Here Microsoft is using their Desktop monopoly to boost their online search business and (this is the illegal part) restricting their monopoly product from using someone else's online search business.
That is incorrect. IE's search field is customizable; it defaults to Live Search but I can easily use Google, Yahoo, or whatever else I want. Google's issue is with Vista's desktop search through Explorer, which is currently tied to the indexing service built into Vista. It's easy to disable that service, but there's currently no way to tie the Explorer search box to another desktop search engine. Note that this has nothing to do with online search.
As opposed to writing a nasty and error-prone script to attempt to transform the object into something you can use in Powershell, I suppose? One of the big advantages of text interfaces is that you can test it on the keyboard and screen. I can quickly and easily create test cases in my text editor, to create a test case for a binary object you must write another script, and risk making a mistake.
You don't know what you're talking about. I can test PowerShell stuff at the keyboard and screen. All commands have detailed documentation accessible from the command-line. You also never deal with binary data when working with objects.
An example of a common error is date formats. When I write a date in my text editor I know how I do it, "May 2, 2007", or "2/5/2007", or "2007/05/02", etc. When you have a binary object you have no way of knowing for sure the exact internal format you have used for the data. What if the person who sent you a binary file used two digits for the year and forgot to tell you? Binary data is much more error-prone than text.
The standard.NET DateTime object is used throughout PowerShell. While you've listed 3 different date-time representations (and there are many more throughout the world), PowerShell has exactly one standard representation in the DateTime object. I think your world would be more error-prone.
Why is what you propose any better than simply defining new flags on du? If you have to add a new method to du, you can just as easily add a new flag. Then you don't have to have wordy --method arguments everywhere, you use flags like "-x" on DU or other applications.
The PowerShell sort commandlet works on all objects, all object attributes, and all commands that generates those objects. Your proposal involves bloating every command for which you want to perform specialized sorting with special switches.
For example, the Get-Process commandlet returns.NET Process objects, which have over 20 attributes over which you can sort. I wouldn't want 20+ switches for sorting. Also, -member is optional, so you can do: get-process | sort PeakWorkingSet
Utter BS. I worked for a couple of years developing Win32 apps. We supported everything from 95 through to XP and I can assure you that there is NO FUCKING WAY that the OS runs the old binaries flawlessly!
But just recently I ran Civilization 1 and SimTower on Vista. Both are Windows 3.1-era games. All my other games from 95/2K/XP run flawlessly on later versions of Windows.
# Redundant storage by duplicating it across multiple drives, and the ability to easily add/remove drives. Also, drive letters are gone; WHS treats all drives as one big pool of space.
# Remote access of files beyond the LAN, plus the ability to setup a personalized domain to access your server. All of this is optional and disabled by default if you're concerned about security.
This is available in existing NAS boxes you can buy off the shelf. Linksys, etc. Mine is by Buffalo.
I just looked at Buffalo products, but only see RAID support for data redundancy, which I assume imposes specific drive requirements (same size or type, for example). WHS implements data redundancy even for different-sized drives. Also, the remote access capabilities allow for access over the Internet. Can that be done with Buffalo products in a secure manner?
# Backup and restore entire computers on the network. It backs up one copy of duplicate files across the network to save space. You can also restore individual files.
I'm not sure what this means or why I would want to do this. If you're talking about rsync, I've got that. I can also do HD images. The Windows Backup software is horribly bugged and if you're using it you hate your data. If this software is based on that, it WILL suck.
I'll give an example: My house has 5 machines running Windows. Aside from personal files unique to each machine, they also share duplicate files, such as system binaries, installed programs, etc. WHS will back up one copy of those duplicate files. Entire machines can be restored from backups. So it's similar to an HD image, but without wasting space backing up duplicate files for each image. Moreover, rsync requires a certain amount of setup; good luck getting my parents to read through rsync documentation and getting it to work.
Ability to install your own apps on WHS. It's based on Windows Server 2003 R2, and there aren't any restrictions on installing software on it.
I'll give you this. Sort of.
