Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Bug Pushes Vista Out to November 8th 285

Posted by Zonk
from the keep-the-ant-hill-under-glass dept.
IntelliAdmin writes "Microsoft originally targeted October 25th for Vista's release to manufacturing, but a last-minute bug that 'took most of the Vista team by surprise' has caused an unexpected delay, said Ethan Allen, a quality assurance lead at a Seattle high-tech company that tests its products for Vista. Allen said the Vista team discovered the bug, which 'would totally crash the system, requiring a complete reinstall'. Vista now has a new RTM date of November 8th" A reader wrote in to point out this story originated with Paul Thurrott.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bug Pushes Vista Out to November 8th

Comments Filter:
  • No wonder (Score:5, Funny)

    by daeg (828071) on Friday October 27, 2006 @02:01PM (#16611976)
    That's what you get for hiring a furniture store for your quality assurance department.
  • Oh noes (Score:5, Funny)

    by BuCKsWorld (579831) on Friday October 27, 2006 @02:02PM (#16611986)
    Crap, now I have to wait another 2 weeks to not buy it.
    • Re:Oh noes (Score:5, Funny)

      by tomstdenis (446163) <tomstdenis@REDHATgmail.com minus distro> on Friday October 27, 2006 @02:05PM (#16612078) Homepage
      I've pre-returned my copy already!

      Tom
    • by zlogic (892404)
      To not pirate it.
      RTM will (hopefully) be released on 8.11.2006, while the version you can buy in a store will not be released until 30.01.2007
    • by Khammurabi (962376) on Friday October 27, 2006 @04:29PM (#16614862)
      Crap, now I have to wait another 2 weeks to not buy it.
      I know it's a joke but I continually get the sense that the Vista release will go as follows:

      Microsoft: Buy Vista Now!
      World: Why should I?
      Microsoft: Uh...because it's prettier and has DRM support?
      World: No thanks, I'm happy with what I have now.
      Microsoft: Please?
      World: No.
      Microsoft: Ballmer throws a chair in the new screensaver, and we dressed Gates up in a dress for the default background.
      World: Really? Sign me up!
      Microsoft: Really?
      World: No.

      (Months pass...)

      Microsoft: WTS slightly used global software monopoly.
      Google: 5 dollars and Gates in a diaper apologizing to the world.
      Microsoft: Sold!
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by kimvette (919543)
        Someone has no sense of humor and threw away mod points marking that troll. To that I ask: why?

        Some of us found it funny. I found it hilarious.

        That you do not find it funny or work for Microsoft and feel insulted does not mean it's a troll.

        Reserve your troll and flamebait mods for racist bullshit posts. Spend mod points modding up a really insightful or at least well-written-even-if-wrong post elsewhere. Like the guideline says, focus on modding up, not down, nitwit.
  • by ohearn (969704) on Friday October 27, 2006 @02:04PM (#16612036)
    I'm sure all kinds of jokes about MS bug history will come up, but at least they caught it before it was officially released. Better a 2 week delay to fix the problem than them saying they will worry about it later in an update.

    That said, this sounds like a fairly major bug to catch this late in the game.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by pboyd2004 (860767)
      That said, this sounds like a fairly major bug to catch this late in the game.

      Exactly makes you wonder how many other major bugs are slipping through...

      Sounds like they have some pretty major flaws in the test plans for major bugs to be revealed this late in the game.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Aranel Alasse (880862)
        But... It's not exactly easy to find EVERY bug that there could be. A software tester is a software tester, not a typical user. Programmers are programmers, not typical users. They/We don't even always think to do things the way a user would do them.

        I'm a programmer, and I know that I definitely (Firefox, I love your spell checker!) don't use the program the way our users would. If I want to get to a certain point in the program, I typically use the fastest route to get there, not always the most proba
    • by gt_mattex (1016103) on Friday October 27, 2006 @02:12PM (#16612210)

      Before everyone gets their flame on remember how many times they got verbally hammered for not testing their software first and shipping later.

      Though the bug was caught this late in the game it does appear to be, although minimally, that MS is trying to do the right thing for once. Perhaps losing market share has spurred better business practices.

      Likely? No. Possible? Yes.

