since any monkey can be a "developer" (or a virus author) without knowing what they're doing with those development environments they put out they should expect to have a lot of bad software as a result of that.
Wow, brilliant.
So... since I can write a really bad script that deletes a user's files or a bad application for any OS, it is the OS's fault or the company that designed the scripting language?
Cool, I will write tons of applets to wipe hard drives to give to my friends and then tell them that you said they should blame the company or people that made the OS or scripting languages and should sue them.
SlashDot has went from intellectuals with free time to the mildly retarded with way too much free time.
Do you think that it is possible that maybe Microsoft has to compensate for every bad developer in the world using unsupported or corrupt format cursors?
That'd be a nice reason except when applications like Adobe Reader or HP's printer drivers spoil it completely. What do they accomplish more than hogging memory, nestling themselves in the startup, and filling your harddisk?
Totally agree, and companies like HP and Adobe should be smacked up side the freaking head for doing crap like this.
MS basically screams at developers in the SDKs to not do crap like this, and yet we have tons of 'Quicktime' 'Real' and 100 other utilities and updaters that applications load for NO FREAKING REASON.
People that want to maintain good startup times and overall performance in Windows, run MSConfig and unless it is a Windows application in the startup or something you really need or want, get it the hell out of the startup folder/registry.
Especially when some of these 'startup' updaters/applications are sucking 5mb of RAM fulltime just to check once a week if Apple or Real updated their crappy software.
Like fossil fuels, are we running out of materials to make RAM already?
Damn, just when computers started to get interesting... (j/k):)
BTW the Parent Post is 100% right about the European car markets.
Americans would be shocked to see the differences, just take the GM (USA) and Opel (Belgium) for example (technically, the same company), and the differences in standard fuel mileage, saftey features, etc are staggering.
There even a few performance geared Opel models that I wish GM would offer in the US, as they are not only fairly inexpensive, but have some great features and get great mileage.
My company works with EDS Europe, so this is something I was exposed to years ago.
I actually agree with the general concepts here...
As anyone can tell from my posting history, I am quick to step in to correct wrong or ignornant comments about the NT architecture and the Slashdot myths of Vista, as most people really have very little technical understanding of either.
However, Vista Home 'Basic' should NEVER have existed. MS really screwed up here, they should have just made the Business version which doesn't install games and non business features by default and Vista Ultimate for home users. They could have moved their pricing model so that Ultimate was provided at the Home Premium price and not only made more money, but gave users more features and not caused the version confusion that exists.
Businesses usually get the need for a different version, and the Business version of Vista is a good idea as it doesn't install the 'toys' by default. However, home users should not be put in the position of choosing a version, especially when there are 3 versions for the Home Market.
(Home Basic = Vista Core without next gen Video subsystem enabled)
(Home Premium = Vista that meets the needs of 95% of the users) and
(Ultimate = The complete OS with both business domain features and all the home toys, and the toys that used to be part of the Plus Program.)
There is no reason the Ultimate License and the Business license couldn't have been available at a comparable price point, and just not screwed with the other versions.
This is the MS marketing and logic that I refer to as the Steve Ballmer side of thinking, something MS would never have done when he dind't have the control or his mindset in control of things like this.
I can almost understand Vista Home Premium, but Vista Home Basic truly denies users of most of the features that make Vista a true benefit over XP. Sure the kernel is optimized, the caching is brilliant, new audio, new network, the graphic subsystem sees some benefits even in Vista Home Basic, but by not including the accelerated features of the new GUI subsystem 'aka Aero/Glass' they are screwing users as this is a major performance gain even in desktop applications.
And don't forget gaming for DX10 that depends on the WDDM/Aero model. So in theory DX10 games running on Home Basic will probably fail, as DX10 expects the full GPU scheduling and GPU memory sharing that is what makes Vista a next generation OS for Gaming and Graphics.
Sadly one of the desgin goals and beauty of the NT code base was the unified structure for all classes of users and business from the home desktop to the massive servers, all sharing a common modular kernel and code base.
MS still has this, but their marketing and business idiots screw this up by disecting Vista into 5 versions for just the desktop. Why even keep a common code base, especially if you are going to turn off features in Home Basic that are 'architectural' in nature?
I hope MS loses and they re-consider the whole Vista versioning mess and at the very least pull Home Basic from ever being sold again.
Attention Everyone: Anyone out there that is actually considering a new computer with Vista installed, DO NOT BUY a computer with anything less than Vista Home Premium installed. PERIOD.
Fortunately, most of the computers and laptops you find that have Vista preinstalled at places like BestBuy are using Vista Home Premimum.
It does seem the market has already spoken quite loudly about Home Basic and MFRs and retailers are getting the hint to not even bother with Home Basic already.
Exactly. The fact that Vista is ANY bigger than its predecessor tells me everything I need to know about it. Do you think Microsoft is serving customer demands when it makes each successive operating system bigger and requiring more resources? Do you think customers are demanding that a computer should slow down just because you upgraded your operating system?
Any yet every new OS release from ANY VENDOR in history has ALWAYS required more RAM and processing capabilities.
Are you really this stupid?
By your logic we should all be using DOS or Win 3.1 or a VERY STRIPPED down 1994 Linux kernel.
There is a reason computers get faster, so that they can accomplish more. PERIOD.