Now if you wanted to build a PC system you use for your home server, you could run this Home Server software on it (which will cost, what, $150 at least?) or you could run one of the many free and mature Linux distributions that are excellent for this purpose. I'm not a big fan of Linux on the desktop, but for THIS purpose, the home or small business LAN server, Linux has lots of advantages, the biggest being that it can easily run on cheap commodity hardware you have lying around.
Funny, I thought you'd reply with "duh, it'd be stupid to not allow software installation.":) Anyhow, one thing to keep in mind is that WHS is intended for regular people who have multiple machines in their house. My parents aren't going to learn about RAID and its requirements, and even if they manage to setup RAID initially, what happens in a few years when they want additional storage + redundancy? Would they have to resetup everything? Buy another NAS box? With WHS they plug in the new drive, and the data will automatically be mirrored.
Additionally, my last Samba experience involved modifying a config file, something that's already beyond my parents. At least Samba has domain mode, which is probably superior to WHS's method of synchronizing usernames and passwords, but XP Professional is required to join domains. Not everyone has Professional.
My current system is actually a hybrid of these approaches: It's a Kuro-box, a NAS that has it's own Linux distribution. It can run Samba, but I'm also running P2P clients and a few little daemons on it for VPN and such. I actually wouldn't reccomend it to other people. I basically wanted a cheap PPC developm
"Redundant storage and hot pluggable drives for those for whom RAID is an insect spray can." If you don't know what RAID is, why would you bother specing a home-pc with hot swappable drives? "To add storage just slip in another drive and you are good to go." Yeah, assuming you got a server chassis with hot swappable drives. Which, by definition, the end-user this is targeted at doesn't.
They don't necessarily have to build their own machine. HP will have MediaMart Server, which is a headless machine with support for hot-swappable drives and will run Windows Home Server.
"Automated backups for every system on the net. Recover older versions of files. Single instance storage" Yeah, that's a good pitch, too. So far? Vapor-ware!
Several thousand are participating in the beta, and there's a forum full of people using it. Yep, sounds like vapor-ware to me.
"Remote access and administration. Remote control over the web --- again, intended for users who have no experience in any of this." Oh, there's a security hole just waiting for a portscan to come along!
This is aimed at Fanbois who just don't have the brains to make the leap to Ubuntu or Fedora.
WHS automatically replicates data across all attached hard drives, which can be internal/external and of different sizes, and will also automatically backup all my networked machines without duplicating files. If Ubuntu/Fedora can do that, then please enlighten me.
I'm not sure what all your "home server" does, but coming from you it probably uses far more hardware than most people want to buy for the purpose and it probably locks me into using one of your buggy, insecure operating systems to access it. Put another way, you're going to have a tough time convincing people who want to have a hard drive shared on the network (probably 99.99% of all people who would want a "server" in the house) to go with your buggy crap rather than the linksys router.
It'd be nice if you would at least familiarize yourself with the product before you bash it. Windows Home Server provides a variety of services, including:
Redundant storage by duplicating it across multiple drives, and the ability to easily add/remove drives. Also, drive letters are gone; WHS treats all drives as one big pool of space.
Remote access of files beyond the LAN, plus the ability to setup a personalized domain to access your server. All of this is optional and disabled by default if you're concerned about security.
Backup and restore entire computers on the network. It backs up one copy of duplicate files across the network to save space. You can also restore individual files.
Ability to install your own apps on WHS. It's based on Windows Server 2003 R2, and there aren't any restrictions on installing software on it.
So can the Linksys and Airport Extreme devices do the above? Don't be a blind basher.
Now regarding alternatives to WHS: If you simply need network storage without backup, remote access, and a full Windows OS environment, then stick with Linksys, Airport Extreme, and the variety of other devices that let you attach hard drives. But WHS sounds like a great option if you want those additional features.
It looks like Microsoft has tried to make their tags very compact for some reason, perhaps in a mistaken effort to reduce file size. That's foolish since any XML-based format is going to result in large file sizes unless compressed, and if you're compressing anyway, more verbose and hence more self-explanatory tag names don't cost anything[*]. Personally, I find the OpenDoc version to be much clearer. I also think it's much better to apply style attributes to text spans, rather than to define tags that implement specific stylistic effects (bold, italic, etc.).
Brian Jones, a program manager on Office, has a post on this: Does tag size matter?. He echoes your statement in that it doesn't make much of a difference in document size due to compression, but claims that there's a large difference in parsing and compression/decompression time:
With the latest SpreadsheetML design, we've seen that the XML parsing alone (not including our parsing numbers, refs, formulas) can often range from 10-40% of the entire file load. That's just the time it takes to read each tag and each attribute.
Given that, I think it's sensible to reduce element and attribute names in order to produce better load/save performance.
You must have added a lot of software too, then. Mind letting us know what you used that works? I wasn't able to do any video editing at all, since Video Studio refused to run, and the "patch" that was supposed to make it work in Vista removed a bunch of features that I use.
Actually, I just used Windows Movie Maker. I captured to uncompressed DV, performed some editing (spliced the video, added my own sound track), and then afterwards I was able to encode with WMM to WMV and an app I found on Doom9 to convert to H.264 (I can't remember the name at the moment, but it's OSS). I've been meaning to try out DVD-lab (excellent DVD authoring app), but from what I gather on their forums it works fine with Vista. Your WMP DVD issue is interesting since I've had no problems watching DVDs; what was the exact error?
And my burning software - only about a year old - won't work on Vista. Although I can upgrade to Nero 7 (for $69), and they say it's compatible. The interface looks horrible, though.
Nero is terribly bloated; I haven't used it for years. I use the freely available and simple ImgBurn, which, despite its name, can also create and burn CDs by providing files. I've heard that Daemon Tools works if you want to mount ISOs, but have not used it myself.
What did you do when the installer wanted to load DirectX 9.0c? Did you install 9.0c over top of Vista's 10? If so, what happened? What version of DirectX are you running now under Vista (please check)...
Installing WorldWind under Vista is a big unknown for me because DirectX v10 does not have managed DirectX, but do you lose DirectX10 functionality if you install DirectX v9.0c on top of it (which _does_ have the managed.NET DirectX interface)????
It didn't ask me to install DX 9.0c. However, Civ 4 does require it, and installing DX 9.0c on Vista seems to have no problems. I don't have a DX 10 card so I don't know if any DX 10 features are missing, but I highly doubt it since managed DX is likely just a wrapper around unmanaged DX, in which case it's probably only the collection of managed assemblies in C:\windows\Microsoft.NET\DirectX for Managed Code. Furthermore, dxdiag says I have DX 10.
If you lose v10 functionality, then once a f__king again, Microsoft does the old bait and switch API deal, where people get hooked on a shiny new Microsoft API, and then MS abandons the API for something else. Managed DirectX is an example of this, and Vista makes the problem even worse by not supporting this now legacy API. This leaves developers holding the bag of Microsoft dumped crap again and again. I'm getting sick of it
Then stay with managed DX. Not supporting doesn't mean it doesn't work. What you're really complaining about is the lack of language bindings,.NET bindings in your case, for new APIs. Well, guess what, that's a problem for pretty much all languages aside from C++ on Windows. If the lack of managed DX10 really bothers you, then write your own wrapper around it using C++/CLI.
Re:Conditioned Response
on
Is Vista a Trap?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I'm not sure what lies you've been reading about UAC, but it conditions users to always say "Yes" to security prompts. This is a very terrible idea and in this situation the criticism is well deserved.
"You are about to open the Control Panel -- allow or deny?"
"You are about to open the Program Files folder -- allow or deny?"
"You are about to modify user preferences -- allow or deny?
"You are about to open attachment pzxyTrojan.exe -- allow or deny?"
Allow.. allow.. allow.. allow.. allow..
All lies; you've never used Vista, have you? I can open Control Panel, Program Files, modify my user settings, and open attachments all without UAC prompts.
Please, if you have a valid annoying UAC experience, post it, and with details. I've run Vista for months and can go for days without a prompt. The legitimate bad experiences I've heard have all involved scenarios that most users will never encounter, such as debugging a networked service that requires admin privileges and access to network shares, in which case you can simply disable UAC. The most a regular user will ever see of UAC is when they install an app, and please don't claim most people do this every day.
