Submitted by “On Sept. 1, Microsoft began rolling out Vista RC1, raising hopes that all of the major issues have been resolved in the months since the beta two version. And it appears those hopes have been largely fulfilled. Here’s a look at the top five improvements that RC1 brings since the beta releases of Vista.”
so when do you say it’s gonna be shiped (I’m in Europe), still next year?
so like if its sooo much more improved why doesn’t it ship so that PC junkies can buy systems for x-mas?
Whoah, yeah, that’s like totally a good point.
If it will be so much more secure I wish it the best.
its improved so much i couldnt handle all those changes at once… why not gradually improve things over time
OUCH! That was so funny, I spilled my coffe!
oh man….I runined these pants too…
While I welcome the many improvements in Vista, I worry that the DRM will be overbearing. Are there any reviews of the DRM “features” new to Vista?
Worried why? What do you base those worries on?
While I welcome the many improvements in Vista, I worry that the DRM will be overbearing. Are there any reviews of the DRM “features” new to Vista?
The DRM features in Vista are conceptually no different than in previous versions of Windows, i.e., they are opt-in. Content providers must choose whether or not to use them. They don’t affect unprotected content.
For protected content, there are a couple of basic choices. Of course there are choices within these choices regarding actual content usage rights (playcount restriction, backup/portable rights, etc.), but these will vary with the content providers and are not ncessary for this simplification.
Content providers can choose any number of protection mechanisms either from MS or from thrid parties as they do currently.
Choice 1:
Content providers use rights management technologies like WMRM, FairPlay, etc. This is, and will likely continue to be be the most common case for online and user-created protected content.
Choice 2:
Content Providers can also take advantage of Vista’s Protected Media Path. This provides added protections for processes and a secure path through the system to output devices. This will be used for most next-generation commercial content like HD-DVD, Blu-Ray, and Digital Cable. In fact, it was required by Cable Labs for MS to get certification. Signed drivers for output components will be required for this path, not unlike the Secure Audio Path in XP.
you know these Vista jokes like “…if its sooo much more improved why doesn’t it ship so that PC junkies can buy systems for x-mas” are not even funny or clever anymore… if i had a $ for every time made a vista joke i would be a very rich person indeed. Your Vista jokes are not funny or even smart.
Firstly, Vista is in beta testing, making, compiling, and tweaking and entire OS that 90% of the PC market will use is no small task and something that should not be taken lightly. Im for one are glad MS have delayed Vista to get it right.. why ship a half bake product? (again no jokes … if you knew anything about coding you will realise this is so important).
Secondly,If you so have a problem with Vista why do you compare your fav OS to it? Why for example, does Apple spend half the time comparing itself to Vista and same with some Linux distros? Why do we get “easier to use than Windows” and “more realiable than Windows” why bother spending half your time comparing to a system you dislike? Why don’t you ask 80 year old mrs blah down the road to compile a whole linux distro or better yet, BSD distro from source? Spend 1 week config the display drives, 2 weeks installing the printer and spend half the time compiling the source apps to work? Oh i forgot she don’t like doing that so you make an easy to install package software despite you won’t these Windows user to “learn their computer”. Without you knowing it… you make Windows the standard that you must out perform. If it don’t work like Windows know one will use it. MS are the standard now.
Moreover, Linux/Apple have to compete against Windows because it does a great job in providing an experiencing to the end user. Whether you like it or not most comps run on Windows and your “linux is better” slogans are so tiring it now its not even funny. If your fav OS was so perfect why isnt it running high in the percentage in the OS market? why arnt dell, compaq etc OEM’ing Linux on their systems? Why isnt Apple selling as many laptops as Dell? Their are many reasons and granted its the system that was already pre installed… but Windows is the standard. Vista is the next gen release of Windows and within a few years most PCs will have it installed. Contray to popular fanboy beliefs, Linux is not outselling Windows.
It is so fanboyish and annoying when people post these articles… instead of talking about the article it always “desktop linux this year” or “Steve just sneezed call the press” posts. Come on give over.. How about you try and compile an OS yourself and make one from scratch. When you run 90% of the world computers you need to “get it right” before you ship. So what Vista been delayed…wow…
The sad thing if apple delayed their products its called: innovation
If open source products are delayed its called: testing
If Vista is delayed Ms are screwing up. Give over… im not hear to argue but look what your typing sometimes.
oh btw i am writting this in a NON Microsoft OS so flame me if you want but just trying to be honest here.
