backtop


Print 56 comment(s) - last by bpurkapi.. on May 8 at 10:34 PM

Firewire-B early adopters will have to wait

The EETimes reports that Microsoft Windows Vista will not support IEEE-1394b, also known as Firewire-B, at launch.  The EETimes claims a Microsoft representative attending a recent 1394b trade meeting announced that Vista wouldn’t support the standard at launch but would include support in a later service pack. A time frame for a Vista service pack is unknown, but judging from previous service pack releases it could take up to six months to a year to materialize.

1394b is the backwards compatible successor to 1394a and will feature a theoretical maximum speed of 3.2Gbit/s to or from a single device. 1394 is a popular standard for external hard-drives and is featured on most new digital camcorders.  The standard was announced in 2001, but still has not made its way into the mainstream.

Windows Vista has been plagued with dropped features and delays and may be facing another 3 month delay according to some analysts. This is yet another blow for the software giant as both Mac OS X and Linux support 1394b already. A new build of Vista, 5381, was just released to MSDN testers this weekend.




Comments     Threshold


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

*le sigh*
By Ralph The Magician on 5/7/2006 8:38:00 PM , Rating: 1
You know, before Vista was Vista, back when it was still known as Longhorn there was actually something to look forward to. Eventually Vista is going to release in mid-'07 and be nothing more than Windows XP with some neat desktop effects and window transparency. Well, if you have an ATI card you can already get window transparency. So, basically, Windows XP with...with what? A new graphic on the Start Menu?

What's LEFT in Vista that still makes it "Vista"?




RE: *le sigh*
By Sahrin on 5/7/06, Rating: 0
RE: *le sigh*
By Ralph The Magician on 5/7/2006 9:06:42 PM , Rating: 1
How is that ignorant? I'm genuinely asking, aside from the new 3D interface, what's left in Windows Vista? All of the "big parts" are being left out.

We've lost WinFS, Monad, and support for EFI (among other things). The first two were going to be what was going to set Windows Longhorn apart.

Instead we are get things like fancy desktop effects, RSS feeds and tabbed browsing in IE, and ActiveX turned off by default. That isn't exactly revolutionary. You could just download Firefox.

The rest is stuff we already have, just renamed. Windows Firewall, Windows Defender (MS AntiSpyware), Windows Mail(Outlook Express), Microsoft Update (Windows Update), Windows SlideShow (Windows Picture and Fax Viewer), Windows DVD Maker(Windows Movie Maker), Windows Collaboration (NetMeeting).

The only things that I actually see as genuinely new are Windows Calendar, and the new User-Level Account Controls (assuming they work, which is still up in the air). I mean, the update to NetMeeting is nice, but is a new NetMeeting and a built-in calendar what we now call a new OS?

And while I didn't say anything about OS X, OS X actually puts out new features with each release. The original release of OS X was actually pretty barebones shitty from what I've heard, but we aren't talking about OS X.

Seems like Windows Vista is actually going to end up being QUITE SIMILAR to OS X. Nothing but shit in the first release, and you'll have to wait for service packs and updates before anything worth it gets added.


RE: *le sigh*
By joust on 5/7/2006 9:53:20 PM , Rating: 2
I think you're focusing too much on what is not in vista as opposed to what will be in Vista. Closing your eyes and refusing to look makes you ignorant and bigoted.

For your convenience, I here's a link to an essay entitled "Why Windows Vista Won't Suck" http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1931945...

The article points out features that will make it into vista. I personally suspect Vista will not be totally mind-blowing. This may be a good thing - despite some people's stubborn insistence to the contrary, Windows XP does have many advantages that most people have taken for granted. (A debate over the merits of WinXP can be had some other time)

MS has tried messing around with the way people handle files. "Virtual Folders" was eventually dumbed down the "saved searches." Why would MS do that? Maybe because people aren't so willing as you think to change the way they interact with their computer.

A good OS upgrade will avoid requiring users to relearn everything. If you're looking for a brand new way to do everything, you'll be disappointed. If you're looking for an improved, streamlined, and safer way to do things in the windows world, you'll be happy.

