Vista RC1 Build 5728 Publicly Released 317
ClausValca writes "Doing some late-night surfing last night and came across a post over at Cybernet News: Limited Time Only: Vista 5728 Available To The Public. Although apparently intended for the TAP and Technical Beta Testers....it is available for download to the public via this Microsoft public download page for Vista 5728. There is a link on that page as well for direct download of the latest 64-bit flavor of that version as well. An Ars Technica post also has some background info on the new release. Techweb is reporting that Microsoft is specifically asking for feedback on this release, so make sure and let them know what you think."
Plays nice with boot loaders? (Score:2, Interesting)
Are Microsoft still nuking everything in their path, or do they play nice with the MBR now?
I think we're beyond blaming incompetence if they don't play nice...
"... let them know what you think." (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft alienated me with the first commercial release of XP. You couldn't change anything about your computer without calling them for a new authorization number. There were also the rumors that XP was 'calling home' with information about what was on your hard drive. I vowed that XP would never enter my house and never sully my work computer. I switched to Linux. It does everything I need done. Why would I switch.
My wife's computer runs Win98. If it weren't for OpenOffice, she would have to switch to be able to read files that her customers send her. As it is, OpenOffice reads all those files just fine, so she doesn't have to switch either.
Microsoft is going to have trouble selling Vista. They are also having legal trouble in Europe. Their response is to say that the economy will be boosted if everyone switches to Vista. http://www.linuxjournal.com/node/1000097 [linuxjournal.com] They're nothing if not creative. But no thanks anyway Bill.
Re:Beta is the new Alpha and RC is the new Beta (Score:4, Interesting)
How does that undermine what I just said? It quite clearly indicates that RC1 was in no way in hell a real RC -- it was a beta. The code diff between RC1 and what actually goes gold with be massive.
Re:Beta is the new Alpha and RC is the new Beta (Score:4, Interesting)
(In other news, I have this bridge between Brooklyn and Manhattan, for sale cheap. Paypal accepted!)
Re:Beta is the new Alpha and RC is the new Beta (Score:5, Interesting)
Freezing the API does NOT mean its a release candidate in anyone's universe except Microsofts'.
A release candidate should be what the term implies - something that is actually a candidate for release as the final product, not something that you throw over the wall and hope that it stinks a bit less than the previous attempts.
That they're still beta testing should tell you something about how much their development culture continues to suck.
So, download it early, download it often, and help artificially inflate those "look at the interest" numbers ... just don't install this trojan:
Nice way of getting people to forget that XP already does everything they need, and locking them into having to buy an upgrade at retail prices.
Re:"... let them know what you think." (Score:3, Interesting)
Doesn't mean you shouldn't download it ... and download it often. Help artificially inflate all those future numbers projections, AND run up their bandwidth bills with akamai.
Another reason to download it multiple times even if you're running linux - since you'll have multiple legit copies of the fonts, codecs and other dlls, you can use them on multiple linux boxes.
Hard disk space is cheap - if you've got an old drive hanging around, stuff the multiple images there, and put it on a shelf for "future reference."
Re:Beta is the new Alpha and RC is the new Beta (Score:3, Interesting)
Unless you install to a different partition/disk. Then it's no problem rolling it back.
Re:Plays nice with boot loaders? (Score:1, Interesting)
This is no joke. I installed Vista beta 2 on my primary drive, without changing the format of my secondary drive, and then I reformatted the primary drive again while reinstaling XP Pro SP2 (because I couldn't stand Vista).
Now my secondary drive, which I didn't give any instruction to change, is completely unreadable. I've tried using Partition Magic, Partition Table Doctor, and GParted (from Linux on tertiary drive), and none of them can even identify the file system - which should just be NTFS - let alone read the data. It just shows up as 60GB of unformatted space.
I'm sure the data is still there; it was readable in Vista and I've installed XP enough times not to fuck up there. Vista never told me it was making any changes to that drive at all, and I think I would have noticed since it would have popped up at least 3 security confirmations.
p.s. I know I shouldn't use my primary machine as a sandbox... shutup :P it still shouldn't have happened.
