Slashdot Mirror
Vista SP1 Release May Be Near
Tokonamu sends a note about the release to a private testing group of a new build of Windows Vista SP1, possibly presaging the imminent release of the long-awaited service pack. Speculation about a Feb. 15 release date has been fueled by a report out of Taiwan, according to the article. Microsoft also issued a new build of Windows XP SP3 this week, but it's getting next to no publicity out of Redmond, what with XP being the main competition for Vista and all.
At the moment installing SP1 RC's requires three seperate trips to Windows Update, and three reboots.
My guess is MS will push out the pre-requisite updates for SP1 this coming February Patch Tuesday, and SP1 a week or two later.
I heard a rumor that Vista SP1, in a spectacularly clever and devious bid to fix all Vista issues, silently installs XP in the background.
I always wonder why Microsoft gets so much publicity for point version upgrades. I mean, the other day I got an update from Ubuntu. So what?
If Microsoft have waited this long for a full update, then something is seriously screwed in Redmond. Something is even more screwed with the rest of us for finding the service pack upgrade so fascinating.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
There was a story about the new linux kernel, and that was a point upgrade.
You also get patches/upgrades from MS outside service packs.
So this is in a way like a Linux distro that announces a new point release, which ARE reported on slashdot.
Hate vista or love it. Use it or leave it, but it is a news worthy item when it receives an upgrade. For better or worse this is going to affect a lot of people who read this site.
Oh and OSX has had nothing but point upgrades since it release back in the dark ages, each one of those point releases has been discussed to death.
I don't use vista yet, but am a PC gamer so sooner or later I might have to take the plunge, news on Vista therefor intrests me, if this SP1 is really good, it might hasten the move to Vista and make game companies more inclined to make directx10 only games. Or not, but I want to know when I should start to look into pirating Vista (Pay for MS software? What an odd concept.)
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
For the first several months of Vista, it seemed there were a lot of people justifying its poor uptake by suggesting most IT people would wait until SP1 before adoption. After all, everybody knows it takes a bit of time to work out the kinks in a new OS. I'm pretty sceptical, but it'll be interesting to see if the apologists were right.
Speculations about SP3 breaking XP starts in 3... 2... 1...
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
I was surprised when Microsoft announced that Windows 7 (successor to Vista) will probably be out in about 16 months. Seems like they're stealing their own whimpery thunder re Vista. The release of SP1 for Vista is surely a relief for those who already adopted it, but what about the masses who were waiting for SP1 --- the proverbial "We'll wait for the bugs to be worked out" crowd?
All those folks (including my own org) are now looking at VistaSP1 vs W7 and wondering about the wisdom of adopting Vista at all. If W7 comes out mid-next year, and there's a W7SP1 about a year later... That means right now that Vista offers barely more than a two-year period of stable operation for an entire platform change. With XP still chugging along merrily (with better stability and lower HW expense/requirements) I really don't see the value for any but the smallest organization.
I think not...(*poof*)
So is XP SP3 officially out? If so, where is it?
stuff |
Specifically the issue that may be causes by the KB938979 update. This is the one where Vista will continuously spin-down then spin-down your drives causing premature wear and probably failure. It has been an issue for a really long time and Microsoft refuses to admit there is a problem. Meanwhile people's drives are getting destroyed.
What a piece of crap. Vista really is the modern equivalent of Windows ME.
"He Who Dares Wins"
Vista SP1 is about to be released on the heels of the just released Linux kernel 2.6.24. Coincidence? I think not.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
I am running RC1 of SP1 and it has made significant improvements on my x64 laptop. One of the major fixes is the removal of occurances when Vista looks for a domain controller to update user information on a side panel of the window. That fix alone has increased the performance and useability of Vista.
For those of you looking to install RC1 be warned it takes about 2 hours to install and you must remove it prior to installing SP1.
Slashdot, not at least through posting Twitter-blogs, has informed us thoroughly how deep shit MS is in. Nobody wants their products anymore, everybody and their parents (literally) are switching to Mac or Linux (we can't really agree on which, but that doesn't matter). Vista is such a big P.O.S. and sales failure that we suspect it's not really running on any PC at all, people claiming otherwise being astroturfers. And MS are obviously well down the road to bankruptcy.
