Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Possible Last-Minute Problems With Vista SP2

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the racing-windows-7-out-the-door dept.

Windows 328

crazyeyes writes "It looks like Microsoft is facing problems with Windows Vista SP2. The final Service Pack for Vista and Server 2008 (before Windows 7 comes out) has been delayed. The folks who broke the launch details and dates of previous Service Packs for XP and Vista have Microsoft's latest internal schedule. Can Microsoft get it out before Windows 7? According to the new schedule, just barely."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Red Title? (0, Offtopic)

Macthorpe (960048) | more than 5 years ago | (#26538703)

Did I become a subscriber in my sleep or something?

Re:Red Title? (4, Informative)

drachenstern (160456) | more than 5 years ago | (#26539547)

Are you sure it wasn't just part of the firehose? You'll have to look and see if you're on index2.pl or just index.pl on your home page. It's most likely that you're on index2...

Re:Red Title? (1)

Macthorpe (960048) | more than 5 years ago | (#26540025)

Yeah, it's Index2. One of these days I'll bother to turn it off.

They have to.. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26538769)

Since Windows 7 is Vista SP3.

Re:They have to.. (5, Funny)

Tr3vin (1220548) | more than 5 years ago | (#26538811)

Since Windows 7 is Vista SP3.

Also known as Windows 1.0 SP86.

Re:They have to.. (5, Insightful)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 5 years ago | (#26539561)

> Also known as Windows 1.0 SP86.

No, service packs are a free download. Windows 7 is Vista SE. Remember Win98SE? It was a service pack but they needed some cash and made people buy it as a version upgrade. Looks like history is about to repeat with Vista except this time they also have to change the name because Vista has gained such a horrible brand identity. It's now the Edsel of Operating Systems. Like the Edsel, Vista probably doesn't deserve all of the rap it has got but reality and PR aren't on the same planet with each other.

The big takeaway from all of the Windows 7 reviews though is that if you hate Vista you will probably hate Windows 7.

They are saying you can run Windows 7 on a netbook. Ya, like you could run Vista on one. Yes it installs and sorta runs but XP runs better.

Windows 7 toned down the security nags a bit and added some nice chrome to the taskbar. Haven't even heard Microsoft itself claim any other major differences with Vista other than yet another IE rev that is currently so broke it might not make the cut. Bugfixes and a couple of minor UI tweaks do not a major version make. We are firmly in point release territory at best, service pack sounds closer to what they are going to ship. They are going to call it a new version because they need a fresh hit of revenue.

Re:They have to.. (4, Informative)

MrSteve007 (1000823) | more than 5 years ago | (#26539837)

Here's a list I came up with detailing some of the more visible differences in Windows 7. It entails quite a bit more than just a Service Pack:

http://geekpi.com/?p=25 [geekpi.com]

For users

* New Interface: A greatly simplified toolbar, but only at first glance. The quick launch and taskbar now intermingles and can be greatly customized by the user.
* New Taskbar: The taskbar now automatically hides icons as theyâ(TM)re added, into what I call an icon corral which can be selected to show the icons.
* UAC simplification slider: You can define how and when you are prompted by the UAC, even shutting it off.
* UAC definition by program: You can also exempt specific programs from UAC prompts.
* Device Stage: A number of rumors have been circulating about this one. First and foremost, device manufactures DO NOT have to program this in order for it to work it is just an option for direct interaction. Access all the functions of your devices from one screen.
* Homegroups: Its a situation that many of us face. We have a domain controlled work laptop. We come home and want to access our personal media (now managed by libraries) and printers. This solves those problems, while keeping company data safe. Default printers change automatically, depenting on what network you connect to.
* Libraries in Explorer: expanded support for Libraries across networks and a changed browsing interface within explorer.
* Math Input panel: It seems quite advanced, including input of hand/mouse written algebra and calculus.
* Calculator: Adding separate programmer and statistics modes to the previous standard and scientific calculator options.
* MS Paint: Welcome the ribbon.
* Magnifier: built in application to magnify a specific area of the screen and zoom in. This is similar to the capability enabled in XP or Vista in with Microsoft Mouse software.
* Gadgets across the desktop: Gadgets are no longer limited to the gadget toolbar.
* Simplified network connection stack: Ability to peek into the network stack and select an available network without opening any windows.
* Sticky windows (my definition): You can now drag windows to the top of the screen, which will automatically maximize the window. Also by dragging the window to the side of the screen, it will size the window to take the half of that side of the screen
* Preview Desktop: To the right of the taskbar, there is now a preview desktop button.
* Media Player Codec Expansion: Native support for AAC, H264, divx, xvid, AVCHD, flip video to the list of supported codecs.
* StreamOn: Ability to push audio and video output to networked A/V devices (think radios, receivers, and TVs).
* Display Color Calibration Wizard: A step-by-step interface to more closely calibrate proper gamma, brightness/contrast, and to eyeball proper color.
* Simplified Sideshow support: I previously installed sideshow on my windows mobile phone, when I created a Bluetooth relationship with the phone (for PAN support), it automatically discovered its capabilities and shows this in the sideshow area and device stage. Remote bluetooth control of media player, via a win mobile phone.
* New Backgrounds: Sure, absolutely not important, but an interesting re-take on the current Vista background theme.
* Faster Boots: Parallel device initialization during boot â" faster boot times. Demo showed a 5-10 second faster cold boot over Vista.
* Simple Shutdown: In later builds theyâ(TM)ve removed the confusing red, round button and replaced it with a simple, named â(TM)shut downâ(TM) button on the start menu, with the optional OS stops on a pull down menu on the right.

