Slashdot Mirror
The Hard Upgrade Path From XP To Vista To Win 7
An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft executives have been telling the tech industry that if hardware supports Windows Vista, it will support Windows 7, but it now looks like that may not entirely be the case. According to CRN: 'But after a series of tests on older and newer hardware, a number of noteworthy issues emerged: Microsoft's statement that if hardware works with Windows Vista it will work with Windows 7 appears to be, at best, misleading; hardware that is older, but not near the end of most business life cycles, could be impossible to upgrade; and the addition of an extra step in the upgrade process does add complexity and more time not needed in previous upgrade cycles.' And here is CRN's overview of the difficulties Microsoft faces in asking enterprise users to walk this upgrade path: 'Across the XP-Vista-Windows 7 landscape, Microsoft has fostered an ecosystem that now holds out the prospect of a mind-numbing number of incompatible drivers, unsupported devices, unsupported applications, unsupported data, patches, updates, upgrades, 'known issues' and unknown issues. Sound familiar? That's what people used to say about Linux.'"
I still say Linux has unknown issues.
--I'm not talking about dance lessons. I'm talking about putting a brick through the other guy's windshield.-
Seriously, I'm as rabidly anti-windows as they come, but isn't this a little unfair? Windows 7 is still beta, it doesn't surprise me that there are still some driver issues.
The idea that we will have to either buy Vista AND Windows 7, or do a clean install, just plain sucks.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
It may make more sense for many businesses to just forklift-upgrade their desktops.
EG, a Intel Atom dual-core, dual-thread-per-core motherboard should be just fine for most business desktops. Yeah, the graphics aren't great, but at 2GB, an 80 GB disk, and a price of a hair over $300 for a complete system, the hardware costs are so dwarfed by software and support costs that just throwing all the old systems out may be cheaper.
Test your net with Netalyzr
So who wants to buy two $2100 email machines in 3 years? Sounds fun to me!
Linux was a steady progression of stability and driver support (with the exception of a few evil kernel updates). MS upgrades are just ... reinventing the wheel. New GUI widgets, maybe some new hw support that wasn't there, but generally increased bloat, or swapping 1 user level idiosycracy for another. With Linux kernel updates you were generally sure of getting a better experience.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
The article tried installing Windows 7 on a single hardware setup (a thinkpad) that failed, and that's where the "oh my goodness, how can Microsoft expect all these businesses to upgrade from XP to Windows 7, it's not going to work on pretty much ANY hardware" came from. (Yes, exaggerated).
If they tried, oh, I don't know, 10 other computers, I would be interested. But writing an article after trying a single computer? Especially annoying is the fact that they said they came to this conclusion after an "attempt at a sim " ... nevermind, just read it for yourself.
The Test Center came to this conclusion after an attempt at a simulated enterprise upgrade and other evaluations of the process on different pieces of PC hardware.
The initial plan: Create a master image on a PC running Windows XP, then upgrade that PC from XP to Vista Service Pack 1 to Windows 7 beta. Then use an imaging utility like Acronis' Snap Deploy to push the image out to other XP clients (all on the same hardware as the imaged machine) and overwrite the XP operating system on them with the Windows 7 image.
Their plan: Let's do a mult-hardware test by deploying an imaged upgrade on same-hardware machines?
And, of course, after it failed, they tried another hardware configuration.
A testing of XP to Vista to Windows 7 on a custom-built desktop, with newer components including an AMD (NYSE:AMD) quad-core Athlon and motherboard, went smoothly.
Yipee. So we have a total of two hardware configurations tested...
Why would anyone even remotely consider the expense and hassle to move from XP to Vista or XP to W7? You would have to be a complete idiot. I can see new systems arriving with W7 though.
Athiesm is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Can't wait for the Win7 Upgrade Class Action Lawsuit (SP2)
The enterprises will do clean installs rather than in place upgrades. The entire system will be deployed through system center or suchlike. Silly article.
The problem with windows, that they missed, is that after all was said and done all they're doing is adding on a ton of overhead rather than redesigning windows from the ground up. It shouldn't be Windows 7, it should be Windows 1, or Windows star over, get the features they want by coding them in from the beginning rather than trying to tack everything on top of everything else.
The musings of just another geek and his junk.
Same with the vista-ready label/lawsuits. And no, i'm not talking about microsoft. What kind of stupid company running older machines would bother upgrading OSes? What would be the point? To make the machine run slower and cause compatibility issues? Let home users work out all the bugs over a year or so and then upgrade AS you upgrade machines. I never upgraded my old dos machine to windows when it came out because even if it could run it would run slow as shit. Same reason i wouldn't install KDE on a netbook. New OSes shouldn't HAVE to explicitly support old hardware. People on old hardware should use the OS that they had when they bought it, maybe the next gen.
I know Linux is pro and can support like every part made but is there a requirement to do this? No, its the same as putting linux on a toaster. Windows should be keeping minimal winXP support for a few more years and have win7 be for only new machines, fuck supporting outdated hardware. This is one of the reasons ps3 games suck, because they are supporting xbox, pandering to the lowest common denominator.
I salute both the pro and anti MS crowds who shall soon mod me troll.
I'm not saying that this might not be the reality, but really, think about to the specs you mentioned: 2 gigabytes of RAM. A dual core processor. 80 GB hard drive.
And all of that just to get the operating system to run! I mean, what are office computers used for? I'd wager that 90% of "office use" consist of text processing, internet browsing, emailing and instant messaging. I used to do word processing on a 386! And it was fast!
I really don't want this to appear like a personal attack, but why the hell are people willing to accept something like this? It bugs the hell out of me that perfectly good computers - computers that have a hundred times more power than actually needed for the tasks they're used to - are thrown away because the underlying operating system is so greedy that it can't run smoothly with fewer resources than those you mentioned.
-- Language is a virus from outer space.
seriously, the UI and the taskbar usability is awful, if i open 3 apps i dont know if the app is open or its just a quicklaunch icon ? there is no visual difference between the two
You must not have spent much time with it, because it definitely does indicate whether an app is running or if it's just sitting in the taskbar. Running apps have an embossed "buttonish" look to them. The app with the focus has whitish tint to it. But if you were going out of your way to find a reason to dislike it rather than use it, I can see how you'd come to your conclusion. Also, how often do you change your screen resolution? Once I set my displays, I just about never go back in and change them. And this is doubly true of my work computers.
Am I the only one who finds it humorous how some people bitch about Windows not being backward compatible and others bitch about all the problems due its backward compatible heritage?
What kind of barking moron upgrades an existing Windows installation? Back up data, wipe, reinstall.
I wonder how KDE 4.2 stacks up against Windows 7's interface. There is what appears to be an impressive review of KDE 4.2 over here at Techradar.com.
If it isn't 99.99% compatible, it isn't getting on my machine.
Your statement assumes that you require an OS to be compatible with at least 9,999 out of every 10,000 components in your system. Between my keyboard, mouse, harddrive, monitor, usb slots, firewire, ethernet card, wireless card, motherboard, and power adapter (ten components)... I'd say the OS should be 100% compatible. Beyond that, I'd blame device manufactures and software development companies for not provided me with the right code to use their products. But 99.99% is simply a fun number you pulled from your ass, because even if you did have 9,999 completely functional components in your computer, if there was no compatibility for a mouse, you'd be pissed off.
Support the 30 Hour Work Week!!!
The initial plan: Create a master image on a PC running Windows XP, then upgrade that PC from XP to Vista Service Pack 1 to Windows 7 beta
Headline and most of the article say it's Windows 7, with a lame disclaimer at the very end that it's a beta.
Yet, it boggles the mind that the laptop upgraded fairly easy to Vista Service Pack 1 and then flat-lined with Windows 7. So much for the Microsoft mantra "If it works in Vista, it will work in Windows 7."
MS didn't say Windows 7 Beta, you numbnut. And then this:
A testing of XP to Vista to Windows 7 on a custom-built desktop, with newer components including an AMD (NYSE:AMD) quad-core Athlon and motherboard, went smoothly.
I'm getting tired of this anti-MS drivel on here. And technology sites are noticing. Read the first line of this article http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/02/oh-the-humanity-windows-7s-draconian-drm.ars
The popular technology website Slashdot plumbed new depths on Tuesday with a post about the terrible DRM situation in Windows 7. Proving that some sites will publish just about anything as long as it's anti-Microsoft, the post enumerated the DRM restrictions that Windows 7 apparently inflicts on the honest and upstanding computer user.