Re:XP over 98 had similar headaches
on
Is Vista a Trap?
·
· Score: 1
Or, in the alternative, that it could be "rooted" in a subdirectory, so you had c:\vista\windows, c:\vista\Documents and Settings, c:\vista\Program Files, etc. Obviously this wouldn't work with every single file but if done right it would eliminate a lot of confusion and it would leave the XP installation intact and bootable.
Vista upgrading is, in fact, similar to that. Upgrading will rename your old Windows and Program Files directory to something else, and Vista clean installs on the partition. Afterwards your old settings and apps are "migrated" over to your new installation. The XP installation isn't intact and bootable, but I believe you can uninstall Vista to restore it. Also, the installer can perform primitive partitioning, including extending and shrinking partitions (but not moving them around).
I guess this guy just wanted to report on the process of upgrading a machine. If I wanted to warn people off of Vista I would ask them what they hated most about XP, and when they testified that it was the annoying messages the OS constantly wants them to look at, I'd tell them to imagine those messages being even more unrelenting. With the added ability to take control of your entire machine, stopping everything, every process, every thread, in its tracks until you answer.
I've posted this before without many responses: I see a lot of UAC complaints on Slashdot but very little on details as to what the person is doing to garnish so many prompts. So here's my proposal to Slashdotters: If you've seen more than 5 UAC prompts in one day, what were you doing to cause them? Is it a scenario that most users (i.e. my parents) will encounter, or something relegated to some obscure realm such as debugging?
If you're debugging an app installer or a networked service that requires admin privileges and accesses file shares, then sure UAC is a pain. So disable it. But from what I can tell, UAC prompts are not an issue for most users. Also, nitpick: The prompts don't stop everything; they merely put up a fullscreen UI that requires input before proceeding.
Heck, even a bunch of MS's own software is incompatible with Vista (big boys like.NET Framework 2.0 and SQL Server 2005, last I checked)
Dude, Windows Vista includes.NET Framework 2.0. I've coded and debugged.NET 2.0 apps on Vista without issues; the incompatibilities listed aren't for the general usage cases.
Re:throwing up my hands
on
Is Vista a Trap?
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Every time there is news like this the fanboys shout 'you shoulda known' and
'get new hardware'. I have a better idea. Let's call Vista not an upgrade but a wholesale replacement of your computer and many of your applications. Most of your data will work in the new system but that's about it.
No - Vista is barely less of an upgrade than switching from XP to a Mac.
Sure, so what hardware and software did you have to replace?
Amount I've had to spend in addition to purchasing Vista: $0. I built my AMD Athlon 2700+, 1 GB RAM, Radeon 9800 Pro in 2003 (hardly new). All my software and scenarios work, including:
Visual Studio 2005, including debugging without UAC prompts
Subversion, TortoiseSVN
Foxit Reader
Paint.NET
Nasa's World Wind
ffdshow, Xvid codecs
VLC
Civilization 1 (for Windows 3.1), 2, and 4 (I don't have 3), Quake 1 through 4, Guild Wars, Baldur's Gate 1 and 2, SimTower, SimCity 200, SimCity 4, Age of Empires 2, WarCraft 3, Diablo 1 and 2, and others. In fact, I don't recall a game that doesn't work.
I've captured video from my camcorder, edited it, and performed video encoding without problems. No DRM invovled.
I've ripped CDs at lossless rates (the builtin WMP supports WMA, WMA lossless, MP3 up to 320 kbps, and WAV), and burnt it. Again, no DRM involved.
Was able to watch DVDs on my 1920x1200 monitor.
Can access file shares on XP fine.
Printing to both local and networked printers work; while typing this I connected to my brother's XP machine downstairs and printed to his printer. Setup was a couple mouse clicks.
I'd love to hear other people's experiences, but please include details.
Four of the seven will affect the ordinary user: the two when the installer is run, and the two when the uninstaller is run.