But surfing outside our informed group here, websites talk about recent fantastic record results and outlooks for Microsoft, among other things fueled by strong Windows growth. People talk about faster adoption rate and less problems with Vista than XP, over 100 million users, MS being rated as one of the most respected companies, and other shit like that.
Where are these people living, and where do they get there information from. Aren't they reading Slashdot??
The only interesting thing about Borg's products is when they will be phased out of existence.
Read the links ;)
When ideas fail, words become very handy.
the next Ubuntu release!
They can also call it Hasta La Vista to avoid lawsuits.
WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
Isn't it the same with every Windows release... I mean, not being happy with the current version and waiting for the next golden-release-that-will-fix-everything?
It actually makes sense for iTunes to be that way on the Mac.
iTunes integrates with QuickTime, which deeply integrates with the graphics subsystem on Mac OS.
If the competition for Vista is XP, there would be some incentive for microsoft to break parts of XP with service pack 3. Perhaps we should approach SP3 with caution.
The XP SP3 teaches us a lesson: every company will rather damage its own customers rather than its own sales. XP SP3 will be out, but Microsoft won't tell about it because that could hurt Vista sales. As a result, some users could be damaged by the unpatched bugs or spend more time/money because they don't know about the existence of a full service pack.
Don't take it as anti-MS bashing: while I hate Microsoft as the next guy, this behavior should be expected by every company out there. IBM, Sun, Google, Apple, etc. would do exactly the same and the reason isn't that all companies are evil, but they simply don't obey the same principles most humans do.
The morals here is: don't expect a company to be committed to you; whatever bullshit they tell, your money is their food and they will do everything to get it.
Wonderful. Like IE is integrated into Windows to the point that you can't extract it.
Don't hate me because I am beautiful, have lots of women under my control and use Vista!
Microsoft is NOT planning to release Windows 7 in 2009 ! Contrary to all that is being said on the net, it clearly looks like Microsoft is NOT planning to release Windows 7 in 2009. Q. What is the expected timeline for the availability of Windows 7? A. We are currently in the planning stages for Windows 7 and expect it will take approximately 3 more years to develop. The specific release date will be determined once the company meets its quality bar for release. All this smoke of Windows 7, being released next year, may have led to confusion in the minds of the Windows Vista user. http://www.winvistaclub.com/i7.html
Actually, you can remove iTunes and Quicktime from your Apple OS without impacting on the running state of the OS in any way... unless you wanted to use those programs, so it isn't like IE at all.
Jonathanjk.com
The only recent updates that have required a reboot on my computer are the graphics card firmware update, 10.4.11, a couple of QuickTime updates, and an iTunes update.
The first three are forgivable (QT also being the graphics manager), iTunes I'm not so sure about. But in my experience it seems to require a reboot less than my Windows work computer does and, when it does, it doesn't keep insisting on restoring the Windows update dialog box and bringing it to the front every 10 minutes. The icon bounces around in the dock but other than that it doesn't interfere.
Will Vista SP1 fix the annoying stuff I've seen in Vista? Like 1. Going into 20 minute non-stop indexing sprees, which slows down disk access a lot. 2. Constantly being reminded how I don't have Ultimate Edition 3. A bug in the only good feature I've seen in Vista: the ability to resize partitions. I used this feature to resize the default partition on my new computer to install Linux and Windows Server 2008 betas, but after creating 4 or 5 partitions, this utility fails to work anymore, which was VERY annoying trying to get XP installed. There's a lot more stuff I have seen as annoying or problematic in Vista, but those are the big ones.
Actually, you can remove the Quicktime and iTunes applications but you can't remove the Quicktime framework because Aqua depends on the quicktime framework
So, will this be a "real" service pack, or is it aimed at all the companies that said they wouldn't switch to Vista until SP1 came out?
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
with "pirate" and "upgrade" in the name will never ever screw with your system...
The vast majority of of people walk in to Staples or Best Buy and buy a computer. That computer includes Vista. They use it.
They don't "upgrade" to Vista, they don't decide to buy a Mac, they sure don't try out Ubuntu, they use Vista because that's what came on their new laptop.
Microsoft doesn't need exponential sales of Vista, they don't need the whole world to change overnight. All that they need is to wait as millions of people eventually upgrade their systems. As long as Dell or Best Buy will sell them a laptop for $599 (compared to Apple, whose offerings start at about $1000) that's what people will buy, and Microsoft can watch the adoption continue apace. Widespread use of Vista is pretty much inevitable.
My PC is still running Windows 2000. Its fine, mostly, except for some apps that actually insist on XP. Still, I have conceded that at some point I will upgrade and have "acquired" a copy of XP from one of the usual sources. I don't need it today, but acknowledge that one day soon I'll take a day or two off and upgrade.
In fact my first experience with Vista was in the last month, helping a girlfriend set up her new HP laptop. Based on the problems that we ran into I'd be wary of encouraging people to buy Vista yet, but I also accepted that if she was buying a system that's what she would get so I was prepared for a steep learning curve. If anything Vista reminds me a lot of OS X - very pretty but very frustrating if you don't want to do exactly what Redmond or Cupertino want you to do.
Three Squirrels
As others have noted, if you have to restart after an iTunes update, that means there was an associated QuickTime update to go along with it. And, yes, QuickTime, is a very low-level system component on Mac OS.
Apple has addressed the issue somewhat with Leopard. For system updates that require a reboot, you can choose to reboot later. Although *nix fans everywhere know that there's not much need to reboot unless you're doing a kernel upgrade. Restarting the updated processes is good enough.
:q!
iTunes by itself does not and has never required a reboot. What requires reboots is Quicktime which is always listed as a separate install. iTunes is an application only and has never by itself required rebooting.
Well, with the iTunes update, it updates the iPodDriver.kext kernel extension, QuickTime also gets updated and it requires a reboot because the whole graphical system is dependent on the QuickTime libraries. Now, the reboot after the iPod driver isn't strictly needed, but Apple takes a "play-it-safe" attitude with kernel extensions and requiring a reboot to get all caches and autoloading information updated. Sure, some of Apple's apps are a bit ingrained into the operating system, but they don't do it in any exceedingly strange ways, and there is rhyme and reason for their reboots.
Nobody is waiting 16 months for a software upgrade. Vista won't support any security updates unless you upgrade. It will be the platform for all future updates, and Windows Update will nag you silly until you install it. If you think anyone is considering waiting for 16 months, you're mistaken.
Also, 16 months is a long time in a fast-changing computer industry. Nobody is putting off releasing software, migrating systems, or so on until Windows 7 comes around. While they do that, their whole business will suffer.
3-5 months, maybe. 16 months- you're out of your mind.
-M
when you see the word 'Linux', drink!
Surely from the you-can't-polish-a-turd department.
I don't know why you bother with Windows Vista SP1. Windows XP didn't work fairly well until SP2. Why not let the early adopters have the grief?
... the 100+ updates that Microsoft has shipped since SP2 can be a nightmare to deploy.
Sure, that's only my opinion, but I'm not the only one who thinks that way. For example, see Why all Vista users should upgrade to Windows XP.
A good indication of how Microsoft treats its customers is the fact that it has been more than 3 years since SP2 was released on 8/10/2004. Here is a quote from Paul Thurrott, who is over-the-top pro-Microsoft, and who often apologizes for Microsoft's abusiveness in a way that tries to make abusive behavior sound less destructive:
For those who use Linux, I will explain: Windows often becomes infected with malware. It sometimes becomes unstable on its own, too; Microsoft releases sloppy, unfinished software. So, it is often necessary to re-load Windows XP SP2. Once you have done that, it is at present necessary to re-load perhaps 100 Megabytes of bug fixes that have been released since SP2. That's why delaying Service Pack 3 for Windows XP has been so damaging to customers; customers have paid millions of dollars extra because of the tedious time-consuming task of loading the 100+ updates since SP2, one at a time.
