Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Windows Vista - Not So Bad? 378

Posted by Zonk
from the needs-some-salt dept.
Shantyman writes "ZDNet has a counterpoint to the negative impressions of Vista's Beta 2 going around. Entitled Vista Beta 2, up close and personal, Ed Bott writes: 'I've spent the last three months running beta versions of Windows Vista on the PCs I use for everyday work. February and March were exasperating. April's release was noticeably better, and the Beta 2 preview - Build 5381, released to testers in early May - has been running flawlessly on my notebook for nearly three weeks.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Windows Vista - Not So Bad?

Comments Filter:
  • by yagu (721525) * <yayagu@gmai[ ]om ['l.c' in gap]> on Thursday May 25, 2006 @03:55PM (#15404491) Journal

    From the very first paragraph of the article:

    Up in Redmond, Microsoft developers proudly talk of dogfooding the software they write. Running beta software is the only way to learn what works and what doesn't. A copy of Windows Vista running on a test machine in the corner isn't likely to get a serious workout. To find the pain points -- another popular Microsoft expression -- you have to run that beta code on the machine you use every day.

    Wasn't there a slashdot reference to an article in the last week where Microsoft "was considering" removing admin access from their employees? That doesn't sound like "eating their own dogfood". As long as they're all running Windows with the highest access levels (admin), they're potentially missing serious security problems.

    Since Lowest User Access (LUA) is a huge issue around tightening Windows security, running Vista within Microsoft means little around testing security. And, unless they're shipping Vista with defaults of non-admin user accounts, the beta testing world isn't likely to bang on that code hard enough.

    It's not clear from the article, nor do I know enough about the Vista beta (not about to try it on any of my machines...) whether the LUA concept is in play. Any beta testers out there care to weigh in?

    • Jesus, do they actually use the acronym LUA? *shudder* It's just a vivid reminder that they make this stuff for corporate IT departments and not for me.
      • "Build 5381, released to testers in early May - has been running flawlessly on my notebook for nearly three weeks.'"

        Three weeks?

        Be still, my heart.

        I've got an old Linux box here that has nearly three years

        uptime...

    • > Microsoft eating their own dogfood?

      Just two things to say about dogfood:

      1) Food is what goes into a dog, not what comes out of a dog. (Corollary: That which comes out of a dog isn't food.)
      2) It's coming out of the end of the dog into which food doesn't go. (Corollary: Unless you're into that sort of thing, in which case, we don't wanna know.)

    • by CastrTroy (595695) on Thursday May 25, 2006 @04:03PM (#15404559) Homepage
      Also, having the developers using Vista and having grandma use Vista are 2 entirely different things. I don't have any problems running windows 2k and keeping it free from viruses/spyware/bloat. Yet this seems to be the biggest problem for home users.
    • by EvanED (569694) <evaned.gmail@com> on Thursday May 25, 2006 @04:21PM (#15404699)
      There's one very important thing that you're missing: just because the current employees have admin priviledges doesn't mean that they aren't running with LUA, it just means they have the OPTION of running as admin.

      MS employees apparently really do believe in the dogfood thing (from what I hear from an employee) so I find it reasonable to think that at least many of them usually run as LUA.

      The news from the other day would remove the option and force them to run as LUA, which very well may make things worse from this point of view because then there won't also be a lot of people running as admin.
      • by VertigoAce (257771) on Thursday May 25, 2006 @04:42PM (#15404891)
        With Vista, even admin users don't run with elevated permissions. I'm logged in as an administrator right now. If I try to create a new text file at C:\ I get an access denied message. If I click the button to continue with the operation, I get a second dialog box warning me that a program is about to do something that requires higher permissions. This then gives me the option to continue or block the operation.

        I assume with a limited account, you would have a similar experience, but would need to type in an admin password to continue.

