewhere as consistent usability, stability, and access problems.
    3. Re:XP is insufficient, Vista is ridiculous by calebt3 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I recommend VirtualBox.

    4. Re:XP is insufficient, Vista is ridiculous by dbIII · · Score: 1
      Yes - but other operating systems are better suited since it's considered server hardware in a lot of cases. MS do a server OS, but any linux distro that has a recent enough kernel to support the chipsets would virtually fly on the things just as it does on twin dual cores. Ultimately it comes down to the applications you use.

      Personally I'd rather run something that doesn't use vast quantities of memory and cpu power on eyecandy and background tasks best left until 4am when the user is asleep - if you have that much computing power you usually have it for a reason and want to be able to use as much of it as possible on whatever grunty application needs it.

    5. Re:XP is insufficient, Vista is ridiculous by Zeinfeld · · Score: 1
      Why is Vista "simply not an option at all"? If you're getting a quad CPU with 8GB, Vista will run extremely well on that, probably faster than XP.

      Because if he buys Vista he won't be able to troll slashdot for pats on the head?

      If you are really buying a quadcore system and you don't know whether to run XP or Linux then something odd is going on. Unless all the applications you plan to use run equally well under Windows and Linux you are not going to be put off by any of the alleged deficiencies of Vista (which I have been using for six months now and not noticed any of them).

      And if you were in fact in the position of running only apps that work on both and you can afford to buy an 8Gb quadcore then isn't it more than likely that you would already have at least one Linux box? If you are doing full time Apache development using emacs or the like you are going to find it much easier on Linux. If on the other hand you are a full time Visual Studio developer than switching to Linux just is not an option.

      And why specify an 8Gb box if you don't know the O/S? Unless you have some sort of RAM fetish there isn't really a lot of call for 8Gb unless you kinda know which O/S you are going to be using. Why specify 8Gb? In fact apart from hardcore gaming (which does not exactly argue for Linux) or data analysis type work (like you think Vista is going to be the determinant) or server systems (where the O/S choice is a no-brainer) why 8Gb?

      So I call troll here. He might or might not be buying a new machine but his schtick sounds like one of those infomercials they have on late night TV. I once watched a show about a guy who was getting through a gastric bypass surgery. The same guy appears in a commercial during the break to hawk an exercise machine "do these abs lie", well yes they do because they were at least 90% the result of a non-trivial amount of surgery and at most the machine was used for strength training afterwards.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    6. Re:XP is insufficient, Vista is ridiculous by heybo · · Score: 1

      Don't worry MineSweeper comes on Linux ;)

    7. Re:XP is insufficient, Vista is ridiculous by rts008 · · Score: 1

      From my little bit of experience, if you are expecting more of a 'workstation PC' instead of 'just a desktop user's PC', then I would recommend Fedora/Redhat or CentOS. If it's the other way around, then I would recommend Ubuntu/Kubuntu (depending on whether you prefer the Gnome/Ubuntu desktop or the KDE/Kubuntu one), or I have had good experiences in the past with Mandrake (ver. 9 and 10-don't know much about the newer Mandriva versions).

      Currently I am using a PC with an older Intel P4 Prescott/478 3.0GhZ, !GB PC2700 RAM, ATI 9550 256 MB AGP vid card, Lite-On 8x DVD R/RW, 52x CD ROM, ATA133 200 GB HDD, 80 GB SATA HDD, 100 GB SATA HDD, floppy and multiple USB ports, and an older Creative Labs Audigy sound card. All of this is running Kubuntu 7.04, but had previously ran Win XP Pro SP2 until WGA declared my retail XP CD as pirated. (Use Google for 'rts008+slashdot+Winxp+WGA or some such parameters- I was vocal!)

      All works well except for any hope of 3D acceleration with the vid card-but there is 'supposed to be' a solution coming from ATI/AMD with the release of Doc's and spec's, and some close to ready updated drivers. We will see.

      There seems to be pretty good support for the newer imbedded Intel vid chips on the mobo- but no experience here, also I have heard that CURRENTLY nVidia's vid chips have much better support. Do some research on supported hardware before you burn any bridges. (Minor point:I have a Visioneer 6100 USB scanner that will not work with any distro of Linux that I have tried...YMMV)

      There are many more *nix options that are all mostly valid...at least as valid as my choices, and there are the *BSD's to check out. My reply is based on my own 'Windows World to Linux World' experience, nothing more. My experience is very limited, but for me, it 'just works'....just my 2 cents.

      Also, I have had good luck with Automatix2 and my Kubuntu 7.04 install. You will find the opinion on this pretty well split 50-50. (bugs, problems, etc,) There are longer routes to the same thing as Automatix2, so before going 'hog-wild', do a little research, then make up your own mind.

      Win 98Se and Win2k both work well with VMWare on my Kubuntu PC, so I don't feel left out.

      I highly recommend upgrading to *nix, but you do need to do a little research first if you are dependant on specific peripheral hardware, or expecting superb audio/visual experiences 'out of the box'. Also again, no personal experience, but there seems to be some wireless issues with some chipsets.

      Don't be scared, just look before you leap, or use a dual boot or live CD option to check it out.

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    8. Re:XP is insufficient, Vista is ridiculous by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      I don't care if Vista will run "extremely well", it will take up far more resources than any other option, and I'm running very CPU and memory intensive applications. I'm getting a powerful machine to run my applications, not just to run a lumbering OS.

      Myth #1, Vista's CPU footprint is virtually the same as XP, and RAM is not a big difference with today's systems. Vista will allocate more 'free' RAM for Smart Caching, but only if it is 'free' RAM. The only real difference between Vista and XP here is the RAM usage, where XP can hold at a 128mb footprint with lots of system RAM available, Vista holds at about 256mb footprint. So you would be loosing 100mb by using Vista. (Hence why Vista on 512mb is tight and 1GB is faster than XP.)

      I have a bunch of peripherals and don't want to risk driver problems.

      Myth #2. Vista, even Vista 64 has more driver support than any other OS in history, including better support than XP, and when it comes to 64bit, the best driver support out there. The crap our test labs have threw at Vista 64 and 32 has often even shocked our techs in driver availability as XP 64 sucked for driver support.

      I do not want to be encumbered with DRM and other "trusted computing" issues with basic system configuration, troubleshooting, and software development, nor in my media recording, archives, and playback.

      Myth #3, if you don't buy or use DRM product, no DRM mechanisms are EVER used on Vista. It is just like freaking XP, if you don't buy a DRM song, then DRM is NEVER used.

      I run a lot of not-very-mainstream software that doesn't explicitly support Vista yet, but does support Win32 and Linux.

      Vista is Win32, even Vista 64bit has a full Win32 subsystem. I am not sure what software you are talking about, but we run a lot of open source and 'odd' utilities, and to date nothing major has yet failed to work properly on Vista.

      In the little that I've played around with doing simple things on Vista on store display boxes, it has either crashed or thrown security exceptions at me. I think it reflects a lot of the negative responses I've seen here from Vista users here and elsewhere as consistent usability, stability, and access problems.

      The OMG Myth. Well we know how well demos in stores are cared for. Ok, Vista is more stable and crash proof than even XP, which has a pretty good record at this point.

      Even past that, 3D applications that are prone to stressing hardware or crashing the OS, don't even phase Vista, where they would drop XP to its knees. For example, running a high-end Game or MMO, if the Video card drivers screw up or the Video card starts to overheat, etc. Vista will simply shut down the Video and restart it, in a fraction of a second. You could even remove your Video card while Vista was running, and put it back in and Vista would say, oops Video stopped working and continue on as nothing had happened. NO OTHER OS can do this, especially when running 3D applications, and not only recover the GUI in full, but even the 3D game recovers.

      As for other performance.

      Vista for gaming is even faster than XP now, there is no longer th 10% hit with the early NVidia/ATI drivers. Vista is now about 5-10% faster than XP in 99.9% of all gaming. Go read a 'revisted' review of Vista, go to Tomshardware or about any place that has test Vista and gaming recently. (Vista also loads games faster, which is nice to have your load screen times cut to 1/10th in MMOs especially.

      Desktop applications are faster under Vista, especially applications that write a lot to the screen because of the pass-through composer in Vista. This includes simple stuff from a web page or spreadsheet to Adobe Illustrator or CorelDraw or AutoCad, the redraw of vector is not only accelerated at the GDI/GDI+ layer, but the composer makes the drawing updates instant. Scenes in Corel or AutoCad that take over 20secs to fully render (yes complex ones) on XP, take less than a second to render on Vista.

      The reason XP

    9. Re:XP is insufficient, Vista is ridiculous by Lennie · · Score: 1

      OK, I'll bite.

      Myth #3: the more people have an OS that supports DRM, the more likely the entertainment industry is to use it.

      The more likely the Vista OS will be the only OS being able to use it.

      No thank you.

      ----

      I would almost say:

      "3D applications that are prone to stressing hardware or crashing the OS", Vista it self is a 3D application.

      But I won't.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    10. Re:XP is insufficient, Vista is ridiculous by Lennie · · Score: 1

      Who said you buy your hardware for just running your current applications.

      Buying a system that can use/be upgraded to above 4GB of memory probably isn't a bad idea in that light.

      For months now I've been running such a system and I will be for a very long time.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    11. Re:XP is insufficient, Vista is ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      So, according to you, Vista uses about the same resources as XP, is faster at a point, is more stable, has better software and hardware support, has better gaming performance, and it's not affected by DRM.

      YOU! YES YOU SLASHDOTTERS! YOU ARE A BUNCH OF LIARS! YOU HAVE BEEN LYING TO ME ALL THIS TIME ABOUT VISTA. VISTA IS GOOD!!!!

      Thanks NetAvenger for bringing the truth. By the way, could you tell me where you live? I would like to move to your alternate-reality paradise too!

    12. Re:XP is insufficient, Vista is ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By defending Vista with such absurd and nonsensical lies, you only highlight the fact that Microsoft will do ANYTHING to shove Vista down the throats of the computer users of the world. Go back to your magical fantasy land and leave the real people to this real world.

    13. Re:XP is insufficient, Vista is ridiculous by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      Myth #3: the more people have an OS that supports DRM, the more likely the entertainment industry is to use it.


      Ok, lets say this is the basic trend. But most people don't watch movies on their PC, they watch them on a stand alone player.

      And since EVERY stand alone player has the HDMI/HDCP DRM in it, the market is already encouraged as much as it can be.

      Vista is the just the only PC OS that allows HD content using this DRM to play currently, but considering most people other than laptop users or media center users don't freaking use their computer to watch HD-DVD or Blu-RAY, how do you think this is going to affect the market at all?

      All PS3s also come with this DRM built in, are you going to tell everyone the PS3 is DRM filled crapware too?

      People forget that even DVDs have DRM built into them, just because it is easy to subvert them today does not mean it is not there, and yes even Linux Distributions have region codes and their players decode regular DVDs DRM, so should we yell at Linux for supporting the DRM industry?

      Geesh...

  10. Venerable? by porcupine8 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sorry, I know a lot of people think it's better than Vista, but when did XP become venerable?? Is there some secret meaning for that word that I don't know?

    --
    Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
    1. Re:Venerable? by Flipao · · Score: 1, Informative

      Is there some secret meaning for that word that I don't know? In the Catholic Church's Latin rite, venerable is the title of a person who has been posthumously declared "heroic in virtue" [Wikipedia.org]

      I think he means XP was a great OS before it died, maybe his computer blew up or something.
    2. Re:Venerable? by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      Made me raise eyebrows too. When did the whole "to hell with XP, I'll stick to Win2k" thing vanished ? Remember ? XP has nasty anti-piracy features that can lock your PC, mandatory upgrades that you can not refuse and the license gives MS the right to erase any file on your disk. It also says you must send a kidney of your firstborn to Mr. B. G. Redmond, Seattle.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    3. Re:Venerable? by deprecated · · Score: 1

      Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    4. Re:Venerable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think they're using the term in the sense of "impressive by reason of age".

    5. Re:Venerable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My language word for 'venerable' is often synonymous with 'very, very old', especially, when used ironically.

    6. Re:Venerable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sorry, I know a lot of people think it's better than Vista, but when did XP become venerable?? Is there some secret meaning for that word that I don't know? After using the GUI gave me VD. Oh, venerable not venereal.
    7. Re:Venerable? by porcupine8 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Common English usage is for something that's old, but honorable or respected because of (in part) that age. Something to be venerated. XP may be old, but the rest...

      --
      Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
    8. Re:Venerable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect someone's spell checker spit out the wrong suggestion for "vulnerable".

    9. Re:Venerable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      > ...but when did XP become venerable?

      Whenever my computer gets a virus. On the internets one can gets lots of venerable diseases...

      o_O

    10. Re:Venerable? by GPL+Apostate · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It is really weird. There is an assumption these days that we've all 'upgraded' to XP. I honestly don't feel like a lame luddite for getting all my Windows needs fulfilled on a W2K box here at home. I use it for video editing, embedded software development, various multimedia tasks, etc. I finally have had to run XP at work, but there's essentially nothing about it to compel me to 'upgrade' at home. The few commercial packages I might be interested in 'upgrading' seem to incorporate the new Microsoft 'phone home to register' features that I have zero interest in involving myself with in the first place.

      --
      Microsoft says legacy (serial/parallel) ports are bad. They don't obfuscate the hardware enough.
    11. Re:Venerable? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      " ...but honorable or respected... "
      Exactly the OPs point. Is there some other definition we haven't heard of, becasue if not, no Microsoft product is "venerable", at least in circles where people have a clue.
      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    12. Re:Venerable? by Orethrius · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I know a lot of people think it's better than Vista, but when did XP become venerable?? Is there some secret meaning for that word that I don't know? venerable, adjective : Buggier than a cow standing in manure inside a Louisiana swamp on the Fourth of July.
      --
      Now back to my regular pseudo-scientific reading.
    13. Re:Venerable? by Silver+Gryphon · · Score: 1

      No, the editor just kept thinking of "venereal."

    14. Re:Venerable? by teh_commodore · · Score: 1

      It's kind of like burning your hand lighting a cigarette one day, and then the next day having it crushed under a giant boulder. You suddenly realize that that little burn didn't really bother you that much...

      --
      --"insert clever quote here"
    15. Re:Venerable? by OakDragon · · Score: 2, Funny

      Buggier than a cow standing in manure inside a Louisiana swamp on the Fourth of July.
      Mr. Rather, don't you think you had better concentrate on your lawsuit against CBS, not wasting time here in /.?
    16. Re:Venerable? by IHateEverybody · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I know a lot of people think it's better than Vista, but when did XP become venerable?? Is there some secret meaning for that word that I don't know?

      XP became venerable at around the same time that people who upgraded to Vista started going back to XP. Actually, Windows XP with Service Pack 2, fully patched, and with its built-in firewall enabled is a pretty stable, secure OS--especially relative to other versions of Windows.
      --
      Does this .sig make my butt look big?
    17. Re:Venerable? by mjmeyer · · Score: 1

      It was a typo. The submitter misspelled "vulnerable."

    18. Re:Venerable? by rts008 · · Score: 1

      That makes me feel better. Thanks.

      The only other times I have heard the term venerable has been in reference to really old and distinguished Chinese dudes.

      Otherwise, it would be Will XP do my laundry using 'Ancient Chinese Secrets'?

