Windows Vista Beta 2 Available for Download 444
prostoalex writes "Microsoft Windows Vista Beta 2 is now available for download from Microsoft's official site. If you remember seeing reviews of it already, Microsoft made downloads available to a limited set of customers last month. For PC users that are already running Windows Vista Beta 2, Microsoft put together a list of additional downloads like product guide and feature lists."
Ooops, Antitrust (Score:5, Interesting)
Okay, go to the "resource centre link", provided here [microsoft.com]here for your convenience. What do you notice? I'll give a hint:
Where the hell is the PDF? Aside from the fact that this is really fucking annoying it has some really worrying implications. They're trying to boot out the PDF format, which is nice, open and ubiquitous with their own format - and they're using their monopoly on the desktop operating system market to achieve this.
Let me be the first to call "Antitrust. Thanks for playing Microsoft! Please give the EU another 600 million euros.
For me, this little bit of text says it all. There's no PDF, they're pushing their own format that they know nobody uses. This shows that even after multiple multi-million dollar settlements and huge fines from the EU the company has not changed one bit. They seem to be acting much like a heroine addict, in that they're moving from one crime to the next, getting bigger and bigger fines but no matter how much you fine the company it is still pathologically anti-competitive.
I do have to say that the longer Microsoft remains on this path, and refuses to comply with the law, the more likely that it will meet it's end equally as sticky as the heroine addict. Is it a rule that all big companies go the way of AT&T eventually?
Simon
Re:Ooops, Antitrust (Score:2, Informative)
And you find this surprising? Here's another newsflash, try watching videos on the MSNBC website without running Microsoft Internet Explorer on Windows. Of course they're trying to hold onto their monopoly, it's what dying companies that fail to innovate do.
Re:Ooops, Antitrust (Score:4, Insightful)
> innovate do.
You're confusing fantasy with reality, I'm afraid. You mean it's what the world's most successful companies do.
Re:Ooops, Antitrust (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Ooops, Antitrust (Score:5, Interesting)
The XPS format will either get opened up or nobody but MSFT websites will use it. Especially since Vista will still run Adobe...
What you should be questioning is why XPS exists at all. PDF seems to do the job of portable document format just fine being that it renders [or can be rendered] pitch perfect anywhere. Unlike say Word which is a just a crime against professionalism...
Tom
Re:Ooops, Antitrust (Score:3, Funny)
Don't give them ideas...
"Vista isn't done until Adobe Acrobat won't run"
Software Freedom (Score:3, Insightful)
Why should MS be different?
Sure, you can point at artificial market constraints as a reason MS should play nice. But, at the end of the day, you either support freedom in the software marketplace, or you don't.
If you support free software (and individual freedoms), you have to believe that MS should be allowed to publish *their* documentat
Re:Software Freedom (Score:4, Interesting)
As a monopoly convicted of illegal anti-competitive business practices, the rules change!
No you don't. Microsoft should be forced to publish documentation in unencumbered formats, after what it's done. Maybe if it didn't have a history of abusing its monopoly to force its formats on people, it'd be different.
Yeah they are! They're removing your choice to read their documentation without using their software!
Re:Software Freedom (Score:3, Insightful)
The documentation is for their software. And that particular software (Vista) the documentation is for can read the file format fine without any extra downloads. And there's a .doc format which every program and his grandma can read.
Re:Software Freedom (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, you can point at artificial market constraints as a reason MS should play nice. But, at the end of the day, you either support freedom in the software marketplace, or you don't.
I support software freedom. As such, I must actively oppose companies who violate our laws and in doing so, actively attempt to prevent software freedom.
If you support free software (and individual freedoms), you have to believe that MS should be allowed to publish *their* documentation
Re:Ooops, Antitrust (Score:3, Interesting)
Im sick of having to read stuff formatted for print on a computer screen.
Re:Ooops, Antitrust (Score:5, Informative)
It's much faster than Adobe Reader at opening a PDF file and being a self-executable, requires no installation
Re:Ooops, Antitrust (Score:2)
The motivation of corporations (Score:4, Informative)
They seem to be acting much like a heroine addict, in that they're moving from one crime to the next, getting bigger and bigger fines but no matter how much you fine the company it is still pathologically anti-competitive... Is it a rule that all big companies go the way of AT&T eventually?
Quite possibly. The documentary The Corporation [imdb.com] pointed out how such corporations, while legally people in some respects, would be more like psychopaths [abstractdynamics.org] than any other kind of people, as they do whatever they can get away with on their quest for more profit, showing a complete disregard for morals and the law.
If it's cheaper to break the law and pay a fine than it is to obey the law and profit less, they'll break it.
Corporations have no conscience (Score:3, Insightful)
Morals are something we have, because we feel remorse for doing something "bad". We have morals, because our conscience is nagging when we have something to blame on ourselves that we did wrong. It enables us to function in groups.
Corps don't have that kind of mental safeguard against going postal. Corporations don't act by themselves, they use their employees to act for them. Those are, by definition, human beings who WOULD have a conscienc
Re:Corporations have no conscience (Score:5, Insightful)
As a normal worker, you're doing your job, or you're fired. Yes, you're against DRM but still you code some DRM mechanism, because if you don't do it, you're fired and someone else does it.
As an exec, you do it because it's your responsibility to keep the shareholder value up, shareholders are after all who you are responsible to. Yes, you're firing "some" people, but would it be easier on your conscience to think of all those who invested their money for retirement into your company and now have to work 'til 80 'cause your stock fell and thus their investment?
As a shareholder, you don't even know what you "have". You went to your bank and "bought something" that your investor deemed ok. Hell, I might have Sony stocks without knowing it! You also have no influence what they buy or sell (unless you're doing it the good ol' fashioned way and buy/sell yourself).
As the broker, you don't care for the companies. You don't know about the companies, you know their 3-letter acronym that flashes by on the ticker. What they do? You hardly know. You know their general interest and direction, so you know which itches of the trade their options respond to.
Corps are not "evil". They're also not "good". Good and evil are concepts of emotion, of a conscience. And corps have neither. Not having feelings or a conscience is not "evil" by itself. We see it as "evil", because we try to be "good" people. And who isn't good is automatically evil.
Corps don't go out of their way to do "evil". It's not like chem corps produce a lot of chemicals at a loss only to dump them into the ocean. That would be "evil".
Corps simply have no "soul", if you excuse that religious term. They have no morals, no conscience, no emotion. They only have "intelligence", through the people that offer their intelligence to it. Putting intelligence into a corporation means more money for the corp, so it is encouraged. Putting emotion or morals into a corporation is usually costy for the corp, so it is discouraged.
The net result is a "person" with high intelligence and zero morals.
Re:Ooops, Antitrust (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ooops, Antitrust (Score:3, Insightful)
-Eric
Re:Ooops, Antitrust (Score:2)
Re:Astroturf? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not questioning the legitimacy of Adobes possible lawsuit, but I'm saying that while Adobe is considering suing MS for having PDF support in Office 2007, they have a reason for not wanting to use Adobes PDF format and rather use their own...
Actually, you're still wrong. By implementing both PDF and XPS they can move people to their toolset and away from Adobe's before they have the format switch bump in the road. Adobe is making sure that bump is right away and thus making it harder for people to tra
Re:Ooops, Antitrust (Score:2)
Re:Ooops, Antitrust (Score:2)
Well if there is one example of 'crime does pay well' i would say it is Microsoft, why would they change? It works!
heroine addict (Score:3, Funny)
iBias? (Score:4, Insightful)
Where the hell is the PDF? Aside from the fact that this is really fucking annoying it has some really worrying implications. They're trying to boot out the PDF format, which is nice, open and ubiquitous with their own format - and they're using their monopoly on the desktop operating system market to achieve this.
Not to be a pro-MS shill, but supporting PDF over XPS is kind of like appls vs. apples. XPS is a totally open standard, its XML based. SUre, it's "controlled" by Microsoft, but PDF is "controlled" by Adobe. One is really no better than the other. PDF is just more popular right now.
Re:Ooops, Antitrust (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ooops, Antitrust (Score:5, Insightful)
As for the openness of the XPS... why don't you hop on into the site linked to above and visit the Licensing Overview page [microsoft.com].
Re:Ooops, Antitrust (Score:2)
Re:Ooops, Antitrust (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course Microsoft want to to, and personally I don't think Adobe have a leg to stand on in complaining about it. The only worry with Microsoft as always is that "their" PDF won't be quite compatible with everyone elses.
