Early Testers Say Vista RC1 Not Ready 457
digihome writes "A number of partners and analysts who have downloaded Vista RC1 say the code is solid but they are not convinced it will be ready for release this fall. A Directions on Microsoft analyst said, 'I would call this at best a Beta Three and not a Release Candidate One.'"
not ready? (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
RC1? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I also did page loading benchmarks using FireFox in XP and IE7 in Vista. I found IE7 rendered pages at least twice as fast in most cases.
I agree its probably not ready for retail but they
Re: (Score:2)
That is hardly a benchmark of Vista - Firefox (on Windows at least) has always been *much* slower at rendering compared to IE.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:RC1? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
You are not desperately trying to get a laughingly late and buggy product out the door more than three years after it was due to ship.
Normally (Score:3, Insightful)
This time they are just lying. It's Beta 3 but they don't want to call it that since people are so discontent with how behind schedule they are.
Re:RC1? (Score:4, Informative)
The term release candidate refers to a final product, ready to release unless fatal bugs emerge. In this stage, the product features all designed functionalities and no known showstopper class bugs
Notice the terms 'final product' and 'features all designed functionalities'. If those two are not met with, we are still not at RC, but on the way from "beta", probably. Ok, let's say there are no fatal bugs in this RC, then apparently (according to testers) still a lot is missing from it to make it a 'final product'.
Now I wouldn't want to be the head product manager of Vista, but I guess a problem in this complex product will be the fact that they're constantly changing its main features and goals, so it will hardly ever be a final product. If someone should just make hard demands on what it should do, it might actually work out to at least something final.
Is this really news? (Score:2)
All in all, this looks a lot like OS X's role-out. People really didn't start mass migrating to that OS until 2 years after it's release.
Re: (Score:2)
Well that was informative... (Score:5, Insightful)
The more interesting question is that of nomenclature. I agree that this is Beta3 - but more because an RC everywhere else is something that is ready to go, it just needs spit and polish to get it ready, fix a couple of bugs. Then again, this is what Microsoft is telling people to test their applications against to check for breakages, so yes, I suppose you could call it a "Certification Beta" or what have you. But call it what you may, I think it's the Ultimate version, with all the games, and goodies, that needs more time. Enterprise-wise, it looks stable enough for use - networking is better than XP (even though it's a new stack), group policy has been better fine tuned, UAC is usable enough, and hardware detection is light-years ahead of XP. All of those basic things are ready and if thats what enterprise customers are expected to get, then I think it's good to go, after they fix the occaisonal dialog box with three different fonts.
I just wish there was something truly innovative to encourage an upgrade. Halo 2 doesn't count, especially for business!
Re: (Score:2)
Enterprise-wise, it looks stable enough for use - networking is better than XP (even though it's a new stack), group policy has been better fine tuned, UAC is usable enough, and hardware detection is light-years ahead of XP. All of those basic things are ready and if thats what enterprise customers are expected to get, then I think it's good to go, after they fix the occaisonal dialog box with three different fonts.
This is what bothers me, though. I look at everything you listed there and think, "bug fix
Re:Well that was informative... (Score:5, Funny)
In this case; Stable, Easy to Use, and Cheap; pick any two.
If you want Stable and Cheap, Linux/BSD - and a steep learning curve.
If you want Stable and Easy, Macintosh - and a lighter wallet.
If you want Cheap and Easy...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Splugh! Splugh I say! (Score:3, Interesting)
Apple obviously puts a lot of thought into how stuff fits together on their desktop, and their laptop just freaking works with everything. Wireless? No problem!
Well, perhaps its not that bad (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously though, all the people that are trying to predict this or that, call it good, or denounce it already.. well, all I have to say to that is wait for Vista SP2 before you make up your mind. That's when all the bugs will be worked out, and by then, two or more Linux distros will be better than Vista. By then, many more people will have figured out that the OpenOffice apps are good enough for what they want, and the little lightbulb in their heads will turn on and they will realize that a computer doesn't need MS products to be useful or relevant.
Work well done (Score:2, Interesting)
wont be complete at launch, updates in the future (Score:2, Interesting)
many important features that will be added after the launch as time passes. (such as Monad)
With only part of the 'features available' at launch, vista is far from 'complete'.
Let's see if it is ready after the final release AND when most of the stuff is complete and has been
properly integrated into Vista.
