"If you're not ready for Vista, you can downgrade to Windows XP without affecting your Sony VAIO warranty and switch back to Vista at any time."
That says to me that Vista just isn't as 'run-in' as XP yet (Which is isn't, no doubt), and people are wary of this.
I'm beginning to wonder if we've used up all the links yet repeating the same news that, shock-horror, some people would rather have tried & tested software than the bleeding edge.
Slashdot really does sound like the FOX news of nerdy sites sometimes. Coming next: "How Vista leaves pubes on the toilet-seat, throws steaming turds at the neighbours, and sleeps with your wife when you're at work.
1. Actually, you're right, Outlook 2007 uses the Word 2007 rendering engine. But Outlook 2003 uses the aforementioned control, with the same effect I mentioned.
2. Source? I'm still waiting for the "Microsoft admits command-line parsing is terrible" document you mentioned.
3. Default inbound ports open in Windows XP are 137, 138, 139, and 445. They are used for File and Printer sharing (the former 3 being used for Win9x only). The Messenger service you mention is disabled too by default. I expect that's more ports than Linux has open by default, but still, it's not terrible. Vista locks down even more, depending on what type of network you're connecting too - i.e, on public networks, Vista will close off all ports on that interface.
1. False - Vista plays dvd's out of the box 2. True. download OO. It's free. Or buy Office. 3. WTF? 4. Windows, like many other OS's doesn't have the ability to open any file that may/may-not be released by others in the future, no matter what the format. Coming in 2056. 5. True. Bummer dude. 6. Again, WTF? IE7 runs in a protected sandbox mode, meaning any hacks to it are kept away from even your user profile. I believe Mozilla are considering implementing the same for FireFox on vista. 7. False. You can set file permissions, per user, per-action for files and directories that don't even exist yet. Try doing that on Linux.
Finally, Vista is 400 [insert local currency here] if you buy the Ultimate version from a retail shop. If it came with your PC, it's considerably less.
HTML control (IE, basically). You have full control over what HTML displayed and how. Case in point, Outlook 2007 - html emails are opened with this control; images in emails are downloaded only when requested. Sure you could program the IE control to do something dangerous, but no more than you could write a java-app to hose a linux profile - everything runs under user-level privileges anyway. Er, plus it's just one control? There are others.
Parsing command-line application arguments isn't generally considered that dangerous. That and no-one uses command-line apps in Windows very much? I'd be interested to know exactly how Microsoft phrased what you raised though.
True enough on the network-servers thing, but consider you can with all IIS services, and really, if you haven't got a decent firewall set-up you lose anyway
So, I'd agree with you on some level - some good ideas you bring up for sure, but I don't think that makes the WinAPIs "inherently insecure".
The Win API's have never been particularly friendly but "fundamentally insecure"? Don't think so. Of course if you have some overwhelming evidence on the contrary, let's see it. I won't hold my breath.
XP has been several years in the wild, Vista, not even one.
XP is a solid platform, even if it isn't as secure by design, it still works and can be secured with the right knowledge (i.e don't do stuff as 'root')
Of course Microsoft will offer the more stable platform is customers really want it. Who is dumb enough to really think Vista is yet as mature as XP yet - and even with the same level of support, even now? Either way, the licence fees are the same and go to the same place, so guess what, Microsoft still win. Nothing to see here, move along please.
Actually, MS Office is pretty good at doing multiple lingos at once. I regularly have to write emails in Spanish and English and i never have to set the language at all - Office just works out after a sentence or two that I've switched and changes the paragraph language spelling and grammar checks appropriately. It works really well.
...how comments like this get modded insightful. The only insight, aside from pure speculation, is about WinFS....which has what to do with network/audio problems?
Did I mention they're working on a fix? Ah, I did, but you didn't bold that bit.
As for the audio-stack implementation, maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong. I've never had Windows crack up multimedia under load, whereas I do regularly in Linux. But, if you will, I'll take that as just me.