Re:Ooops, Antitrust (Score:3, Informative)
Of course Microsoft want to to, and personally I don't think Adobe have a leg to stand on in complaining about it. The only worry with Microsoft as always is that "their" PDF won't be quite compatible with everyone elses.
At this point they have no reason to make their PDF incompatible since Microsoft doesn't make a PDF viewer. Incompatible PDFs would simply make them look bad. Plus they have their XPS format [microsoft.com]; thus it wouldn't make sense for them to expend resources on making a PDF viewer and extending PD
Re:Ooops, Antitrust (Score:2, Insightful)
No it doesn't (Score:3, Insightful)
No it doesn't, because it's impossible to explain something that never happened. MS only took PDF out of Office because they suspected that Adobe might threaten them with a lawsuit. They don't even know, this is just speculation, and so far nothing has happened. It's just MS inventing an excuse to justify not using PDF. Come on, if you were on the verge of releasing a completely redundant fo
Re:No it doesn't (Score:3, Informative)
Sure, they can keep xps, it looks like a decent enough format. Just be sure to publish the spec!
Specs are available here [microsoft.com]. It includes the XPS spec itself, which describes the format of the XML files to render pages, and the packaging specs, which describes how those XML files, resources (images, fonts) are packaged together. Office 2007 uses the same packaging specs, which is really just a zip file with certain XML files describing how stuff is connected. A nice side effect is that to generate an XPS doc
Re:Ooops, Antitrust (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes it is, as much as HTML or
Well, not quite. PDF is open in the sense that you can download the spec and implement it without paying royalties or having any additional constraints imposed on you. HTML is open in this sense, but is also open in the sense that it is controlled by a standards body (the w3c) and anyone can propose additions to the spec (which is how we end up with five ways of saying red in CSS, for example). PDF is controlled by Adobe. In my mind, this isn
Re:Ooops, Antitrust (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Ooops, Antitrust (Score:3, Interesting)
You make it sound like that's such an awesome feature... who cares? 10 years ago I could drag a PDF to the printer icon in Mac OS and it would print it. Why not just open Acrobat and hit print? I still fail to see how this makes it worthy of a completely new format.
Re:Ooops, Antitrust (Score:3, Interesting)
So... rather than force each printer manufacturer to have to build their own high end interface to the PC, Microsoft build
Re:Ooops, Antitrust (Score:5, Informative)
You also don't seem to know how print spoolers work. They do *not* work for the lowest common denominator, they are pretty much device independent until they hit the driver itself... even Windows uses a display language to describe the page rather than Bitmaps (Unix of course use postscript throughout, so if you print a postscript document on a decent printer no driver is ever involved).
Re:Ooops, Antitrust (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Ooops, Antitrust (Score:2)
Drop the X (Score:5, Insightful)
Remarkable. MS once again on the bleeding edge of technology.
Re:Ooops, Antitrust (Score:2)
Re:Ooops, Antitrust (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, and PostScript being an established, stable open standard, of course.
Re:Ooops, Antitrust (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Ooops, Antitrust (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Ooops, Antitrust (Score:5, Informative)
Err, just about all decent printers? Support for Postscript Level 3 basically implies support for printing PDFs.
Re:It's Another Closed Standard (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Ooops, Antitrust (Score:2)
I can already print PDF documents just as easy as any other document, and I can even print them from practically every OS to every printer.
Re:Ooops, Antitrust (Score:3)
You're about 20 years too late on this one. An Apple LaserWriter [wikipedia.org] from 1985 can print postscript files just by doing cat file.ps > /dev/lp0 in linux, or copy file.ps lpt1 in DOS, or whatever technique your operating system uses to send raw postscript to the printer port. The whole idea of
Re:Ooops, Antitrust (Score:2)
In reality, they should probably pay Adobe a lisencing fee and get "real" PDF support and not worry about a anti-trust case. Though even bundling Adobe-backed PDF creation maybe enough to resurface antitrust issues. (Imagine a small company that is trying to sell a cheap PDF solution to XP users.)
Re:Ooops, Antitrust (Score:3, Insightful)
Apparently not [slashdot.org].
-Eric
Started downloading... (Score:2, Funny)
Upgrade My WinXP Machine? Why? (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't want an operating system with bells & whistles. I don't want an operating system that looks like it has a glass face or real marble or the most incredible anti-aliased font you've ever seen. What I want is an operating system that works and works efficiently.
There's no reason to preach to the choir, I have many machines (most of them Linux) that dual boot to many operating systems but you'll always need Windows because it's kind of the 'industry standard' for some people.
But when I look for an operating system the words 'form','function','marriage' & 'perfect' come to mind but not necessarily in that order. What I mean is, there's a balance I seek such that my hardware isn't stressed just to open a text editor yet the design is simple & friendly to the eye.
I run Windows XP professional & it works. It works well, which is surprising considering my history with the Windows operating system. It can be cut down to a pretty bare point of functionality and I like it.
So, Mr. Gates, why should I upgrade to Vista? Your "feature list [microsoft.com]" (the same damn thing I've been seeing for the last year) doesn't entice me at all. In fact, it scares me. You know what else scares me? It might not run the games I currently play [extremetech.com]
Tons of cash for a bloated operating system? No thanks. I'll settle for Windows XP Professional.
Why run Windows XP ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Trust me, you will follow....
Re:Upgrade My WinXP Machine? Why? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Upgrade My WinXP Machine? Why? (Score:2)
Re:Upgrade My WinXP Machine? Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
What?! Arguably the single largest corporate sponsor of Linux and assorted OSS projects doesn't seem too interested in Vista?
Say it ain't so!
there's a balance I seek such that my hardware isn't stressed just to open a text editor yet the design is simple & friendly to the eye.
So set the theme to Windows Classic. Sheesh; you make it sound like Aero Glass is the only option...
Re:Upgrade My WinXP Machine? Why? (Score:2)
Re:Upgrade My WinXP Machine? Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
No thanks. I'll settle for Windows XP Professional.
Well, while I agree with all your points. The thing is: I said exactly the same a few years ago when I was running Windows 2000. I thought I would never upgrade... Yet, now I run Windows XP Professional. Why? Well, XP had one thing I really liked (and is very useful on a multi-user-home-machine: fast user switching. I only "upgraded" to Windows XP in 2005, so I am "late" to Windows XP. I always end up upgrading late, because I think it's better that other people test the damned thing and find the quirks.
For now, I do not see any reason to upgrade to Windows Vista, but we'll talk again in 2008, when WinXP isn't supported anymore. Currently, I am evaluating FreeBSD as a complete replacement (and I like it...) Perhaps in 2008, I'll be running FreeBSD exclusively. If not, then I'll probably will be running Vista. You'll probably end up in the same boat as me: either a free OS or Windows Vista. Espcially when you buy a new machine and can't get a (legal) copy of XP anymore...
Re:Upgrade My WinXP Machine? Why? (Score:2)
Otherwise I would be still emjoying Windows 2000 and it's incredible speed over XP on most hardware.
When my video editing software supplier tries to force upgrade to Vista I will be making the jump to Apple.
Re:Upgrade My WinXP Machine? Why? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Upgrade My WinXP Machine? Why? (Score:2)
Hint: the masses do like glass faces and real marble and don't care about the inner workings of an operating system.
Re: (Score:2)
I got the chance to play with this (Score:2, Interesting)
Point? (Score:2, Informative)
And for all my bug reports I send in I get ???
At least when you beta test an OSS OS you then get rewarded with a stable OS that you can freely install as you choose...
Tom
Re:Point? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Point? (Score:2, Insightful)
You get:
Re:Point? (Score:2)
Why would you do that for ANY beta OS? It is beta after all. So unless you want to install on some spare PC you don't use, just do like everyone else and toss it on a VM. Never a good idea to replace an existing OS which you rely on for your work with a beta no matter who makes the OS. Try it out yes, but don't throw away an existing and reliable OS you can depend on so you can try one you hope that works. There is plenty of free VM software out there (heck even from MS n
Re:Point? (Score:2)
I sure as hell know I'm not going to use Vista any time soon, because I simply don't need it. It may look fancier and have some k3wl new stuff, but I don't need any of it.
Re:Point? (Score:2)
Re:Point? (Score:2)
Re:Point? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Point? (Score:2, Interesting)
That's not entirely correct either. With neither a closed-source nor an OSS OS do you *get* any direct profit on the sale of that software. But at least with an OSS one you don't *lose* the hundreds of dollars you spend on it.
In both cases, you *get* a decently functioning operating system. But your *reward* for purchasing Vista is bugs, viruses, and probably a decent one-way connection to the government/**AA spy agency of your
Re:Point? (Score:4, Insightful)
You're kidding right? If I was to pay for Vista (ha ha) and found bugs or misfeatures, I would have no right to complain about them?! You expect me to beta test commercial software on my own time and money before I have the right to complain about bugs in software that I paid for?!
Seriously? (Score:3, Interesting)
Mate, that's the worst idea I've ever heard.
Essentially, you're saying that the entire QA burden of software development should be carried by the general public, correct? And that bugs that slip through a public beta are somehow no longer grounds for criticism?
It's kind of like politics; if you can vote and don't,
direct download links (Score:5, Informative)
Windows Vista 32bit - English
http://download.windowsvista.com/dl/preview/beta2
Windows Vista 64bit - English
http://download.windowsvista.com/dl/preview/beta2
they should have had a torrent option.
Re:direct download links (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:direct download links (Score:5, Funny)
They Do [thepiratebay.org]
Re:direct download links (Score:2)
thanks for the update (Score:5, Funny)
Get Your Crack Right Here!!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Come on, kid. You know you want a taste. Come try this new Vista Beta. It's free! And I know how much you like free...
Can't log in using Konqueror (Score:3, Funny)
Still better than usual (Score:2)
--
Craig Ringer
They're 2 days late. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:They're 2 days late. (Score:2)
The only interesting thing about Vista... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:The only interesting thing about Vista... (Score:2, Offtopic)
Forget about it mate she's too smug for you.
Location of the photo (Score:3, Funny)
At a guess I'd say it's taken from the Barrow Downs above Bree looking towards Weathertop. Although that stretch of water could be the River Anduin near Cair Andros, which makes that mountain at the back right Mount Doom. Whatever, if you view just the background the image without the site search input field, you can just about make out nine black dots flying high in the sky.
To answer your question... (Score:3, Informative)
My best guess anyway.
I admit it, I'm a technology whore (Score:2)
How does it run (Score:2)
Out of Curiosity (Score:5, Informative)
It installed nice and quickly (faster than xp in fact) on my P4 2.4Ghz 2GB ram box duel booting with XP MCE 2005 although vista takes about 4 mins to boot up.
I like the new file explorer interface but from the initial feel it seems to be more about the look than the functionality of the desktop. It is also nice to see an inclusion of a calendar utility which I always thought was lacking from previous windows versions.
Compatability wise; it does not detect my soundblaster pro 5.1 card and will not let me install the drivers for it claiming that windows compatability wont allow me to do so. The same is true of ZoneAlarm Pro and Avast! Anti Virus which I find insulting as a technically minder user but I do understand that most people who use MS products need to be saved from the "lets install anything" mentality.
Open Office and Firefox install perfectly but Vista brings an error halfway through installing Thunderbird.
The display manager will not allow me to set my screen resolution to anything other than 800x600 although the option is there for 1024x768 but nothing happens when the setting is applied and even at 800x600 the screen flickers eratically every few mins.
I have not installed the wireless networking yet but without my firewall, anti-spyware and anti-virus products, I'm not sure that I even want to connect the the internet.
My S-video out is disabled on loading the desktop (closing the analog hole?) which makes the media center funtion useless on my current setup and the DRM is making itself known with periodic popups telling me that x has been disabled quoting "Macrovision corporation" in the details.
Media Center mode in my view has a better interface than MCE 2005 however AVI files will not work (or be added for that matter) in media center mode.
I am going to test the beta out over the weekend but I am currently of the mind that it is buggy bloatware and not something I would trust my fles to but I am open minded enough to accept problems under the fact that it is a beta release and is not supposed to be anything near a proper release candidate.
Re:Out of Curiosity (Score:3, Informative)
First of all, if there's anything you dislike about Vista, complain here [microsoft.com]. It's a beta release, so there's still time to fix issues. They also have newsgroups [microsoft.com]. Device issues, software installs, UI issues, non-working games, etc.; they're all good issues to point out.
I like the new file explorer interface but from the initial feel it seems to be more about the look than the functionality of the desktop.
One of the new features I like is quick category searching via the column headers. I'm doing this from
Re:Out of Curiosity (Score:3, Funny)
If you don't want your OS booting to end up like that, I'd recommend dual booting.
You'll avoid much hassle that way, because then you can specify which OS you'd like booted, as opposed to them dueling it out.