Edited 2006-09-08 23:01
if i had a $ for every time made a vista joke i would be a very rich person indeed.
Yeah! You might even be able to buy a copy of Vista with that much!
–bornagainpenguin
Im for one are glad MS have delayed Vista to get it right..
Well they are delaying it.. we have to wait and see if they “get it right”.
If you so have a problem with Vista why do you compare your fav OS to it?
It is the new OS from the market leader. Pretending it does not exist is quite foolish.
Why don’t you ask 80 year old mrs blah down the road..
I ask mrs blah to pop in a Linux live CD/DVD .. it boots up, gets internet, printer access, a huge array of applications and is fully usable. Because its a live CD, no worries about viruses or any of that crap.
I *do* tell mrs blah to install anti-spyware, anti-virus, anti-malware software on her Windows machine.. install a firewall, use alternative browsers as IE is insecure, manage windows updates, etc.. oh yah, she doesn’t like doing that as well and still gets infected.. umm.. tough.
If your fav OS was so perfect why isnt it running high in the percentage in the OS market?
Its simple .. really. Microsoft has a better business model. They focused on marketing and aimed high with OEM exclusive deals. Where many tech companies were run by technologist, Microsoft was run by keen business executives and they won out. That was then. Now a LOT of software is Windows-exclusive. From a support POV, its almost a requirement to run on Windows (versus even a virtual machine such as VMWARE). For an IT department trained in Windows, its a no-brainer .. keep with something they know (job security) or be put out of a job with something superior. I know of a network of about 150 computers that converted to Unix thinclients running on 4 servers. IT cost dropped through the floor.. what took a handful of IT guys to manage now took one part-time IT person to manage. Given the thinclient configuration and redundancy on the backend, availability is much higher and emergencies are rare. No viruses, no spyware or other issues allow the system to run nice and smooth. This is a major threat to an IT monkey’s livelihood.
I do agree with you — lets wait until it is released to truly assess it. We are about 5 months away from a general release (assuming no more delays occur). During this time, there will be other major OS releases (ie new Ubuntu, new Mac OS X) so it will be interesting to see these systems side-by-side.
I ask mrs blah to pop in a Linux live CD/DVD .. it boots up, gets internet, printer access, a huge array of applications and is fully usable. Because its a live CD, no worries about viruses or any of that crap.
I *do* tell mrs blah to install anti-spyware, anti-virus, anti-malware software on her Windows machine.. install a firewall, use alternative browsers as IE is insecure, manage windows updates, etc.. oh yah, she doesn’t like doing that as well and still gets infected.. umm.. tough.
Well Mrs Blah may need to find another computer bod to help her out. Windows comes with a firewall that is switched on by default. Most packages come with an anti-virus software installed anyway and I never could understand why Linux fans insist on spreading the myth, that Linux doesn’t require security updates. It simply isn’t true. Oh, and Windows updates don’t actually need managing. They show up, they install. No biggie, even for Mrs Blah.
I tried a few Linux distros last year, but for me, the software for available just didn’t match up to what I could get under Windows. They lacked functionality and that final bit of spit and polish. A year is a long time, and I’m sure things have changed, but since Vista has shown signs of life, it seems that the Linux community has closed ranks and will not allow any criticsm of their OS. I’m always a little nervous of products that cannot bear criticsm; they tend not to move forward. Perhaps that is why Linux hasn’t managed to gain any significant desktop share, despite the Vista delays.
Windows comes with a firewall that is switched on by default.
It is a software firewall. I am talking hardware firewall. Standardized software firewalls run under Windows’s security model (everyones an admin!!) is quite easy to disable.
Oh, and Windows updates don’t actually need managing. They show up, they install. No biggie, even for Mrs Blah.