PS.. As for XP running faster than Vista, just not true. Overall with 1GB of RAM Vista will flat out stomp XP by 10-20% depending on the applications. And this is even taking into account a new graphics subsystem that has moved from the NT Executive back to the Win32 subsystem.
(Don't believe me? Fine open Adobe Illustrator or Photoshop on both OSes on same machine and load your most complex image in AI or your largest graphic in Photoshop and then come back here and tell us all how much faster XP is, you will be a bit surprised to find Vista's assisted accelerated rendering of GDI and even bitmaps through the GPU are 5 to 20 times faster alone. For the Mac Geeks, this has nothing to do with the Composer in general, as Vista will easily out score OSX just as easily as XP, and you don't have the double frame buffering lag like you have in OSX.)
Kinda like how you can kill "explorer.exe" in more recent versions of windows, and it sorta kills your "Active Desktop" before it [usually] reloads itself, only in NT 3.51, when you killed windows, you were left with a shell prompt, and you had to run "WIN.EXE" to restart windows.
It was just like loading or unloading X-Windows on a Unix system.
Ok, Dude, NO YOU COULDN'T... You are freaking insane...
NT lacks a command-line-driven kernel. PERIOD!!!! There is no freaking way you could boot to a command line in NT, as there IS NOT ONE IN THE KERNEL. And never freaking was...
The only command line boot options for NT have ALWAYS been a SEPARATE microkernel with limited NT functions, which you can still get to in WinXP by select "Recovery Console" from the repair options from the CD.
Vista actually adds some command line capabilities to the NT Kernel, so you don't have to use the SEPARATE command line microkernel as you had to with Win2k,WinXP, etc.
NT itself has no commandline nor a GUI, it is a core kernel that manages subsystem API sets, and NT has always booted directly into Win32, there was NO WAY TO NOT boot into Win32, EVER.
I gave you a link of how the NT boot process works, and yet you are still here claiming even the link on Wikipedia I provided was wrong. Shall I pull technet articles from MS for you also?
However, if you are so sure you are right, provide a link to ANYTHING that talks about NT 3.51 booting to a command line. Search the MS sites, search the web, I don't care, but provide your proof.
Compuserve?... That bloated, expensive, pretend internet thing that became AOL... that Compuserve? In the top 50?
Prior to the days when kiddies expected a specific Compuserve interface that was bloated, there were the days that Compuserve was a rather robust community BBS system that was complete text based interface giving access to extensive forums, news searches, stocks, weather and other services.
Even MS required beta testers to have Compuserve IDs to participate in Beta programs prior to the Web.
For its time Compuserve was the king of online communities and did it better than anyone else. Remember this is from the timeframe when the 'Internet' was limited to gov and edu exclusively, and not everyone had access, compuserve was the 'commercial' version of connecting regular people.
Also this is where Al Gore comes into play when he worked to get the internet opened to everyone, and thus resulting in there no longer being a need for Compuserve as a content provider or connection point.
No, dude, you could boot NT 3.51 without graphics.
Just like with Windows 3.11 running on top of DOS, with NT 3.51 you could type "WIN" at a shell prompt and start the windows system.
Um, no you couldn't...
NT has always booted directly to its GUI with the only exception being the "recovery console" in XP or the new boot mode in Vista that is quite like the recovery console in XP, but running the full NT kernel.
NT has NEVER booted to a command line and required someone to type 'win' to boot the GUI. Just like a Mac has never booted to a command line. There is nothing under NT. Understand?
I have been involved with NT before it was demoed to the public back in 1992, you are picking the wrong person to argue this with.
I have no idea where you are confused, but I can assure you NO NT VERSION has ever shipped with Win32 or Win64 not being the main NT OS subsystem, and Win32/Win64 are GRAPHICAL.
Both XM and Sirius have hinted at beefing capacity and using a VC1 type of codec to deliver a select set of on the go TV Channels for the automotive industry.
I wonder how long before DirectTV has a automotive package that can yank omni-directional service on the go...
actually thought NT 3.51 was an exceedingly elegant system - it booted to a DOS-ish shell, you had to type "WIN" [for win.exe] if you wanted to load the windows graphics subsystem, and the entire "environment" was pure client[user space]/server[kernel space], with the graphics "client" living entirely in user space.
Um... NT 3.1, 3.5, and 3.51 all booted to the Win32 subsystem GUI. You are somehow confusing Win 3.1 or something here. NT has always used Win32 as its primary subsystem, and been graphical.
So what is this "quite clever technology" that allows Vista to return to the older model?
In lay terms, MS breaks the driver into two parts. The MS side is a kernel level interface that translates up to user mode for the MFR driver.
This is really smart for a couple of reasons.
1) It gives the performance of a kernel level driver without explosing the system to a 3rd party driver in kernel space.
2) It also allows Vista to do things even NT pre 4.0 couldn't do, like live swap video (i.e. you can remove the video card and it doesn't crash the OS.) Not only can portable and external display devices connect and disconnect effortlessly, but no matter how bad a video driver is, once Vista is running it takes an act of God for the video driver to crash the OS or leave the OS without video.
As external PCI express devices become more popular, especially for laptops, you can effortlessly switch from the onboard video to the dock or external display device. I have done this while watching a movie in Media Center and the pause to flip was less than 1 sec and it didn't even lose a frame of video.
Basically Vista can restart the video driver by virtually unplugging the video card and turning it back on, and then if the driver continues to fail Vista will continue through several steps including turning off the video again and dropping to a generic VGA driver and restarting the video card. Eventually it will even try to activate a second video device if one is present in the system and the main video won't turn back on even with generic drivers if the card is damaged.