I would like to see how that new OS works then.
The code is solid what? (Score:2, Funny)
We all know what's gonna happen (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft loses whatever they do from now on. If they delay the product even further, share holders will complain and people will lose faith in them. If they release it too soon (i.e. as currently planned), it is likely going to require significant upgrades and probably also a super fast SP1 upgrade. That too will make people upset and techies will have to upgrade computers over and over again.
I am a Windows XP user and I must say that I am satisfied with this product as it is right now. I am not going to upgrade to Vista before we see the first, second and third wave of reactions.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Vista (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't RC1 mean "not quite ready"... (Score:3, Funny)
Release When Ready? (Score:2)
Any organization fool enough to buy into their free upgrade license scheme will simply blame it on IT underlings as a bad decision -if- the issue ever came up.
PC manufacturers won't have a great year, but since when does that bother a monopoly?
With that said, I think the more practical solution is to flush another couple milli
I did an piece on this . . . (Score:2)
In my experience with RC1 (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason why Vista is definitely *not* ready for release though, is the overall design of the OS itself. Vista has no unified feel to its design, and certain key changes from Windows xp feel more cumbersome(or at the very least awkward to get adjusted to).
Vista really does highlight the differences in design philosophy that went into it versus Mac OS X. While technology implementation wise the two OS's are rather similar in what they can offer the user, OS X goes to great pains to offer a unified and relatively easy to use design. Vista, on the other hand, feels exactly the way it was designed: done in pieces by various different groups then pieced together.
The short of it is the core of Vista, baring a few more bug fixes and performance improvements, is certainly there. But, Vista right now is like that unassembled bike you got as a kid for Christmas. All the parts are there but you can't quite get it fitted together right.
In my honest opinion Vista needs about 3 more months and one more major release to get the final kinks out of the system performance and bug wise, but then it needs another 6 months of heavy and pure public beta use and feedback to get the interface and design unified into a user friendly operating system. As it stands right now, I think performance and bug wise Vista should be pretty much ok by the time the consumer release hits in January, but it is going to be far more cumbersome and even less intuitive to use than Windows XP is on release.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In Linux terms, it would be like if half the user interface was Gnome, the
What is ready? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a major disadvantage, but also a major advantage that both Windows and Mac to some extent share.
With any software you have to get it out the door. It'll never be perfect, and no matter how long they wait there will be an SP1 fairly soon.
To me what RC1 means is that nothing big and fancy is going to get ADDED. What you see if pretty much what you get. If a major flaw is found they might rearrange a piece of functionality, but most things are going to be bug fixes.
While in Beta they might completely take something out. In RC you probably are not going to get away with it, although you migth "delay" something to SP1 like Microsoft did with database mirroring in SQL 2005 in order to get it out the door.
As much as I hate patching, I'd rather get it out in the field and get some use out of it. Early adopters will get hit the hardest, but that is what they expect. Dell and the other manufactors will be the ones finding most of the bugs from now on anyways.
Look at what... (Score:4, Insightful)
When will Microsoft, with all its economic power and marketing prowess, realize that they need to take the plunge and go open source? When will they realize that by mixing all of their software with lots of stuff from the FOSS community, they can grow the functionality of their software by orders of magnitude while increasing its stability?
Why Vista must go Gold by November (Score:3, Funny)
Aug 1996 NT4
Dec 1999 NT5.0
Oct 2001 NT5.1
Dec 2006 NT5.5
Not ready for this fall? (Score:3, Funny)
on MSDN it is called "beta2" (Score:4, Informative)
Beta or Release Candidate - Misleading Definitions (Score:5, Informative)
Ok, why is this a RC and not a Beta? Well in the MS world since about 1992 that I can personally 'testify' to, a product makes the RC milestone when it is feature complete from a DEVELOPER standpoint.
This means that the product is feature complete and 99% of the OS bits and all the APIs are how they will be in the final release.
Why was Beta2-Pre-RC1 NOT a RC. Simple, from a developer's standpoint the OS was not feature complete.
RC1 is the FIRST release that that
Sure things will be optimized, and this will be polished, but this IS A RC solely based on the definition that MS has used FOR YEARS. It is feature complete for developers...
(So aside from all the Joke at MS and other FUD, this is technically a RC, and even though it is not a 'finished' polished product, it is the first feature complete versions, especially from the API standpoint.)