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    19. Re:Venerable? by vistic · · Score: 1

      Main Entry: venerable
      Pronunciation: 've-n&r(-&)-b&l, 'ven-r&-b&l
      Function: adjective
      1 : deserving to be venerated -- used as a title for an Anglican archdeacon or for a Roman Catholic who has been accorded the lowest of three degrees of recognition for sanctity
      2 : made sacred especially by religious or historical association
      3 a : calling forth respect through age, character, and attainments <a venerable jazz musician>; broadly : conveying an impression of aged goodness and benevolence <encouraged by the venerable doctor's head-nodding> b : impressive by reason of age <under venerable pines>
      synonym see OLD
      - venerability /"ve-n&-r&-'bi-l&-tE, "ven-r&-/ noun
      - venerableness /'ve-n&r(-&)-b&l-n&s, 'ven-r&-/ noun
      - venerably /-blE/ adverb

    20. Re:Venerable? by Orethrius · · Score: 1

      Mr. Rather, don't you think you had better concentrate on your lawsuit against CBS, not wasting time here in /.? Just killing time until the inevitable dismissal.
      --
      Now back to my regular pseudo-scientific reading.
  11. So very different... by NoName+Studios · · Score: 1

    I look at Windows Vista and realize how vastly different it looks from Windows XP. The same goes to my customers that I speak with, they are confused as well with all of the graphical and placement changes. Windows XP started a very solid trend on what the look of Windows is, but Vista shattered that.

    Take a look at Mac OS X. The interface is pretty much the same for more than ten years. There have been improvements, but the basic functionality has stayed the same with some graphical upgrades.

    1. Re:So very different... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OS X? That means Apple hardware. Ewww. No thanks. When my wife's Macbook failed (again, this time out of waranty), we chucked it and picked up a Thinkpad and put Ubuntu on it. Yeah, we paid for yet another copy of Windows we won't ever use, but the Thinkpad is a far better machine than any MacBook.

    2. Re:So very different... by Tribbin · · Score: 1

      If Vista is going to be 'Windows' final interface' than any change is permitted.

      If the change implies that Windows is going to lose the final; that is nice too.

      --
      If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
    3. Re:So very different... by Fox_1 · · Score: 1
      Here's a little bit of craziness, my Vista doesn't look like Vista, it doesn't even look like XP either, it looks like the good old fashioned plain Jane NT/95/98 world. Simple icons, plain start bar, no fancy window effects. All you have to do is turn off the eye candy and select the right visual options.

      Yeah, who'd of thought that the Prettiness of the OS doesn't improve it's functionality? On that note - having killed a lot of unnecessary junk in vista I'm not quite getting the same performance to power ratio as my XP box (which has been similarly tweaked). But I have twice the power so I don't feel the pinch so much.

      This isn't meant as a defence of the bloated OS, I'm just pointing out that with proper configuration Vista can be a very functional OS, not a bizarre confusing visual experience that chews your processor up.

      --
      The rock, the vulture, and the chain
    4. Re:So very different... by miffo.swe · · Score: 1

      If you have to get down and dirty and disable the only real change in a new OS i dont really understand why you would buy it. Especially if it comes with sluggish performance and no improvement in security to boot. I have tried Vista and find it abysmal compared to XP and i do not like XP one bit. Its "Windows ME 2007", same old crap with new fancy wardrobe and brand spanking new concrete boots.

      --
      HTTP/1.1 400
    5. Re:So very different... by Topherbyte · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Take a look at Mac OS X. The interface is pretty much the same for more than ten years.

      THAT, plus the BSD underpinnings, is what made me finally take the [pricey] Apple plunge.

      Apple, and the beautifully designed OS X, let me DO WHAT I WANT with the computer. And this is neglecting to mention AppleCare, a decent insurance policy for the hardware if I've ever seen one, which has already paid for itself after one fizzled iBook motherboard.

      MS products OTOH, and I'm not a rabid MS-hater for all concerned, just do not get it -- Vista only allows you to do what MS thinks is best. Can someone please explain to me why that is considered an upgrade?

      Sorry Microsoft. Since I have professional sway, and strongly advise my family and friends on which hardware to buy, you're just SOL.

    6. Re:So very different... by I'm+Don+Giovanni · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Take a look at Mac OS X. The interface is pretty much the same for more than ten years. "

      Um, OS X hasn't even been around for ten years. It was introduces in 2000 or 2001..
      And OSX's interface is just as different from that of its predecessor, Mac OS 9, as Vista's is from XP's. There was plenty of whining in the Mac community over the "step back" that OSX 10.0 was. (It was indeed very much slower than Mac OS 9, but I think it's interface blew away Mac OS 9's).

      --
      -- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
    7. Re:So very different... by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Why'd you go get Vista for anyway? For the DRM? For UAC?

      OK the "control audio on a per app basis" feature is nice (so some darn IM program won't blow your ears out while you are trying to make out what is being said in a very quiet recording.

      But I suppose the only compelling thing for the masses is that DirectX10 is Vista only.

      Yeah I agree that's craziness alright. I can think of a few car analogies but I'll spare everyone :).

      --
    8. Re:So very different... by Fox_1 · · Score: 1
      I've never been into the windows eye candy, but it's always nice to have a machine around where things just work, plug in something and it works, bam, install xyz program and it works, sweet, and sadly for that kind of behaviour I've come to rely on MS products. And I know many things don't work perfectly for windows, and with Macs there are a number of beautifully integrated products, but I'm cheap.

      The reason I got Vista - I got tired of updating my *cough* XP , I was starting to worry that I'd have trouble applying security patches, etc as my windows update doesn't function *cough* , Finding and deploying patches was getting more annoying to manage. So when I went for a new laptop the cost was low enough after rebates that I didn't feel the pain of paying for the Vista licence that came with it.

      Fact is after a gigzillion patches I wonder how different XP is from Vista, and if those differences actually mean greater stability for one over the other. There are a few things, like DirectX10, that are also gonna be Vista only. This happens every few years with the MS OS, and yes each one is worse then the last - at least out of the box - but again with enough tweaking you usually can get your MS OS to be pretty stable and functional. That's more then turning off EYE Candy (which really isn't the only change they make in the OS from version to version) , it also includes finding and killing innumerable services that aren't necessary/used, and even sometimes choosing the right software to run, some programs make your windows experience worse. As counter as that is to my 'stuff just works' statement - stuff works, pretty much everytime, just somethings work better then others. Clever windows users pay attention to that, and others don't care because it still works and they're blinded by the Eye candy.

      --
      The rock, the vulture, and the chain
    9. Re:So very different... by Fox_1 · · Score: 1
      To provide context: the only MS software running on my laptop is Vista. The rest is the usuals of FF, OO, TB, etc.

      I had people over this past weekend and they used my laptop for quite while, gaming, watching videos on the TV, music, surfing. No warnings, crashes, slowdowns or other issues. Later when talking about it, they asked if I'd used Vista yet?, and why I didn't get it for the laptop, was I worried about all the problems people were having with it?
      One of them even had a horror story about half his office switching and the nightmare that followed.
      I actually had to show them system properties to convince them it was Vista on my laptop.

      --
      The rock, the vulture, and the chain
    10. Re:So very different... by QuietObserver · · Score: 1
      I can't say whether that's particularly true or not, but what I can say is that when I bought my MacBook, after nearly a decade without any regular Mac use, only occasional use of my mother's then Mac OS 9 iMac, I had no problems adapting to the new interface. It just seemed like the old interface, as far as I was concerned, and my mother, who had never used Mac OS X before buying her new iMac, found the new interface equally easy to fall into. Yes, there are annoyances, but for the most part, my mother has been quite satisfied with her new machine. IMHO, what Apple did with Mac OS X was make the old interface simpler and more user friendly than it had been before, while from what I've seen of Vista, it's become more cumbersome and complicated than before, and while I've seen many people rave about Aero, I've personally found the interface to be a horrible, disgusting mess.

      I really like the look and feel of Mac OS X, particularly Aqua. Aero is like putting thick smoky glass in front of the background, which severely distorts the image; I wouldn't be able to use Aero for more than a few minutes without switching to the classic view (I detest XP's eye candy, too; makes the computer feel like a Fisher-Price toy that I can't really do anything with). Aqua's transparencies are more subtle and pleasant, giving me the ability to see what's behind what I'm looking at without distorting it; I can still read what's behind the menu or the dialog box, which I can't in Vista.

      Sorry about the long post. Seems I've made a habit of that tonight. Weird how your mind can play those kinds of tricks on you when you're exhausted.

    11. Re:So very different... by TheLink · · Score: 1

      "I'm just pointing out that with proper configuration Vista can be a very functional OS"

      That sounds like "with proper configuration Vista can be almost like Win2K" ;).

      A pretty OS can have better functionality, but Vista is not one of those.

      I'm sure the horror story was true, there are plenty of them - that's why Microsoft is doing this - if they don't people will do it anyway or switch to Kubuntu or something - since Kubuntu is even more compatible with existing XP certified hardware than Vista is.

      I've personally bluescreened Vista within a few minutes on a beige box - another department passed it to me to test with our system (browser access only - I installed NOTHING on vista). And that's so far been the ONLY time this _year_ that I've had Windows BSOD on me. At home I use Win2K and at the office I have XP in vmware on Suse Linux, and both are fine.

      But if it's a preinstalled Vista system from a major PC vendor (like your laptop) it is likely to work since they'd do a fair bit of tests before going "Yeah we can put Vista on this"- after all for a while Dell's top end workstation was XP only - they didn't have one with Vista.

      So far from what you've said, I don't see any reasons to go for Vista other than what I'd stated already. Other than DirectX10 being only on Vista there's no big plus (and that's a weird plus too), vs a lot of minuses. Microsoft will continue to support XP for a long while despite what they say. The huge corporates have only just switched to XP SP2 from Win2K (since XP SP2 is the first release of XP that is stable enough for corporate use).

      To me the advantage of XP over Win2K is XP boots faster, I prefer XP in "classic mode" too. All the stuff I need to run runs on both.

      I believe classic mode is actually better since that was made when Microsoft paid GUI people money and actually _listened_ to them :). After that it was stuff like MS Bob or Clippy where Microsoft ignored the "techs" and went "we need it to pop up a bit more often", and it goes downhill from there. I hate the "Personalized Menus", grouped buttons etc, they all get in the way - one more extra thing to click with no real speed up in workflow elsewhere.

      It'll be nice if I could have a cheap Win2K. If software copyrights only lasted 7 years, Microsoft would have to come out with something much better than Vista (and Win2K for that matter) ;).

      --
    12. Re:So very different... by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      I look at Windows Vista and realize how vastly different it looks from Windows XP. The same goes to my customers that I speak with, they are confused as well with all of the graphical and placement changes. Windows XP started a very solid trend on what the look of Windows is, but Vista shattered that.

      All the basic and fundamental UI elements and interactions are the same. Start Menu, window widgets, window managemtn, task switching, etc - all essentially unchanged from XP.

      Take a look at Mac OS X. The interface is pretty much the same for more than ten years. There have been improvements, but the basic functionality has stayed the same with some graphical upgrades.

      OS X has only been out for 6 years. If you're referring to MacOS Classic by your "10 years" figure, then OS X is *at least* as different from MacOS Classic as Vista is from XP (more, really - OS X changed pretty much all of the fundamental UI elements and interactions, in Vista most of the fundamentals are the same as XP).

      If you think OS X is "pretty much the same" as MacOS "Classic", then you didn't spend much time using MacOS.

    13. Re:So very different... by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      [...] but I think it's interface blew away Mac OS 9's).

      Ugh. In what way ? The Dock was a UI train wreck, the Finder is *still* atrocious (and it's improved significant since 10.0) - I was never a big fan of the Mac's application-centric UI, but OS X made it measurably worse by making "looking cool in product demos" a higher priority than usability.

    14. Re:So very different... by Fox_1 · · Score: 1
      Yup, my Vista is in it's classic mode equivalent, other then some minor diffs in the start menu and radical diffs in the control panel , both computers look the same, 1 w/xp 1w/vista, both with classic appearance. Nothing runs, or pops up or bugs me on my computer unless I want it to do so. And don't get me started on menus that hide things from you, that stuff does not go on around my computer. Ugh, when they started dumbing the OS down by covering up useful controls with layers and layers of user friendly sappiness I agree was kinda a jump the shark moment on OS interface design.

      There is a project out there building a free NT system, kinda built on the basic foundation of NT from a design point of view, goal is to have driver compatibility. That would be nice if it was further along, it's still in a very pre beta state - missing lots of stuff still.

      I believe Vista has the edge on XP, but an edge that won't really show up for another few years. This is stuff that could probably be updated into XP but patching on top of patching is a complex way to manage an OS. (And if windows patched/updated as clean as linux patches and updates I wouldn't say that, you can run a linux box for years replacing every file eventually.)

      I'll also say I only got Vista because it came with the laptop new, I have specifically recommended to my friends not to upgrade their computers to Vista unless they buy some major manufactured system that comes pre-installed, otherwise keep the XP and just add more RAM (my number one upgrade suggestion). It's not past SP1 yet, and to get it running nicely on my machine took a chunk of time and configuration that most people aren't into. But it does run nicely, so there's hope for anyone who is stuck with it instead of XP.

      --
      The rock, the vulture, and the chain
    15. Re:So very different... by phillous · · Score: 1

      How could XP have started a trend on what windows looked like? its the only windows that looks like that... 95, 98, 2k all looked similar, then xp was differant, then vista was differant. On a personal note, I've been using Vista since release. I've had only very minor problems with it, and they've all been fixed now. I'd expect some problems with any spanky new software. Anyway, point is, it works perfectly for me, pretty much always has. I don't get slow down on games or anything... I don't really see what all the fuss is about. Its a nice OS.

  12. a problem with vista? by mseidl · · Score: 1

    If end users are requesting that they get XP instead of Vista? What does that tell you? When so many people ask for XP over Vista that dell starts to offer it. Let me clarify this: "Don't know nothing" end users are asking for something else. That just speaks volumes for the resistance against Vista.

    1. Re:a problem with vista? by Tribbin · · Score: 1

      I remember a HUGE billboard where Microsoft asks us something about if we are continuing to be living in the stone age.

      This was about new office software. You saw dinosaurs at the office on the billboard.

      I think they were not sure enough about their stuff to pull such insult to 'stayers' with Vista.

      --
      If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
    2. Re:a problem with vista? by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

      I was standing at the customer-service desk of a computer store yesterday (MicroCenter, a slightly more clueful big-box store than CompUSA or its ilk) and a guy walked up to the desk next to me. Basically, the guy wanted to know "what the hell was wrong with his computer." Some sales drone had sold him on a Vista laptop, and he got it home before discovering that it wasn't what he expected a computer to look or feel like. Long story short, the guy ended up returning the unit and exchanging it for one of the two models they still stock that come preinstalled with Vista.

      I certainly hope someone in their corporate hierarchy takes note and realizes that stuffing Vista down users' throats isn't a good idea. Even clueless users know when they're being sold a bill of goods, and in some ways their cluelessness makes them less able to deal with the changes in Vista than experienced users (who by and large *could* deal with Vista, but don't want to have to).

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    3. Re:a problem with vista? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Some sales drone had sold him on a Vista laptop, and he got it home before discovering that it wasn't what he expected a computer to look or feel like. Long story short, the guy ended up returning the unit and exchanging it for one of the two models they still stock that come preinstalled with Vista.

      "The next day, the guy came back, even more angry..."

  13. Re:*BSD is Dying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I hear Netcraft confirmed it.

  14. So... by ackthpt · · Score: 0, Redundant

    All my base will not belong to you, Mr. Gates. That's good news.

    I'm still not going to buy a Vista machine.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:So... by Flipao · · Score: 0

      I'm still not going to buy a Vista machine. Funny I remember similar things being said about Windows 95. Vista will be shoved down our throats whether we like it or not.
    2. Re:So... by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      I'm still not going to buy a Vista machine.
      Funny I remember similar things being said about Windows 95. Vista will be shoved down our throats whether we like it or not.

      My boss bought me a vista machine for work. It's gathering dust nicely.

      Oh, I'll put it to use eventually, but likely after the first major patch level

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    3. Re:So... by martin_henry · · Score: 1

      Ditto. I'll buy a linux pre-loaded laptop before I get Vista.

      --
      www.purevolume.com/martyd
    4. Re:So... by gujo-odori · · Score: 1

      By some people, maybe, but I got Windows 95 on my first Pentium machine, and it was superior in every way to the Windows 3.11 on the machine it replaced. Vista hasn't shown us that they sort of night-and-day difference between itself and XP. Yes, Vista will be shoved down our throats eventually, but it will be a very long time before the Vista installed base is >= the XP installed base.

    5. Re:So... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Everything else available at the time was superior to Windows 3.11. Also Win95 was a huge upgrade to DOS and the graphical shell on top - Vista is not a large upgrade to NT but there are a lot of changes in the graphical shell. A lot of us care a bit about graphical shells but not enough to put up with Vista: if the applications cannot run as quickly on the same hardware then it is just not good enough. Currently many of the applications that run on Vista still run on win2k and XP - also some applications do not run reliably on Vista.

    6. Re:So... by GPL+Apostate · · Score: 1

      Everything else available at the time was superior to Windows 3.11.

      Actually, that is far from true. With Windows 3.11 there came some important protected mode features that allowed the user to run multiple MS-DOS programs simultaneously on 386+ hardware. And if you installed 'PC Tools for Windows' you got a vastly improved File Manager, with powerful features that Microsoft actually licensed in to become part of the new Windows Explorer ('hit F2 to rename a file' is a keyboard shortcut that came from that, for instance). The peer to peer networking in Windows 3.11 is essentially the same as that in Windows 95.

      There were a LOT of reasons to not immediately abandon Windows 3.11 and (more importantly) Office 4.3. It took Microsoft YEARS to come up with an Office version that was less stable and buggy than Windows 3.11 with Office 4.3 on it. It was one of their 'quality plateaus.'

      --
      Microsoft says legacy (serial/parallel) ports are bad. They don't obfuscate the hardware enough.
    7. Re:So... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      OS/2, Xenix, Linux, Novell, whatever apple was doing - everything else available at the time was superior to Windows 3.11. That is why I moved to linux back then, so I could get my 14,400bps modem to run at the speed instead of the software limited 9600bps.

    8. Re:So... by GPL+Apostate · · Score: 1

      You're parroting a lot of dogma. And lining up an assortment of apples, orange, tomatos and melons, and making claims about which one was 'best' at the time.

      All the OSes you cite had 'better' and 'worse' attributes depending on the need and the application. You're surely not going to claim there was a better office suite for Linux or Xenix back then than Office 4.3 for the 'doze?

      --
      Microsoft says legacy (serial/parallel) ports are bad. They don't obfuscate the hardware enough.
    9. Re:So... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Wordperfect. MS Word before truetype fonts were sorted out was garbage and Excel was on Apples and not part of MS Office.

    10. Re:So... by GPL+Apostate · · Score: 1

      The only thing WordPerfect had going for it was the rich amount of tech support the company offered to Secretaries across the land. It was very EMPOWERING, we should say, for the 'guru' in each office who knew all the alt-control-flipperdoor-F4 and such key combinations to accomplish each task. It promoted an oligarchy of 'gurus' nationwide and let them feel important.

      That's what WordPerfect was. It died when Truetype fonts came into being, BTW, because that deadweight of 'Wordperfect gurus' couldn't maintain their status of 'power' in the office when everybody got better, more graphical tools, but they clung to the feeling of power the old WordPerfect (which they were THE EXPERTS in using) gave them and essentially held it back long enough that the Windows version was never a success. WordPerfect was already near dead, BTW, when the Office 4.3 that I cited had come into being, so I was talking about a later period, when WordPerfect was already a rusty wreck.

      I am far from a zealous Microsoft advocate these days, but the 'computers for the regular people' thing gelled bigtime with Windows 3.11 and Office 4.3. That's just history the way it was. You probably were still coding dBase stuff (or had you jumped on the 'Clipper' bandwagon) at that time.

      --
      Microsoft says legacy (serial/parallel) ports are bad. They don't obfuscate the hardware enough.
  15. An open letter to Microsoft: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I like Windows 2K. I like Windows XP. Ok, maybe "like" is too strong a word, but it's a decent operating system and I can live with the problems. I'll be purchasing a new computer soon; it won't be running Vista. I've considered buying something with XP (most online pc builders still offer it as an option), but vista is not where I want to go today or tomorrow. It's a dead end. So I've decided to buy a Macintosh. The day Apple releases Leopard, I'll be ordering a new Macintosh. Games... I guess I'll stick to the wii.

    A.C.

    1. Re:An open letter to Microsoft: by Tribbin · · Score: 1

      "... but vista is not where I want to go today or tomorrow. It's a dead end."

      If only

      --
      If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
    2. Re:An open letter to Microsoft: by lexarius · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that you can use Boot Camp (which should be out of beta and installed by default for the Leopard release) to install Windows XP (or, perish the thought, Vista) and then play your PC Games anyway. Of course, you're probably better off sticking to the Wii, but the option is there.

  16. Who would have thought? by decriptor · · Score: 1

    Its interesting that Microsoft might have got several things right in windows XP and have out done themselves. That or maybe they just waited way to long to have the whole world just switch out everything. People tend to hate change, and maybe similar to some not wanting to use linux because of change are not interested in changing to Vista. Maybe this is the chance for Linux and mac to break further into the market. Or people just don't want to spend $2000 on a receptionists computer just so that they can chat, browse, and view docs. (disclaimer: And not I don't think that's all they do)

  17. News? by Barny · · Score: 1, Informative

    How the hell is this news, downgrade rights have been available for consumers of ultimate and business since launch, it is how they get so many corporate sales of vista (since they ignore the vista part and just load xp pro as always.

    I had one of the senior MS sales people for Australia recommend for our store to buy a 1 user "mass license" and then use that for installing downgrade rights, this is an option that has been open to OEMers for quite a while, its just they are finally waking up and realising that not everyone wants the latest POS from Microsoft.

    --
    ...
    /me sighs
    1. Re:News? by miffo.swe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The news is that computers will be sold with XP installed. Thats a huge difference to getting a recovery disc and doing it yourself.

      --
      HTTP/1.1 400
  18. Not mature enough yet... by headkase · · Score: 1

    It boils down to the fact that Vista is simply not mature enough yet. I run XP Pro and am happy with it and I have no intentions of switching to Vista anytime soon. Now in a year or two when it's up to service pack 2 AND you can run DOSBox inside of XPBox AND software compatibilities are a thing of the past because Vista is the target not XP then I'll upgrade.
    And this old XP machine will probably become an Ubuntu box then.

    --
    Shh.
    1. Re:Not mature enough yet... by gad_zuki! · · Score: 3, Funny

      It boils down to the fact that XP is simply not mature enough yet. I run 2000 Pro and am happy with it and I have no intentions of switching to XP anytime soon. Now in a year or two when it's up to service pack 4 AND you can run DOSBox AND software compatibilities are a thing of the past because XP is the target not 2000 then I'll upgrade.
      And this old 2000 machine will probably become a Mandrake box then.

    2. Re:Not mature enough yet... by headkase · · Score: 1

      Your parroting dodges the central point of my post: as Vista matures it will become more viable and the juggernaut that is Microsoft guarantees this eventuality.

      --
      Shh.
    3. Re:Not mature enough yet... by TheLink · · Score: 1

      It boils down to the fact that XP is simply not mature enough yet.

      It's mature if there are competing vendors providing Windows XP compatible O/Ses.

      Just like in the BIOS world, where most people don't have to care what BIOS they run, they just get on with the "real stuff" they want to do.

      Maybe if everyone stuck with XP for long enough there'd be time for someone to make a legal XP compatible.

      Of course Microsoft will fight it - they do NOT want to be like one of the BIOS vendors - you don't make billions that way, but hey that's one of the indicators of a mature competitive market.

      --
  19. The Appropriate Successor to Windows 98 SE? by eepok · · Score: 1

    Anyone else foresee the re-release of Vista sometime in the future? I mean, it's failed with businesses (no one in their right minds is installing it for their lay corporate workers). It's failed with enthusiasts. Why not just change the UI back to what made Windows "Windows", make some resource requirement adjustments, work with major companies on driver support for a a year, and release it like an entirely new OS. It worked before. And we, for the most part, loved 98SE.

    1. Re:The Appropriate Successor to Windows 98 SE? by White+Flame · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Why not just change the UI back to what made Windows "Windows", make some resource requirement adjustments, work with major companies on driver support for a a year, and release it like an entirely new OS.

      You're missing the most critical part: Get rid of the broken security, DRM, and Trusted Computing misfeatures.

    2. Re:The Appropriate Successor to Windows 98 SE? by eepok · · Score: 1

      You're missing the most critical part: Get rid of the broken security, DRM, and Trusted Computing misfeatures.


      I'm a wishful thinker, but that's just ludicrous. =P
    3. Re:The Appropriate Successor to Windows 98 SE? by Antony.Muss · · Score: 0
      The UI however is the only good part of Vista. (Security may technically be better than XP.)
      • The Start Menu is more convenient to use w/ "pinning" and "frequently used programs".
      • Explorer has its own favorites list for files/folders. No need to jury-rig something crummy with IE's favorites.
      • The Control Panel is better with search and seems better organized.
      • when a program freezes you can still move the window around, a la X
      • the UI looks a bit nicer w/ transparencies, &c.
      • seeing windows running normally in alt-tab and down by the taskbar is neat.
      If you're going to revert the UI I can't think of a good reason to use Vista. Personally I'm waiting for KDE 4.0 to compel me back to Ubuntu (which is better for development anyway imo).
    4. Re:The Appropriate Successor to Windows 98 SE? by 644bd346996 · · Score: 1

      Congratulations. You've made the all-to-common, stupid mistake of equating UI look and feel. They are two very different things. Almost everything you listed could be preserved while still satisfying most customers by rolling the look back to something less gaudy.

      However, most people would disagree that the feel of the UI is really any better, let alone worth the hassle of an upgrade and the requisite re-learning. And even if the mechanics of the UI are an improvement for you, it still doesn't deserve praise because of the vast number of obvious, easily fixed flaws.

    5. Re:The Appropriate Successor to Windows 98 SE? by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Vista won't take off until new games won't run on XP, and until the latest Office release won't run on XP. It's much vaunted features, such as the extensive DRM, are unwanted by consumers. And the drivers for existing or even new hardware are still not working.

      The other big goal of Vista was WinFS, which turned out to be such a nightmare of XML nonsense they had to throw it out. But make no mistake, WinFS was designed to break the existing NTFS compatibility tools and interfere with the existing NTFS compatibility tools for MacOS, Linux, and UNIX. And its heavily patented XML base would have made using such tools in the states, especially OS virtualization tools, impossible in the open source world.

  20. I have no real problems with Vista... by stubear · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I waited an extra month or two to purchase my new Dell XPS M2010 just to get Vista since it was on the horizon and as far as I could tell all my hardware/software worked for the most part or new drivers were already in beta for one of my Epson printers. I would have not waited six months for Vista, nor do I have any plans to go out and purchase it for any of my other machines, but I can't say I'm unhappy that I waited a month to get it on my new-ish system. The Vista Media Center is EXCELLENT and in my opinion is unmatched by any other software or dedicated box. Microsoft could dominate the PVR market if they released a Zune TV device that basically booted straight into WMC without the Windows UI anywhere to be seen. Let me sync recorded shows to a Zune 2.0 device and Apple's hold on the handheld media device market would begin to wane. Some of the adjustments to Explorer and the Start menu are nice and improve the usefulness of both a little bit. My biggest problems with Vista aren't Microsoft's doing, they are the third party developers who dragged their feet even knowing full well that Vista was coming out and they knew what they had to do to make their software compatible. There really is little Microsoft can do to get developers to use user accounts properly (which have been a apart of NT from the start, Vista is the first time Microsoft has enforced their use). I really don't see the need for anyone other than corporate customers to downgrade to XP.

    1. Re:I have no real problems with Vista... by miffo.swe · · Score: 0, Troll

      Anyone who does serios work that demands CPU power do not want to toss those cycles out the window. People who buys a new computer to play games wants better speed, resolution and non-flicker gaming experience. Why give all those precious cycles away for nothing? I have run Vista and compared to Linux Compiz 3D its a sluggish snail that cant do half of what Compiz can. Compiz plays videos on four different workspaces in see thru mode on a spinning cube without using much CPU. Vista can do pretty much nothing and behaive like a snail in a wheelchair and square wheels. Microsoft has really dropped the ball on this and i dont think its fixable in a servicepack without braking all sorts of things. Application support is bas enough as it is right now.

      --
      HTTP/1.1 400
    2. Re:I have no real problems with Vista... by dbIII · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Microsoft could dominate the PVR market

      The really bizzare thing is that linux does instead. I have to put it down to licence costs and slow development on the part of MS - an updated Windows CE could be doing the job if they had put in enough effort.

    3. Re:I have no real problems with Vista... by zenkonami · · Score: 1

      I seem to recall M$ doing most of the foot dragging. And wasn't there something about M$ not sharing much information about it's new OS with anti-virus companies? Could there have been any similar problems with those who write drivers? More importantly, with Vista being altered right up until the last minute, might that have had something to do with the slow pace of driver support?

      Though I agree that Vista's Media Center does look good (and for the most part behaves well other than the rare freeze up), I do think Vista is a processing hog and slows systems down. My friend, with minimal GUI on Vista and a marginally better machine than I can both play Civ IV, but I can have more civilizations, larger maps and smoother animation than he does. It's not the be all of all tests, but it is an example of average use of an OS.)

      --

      Do You Experiment?
    4. Re:I have no real problems with Vista... by bogie · · Score: 1

      " Let me sync recorded shows to a Zune 2.0 device "

      Yea no sorry can't let you do that. Get a new Vista PC with a Cablecard and every show you record will be locked to that PC. No burning, sharing, or anything else. Media Center on Vista is IMHO a total downgrade from MCE2005 which runs quite well on very modest hardware. Once MCE2005 stops getting supported I'm not sure what I'll do.

      --
      If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
  21. OS version revision by thatskinnyguy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This just goes to show you that Joe Consumer out there will use whatever he is comfortable with. I know several non-technically-inclined people who took advantage of an "OS version revision (not a downgrade necessarily)" to XP just because they don't like how slow their new computers were running and they didn't like the San Quintenesque security of Vista.

    I also know several people who still use Windows 98 on their home machines just because they like it. Sure they can't get new Windows Updates and finding new software is damn near impossible but they like it.

    On the other hand, I do know a handful of people who like Vista and actually prefer it over XP. Not for the security, but for the "WOW". Of course their systems are superlative in every respect to performance.

    This "use what you like" thing may be why Mac OSs do so well. I mean, what really has changed from UI, performance and security perspectives that can be easily seen since OS 10.0?

    Change is a bitch. I know. I know. Get off my lawn.