So not only is it better protected from a bad video driver, it has a rather intelligent recovery process so that the user isn't left with a blank screen.
Since you're not "downloading" the cursor and executing it, but the cursor itself is a malformed file that manipulates the executable that runs "around" it (i.e. the IE7), there is no sandbox around you. The IE7 gets attacked and its flow of operation redirected (well, not really, actually it's a function of a DLL the IE uses, but that's what basically happens).
The point is that no matter how the exploit runs, it cannot elevate its privileges above the originating EXE/DLL invoking the code.
In Vista, IE runs with a specific set of reduced privileges (protected mode), meaning that IE has lower privileges than even the lowest level user account, no matter what level the user is signed in as.
So in Vista, the exploit can virtually do NOTHING, as it can't even access the user's files, let alone any portion of the system.
MS took their lumps and learned with the past WMF and other vulnerabilities where someone could be exposed by simply viewing a web page. In a strange twist, this makes IE on Vista safer than Firefox or any other browser that runs with user level privileges.
Isn't the XBOX drive a re-branded Toshiba drive? If so, that would indeed make a whole lot of sense.
At the initial launch of the players they were all Toshiba, but I have no idea if MS has acquired any other suppliers since the launch. Also the model used by MS could be different even if they are all Toshiba; hence, why some users are not having problems and others are.
This could also be as simple as a defective Disc that borders on the readbility requirements for a HD-DVD. Like others have mentioned, when DVD was new, there were a lot of issues because of problems in the Disc manufacturing that were marginal for some players.
Yes it is true that the vulnerbility is limited on Vista since IE runs with lower permissions than the user and cannot harm anything that IE cannot touch, and IE cannot touch hardly anything in Vista.
Also where in the heck do you get that GUI runs in kernel space? You seriously need to read up a bit on NT, as the Win32 subsystem itself doesn't even get to run in the kernel, let alone the GUI attached to it.
You are probably confusing video drivers that were moved to the kernel level for game performance in NT4, Win2k and WinXP, but have been moved back to User space in Vista due to a new way to harness the same level of kernel level driver performance without pushing the drivers into the kernel. (Which is actually quite clever technology if anyone is a OS Kernel nerd.)
I know it is wild to assume that SlashDot would not mention this part, but it appears that some Toshiba based drives also have problems with this Disc.
PS. I hate the HD-DVD DRM as much as everyone else, but if the DRM was to blame it would NOT be failing at the DRIVE level and would be failing at the player level where the DRM is processed.
As long as Apple lets users boot Vista, they lost.
The first problem here is that applications available on OSX and Vista, are performning faster under Vista than OSX. Not such a good warm feeling for the OSX users.
The second problem is game manufacturers are impressed with XNA development and for the first time have real reason to move away from OpenGl. And since Mac users can be customers as well since they can boot to Windows, why write and OSX version, especially if the OSX version is always going to run slower.
And there is the old OS/2 factor. Being 'too' Windows compatible didn't help IBM nor garner software development support.
MS has nothing to fear, and at the worest case, MS drop Win32 and becomes the new *nix with NT.
I said that most RISC processors nearly died when MS decided to cut support in Windows for them. MIPS went first, then PPC and Alpha.
You are right, it is MS's fault for the failed market of RISC, MIPS, PPC, and Alpha.
The strong push by Intel and the choices of companies like Compaq killing the Alpha had nothing to do with the death of these architectures, it was just all MS's fault. (gag)
What will be your next post, MS is to blame for the failed success of the Pentium Pro or MS is to blame for your insanity?
There was a lot more at play than a freaking x86 OS called Win9x that had to do with the collapse of various chip markets. One very big problem was that Intel was pusihing x86 compatible chips that were outperforming even the great RISC and AlPHAs in the late 90s.
If companies would have bought the hardware, there would have been a base and OSes for them. PERIOD.
MS pushed hard to unify NT for multiple platforms with no preference for Intel x86 in anyway, in fact MS even worked with Dec on the x86 emulator for NT to jumpstart the Alpha presence. Compaq pulled the plug on both the NT development for Alpha and eventually the Alpha chip. MS was pissed that Compaq bought Dec and then destroyed the Alpha line, especially since Win2000 was all the way to RC1 for the Alpha system when Compaq halted MS's development for the platform.
You are just the type of person that thinks MS is the evil in every part of the world, and even when the subject is insane to associate it, you find a way to blame them for things they had NO ROLE in.
Microsoft's mainstream OS of the time (the 9x series) did not support multi-processing or anything but x86 processors. 9x was the continuation of the 3.x series and it would require a huge effort to do so.
You keep saying this, like it is MS's fault for not making a SPECIFICALLY x86 OS run on multiple CPUS and support SMP is somehow to blame for the hardware and or OSes of the 90s.
Win9X was a x86 SIMPLE OS. PERIOD. It was never designed to run on anything else, nor was it ever planned to do anything else but to be a glorifed version of the DOS/Win3.x legacy.
WHY? Because MS created NT to TAKE hardware in any direction the market wanted to, and it was designed to continue to evolve based on any platform that gained traction.
You should be yelling at Intel and OEMS not MS. MS gladly provided an PROMINENT OS FOR CONSUMERS that would run on anything from PPC to x86, and if Compaq hadn't killed the Alpha development project Win2k would have been released for the Alpha as well.
