MS 'Whistler' Looks Solid To ZDNET 340
dynoman7 writes: "eWEEK Labs has tested the first public beta release of Whistler, which became available Oct. 31. They think it is 'stable.'" He points to a review at eWEEK, also playing on MSNBC. It's a bit of a mixed review, actually -- the review points out that by "leaving its Windows 9x code base behind, [Microsoft is] creating many potential Windows platform compatibility problems in the process," and notes of the included "remote help" feature, "[G]iven Microsoft's well-documented security gaffes, sites will have to carefully evaluate the potential security risks of such a widely deployed remote-control feature." Whatever its faults, this Windows-to-come is supposed to have improved type handling and other goodies which every other OS will inevitably be scrutinized for, including [your favorite].
Re:100% Stable, 0% Secure. (Score:1)
Right now I run Windows ME. It is the greatest thing in the universe. If I loved it anymore, I would probably be required to marry it or something. I have but two issues with it, one serious and one not-so-serious.
Serious: some DirectX apps don't quit DirectX mode when they quit, meaning I have to restart my machine.
Not-so-serious: Setting a button to 'Back' on my Intellimouse Explorer goes back
It pleases me immensely that DOS mode has gone the way of the Dodo, though.
Re:You'll still need 95/98/ME (Score:2)
DOH. _NOW_ I learn about this util, after I've upgraded to Win2K
> You have to use rawrite.exe to copy an image to a floppy,
Actually you can use FD144.exe since it has the same functionality as rawrite.exe. (See paragraph below.)
> and lo and behold, the OS on the floppy is MS DOS 6.22
On the NT4 CD it can be found in \SUPPORT\HQTOOL\
Which has these 3 files:
10,891 FD144.EXE
332 MAKEDISK.BAT
1,474,560 NTHQ
Thx again for the cool NT4 tip!
Re:stable ??? (Score:1)
Re:not me, unfortunately :) (Score:1)
if sourced(Microsoft) && reviewed(ZDNet), then ... (Score:1)
1) A new standard in software!!! More features, more stable, & runs faster!!!
2) Apple is still dead.
3) Linux doesn't have a modern interface. And it's too hard to use.
4) Jesse Berst: ``Hey, the hits on my column are down, so what brain dead thing can I say today?"
5) There's another operating system out there?
Geoff
Re:Virtual Desktops? (Score:1)
Re:100% Stable, 0% Secure. (Score:1)
lot of tiny buttons: mozi mozi mozi (Score:4)
The whole "task bar" thing in general drives me a little buggy ... I usually end up with a lot of tiny rectangles at the bottom of my screen that say "mozi" "mozi" "mozi" etc. because that's as much room as they have space for text. Which removes all the alleged helpfulness of having those taskbar buttons at all.
That's one of the reasons why Microsoft's UI Style Guide shifted from "app-centric" to "doc-centric": the browsers give the doc/page's title followed by the app's title. It avoids buttons that read "Micr...", "Micr...", "Micr..."
I don't know if computer interfaces ever will really achieve data centrism, but I think it's the right way to go. Give me a file, and if I don't have the widget that lets me view or edit it, let me get it.
Of course, it's exactly this trend that has also put Microsoft's security in the crapper: automatic installations of who-knows-what code.
Re:I'm beta-testing it... (Score:2)
Nuh-uh.
"If ignorance is bliss, may I never be happy.
The taskbar thing is a good idea - (Score:1)
The whole "task bar" thing in general drives me a little buggy
If I had open windows subcategorized by application, that would definitely be a plus.
Thinking broadly , this also seems very similar to what MacOS has done for years (you click on the application menu and get to a list of all the running apps; while it doesn't distinguish between windows of the same application, it also doens't clutter the screen with a list of them). But then, I've been a Mac user for far longer, so maybe it seems "nicer" to me simply for its familiarity
timothy
Re:Waste of money. (Score:1)
wow, what innovation (Score:1)
iterations of the same application such as multiple Internet Explorer windows into a single task-bar item. The user then clicks on the IE task-bar item to see a vertical list of open IE windows.