Microsoft shut down Autopatcher, which was created by volunteers. Autopatcher was a method of making installing the patches semi-automatic. I think that shows the true situation: Volunteers have to do needed work. Microsoft, which could have delivered updates using the same method, avoided making it easier and cheaper to use Windows XP.
Why buy a new product from someone who has frequently abused you in the past?
This is the overall issue, in my opinion: Microsoft somehow established, during the DOS days, that it could charge the full product price for what are actually quite minor updates. (Many people are still using Windows 2000.) So the company makes a huge amount of money each time it brings out what is actually a new version of Windows 2000 with a new name. But things have changed. Users tend to be more technically knowledgeable now. They see no reason to change if what they have now is adequate, if somewhat annoying and expensive to maintain.
Windows 98 was an abuser's dream: It had an unstable file system, insuring that everyone would want to upgrade. Abusive company managers try to delay delivering a stable system, since most people don't want anything more from an operating system than stability.
It took Microsoft 3 years to make Windows XP stable and usable with less pain -- there were 3 years from the first release of XP until SP2 was released. Three years of pain, and since then only three years of relative stability? Is that acceptable, 50% pain? Why start the pain again, with Vista?
Microsoft needs the computer builders to advertise its new update of Windows 2000, called Windows Vista. Computer builders want to sell new computers. That's why Vista uses more resources. Vista is partly an attempt to make the present hardware obsolete.
However, people are beginning to understand better, and they are more difficult to manipulate now.
It seems sensible to me to wait to use Windows Vista until Vista SP2 or SP3 is released, and then a few months after that, to learn if the service pack works well.
Quote from Slashdot's story: "Microsoft also issued a new build of Windows XP SP3 this week, but it's getting next to no publicity out of Redmond..." Maybe so, but I can't find it. I found only an 12/10/2007 SP3, a release candidate, which is supposed to be an advanced beta version.
No, it's not like IE. Developers do have access to the underlying frameworks and their documentations and take advantage of the built-in features. Apple doesn't integrate frameworks for the sole purpose of gaining a leg up on the competitors. The main reasons IE was deeply integrated was to defeat the performance of Netscape Navigator and to make it hard for people to remove IE.
My point is that IE is a part of windows in such that if you removed it, you lose elements of windows explorer, if you remove itunes and quicktime, the OS isn't affected, you don't lose functionality. It's nothing like IE, get a clue please.
It's exactly like IE. If you remove ALL of Quicktime from OSX, you *will* break things.
I already have XP. Isn't that the Vista update?
paintball
There's another release which somehow "improves the efficiency of Vista" implying that it will somehow work better.
I installed it and what I found was when I used the patch, even the slightest elevation in CPU usage resulted in the fans coming on full.
I checked the CPU temperature with the provided Intel tools, and found that just at Idle, the temperature went up a full 10 degrees F from before the patch. So my computer ran hotter and noisier.
Needless to say, I removed that "fix" ASAP.
Yes, I'm well aware of the issue you mention about the drives spinning up and down. And yes, Microsoft pretends like it doesn't exist. None of the fixes helps, and for me, it will do it randomly. A power-cycle usually fixes it.
The killer is that anything that changes the state of the graphics subsystem (hitting cntl-alt-delete) will cause all audio to glitch for half a second.
It's an amazing operating system.
Removing all of Quicktime and removing Quicktime are two different things, please understand which one i'm talking about. If I drag the Quicktime Icon from OSX into the trash and with iTunes, nothing in the OS is affected, if I remove all elements of Quicktime from the system then it affects the OS. However, when you remove IE from the system (after figuring out the process because it isn't a program you can just uninstall) the OS won't work the same way afterwards.
Jonathanjk.com
this is about speculation about the possibility of a service pack being released by Microsoft.this is about speculation about the possibility of a service pack being released by Microsoft.
for an OS no one is using. Microsoft promissed to release SP1 some time first quarter of 2008, so there's no real news here. SP1 itself only of interest to those poor deluded people who think SP1 is going to make a difference in Vista performance. You can feel the cognitive dissidence radiating from people like this but they are few and far between. The rest of the world has written Vista off.