To the point at hand though, DVI adaptors work fine for HD protected content. Fact.
That's just one example. This ZDNet guy has actually tried out HD content on Vista and is objecting because of actual real experience to the contrary of what this Guttman guy only 'theorises'.
A bug with audio + network speeds (which, btw, Microsoft has admitted is a bug they're working on fixing) has nothing to do with spreading FUD as fact about Vista DRM tech.
The only thing that Automatic Updates, updates is itself, the AU service can be disabled, and this doesn't apply to computers running under WSUS (read: every corporate network machine, so only applies to home computers).
So it's not brilliant of MS to do this, but not the end of the world either.
...Linux.com declared, to the dismay of everyone, Linux to be a superior OS to Windows....and every OSS MS equivalent project for that matter. The atmosphere in the Microsoft campus is one of shock & disbelief.
Good article, but it doesn't mention anywhere XSLT - quite a major "step" in the giant layered cake that is web dev....which is basically from the bottom:
Xslt takes all the need to program & process display logic out of the server-side code, and is completely language independent - making it highly portable. It rocks when you know how to control the beast. You don't even need a server to run it - every browser since 1995 is capable of doing XML+XSLT client-side, meaning a whole chunk of "code" can be cut out from core development.
I'm sure there are cases that running all Linux is cheaper, server-side especially, but I would say that this story in particular is about as credible as any of these - http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluat ion/casestudies/r2casestudies.mspx, and at least the Microsoft "studies" provide figures, and specifics of why they got a saving.
In the complex world of IT, neither closed source nor open-source is the perfect solution for everything.
Because, as a Microsoft dev myself I like to think the technology field I base myself in is popular based on technical merits rather than stupid market hacking. Tactics like the OOXML fiasco only distract people from the actual benefits of MS technology.
Remember folks, for a company of several hundred thousand, unfortunately not all are going to be good guys - theres plenty more that are however.
I have seen from other screenshots and so on a different build-number (more significant one than normal), but the link provided was the quickest source I could find in the 5 minutes I had that the boss wasn't looking!
This is the real deal, and quite a clever move when you think it through - vista may not be perfect, but bad press from/. geeks stings far far less than bad press from enterprises (not that I don't expect there are some crossovers in audiences, but still).
An interesting nugget of info for you all, seeing as no-one has mentioned this yet....
The update will bring the Vista kernel to version 6.1. Why is this significant? It's the same kernel version that Windows Server 2008 will be. That means folks, that Microsoft, in effect have used Vista pre-SP1 as a test-bed for their Windows server platform. Servers crashing cause more panic than workstations, and take a guess slashdotters....which market-share are Microsoft champing at the bit for most? I'll give you a clue.....they already own the desktop.
The Vista strategy was "release and fix while in production" and in fairness, 6 months down the line, a lot has been fixed and Vista is shaping up to be a solid platform, but build numbers don't lie.
That said, the overall rhetoric of this move still isn't nice. AutoPatcher was at the very least, a handy tool for people that didn't know about the above methods, and to leave it 4 years in the game before sending in the lawyers isn't a nice way of treating the user community. A shame if you ask me.
Slashdot Mirror
FTA
"If you're not ready for Vista, you can downgrade to Windows XP without affecting your Sony VAIO warranty and switch back to Vista at any time."
That says to me that Vista just isn't as 'run-in' as XP yet (Which is isn't, no doubt), and people are wary of this.
I'm beginning to wonder if we've used up all the links yet repeating the same news that, shock-horror, some people would rather have tried & tested software than the bleeding edge.
Slashdot really does sound like the FOX news of nerdy sites sometimes. Coming next: "How Vista leaves pubes on the toilet-seat, throws steaming turds at the neighbours, and sleeps with your wife when you're at work.
1. Actually, you're right, Outlook 2007 uses the Word 2007 rendering engine. But Outlook 2003 uses the aforementioned control, with the same effect I mentioned.