Before long, Slashdot will lose whatever reputation it has if drivel like this is posted. There's lots of stuff to bash MS on, please don't post nonsense.
This space for rent.
Eventually you come to a point where an upgrade is inevitable. Hardware breaks and has to be replaced, and it's not always easy to get software that has drivers for antiquated OS's. There's no telling when it'll happen, but for sure it will.
We had some Windows 98 machines that we didn't upgrade for a while; then some critical pieces (like the wireless device) started to break, and without drivers for 98, they had to be upgraded. Of course, they were so old that they were just junk with XP. Long story short, sometimes you buy the OS for the drivers, not the software.
Besides, when you put everything in a sandbox, it's not that unsafe to test an upgrade to see if it still works. Might as well give it a try, you never know what good could come out of it.
I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
Then there's the third class: those that bitch about Windows not being backwards compatible while simultaneously saying how much backwards compatibility hobbles the OS. Those are the really fun people to talk to.
Gotta get rid of all that old 'un-trusted' hardware somehow.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I was thinking of Buying a new dell laptop and someone told me that I should wait for windows 7 to come out. I said that I probably would just put Linux on it as soon as I got it, but then it occurred to me, I would still have to boot into windows to update my Iphone, and use Itunes. I have gone completely legit in the music, movie and software areas and I like being able to download DRM free music whenever I feel like it. Bottom line, you can't do that with Linux. So I said fuck it and I'm buying a MAC. Don't get me wrong, I still have my desktop and that hasn't booted into windows in at least 9 months.
Oh Crap, I'm an optimist.....
For many, they don't have any practical choices.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Having had to test a lot of 6-60-months-old hardware in recent years, it has become hard not to find at least one flavor of Linux that fully supports any given system among as small a selection as just the live boot CDs for Ubuntu, Knoppix and SuSE gleaned from a month's magazine covers.
Wait... you think that, and you use a MAC?!
Here's a challenge: try to run a MacOS 9 application on your beautiful, shiny Macintosh. Can't do it? Hm. Weird, I can run like 95% of apps that old on Windows. Heck, try to run a MacOS 6 application on MacOS 7 and odds are good it wouldn't even come close to running right. (Yes, I'm still bitter about System 7.)
I mean, the funny thing is that I basically agree with you, but you holding that position and then using a Mac as your main computer is pretty mind-bendingly oxymoronic.
Comment of the year
Whenever you install a new operating system theres a chance you will have some compatability issues with it. It isnt as if microsoft could go out and made sure that every application and every driver on the planet didnt use X process or X outdated utility to connect, but that isnt the fault of the OS. In order for them to make any changes to the OS, they have to remove some things.
The thing about sandboxes like vmware is the OS running inside doesn't know or care what the real hardware of the machine is. That means as long as vmware supports XP (IIRC vmware still supports dos and 9x so I would expect them to continue supporting XP for a very long time) you can continue to run XP in your VM.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
I really can't imagine what they're thinking. If it isn't 99.99% compatible, it isn't getting on my machine. Whatever machine that might be.
oh? 99.99% or you don't install it?
I keep XP in a sandbox on my Mac and there it will stay
On your mac you say?
I'm curious, what did you do in 2001 when OSX was released? Did Apple give you 99.99% backwards compatibility? Hell no, not even close. Classic was decent, but people had to give up a LOT of stuff.
And what did you do in 2005 when Apple up and switched to intel? Did Apple give you 99.99% backwards compatibility to all your PPC and 68k stuff? Sure there was rosetta, and like classic, it was decent, but its not 99.99%. Not even close.
Criticising Vista and saying you'll only upgrade if the upgrade is 99.99% backwards compatible and then saying you use a Mac undermines everything you've said. Vista is WAY more backwards compatible than Apple even tries for.
Hell just from OS X 10.5 from 10.4:
Absoft Pro Fortran compiler - needs up update v10, previous versions - not compatible
Adept Music Notation 5.2.5 - not compatible
Adobe Acrobat 8 Professional - 8 - needs compatibility update, previous versions not compatible
Adobe Premier Pro CS3 - needs compatibility update (previous versions not compatible
Adobe After effects CS3, compatible updates required (previous versions not compatible
AdobePhotoshop Elements 4 and under not compatible
Adobe CS2 - not supported, not compatible
Adobe Photoshop Lightroom - 1.2 and earlier are not compatible
Adobe Premier Pro - 3.1 and earlier are not compatible
Alien Skin Eye Candy 5, Xenofex 1, not compatible
Alsoft - Disk Warrior 4 - "Alsoft recommends DW4 not be run from OSX10.5"
AOL - Version 10.3.7 and under not compatible
Apple Backup 3.1 and earlier not compatible
Apple Final Cut Pro 4.5 and earlier are not compatible
Apple iDVD 1,2,3,4,5,7.0 not compatible
Apple iPhoto 2 not compatible
AppleJack 1.4.3 not compatible
I could go on...and on...I didn't make it out of the 'A's...
Yeah for a lot of software if you had the latest version, they released a free update to make it leopard compatible. But if you were a version behind... better be prepared to shell out. Leopard wasn't anywhere near 99.99% backwards compatible... even with 10.4, never mind 10.2 era software, and of course OS9 is RIGHT OUT.
Meanwhile Vista/Win7 will still run a lot of DOS6 apps? Not all of them. Probably not anywhere near 99% of them, but an awful LOT of them. I still have a few programs and command line utilities I wrote in C++ for DOS in the early 90s, and they all run on Vista x64, not to mention the ancient Motorola radio programming tool that programs old Motorola 2-way trunk unit; it still works too.
I agree Microsoft screwed up the Vista launch, and backwards compatibility was less than ideal. But it blows away what you get from Apple. The only difference is that with Apple, I think people -expect- no backwards compatibility, so they don't blink when they have to buy the latest version of all their software, buy a new printer, toss their old MP3 player*, etc.
(* My old Samsung Yepp only came with OS9 and Windows software. I can still use it with Vista. I haven't been able to sync it to a Mac in nearly a decade (it didn't work in classic). I handed it down to my kids years ago; and it finlly got retired when I bought my youngest a new Sansa this christmas.)
No company can turn out a bug-free ANYTHING because it is a logical impossibility. This is nothing to do with which corporations make what: It's called software development, and whatever the outcome, it will have bugs. Take it or leave it
No way is Vista or 7 going on any of our machines, unless MS does a huge about face on built in DRM. XP is likely the last windows our family will ever use.
The space shuttle seems to be doing it just fine.
I'm glad to see someone else commented on this. I'm not sure how someone in that position ends up with +5 but such are the whims of the mods.
I'd also like to point out that the vast majority of hardware incompatibilities are the result of lazy / exploitative vendors. Sure, they could get their driver writing team to write some drivers for their older hardware and keep their customers happy... OR they could just say, "it's microsoft's fault," and then make you buy a new product.
Vista is tougher to peg because you saw all kinds of problems. You saw Microsoft making big changes up until the last second that completely screwed even their own software groups (WHS 64bit Connector anyone?). At the same time you've got nVidia cranking out drivers that are blue-screening machines left and right. Then, just for fun, you've got the aforementioned vendors that are refusing to roll drivers for products they just released a year before Vista came out. What a mess.
You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
This isn't just a problem with Windows. I've had scanners that run fine under Mac OS 10.3 that 10.4 wouldn't recognize. Bad on them for promising that everything that worked under Vista would be good in 7, but anyone who's been in the industry should have known that was just marketing speak.
Note to Microsoft: You can fix problems or maintain compatibility, quit pretending you can do both.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
Next is Release Candidate - ONE - then Release To Manufacturing.
Which means just as I feared, Windows 7 is going to be rushed to market by Christmas with INADEQUATE TESTING - a known Microsoft problem - just like Vista and XP were.
No, folks, your pain has not yet ended.
When I read the initial reviews of Windows 7, I thought MAYBE Microsoft wasn't going to fuck this one up beyond all recognition like they did Vista.
Now I see I was completely too optimistic.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
A motherboard isn't a "component" any more than your car's engine is a "component". It's made of lots of parts that all have to work together. Integrated audio chips, SATA controllers, IDE controllers, memory controllers, PCI bridge, BIOS and ACPI interaction, and various other integrated components. You're talking around 20-30 "components" that all need separate drivers in a typical PC, at minimum.