Re:How long? (Score:2, Interesting)
If Vista thinks it's still 1990, and you make sure it doesn't phone home for the correct date, will you have 17 years worth of use?
Re:DRM and OpenGL? (Score:1, Interesting)
My thoughts on RC1 (Score:2, Interesting)
It's still pretty.
Explorer likes to hang when transfering files.
IAC is still annoying, and over done.
If Vista doesn't specifically recognize that you own a file, it's read only. This means you have to either download a file, or have it in your directory. Deleting or moving something on any secondary drives (I have 3 other hard drives) is a serious pain. This means usually manually changing ownership, changing read writes, and then repeating this process a couple of times since it doesn't always save the new settings.
Oh, and google's desktop bar is better than the new-built-in-hard-to-disable M$ desktop bar.
And anyone looking for the nifty 3-d desktop should look elsewhere for something to install on XP. Windows are stacked in slightly more than 2-d space, and you have to click a button to view that. Don't worry, you can use that feature to flip through buttons. What happened to rotating windows with side title bars? Hell, don't ask me. I dunno.
Last, and probably least, the "Ultimate Edition Extras", a new windows update category, doesn't even have a sample download. Ultimate edition just gives you all of those fancy (cough, cough) graphic features I mentioned.
Re:Plays nice with boot loaders? (Score:2, Interesting)
Some fool wrote:
User pdpTrojan's last 24 comments:20 out of 24 at -1
If the final quality of Vista matches the quality of its defenders, Linux damn well better be ready for everybody's desktop.
Re:"... let them know what you think." (Score:3, Interesting)
Seeing as I wasn't shown any EULA before downloading, and I don't have to run the install program - just move my now-LEGIT copy of the files from the iso to another place on the same hard drive (just mount the iso on one of the loopback devices), your comment about EULAs is a non sequitur.
Not that I'd bother using it - but for those who want the option, this is one way to use Microsoft dlls for those who still think they have to.
Re:Beta is the new Alpha and RC is the new Beta (Score:2, Interesting)
Your concern for these poor people is misplaced, and just posturing on your part. You are not prohibited from copying down the license key number and retaining it at multiple locations. Hell, you can even write down the license key number on a little slip of paper, bring it in to that front area of the WalMart store, pay a few dollars to have in engraved on a metal luggage tag, and wear it around your neck if you so choose.
And anyways, as long as they've burned a fresh copy of the NetBSD
Re:My thoughts on RC1 (Score:2, Interesting)
The only one I'd like to respond to though - the Security Center. I'd rather NOT have Symantec getting their fingers into the Security Center. Yes, it opens them up for more anti-trust issues... but I'd prefer them to hold their ground.
When I reformatted my parent's/family computer, I installed the latest Symantec package (antivirus + firewall) just for that 'extra layer' of security (even though anybody with two bits of knowledge in the subject can bypass it). All users on this comp were given User level access, no administrators. Whenever I come by to visit, I log in and add programs and what not as needed.
Fast forward a few months later (and its been happening for a while now), the Client Firewall -refuses- to load. Completely. The antivirus appears to functioning without issue though, and I have no reason to believe any spyware or virus is lurking around on the system.
This isn't the kind of crap I would like to see in a 'Security Center'.
Re:Beta is the new Alpha and RC is the new Beta (Score:2, Interesting)
Microsoft created a product that, IF USED CORRECTLY (and programmed to correctly), works just fine. If Microsoft locked out applications that didn't behave the way Microsoft thought they should, everyone would be up in arms that they are using their monopoly power to push other companies out.
Finally, The products you compare against are purpose-built. They do one thing, and they do it well. They also don't allow extensibility. With the rare exception over at thinkgeek.com, I can't program my toaster to sing the star spangled banner.
Re:Beta is the new Alpha and RC is the new Beta (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, the Win95/98/ME line, yeah, those were POS OSs that you had to reinstall every month or so. And I understand Joe-sixpack is more likely to click on random "bad things". But has it occured to you that maybe, just maybe, Windows has improved, and that many (but not all) of the problems aren't from windows, but from the layers of shit that people pile on it (Norton, I'm looking directly at you).
Because you haven't used windows since Win98, please stop spewing lines that are no longer true.