Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Windows Vista Service Pack 2 Released

Posted by Soulskill on from the how-much-beta-does-one-really-need dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft has finally released the final build of Service Pack 2 for Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008. 'There are a few significant additions that are included in SP2: Windows Search 4.0, Bluetooth 2.1 Feature Pack, the ability to record data on to Blu-Ray media natively in Vista, Windows Connect Now (WCN) is now in the Wi-Fi Configuration, and exFAT file system supports UTC timestamps. The service pack contains about 800 hotfixes.' A list of other notable changes is available on TechNet. SP2 isn't included in Automatic Update yet, but it will be 'during the coming months.'"

48 of 334 comments (clear)

  1. Like Digging Through People's Trash by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I like some of these fixes on this spreadsheet:
    • The Fc.exe command does not work correctly in Windows Vista or in Windows Server 2008 when the command compares files that differ at every 128th byte of a character string
    • The Fc.exe command does not work correctly in Windows Vista or in Windows Server 2008 when the two files that you are comparing have the TAB or SPACE character around the 128th byte in a character string

    I can almost imagine the developer sitting at his desk getting an e-mail from their issue management system that there's a problem with Fc.exe (file compare) ... only to have him realize that his for loop that iterates over the buffer that reads the files should have the while conditions of <= 128 and not simply < 128!

    This is forgivable, I code some pretty stupid errors sometimes.

    What isn't forgivable is that one of the columns on this bug spreadsheet is "Publicly Available" which implies to me that there is a list I'm not seeing of fixed bugs which would be annoying and probably even non-fixed bugs they purposefully suppress from public knowledge which is alarming!

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Like Digging Through People's Trash by ledow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "What isn't forgivable is that one of the columns on this bug spreadsheet is "Publicly Available" which implies to me that there is a list I'm not seeing of fixed bugs which would be annoying and probably even non-fixed bugs they purposefully suppress from public knowledge which is alarming!"

      Hello. Closed source software. I damn well *expect* there to be thousands, if not more, bugs that are not and will never be fixed in Windows until someone "finds" them and posts about them publically, security related or not. I doubt even the militarised versions of Windows have *everything* they know about fixed - it's easier to just say "don't do this" or not include a certain tool/utility/feature than it is to fix it and document it.

      Why on Earth would you ever find this alarming, or unforgivable? It's the whole point of closed-source software, so that you *never* know what's going on with the code and (hopefully) never see it.

    2. Re:Like Digging Through People's Trash by D-Cypell · · Score: 5, Funny

      Much to my amusement, a colleague of mine once suggested that the conversion from polytheism to monotheism was the result of an off-by-one error :)

    3. Re:Like Digging Through People's Trash by caffeinemessiah · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Expect a whole bunch more to be added to that great spreadsheet in the sky. Then again, I find it pretty funny that DRM, which is quite likely to introduce bug and crippling functionality, is packaged as an "experience update". From TFA (bold mine):

      Operating system experience updates

      * SP2 improves Windows Media Center (WMC) in the area of content protection for TV.

      --
      An old-timer with old-timey ideas.
    4. Re:Like Digging Through People's Trash by Unoriginal_Nickname · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's the whole point of closed-source software, so that you *never* know what's going on with the code and (hopefully) never see it.

      The industry rule of thumb for a software developer is about 10 lines of code per hour, on average, over the lifetime of the project. According to Microsoft, Windows XP has about 40 million SLOC.

      Without business staff, PMs and SDETs, that's 4 million man-hours. That's 1923 full time man-years. Assuming Microsoft pays their SDEs $80,000 on average, those 40 million lines of code cost them $153,840,000.

      Why can't the point of closed-source be to put food on the table? If all software is free, what are software developers going to do for a living? Buy an air nailer and become a roofer?

    5. Re:Like Digging Through People's Trash by damien_kane · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So Atheism is the result of a divide by zero error? The result as done by hand makes sense: DNE, "Does Not Exist"

      No, athiests are just like monotheists; they just believe in one less god.