Wow, nice to see that BeOS is getting enough attention from MS that they'll steal their interface ideas(this is the default BeOS behaviour). Not that any OS vendor isn't guilty of stealing interface ideas. Win95 looked remarkably like NeXT in a lot of ways...
-lx
Re:where telnet? ok ... (Score:2)
Microsoft quotes (Score:2)
-Stype
If it's called Whistler... (Score:2)
Windows isn't hard to crack, just not interesting. (Score:4)
Linux users, OTOH, tend to spring for high-speed permanent internet connections on the best hardware they can afford, and leave their computers on for months at a time. And, of course, only a minority of Linux home users know anything about security, and plenty of default installations are full of holes. Furthermore, the Linux boxes are full of toys like compilers and network utilities.
Which sounds more tempting for someone who wants to subvert other people's equipment for their own purposes? An unstable mishmash of proprietary apps, or a perfectly stable long-term hacking platform where every application has the source available so he can control all local displays to hide the fact that he's in there?
Cable-modem, static IP, default install, Redhat Linux boxes are a cracker's bonanza.
--------
"Stable" (Score:2)
Security holes? (Score:4)
Re:not me, unfortunately :) (Score:2)
You're not running Win2K though, are you?
telnet xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx
[login]
^]
unset LOCAL_ECHO
set TERM VT100
^M
set term=vt100
pine
... works great for me. What problems are you seeing?
Simon
Re:where telnet? ok ... (Score:2)
Re:uh (Score:2)
"Type handling" refers to standard C, Java, C++ etc. language types.
Badly typed languages allow the programmer to skip out and change types on a whim, causing OS instability. Strongly typed languages force a programmer to specify a long int or double float and stick with it.
Since Windows has relied on types since Win95's exception (nearly every GUI function call and return variable is typed) it makes sense that the OS would begin to focus more on strong types.
Re:100% Stable, 0% Secure. (Score:2)
I'm not planning on running whistler, but if I did, I'd dare them to try to find any to have me by. We are the future; for we are immune to their nefarious ways.
Re:lot of tiny buttons: mozi mozi mozi (Score:2)
I don't know why these browsers weren't made MDI to start ith. Almost every other application out there doesn't spit out a million new tasks for each document, why should your browser?
-
Hmm, so you're saying.. (Score:2)
Maybe there's a promotional campaign in this...
Fight Microsoft! Be more like a woman! You don't really need your balls, so join the ranks of Unix!
Hmm, I don't think those slogans are going to make Linux much more popular.
--------
silly OS (Score:2)
The point is
damage is lessened, not eliminated by the db ... (Score:3)
(sort of like various distros of Linux with subtle incompatibilities because of differently located libraries etc.
I didn't mean to distort the point of that sentence; the review I think is a little glib in accepting that a list of compatibilies for tons of applications will work correctly in all cases it covers.
It sounds like for many applications (perhaps even all but a handful, but I dunno which ones or how important they are) the built-in database should be sufficient (is it built in? is it internet-available and constantly updated? not clear from article
All versioning does this (at least potentially), but the larger the leap the greater the risk
timothy
Isn't this what we wanted? (Score:2)
Email to employees (Score:2)
Subject: Notice from the management
It has come to our attention that according to a study commissioned by
Microsoft, under normal use, Windows 98 will require a reboot every 1.8
working days. With this in mind, we will be monitoring each of your
workstations for the next month. Anyone who does not reboot every 4 days
or less on average is assumed not to be using their computer to its
potential and will have to justify the continued maintenance of their
computer.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/guide/prof
Re:I'm testing it. It's okay (Score:2)
Re:Virtual Desktops? (Score:2)
Never thought I'd have to use demoronizer on /. (Score:3)
My computer runs a somewhat non-standard operating system called "Linux." This "Linux" operating system does not come with Microsoft Windows fonts. Hence, I cannot see the Microsoft "smart quotes" that appear in the "MS 'Whistler' Looks Solid To ZDNET" story. If you could be so kind as to fix the headline, me and my fellow "Linux" users would appreciate it.
Thanks.
Re:Security holes? (Score:2)
Point of View (Score:2)
I recall that ZDNET, at the time of Windows 98, considered Windows 98 quite stable. If an individual has never experienced the thrill of Wild Thing or various other large rollercoasters, the rides at the local carnival are 'quite thrilling,' while in retrospect, they're quite dull compared to the thrill aquired from Wild Thing/Space Mountain/etc... The same thing here applies for stability. If you consider 3 days uptime, with no crashing, stable, then something that provides a week of decent uptime w/o crashing would be considered potentially rock solid. Likewise, someone who considers a year of uptime without crashes solid would consider such uptime as a week, or even several months, potentially laughable.
It's my opinion that MS may have possibly made the initial releases of Windows less stable on purpose - they could get away with it, because their marketing was so efficient. Then, as later versions were released, each subsequent release would look increasingly more 'rock solid,' based on the previous version's vantage of 'stable,' which in turn was based on the version previous to that being less stable. The reason I believe they did this was because they knew they didn't have the ability to compete with the big boys - all the various UNIX varients - based on stability. Eventually, the hype of their OS becoming more stable, and being even more rock solid, and such, would weaken the minds of the already weak, thus bringing them more market share...
Just my .035$
-------
CAIMLAS
Re:Eh? (Score:2)
8KTA too. (Score:2)
Re:not me, unfortunately :) (Score:3)
Re:Actually more.. (Score:2)
Mainframe replacement hahahahahahahahahahahaha.
My advice.. (Score:2)
Stick with W2K - its good.
Re:not me, unfortunately :) (Score:3)
No, it has a scrollable buffer.
Start Menu->Run: telnet xxx.xx.xxx.xxx
Click the Icon (top right of window), select Properties from the Menu.
Select the Layout tab.
Change Screen Buffer - Height to however long you want it to be. The default is 300 lines.
Use the scrollbar then to scroll.
Simon
FreeDOS has a showstopper bug (Score:2)
There's always the shareware DR DOS (Score:2)
100% Stable, 0% Secure. (Score:2)
Be afraid, be very afraid!
One more very good reason to switch to Linux.
They are try to kill (Score:2)
Win2k (Score:2)
Re:hey, neat;) (Score:2)
Re:I'm beta-testing it... (Score:2)
Don't worry, sometimes when pointing out the obvious you just can't avoid it.
Re:uh (Score:3)
With filename extensions, you have the problem that only a datatype is specified, and not the app that created it. If you've ever had to deal with the hundreds of mutually-incompatible formats all with the extension
MIME has the opposite problem. It was a great idea in theory, but in practice it broke down. Depressingly few file formats actually have registered types, and in most cases the result is that no two people can agree. I've had to register no fewer than three MIME types for Zip files, three for m3u format MP3 playlists, eight for MP3 itself, two each for QuickTime, AVI, MPEG, and RealPlayer formats, three for Stuffit, and so on and so forth.
I won't even go into ease of use issues (anything that makes it unsafe to rename a file at will is a Bad Thing); there are practical reasons that filename extensions should have died a very long time ago, and while I'm glad to see Whistler finally getting rid of the need for them, I only wish they'd done it much sooner.
This does, of course, all assume that this is in fact something Whistler is doing (no one seems to know what "type handling" means; this is my guess).
----------
OS/2 DLLs (Score:2)
DLL, or dynamic link library, is a term and concept unique to Windows users.
Mmm, I'm not sure about the cronology but I think that OS/2 1.0 had DLLs and that was before Windows 1.0.
Of course, OS/2 1.0 was a joint product of IBM and Microsoft, so maybe it was Microsoft who called them DLLs.
__
hmmm (Score:2)
Re:My advice.. (Score:2)
if your software is secure enough, stable enough, and does what you want, stay with it.
if there is a different version which will better satisfy your needs, use it.
stop this stupid the latest is the best stupidity.
-theman2
Strange sentence (Score:2)
- What exactly has Microsoft built atop Whistler? I though the article dealt with Whistler itself.