For IT

* Action Center: Thereâ(TM)s a good deal built into this function, but one of the most interesting features is a built in application that allows users record a walk through an action that generates an error and will email a system state and screenshots of each step to your IT support.
* Encryption of USB keys: fairly self explanatory.
* Workspaces Center: A new function under the command panel. Not much info on it.
* Lite Touch Installation: Ability to install a fresh image Win 7 onto a Vista machine without compromising links to user files and data. Installation takes about 25 minutes. Not available when stepping from XP to Win 7.
* Improved Disk Defragment status: While it isnâ(TM)t as hypnotizing as watching the blocks move, Win 7 at least shows you defragement progress by section, passes, and percentage; which is a big improvement over Vista.
* Windows Solutions Center: This is useful to both the IT member and User, by giving a simple one stop, and color coded display on what issues are present that affect security, along with maintenance tasks.
* Better Multi monitor support: Remote Desktops can now span monitors, and by using the windows+P button combination, you can use multi-projectors and adjust them from the one interface.

Under the hood

* Lighter footprint: Netbooks, here comes Windows 7. Demonstrated using a 1ghz, 1 gig of ram. They claim theyâ(TM)re trying to reduce those requirements. Goodbye XP, once and for all.
* Longer Battery Life: Demoed was the programâ(TM)s ability to recognize elements on the hardware that are needlessly active and sucking battery life and will shut them off.
* Increased Support for multicore CPUs: A fully managed code, that is designed specifically with parallel processing in mind. *rumor*
* Multitouch: Many people are claiming this is a new feature, but anyone with a Dell XT tablet with Vista (or surface, which runs on Vistaâ(TM)s underpinnings), this is nothing new. But yet, it supports multitouch on the software side.
* Locations and Other Sensors: Added GPS integration and provisions for OS interactions with other sensors, such as accelerometers.
* Credential Manager: Manage user names and passwords, so you can easily log into website and connect to other resources, such as computers.
* Troubleshooting: A separate link within the taskbar, with a one-stop-shop of troubleshooting by programs, devices, network, printing, display, performance, etc.
* Less Versions, SKUs: Word on the street is that theyre looking to reduce the number of SKUs involved.

Re:They have to.. (3, Informative)

neokushan (932374) | more than 5 years ago | (#26539865)

It's significantly faster than Vista, might not be huge changes under the hood, but the changes that are there are definitely for the better. It certainly feels like what a new OS should feel like.

Re:They have to.. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26540085)

Also known as Windows 1.0 SP86.

That reminds me to the latest client I work for...

If they go onsite to a new client who bought the product, they bring one cdrom with their main program.

The day after, the technician comes in with a DVD, and instals 3-400 hotfixes contained on them.

To top it off, most hotfixes are redunant: they fix something in say hotfix 287, and in QA is approved, while someone else is working on hotfix 288. The next person releases his hotfix, QA tests it and it gets released, to realize on site it's fixing hotfix 288 and undoing hotfix 287. So they release hotfix 289, which introduces another bug, which is added as "known issue" and gets fixed in hotfix 295.

If I look at it, MS does a pretty fair job at it...

Re:They have to.. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26538885)

Hey, it takes a while to polish a turd. They just need a little more time to buff it.

Re:They have to.. (5, Insightful)

GF678 (1453005) | more than 5 years ago | (#26539045)

Why do people keep referring to Win 7 as a service pack for Vista?

With that logic I could say XP is a service pack of 2000.

Operating systems don't need to be evolutionary, and in many cases it better they aren't. Incremental improvements from a (questionable) proven base are better than making too different and new.

I think people keep forgetting history when it comes to MS operating systems.

Re:They have to.. (4, Funny)

SpaceLifeForm (228190) | more than 5 years ago | (#26539087)

We try.

Re:They have to.. (5, Funny)

peektwice (726616) | more than 5 years ago | (#26539227)

Operating systems don't need to be evolutionary, and in many cases it better they aren't.

Yes, but incremental improvements to a flaming bag of shit results in larger flames and more shit.

Re:They have to.. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26539481)

Yeah, but the huge flames make it look like it goes really fast.

Re:They have to.. (5, Interesting)

khellendros1984 (792761) | more than 5 years ago | (#26539243)

I think you've missed the meaning of the word "evolutionary". It *is* a set of incremental improvements from some baseline.

I would consider XP similar to a "service pack" to 2000. They're almost the same OS, in much the same way that Vista and 7 are almost the same. If 2 operating systems are designed to use the exact same drivers, they may as well be the same OS.

Re:They have to.. (4, Insightful)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 5 years ago | (#26540027)

By that definition, Mac OS X v10.5 and Mac OS X Public Beta are the same OS (printer drivers notwithstanding). You remember Public Beta---the version that didn't even have an Apple menu....

A well written OS should generally work with the same drivers as previous versions with few exceptions. Every now and then it isn't possible, but for the most part, it is not only possible, but also desirable.... Using driver compatibility as a metric is a really bad way to judge whether something is the same OS or not....