    6. Re:Like Digging Through People's Trash by citylivin · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Why can't the point of closed-source be to put food on the table? If all software is free, what are software developers going to do for a living? Buy an air nailer and become a roofer?"

      You do realize that most software developers work for companies designing custom solutions right? Most software developers do not work on for profit apps, but rather build apps, or tools, to enhance a companies business processes and generate money or sales. The point here is that the software is not, by itself, earning most companies revenue. Even if you are buying commercial software, more often than not you are paying for updates and support. If all software was open source, then everyone could use the tools however they see fit. Some would require support, and some would not. The major positive side effect though is that some, a very small percentage to be sure, but some users would themselves be developers and be able to contribute code as well. Then everyone has a better tool in the end.

      Secondly, I have given 20-40 dollars to some open source projects that have saved me hundreds of hours of time (filezilla and vnc come to mind). Sure that may not put food on the table for more than a few days, but i would submit that you are missing the point of open source software if you are focusing on "but how do i get mine!" instead of "how do i build better tools". Thats what software development, imho as an end user (arent we all?), should be about.

      --
      As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
    7. Re:Like Digging Through People's Trash by ArcCoyote · · Score: 4, Informative

      Look before you FUD. I know WMC-fu, have contributed to DVRMSToolbox, and follow WMC stuff pretty closely.

      The content protection thing actually IS an improvement. It's not more DRM, it's less, or rather, it fixes what's there. While it doesn't remove DRM completely, it does fix where WMC would copy protect when CGMS-A flags (Macrovision analog output protection, like for cable PPV) are accidentally encoded into DTV signals. That buggy behavior, on the part of Microsoft and the broadcasters, was why American Gladiators got flagged as protected months ago. There was a big stink about it, although I can't really understand why anyone would care about "pituitary retards banging their F#@$ing skulls together and congratulating YOU on living in the land of freedom!"

      I believe legacy code for the broadcast flag was also removed, so ATSC/ClearQAM can't possibly be set as protected now.

      Unrelated, but a DRM relaxation is coming for CableCARD, in that non-premium digital cable will no longer be protected. HOWEVER:
        - This is a Windows 7 thing, and requires a firmware update to the tuner, an installed copy of Duke Nukem Forever, and who knows what else?
        - It's totally up to the cableco to decide what is and isn't "premium", so chances are stuff like Discovery HD/SciFi HD/ESPN HD will stay locked down. Only the stuff that is already on ClearQAM will be opened up.

      Not that CableCARD was ever worthwhile. For what you can and can't do with it, you might as well rent a DVR from the cableco if you really need that much TV.

  2. The best service pack for Vista by Dystopian+Rebel · · Score: 4, Funny

    is Windows 7 RC1.

    --
    Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
  3. So close to SP3? by hansamurai · · Score: 4, Funny

    Isn't that coming out in October?

    --
    Reviewing just the first hour of video games.
  4. Finally, I can torrent from windows by Nefron · · Score: 5, Informative

    SP2 removes the limit of 10 half open outbound TCP connections. By default, SP2 has no limit on the number of half open outbound TCP connections.

    I can't believe MS finally (almost) admitted they made a mistake. It may have taken almost as long, in technological terms, as it took the Catholic Church to admit it's mistakes with Galileo, but at least it's a step in the right direction.

    1. Re:Finally, I can torrent from windows by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 3, Funny

      as it took the Catholic Church to admit it's mistakes with Galileo

      Obviously someone watched Angels and Demons last night...

      --
      Summation 2
    2. Re:Finally, I can torrent from windows by clarkn0va · · Score: 3, Interesting

      After running a fire-breathing Celeron 2.5GHz as router/fileserver/torrentbox/freepbx for a few months, I finally bit the bullet and picked up a soekris net5501 and installed pfsense and freeswitch on it. My firewalling and phones run right at well under 20 watts.

      Of course that leaves me without fileserver or torrentbox, but an inexpensive alix or fit pc running freenas will fill that role nicely.

