backtop


Print 78 comment(s) - last by AndreasM.. on Jun 27 at 6:29 AM

New build brings enhancements to UAP and WinFS gets the boot

In its continuing efforts to improve its next generation operating system, Microsoft has released another interim build of Windows Vista to testers. Build 5456 is a rather large jump from Windows Vista Beta 2 (Build 5384.4) and offers a number of improvements which are sure to be welcomed by users. NeoSmart Blog reports:

Some of the new features include a revamped Aero/DWM subsystem, and a completely overhauled and significantly less obtrusive UAP for all those that couldn’t stand the previous one. From what we have been told by Microsoft, the Time Zone bug that plagued all most all previous builds of Windows Vista has been fixed and works great now, and quite a few fixes in the Regional Settings and IME are now implemented. And for the first time since Windows 3.0 Microsoft has finally announced that new mouse cursors will be made available for Windows - something they promised to do in XP with “Watercolors” but failed to deliver for internal reasons!

Of all of the improvements made to this build, the less intrusive User Access Protection (UAP) has to be on the biggest pluses. Vista's UAP scheme has been catching a lot of flak and Microsoft has seen it fit to gradually make the system less and less obnoxious.

Vista beta testers can download the new build immediately from the Windows Connect website. The rest of you folks will just have to wait until Microsoft releases another public build.

In other Vista news comes word that Microsoft has decided to drop its plans to offer Windows Future Storage (WinFS) as a future update to the operating system -- WinFS Beta 2 has been also cancelled. WinFS was the name for the new file system that was supposed to debut with the shipping version of Windows Vista. Over the course of Vista's long gestation period, WinFS was dropped from the feature count then later brought back to life when it was announced that the file system would be available at a later date as a system upgrade for Vista.

WinFS, which is based on Microsoft SQL Server technology, was supposed to do away with traditional file/folder hierarchy. From Betanews:

For example, no longer would documents need to be stored in My Documents or images in My Pictures; instead, Windows would simply display the files associated with a particular request on demand. In addition, WinFS could store structured data such as contacts, calendars and more.

As for the future of WinFS and other Windows technologies, lead programmer Quentin Clark goes on to air out his thoughts on his blog:

Of course, there are other aspects of the WinFS vision that we are continuing to incubate – areas not quite as mature as the work we are now targeting for Katmai and ADO.NET.   Since WinFS is no longer being delivered as a standalone software component, people will wonder what that means with respect to the Windows platform.  Just as Vista pushed forward on many aspects of the search and organize themes of the Longhorn WinFS effort, Windows will continue to adopt work as it's ready.  We will continue working the innovations, and as things mature they will find their way into the right product experiences – Windows and otherwise.  Having so much ready for SQL Server and ADO.NET is a big impact on the platform, and more will come.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Goodbye, MS
By The Boston Dangler on 6/25/2006 6:05:49 PM , Rating: 1
Vista is going to be another warmed-over NT, with intense DRM embedded at the lowest levels and some eye candy on top. No actual improvements.

Every day that goes by, I get a little less tolerant of WinXP. By default, the code is broken and insecure. It's easy to induce explorer.exe crashes on a virgin installation. XP prefers caching to the HD, while 2 GB of RAM goes untouched. For a higher price, the heavily proprietary and DRMed MCE poorly handles multiple monitors, requires special drivers and progs, and doesn't play retail DVDs. Pathetic. Vista, in any version, will be more of the same.

As a long-time Mac hater, it's likely I'll switch to Linux once my copy of XP is no longer viable. Apple is too expensive and inflexible, and I'll never be able to roll my own Mac.




RE: Goodbye, MS
By SteelyKen on 6/25/2006 6:12:46 PM , Rating: 1
I don't know about the rest of your post, but I do agree the three letters "D" "R" and "M" kill just about any anticipation I could have concerning Vista.


RE: Goodbye, MS
By Totalfixation on 6/25/2006 6:24:30 PM , Rating: 3
My god man, give the old boy some credit, first everyone complains about BSOD, and now its very stable. Now you guys are complaining about security? Give them some time, There have over millions of hardwares they have to try to adapt to, while making everything backwards compatible. In due time it will happen. I dont get why alot of people complain about Microsoft, and say they are going to switch. Well, i say fine switch to whatever you like, but in the end i know your going to switch back. Just put it simply MS is doing its best, under heavy competition and on top of that dealing with DAs in almost every state in the US, nevertheless Europe too.

Also wanted to add too. Apple has always left people in the dust, they never support older OS. Two clear examples was OS9 to OSX, OS 9 software was not compatible with OS X. Now with the switch to X86, it is leaving alot of people disappointed about there older software/performance.

I think MS is a great company and I hope they succeed, especial over google. I love there search engine, but i hate there unorganized collection of software. They dont have organized set of ways to use there programs, like MS with MS office and such. Thats just my opinion.


RE: Goodbye, MS
By lwright84 on 6/25/2006 7:23:06 PM , Rating: 1
i'm not sure what you're getting at, but apple OS9 applications run in "classic mode" on OSX, and powerpc based applications run in "rosetta mode" on the x86 platform. apple is pretty good about supporting older OS'.. granted the legacy items don't run at 100% performance (because of the OS emulation needed for compatibility), but they do work just fine.


RE: Goodbye, MS
By Oscarine on 6/25/2006 7:34:05 PM , Rating: 1
...forcing me to boot into System 9 is not exactly backwards compatibility. As for Rosetta... they should have named it Sludge or something equally befitting its speed


RE: Goodbye, MS
By psychobriggsy on 6/25/2006 7:59:03 PM , Rating: 1
You don't boot into OS9 to run classic applications on Mac OS X. You run the application. An OS9 environment / sandbox will execute to run your application. By now it would be a pretty old application, so it still won't take too long to load up - yes there would be an initial delay, but meh. In the long run I think it was the more sensible option, allowing Apple to move from a dire OS to a pretty good (desktop) OS.

And as for Rosetta, the performance is good enough for most applications, most useful applications are ported, with notable exceptions in Adobe (effectively forced to do a long-overdue code revamp) and Microsoft (Office).

As for Vista, it sounds less interesting each time I see a new story about its features. I'm sure most of the annoyances will be eradicated by release date however. I won't be leaping to get it when it comes out though.


RE: Goodbye, MS
By Burning Bridges on 6/26/2006 9:44:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
under heavy competition

OK, now name another operating system manufacturer who charges what MS does for the OS, who has a market share the size of that that MS has...

They have a monopoly (spelling?) on the market.


RE: Goodbye, MS
By Sunday Ironfoot on 6/25/2006 6:29:20 PM , Rating: 3
Why does everybody b1tch at MS over DRM, it's being forced on us by the record companies and movie studios. OS makers like MS and Apple have no choice but to play along, and besides you can turn off DRM in Windows Media Player and use DRMless formats like MP3. And if you don;t like the DRM used by digital music download services like iTunes and Urge, then don;t buy from them, buy the CD instead.


RE: Goodbye, MS
By The Boston Dangler on 6/25/2006 7:03:00 PM , Rating: 5
"Why does everybody b1tch at MS over DRM, it's being forced on us by the record companies and movie studios."

The first thing a Windows user does after installing the OS is verify legitimacy with MS, then update for an hour. The RIAA and MPAA have nothing to with that.

"OS makers like MS and Apple have no choice but to play along"

Rubbish. They are (unsuccessfully) attempting to protect thier own products.

"and besides you can turn off DRM in Windows Media Player and use DRMless formats like MP3"

Doing so limits the functionality of the software, which was purchased fairly.

"And if you don;t like the DRM used by digital music download services like iTunes and Urge, then don;t buy from them, buy the CD instead."

That's a big Ten-Four, good buddy. I'm in the process of FLACing my more than 300 CD's. Unfortunately, one could purchase a CD and still be unfairly hampered by DRM.

Of course, software "pirates" aren't bothered by DRM in the least. One can easily DL a cracked copy of, let's see, ANYTHING. DRM only screws over legit users.


RE: Goodbye, MS
By Sunday Ironfoot on 6/26/2006 7:20:59 AM , Rating: 2
"The first thing a Windows user does after installing the OS is verify legitimacy with MS, then update for an hour. The RIAA and MPAA have nothing to with that.

Rubbish. They are (unsuccessfully) attempting to protect thier own products."

If you are refering to Windows product Activation and not DRM as being applied to digital music and movie downloads as I thought the original poster was, then my bad, sorry!

"Doing so limits the functionality of the software, which was purchased fairly."

Not sure how disabling DRM in WMP limits the functionality of that software, it still lets you rip MP3's at any bitrate doesn't it? Exactly what functionality gets limited?

"That's a big Ten-Four, good buddy. I'm in the process of FLACing my more than 300 CD's. Unfortunately, one could purchase a CD and still be unfairly hampered by DRM."

I've also MP3'ed my entire 150 CD collection using WMP10. DRM on CDs is easy to bypass, just hold down left shift key when you insert CD or disable auto run.


RE: Goodbye, MS
By Heatlesssun on 6/25/2006 8:34:26 PM , Rating: 2
You sir are abosultely wrong in your statments about Windows Media Center (MCE).

Yes, it plays reatail DVD's and CD's just fine. There is a copy protection system in it that is supposed to prevent copying of recorded TV content for shows that are flag with copy protection, and that is set be the broadcaster, not Microsoft, plus is so easy to circumvent that its in no way DRM.

MCE used the SAME drivers as XP, it handles multiple monitor just fine, with the exception of a maximized window, you cant mouse over to the other monitor, but you can Alt-Tab just fine.

Please sir, I do not know where your information came from, but it is simply flawed. I use an MCE machine as my primary system, have for the last two years, and your information is simply wrong in regaurds to MCE.



RE: Goodbye, MS
By The Boston Dangler on 6/26/2006 1:54:14 AM , Rating: 2
"Yes, it plays reatail DVD's and CD's just fine. There is a copy protection system in it that is supposed to prevent copying of recorded TV content for shows that are flag with copy protection, and that is set be the broadcaster, not Microsoft, plus is so easy to circumvent that its in no way DRM.."

It certainly does not play retail DVDs. Microsoft suggests the purchase of nVidia Pureview (an additional $20 - $50). The decoder bundled with Nero 7 is also compatible. My retail copy of Nero 6 will not suffice, through no technical inability. And, yes, it plays non-DRM CDs just fine. I made no attempt to watch TV with the PC. Your reference to the broadcast flag is confusing, as it is not in place for OTA transmission. Furthermore, one might infer from your contradictory statement that the violation of a law causes the law to cease to exist.