Re:They have to.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26539353)

Why do people keep referring to Win 7 as a service pack for Vista?

With that logic I could say XP is a service pack of 2000.

Uhh... well by my logic, yeah, it pretty much was. It went from NT 5 to NT 5.1. But that's just my opinion I guess.

A service pack contains fixes and enhancements. However, Microsoft has added more than just enhancements before via service pack releases. So it depends on your definition of enhancement, addition, and upgrade, I suppose. To me, going from 5.0 to 5.1 (or in this case 6.0 to 6.1 from what I understand) isn't really all that big a change.

Re:They have to.. (3, Informative)

samriel (1456543) | more than 5 years ago | (#26539449)

When you think about it, that 2000->XP logic works. By the same logic, Windows 7 is a service pack, and direct descendant, of the original Windows NT.

If you were to look at the codebase, I would wager that Vista and Win7 are incredibly close. The majority of the overhaul is a) interface (to add a nice KDE-esque taskbar) and b) usability (How about an obvious add/remove programs panel?).

In the same vein, there have only been two or three real Microsoft operating systems: MS-DOS, the Win1-3/9x codebase, and the WinNT codebase (I might be wrong; this is mostly a viewpoint thing anyway.)

Re:They have to.. (2, Insightful)

beav007 (746004) | more than 5 years ago | (#26539733)

The majority of the overhaul is a) interface (to add a nice KDE-esque taskbar)

I love this.

Microsoft: where innovation means copying other peoples ideas...

Re:They have to.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26539569)

You do realize that "evolutionary" means "incremental changes over time" right?

Re:They have to.. (1)

RMingin (985478) | more than 5 years ago | (#26539619)

XP *is* a service pack of 2000. Kind of a service pack of service packs, compiling all the fixes to date and adding a few new features. There's not a lot different. Windows 7 is an SP of Vista even moreso.

If you want to argue that SPs don't introduce major changes, then XP SP2 was a different OS. That sucker brought more changes, both visible and behind the scenes, than 2000->XP did.

Re:They have to.. (1)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 5 years ago | (#26540187)

> With that logic I could say XP is a service pack of 2000.

No, XP was a fairly major merge of the NT and 9X product lines. It had some pretty major teething problems because of it. Later service packs have corrected most of the problems, which is the big problem facing Microsoft. XP is finally a fairly stable operating system. If they could have fixed the 'everyone runs as root' problem inherited when they had to have backwards compatibility with Windows 9X it would have been really good.

> Operating systems don't need to be evolutionary, and in many cases it better they aren't.

As someone using Linux I totally agree. It is the major changes (breakage is bad) that tend to get distros flamed. The problem is asking people to fork over ~$100 for fixes to product defects and a few minor UI improvments that is finally starting to cause problems for Microsoft after getting away with it several times in the past.

> I think people keep forgetting history when it comes to MS operating systems.

Not me. I haven't actually used their newer crap much but I have been following their antics for a long time. Their BASIC interpreters were pretty good, quality has went downhill ever since.

Re:They have to.. (3, Insightful)

zonky (1153039) | more than 5 years ago | (#26539181)

It's more of a "R2" style release.

Re:They have to.. (4, Informative)

afidel (530433) | more than 5 years ago | (#26539441)

On the server side that's exactly what they are calling it, the server release based on the Win7 codebase is to be called Windows Server 2008R2.

Slashdot == The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26538797)

These silly Windows stories have pretty much negated their desired effect on people.

Ever since the lead up and release of Win2k Slashdot has been trying to manufacture the news fiction that "Windows total failure. Year of desktop Linux has arrived"

* Late service packs

* Stories of such and such company skipping a certain Windows version or service pack

* Hyping early bugs ever new has and then pretending they were never fixed

With Vista Slashdot went over the top with the Windows FUD and nothing came of it. Now everyone is:

* Trying out Win7 and raving about how good it is

* Finding out that Win7 is just Windows Vista with some UI and performance enhancements

Pretty much destroying any credibility Slashdot might have with exactly the people this site hoped to turn into Linux users with the Windows FUD.

Re:Slashdot == The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf (2, Funny)

fred fleenblat (463628) | more than 5 years ago | (#26538835)

Churro?

Re:Slashdot == The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf (1)

tux0r (604835) | more than 5 years ago | (#26539683)

I'm good.

Re:Slashdot == The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26538903)

Slashdot is, of course, not the only site. Large number of Apple sites tried the same things over the past few years.

It was pretty pathetic to see the reaction of people who invested so much time and effort into trashing Vista only to have Microsoft come out and do the masterful release of Windows 7. People were actually despondent over seeing so many people download the beta and rave about how good it was.

There definitely was a tone of shock and anger when people learned that Windows 7 was just Vista with some upgrades. You could tell people who were seeing how good Windows 7 ran right on their own machine were clearly upset they had been lied to by so many in the computing media about Vista.

Re:Slashdot == The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf (4, Informative)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 5 years ago | (#26539069)

They weren't lied to. When Vista came out, it was a compatibility disaster. The rest of the computing world simply wasn't ready for it when it was released, so drivers weren't ready, apps didn't work, etc. The rest of the computing world kept right on improving, though, and users kept on upgrading their software, drivers, etc. Thus, at this point, most people have versions of apps and drivers that are compatible with Vista, most hardware manufacturers have working Vista drivers, etc. As a result, Vista isn't as much of a train wreck as it was a few years ago, nor is Windows 7 for the same reason.

