Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Extends XP To May 2009 For OEMs
beuges writes "Microsoft has announced over the weekend that it would allow computer manufacturers to receive copies of XP until the end of May 2009, shortly before Windows 7 is expected to hit the market. This should allow users to skip Vista entirely and move straight to 7, which has been receiving cautiously favorable reviews of pre-release and leaked alphas."
You'd think that after install 3/3000 you would have fixed an install for that particular configuration.
But more likely you're full of shit.
In September I bought a laptop with Vista on it; it wasn't that bad. I decided come the time to wipe XP again (somethin' I do every 6-9 months to regain performance) I might throw a copy of Vista on that work gave me (having decided not to upgrade our the office machines).
It was an older image and didn't have SP1 on it. After getting it installed Windows updates notifies me there are updates (obviously). I click download/install and walk away. I come back a few minutes later to an error saying it couldn't install anything. I try to rerun. Nada. I download SP1 and the updates that failed and try to install them manually. All it tells me is they don't apply to my version of Windows.
All this time Windows is telling me I have updates that were installed, I need to reboot. I do. Again Windows tells me there are updates. It fails to download/install them. None of the manual updates work. Windows again says I have installed updates I should reboot. I do...
I Googled and found nada on the error codes in the event log that helped. After a solid afternoon of monkeying and reading I installed Ubuntu. I have WoW working, Steam games load though performance is a bit poopy (thanks to Codeweavers free giveaway) AND I can update my machine if there is a potential hole.
I went to work and relayed my experiences to my boss. Fortunately we're already a mixed Linux/Mac/WinXP environment. However departments can buy whatever they want and IT is eventual suppose to support Vista. However now we're trying to delay that at least until Windows 7.
No sig for you!!
astro
turfer
UAC is essentially identical in concept and implementation to sudo
No. It's not. UAC is expressly designed to shift the responsibility for security onto the user. "Are you sure?" User clicks yes and Microsoft has shifted accountability to the user. It is brilliant in an evil way.
(albeit somewhat more automated and intelligent).
helloworld.c is automated and intelligent too. That doesn't make it equivalent to sudo. Please stop trolling.
http://www.gratisoft.us/sudo/man/sudoers.html
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Agreed. When we put OpenSuSE 11 on our machines, we initially installed KDE 4. We tried it out for about a week and it was universally loathed around here. When we switched over all the boxes KDE 3.5 was the default desktop.
I've downloaded OpenSuSE 11.1 and KDE 4.1 is even worse and KDE 3.5 is no longer an option.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
The responsibility for security (in this context) is *always* on the end user, and always has been.
Erm. No. This is the point where you and I agree to disagree. That kind of disasterous thinking is the epitome of the broken window fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
UAC (along with sudo, and similar tools)
Please stop comparing sudo and UAC as being somehow alike. Retelling this lie is disingenuous and dangerously misleads consumers and employers.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html