- Is there a word missing between "to" and "the"? I sense that the author was groping for something like "incentivize". Or perhaps "ease". It may seem a minor point, but the difficulty of choosing this word illuminates the shaky premise of the article, of which I'll say more below.
- This sentence cites "compatibility improvements" while the rest of the article warns that consumers will experience jarring incompatibility with the Win95 family. In fact, this incompatibility is cited at the end of the article as the sole disadvantage of Whistler.
I'm starting to notice a pattern to these articles which appear in the MS-centric press whenever MS flogs a new product. The reviewers try to sound objective, hence the gravely cautious weighing of advantages and disadvantages. But the writer is trapped in a conceptual framework in which the consumer's only choice is to upgrade now or upgrade later. Rather like an election in a one-party state, where you're free to vote for the dictator or not.It's striking how different this article is from anything reviewing goods or services available in a free market. The sense that the consumer is king, which has been such a great blessing of our capitalist system, is quite absent. In its place we see the harsh fiats of an all-powerful bureaucracy, such as the warning that Win98 (so recently announced!) will soon be unsupported.
Re:I'm testing it. It's okay (Score:2)
It reports about 90fps on my machine no matter how I configure it. 1280x1024 certainly looks and feels slower than 640x480. It must be a bug in the SMP code.
stable ??? (Score:4)
Re:Virtual Desktops? (Score:2)
Yeah, really (Score:3)
Apple fell back to a very simple lineup and now it's Microsoft that has five different various options for everything. I hope they choke on it :)
Think about it- logically for every user there are four sorts of Windows that are _wrong_, correct? How much of a jump would it be to decide that all six are wrong and go with Linux, or Macintoshes? :)
Cut off Xbox (because it's not real and we'll never see it) and 98 (obsolete) and we still have four sorts of Windowses, of which three are wrong ;)
Re:Screen shots (Score:2)
---
Re:Virtual Desktops? (Score:3)
Well, if you want virtual desktops, take some initiatize and code some! Or you can download a freeware version at here [telia.com]. I like this one because it's simple and gnu-ey.
Re:UI flipflop (Score:2)
Slightly OT, but slightly related... Tell me this: how is it that I can have a FULLY functioning X11 server in win32 in about 2 megs of RAM when XFree86 takes like 30? What a piece of shit.
Because in Windows all system memory is accounted separately, plus you are looking at it with no bitmaps loaded. Think of it, if you have loaded a fullscreen background, how much memory will be 1024x768x24bpp? That's more than 2M already.
forgot a sentence (Score:5)
This is a distortion of what the point of that sentence was in the first place. If one takes in to account the sentence just before it in the actual article, the point that there will be compatibility problems is negated:
Whistler contains an application compatibility environment designed to allow the operating system to run many applications intended for Windows 98. This is particularly important because, with Whistler, Microsoft is leaving its Windows 9x code base behind, creating many potential Windows platform compatibility problems in the process.
don't mod me down just because I disagree with the post. I'm just clarifying something.
Re:Windows isn't hard to crack, just not interesti (Score:2)
Anything that comes with a standard Red Hat installation won't have anything like a per-seat (or per-ponnection or per-whatever) license fee; that model doesn't exist. So figure out what is the maximum amount of traffic or users that box can handle, and charge the equivalent amount on NT.
Of course they *both* cost something to implement. The difference under Linux is that if you do it right, it should cost significantly less to maintain. I've seen both boxes in use, and it's pretty hard to debug an NT bluescreen from the ColdFusion service because of some user that calls it with a Perl application... Under Linux, the box tends to stay up, and the users call if they have a problem...
But of course, that's just *my* experience with it.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].
Screen shots (Score:4)
Re:Security holes? (Score:2)
ssh2. I've never had or heard of any problem with telnetd, on either
Linux or FreeBSD boxes (except for the usual termcap troubles) so I'm
not sure what you might be talking about.
I haven't had any problems with ssh recently, but I'm pretty
slow to forgive. I guess I should look at openssh.
Re:You'll still need 95/98/ME (Score:2)
I was a little nervous about using it, and I wouldn't use it on an unstable or overclocked system, just to be safe, but I have had zero problems with it.
The nice thing about it is that if you muff up the flash (used the wrong image, program crashed, etc) you can reflash, provided you don't reboot your machine.
Re:lot of tiny buttons: mozi mozi mozi (Score:2)
I don't know why these browsers weren't made MDI to start with.
MDI, Multiple Document Interface, was specifically deprecated in the Windows 95 User Interface Style Guide. That's why IE isn't MDI.
MDI has some advantages, I will admit it. I couldn't imagine a developers' IDE without it.
MDI is not document-centric (see my earlier point #219 [slashdot.org]). It forces the user to consider the software application before (or instead of) the actual content.
In a doc-centric world, users avoid backward-trained mental processes like the following: "I want to see what bugs are open on my project; my bug list is shown on a sourceforge website; let me open my web browser to see that ." Instead, they click on a shortcut icon, a url link, a menu item or any other gateway, and the operating system opens the proper browser for the task.
Re:not me, unfortunately :) (Score:2)
Wa-la, no more worries -- you now have a telnet that can handle ssh, that cuts & pastes simply by highlighting, has an unlimited scrollback buffer, and is supa-configurable.
Pull the same trick with, say, notepad.exe <-> gvim.exe, cmd.exe (or command.exe) <-> bash.exe, and install a few GNU programs (sed, grep, etc) in c:\winnt\system and you're well on your way to having a useful computer.
Have fun!
Re:Win2k (Score:2)
Microsoft Windows 2000 [Version 5.00.2195]
(C) Copyright 1985-2000 Microsoft Corp.
H:\>uptime
Uptime - system uptime utility for Windows NT
by Mark Russinovich
Systems Internals - http://www.sysinternals.com
This computer has been up for 52 days, 10 hours, 3 minutes, 35 seconds.
H:\>
Not bad for a Win2k box eh?
Don't get me wrong, I love Linux and use it at home (and have introduced a Linux cluster, insert shameless MOSIX plug here, and a couple FreeBSD servers at work). But for workplace desktops 2k does a pretty damn good job. People moan and bitch about NTs stability all the time and I think they're either full FUD or clueless as to how to properly maintain the system.
I'll give the NT team some due credit. Bill Gates had nothing to do with NT other than stealing some VMS and OS/2 designers from other companies. NT was originally built on the same principles as *nix -- High-level language only, never sacrifice anything for doing things the "right way". Because of that, the NT kernel is rock solid; the only times I've ever had it crash on me (even in 4.0) were related to cheap hardware and shoddy device drivers. Now, the IE/Explorer interface written by the 9x team and grafted on is a piece of crap and crashes on me about once a week, but I can at least start it back up without bringing down the entire OS...
Win2k plus the resource kit even has a halfway decent CLI. Add cygwin to the mix and it makes it even better. I regularly use bash as a shell on my machine; it also runs an SSH server for remote access.
And before someone accuses me of getting that high uptime by leaving this box sitting around doing nothing, let me tell you what I use it for. I regularly have 60+ processes running taking up 200MB+ of memory (I've got 256MB physical and about a gig of swap space) in the background. I leave inetd (for ssh), BIND, Winamp, ICQ, Task manager (running in the context of the SYSTEM account thanks to a little service I wrote, hehe
All that and the only time I ever have to reboot is for the silly IE security fixes M$ sometimes releases (most of the time when something wants to reboot I just ignore it and it works anyway). True, once or twice (over 52 days ago though
As far as security goes, I wouldn't trust 2k to be secure out of the box. Then again, I wouldn't trust Red Hat to be secure out of the box either. Like UNIX, NT *CAN* be secure if the admin knows what he's doing. Unfortunately, the GUI makes it seem easier than it really is so there's a lot of substandard NT admins out there. I'd recommend checking out the Sysinternals tools (www.sysinternals.com) and the registry hack database at www.jsiinc.com.
Anyway, before I get too far off topic, I agree with the poster I'm replying too. Randomly bashing NT/2k without having even taken the time to fully use and understand how it works is no better than the MS loyalists spreading FUD about Linux when they've never even used it. Supporting Linux is great, it's come a long way and I hope to see it get even better, but turning this into some kind of holy war won't help anyone.