    --
    The game.
    1. Re:OS version revision by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      "...and they didn't like the San Quintenesque security of Vista."
      This is the first I am hearing that the security at San Quinten was merely an illusion.
      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    2. Re:OS version revision by thatskinnyguy · · Score: 1

      Well when saying that Vista security is like buttsex, you have to say something about prison.

      --
      The game.
    3. Re:OS version revision by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      "Well when saying that Vista security is like buttsex, you have to say something about prison."
      Fair enough :-)
      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    4. Re:OS version revision by diamondsw · · Score: 1

      UI and security are pretty similar, but OS X has actually gotten significantly faster from version to version. There was a LOT of room for optimization.

      --
      I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
    5. Re:OS version revision by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      That was true with OS X 10.0 to 10.3, but 10.4 was the 'double the RAM for the same performance' release. They could still improve things a lot by making the VM subsystem not suck - it would be nice to be able to unrar an archive without the entire system freezing until it's done - and maybe now Avie Tevanian has quit Apple they can ditch some of the old Mach crap. It's depressing how bad performance of things like mmap is on OS X; FreeBSD is an order of magnitude faster in real-world usage of mmap-intensive programs.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  22. Windows 7??? by commodoresloat · · Score: 3, Funny

    I thought this was a joke and then looked it up and it's actually true: The post-Vista version of Windows in development has been dubbed "Windows 7. So it's really true -- the Windows OS is finally catching up to that revolutionary MacOS from 1991, System 7. Windows users will finally be able to take advantage of such innovations as QuickDraw and Balloon Help Congratulations Microsoft!!

    1. Re:Windows 7??? by jack455 · · Score: 1

      I thought this was a joke and then looked it up and it's actually true: The post-Vista version of Windows in development has been dubbed Windows 7. So it's really true -- the Windows OS is finally catching up to that revolutionary MacOS from 1991, System 7 But that would imply it was somehow ahead of System V. Ridiculous.

      No link provided, should be common knowledge.

      and i did like system 7, btw

  23. Reality check by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Microsoft does not care what is demanded, they don't care what your or millions want. They are the supply and demand. not you, you're simply a consumer. If they want you to use vista, you will, one way or another.

    Go to Mac? the macintosh doesnt have many games, neither does linux. Why do you think microsoft is so keen on taking over the gaming industry? That's right, so that you're stuck with them. You can barely find an OEM that will offer full time support for most non-windows systems, and actually understand, and there being a guarantee that they'll still be around in 5 years.

    We're all doomed to use vista for something. I'm going to have to use it to get used to it for my line of work.
    the only positive thing is that a UI change may start requiring people to use their brains and figure shit out for once. Which is also scary for me because it threatens my line of work. :(

    1. Re:Reality check by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      If they want you to use vista, you will, one way or another.

      Only if I want to.

      Maybe I'm doomed to upgrade from XP, but it will either be a complete negation of my Windows use (I already run Linux 99% of the time), or I'll upgrade to some version after Vista. Maybe another service pack, maybe a whole other OS.

      Remember ME? I never had to upgrade to that piece of shit. I just went straight to Linux, nuked my 98 partition until 2K became viable.

      Go to Mac? the macintosh doesnt have many games, neither does linux.

      Not as many, but still plenty. Also, to many people, WoW is gaming, and that has a native OS X version, and works well under Wine.

      By the way, gaming is completely irrelevant to the question of Windows on the desktop. It's corporations that rule the desktop. What they demand, Microsoft delivers. If they want XP, then they will get it. If they want certain things fixed in Vista, they will get it.

      You can barely find an OEM that will offer full time support for most non-windows systems, and actually understand, and there being a guarantee that they'll still be around in 5 years.

      Ever heard of a little company called "Dell"?

      Microsoft may not give a shit about their consumers, but Dell seems to.

      the only positive thing is that a UI change may start requiring people to use their brains and figure shit out for once.

      No, the UI change is to make them have to use less of your brain. XP didn't seem to make people smarter, did it?

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    2. Re:Reality check by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      If they want XP, then they will get it
      corp licenses come with downgrade rights all the way to windows 95!

      Just because MS does something for thier corporate customers doesn't mean they will do it for home and small buisness customers. Small buisness customers have been thrown a bone of one version of downgrade this time and home users basically don't get the choice at all unless they are very savvy (OEM versions of vista buisness and ultimate come with downgrade rights but upgrade versions don't).

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  24. "S"P3 by distantbody · · Score: 1

    So what are the chances that this refocusing will means that the friendly people at Microsoft kindly force down peoples throats "security updates" or "new features" that are the hallmark of Vista's 'digital-content protection comes before basic OS functionality' program to either:

    A: subtly cripple XP in the name of security to make Vista less unappealing; or

    B: Bring XP 'up-to-date' with Vista's most important 'features' so they can get their new DRM platform either way?

  25. Vista = New Coke? by Brett+Buck · · Score: 4, Funny

    Or Xp = Slurm Classic?

          Brett

    1. Re:Vista = New Coke? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for signing your name as Brett. I didn't know that was your name from your user name

  26. Making Vista viable by NemoinSpace · · Score: 1, Insightful

    1. Ultimate, Premium, Basic, Business, Enterprise... versioning rip-off. If Xp Home vs.Pro didn't piss enough people off? 2. Licensing - A 1x transfer? Businesses should stay away just for that reason alone. 3. Resource inflation. The amount of hardware you have to throw at Vista is ridiculous. 4. UAC. The epitomy of the Are you sure? box. 5. WinFS? ZFS? 6. The changes in the windows interface since 98 is schizophrenic I like the search implementation. I would guess if you bought ME you'll buy Vista. Otherwise there's a _LOT_ of work that needs to be done to convince me (and my customers I support).

    1. Re:Making Vista viable by LordEd · · Score: 2, Informative

      2. Licensing - A 1x transfer? Businesses should stay away just for that reason alone.
      Microsoft revised their licensing permitting reinstalls.

      4. UAC. The epitomy of the Are you sure? box.
      I rarely get the deny/allow message in normal use. Not as much as I expected from reading here.
  27. It wouldn't surprise if the OEM's want it by MLCT · · Score: 1

    Not so much because of "huge" business demand - businesses would probably be happy to sit on their hands for a while and let vista mature - but the OEM's, HP et all., will not want businesses to sit on their hands (i.e. not spend money), and if a "Vista only" machine is forcing buyers to be more cautious when ordering 100 new machines then HP will want XP back in the catalogue to make the sale a bit more likely.

  28. This is total nonsense - MS *HAD* TO DO IT!! by jkrise · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Last evening, I met with the IT chief of a large transnational bank, for whom we develop Enterprise code. I asked him about what software platforms are envisaged in the long run, and the process behind evaluation. He said, "Basically we have a Red-Amber-Green colour scheme for software."

    Under this scheme, Vista is Red, so is IE7, ActiveX controls, Visual Basic and Visual Basic .Net; I was surprised to learn that Visual Studio as a whole is 'Amber'! SuSE and RedHat Linux are both green, so is PHP, RubyonRails, Eclipse, Websphere etc. Interestingly, he said the IT staff of several banks get together and discuss matters affecting common issues like this.

    So I guess it's the OEMs who are FORCED TO OFFER XP and XP-compatible hardware, drivers and support to their biggest customers. This isn't some gift of charity from His Billness or the new acting Chair-man from Microsoft. Nobody sane would like to willingly downgrade to Vista - simple as that.

    --
    If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
    1. Re:This is total nonsense - MS *HAD* TO DO IT!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      reality translation: you met with a workstation janitor at washington mutual who shared the same pipe dream bias as yourself.

      where's the mention of old standby systems? big iron deployment? legacy systems? did this bank magically cease deploying xp workstations to all of the 80k employees? or was this really just the "IT chief" of an intranet document server?

      your silly lies melt like melty stuff exposed to some balmy weather.

    2. Re:This is total nonsense - MS *HAD* TO DO IT!! by jimicus · · Score: 1

      So I guess it's the OEMs who are FORCED TO OFFER XP and XP-compatible hardware, drivers and support to their biggest customers.

      XP-compatible hardware: Yes.

      XP licenses on the boxes: No. Read the license terms of any site license agreement for Windows, it allows you to upgrade/downgrade any OEM or full-retail version of windows to any other version of Windows (within some limits).

    3. Re:This is total nonsense - MS *HAD* TO DO IT!! by HexaByte · · Score: 1
      I recently interviewed at a VERY large banking corporation, and was surprised to learn that they were still 85% Win2K desktops. They were making the transition to XPPro, however, and don't plan on Vista anytime soon.

      I was working for the Defense Dept. when XP came out, and the NSA told them to switch from W2K. We lost a lot of legacy hardware - specialty printers, some scanners and a few other devices due to a lack of driver support. I'm hearing the same about Vista for those who use it. (Plus side: XP users can now get cheap cast-off HW from upgraders!)

      The real problem w/ Vista is the HW requirements, multiple versions and the MS "Do it our way or we remotely disable your system" threat. No business I know wants that, even if they are willing to eat the extra cash that new HW and the price of Enterprise will bring.

      --
      HexaByte - he's a square and a half!
  29. I'm a Vista Power User by LM741N · · Score: 1, Interesting

    OOh, I figured out how to burn bootable dvd and cd iso's without any 3rd party programs.

    Seriously, I just consider it another incremental upgrade. I haven't touched B itlocker and the "Ultimate" apps are vaporware. Its not such a bad OS. Bill Gates scared away all the corporate customers with the "Wow factor" crap. He should have just concentrated on useful new features like the ability to get a commmand window at any folder. IIS people might have some interest in things like that.

    And I have not had any problems running Office 2003 and other MS apps that don't require drivers. In fact today, I just got service pack 3 for Office 2003.

    1. Re:I'm a Vista Power User by allcar · · Score: 3, Informative

      He should have just concentrated on useful new features like the ability to get a commmand window at any folder. If that's the most compelling reason to upgrade, it's not surprising that things aren't going too well for Vista. I'm sure that was a "PowerToy" ages ago.

    2. Re:I'm a Vista Power User by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 2, Informative

      > He should have just concentrated on useful new features like the ability to get a commmand window at any folder.

      Agreed.

      In the meantime, snag 4NT.

      Command Prompt -> Explorer
      alias x=start explorer /e,"%_CWD"

      Explorer -> Command Prompt
      http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/files/OpenCommandWindowHere.zip

    3. Re:I'm a Vista Power User by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      He should have just concentrated on useful new features like the ability to get a commmand window at any folder.

      That's available in XP (maybe even 2k) as a free download from MS... It's called powertoys.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    4. Re:I'm a Vista Power User by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      its in windows 98 and windows 95 as a powertool too

    5. Re:I'm a Vista Power User by GPL+Apostate · · Score: 1

      'get a command window at any folder' was a Windows 95 PowerToy.

      --
      Microsoft says legacy (serial/parallel) ports are bad. They don't obfuscate the hardware enough.
    6. Re:I'm a Vista Power User by LM741N · · Score: 1

      I know. I've had Power Toys in the past. Unfortunately, they come and go off of the MS website. Like the program that rearranged your drivers for faster boot times, I forget its name. It came and promptly vanished. The new console window is supposed to have a lot of new features. I know I can easily right click and paste into it. Maybe I need one of those $50 books. The problem is that I've gone to the MS site and there just isn't a lot of docs on this OS. Perhaps there is a lot we are missing.

      My only irritation so far is getting screwed on Ultimate Extras. If you want extras download Server Tools. Its free- for now.

    7. Re:I'm a Vista Power User by Nicolay77 · · Score: 1

      And that's why you save such powertoys, service packs and all other MS installers in a special folder.

      I don't see any reason not to do it.

      --
      We are Turing O-Machines. The Oracle is out there.
  30. My experience with Windows Vista by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I had been using beta releases of Windows Vista off and on, with plenty of issues which are expected from a beta OS. Now, I am running Windows Vista on all home (Ultimate) and office (Enterprise)machines including laptops and media centers. There were a lot of issues early on, but as of now, I can't think of a single thing that I did on XP and can't do on Vista better. And keeping in mind that Windows Vista is directly derived from Windows Server 2003 codebase, with a lot of cleanup of old XP code, it is the best Windows OS out there right now. There are still some performance issues specific to some hardware, but SP1 is going to fix most of it anyway. And since SP1 and Windows Server 2008 are being released together, you can easily expect server class quality for SP1. I have been a user of Windows since version 3.1 and I have never had any spyware or virus on any of my machines running any OS of Windows NT family. I think the main window of opportunity that Apple and Linux had was within first few months of the release of Windows Vista. Apparently, they didn't make good use of it. I sometimes boot into Ubuntu installed on an external USB drive. But there is not much productive work that one can do on Linux. That's the repeating trend I have seen with my Linux adventures. I spend hours getting it to work with my hardware, and then pretty much don't find much use of it. I do a lot of audio/video work, and there simply isn't any professional software for that on Linux. Granted Windows has limitations, but it has a huge software and hardware compatibility base and it is the upto the user to make best use of it. And if you ever get nostalgic about the good old shell, try the new Windows PowerShell. OS X is a good alternative to Windows, but when I can configure a quad-core box with 4GB memory and 1TB storage under $1500 which blazes through my pro audio software with Windows Vista, I don't see any reason why I should spend twice as much (if not more) on a Mac Pro. It is good to see Linux trying to catch up with Windows on the desktop and I think that it is good for people with limited desktop requirements. But the Windows platform is just getting stronger and Windows Vista will soon have as much of the market share as Windows XP, if not more.

    1. Re:My experience with Windows Vista by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      since you work with media, have you tried playing HD video? how badly does it get down rezzed by DRM?

      if you use audio a lot, how did that network throttling-while-playing-audio bug affect you?

      sure, vista is the best windows yet, but can you remind again me of all those things you can do in vista that you can't do in XP?

      i'm looking forward to SP1, it'll be great to see such a 100% improvement of something that's already perfect!

    2. Re:My experience with Windows Vista by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      There are still some performance issues specific to some hardware

      Maybe I haven't been keeping up, but wasn't there a performance issue specific to soundcards and network cards? Not just some, but all? (As in, play music and your network performance drops to 10% -- not by 10%, but to 10%.)

      when I can configure a quad-core box with 4GB memory and 1TB storage under $1500 which blazes through my pro audio software with Windows Vista, I don't see any reason why I should spend twice as much (if not more) on a Mac Pro.

      Maybe for the eight-core, sixteen gigabytes of RAM, or 3 terabytes of storage?

      You get what you pay for...

      I spend hours getting it to work with my hardware, and then pretty much don't find much use of it.

      Wait, are you talking about Linux or Vista?

      It is good to see Linux trying to catch up with Windows on the desktop and I think that it is good for people with limited desktop requirements.

      Linux has been ahead of Windows for a long time now, in every way except ease of use and application support. Ease of use is subjective, and largely a result of how familiar something is -- obviously, if you've used Windows all your life, Windows is easier for you to use. Application support is a direct result of which OS is most popular -- a chicken and egg scenario.

      It's only very recently that Microsoft has started to catch up in things like security -- by basically ripping off sudo. In fact, just about every improvement you see in Vista was taken from somewhere else.

      And if you ever get nostalgic about the good old shell, try the new Windows PowerShell.

      Why bother, when I have a perfectly functioning Bash?

      But no matter. With Mono, there's a good chance I'll have PowerShell eventually, if I care.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    3. Re:My experience with Windows Vista by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You get what you pay for..."

      Very true for what you get in Linux. ;) Face it folks, Linux has little or no serious software applications for any productive desktop use. You have two options here. Either you can continue bitching about how bad you think Windows is and spend the next decade being the distant 3rd OS in the market, or accept it and get to work to fix it.