      • by MORB (793798) on Friday October 27, 2006 @02:28PM (#16612512)
        1. This bug actually apparently fucks up the vista installation.
        They had a lot of bugs in the past that were incredibly annoying but didn't force you to reinstall. My point is that this doesn't prove that they would have stopped the presses for something not forcing you to reinstall but still critical.

        2. The fact that they actually discovered one huge bug in time to fix it before release doesn't mean that there won't be major bugs discovered after release.
        With their track record, their arrogance, and the way they have to force the IT industry to leave the OS business to it, they should be held to the highest standards. We shouldn't cut them any slack just because they happened to discover a critical bug just before release for once.
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by gt_mattex (1016103)

          Again I repeat:

          Likely? No. Possible? Yes.

          Also it's important to note that MS losing precious holiday frenzied shopping time probably isn't in their best interest.

          • by KarmaMB84 (743001)
            It wasn't going to be generally available in retail until next year anyway.
      • Though the bug was caught this late in the game it does appear to be, although minimally, that MS is trying to do the right thing for once.

        One minor observation. MSFT cleared over 3 billion dollars LAST QUARTER! You'd think they could have taken a paltry 300 or 400 million of just that one quarter of profit and invested in the technical resources to get Vista out the door on time.

        Ya think?

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by afidel (530433)
          Read The mythical man-month, throwing more bodies at the problem will not get is solved faster, and in fact will often slow it down.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Before everyone gets their flame on remember how many times they got verbally hammered for not testing their software first and shipping later.

        But Microsoft isn't giving itself enough time to thoroughly test this because they're rushing out Vista by the end of the year. They just found a major system-corrupting bug after they've already pushed out an RC1 and RC2 and weeks away from RTM. That's a little alarming. The criticism in this case stems from the fact that they're not giving Vista enough time to s

  • by Lostconfused (1019042) on Friday October 27, 2006 @02:04PM (#16612052)
    If you didn't actually need to re install vista after the crash, they probably would have went ahead with the date and patched it up later. But honestly, who really expected vista to not get delayed again.
  • Too bad.. (Score:2, Funny)

    by JFlex (763276) *
    its too bad they found it in time.. that would have made for a very good laugh.
    • by eneville (745111)
      its too bad they found it in time.. that would have made for a very good laugh.
      you may laugh but some people *have* to use it... not by choice but because it's what the majority of their customers use etc.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by nebaz (453974)
        How can the majority of their customers use it if it hasn't even been released yet?
        • by eneville (745111)
          you sir, failed to read the quoted text. the AP suggested that it would have been funny if the bug made it to the release.
  • the bug, which 'would totally crash the system, requiring a complete reinstall'.
    This sounds like some kind of April Fool story... are you sure The Onion isn't behind this?

    I knew MS has poor QA... but a bug that requires a complete reinstall????

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by gstoddart (321705)

      This sounds like some kind of April Fool story... are you sure The Onion isn't behind this?

      I knew MS has poor QA... but a bug that requires a complete reinstall????

      Why are you surprised at this?? Do you know how many other things seem to require a complete re-install?

      Every time I hear someone who supposedly knows a lot about Windows tell me to reboot the machine all of the time, or say "dunno, maybe you should re-install", I just want to choke someone. But the first Microsoft patch (reboot) is frequently

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      Hmmm... when I used to repair windows machines it was probably my #1 task. Many problems probably could have been fixed but customers didn't want to pay $65/hour to have me remove and reinstall drivers and apps, hack at the regisrty, or whatever else. Actually I rememebr a lot of technet articles that atcually said that reinstallation was the recommended solution. (this was pre XP days, I haven't been in that business since XP was released)
    • Re:Is QA this bad? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Dmala (752610) on Friday October 27, 2006 @03:01PM (#16613310)
      Just because the bug is severe doesn't mean it's easy to reproduce. It may happen in one very specific set of circumstances. You could test for 100 years, and if you never hit that one, specific case, you'd never see the bug.

      The number of possible scenarios in something as complex as an OS is *staggering*, you just can't cover every last case with any reasonable amount of time and manpower. So, you design tests to cover sensitive areas and likely trouble spots, you take as large a sampling of other cases as possible, and you accept a certain amount of risk. Sometimes, someone gets lucky and stumbles across a showstopper two days before you release. Better to have found it in-house than to have a customer report it.
      • Re:Is QA this bad? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by I'm Don Giovanni (598558) on Friday October 27, 2006 @03:42PM (#16614126)
        Finally, a reasonable post.
        The vast majority of the posts on this subject leads me to believe that the vast majority of slashodtters don't have the first clue about the development and testing of a large project.