2. Source? I'm still waiting for the "Microsoft admits command-line parsing is terrible" document you mentioned.
3. Default inbound ports open in Windows XP are 137, 138, 139, and 445. They are used for File and Printer sharing (the former 3 being used for Win9x only). The Messenger service you mention is disabled too by default. I expect that's more ports than Linux has open by default, but still, it's not terrible. Vista locks down even more, depending on what type of network you're connecting too - i.e, on public networks, Vista will close off all ports on that interface.
1. False - Vista plays dvd's out of the box
2. True. download OO. It's free. Or buy Office.
3. WTF?
4. Windows, like many other OS's doesn't have the ability to open any file that may/may-not be released by others in the future, no matter what the format. Coming in 2056.
5. True. Bummer dude.
6. Again, WTF? IE7 runs in a protected sandbox mode, meaning any hacks to it are kept away from even your user profile. I believe Mozilla are considering implementing the same for FireFox on vista.
7. False. You can set file permissions, per user, per-action for files and directories that don't even exist yet. Try doing that on Linux.
Finally, Vista is 400 [insert local currency here] if you buy the Ultimate version from a retail shop. If it came with your PC, it's considerably less.
Thanks for the FUD, come again another day.
Three very small issues you nit-pick here:
HTML control (IE, basically). You have full control over what HTML displayed and how. Case in point, Outlook 2007 - html emails are opened with this control; images in emails are downloaded only when requested. Sure you could program the IE control to do something dangerous, but no more than you could write a java-app to hose a linux profile - everything runs under user-level privileges anyway. Er, plus it's just one control? There are others.
Parsing command-line application arguments isn't generally considered that dangerous. That and no-one uses command-line apps in Windows very much? I'd be interested to know exactly how Microsoft phrased what you raised though.
True enough on the network-servers thing, but consider you can with all IIS services, and really, if you haven't got a decent firewall set-up you lose anyway
So, I'd agree with you on some level - some good ideas you bring up for sure, but I don't think that makes the WinAPIs "inherently insecure".
The Win API's have never been particularly friendly but "fundamentally insecure"? Don't think so. Of course if you have some overwhelming evidence on the contrary, let's see it. I won't hold my breath.
XP has been several years in the wild, Vista, not even one.
XP is a solid platform, even if it isn't as secure by design, it still works and can be secured with the right knowledge (i.e don't do stuff as 'root')
Of course Microsoft will offer the more stable platform is customers really want it. Who is dumb enough to really think Vista is yet as mature as XP yet - and even with the same level of support, even now? Either way, the licence fees are the same and go to the same place, so guess what, Microsoft still win. Nothing to see here, move along please.
See for yourself:
SQL Server 2005 - http://secunia.com/product/6782/?task=advisories
IIS6 - http://secunia.com/product/1438/?task=advisories
Vista too is looking good so far too, but it's very new, and only time will tell - http://secunia.com/product/13223/?task=advisories.
Actually, MS Office is pretty good at doing multiple lingos at once. I regularly have to write emails in Spanish and English and i never have to set the language at all - Office just works out after a sentence or two that I've switched and changes the paragraph language spelling and grammar checks appropriately. It works really well.
[tumbleweed]
I'll get my coat.
...how comments like this get modded insightful. The only insight, aside from pure speculation, is about WinFS....which has what to do with network/audio problems?
Did I mention they're working on a fix? Ah, I did, but you didn't bold that bit.
As for the audio-stack implementation, maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong. I've never had Windows crack up multimedia under load, whereas I do regularly in Linux. But, if you will, I'll take that as just me.
To the point at hand though, DVI adaptors work fine for HD protected content. Fact.
Wording aside, Samsung themselves state quite clearly HDCP support is available through DVI. There's your trusted path.
Wrong.
for instance, Guttman claims you can't play HD DRM'd content on a DVI port as fact. That is complete and utter rubbish, as seen on this example http://www.samsung.com/au/products/monitors/tft/tvmonitor/275t.asp?page=Features - where it clearly states HDM is playable through a DVI connector.