But how often will users run your installer? Users typically run installers at most twice during the time an app spends on their computer, once to install, and perhaps again to uninstall. Two prompts over several months or years is virtually unnoticeable. Your development scenario of 7 UAC prompts is bad, but again, it's not the experience for typical users because most people don't do software development. In your case I'd just disable UAC to debug it, or at least run an elevated command prompt so you can delete the missed files without prompts.
Also, why does your installer require two UAC prompts when it's run? All installers I've seen only require one.
It doesn't bring my modest 1.8GHz single-core Athlon 64 box to its knees, even with the Aero Glass UI (of course, my $40 Radeon X1300 helped that - the GeForce 6100 IGP was kind of sluggish.
My AMD Athlon 2700+ with 1 GB RAM, Radeon 9800 Pro, and Vista installed on a 20 GB partition also runs Vista fine. I'm at 1920x1200 with full Aero. Oh and I built the machine in the summer of 2003, nearly 4 years ago. All the Slashdot bashing that Vista requires new hardware and uber specs is absurd.
UAC hasn't prompted me for anything in the past 4 hours. I see - maybe - 1 or 2 prompts per day. Perhaps that's because I don't go trying to put files in "C:\windows" or screw with system DLLs.
My average experience is even less; I can go for several days without a prompt. I've only seen them today due to testing installation of a program I'm writing.
I see a lot of UAC complaints on Slashdot but very little on details as to what the person is doing to garnish so many prompts. So here's my proposal to Slashdotters: If you've seen more than 5 UAC prompts in one day, what were you doing to cause them?
Yes, certain scenarios will display a crapload of UAC prompts, such as running your favorite software that prompts, trying to move stuff around in Program Files, installing every app you find on SourceForge, etc., and some of those scenarios are of genuine concern and have noticeable user impact. However, I'm interested in getting these actual experiences and separating them from the rediculous and vague second-hand claims that prompts are spawning faster than bunnies.
OK, someone please explain to me how a scrolling start menu is BETTER?
It's probably to make things easier for most users. Most people don't organize their start menu and end up with huge menus cascading all over their desktop when they try to run something. A scrolling menu is better in that case. And yeah, it sucks for those who know how to organize it and prefer popup menus, although personally I'm fine with it since my apps are usually in the most-used list, or I can search for the app through the Vista start menu.
This is a serious question... when I Google "Vista DRM" I see a lot of stuff on HD-DVD and BlueRay, broadcast flag bits, etc.
None of that will affect my un-encumbered media files, right?
Correct. I dual boot Vista with XP (but haven't touched XP in ages), and all the videos I've ripped/encoded on my XP partition play fine on Vista. I've successfully captured video on Vista from my camcorder and encoded that as well. No DRM involved; everything works.
Quicksilver, or even Spotlight, on a Mac is easier - hit the key (or mouse button) to open it, start typing application name, within 3 or 4 letters, you got it, hit return.
On Vista: hit the Windows key (or mouse button) to open it, start typing application name, within 3 or 4 letters, you got it, hit return. I take it you're commenting on something you've never used?
These operations can only be done by someone with admin rights, and until you say yes to UAC that's not you. The question has to be, why on earth are you trying to write to a system folder? Sure, you may have a good reason to do it, but it's not something that most users are going to do, and it's certainly not something you want a program that's running as a limited user to be able to do.
I definitely agree. The problem is that everyone is used to writing to system folders due to XP's lax defaults, so now that Vista restricts it, power users are suddenly shocked and amazed. And the power users are the ones who write tech articles and visit Slashdot.
But I don't think this is an issue at all for regular users. Everyone in my family has been running XP as a regular user for years, and not once have they complained about not being able to write to a system folder. They've complained once or twice about not being able to install software from their own account, but quickly got used to installing from the admin account. The only consistent complaint is being unable to double-click the time on the taskbar to view the calendar. XP displays an "access denied" box, while Vista will show the calendar.
Yeah, I can see regural suers doing THAT. And if they do, we have come full-circle. For years Windows and Mac-users have said to Linux/BSD-users that "CLI sucks! It's too hard and complicated!". And now you are suggestsing that in order to get something done in Vista, we are required to use CLI? Oh the irony!
Then list the software requiring elevation that regular users will frequently run. The reason I elevate at work is to start a build environment for OS components; my parents aren't going to build and debug OS stuff daily. All my games, all my own programming projects, and all my software applications do not prompt for elevation at all.
Yes, because the best security-features are those that you have switched off, right? The thing is that UAC COULD be done right. But Microsoft failed at it. They failed so bad that any benefits UAC gives have been brushed aside, since users either automatically clicks "OK", or they switch it off entirely. In either case, it's useless.
You missed my point. You can disable it if it gets annoying, but I beg anyone whose usage is similar to that of most users to list the number of times they've elevated today and the apps that required elevation. Even coding and debugging OS components requires 1-2 elevations for me. At home it's zero except when I install stuff. All I see are comments on how annoying elevation is without any experiences from beyond the first few weeks, when elevation is more frequent due to hardware and software setup.
So what's your experience with it? What apps require elevation far too frequently for you? Are you changing video cards and installing the newest SourceForge projects everyday? Do you save family pictures to c:\windows\system32?
Slashdot Mirror
That is incorrect. IE's search field is customizable; it defaults to Live Search but I can easily use Google, Yahoo, or whatever else I want. Google's issue is with Vista's desktop search through Explorer, which is currently tied to the indexing service built into Vista. It's easy to disable that service, but there's currently no way to tie the Explorer search box to another desktop search engine. Note that this has nothing to do with online search.
You don't know what you're talking about. I can test PowerShell stuff at the keyboard and screen. All commands have detailed documentation accessible from the command-line. You also never deal with binary data when working with objects.
The standard .NET DateTime object is used throughout PowerShell. While you've listed 3 different date-time representations (and there are many more throughout the world), PowerShell has exactly one standard representation in the DateTime object. I think your world would be more error-prone.
The PowerShell sort commandlet works on all objects, all object attributes, and all commands that generates those objects. Your proposal involves bloating every command for which you want to perform specialized sorting with special switches.
For example, the Get-Process commandlet returns .NET Process objects, which have over 20 attributes over which you can sort. I wouldn't want 20+ switches for sorting. Also, -member is optional, so you can do: get-process | sort PeakWorkingSet
Actually, yes. You claimed there was no way the OS could run old binaries, and I disproved your claim with evidence that old binaries do run.
But just recently I ran Civilization 1 and SimTower on Vista. Both are Windows 3.1-era games. All my other games from 95/2K/XP run flawlessly on later versions of Windows.
I just looked at Buffalo products, but only see RAID support for data redundancy, which I assume imposes specific drive requirements (same size or type, for example). WHS implements data redundancy even for different-sized drives. Also, the remote access capabilities allow for access over the Internet. Can that be done with Buffalo products in a secure manner?
I'll give an example: My house has 5 machines running Windows. Aside from personal files unique to each machine, they also share duplicate files, such as system binaries, installed programs, etc. WHS will back up one copy of those duplicate files. Entire machines can be restored from backups. So it's similar to an HD image, but without wasting space backing up duplicate files for each image. Moreover, rsync requires a certain amount of setup; good luck getting my parents to read through rsync documentation and getting it to work.
Funny, I thought you'd reply with "duh, it'd be stupid to not allow software installation." :) Anyhow, one thing to keep in mind is that WHS is intended for regular people who have multiple machines in their house. My parents aren't going to learn about RAID and its requirements, and even if they manage to setup RAID initially, what happens in a few years when they want additional storage + redundancy? Would they have to resetup everything? Buy another NAS box? With WHS they plug in the new drive, and the data will automatically be mirrored.
Additionally, my last Samba experience involved modifying a config file, something that's already beyond my parents. At least Samba has domain mode, which is probably superior to WHS's method of synchronizing usernames and passwords, but XP Professional is required to join domains. Not everyone has Professional.
They don't necessarily have to build their own machine. HP will have MediaMart Server, which is a headless machine with support for hot-swappable drives and will run Windows Home Server.