        The point is that programs do NOT automatically have permission to do admin operations. Admin or not, the user experience will be quite similar, forcing programs to work without elevated permissions.
    • Yep (Score:5, Informative)

      by bmajik (96670) <matt@mattevans.org> on Thursday May 25, 2006 @04:26PM (#15404740) Homepage Journal
      I partially agree with you, and because of my unix background, I am running vista as a non-priviledged user.

      There are two aspects of this. The first is that, if you truly are running as a low-priv user, you need to get elevation prompts at the correct times to be able to live life. This works pretty well, although I keep a cmd.exe window running as local admin sitting around sometimes.

      The other aspect of this, however, is that in the real world, a lot of people just dont run as admin, and a lot of apps just can't. So a bunch of work has gone into making admins "virtual admins", so to speak, where operations that actually require priviledge use still involve user interaction/confirmation.

      In that sense, people running "as admin" are getting the customer experience - and internally, the way the "did you really want to do this, Mr. Admin?" stuff works is passionately debated :)

      My opinion is that people are complaining about the wrong problem - as we continue to eliminate things that require priviledge use, the amount that we have to care about putting up with a just-in-time priviledge escalation model goes down.

    • by Quantam (870027) on Thursday May 25, 2006 @04:30PM (#15404775) Homepage
      I disagree with your assessment of the situation. Microsoft employees running as admin means two things. Of course it means that they don't have to worry about programs that require admin (or have bugs if not used in admin mode). But even in this case, your hostility is misdirected. MS produces some of the programs most capable of performing correctly in limited user situations I've ever seen (in fact, I can't think of any notable bugs in MS programs when running as limited user, apart from obviously administrative programs, like chkdsk or defrag). That's why I was completely indifferent to the news that MS employees might have to run as limited users: they already know how to play nicely in the limited user situation. What REALLY needs to happen is that third-party developers who write these steaming pile of shit programs need to be forced to use limited user mode. There's absolutely no reason some of these programs (Intuit's It'sDeductable comes readily to mind) need to be admin.

      However, running as admin opens them up to all the nasty exploits and viruses (especially if they're using IE), those being probably the biggest blunder on Microsoft's part. As a limited user, a virus can delete your MP3s and porn. As admin, a virus can reformat your entire hard drive, install a rootkit, etc. If that isn't eating your own dog food, I don't know what is.

      Sorry this post is a bit scatterbrained. I'm in a pretty big hurry :P
    • As long as they're all running Windows with the highest access levels (admin), they're potentially missing serious security problems.

      They're not all running with admin access, as I understood the story, just the developers. The whole thing sounds like the usual struggle between programmers and engineers wanting everything exactly the way they want it the moment they want it, and the sysadmins who want to keep them from breaking things. You get that on Macs, Unix, VMS, or anything else.

    • MS has over 60,000 employees and not all are programmers, developers, engineers, testers etc. Those that have no need to run as admin shouldn't. Their feedback on how Vista performs in a non-admin environment is valuable also.
    • by TheNetAvenger (624455) on Thursday May 25, 2006 @05:01PM (#15405073)
      Wasn't there a slashdot reference to an article in the last week where Microsoft "was considering" removing admin access from their employees? That doesn't sound like "eating their own dogfood". As long as they're all running Windows with the highest access levels (admin), they're potentially missing serious security problems.


      I really don't want to debate this, and I think this is kind of trivial.

      With that said, what you are referring to about allowing employees to have 'admin' rights on their systems is not a big issue up until this point, as the UAP system in Vista wasn't even close to a final stage until a month or two ago, and is still being tweaked to accomodate applications that were written by 3rd parties with the Win9x mindset.

      What MS has been doing currently is NOT running their employees at Admin level in the sense I think you are refering to either. They have been running the computers in the new Vista Admin mode, which is like a 'default' user on OSX. Understand?

      It is not the Root Admin level like previous versions of Windows. Even the actual administrator account on Vista doesn't get the conceptual 'root' access level.

      What the other article was talking about was forcing MS users to not even get the 'admin' rights to make changes to their systems, which would include installing software, etc. This would be more like a hybrid between a User and Power User in the old Windows Security Groups.

      Microsoft is turning down their employee 'admin' rights to ensure older applications that try to run with user credentials that never cared about NT security before still run properly in the restricted level of access.

      There is no big story on this, nor a big story on lack of security. Vista is bring the abstraction between administrator and root security, to a point that even exceeds most *nix environments, while still not making it too tough on users. Think of it like a combination of the way *nixes do security with a combination of having NO Root account whatsoever to ensure people will NEVER be running with higher priveledges than they should.
  • Wow it runs on at least one computer. Excellent! Good job Microsoft.

    Anyone one else got it working yet? Maybe you can get your story posted to Slashdot too.
    • Anyone one else got it working yet? Maybe you can get your story posted to Slashdot too.

      Works fine here.

      Well, you did ask...

    • by Mayhem178 (920970) on Thursday May 25, 2006 @04:11PM (#15404626)
      Turns out the guy didn't really get it working, he just had this [ytmnd.com] taped to his laptop.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      ZDNet confirms it: Windows Vista is "not that bad". By attaining the coveted "not that bad" status, Microsoft has created the greatest operating system of their entire history.
    • Wow it runs on at least one computer. Excellent! Good job Microsoft.

      Anyone one else got it working yet? Maybe you can get your story posted to Slashdot too.


      Well we have it running of several 'different' computers.

      So I guess that proves they are even out doing Apple and OSX which only runs on about 6 different computers, right?

      (Smile, it is a joke.)
  • by RLiegh (247921) * on Thursday May 25, 2006 @03:57PM (#15404503) Homepage Journal
    MS's checks from april and may cleared.
  • There's no article here. It's a collection of screenshots with a little blurb at the top. He's excited that you can change Vista's theme to one of eight different colors. This is not news for nerds.

  • by pla (258480) on Thursday May 25, 2006 @04:01PM (#15404537) Journal
    April's release was noticeably better, and the Beta 2 preview - Build 5381, released to testers in early May - has been running flawlessly on my notebook for nearly three weeks.

    I haven't tried b2 yet, but from my experience with b1, I didn't so much have a problem with "stability" as the fact that it had nothing new that I wanted.

    Not to say it doesn't have PLENTY of new ways to waste CPU and memory, as well as DRM-to-the-core, but I can't really say I consider those a reason to upgrade.


    Rearranging the clicky-widgets doesn't make it "new", and taking away the user's rights on their own machine doesn't make it "improved". Making it harder to pirate doesn't make it "secure". Throwing in an SQL server turned on by default might make it "biger", but not in a good way.
    • >...taking away the user's rights on their own machine doesn't make it "improved".

      I could quote literally hundreds of Slashdot posts in almost any past thread about Windows criticising Microsoft for *giving* user's all (i.e. admin) rights on their own machines, in contrast with Linux, MacOS etc. Finally Microsoft agree and take them away (not an easy move considering that, since it'll be installed on the computers of people who have no idea how to use a computer, transparent ease of use has to be near
      • Windows users are spoiled by the preceived "convenience" of always-on admin rights. Taking that away will create bitching from some of them, and I would agree with you that it's unfair, had Microsoft not lovingly made the bed in which they must now lie.

      • I could quote literally hundreds of Slashdot posts in almost any past thread about Windows criticising Microsoft for *giving* user's all (i.e. admin) rights on their own machine

        You could quote my own posts on that topic back to me as well. :)

        But I didn't mean that to refer to Vista (possibly) making users run as non-admin by default - I meant to refer to the entire Secure-Foo-Path nonsense (aka DRM) that Microsoft has seemingly chosen to embrace, thoroughly against the wishes of just about everyone exc
  • I agree (Score:5, Insightful)

    by theheff (894014) on Thursday May 25, 2006 @04:02PM (#15404544)
    I have to agree with this post. I ran the April and May release quite a bit, and was extremely impressed. Simply put, Vista is eye candy. In the early betas Vista was almost identical to XP, it just looked a new skin and the same old OS, but the latest releases have really turned my head. It's easy to bash something new from MS and write bad reviews about how it won't install right on your Lenovo and such, but after I actually gave it a chance, I was thoroughly impressed by the performance and usability. I can't wait to see the final product.
    • by eln (21727)
      Okay, so it's pretty, but what does it actually DO? I don't care what new skins they've come up with, I want to know what features work, what features don't work, which new features are useful, and which aren't. This thing has been out for almost a month, can't somebody write an actual in-depth review beyond "I could/couldn't get it to work on my laptop?"
  • Running smoothly? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Devil's BSD (562630) on Thursday May 25, 2006 @04:03PM (#15404556) Homepage
    He says it's running smoothly, but the screenshot of the stability monitor says otherwise...
    http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?page_id=65&page=19 [zdnet.com]

    At least Microsoft has given us a way to prove how unstable our systems are... whenever Windows Vista is finally released.

    • by bishiraver (707931) on Thursday May 25, 2006 @04:12PM (#15404637) Homepage
      I love it. "Failure Type: OS Stopped Working." Real informative there!
      • That really gets to the crux of the matter. Window's current logging is utterly pointless. I have never _ever_ been able to track down a problem by looking at the system event log, which is extremely frustrating because it's the first place I look when Unix based systems have problems. For some reason no windows application (or driver) ever logs anything more informative than "permission denied--but I'm not going to tell you where" or "crashed". They will happily log umpteen zillion useless "everything'
    • by NutscrapeSucks (446616) on Thursday May 25, 2006 @04:12PM (#15404639)
      I have to say that MS must have enormous balls to add a "stability monitor" to Windows.

      "Stability Index" is going to become the new "Uptime".
    • by Vancorps (746090)
      Actually you're jumping to conclusions based on a picture. The mere fact that such items were logged tells you the system was functioning. If parts of it don't work well, its a beta, regardless the core stayed up and running along with the monitoring tools so it sounds like the user probably didn't even notice.

      Again, that is me jumping to a conclusion based on a picture so I can be wrong as well but I do know if the memory got logged then the system wasn't that bad off. The scenarios surrounding it are com

    • He says it's running smoothly, but the screenshot of the stability monitor says otherwise...
      http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?page_id=65&page=19 [zdnet.com]


      From the link: "Note: This screen is from build 5381, although the application looks identical in Beta 2.)" Since the article and uptime comments were about Beta 2... I don't think you have a valid point. Good (almost) catch, though.
    • According to that chart, his system is becoming less stable almost every day. Starting from a "10" on May 6 he's down to about a "6" on May 22. It looks like Vista Beta is all downhill.
    • From the article you linked:
      "(Note: This screen is from build 5381, although the application looks identical in Beta 2.) "
    • the screenshot of the stability monitor says otherwise...

      From the comment above the image:

      (Note: This screen is from build 5381, although the application looks identical in Beta 2.)

  • Java is broke (Score:2, Informative)

    by acidrain69 (632468)
    Java doesn't work. We run it on a machine with a projector in our conference room. It was looking good till we tried to join an online conference :)

    Can't necessarily blame MS for Java though. Although I can blame them for trying to change the spec and the whole Sun-MS lawsuit fiasco.
    • Your company runs a Beta OS on the PC in your conference room? Maybe you misunderstood the word "Beta" for "eternal version" (Can happen if you've used google too much lately).
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Many reviewers wrote fawningly over Windows 95 back in the day. Their usage didn't happen to strike its biggest problems very hard. The test for Vista is when hundreds of millions of people are using it, not a few reviewers on their desktop and an odd laptop
    • The test for Vista is when hundreds of millions of people are using it, not a few reviewers on their desktop...

      That and how Vista measures up when the malware designers go to work on it.

      ...and an odd laptop.