I'm not saying that it shouldn't be 100% compatible, I'm just saying that there's a lot more in a computer than just the parts you listed, and it's not as simple as it may seem at first glance from putting together a computer from "individual" parts.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
I cannot imagine a situation where I would recommend to a company that they use money and resources to upgrade a Windows XP box to a newer OS. What a waste of time.
When the XP box reaches end of life you replace it with new hardware and put your ready to go Windows 7 image on it. Duh.
The Windows XP to Vista to Windows 7 path seems even more unlikely. Chalk this article up as an academic exercise, not a real world scenario.
Remember... ZG9uJ3QgZm9yZ2V0IHRvIGRyaW5rIHlvdXIgb3ZhbHRpbmU=
Say you ship widgets. Or work with small parts that make widgets.
MS in the past was an easy/cheap way to get all the 'just in time' connections done without big expensive solutions.
What has changed? You are small and old MS will do, or you need a real OS.
More units, numbers, different parts of the world?
Can your hardware cope, inhouse old MS software added to?
If you need something better, you upgrade to -Mac, Unix like or obscure operating systems - expensive, very productive and all very MS free. Your now rich and can do it right.
So what can MS offer?
You will need to rip out all your hardware, buy expensive new multi core hardware and Win 7 software to:
Run Win 7 Run AV and malware together without slowing down
Run MS DRM
and test all your new buggy inhouse software in real time
End result, downtime.
Your customers dont want to hear about Win 7 problems, they just want their widgets on time, if you cannot do it, others can.
For the geek/nerd gamer? Your Win7, malware/AV, MS DRM and that 3 yo game can all co exist over so many cores and lots of memory you feel like your living in the future for a few months.
More thanks to faster hardware heating up your room than anything new from MS.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
They don't just capitalize on ignorance. They foster it. That is why the whole idea of an OS manufacturer is passe'. We have long ago migrated from a commodities based to a service based economy. When you combine that with the Open Source paradigm, and the power of the Bazaar over the Cathedral, they will lose.
Unfortunately, millions of people lose every day because they are tied into proprietary garbage and they don't even know it.
I've been trying to make peace with myself over this horrible atrocity for some time. I don't respect people who capitilize on ignorance. People who inject ignorance in order to capitalize on it are below scum in my book. That is why I so hate Microsoft and more specifically, Bill Gates.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Yup, new intel Macs don't run OS 9 aps.
But an old iMac that will sit happily on you network and take care of those needs is like fifty bucks so it's a no brainer.
Here's a challenge: try to run a MacOS 9 application on your beautiful, shiny Macintosh.
I have a small one for you: maybe you should re-read what he was writing up there? Here, let me point out something from his post:
and basically 100% functional with all my goodies.
(emphasis mine)
You were otherwise correct, but only to a point, y'know?
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Well, everyone knows NASA doesn't make mistakes. Oh, wait...
Ohh bad choice.
Challenger had a bug in a flow valve if memory serves.
Columbia suffered a small ddos attack(lots of foam) that just happened to crack the firewall enough to let another attacker in.
Still out of the hundreds that have flown only 14 have died.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
The only time a company might really be "forced" to respond is when they stop supporting the OS. When does XP get EOL'd? Again, from a support perspective, not a sales perspective.
Both non-software related..
I'll rephrase.. The space shuttle software seems to be doing it just fine.
Well that depends...
I mean if my sexbot is one of those 9,999 and my mouse is the 1 that isn't working, I don't think I'd give a damn about anything as long as my sexbot is working; I can buy another computer with a working mouse.
Speaking of numbers pulled out of one's ass:
People complain about this sort of stuff whenever a new OS or new big SP comes out but the reality is this: if you have relatively recent components made by prominent manufacturers, your stuff is going to work 90% of the time.
And if that isn't good enough for you a year after that, 99.9% of recent name-brand components will work flawlessly. I waited a year before installing Vista and the only thing that I didn't get to work was my ancient PC game controller since vista dropped gameport support, and its awfully hard to be mad at them for that since the gameport was essentially obsolete 10 years ago.
If it isn't 99.99% compatible, it isn't getting on my machine.
What the fuck does that mean? If it's compatible with your hardware, then you should run it; if it's not, then you shouldn't. Where did that number come from? It implies that your decision to run software on your own hardware is dependent on its compatibility with the rest of the world's hardware.
You know, Microsoft bashing hysteria used to be funny, and largely warranted, but Windows is so much better now than it used to be. If the trade-off for more stability and a finally shifting security paradigm is some hardware incompatibility, then I'm happy to accept. Maybe a corporate customer running legacy PCs won't, but that's not me so I really don't care. Let Microsoft lose customers - maybe the resulting increase in competition will make their software better.
Amnesty International
Maybe it's just me, but I didn't take his post as meaning 99.99% backwards compatible. I just took it to mean he wants it to work will all his hardware or he won't install it. Mac did break backward compatibility, but with good reason. They made their OS run better and the upgraded applications allowed the same functions but with new technology. Why would you stay and cling to an old OS for years and years and years. It kills productivity and the time spent fussing with it and waiting for it to churn out data outweighs the cost of upgrading to a better OS/system. At least, from a business point of view.
Then there are those that complain about Windows being a bitch.
It's a matter of cost. If you wanted to do years of paperwork for every bug fix change order which included review of all other code in the system using the same paradigm for every change, you too could make your system nearly bug free. It costs IIRC over $100/line for the code thus more code than is needed, speculative additions, and easter eggs are both too expensive and too difficult to route through the process. One requirement in safety critical design is the removal of every line of code that cannot trace it's functionality to the approved system requirements.
How much different models of mice, motherboards, processors, network devices, graphics cards,... exist? Surely more than 10. It's not about percentage of your components, it's about all recent, different type of components.
If you had only 10 components/devices in your computer and for each of those there would be a 1000 different models then you'd have 10000 variations. Out of a billion users, only 99.99% success would make a lot of unhappy customers...
> Microsoft has stated that the best option to upgrade from Windows XP to Windows 7 is by not skipping the upgrade to Vista.
Taken on it's own, this statement means little. Microsoft would say this in any case -- not from any evil conspiracy, but simply because it's in their best interest. If a credible M$ source said the migration path of XP directly to Windows 7 worked just dandy, they'd never work in Redmond again. Note to ChannelWeb: Analysis is incomplete without trying this.
I'm looking at upgrading my media center from XP Media Edition to Windows 7, but that'll be a complete reinstall, so it doesn't count. I was flirting with Windows 7 for my other machines, but lacking official support of an upgrade from XP to Windows 7, they'll have to stay on XP. There's no way in Hell I'm going to pay a couple hundred to upgrade to Vista just so I can pay another couple hundred to upgrade to Windows 7. Nice idea to back-door some additional Vista purchases, but would it really work? What person in their right mind would do this?
For that matter, what company in it's right mind would do this? Especially in this economy?
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
"Because Windows 7 is a much better OS in so many different ways" - by Burnhard (1031106) on Tuesday February 24, @06:06PM (#26976299)
Well... 2 things BOTHER me about Windows VISTA, Windows Server 2008, & doubtless their offspring in Windows 7 (unless you can tell me otherwise on the latter):
----
1.) The removal of being able to use 0 as a blocking IP address in a HOSTS file (vs. 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1, which are bigger, slower on load into the local DNS Cache (as well as slower flushes via ipconfig /flushdns) & also occupy more RAM once loaded, for NO GOOD REASON - 0 blocks as well as the other 2 do, & is smaller + faster!)
In this case, this happened on 12/09/2008 Microsoft "Patch Tuesday" updates, it wasn't LIKE that before then!
E.G.-> Here, using 0 as my blocking IP address in a FULLY normalized (meaning no repeated entries) HOSTS file with nearly 650,000 bad sites blocked in it, I get a 14++mb sized HOSTS file... using 0.0.0.0 it shoots up to 18++mb in size (& even worse using 127.0.0.1, to around the tune of 24++mb in size)... semseless & bloat creation is the result!
&
2.) The removal of IP Port Filtering GUI controls for it via Local Network Connections properties "ADVANCED" section (this is up there w/ when MS removed the GUI checkbox after NT 4.0 for IP Forwarding, only, this time, the difference is (and, it's a PAIN) is that it is NOT a single 1 line entry to hack via regedit.exe, but FAR MORE COMPLEX to do by hand)... port filtering is a USEFUL & POWERFUL security (& to a degree, speed also) enhancing feature!
Afaik, on THIS case (vs. #1 above)? It has always been that way in VISTA &/or Windows Server 2008... & not just the result of a Patch Tuesday modification.
----
Ordinarily, I wouldn't post anything that "puts down Windows" here, ESPECIALLY THIS SITE (since it's KNOWN to widely be a more-or-less largely "Anti-Microsoft" type of news website, lol, & facts like these give the 'antimicrosoft' faction here ammo to use), but...
Facts, are facts.
APK
P.S.=> MAN, all that said & aside? I had to post those 2 objections I have to newer MS OS' - I mean, hey:
Doing both of those alterations (crippling ones imo) on MS' part? Dumb...
So, unless someone can show me a GOOD solid technical reason (because I have YET to find any reasons WHY both of those things were done) on why these cripplings were implemented in VISTA/Server2008, vs. Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003??
I will stick by that statement! apk
I just took it to mean he wants it to work will all his hardware or he won't install it.
Hardware, software... Apple leaves both behind at a whim.
Mac did break backward compatibility, but with good reason.
Apple breaks backward compatibility with each iteration. Some iterations much more drastically than others. It wasn't just a one time thing.
And saying 'but with good reason' doesn't make peoples stuff work again.
And if its a good enough excuse for Apple than Vista can use it too. Vista is better than previous versions (assuming suitable hardware). The security improvements are real, not just theatre, and represent a huge 'break' from previous Windows iterations. It is responsible for most of the compatibility issues -- and in my opinion it is just as 'forgivable' as apple's architecture switches. Microsoft HAD to make these changes to make the OS more secure; this pain was a long time coming and I'm glad it finally happened.
They made their OS run better and the upgraded applications allowed the same functions but with new technology.
And they required you to pay for those upgraded applications. iLife to iLife08 isn't a free upgrade. Apple Remote desktop 2 to 3 isn't a free upgrade. Final Cut Pro 5 to 6 isn't a free upgrade... and if you had the old version they didn't work with leopard.
But hey, if I'm ok with paying to run upgraded applications that allow the same functionality but with new technology, then why are people pissing and moaning that Office 2k/XP isn't 100% vista compatible... they can just just upgrade.
At least, from a business point of view.
These are the same businesses running Windows 2000 servers? Who screamed blue murder when XP came out? And managed to scream even louder when Vista came out? The only reason you don't hear businesses screaming when Apple releases an update is that not many businesses rely on them. If Apple gets significant marketshare, the volume of businesses screaming when they release new OS updates will rise accordingly.
Here's a challenge: try to run a Windows program that ran on Windows NT on the DEC Alpha on your beautiful, shiny Windows 2000/XP/Vista. Can't do it? Hm. Weird.
Good luck finding any OS that is 99.99% compatible. No version of ANY OS is... doh, how are you posting here... mind powers?
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
but it's not impossible which is what was claimed.
Here's a challenge. Coat yourself in motor oil, and while you are shiny, try building a rocket-propelled, monkey-navigated Tandy 286 and see if you can get it to play COD4 against God and Jesus in a LAN party. Wait, you did it? Hm... Weird.
I find the worst are the people who bitch about the other people who bitch about stuff.
That certainly is one way to look at it.
Another is that an application runs fine 99.99% of the time, and crashes the machine the other time. This is a much more disagreeable outcome.
Both viewpoints are valid and not necessarily mutually exclusive. Backwards compatibility can both not work, AND hobble the OS at the same time.
And the backwards compatibility may be in different areas of an OS, and be a good thing in some areas and bad in others.
(Yes, I'm still bitter about System 7.)
But ... but .... but... System 7 introduced Balloon help!!!!
No the worst are the people who passive aggressively bitch at other people's opinions on bitching about bitching.
It's a logical improbability. I don't think it's actually *impossible*, just impractical from a cost perspective.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
My take on that is a properly designed and planned out OS shouldn't have to break half the planet on each upgrade cycle to make progress.
Considering how hard it is to predict the future, I expect OSs to occasionally have to make a major change. DOS to windows 3, 3 to 95, somewhat 95 to xp, but I don't see a distinct major change since then, so why do things have to break in vista and then again in 7? At least give us some sincere major improvements for the headache, and space them out a bit will ya?
Ideally, OS upgrades should be a major pain once a deckade, and smooth in between, without sacrificing added functionality and progress.
Linux and Mac OS both seem to have a much better track record here. Heck, Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X happened in what, 2001? OK that was a major breaker for software and hardware alike, but we haven't had to suffer it in 8 years and there's no threat looming in the future. Why can't MS work this way?
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
What about the class of people who realize that the flawed implementation of backwards compatibility is what makes both other types correct?
Am I getting through to you
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Both non-software related..
I'll rephrase.. The space shuttle software seems to be doing it just fine.
They have invested a lot of money in debugging the software so that the odds of seeing a bug during operation are very low (especially compared to the risks of the Shuttle's Rube Goldberg physical design). However, as with any nontrivial program, it is a certainty that bugs remain, and if they were to invest significantly more resources looking for bugs, they'd find some.
... maybe with Windows 8 Microsoft should provide 2 versions: one entirely backward compatible and one based on a new 64/128 bit architecture with no compatibility and see how that sells. Then Windows 9 might be a better/more solid upgrade.
As always, it's you.
My favorite bug in System 7.0.0 was that they did away with the Font/DA Mover utility application, now all you have to do to install a font is to drag it into the Fonts folder in the System folder. Of course, if you tried to get rid of a font by dragging it out of the Fonts folder into the Trash, the OS would permanently corrupt itself and never boot again. Seriously. And since Font/DA Mover no longer worked, you couldn't delete a font at all without permanently corrupting your OS install. To make things extra-special, since this was pre-Internet, I corrupted 3 copies of System 7 in this way before I figured out what was making it happen. (It didn't happen right away, not until you rebooted.)
System 7 also broke Carrier Command, one of my favorite games.
Anyway, this is totally off-topic, mod accordingly.
Comment of the year
Works just fine since apps distributed for Alpha also had x86 versions and multiple platforms were commonly distributed together. What's more, every processor supported was capable of running DOS apps. Interesting...
OR the class of Mac users that laugh about Windows backwards compatibility but quietly forget the OS9 to OSX compatibility fiasco.
#1: Acer Aspire 6930 bought on post-xmas sale from Staples. Core 2 Duo T5800, 4GB DDR2 667, 250GB SATA HD, Integrated Intel 4500MHD, Intel 5100 wireless.
Problems: Sometimes audio driver doesn't automatically detect headphones plugged in and switch speaker output to headphone jack. Oh and HDMI audio may have the same issue if turned on while hooked to a TV that's off.
#2: Piece of Junk (literally) desktop. Core 2 Duo E6300 @ 3.63GHz on Asus P5B, 2GB DDR2 1066, ATI HD4850, 400GB SATA HD.
Problems: None.
#3: Toshiba Portige 4010 (So old it came with Windows 2000 installed because XP wasn't even out yet): Intel Pentium III mobile 933MHz Low Voltage, 512MB RAM, 30GB IDE HD, Intel 2200BG wireless, Ali integrated video and MB chipset from hell.
Problems: Newest Video driver for integrated Trident Blade3D (DX7 class) video is circa 2002. Windows 7 build 7000 automatically detects the install issues and retries with compatibility settings and succeeds . The driver works, except when it tries to create an overlay surface it locks up. This is not a bluescreen, the chipset actually freaks out because it's crap and the driver is badly written. Same issue under XP (which the driver was written for) on this machine. Using the video in SVGA mode solves the crash problem but is too slow for video playback. Fine for browsing and word processing though.
Performance is slow, but usable on a 9 year old laptop. Checking memory usage with the default install of "Ultimate" edition using Win7's Resource Monitor shows it defaults to only using about 300MB of RAM, leaving about 200+ free for apps and cache. This is with all the bloated defaults running like Homegroup services etc. Despite the fact that it's still beta, it fares much better than Vista and I say even on par with XP in terms of running within limited resources, while delivering more features than XP.
So yeah, color me impressed. No it's not going to render Toy Story in realtime on a 386 with EGA while making toast and finding Sarah Conner, but still that's a decade old laptop (which means it's a steaming turd of proprietary crap) and Win7 is still usable on it, without a week of fiddling with settings first. Considering MS is talking about "Netbook versions" of Win7 I'd say there's definitely a chance of them producing a contender for the lower-spec hardware out there that fares much much better than Vista did.
Introducing the new Occam Fusion! Now with sqrt(-1) fewer blades!