My thoughts... (Score:5, Interesting)
Although the latest Beta 2 detected all of my hardware except my smartcard reader, I'm not impressed. There are some issues with 802.1x authentication which is quite a large hindrance (especially for corporate customers). Mainly, it does not work in my WPA2-Enterprise (WPA2 + AES + RADIUS) wireless network running at my home. Vista would send the proper authentication information and the Microsoft IAS RADIUS server (running on Win2k3) would grant access (confirmed via logs) but Vista would not grab an IP address. Statically setting an IP also failed to provide network access. I had to pull out an old WEP access point and finally Vista worked wirelessly. Due to WEP's insecurity, I have resorted to having to use the built in gigabit ethernet. Albeit that most of the public doesn't have as an elaborate of a set up at home, but I'm surprised that this is borked in Beta 2.
USB2 is horribly slow. I connected a USB2 memory stick to copy some files off the system when wireless wasn't working. The new Vista file copy progress dialog displays transfer rate. The fastest it ever got was about 300KB/s! Can you imagine waiting almost 10 minutes to transfer 150 megs locally? I almost went nuts. Again, I acknowledge this is beta software, but is it that hard to get USB Mass Storage drivers to work properly?
The Aero Glass interface isn't very responsive. Since Windows 95, the mouse pointer in Windows has never been afflicted by pauses when moving the pointer. I'm sure all of us remember these hiccupy movements of the pointer in X Windows in Linux distributions a few years ago, but the Linux community largely solved these problems. I was very surprised when I saw this behavior in Vista Beta 2. I was running the Vista nVidia drivers. I also noticed the screen compositing process pegging the CPU usage to about 30-40% and sometimes it would completely pause for a few seconds before updating the desktop and its windows. I tried XGL on this same system and never dealt with any of the problems. Maybe my Direct X 9-enabled, 128 meg nVidia Quadro FX Go video card may be 2 years old, I'm surprised with the lack of performance. Can Microsoft streamline and optimize this in time for a release? I hope so otherwise I'll be running the basic interface if I ever upgrade.
Vista Beta 2 is a resource hog. A full install with Office 2007 took nearly 14 gigs of hard drive space. After boot up, Windows commit charge was averageing nearly 750-800megs of RAM on my laptop equipped with 2gigs of RAM. Opening up Firefox with a few tabs, MSN messenger, and playing a DivX AVI in Windows Media Player 11 pushed up the usage to nearly 1.3gigs of RAM. I know any unused RAM is wasted RAM but when a basic Windows hogs that much, it shows that power users will easily have to push 4gigs of RAM if they intend to run Photoshop or a few instances of Office applications.
The other annoyance is the new non-admin user model. It is completely broken and illogical. Inevitably, those people that get Vista Beta 2 working on their hardware will complain about constantly being bothered to elevate privileges. The end result will either be people disabling the new protection scheme or learning to click without reading-both scenarios are disastrous and will render this protection useless.
As it stands, Microsoft needs to revamp the model. I want a Control Panel applet that will let me choose the level of incisiveness. Here is my proposal:
1. Off - If I'm logged in as an Administrator, then it will work as current Windows machines.
2. Default - The current default settings as shipped in Vista Beta 2. The user would be hand held even while in his/her profile (aka home) directory. Deleting, editing and installing any files would all require the annoying pop-up dialog confirming action.
3. Limited Power User - Following the Linux model as shown in Red Hat of yesteryear, Ubuntu and others with a modification or two. All system files, installation of software available to the
Good! (Score:2, Informative)
My critique of Vista thus far is summarised as such:
-Vista is furthers the very Microsoft-based philosophy that it knows how to run your machine better than you do - a good thing for average users; a bad thing for geeks.
-Security has been improved & tightened (better firewall, more built-in protection); more or less a go
Broadband Recommended (Score:2, Funny)
Yes, I would also recommend broadband for a 4.4GB file...
We apologize for any inconvenience. (Score:5, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Intel Macs (Score:3, Insightful)
Works Fine Here (Score:3, Informative)
I have Windows XP, Vista Beta 2, and Gentoo Linux all booting on the same machine, but I've followed the generally safe practice of keeping XP on the first partition of the first drive, and having GRUB in the MBR. Once you install Vista alongside an already set-up XP and Linux dual-boot, it only modifies the boot manager Windows uses. I've successfully removed Vista just fine w/o having to mess with the changes it made to the boot manager, so the only inconvenience I have (Until I edit the config for the bo