Of course, if someone upgraded to Vista today, he/she would find that Vista still uses way more RAM than it should (and way more than XP uses), but that's one of the things Windows 7 is supposed to be addressing. Don't underestimate how important that is when it comes to overall usability, performance, etc. Those "minor" improvements to Vista are not really minor. They just aren't feature changes. There's a difference.

Re:Slashdot == The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf (4, Insightful)

KiwiRed (598427) | more than 5 years ago | (#26539151)

Of course, if someone upgraded to Vista today, he/she would find that Vista still leaves far less unused RAM than XP, but that's one of the changes Windows 7 is supposed to be reverting.

Fixed for accuracy. Seriously, what is the issue people have with Vista making use of the memory you have?

Re:Slashdot == The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf (1)

Starayo (989319) | more than 5 years ago | (#26539221)

Because my other software needs to use that memory, you insensitive clod!

Re:Slashdot == The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf (2, Insightful)

FishWithAHammer (957772) | more than 5 years ago | (#26539309)

Except that Vista does graceful caching and cedes RAM when an application wants it. Forgot that part, hm?

Re:Slashdot == The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf (1)

Cowmonaut (989226) | more than 5 years ago | (#26539349)

They always forget that bit. And the bit that its actually a good thing!

Re:Slashdot == The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf (2, Insightful)

FishWithAHammer (957772) | more than 5 years ago | (#26539443)

Exactly. It's a good thing that your OS will use more RAM for caching, so long as it gives it back when somebody else needs it. Think of it as nice(1) for caching or something.

(Then again, the majority of complainers probably don't know what nice(1) is either.)

Re:Slashdot == The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf (1)

Sancho (17056) | more than 5 years ago | (#26539799)

Yeah, Microsoft really shot themselves in the foot with that one. Memory used for cache should have been made perfectly clear to avoid (or rather, mitigate) this kind of FUD.

Now if you go look at the processes that Windows spawns by default, you'll still see that Vista uses more memory, but it's not by much. Certainly nowhere near what the FUD spouters would like you to believe.

Re:Slashdot == The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf (2, Interesting)

afidel (530433) | more than 5 years ago | (#26539533)

Except it doesn't really, just like every MS VM it often decides that keeping system cache is more important than keeping applications in memory and so it decides to swap out "infrequently" used code and data. The problem is when you go to switch from your photo app to your browser after not having used the browser for 30 minutes Windows has to swap it back in, in the meantime it might have just been using that ram to hold autosave files that were never re-read. This leads to your browser taking up to a minute or two to come back to usability.

Re:Slashdot == The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf (1)

FishWithAHammer (957772) | more than 5 years ago | (#26539945)

What kind of broken and/or ancient machine takes a minute or two to page back in application data?

Re:Slashdot == The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf (1)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 5 years ago | (#26539661)

Except that Vista does graceful caching and cedes RAM when an application wants it. Forgot that part, hm?

So does XP, Linux, and most Unix variants. That has nothing to do with the central complaint. Vista uses far more memory than it should to achieve a unit of work. Much of which is held by the OS and/or the GUI.

Specifically, this is one of the items Windows 7 should address. So your casual effort to make Windows look good completely ignores the fact your comment is not topical in the least and altogether ignores the central complaint.

Perfect Example Of This Shit Right Here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26539789)

These are the types of idiots who are doing Linux adoption no favors.

I'm running Vista SP1 right now. I don't know what the fuck you are babbling about. Whatever memory usage difference between my old copy of XP and Vista is so small that I wouldn't of even of thought about it if idiots like you weren't sitting out on the Net 24/7 desperately trying to convince the world that 'Vista sucks'.

Apps run the same speed or are so close that I don't know the difference. Games run at virtually identical fps with Vista and XP.

In short, give it a fucking rest.

Re:Slashdot == The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf (2)

Computershack (1143409) | more than 5 years ago | (#26539291)

Fixed for accuracy. Seriously, what is the issue people have with Vista making use of the memory you have?

Exactly. In fact, the very people who berate Windows overlook the fact that so many people in the Linux community thought Superfetch was a good idea that the "preload" daemon in Linux was born.
Oh look, here's a "Preload Drastically Improves Linux Performance " Slashdot article. [slashdot.org]

Re:Slashdot == The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf (4, Informative)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 5 years ago | (#26539917)

Windows Vista doesn't just cache more aggressively, though that's certainly one valid complaint. An OS generally should never page live VM pages out to disk except when there is memory contention. That means that prefetched data in the disk cache should drop to darn near zero before you start seeing paging traffic. If it doesn't, something is badly wrong. That said, this is just one of many significant memory problems with Vista.

The display subsystem is designed in such a way that any apps that use GDI for drawing get all their windows double buffered, resulting in memory bloat and poor performance (source: Guardian.co.uk [guardian.co.uk] ). Indeed, changes in the window management system result in a huge reduction [istartedsomething.com] in memory footprint in Windows 7. A fifty percent reduction in backing store size is not a small improvement by any stretch of the imagination, particularly when you consider that most of that bloat represented a Vista regression relative to XP....

The OS growing to consume all available memory is a virtue is only valid if the OS uses it sensibly. If it squanders it and then ends up ejecting useful pages as a result, that is not a good thing no matter how you look at it....

Re:Slashdot == The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf (2, Interesting)

khellendros1984 (792761) | more than 5 years ago | (#26539397)

Because it doesn't give it up when I want to use it for something else? I'd rather that the operating system be leaner, so I can run my heavy duty stuff on top of it. A game can't use the resources that the OS has allowed itself to expand into.

Re:Slashdot == The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf (2, Insightful)

setagllib (753300) | more than 5 years ago | (#26539083)

What masterful release are you talking about? Windows 7 isn't even out yet. If you're going to prepare trolls in advance at least make sure you don't post them too early.

Re:Slashdot == The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26539193)

Golly, could 'release' possibly be referring to the 'release' of the Windows 7 beta...

Re:Slashdot == The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26538907)

LOL. Don't forget the year of Linux on the desktop is never going to happen. Mac will be the second choice for casual home users and even potentially overtake Microsoft to first place in the future.

Yeh, mark me as a troll but think about it ... Anyone who just wants to read their email, browse the web and sync their iTunes with their iPod will choose a Mac. Trust me, all my friends have so far and they are your typical non nerd computer user.

Re:Slashdot == The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf (2, Funny)

sswanny (1374911) | more than 5 years ago | (#26539167)

So two people? Nice.

Re:Slashdot == The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf (2, Insightful)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 5 years ago | (#26539233)

Yeh, mark me as a troll but think about it ... Anyone who just wants to read their email, browse the web and sync their iTunes with their iPod will choose a Mac.

Yes, if they specifically want to sync their iTunes, their choices are pretty much just Mac or Windows.

But I would guess the main reason Linux struggles on the desktop (besides not being given much of a chance) is that you're talking about a mythical class of user. Users who really do only want to read email, browse the web, and play music on an iPod would be fine with Linux, and would probably be very interested to find that they can buy a laptop for less than a thousand dollars that will do all of that -- and comes preloaded with Linux, so no installation issues.

But real users always have one more thing they need to work. Linux will get you 95% there, but the last 5% is different for everyone.

Still, with this economy, I wouldn't be surprised to see people trading that last 5% for a drop in price alone, especially if they consider TCO (how often will someone have to service it?)

You make a large assumption... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26538923)

...namely, that of intellectual honesty. Don't presume that everyone aspires to it; most people only want to be validated in what they believe in, and they will self-select what information they believe in in the face of possible cognitive dissonance.

Re:Slashdot == The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26538927)

A geek who doesn't use Linux? Time to turn in your geek card, son.

The sound you hear in the background (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26539003)

Is twitter coming to strangle you with a Debian shoelace.

Re:The sound you hear in the background (2, Funny)

khellendros1984 (792761) | more than 5 years ago | (#26539411)

Not a Debian bootstrap?

I'm one of those people you are talking about (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26539145)

Ten years ago I imagined myself to be running Linux by now.

I bought into the silly idea that 'millions of programmers worldwide' would quickly leave the sad, pathetic, and outdated closed source world behind. I laughed at the BSOD jokes. Shook my head at the latest virus/security problem with Windows. And anxiously waited for the amazing things that were just about to start showing up with Linux on the Desktop.

And the years went by. And I tried the latest flavor of the month/year Linux distro only to be disheartened with the shockingly amateurishness, clunkyness, and often outright buggyness of each new version.

I gave Vista a try on a whim building a new machine last year and even paid the 110 bucks for it from newegg.

Wow, was I impressed. It was fast and clean. Everything in the world ran on it. Never had a single crash since I installed it months ago. Not a single virus or spyware problem. Everything just worked. Search is a little clunky. The stupid backslashed for paths is idiotic. But overall it has been one of the best OSes I've ever run.

Now seeing these silly Slashdot stories still trying to spread FUD about Windows just grate on me. I find myself visiting the site less and less as time goes by. Life is too short. I'm getting real work done right now with Vista and no longer care to about hear 'the big plans' of various open source projects. Or how such and such distro or open source app is 'really making progress'.

The best thing for Linux on the Desktop is for all that wasted energy trying to convince everyone how much Windows sucks was better spent banging on Linux and its apps with an unmerciful eye.

Re:Slashdot == The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf (1)

sleeponthemic (1253494) | more than 5 years ago | (#26539303)

The person who puts these articles up can often be found posting this type of piece to incite furor. If you've ever wondered why an article was posted, chances are, you're wondering about a kdawson post.

Re:Slashdot == The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26540023)

Ahh, no wonder this made it through. kdawson is a fucking whiny moron.

Re:Slashdot == The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf (3, Interesting)

khellendros1984 (792761) | more than 5 years ago | (#26539359)

I had 4 problems with Vista.
1. Aero is pretty, but not useful
2. The performance sucks; it uses clock cycles and memory to automate things I don't care about
3. Massive intrusive support for DRM and content protection (HDCP, etc)
4. Windows Genuine Advantage is mandatory.

They cleaned up the UI. It's sleeker, while maintaining some of Aero's glitz. The performance has improved, although not as much as I'd like. The DRM and WGA are still there. Half of the things I disliked about Vista were improved.

I still dislike Vista, and find Windows 7 to be a slight, but nice, improvement. I'm still not leaving XP. Like with Vista, I don't see enough improvement to make it worthwhile.

