backtop


Print 60 comment(s) - last by JazzMang.. on Oct 6 at 5:42 PM

Last interim release of Vista up on deck

According to Windows IT Pro, the final interim release of Windows Vista before release to manufacturing (RTM) will come this Friday. Microsoft released RC1 to testers in early September and the last interim build released was 5728 in late September.

Windows Vista RC2, aka build 5743, will be released to the usual suspects which consist of beta testers, MSDN and TechNet subscribers. After Vista RC2 goes through its paces, the final product will be set in stone somewhere between October 18 and November 8. Windows IT Pro reports:

Internal documentation notes that each daily delay after October 25 comes at a price, however: For each day past October 25, Microsoft will start to lose languages for the January launch. However, the company is prepared to do that to ensure that Vista's quality is high. That documentation also notes that there are over 1400 open bugs in Vista at this time. Microsoft's internal processes require this bug count to drop to 500 or fewer before they will attempt to go into escrow for RTM. By comparison, there were over 2479 bugs on September 22.

Vista news has been flooding our inboxes over the past 24 hours. We've discussed Microsoft's gaming aspirations for the new operating system, seen that the company has high hopes for first year sales of Vista and noted that McAfee isn't too happy with Vista’s Kernel PatchGuard.



Comments     Threshold


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

1400 bugs...
By Hypernova on 10/3/2006 7:03:40 AM , Rating: 2
"there are over 1400 open bugs in Vista at this time"

My jaw dropped when I read that line. They will have to debug at one per hour 24/7 for almost 2 months to weed through all that. MSHQ code monkies must be working at a really frantic pace right now.




RE: 1400 bugs...
By BPB on 10/3/2006 8:00:23 AM , Rating: 5
That 1400 is, I'm sure, mostly bugs that are in no way critical. I imagine the vast majority are bugs the average person would never run across. Considering all the lines of new code to make this OS, that's really not so bad. It's not like this is a game with 1400 bugs. As a programmer, if they do get it down to 500, I'd be impressed. Again, this is a HUGE project to get out, and there's always going to be a certain level of bugs, always. Even 5 years from now. Just look at XP.


RE: 1400 bugs...
By DigitalFreak on 10/3/2006 8:03:33 AM , Rating: 5
I remember when XP was released. Everyone made a big deal out of the fact that it had over 2000 bugs in it. As long as they don't affect the stability or usability of the OS, who cares?

BTW, the automatic spell checking in Firefox 2.0 RC1 kicks ass!


RE: 1400 bugs...
By ajfink on 10/3/2006 10:43:54 AM , Rating: 5
Agreed on both points (Vista and Firefox 2 RC1).

Microsoft will have a good product ready for general consumer release in January. They're Microsoft, they typically don't mess around. Will it have problems? Absolutely. Am I going to buy it when it comes out? Absolutely not.


RE: 1400 bugs...
By Christopher1 on 10/4/2006 9:48:05 PM , Rating: 2
Exacly right. As long as the 'bugs' don't come up in normal use or there is a way around the bugs...... I don't really care if some aren't patched, unless they can make the system crash or open it to attack from outsiders.


RE: 1400 bugs...
By Hypernova on 10/3/2006 8:29:39 AM , Rating: 2
I realise that most of the bugs are probably trivial, but as we all know this is going to be combined with the close integration of DX10 and bugs have a nasty habit of "multiplying" on top of each other. Not to mention that this will be the first true roll out of a mainstream 64bit OS. So now we have a bug^3 potential. Either way nobody should expect the OS to be truly usable/stable until SP1 anyway.

I still remember when my dad bought the first pre SP1 XP rig, the word "crude" was an understatement but of course compared to W95 derivatives it was quantum leap.


RE: 1400 bugs...
By TomZ on 10/5/2006 1:48:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not to mention that this will be the first true roll out of a mainstream 64bit OS.

Not exactly - WinXP 64-Bit has been out for quite a while already:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/default.m...

IMO, 1400 bugs in a product the size of Windows is not a big deal, assuming they are not major ones, which is likely the case at this stage.


RE: 1400 bugs...
By FITCamaro on 10/3/2006 2:04:55 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. 1400 bugs in as much source code as Vista has is actually pretty impressive(wikipedia states around 50 million lines of code for Vista. so thats nearly 1 bug for every 36,000 lines of code. pretty impressive.) And you figure if they knocked out 800 bugs (they said on Sep 22 there was 2200) in only a few days, they can probably fix quite a number of them fairly quickly. Probably only about a hundred of those are bugs really of interest.

Now granted thats just known bugs. But still its obvious that Microsoft is doing everything it can to make Vista as bug free as possible. It's impossible for software as complex as an OS to be completely free of bugs, but you can only do so much.


RE: 1400 bugs...
By cubdukat on 10/5/2006 11:13:47 PM , Rating: 2
Didn't Win2K have something like 20,000 known bugs when it shipped?


RE: 1400 bugs...
By Two Wheeler on 10/3/2006 11:52:19 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
"there are over 1400 open bugs in Vista at this time"


Those are not BUGS! They're "undocumented features"!

Actually there are probably a lot more that don't get reported because when you try to use the feedback icon that RC1 puts on your desktop, Internet Exploder pukes! :D


RE: 1400 bugs...
By creathir on 10/3/06, Rating: 0
I don't..
By Runiteshark on 10/3/2006 7:22:10 AM , Rating: 2
I don't seem to understand how some people don't like vista now. It has run flawlessly on 4 of my machines now, and my only qualms with it are easily solved. Take one stroll through the controll panel and notice how wonderful its new logging method is, as well as every other old administrative feature. Hell, when I first saw logging alone I started to like it. Plus the whole .dll and services ability for the taskmanager also was nice.

Now it would be neat if they allowed more modules to be slapped on.


Still though, no RUN command really does irritate me, as well as the new startmenu method, but this is both easily fixed...




RE: I don't..
By Targon on 10/3/2006 8:05:16 AM , Rating: 3
Note how few drivers are available, and how many companies refuse to post drivers before Vista is launched. Then look at things like certain SATA controllers not having proper support under Vista(the Promise controller on my motherboard required that I use the WinXP drivers since nothing was available for Vista as one example) to see why so many people will be waiting a while before going to Vista.



RE: I don't..
By vanka on 10/3/2006 1:53:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Note how few drivers are available


Right on. Although most of my hardware was recognized and worked correctly, the one item that didn't (my keyboard) was a deal killer and I switched back to XP for now; a real shame as I really liked the RC1 release.

What really pissed me off was that the keyboard in question is from Microsoft. I have the MS Wireless Laser Desktop which has both a USB and PS2 connection coming out of the receiver; USB for mouse, PS2 for keyboard. When both connectors are plugged in (like I have always had them under XP) the keyboard is not recognized but the mouse works ok. When I unplugged the PS2 connector, both mouse and keyboard are recognized and work; but the mouse gets stuck sometimes and won't move for 5 to 10 seconds. And no Vista versions of IntelliPiont or IntelliType (there is a work around to get that functionality but it didn't solve my problem) so I went back to XP.


RE: I don't..
By FITCamaro on 10/3/2006 2:14:09 PM , Rating: 3
Do you know what goes into getting a driver certified for Windows? WHQL tests take time and large corporations test on hundreds of systems. I did driver testing and even for the small company I worked for, testing a driver on just 2-3 machines took 1-3 days. Thats actual testing not the WHQL tests. Those take a total of about 6 hours to run with constant monitoring (at least for the devices we were testing).

So yeah a lot of companies won't release a driver for certain hardware until the OS is released. But that doesn't mean its not there. And a lot of XP drivers work fine with Vista as well. I installed it on about 6 different hardware setups. The only thing I had a problem with was an HP Santa Rosa test platform. With our devices the XP driver worked pretty much perfectly under Vista. The applications had more issues than the drivers.

And I find it quite humorous that you knock Vista, a still beta product, because a few of your drivers don't work or aren't available; but Linux, which as far worse driver support, is fine to you.


RE: I don't..
By OrSin on 10/3/2006 9:54:53 AM , Rating: 2
First I love Vista too. I have it on 3 computers. One is a AMD 2500xp with on board video and works great still on this low end computer. The run cmd can be run from the search menu. If you really want a true run line get the gadget. I use the run and google gadget all day long.

Also if you every look at the bug forum about 40% are hardware driver issues. It up to companies to fix them not microsoft. I'm not blaming the Hardware companies since they only had RC1 for 1 month. Every day i get new drivers for most of the hardware. Right now I play game on my vista computer with no in game crashes (from vista, 2 of my games crash every week anyway). I have had some video scrren refreash issues in 1 game but again that hardware drivers issue.

Vista is very stable. Cry all you want but MS did a good job this time around.


RE: I don't..
By Two Wheeler on 10/3/2006 11:57:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Also if you every look at the bug forum about 40% are hardware driver issues


In my experience, all of my hardware works fine, but half my programs don't and there's no way to tell the OS to stop being so &^&%# paranoid and let the damn things run!

The only hardware issue I've had is with my keyboard.....made by....guess who? (Hint, they're in Redmond Washington).


RE: I don't..
By vanka on 10/3/2006 1:58:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
...there's no way to tell the OS to stop being so &^&%# paranoid and let the damn things run

Actually there is a way to disable the constant nagging of Vista. Google "disable uac" and you'll get step-by-step instructions on how to do so.

quote:
The only hardware issue I've had is with my keyboard.....made by....guess who? (Hint, they're in Redmond Washington).

Same here man.


RE: I don't..
By Korvon on 10/3/2006 11:51:18 AM , Rating: 2
There is a run command, its just hidden. Hit the Windows button + R.

Cheers.


RE: I don't..
By vanka on 10/3/2006 1:40:32 PM , Rating: 2
Actually you can add the RUN command if you customize the Start (Windows?) menu; you know right-click the Start button and hit Properties. In this way you can get rid of the shortcuts you don't need and add those you do. Also, the Search bar in the Start menu acts like a RUN dialog. Check it out, it works.


RE: I don't..
By johnsonx on 10/3/2006 12:06:34 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed about the logging. It's truly impressive. I'll have to see how it all works in actual practice, but it sure looks good.

I also really like the integrated photo browser & editing package. I'm sure it's nothing more advanced than what 3rd party apps can do, but I like having it built in. Yes, I'm sure this stifles competition, whatever.....

I sure wish I could run Vista on a daily basis, but on each of my computers that I'd like to run Vista there's some reason I can't. So far I only have it on my laptop, and even there it's only on a spare hard drive I swap in when I want to play with Vista for a bit. Oh well, soon enough I guess.



RE: I don't..
By ChronoReverse on 10/3/2006 12:34:01 PM , Rating: 2
As soon as you hit the Windows button, you're already in the run command.

Windows=>"c:\temp\something.exe" <enter>

You can still use Windows+R to get the old run prompt.


As for the new Start Menu, I love it because it's more keyboard centric than mouse centric.

It used to be that I'd have to hunt for things like Remote Desktop in the invariably huge Start Menu. Now I don't bother and just type

Windows=>"remote" <enter>


RE: I don't..
By Webgod on 10/3/2006 1:22:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't seem to understand how some people don't like vista now. It has run flawlessly on 4 of my machines now, and my only qualms with it are easily solved.

Ha! Go to the Rants and Raves forum at Microsoft's blog site ShellUnleashed.com and you'll find non-stop rants! :D Besides, Media Center is a flippin' mess. How can they call this a Release Candidate when RC means 'if you don't find any bugs we're going to ship it.' Yikes.


RE: I don't..
By Webgod on 10/6/2006 9:44:17 AM , Rating: 2
Er, I had the name of the blog site wrong, it's Shell Revealed.

http://shellrevealed.com/forums/19/ShowForum.aspx


Vista is nearing closer...
By archcommus on 10/3/2006 1:06:53 AM , Rating: 2
...and I still haven't decide if this is an upgrade I am going to want to make at launch. It would require the purchase of Vista, another gig of RAM, and when games start using it, a DX10 video card. Hmm, maybe I'lll hold off till summer...




RE: Vista is nearing closer...
By Bonrock on 10/3/2006 1:27:59 AM , Rating: 3
Another gig of RAM? I've been running various recent builds of Vista and while your experience will obviously be be better with 2GB of RAM, Vista runs just fine with 1GB.

Also, upgrading to Vista will not require a DX10 video card, as you yourself seem to be aware, since you say you'll need to get one "when games start using it."

So I'm not sure why you say that upgrading to Vista will require the purchase of another gig of RAM or a DX10 video card. In fact, only one of the three things you listed--the purhcase of Vista--is required.


RE: Vista is nearing closer...
By DragonFire on 10/3/06, Rating: -1
RE: Vista is nearing closer...
By j@cko on 10/3/2006 2:54:50 AM , Rating: 2
i'm sry, but you're dead wrong. Crysis doesn't "REQUIRE" DX10 to run it. It runs on DX9 and it's built on DX9 but with DX10 features implemented on some lvls. Do a search on google dude.


RE: Vista is nearing closer...
By DragonFire on 10/3/06, Rating: -1
RE: Vista is nearing closer...
By rushfan2006 on 10/3/2006 9:14:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
@j@cko, I'm sorry I should have worded it a bit differnet. However, to play the damn game as it was ment to be, it will require a DX10 card to do so.


First I think all the guy was trying to say was point out that it is not required to use a DX10 card to play. I read his post twice, and I read yours twice. You clearly stated it requires DX10...how then that guy is a "@j@cko" (to use your term) is beyond me when you are cleary wrong.

So then you state well to play the game as its meant to be played it will require a DX10 card...another statement that brings a smirk to my face. Isn't any game "meant" to be played in the highest of resolutions with all eye candy turned on? ;) However, its a small segment of the gaming population that can run most games with such settings due to high hardware demands (which in turn require deep pockets and constant upgrade cycles). So again how is your statement any different from applying it to ANY game ever in the history of PC gaming.

As for the rest of the folks frothing at the mouth over getting Vista right away and a DX10 card.....if you want it just to be the "first kid on the block to have it " kind of deal...knock yourself out.

To everyone else...relax folks. First there isn't a single NATIVE Dx10 game slated for a 2007 release date at all so far, and this covers game releases into the first 2 quarters of '07. I'd make a gamble and saying their won't be a single DX10 *native* game release in ALL of 2007. Unless of course a publisher says "hey guys, let's not worry about profits on this title..lets just go for wow factor...we'll catch the profits on the next go round."...





RE: Vista is nearing closer...
By rushfan2006 on 10/3/2006 9:18:41 AM , Rating: 2
Crap I messed up and submitted to soon..

As for Vista itself...if you enjoy punishing yourself go ahead and buy Vista at launch, however if you'd rather wait for SP1 and other people to work out the errors and problems...it probably will be a more pleasant "os upgrade experience" for you.



RE: Vista is nearing closer...
By Tyler 86 on 10/4/2006 4:54:38 AM , Rating: 3
Hahaha...

quote:
I read his post twice, and I read yours twice. You clearly stated it requires DX10...how then that guy is a "@j@cko" (to use your term) is beyond me when you are cleary wrong.


The guy's NAME is j@cko, prefixed with the at sign; so, to verbalize it, he's saying, "at jacko"...

There will be low-tier DX10 cards, too... Crysis will look prettier on them than on mid-tier DX9 cards, and possibly high-tier DX9 cards, even if it's not as playable.

The DirectX transition process has changed drasticly with DirectX 10, so this won't be as much like previous DirectX 5->6->7->8->9 generation transitions... Expect great things, and possibly a greater headache. DirectX 10 will be easier to use, and pushed harder than constipated individual trying to poop to save his life...

I'm inclined to believe Vista will be perfectly fine to buy at launch quality wise, with plenty of good expiriences to be had, as well as being "relatively" bug-free.

The only true factors I would say that one should take into account when upgrading to Vista should be price, ergonomics, and support.
It's pretty, pretty fast, and highly supported - much more so than any previous operating system Microsoft has released.

I'm not going to wait for a service pack to buy Vista, but I will wait for the reviews, and maybe some bundle or package deal, perhaps with a next generation videocard, where it doesn't cost a kidney for 'just' Vista... :)

... but I didn't post here to talk about DirectX, just to ridicule rushfan2000 on a simple misunderstanding. I apologise. :)


RE: Vista is nearing closer...
By tuteja1986 on 10/3/2006 2:52:43 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah we are supposed to get final version of Vista release in 2 weeks at work anyways. Security is what i am looking for and if Vista can provide much better security than Windows xp then i will upgrade my main machine to Vista.


RE: Vista is nearing closer...
By Two Wheeler on 10/3/2006 11:49:39 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
if Vista can provide much better security than Windows xp


If my experience with RC1 is any indicator, the security is much better. In fact they've gone completely overboard and made the OS so paranoid, it won't even allow some of it's OWN programs to run.

As for RAM usage, Vista seems to work fine with 1GB of RAM....provided you're not actually doing anything. I run 1GB and, with nothing but my startup programs running, it was using 50% of my RAM! (As opposed to the usual 25% under XP) I think "Vista" is Latin for "memory hog".

Seems like they copied the bling from Apple and very few of the good features.


RE: Vista is nearing closer...
By BCanR2D2 on 10/3/2006 8:07:52 AM , Rating: 2
With the recent release of the Samsung 4GB Solid State Flash Drive - quicker than HDD, this get used as extra RAM (I believe) and imagine loading Vista (only the OS) onto this drive, would be quick as...

Only if the RAM Drive worked better, but this is the next best thing....


It's nice, but not worth the wait
By zsdersw on 10/3/2006 9:01:50 AM , Rating: 3
I've been using both 32-bit build 5600 (at work) and 64-bit build 5728 (at home).. and from what I've seen, Vista is little more than a prettier XP with the options rearranged and a few additional features of questionable usefulness. Had this come out a couple years after XP was released, it would've been more compelling.. but nearly 5 years after XP? No way. It's definitely not worth the $250 upgrade price (Ultimate), nevermind the full retail price.




RE: It's nice, but not worth the wait
By Helbore on 10/3/2006 1:27:58 PM , Rating: 2
That is because most of the new stuff is "under the hood," and not about the UI. The UI changes are mostly about bringing the look up to date and making some evolutionary changes the the operation.

The real changes in Vista are those you can't "see" such as the reworked kernel and the new networking stack. It is these things that will make Windows a more stable and reliable platform.

That is the important thing; Windows is a platform, not an application. An OS is there, primarily, for one purpose; to provide a usable base for other people to create and run applications on. Its not there for a bunch of whizz-bang new features and toys. That's what 3rd party developers are for (or what MS can do as another product)

I would much rather Microsoft spent their resources working on stability, security and performance in Windows than anything that made its visible operation or use different to that of XP. From what I've seen of Vista (and I've been beta testing for over a year now) they have done a good job in doing just that. It ain't perfect and there are things I'm not happy about (loss of WinFS, for instance) but overall, Vista is a great improvement over XP.

And McAfee and Symantec can take a running jump if they keep bitching about the kernel lock-down. Its about bloody time it was locked down and about time these two anal companies learned to write proper software that doesn't mess around with kernel-level stuff (because kernels are not meant to be messed with!)


RE: It's nice, but not worth the wait
By zsdersw on 10/3/2006 1:53:10 PM , Rating: 1
Perhaps you've missed my point: Vista, as nice as it is, isn't worth the wait. Everything you've talked about is great, but there's no way it should've taken 5 years to come to fruition.


RE: It's nice, but not worth the wait
By Tyler 86 on 10/4/2006 4:57:00 AM , Rating: 2
There is plenty of way it should have taken 5 years to come to fruition, you're just a sour grape.


RE: It's nice, but not worth the wait
By zsdersw on 10/4/2006 6:41:10 AM , Rating: 2
Oh really? Such as?


RE: It's nice, but not worth the wait
By Helbore on 10/4/2006 6:56:36 AM , Rating: 2
Technically it hasn't taken five years to develop Vista, its only been about two. This is because the original Longhorn project was a completely different (and brand new) codebase that was later scrapped due to the inability to knock out the problems they were having with it.

That whole OS was dumped (or possibly delayed until Vienna, the version after Vista) and Vista was the built off the existing Server 2003 codebase. So there was actually an additonal, aborted OS in the space between XP and Vista and that is the main reason it has taken so long.

However, I still believe that Vista is a major improvement over XP and whilst it isn't the sum total you would expect from five years of work, it is still a sound upgrade. Had the original Longhorn project worked out, however, I think we would be getting a hell of a better OS than what Vista is going to deliver. Such a shame it didn't work out.


RE: It's nice, but not worth the wait
By zsdersw on 10/4/2006 8:16:53 AM , Rating: 2
That's exactly my point; it isn't the sum total I'd expect from five years of work.

For $250 (upgrade price, Ultimate version) I expect quite a bit more.


RE: It's nice, but not worth the wait
By Tyler 86 on 10/5/2006 4:08:07 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with the price point issue, it's damned expensive.

As with most genuinely good software, it takes as long as it takes, and then some... 5 years isn't overshooting.

They weren't on a real production 'schedule' untill relatively lately, I believe around 2003 is when I first heard it actually being thrown around... Windows Server 2003 R2, Windows Longhorn Server, Windows Longhorn Server R2.. was it every 4-5 years for a 'brand new' OS? I'm not certain, but I that's what I recall.

Some videogames take longer than that to develop... and they typicly cost a lot, but 'only' around 60$...
For (a relatively bad, yet prominent) example, Duke Nukem Forever... I'm not sure how long GTA3:VC took, but I think it was in the works for quite some time, like around 1995 to 2002... and it definantly had more interactive content (the harder kind of content to develop) than Windows XP... :)


By zsdersw on 10/6/2006 7:01:38 AM , Rating: 2
Surely a software company like Microsoft.. with it's virtually limitless resources.. could've come out with more than Vista sooner than 5 years after XP.


Painfully obvious for some....
By SEAWOLF607 on 10/3/06, Rating: 0
RE: Painfully obvious for some....
By ahkey on 10/3/2006 5:49:50 AM , Rating: 2
No, they can't. MS has a responsibility to provide a (relatively) stable and (relatively) easy-to-program-for platform for its users, which like it or not means most of the computing world.


RE: Painfully obvious for some....
By DigitalFreak on 10/3/2006 8:00:53 AM , Rating: 2
Which is why they aren't allowing anyone to mess with the kernel anymore.


By GreyMittens on 10/3/2006 10:20:30 AM , Rating: 2
I think that is a good idea and hope that MS sticks with it. For so long everyone is saying how insecure Windows is then when they try to address it you have guys crying foul.

Of course I understand where Symantec and Mcafee are coming from, they welcome security flaws to push their products too. Over all though for the 'general' Joe public, this may be the best thing to happen to Windows.


RE: Painfully obvious for some....
By dgingeri on 10/3/2006 10:21:42 AM , Rating: 2
MS has supplied a stable and easy to use platform. Norton and McAfee are just griping because they aren't allowed to screw up the kernel like they used to and blame it on MS.

That is what I loved about XP, the system file checker and system file protection were an awesome addition and an easy way to get rid of some viruses and spyware, but unfortunately there are still ways to get around it. Vista corrects that for the most part. I find it a little more difficult to use, but then again, I'm trying to get into the inner workings, not just run programs.

Ever since Windows NT, things have been getting better and better. Nobody has been able to catch up to MS, so they are all trying to slow MS down.


can us regular folk download it
By mrgq912 on 10/3/2006 12:30:46 AM , Rating: 2
? like RC1, or is it open only to the beta testers




By Chillin1248 on 10/3/2006 3:47:29 AM , Rating: 3
It says "open to beta testers" which I assume means public beta testers, however you probably need to have a key. To get one go to this site and follow the instructions:

http://www.jkg.in/34-how-to-obtain-the-windows-vis...

That is one of the last places you can still get a key from, I personally have several in reserve in case I need them.

Cheers,
-------
Chillin


Signed Drivers
By Alphafox78 on 10/3/2006 8:55:03 AM , Rating: 2
The biggest problem for me is finding signed drivers. there are driver for my sound card for example, but they arent signed. in order to load them I have to pick disable driver signing EACH time I boot using F8.. pain! They used to have a way to disable it use bcdedit but it doesnt seem to work any longer with RC1.




RE: Signed Drivers
By Tyler 86 on 10/4/2006 5:01:51 AM , Rating: 2
I know, that is a real pain in the ass isn't it?

I opened up the osloader, and found the /DISABLE_INTEGRITY_CHECKS switch, tried adding that as a custom command line, and then some other stuff... nothing works, except pressing F8, up, up, enter... It has turned my vista boot-up expirience into a vaguely NES cheat-code nostalgic process...


RC2 Catalyst fix may be
By inthell on 10/3/2006 11:35:00 AM , Rating: 2
crosses fingers that ATi resolves the AMD Dualcore issue with the Cataylst driver.




Its actually...
By JazzMang on 10/6/2006 5:42:39 PM , Rating: 2
supposedly build 5744.




Build 5473..?
By althaz on 10/3/2006 12:30:35 AM , Rating: 1
Is that "5473" accurate? Sure it's not more like 5743? It's just that I didn't think the numbers would go backwards...




yay more food for parallels..
By irsyz on 10/3/2006 1:03:38 AM , Rating: 1
just another build to put parallels through its paces :)




Oh the pain and suffering that shall occur
By cornfedone on 10/3/06, Rating: -1
By Chillin1248 on 10/3/2006 4:34:33 AM , Rating: 5
Why hasn't DT banned you yet? You haven't ceased to post idiotic dribble since you showed up, dear god do you get high off doing this?

And out of supreme curiosity, why is it a "pain" to use Vista other than beta third party drivers and not Microsofts software?

-------
Chillin


By johnsonx on 10/3/2006 12:08:04 PM , Rating: 3
hey cornfedone, say hi to your dad Cramitpal and your brother Beenthere


"This week I got an iPhone. This weekend I got four chargers so I can keep it charged everywhere I go and a land line so I can actually make phone calls." -- Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg

Related Articles
Gaming in Windows Vista
October 2, 2006, 9:24 AM
Windows Vista RC1 Released
September 1, 2006, 3:25 PM













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