Unix: Where
Re:Windows isn't hard to crack, just not interesti (Score:2)
Why is the cost so low? Because I got my head outta my ass and read the fucking books. Anything that needs to be done on those machines, I can do. Because I got the knowledge, and most importantly, I got the source.
Now, we also have a cadre of +/- 5 NT/2000 admins here on any given week. For 5 NT servers. The licenses have cost $10,000+(at last estimate) including all apps, OS, and whatever else we got stuck with. I have no clue what the hell they run on those things, but it must be important for all the screaming they do. Unfortunately, only one of them seems to know anything about Partitioning and Networked file systems. In a nutshell, they've got thier heads up thier asses because the environment theyre working in encourages it. Hence they are less productive and they drive the costs way up.
Hence, as far as Linux and Whistler go in the server environment...BillyG is whistling past the graveyard. Linux TCO is NULL for those who take thier head outta thier ass and learn how it works. For those who dont wanna learn how to operate thier shit, I say FIRE THEM.
As far as home users go, maybe it'll work for them, maybe it wont. I dont care. As long as the servers remain free, I'm happy.
Laters.
Re:I'm testing it. It's okay (Score:2)
Re:lot of tiny buttons: mozi mozi mozi (Score:2)
Re:not me, unfortunately :) (Score:2)
While I personally expect laptops to be less stable than desktops, I do not think in this case his HP laptop was so much an issue as his installation and configuration of Win2k for it.
It's okay... (Score:2)
tf-
I'm beta-testing it... (Score:5)
I hate the dumbed-down interface. Period. The new start menu is no more intuitive than the old one, and I'm thankful that there's at least a way to switch back.
I also -hate- the new "View as Tiles" mode in Explorer. It scales the icons up hugely with no anti-aliasing - and then makes the clickable area extend to the side. Can you imagine how confusing that'll be to a complete novice?
Theme support is spotty and inconsistant - Explorer remains unthemed, as does IE. (Same thing happens with Windowblinds, both these apps bypass the normal Win32 widget stuff)
Besides the modified UI, it's just plain ol' Win2k with a few added services and minor tweaks.
I realize most of this may be due to the fact that it's a beta, but I'm rather disappointed with what I've seen of it so far.
"If ignorance is bliss, may I never be happy.
A Cue from Be? (Score:3)
Mods away!
Remote Control? (Score:3)
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
Re:lot of tiny buttons: mozi mozi mozi (Score:2)
Opera has it's own task bar, and so does mIrc, and both of those are MDI by default. mIRC also has the option of going non-MDI.
Also, you can always hit Ctrl-Tab.
-
Re:The taskbar thing is a good idea - (Score:2)
That's why I like using window managers like kwm under X. I disable the task bar, and just use the center button menu to select windows. Nice big titles there.
Now if someone did that as part of a replacement shell for Windows, I'd buy it. It would have to support multiple desktops of course...
UI bits (Score:2)
Did anyone notice that GUIs are getting flatter everyday (kinda like models.) Back during the Motif days you had these huge, thick window panes and these massivly raised buttons. Then you got into Win9x/NT4/2K with its more delicate features, and now you can barely see the raised effects in in Whistler.
PS> Since nobody uses AOL, I'll just tell you. The Control Panel art-style is awefully similar to the style of the AOL icons.
Re:Security holes? (Score:2)
Because telnet is much more ubiquitous than ssh/scp? ... much to my chagrin...
much less turn it on by default?
Any installer worth its salt will let you TURN IT OFF before you boot for the first time. This, I can agree with. Joe User doesn't need telnet turned on automagically.
If only my win* users would use PuTTY [greenend.org.uk], I could abolish telnet for good.
--
Re:I'm testing it. It's okay (Score:2)
Re:Security holes? (Score:2)
Re:stable ??? (Score:2)
I find that ubelievable, or maybe it's just terribly slow for the users and you don't care. We have a Dual PIII 600 with 1.25G ram running NT4 TS and Metaframe 1.8, and it has a hard time coping with ~20 users at a time.
I'm not the one who admins it(thank god) so I can't personally vouche for it's "correctness" but I do know the people who do and they're complete MS psychos and they know what they're doing.
Oh and you might want to install SP1 if those boxes are exposed to the net directly, there's a UDP fragment exploit that causes the box to freeze until the traffic stops(it's just like time stopped for however long the exploit is run), it's very entertaining to watch.
--
You'll still need 95/98/ME (Score:3)
Re:Seems damned quick (Score:2)
Isn't there a problem with the new Windows 2000 directory service? I got the impression that it requires all of the servers to be running Windows 2000.
Re:Microsoft quotes (Score:2)
Re:where telnet? ok ... (Score:2)
What's so hard about that?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Screen shots (Score:2)
But the question remains... what is the point of dynamic libraries if every program runs it's own private copy? It's a ridiculous workaround to a pathetic problem.
"Free your mind and your ass will follow"
Re:Screen shots (Score:2)
---
no, you don't (Score:2)
Re:not me, unfortunately :) (Score:5)
Oh yeah I forgot, this is Slashdot.
I'm testing it. It's okay (Score:5)
Whistler Pro - I turned off moron mode as I found it difficult to live with the new interface, which might be fine for my mum, but useless for me. Remember, this is a Microsoft beta (equivalent to 0.4-0.7 or therabouts in most open source software). When I was beta'ing Win2K, Win2K went from NT 4.0 look with new barely new color schemes and Win98 pop outs in build 1477 through to Win2K's look and feel in about six hundred new builds. Expect Whistler's appearance to change until about April next year.
It seems stable enough. It has ATA-100 support (something that I had to retroactively add to Win2K when I got my Dell) and the screen drivers seem snappy enough. I'm intrigued to find that people are already reporting stuff doesn't work as everything I've tried (including a couple of games) works fine for me. My Logitech USB joystick just worked, and my USB Canon Ixus similarly just worked (in fact, the new features in Whistler for this stuff is just fantastic).
I like the new user "disconnect" feature. It allows multiple users to remain logged on and you can quickly move between them (if you have adequate memory).
I like the way print drivers seem to be kicked out of kernel mode. My 710c never gave me grief in Win2K, but now there's even less chance with Whistler.
Other than that, it's too early to make a full judgement. I've already found one potential security flaw and I have a negative installation experience during the express upgrade, but as I'm a tester and this is a beta, I've told Microsoft about both issues, and they'll fix it, like they did with the six things I found during the three years I tested Win2K. If every one of the "beta" testers did this, the product would be a far better product for it.
Re:Security holes? (Score:2)
tend to be very robust. If X has crashed and so has sshd, then telnet
is usually the only way you can kill the offedning processes and
recover the machine.
There are ways to make telnet relatively secure, say by using
Lamport's S/Key.
Re:Security holes? (Score:2)
Quite franky, you cannot assume that you will have SSH access anywhere you go. I still have telnet turned on back home because many firewall admins only allow HTTP and Telnet traffic through the firewall. Also, many PHB types won't allow you to install sshd because it is "open source" and therefore unreliable in their view. (For some reason people don't consder telnet open source, go figure).
Re:They are try to kill (Score:2)
My First Windows (Score:2)
Ellen Ullman [salon.com] in Salon - The Dumbing Down of Programming
Peter Merholz [theobvious.com] in Stating the Obvious - Whose "My" Is It Anyway?
Eh? (Score:2)
Windows 2000 Professional (successor to NT 4 workstation)
Windows 2000 Server (successor to NT 4 server)
Windows 2000 Advanced Server (above + backoffice + other new shit). Terminal services are now included, rather than in a separate package (NT 4 terminal server edition, etc)
And windows ME (successor to windows 98).
The rest are OLD and deprecated.
And we don't count 'CE' because that's not really windows.
Seems damned quick (Score:2)
Improved Type Handling (Score:2)
Re:I'm beta-testing it... (Score:3)
Voice Recognition (Score:2)
Whistler does have built-in Voice Recognition...this is pretty cool.