"MCE used the SAME drivers as XP"

http://www.nvidia.com/object/winxpmce_91.31.html
http://www.nvidia.com/object/nforce_nf4_430_410_wi...

My information comes from first-hand experience with the reatail version of MCE Rollup 2. The system had a dickens of a time trying to handle my 17" LCD primary and my 43" HDTV, a task squarely in MCE's supposed forte.


same drivers
By BikeDude on 6/26/06, Rating: 0
RE: Goodbye, MS
By Griffinhart on 6/26/2006 10:12:18 AM , Rating: 2
Needing current DVD decoders (something not included in any version of windows) is not DRM. Typically they come with pre-installed systems and often with Video Boards, but this is not DRM. And MCE absolutely does play retail DVD's just fine.

And yes MCE does use the same basic drivers as XP, although some drivers have some extra stuff to work properly with the 10foot interface so they come as their own download. Usually Video Drivers. Just about every other driver is the standard XP driver. MCE is, afterall, Windows XP Pro with the Media Center stuff added in.

My information comes from first hand experience with the OEM version of MCE from building my MCE system and from all the research I did prior and since building the machine.

Also, you don't lose any functionality with WMP10 if you decide not to enable DRM other than the ability to play DRM protected content. Then again, you can't play DRM protected content on any OS without using DRM software.

This whole complaint of Vista being this DMR riddled software is just plain wrong. The only difference between Vista and XP for DRM will be the High Def Token stuff which is mandated by the industry.


RE: Goodbye, MS
By suryad on 6/25/2006 10:18:15 PM , Rating: 2
I agree...also one thing that peeves me to no end and that is when downloading a really big file, why does it download in some temporary god forsaken folder and then after downloading why does it move it from that folder to the original destination folder that I had selected for the download?! If it is a large file it takes a surprisingly long amount of time to move that sucker. Whoever came up with that should be executed publicly!


RE: Goodbye, MS
By 8steve8 on 6/26/2006 3:07:21 PM , Rating: 2
why would you ever want to use a virgin install of xp...

thats like talking about how windows 3.11 sucks...

its not current, why even mention it.

current is xp sp2 with all the service packs... and quite frankly its pretty good..

although vista is better, albeit still a bit buggy at this stage in the beta process.





zzzz
By desiplaya4life on 6/25/2006 6:14:26 PM , Rating: 1
DROP IT LIKES IT HAUTTTT! BOYA BOYA!




RE: zzzz
By MonkeyPaw on 6/25/2006 6:37:14 PM , Rating: 2
So what will happen to WinFS if it won't be patched into Vista? Do we have to wait another 5-6 years for the next Microsoft OS before we see it, or will there be a stop-gap version of Windows launched when WinFS is finally ready?


RE: zzzz
By QueBert on 6/25/2006 7:24:37 PM , Rating: 1
WinFS was the only feature I was looking foward, way to go Billy Boy! So aside from a spiced up interface (which still isn't all that) some DRM crap, and "ohh... new cursors!" What's the big deal? Vista is going to be nothing special when it comes out, the other feature I liked, the flip a window over thing Apple & Sun have done, MS completly f*cked it up. I dread the first game title launched for Vista I'll want to buy. Thankfully I don't like most games. With my luck Vista will launch and Duke Forever will come out and be Vista only *noooo!*

And why exactly are they touting "new cursors" as if people are going to run out and buy Vista for this? I envision M$ ripping off Comet Cursors, and somehow actually making it worse. wOOp wOOp for cursors.


RE: zzzz
By eomhS on 6/25/2006 9:06:03 PM , Rating: 2
halo 2 is to be released for Vista eventually, prolly not for the next years cuz its microsoft n' all


RE: zzzz
By Hare on 6/26/2006 12:44:27 AM , Rating: 2
My thoughts exactly ! WinFS was a big thing and now it's gone. Well... At least there's still the "core" Vista, which is starting to like a re-skinned XP.

By the way, which vista feature has not been seen in Mac OS X two years ago...

*silence*


RE: zzzz
By AndreasM on 6/26/2006 12:52:51 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
My thoughts exactly ! WinFS was a big thing and now it's gone. Well... At least there's still the "core" Vista, which is starting to like a re-skinned XP.

By the way, which vista feature has not been seen in Mac OS X two years ago...

*silence*


DirectX 10


RE: zzzz
By Hare on 6/26/2006 1:38:52 AM , Rating: 2
DX 10 could have been implemented to XP so it's an artificial Vista feature...


RE: zzzz
By AndreasM on 6/26/2006 1:46:48 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
DX 10 could have been implemented to XP so it's an artificial Vista feature...


Nope, DX 10 requires completely new display drivers because it support multitasking the GPU. I guess they could have ported it to XP, but it would have made about as much financial sense as Apple porting OS9 to x86. But the original question I answered to was "By the way, which vista feature has not been seen in Mac OS X two years ago...", and the answer is DX 10 (my circumspect way of saying games).


RE: zzzz
By Burning Bridges on 6/26/2006 9:53:18 AM , Rating: 2
Hmmm, I thought Vista was based on XP?

so, if it is... then it would need basically the same drivers as XP, when it runs dX 9 and then new ones for dX 10, but surely those would work just fine with XP?

correct me if I'm wrong at all.


RE: zzzz
By willow01 on 6/26/2006 10:39:36 AM , Rating: 2
The driver model has been re-written (updated) for Vista. Supposedly it will allow you to update drivers without rebooting the whole system, a crashing video driver will not take down the whole OS, the ability to restart just the video card are some of the features of the new model.


RE: zzzz
By AndreasM on 6/26/2006 10:42:51 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
so, if it is... then it would need basically the same drivers as XP, when it runs dX 9 and then new ones for dX 10, but surely those would work just fine with XP?


Yes, Vista supports legacy XP drivers as well, but in that case you're limited to a non-gpu accelerated desktop and DX 9 capabilities (i.e. Vista essentially turns into XP SP3+new theme). The new Vista drivers are different from XP drivers, and will not work on XP. When you run a DX9 game on this configuration, DX10 converts the DX9 calls from the game into DX10, there is no need for different levels of drivers. E.g. when you play a DX7 game today on XP&DX9 hardware, all the T&L stuff is actually run in shaders, even though the game doesn't even know such things exist.


RE: zzzz
By Phynaz on 6/26/2006 1:48:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
When you run a DX9 game on this configuration, DX10 converts the DX9 calls from the game into DX10


This is incorrect. Vista contains both DX9 and DX10. When a DX9 (or earlier) program is run DX9 run nativly. There isn't a translation layer in Dx10.


RE: zzzz
By AndreasM on 6/27/2006 6:29:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is incorrect. Vista contains both DX9 and DX10. When a DX9 (or earlier) program is run DX9 run nativly. There isn't a translation layer in Dx10.


All right, I was unsure about that, should probably have left it out of my post. Makes sense, making a fresh start is probably one of the reasons MS claims DX10 will be more effective and run faster.


RE: zzzz
By Burning Bridges on 6/26/2006 9:51:18 AM , Rating: 2
*ahem*

OPENGL FTW!!!1

:-)


Let Apple release it...
By INeedCache on 6/26/2006 1:26:32 AM , Rating: 2
They should release an OS for the PC. It won't go anywhere, but let them release it just to prove it. One thing we would likely see at that point, is just how unsecure their OS would be in the face of more hackers attacking it. Lots of people bitch about MS security. I'd like to see any of you do any better with so many hackers after your software. Some of you crow about how secure OSX and Linux are. I say I doubt it, it's just that they aren't significant enough to warrant a barrage like Windows gets. I think MS does a pretty good job. MS naysayers don't have to use Windows, and they should find another hobby as their whining act has grown tiresome.




RE: Let Apple release it...
By Hare on 6/26/2006 3:05:06 AM , Rating: 2
Puhleeze. There are maybe billions of system critical unix, linux and BSD systems all around the net and you can be damn sure they are more secure than windows simply because you can't mess those systems up as easily as you can mess up windows. Windows is secure if you know what you are doing. Millions of zombie windows-computers however are a good indication that windows is not safe enough.

Yeah I know. I have a Pc too and I have never had any spyware or viruses, but that's a moot point. I don't represent the majority of PC users.


RE: Let Apple release it...
By stmok on 6/26/06, Rating: 0
RE: Let Apple release it...
By Zstream on 6/26/2006 8:26:09 AM , Rating: 3
Yes the person does have a point, Microsoft products are used in abundance and always will be. The reason why Asus and Linksys use Linux is the main reason "FREE" not security. The same goes for the Navy, they can add security or other fix's without waiting for Microsoft to implement the patch. If you believe that Linux is more secure then you are just as ignorant as the Microsoft fanboi's.


RE: Let Apple release it...
By SilthDraeth on 6/26/2006 8:32:56 AM , Rating: 4
stmok "Another moron who puts his clueless 2 cents into it. *sigh*

(1) Hackers are people who break things to learn about them. They report security issues companies and open-source projects who are responsible for those products. They set up Honeypots/nets to study attacks and compromises. These are the good guys.

Crackers are the ones who break and compromise things for ego and profit. These are the bad guys.

Its sad to see that you can't tell the difference. Just goes to show, you don't have a clue."

Basically you described a white hat hacker, as well as a black hat hacker.

Cracking is synonymous with hacking. One term or the other does not necessitate, or imply any sort of moral standard.

On the other hand, claiming that you are a "white hat", or "black hat" hacker would imply that you view yourself as having moral stand on hacking/cracking. White hats generaly hack for companies etc, for finding and securing software. Black hats are not inherently evil either, they may perform the exact same roles as a white hat, but they do it for personal reasons, instead of a corporation, or they may be trying to compromise another system for whatever reason.

As for the rest of your statment, please ensure that you know the difference between fact, and opinion, espescially when ranting, and raving about someone elses opinion.

As for me, I use Windows, because, I like to buy my software, and put the CD in, and click install and it works. If it doesn't work then the software company will not recieve very many sales, and their product will fail.

I haven't tried OSX, but I have used linux, and yes I could manage to get my video card drivers working...albeit without 3D support. I could install a few different programs using tarballs, but even then it wasn't a sure fire thing. Of course linux is open source, and you have dozens of different distro's, while essentially the same, they all have different a different GUI, and often need different tarballs, because the installation procedures differ between one linux distro and another.

With Windows I can be lazy, and still be secure. And in my opinion it is superior to linux, not because its closed source, but because the programs that run on windows are required to work relatively well, or the forces of capitalism will drive consumers to purchase another product that does work.


RE: Let Apple release it...
By masher2 (blog) on 6/26/2006 9:30:19 AM , Rating: 1
> "Black hats are not inherently evil either,"

So stealing and vandalism isn't inherently evil? Those are the motivating factors in 999 out of a thousand cracking attempts.


RE: Let Apple release it...
By SilthDraeth on 6/26/2006 11:08:08 PM , Rating: 2
"So stealing and vandalism isn't inherently evil? Those are the motivating factors in 999 out of a thousand cracking attempts. "

Notice, I said "or they may be trying to compromise another system for whatever reason."

I am pretty sure that would qualify my statement as being more accurate, than saying all black hats are bad, all white hats are good.

All inclusive, in relation to human nature, and motivations behind actions, almost always turn out to be false.

Noted that you did say 999/1000, which having no way to actually prove your statement, and avoiding using an all inclusive, all you did was agree with my by trying to disagree.

Thank you for the support.


RE: Let Apple release it...
By INeedCache on 6/26/2006 9:30:28 AM , Rating: 3
Moron, huh. Just another one of those clueless name-callers. I don't know enough about you to call you a moron, but you are smug, pompous, hypocritical, and childish. Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition, defines hacker as "a person who illegally gains access to and sometimes tampers with information in a computer system." So go play semantics somewhere else. I have used OSX and Linux before, and still presently use Linux. How uninformed you are, not to mention presumptuous. How many security updates to Firefox since its popularity increased? Lame and cliched better describes you. As for ranting and raving with my uninformed opinions, isn't that what you just did? Hypocritical comes to mind. You want to come off as so intelligent, yet you start off by calling me a moron. I believe childish about gets that one. Why would you suppose anyone would have any respect for your uninformed opinions? Why don't you actually think about what your writing before sending it off. For every entity using Linux, I can find at least 50 using Windows-based servers. You can, too, just check the web. But I guess they are just morons, too. Get a hobby.


RE: Let Apple release it...
By TomZ on 6/26/2006 12:57:48 PM , Rating: 3
There is a small, but vocal group that likes "all things non-Microsoft." While I can accept the views of that group, I do not agree with it.

People make a false argument that Microsoft broke the law and forced us to all buy Windows. That is pure bullshit. We all choose to buy Windows (unless it was purchased for you by your employer, in such case, your employer make the decision). The reason Windows has 95% of desktop market share is that people like it and choose to run it. Why is that? Because the majority of devices and apps run on Windows.

Finally, the argument that Linux and OSX is more secure is stupid and moot. The point is not whether Linux and OSX are more secure (although I believe they are not). The point is that the vast majority of users do not just want "any" more secure OS - they want a more secure Windows. Do you understand that?

So do your viral marketing thing and keep telling us how great Linux and OSX are, but it will continue to fall on deaf ears for those of us who well-informed users that are satisfied with Windows.


RE: Let Apple release it...
By GreenEnvt on 6/26/2006 10:17:49 AM , Rating: 2
To a point I agree.
OSX is a more secure OS then WinXP, but it's not as rock solid as people would have you believe, nor is linux.

If you were writing a virus either just for fame or for profit (stealing bank info, etc), would you be trying to write it for the OS 90% of the planet uses, or 10%?

Thats a no brainer. Part of the reason Windows has so many more virus', exploits, and malware in general is because there are so many more people using it. This not only makes it a more tempting target for those writing the exploits, but it also ensures more people know how to write the exploits in the first place.


RE: Let Apple release it...
By Hare on 6/26/2006 1:51:47 PM , Rating: 2
But as a consumer looking at the situation today. What Os gives you the most care-free/easy run...


About time
By ForumMaster on 6/25/2006 4:17:48 PM , Rating: 4
why can't Vista patch itself? not like anybody was actually expecting WinFS. and such a change to how everything is stored will take a lot of time for ppl to adapt. about the mouse cusors, who gives? is thereanybody who uses anything but the default cursor?




RE: About time
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 6/25/2006 4:18:46 PM , Rating: 2
I happen to use 3D White :-)


RE: About time
By kibets on 6/25/2006 4:37:46 PM , Rating: 2
I was thinking of letting MS know it is about time we get a really nice hourglass for Vista. We've all stared at the same white one for the last decade or longer.

I've been using Vista Beta 2 for several days and LOVE it! It is so pretty too. It actually fixed some driver issues I had with XP.


RE: About time
By Quasmo on 6/25/2006 8:15:32 PM , Rating: 2
how about a spinning pinwheel of death?


RE: About time
By Burning Bridges on 6/26/2006 9:39:56 AM , Rating: 2
<3


RE: About time
By DEMO24 on 6/26/2006 11:35:28 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I've been using Vista Beta 2 for several days and LOVE it! It is so pretty too. It actually fixed some driver issues I had with XP.


well your about one in a million. I've been useing it for weeks and it sucks. There is no reason right now to bother upgrading from XP. Time for me to go back to Linux, Vista is just too annoying.


the real problems
By mforce on 6/25/2006 9:20:32 PM , Rating: 1
I know this is a thread about WinFS being dropped and while WinFS could have been nice I don't see the big deal . An indexing program ( Beagle in Linux ) cand do the job of WinFS quite nicely while keeping with the much faster ( for the PC ) directory and folder structure .
There are real problems concerning Windows and we'll have to see how those are fixed .
I know plenty of people with no or little PC experience . I often hear them complaining that their PC is a piece of junk . Why ? Well because of Windows XP . It's the kind of OS that mess up everything on your PC if you don't have too much experience . It can get jammed up if you install too much ( and you can install anything ) .
You need tons of programs just to keep it running . Antispam , firewall , antivirus , registry cleaner .... and the list could go on .
I don't have anything against Windows but it gives people serious problems and that's what MS should fix not put a new GUI and use more resources .




RE: the real problems
By IamKindaHungry on 6/25/2006 10:49:09 PM , Rating: 3
Hmmm...

quote:
I know plenty of people with no or little PC experience . I often hear them complaining that their PC is a piece of junk .


Did you ever stop and think that their complaints might be due to the fact that they have little or no PC experience?

quote:
Why ? Well because of Windows XP . It's the kind of OS that mess up everything on your PC if you don't have too much experience . It can get jammed up if you install too much ( and you can install anything ) .


Gosh, I hope this doesnt mean that I'm old, but I remember the good ole' days of Win98. Great OS, crashed on install, crashed on boot up, crashed when installing programs, crashed if left on too long, crashed on shutdown. However, it was fast and had the largest software library at the time. Fast forward to win2k (no need to mention winME), a vast improvement in terms of stability but software compatibility was less than desirable. Then comes XP(pre sp2) which offers the best of both worlds (still cant run System Shock 2 though), stability and compatibility though most would say at the risk of security. Once again MS answered the bell with sp2 which is leaps and bounds above the launch release in almost every aspect. Yet somehow no matter how much the OS improves people find reasons to be critical without acknowledging the improvements.

quote:
You need tons of programs just to keep it running . Antispam , firewall , antivirus , registry cleaner .... and the list could go on .


Well, lets see now...I dont believe any of those (especially a registry cleaner) is required to keep it running. A firewall and antivirus are good tools to have and could probably be deemed necessary if you surf alot but neither is required by the OS to run. I believe you mean antispyware instead of antispam. Once again if you surf alot I would install some type of antispyware solution (i stopped most of my spyware infestations in 1 easy step, I switched to firefox.

All in all I like XP and while i'm not crazy about Vista to this point, history would imply that it will be an improvement over the current OS


RE: the real problems
By Aquila76 on 6/26/2006 7:06:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
All in all I like XP and while i'm not crazy about Vista to this point, history would imply that it will be an improvement over the current OS.


Or it could be a Windows ME, or a Windows 95/95A/95B multi-release feature fiasco. It sounds more and more like Windows ME: not much changed in the core (except more requent crashes), but it's got a prettier interface.


RE: the real problems
By bobsmith1492 on 6/25/2006 11:37:20 PM , Rating: 2
I don't have any antispam, antivirus, or registry cleaner programs and I haven't reformatted for almost two years (firewall is on, of course... oh no!!)


RE: the real problems
By bobsmith1492 on 6/25/2006 11:38:07 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, AND I've never had any problems with spyware, viruses, or the registry.


RE: the real problems
By QueBert on 6/26/2006 3:30:23 AM , Rating: 1
you know a lot of spyware, and even trojens/viruses don't noticably effect how your system runs. Just because you don't have problems (reboots, lock ups, etc etc etc...) doesn't mean your system doesn't have any infestations. You might have a buttload of spyware, just low level stuff. I personally would NEVER use a MS OS without full protection. And I'm anal about not going to sites I'm not sure about.

Vista is going to end up being nothing special, and a majority of the people who upgrade from XP, will do it because of DX10 and some games that require Vista. They might as well market it as a gamers OS and quit trying to act like it's going to even be an evolution of XP. And Kudos for all the features they borrowed from Apple and did a piss poor job of implimenting. Yes this is just a "beta" but the final version, aside from being more stable, is gonna be more of the same (IE: nothing new, nothing special)

they should have the first Vista commerial should have Officer Barbrady from South Park saying "nothing to see here people, move along..."


RE: the real problems
By mforce on 6/26/2006 8:01:09 AM , Rating: 2
I knew some people would not understand . I know Windows XP is much improved over Win 98 and yes I know you can keep it perfectly safe . Mine is doing just fine too . But it's just too easy to mess up for people that don't have any PC experience which is after all a large part of the Windows users .
Stop living in your perfect world of people who know PCs and stuff there are plenty of people out there that don't and MS should consider them and protect them .
That's all . This is not Windows bashing , Linux is better(although it works just fine for me ) .


By techhappy on 6/25/2006 7:48:19 PM , Rating: 1
If Microsoft keeps dropping features from Vista, maybe it's time for Apple to drop kick them by releasing a Mac OS for PC. The fact that Vista has become nothing more than a lazy developer's response to PC maker's pushing for a new OS is a sad thing.

I mean, what are we going to get except for a few cheesy widgets, a fancier looking interface and a few other crude enhancements? It's like Microsoft wants to de-evolve their own progress, Vista will be a long way off from a Mac OS and nothing more than a repackaged Win XP pro. I was really hoping for a complete overhaul.

I really hope Microsoft can prove that Vista is worth the upgrade. What will it take for Microsoft to stop sulking and give us all the features we were originally promised? Oh yeah, I know, a couple more half-baked versions of Windows and a lot of your money, time and headaches for future upgrades...

I think I'll stick with WinXP, until they get their act together.




By MonkeyPaw on 6/25/2006 8:02:47 PM , Rating: 2
Well, I hope Vista is a big security improvement, because I think MS has been spending a lot of resources patching WinXP. If Vista can get them out from behind the 8-ball, then maybe the next version of Windows will deliver on more promises and arrive much sooner. I know that sounds optimistic, but every little bit helps.

As for OSX, as much as I love it, it's a totally different beast than Windows. OSX is on an 18 month upgrade schedule, and this sounds great until you realize that Apple wants $129 every 18 months to go with it. That's a pretty costly upgrade schedule, and one that perhaps has questionable value for the extra features). When you compare Apple's approach to the MS model, Vista doesn't look as bad. However, it does seem as though Vista is just catching up to OSX Tiger's current feature set, with very few new ideas added. We'll see what Leopard brings in this respect.


By Heatlesssun on 6/25/2006 8:41:51 PM , Rating: 2
For know the desktop war is over. Sure OSX has advantages over Windows, except in the key area. Applications and support!

We can debate how many OSX apps there are. Sure there are plenty. But when you buy that video card, or that digital camera, or the new hot game comes out, or great innovative apps like Orb come out, guess what platform is a given to be supported, with the greatest number of users and support and mind share.

Its going to be Windows. The OS in and of itself is almost irrelavent. Its all those tens of thousands of applications that make the OS of use.

If I could get the same applications for the same price and support level that Windows has, I would'nt care is it was a Mac, I'd get one.

But until that day comes, its OSX is simply a nice OSX. Not something I really need.


By jamesbond007 on 6/25/2006 9:09:58 PM , Rating: 2
Why do you need all of the software titles if the one or two titles on the Mac do everything you need to do, in a simple, easy manner?


By Burning Bridges on 6/26/2006 9:55:59 AM , Rating: 2
Do you like to run iLife on your PC?


By Hare on 6/26/2006 1:49:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
As for OSX, as much as I love it, it's a totally different beast than Windows. OSX is on an 18 month upgrade schedule, and this sounds great until you realize that Apple wants $129 every 18 months to go with it. That's a pretty costly upgrade schedule, and one that perhaps has questionable value for the extra features). When you compare Apple's approach to the MS model, Vista doesn't look as bad.
Dispite the fact that Apple seems to add more features to each release (18months) than microsoft in 5 years. Spotlight, widgets, expose! rendezvous/bonjour-networking, filevault encryption etc not to mention the upgrades to the apps that come with the OS. I think it's sad to look at Vista and think that this is what you get after waiting 5 years for a new Windows. I think Vista SP1 will be decent but the Vista that will be released Q1/2007 is, well, just sad when you compare it to OS X.


WinFS thoughts....
By ncage on 6/26/2006 12:20:25 PM , Rating: 2
I have been following WinFS from the start. I have used Beta 1 in VS 2005 and did some code off of it. It was pretty damm cool. Its a shame they are getting ride of it. I read the blog and the author pretty much seems to be alluding to they just couldn't get it right or they had to many problems implementing it. He states that they will integrate some of what they learned into the next version of sql server which i find hard to believe since thing about what winFS does and think about what sql server does. They are really totally seperate. Then he goes on to say it will be into next version of visual studio (orcas) with the next revision of ADO.Net which i find kind of hard to believe too. So only programs coded with visual studio .net will be able to use WinFS features? So i think what we are saying is they really couldn't get it working 100% and they are scraping the project. They don't want to spend no more time or money on it.

ncage




RE: WinFS thoughts....
By TomZ on 6/26/2006 12:38:17 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, and I think the argument of putting the capability into SQL Server is kind of bogus. I would like to see SQL Server still as a server-side application, and if I want some light object relational capabilities in my client-side application, I'd prefer that the OS have that built-in rather than having to deploy an SQL Server runtime that loads on my customer's workstation.


RE: WinFS thoughts....
By Phynaz on 6/26/2006 1:57:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
He states that they will integrate some of what they learned into the next version of sql server which i find hard to believe since thing about what winFS does and think about what sql server does


They're both databases, therefore they do the same thing. WinFS was supposed to turn the file system into a SQL Server database.


RE: WinFS thoughts....
By ncage on 6/26/2006 10:49:52 PM , Rating: 2
Well yes they are both databases but WinFS was just basically using the SQL Server engine to store all kinds of information about files and pretty much index them. So what use do you think this has for sql server? Index the log file? Index your data file. Probably not so i can't see a correlation here.


