Windows Longhorn Beta

[RegisteredJack]

I have long since dropped my TechNet and MS Dev subscriptions... Is anyone beta testing this new "Longhorn"?

I am curious how the new WinFS works....

 

[cw42]

do u mean Vista?

 

[daniel1113]

WinFS was dropped from Vista, but you can download a separate beta for it that can be used on XP. It it pretty neat.

 

[Seeruk]

I am and am pretty impressed at a superficial level all round. There's nothing groundbreaking, just lots of stuff at all kinds of levels fixed, improved, added. For me the big big big big thing at work is the Virtual Folders. Our company was wasted close to a million a year on a document management system JUST for similar functionality. Now it can be dropped like the big pile of shite it is anyway

 

[spherrod]

Yep, and I like it a lot - especially the Virtual Folders that Seeruk has mentioned.

WinFS is not included in it though.

 

[acole1]

Originally posted by: cw42
do u mean Vista?

 

[RegisteredJack]

Originally posted by: cw42
do u mean Vista?

Yeah. sorry about that. They changed the name last year, didn't they?

 

[RegisteredJack]

Originally posted by: acole1

Originally posted by: cw42
do u mean Vista?

Yeah. (sorry 'bout that!)

If everyone likes Vista, then why have 27% voted that they don't like it? I really want to hear from those people.

 

[RegisteredJack]

Originally posted by: Seeruk
I am and am pretty impressed at a superficial level all round. There's nothing groundbreaking, just lots of stuff at all kinds of levels fixed, improved, added. For me the big big big big thing at work is the Virtual Folders. Our company was wasted close to a million a year on a document management system JUST for similar functionality. Now it can be dropped like the big pile of shite it is anyway

Nice. I like the real world analysis. Since I can't get a beta, maybe I'll just wait for a release copy to test with.

 

[RegisteredJack]

do u know why they dropped it?

 

[spherrod]

Originally posted by: RegisteredJack
do u know why they dropped it?

I don't think they could confirm it would all be ready for their target release date

 

[RegisteredJack]

Hmmm. Cool.

I wonder if WinFS is more stable.

Other than that, what would be the draw to even mess with it? (aside from the fact that Microsoft will incorporate it into their next OS and make obsolete the older file systems.)

 

[acole1]

I know a guy who still uses win2k on all his machines because he claims XP is too unstable. While he has an excellent point in that win2k is an extremely stable OS it lacks some nice features that reside in XP. I was talking to him about Vista today, and he said when Vista comes out he may finally upgrade to XP, even though it is so bloated now.

He just doesn?t like to upgrade until an OS is outdated. While I see his concern about stability, security, etc. I don't really agree with him in doing that. There are many advantages to upgrading to a new OS that I believe he is missing out on... but it is a matter of opinion. So, in answer to your questions about why people would not want Vista, this may be some of the reasoning behind it.

Personally, I would like to get my hands on Vista as soon as it comes out. I do tech work and the more I use it, the better I can help other people with problems they may have with it, and make $$ off my quickly acquired knowledge.

All OS's have their pitfalls... just dual/triple/quad boot!

 

[Rigomortis]

I played with it for a month before deleting the partion.
I liked the new feel and really liked the cascade window effect. Its part of the 3d where instead of having widows share space vertically or horizontally they stack at an angle and you can look down at each face.

But as far as nuts and bolts go the new IE interface is to busy like MSN I like a small menu bar and use the "F11" browse feature because I just want the page onscreen.

 

[RegisteredJack]

Originally posted by: acole1
I know a guy who still uses win2k on all his machines because he claims XP is too unstable. While he has an excellent point in that win2k is an extremely stable OS it lacks some nice features that reside in XP. I was talking to him about Vista today, and he said when Vista comes out he may finally upgrade to XP, even though it is so bloated now.

He just doesn?t like to upgrade until an OS is outdated. While I see his concern about stability, security, etc. I don't really agree with him in doing that. There are many advantages to upgrading to a new OS that I believe he is missing out on... but it is a matter of opinion. So, in answer to your questions about why people would not want Vista, this may be some of the reasoning behind it.

Personally, I would like to get my hands on Vista as soon as it comes out. I do tech work and the more I use it, the better I can help other people with problems they may have with it, and make $$ off my quickly acquired knowledge.