Everytime I check Secunia, it rates Windows XP Home (what Mrs. Blah would be running) as Highly critical and showing a high percentage of unpatched security vulnerabilities. Apparently those updates DON’T show up. Sites like eWeek confirm this. Compare this to Ubuntu Linux, Fedora or FreeBSD — no unpatched security vulnerabilities.
software for available just didn’t match up to what I could get under Windows
I agree. Windows has more applications. Fortunately there are solutions (VMWare,CrossOver Office,Wine) to run those legacy apps on Linux. Why compromise your entire system (according to Secunia) when you could run a more secure OS for *most* of your tasks and have a virtual machine for your legacy apps.
Perhaps that is why Linux hasn’t managed to gain any significant desktop share
Actually it seems to be getting quite a lot of market share .. granted, I am talking % growth which is still quite small relative to market share percentage but it IS growing. We are talking about hundreds of millions of computers and large investments of time and money into the Windows platform to overcome.
” Compare this to Ubuntu Linux, Fedora or FreeBSD — no unpatched security vulnerabilities.”
You are right. But man, 101 for Ubuntu 5.10 in 2006 alone!
http://secunia.com/product/6606/?task=statistics_2006
Ubuntu users must spend all their time patching security holes!
How do you get any work done?
Firstly, Vista is in beta testing
Actually, they are in release candidate stage, so you brought up the old joke that MS always releases beta quality software as final product or to cite yourself: Your Vista jokes are not funny or even smart.
However, if the market leader trumpets for years about the next product generations features, user friendlieness, stability, etc. and then fails to deliver (anybody remembers the claims MS did about the security of XP or the revolutionary Windows95 which was a third class rip-off of MacOS), I guess people are allowed to make fun of them (and their entire fangirl section), aren’t they? IMHO, they deserve it!
(Actually, the fun in said jokes comes from their proximity to truth..)
OS that 90% of the PC market will use
Sorry. No OS from MS ever got 90% of the market. They still haven’t convinced all users of 95/98/ME/2000 to upgrade.
Vista is a commercial product and important not only for MS but also for numerous hard- and software vendors for pure $$$ business reason (which means users have to pay for new hardware, upgrades of software, etc.).
However, from a users perspective, this OS seems to be more about:
– “features” which should have been there all along (security),
– have better implementations in other OSes (e. g. Expose),
– have no impact on users (re-written OS parts and new APIs – actually they are a confession that “old” Windows versions were by far not the superior products their marketing and fanboys always claimed),
– pure eye-candy (Aero).
– features already available in 3rd party software (desktop search)
– user restrictions like DRM (no need to talk about those)
– ..
Moreover, Linux/Apple have to compete against Windows because it does a great job in providing an experiencing to the end user.
Agreed – Windows is providing an experience to users.
But is it a good one? vI personally blame MS that most people think that a computer is something which is difficult to use, behaves unpredictable, needs frequent repairs, update and fixes, that it is normal that software all of sudden stops working, that the internet is a dangerous place, that it is normal to pay for bugfixes (Windows98, anyone?), etc.
It is so fanboyish and annoying when people post these articles
IMHO, it is fanboyish and annoying to see Vista articles whenever somebody somewhere detects something new or changed or feels qualified to write his opionen (good or bad) about it.
it always “desktop linux this year” or “Steve just sneezed call the press” posts.
And how are those “Vista is coming” articles any different? We are seeing articles about the “miracle” of Longhorn|Vista since years now. We all know the broken promises, the hype, the marketing, the “XP has not X but wait till Vista is released”-claimes, etc..
MS has enough money to sell their products – they sure don’t need the marketing hype provided by various news sites including OSNews.
The sad thing if apple delayed their products its called: innovation
And your are talking about fangirlish behaviour of others?
Whether you like it or not most comps run on Windows
Because that’s preinstalled.And it is what the majority knows,if they care to know about PC’s at all.
It does say as much about windows as about any other OS.Namely nada.
Firstly, Vista is in beta testing, making, compiling, and tweaking and entire OS that 90% of the PC market will use is no small task and something that should not be taken lightly.
Actually, 90% of the PC market base won’t be using it for at least 1 or 2 years, or however long it takes for SP1 to come out.
And I am not joking. You don’t really think enterprises are going to be onboard that quick, do you?
My company still keeps Win2000 boxes around, and they *just* upgraded to XP SP2 like 2 months ago. You’re right, they will move glacially slow. And new computers they buy, will be wiped and have XP put on them.
unless they make a light version with nothing but essentials at the beginning and they you can add all the other junk later. Well probably not until nLite comes out with vista support and then I can get a hacked version to experiment on so that I can install it for my business clients. For me to use it, it would have to be i686 optimized at least and be opensource, so I guess I won’t be using it. 😐
“unless they make a light version with nothing but essentials at the beginning and they you can add all the other junk later.”
It’s quite clear that you’re just a mindless fanboy, but nevertheless:
Use the BDD(business desktop deployment) to create your own lite vista install with custom settings and selected packages, it’s free and it’s on connect.msdn.com right now for you to test.
Such a sad story. Polly wants a cracker?
Security should not be one of them of course. Every thing is windows vista was either rewritten or updated except for security; and when I mean security I mean they didn’t make vista incompatible with the multi thousand viruses written for XP and the earlier. It is still windows XP or Server 2003 security underneath nothing more. Their own version of firewall and antivirus or antispyware is nothing more than a utility free of charge on the web that can be installed above XP.
This is really sad!
Many of those viruses won’t work on Vista as you have significantly lower rights by default. There are also mitigations against exploitation of buffer overflows and heap corruption. There’s kernel patch protection on x64, code integrity checks, new security requirements for admin apps, ASLR, isolation of system services from the user desktop (Session 0 isolation), process isolation (only processes of like privilege may send/receive messages) and any app using .NET 3.0 aka WinFX is subject to code access security checks. There’s more I’m sure, but I’ll leave it for those actually interested to research.
Also, you should check Server 2003’s security record as it’s one of the top OSes in that regard. There’s nothing wrong with the security model. Many n*x now emulate it. What was wrong was the default configuration of XP in the hands of naive users.
Uh, many n*x emulate Windows server 2003’s security model? I don’t think thats a fair comment at all. Trusted Solaris was out years before Windows Server 2003 was, SELinux was first released in 2000.
Unix security models go way way back before Windows even existed. And on top of the old stuff we have SELinux, and the Trusted Solaris stuff, and lots of other projects.
None of these “emulate” Windows Server 2003’s security model at all! Find me anything in Linux, or *BSD, or Solaris (or whatever!) that emulates the “security model” from Windows.
Uh, many n*x emulate Windows server 2003’s security model? I don’t think thats a fair comment at all. Trusted Solaris was out years before Windows Server 2003 was, SELinux was first released in 2000.
You need to go back to 1993 with the original NT release. That’s almost a decade before SELinux.
I dont know much about server environments but what I do know your saying about server 2003 is nonsence. How can you can even get a rating of +4 is beyond me.
You make it sound like Vista/win2003 invented these ‘new’ security methods, Unix,selinux and appamour ring a bell? and the fact that Vista is based of Unix security model may give you a hint.
Edited 2006-09-09 13:50
I dont know much about server environments but what I do know your saying about server 2003 is nonsence. How can you can even get a rating of +4 is beyond me.
In other words, you haven’t actually checked Server 2003’s security record as I suggested in that post.
You make it sound like Vista/win2003 invented these ‘new’ security methods, Unix,selinux and appamour ring a bell? and the fact that Vista is based of Unix security model may give you a hint.
As I said before, the security model I’m talking about wasn’t introduced with 2003. It was introduced with NT in 1993. NT uses an ACL-based model with securable objects. Until recently, most Unix/Linux systems still used the standard Unix permission bits.
most Unix/Linux systems still used the standard Unix permission bits.
Yes in a way or another so does windows use file permissions.What the other poster whas referring to (SELinux AppArmor) assumes that all software has holes and thus can’t be trusted.This assumption goes way beyond the traditional DAC (file permissions etc).
RedHat,SuSE come standard with a configured MAC for known services that are prone to be attack vectors.
Anyway rewriting code with the intention to make the whole system secure is like drying your hair under the shower.There will always be vulnerable code.
Edited 2006-09-09 19:38
Every thing is windows vista was either rewritten or updated except for security; and when I mean security I mean they didn’t make vista incompatible with the multi thousand viruses written for XP and the earlier.
To begin with, security was completely rewritten, and it was this decision to rewrite it that caused the bulk of the delays in Vista. The decision to scrap the work was taken several years ago, and yes, MS should have done this sooner (it was pretty dumb of them not to realise they couldn’t carry on with the same model), but that’s MS.
Trying to make Vista ‘incompatible’ with the viruses before would be a waste of time and would probably lead to massive incompatibility issues with existing software. If Apple introduces incompatibilities, then a relatively small number of users suffer; if MS does it; global companies will go to the wall and take MS with them.
And since writing exploits for Windows is such big business, the virus writers would simply start again.
security was completely rewritten
Now, what does that mean?
Business magazine has a different take on Vista. They analyze it and found that it didn’t offer compelling new features for users. They reccomended people stick with XP since XP’s hardware requirements are less. It is interesting to me that a business magazine would come to this conclusion. It made me start wondering what would happen if you spent 5 years developing a major product and very few people purchase it. It is interesting to step back from the discussion of whether Vista is good quality or bad and instead ask the question whether the sales of Vista will be worth the development time and money.
Business magazines said exactly the same thing about Windows 2000 vs Windows NT, and Windows XP vs Windows 2000.
The takeup of MS operating systems is always pretty slow in business. But they get there eventually. MS has deep pockets and other products; they can wait.
So Business magazine proclaims that Vista “doesn’t offer compelling new features for users”? I think that’s idiocy, but let’s just take desktop search as one example. When Mac OSX Tiger came out, it was said that desktop search was the *primary* reason to upgrade from Panther. Well, Vista has desktop search while XP doesn’t (natively). If desktop search qualified as a compelling new feature for Mac users, why doesn’t it qualify as such for Windows users? And that’s just one new feature.
I get the feeling that many *want* Vista to fail for whatever reason, and that is influencing their analyses.
Edited 2006-09-09 14:22
Well i think time machine is quite appealing.Although i don’t have a mac yet.
I couldnt wait to delete that garbage off my computer.
1. All my games crashed.
2. Firefox froze
3. IE froze.
4. File manager is horrible, repeat utter crap.
5. Security pop ups like crazy when tweaking settings.
6. Media player was slow, skipped, didnt work well.
Good things,
Super fast install and boot, theme looks nice.
This is on a dual core cpu, nvidia 7800 box, 24 inch widescreen lcd. Vista looked great, but thats all.
A joke? I wouldn’t call it that, but as far as compelling, I wouldn’t call it that either.
I was faithfully followed Vista up till a few builds ago and although there are things in it I wish XP had, I’m not that impressed. Maybe after SP1 or 2 it will prove itself worthy but I’m not holding my breath.
The truth is, XP maybe my last Windows for awhile. I’ve had too many problems and now I’m looking elsewhere and liking what I’m seeing.
> 4. File manager is horrible, repeat utter crap.
Actually, it’s so crappy that I didn’t recognize it for a filemanager at first…
On what planet? My installation was ready in under 30 minutes, WinSAT (performance detection) included. 2 years old A64 3000+, 1,5 gigs of ram and nearly full, heavily fragmented drive. The same time goes for my P-M 1,74, 1 gig laptop.
I just tried RC1 yesterday, it took 48 minutes from dvd insertion to logged in desktop (give or take a few seconds) on a 3300+ 64bit sempron 1gigs ram on a clean drive. I don’t know what influences the install time most, but I have heard and read about quite different time results, varying in a fairly wide range.
It’s possible, that like with Windows XP, the first few years there will be lots of flaws discovered in the all-new networking stack which has been written into Windows Vista…
If theres yet another Blaster-like worm for it well, I think that will be the nail in the coffin of Vista’s fantastic arrival.
Am I the only one who when checking the article summary briefly, thought it was going to be about improvements the new Vista brings over XP?
Instead, it turns out to be about the 5 things that became ‘less bad’ than earlier incarnations, and no mention of any reasons to switch.
Full vista advancement list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_Vista
Some of them are pretty neat, espesially udf write support.
Browser: SonyEricssonM600i/R100 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Symbian OS; 276) Opera 8.60 [ru]