Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Windows Vista RC1 Complete 292

alienfluid writes to mention that RC1 of Windows Vista is now complete. This 'nearly complete' version of the operating system is already available to beta testers, and will be available to everyone else soon. From the article: "You'll notice a lot of improvements since Beta 2. We've made some UI adjustments, added more device drivers, and enhanced performance. We're not done yet, however -- quality will continue to improve. We'll keep plugging away on application compatibility, as well as fit and finish, until RTM. If you are an ISV, RC1 is the build you should use for certifying your application."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Windows Vista RC1 Complete

Comments Filter:
  • Could be worst... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by __aaclcg7560 ( 824291 ) on Friday September 01, 2006 @06:00PM (#16027226)
    On several occasions at Atari, a producer would try to slip in an Alpha-Beta-GoldRelease-Omega build candidate to get their performance bonus even though the title was four months behind schedule. Go figure.
  • by BlahMatt ( 931052 ) on Friday September 01, 2006 @06:01PM (#16027230)
    RC's are usually versions that have all the core functionality implemented and are ready for testing. It is not, however, bug free and it does not have everything implemented. Functionality can be added/removed based on user response. User response needs to be measured before it can be decided whether to keep feature X or alter it or implement it another way.

    It is also not bug free because it has not been exposed to general population for testing which always reveals more bugs that simply aren't found during the internal testing process.

    It's like saying. "We could release this, but we're sure that there will be something people don't like and we'd rather have people bash away at it so we can fix it before an official launch". Or at least that's how it is at my work.
  • Re:RC? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Aadain2001 ( 684036 ) on Friday September 01, 2006 @06:01PM (#16027231) Journal
    It's simply a business descision. They are waaaaaaaaaaaay behind and have OEMs and major developers on their backs for something they can use to develope for/validate against. Vista will never be "done". Five years from now we'll still be "finishing" the OS with bug patches and feature creep. I think the article simple ment that what was left was fine-tuning of small features, insuring as much "correct" behavior as possible, and re-compiling without debug code.
  • Re:Too late (Score:2, Interesting)

    by jmauro ( 32523 ) on Friday September 01, 2006 @06:05PM (#16027248)
    Sadly Windows Me cannot hold a candle to the flop that was Microsoft Bob []
  • Re:Too late (Score:3, Interesting)

    by nbannerman ( 974715 ) on Friday September 01, 2006 @06:07PM (#16027262)
    My bread and butter in daily life is Network Management (although some idiot gave me the job title of Director of ICT Strategy as well...), but you make an interesting point. I've moving towards to a non-Windows enviroment for personal use, and probably a Linux-based environment for work use.

    But my college uses Microsoft. XP / Offce are the basics of what I support / install / repair.

    When Vista arrives, it is inevitable that I'll be rolling it out college wide.

    And big business? Well, they'll be doing the same. A lot of the functionality we've been seeing plugged into Vista (not this Glass and New Improved Solitaire! rubbish) has been directed towards business.

    Vista will not flop. It'll be pre-installed of every new machine come February 2007; the Microsoft Tax ensures a healthy install base. As for business, I think they'll transition mid-2007, at the latest, when we see the first service pack.

    I'm holding off as long as I can; the XP migration wasn't a major hassle, but I know from previous experience that major rollouts can be a pain in the backside. But I'll move accross eventually, because the 'powers that be' will request we migrate to Vista and Office 2007.
  • by twitter ( 104583 ) on Friday September 01, 2006 @06:14PM (#16027291) Homepage Journal

    Trackhead, point out on the doll where Vista touched you. . .

    In the wallet, of course. M$ is going to waste $6.2 billion promoting what's looking more and more like XP SP3, super digital restriction. While I won't directly pay for that, many will. Schools, government and everyone not bright enough to use free software will pay. They will pass that cost along as taxes and higher prices. As Steve Baller likes to say, the upfront cost of software are just the beginning and all of the tremendous inefficiencies of Windoze will also be passed along in higher prices and poorer service. I don't even want to think of the costs to the economy that comes from Microsoft's inability to design a network safe OS are. All of the above easily adds up to multiples of M$'s annual net revenue.

  • by netrangerrr ( 455862 ) on Friday September 01, 2006 @06:57PM (#16027500) Homepage
    As a Microsoft partner for IPv6 Jumpstart, we installed Vista RC1 on multiple machines this morning. Vista is Microsoft's "IPv6 Optimized" desktop system while XP is "IPv6 Capable" of limited operations. We immediately noticed one important change. IE doesn't crash every 2 minutes! Previously, we had to install Firefox administer to run our IP surveillance cameras, security system, and building automation sensor system because the java web interface constantly crashed the browser in Vista Beta 1 and 2.
  • by daviddennis ( 10926 ) <> on Friday September 01, 2006 @07:02PM (#16027524) Homepage
    The subscription model is in tatters.

    If you recall, it was around this time a couple of years ago that we started hearing about the subscription model and Software Assurance. This was supposed to make life easier for everyone by giving Microsoft a continuous stream of money and receiving from them a continuous stream of the latest and greatest. But Vista, which was promised within the contract period of software assurance, is still months away, and corporations have basically thrown away money for no upgrade. From what I've read, Software Assurance was a bit of a flop because people didn't like the idea of paying money and not necessarily receiving anything in return.

    I've started to get a little curious about your other question. Who on earth is going to buy the upgrade when it's painfully expensive (looks like $200-300), and there are darn few computers for sale today that can run it?

    if you visit Dell's web site (and if you do you're a major masochist, sadly - it's terrible), the cheapest notebook computer(*) that's "vista capable" is $969 after discounts. They are still selling $499 notebooks, which are obviously badly underspecified for Vista.

    What happens when Vista is introduced? Is this the death of the $499 notebook?

    Okay, notebooks are expensive. They are selling sub-$300 desktops. What's the cheapest desktop that can run Vista? If you take the 1GB ram requirement seriously, it's the high-end Dimension E310, at $748. They are clearly doing their best to cheap out this system; it includes a 15" flat panel monitor, a species that I thought was virtually obsolete. And yet it's still more than double what their cheapest system costs.

    Now, I guess you can run "Vista Basic" on low-end systems, but Microsoft has given me the impression that this is the option for wimps and masochists (those that have not yet been suitably satisfied by Dell's web site).

    I remember that when Windows95 came out, all systems available in the stores on introduction night(**) were more or less capable of running it, and had been for some time. this seems to be the first version of Windows that truly requires all-new hardware just to function at a minimal level.

    So what's going on here? Does anyone know the reason they decided on a system with such ghastly requirements?


    (*) If I were a REAL masochist, I would have gone to all the sites (home & home office, small and mid-sized business and large business, and priced every one of them. However, sadly I am not that mean to myself just to make a point on Slashdot. I stuck to Home & Home Office. You know, it's almost worth the extra $100 a Macbook costs to see a clear web page that shows you their only price and makes it dead simple to buy stuff.

    (**) Ah, the days when we felt something like enthusiasm for Microsoft's products!
  • by Columcille ( 88542 ) * on Friday September 01, 2006 @07:19PM (#16027598) Homepage
    While I won't directly pay for that, many will.
    I'll pay! I'm quite looking forward to Vista.

    and everyone not bright enough to use free software
    Yes, there's something just quirky about those of us who like to use software that just works. Linux has made a lot of progress over the years but it's still quite a ways behind Windows.
  • Beta III (Score:3, Interesting)

    by BSonline ( 989394 ) on Friday September 01, 2006 @08:15PM (#16027847) Homepage Journal
    Actually, if you read the pages while you're going to download the ISO, it's not quite RC yet. They specifically call it pre RC, which is just a way of saying "This is still beta, but we don't want to say that, we need to restore some faith, so this is the almost RC version. Thank you."

    The sadness does not hide the truth.
  • by istartedi ( 132515 ) on Friday September 01, 2006 @09:36PM (#16028145) Journal

    Pull your heads out of your asses and sell OS-X for generic PCs. You could clean up at $300/copy. Virtually no marginal cost. It'll replace the iPod revenues you're losing because everyone who wants one, has one. But nooOOOooo. You're so hell bent on emulating the losing business model followed by Sun. Oh, please... what do we have to do? Fly out there, slap you in the face and put smelling salts under your noses? The gorilla has eaten a bad bannanna. He's down. He won't stay down forever. You'll look back on this, and you'll never forgive yourselves for not having kicked him while he's down, cuz you know he's gonna get back up.

  • by deceased comrade ( 919732 ) on Friday September 01, 2006 @10:36PM (#16028323)
    Those features are all only new to Windows. Most of these "New Features" that bill wants money for are so that his OS will actually work with established standards, and it will replicate tried and tested methods of computer use. Vista's features also seem rather similar to the features that have been in OSX for years. Also, given that microsoft tries to keep other people's software from being replaced with a version they've created, most of these features will probably be crippled and almost useless compared to functionality of included apps in OSX, and will certainly never rival the features that are available in the open source community.
  • by Cocoshimmy ( 933014 ) on Saturday September 02, 2006 @01:48AM (#16028718)
    Thats fine, except that the intel version of OSX only supports a limited amount of PC hardware. OSX does not have drivers for motherboard chipsets on which apple does not currently bundle their OS with. If they released it now, it's likely they'd get a whole lot of pissed off customers, especially ones running AMD systems where it would likely crash during setup. To develop their OS to work on the vast amount of hardware that is out there, or convince IHV's to develop drivers, would cost Apple a hell of a lot of money and force them to make changes to their development cycle.

    It's not just motherboard chipsets but also support for things such as sound cards, network cards, IDE controllers, etc that would need to be developed.

    Don't get me wrong, OSX is a fantastic OS! But, it has a long ways to go in terms of hardware support and Windows is way ahead on that front. To catch up with Microsoft, would cost Apple a LOT of money and as a matter of fact, the OS would suffer from similar instability issues that have plagued windows for a very long time.

  • by A beautiful mind ( 821714 ) on Saturday September 02, 2006 @02:54AM (#16028811)
    I would like you to pay close attention to this page. Special attention should be paid to what a long page it is, and the number of notes at the bottom confirming it all.
    On a page titled "Features new to Windows Vista", there are lots of things like: "Windows Vista will also use IFilters that are used today by Windows Desktop Search. The IFilter interface can be implemented by software makers so that files created by their applications can be better integrated with search and indexing programs.".

    Well, technically they would be "new" to Windows Vista, if Vista were new, but since they DID NOT start from scratch, then I sadly have to conclude that the length of that page is nowhere near indicative of the number of features found in Vista. The wiki article is basically fluffed up with explanations, comparisons, explanations of comparisons and old stuff (from WinXP and before). What's more, the article seems to concentrate on Vista from a visual POV, so it lists every little graphical detail of everything ("Other features include check boxes for selecting multiple files. When renaming a file, Explorer only highlights the filename without selecting the extension.", etc.).

    All in all, if you take out the fluff, the amount of "new features" shrink drastically. That's for 6 years of work.
  • by CrackedButter ( 646746 ) on Saturday September 02, 2006 @03:19AM (#16028837) Homepage Journal
    You bastard, you know you're going against the slashdot group think with your post, you should be trying to install Unbuntu or Fedora or be buying a couple of Macs.

To be is to program.