Yes, many major features have been dropped, such as WinFS, Monad, etc. Have you used Monad yet? No? Thought so. The beta available for download for Windows XP. If you loved the idea of a new shell so much, why don't you download it?

Of course, everyone began wildly speculating that Monad would open everyone up to new vulnerabilities. Either way, MS cannot win.

I am interested most in DirectX 10 and the media center functionality. Better gaming, woohoo!

I'm not a microsoft or apple fanboy. I am just sick of all the crap being flung unreasonably at Vista.


RE: *le sigh*
By Sahrin on 5/7/2006 9:57:14 PM , Rating: 1
What exactly is it that you think an OS is? Do you even know? An OS is not a feature set. It is an operating system, it is the layer between applications and hardware. It is an entirely new API set (.NET framework), entirely new graphics interface (WGF 2.0) and entirely new kernel. The other stuff is just crap, and as you yourself pointed out, the vast majority of the functions that aren't "new" can be gotten for free on the 'net (usually BETTER than the MS implementations). You expect improvements and enhancements you can see. How about half the boot time? How about better compatibility and stability on the most widely ranged installed hardware base of any kind anywhere? You calling for MS to have "features" at its OS release is like someone calling for a new game to have mods available three months before release. It's ridiculous, the OS is a layer for developers primarily. It's the way that applications are implemented. Not all companies need to be like Apple and develop every piece of software in-house.

As far as "big parts" being left out, the only "big part" that got cut was WinFS, and that was a cut announced a year and a half ago.

I'm not by any means an MS fanboy, but don't blow shots across the bow unless you actually have valid criticisms. Saying that MS doesn't have a Centipede Solitaire and Super-Expert Minesweeper for Vista is not a valid criticism. Saying that the Kernel is fundamentally flawed is, but I personally am not qualified to evaluate that, and I am not certain that you are, either.


RE: *le sigh*
By joust on 5/7/2006 10:05:15 PM , Rating: 2
amen.


RE: *le sigh*
By Ralph The Magician on 5/7/2006 10:55:05 PM , Rating: 1
Touche, salesman. Touche.


RE: *le sigh*
By nfin1ty on 5/8/2006 1:43:32 AM , Rating: 2
entirely new kernel? i think not! it's been rewritten but it's definitely not new. it's based mostly off of the NT kernel if i remember correctly (heard the kernel developers for Vista talking about the changes).. sure it's been massively overhauled but it's nowhere near an entirely new kernel which would imply a complete rewrite.

I agree with you mostly but not wholly, due to the fact that you are saying that the OS shouldn't be required to come with this and that feature. However logical that statement is for an OS, it's imprudent to say that he has invalid criticisms when he is only criticizing what Microsoft announced as the major featureset of the then Longhorn OS. I mean it'd be imprudent to justify requiring a whole bunch of things that us as consumers just think of on a whim and say, "bah! they didn't put that feature in there".. but it was Microsoft who said those features would be in there and it was Microsoft who couldn't maintain even a tidbit of organization in their core Windows development division. So no, it's not ridiculous to have people whining about some of the distinctive changes to the next version of Windows being entirely ommitted because Microsoft announced those features as being part of the innovation that consumers should expect with each sequential release. No, the features aren't everything, because the underlying architectures that tie the entirety of the OS together are first and foremost the necessity, but no one likes broken promises.


RE: *le sigh*
By Spoonbender on 5/8/2006 7:53:53 AM , Rating: 2
Funny you should bring up compatibility in a thrad about it's *lack* of support for a technology. And in reply to a comment which among other things mentioned *lack* of support for EFI.

These are the kinds of thing that I find discouraging. I don't care that they rip fancy new software out (I wish they'd do the same with Media Player, IE and a dozen other "features". But when they cut support for new technologies, I think something is wrong. I dont want another "You need a floppy to install XP on SATA drives"-farce.

At the very minimum, I'd expect Vista to be able to install on new computers featuring the newest hardware and standards.


RE: *le sigh*
By Sahrin on 5/8/2006 10:47:34 AM , Rating: 2
*sigh*

Let me just say this before I get to the rest of your comment:

Drivers were NOT necessary to install an SATA drive in Windows XP. They MAY have been required if if the RAID controller was improperly recognized by BIOS, but SATA is software compatible with PATA (to the OS they look exactly the same, that's why you can install an OS on an SATA drive that is the only drive in the system no problem).