      --
      I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
    3. Re:Finally, I can torrent from windows by Ralish · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm not sure it was a mistake, at least not in Microsoft's view, once you consider the reason why it was implemented and the (probable) reason why they've removed the limitation.

      The reason why it was implemented according to various sources was to limit the damage of all those infected Windows machines spamming networks looking for new vulnerable hosts to infect, and also, slow down the rate at which they would cause bedlam. By enforcing such a limit, the aim was to impede an infected machines ability to propogate the infection; of course, we're primarily talking the nasty to catastrophic Windows worms we've seen in the past from gaping truck-sized security holes in critical system components.

      However, if you look at Vista, you'll note that contrary to what some people would like you to believe, the exploitability of the OS has gone down drastically versus XP, in particular, with regards to worms. This is of course due to several reasons: better OS security architecture, defence-in-depth (DEP/ASLR/etc...), properly enforced user permissions, the list goes on. Take the most recent Conficker worm as an example. Vista infections will almost certainly be a lot lower, for one, the exploit path that uses the MS08-067 vulnerability that forms its primary exploit vector can not be exploited anonymously on Vista and newer machines. The vulnerable code is still present unless patched, but it requires valid user credentials.

      At a guess, I'd say Microsoft came to the conclusion that the TCP limit was no longer necessary on Vista, as the improved security of the OS made the need for such connection limitations redundant. On the other hand, I'll be surprised if they ever remove it on XP, because no matter how much you patch it, it is fundamentally more insecure by its architecture than Vista. And if they don't remove the limitation on XP, I'd argue that's quite telling as to the motivation and reasoning behind removing it on Vista only.

  5. Windows Search 4.0?! by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Windows Search 4.0?! I HATE that POS. I've made a very deliberate attempt to NOT download this off of windows update, and now if I want to be up to date with my system, I HAVE to install it? Assholes.

    --

    "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    1. Re:Windows Search 4.0?! by GF678 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The thing is, you don't actually notice any real difference in how the indexing works with WS4, it's all back-end. It's suppose to be more efficient that the search/indexing code that came with Vista. I know it can be annoying when installed in XP, but since its predecessor was already integrated into Vista it should be an improvement.

      If you still hate it, disable the Indexing service.

    2. Re:Windows Search 4.0?! by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Informative

      The thing is, you don't actually notice any real difference in how the indexing works with WS4, it's all back-end.

      I can't speak to what it's like on Vista, but on XP two things are true:

      1. Indexing beats your system up, and the indexer is NOT good about letting you have it back.
      2. Search can find files with a filesystem search, OR it can find indexed files, but NOT both at once. So if you have a directory which is not yet indexed, you MUST leave your computer idle for a time if you want to be able to search it.
      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Windows Search 4.0?! by Sandbags · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I run Vista. index is enabled by default, but one of the first tweaks i did was switch it off, and Windows Search can be uninstalled/hidden.

      The indexer runs as a "background" serivce, which is a new type and is supposed only get CPU cycles when the machine is idle. unfortunately, this only works for the FIRST instance of a background process, and there are many cases where more than one can conflict under Vista, and then indexing begins chewing up resources. I had it kick off in the middle of playing games when the CPU was over 80%.

      WS4 will NOT be enabled on my machine. I keep the index service, pre-fetch, and several other services forcibally disabled on my machine. When I'm looking for something, it;s either an e-mail, which google or xobni instantly find for me without M$'s help, or it's a file I've properly store and can find myself in 3-4 clicks, or it;s a media item already indexed by iTunes... I don't search my personal machine for random crap, and anything I've ever needed to find on my own machine was ALREADY indexed by somethiung else.... It's a complete waste of resources, a waste of disk space for the index database, and every time you run a major patch, it fucking re-indexes, which for my 400+GB of stuff, takes as long as defragging.

      This is not to mention that is also searches inside files, and stores that data in a database in a predetermined location. I have data in docs on my system I'd just as much prefer NOT be in a non--encrypted central repository... contacts, SSNs, phone numbers, e-mail addresses, all go in that database that is VERY easy for a hacker to lift...

      If there's a way to uninstall WS4 after SP2, not just disabling it, I will.

      --
      There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
    4. Re:Windows Search 4.0?! by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 4, Informative

      I can't speak to what it's like on Vista, but on XP two things are true:

      Indexing beats your system up, and the indexer is NOT good about letting you have it back.

      I have Vista SP1 installed for playing games the hard drive was thrashing so much it was actually causing stutter in my fps games sometimes until I turned the indexer and the superfetch services off (I actually had to turn off superfetch twice as it ignored me the first time). I don't seem to remember ever having to deal with that sort of issue on XP, so my guess is vista is probably worse for this sort of thing. It would be nice if SP2 alleviated this, but I'm not holding my breath. Incidentally, I find it sort of funny and sort of annoying that there are so many Vista defenders out there, when my own experience is that, yeah it runs well enough, but only after turn off all the crap like this and the graphical effects, and even then it's a little slow for a brand new OS on a brand new computer. On the other hand, with any fresh linux install I also go around removing a lot of the default desktop packages that I don't want, only it seems a lot easier and more transparent in linux, but maybe I'm just used to the linux way and not the windows way.

      The funny thing is that Vista is slow on a fresh install, but the hard drive thrashing stops after you've used it for a day and it's populated superfetch and the index. It's fine to turn it off if you don't want to do indexed searches and don't want instant load on a few programs at the expense of a day of slowness, but it's also fine to leave them on, because they absolutely stop slowing anything down after that time.

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
  6. Wireless streaming by Saba · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I wonder if they have fixed the throttling bug where if you're streaming media over a wireless link, Vista throttles the connection down so much that it causes buffer underruns and severe clipping. I can't listen to FLACs in VLC unless I set buffering to at least 20 seconds.

  7. Re:Doesn't make a difference. by Kohenkatz · · Score: 5, Informative

    No one's using Vista anyway.

    What are you talking about?? Plenty of people are using Vista. My Website's stats show (For the month of May until today): Windows XP 57.5 % Windows Vista 22.5 %

  8. SP2 in A.U. by l3v1 · · Score: 3, Informative

    SP2 isn't included in Automatic Update yet

    Well, maybe it isn't, but my Vista Home Premium at work "complained" this morning it had a new update, which was SP2, I let it download and play with it, now it's installed and it seems to work ok up to now.

    --
    I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
    1. Re:SP2 in A.U. by Sandbags · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's being "phased" out. Your machine was one of the lucky 1% that got the update now. My home machine did not have it automatically, but doing a "check for updates now" populated it. I'm waiting a few days to install it however until 1)I get around to making another image backup and 2) other people try it and fail first...

      --
      There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
  9. Re:UTC Timestamp? by Thornburg · · Score: 4, Informative

    UTC is a time format, and specifies GMT.

    With UTC timestamps, two files written simultaneously in Germany and Canada would have the same timestamp. In Windows, without UTC timestamps, they would have two completely different timestamps, because they would (most likely) use local time.

    If you want a more informed source, try Wikipedia:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinated_Universal_Time

  10. Re:Secure... lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    I disagree.

    Just installed Vista SP2. Let me tell you it is the most secure and stab

    [NO CARRIER]

  11. Vista SP2 by mandark1967 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm hoping that SP2 doesn't break the functionality of my HTPC like Windows 7 did. I tried Windows 7 x64 RC on my HTPC for about a week or so, but my sound card (X-Fi Extreme Audio PCI-Express x1 slot) developed some major problems that caused MCE to crash and WMP to crash.