That's just one example. This ZDNet guy has actually tried out HD content on Vista and is objecting because of actual real experience to the contrary of what this Guttman guy only 'theorises'.
A bug with audio + network speeds (which, btw, Microsoft has admitted is a bug they're working on fixing) has nothing to do with spreading FUD as fact about Vista DRM tech.
Rubbish. Take a look at EU anti-trust cases, and you'll see there's plenty of home-grown cases too.
http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/antitrust/cases/index/by_nr_75.html
We love you Americans really....let's kiss and make-up ok?
The only thing that Automatic Updates, updates is itself, the AU service can be disabled, and this doesn't apply to computers running under WSUS (read: every corporate network machine, so only applies to home computers).
So it's not brilliant of MS to do this, but not the end of the world either.
Ok ok! There's no excuse, you're right.
Lame!
This guy's got the right idea - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6768237.stm
Ok, ok, so it's not like you can take the kids to the park with it, but why goto a park when you can just have your own built on-board?
...Linux.com declared, to the dismay of everyone, Linux to be a superior OS to Windows....and every OSS MS equivalent project for that matter. The atmosphere in the Microsoft campus is one of shock & disbelief.
Good article, but it doesn't mention anywhere XSLT - quite a major "step" in the giant layered cake that is web dev....which is basically from the bottom:
DBMS + Server-side code, XML, XSLT, HTML/Javascript, CSS
Xslt takes all the need to program & process display logic out of the server-side code, and is completely language independent - making it highly portable. It rocks when you know how to control the beast. You don't even need a server to run it - every browser since 1995 is capable of doing XML+XSLT client-side, meaning a whole chunk of "code" can be cut out from core development.
I'm sure there are cases that running all Linux is cheaper, server-side especially, but I would say that this story in particular is about as credible as any of these - http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluat ion/casestudies/r2casestudies.mspx, and at least the Microsoft "studies" provide figures, and specifics of why they got a saving.
In the complex world of IT, neither closed source nor open-source is the perfect solution for everything.
...that makes you wish /. had "+1 OMG Say it's not so" moderation points.
Because, as a Microsoft dev myself I like to think the technology field I base myself in is popular based on technical merits rather than stupid market hacking. Tactics like the OOXML fiasco only distract people from the actual benefits of MS technology.
Remember folks, for a company of several hundred thousand, unfortunately not all are going to be good guys - theres plenty more that are however.
Flame away.
I have seen from other screenshots and so on a different build-number (more significant one than normal), but the link provided was the quickest source I could find in the 5 minutes I had that the boss wasn't looking!
/. geeks stings far far less than bad press from enterprises (not that I don't expect there are some crossovers in audiences, but still).
This is the real deal, and quite a clever move when you think it through - vista may not be perfect, but bad press from
An interesting nugget of info for you all, seeing as no-one has mentioned this yet....
The update will bring the Vista kernel to version 6.1. Why is this significant? It's the same kernel version that Windows Server 2008 will be. That means folks, that Microsoft, in effect have used Vista pre-SP1 as a test-bed for their Windows server platform. Servers crashing cause more panic than workstations, and take a guess slashdotters....which market-share are Microsoft champing at the bit for most? I'll give you a clue.....they already own the desktop.
The Vista strategy was "release and fix while in production" and in fairness, 6 months down the line, a lot has been fixed and Vista is shaping up to be a solid platform, but build numbers don't lie.
There, I said it.
*shameless copy & paste*
"Patches can be slipstreamed anyway, and for the mother of all 'off-line patching systems' there's Windows Server Update Services."
Patches can be slipstreamed anyway, and for the mother of all 'off-line patching systems' there's Windows Server Update Services.
That said, the overall rhetoric of this move still isn't nice. AutoPatcher was at the very least, a handy tool for people that didn't know about the above methods, and to leave it 4 years in the game before sending in the lawyers isn't a nice way of treating the user community. A shame if you ask me.