      The way the market is evolving Vista will probably end up being installed on more laptops than desktops.
  • Vista works (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 25, 2006 @04:05PM (#15404574)
    Me and some of my coworkers have been running vista build 5308 and I just installed build 5381 on those machines and they have been running very well. The install was improved and the interface is running a lot smoother and the new ati beta drivers are working good too. It's also running directx 10 now compared to 9L in the last build. We also have Office 2007 Beta 2 running on it and that too is working very well, We have both machines on a 2003 active directory network with exchange. The UAC does get annoying when it keeps asking you if your sure you want to do things, but a quick skim through the local security policy solved that :-) All in all I'd say Beta 2 has improved greatly over the past few releases. The memory usage at least is way down. It was using about 750mbs on our machines. I am upset that an Athlon X2 4200, with 4 gigs of ddr-400, a sata2 80 gig drive, and an atix1300 with 265mb on the card only gets a 3 out of 5 on the stupid rating system. Especially when everything works smooth, including the 3d page flip. I do feel that the "minimum requirements" that microsoft posted are of course a joke but that's nothing new.
    • You might have the DX10 runtime and software reference rasterizer on the system, but you are NOT running DX10 with an ATI X1300. DX10 is NOT backwards compatible with DX9 hardware. In order to run DX10, you WILL need to upgrade to a graphics card that isn't publicly available yet.
    • I can see why it's going around that there's a GOOD chance that MS Windows 2007 will come later than Jan 2007. If they are still adding software to this 'kit' and they expect to have it pre-installed on millions of victims PC's( via OEM pre-install contracts ) then they've run out of time. If this was a feature freeze beta release they'd be pushing it.

      And that rating thing, don't they show you where your system is getting 'dinged'? If not, it sounds like it'll take some huge machine to get a 4 or 5 rating.
    • I am upset that an Athlon X2 4200, with 4 gigs of ddr-400, a sata2 80 gig drive, and an atix1300 with 265mb on the card only gets a 3 out of 5 on the stupid rating system. Especially when everything works smooth, including the 3d page flip. I do feel that the "minimum requirements" that microsoft posted are of course a joke but that's nothing new.


      Don't worry about the rating you have, it will change.

      The performance rating system is something that is still a work in progress. It is also something many have
  • I was just thinking "i know i like it better, but really, what do i like better about it?"

    Then something occured to me.

    Right now, i am copying 4GB of files off a usb disk to a network share. The shell file copy stuff has been completely re-worked (shell file operations has always been something that i have hated)

    In vista, you get an expand/collapse pane to get details of what it is doing, and it seems to happen in its own thread. The copy dialog window shows up as its own window that you can minimize/rest
    • What no more staring at "2 minutes remaining" for four hours? A feature of Explorer I first came to love in NT4.
    • Now i just hit "start->control panel", click in the search box for something like "sound" and i get search-as-i-type results that are pretty accurate and take me right to the control panel i want to go to.

      Another feature stolen from OS X; specifically 10.4 Tiger.
    • I couldn't help noticing the slip up with "We're pretty good about changing control panel wildly between releases"

      We?

      following the link to your webpage, and sure enough - MattEvans, MS employee.

      hmm. Is that a sales pitch I hear?
    • A nice use of the pervasive desktop search integrated into the explorer windows is in Control Panel. We're pretty good about changing control panel wildly between releases, and I never remember which menu your system environment variables or enabling remote desktop or changing it so that the "Explorer:Start Navigation" sound is (none). Now i just hit "start->control panel", click in the search box for something like "sound" and i get search-as-i-type results that are pretty accurate and take me right to

    • by WinterSolstice (223271) on Thursday May 25, 2006 @05:33PM (#15405368)
      Ok - that stuck me as odd, so I just checked it by copying an 800MB zip file onto my 1GB SD card (since I don't have one nearly as large a USB device as bmajik). The 800MB zip is coming from a Windows department server share (my "home" drive).

      Not especially fast, but no screen paint issues. None of the three windows (source, target, or copy window) are showing any issues with updates. No lurches.

      This is on 10.4.6 on an Intel Macbook Pro 15". I'm attached to the network via switched 100bT. I have OO.o with 5 documents (via X11) running, TextMate with two large Perl scripts, Lotus Notes, CotVNC, FireFox, Safari, iTunes, and two screens running. Also listening to music currently.

      Now to be fair, I'm on pretty current hardware, but come on. That was a total troll... I want Vista to be awesome as much as the next guy (maybe more - this is slashdot) but still - that was a random unsubstantiated complaint there.

      I also tried doing this copying a 4 GB DMG to my local disk - same results.

      -WS

  • by adolfojp (730818) on Thursday May 25, 2006 @04:23PM (#15404718)
    Windows 2K brought stability to the windows platform. Windows Vista should bring enhanced security through its pseudo sudo strategy.

    Although win 2k and xp had limited user accounts it did nothing to enforce their usage because it would alienate novice users who wanted to install their shinny new Easy Birthday Card Creator software. Now the process that grants admin rights will be simpler to use but I can bet that many people will complain about the extra "hassle" that they will encounter when installing software.

    Of course, you can only do so much to secure an operating system that is geared towards users. It is only a matter of time before Joe User decides that it is a good idea to provide the admin password to install the latest malware ridden "Fun Emoticon" package.

    The best strategy that MS could do to improve security would be to bundle an intro into the OS that explained the basics of its new security features.
    • 2K actually had semi-working limited-user accounts, I ran one for a long time. How did I get around the occasional (read: every) errant application that wanted write access to some random place? ACLs. I figured out where Quicken and every app want to write, and gave them write permissions. It was actually not too hard.

      Then I upgraded to XP home, when I bought a new box. XP doesn't have ACLs. Sorry, back to user accounts with Admin privs. I feel so dirty.

      • I've run into problems that can't be fixed with ACLs, but usually some security policy or registry fiddling fixes things. I always get cranky when I have to mess with these, they hide things in so many places it is always a bitch.
  • I think the real news would be "how much does it cost to buy a computer that can actually run Vista?"

    Not trying to troll here, but ferchrissake! If I have to upgrade at a cost of hundreds of dollars just to run it, I don't want to know, I don't care, and I know its not going to run on that $100 laptop. While it might work for some, and perhaps many, it still looks like a very fancy gun for MS to shoot their own feet with. Testing stories so far don't seem to allude to any magical improvements, or reasons th
    • My computer is 4 years old almost (3 years, 10 months). It wasn't top of the line when I got it, though it was pretty good. It's gotten a RAM upgrade, but as far as internals go that's it.

      The Vista hardware evaluation wizard thingy they had posted to /. a little bit ago had only one complaint -- the amount of hard drive space I have. And if I changed around my partitions a bit so that C: wasn't only 12 GB, it wouldn't complain about that.

      The hardware requirements to run Vista, even Aero, I think are vastly
  • Judging by the screen shots, Vista certainly looks better -- but I hesitate to give Microsoft any respect for that as they've basically (once again) derived a look and feel from Mac. This time it's specifically derived from the glossy back Mac has been using here-and-there in Tiger and in their marketing material since the release of the black iPod Nano.

    Still -- it does look better, I'll begrudgingly admit.

    But that being said, Microsoft continues to neglect the more important although subtle useabil
  • "Buy Windows Vista - It's not so bad!"

    I wonder when Slashdot get's their creative fee? ;)
  • by sentientbrendan (316150) on Thursday May 25, 2006 @04:30PM (#15404772)
    Windows Vista "Not so bad"

    Windows Vista "Almost as good as XP"

    Windows Vista "Several new themes"

    I think microsoft has a winner here
  • .. Denise running away with Sambora makes Charlie look like an ok guy ...
  • Amazing... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MosesJones (55544) on Thursday May 25, 2006 @04:34PM (#15404812) Homepage
    Ever wonder how MS get their media coverage? Here is a classic example, we are potentially TWELVE MONTHS away from widespread release on a product thats been in development for FOUR YEARS and people are "impressed" that a SECOND beta is relatively stable. And this is considered a news story.

    Talk about generating buzz around a product to make people want it, and to cover up the yet more slipped release dates and the reduced functionality over what was promised. And it all comes down to a new look and feel and a bit of threading and the su command.

    WOW FIVE YEARS DEVELOPMENT to get this into production.

    I live in awe at Microsoft's ability to generate positive news.
  • My problem (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) on Thursday May 25, 2006 @04:38PM (#15404852)
    My problem with recent Microsoft operating systems has nothing to do with how well they run. I have to admit that they have been progresively better about that. My problem is how intrusive they are. How much control do I have over what my computer (my property that I paid for with my money) will and won't do.
    • Re:My problem (Score:4, Interesting)

      by |/|/||| (179020) on Thursday May 25, 2006 @05:09PM (#15405147)
      Exactly. When I saw the "not so bad" headline, I assumed that the story was that Vista's intrusive DRM/Trusted computing "features" had been dropped. Those are the things that make Vista "bad". I'll take an OS that crashes over an OS that supervises how I use my data.

      Sorry Microsoft, but I'll never buy (or even *use*) that kind of crap.

  • looks a lot like kde on suse, even uses lots of green and yast-like interfaces.

    sum.zero
  • But will it run Duke Nukem Forever?
  • well..... No, it's not.

    Let me know when it runs 366 days straight, even through patches.

    People need to learn abuot program maturity. The industry is aware of it, but conviently hides it away so they can make more money.

    I don't ahve a lot of hope for a product thats 4 years behind schedule. Sure it will be released, but the bloat is going to be tremendous.

    For the recrd, I hope I am wrong.
  • Given that we've already had articles on slashdot about how the online tech sites are up for sale when it comes to articles (anadtech, tom's hardware et al, and I'm pretty sure ZDNet as well), I'm pretty sure that Microsoft won't let a major piece of criticism about their family jewels go uncountered online and will get someone or some tech site that is for hire ("want our advertising dollars?") to counter any negative article about whatever Microsoft has once again fudged.

    I'm ok with working with Microsoft

  • I like the look of this [zdnet.com]:

    "In XP, when you send a report of a crash or Stop error, you rarely hear back. Vista tries to close the loop, with a Control Panel window that should - someday - offer patches, updated drivers, and other solutions to problems you report."

    Mac OSX has a problem reporter too, but it's like the man said WRT XP. You have an application dump core on you; you fill in a description and submit it, and it disappears into a black hole somewhere inside Apple. To be able to get a list of the a

  • by ALpaca2500 (125123) on Thursday May 25, 2006 @06:29PM (#15405743) Homepage
    I just installed the latest version of Vista available to TechNet subscribers, build 5308. While it's not as bad as was described here [msn.com], it hasnt been completely smooth running either.

    It seems to do some thing well. Dual booting with XP works great. maybe better than with win2k and XP. All the visual effects run fine, even on my integrated graphics (GeForce 6150, admittedly higher end for integraded graphics). Normal operation is a little sluggish, and sometimes it gets really bad. I've had it lock up completely at least 3 times, doing completely different things. One time it was just trying to open Freecell (which, by the way, they have updated).

    I saw a post from a guy who works for microsoft, who said he's been running Vista for a few months, and doing all his work on it. From what i've seen of the build i'm running, I don't see myself being as productive on it as I am with my current XP setup, just becuase of some of these problems. on the other hand, it looks like once they get these things straightened out, it should be fine.
  • by syousef (465911) on Friday May 26, 2006 @12:01AM (#15407397) Journal
    Vatsa matta you? Hey!
    Gotta no respect. Hey!
    Vista not so bad.
    Vista nicea face, ah shudduppa your face.

    I fear only the Aussies will understand the reference. It won't be as funny if it has to be explained but the following song made it to number one many moons ago here in Aus:

    http://www.lyricsondemand.com/j/joedolcelyrics/shu tuppayoufacelyrics.html [lyricsondemand.com]

The trouble with opportunity is that it always comes disguised as hard work. -- Herbert V. Prochnow

Working...