Shuttle GNC engineer Phil Hattis stated that it cost NASA around $1 million in 198x dollars for each line of code they wanted changed by IBM in the Shuttle's AP-101 programs after the codebase was set (coding wasn't done in house, but done by IBM based on specifications). After a line of code was changed, the entire program had to be hand verified to make sure that no bugs were introduced.
why would I give up a proven, reliable OS that has worked for years and years to spend time fussing with and waiting on a new OS to get it's bugs sorted out?
having to needlessly change everything over every few years also kills productivity.
I still run windows 98 on one of my laptops, because it does exactly what i need it to do. why replace it when the only thing that has changed are my expectations of what a piece of software should do?
-I only code in BASIC.-
No, if only because that's not how the arguments are presented. Ever.
I'd also like to point out that the vast majority of hardware incompatibilities are the result of lazy / exploitative vendors.
Other OSs don't have this problem to the same degree as Microsoft. Microsoft's business model is the foundation of the third party ecology, both software and hardware/hardware drivers. If Microsoft would tend its own garden properly, there would not be these kinds of problems.
But that isn't part of Microsoft's business model. I doubt that it could change without a major top-down restructuring of the corporation.
Well... REAL MEN read slashdot using butterflies, you know, to move air in order to emulate vim running a script which emulates emacs which... well, you get the point.
M$ choose to make windows that way, i.e., to carry all crap from the eighties in order to be compatible with most part of everything. This was theory but never worked in practice after windows 98. Now they are being haunted by all the crap they are carrying around. In fact they are already dead, as stated by John C. Devorak a few years ago. Who cares?
plan 9 had most of these things in 1990
(unicode, 2d scrolling, cut & paste) on
a machine with 1mb of memory. what it didn't
have was bidi or subpixel rendering, as it
was 1bpp.
so what's the excuse for such bloat?
FTA: A testing of XP to Vista to Windows 7 on a custom-built desktop ... went smoothly.
This is a bit of a lie. They are keeping 32 bit versions the whole way through. There is NO upgrade migration path across major architecture boundaries as there was with Windows Old (tm) to Windows 386/3.1 to Windows 95 to Windows XP. To go from 32 bit to 64 bit is just not possible, and with a lot of oems STIL selling 32 bit Vista.. WTF.
I guess 32 bit makes sense with the whole netbook/reduced footprint PCs but for those of us with a "serious" workstation budget, that are spending money on IT, Windows is looking more like a toy/pretend OS than ever. We need a serious OS that does complicated things fast and without a lot of headache in a business enviornment. Businesses like us are probably driving the upper end of the market because We Have Things To Do that need the horsepower, but Microsoft I guess is focused on the low end now?
In retrospect it makes a bit of sense if you think of it like this: If you have a 75 year old grandma computer illiterate type (that has never used XP), with The Ultimate Rig, Windows Vista probably is great. It probably does everything they want, and this description certainly fits the description of those "Mohave" folks in the MS ads..
Unfortunately for those of us that depend on our PCs for our livelihood, and enjoy heavy lifting with our Rigs.. Vista is not the best choice for a variety of reasons I'm sure everyone already knows. Those of us in need of more than 4gb of ram-- hell! a reliable OS that can be up for more than a few days!-- are feeling a bit left in the cold with Vista. I don't think it is possible some theme tweaks and bundled programs would please both me and grandma (vista home vis a vis vista business)
We did (attempted) some test migrations from 64 bit vista to 64 bit seven and.. well.. the installer made no attempt to do anything upgrade-like. In fact it moved all profiles, windows folder and program files folders into windows.old and that is about it. It is likely they expect mass deployments in this type of enviornment... but it would be nice if they were up front about that sort of thing.
Incompatible drivers are just the tip of the iceberg. I don't think these people did anything with 64 bit windows. Maybe 64 bit is not meant for any home user?
Smart people should be working at Microsoft. This whole situation is astonishingly dumb. They are one of the few companies on earth with the resources and expertise to make driver problems like this a non-issue. How many hundred man-years of compatibility work for dos apps/older apps went into windows 95? This is no different now.
Who, that knew what they were doing, retired? (lol)
99.9% of recent name-brand components will work flawlessly.
Counter example: HP Multifunction devices.. XP software and drivers for these devices provide functionality that does NOT work in vista and is NOT duplicated in the Vista drivers/software. Even if you bought a top-o-the-line HP Multifunction within ±1 year of Vista coming out, you are _STILL_ S.O.L. if you want your "scan" button to work properly to scan documents. You also cannot scan documents directly to PDF (without multiple conversion steps) like you could in XP and you are stuck using the craptastic built-in scanning functionality in Vista (that scans multi-page documents at a snail's pace).
I like Vista and all, but that's pretty shitty. Ask my Mom if she's willing to buy a new printer/scanner/copier because HP doesn't properly support Vista.
Not really.
Microsoft is trying to do both at the same time.
They are failing miserably at both.
People complain about this sort of stuff whenever a new OS or new big SP comes out but the reality is this: if you have relatively recent components made by prominent manufacturers, your stuff is going to work 90% of the time.
90% really isn't very good (especially when you're in the 10%) and isn't this the same sort of criticism aimed at Linux?
Provided I don't need 3D Video support and native hardware drivers, I'll just run:
Windows XP Pro
Windows Vista Home Premium
Windows 7.0
In Virtual Machines under whatever OS I choose to use that works best with my laptop or desktop.
Aero special effects are stupid and I am better off without them and other geegaws that slow down the system.
Just put in a huge amount of RAM on my laptop or desktop so the virtual machine has enough RAM to run the OSes in emulation.
Microsoft is trying to push Microsoft Virtual Server as a solution to IT shops who need different versions of Windows to run legacy applications and serve virtual machines from a server. The PC becomes another "Dumb Terminal" using the Virtual Server clients which can even be run from a web page using ActiveX or Java controls to run the client.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
Still out of the hundreds that have flown only 14 have died.
That's an awfully high mortality rate.
For comparison, how many of the hundreds of thousands (or whatever it is) who have flown *on this day* have died? 0?
Scale up the US Space Shuttle where it was transporting people in anywhere near the number commercial aircraft carry people and you might have a real problem.
But it is true though. Wine on Linux is probably far more backwards compatible for older Windows applications, than new versions of the Windows OS are.
In MS's battles to keep backwards compatibility, something went horribly wrong.
No the worst are the people who passive aggressively bitch at other people's opinions on bitching about bitching.
No no, there are worse people.
Then there's the fourth group: those who think MS should create an all-new Windows without the legacy crap with an emulator inside for backwards compatibility. It should be based on un*x (not DOS), should have a well-planned, polished GUI for regular people with command-line and options for power users.
Then there's the fifth group: those who realize that describes OSX and have already switched.
That is why the whole idea of an OS manufacturer is passe'
Just for laughs, how about we hold off on the obituaries until Linux as a client OS has the same market share as OSX?
The ordinary meaning of "bazaar" is "marketplace" - and there both Apple and Microsoft have shown extraordinary strength and resilience.
To be red-faced and raging is to be part of the game, the time-honored ritual of making the deal. But this is theater, not revolution.
There are no absolutes.
Something the geek has never really understood.
Your statement assumes that all drivers are 100% compatible.
I think Microsoft approached the issue of new OSes in a bad way. The idea of a new incompatible OS is that you drop the baggage of backwards compatibility with your older OSes. The way they approached it, the new OS (Vista) brought tons of new bloat, and if it dropped old bloat, the new bloat outweighs it. They should have taken a totally different approach. They bought a virtualization company a while back. All they had to do was provide XP as part of Vista. You could decide, in the control panel, what level of compatibility you wanted. No compatibility means you run Vista. Full hardware compatibility means you're actually running the XP kernel (so your drivers work) but everything looks like Vista because it's being virtualized. Partial compatibility means you're running the Vista kernel and all your Vista-incompatible XP programs are being virtualized. Two combinations that run the Vista kernel, one combination that runs the XP kernel but gives you what appears to be a Vista system anyway. Maybe they'll do this with 7. Two different Win9x compatibility modes, two different XP compatibility modes, two different Vista compatibility modes, and a full Windows 7 mode. That adds up to 7 compatibility modes. How appropriate.
>> Adobe CS2 - not supported, not compatible
I'm happily using Photoshop CS2 on Leopard still. I bet at least a half of other programs on your list work just fine, too.
Linux can be ported to many devices and run emulators that is all I need for the moment, of course I will always want more.