Re:Slashdot == The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf (1)

aztracker1 (702135) | more than 5 years ago | (#26539763)

1. you can disable it. There are other things that are nice, the menu imho is much better. And the restructuring of the profiles/home folder is much closer to how *nix is. I would say it's actually a little better, now that the subdirectory structures are all under the home folder in windows. 2. You can disable them (search, defender etc. I do). 3. Honestly most of this isn't active unless trying to play content that you can't play on Linux as it stands, so the point is kind of moot. 4. This part sucks.. I hate it, and always have.

I like a lot of the under the covers changes to Vista myself. Most of the reorganization makes more sense to me than prior windows versions. I think there's a few points to improve even farther still. I've used a lot of different OSes, desktop environments and applications. If you are happy with what is working, and still getting updates, go for it.

As an example, the only reason I am upgrading my media center, is I am changing the base hardware, and the old remote died, and the new one doesn't work under XP. I'll be using MediaPortal over MS's Media Center interface though (can remove the parts of the menu I don't use). I think Vista got a well deserved bad rap, and the main reason for the rename is to get past it. Win7 is based on Win2008, which was based on Vista... this is how software evolves... the name change is marketing to get past the negative things that have been addressed.

Re:Slashdot == The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf (1)

diamondsw (685967) | more than 5 years ago | (#26540011)

* Trying out Win7 and raving about how good it is
* Finding out that Win7 is just Windows Vista with some UI and performance enhancements

Um, that's why Windows Vista sucked. The performance was poor and the UI changes were... questionable (overly excited UAC, anyone?). I've tried Vista since installing 7, and while yes, a lot of what people like was there, it wasn't as well done. Now it's finally usable - it's just a shame that 7 wasn't released as Vista SP2...

Follow the money (4, Interesting)

carp3_noct3m (1185697) | more than 5 years ago | (#26538849)

Microsoft doesn't want to release it soon, even if they could. The reason: less stable vista = more reason to upgrade to windows 7 (read: more money for Microsoft). That may not be the actuality, but I bet a handful of people think that way there. On a side note, Ive been running Windows 7 beta for a week now (I decided to be ahead of the curve for all future OS releases due to the nature of my job) and am overall very impressed (I know, shoot me and throw overboard into /. shark waters) Its faster (especially restart times!) and overall more polished. Now, it should of been windows vista in the first place, but its too late to go back in time with my machine (lost a watchyamacallit and a thingymajiger) I really suggest if you havent to at least throw up a VM of it sometime.

Re:Follow the money (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26539075)

What version of Earth do you live on where Vista isn't stable?

Version .01 Alpha (0, Flamebait)

carp3_noct3m (1185697) | more than 5 years ago | (#26539395)

Well, like any /.er, I didnt RTFA or even read up on what kind of things are included in the SP2. I automagically assumed (ass, meet u and me) that it would fix issues across the board, stability, drivers, my wang isnt big enough, ect. What version of earth do YOU live on were we RTFA?

People running Vista (3, Insightful)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 5 years ago | (#26538857)

Most end-users running Vista are doing so because they aren't comfortable changing their OS, those who absolutely must have DirectX 10 and don't realize you can get it on XP with some hackery, or Microsoft fans who insist on running Microsoft's latest release.

I'm not sure any of those three groups will care that much about Vista SP2. The first is largely uneducated on technical matters. The second is only fixated on gaming, and the third will be Windows 7 early adopters.

Vista SP2 however is aimed largely at the first group, who bought their computer with Vista preinstalled, and likely won't jump to 7. Microsoft has to support those users for years to come.

Re:People running Vista (2, Insightful)

Scutter (18425) | more than 5 years ago | (#26538899)

Most end-users running Vista are doing so because they aren't comfortable changing their OS, those who absolutely must have DirectX 10 and don't realize you can get it on XP with some hackery, or Microsoft fans who insist on running Microsoft's latest release.

Where do you get your data from? Evreyone I know that runs Vista runs it because they like it. The only people I know that bitch about Vista are Linux fanboys.

Re:People running Vista (4, Informative)

dylan_- (1661) | more than 5 years ago | (#26539109)

Where do you get your data from?

Probably from real life.

Evreyone I know that runs Vista runs it because they like it.

Everyone I know that runs Vista runs it because it came on the new computer they bought.

The only people I know that bitch about Vista are Linux fanboys.

The only people I know that bitch about Vista are those that run it on the new computers they bought.

Re:People running Vista (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26539429)

I didn't know which of you to believe, so I checked with everyone I know. They believe Scutter.

Re:People running Vista (1)

lymond01 (314120) | more than 5 years ago | (#26539477)

I know people running it because it came on their new computer, because they wanted to try it out (like me), or because it was better than XP at some of the functions they wanted (encryption & overcoming user stupidity ie administrator access).

No one I know that uses Vista actually complains that much because, in the end, it's just an operating system. Far more user-friendly than anything but maybe MacOS, more versatile in terms of driver support and applications, and as stable these days as anything out there. If I were forcing LaTex on my staff, then I'd hear complaints. The biggest complaint I get from Vista users: "Is that button supposed to be the Start menu?"

There are real issues with Vista, but with SP1, most show-stoppers were removed. It's a perfectly fine if slightly slow OS. If you include user performance with OS performance, it's still faster than anything out there.

Re:People running Vista (3, Insightful)

Schuthrax (682718) | more than 5 years ago | (#26539199)

How about XP fanboys? Or OSX fanboys? Or Windows Server 2008 fanboys? Or Windows for Workgroups fanboys? Or even, dare I say it, Windows ME fanboys?!

Honestly, I am most upset that I was forced to get Vista "for free" on my newest laptop and now I am stuck with it unless I want to pay even more M$ tax. Microsoft should do the world a favor and offer free upgrades to 7. Now *that* would shut a lot of people up.

Re:People running Vista (1)

goltzc (1284524) | more than 5 years ago | (#26539401)

Are you sure they run it because they like it or because it came pre-installed and then grew to like it?

Re:People running Vista (1)

Scutter (18425) | more than 5 years ago | (#26539461)

Are you sure they run it because they like it or because it came pre-installed and then grew to like it?

Does it matter? The point is that they like it.

Re:People running Vista (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 5 years ago | (#26540115)

Yes, it matters. It matters a lot. People who bought Vista and installed it because they liked it are the sorts of people who might upgrade to Windows 7. People who run Vista because it came preinstalled and they couldn't be bothered to request a downgrade to XP are similarly unlikely to spend the money, time, or effort to upgrade to Windows 7.

Re:People running Vista (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26539451)

I have Linux on all of my machines (dual boot with XP). I just tried Vista SP1 64-bit for the first time on one of them. Aside from the expected initial learning curve, it seems fine. Only 2 things, UAC is annoying but I've read that I can turn it off. Second, fancy Aero interface feels a tad sluggish on high end hardware, but nothing worse than what KDE4 is spewing out. There is definitely some competition between KDE4 and Vista, there are things I like better about each. But in ways I miss the more snappy KDE3 and XP interfaces.

Re:People running Vista (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26539509)

Bahahahhahha Linux Fanboys are NOT the only ones that bitch about vista.

Re:People running Vista (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26539089)

I really don't get the Vista hate around here. I'm using Vista, it works very well for me (better than XP), and why would I want to downgrade to XP?

Or, why don't you like Vista? Did it hurt you or something?

Re:People running Vista (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26539247)

Working very well for you doesn't mean it works well for everyone. Oh wait... I forgot... that's the Windows fanboy's argument about Linux when the Linux fanboy's say the same thing...

Re:People running Vista (4, Insightful)

khellendros1984 (792761) | more than 5 years ago | (#26539503)

I am a software engineer; I find inefficiency annoying. Vista does all sorts of anonymous crap in the background. I don't know what it's doing, and there's no easy way to find out. I don't see any concrete benefit to whatever it's doing, and it seems to do it all the time. I'm accustomed to a little more transparency in the operation of my computer. I guess that's part of the reason that Vista seems like nothing more than a big ball of annoyance to me. It's unnecessary; I can't seem to figure out what it does so much better than XP, except get money for Microsoft.

Re:People running Vista (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26539845)

So ... you'll be holding on for SP2 just to experience the pure joy?

Re:People running Vista (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26540071)

You're not a software engineer. There is no such title. Come back when there's a Licensure Board that will issue you a PE title/certificate as a "Software Engineer". *chuckle*

Vista preloads commonly-used/already-running programs into memory (if you have it). In case you click on the program in the taskbar, its all ready to go and zooms up really fast. If you run a demanding app that needs the extra memory, Vista unloads less-needed programs (like the pre-fetched ones) and gives the memory to the program. It works very well. Vista runs more consistent than XP and if you have 2-4gb of RAM (who doesnt these days), it absolutely screams.

Re:People running Vista (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26539129)

No, most Vista users are using it because it came with their computer. I agree most users probably wouldn't be aware of SP2, in fact I had to install it on two friends' machines because they didn't realise what it was for.

But what's to say those users would be any better off with Linux? They would still ignore the updates regardless of the OS and unfortunately for the Linux fanboys out there, a windows PC will do what most users want: read email and browse the web.

Re:People running Vista (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26539333)

What kind of morons have mod points? Insightful? This guy has no idea what he is talking about.

1. No matter what you do you cannot get DirectX 10 on XP. Yes you can get all the functionality of your DX10 video card, but you cannot get ANY of advanced features provided by DX10 itself which includes things like the memory management or the stability improvements that come from the changes to the Vista driver model and the Vista Kernel. This makes a huge difference to developers and what they can do with a given CPU/GPU combo.

2. Vista SP 2 is mostly about Windows Server 2008 and and is aimed and corporate customers. If you have had your head under a rock, you may not know that WS2008 shares its kernel with Vista and shipped with SP1 already in place.

Quit blowing smoke!

*BSD is Dying (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26538911)

It is now official. Netcraft confirms: *BSD is dying

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be the Amazing Kreskin [amazingkreskin.com] to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.

FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.

Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

Fact: *BSD is dying

Re:*BSD is Dying (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 5 years ago | (#26539299)

Copypasta. [osnews.com]

Re:*BSD is Dying (1)

Bonobo_Unknown (925651) | more than 5 years ago | (#26539631)

There is still one relatively successful distribution of *BSD

Re:*BSD is Dying (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 5 years ago | (#26540199)

Inclined to understatement much? I'd say that BSD being on about 1 out of every 12 PCs sold worldwide qualifies as more than "relatively successful", but maybe it's just me. :-)

Possible Last-Minute Problems With Vista SP2 (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26538939)

I hope your dick catches on fire.

Beating dead horses... (0, Troll)

painehope (580569) | more than 5 years ago | (#26538945)

It's pretty much a proven fact (a) Windows sucks, (b) people will continue using it, and (c) scientists will by and large not.

How many times per week does /. have to say this? It's not like anyone new here will just slap their forehead and go "Holy shit, Windows sucks and I never knew it! Which Linux distro should I start using?".

On a side note, I actually used Word 2007 the other day (hey, I couldn't get to a Linux system, I was at a friend's house) to compose a simple cover letter for my resume, and my jaw dropped when I saw how unbelievably - and unnecessarily - complex the UI had become. No fucking wonder there's always a fuss over a new Office release. It's like getting out to your truck and discovering that (a) all dials and gauges are now obfuscated, (b) radio stations are listed in base 73 and someone glued a Mariah Carey CD in the head unit, and (c) your gear shift now has all the gears in different locations.

Re:Beating dead horses... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26539035)

what is complex and complicated about the Word UI? if anything, the ribbon simplified the mess of buttons and menus that is Office 2k*/oo.o

Re:Beating dead horses... (0, Flamebait)

Computershack (1143409) | more than 5 years ago | (#26539331)

what is complex and complicated about the Word UI? if anything, the ribbon simplified the mess of buttons and menus that is Office 2k*/oo.o

It's a UI. He uses Linux so doesn't know what a proper UI is - just look at The GIMP, KDE 4....

Re:Beating dead horses... (4, Interesting)

rfunches (800928) | more than 5 years ago | (#26539427)

When college students and faculty come to my desk and ask how do they save or print their document in Word 2007, that's a pretty clear indication that the Word UI is complex and complicated.

Re:Beating dead horses... (2, Funny)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#26539485)

"PrintScreen" key.

Re:Beating dead horses... (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 5 years ago | (#26539135)

It's pretty much a proven fact (a) Windows sucks, (b) people will continue using it

It's called "industry momentum", and Microsoft has a lot of it. You know how it goes. Jackie uses MS Word because her co-worker Jill uses it. Jill uses it because one of her clients uses it. So on and so forth. Windows and Office will never be killed off with a silver bullet. When going against the establishment, change can only happen slowly and study steadily. So far, only Apple seems to be remotely close.

Re:Beating dead horses... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26539339)

Yep, Apple are way ahead of any Linux distro in terms of home adoption because they know how to make something slick and integrated that 'just works'. No I am not an Apple fanboy, but anyone I know who has an iPod or is into digital photography has bought a Mac because for those purposes it just works.

Re:Beating dead horses... (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 5 years ago | (#26539633)

I don't know about OS X, but iTunes on Windows does not "just work", it barely works at all. Usually the iPod "disappears" on the middle of a copy and I have to do it all again :|

Re:Beating dead horses... (1)

Lord Aurora (969557) | more than 5 years ago | (#26539609)

So far, only Apple seems to be remotely close.

And that's because Apple is starting to do things MS did a while back. Can you honestly not see the signs? Apple fanboys conveniently look past the horrible shortcomings of their demi-god and continue to root for it solely because it is not Microsoft.

Re:Beating dead horses... (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 5 years ago | (#26539203)

Its called 'features' and 'enhancements' and ya, its annoying as hell.

Not to hijack but.... (0, Offtopic)

Geek of the Week (845) | more than 5 years ago | (#26539033)

Okay, I moved into sales years ago so I don't spend nearly as much time on /. since my lobotomy. Maybe that's why I'm freaked out by noticing there are people posting with user ids above 1M?

Boggles my mind. Who would have believed back in the "Chips and Dips" days that /. would become this?

Re:Not to hijack but.... (1)

khellendros1984 (792761) | more than 5 years ago | (#26539557)

Well, I registered 4 or 5 years ago, and my id is nearly 1000 times yours. I think it was about 2 years ago that we hit over a million (not sure on that number)

All of them? (2, Insightful)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 5 years ago | (#26539103)

Could it be that the last minute problems of Vista SP2 are just ... well, Vista ?

Of course it'll be out first (2, Insightful)

tsalmark (1265778) | more than 5 years ago | (#26539105)

Windows 7 will also slip.

And will anyone notice? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 5 years ago | (#26539137)

Really, how many people really care about SP2?

Can Microsoft get it out before Windows 7? (1)

That's What She Said (1289344) | more than 5 years ago | (#26539197)

Sure they can! Can you trust Microsoft when the subject is "deadlines"? The question is not if Vista SP2 will be out before Windows 7. The question is how many weeks, months or years will Windows 7 be delayed!?

What "Last Minute Problems"? (4, Informative)

Jon.Laslow (809215) | more than 5 years ago | (#26539293)

TFA doesn't actually mention any problems, and most people on the non-public SP2 Beta news groups (disclaimer: I'm an SP2 technical tester) are reporting this beta is very stable. I haven't had any serious issues with it, and I've yet to see any proof of a 'show-stopper' that would cause such a delay.

Now give me a minute to get my flame-resistant suit on so I can safely watch my karma burn.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?