    4. Re:My experience with Windows Vista by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      Face it folks, Linux has little or no serious software applications for any productive desktop use.

      Openoffice. KOffice. Kontact. Evolution. Gimp. Kopete. Pidgin. Abiword. Gnumeric. Ardour. Scribus. Eclipse. KDevelop. These just off the top of my head.

      Face it, Linux has plenty of serious software applications for productive desktop use. They may not have it for what you consider desktop use, which is really too bad, and if Wine can't run your app, maybe there's something worth implementing here. But to say that it has no apps is to... well... not to have tried.

      Or, to say there's no "serious" apps is a bit arrogant. Many people have tried the Linux apps, and prefer the Windows/commercial counterpats -- but many people actually do prefer the Linux/free ones. Ardour is a good example here -- many people seem to think there's no competition for ProTools on Linux. And many people seem to think that there's no competition for Linux' entire sound system (JACK, etc), apps included, on any other platform.

      Oh, and by the way -- there are actually some very serious apps for Linux which are not free. Maya, for instance.

      Either you can continue bitching about how bad you think Windows is and spend the next decade being the distant 3rd OS in the market, or accept it and get to work to fix it.

      This goes for you, too. Either you can continue bitching about how bad you think Linux is and spend the next decade putting up with Microsoft's bullshit, or you give it another shot -- after you deal with the hardware issues, by the way, seeing as Linux has to deal with both legal issues and not being preinstalled / having drivers come on CDs from the manufacturer.

      I accept some people cannot work with Linux, and applications are the main reason for that. However, GP was generally not talking about applications, and for the people who can work with Linux, I don't often find people who prefer Windows after having given each a fair shot.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  31. What's so good about XP? by allcar · · Score: 1

    People are starting to get all nostalgic about XP. This is weird. It's still the same shitty OS it was 12 months ago. What's next - DOS 3.3?

    1. Re:What's so good about XP? by flyingfsck · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sure XP is just as shitty as ever, but compared to Vista, XP is not just good, it is 'venerable'...

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  32. Because you're still actually paying for Vista by schwaang · · Score: 1

    If I understood TFA correctly.

    [But I get your point.]

  33. To put it more constructively than some /.ers by Toreo+asesino · · Score: 1

    XP has been several years in the wild, Vista, not even one.

    XP is a solid platform, even if it isn't as secure by design, it still works and can be secured with the right knowledge (i.e don't do stuff as 'root')

    Of course Microsoft will offer the more stable platform is customers really want it. Who is dumb enough to really think Vista is yet as mature as XP yet - and even with the same level of support, even now? Either way, the licence fees are the same and go to the same place, so guess what, Microsoft still win. Nothing to see here, move along please.

    --
    throw new NoSignatureException();
  34. Restrictive, Confusing, the Usual. by Erris · · Score: 1

    This is just M$ offering the same thing to other vendors, who are probably losing a lot of business to people who want XP and can only get it from Dell.

    I thought business users with "Software Assurance" had "downgrad rights" all along, so that this only really has an effect on SMB and the vendors themselves - people hate Vista and sales are down all around where people have no choice. Oh wait, the downgrade rights were just theoretical, not practical:

    Under Microsoft's licensing terms for Vista, buyers of Vista Business and Vista Ultimate Edition have always had the right to downgrade to XP, but in practice this could be challenging.

    Anyway, this little consession seems extremely limited. It only applies to the most outrageously expensive versions of Vista and XP comes as a disk, not installed most if not all the time:

    The program applies only to Windows Vista Business and Ultimate versions, and it is up to PC makers to decide how, if at all, they want to make XP available. [as if they were not demanding this!] ... In June, Microsoft changed its practices to allow computer makers that sell pre-activated Vista machines to order Windows XP discs that could be included inside the box with PCs, or shipped to customers without requiring additional activation. ... "customers can configure their systems to include the XP Pro restore disc for little or no charge," HP

    The terms are confusing but my guess is that they are trying to drum up interest and sales, not really make things easier.

    --
    DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
    1. Re:Restrictive, Confusing, the Usual. by jack455 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Including the XP disc will not show in their numbers when figuring their deployment of Vista. They will claim every downgrade as a Vista sale because the Vista sale already happened. They will be much happier than if a PC shipped with XP installed. It's just about apparent market share. That's why Linux advocates who dual boot are probably fairly ineffective as the footprint of Windows is much more visible on the web.

  35. Not quite... by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Business users can see that Vista will:

    a) Cost them millions.

    b) Most likely cause a lot of incompatibility problems.

    c) Not increase their productivity one bit even when they finally have it all working.

    It's a lose-lose proposition for them.

    --
    No sig today...
    1. Re:Not quite... by TiggsPanther · · Score: 1

      c) Not increase their productivity one bit even when they finally have it all working.

      I'm not totally convinced by that. I'm using Vista at work, and find it very annoying in many ways. However, when we "finally have it all working" it will probably be a lot more productive than XP.

      The problem at the moment, I think, is that there are lots of little (or not-so-little) genuine improvements. But they're all overshadowed by incompatible software and having to effectively relearn what almost looks like the same UI.

      Windows finally handles removable drives and network drives sanely, by recognising Network mappings not trying to map a USB stick onto the same letter.
      The offline synchronisation seems somewhat more robust and non-intrusive.
      As someone else pointed out elsewhere, ALT-TAB has "the desktop" as an option.

      All these little things could so easily add up to an increase in productivity. But right now they add less productivity than the incompatibilities take away. People have learned to work around the shortcomings. Making them work around "Our software package isn't yet 100% compatible" isn't as valid an option.

      Given a couple of years, I think Vista could be highly usable, even in a business environment. But right now, there's just too much against it.

      --
      Tiggs
      "120 chars should be enough for everyone..."
  36. Hubris by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Microsoft's marketing machine has always tried to convey the idea that they are the de facto standard for everything, much as IBM tried to do in the 1980s. It didn't last long back then for IBM, and it is wearing thin for Microsoft today. If you really are the de facto standard, you are able to force things down the customers' throats and charge them an arm and a leg for it. When there are alternatives, such as a perfectly serviceable WinXP in this case, it is no longer that easy. Microsoft has to back down because a) XP works perfectly alright for most folks, especially on newer hardware, and b) Mac laptops (and to a much lesser extent GNU/Linux distros like Ubuntu) are distracting eyes and pocketbooks.

    It's the natural evolution of a market. Frankly, it took a perversely long time, most likely due to Microsoft's monopolistic hold on pre-installed operating systems. They can't complain. They made a few bucks while it lasted, and are making more still.

  37. DIY Windows Fundamentals For Legacy PC by weighn · · Score: 1

    They should, while they are at, publicly admit the existence (and perhaps promote) Windows Fundamentals For Legacy PC (essentially XP only it uses considerably less ram and resources). They admit the existence openly, although it is only for their dwindling number of SA customers.

    I ordered a Dell notebook recently with XP Home - cut a few $$ off the price since Dell ain't shipping with Ubuntu in my country (yet). XP is now confined to a 20GB partition for use on "foreign jobs".

    One thing I noticed is that after removing all the crapware, XP bells & whistles and tweaked the services (including the ream of services and process that make up the Intel PRO wireless bloat) I had a lean and efficient OS.

    If they chose to, I'm sure MS would sell more copies of Windows Fundamentals than some flavors of Vista. The egg on face may hurt their pride, however.

    --
    Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
  38. I'm a downgrader. by Neanderthal+Ninny · · Score: 1

    Several weeks ago I had to buy a system from a local brick & mortar store because one of our accounting systems was beginning to fail. However all of the systems were preloaded with Vista and the company that developed our accounting software wasn't "certified" that is would work on Vista yet. So I had to buy Windows XP erased the preload Vista and then migrated all of the files from the old system and it started right up. This made me think, why does a hardware manufacture have to load the OS on the system. I know there is some stupid marketing agreement between MS and the HW manufacture but shouldn't the buyer have some say in which version of OS they have to load? I know that Vista is the latest and greatest but like other major OS updates in other operating systems developers the applications and hardware drivers may not work when upgraded so like most IT dept and people I have to wait for the application to be "certified" for Vista. MS and the HW manufactures need to stop forcing us to buy only certain configurations in stores and have some flexibility in buying HW.

    1. Re:I'm a downgrader. by m50d · · Score: 1
      Most buyers are not competent to install an OS themselves.

      The manufacturer saves money by only offering the one OS configuration

      --
      I am trolling
  39. Vista isn't fundamentally more secure than XP. by argent · · Score: 1

    The fundamental security flaws in the APIs that Windows has been burdened with are still there. They're not going to go away, if Microsoft is still keeping them there after 10 years of vigorous exploitation. Adding more "mitigating factors" to try and reduce the danger once your system is penetrated through one of them is useful, yes, but the bottom line is still the same... security is like sex... once you're penetrated you're ****ed.

    1. Re:Vista isn't fundamentally more secure than XP. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what are you talking about? did you just make that up to sound smart?

      win32 has been deprecated and sandboxed out for compat. wf and wpf are all ultra audited and written signed, sealed and delivered to conquer the potential buffer overflows. don't you remember when they scrapped all the code 3 years ago and started from scratch?

      your lies don't help one whit. you are just spreading FUD and libelous filth!

      linux should win on its own merits. not this crap.

    2. Re:Vista isn't fundamentally more secure than XP. by argent · · Score: 1

      did you just make that up to sound smart?

      No, I've been sounding the alarm for a decade now. I've yet to see any evidence that Microsoft has made any serious attempt at fixing the fundamental design flaws that were already making it the prime target for malicious software in 1997.

      win32 has been deprecated and sandboxed out for compat

      If it was sandboxed it would be completely safe to download and run a hostile Win32 application under Vista, with no chance of damage to your OS, local content, etcetera. A sandbox that doesn't actually prevent access outside the sandbox is no sandbox at all. A sandbox that has everything that actually matters to the user inside it is no sandbox at all.

      Win32 remains the basic Windows API in Vista. Until Microsoft fixes the APIs that already exist, and accepts the pushback from developers and users as a necessary cost of security, all they're doing is applying bandaids.

    3. Re:Vista isn't fundamentally more secure than XP. by Allador · · Score: 1

      The fundamental security flaws in the APIs that Windows has been burdened with are still there. Can you name any of these, or is this just hand-waving?

      The longest running serious issue I'm aware of was the potential for badness in windows messaging between low priv processes and high priv processes (ie, the Shatter attack). But this one has been heavily mitigated for years, and relied on bad practices by system software vendors to work at all. And this is gone now with the new window manager in Vista.

      So can you elaborate on these 'fundamental security flaws in the APIs'?
    4. Re:Vista isn't fundamentally more secure than XP. by argent · · Score: 1

      If you had read previous followups you wouldn't need to ask.

      What's more disturbing to me is that these flaws have been around for so long and people are still making excuses for them.

  40. OK to download Win XP. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The article states that MS will no longer issue licenses for XP after 2009. If I download a copy of Win XP, will MS be able to claim lost income (since they refuse to sell XP)?

    And should a software company be able to shut down free distribution (bittorrent, etc) of an older, but extremely popular OS, that they don't want to sell anymore?

    1. Re:OK to download Win XP. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course they could claim lost revenue, you didnt buy a license for their new operating system did you? The same logic applies if you had installed a BSD or Linux but I think SCO has ip rights to that business model.

  41. Tried Vista Home Premium x86 in January... by bealzabobs_youruncle · · Score: 2, Insightful

    and hated it, unstable and buggy to say the least. Installed Vista Business x64 last week and I'm very satisfied. It won't boot Fedora 7 off my main machine, but many of the issues are being ironed out. It is different and requires some re-learning and discarding of old habits/notions, but it isn't the junk that so many make it out to be. Too many people on tech forums have begun to sound like old women to set in their ways to learn something different.

  42. Skip Vista? Dr. Death arrives after only 3 years. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Quote: "... I also feel my stomach turning upside down seeing what they did with Vista as a whole."

    As others have suggested, maybe it is better to skip Vista completely, the non-drug method of curing stomach upset.

    Dr. Death has arrived. After only 3 years, requiem for an OS: Bill Gates is software's Dr. Death, ready to kill software prematurely that customers want to use. He has decided that Windows XP will die soon: January 31, 2008.

    The huge number of bugs in Windows XP before SP2 was very expensive for us. If I remember correctly, Windows XP SP2 fixed more than 630 bugs, and some of the fixes were not documented. The really major problems in Windows XP stopped only after SP2 was released, on August 25, 2004. That means we have gotten only 3 years of good use from Windows XP.

    Rule number one in dealing with Microsoft: Unless forced by circumstances, never move to a new version of Windows until the second service pack is released. Let other people have the grief.

    (Someone said that rule will just cause Microsoft to release service packs much more often. If that happens, it may be necessary to change the rule to "until the X service pack...")

    It has been 3 years since WinXP Service Pack 2 was released, even though updating Windows XP from an SP2 CD requires downloading more than 170 Megabytes of files, a difficult problem when there is no internet connection or only a dial-up connection. The Windows XP updates of just August's Patch Tuesday were more than 20 Megabytes. Microsoft seems to have delayed releasing an SP3 for Windows XP to try to discourage people from using Windows XP.

    New versions of Linux are released to make a better OS. New versions of Microsoft Windows seem to have the purpose of 1) killing the old version and 2) using more CPU power so that it is necessary to buy new hardware. When you partner with Microsoft, you partner with a company that may sometimes choose to be your enemy, in my opinion.

    It is not only the vulnerabilities that are expensive. Microsoft's adversarial behavior is expensive, too.

  43. Hate to ask a tech support question by twistedcubic · · Score: 1

    but I was at home visiting my peoples last month, and I scanned a class reunion photo at a high DPI for archiving. Windows Vista Home (new Dell desktop). The file was 300MB. I stuck a blank CD in the drive, some software popped up, I dragged the file over, and it burned the file to the CD. Well, actually, it kinda hung. So I rebooted and tried again. Same result. Had to catch my flight, so I got back and tried the CDs in my computer. Coasters. Is there some clever way to burn data CDs in Vista? I hope DRM controls weren't the problem.

    1. Re:Hate to ask a tech support question by jawtheshark · · Score: 1

      I came along a journal entry in the Firehose someday complaining exactly about this problem. Apparently, there is a checkbox saying "make this CD readable on other computers" or something of the like and it's unchecked by default. So those CD's were not coasters, they just were unreadable on a non-Vista PC.

      Here is the entry...

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
  44. Re:*BSD is Dying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, is it dying, or is it dead?

  45. Retrograding by BillX · · Score: 1

    Heh, exactly. When going back to an older, more stable, less bloated version of something, I prefer to call it "retrograding" (sounds a lot nicer besides more accurate ;)

    --
    Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
  46. USAF by nbucking · · Score: 1

    The reason they are starting to do this is because the US government has just bought licenses to put it on their networks. The new Standard desktop Configuration (SDC) next month is going to be Vista. Microsoft figured that once they got the gov to use Vista they are now home free. Now it is only a matter of time for gov techies experienced with Vista to trickle into the civilian market. This is only a show of their new found confidence.

    t

  47. Yes, but how much is the Vistaless XP License? by asphaltjesus · · Score: 1

    If Dell/HP have to pay vista-like prices for the XP licenses I could see Microsoft having no problems at all.