To see a few of my Android apps goto: www.hartwired.com
Hey, the upside is that people will be selling or giving away their "old" Vista machines once they upgrade to Win7. We'll have a good supply of "obsolete" (read: cheap) machines to install Linux on.
1 in 4 Maine children in struggle with hunger.
Really? Is there some way to measure that? I'm genuinely curious about this.
Microsoft is not responsible for writing drivers to run HP hardware. They ARE responsible for producing a working API and documentation for writing drivers to suit their OS, and given the amount of hardware out there that *does* simply work, I'd say they held up their end of the deal.
If your HP hardware does not work in Vista, go talk to HP about it, if they do nto fix it, return your defective device and get one that works. It should not be Microsoft's problem.
I would suggest that it's time to people to just get over themselves. If you all really need to be able to run your Rodent's Revenge from 1992, that's fine, just dig out an old machine that does it, or set up a Linux box with Wine.
I won't use a car analogy, but try this: 20 or 30 years ago we all used cassette tapes, which were useful enough in their way, but a fairly sucky medium for sound reproduction. Nobody liked them, but they served their purpose in their time. Then along came the burnable CD, and nobody bought another cassette tape ever again, so almost nobody even bothers to manufacture tape recorders.
There are some things that should just be allowed to die, so we can move on.
why replace it when the only thing that has changed are my expectations of what a piece of software should do?
Says the dude with "I only code in BASIC" in his sig.
Is HP one of MS's partner companies?
Balderdash!
Why would you stay and cling to an old OS for years and years and years. It kills productivity and the time spent fussing with it and waiting for it to churn out data outweighs the cost of upgrading to a better OS/system. At least, from a business point of view.
And yet, business users are the classical example of such a phenomena. Why? simple, because upgrading to an allegedly better OS/system *also* kills productivity, and since all software has bugs it's better to deal with familiar ones, than risk getting unknown ones that take months to track down with all the issues that follow such things.
Apple does not care and has never cared about the business and the server markets, Microsoft does so they can't just pump new, fully incompatible versions of their OS every five years.
No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
Stop your metabitching already!
Are you joking? How much slower is 0.0.0.0 to load over 0?
Windows 2000 doesn't handle graphics intensive applications at all well compared to Windows XP.
Besides, if you're a large corporation, there are compelling reasons to be running a supported product.
Thanks. You've made my day. This post makes me laugh.
if hardware supports Windows Vista, it will support Windows 7
Damn... I used to think that it was software that should support hardware, not the other way around, but it now looks like that may not entirely be the case.
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
"That's what people used to say about Linux.' That's what people STILL say about Linux. Linux is even worse, every distro does things differently, and there is rarely any commonality..
That's just silly. MS will just release a new, compatible version - and vendors will fall in line as long as it's not a truly disruptive development change for them. What're they going to do, port to Mac or Linux? That's much more of a headache.
Yes, adoption will be slow. But there will be adoption eventually - and vendors will sell it like they always have. And you know what? People, by and large, will use it. They'll bitch like they always have, sure; and it won't matter. It won't matter because MS doesn't care, and it won't matter because they will have applications to use.
Chances are the users will bitch about those applications, too - just like they do about the ones we've got now.
You can stick to your frozen XP install; that's fine. I've run across a couple people using old 68k Macintoshes and win95 in the past couple years, too, and they didn't seem to mind using their computers. if it works for you, use it. That doesn't mean change won't occur around you.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Can you tell me then why they have four computers all doing the same thing then?
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
if there was no compatibility for a mouse, you'd be pissed off.
Something like that pissed me off with Vista, I have a Trust KD200 keyboard and none of the extra buttons would work (media etc). Contacted Trust who said they would not be issuing Vista drivers for it. BUT under Win-7 it works a treat :-)
so Microsoft have done something better at last, there are a few applications that don't work but those that I have found so far are saying that they will be bringing out Win-7 patches when the OS is ready for general usage.
Bob
Of course it doesn't work on the shiny new Intel macs since that's a different architecture, but you probably knew that since you're trolling.
If you weren't: How many architecture changes has windows had since 1984?
Is HP one of MS's partner companies?
not since they sued them over the Vista Capable issue. :)
"I've been trying to make peace with myself over this horrible atrocity for some time."
Anybody who describes selling software with proprietary lock-in as a horrible atrocity is in desperate need of a sense of proportion.
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
Only if you can prove that your formal verification process is bug-free. (Which you can't.)
how many of the hundreds of thousands (or whatever it is) who have flown *on this day* have died?
Nine.
Then there's the fourth group: those who think MS should create an all-new Windows without the legacy crap with an emulator inside for backwards compatibility.
There's no need for an emulator...you can use an actual VM. Having just installed VMware Workstation 6.5, I think that its "Unity mode" (also available in VMware Fusion) that is the way to do it.
Since you can even run Linux as a guest on Windows and use Unity to show the Linux desktop windows seamlessly as part of your Windows desktop, I think that pretty much anything would be possible if you built this sort of functionality into the base OS.
I do pretty much the same by running Windows in a virtual machine in Linux. I keep it cut off from the internet, and use the host for all that dangerous stuff like web browsing and email. Windows remains safely sandboxed.
Oh, and wherever possible, I still use Windows 2000, because I *still* think that XP is unnecessarily bloated. Given *that* opinion, I don't suppose I'll be running Vista or Windows 7 anytime soon. But if I do, it'll be in another sandbox.
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Senator Carl Schurz (1872)
Integrated audio chips, SATA controllers, IDE controllers, memory controllers, PCI bridge, BIOS and ACPI interaction, and various other integrated components. You're talking around 20-30 "components" that all need separate drivers in a typical PC, at minimum.
There are already standard drivers for all motherboard hardware, and unless there is a radical change in the way these devices are designed, those drivers will just keep working. Updating them for a new OS that uses a different driver model isn't really a lot of work.
And, if you go with the "virtualize to maintain backward compatibility" metaphor, then the new OS doesn't need new drivers at all...it just needs a virtualization layer that lets software work with those older drivers. The trick is designing a generic virtualization system that won't require major changes until there are major new features in processors, and that's probably something that Microsoft can't do in a manner that would be acceptable to their cash flow requirements.
We could form a site about this, since people love doing it. I'm thinking "metawhinr.com".
Windows 7 will finally be out of Beta when it has the letters "SP1" at the end of the name, not before.
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Senator Carl Schurz (1872)
And if its a good enough excuse for Apple than Vista can use it too.
Then...
If Apple gets significant marketshare, the volume of businesses screaming when they release new OS updates will rise accordingly.
The same things that are perfectly reasonable from Apple are simply not acceptable from Microsoft. This is not double standards, Apple and Microsoft are playing different games in different markets.
All this talk of Apple in relation to this particular story is pretty off topic though. In the corporate world Microsoft's biggest problem at the moment is not Apple or Linux but Microsoft itself, and addressing THAT problem won't be easy.
It's not just advanced features. I have a printer/scanner/copier from HP that won't even print on vista. Vista refuses to even try the driver. I thought I could find a work-around on the net somewhere but I have yet to find anything that allows me to print over a network.
Windows XP doesn't handle graphics intensive applications at all well compared to Windows Vista.
That was fun
http://www.crn.com/software/214502662
How many IT departments are insane enough to actually attempt to brute force a Windows XP->Windows 7 upgrade with Vista as an intermediary? Any Windows user who knows what they're doing knows that the best way to "upgrade" your Windows install is do a format with clean install. The fact that the article then goes on to suggest that in the "real world" you would then image the final result and push that out to clients.
You have got to be kidding me.
Insert Sig Here
Perhaps a port of WINE to Windows 7 is in order...
AAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaahahhahhah ahahhahahahaha.... i hurt myself...
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
Why cant we come up with a universal driver system. Write a single device info file. The os reads that file and gets all the information it needs to work with that device. Then OS version, or OS type is unimportant. Just my 2/100
Yeah, I'll just tell my current CIO that he should roll out Linux to all 120,000 desktops shall I ?
-Jar
Together, We Can Make Slashdot Better. I Do NOT Mod ACs. - Check Me Out
"Meanwhile Vista/Win7 will still run a lot of DOS6 apps? Not all of them. Probably not anywhere near 99% of them, but an awful LOT of them."
You are right there my friend. This is my bread and butter. Some of them you can even move to the "C:\program Files" folder unless they are hard coded in their EXE/COM.
I'd share my secrets but I can't get cut-n-paste to work in OpenOffice Macros to update my web site. 200+ pages exported into one very long web page doesn't go over well with web browsers...
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
Oh, wait, yes I do. Doesn't anbody else notice that almost all the MS bashing articles on /. are posted by kdawson?
You go ahead and do that. I've been accurately predicting technology trends in the software and hardware domains for 20 years. So you hold off, and I'll move forward on the bleeding edge and wait for you to catch up. Nay ... I'll actually help anyone catch up who is willing to put in the effort to do so.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Agree, but explain this to his Mom.
People needs to stop buy / upgrade for no reason and this apply to everything.
And they also should understand that you need to put some effort in understanding the product before buy it. But people likes new shiny stuff and don't want to think about problems.
I'm so happy enough people saw how pointless Vista is and maybe before switching to the new OS they will listen to knowledgeable people more.
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
Seriously, when I upgraded to 95 from 3.11, it was slow, I needed a new PC.
95->98se wasn't bad.
I skipped ME, but when XP came out, it was slow as balls on that system. Upgraded to a new PC with XP... In the beginning it was sorta slow, but much faster than the last PC, patches and speed upgrades got me to the point where XP was flying.
Vista took it back a notch, but then I upgraded the PC and it's flying and with SP1, it's faster than my XP box was.
Now Windows 7 is coming out. I'll probably skip it as it seems like it's just a unwanted rehash of Vista. But if I did go for it, it'd be considered standard operating procedure to upgrade the PC. at least drop in a faster chip or more RAM.
When you do more things, you take up more cpu/ram. You can't say that win 7 is going to do less than vista or xp because if it did do less it a.) wouldn't be an MS product and b.) no one would want it. People buy things because of what they do, rarely do they buy them based on what it doesn't do, unless that is "suck".
Sure there are some of us here, myself included, that'd love it if MS cut a bunch of crap out of the next version of windows. Cut memory usage by dropping back a lot of the unwanted features, or made all the features opt-in instead of installed by default. But that's not going to happen because "Joe 6-pack" will think that it's not part of his purchase and try to take it back when he really just needs to run the add/remove programs dialog. Besides, if they did that they'd be one step away from charging for those extra features.
I still think at this point MS just needs to focus on fixing the issues they think are in vista with SP's. XP was out for 5 years, Vista's been around for like 2.5. Everyone just started getting used to Vista, let's just let it slide. Everyone complained for the first few years of XP. I know I did. but now we're used to it. The same will happen with Vista, I've got it and now that I've seriously used it for a year+ I prefer it over XP. We don't need another OS.
-=JML=-
Sounds like my wife.
I'm not a retard, I've used Macs my whole life.
The classic enviroment runs maybe two thirds of OS 9 apps, at the cost of 50% of you CPU and halving your laptops battery life. It was a shitty piece of software that barely worked, not even close to acceptable.
Whether or not Microsoft has switched architectures or not is completely irrelevant. If Apple gave a shit, they could have made the PPC to x86 switch as easy as the switch from 68k. (not to say it was perfect, but with the x86 switch Apple isn't even bothering to try.)
Comment of the year
That was very informative. And makes me think, Why MS (assuming MS has equal or more money than NASA)does not do the same thing? I mean, is not that Windows needs to be immaculate, is not used by critical stuff, but I think that if someone charges MS for the TIME WASTED being bugs, trident html render, drivers, useless standars, bad practices etc. MS would go bankrupt.
If I, in a position like President, Secretary of Commerce or related have handed a report about the country productivity loss, with a frickin lot of 0's, because of the OS that is 90% of market share is a turd, I'd be pissed off. Is nothing about politics it's fucking common sense and I'd grab MS by the balls and make the them pay for the productivity loss and make them do it RIGHT next time even if that means putting a finger in the ass from Ballmer downwards to the guy in the kitchen, thinking in the OS like a nation (even global?)asset. This is coming from someone who does not love nor hate MS or Windows.
I don't give a fuck about monopolies since they do the things right, I know that power corrupts, but is not impossible that being a monopoly you can't at least do the thing RIGHT, look Google.
Am I too humble/caffeinated to believe that something like this would ever happen?
Windows has not been based on DOS since Windows ME.
Sure.
Then he'll tell you that, actually, you should roll out Linux to all 120,000 desktops.
Best read up on SAMBA, bub.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Uh oh, self-reference paradox alert!
Do not click here!
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Crunch the numbers and tell him how much it will save the company compared to buying new MS licenses according to your Microsoft agreement (assuming your company is completely legal with MS licensing, i.e. Each server has 1 Server license, each exchange server has 1 server license, each workstation has 1 XP Pro or Vista Business license, each user or workstation has 1 CAL each for Server, exchange, and possibly Office, plus any licenses for other MS services). If your company is like many and is hurting right now, you could be a hero.
If they are worried about support for the servers, include in your numbers the support costs of Red Hat, SUSE, Canonical (Ubuntu), Sun, or whomever else you would want to get support from. If they are worried about obscure software that isn't 100% WINE compatible, leave a Windows server in place, though then you are still stuck with CALs and the server license. Perhaps get once-off licenses for those instead of continued payment agreements.
Said, "It's just like dice but it's got more sides And it tells me who lives and who dies"
Yes, this is the way to go. Isn't that pretty much how Rosetta on Intel Macs were able to use PowerPC compiled software? This would be even simpler since it would be the same or similar proc architecture. No need to even base on *nix (though that would be nice), they could go back and create a clean NT kernel with all the cruft stripped from it. IIRC, pretty much all of the funny comments found in the leaked win2k source were caused by hacks to include undocumented system calls that older software was using (like office). A lean, mean, 64-bit only NT kernel would be fantastic. I would bet most of the bloat in the 6.x kernel line (Vista, 2008, Win7) is piling code on top of the old hacks to try and secure them (that and the DRM code, but I doubt MS would ever take that out).
Said, "It's just like dice but it's got more sides And it tells me who lives and who dies"
Really? That is how I've always seen the argument presented. The windows codebase is filled with ugly hacks to implement backwards compatibility. These hacks add bloat to the code, create vulnerabilities, and are probably one of the biggest reasons that Windows is often seen as unstable. Yet, even with all of this "backwards compatibility" built in, every time a freaking patch is released companies have to test all of their apps to see if anything was broken.
Said, "It's just like dice but it's got more sides And it tells me who lives and who dies"
Not to be patronizing, but you're also describing Linux...
Sounds like a fun afternoon to me.
I thought Challenger was an o-ring design or material problem. This lead to a leak, and hence a flow problem but the problem was from a leaking o-ring.
also people hold Windows to the highest of the standards on the slightest user interface issues even if it's in beta whereas Linux gets judged on technical aspects of the kernel only.
I've been running the Windows 7 64 Bit Beta since they released it and i've had absolutely no problems with it asides from a few quirky taskbar issues (Such as a maximized Zoom Player Pro making the autohide stop working). However, after doing a clean install, I HAVE NEVER seen a BSOD. I use to get them all the time on Vista, but not once have I got one on Windows 7. In fact, I'm using Windows 7 the exact same way I did Vista and it works better. Zoom player loads files faster, Games run better, Office appears to not be fucked up anymore and best of all, all the software I use to use (except for Daemon Tools which is a known case of compatibility errors and even stops you from installing it - I'll note that SPTD installs but seemingly all ISO mounting programs don't work and i've tried a few. That's okay though, just extract the images with 7-zip or burn them to a disc - I have enough blank Dvds to make a house.) So really, can we please accept the fact that sometimes it will work and sometimes it won't? To begin with, upgrading 3 times is just stupid. Why, who, would want to install XP, then upgrade to Vista, then upgrade to Windows 7. I didn't even do an upgrade when I went to Vista. You have to realize that upgrades are ALWAYS bad for Windows (and let's be honest with ourselves here, a few other operating systems). So really, if you're getting the BSOD on upgrading, why don't you try a clean install and if that doesn't work, then come back and bitch about it. On another note, I haven't had any hardware compatibility issues. My ATI Radeon HD 3650 worked right out thanks to a 1.1 Pre Release driver, My Audigy MB Advanced worked fine, all of my external devices (logitech Mx3500 desktop set, game controllers, external harddrives and USB devices) ran right out. So I'd like to know what hardware isn't working? I hate when people make claims and don't supply facts or even what didn't work. How can microsoft fix "My hardware doesn't work" without knowing /what/ hardware doesn't work?
If you weren't at 5 already, I'd mod you up. And I cannot believe I just said that.
Bipartisanship? On my Slashdot? It's more likely than you think...
Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
Doesn't surprise me with something like that which is truly mission critical and the cost of failure is measured in first-world-national-economy units.
I've gotten requests to tweak fairly important software systems (indirect impact to human life), and found myself wading through reams of requirements and design documentation. Often these documents tell you what the system needs to do, but not why it needs to do it that way. When somebody wants to change some field in the system you need to figure out everything that writes to or reads from that field and how it is impacted. Then you need to look at every manual process that relies on the data in that field and the impact there as well (and unless you do work in the Military how well do you think those are documented?).
Otherwise you get some request from the Shuttle Navigation group to tweak some setting and they've done all the work to ensure it won't adversely impact navigation. However, they miss the fact that the life support telemetry system with a dedicated transmitter uses some navigation parameter to orient its antenna. Or, perhaps they don't relaize that some hack in the calculations was implemented because back in the 60s some group discovered that outgassing from paint will impact your navigation if you don't, and this institutional knowledge has been lost.
When a system REALLY needs to be bug-free the cost can be absolutely enormous. It can be done, but it can't be done cheap. Usually, it isn't worth trying to be truly bug-free.
Again, from a support perspective, not a sales perspective.
Machines get old and need to be replaced, or eventually fail. And the "System Builder License Availability" expiration date for all versions of XP was January 31st, 2009. Unless you want to pony up the $150 price tag to upgrade from Vista to XP.
Then there's cute tricks like not releasing DirectX 10 for XP, when it was almost certainly developed on XP. That's not going to impact many businesses, but it's probably the most egregious case of Microsoft's forced obsolescence.
oh that's what happened... dramaaaaaaaa!
Balderdash!
Well i tested vista when i didn't have enough hardware to run it smoothly i thought it sucked ,then after upgrading to a dual core it ran smoothly.In my opinion vista is still a resource hog,but if you have enough resources to run it it runs smoothly and stable.
About windows 7 i hope it doesn't come out as an initial disaster like vista,but either microsoft has half world of programmers working for them or as usual they're in a rush to ship 7,well you know what happens...
Sure, Windows NT isn't based on DOS, but it does include backward compatibility to DOS and drive letters and other legacy junk from DOS. There's no drive letters in *nix.
All I can say is that Win7 happily took the Windows 2000 driver for the 10 year old PCI SCSI card I have in the machine I'm testing it on. I was pretty impressed.
They've already ripped off the look of KDE4, the idea of centralised software repositories so it's only logical that they adopt the random hardware problems that Linux suffers from time to time.
Unless they copy the price and the licence, I'm still sticking with Ubuntu.
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
According to some beta testers, applications that worked fine under Vista became unlicensable (their licensing mechanism deactivated and wouldn't reactivate due to Win7 changes).
In one case it involved a file that was missing or renamed under Vista because it had caused some compatibility problems -- but the product (and Adobe product) ran 'fine', but on Win7, the renaming of the file was detected as a license violation.
It's like Windows "System File Protection" mechanism that attempts to replace system files that are deleted or modified with backup copies (first trying its backup cache, then asking for the source disk/DVDs), then putting up a threatening message about system instability if you continue without replacing or fixing the file (this is under XP).
Under Win7, any licensed product can be similarly monitored and will disable itself if tampering is detected.
In Vista, it was mostly multimedia content that was to be protected -- and checks were put in over the entire hardware layer to detect hardware tampering or OS tampering so that output streams of Hi Fidelity video could be disabled or downgraded. Initially, most content providers have disabled the checks because they want people to adopt Vista and the process has been hard enough with all the driver problems. Still, NBC blocked one of their prime-time evening serials a few months back to test the DRM-recording block feature. Tons of viewers called into complain when their Vista-backed Media Center's didn't properly record the show as they had expected. NBC later issued a statement saying that somehow the "block-recording"/"block-timeshifting" flag had been set on that program by accident.
Only Vista-Media edition recorders were affected. Apparently Tivo and other digital recording products were not affected.
Win7 is moving up the DRM ladder to extend full protection to software programs. If you rename or move or delete any files that you don't think you need or that cause you problems, or don't allow run-time licensing managers to be constantly running in background, you may easily find your products no longer work.
It's being rolled out as a feature to software vendors to automatically have their software "self-check" it's health and can allow an attempt at repair, revalidation of authorization over the internet, or disabling the software.
People complained about "Mass Effects" DRM requiring activation and reactivation upon hardware changes -- and the fact that it would periodically check back in to be sure its activation code had not been listed as compromised (revoked). With Vista 7, those features will be built into the OS so people won't have to complain about this game or that game's DRM -- it will just be the OS enforcing the DRM issues.
I recently triggered revalidation on my Word2002 installation when I changed the path to the office installation -- I renamed all the links and registry entries, but the path had been encrypted into the license state. Worse -- it would require validation -- but not STAY validated -- it said it needed to be revalidated each time you ran it (had "N" number of runs before it would only operate in reduced mode -- or I could revalidate it on each use. I eventually figured out that it really wanted the original path to exist again. A "NTFS hard-link" from the old-directory-name to the new-directory name solved the problem -- I could then have it in the new location, but it was happy in finding the old-path functioning correctly as well.
I shiver to think of what I may have to go through in Win7.
I think there should be a concerted effort to have WinXP released as open source -- for the public good. If MS doesn't want to maintain it, then have it open-sourced, so it can be used on lower-powered machines or people who don't want the 10-15% slowdown in applications due to DRM checks, or have another Gig of memory swallowed up by OS-DRM code.
Sounds like a good Monopoly-OS remedy -- split off the old OS as it's own user-supportable product.
I'm pretty sure there was a changing of the guard at some point. Because of the length of the Shuttle program, the list of manufacturers for various components reads like a big corporate obituary list - Grumman, North American, Rocketdyne, Philco Ford(!), Rockwell. They've all been spun off and absorbed into other companies. IBM is still around, but at the time the Shuttle was constructed the AP-101 wasn't a legacy system, so it makes sense that at the time (late 70s-80s) they would probably be the most skilled at programming it. At some point I'm sure it was no longer financially viable to keep supporting the codebase and the support was spun off. I bet one might have trouble finding someone at IBM now who is familiar with the System/360 and can program it in HAL/S!
Anyone who makes gross generalizations is generally gross.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
you probably right. I only remembered the flow being screwed up in the o2 lines.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Yes and no.
yes it is high 14 out of some 600 astronauts. then again the shuttle itself is like sitting on a barrel of firecrackers and lighting them.
Considering how we get into space I would say the 2.5% rate really isn't bad(similar to russia's too). Space travel is currently a very dangerous way to fly and it's realities are what is limiting commercial development.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Microsoft's mantra to keep people from trying Linux has been "
Now that all of these issues apply to people 'upgrading' to Vsta/Win7, why not actually upgrade their system by going to an OS that really works for it's users, like Gnu/Linux?
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Yeah, I'll just tell my current CIO that he should roll out Linux to all 120,000 desktops shall I ?
-Jar
Well, that's better than taking responsibility for a roll out of Vista/Win7 to all 120,000 desktops.
sometimes you just have to recognize the difference between pointing a pea-shooter at your foot, and a shotgun.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
OR the class of Mac users that laugh about Windows backwards compatibility but quietly forget the OS9 to OSX compatibility fiasco.
What compatibility fiasco?
OS X contained an MacOS 9 "VM" up until 10.5 that ran most old apps remarkably well. That's something like 6 years of supported compatibility after OS 9 was completely discontinued as a standalone OS product.
Of course the original user is right in saying that there is "a mind-numbing number of incompatible drivers, unsupported devices, unsupported applications, unsupported data, patches, updates, upgrades, 'known issues' and unknown issues"... but it is only mind numbing if you try and do it manually and by researching everything for yourself. At ChangeBASE we have spent years building the rulesets to test for all these things automatically. It is impossible to do this without automation unless you are prepared to employ an army of people for months to try testing the apps for you. Lets look at a simple analogy. Software deployment. Back in the days before people used the likes of SMS to distribute their software they used armies of people to go round, install new apps, and reinstall apps that got broken by other apps installing :). Nowadays that is generally handled by software distribution systems. Unfortunately the mindset has not yet changed on a wide enough scale for people to look at the area of application compatibility testing in the same way. they still see it as a big manual headache whereas they need to be employing tools to simply and effectively identify all those incompatibility issues. Simple numbers? if it takes a tester 1/2 a day to test an app and he has 1000 apps that is 2.5 man years of work. You can get the same or BETTER answers in a few days with automated testing software!