Also notice that as hardware has moved to new technologies in the past 7 years, from things like legacy free configurations to 64bit, Windows has been there from DAY ONE supporting them. Multi-core NP, Microsoft doesn't even consider a single CPU with 20 cores to be anything more than a single CPU, something that even other software vendors DON'T DO and require additional licensing.
Oh, and NT is designed to scale VERY well on these new 64bit multi-core systems, because NT was designed to meet ANY forseeable hardware needs of the next 20 years from when it was developed. And this includes non x86 systems like the Itanium.
MS has no reason to be blamed for making Win9x an x86 only OS, as it was written in assembly and designed TO BE ONLY an x86 OS. DOS survived for 20 years being an x86 only OS as well, this was market driven, not because MS would only support x86.
Intel and AMD are the companies that call a lot of shots in the standard hardware for consumers, and also push a lot of backdoor deals with OEMs. (ie Dell)
Even Apple has moved to the x86 platform.. I suppose this was MS's fault as well. Oh wait, MS uses their version of the PPC in the Xbox 360 running a version of WinNT.
you do understand that he is talking about "average people" here and games like "The Sims", right? Believe it or not the on-board video provides quite adequate performance for many less-demanding games with XP. His point is that using the same game on the same system (same hardware), the only difference being the installed OS is Vista rather than XP, leads to a noticeable degrading of performance. What point do you think he was making here?
Yes, I actually do understand, but his point is FACTUALLY WRONG. Running Vista on the same hardware is NOT causing the performance problems this person is pretending it does. Even with a 512mb machine and a 945G video, performance between Vista and XP is virtually the same. PERIOD.
How do I know this? Well #1 we have a very extensive lab and have been doing a lot of testing in this area, specifically so we can properly inform our clients.
Secondly, if Video performance is the 'point' the parent poster was making, then his REFERENCE to the CPU was insane, as this have little to do with Video performance. I don't care if it is an AMD 1000000+, if the Video is crap, the game will run like crap on both XP and Vista.
And Thirdly, if the Vista driver is actually for some freaking reason 'slower' than the XP Video driver, then ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS INSTALL THE XP DRIVER IN VISTA. It then RUNS EXACTLY AS IT DOES IN XP, KERNEL MODE AND ALL.
People that push stories like the parent poster are either technically illiterate or purposing trying to create FUD and/or are TROLLING.
Just about every personal computer since mid 90's (Macs excepted) is designed to run a flavor of Windows. Do you wonder why most probably there are no Alpha or MIPS desktop computers around you? That's right - because there is no version of Windows and Office for them. Do you think Intel and AMD could not make a multi-core processor until about last year? They could do it since almost ever (I have seen multi-processor 386 systems), but there would be next to no market for them as Windows 98 couldn't use more than one processor.
This is by far the stupidest comment of the day.
#1) When DEC demoed the Alpha CPU at Comdex in 1992 (I was there, it was running Windows NT.) #2) Windows NT always supported multiple processors. #3) Windows NT 4.0 supported Mips, PPC, Alpha, and Intel CPUs.
Windows NT 4.0 was functionally equivalent to Win98, just not marketed to the home community, but if the computer was multi-processor, MIPS, Alpha, etc, they usually came with Windows NT 4.0 installed.
Windows NT was even the main OS of the Alpha line.
So again, what is your 'great' theory how Windows is the reason these processors were never used and aren't around anymore? Oh that's right, your theory is freaking insane.
Win98 was made SPECIFICALLY to support the x86 line of computers, there is no evil conspiracy of why it didn't run on other processors, WinNT was designed to support x86 and everything else, there was no need for Win98 (an assembly coded os) to be written to do what WinNT(portable C) was already doing and designed to do.
How can you survive without knowing basic facts like this. Next time try Wikipedia for gods sake before you make an ass out of yourself.
XP doesn't even run well sometimes on my 1.6 ghz core duo laptop with 1 gig of ram. Windows 95 (and Linux) ran ok on my 33 mhz 486 with 8mb ram.
That is really sad, maybe you should just box up your computers and return them to Walmart.
We have test laptops running 200mhz with 80mb and old Neomagic video, running with all the XP Themes left on, and the benchmarks are 20% faster than Win98 or Win95, on everything from bootup time to running applications like CorelDraw and OfficeXP.
If you can't make XP run well on a 1.6ghz machine you have some really bad hardware or no idea what you are doing.
Hmmmm... lets see now... these are HP and Compaq machines, with no updated drivers, and ONBOARD video... we'll just swap out the video cards... oh wait... onboard... guess we'll just add a new video card to the system (some dont even have certified drivers yet) put it all back together AND THEN sell it because HP screwed up. The IDENTICAL machines (with slightly different model numbers to denote they were running XP) ran the same videos far faster. It's a lack of finished, optimized, fixed drivers (and/or any combination of those three things).
Wow an entire paragraph to prove what I was saying. Thank you. You have no freaking idea about basic things let alone you 'justify' the fact you are selling computers to people with on board Video to play games. The Intel 945G video runs 'half' of its features through software emulation and you expect your customers to run a game on it? Scary.
Slashdot Mirror
since any monkey can be a "developer" (or a virus author) without knowing what they're doing with those development environments they put out they should expect to have a lot of bad software as a result of that.
Wow, brilliant.