All OS's have their pitfalls... just dual/triple/quad boot!

Good point, Acole!

 

[ryan256]

I haven't had any real problems with Vista. I just don't like the feel of it. And talk about a resource hog! IE7 feels like a skinned rip of Firefox. Only thing I can say I like about it is folder navigation from the address line. If you are buried 9 folders deep and need to change to something 5 levels back you can click the address bar and go straight to it. However.... I think I'll stick with XP for a while even after Vista is released.

 

[spyordie007]

IE7 feels like a skinned rip of Firefox

Are you kidding? One of the best features about IE 7 under vista is protected mode (where IE runs as a low-privilaged process); this is a big step-forward in security. Firefox doesnt have anything like it.

 

[Quinton McLeod]

Stick with Windows XP. Vista is said to incorporate DRM protection. DRM protection right along with kernel level locks on programs is bad! You won't be able to run programs or drivers unless they are microsoft certified. You will also need a new monitor to run Vista; a monitor that supports HDCP support. If you don't, then you cannot view Vista pass 640 x 480. Here's the proof:

http://informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=167101058#_

and

http://www.pcstats.com/ArtVNL.cfm?articleid=1871&page=2

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: spyordie007

IE7 feels like a skinned rip of Firefox

Are you kidding? One of the best features about IE 7 under vista is protected mode (where IE runs as a low-privilaged process); this is a big step-forward in security. Firefox doesnt have anything like it.

Why don't you just replace your IE shortcut with runas /user:limited /savecred "iexplore.exe"? Should replicate Vista functionality assuming you make a new user called limited and set it respectively. Or maybe if you restrict the account even more (there's probably a way to complete neuter an account and run IE under that). Restrict write access from all registry hives in that user 'limited'. FireFox doesn't need to run as low privileges because it does a much better job of controlling itself in the first place.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod
Stick with Windows XP. Vista is said to incorporate DRM protection. DRM protection right along with kernel level locks on programs is bad! You won't be able to run programs or drivers unless they are microsoft certified. You will also need a new monitor to run Vista; a monitor that supports HDCP support. If you don't, then you cannot view Vista pass 640 x 480. Here's the proof:

:roll: I love when the newbies come into the thread and start repeating complete lies.

 

[bjc112]

I like IE7 and the quick tabs feature...

Kind of like Expose' for IE!

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: xtknight

Originally posted by: spyordie007

IE7 feels like a skinned rip of Firefox

Are you kidding? One of the best features about IE 7 under vista is protected mode (where IE runs as a low-privilaged process); this is a big step-forward in security. Firefox doesnt have anything like it.

Why don't you just replace your IE shortcut with runas /user:limited /savecred "iexplore.exe"? Should replicate Vista functionality assuming you make a new user called limited and set it respectively. Or maybe if you restrict the account even more (there's probably a way to complete neuter an account and run IE under that). Restrict write access from all registry hives in that user 'limited'.

A slightly-annoying side effect of that change is that if you download a file and save it to the My Documents or Desktop directory, it's Limited's My Documents, Limited's Desktop. I just make my whole account Limited, or Restricted-User in a domain scenario, and deal with the fallout as it comes (programs that kick & scream under a Limited account, such as ironically the Microsoft-developed Mechwarrior4 series ).

Anyway, I hope that the low-privilege design of Vista rapidly eradicates Windows software that MUST have Admin privileges to run. It'll be interesting to watch the response of the malware makers as the rules of the game change a bit.

 

[xtknight]

Another annoying side-effect is iexplore.exe doesn't want to run at all with runas on my machine.

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: xtknight
Another annoying side-effect is iexplore.exe doesn't want to run at all with runas on my machine.

That's because it has detected your FireFox installation and is feeling resentful



Does the Limited account have a password? If not, give it one and try again.


edit: I'll add that I have the reverse setup, I have a runas /savecred shortcut on my Limited desktop screen for running IE at Admin level when desired, and one little snag is that the Start In: directory needs to be somewhere that my Limited account has privileges to, such as "C:\Documents and Settings\User" in my case. Just in case that helps anyone.

 

[xtknight]

Yeah it had a password. I'll try running it from a different working directory. Actually I use Opera, superior to both in security and features IMO.

Edit: no luck. Weird. Can you run limited ie under an admin account? Yeah, yeah, I know, I should be running under a limited account.