    --
    Got Trader Joe's? friendwich.com RSS feeds work now!
  48. Why do people consiter vista to be great? by webmaster404 · · Score: 0

    How can people be justifying a $100 operating system that took over five years as "decent" and think that it is acceptable? If you consider Linux or BSD to be "decent" thats not half bad because your downloading it from free and paying around 10 cents for the CD to burn it to. The main thing that made Windows win over Linux is that it was familiar, Vista has thrown that out of the window, and more and more people are seeing that if they have to learn a new OS, it might as well be something free that doesn't with every release make the GUI unfamiliar, in both the newest Gnome and KDE betas, if you can still use them without new training, something that is making Linux more of an option then Vista.

    --
    There is no "disagree" moderation, and troll, flamebait and overrated are not valid substitutes
  49. Whats new!!! by pixelkiller · · Score: 1

    This is the same old thing just a different name.
    Every single OS was a terror to use when it first came out.
    (Examples Windows 98 was junk till SE, Me was junk and was replaced by 2000, XP was junk till SP2)
    This is just like all the rest.
    As a Dell Reseller, We told Dell that we would look else where if they didn't Offer Xp Pro on there Business class systems.
    With in a week they switched back to XP.
    Installing vista on a business machine would be like installing "Longhorn" ( now known as Server 2003 )when everyone else was using Server 2000. Its just not Smart. (From a business perspective)

    As an IT Tech. The newest OS is only for games and those on the bleeding edge of technology.
    The Business world always stays one step behind. Its safer there.

  50. I don't get it... by TheDarkener · · Score: 1

    I used Vista today - it's more of the same.

    Microsoft internal text: Primary changes per release

    1) Change location of 50% or more of system utilities.
    2) Change "theme" of GUI.
    3) Change names of common default programs.
    4) Require faster hardware for "shiny" effect X.

    ?

    Windows 1.0 --> Windows 3.1
    Windows 3.1/3.11 --> Windows 95
    Windows 95 --> Windows 98
    Windows 98 --> Windows 98SE
    Windows 98SE --> Windows ME (ugh)
    Windows ME --> Windows 2000
    Windows 2000 --> Windows XP
    Windows XP --> Windows Vista

    So....again, I fail to see how they're breaking their self-induced mold.

    --
    It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
  51. Great work guys by aybiss · · Score: 1

    I've already done this myself several times. The end user can do it themselves. When was the last time you did anything other than *read* about computers?

    --
    It's OK Bender, there's no such thing as 2.
  52. Correction (my bad) by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

    I was standing at the customer-service desk of a computer store yesterday (MicroCenter, a slightly more clueful big-box store than CompUSA or its ilk) and a guy walked up to the desk next to me. Basically, the guy wanted to know "what the hell was wrong with his computer." Some sales drone had sold him on a Vista laptop, and he got it home before discovering that it wasn't what he expected a computer to look or feel like. Long story short, the guy ended up returning the unit and exchanging it for one of the two models they still stock that come preinstalled with Windows XP.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  53. Why not Linux? by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

    I'm curious why people choose to leave Microsoft for a company which does even more DRM and lock-in...

    Maybe because their stuff works?

    But it does raise the question -- why not Linux? It'd be much cheaper.

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  54. Again?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm having deja vu.

  55. Hahahahaha by codingmasters · · Score: 1

    Well, this just proves that Microsoft is retarded. I've never ever heard anything else like this before. It's almost as if they want Vista to fail.

  56. Vista setup/3+hrs | Linux/1.25hrs *with xtra apps* by capnkr · · Score: 1, Informative

    Bought a new Acer laptop yesterday, one which came with Vista Basic. I've been MSFree for 8 years, but I'll leave it on there, since I can use IE to check websites during development. Thought I'd see what all the Aero buzz was about, too - though I had my doubts aboutit running very well, what with only 512M RAM.

    Setup of the win partition of the laptop - how it *should* be done (remove all extra crap - trialware and Norton etc, turn off unnecessary services, install FFox/AVG/ZA/etc) - took _over 3 hours_, and this is with the OS ***pre-installed***, and even more amazing - without doing any MS updates... This is still a bare bones OS at this point in time - no office/productivity/fun software, nothing but the basics, a bare minimum. And it won't even let me try Aero - for some reason (might need more RAM, or a better vid card/chipset, or both, or more). :rolleyes:

    Then I partitioned the drive, installed Mepis 6.5.02 + an additional 225M of updates and my favorite/needed apps (graphic, code, & video editors, etc), and that whole process took just a little over 1.25 hours, with no reboots at all. Wireless (Broadcom chipset) worked right out of the box, as did proper video resolution, sound, touchpad, etc etc. I've got more software than I'll ever use, and as a bonus - the Beryl 3D window manager works just fine, and is quite impressive.

    Funny that this story got posted, one of my searches today was checking to see if I could downgrade the win OS to XP. But the more I think of it, the story of my experience just yesterday only hammers home what I've known for the last 8 years:

    MS Windows pretty much just sucks, for me. In every way imaginable.

    My experience with Vista underscored just how much Freedom I have had these past 8 years, and how much that means to me.

    Time to make some more donations...

    --
    "...there are some things that can beat smartness and foresight. Awkwardness and stupidity can." ~ Mark Twain
  57. THANK YOU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank you Microsoft for 'allowing' this. Oh wait, I already formatted my disk and put Ubuntu on it instead. Well, thanks anyway.

  58. Re:Skip Vista? Dr. Death arrives after only 3 year by Torvaun · · Score: 1

    When you have no internet connection, the vast majority of those 170 MB of files are completely unnecessary. It's hard to get hacked over a non-existent wire, no matter what vulnerabilities you leave wide open.

    --
    I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
  59. upgrading XP SP3 by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    It has been 3 years since WinXP Service Pack 2 was released, even though updating Windows XP from an SP2 CD requires downloading more than 170 Megabytes of files, a difficult problem when there is no internet connection or only a dial-up connection. The Windows XP updates of just August's Patch Tuesday were more than 20 Megabytes. Microsoft seems to have delayed releasing an SP3 for Windows XP to try to discourage people from using Windows XP.

    I don't mean to defend Microsoft, afterall their actions that treat me like a criminal have caused me to migrate to Linux and OS X, but doesn't MS offer upgrade disks now? I ordered one online several years ago and paid $20 for it. I got it in the mail within a few days.

    Falcon
  60. VPN is a killer by Obstin8 · · Score: 1

    So far, very few VPN clients have been released/recoded for Vista. That's a definite deal-breaker for me, and the reason I 'unofficially' asserted my downgrade rights with my recent Dell laptop. Like I'm gonna run an an XP VM just to have some IPSEC love! Right!

  61. MS sales double by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

    It would be interesting to see how MS count this. Have they now doubled their sales and halved the price?

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  62. MS rktools has ISO burners by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

    Hmm, there has been ISO burning tools in the free Microsoft Resource Kit Tools package for many years http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=9D467A69-57FF-4AE7-96EE-B18C4790CFFD&displaylang=en

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  63. Not useful to us... by MarcQuadra · · Score: 1

    I build the software images at a high-end boarding school and Vista offers us -nothing- that we don't already have with XP. We already dial the UI back to Windows 2000 (we even turn that down some and disable almost all non-functional eye-candy), we already have normal users restricted so they can't infect or break their own systems, we've got DEP and the firewall turned on and exceptions made, and we have indexing on to make content searches super-speedy. When a user wants to install something, they call and ask and if we're comfy with it we can put them (temporarily and remotely) into a group that can admin machines.

    All Vista is to me is an updated kernel with higher memory requirements wrapped in a big headache. Our flagship groupware product has a Linux and OS X version, and we're seeing lots of traction on the Mac side this year, and IT is starting to experiment with Linux desktops. I imagine we'll actually switch to Linux with users remoting into Windows terminal sessions rather than try to make Vista work for us. The entire Desktop group is running Macs right now, hidden behind our mandatory PCs, and I've been hosting several 'servers' on my Linux desktop running VMWare for three years and nobody has noticed.

    --
    "Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
  64. This is what Microsoft's new tag line for Vista by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    should be:

    Vista: It's New. . .er! Now with even more of the same but in Mac style!

    I don't think that would be a wise move. I can see what Apple's response would be, "Why get an imitation when you can have the real thing?"

    Falcon
  65. Buying Vista by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    I don't want vista either, I'd rather stick with XP, but I'll be buying it next year, several copies in fact. So will almost everyone on slashdot, unless they're really linux only bods.

    I won't touch Vista with a ten foot pole unless I absolutely have to. And I'm not a Linux only person. Actually, while I do have two PCs running Linux one dualbooting Linux and NT 4.0, I'm typing this on a Macbook Pro. If Microsoft hadn't decided to treat me like a criminal, which is what Activation, WGA/WPA, and all the spyware is there for, I might of stayed with Windows.

    Falcon
  66. I predict by calebt3 · · Score: 1

    in 5-10 years we will be complaining about migrating to MS 7 because "It is too buggy and unstable and unfamiliar and resource hungry and... After all, Vista "just works" and is mature and stable and...

    1. Re:I predict by rts008 · · Score: 1

      We? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? Better rephrase that to something like 'us MS Fanboys' will be complaining about MS 'Whatever' OS.

      Some of us rats have jumped MS's ship to *nix, and like it! Some of us were never on MS's ship to begin with. (disclaimer: I was until WGA)

      Your post only expresses your perspective, not everyone's here...there are other options than MS lock-in. The Windows Majority is slowly but surely declining. Sh*t like Vista only helps this along.
      Unfortunately, there will be some that are locked into the whole MS world through their jobs, but at home they have no excuse.

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    2. Re:I predict by calebt3 · · Score: 1

      I'm no fanboy. I use Ubuntu as my sole operating system and am trying to wean my parents off of Windows (got using Firefox with a IE7-like skin applied as of three days ago). But regardless, I feel that much of the same discussions /. is having these days about Vista will occur when 7 comes out. Didn't it happen when XP was brand new? (I was barely better than an internet-and-solitaire n00b at the time, so I am not sure)

  67. Time not tyme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Learn to spell you fucking retard

  68. Why not Linux instead of OS X by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    I'm curious why people choose to leave Microsoft for a company which does even more DRM and lock-in...

    The only lockin Apple has is the OS running only on Apple hardware. Seeing as how Apple is a system's integrator and makes the hardware as well as software, I'm not surprised. That's why and how Apple is able to make sure things "just work". However Apple did at one tyme license the Mac OS to third party OEMs. This was while Steve Jobs was gone. When he was brought back he looked at the numbers and saw that by licensing the OS Apple was losing more in lost hardware sales than they made in licenses, so he ended it.

    Maybe because their stuff works?

    Yeap! My first computer was a used Mac SE30 I bought in 1992. Up until it died in 2000, 8 year later, the only problem I had with it was that it wasn't expandable. My first new computer was a Windows PC from Gateway I bought in 1997 and it ran Win95. A few months after I got it the harddisk died. One week shy of having it a year the motherboard died. I used it 2 years and in that tyme I called tech support and after going through diagnostics they had me reinstall Windows a half dozen tymes. In 2000 I bought a new HP PC Pavilion running WinME. Again within a year the hdd and mb had to be replaced. Also in 2000 I bought another used Mac, PowerMac 7300/200. It worked until 2006 when it refused to bootup. It lasted me 6 years, and it was a few years old, well maybe 3, when I got it.

    But it does raise the question -- why not Linux? It'd be much cheaper.

    I bet the single biggest reason why more people don't use Linux is because there aren't many PCs that come with Linux preinstalled. And most people don't install an OS, they just buy a computer from the store, plug everything in and power up. They want it working right out of the box.

    Falcon
    1. Re:Why not Linux instead of OS X by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      The only lockin Apple has is the OS running only on Apple hardware. Seeing as how Apple is a system's integrator and makes the hardware as well as software, I'm not surprised.

      I have no problem with OS X being optimized for Apple hardware, only sold with Apple hardware, and only coming with drivers for apple hardware.

      But Apple actually uses a TPM chip to ensure that OS X can only run on Apple hardware.

      That's ignoring the whole iTunes thing.

      When he was brought back he looked at the numbers and saw that by licensing the OS Apple was losing more in lost hardware sales than they made in licenses, so he ended it.

      It would seem to me that the smart thing to do here would be to increase the cost of the OS on non-Apple hardware. Remember, not everyone buying a PC is a lost Mac sale, even if they run OS X on it.

      However, as much business sense as it makes, I don't like the ethics of it. I bought a computer, and I want to buy an OS, which could run on it, with no technical problems, except that the OS manufacturer refuses to let me. So they don't get my money.

      I bet the single biggest reason why more people don't use Linux is because there aren't many PCs that come with Linux preinstalled. And most people don't install an OS, they just buy a computer from the store, plug everything in and power up. They want it working right out of the box.

      Every time I hear this, I wonder if there's any money to be made in the pre-installed Linux market. Dell seems to think so, and they haven't even bothered to do it right.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  69. super-cute slashdot response. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i'm sorry, but you guys are ridiculous. are you really crowing about microsoft having to suck it up and sell the old OS instead of the new one? it's braindead, i tell ya. they are still selling operating systems. that's a failure for the slashdot sanctimony no matter how you slice it.

    and to think the bulk of you somehow consider xp superior. i'm quite certain those of you that make snark on this topic haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about. XP is a security nightmare, the playland for malware and the target of every type of exploit known to computer science.

    these problems have been addressed by vista. i've been using it here, and feel nearly safe enough with it to run without additional firewall software, without any virus scan agent running 'round the clock. you g-money pimps obviously have no idea the toll taken on our networks by the horrors of win32 sunk into the kernel, or the burden posed by the untold parasites hanging off of the bloated beige underbelly of ie6. vista really actually solves the majority of these problems.

    sucks to be you. what will you bitch about now?

    i know. let's pile on the abuse because 5 year old computers run slow under the burden of the new window manager. never mind that you can turn all that crap off and have a downright sprightly good time with the dull, old win95 style interface. ok, so you've realized that's an option, so let's complain that 5% of crappy ass inkjet printers and flatbed scanners that don't have drivers available. well... 1) that's fairly lame gripes and B) it was the same with 2k/xp and the wonderful world of peripherals from the '98 era. nobody really cares. oh, and the DRM. not even close to the draconian customer-screwing antics of apple. seriously. there are more hooks and tools in or for vista, for skirting the DRM, than there are apps for OS X. ms makes sure this is an option, playing in effect to three sides of a fence (media co.'s, developers and end-users)

    your last best complaint? that this natty excuse for an operating system doesn't play all of the games that might run on xp. of course, you never tried the compatibility mode buried on that properties tab. and certainly you'd never admit that vista still runs more games than all the consoles and other operating systems combined. and as for the hopelessly vaunted Fp/s of every trendy FPS, you heap abuse on microsoft when it is clearly nvidia and ati screwing that pooch. how plainly and obviously stupid of you.

    children. this is why you fail. the above are true- plugging your ears and screaming 'NA NA NA NA' at the top of your lungs certainly isn't going to help develop linux, level the playing field for other OSs or do anything other than make you look like the shrill children you are. in the end, the only thing you accomplish with all the 'haha' and 'defectivebydesign' tags you can muster is a sad slow lonely pruning of the FOSS world, driving away developers with at least an ounce of sense for fear of being associated with the foolish.

    signed,
    a thoroughly disgusted peer with an ounce of sense.

    P.S. I am well aware of the performance and etc. bugs that launched with vista. these don't compare even a little bit to the hell found in X11. why can't we just admit this stuff and work on fixing it?

  70. Here is a simple solution for all of you. by JackMeyhoff · · Score: 1

    .. If you don't like it, DON'T BUY IT. They will get the message VERY QUICKLY after doing that in large numbers.

