Windows Vista compatibility

[marked23]

I'm about to install Windows Vista (beta 1) on my laptop that I use for G2.

Do you think G2 will even run on the new OS?

-Mark

[cdrking]

Mark,

If you don't get a response here PM Vitek, he should know.

Jeff

You going to Brooks, Oregon?

[vitek]

Sorry guys, can't help you there. Haven't had time to test with Media Center, XP64 and a lot of other things...

Travis

[marked23]

I installed Vista last night, but I have not gotten far enough to install G2. I'll get it installed tonight and let you know.

I'm having one problem where the tool that regulates my LCD brightness doesn't work on Vista... so I'm stuck at a low brightness level until Toshiba creates a patch. It's a showstopper problem for me because I have a hi-res screen that is unreadable unless bright.

-Mark

[DebianDog]

Just out of curiosity... are you in IT and just playing with it? I can't imagine, for the life of me, WHY you would want to load it. I have seen no new breakthroughs that would warrant running a beta. Especially a Windows Beta 1 :lol:

[marked23]

I am in IT... I'm a dev. So yes, I'm just messing around.

I was able to get G2 running no problem. It does run a little slower, but that can be blamed on the fact that beta code is never as fast as the release build. It was still fully flyable.

It looks like Vista is going to lock down a bunch of security stuff that will make many existing driver installers (like the ones I need :arggg: ) obsolete. system32 is so locked down that I can't add files to it even as an admin. And I did try taking ownership.

-Mark

[PaulH]

That sounds like it's one step beyond UNIX even. The root user has always had the ability to nuke the entire operating system with a "rm -rf /*". I'm glad that Microsoft is locking down System32. That alone will prevent 99.9% of all virii. It also ends "DLL Hell" if only OS libraries can live there. Finally, developers will have no choice but to load application DLLs in their application folder.

[DebianDog]

I'm glad that Microsoft is locking down System32

Thaqt is great news but... we will see. If they do pull it off, I may actually consider run M$ products again. Not till Vista SP1 though. My Guess - Earliest - Jan 2007

[PaulH]

I loaded Vista Beta 1 on a system in my server room/lab at the office. It actually runs quite well! It had drivers for everything in the Dell desktop that I confiscated except for the audio chip.

Instead of having to put users in the Admin group to install software, there is now a "Software Installers" group. As a site admin, you can put people into that group so that they can install things that they need without bugging you all the time, but they can't actually mess up anything vital to the core O.S. I likey! :glasses2:

[DebianDog]

WOW! they finally implemented groups with permissions... impressive :roll:

Every other OS already has this. :lol:

[PaulH]

Windows has had groups with permissions since NT 3.5 was available. In fact, Windows NT has always had a finer granularity in its permissions than any version of UNIX. Even Novell (yuck!) is better than UNIX in that regard.

[WillJames]

Only problem now is getting third parties who need special DLL additions to write apps that can use the standard Win32 DLL's. I am probably going to install Vista on one of my Opteron based workstations today, or try. EIther of you guys running SATA RAID Arrays?

[PaulH]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by needing special DLL additions. Most applications use DLLs. The correct place to put them has always been either in the same directory as the executable, or more recently, under the "Program Files\Common Files" hierarchy.

Traditionally Windows has looked in the System/System32/System64 directory as a last resort which lead developers to (incorrectly) place all of their custom libraries there. If an application is written correctly and installed properly, then it should not trip over any of the new security mechanisms. The only reason that people are affected by it now is because of poorly-written installers.

Vista is based upon XP Professional, so there shouldn't be any problems with your SATA RAID array. If it doesn't recognize it with a built in driver, just add the driver during the initial install process as you have probably done in the past.

[DebianDog]

Windows has had groups with permissions since NT 3.5 was available. In fact, Windows NT has always had a finer granularity in its permissions than any version of UNIX. Even Novell (yuck!) is better than UNIX in that regard.

Seldom you need more than ACL's can provide and access control lists came out in Windows land in what? Ver. 2000?

You would hope they would be more flexible since they have been in Unix land for the last 20 years ;)

The only reason that people are affected by it now is because of poorly-written installers.

Security and installs go hand in hand too :mrgreen:

[PaulH]

Seldom you need more than ACL's can provide and access control lists came out in Windows land in what? Ver. 2000?

You would hope they would be more flexible since they have been in Unix land for the last 20 years ;)

Just because a feature is seldom needed in one Operating System does not mean that it is undesireable in another Operating System.

The first version of UNIX to have ACL capability was AT&T SVR4.2 which became available in the early 1990's. Windows NT 4.0 supported this capability when it was released in 1995, so there are only a couple of years difference between the two. A further data-point to consider: VMS 4.0 supported ACLs in 1984 which considerably pre-dates both UNIX and Windows inclusion of this feature.

The only reason that people are affected by it now is because of poorly-written installers.

Security and installs go hand in hand too :mrgreen:

Agreed! I think installation software and users tend to follow the theory of: Every time something is deemed to be idiot-poof, the universe conspires to produce an even bigger idiot! :glasses2:

[DebianDog]

LOL - O.K. not 20 15 years ago.... back when I was working on the "quality" AT&T 3B2. Ah... what a machine! Converted phone switch! :badair:

[PaulH]

LOL! Here's a web site that should give you some fond memories:

http://www.att.com/news/1090/901001.nca.html

[DebianDog]

DANG those were the "Good ole days"!!!

The 3B2/1000 Model 70's price has been reduced 25 percent to $44,900. The 3B2/1000 Model 80, Package B, the top of the 3B2 line, has been enhanced by doubling its memory capacity, to 32-megabytes of RAM from its previous 16-MB; a doubling of its storage capacity to 2-600-MB hard disks from 2-300-MB disks; and adding a 320/525-MB cartridge tape, from a 120-MB tape. Priced separately, the memory and storage additions are $24,000, but now will be included in the standard package price of $74,900. :shock: