backtop

Software Vista Won't Support 1394b at Launch
Tim Thorpe (Blog) - May 7, 2006 8:26 PM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 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*