So... since I can write a really bad script that deletes a user's files or a bad application for any OS, it is the OS's fault or the company that designed the scripting language?
Cool, I will write tons of applets to wipe hard drives to give to my friends and then tell them that you said they should blame the company or people that made the OS or scripting languages and should sue them.
SlashDot has went from intellectuals with free time to the mildly retarded with way too much free time.
Do you think that it is possible that maybe Microsoft has to compensate for every bad developer in the world using unsupported or corrupt format cursors?
That'd be a nice reason except when applications like Adobe Reader or HP's printer drivers spoil it completely. What do they accomplish more than hogging memory, nestling themselves in the startup, and filling your harddisk?
Totally agree, and companies like HP and Adobe should be smacked up side the freaking head for doing crap like this.
MS basically screams at developers in the SDKs to not do crap like this, and yet we have tons of 'Quicktime' 'Real' and 100 other utilities and updaters that applications load for NO FREAKING REASON.
People that want to maintain good startup times and overall performance in Windows, run MSConfig and unless it is a Windows application in the startup or something you really need or want, get it the hell out of the startup folder/registry.
Especially when some of these 'startup' updaters/applications are sucking 5mb of RAM fulltime just to check once a week if Apple or Real updated their crappy software.
Like fossil fuels, are we running out of materials to make RAM already?
:)
Damn, just when computers started to get interesting...
(j/k)
BTW the Parent Post is 100% right about the European car markets.
Americans would be shocked to see the differences, just take the GM (USA) and Opel (Belgium) for example (technically, the same company), and the differences in standard fuel mileage, saftey features, etc are staggering.
There even a few performance geared Opel models that I wish GM would offer in the US, as they are not only fairly inexpensive, but have some great features and get great mileage.
My company works with EDS Europe, so this is something I was exposed to years ago.
I actually agree with the general concepts here...
As anyone can tell from my posting history, I am quick to step in to correct wrong or ignornant comments about the NT architecture and the Slashdot myths of Vista, as most people really have very little technical understanding of either.
However, Vista Home 'Basic' should NEVER have existed. MS really screwed up here, they should have just made the Business version which doesn't install games and non business features by default and Vista Ultimate for home users. They could have moved their pricing model so that Ultimate was provided at the Home Premium price and not only made more money, but gave users more features and not caused the version confusion that exists.
Businesses usually get the need for a different version, and the Business version of Vista is a good idea as it doesn't install the 'toys' by default. However, home users should not be put in the position of choosing a version, especially when there are 3 versions for the Home Market.
(Home Basic = Vista Core without next gen Video subsystem enabled)
(Home Premium = Vista that meets the needs of 95% of the users) and
(Ultimate = The complete OS with both business domain features and all the home toys, and the toys that used to be part of the Plus Program.)
There is no reason the Ultimate License and the Business license couldn't have been available at a comparable price point, and just not screwed with the other versions.
This is the MS marketing and logic that I refer to as the Steve Ballmer side of thinking, something MS would never have done when he dind't have the control or his mindset in control of things like this.
I can almost understand Vista Home Premium, but Vista Home Basic truly denies users of most of the features that make Vista a true benefit over XP. Sure the kernel is optimized, the caching is brilliant, new audio, new network, the graphic subsystem sees some benefits even in Vista Home Basic, but by not including the accelerated features of the new GUI subsystem 'aka Aero/Glass' they are screwing users as this is a major performance gain even in desktop applications.
And don't forget gaming for DX10 that depends on the WDDM/Aero model. So in theory DX10 games running on Home Basic will probably fail, as DX10 expects the full GPU scheduling and GPU memory sharing that is what makes Vista a next generation OS for Gaming and Graphics.
Sadly one of the desgin goals and beauty of the NT code base was the unified structure for all classes of users and business from the home desktop to the massive servers, all sharing a common modular kernel and code base.
MS still has this, but their marketing and business idiots screw this up by disecting Vista into 5 versions for just the desktop. Why even keep a common code base, especially if you are going to turn off features in Home Basic that are 'architectural' in nature?
I hope MS loses and they re-consider the whole Vista versioning mess and at the very least pull Home Basic from ever being sold again.
Attention Everyone:
Anyone out there that is actually considering a new computer with Vista installed, DO NOT BUY a computer with anything less than Vista Home Premium installed. PERIOD.
Fortunately, most of the computers and laptops you find that have Vista preinstalled at places like BestBuy are using Vista Home Premimum.
It does seem the market has already spoken quite loudly about Home Basic and MFRs and retailers are getting the hint to not even bother with Home Basic already.
Exactly. The fact that Vista is ANY bigger than its predecessor tells me everything I need to know about it. Do you think Microsoft is serving customer demands when it makes each successive operating system bigger and requiring more resources? Do you think customers are demanding that a computer should slow down just because you upgraded your operating system?
Any yet every new OS release from ANY VENDOR in history has ALWAYS required more RAM and processing capabilities.
Are you really this stupid?
By your logic we should all be using DOS or Win 3.1 or a VERY STRIPPED down 1994 Linux kernel.
There is a reason computers get faster, so that they can accomplish more. PERIOD.
PS.. As for XP running faster than Vista, just not true. Overall with 1GB of RAM Vista will flat out stomp XP by 10-20% depending on the applications. And this is even taking into account a new graphics subsystem that has moved from the NT Executive back to the Win32 subsystem.