Continuing. EFI is a standard that has not been implemented - *AT ALL* - in the PC world. Not, there had to be a sloppy hack written for ABC tech's super mobo with EFI. There is no PC's in the retail market with EFI. This isn't like FirewireB, because shockingly enough there may be a few individuals with a unsupported hardware. There are no EFI devices in the PC world. Why should Microsoft support an entirely new technology when no doubt every single one of their major vendors (in order: Dell, HP, Lenovo) are undoubtedly clamoring for support NOT to occur, not to mention the cost of implementing a completely untested technology in an entirely redesigned OS. Why make something needlessly complex?

As far as the compatibility shot, FirewireB is a technology that hasn'e entered the market in any meaningful way, and EFI doesn't exist in the PC world. I don't really expect Microsoft to include support for AMD's 2024 processor release either, but I suppose I'm just not envisaging wide enough usage of microsoft's billions of dollars and thousands of engineers.


RE: *le sigh*
By tjr508 on 5/8/2006 4:25:05 PM , Rating: 2
exactly. only some mobos required a floppy for xp and this was only for third party controllers that usually contained raid functions and needed even a single HD to be set up in an array. The most common example is the via k8t800. nvidia boards worked w/o the floppy if raid was disabled.


AS for the whole Vista debate, I think it is kind of lame of MS to invent reasons for upgrading like "we're not going to incorperate dx10 for XP." It is a real double standard. If Vista is so great then MS should charge $500 for it and $30 for XP and see how many copies they sell.


RE: *le sigh*
By dgingeri on 5/8/2006 4:28:20 PM , Rating: 2
dunno about you, but I had to supply a disk for XP to see my SATA drive when it was not raided on my last chipset, VIA's K8T800pro. Sure, nVidia's and ATI's current chipsets don't need drivers, but that's not true of all of them.


RE: *le sigh*
By Panurge on 5/7/2006 10:21:25 PM , Rating: 2
There is a lot of reasons to move up to Vista, most of which are pretty transparent to the common consumer-based user.

For example, there's a lot more built in security control for an enterprise to place on all users. This is much more fine-grained, and may allow for some actions to occur that couldn't in XP (due to one thing being placed under a security setting that was too broad).

Security is the big focus this time around. The kernel is being rebuilt, a huge undertaking, and security is a big focus. Drivers will no longer run in kernel mode, but will instead run in user mode. While this means some drivers may perform worse than before, in general it means less hard crashes and less compatibility issues between drivers.

User Access Control (UAC) is another big feature, though nothing new to the OS world at large. Assuming that they can get it done right (current builds seem to ask for permissions far too often), it's great for the common user. Programs will much less likely be able to install themselves in the background.

The IE changes are bigger than you make out, too. The system has been changed so that no IE-based code can make changes to the registry or any files outside of the safe temporary zone of files. This means that IE based attacks are much more difficult, though I won't go so far as to call them impossible.

In short, there are more reasons than most people like to admit that make Vista "worth it." The big things that have been dropped and are really important (WinFS and MONAD) can be added later. The others (like Virtual folders) aren't that important, and were dropped for what is probably good reason.


RE: *le sigh*
By Zoomer on 5/8/2006 4:30:14 AM , Rating: 2
Not to mention more DRM. Want to record a small audio clip of something? Sorry, that's stealing, and therfore not allowed. Fair use can go stuff itself.


RE: *le sigh*
By apesoccer on 5/8/2006 2:59:40 PM , Rating: 1
rable rable rable rable!!!!


RE: *le sigh*
By Ralph The Magician on 5/7/2006 9:09:19 PM , Rating: 1
And at least with OS X you get iLife. That's easily worth $150.


RE: *le sigh*
By neba on 5/7/2006 10:59:22 PM , Rating: 2
The latest issue of Maximum PC says Vista is somewhat disappointing; & surely as I trust their views I sorta agree. "Disappointing" shouldn't be used in the same sentence when describing a (how many years?) 7-year project by the world's most powerfull software firm. Now I'm all for the 64-bit OS, better security, and overall better functionality. But goshdammit, I was expecting greater things and again, better reviews of the latest beta. C'mon MS! An OS meant to last 10 years should practically BLOW us consumers and professionals away!