Why am I even reading these comments? Microsoft story comments are mega-Gauss troll magnets.
Removing all of Quicktime and removing Quicktime are two different things, please understand which one i'm talking about. If I drag the Quicktime Icon from OSX into the trash and with iTunes, nothing in the OS is affected, if I remove all elements of Quicktime from the system then it affects the OS.
Why are you comparing it to:
However, when you remove IE from the system (after figuring out the process because it isn't a program you can just uninstall) the OS won't work the same way afterwards.
Which is a completely different thing ?
The accurate comparison to what you're doing with Quicktime, is deleting iexplore.exe - as another poster tried to point out.
You dense idiot. That's his point for goodness sake.
You can delete the IE icon on Windows which won't break anything, because the plumbing is all still there. Equivalently you can drag the Quicktime icon into the trash on OS X which won't break anything, because the plumbing is all still there.
On Windows you can massacre your system to remove all the IE plumbing and afterwards your system will most likely be hosed. On OS X you can massacre your system to remove all of the Quicktime plumbing and afterwards your system your system will most likely be hosed.
See the similarity? Good.
While you can draw a parallel in abstractions, it's really not the same thing at all.
IE is a program that relies upon a rendering engine Microsoft tightly integrated into the OS in order to make it difficult for competitors to offer a rival browser, and as a way to force development that required IE instead of any browser. In addition, Windows also has graphics capabilities that are tied to its proprietary DirectX software rather than using cross platform standards such as OpenGL.
Apple has a browser, Safari, and provides system wide rendering functions using the WebKit engine. While you can't really tear WebKit out of the OS, it doesn't matter because it poses no real threat to competitive browsers. Apple also has a graphics subsystem, initially QuickDraw and then Quartz, which both served as the models for Microsoft's GDI and its new compositing engine in Vista. Parts of Quartz support the functions of QuickTime, so while you can remove QuickTime on an application level, eviscerating all support for anything connected to QuickTime would also bork the system
However, it really makes no sense to associate QuickTime with IE, in large part because there is no anti-competitive basis for QT being integrated into the OS, and no real downside. If you don't use QT, you can stop updating it and there's no problem. If you don't use IE, you're still in danger of security problems Microsoft built into the design, and applications can invoke the IE plumbing to do things you are not aware of and don't want to happen. QT has none of those problems if you don't choose to use it.
Tom Krazit of CNET and Eric Savitz of Barrons Deny the Jesus Phone
Vista SP1 is essentially an upgrade to a non-server version of Windows 2008. After the upgrade, the build number is updated from 6000 to 6001, just like Windows 2008 has. Vista SP1 can be called Windows 2008 Professional by analogy with Windows 2000.
"Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
Can you confirm actual performance improvements?
Vista is dog-fucking-slow on my C2D Conroe 2.66GHz machine w/ 2GB of RAM, 7200RPM SATA HDD and a GF7950 compared to Ubuntu.
+++ATH0
Wow, sales of Vista fell to 9.3 million a month.
I'm sure they're shitting themselves.
OK, forget what you think you know about old-fashioned Unix kernels for a second.
Why does it make sense for something to be so "deeply integrated" that you can't upgrade it without shutting everything down?
Or, depending on your perspective, why does "shutting everything down" mean I lose all my work? Why can't you even have the OS ask all apps to serialize their state, then do the upgrade, and then restore their state?
We've virtualized memory: the RAM in your computer is just the fast way to access a big storage area, like the cache in your CPU is a fast way to access RAM. So why do we still maintain the process-is-in-RAM, files-are-on-disk distinction?
The idea that "shutting down" is acceptable seems just a little bit crazy to me. This emperor you call Unix, he's friggin' naked, and I'm tired of having to see his penis every time he feels like a new sound system.
IE is a program that relies upon a rendering engine Microsoft tightly integrated into the OS in order to make it difficult for competitors to offer a rival browser
I guess Microsoft should be raked over the coals for putting Trumpet Winsock out of business too? But it's not even a valid basis for comparison. I mean, you can't even name any specifics on how it actually made things difficult for competitors. At one time, Netscape had actually gone and implemented IWebBrowse and IWebBrowse2.
Some people still can't stop whining after 10 years.
Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
It will be the platform for all future updates, and Windows Update will nag you silly until you install it.
Huh... That's odd. I haven't seen a Windows Update nag since I installed Ubuntu last year and put Windows in VM, where it belongs.
Nobody is putting off releasing software, migrating systems, or so on until Windows 7 comes around. While they do that, their whole business will suffer. [...] 3-5 months, maybe. 16 months- you're out of your mind.
Read it and weep, Hot Stuff: Consumers are buying what's shoved at them , but even arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080106-despite-problems-consumers-choosing-vista-over-xp.html says (and references more solid data) that they're not necessarily *running* it, and 70% of small businesses are sticking with XP when purchasing new systems. What exactly are they suffering from, aside from saving a little money and getting a little better performance? What fools are releasing Vista-only software with a 1/3 adoption rate in your own platform base after a year? Yep, someone's suffering, but it ain't the folks waiting to see what shakes out.
I think not...(*poof*)
"Reports are already coming in, but it's hard to separate them from the usual Windoze weirdness."
Translation:
"I have no REAL evidence, so I'll just make some shit up. Maybe that will pick me up out of negative karma!"
No compatibility, fucked up exclusive drivers for their hardware.
I use Winblows to play games and now that shit is ruined by Vista.
OpenGL errors....
FUCK VISTA!
Huh? What about the technical downsides? Flaws, security holes, performance? Because we all know IE has had hundreds of security issues, and Quicktime has had none, oh, wait... Then again, this is Apple, and Apple can do no wrong.
So if I choose not to use IE I am still vulnerable to IE flaws, because other apps can still invoke IE library calls, etc. Right, gotcha. If I choose not to use QT, I have "none of those problems" because, apparently, through the power of telepathy, any other application that might use QT library calls, from Final Cut Pro to After Effects (I seem to recall AE being borked by changes in QT just last week), knows that I've "chosen not to use QT" and its associated library calls, ergo Microsoft is horrible and evil and represents all that is soulless in the world, whilst Apple's genius never ceases to amaze us.
Do you actually believe what you wrote? Because if you were to re-read it, reversing the words QT and IE, or substituting third party libraries, would you still believe it?
Apparently, according to you, you're vulnerable because IE libraries and hooks are used throughout the system - sure, like the help system, etc. Which is why many MS security patches note that "this flaw can still affect you even if you do not use Internet Explorer", and yet Quicktime flaws, well, you don't need to update and fix them, you just "choose not to use them" and magically every other application and OS call on your system is protected?
The RDF field is strong in this one.
I guess Microsoft should be raked over the coals for putting Trumpet Winsock out of business too?
You could remove the dial-up networking functionality through the Add/Remove Programs dialogue of Windows 95. You couldn't remove Internet Explorer.
So Vista SP1 is coming, but all anyone wants to talk about is iTunes? Apple really has the mind-share thing locked up.
Did you know that a mule won't sink in quicksand but a donkey will? And that the Eiffel Tower has 2,500,000 rivets in it?
Finer trolls have walked the hollowed grounds of Slashdot, though verily none as astute as you. Props. Major props.
You wan' sum' RAS acronyms on toppa' that?
IE isn't integrated, its viral. I tried removing it back in the 98 days only to have its files replace themselves on the next reboot.
Windows is as solid as quicksand.
QT has flaws, but unless you're using it to play media or have installed web plugins, they are not exploitable, are they? With IE, any app can access the network and do anything, even if you've deleted your blue e icon.
Final Cut Pro and After Effects are QuickTime programs. So retard, you can't use them without using QuickTime. Sorry I didn't point out the color of the sky for you, mr. pedantic asshat. However, you can play all the OGG files you want using VLC without invoking QT, while you couldn't use Netscape exclusively to browse the web prior to the Feds mandating that Microsoft back down, which it did after Netscape was no longer relevant. Nobody is really competing against QT on Mac OS X, and even Microsoft delivers its competing WMA/WMV codecs as QT components rather than a QT replacement.
It's not really clear what you're trying to shout out your ass. If all you can bark about is abstract theoretical postulations, perhaps you should be doing it alone in the dark of your basement where it would make some sense, rather than blowing your nonsense load all over Slashdot for no obvious reason.
Tom Krazit of CNET and Eric Savitz of Barrons Deny the Jesus Phone
IE is a program that relies upon a rendering engine Microsoft tightly integrated into the OS in order to make it difficult for competitors to offer a rival browser, and as a way to force development that required IE instead of any browser. In addition, Windows also has graphics capabilities that are tied to its proprietary DirectX software rather than using cross platform standards such as OpenGL. Hmm, obvious bias, but let's keep reading... Apple has a browser, Safari, and provides system wide rendering functions using the WebKit engine. While you can't really tear WebKit out of the OS, it doesn't matter because it poses no real threat to competitive browsers. Apple also has a graphics subsystem, initially QuickDraw and then Quartz, which both served as the models for Microsoft's GDI and its new compositing engine in Vista. Parts of Quartz support the functions of QuickTime, so while you can remove QuickTime on an application level, eviscerating all support for anything connected to QuickTime would also bork the system What... the... fuck? You just described the exact same situation twice with the only difference being names and bias! However, it really makes no sense to associate QuickTime with IE, in large part because there is no anti-competitive basis for QT being integrated into the OS, and no real downside. If you don't use QT, you can stop updating it and there's no problem. If you don't use IE, you're still in danger of security problems Microsoft built into the design, and applications can invoke the IE plumbing to do things you are not aware of and don't want to happen. QT has none of those problems if you don't choose to use it.
Tom Krazit of CNET and Eric Savitz of Barrons Deny the Jesus Phone Wow, yet more uninformed bullshit! Wasn't there a recent security issue which was pinned on Firefox because there was a vulnerability in Quicktime? Oh wait, there was! Because applications absolutely positively can't invoke Quicktime!
How the hell did that get modded up?
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Of course, you'd never possibly admit Apple could be anti-competitive too, so you'll likely just formulate some bullshit to ineffectually attack my statement of fact (hell, it's not even an opinion) and then attack me rather than allowing your opinion to compete on it's merits. Which is pretty much your modus operandi anyway, so it's no surprise.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
The correct word is 'nigh', not 'near', when referring to any portent of doom.
Genesis 1:32 And God typed
[...] Windows 7 release [...] about 2013, at which point it will have half the initially promised feature set and require at least a 40-core processor to work properly. [...]
Will I be able to play Duke Nukem Forever on Windows 7 in collaboration mode with my Xbox 900 ?
Look, ma'! I have a comment ref. to DNF on Slahsdot, for real!
ALB1
I think you are missing the point.
The problem is not updates. The problem is being forced to do updates; the 100+ updates mentioned above fix security bugs only.
The biggest problem is that Microsoft makes it difficult to do the updates, instead of easy; it is the adversarial behavior that is disgusting.
When a computer running Microsoft Windows is infected, it cannot be connected to a network of other computers, because it may infect them, also. And many computers are stand-alone; they are not connected to Microsoft's expensive server.
This is important enough to say it again: Many of Microsoft's actions are against the interests of the customer, like releasing unfinished software, such as Windows Vista.
I read up on service pack 3 for XP.
Microsoft said they're finally going to address literacy problems by making XP take 14 hours to boot. In theory they said, people should get a lot of reading done within that time frame. When asked why the feature won't be included on Vista, the rep explained Vista was a multimedia OS and therefore people wanted to use it to watch movies and play music not read some crumby book.
I have nothing compelling to say
> Vista SP1 Release May Be Near
Run!!!
Really editors, long-awaited? Come on, Vista's only been out a year. It was a year after XP's release before we got a Service Pack.
You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
Uhh, you couldn't use Netscape exclusively to browse the web? Huh. I guess all those people using Mosaic and Netscape under Win 3.1 were just imagining it right, cause as you say, the big bad bully MSFT was keeping them down.
The point, ultra simple: AS YOU SAID, you don't know what application might use a library that might have vulerabilities. You may know that some applications WILL. You can choose to use or not use them. You may SUSPECT or make an informed guess that an application heavily net-reliant might hit IE libraries, or multimedia-reliant might hit QT libraries. You can choose or take your chances. In other cases you may have no idea. And yet for all your bluster, you haven't pointed out a single reason why this situation, as applied to the Quicktime libraries, is a non-issue, whereas when applied to IE libraries, is suddenly a gaping, festering hole.
But does anyone really expect you to?
NAP Isolation. One of the many reasons to upgrade to Vista.
When a computer running Microsoft Windows is infected, it cannot be connected to a network of other computers, because it may infect them, also. And many computers are stand-alone; they are not connected to Microsoft's expensive server. It's just as easy to run Windows Updates as it is to use Synaptic or Apple's Software Updates - two mouse-clicks at the most. Also, if you have an infected machine, yes, you should get it off of the rest of the network before it infects others. This is just as true of Mac OS X, Ubuntu, or any other operating system as it is of Windows. That's called "best practices" right there. Also, Windows and Microsoft Updates are both free for those that have valid Windows licensing, just like Apple's Software Updates are free for those with valid OS X licensing and Ubuntu's Synaptic is free for those that have valid GNU licensing.
Look, I'm all for bashing Microsoft. I think Vista is a pile of crap, too. I think WGA is obnoxious and counterproductive. I also agree that many of Microsoft's actions are more for its benefit than for any benefit possibly derived by their end-users. However, if you're going to bash Microsoft, you should come up with real, legitimate reasons to do so, instead of just making them up on the fly.
It's just mind boggling that you can keep wacking off to "Vista is a failure" and "M$ is dying" when they can barely keep the shelves stocked and are having record quarters year after year.
One of these days you'll wake up and realize how you massively you've wasted your time and life with FUD, lies and creative spelling instead of being an effective advocate and an agent of change. I hope you have the Prozac handy when that happens.
Apple has been delivering QT for Windows for over a decade. QT does more than play MOV files, it's a playback and editing architecture.
There is nothing "anticompetitive" about Apple delivering QT for Windows and delivering the entire functionality of QT.
Microsoft decided not to continue to deliver WMP for the Mac, making their WM DRM v10 and later Windows only. It then decided it would be better to support WMA playback (non DRM) in QT by buying and licensing existing QT codecs rather than continuing development for the Mac.
Microsoft's video strategy has been so erratic and vaporous over the last decade that there's no conspiracy theory to blame for Apple not supporting it with plugins. Microsoft made lots of promises about Active Movie and then Direct-branded software that never materialized. Apple has no moral obligation to bend to Microsoft's flavor of the week with DirectShow, which itself is tied to the Windows monopoly. There's also nothing stopping anyone from writing MOV codecs or container support for DirectShow apart from a lack of commercial viability.
So to wrap things up for you: QuickTime works on both the Mac and PC, and is universally used for the vast majority of media downloads. Microsoft has no cohesive strategy, has no significant business in media downloads, and is losing the battle for pushing its Windows Media DRM and WMV-based HD-DVD. So why would Apple need to bail Microsoft out by adding MOV support (container or codec or do you know what you're even talking about?) to whatever Microsoft has trotted out as its current video strategy? You're so simple.
Why Low Def is the New HD
Nice. You just did EXACTLY what I said you would.
No further comment.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
And you cowardly took credit for saying nothing and running away from the issues. I guess that means you win. Step up to the windows to receive your plate of bullshit prize and a spoon.
I am humbled for not predicting your limp reply using all caps, and salute your prowess at knock and run distraction trolling.
Pundits Pounce On Apple in a Contest of Epic Idiocy