(Don't believe me? Fine open Adobe Illustrator or Photoshop on both OSes on same machine and load your most complex image in AI or your largest graphic in Photoshop and then come back here and tell us all how much faster XP is, you will be a bit surprised to find Vista's assisted accelerated rendering of GDI and even bitmaps through the GPU are 5 to 20 times faster alone. For the Mac Geeks, this has nothing to do with the Composer in general, as Vista will easily out score OSX just as easily as XP, and you don't have the double frame buffering lag like you have in OSX.)
Kinda like how you can kill "explorer.exe" in more recent versions of windows, and it sorta kills your "Active Desktop" before it [usually] reloads itself, only in NT 3.51, when you killed windows, you were left with a shell prompt, and you had to run "WIN.EXE" to restart windows.
It was just like loading or unloading X-Windows on a Unix system.
Ok, Dude, NO YOU COULDN'T... You are freaking insane...
NT lacks a command-line-driven kernel. PERIOD!!!! There is no freaking way you could boot to a command line in NT, as there IS NOT ONE IN THE KERNEL. And never freaking was...
The only command line boot options for NT have ALWAYS been a SEPARATE microkernel with limited NT functions, which you can still get to in WinXP by select "Recovery Console" from the repair options from the CD.
Vista actually adds some command line capabilities to the NT Kernel, so you don't have to use the SEPARATE command line microkernel as you had to with Win2k,WinXP, etc.
NT itself has no commandline nor a GUI, it is a core kernel that manages subsystem API sets, and NT has always booted directly into Win32, there was NO WAY TO NOT boot into Win32, EVER.
I gave you a link of how the NT boot process works, and yet you are still here claiming even the link on Wikipedia I provided was wrong. Shall I pull technet articles from MS for you also?
However, if you are so sure you are right, provide a link to ANYTHING that talks about NT 3.51 booting to a command line. Search the MS sites, search the web, I don't care, but provide your proof.
Compuserve?... That bloated, expensive, pretend internet thing that became AOL... that Compuserve? In the top 50?
Prior to the days when kiddies expected a specific Compuserve interface that was bloated, there were the days that Compuserve was a rather robust community BBS system that was complete text based interface giving access to extensive forums, news searches, stocks, weather and other services.
Even MS required beta testers to have Compuserve IDs to participate in Beta programs prior to the Web.
For its time Compuserve was the king of online communities and did it better than anyone else. Remember this is from the timeframe when the 'Internet' was limited to gov and edu exclusively, and not everyone had access, compuserve was the 'commercial' version of connecting regular people.
Also this is where Al Gore comes into play when he worked to get the internet opened to everyone, and thus resulting in there no longer being a need for Compuserve as a content provider or connection point.
No, dude, you could boot NT 3.51 without graphics.
e ss
Just like with Windows 3.11 running on top of DOS, with NT 3.51 you could type "WIN" at a shell prompt and start the windows system.
Um, no you couldn't...
NT has always booted directly to its GUI with the only exception being the "recovery console" in XP or the new boot mode in Vista that is quite like the recovery console in XP, but running the full NT kernel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Startup_Proc
NT has NEVER booted to a command line and required someone to type 'win' to boot the GUI. Just like a Mac has never booted to a command line. There is nothing under NT. Understand?
I have been involved with NT before it was demoed to the public back in 1992, you are picking the wrong person to argue this with.
I have no idea where you are confused, but I can assure you NO NT VERSION has ever shipped with Win32 or Win64 not being the main NT OS subsystem, and Win32/Win64 are GRAPHICAL.
Both XM and Sirius have hinted at beefing capacity and using a VC1 type of codec to deliver a select set of on the go TV Channels for the automotive industry.
I wonder how long before DirectTV has a automotive package that can yank omni-directional service on the go...
actually thought NT 3.51 was an exceedingly elegant system - it booted to a DOS-ish shell, you had to type "WIN" [for win.exe] if you wanted to load the windows graphics subsystem, and the entire "environment" was pure client[user space]/server[kernel space], with the graphics "client" living entirely in user space.
Um... NT 3.1, 3.5, and 3.51 all booted to the Win32 subsystem GUI. You are somehow confusing Win 3.1 or something here. NT has always used Win32 as its primary subsystem, and been graphical.
So what is this "quite clever technology" that allows Vista to return to the older model?
In lay terms, MS breaks the driver into two parts. The MS side is a kernel level interface that translates up to user mode for the MFR driver.
This is really smart for a couple of reasons.
1) It gives the performance of a kernel level driver without explosing the system to a 3rd party driver in kernel space.
2) It also allows Vista to do things even NT pre 4.0 couldn't do, like live swap video (i.e. you can remove the video card and it doesn't crash the OS.) Not only can portable and external display devices connect and disconnect effortlessly, but no matter how bad a video driver is, once Vista is running it takes an act of God for the video driver to crash the OS or leave the OS without video.
As external PCI express devices become more popular, especially for laptops, you can effortlessly switch from the onboard video to the dock or external display device. I have done this while watching a movie in Media Center and the pause to flip was less than 1 sec and it didn't even lose a frame of video.
Basically Vista can restart the video driver by virtually unplugging the video card and turning it back on, and then if the driver continues to fail Vista will continue through several steps including turning off the video again and dropping to a generic VGA driver and restarting the video card. Eventually it will even try to activate a second video device if one is present in the system and the main video won't turn back on even with generic drivers if the card is damaged.