    I went back to Vista on it. I'm happy enough with the Media Center in Vista that I doubt I'll use Windows 7 on this box in the future, even though the UI of Windows 7 Media Center seems to be a little less "cluttered". My biggest complaint about Vista is the format of the recordings you make. I cannot seem to easily manipulate the resulting recordings very well at all, and I have to rely on MCEBuddy to convert the recorded shows to a format (H264) I can then use on other systems and OSes. ( I know, I know...DRM can suck my salty balls)

    From a usability standpoint though, Windows 7 seems superior to Vista in the installation process, as well as the Desktop UI. I am surprised that they don't just convert the installed Vista base to Windows 7 for the simplicity of support. (well maybe not "surprised". it "is" MS, afterall)

    --
    Sig Follows: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
  12. Re:Doesn't make a difference. by Saint+Fnordius · · Score: 3, Funny

    No one's using Vista anyway.

    No, but many are forced to tolerate it.

  13. Re:Doesn't make a difference. by DigitalPasture · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Do you believe everything you read or hear on the net and TV? I've been using Vista 64bit for about two years now. It's the best (released) OS I've seen out of MS so far. Very stable since SP1 was released. Initially, yes there were problems. Most of the issues I encountered were due to Nvidia drivers however, not problems caused by MS. I seem to remember having similar issues when XP was released many moons ago. I still maintain that the only real problem with Vista is the media and users that are too afraid to learn modern tech.

  14. Re:Doesn't make a difference. by flyingfsck · · Score: 4, Funny

    You should not check your own web site so often... ;)

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  15. Re:Secure... lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    That tells you how good SP2 is. Even when his computer DOES go down, the PC manages to save his message, append "[NO CARRIER]" to it, and post it as anonymous. Let's see Linux do that!

  16. Re:Secure... lol by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 5, Funny

    Windows Vista Service Pack 2 Released

    Will everybody please stop calling it Vista SP2? It's called Windows 7 for fuck's sake!

  17. Hello. Open source software, too. by Animaether · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "I damn well *expect* there to be thousands, if not more, bugs that are not and will never be fixed in Windows until someone "finds" them and posts about them publically, security related or not"

    Hell, I expect there to be thousands, if not more, bugs that are not and will never be fixed in open source software, until somebody -other than those actually responsible for the code- submit a patch.
    I'm looking at you, silly little Thunderbird bug #92165 from 2001/Jul/24.

  18. It Just Works by bigdady92 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    TLDR: I hated Vista. Loved XP. Use Linux. Installed 64bit Vista. Vista Crashed and burned. Reinstalled with SP2. It just Works.

    I've been a longtime XP user. I use Ubuntu and RHEL at work. I use linux and unix. I hated Vista with a passion, thought it was a PIA and had so much config problems. I then bought a new PC (quad core 6GB ram, blah blah) so I figured I'd put Vista on it. First time worked ok. I updated my bios, it blew away my Raid 1. Got irritated and stopped screwing with it. Then SP2 came along in the last few weeks and I reinstalled my OS and installed SP2 over it.

    It just works. Works perfectly. So simple to install Vista and simple to install the SP2. 2 reboots and I had everything working. Fixed the RAID issue, fixed the bluetooth issue, fixed some other quirks that drove me batshiz crazy.

    I gotta say that I used to hate vista with the passion of a 1000 firey suns. Now I'm like "Well it's not too bad, what's the problem with it again?"

    --
    Wheel of Time: Book by Book and Sumview (summary review) Bigdady92 style: http://bigdady92.blogspot.com/
    1. Re:It Just Works by citylivin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Thats the exact same shit people said about XP. Its unbelievable how much people forget. Win2k was the best OS ever when XP dropped. Everyone _EVERYONE_ swore up and down that they would never install XP and its "cartoon" interface. 7 years later and I'm the only one still running win2k. I just upgraded my home PC to XP last year.

      My point is that its always the same. People will eventually have to upgrade to vista for one reason or another. This does not mean that the initial problems are solved necessarily, or that the old version of windows is inferior. Your comment of "what was the problem with it again?" illustrates this perfectly.