This is NO different than they did with Win2k RC1 which was actually less stable than Vista RC1, but AGAIN it was API feature complete for developers, hence why it was called a RC and not a Beta, just as this release.
As for proof of this, look at the Win2k Beta history, or even lookt that Vista Beta History, the
So once again repeat,"This is a RC, this is a RC because it is API and Developer complete."
PERIOD.
Re:hmmm? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:hmmm? (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft has always rushed it. No new version of Windows has ever been ready for primetime. Windows 3.0? Crap. Windows 3.1 made it barely usable. Then there's 3.11 to add the microsoft networking. Windows 95? Crap. There's four versions of that, at LEAST; Win95, OSR1, OSR2, OSR2.5, and OSR3 that only went out to a handful of corporate customers. Win98? There's a second edition. Windows ME? CRAP. PURE CRAP. Windows 2000? There's what, six service packs now? And at least one of those broke more than it fixed. Windows XP? Two service packs, and there really ought to have been a third by now due to the sheer number of updates that get installed after SP2.
All microsoft operating systems are crap until near their end of life. It's like a law of nature.
Re:hmmm? (Score:5, Funny)
There. Fixed that for ya.
It all makes sense now. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is bad, because people might decide it's worth sticking with indefinitely.
Therefore, themasses must be goaded into upgrading to a shiny! new! OS which is a 1.0.0 release at best and will require umpteen more rounds of patching.
This is, of course, accomplished by EOLing past versions, and pointing out that oh, by the way, the latest batch of 43 security vulnerabilities has been in every version since Windows 3.11 and will only be fixed in this shiny! new! version.
Re:hmmm? (Score:5, Informative)
Four service packs. SP4 was released June 2003.
BTW, its kneejerk posts like yours that make Slashdot a diminishing resource for all things Microsoft.
Re:hmmm? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:hmmm? (Score:4, Informative)
NT4 SPs 2 and 6 broke more than they fixed. SP3 was rushed, as was "6a" (which shows up in winver as Service Pack 6) to fix the problems that the prior SP broke.
You could make the arguement for Windows 2000 having 6 as well, 4 proper SPs, a post-SP4 rollup, and the malware removal tool. Suffice to say, you can't simply download one or two items to be patched to date with Windows 2000, even in a bare configuration.
Moreover, I wouldn't worry too much about being critcized as making
Re:hmmm? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a real problem for Linux. You can get there, but only for certain hardware, and there is often a lot of blood sacrifice involved. I have even seen WiFi drivers that kernel panic linux. There is a good argument that this is because the vendors are not supporting linux, and have heavily restricted access to the driver APIs. But you still cannot count it as a place where linux is superior to Windows.
There are lots of other places were linux is simply not polished enough... or better said: is rather rough. It has been improving, but still has a long way to go.
Re:hmmm? (Score:5, Interesting)
By way of contrast the same computer, running Linux, connects perfectly and stays that way, even if I turn off the antenna for a while. It works so well that I never even use the wired interface. On the other hand, I wasn't able to get WPA working when I tried it. I haven't taken a look at it for a while, so the software may have matured.
I'm not trying to say that Linux is particularly good with WiFi, just that Windows's wireless networking is as screwy as the rest of the OS.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
WPA under linux is a fucking nightmare without the right hardware.
I'm relatively new to linux but after trying Ubuntu 5.04, 5.10 and 6.06 each time I've had more and more problems with wifi / wap, it's a bastard.
What's more annoying is I could've sworn that 6.06 was meant to be "WPA out of the box!" maybe I mis-read something but it totally isn't.
Re:hmmm? (Score:4, Insightful)
What I mean is Windows 2003 cost about 800$
Linux (Most distro come at NO cost)
Second Windows is supported by a huge corporation (and support device reseller (ie Wifi, SATA, MB, WinModem)
Linux is created by a bunch of "lunatic" (I'm one of them)
Windows aims to be as easy to use as possible (Lower cost of ownership = Low salary wages) (Check box, Wizard)
Linux aims to be as "powerfull"/features/customizable as possible. Complete Config txt files.
So Windows is easy and Linux is complexe (high learning curves)
When you ask "Name one thing Linux does worse than Windows" there are tons of stuff, others will probably point some of them to you. My point remains, Linux and Windows are not on the same playfield.
Don't you think ?
Re:hmmm? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, I don't. I disagree completely.
Basically your argument is what windows users use when Linux is eating windows' lunch in the server market. which, by the way, it is doing. Only Linux and Windows are gaining market share in this space now (they seem to trade off gaining ground here and there, but that could simply be due to the release of various studies at various times.)
Linux is competing directly with Windows. Period. It's competing for the desktop (somewhat poorly) and it's competing for the server market (with great success.) It's competing for the embedded market (where it has made serious inroads against the incumbents, including the aptly-named wince) quite well, too; for instance, I work in a Casino, and I walked in one day and saw kernel messages on a slot machine that had just rebooted. Using Linux for slot machines is something of a no-brainer due to the high level of security and reliability, and low cost.
By the way, have you even used Ubuntu yet? The learning curve on that is, if anything, shallower than Windows. The install is easier, and using it is no harder.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The difference is Windows is taking either new marketshare, or from existing non-Windows installs, whereas Linux is largely just displacing legacy unix installs.
I'm hig
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
On the home desktop, you could be right. I don't think you are, but you could be. It's still true that you can get a dinky low-end PC (the slowest crappiest PC you can buy new today is sufficient for 99% of the population, probably) and slap Linux on it for probably half the price of the cheapest Macintosh. Oh sure, it's a bit less powerful, but that won't even affect most people.
Macintosh does have somet
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Certainly you can. But a hell of a lot more people use Mac Minis, MacBooks, iMacs, etc than use bottom-end PCs running Linux.
Re:Microsoft Resources (Score:5, Insightful)
Dammit, twitter. Every time I stumble on one of your posts, it's like an icepick in my ear.
Typos aside, that's the one fair statement in the whole post. Microsoft has monopoly power, so there's nowhere to go but down.
Ah, typical twitter logic. "Hmm, I want to get my software on 90% of desktops in the world. I'm not building it for that nasty, tricksy Windowses. If I make it cross-platform, somebody might run it on Windows anyway. I know! I'll write it for Linux, then wait for 90% of the desktops in the world to convert! And if anybody asks for a Windows version, I'll tell them to fuck off! Then they'll convert to Linux for sure!"
Oh, bloody hell. I fell into a decade-long coma again? The first time, The Police broke up. Now Linux has conquered the desktop and Microsoft went Chapter 11, and they're just building keyboards and mice for Sun?! At least my hairstyle is back in fashion again.
Of course, the only reason you picked that quote from the parent post in the first place was because somewhere, deep down, you recognized yourself in it.
Re:Microsoft Resources (Score:4, Insightful)
No, just the cognitive dissonance of how someone who, by all evidence, knows Linux well can allow their primitive, reactive hindbrain to lash out at every post about Microsoft with such aggression and hatred.
Re:hmmm? (Score:4, Interesting)
What was released, was, as you say, CRAP. PURE CRAP
I actually went back to the beta until I installed 2k
Re:hmmm? (Score:4, Interesting)
As for Windows, the NT line has always been pretty solid. You could always install RC1 and expect it to work normally with maybe a driver going crazy every few days. Final releases were always an improvement in overall user experience from the previous version. (Though not an improvement in overall stability as it's pretty hard to beat the previous version that has been through every imaginable scenario on millions of computers.)
Vista seems to be another story. If you analyze the Beta and RC timeline of every NT-line OS up to now, you see that Vista is abberation. It's pretty obvious that Microsoft is lowering its standards in order to push the product out, and that's just going to turn around and bite it in the ass.
Service packs: They are a mix of patches and new functionality. We also do that in the Linux world, just in smaller steps as there is less to worry about compatibility and localization.
And stop badgering Windows 95. It looks lame now but it kicked ass on 4 MB computers with broken hardware back in 95. It ushered process isolation many years before Macs got it. It ushered a reasonably good UI many years before Linux got it. Plug & Play, ugly as it was, brought the end to fiddling with jumpers which is something that 99 percent of the population doesn't know how to do. It ran all your DOS and Win 3.1 stuff. So go easy on it. It may suck by today's standards, but in that day and age it was miles better than any of the alternatives.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Oh, yes... right.
I take it you never installed Windows 95 on a computer with 4 MB of RAM.
OK, so neither have I.
But I have installed it on a computer with 8 MB of RAM.
My mother used it for work. She said she'd come into the office, turn the computer on, go grab a coffee, and when she was back, the system was usually up. Or nearly so.
Windows 95 didn't kick ass on computers with 4 MB of RA
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You can't really leave BeOS in if you're going to disallow NetBSD, OpenBSD and Linux for being "relatively unfinished".
I don't think a serious argument can be made for Windows 95 being superior to OS/2 3.0, except in the area of available software.
Single Input Queue.
I was an OS/2 user back in the day (migrated to NT4 Beta 2 in early 1996) and I think picking between Windows 95 and OS/2,
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
BTW, NT4 should have had 7 service packs, but MSFT killed the last one. Quite inconenient of them. Another XP service pack would b
Re:hmmm? (Score:5, Funny)
Sony and the $600 PS3, however, require a lot more red-tape, requiring me to steal a wallet and use an out-of-town WalMart for my purchase. You can bet I'm not happy about that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm getting really tired of people predicting how vista or anything will do based on anecdotal evidence
actually using the product in question and reflecting upon its immaturity is anecdotal evidence?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Fud (Score:5, Insightful)
Vista has major Explorer bugs, still in evidence. Thumbnail rendering (the default setting)is buggy, and causes crashes.
DivX codec is a big culprit here. On trying to render the thumbnail, the codec causes an excepton under Vista. Explorer SHOULD trap this, and render a grey square, or something.
Instead, explorer faults, and the entire desktop - including the menu, taskbar, and any current file transfers - goes HUP.
The "cure" is to check the option for opening all new explorer windows in their own process. That's incredibly wasteful of resources - of course, if you can run Vista at speed... you probably already have a Lamborghini. You can also tell explorer to never render thumbnails. Seems like a real waste, 'tho'.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Been There KDE That... (Score:2)
In the Mac world, I seem to recall that working in -early- OSX versions.
And when longwait releases, vista B.S. eye candy like this will be advertised everywhere as teh newest features with MS*NIX security too!
Staying on the MS crack pipe means more work for me....
Let's define "RC"/Beta/Alpha (Score:5, Insightful)
Except for the inconvenient fact that everyone who has seen it knows that's simply nonsense. In reality, this is a late alpha (unoptimized, feature incomplete, substantial bugs remain) or at best an early beta (feature complete, largely optimized, some bugs remain), but based on reports calling this a Beta is being generous. But to call it a release candidate is absurd. No way! Seriously, we're STILL hearing reports of features being removed from the product.
Re:How is it MS' fault? (Score:4, Insightful)
It is the job of the Windows Explorer to recover gracefully from faulty plugins/libraries.
It wouldn't matter the source. If the plugin faults - Explorer should trap this and revert to its default/null response, as if no plugin were present.
If you are not trapping this generically, you have an incomplete design.
Betas are designed to collect anecdotal evidence. (Score:3, Interesting)
Where I understand your frustration is that individual media outlets tend to grab evidence that sells papers. Slashdot editors maybe happier reporting this, than the rejected story I submitted yesterday about
Re:Betas are designed to collect anecdotal evidenc (Score:5, Informative)
This isn't a beta; this is a release candidate. Despite the feedback from beta testers who wanted a Beta 3 or at least an RC2, Microsoft has released RC1 and already forked an RTM branch off of it. It's full-steam ahead with this thing.
Re:Fud (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The review was based on an install done on a Powerbook.
Re:Fud (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, this is sometimes referred to as "data".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But the trick, according to the conspiracy theory, is that no one actually upgrades Windows. They buy a PC, which happens to have Windows sold with it by the OEM. I have never upgraded a copy of Windows until I bought my next PC, which came with the OEM version of the next release.
Vista will take over, not because we'll upgrade en-masse, but because people wil
Just release the damn thing... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So far I've replaced the following:
Browser: Firefox
Email: Thunderbird
FTP: Filezilla
IM: GAIM
Media: VLC Media Player
Suite: Open Office
Among a host of other little utilities, etc.
So far I haven't found a suitable replacement for Dreamweaver or Photoshop. If it weren't for those 2 I could, and would, switch tomorrow. If they could be purchased for use on Linux I'd buy t
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
and CodeWeavers recently released a beta of Crossover Office for MacOS.
Dreamweaver and PhoSho run fine on it.
But really, The Gimp kicks the pants off of PhoSho if you know how to use it.
Re:I'm Jumping Ship (Score:5, Insightful)
What we need is a mod rating of "-1, crack baby".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have to decide right away? Why not download a bootable Linux CD [ubuntu.com] and see if you like using it. If you do, install it on your hard drive and you're up and running. If you don't like it, then go ahead and get a Mac (and see if you can talk your dealer into a short "test drive" just to be sure - ours did).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll throw that on my spare box and see how it goes.
Re:I'm Jumping Ship (Score:5, Insightful)
From an aesthetic point of view, MacOS X is a no-brainer. You can run Photoshop on it, and if you decide the GIMP or other open source applications are your cup of tea, you can run them too.
Also, if you do video or plan to do video, the Apple applications are absolutely unbeatable.
D
Re:I'm Jumping Ship (Score:4, Informative)
This doesn't even consider the fact that newer Apple operating systems run better on old hardware than their predecessors. Tiger on my ancient laptop still runs great and is a wonderful upgrade. By contrast, I don't have any PC hardware, even computers bought at about the same time as my Macs, that will run Aero [Vista's MacOS X-like interface] at all.
D
VIM can't cut it? (Score:2)
What a cruel thing to say!! Am I really the only one who develops using VIM? Sure, I also use Eclipse, Xcode and the likes but the combination of VIM, Make, Bash, Cscope and &Co. is by no means a flop as a development environment as far as I am concerned. I'd go mad weeding through large sized source trees without Cscope.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't the point of APIs and modules that you can mess with one module as long as you don't break the API?
Re: (Score:2)
Besides, I'm curious how you have inside knowledge of how Vista was designed. Or is that just speculation?
Re: (Score:2)
Who really gives a shit anyway? I don't.
Perhaps ISVs do, since they'll want a release that works well enough so they can test their software for compatibility issues.
Re:To be honest (Score:5, Funny)
No wonder you cant run it. Your video card is slower than most by a factor of ten. If only you had bought the 6600 you cheap bastard. Not only that, your Athlon is missing a bit. I'm surprised you can boot XP.........
Re:Two questions please... (Score:5, Informative)
But a quick list from the top of my head (ways it's better than XP):
And that was just off the top of my head. There is LOTS of other stuff if you bother to do some research. I can't speak for Ubuntu... one thing is for sure, Vista has a much cooler name.
Re:Two questions please... (Score:5, Interesting)
Am I the only one who sees "Completely new TCP/IP Stack" and thinks "Massive security holes bound to be lurking just below the surface?"
Why would you rewrite the stack that you (finally) got the damn bugs out of?
I guess it technically isn't re-writing, since they lifted the majority of the stack from BSD in the first place, but hey, did this wheel really need to be reinvented?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, I'm sure BSD heavily influenced Windows sockets, just as it did for virtually every other OS [gnosis.cx], but the new stuff in the Vista TCP stack is actually pretty impressive. The performance gains they've seen in testing are upwards of 400% for many types of common links.
Read more about here [microsoft.com] and here [microsoft.com]. There is also a good video [msdn.com] about it on Channe
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Um... Are we talking about Vista? Let me run you through the process to delete a file.
1. Right-click file.
2. Click "Delete"
3. Get a dialog box: "You'll need to provide administrator permission to delete this file."
4. Click 'Continue'.
5. Get an OS-modal dialog box: "Windows needs your permission to continue. If you started this action (Delete file), click Continue."
6. Click 'Continue'.
I do not call that "WAY better file operations dialogs".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What I was talking about specifically is the better feedback and progress information you get during file operations. For instance, if I copy a lot of files from point A to point B, and point B contains some files with the same names, it prompts me at the end of the operation (not at indeterminant points in between) and allows me to selectively choose what to do with each file without cancelling
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I also have a few other complaints: Aero Basic looks terrible without anti-aliasing. And Desktop is treated too much like an Explorer window: After I enabled "Show hidden files and folders" in Explorer, two desktop.ini files appeared on my desktop.
Re:is there some 'vista theme' for XP? (Score:5, Funny)
Take out half your RAM. Put in a hard drive 75% the size of your old drive. Remove your processor's clock crystal and replace it with one of half the frequency. Done.
-b.