So not only is it better protected from a bad video driver, it has a rather intelligent recovery process so that the user isn't left with a blank screen.
And I'm not sure if the IE itself is doing the call, it might well be that it hands over the task to the explorer, and that could get ugly.
Vista IE can't hand anything over to explorer. It can't even open freaking notepad to view a page's source code without getting permission.
Nope any application can lower their privledges, they just don't choose to do so...
Since you're not "downloading" the cursor and executing it, but the cursor itself is a malformed file that manipulates the executable that runs "around" it (i.e. the IE7), there is no sandbox around you. The IE7 gets attacked and its flow of operation redirected (well, not really, actually it's a function of a DLL the IE uses, but that's what basically happens).
The point is that no matter how the exploit runs, it cannot elevate its privileges above the originating EXE/DLL invoking the code.
In Vista, IE runs with a specific set of reduced privileges (protected mode), meaning that IE has lower privileges than even the lowest level user account, no matter what level the user is signed in as.
So in Vista, the exploit can virtually do NOTHING, as it can't even access the user's files, let alone any portion of the system.
MS took their lumps and learned with the past WMF and other vulnerabilities where someone could be exposed by simply viewing a web page. In a strange twist, this makes IE on Vista safer than Firefox or any other browser that runs with user level privileges.
Isn't the XBOX drive a re-branded Toshiba drive? If so, that would indeed make a whole lot of sense.
At the initial launch of the players they were all Toshiba, but I have no idea if MS has acquired any other suppliers since the launch. Also the model used by MS could be different even if they are all Toshiba; hence, why some users are not having problems and others are.
This could also be as simple as a defective Disc that borders on the readbility requirements for a HD-DVD. Like others have mentioned, when DVD was new, there were a lot of issues because of problems in the Disc manufacturing that were marginal for some players.
Yes it is true that the vulnerbility is limited on Vista since IE runs with lower permissions than the user and cannot harm anything that IE cannot touch, and IE cannot touch hardly anything in Vista.
Also where in the heck do you get that GUI runs in kernel space? You seriously need to read up a bit on NT, as the Win32 subsystem itself doesn't even get to run in the kernel, let alone the GUI attached to it.
You are probably confusing video drivers that were moved to the kernel level for game performance in NT4, Win2k and WinXP, but have been moved back to User space in Vista due to a new way to harness the same level of kernel level driver performance without pushing the drivers into the kernel. (Which is actually quite clever technology if anyone is a OS Kernel nerd.)
Not just XBox 360 Player that has problems...
I know it is wild to assume that SlashDot would not mention this part, but it appears that some Toshiba based drives also have problems with this Disc.
PS. I hate the HD-DVD DRM as much as everyone else, but if the DRM was to blame it would NOT be failing at the DRIVE level and would be failing at the player level where the DRM is processed.
As long as Apple lets users boot Vista, they lost.
The first problem here is that applications available on OSX and Vista, are performning faster under Vista than OSX. Not such a good warm feeling for the OSX users.
The second problem is game manufacturers are impressed with XNA development and for the first time have real reason to move away from OpenGl. And since Mac users can be customers as well since they can boot to Windows, why write and OSX version, especially if the OSX version is always going to run slower.
And there is the old OS/2 factor. Being 'too' Windows compatible didn't help IBM nor garner software development support.
MS has nothing to fear, and at the worest case, MS drop Win32 and becomes the new *nix with NT.
I said that most RISC processors nearly died when MS decided to cut support in Windows for them. MIPS went first, then PPC and Alpha.
You are right, it is MS's fault for the failed market of RISC, MIPS, PPC, and Alpha.
The strong push by Intel and the choices of companies like Compaq killing the Alpha had nothing to do with the death of these architectures, it was just all MS's fault. (gag)
What will be your next post, MS is to blame for the failed success of the Pentium Pro or MS is to blame for your insanity?
There was a lot more at play than a freaking x86 OS called Win9x that had to do with the collapse of various chip markets. One very big problem was that Intel was pusihing x86 compatible chips that were outperforming even the great RISC and AlPHAs in the late 90s.
If companies would have bought the hardware, there would have been a base and OSes for them. PERIOD.
MS pushed hard to unify NT for multiple platforms with no preference for Intel x86 in anyway, in fact MS even worked with Dec on the x86 emulator for NT to jumpstart the Alpha presence. Compaq pulled the plug on both the NT development for Alpha and eventually the Alpha chip. MS was pissed that Compaq bought Dec and then destroyed the Alpha line, especially since Win2000 was all the way to RC1 for the Alpha system when Compaq halted MS's development for the platform.
You are just the type of person that thinks MS is the evil in every part of the world, and even when the subject is insane to associate it, you find a way to blame them for things they had NO ROLE in.
Microsoft's mainstream OS of the time (the 9x series) did not support multi-processing or anything but x86 processors. 9x was the continuation of the 3.x series and it would require a huge effort to do so.
You keep saying this, like it is MS's fault for not making a SPECIFICALLY x86 OS run on multiple CPUS and support SMP is somehow to blame for the hardware and or OSes of the 90s.
Win9X was a x86 SIMPLE OS. PERIOD. It was never designed to run on anything else, nor was it ever planned to do anything else but to be a glorifed version of the DOS/Win3.x legacy.
WHY? Because MS created NT to TAKE hardware in any direction the market wanted to, and it was designed to continue to evolve based on any platform that gained traction.