Behind OSX??
By AT39 on 6/26/2006 12:41:04 AM , Rating: 2
The only reason that MS is behind OSX visually is because Apple stole the original "Aero Glass" idea from Microsoft when they were first showing off Vista (then Longhorn) to the public in 2003. When did the nice graphics start showing up in Apple's OS? The only reason Apple deliverend the new shiny GUI is because there are only about 10 different hardware configurations they have to deal with. Microsoft has hundreds of thousands.

Security? Don't get me started. The only reason Windows has security problems is because [i]it is the most popular target[/i]. Not because it is more vulnerable. Look at OSX, look at how many more security patches there are now that it is getting to be more popular. Same with Firefox.

And for teh gaming community, this next OS will be a huge boon. This is the operating system that will revitalize the PC industry, like it or not, it is.




RE: Behind OSX??
By Hare on 6/26/2006 12:46:41 AM , Rating: 1
You are ridiculous. Check the release date for Mac OS X (march 2001). The interface has barely changed from day 1. Besides who cares about crappy visuals. It's an OS not a game. Performance, usability and productivity are the keywords here and Apple has had "Vista" features about two years and wait till Jaguar comes out.


RE: Behind OSX??
By Hare on 6/26/2006 12:47:34 AM , Rating: 2
Eh, Leopard... We need an edit-button.


RE: Behind OSX??
By QueBert on 6/26/2006 3:35:49 AM , Rating: 2
umm "crappy visuals" will be one of the only selling points for Vista. By launch pretty much all the advanced stuff MS was going to impliment won't be there. A lot of idiots will drool over a flashy UI and go "ohhh I must upgrades so I can have animated cursors, and a piss poor rip off of the OSX window flip thing" (I don't know what that sh!t is called) I dread the first game that comes out I want that'll require DX10.


No folders?
By Randalllind on 6/26/2006 8:17:59 AM , Rating: 2
then what the point of Windows Explorer. Plus I like my MP3 drive folders in Thumbnail view. Search is a very important key I use it sometimes when I caan't find a file in a folder it should be but doing away with folders I don't think so.




RE: No folders?
By TomZ on 6/26/2006 12:36:10 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think you get it. Explorer and folders are based on a single containment hierarchy. That means a file can only exist in one place, and if you use folders to organize your files, then you are choosing an organization system that allows for only single, static set of search criteria.

MP3 files are a good example. Suppose you decide to organize your MP3s, and you decide to organize your folders by artist at the top folder level and album at the second folder level. Now if you want to find something, you choose by artist then album/CD. But now what if you want to find all your Jazz MP3s? Or all CDs released in 2004? WinFS has that query capability all built in.

In addition, WinFS allows for inter-object associations. For example, suppose you JPGs for the album art for all your MP3s. With WinFS, you could create an association between an MP3 file and the JPG file.

This is just an example - think about all the other possibilities when you think about files as objects with queryable properties and ability to create relationships between them.


RE: No folders?
By Randalllind on 6/26/2006 10:05:21 PM , Rating: 2
I was thinking of Gmail in windows explorer to me that would be a mess files all over and to find something you need to use search.


When can we get this?
By desiplaya4life on 6/25/2006 5:10:06 PM , Rating: 2
sooo will microsoft release the new build on their website or we'll have to look for torrents?




RE: When can we get this?
By Hare on 6/26/2006 12:38:19 AM , Rating: 3
This is not a public beta. This is a developer release.


winfs
By sprockkets on 6/25/2006 5:08:40 PM , Rating: 1
Well, in a way, the only way you know where stuff is is by searching? Not sure if that is what I want. No folders at all?
How would that work for the system files?

Again, it would be fast for checking and such, so all for it, but just seems weird.




RE: winfs
By Martin Blank on 6/25/2006 6:20:20 PM , Rating: 2
GMail has no folders, either, and yet there's an organizational structure there. It would work just like a normal database.


teh suk
By bob661 on 6/26/2006 12:35:04 AM , Rating: 2
This news sucks. I was really looking forward to the new file system.




The problem with Windows security
By Targon on 6/26/2006 8:46:45 AM , Rating: 2
The real problem with security in MS Windows has been that too many features are turned on by default with NO chance to let the user choose what features they want or don't want. Have an advanced setup/configuration option if you want to avoid confusing the normal end-users.

All services should start as manual, not automatic. When an application gets installed, let it take a moment to start up needed services(with an option to do it at start-up). This would also reduce the footprint of the OS for gamers and others so that only NECESSARY services needed for what is currently(or frequently) running get loaded into memory.

When I play games, I go through and turn off a LOT of services on my machine that I'm not even sure are necessary for what I do. EVERY service should be manual and be turned on as needed. If that were the case, many security problems wouldn't be there since the code the security holes are in would never be enabled in the first place.

We need a MINIMAL MS Windows where we can choose which features we want, and at the same time leave all the bloat turned off until it's needed, but setting all services to manual from automatic would probably break a lot of things that I use because they assume that some services are running all the time, even when not being used.





By Griswold on 6/25/2006 5:33:21 PM , Rating: 1
UAC is now called UAP so people wont turn it off right away? Smart move, MS. :P

On a second thought, User Access Protection sounds kindlier than User Access Control indeed.




"You can bet that Sony built a long-term business plan about being successful in Japan and that business plan is crumbling." -- Peter Moore, 24 hours before his Microsoft resignation

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki