Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Ending Mainstream Support For XP
Slatterz writes "Come next week, Microsoft will be in the unusual position of no longer offering mainstream support for its most widely used product. Windows XP will pass another milestone next week on the road to retirement when mainstream support ends on 14 April 2009, over seven years after the OS originally shipped. While the company said that it will continue to provide free security fixes for XP until 2014, any future bugs found in the platform will not be fixed unless customers pay. Windows XP accounts for about 63 percent of all Internet-connected computers, according to March 2009 statistics from Hitslink, while Windows Vista makes up about 24 percent."
I went to microsoft.com and looked around- I did not find the "donate now" button anywhere
how exactly are we supposed to pay?
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Make one mistake and support it for the rest of your life.
Unless you are Microsoft, of course.
I wish more companies would start opening up their software once it has run out of life. If Microsoft really thought that XP was no longer going to be good enough for pc's, open it up to the community and let people learn from it and tinker with it.
Oh... wait, it is Microsoft.
"I don't have to think. I only have to do it. The results are always perfect, but that's old news." - Meat Puppets
Time to Upgrade...
If you don't like Vista, switch to Mac or Linux... but, Vista is the current version of Windows...
This is my sig.
any future bugs found in the platform will not be fixed unless customers pay
Does that mean they will fix all the bugs that have been found in the past? No.
Can someone else fix them? No.
+1 for open source
The disappearing pencil trick. Let me show you it.
So nothing has really changed then, it's still being supported with security fixes. No one really cares about features at this point. How exactly is this suppose to move people to update?
Even then, it's scary proposition to move everything. I have this nagging feeling that I'm going to miss something very important! Dual boot? I don't know. I have had issues in the past with GRUB locking up machines and no being able to rescue my system. I had to reinstall everything.
wait - stop - just kidding...
innovation (read adoption of what the surveyed herd wants and whoever we could purchase a look from, or failing that, what apple did last quarter, visually) in windows sucks.
The next step is to divorce the windows graphic interface from the underlying operating system, and make it a desktop for linux. Like apple. But with Linux.
The majority of Windows XP users are using an OEM license anyway, which are supported by the respective OEMs. The only difference between a product in mainstream and extended support, is that products in extended support don't get free PID support. Considering that OEM licenses also don't get free support from Microsoft, this change is very minor.
There are few companies that work as hard at making poor decisions as MSFT. They fielded a loser OS at a time in computing history that they really needed a home run. To placate enterprise users and stop the bleeding in the netbook space they turned to XP at a time they should have been phasing it out.
So now they rush Windows 7 out the door with many of the capabilities Vista should have had and they're chopping off support for XP before Windows 7 is established.
It's not the computing world's fault MS dropped the ball on Vista but, as usual, they're making it your problem. Instead of owning up to the mistake and supporting XP until it's clear Windows 7 is an adequate replacement.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Have you seen the botch they made of their Xbox division? It's full of failed products (Xbox, Zune, Xbox36), and massively in debt, with a debt hole that will never be filled, despite how much they talk positive about quarterly "profits".
At this stage in XPs life, I highly doubt any end user or consuming business will actually come across any non-security related bug that they need fixing, and if they do then their vendor will probably have several customers also with the same issue, and pony up themselves (think Oracle, Sun or Novell finding a bug which affects their products - they will be the ones to approach MS for a fix and offer payment).
I switched to Linux on my home desktop computers back in 2000... haven't looked back. Sorry MS.
Isn't the 360 actually tracking well against the PS3? (debt from Zune and the original Xbox aside)
But for small shops, this is a win! Since MS won't support it any more, people will have to turn to small local shops instead. It should be quite a boon to them.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
It's not the computing world's fault MS dropped the ball on Vista but, as usual, they're making it your problem.
People are always bashing Vista at every opportunity, but it's never caused me any problems, never crashed, has support for all the devices I wish to use and pretty much checks all the boxes I want from an operating system. I'm speaking as a software developer, before I get mercilessly flamed as being some kind of computing retard.
/.? Surely not..."
Now XP, before I upgraded, would crash semi-regularly and had at least as many bugs as Vista does. I think at least some of the people critcising Vista are sheeple expressing a popular opinion without much foundation. "What's that?" you cry, "People regurgitating supposed facts without verification on
You can advertise in this sig from as little as £99.99 a month!
Will there still be activation support for resetting it or will activation be turned off / hardware check be turned off?
Will xp uses still get IE8 / IE7 updates / fixes?
windows media player 12?
Will there still WGA updates? .net framework updates?
daylight saving time updates till 2014?
It works as well or as poorly as it ever did and it ever will. Only MS will kill it with Multimedia formats, add-ons and such. I still run one old Win-2000 SP5 machine.
I just bought $2000+ worth of computer components that I will use to build my own high end desktop (i7 920 / 6gb ddr3 1600 ram / 300gb velociraptor / 1tb hdd / ati 4890 / 2 x 24'' samsung lcds). Do you know how much I spent on software for it? $0. And I am actually better off - no MSFT bloatware for me, thank you. This is a great opportunity for people to reexamine their long held beliefs, e.g. when you buy a new computer you _must_ get Windows.
I long for the day when the headline is "Mainstream ends support for Microsoft."
Vista is slow to boot.
Vista helpfully stops me running programs I want to run at startup.
Vista takes absolutely hours to update itself.
Vista is always telling me no, I don't have permission to do that, or to look there.
Vista is generally annoying.
Vista also has a couple of more geeky irritations to me as a software engineer and a linux user. But still, it runs my games OK and that's all I ask of it these days. I don't hate it, I just don't think it's that good.
That said, you should here the vitriol and emotional reactions that come out of my none-geek family and friends. This vista hatred may have started here with us, but it's been taken to a whole new level by the general computer-using-but-not-understanding public. I don't know if that's a reflection of them buying all the media hype or if it's a genuinbe reaction to the product, but it seems that it's no longer us penguin-loving kernel botherers that are the main source of the anti-MS vitriol.
I used to work as an IT consultant, and I can't begin to tell you how many small customers I went to that were using Windows 2000, or older, Server 2000, Office 2000. I would have loved if they'd wanted to even switch to XP both OS and Office wise. Lots of people don't really look at their computers as something that ever needs to change or be upgraded. People who have hung on to XP this long probably won't be jumping off the bandwagon just because mainstream support is stopping.
The musings of just another geek and his junk.
Vista is slow to boot.
Vista helpfully stops me running programs I want to run at startup.
Vista takes absolutely hours to update itself.
Vista is always telling me no, I don't have permission to do that, or to look there.
Vista is generally annoying.
If it wasn't for the delay I have set in GRUB, Vista would be loaded before my monitor comes on. It loads faster than my SuSE or Fedora installs do.
I've never had a problem with any startup programs.
I don't run automatic updates (except for Defender checking for definitions before it's 3:00 AM daily scan), but when I run updates myself it's generally fairly quick, depending on what's out there. It's much, much better than Windows Update on XP.
The only time I see anything about access is when I, out of habit, click on one of those "junctions" (or whatever Vista calls them) instead of a real folder. [Junctions = the old paths, like the Application Data directory. You get an "access denied" if you try to click on one.] Those are hidden files anyway, so I can't see that being a problem for everyday users.
So i take it that this will mean the corporations will have to finally upgrade. the testing cost for all those crappy crm's that are only supported on ie6 is going to be astromomical. if they were programmed correctly in the first place, any browser would be able to use them and companies could have switched to thin client to save massive amounts on energy.
Does this mean linux mirrors and repos just got many new downloads :-( ?
Is it time to adopt?
*** Don't be dull.***
Seriously, they've shipped a near-infinite number of Windows XP licenses, and there are millions and millions of users exercising the code, so really, what is left to "debug"? But let's be clear - you may want Windows XP to function differently, but that is not a bug, that's a preference. By now, Windows XP is a tested code base, and it has value as demonstrated by the steady stream of stories discussing the end of support for Windows XP, downgrade rights from Vista to Windows XP, etc.
Ken
While I recognize that I am far from using my computer to do everything it is capable of, I really can't understand all the Vista bashing and I suspect that a large amount of the bashing I do see is from those who have either already made up their mind that they hate Vista, or those that haven't really given it a fair chance.
I run Vista on a powerful machine -- it's a Quad Core with 4GB of RAM and a decent video card. I knew when Vista came out that, if I wanted to run it, my 2001 P4 2GHz wasn't going to cut it. Was I upset about that? No. Try running Mac OS 10.5 on a 800 MHz PPC from that same era. Yeah, it'll work, but it won't be a fun experience. So I bought a new machine for less than $1000, the first major PC purchase I made since I purchased the previous machine in 2001. I expect to buy a new computer every 4 or 5 years.
While my experience with Vista hasn't been flawless, I fail to see any of these things that make Vista a "horrible mistake". In fact, it runs great for me. It's very fast, and I can multitask quite well. I have a Media Center PC that records HD video frequently, often when I'm using the machine, and aside from a Systray icon telling me it's recording, I never notice. I also run Linux via VMWare in the background all the time as a test bed for web development, and again this has never caused me problems or slowdowns. Nearly all of the applications that worked on my old XP box transferred over fine. I've never seen a Blue Screen of Death in Vista, and I've been running it now for over a year and a half.
I'd say I use my computer to do more than the average user, and I've had nothing but good experiences with Vista. I'm sorry to hear that others haven't had the same experience, but please, can we stop calling it a "horrible failure"?
I really don't think they are doing this to try and make more money. I really think they are just trying to kill XP. So they can make more money selling windows 7. Although, it's kind of stupid to do it now in my opinion, if they drive people off of XP before 7 is out those people will buy Vista, and then I really doubt they will buy 7 when it launches 6 months later.
When XP first came out, much the same thing was said. "It's a warmed over version of 2K, why bother?" "It breaks things, why bother?"
Eventually those problems went away and today I'm typing this on an XP system. I have no doubt that the same will happen in future, if not with Windows Vista then with Windows 7 (codename: It doesn't suck this time, honest!)
So windows doesn't support any Operating Systems now?
Ginga no Rekshiya Mata Each page.
I've heard (but haven't verified) that they moved their mac business unit (which generates profit like tim geithner generates failure) to the xbox division to hide those losses.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
XP never worked anyways, so who cares.
God forbid a company from making money. They must not be allowed to sell ANYTHING!.
I wonder if this makes Windows Vista the only generation not to outsell the previous one.
-m-
Then you're lucky and I'm not. It takes much, much longer than debian on my VAIO. I'm not ruling out that Sony set it up badly, but quick it is not.
You've never tried installing an ext2 filesystem driver then. Every boot I'd get this nice helpful message telling me windows had prevented programs from running at startup, with no visible way to change things.
I never run them automatically. I only boot it about once a month and it never fails to take at least an hour to update. There's even an inexplicable delay of at least a couple of minutes between selecting the updates to apply and it even starting to download them.
As a UNIX weenie, that confuses and annoys me!
Well exactly, which is why I find it so surprising that it's my dad and various non-savvy friends that get most upset with the whole thing.
I can see a good reason to announce the termination of XP support before Win7 is ready for the market. It gives people an incentive to switch immediately instead of waiting and looking whether it is finally a worthy replacement.
When people know XP will not be supported any longer, they will not wait and see. They will get Win7 because, well, they will have to anyway.
From a marketing point of view, it certainly was a good idea. From the perspective of an IT engineer, it is about the worst thing that you could face. Try to convince your boss now that you should postpone Win7 until the kinks are ironed out.
I forsee a lot of overtime in the near future...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Hard to believe, but an 8 year old OS with life support turned off is still overwhelmingly preferred to Linux, OS X and so on...
What is so bad about Vista on decent hardware?
I have to use both. Vista isn't "bad". It's not a "Win ME 2.0", but it offers nothing of value while requiring more resources than it warrants. That's basically the whole problem I have with it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I think the big difference is that being a developer and a poster on /. you probably have a pretty beefy machine. Vista w/ sp1 on a quad-core or a high end dual-core with plenty of memory it runs well. Especially since you can have 4gb or more of memory (without doing the 64 bit xp thing).
We have faculty that purchase really nice machines with Vista. We don't have any complaints on that front other than the culture shock of having to learn something new. Staff & students on the other hand get hand me downs or the cheapest machines that can be bought when it is replacement time. We keep XP on those because they get frustrated with the lag that Vista has on low end boxes.
I've very thankful for the netbook market which I think was a major factor in thinning down Windows 7.
Don't anthropomorphize computers. They *hate* that.
Their real problem is that many people are satisfied with XP. There's no "killer app" or compelling reason to upgrade. If new computer purchases didn't foist Vista (or soon...Windows 7) on consumers, nobody would bat an eye if the machines came with XP instead. As long as XP continues to get security patches, I can't imagine bothering with "upgrading" in the foreseeable future.
I'd just like to take this opportunity once again to promote ReactOS (an open-source, binary-compatible NT). I encourage anyone looking for an open source project to contribute to to check out how far they've progressed in the past few years. At the rate they're going, they should have a 1.0 release by the time MS is "through" with XP in 2014.
I thought, (as much discussed here), that Ms's 'strategy' for netbook OS was XP, (since Windows Mobile seems pretty much DOA, now having a smaller market share than Symbian, Blackberry and even iPhone - even before you add Linux and increasingly Android).
So, whilst XP is perfectly functional today, and they'll be doing security updates, it's still not a great message to OEMs and end-uers, is it?
If Microsoft are stopping supporting XP on 14 April 2009 as reported, is it moral to sell netbooks with an unsupported (after that date) XP pre-installed? Yes they will do security fixes but will they insist on sales staff telling customers they are buying an unsupported system before they hand over cash? They like to hide the cost of the Windows license in the total purchase so the customer thinks it's free, so I don't hold much hope for their honesty.
At that point Linux (either official like RedHat or Novell, or a community Ubuntu / Feodra / Debian / Mandriva) becomes better supported than the XP version by default. Is it legal to sell an unsupported PC? Or will Microsoft be responsible and withdraw all XP netbooks from the market on April 15th? Will they be forced to?
It does show a company in desperation to make money, regardless of their customers wishes. When the carrot (advertising and shill PR) won't work use the stick. Any company behaving like this does not deserve any customers, and will eventually bring that to pass by it's own actions.
Who the hell is going to run out and buy Vista just because XP left mainstream support?!? The only time the fact that 2000 left mainstream has mattered to any company I know is when the governments of the world got cute and changed DST, and that was solved through a fairly simple if somewhat time intensive process of automating the manual workaround that Microsoft provided. Most of the time the reason you aren't running the OS that's in mainstream support is you want stability and consistency, new features and non-security fixes generally fly in the face of that concept anyways. I think most smart businesses will be waiting for Win 7 XP1/2008 R2 to perform wholesale upgrades which should mean it starts happening about the same time the economy is recovering and budgets start to loosen and allow for the upgraded hardware and manpower to do the upgrades.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Microsoft has stopped to support XP, That's their main advantage over Linux. Now they have none.
Vista is a failure, Windows 7 seem to be more of the same, so go with something you can buy support for after that the vendor no longer is interested in you.
I'm sure Vista would have a share greater than 24% of Internet-connected if people could actually manage to connect to the Internet. Seriously, I've worked with many OSs and Vista is the only one where my wireless network didn't just work. It seems to work on every other reboot. Thankfully the cable works (once I managed to dig it out).
So will MS continue to require XP to phone home to activate after initial install?
They fielded a loser OS at a time in computing history that they really needed a home run.
You don't get it. Vista shipped as a good operating system. Where Vista got its bad rep was driver support. In overhauling the driver model from XP->Vista, many Vista drivers were immature and unstable. This reflected poorly on Vista, fair or not. Since then, drivers in Vista have improved significantly, however, the negative stigma persists. Windows 7 isn't so much a new operating system as it is a re-branding of Vista. The driver model is the same, therefore Windows 7 will be perceived from the start as a good OS, just as Microsoft intends.
Similes are like metaphors
Seriously, they've shipped a near-infinite number of Windows XP licenses, and there are millions and millions of users exercising the code, so really, what is left to "debug"?
There's probably still quite a lot they could do to XP to try to drive you to Vista. An indexed search that actually works for example; they gave us a search system for XP that actually won't search any unindexed files, so you have to make an extra click every time you want to search a network share. Meanwhile XPSP3 makes XP way the fuck slower. Maybe they are still debugging their next set of XP delay-loop patches to make a Vista "upgrade" more palatable.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
They've had seven years and still haven't fixed all the bugs? Who are these clowns? Oh..
Not to worry, I have three other OSes at home, and at work our vista experience has been less than.. nice. I doubt we'll use v for more than testing.
I thought the same, but I thought I'd look up the figures anyway. The 360 leads in total sales, but surprisingly, they seem to be doing almost identically in terms of sales rate. As far as I can tell the 360 only leads because it was released earlier.
The figures:
PS3: 21 million units sold in 30 months = 700,000 per month.
360: 29 million units sold in 42 months = 690,000 per month.
Still, they're both loss leaders so I wouldn't call either one a resounding success. That accolade goes to the Wii, which is sold for a profit and has sales amounting to the PS3 and 360 combined.
(this post from a different AC)
Then you're lucky and I'm not. It takes much, much longer than debian on my VAIO. I'm not ruling out that Sony set it up badly, but quick it is not.
Who boots anymore? With sleep/suspend/hibernate, "booting" is so 1997.
You've never tried installing an ext2 filesystem driver then. Every boot I'd get this nice helpful message telling me windows had prevented programs from running at startup, with no visible way to change things.
So you've installed some wonky ext2 driver and it's Vista's fault when it doesn't load right on boot? :)
Complain to the driver author instead
I never run them automatically. I only boot it about once a month and it never fails to take at least an hour to update. There's even an inexplicable delay of at least a couple of minutes between selecting the updates to apply and it even starting to download them.
Once a month you lose a whole *HOUR* to updates?
*sigh* Don't update your *nix box for a month and see how long the next update takes.
As a UNIX weenie, that confuses and annoys me!
As a "unix weenie", why are you "clicking" on anything? :)
Well exactly, which is why I find it so surprising that it's my dad and various non-savvy friends that get most upset with the whole thing.
UAC is different that what you were talking about above and can be disabled. And probably should be disabled for "power users".
Anyway, sounds like you've made up your mind on your platform of choice. I won't try to convince you otherwise, it's just annoying with the amount of FUD here about Vista.
I've got Ubuntu/Vista/XP all running, I try to use each for what they're best at. Which I think is the whole point of an OS. Use it for what it's good for; not because you're trying to make a political statement.
This is crazy... I mean here at my workplace (a hospital) we just rolled out Windows XP this past September. We dumped Win2k & Novell Netware for XP and Active Directory. We won't be upgrading for a long time yet.
Your experience differs to mine where Vista would lock up regularly on startup with no way of determining why. I eventually gave up trying to find out and reinstalled the beast and yes it now works about as well as XP - so no particular advantage apart from not having to piss about with CACLS anymore when I want to grant a poorly written app write access to its own directory in Program Files.
daylight saving time updates till 2014?
Doesn't it just ask an NTP server for the time? I don't think that'll be an issue.
I boot vista when I want to play a game. At that point the boot time is relevant.
There should be a way for me, as administrator and owner, to tell it to allow things to start that aren't signed by MS. It's that simple.
Last time it was 19 updates. Came out somewhere around 32MB. I have a 24Mb connection, it took a long, long time to download them. It then sat and took the rest of the hour applying them, shutting down, applying some more during shutdown, booting and applying more during startup. And then it found more. It's slow and a bit of a shambles.
19 updates totalling around that size on debian linux would take a matter of seconds.
Yes, eventually I found out it could be disabled. I switched it off and some of the annoyances went away. Great, I have to switch off the new security system to get anything much done.
FUD. Right. User experience and me explaining my annoyances, despite already having said I don't think it's awful, just wrong in a few places, that's FUD?
And you've already decided I'm some sort of Linux zealot despite my saying I use vista adequately well for what I need it for and I'm surprised by the hatred it gets from non-technical people.
Fuck off.
Nothing ... except "decent" hardware to vista is "Blazingly fast" hardware to XP.
My reason for not upgrading to Vista: Why would I? It offers exactly zero features that I need over XP, and runs slower on the same hardware.
I don't hear too many people these days who actually use Vista grumbling about it any more than the average XP (or any other MS product) user, so I'm assuming it's reached the usual level of "doesn't suck that much" people expect from MS.
Historically though, I've found that if you simply follow the "upgrade to every other" method with MS, you're ok. 95 -> 98SE -> XP was a good path, which means I might look at Windows 7 when it comes out.
I am really thinking about buying a new PC. Why should I buy Vista when it will become obsolete a year after Windows 7 comes out? Why should I buy a "Windows 7 capable" PC when it won't really support the real Windows 7? Congrats Windows and mainstream manufactures. You leave me no choice but to build my own.
Microsoft says that Windows 7 will be small enough to run on the current generation of underpowered laptops that are pretending to be netbooks. I think we can count on this being just one more feature that Microsoft ends up overpromising and underdelivering on. Frankly, I just don't believe that they can do it. They probably don't, either. When they say "Windows 7 will be small footprint enough to run on a netbook" they really mean "We're counting on our ability to strongarm the netbook vendors into fattening up their hardware so it'll run Windows 7 by the time it's released."
... get a bare desktop up and running and get out of the way. Something not larded up with stupid extras. But that's not a sustainable business model for a company that still thinks that software is something that has to be bought and sold.
Meanwhile, Linux will keep showing up in places where Windows XP can fit but Windows 7 can't. And if it's a big enough market then Microsoft will be forced to keep Windows XP running even longer.
Microsoft just doesn't get it. There is a huge market for operating systems that just give you the brass tacks
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
This is why the Wine project is so important.
Probably difference between Win2K->WinXP and WinXP->Vista transitions is that in Win2K->WinXP, Microsoft early announced that they would improve backward compatibility (and SP2 for WinXP contained bunch of backward compatibility improvements).
With Vista story is completely different: Microsoft officially announced that Vista would break and that they have no plans on improving backward compatibility.
While in Win2K->WinXP times nothing held you back from migrating, story isn't that rosy for most enterprises and their load of internal Windows-only business specific tools. They ran on WinNT, Win2K with SPs/hotfixes and WinXP with SP2. But for Vista (and Win7) businesses now have to rewrite many of their internal tools.
Actually many businesses are now wising up and rewrite their internal tools from Windows-only applications to Web applications.
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
Actually, I have a suspicion that with Microsoft's way of viewing their internal accounting, XP is no longer a "cash cow" at all.
I have no proof of this, since I'm not privy to any of their internal workings or memos - but I do see a lot of evidence to back it up.
For example, when you call in to Microsoft to activate a copy of Windows XP by telephone, you usually just reach an automated system with voice recognition capabilities, vs. a live human. You can go through the entire process without ever speaking to a real person. (It actually asks you the famous "questions", like "How many computers is this product installed on?" and "Have there been any major hardware changes to your platform since the last time Windows was installed?", and decides if it will re-activate an existing key based on your responses.)
Microsoft doesn't shuttle off these "anti piracy" measures to automated systems unless they feel it's only to support a "legacy product" that's no longer considered important enough to protect with the "higher level" of protection of interacting with a real customer service person.
I could easily see where their viewpoint might be; We already recouped our costs many times over for the XP product, and most new XP buyers are only buying heavily discounted licenses intended for refurbished machines, OEMs, etc. The money spent on manpower to keep supporting it is now just a net "negative" for us, vs. focusing on Vista and Windows 7, which will command higher retail prices on many licenses sold, and which still need to recoup their development costs ASAP.
Only slow to boot if you have a ton of stuff loading too.
uhm, the OS doesn't just blindly launch programs that aren't properly configured and your complaining?
Would you rather the OS just went and installed that rootkit without checking with you first?
Annoying? only if you don't understand that Administrator is a USER account with prompted escalation. Run as a User account and you get an admin login just like if you used sudo and all sub processes then run under that and silently allow.
What is so bad about Vista on decent hardware?
Vista
I use Vista every single day, what problems should I be seeing, why aren't I seeing them and how do I recreate said problems?
"People are always bashing Vista at every opportunity" - by Shrike82 (1471633) on Wednesday April 08, @08:41AM (#27501781)
People do so, but, not w/ out justification: Microsoft is slipping man, period, by trying to sell people something they do NOT want basically - I mean, do you think people WANT "DRM" built into their OS'? I don't...
E.G.-> Do you think people want an OS that is crippled in these 2 capacities??
1.) HOSTS files no longer being able to use the more efficient-on-disk 0 based blocking IP address?
or
2.) The removal of the PORT FILTERING GUI front-end that all Windows NT-based OS (2000/XP/Server 2003) have (which aids "layered security")??
Fact is - I've brought these 2 points in regards to VISTA being "messed up on them", to MS' attention here -> http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/25/feedback-and-engineering-windows-7.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage in fact...
(Mainly because those are 2 things that affect layered security, and yes, efficiency (by "aiding bloat" in the HOSTS file, in it only being able to use 0.0.0.0 or worse yet, the default 127.0.0.1 loopback adapter address, as a valid blocking IP address in a HOSTS file, & neither is as efficient on disk as is 0))...
Doing more with less is GOOD ENGINEERING, don't you agree, fellow software developer? In the case of the HOSTS file issues, this definitely IS the case here, & on PORT FILTERING removal? That's just plain-jane dead-up dumb to remove, because it functions @ another layer of the IP stack (vs. software firewalls &/or IP Security Policies, & thus, is just like door handle locks (port filter), deadbolt locks (software firewalls), & chain locks (IP Security Policies) in terms of layered security)!
----
"but it's never caused me any problems, never crashed, has support for all the devices I wish to use and pretty much checks all the boxes I want from an operating system." - by Shrike82 (1471633) on Wednesday April 08, @08:41AM (#27501781)
My man, that's for YOUR use patterns... A good friend of mine uninstalled VISTA 2 nights ago, & is looking to install XP (after slipstreaming in the latest service pack + hotfixes prior to installation), & why?
2 reasons: 1 being DRM, & the other is that Quake 4 refuses to install for he there (Ms playing w/ OpenGL to further "DirectX 'uber alles'" would be my guess... &, it's not working, & upsetting those who DO favor or like OpenGL based gaming).
----
"I'm speaking as a software developer, before I get mercilessly flamed as being some kind of computing retard." - by Shrike82 (1471633) on Wednesday April 08, @08:41AM (#27501781)
Well, for a software dev (as am I, for over 16++ yrs. now professionally, as well as being multiply internationally published in this field over 10x now the past decade in reputable respected publications in this field on my part)?
Well - You're not looking @ this from a perspective other than your OWN experiences, &/or needs...
----
"Now XP, before I upgraded, would crash semi-regularly and had at least as many bugs as Vista does." - by Shrike82 (1471633) on Wednesday April 08, @08:41AM (#27501781)
They all come that way, or, more errors/bugs are discovered over time after release... history's shown us ALL that, on ANY OS there is really... & not just MS ones, & there is no escaping that much (as a dev., you KNOW how this goes - bugs or even minor "useability issues" arise once users get ahold of things).
----
"I think at least some of the people critcising Vista are sheeple expressing a popular opinion without much foundation. "What's that?" you cry, "Peo
After my limited experience with Vista, I simply will not buy another Microsoft OS. I'm saddened to see the end of XP support, but will gladly migrate rather than give my money to the greatest source of software bloat...
Anything you say will be held against you.
It is your IT dept that is crazy. The XP life-cycle was announced when it was released so they had to know this would happen. They should have switched to Vista.
Who the hell is going to run out and buy Vista just because XP left mainstream support?!?
Pointy Haired Bosses?
No sig for the moment.
As I said in another post, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Sony had b0rked it in some way, but I did try to strip out most of the cruft when I first got the machine.
Define "aren't properly configured"?
If you mean "aren't on the appropriate MS whitelist with no way to override or set up your own whitelist, then sure, it's badly configured. After the first time I should be able to add an exception, even if it requires digging through a few menus. You can't without just disabling UAC.
No, but I'd rather it didn't stop me doing things in situations where I know what I'm doing. It's my computer, not microsoft's.
Sorry, but that prompt is the least of the annoyances. I don't give a crap about that prompt or the user escalation, I care about actually having the ability to control the machine without being overruled with no way to change it short of disabling the whole of the new security subsystem.
Hey, I don't think Vista is "a failure" (except perhaps when compared against expected revenue), or teh w0rst OS evar! or anything like that, it just has some annoying features.
What is it with all the people on this site that jump on me for my legitimate problems with this OS?
I already said I'm surprised that it's the non-geeks that seem to have the worst reaction to it and I don't think it's all that bad.
"... has support for all the devices I wish to use..."
You obviously don't use pro audio apps then. Vista doesn't support DirectSound API or WDM properly (one is *completely gone*, in fact, with a big 'too bad, so sad from MS; see this link or this one).
The APIs that are still there from pre-Vista are all in emulation, not 'native' so pro audio interfaces in general perform like crap. I've seen the gorey details on more than one musician friend's laptop. Even after disabling all non-essential services on my friend's new dual-core laptop that is easily 3x as fast as my home XP studio PC, it can't even handle a few in-RAM tracks in Sony ACID without skips and dropouts.
Part of the responsibility also lands in the lap of manufacturers, but a musician really shouldn't have to throw out their $300+ audio interface because MS couldn't be bothered to properly maintain established, official APIs in a new OS release.
The problem is that Oracle couldn't redistribute the fix even if they paid for it to be developed, the end users would have to pay per patch and the rates are scary expensive. The DST patch was available for Win2k but it cost several times what it did for us to automate the workaround and verify the results.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
windows media player 12?
Yes sir, you are running windows xp, and you will not have access to windows media player 13. Please, wait right here while I go get a violin...
any future bugs found in the platform will not be fixed unless customers pay
What the hell, man? People have been paying for XP more readily than Vista until they forcefully yanked it out of the market!! And they would have continued paying for it!
/* No Comment */
"Windows XP accounts for about 63 percent of all Internet-connected computers, according to March 2009 statistics from Hitslink, while Windows Vista makes up about 24 percent."
I wonder if that counts downgrades? Either way, it's interesting, soon the majority of users will be using an unsupported operating system. And if Vista adoption is so low, when it's impossible to get XP on anything that isn't a netbook, also, this means that Microsoft won't be officially supporting an operating system suitable for a netbook anymore, and that seems like a pretty risky move right now, unless they're planning to release Windows 7 on April 14 ... and it really will run well on a netbook.
My 2 cents on netbooks:
The way people using computers is changing, and the growing popularity of netbooks is just the tip of the iceberg, I see a lot of people from my generation who only use computers as a platform to launch a browser and connect to the internet, and for that kind of computing, not only is an intel atom more than sufficient power-wise, but it really doesn't matter what OS you run the browser on top of. So I think you'll see a big divide in the market, with high-powered laptops and desktops still being available, but an increasingly large percentage of low-cost, light weight, and comparitively underpowered laptops in non-professional/business computer sales. And this is the one place that linux really has a shot at ending up in the hands of the mainstream consumer, becuase when all your applications are on the web, it doesn;t matter anymore what you're operating system is to the end user, and I think linux provides a lot of potentially desirable qualities to an OEM (although there are downsides as well) and particularly so since Apple apparently has no interest in the market, and it looks like Microsoft isn't giving it the attention it needs, either.
This is the health care industry - much like the military we don't go with OSes that are as new as Vista. Many of our industry specific apps have not been properly tested on Vista, and we even have a webapp still in use that is not supported under IE7.
Junctions = the old paths, like the Application Data directory
Unless they completely reworked junctions into something completely different on Vista, that's incorrect. Junctions are basically soft symlinks.
Hard Links and Junctions
NTP just provides the time in UMT (GMT). It's up to the local machine to translate that into local time using the relevant offsets for geography and daylight savings time (I think).
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
IIRC the 360 is managing to keep second place in the current console generation but only by being sold at an extreme knockdown price (they are selling it cheaper than the wii!).
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Extended support != unsupported.
MS will still be releasing security updates free and bugfixes and support calls will still be availible to those prepared to pay for them.
And at this stage in XPs lifecycle the chances of a non-security bug being critical are pretty low.
What is far more significant is that (unless MS give another stay of execution) it is soon going to get a lot harder for home users and small buisnesses to get XP as OEM supplied downgrade media dissapears (afaict you will still be able to downgrade using existing media but unless you have vlk media or OEM media of the right brand this will mean a telephone activation for every machine).
Also if microsofts past behaviour is indicative of the future OEM windows 7 will probablly only allow downgrading to vista. This will basically force anyone who wants new XP machines to go the volume license route.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
THAT doesn't fix the DST problem.
I had to integrate the DST Patch into my RIS image because MS didn't include it in SP3. Not having the DST patch integrated played havoc with OUTLOOK Calendars.
With DST, I only partially blame Microsoft. Yes, DST programming should have been more flexible. However, the real blame for DST issues lies with the morons running our country.
This is why our country is going to the crapper in a racecar. Some special interest group gets to screw over everyone else.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
I thought that NTP servers gave you the UTC time and it was up to the OS to determine your relative time from your locale settings.
If your state government decides to change DST then you will find that your clock changes by an hour a week early/late on your unsupported XP system.
Unicode in Slashdot
You know people bashed the hell out of WinME as well but I had a P3 Dell that ran like a champ. It probably did help Dell supported the hardware drivers really well and I never bothered to make modifications to the box until way later and kept a limited amount of software installed on it. I can't understand why people hate WinME either....
Of course I know that WinME was a piece of junk where all I had to do was step outside of the strictly supported hardware and software configuration delivered by Dell and I would have issues. Just because I was extremely careful with one box doesn't mean WinME didn't deserve the roasting it got where Vista is in the same boat.
The fact that it is 12-20% slower than Server 2008 on the exact same hardware.
No thanks, I don't really feel like paying the 12-20% MAFIAA tax.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
You are suggesting that XP doesn't have any bugs in it? Surely you jest. Have you ever tried setting up multiple keyboard layouts? Yeah, it will randomly switch to another layout while you are doing your work, and switching back to the other layout does absolutely nothing. The only workaround is to restart the computer.
Oh but wait, that's not a bug, that's just a preference. Forgive me for preferring that it work correctly.
NTP reports UTC. You need to know your timezone to convert to local time. Furthermore proper timezone support depends on more than the present time, it also requires knowing how past times map between local and UTC, to make sense of things like timestamps, etc. And then multiply this for all the different locations you support and you see that this is not an entirely trivial thing to support.
Source for those numbers if you please.
they've shipped a near-infinite number of Windows XP licenses
actually, it's far closer to near-zero than near-infinite. One could argue that MS hasn't really sold many at all and consider it a failure.
As you know, it's worse than you say.
The Slashdot story is excessively pro-Microsoft, in my opinion. Quoting the Slashdot story: "... over seven years after the OS originally shipped..." That gives a much more positive impression than is warranted, in my opinion.
Windows XP had very serious problems until the release of Service Pack 2. So Windows XP release version is only 4 1/2 years old.
Service Pack 3 fixed many, many, many bugs that Microsoft itself called "critical". So the final, fully usable version of Windows XP has been available less than a year. A year of good use is not much in return for 6 years of numerous cases of grief and hassles and huge maintenance expense.
Vista was an attempt to get people to abandon Windows XP. Vista was first released about two years ago.
So, one version of the Windows product, Windows XP, was not fully finished until more than a year after the next version, Windows Vista, was first sold, although Windows Vista was so unfinished that it was rejected in the marketplace.
When the version of Windows called Windows 7 is released, many people will be buying their third version of the Windows OS in only two years, even though one of the versions, Vista, was never finished.
That's product churning.
Sooner or later the average buyer will realize that they don't need Microsoft's pushy "upgrades", which all must use much more CPU power, because Microsoft's real customers, the big computer hardware manufacturers, want everyone to buy new hardware. Microsoft is trying to continue creating an artificial market, and the average buyer is becoming more aware of that.
as much as I disagree with your opinion on this matter...your signature did make me chuckle.
Lot's of love,
AC
"I like Windows 7. I run them both. 7 is better in every way (except media playing. Beta has bugs) I'm liking 7's ui and library features. Its performance is better than vista - by Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) on Wednesday April 08, @08:44AM (#27501799)
Are you aware of these 2 issues, that affect BOTH efficiency & security, on VISTA &/or Windows 7 (vs. older MS Windows NT-based OS, such as 2000/XP/Server 2003)?
http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/25/feedback-and-engineering-windows-7.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage
Microsoft is slipping man, period, by trying to sell people something they do NOT want basically - I mean, do you think people WANT "DRM" built into their OS'?
I don't...
E.G.-> Do you think people want an OS that is crippled in these 2 capacities??
----
1.) HOSTS files no longer being able to use the more efficient-on-disk 0 based blocking IP address?
or
2.) The removal of the PORT FILTERING GUI front-end that all Windows NT-based OS (2000/XP/Server 2003) have (which aids "layered security")??
----
Fact is - I've brought these 2 points in regards to VISTA being "messed up on them", to MS' attention, there in the URL above - &, I have YET to receive a SOLID & LOGICAL TECHNICAL ANSWER as to why this was done to VISTA & yes, Windows 7 as well!
(Mainly because those are 2 things that affect layered security, and yes, efficiency (by "aiding bloat" in the HOSTS file, in it only being able to use 0.0.0.0 or worse yet, the default 127.0.0.1 loopback adapter address, as a valid blocking IP address in a HOSTS file, & neither is as efficient on disk as is 0))...
Doing more with less is GOOD ENGINEERING, don't you agree?
Apparently, MS does not lately @ least...
I.E.-> In the case of the HOSTS file issues, this definitely IS the case here!
I.E. #2 -> On PORT FILTERING removal? That's just plain-jane dead-up dumb to remove, because it functions @ another layer of the IP stack (vs. software firewalls &/or IP Security Policies, & thus, is just like door handle locks (port filter), deadbolt locks (software firewalls), & chain locks (IP Security Policies) in terms of layered security)!
APK
P.S.=> Whoever heads up marketing @ MS has been making a HUGE blunder, & on a very simple principal imo @ least: You cannot sell folks something they do NOT want, & then try to shove it down their throats...
AND, certainly not a something that has removed features customers valued over time (such as OpenGL, though this can be worked around, most folks are NOT willing to put up w/ it & the time + tricks required to 'hack them back in' or, perform other types of work-arounds in order to do so)... apk
Usually companies make money producing product prospects actually WANT. They don't generally abuse a monopoly to force customers to buy new product they despise.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
It includes code licensed from third parties that Microsoft may not have the right to open
Id Software worked around a proprietary third-party sound driver in Doom by just not including it in the source release. The source port community whipped up several replacements.
That's ridiculous! Jim Cramer's boss would never do that.
If you have ever tried to get Microsoft to even ACKNOWLEDGE a bug in one of their products, you'll know you pretty much have to pay up front. Then you might get an acknowledgment. You'll most likely get someone in India telling you its not a bug even though they have no idea WTF they are talking about.
At best, this is just Microsoft finally telling the truth. More likely it just means they really aren't going to fix shit, ever, unless you throw half of the Queens worth at them.
Seems funny however that they just extended the XP downgrade program and are ending actual support at the same time.
I think MS is owned by Apple actually.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
> For example, when you call in to Microsoft to activate a copy of Windows XP by telephone, you
> usually just reach an automated system with voice recognition capabilities, vs. a live human.
Doesn't mean anything. You don't get a human with Vista either. I did it a month ago and got the same robot attendant.
Democrat delenda est
Vista is slow to boot.
I'm with you on that one. I have a machine that is "vista capable" that I decided to install XP on instead. Vista boot time: 26-28 seconds, with all extra apps stripped out of it. XP boot time: 10-12 seconds... with antivirus and 4 or 5 other startup apps I prefer to always have running.
And Vista is a pain if you want to set up a scheduled task to run on all accounts at startup if it's not specifically designed for Vista. It's such a pain to actually try to do anything with Vista, beyond browse the internet, play games, and edit documents. What's the point of a fancy OS if you can't do anything fancy with it?
Before commenting on the Bible, please read it first
I would be happy if they just fixed the old bugs.
Seriously, they've shipped a near-infinite number of Windows XP licenses, and there are millions and millions of users exercising the code, so really, what is left to "debug"? But let's be clear - you may want Windows XP to function differently, but that is not a bug, that's a preference. By now, Windows XP is a tested code base, and it has value...
Touché. I would note that this is also true of George Bush: He was the President for millions and millions of Americans for eight years, and so, really, what's left to "debug"? I may have wanted him to act differently, but that's not a problem with Bush, it's my preference. By now, George Bush is a tested President, and he has value.
How about this one: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/912650
Incredibly annoying, and it doesn't just affect tooltips. Switching windows (alt+tabbing, clicking a program on the task bar, or just clicking on a program window) will often bring the wrong window to the front, etc. Their resolutions are very disruptive as well.
I dont know if you're a troll or not, but...
I think we can ALL agree that Microsoft is slipping.
DRM is a deal breaker... but so is not having applications on linux.
I'm serious when i say that the climate is ripe for a change. It really is, but we work in a world that uses applications and if those applications are not available elsewhere, we have to eat the shit that comes with our meal.
And frankly the businesses that make windows applications, like the controlled environment MS creates. Linux is too scatterbrained, too forked and these companies know MS will try to DRM lock everything so... to them thats a win.
You have to be pretty retarded if administering something as simple as a windows box is confusing to you. I hope you're earning something being a whore for linux, otherwise you're just a stupid whore...
This is as much about pushing a reliable 64-bit Windows platform as it is about Redmond's revenue streams.
Big picture, Vista x64, and the upcoming Windows 7 x64, are the platforms MS wants developers developing for. The 64-bit Windows revolution isn't going to happen with XP hanging around in the background. XP x64 was terrible.
I've personally been running Vista x64 for some time and have had no problems. We all know the benefits, especially with CrossFire and SLI setups taking up as much as a GB of the memory address space of 32-bit operating systems. This seems like something the Slashdot crowd would generally be in favor of.
Vista 64 and Windows 7 64 are the future of the Microsoft platform. With Microsoft controlling 87% of the desktop OS market share, the sooner it happens, the better off we are.
Who boots anymore? With sleep/suspend/hibernate, "booting" is so 1997.
People who use a PC containing hardware whose drivers have unresolved issues with ACPI have to boot, or they'll come back to a machine with no video, no sound, or something else that makes the PC unusable. People who want to use applications or device drivers for more than one operating system have to boot if the programs fail to run in a virtual machine or if the machine is a low-cost subnotebook PC without enough slots for enough RAM to support efficient virtualization.
So you've installed some wonky ext2 driver and it's Vista's fault when it doesn't load right on boot? :)
Complain to the driver author instead
The kernel of Windows Vista 64-bit Edition requires all kernel-mode drivers to be digitally signed with a valid certificate chain up to Microsoft Corporation. It won't load unsigned drivers unless you put the operating system into "Test Mode", which displays "Test Mode" banners at all four corners of the screen. This could lead to driver authors stopping updates to the driver once the signing certificate expires after a year. Or does UMDF support file systems now?
I would imagine that different components that run on XP will recieve updates so long as they are XP compatible - MS will contiune IE/WMP updates so long as they don't have to go out of the way to support XP.
I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
There should be a way for me, as administrator and owner, to tell it to allow things to start that aren't signed by MS.
You could buy an Authenticode certificate and sign it yourself ;-)
windows server?
seriously what can you run on that?
apache, microsoft's extortionately expensive SQL? seriously.
PHP, mod_python, and MySQL work with Apache for Windows. Microsoft SQL Server Express is useful for some small businesses, and it isn't extortionately expensive.
So we know that we can't get non-security patches for XP after next week... In the last year or so, what types of patches has MS released that AREN'T security patches? The only example I've seen on this thread were the change in daylight savings time. Can someone give me a few other examples from the last year or so of XP updates that we wouldn't be able to get today?
Microsoft had this automated system from day one with XP.
ere at my workplace (a hospital) we just rolled out Windows XP this past September. We dumped Win2k & Novell Netware for XP and Active Directory. We won't be upgrading for a long time yet.
I made my father's office dump Novell for AD... he won't forgive me easily (sadly, I'm only half joking). Netware was STABLE (of course, you couldn't put half the stuff they wanted to put on top of it). And HP support was crap.
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
You installed the wrong driver. I have one installed (IIRC it's the one from fs-driver.org) and it never gets blocked at startup. And I've left UAC enabled, too.
benchmarking software. Brilliant strategy, cause a big stir by using crazy controversial benchmarks and in turn pimp out their own software. Located in Florida, go figure.
"When you see a unixer brainwashed beyond saving, kick him out of the door." - Xah Lee
Goddamn trolls like you have turned this site to shit.
Please, go away and don't come back troll.
Fuck off.
Waaaaaaa!
> At this stage in XPs life, I highly doubt any end user or consuming business
> will actually come across any non-security related bug that they need fixing
I could name a couple, if I thought Microsoft were listening and might consider fixing them.
But the reality is, unless you're one of Microsoft's BIG customers (the ones who have Redmond's ear because they spend 8+ figures a year on software) this is largely irrelevant. For the rest of us, Microsoft has *never* provided meaningful bug-fix support. We consider ourselves fortunate if they get security updates out within a month after the vulnerability is made public.
There *have* been some worthwhile fixes put out, but most of them were pretty early in the XP lifecycle. Since SP2 came out, the only meaningful update I can think of that was about more than just a security fix, is IE7.
Speaking of that, as a web developer, I *REALLY* hope IE8 makes the cut and goes out via Windows Update to XP users. Because I categorically refuse to continue supporting IE7 until everyone finally upgrades from Windows XP, probably a year or more after Windows 7 SP2 finally comes out.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
"Yes, eventually I found out it could be disabled. I switched it off and some of the annoyances went away. Great, I have to switch off the new security system to get anything much done."
ONE click, my friend. Or just hit ENTER, I know it entails pulling your hand out of the cheetoz-bag by for christ's, computers are all about sacrifice.
Except when they can get away with it?
Seriously, we are in the middle of a financial crisis based largely on companies making money producing products NO ONE wanted.
"All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
"How many computers is this product installed on?"
Uhh...
;-)
2.5 * $vista_market_share
> Last time it was 19 updates. Came out somewhere around 32MB. I have a 24Mb connection, it took a long, long time to download them. It then sat and took the rest of the hour applying them, shutting down, applying some more during shutdown, booting and applying more during startup. And then it found more. It's slow and a bit of a shambles.
It was probably creating a system restore point, which on Vista may mean anything up to creating a shadow copy of every file on your system so that you can (at your option) revert to precisely the configuration you had before applying the updates, should there be any problem. Does your debian update do that as well?
I know this is almost certainly offtopic, but I've been wondering why the EU doesn't change its approach to dealing with Microsoft. Rather than the constant ballbusting and fines for antitrust, why don't the Europeans form a consortium to compete with Microsoft? You know, like they did with Boeing via Airbus?
I could see this being a much more effective means of breaking the Microsoft monopoly by introducing real market competition.
Just thought I would toss that grenade out there...
Support? Microsoft? WHAT support?
Where a Microsoft mailing list like I find on FOSS projects, where the developers will actually respond and actually FIX bugs found and make actual improvements to the product?
Message boards? I've seen what Microsoft offers -- they suck donkey balls.
As for security fixes, most are fixed long long after the exploit is in the wild, and the only real way to get Microsoft to respond to a security problem is to actually release the exploit publicly, as they don't give a rats *** to responding to issues brought to them by researchers who try to do the right thing and warn before releasing.
So, basically, nothing changes.
Hell, I work in a corporate environment where we support Microsoft, Apple, and GNU/Linux stuff (and IBM AIX). We don't even bother calling or contacting Microsoft. We've long since banned their clueless rep from coming to our offices, as his sole reason for being wasn't to support us, but to sell to us.
Why on Earth would you want WGA updates?
"I think we can ALL agree that Microsoft is slipping." - by Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) on Wednesday April 08, @02:04PM (#27506559)
You bet, & especially on Port Filtering, and HOSTS files' efficiency in VISTA &/or Windows 7...
----
1.) Port filtering functions perfectly operating simultaneously alongside software firewalls, & IP Security Policies (all 3 run FINE together, even w/ a NAT true stateful packet inspecting "firewalling" router, for example) &, in a layered security manner, just like door handle locks (firewall), deadbolt locks (port filters), & chain locks (IP Security policies) do... (I.E.-> Take 1 of those 3 layers down (which is what many malware seek to do, right away)? The others are STILL IN THE WAY, since they all operate via diff. drivers on DIFF. LEVELS of the IP stack...!)
AND
2.) The thing with HOSTS files involves EFFICIENCY more than security though!
See - in removing (after a 12/2009 Patch Tuesday update) 0 as a valid blocking IP address (vs. the larger & slower 0.0.0.0, & worse still the default 127.0.0.1 loopback adapter address)? MS made a blunder on disk, since the filemass is now larger & WILL be slower to read thru, as well as not being able to 'pack' as many entries into a tinier filespace to read them up from.
----
MS has made a mistake, imo, on BOTH of those issues!
(AND, so far @ least? WELL - I put this up for MS' personnel to look over & answer me back WHY it was done... no answers & I think I know why (they know they have no solid answer to either one is why, & it is a mistake on THEIR end - I was just 'warning them' & hope that they fix it here -> http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/25/feedback-and-engineering-windows-7.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage )).
APK
P.S.=>
"I dont know if you're a troll or not" - by Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) on Wednesday April 08, @02:04PM (#27506559)
No, I'm NOT out to "troll you", that's not my intent: I just wondered IF you had any idea about VISTA + Windows 7, on HOSTS files AND, also the fact that PORT FILTERING's GUI front is gone in VISTA &/or Windows 7 as well... apk
I don't understand Microsoft. MS has almost no development costs with XP anymore except what's needed to patch it and there is still a major demand for it. That makes it a cash cow. Mostly all they need to do with it is package it, ship it and let it roll the $$$$$$$ in for them. By allowing vendors to put it on computers, they don't really even have packing and shipping costs either which means even less overhead.
*It's not what you can do for the Dark Side but what the Dark Side can do for you!*
they need a trun off update that also lets you get m$ downloads that need WGA to download.
also if would suck big time if you had to pay a support fee just to get a WGA hardware lock out reset.
We have a lot of people still balking over the switch from GroupWise to Exchange Server. There were some nice features of GroupWise that Exchange does not support.
That's if microshit even bothers to patch, lately windaids update just ship tools to clean up the infestation.
I think we need regulation to make all Closed source software to Open source software if the vendor decides to end its support.