You should be yelling at Intel and OEMS not MS. MS gladly provided an PROMINENT OS FOR CONSUMERS that would run on anything from PPC to x86, and if Compaq hadn't killed the Alpha development project Win2k would have been released for the Alpha as well.
Also notice that as hardware has moved to new technologies in the past 7 years, from things like legacy free configurations to 64bit, Windows has been there from DAY ONE supporting them. Multi-core NP, Microsoft doesn't even consider a single CPU with 20 cores to be anything more than a single CPU, something that even other software vendors DON'T DO and require additional licensing.
Oh, and NT is designed to scale VERY well on these new 64bit multi-core systems, because NT was designed to meet ANY forseeable hardware needs of the next 20 years from when it was developed. And this includes non x86 systems like the Itanium.
MS has no reason to be blamed for making Win9x an x86 only OS, as it was written in assembly and designed TO BE ONLY an x86 OS. DOS survived for 20 years being an x86 only OS as well, this was market driven, not because MS would only support x86.
Intel and AMD are the companies that call a lot of shots in the standard hardware for consumers, and also push a lot of backdoor deals with OEMs. (ie Dell)
Even Apple has moved to the x86 platform.. I suppose this was MS's fault as well. Oh wait, MS uses their version of the PPC in the Xbox 360 running a version of WinNT.
What a freaking moron.
Yes MS is providing an migration route, not only for HD content, but Machine ID specific content.
you do understand that he is talking about "average people" here and games like "The Sims", right? Believe it or not the on-board video provides quite adequate performance for many less-demanding games with XP. His point is that using the same game on the same system (same hardware), the only difference being the installed OS is Vista rather than XP, leads to a noticeable degrading of performance. What point do you think he was making here?
Yes, I actually do understand, but his point is FACTUALLY WRONG. Running Vista on the same hardware is NOT causing the performance problems this person is pretending it does. Even with a 512mb machine and a 945G video, performance between Vista and XP is virtually the same. PERIOD.
How do I know this? Well #1 we have a very extensive lab and have been doing a lot of testing in this area, specifically so we can properly inform our clients.
Secondly, if Video performance is the 'point' the parent poster was making, then his REFERENCE to the CPU was insane, as this have little to do with Video performance. I don't care if it is an AMD 1000000+, if the Video is crap, the game will run like crap on both XP and Vista.
And Thirdly, if the Vista driver is actually for some freaking reason 'slower' than the XP Video driver, then ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS INSTALL THE XP DRIVER IN VISTA. It then RUNS EXACTLY AS IT DOES IN XP, KERNEL MODE AND ALL.
People that push stories like the parent poster are either technically illiterate or purposing trying to create FUD and/or are TROLLING.
Just about every personal computer since mid 90's (Macs excepted) is designed to run a flavor of Windows. Do you wonder why most probably there are no Alpha or MIPS desktop computers around you? That's right - because there is no version of Windows and Office for them. Do you think Intel and AMD could not make a multi-core processor until about last year? They could do it since almost ever (I have seen multi-processor 386 systems), but there would be next to no market for them as Windows 98 couldn't use more than one processor.
This is by far the stupidest comment of the day.
#1) When DEC demoed the Alpha CPU at Comdex in 1992 (I was there, it was running Windows NT.)
#2) Windows NT always supported multiple processors.
#3) Windows NT 4.0 supported Mips, PPC, Alpha, and Intel CPUs.
Windows NT 4.0 was functionally equivalent to Win98, just not marketed to the home community, but if the computer was multi-processor, MIPS, Alpha, etc, they usually came with Windows NT 4.0 installed.
Windows NT was even the main OS of the Alpha line.
So again, what is your 'great' theory how Windows is the reason these processors were never used and aren't around anymore? Oh that's right, your theory is freaking insane.
Win98 was made SPECIFICALLY to support the x86 line of computers, there is no evil conspiracy of why it didn't run on other processors, WinNT was designed to support x86 and everything else, there was no need for Win98 (an assembly coded os) to be written to do what WinNT(portable C) was already doing and designed to do.
How can you survive without knowing basic facts like this. Next time try Wikipedia for gods sake before you make an ass out of yourself.
XP doesn't even run well sometimes on my 1.6 ghz core duo laptop with 1 gig of ram. Windows 95 (and Linux) ran ok on my 33 mhz 486 with 8mb ram.
That is really sad, maybe you should just box up your computers and return them to Walmart.
We have test laptops running 200mhz with 80mb and old Neomagic video, running with all the XP Themes left on, and the benchmarks are 20% faster than Win98 or Win95, on everything from bootup time to running applications like CorelDraw and OfficeXP.
If you can't make XP run well on a 1.6ghz machine you have some really bad hardware or no idea what you are doing.
Hmmmm... lets see now... these are HP and Compaq machines, with no updated drivers, and ONBOARD video... we'll just swap out the video cards... oh wait... onboard... guess we'll just add a new video card to the system (some dont even have certified drivers yet) put it all back together AND THEN sell it because HP screwed up. The IDENTICAL machines (with slightly different model numbers to denote they were running XP) ran the same videos far faster. It's a lack of finished, optimized, fixed drivers (and/or any combination of those three things).
Wow an entire paragraph to prove what I was saying. Thank you. You have no freaking idea about basic things let alone you 'justify' the fact you are selling computers to people with on board Video to play games. The Intel 945G video runs 'half' of its features through software emulation and you expect your customers to run a game on it? Scary.