      --
      As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
  19. Re:Doesn't make a difference. by Chatterton · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I beg to differ with your numbers:

    Numbers of page view per platform on the last 12 month of a little european website:

                              Page Views
    Platform                      Sum    %
    (blank)               231,944,487   14
    AIX                        63,675    0
    AmigaOS                     1,399    0
    BeOS                        1,145    0
    CP/M                       26,258    0
    DOS                        28,158    0
    Dreamcast                     319    0
    HP-UX                       1,405    0
    IRIX                        2,535    0
    Linux                  10,782,630    1
    Macintosh              22,543,401    1
    NetBSD                      1,930    0
    OS/2                        6,449    0
    OSF1                        1,000    0
    OpenVMS                       383    0
    SCO_SV                         38    0
    Slurp                  61,242,836    4
    Solaris                 7,625,811    0
    SunOS                     197,176    0
    Unix (unknown)             67,609    0
    WebTV                       2,111    0
    Windows                12,050,352    1
    Windows 16-bit             11,607    0
    Windows 2000          132,118,040    8
    Windows 32-bit          6,226,532    0
    Windows 95                723,941    0
    Windows 98             32,166,513    2
    Windows CE                107,696    0
    Windows NT              5,474,837    0
    Windows Sever 2003     19,986,701    1
    Windows Vista          30,442,927    2
    Windows XP          1,012,030,914   62
    unknown                39,486,905    2
    TOTAL               1,625,367,720  100

  20. Re:Doesn't make a difference. by kno3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This guy will be modded down, unfortunately. I totally agree, I have been using Vista 64bit for over a year now, it has crashed on me twice in that time. My XP machine is far less stable. Also, because of its 64bit capabilities and its far better use of multiple cores (I have a quad core), I have found a performance increase over XP. Its performance has also remained, even though I have added a large amount of apps to it, it does not seem to suffer from slowing down to a slow grind after a few months of use, like XP does. There are some stupid, irritating features to it, like the UAC, driver signing, aero theme...etc. Luckily all of these features can be turned off. The only 2 problems I have with it is the integration of DRM, and the lack of EAX support (although this is being solved by drivers).

  21. Re:Doesn't make a difference. by Starayo · · Score: 4, Informative

    I totally agree, I have been using Vista 64bit for over a year now, it has crashed on me twice in that time. My XP machine is far less stable.

    Now, I'm not going to argue about Vista's stability, it's the speed and general bloat I have problems with, but seriously, what the fuck are all you people doing to your XP installations?!

    I barely maintain my system at all, much to my disdain, but I haven't had it freeze/crash/BSOD/whatever in the past 3 years (well, a few times, but they don't count because it was faulty hardware, not software) and I torture the hell out of this computer!

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  22. Vista in the enterprise by mu51c10rd · · Score: 3, Informative

    I am sure Vista is fine with the latest software, and for personal use. However, have you tried deploying Vista in an enterprise environment (or use older software for that matter)? Here is a small list of issues that have caused us to stop looking at Vista for a rollout:

    1. Group Policy management (the move to admx files has caused numerous backwards compatibility issues)
    2. The ever-growing winsxs folder. There is no way to shrink or compress it.
    3. Try creating images with default software for imaging workstations due to #2.
    4. In-house applications need to be recoded.
    5. Minimum requirements for Vista would require a major purchase of machines to be able to run it.
    6. Activation process fails ~1/3 of the time, even when trying to use an in-house key server.
    7. Random core dumps on Dell Latitude laptop line (have had 8 of them do this), even with the latest drivers and firmware.

    1. Re:Vista in the enterprise by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 4, Informative

      4. In-house applications need to be recoded.

      So your programmers wrote shitty code that failed to follow standards. Other people can write software which runs on Windows 95 through Windows 7 - the fact that your programmers didn't/couldn't is hardly a failing of Vista.

      6. Activation process fails ~1/3 of the time, even when trying to use an in-house key server.

      One third of the time? I've watched Vista computers take memory, graphics cards, CPU upgrades and activate and reactivate without issue. If activation was failing 33% of the time on any kind of scale, there would be outrage (of the real kind, not the angry-geek-at-Slashdot kind). "Using your in-house key server" points a bit differently, too. My guess? You're doing something the wrong way. Very much the wrong way.