I'd like to buy homeland for our 10 million people. http://twitter.com/mahadiga
Guess what. Linux developers actually WRITE most of the drivers for Linux THEMSELVES with very little help from hardware manufacturers, for FREE! In contrast, it seems like MS couldn't even be bothered to make an effort to work with hardware manufacturers in order to get stable drivers out in a reasonable time for Vista users.
People are always bashing Vista at every opportunity, but it's never caused me any problems,
then later
Now XP, ... had at least as many bugs as Vista does
So which is, Vista is great and never caused you problems, or it has loads of bugs just like XP??
I hope this new version of Windows isn't again designed to force instant hardware obsolescence. I become disturbed when an O/S developer attempts to force me to buy new systems when the primary enhancement the O/S offers - to anybody with a modicum of security awareness and technical expertise - is a prettier GUI.
After all, I wouldn't buy paint that requires me to build a new house around it.
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
I always have to laugh when people discuss the "poor" boot time Vista has comapred to XP. Let's say it takes 20 seconds more to boot, and assume (incorrectly in my experience) that XP is fully ready to go after its 10-12 second boot time. You lose 20 seconds a day. Wow.
I've seen people argue about this by adding it up over a whole year and stating that "I lose this much time a year". Big whoop. Do something useful during those 20 seconds rather than staring at the screen.
You can advertise in this sig from as little as £99.99 a month!
It has bugs, of course. My implication was that it doesn't have noticeably more than any other operating system I've ever used (including Linux) and that none of the bugs I've found have been very significant. If I close Left4Dead and I get a video display error messsage that wouldn't appear on XP, I can live with it.
Bugs != serious problems in every instance. A small bug can often be ignored, bypassed or simply fixed with a little intelligence and computing experience. But yes, you're right, I shoudl have qualified "problems" with the adjective "serious".
Here, you've earned yourself a cookie for spotting my mistake. Enjoy.
You can advertise in this sig from as little as £99.99 a month!
"ONE click, my friend. Or just hit ENTER, I know it entails pulling your hand out of the cheetoz-bag by for christ's, computers are all about sacrifice."
One click to do what?
I'm not talking about the FUCK-DAMNED box to elevate permissions. For the last FUCKING time. I don't care about that box.
Read my comments before replying next time. This is about Vista stopping the running of unsigned binaries at startup, amongst other things.
"It was probably creating a system restore point,"
No, it wasn't.
It tells you when it does that. Most of the time it just sits there doing fuck-all for a few minutes before it even downloads the updates, and pauses between each, and downloads them at a snail's pace. And even when it has them, it's three stage "Now I'm installing, now you must reboot so I can do more during shutdown and more again during startup" is painfully slow.
Does debian do an auto system restore? No, if I wanted that I could set it up. In this case windows is being far, far slower even without it, at every stage.
"Do something else"? Almost tripling the time it takes for my machine to boot up makes a big difference in use. 10-12 seconds boot time is so close to the time it takes to turn on the TV, that my computer becomes like an appliance. I turn it on, open a document, print it, and turn it off. It feels just like turning on the TV, setting the DVR to record something, and turning it off.
Do you really think a consumer in this day and age would settle for their TV taking almost half a minute to "boot up" in order for them to set their DVR to record a show before they leave for work?
Seconds matter to most people, and if my computer behaves like an appliance rather than a slow booting PC, I can change my habits of use to use less power, so the boot time definitely makes a difference.
Before commenting on the Bible, please read it first
"Do something else"?
Yes, most people boot once or twice a day and don't constantly reboot.
Almost tripling the time it takes for my machine to boot up makes a big difference in use. 10-12 seconds boot time is so close to the time it takes to turn on the TV
XP never booted to a usable state after 10 seconds for me, nor for anyone I've ever known, nor for any of the dozens of computers I've used at my place of work. Nice that yours does though. And how is 10-12 seconds so much more like a TV than 30 seconds? My TV comes on in about a second. XP is ten times slower at best if we believe the random figure quoted here.
that my computer becomes like an appliance. I turn it on, open a document, print it, and turn it off. It feels just like turning on the TV, setting the DVR to record something, and turning it off.
Suspend is your friend. If you want rapid on/off* transitions then don't switch it completely off. Hibernate, or use the low power suspend mode. *Yes I'm aware that "suspend" is not "off". Close enough for me.
Do you really think a consumer in this day and age would settle for their TV taking almost half a minute to "boot up" in order for them to set their DVR to record a show before they leave for work?
Very good point, if it weren't for the fact that A TV and a computer are completely different, and comparing startup times for them is like comparing an aeroplane with a car.
Seconds matter to most people, and if my computer behaves like an appliance rather than a slow booting PC, I can change my habits of use to use less power, so the boot time definitely makes a difference.
Yes it makes a difference, but not to the degree that the hyperbole regarding boot times would indicate. If the most severe criticism of Vista turns out to be boot times then I think the whole Vista/XP debate has been blown out of all proportion.
You can advertise in this sig from as little as £99.99 a month!
Oh and here is a benchmark test performed by Lifehacker showing Vista as being faster to reach the desktop from a boot menu than XP, and it being faster from boot to the login prompt. Not conclusive by any means, but perhaps we can trade meaningless examples for a few hours? Your turn, find a site slating Vista for it's boot times, and I'll come back with one praising Vista.
It'll be fun...
You can advertise in this sig from as little as £99.99 a month!
PEOPLE like YOU give linux a BAD name because you SOUND like an IDIOT and don't make COMPELLING arguments, just spit TIRED, NON-FACTUAL rhetoric that has very LITTLE to do with the SUBJECT at hand.
Similes are like metaphors
Who boots anymore? With sleep/suspend/hibernate, "booting" is so 1997.
Unless Vista decides to spontaniously break its ability to suspend and hibernate, like it did on my laptop. If the laptop battery gets low, half the time instead of hibernating it blue-screens. Same with sleeping.
Then again my Fedora 9 box likes to kernel panic in the nvidia driver after recovering from a hibernate, so that's not really better.
The law bestows a monopoly on copyrighted works to their creator/assignee in order to promote the production of societaly valuable knowledge.
It does not seems unreasonable to me that along with this power should come some responsibility.
We already have some semblance of this type of system (theoretically) with things like fair use provisions, copyright expiry, format shifting, and so on.
While forcing source code availability may not be appropriate (isn't the source for xp available already in any case?), it may be useful to examine the balance of power between producers and consumers of copyrighted materials and "level the playing field" a wee bit.
Perhaps something along the lines of forcing a company to enforce a market price for their copyrighted work by acting as a buyer of last resort could be very interesting.
on a side note
I believe when v1 reccomended that "they open up the source" he may have meant something different from making xp "Open Source". In the past "open source" was more associated with the GNU gpl then it is today. That is why the term FLOSS (free/libre open source software) came into use. To distinguish "open" in the freedom sense from "open" in the MS "shared source" sense.
Switching to Linux is not hard.Just different.
I have tried for years to tell people the virtues
of Linux to no avail. "PEOPLE HATE CHANGE"
I recently found a workaround to get people to
try Linux. When working on a Windows box that has
a virus. I do a clean reinstall, set up Windows
and Linux to dual boot. Tell them if they do not
want to get a virus, to boot into Windows and use
it for anything that makes them feel warm and fuzzy
BUT DO NOT USE IT TO GET ONLINE! Boot into Linux,
they already know how to use Firefox. It works.
Try this strategy on your Windows friends. It
works.