SHIFT+F10 will give you access to a command prompt during setup, which you can then use to vew status messages and parameters and stuff...

But surely a 3MB patch is still less than the entire browser download - so therefore less bandwidth?

So the original poster is correct - they didn't do their analysis properly. If they'd planned properly they would have figured out that they could get maximum benefit by doing the migration properly. Of course, if they'd done their analysis they would have realised that their problems weren't to do with windows, rather to do with how their infrastructure was operated and managed.

The way they do filtering with NuFW is interesting - it can authorize outgoing connections based on the _application_ that is trying to create the connection, by calling back to a PAM module on the client machine. And there are rulesets depending on the logged in user group. Beats forcing everyone to use proxies.

Microsoft's ISA/TMG/Proxy has been able to do this since version 1...

You are confusing designed by default with default behaviour. They are two different things. Default behaviour in the Win2k/XP timeframe was poor - Vista & Win7 change this.

I also suggest that you read the Windows 7 logo program requirements: http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9668061. One of the guidelines is around proper behaviour with UAC, and another is around programs putting data in the right place.

You know, bitching about self signed certs is actually a Good Thing. I'd rather my device/client told me that a cert is only self signed, then that gives me an indication of the level of trust (a self signed certificate just says "i'm ok, trust me").

Only a short comment - calling iTunes "great desktop software" might be considered delusional in some places :). iTunes is fairly average at best, it's media management is pretty poor, and it's library functionality is pretty bad. MediaMonkey is a far far better piece of software for managing your media.

Interesting.
a) it is an open standard
b) there can be no conforming implementation because the standard has not been finalised. You can bitch about this once the standard has been released, but until then there is no way to conform
c) by the same token we should also reject ODF, since the specification is both vague and incomplete (formulas anyone?)

Yep, if an operation takes out the system then the mirrored system will also die. They are in total lockstep so there is no protection of the application. It does give you near instant protection should the hardware or the hypervisor fails, but not if your app or OS should fail.

Serious question time: Is it possible for anyone who is against Microsoft on this issue to have a serious conversation about this, and not resort to accusations of astroturfing?

This is a discussion between adults (hopefully) and if you're interested in it being a discussion then lets leave the astroturfing comments out of this.

In any case, reference implementations are for filling in areas where the spec is vague so people know how to implement it for compatibility.

But you're still confusing the reference implementation with the specification. If I can't make a reasonable stab at implementing it from the specification myself, then the specification is near to worthless. And clearly if the ODF 1.1 spec is that vague it is close to useless as a spec. Sure, using a reference implementation to see how a few minor things have been implemented is OK, but to see how something as fundamental as spreadsheet formulas are implemented just means the spec sucks. Like I say, ODF 1.2 should be better.

Until there is a complete standard there is nothing to interoperate with...there are only non-standard implementations. So Microsoft loses either way - either they comply with the standard such that it is and get dinged for not interoperating with OpenOffice, or they comply with OpenOffice and will get dinged for not guessing how OpenOffice does it correctly. It's a lose lose situation for Microsoft, and the only way to solve it is to have a complete & specific standard.

I refer you to this comment because I'm too lazy to type something myself, and they've said it far better than I could: http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1239895&cid=28033047

What, you mean Netscape? Or Microsoft?