    2. Re:Vista in the enterprise by Johnno74 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I can't believe I'm sticking up for vista, but.....

      2. winsxs folder. This is actually a folder full of hard links. Its isn't _really_ 10gb. some info here

      4. I've had maybe half a dozen compatibility issues with vista since I started using it over two years ago. In my current job there is a crapload of dodgy activeX web apps and VB6 apps, none have a problem. The ODBC drivers we use for connections to an informix database works _fine_ in vista, and the dates on those binaries is 1996. Infact, they work better in vista than in XP or anything else. Certain types of connections with these drivers never worked at all in applications deployed with ClickOnce on XP.... but in vista they work fine.

      7. I got vista preinstalled 2+ years ago on a Dell Latitude D820. At that stage I had a lot of bluescreens etc caused by the USB stack, video drivers etc etc but since SP1 came out it has been rock solid. I use suspend/resume and I only ever reboot my machine if there is an update I want to install. I guess it probably gets rebooted on average every 6 weeks or so. I don't think I've had a bluescreen in at least 12 months.

      You may well be right on your other points, I don't know. Vista still has issues and feels very bloated compared to 7, but IMHO it is a shame it has struggled to throw off the bad reputation it gained when it launched.

  23. Re:Doesn't make a difference. by Starayo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And therein lies the problem. I shouldn't need a great computer to run the operating system.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  24. Re:Doesn't make a difference. by fishthegeek · · Score: 3, Funny

    SCO_SV 38 0

    Sco_SV has 38 users? Why haven't we seen a SCO doubles market share article?

    --
    load "$",8,1
  25. Re:Doesn't make a difference. by Inda · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You, and others, say UAC is horrible. Is that because it is your PC/Laptop and you are the only user?

    I think UAC is great. I get home from work and my daughter says "What's your password because I need to install XYZ" and I smile. I can let her do as she pleases on my laptop and not worry about her install the latest Malware, Crapware (iTunes), etc.

    The only time I've grumbled is when Firefox auto-updates while she's using it and it can't finish its upgrade without my password. (great engrish Inda)

    --
    This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
  26. Re:You Joke, but... by c0p0n · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Actually there are many good reasons to drive a manual car. Total control on performance, fuel consumption, and generally not being a lazy geezer.

    --

    Your head a splode
  27. Re:Doesn't make a difference. by mR.bRiGhTsId3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I concur that UAC is great. Furthermore, I was able to find the group policy setting that forces you to authenticate instead of merely confirm every action.
    As for Firefox auto-updates, that is firefox's fault. I've had goofiness when I hit cancel on the privilidge escalation dialog, but IMHO Firefox should be able to just continue working nomrally if it doesn't update.

  28. Re:Doesn't make a difference. by mR.bRiGhTsId3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Because some of us need 32-bit emulation. WoW64 or whatever it is called works flawlessly out of the box. I assume you were making a snide comment about how some FLOSS operating system/userland is superior. Lets see you run 10 year old 32-bit applications out of box with no tinkering on your fabulous 64-bit system.

  29. Re:Doesn't make a difference. by CarpetShark · · Score: 3, Informative

    half of the video streaming sites I use (legitimate, obviously) break with "AMAGAD UR OS IZ NOT ZUPPRORTREAD." messages

    Which, of course, are all thanks to Microsoft's monopoly, which you're supporting by still using Windows. Not trying to cause trouble, but there's no point complaining about a problem if you're still part of the problem.

  30. Re:Doesn't make a difference. by Cramer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That's not UAC. What you are talking about is the (simple) difference between a user and an administrator. Microsoft has never understood that difference. Which leads us to the BS that is UAC... even with admin rights you still have to confirm every damned thing you do. It's a horrible stupid kludge. If you don't what people doing "admin" things, don't make them an admin. (it's a tough concept in the windows world.)