Several thousand are participating in the beta, and there's a forum full of people using it. Yep, sounds like vapor-ware to me.
Off by default.
WHS automatically replicates data across all attached hard drives, which can be internal/external and of different sizes, and will also automatically backup all my networked machines without duplicating files. If Ubuntu/Fedora can do that, then please enlighten me.
It'd be nice if you would at least familiarize yourself with the product before you bash it. Windows Home Server provides a variety of services, including:
So can the Linksys and Airport Extreme devices do the above? Don't be a blind basher.
Now regarding alternatives to WHS: If you simply need network storage without backup, remote access, and a full Windows OS environment, then stick with Linksys, Airport Extreme, and the variety of other devices that let you attach hard drives. But WHS sounds like a great option if you want those additional features.
Brian Jones, a program manager on Office, has a post on this: Does tag size matter?. He echoes your statement in that it doesn't make much of a difference in document size due to compression, but claims that there's a large difference in parsing and compression/decompression time:
Given that, I think it's sensible to reduce element and attribute names in order to produce better load/save performance.
Actually, I just used Windows Movie Maker. I captured to uncompressed DV, performed some editing (spliced the video, added my own sound track), and then afterwards I was able to encode with WMM to WMV and an app I found on Doom9 to convert to H.264 (I can't remember the name at the moment, but it's OSS). I've been meaning to try out DVD-lab (excellent DVD authoring app), but from what I gather on their forums it works fine with Vista. Your WMP DVD issue is interesting since I've had no problems watching DVDs; what was the exact error?
Nero is terribly bloated; I haven't used it for years. I use the freely available and simple ImgBurn, which, despite its name, can also create and burn CDs by providing files. I've heard that Daemon Tools works if you want to mount ISOs, but have not used it myself.
It didn't ask me to install DX 9.0c. However, Civ 4 does require it, and installing DX 9.0c on Vista seems to have no problems. I don't have a DX 10 card so I don't know if any DX 10 features are missing, but I highly doubt it since managed DX is likely just a wrapper around unmanaged DX, in which case it's probably only the collection of managed assemblies in C:\windows\Microsoft.NET\DirectX for Managed Code. Furthermore, dxdiag says I have DX 10.
Then stay with managed DX. Not supporting doesn't mean it doesn't work. What you're really complaining about is the lack of language bindings, .NET bindings in your case, for new APIs. Well, guess what, that's a problem for pretty much all languages aside from C++ on Windows. If the lack of managed DX10 really bothers you, then write your own wrapper around it using C++/CLI.
All lies; you've never used Vista, have you? I can open Control Panel, Program Files, modify my user settings, and open attachments all without UAC prompts.
Please, if you have a valid annoying UAC experience, post it, and with details. I've run Vista for months and can go for days without a prompt. The legitimate bad experiences I've heard have all involved scenarios that most users will never encounter, such as debugging a networked service that requires admin privileges and access to network shares, in which case you can simply disable UAC. The most a regular user will ever see of UAC is when they install an app, and please don't claim most people do this every day.
Vista upgrading is, in fact, similar to that. Upgrading will rename your old Windows and Program Files directory to something else, and Vista clean installs on the partition. Afterwards your old settings and apps are "migrated" over to your new installation. The XP installation isn't intact and bootable, but I believe you can uninstall Vista to restore it. Also, the installer can perform primitive partitioning, including extending and shrinking partitions (but not moving them around).
I've posted this before without many responses: I see a lot of UAC complaints on Slashdot but very little on details as to what the person is doing to garnish so many prompts. So here's my proposal to Slashdotters: If you've seen more than 5 UAC prompts in one day, what were you doing to cause them? Is it a scenario that most users (i.e. my parents) will encounter, or something relegated to some obscure realm such as debugging?
If you're debugging an app installer or a networked service that requires admin privileges and accesses file shares, then sure UAC is a pain. So disable it. But from what I can tell, UAC prompts are not an issue for most users. Also, nitpick: The prompts don't stop everything; they merely put up a fullscreen UI that requires input before proceeding.
Dude, Windows Vista includes .NET Framework 2.0. I've coded and debugged .NET 2.0 apps on Vista without issues; the incompatibilities listed aren't for the general usage cases.
Sure, so what hardware and software did you have to replace?
Amount I've had to spend in addition to purchasing Vista: $0. I built my AMD Athlon 2700+, 1 GB RAM, Radeon 9800 Pro in 2003 (hardly new). All my software and scenarios work, including:
I'd love to hear other people's experiences, but please include details.
But how often will users run your installer? Users typically run installers at most twice during the time an app spends on their computer, once to install, and perhaps again to uninstall. Two prompts over several months or years is virtually unnoticeable. Your development scenario of 7 UAC prompts is bad, but again, it's not the experience for typical users because most people don't do software development. In your case I'd just disable UAC to debug it, or at least run an elevated command prompt so you can delete the missed files without prompts.
Also, why does your installer require two UAC prompts when it's run? All installers I've seen only require one.
My AMD Athlon 2700+ with 1 GB RAM, Radeon 9800 Pro, and Vista installed on a 20 GB partition also runs Vista fine. I'm at 1920x1200 with full Aero. Oh and I built the machine in the summer of 2003, nearly 4 years ago. All the Slashdot bashing that Vista requires new hardware and uber specs is absurd.
There's a difference to the programmer: Oh, my program is popping a UAC prompt, I'd better fix it.
My average experience is even less; I can go for several days without a prompt. I've only seen them today due to testing installation of a program I'm writing.
I see a lot of UAC complaints on Slashdot but very little on details as to what the person is doing to garnish so many prompts. So here's my proposal to Slashdotters: If you've seen more than 5 UAC prompts in one day, what were you doing to cause them?
Yes, certain scenarios will display a crapload of UAC prompts, such as running your favorite software that prompts, trying to move stuff around in Program Files, installing every app you find on SourceForge, etc., and some of those scenarios are of genuine concern and have noticeable user impact. However, I'm interested in getting these actual experiences and separating them from the rediculous and vague second-hand claims that prompts are spawning faster than bunnies.
It's probably to make things easier for most users. Most people don't organize their start menu and end up with huge menus cascading all over their desktop when they try to run something. A scrolling menu is better in that case. And yeah, it sucks for those who know how to organize it and prefer popup menus, although personally I'm fine with it since my apps are usually in the most-used list, or I can search for the app through the Vista start menu.
Correct. I dual boot Vista with XP (but haven't touched XP in ages), and all the videos I've ripped/encoded on my XP partition play fine on Vista. I've successfully captured video on Vista from my camcorder and encoded that as well. No DRM involved; everything works.
On Vista: hit the Windows key (or mouse button) to open it, start typing application name, within 3 or 4 letters, you got it, hit return. I take it you're commenting on something you've never used?
I definitely agree. The problem is that everyone is used to writing to system folders due to XP's lax defaults, so now that Vista restricts it, power users are suddenly shocked and amazed. And the power users are the ones who write tech articles and visit Slashdot.
But I don't think this is an issue at all for regular users. Everyone in my family has been running XP as a regular user for years, and not once have they complained about not being able to write to a system folder. They've complained once or twice about not being able to install software from their own account, but quickly got used to installing from the admin account. The only consistent complaint is being unable to double-click the time on the taskbar to view the calendar. XP displays an "access denied" box, while Vista will show the calendar.
Then list the software requiring elevation that regular users will frequently run. The reason I elevate at work is to start a build environment for OS components; my parents aren't going to build and debug OS stuff daily. All my games, all my own programming projects, and all my software applications do not prompt for elevation at all.
You missed my point. You can disable it if it gets annoying, but I beg anyone whose usage is similar to that of most users to list the number of times they've elevated today and the apps that required elevation. Even coding and debugging OS components requires 1-2 elevations for me. At home it's zero except when I install stuff. All I see are comments on how annoying elevation is without any experiences from beyond the first few weeks, when elevation is more frequent due to hardware and software setup.
So what's your experience with it? What apps require elevation far too frequently for you? Are you changing video cards and installing the newest SourceForge projects everyday? Do you save family pictures to c:\windows\system32?