        Oh, and let's not forget that a few months ago an Ubunto update deleted the entire home directory of users. That's as major as this Vista bug, and was readily producible (unlike this Vista bug), yet it slipped through.
    • by e4g4 (533831)
      In soviet Russia, April Fool's Day is in October.
  • Big Bug (Score:5, Funny)

    by tgpo (976851) on Friday October 27, 2006 @02:08PM (#16612126)
    They discovered that the default start page in IE was http://www.linux.com/ [linux.com]
  • Suicidal (Score:5, Funny)

    by Incarnate13 (1019150) on Friday October 27, 2006 @02:09PM (#16612150)
    Vista: The OS so bad it tried to kill itself before release.
  • "Microsoft originally targeted October 25th for Vista's release to manufacturing, but a last-minute bug that 'took most of the Vista team by surprise' has caused an unexpected delay, said Ethan Allen, a quality assurance lead at a Seattle high-tech company that tests its products for Vista.

    Reportedly, Bill Gates is resting easy with the knowledge that Ethan Allen [wikipedia.org] and his Green Mountain Boys [wikipedia.org] are on the job.
  • by Lord_Slepnir (585350) on Friday October 27, 2006 @02:10PM (#16612176) Journal
    A member of the QA team said "I regret that I have but one crash report to give for my company"

    Another member of Ethan Allen's team added "Give me Vista, or give me death". When Microsoft asked on what authority they could make such demands, Allen replied "In the name of the great Jehovah, and the Continental Congress". Off the record, he also retorted "Come out, you son of an XP hack, or I'll smoke you out!"

    (in case you don't get it) [wikiquote.org]

  • praise the lord for snapshot vms!
  • Remember, it's not a bug, it's a feature.

    So the ship date was pushed back to allow them to Enhance the Feature.
    • Remember, it's not a bug, it's a feature.

      I periodically rebuild my Windows machines, however, sometimes I get lazy and put it off.
      Thanks to this new feature, however, Vista will automatically notify me when its time to rebuild!
  • Somehow, I rather suspect the discovery of this bug so close to the release date isn't a coincidence. Let's review:

    1) Vista has suffered from massive flaws, bugs, etc. ever since it was still called Longhorn.
    2) Most of the IT community believes there's no chance Vista will be released on time.
    3) Microsoft swears on its collective mothers' graves that Vista will be released on time.
    4) Weeks before the scheduled release, a "massive and totally unexpected" bug forces the release to be postponed.

    Smart m

    • by pete6677 (681676)
      Maybe they'll just strip out what few new features they were planning to add to Vista in order to ship it on time. Here comes Windows XP 2.0
  • Ethan Allen? (Score:2, Redundant)

    by AsnFkr (545033)
    Are they selling overpriced couches now?
  • by Tiger4 (840741) on Friday October 27, 2006 @02:17PM (#16612320)
    Its good they caught this. I'd hate to see Microsoft's reputation for delivering quality software on time be shot to ribbons by a bug riddled delivery.
  • Here we go again.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by eebra82 (907996) on Friday October 27, 2006 @02:18PM (#16612338) Homepage
    Once again, some Slashdot users prove that their hatred towards Microsoft surpasses objectivity. The article does not say how this bug occurs, how often or even why, so for all we know, this could be a very uncommon bug. It's just a good thing if the quality assurance team spots a bug and eliminates it, right? Why on earth should we flame them for that? As if the development of Linux was flawless?

    I for one say, let's judge the final product before we smack Microsoft for something that's not yet released to the public.
    • "Once again, some Slashdot users prove that their hatred towards Microsoft surpasses objectivity."

      Who else would bother to read a story like "News flash! QA team finds bug in prerelease software" ?

      The summary makes it clear that no actual information is known except for a short schedule slip. Why would I even be looking at the comments except to read people bashing "M$"? (Scare quotes to aid the irony impaired.)

    • by Dunbal (464142)
      The article does not say how this bug occurs, how often or even why, so for all we know, this could be a very uncommon bug.

      Right. So it's a good thing when you put all your data - how about little things like patient records, lab results, etc, on your machine and 12 months later, when you're confident that you have a stable OS and don't back up every single day, this bug crashes in the middle of database accesses and mangles everything up for ya. Yeah, we love those surprise "ninja" b
    • by reidconti (219106)
      How is this insightful?

      Disliking Microsoft for being a shit company that turns out half-assed software that only hurts innovation in the computer industry does not mean we have to bow down and worship at the altar of Linux (or OS X, or Solaris) development.

      Why must dislike of choice A always be turned into an irrational support of choice B? This isn't even our two-party political system we're talking about, it's software!
  • No Surprises (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Doc Ruby (173196) on Friday October 27, 2006 @02:20PM (#16612376) Homepage Journal
    Oh yeah, that's the OS I want to base my Internet and personal business on. A total meltdown bug that takes most of the huge OS team by surprise on the day it's supposed to be manufactured ("in stone"), after all the testing is supposed to be complete. But it doesn't surprise everyone, so it's been known to some on the team - but slipped past testing anyway. Which causes a delay of only two weeks, despite the testing necessary to be sure this bug 1: is gone; 2: doesn't break anything else when fixed; and 3: doesn't have others like it waiting to "surprise most people".

    What kind of $MULTIBILLION corporation, whose steady stream of "upgraded" products are essential to global business and billions of personal lives, runs this way?

    Microsoft. When monopoly is all you need.
    • What flame? Maybe you should have posted in reply to a flame cause I don't see many posts that are even mildly warm. Most everything I'm reading is either kudos to Microsoft for actually catching it before release or conspiracy theory that it's just a media claim to buy time. (I was reading as not-logged-in)

      Before you start wearing your flame retardant suit all the time, you might want to see if anyone is playing with a flame thrower.

      Consequently I think it would have been a horribly funny bug to release

      • by Doc Ruby (173196)
        Thanks for the concern, but with no flame responses and moderation looking like

        Moderation +2
            100% Insightful

        I care even less than I usually do about reply flames (ie, less than zero).
  • by BeeBeard (999187) on Friday October 27, 2006 @02:20PM (#16612380)
    From the article:

    Allen said the Vista team discovered the bug, which "would totally crash the system, requiring a complete reinstall"...


    I say just leave it in and call it a feature. :)

  • by iCharles (242580)
    That's my daughter's birthday? Is that a good thing, or a bad thing.
  • ...like the energizer bunny: it keeps getting delayed, and delayed, and delayed...
  • Great news (Score:4, Funny)

    by RyoShin (610051) <tukaro.gmail@com> on Friday October 27, 2006 @02:33PM (#16612588) Homepage Journal
    This will give Duke Nukem Forever more time to be finished.
  • by PygmySurfer (442860) on Friday October 27, 2006 @02:39PM (#16612766)
    Sigh.

    Now, Steve Bink at bink.nu is a great guy and a friend, and I know he had no idea that these guys were just ripping me off. But that's the point of this: If you separate a story enough from its true source, it's becomes kind of unclear what the truth is.

    Welcome to my life.


    Poor Paul Thurrott! Such a hard life you lead. "I wrote about this first, I wrote about this first! digitimes didn't credit me! IDG credited digitimes, not me! I wrote about this first! bink linked to the IDG story, what about me!"

    Paul Thurrott may be an important figure in the coverage of Microsoft Product or something, but I hardly think he's the only person with "sources" who get tipped off when these things happen. Maybe, just maybe, digitimes has sources too, and they found out about the setback from some place other than Paul Thurrott's site(s). Paul needs to get over himself, he's not the sole source of Microsoft news.
  • by melted (227442) on Friday October 27, 2006 @02:41PM (#16612794) Homepage
    That, my friends, is what you get if you rely too much on automation and don't do enough manual poking around. For those who lack context, there's a strong push in Windows to do as much testing through automation as possible. As often happens when a $1M exec bonus depends on something, the underlings got a little overzealous and either fired software test engineers or "up-converted" them to "software development engineers in test" who were then told to write automation. The effect of this is that you have bits and pieces of Vista that are tested really well and other bits and pieces that aren't tested _at all_. One needs to remember that when your automated test case finds a bug and that bug gets fixed, it's not likely to find more bugs in the same code path. This doesn't mean there are no bugs in the code. This means there aren't more bugs _in this exact code path_ that test case exercises.
    • by Shippy (123643)
      This doesn't mean there are no bugs in the code. This means there aren't more bugs _in this exact code path_ that test case exercises.

      There is such a thing as regression. The automation assures that bugs that were fixed in the codepath don't pop up again.

      The effect of this is that you have bits and pieces of Vista that are tested really well and other bits and pieces that aren't tested _at all_.

      I'm sure this is true for any sizeable software product, including MacOS X and Linux.
    • by aafiske (243836) on Friday October 27, 2006 @03:27PM (#16613822)
      WTF are you on about? Do you have any experience in computer science at all? Because you're speaking utter rot.

      Automated tests are better.

      Automated tests can be run at night, when no one's around. They can be run constantly, without driving someone insane.
      Automated tests are reproducible. Try following someone's 'Uh, I clicked here, then opened this, then I think I cancelled that program, then...' instructions a few times. Then tell me automated tests aren't preferable.
      Can't keep up with all the tests to run? Buy a new computer. Your scheme would have a new person hired every time someone's maxed out. (Or, alternately, dumping old tests.)
      Automated tests cover regressions. Found a bug? Write a test for it. Then if it pops up again (which they always do), you catch it early.
      Automated tests can be run by anyone, if done properly.

      Automated tests are predictable. They do, in fact, cover the same code each time. This is an asset, not a liability. You know exactly what you've tested, and what you haven't. You can write _more tests_ to cover the other stuff. You'd rather someone happen to click a little different on the last build, and miss a regression?

      Manual testing is required for GUIs to some extent, and to winkle out usability issues.

      To suggest MS is dumb because they tried to make their testing rigorous, predictable and regular is utterly absurd.
      • by geekoid (135745)
        true, but they can only test the path the are scrptied for, where as a QA person can go "Hey, what happens if I mash the keyboard?" It is difficult, if not impossible, to script every contingency. At least with a person sitting there thinking about it while they test, they will come up with things someone just writing test scripts will not.

        I think his point is that the almost SOLEY rely on automated tasting. If that is true, then they are making a mistake.

    • >when your automated test case finds a bug and that bug gets fixed, it's not likely to find more bugs in the same code path.

      Depends on how well it's designed: the smart way to write an automated test is to have it generate (and log!) as many corner cases as it can come up with.
    • Vista has probably had the largest public beta testing in history.
      Where did you get the idea that MS is relying on automation and not doing manual poking around? This bug likely occurs in extremely rare circumstances, which is why it was not discovered until now, despite the years of manual and automated in-house testing and millions of beta testers.
  • by greysky (136732) on Friday October 27, 2006 @02:53PM (#16613124)
    a quality assurance lead at a Seattle high-tech company that tests its products for Vista


    Is it just me or does this sound like testing for a disease or something? "Bad news. We got your blood tests back. You have Vista."
  • PatchGuard hack (Score:4, Informative)

    by Cally (10873) on Friday October 27, 2006 @03:04PM (#16613396) Homepage
    Authentium [theregister.co.uk] already broke Patch Guard and hooked the Vista kernel. That pretty much destroys 50% of the unbreakable new security model, as far as I can tell. Microsoft're quoted in that Reg story as saying they'll patch it, but are they holding RTM for that? If not, the launch will be as big a farce as the development process [blogspot.com] to date...
  • http://www.mstechtoday.com/2006/10/17/importing-p h otos-from-camera-into-vista-sucks/ [mstechtoday.com]

    Or are they intent on making sure the first thing every Vista user does is grab a 3rd party tool for managing their photos instead of using Vista's built in tools?

    I know Vista is offering a lot "under the hood" but beyond that every time I look at it I honestly think "They've had 5 years to development a new OS and this is all we get?". Vista may end up being a solid OS, and I'll definitely be using it at home, but I'm just
  • by PolyDwarf (156355) on Friday October 27, 2006 @03:13PM (#16613568)
    I just got done trying to get Vista RC2 running on a spare hard drive, to get a "real machine" feel for the thing.

    My experience -- It sucks.

    1. The thing doesn't have support for my SATA controller. Gigabyte board, Ali SATA controller. I had to use the XP drivers. Tell me that Gigabyte/Ali are no name brands that no one's heard of. Not a deal breaker, as there's a work around.

    2. Install is extremely slow. My personal idea is that every step along the way, the install is trying to find an IDE hard drive for some reason, but since I don't have one, I'm having to wait for timeouts. I'm not sure if this is the case, though.

    3. Once you get in... My Geforce 3 can't handle Aero, so MS helpfully turned it off. The default theme is ugly as snot, with huge window borders (4-5 pixels), baby blue in color. Trying to change this baby blue color yielded no results; it stayed baby blue.

    4. Getting used to the explorer shell again (I use Geoshell on my windows boxes) is a pain. What they've done to Explorer makes it less user friendly, instead of more user friendly. Granted, I don't use Explorer very often either (I use Directory Opus on my windows boxes), but even XP's Explorer is better/more usable.

    5. The thing that made me finally throw my hands up in frustration. Somewhere in the 6 hours I had it running, I managed to completely lock myself out of Control Panel. Every time I'd try to go in there to get to something, it would crash. Whether I did it off the Start button, whether I did it from Explorer, it didn't matter... Explorer would crash. Another co-worker had this happen on a VM install of Vista, but he got around it by using MMC and manually adding in the plugins of whatever he wanted.

    For RC2, this is a sad state. I remember, back in the day, happily running NT4 Beta 2 for months and months. Oh well.
  • ...but I honestly wish this bug wasn't caught.

    Put the flame-thrower down, hear me out:

    With all the Flap(TM) over Vista's licensing changes (*coff*ahem*'clarifications'*coff*) and
    the "single reinstall/change...no! Wait! we meant up to 10! or maybe it goes up to 11, even!!11oneone",
    I'm forced to wonder if this would be the best "acid test" for Vista's license.

    If Vista allows for one "transfer/reinstall/leg-pulling-legalese-of-choice ", then where would that
    have left people who got bit if it happened a second
  • Does anybody else find it very concerning that:

    1) The news of this delay came only 2 days before their supposed ship date.
    2) They're STILL DEVELOPING THE SOFTWARE a week away from releasing it to the entire world!!

    Maybe this is normal in smaller software development firms, but to me, it seems like they're being overly aggressive in getting the product out the door. This will likely become the most widely installed application on the face of the earth and yet they're still fixing (major) bugs a week before s
  • Even at Microsoft it isn't possible that a bug that requires a complete reinstall could remain undiscovered until the week before FCS. I don't doubt that there are thousands of bugs, many of them serious, but this just isn't plausible.
    • by Dunbal (464142)
      Even at Microsoft it isn't possible that a bug that requires a complete reinstall could remain undiscovered

            You haven't bought much software recently have you? It's almost standard in the gaming industry as marketing rushes the product out for Christmas. But that's ok, you can download the 700MB patch later, on a pay-for-subscription site. If you have an internet connection of course. It sounds like you're in denial my friend!
  • Are there any details on this bug?

    What kind of problem could cause this serious destruction of the OS installation?

    I'll guess it's registry corruption, since they rely on a single point of failure. Mess up one single entry, and the entire system is toast.

    If it' file system corruption, that shows a serious lack of debugging effort. If the file system is this broken, how could you fail to notice it earlier?
  • CS 101 (Score:3, Informative)

    by 955301 (209856) on Friday October 27, 2006 @03:23PM (#16613748) Journal
    Just starting out in software? Here's a tip - If your release date is affected by a single bug, your date is too close to the end of qa test. Your codebase should be untouched for a few days after QA before it can be declared suitable for consumption.

    Glad I just switched to mac, even though it took a CompUSA store closing in Roswell, GA to get me to fork the cash out. Even a 30% discount was painful. Since then I've had two crashes caused by alpha software, but nothing from release quality stuff.
  • V for Vista (Score:5, Funny)

    by John.P.Jones (601028) on Friday October 27, 2006 @03:39PM (#16614070)
    Remember, remember the 8th of November...
    The OS upgrade season and plot
    I know of no reason
    Why this Windows version should ever be bought
  • The Bug (Score:5, Funny)

    by Cervantes (612861) on Friday October 27, 2006 @06:35PM (#16616564) Journal
    I was chatting with some folks on the Vista team, and it turns out the bug is actually fairly interesting. Apparently the latest version of Windows Media Player infects the NT kernel with some DRM, and the only way to unlock them is to download your authorized user code from Microsoft.com... which unfortunately you can't do if you have a locked kernel.
    Who woulda guessed?

Small is beautiful.

Working...