    --
    http://www.rense.com/general79/wdx1.htm
    1. Re:Here is a simple solution for all of you. by calebt3 · · Score: 1

      But n00bs are not aware that they have a choice.

  71. Upgradings by StormShaman · · Score: 1

    Would you like to downgrade your upgrade to a grade that is faster than your current grading? http://www.fonejacker.tv/upgradeings.shtml

  72. "fundamental security flaws" by Toreo+asesino · · Score: 1

    The Win API's have never been particularly friendly but "fundamentally insecure"? Don't think so. Of course if you have some overwhelming evidence on the contrary, let's see it. I won't hold my breath.

    --
    throw new NoSignatureException();
    1. Re:"fundamental security flaws" by argent · · Score: 1

      Three fundamentally insecure windows APIs:

      The HTML control: Having the HTML control provide a mechanism to execute code in a document with local user permissions at all is unacceptable. Given that exists, the "security zones" mechanism to control access to it fails "open", not "closed".

      Program execution: The application being called is responsible for parsing the command line into components. Microsoft themselves have admitted it is impossible for an application to completely sanitize a command line in the general case, even where the command line is specified by an API.

      Network servers: There is no general mechanism to control the binding of services to specific interfaces, which forces you to use firewalls, which would otherwise be a second layer of defense, to become the only way to prevent external access to internal services using TCP.

    2. Re:"fundamental security flaws" by Toreo+asesino · · Score: 1

      Three very small issues you nit-pick here:

      HTML control (IE, basically). You have full control over what HTML displayed and how. Case in point, Outlook 2007 - html emails are opened with this control; images in emails are downloaded only when requested. Sure you could program the IE control to do something dangerous, but no more than you could write a java-app to hose a linux profile - everything runs under user-level privileges anyway. Er, plus it's just one control? There are others.

      Parsing command-line application arguments isn't generally considered that dangerous. That and no-one uses command-line apps in Windows very much? I'd be interested to know exactly how Microsoft phrased what you raised though.

      True enough on the network-servers thing, but consider you can with all IIS services, and really, if you haven't got a decent firewall set-up you lose anyway

      So, I'd agree with you on some level - some good ideas you bring up for sure, but I don't think that makes the WinAPIs "inherently insecure".

      --
      throw new NoSignatureException();
    3. Re:"fundamental security flaws" by argent · · Score: 1

      1. Outlook doesn't use the standard HTML control for rendering, it uses a separate control from Microsoft Word. Perhaps even Microsoft has realized the standard Microsoft HTML control is inherently insecure, but that doesn't help anyone else, because it's the only one that's universally available in all Windows systems, and it's the one Microsoft themselves use for everything else.

      2. Parsing command-line application arguments is a huge hole. Users don't use the command line much, but programs call other programs that way all the time. There have been at least two exploits I know of in the past few months taking advantage of command line parsing.

      3. You don't need a firewall at all on any modern BSD- or Linux-based system unless you run public services. Some systems come with services on by default, but there's plenty of "secure as shipped" systems available. If there's no service listening at a port, there's no way to attack through that port. If all TCP based services required locally only listen to localhost, there's nothing exposed for a firewall to protect. And on top of that Windows opens up all kinds of ports: the old Lan Manager ports, SMS, Messenger service, ... you don't have to be running a server to have your ass hanging out, and none of these services are designed to run bound to localhost only.

    4. Re:"fundamental security flaws" by Toreo+asesino · · Score: 1

      1. Actually, you're right, Outlook 2007 uses the Word 2007 rendering engine. But Outlook 2003 uses the aforementioned control, with the same effect I mentioned.

      2. Source? I'm still waiting for the "Microsoft admits command-line parsing is terrible" document you mentioned.

      3. Default inbound ports open in Windows XP are 137, 138, 139, and 445. They are used for File and Printer sharing (the former 3 being used for Win9x only). The Messenger service you mention is disabled too by default. I expect that's more ports than Linux has open by default, but still, it's not terrible. Vista locks down even more, depending on what type of network you're connecting too - i.e, on public networks, Vista will close off all ports on that interface.

      --
      throw new NoSignatureException();
    5. Re:"fundamental security flaws" by argent · · Score: 1

      But Outlook 2003 uses the aforementioned control, with the same effect I mentioned.

      Not according to these vulnerability reports. If it was possible to call the standard Microsoft HTML control securely these problems could not have occurred, because there would be no mechanism in the embedded control to elevate privileges:

      http://secunia.com/advisories/11572/
      http://secunia.com/advisories/11067/

      In addition, this appears to be a similar flaw in the Word HTML control they switched to:

      http://secunia.com/advisories/12041/

      Source? I'm still waiting for the "Microsoft admits command-line parsing is terrible" document you mentioned.

      It was in the recent IE versus Firefox row. Microsoft claimed that it was up to Firefox to handle anything IE threw at it, because it wasn't possible in principle for IE to sanitize what it sent to programs to ensure that they would never misinterpret malicious embedded quotes. They were right, in that Firefox should handle anything that IE threw at it, but they don't provide a general way to allow a program to both handle arbitrarily complex file names AND handle malicious input containing embedded quotes. The general solution seems to be to have the programs special-case internet explorer, so that if the first argument looks like a URL they treat embedded quotes as either literal or an error, and don't allow multiple arguments. The problem is that while this solves that special case it doesn't provide a way for them to be called securely from any other application.

      There are a couple of solutions for this. One is to provide a separate EXE to be used for untrusted sources, and register that... but then that limits what can be passed to the program in a URI from the command line, Windows Explorer, internally, or from other trusted programs (such as scripts or applications using your program for display). Microsoft could resolve that by providing a separate set of bindings for

      I expect that's more ports than Linux has open by default, but still, it's not terrible.

      I consider file and print sharing a terrible thing to leave open.

      (and, yes, four is more than zero - which is what any UNIX variant with pretensions to security has open)

      on public networks, Vista will close off all ports on that interface.

      Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I believe it does it using a firewall, not by having the services bound only to internal ports or not running at all. My point is that this makes the firewall a part of the normal operation of the system, not an extra layer of security.

    6. Re:"fundamental security flaws" by Toreo+asesino · · Score: 1

      Firstly, take a look at this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Outlook#HTML_rendering

      For the record, I too despise the control, but then like I said if you don't like it, don't use it.

      The params thing I'll take your word on. In .net things like that are hardened anyway, which is more my area. Either way, it appears to just be sloppy programming if what you say is true.

      Finally, I will correct you, while XP leaves file & print sharing services open by default (note: that doesn't mean you can just walk into any XP box), Vista does not (depending on the type of network you say you're connected to). For public networks, all inbound sharing services are switched off AND the firewall is set to paranoid-mode. It's actually rather clever really, take a look - http://www.microsoft.com/technet/community/columns/cableguy/cg0906.mspx

      --
      throw new NoSignatureException();
    7. Re:"fundamental security flaws" by argent · · Score: 1

      Firstly, take a look at this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Outlook#HTML_rendering

      Um, go back up a couple of messages, I already pointed out that Outlook 2007 wasn't using the standard HTML control. The GP claimed that Outlook 2003 had similar control over the standard HTML control that 2007 gets from the Word control. That was obviously not true, since 2003 was subject to vulnerabilities that wouldn't have happened if it had that control.

      Unfortunately, that control isn't an option for third party programs, because it's part of Office, which may not be installed. Third party applications should not be using the standard control (NOBODY should be using it, including Microsoft), but they are, and so that insecure API is still part of Windows, and widely used.

      For the record, I too despise the control, but then like I said if you don't like it, don't use it.

      You don't have the option of "not using it" if you're running Windows. It's the standard HTML control and it's used by almost all programs that render HTML. The fact that you can do something else

      Either way, it appears to just be sloppy programming if what you say is true.

      It's inherent in the design. Every time you force another entity (application, shell, interpreter) to perform parsing and evaluation of something that has to remain secure, you create a new class of security holes. If there is no mechanism to specify correct quoting, then you create an inherently unfixable security hole. It doesn't matter if you're calling the helper application from .NET*, or if the helper application is written in .NET, the API is inherently insecure and it's how helper applications are called.

      There is a similar API in UNIX, the 'system' call. Secure applications don't use it, they use the underlying exec() call that avoids the extra layer of interpretation. In Windows, the command line IS the API... the called application doesn't receive an argument vector, it receives a command line and (if needed) recreates the argument vector from it. So, again, this insecure API is part of Windows, and widely used.

      It's actually rather clever really, take a look - http://www.microsoft.com/technet/community/columns/cableguy/cg0906.mspx

      That just enables and disables the whole service. It doesn't allow you to have your computer listen to file and print connections from (for example) an internal virtual machine while not listening to those connections from the outside world, WITHOUT using a firewall. The equivalent services on UNIX can *all* be bound to a particular network interface (usually because the network connections are handled by a superserver like inetd, xinetd, or tcpserver), so you can get the same level of security in a mixed network environment... and *then* add a firewall.

      Window may have mechanisms to allow a superserver model to be used, I would be surprised if they didn't, but they haven't implemented one (unless you count LAN Manager (whatever it's called this week... 'file and print') itself). Instead every service application opens its own listening socket and few if any have a mechanism to request them to listen only for connections to specific interfaces (in particular, LMGR doesn't). So the API actually used is still inherently insecure.

      Microsoft can't fix this in the current platform without pain. Too many applications are using inherently insecure APIs like these. They have to deprecate those APIs and declare a flag day after which they will no longer be provided. This will be highly disruptive... even more so than Vista has been. But there really isn't an alternative if they want to transition to a system that is secure by design rather than just create more leaky sandboxes.

      * As a side issue, the .NET security model is pretty clear

  73. Re:Skip Vista? Dr. Death arrives after only 3 year by Tom · · Score: 1

    It has been 3 years since WinXP Service Pack 2 was released, even though updating Windows XP from an SP2 CD requires downloading more than 170 Megabytes of files, a difficult problem when there is no internet connection or only a dial-up connection. No, the real difficult problem is that even on DSL you have a considerable chance of being owned while the updates that fix all those remote root exploits are being downloaded.
    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  74. Re:Skip Vista? Dr. Death arrives after only 3 year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which is why everyone should grab the last version of autopatcher while the torrents are still good. I'll keep the last full version on cd for rural customers and cut the download time for patches. http://www.fulldls.com/torrent-app-72200.html. I grabbed the full,the directX addons,and the office patches for 2000 and xp off the mule. Microsoft really shot themselves in the foot killing autopatcher,but then what else is new. For those with emule,there are still plenty of hosts,but they are dwindling so get them quick.

  75. Re:Skip Vista? Dr. Death arrives after only 3 year by MojoStan · · Score: 3, Informative

    Dr. Death has arrived. After only 3 years, requiem for an OS: Bill Gates is software's Dr. Death, ready to kill software prematurely that customers want to use. He has decided that Windows XP will die soon: January 31, 2008. I'm not trying to dispute the spirit of your post, but I think saying XP "will die" on January 31 is "greatly exaggerating." That's just the date Microsoft will stop making XP available to retailers and OEMs. That's not the date MS stops support.

    According to MS's Windows XP Pro lifecycle page, "mainstream support" for XP lasts until April 14, 2009 and "extended support" (which includes security updates and paid support) lasts until at least April 8, 2014 (the same dates apply to XP Home). That's actually a heck of a lot longer than any other OS AFAIK.

    The really major problems in Windows XP stopped only after SP2 was released, on August 25, 2004. That means we have gotten only 3 years of good use from Windows XP. Since XP will continue to get security updates, paid support, and free knowledgebase support until at least April 2014, you should be able to get at least a few more years of use from XP. If you need a bunch of additional licenses, order them before January 31 (to be safe). If you only need a few additional licenses, it should be easy to find old stock after that date.

    That said, Linux distros have gotten a heck of a lot better since XP was released nearly six years ago. Also, desktop versions of Ubuntu LTS guarantee 3 years of support, which is pretty darned good for a free download that's updated every 2 years (LTS versions).

    --
    TO START
    PRESS ANY KEY

    Where's the 'ANY' key? I see Esk, Kitarl, and Pig-Up...

  76. Win XP: Three bad years and three good years. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    Windows XP was released on October 25, 2001. There were MANY big problems until Service Pack 2 was released on August 25, 2004.

    So, the first 3 years of Windows XP were expensive to support because of problems that were not fixed until 2004. Now, only 3 years later, Microsoft is interfering even more with the use of Windows XP!!!

    The interference began when Microsoft failed to release a service pack in 2005, 2006, and 2007. Now, not selling XP is an indication of Microsoft's intentions. Small companies may have installations of Windows XP, but not be able to buy more licenses. Forcing the sale of Windows Vista and then allowing "downgrades" inflates the apparent sales of Vista. If the past is any indication, expect numerous other deliberately generated hassles.

    Is that acceptable for an OS? Three bad years and three good years?

  77. Marketshare Credibility. by Erris · · Score: 0, Troll

    It's just about apparent market share. ... Including the XP disc will not show in their numbers when figuring their deployment of Vista.

    I can see them doing that, but everyone knows it's a lie. Thanks to WGA, M$ knows exactly how many and if not who is running any of their newer software. Next to that, sales and web figures are total bullshit. The fact that everone knows they are lying has not kept them from lying in the past, though.

    --
    DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
    1. Re:Marketshare Credibility. by jack455 · · Score: 1

      I thought you made a good point and weren't trolling.

      Marketing people have different groups of information and they cherry pick whatever puts their company in a good light. Not exclusively MS either.

      And you're right that WGA will show lower #'s after people install XP.

      MS marketing will still use whatever figures are most impressive even if the implications are dishonest.

    2. Re:Marketshare Credibility. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Hey, look what I found:

      Not Natural
      By Will Hill
      Posted Friday 21st September 2007 22:22 GMT
      You need to read your own news before you conclude there's anything natural about any software monopoly, especially the second rate one in Redmond. The ease with which free software is ported across hardware and software platforms proves that there's no inherent technical difficulty making computers and hardware works and can work better than M$ can ever dream. They are not smarter and hardware makers don't really want to keep secrets. When you read your own stories about forbiding music players from working with OGG, intentionally breaking ACPI power management, sabotaging competing software and other dirty tricks, you know that M$ is a monopoly of the old fashioned kind: "Do as I say of face my wrath". If that's not good enough for you, go dig through the court documents from the US anti-trust case. M$ is so blatant, even the US federal government noticed. M$ spends close to a billion dollars a month in advertising, PR and other BS to snow you under, but they need to be paying attention to their software. Vista does not work and people are not buying it, so the monopoly is failing, and that is final proof that nothing was natural about the Windoze monopoly. Same language, same bullshit reasoning already debunked on other sites: you can't hide, you know. People like me read more than one tech site.

      Another name to look out for you under.
  78. Re:Vista setup/3+hrs | Linux/1.25hrs *with xtra ap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no Aero in Vista Basic... its for Home Premium and Ultimate users only. (Maybe the top end business one too).

  79. Re:Skip Vista? Dr. Death arrives after only 3 year by aonyx · · Score: 1

    There are legal considerations which require a company to support an product (OS) for five years after it is EOL'd. That clock doesn't start counting down until M$ stops shipping XP. Hence the desire to cut off the OEM license.

  80. Get your facts right and grow up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good to see you guys have your facts right

    Windows 1.0 --> Windows 3.1
    Windows 3.1/3.11 --> Windows 95
    Windows 95 --> Windows 98
    Windows 98 --> Windows 98SE
    Windows 98SE --> Windows ME (ugh)
    Windows ME --> Windows 2000
    Windows 2000 --> Windows XP
    Windows XP --> Windows Vista

    I dont think so

    try this Windows1.0-->Windows 3.1-->Windows 95-->Windows98-->Windows 98SE-->Windows ME--> END OF LIFE!!!
    then it was Windows NT3.1-->Windows NT3.51-->Windows NT4.0-->Windows 2000-->Windows XP-->Windows Vista--> AND BEYOND!!!!

    Downgrade Rights have been there since as long as i have been in the industry on the BUSINESS VERSIONS to ensure that busines customers with the need to not change their networks/environments in stages but rather in one step could still purchase hardware. Windows NT4 would downgrade to NT3.51, Windows 2000 to NT4, Windows XP PRO ONLY to 2000, and now Windows Vista BUSINESS AND ULTIMATE ONLY to Windows XP PRO.

    And people wonder why not many posts are from real techys now-a-days. you guys biggest problem with Vista is that your too young in the industry (and probably in general) to remember that the same old arguments were there for the very version that you all now long for... XP!

    Good on you Microsoft and Good on you Bill for sticking to the right decision. XP is out of date, Out of spec and now very much Out of TIME.

    Dont like it ... go play with your macs or Linux pc's (and yes i have both) and leave the whinging to products that we want to see improvements in for the common non tech user.

    I Was going to create an account to put my name against this but why waste the time, i wont be interested in slashdot until something worthy of reading/participating comes allong

    1. Re:Get your facts right and grow up! by TheDarkener · · Score: 1

      You obviously are talking about yourself, not those who agree with me. I've been in the industry plenty long (since '85?), and know its history in general entirety. Microsoft's game has never changed. Bait and switch tactic. Mac is pretty much the same, only they're jealous of MS's fanbase.

      Linux is an exception because they aren't motivated by money. You can accept the same flaws that are shared between operating systems, but when you're paying $150-250 for an OS and you get the same bullshit error messages and glitches, you feel like you've been jipped. With open source software, you are actually motivated to help report bugs and get involved, because you want to see it thrive and succeed, just as the money-driven OS companies try to do with pushing new products onto customers who don't know any better. When's the last time any of you have hit 'Send error report to Microsoft' when a program/Windows crashed? "Fuck them" I say, they don't deserve to have free bug reporters for their billion dollar company.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
  81. Re:Skip Vista? Dr. Death arrives after only 3 year by petermgreen · · Score: 1

    XP even with no service packs comes with a servicable firewall that blocks incoming connections. Enabling that before connecting the network should be enough to stop you getting owned while updating.

    --
    note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  82. They're losing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is MS realizing that Vista obviously isn't as great as they thought it was, and that they're going to lose most of their customers if they don't do something.

  83. Re:Skip Vista? Dr. Death arrives after only 3 year by pipingguy · · Score: 1

    New versions of Microsoft Windows seem to have the purpose of 1) killing the old version and 2) using more CPU power so that it is necessary to buy new hardware.

    When an OS becomes "good enough" and people have learned to live with and work around the shortcomings, why upgrade? To provide software developers with jobs?

    Automation of boring administrative tasks/ease of communication has gotten about as good as it can get.

  84. Linux kernel USB Autosuspend bugs still not fixed by Christophotron · · Score: 1

    (Minor point:I have a Visioneer 6100 USB scanner that will not work with any distro of Linux that I have tried...YMMV) Have you tried (k)ubuntu Edgy? I have had horrendous problems with my USB devices (most notably my Samsung printer) in every linux distro that uses kernel 2.6.20+. As Edgy still uses 2.6.17, that is the OS I run on my print server. The USB problems are a known issue relating to the 'autosuspend' features they implemented in kernel 2.6.20. The devices go into suspend mode as soon as they are detected and they will not come out of it. There are some supposed workarounds but I have had no luck in making them work, so I have chosen not to upgrade from Ubuntu Server 6.10 on my server until the kernel is patched.
  85. That's ignoring the whole iTunes thing. by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    iTunes doesn't lockin music. With iTunes I can create a play list and burn it to cd. The only limitation is that I can only burn a specific play list 4 tymes. But I can rearrange the songs and bourn them 4 more tymes. Or I can burn the songs to cd then reimport the cd and do whatever I want. You lose a little sound quality, but then again you loose quality digital vs analogue anyway.

    It would seem to me that the smart thing to do here would be to increase the cost of the OS on non-Apple hardware. Remember, not everyone buying a PC is a lost Mac sale, even if they run OS X on it.

    And what would the price point be to eliminate lost sales of hardware? $500? $1000? If OS X is licensed at a high price what OEM would license it? With a starting price of $2500 for a Mac Pro if a license were sold for $250 10 clones would need to be sold to make up for the lost sale of 1 Mac Pro, actually it would be more like 8 or 9 because of the saving in the cost of the hardware. And then, who's going to pay for and test the clones so they "just work"? Because when clones start crashing Apple will start to look bad, "Macs aren't any more stable than Windows PCs". I wish it were financially feasible for Apple to license OS X, but I don't see a way for it to work.

    I bet the single biggest reason why more people don't use Linux is because there aren't many PCs that come with Linux preinstalled. And most people don't install an OS, they just buy a computer from the store, plug everything in and power up. They want it working right out of the box.

    Every time I hear this, I wonder if there's any money to be made in the pre-installed Linux market. Dell seems to think so, and they haven't even bothered to do it right.

    More and more OEMs are preinstalling Linux on PCs now, I bought one about a year ago. One thing that prevented this before was Microsoft's licensing of Windows, in order to get the OEM pricing for Windows OEMS had to pay a license for every PC sold whether Windows was installed or not. It may still be the case but I don't think so now, so some OEMs are willing to try Linux in their lineups.

    Falcon
    1. Re:That's ignoring the whole iTunes thing. by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      With iTunes I can create a play list and burn it to cd. The only limitation is that I can only burn a specific play list 4 tymes. But I can rearrange the songs and bourn them 4 more tymes. Or I can burn the songs to cd then reimport the cd and do whatever I want. You lose a little sound quality, but then again you loose quality digital vs analogue anyway.

      First, it's more than a little.

      What you're saying is like saying DVD CSS and similar systems do not lock in video because you can always point a camcorder at your TV.

      As for digital vs analog, most digital music, in its original form, is high enough quality that humans cannot tell the difference between it and analog. But even if this was not the case, you are dismissing a loss of quality that does not have to be there.

      And what would the price point be to eliminate lost sales of hardware? $500? $1000?

      Well, do the math yourself, instead of pulling numbers out of your ass.

      Because when clones start crashing Apple will start to look bad, "Macs aren't any more stable than Windows PCs".

      No, because they would be PCs. Thus, Apple would still have a reputation for making very good hardware -- hardware that OS X runs best on.

      More and more OEMs are preinstalling Linux on PCs now, I bought one about a year ago.

      Ah, true. But, as I said, they may not be doing it right -- Dell, for instance, ships a stock Ubuntu. Can you imagine if they shipped a stock Windows? People would hate them for it.

      At the very least, they should be setting up video drivers. For that matter, they should be licensing some of the legal Linux versions of various codecs...

      I'd be curious to know if an OEM has gotten this right, but I kind of doubt it. Most I've seen go to the other extreme -- they practically build their own distro, and everything still doesn't work out of the box.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    2. Re:That's ignoring the whole iTunes thing. by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      And what would the price point be to eliminate lost sales of hardware? $500? $1000?

      Well, do the math yourself, instead of pulling numbers out of your ass.

      Because I don't have or know the numbers I could run them, however I did include some number do to the math. Maybe you didn't read what I said but I did say "If OS X is licensed at a high price what OEM would license it? With a starting price of $2500 for a Mac Pro if a license were sold for $250 10 clones would need to be sold to make up for the lost sale of 1 Mac Pro, actually it would be more like 8 or 9 because of the saving in the cost of the hardware."

      Because when clones start crashing Apple will start to look bad, "Macs aren't any more stable than Windows PCs".

      No, because they would be PCs. Thus, Apple would still have a reputation for making very good hardware -- hardware that OS X runs best on

      Just as PCs of whatever brand are still PCs, a Mac clone of whatever make is still a Mac clone. I still recall people blaming IBM for using the S100 bus when everyone else was too.

      At the very least, they should be setting up video drivers. For that matter, they should be licensing some of the legal Linux versions of various codecs...

      I though Ubuntu included legal codecs, however even if they don't they could still use Linspire which does have legal codecs. Actually here's a paragraph on what someone thinks Linspire should do:

      Linspire Needs to Drop OS, Focus Exclusively On CNR"

      "Published: Tuesday, September 11 2007 @ 8:07 PM CDT"
      Contributed by: Tommy

      "You have an opportunity here to keep to Linspire's original goal here, Larry. Make CNR the pivot factor that brings restricted codecs and software to Linux in an elective format through CNR. Purists will be appeased, since the distro itself is left alone by default and casual users will have the choice to expand on their Linux installation the way they see fit with CNR at the controls."

      I'd be curious to know if an OEM has gotten this right, but I kind of doubt it. Most I've seen go to the other extreme -- they practically build their own distro, and everything still doesn't work out of the box.

      The Linux PC I got used Linspire and included all the drivers needed to run out of the box. The PC was designed to run Linspire. Unfortunately the OEM dropped Linux from the lineup. But you're right, besides OEMs installing Linux they need to make sure it works right. Maybe I don't look at it like OEMs but the way I look at it is that if you're going to do something get it right if you're going to sale it, at least put some effort into it instead of slapping things together. And make it user friendly.

      Falcon
    3. Re:That's ignoring the whole iTunes thing. by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      I though Ubuntu included legal codecs, however even if they don't they could still use Linspire which does have legal codecs.

      Linspire is neither free nor open source, which kind of defeats the point.

      Yes, I realize codecs aren't free or open, and some drivers aren't open. But there's a difference between going with a distro which is entirely open by default, and adding just enough to make it work, and starting with a distro which is entirely closed.

      And yes, Ubuntu does include legal codecs -- but only the codecs which can legally be distributed by Ubuntu as it is. Right now, a lot is supported out of the box, including wmv9, I believe. But a lot isn't, including DVD CSS.

      (Frankly, there's hardly anything the community hasn't reverse-engineered, and we're not really afraid of codecs, as those are covered by patents, maybe. But most distributors are terrified of DRM, because that is covered by the DMCA, which people do tend to use and abuse to get what they want -- people with a lot deeper pockets and a lot more lawyers than your average Linux distributor.)

      Then again, there's a ready-made, free/open, but maybe not legal, solution: Medibuntu. But that only works once you know what you're doing enough to know about them.

      As a guy who knows what he's doing, I like taking a vanilla Kubuntu, stripping out the parts I don't like, adding the stuff I know is good (Medibuntu, nvidia-glx-new, the WineHQ repositories), and ending up with my own system. Just as with Windows, I'd not only start with a fresh XP install disk (not "restore" crap), I'd run it through nLite first. But for a newbie, it should just work out of the box, yet be as close as possible to my system under the hood, so that when they're in trouble, I can help. (I've never used Linspire, but I'm sure I could debug Ubuntu + proprietary codecs.)

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  86. Re:Skip Vista? Dr. Death arrives after only 3 year by mcsuper5 · · Score: 1

    Iirc, with no service packs, in XP the network came up before the firewall. You had to make sure you weren't connected when you booted XP. I believe that was fixed after it became widely known. Not positive as I was natted to a Debian box running a firewall which had dialup access the only time I ran XP w/o updates. (I had restored the factory image after repartitioning the drive to dual boot with Knoppix.)

  87. How to get an older license? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So if XP OEM/Retail licenses aren't available after Jan 2008, what happens if you must have XP installed on a new machine? Or if I decided to install Windows 98, how can that be done legally?

    Why would somebody want to do this? Dual boot, VM, or maybe they're just high...

  88. Windows Me anyone? by haggus71 · · Score: 1

    Remember when Windows Me was supposed to be the next step for home users? Most people ended up staying on Windows 2000 or Windows 98 after they found out what a steaming pile Me was. Seems the same is happening to Vista. After 5 years of debugging, XP works pretty much the way it should, and no one wants to switch to yet another M$ product which is 3 years of development away from being prime-time. They reached their peak with Windows 2000. Maybe they should have taken the lessons learned from that: make an OS that just works.

  89. Mod this how you will... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you remember the win95 release? People lined up at midnight, ready to buy just as soon as it was released.

    How much of that enthuiasm do we see for Vista? No, instead customers are demanding an increased lifetime on the previous product. Can you imagine people clamoring for win 3.1 over win 95?

    Microsoft has taken a very wrong turn here. Maybe they should listen to the very market they are trying to sell to? Nawwww, they always know better what you need for your computer than YOU do... just buy it and shut up!

  90. Vista is not Windows 95 -- It's Windows ME by Ken+Erfourth · · Score: 1

    Windows 95 was superior in every way to 3.1. Same way that Windows NT/2000/XP was a major jump in architecture over Windows 98se/ME (MicroKernel, NTFS support for large files).

    Upgrading required some effort and carried some risks, but when you were done, you could do stuff you couldn't ever do before! That drove new adopters.

    Vista offers us nothing but lipstick on Windows XP. The slightly improved (and majorly annoying) security model and improved memory usage are OK, but they don't make any possible that isn't already there for Windows XP. And the hardware burden is obscene.

    I'm making good money putting together machines for non-business customers who want XP on a new machine. I just went through huge hoops to get XP installed on a couple of Toshiba laptops, because they don't have any XP drivers available.

    People are only moving to Vista because they are being forced to. By a Monopoly.

    That really sucks.

    --
    Fundamentalism is a crime against humanity
  91. Vista v. XP.... by rickshaf · · Score: 1

    Is this really something new? I noticed in the middle of August that the not-so-august " Tiger Direct" was selling some of their machines with either Vista or XP. Of course, the ones that were offered with either OS were about $30 more for XP than for Vista.

  92. Linspire by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    Linspire is neither free nor open source, which kind of defeats the point.

    When you pay for Linspire you pay for support and for some of the codecs and other software. While Linspire does include some commercial software there's also Freespire.

    As a guy who knows what he's doing, I like taking a vanilla Kubuntu, stripping out the parts I don't like, adding the stuff I know is good (Medibuntu, nvidia-glx-new, the WineHQ repositories), and ending up with my own system.

    At first I was thinking of installing Ubuntu once I got my Macbook Pro, however now that I have it I'm wonder what good installing it would serve. I installed X11 as well as Fink so I can download, install, and run X software. Other than learning Ubuntu, I know of nothing I could do with Ubuntu I can't do currently on my MBP. I can use the terminal to learn at least some basic commands. And while I can install either or both WINE and CrossOver, I don't know of any Windows software I know I want to use. Maybe XMLSpy which I've used and like on Windows however I first want to tryout <oXygen> XML Editor

    Falcon
  93. Re:Vista setup/3+hrs | Linux/1.25hrs *with xtra ap by capnkr · · Score: 1

    http://www.ghacks.net/2007/05/13/enable-vista-aero-in-windows-vista-home-basic/

    Haven't yet tried this, but will - and will update w/results when I have.

    --
    "...there are some things that can beat smartness and foresight. Awkwardness and stupidity can." ~ Mark Twain
  94. Re:Vista setup/3+hrs | Linux/1.25hrs *with xtra ap by capnkr · · Score: 1

    The parent to the above was correct - there is an 'Aero Theme' that can be enabled for Vista Basic, but no 'Aero Glass' transparency or 3D effect/desktop like Beryl.

    --
    "...there are some things that can beat smartness and foresight. Awkwardness and stupidity can." ~ Mark Twain