RE: *le sigh*
By Wwhat on 5/7/2006 9:29:18 PM , Rating: 2
I guess that's why dx10 is vista only, you HAVE to sell it somehow.
Of course it has other new stuff under the hood, but nothing too interesting for the average consumer I think.

and Ralph The Magician, you don't need ati for desktop transpancy in xp, any graphics system supports that, even intel onboard with public domain utilities, or even with nvidia's nview if you prefer and have a nvidia card.

Although I must point out that in XP transparancy uses overlay, and alas AFAIK all graphicscards still only support 1 layer of that per display, so transparancy won't work at the same time as playing a video for instance.
I assume vista uses a different system like VMR9 does with video? else it will be very limited.


RE: *le sigh*
By captchaos2 on 5/8/2006 12:25:48 AM , Rating: 2
Why is everyone so worried about this? People aren't going to "upgrade" to Vista in a hurry. For the past 5 years we've grown a whole generation of home-networked broadband-internet users who only know Win XP, and they won't change to some other OS if they don't have to. When Win 95 was released, I still used Dos 6.2 until 1997 and I know I wasn't the only one. I didn't buy Win 98 until after Win 98SE was released. I kept using Win 98SE until I finally felt I had to upgrade to Win XP in 2004. When I have something that works, I don't rush out to get the latest OS so I can beta test it for M$. Just ask anyone who bought Win ME if they think its cool to run out and buy the latest thing from M$. No, they can delay Vista for as long as they want, I'll be using my Win XP until well into 2008.


RE: *le sigh*
By lethalchronic on 5/8/2006 10:20:43 AM , Rating: 2
I really don't care what is in Vista as long as it is some kind of improvement. That may sound ignorant or lazy or whatever but that's my view. There is that fact that I'm a MSDN subscriber and thus get any MS software for free, and the MSDN subscription is free for me too. Anyway i just want something, i really do feel for you guys paying +200 for windows though, and for non-volume edition, that's gotta suck. May M$ do something right for once on your behalf. P.S. I really did want WinFS Though :(


Dropped Feature = exagerration.
By Sahrin on 5/7/2006 8:40:51 PM , Rating: 2
This isn't so much as a dropped feature as it is a "let's not delay the OS to include support for the high-tech shaders in Duke Nukem Forever." I'm not saying it's not a great thing, but when you're trying to get a product to launch, there's three categories of things to be worked on: Necessary for Release, Core Features, and It'd be Nice to Have This. 1394b falls into the latter category.




RE: Dropped Feature = exagerration.
By Wwhat on 5/7/2006 9:31:46 PM , Rating: 2
Yes you can't expect a company with billions of dollars and thousands of software engineers to add support for 1394b when they only had 5 freaking years the time to add it can you? that would be silly of us.


RE: Dropped Feature = exagerration.
By Sahrin on 5/7/2006 9:51:27 PM , Rating: 5
Spoken like a person who has never been a part of any project, anywhere, ever. The scope of work involved in writing an OS from scratch that is out-of-the-box expected (DEMANDED) by consumers to be compatible with every permutation of hardware available is nearly unimaginable. Frankly, I'm shocked that MS gets it done in anything less than twenty years. It takes Apple 3-5 years to turn out OS updates, and that's for a hardware set and userbase that they control like the KGB.


RE: Dropped Feature = exagerration.
By joust on 5/7/2006 10:03:09 PM , Rating: 3
Precisely why WinXP is an excellent OS.

What bit MS in the ass was security. The combination of an onslaught of newbie users (thanks to the introduction of decent sub $1,000 desktops 6 or so years ago), IE, and some poorly thought out network features meant security sucked.

I can't blame them, though, WinXP was probably being designed in '99, '00. Back then dialup was all the rage.


RE: Dropped Feature = exagerration.
By Wwhat on 5/8/2006 10:52:07 AM , Rating: 2
haha, you must be an microsoft employee, or a civil servant, either way your nonsense only convinces yourself.


I don't care
By Scrogneugneu on 5/8/2006 12:36:12 AM , Rating: 2
What makes WinXP a good OS?

1 - I never find myself saying "Crap, Windows is fucked up again, a reboot should fix it"

2 - I do not have to wonder if my hardware is supported : it is.

3 - I've almost forgot what BSOD meant.

4 - I know that my installation won't go crazy and require a format, making my information lost.

5 - With the right use, I know it won't get corrupted by spyware or viruses, since I know every last bit of it.

What does Microsoft needs Vista to be like? Everything XP is, and then some more. Making a new OS from the ground up to be at least with those points is an huge task. Microsoft has what it needs to do it, and they took their time.

First they developped a whole new platform, the .NET platform. Along with it, they devised a new language, C#. Then they built up a new OS with C#, making as sure as possible that it would be stable and secure. Then, they integrate more features.

If Vista was really going to have all the features originally defined, it wouldn't be out until 2010. Creating the features (quite central features), testing them, converting every bit of code logic to work with a new system... this takes a lot of time. As the final release date approaches, more and more features get cut, simply because they are weigthed against the overall stability of the product.


If Vista gets out with no new features and infinite compatibility, people will complain (as always) but understand : it's a new OS, after all. With time, the features can be added. However, if Vista gets out with a lot of features, but crashes every 3 hours, people will complain. Why on earth would you switch from a very capable and stable system to a new system that isn't even working properly?


Microsoft is making the right decisions. So long as Vista really IS stable when it gets out. If it isn't, then, they really invested a huge amount of money into a project that won't make a good first impression...




RE: I don't care
By Viper007Bond on 5/8/2006 1:33:23 AM , Rating: 2
Re 1 & 3:

You should meet my PC. I format like every six months and yet I still get BSODs randomly from time to time, often when I'm not even using the PC (I'll wake up to a BSOD).

Explorer crashes too for me, but way more rarely. And you're right, you don't have to reboot, but I miss all my tray icons, so...


RE: I don't care
By joust on 5/8/2006 2:35:48 AM , Rating: 2
That definitely sucks, I do feel for you. Sounds like a hardware issue. (Check your RAM, mobo, and drivers).

Notice: a computer is an extremely complicated piece of equipment. It has many components. The components need to interact with one another flawlessly. If they don't, the programs and OS running on the system will fail to run properly.

People often blame Microsoft because hardware problems manifest themselves in terms of BSODs and Windows not functioning properly. Most instances of Windows acting unstable that I have seen relate back to a hardware problem. (and if not hardware, then malware).

Sometimes the hardware is running fine, but the vendor wrote crappy drivers. MS has a program called WHQL certification whereby manufacturers get their drivers tested. The sad thing is that MS cannot (due to inter-corporate politics and the philosophy behind windows) completely force manufacturers to certify and fully test their drivers.

If you really want systems to be stable, start blaming the hardware people.


RE: I don't care
By redbone75 on 5/8/2006 4:37:01 AM , Rating: 2
That most definitely (notice the spelling, there is no "a", hehehe) sounds like a hardware problem, buddy. I have had one, ONE BSOD since I migrated to WinXP, and I've been using XP since the betas were available. I know my problem is with my mobo (blown capacitor, still works but can't use front USB ports, sucks!) but I don't plan on upgrading until Conroe... ahem, Core 2 Duo.

As far as the views on Vista blowing us away and such, it all depends on what your computing needs are. If you are a gamer and can't wait to see what DX10 will bring to the table, then you're probably going to get it as soon as it is released. If your current setup is completely stable and you can accomplish all of your tasks quickly and efficiently, then why bother? This holds especially true if you're a business and you just spent a major chunk of change on migrating your systems and software to a new OS and training and such. I still know some businesses that are using Win95 and Win98 b/c it addresses all their needs. That seems to always be the way software updating goes, doesn't it?


RE: I don't care
By sieistganzfett on 5/8/2006 8:06:59 AM , Rating: 2
i know a school that has about 100 win95 boxes just to have students be able to surf the internet or type something up. it is good enough and when one breaks, they just get rid of it. i never hear of problems with those old p233's. ahhh BSOD. i wonder if there will be a way to make the blue screen turn into a green screen if errors do occur. I'd love to hear people screaming "@#$*ing @#*F just green screened on me again." i'd just laugh if i could turn all the blue screens into green screens of death..


RE: I don't care
By Wwhat on 5/8/2006 11:04:40 AM , Rating: 2
I do have to reboot xp once in a while to fix aggregated issues, and my explorer does crash too once in a while, taskmanager can start it up again though, and this phenomena is known to several people I know and not a hardware issue (I suspect nvidia drivers, but can't pin it down really).
I never get BSOD's though.
And sometimes my trayicons seem to be not shown after a reboot, while taskmanager says they are suppose to be there (I don't use 'hide inactive icons' btw), and this happens on 2 computers I own strangely enough, my guess it that there's a delay in starting some service and this confuses windows enough to not add the icon(s).
But all in all XP isn't so bad, quite robust and 32bit
As for drivers, yes there are drivers for most everything for windows xp but alas not for xp64.



Open GL?
By strend on 5/8/2006 9:55:42 AM , Rating: 2
I remember reading OpenGL was getting screwed in Vista. This still hold true?




RE: Open GL?
By Wwhat on 5/8/2006 12:20:18 PM , Rating: 2
There will be OpenGL, but it will run in a layer on top of dx10's subsystem, so slower than you'd wish for.


RE: Open GL?
By Wwhat on 5/8/2006 12:21:59 PM , Rating: 2
Incidentally, there also will be DX9L running in the same way, so you can play pre-dx10 games.


RE: Open GL?
By psychobriggsy on 5/8/2006 1:18:26 PM , Rating: 2
And that's only for Microsoft's default drivers.

Any chipset drivers from ATI, nVidia, Intel, etc, will come with their own direct OpenGL drivers that bypass Microsoft's OpenGL2DX translation layer, so no loss of performance.

It'll be interesting to benchmark (if possible) OpenGL games running in native OpenGL drivers, and Microsoft translation layer upon the DirectX drivers.


RE: Open GL?
By Wwhat on 5/8/2006 5:41:48 PM , Rating: 2
gmm, I wonder what ATI will do, write a whole new OpenGL when they haven't even finished the current one?

here's the current news:
quote:
3D Nature, a leader in photorealistic landscape visualization, together with a prominent group of 3D visualization developers and users, have taken the drastic step of publicly declaring ATI's Catalyst OpenGL display drivers as unsuitable for professional realtime visualization needs.


WinFS and Monad
By Sumanji on 5/7/2006 9:13:09 PM , Rating: 2
Just wondering, will these features ever make it into Vista (in a later service pack or something) or are they sitting in the archive room waiting for Windows 2012 to materialise?




RE: WinFS and Monad
By joust on 5/7/2006 10:06:28 PM , Rating: 2
RE: WinFS and Monad
By Randum on 5/7/2006 10:23:19 PM , Rating: 2
wow slow day in the news world...honestly, Firewire makes little difference in my decison on which OS to use...


RE: WinFS and Monad
By Wwhat on 5/8/2006 10:53:24 AM , Rating: 2
It is a sign of poor projectmanagement though isn't it?


o oh..
By DarthKojima on 5/7/2006 11:27:13 PM , Rating: 2
delayed again.. ?




RE: o oh..
By Bonrock on 5/8/2006 12:22:07 AM , Rating: 2
From the DailyTech article:

"Windows Vista has been plagued with dropped features and delays and may be facing another 3 month delay according to some analysts."

Actually, all of those "some analysts" work for the same firm--Gartner. They are the only market analysis firm so far to predict another delay for Vista. Microsoft has denied their predictions and asserted that Vista is on schedule.

It's certainly possible that Vista will be delayed again, but it's ridiculous to jump to conclusions based on the prediction of one analysis firm out of the hundreds of firms out there. Microsoft appears to be on track to deliver Beta 2 of Vista later this month, so let's see how things are looking when that comes out. That should give us a pretty clear idea of how on-track Microsoft is.


RE: o oh..
By crystal clear on 5/8/2006 2:51:20 AM , Rating: 2
Definition
vista Show phonetics
noun [C]
1 LITERARY a view, especially a splendid view from a high position:
After a hard climb, we were rewarded by a picture-postcard vista of rolling hills under a deep blue summer sky.

2 a possible future action or event that you can imagine .

(from Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary)
Does the above defination apply to your comment:
"so let's see how things are looking when that comes out. That should give us a pretty clear idea of how on-track Microsoft is."
Anyway I agree with you.





Only one reason for Vista
By BioRebel on 5/8/2006 2:06:38 AM , Rating: 2
I only have one reason to get Vista. And thats that explorer.exe finally closes while I'm ingame. Other than that... not much else... And besides my college is part of the M$ education program so I get the premium version for free.




RE: Only one reason for Vista
By Milliamp on 5/8/2006 2:17:53 AM , Rating: 2
The trick will be getting your hands on it before you graduate with a PhD.


RE: Only one reason for Vista
By joust on 5/8/2006 2:37:47 AM , Rating: 2
That'll only be a problem if he's a PhD student now :)


And now the news for Parrots
By gsellis on 5/8/2006 5:57:58 AM , Rating: 2
Lots of folks responding who don't do big media. FirewireB is important to folks doing plug-in storage for big files, such has video. It ranks up there with e-SATA and iSCSI. And it is part of what an OS does. We were talking about this in 2003 and if MS is leaving it out now, what were they thinking?

Note - subject is a ref to a Monty Python skit about the News.




RE: And now the news for Parrots
By ceefka on 5/8/2006 2:46:11 PM , Rating: 3
Some people rely on 1394b to work. Some of those haven't even installed SP2, because SP2 reportedly downgraded it to FW100. While MS later on made a patch available and recommended a registry edit. All is well now.

Vista is a late Parrot!


By rushfan2006 on 5/8/2006 2:27:52 PM , Rating: 2
I must agree with the folk(s) saying no bigdeal hear. You know what ONE device I have that relies on ANY type of firewire?...my IPOD. Certainly don't need the next flavor of firewire for that (not to mention I only use it about twice a week anyway - sometimes not even that much).

No...my biggest Vista disappointment moment was when they said WinFS wasn't going to be in the initial release. To me the two big reasons I have interest at all in Vista is Direct X 10 and WinFS.....


just blows that isn't making the initial launch...




By Wwhat on 5/8/2006 5:43:32 PM , Rating: 2
Did you send your systemspecs and devices in your house to microsoft so they can remove anything you don't have yet?
Would be pointless of them to support stuff you don't have eh.


For the 12 people who care....
By GRIdpOOL on 5/7/2006 10:07:20 PM , Rating: 3
Not having native support for something only 12 people in the world use at the moment is really not the end of the world. More people have wireless A than firewire B. Well, maybe not, but firewire is Mac's baby and to accept a "standard" born of those genes is not the first priority on the list (and I hope WinFS is). Just load the driver that came on the CD with your device and go on with your life. I mean, who the heck uses native MS drivers anyway? Nobody. There are always chipset and drivers you take 5 minutes to download because they are "optimized" or "updated". WHO CARES! I am more upset you couldn't play a DVD in XP out of the box. Standards are standards only because MS says so. Firewire B must not be too standard if it isn't supported. Go eSATA and leave an unsupported and slow technology out of your purchase plans.




Microsoft better be careful
By bpurkapi on 5/8/2006 10:34:42 PM , Rating: 2
Now that vista is looking more and more terrible, it would be an ideal time for apple to release osx for pc's. The only thing vista has going for it is the direct x 10. Now that osx is running on intel architecture it would be fairly easy to pick up many of the windows exclusive programs and port them. For the most part it would spice things up and that would be awesome, give microsoft a run for its money, and hopefully they respond with something even better with vista.




What a moron
By CaptSmithy on 5/7/06, Rating: 0
RE: What a moron
By The Cheeba on 5/8/2006 12:40:36 AM , Rating: 1
I'm as much for bashing dailytech as the next guy, but calling reporters morons doesn't get you very far. Not to mention your facts were wrong too:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=vista+to+supp...

Nice try though


hmm
By thescreensavers on 5/7/06, Rating: -1
"Vista runs on Atom ... It's just no one uses it". -- Intel CEO Paul Otellini
Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki