Longhorn - new details emerge!

[Electronic Punk]

well ms server apps do tend to be well tested before they are deployed.
Having said that both win2k3 sp1 and r2 seem to have some neat AD enhancements.

 

[mlakrid]

has anyone read or heard rumor of newer specs for the min reqs yet??

 

[ming]

wow, 10months gone since the last post. hehe

no newer specs yet, apart from MS recommending ATi graphics card - i said 'recommending'. lol

 

[ABEC [LU]]

There were no blue screens in XP, so I can't see them re-adding them to longhorn

Errors, well, yes. No comment " Actually the blue screen still exhists in xp to my knowledge. Reason being; I had my primary hard drive die, think a ball bearing seized or something, and the blue screen of death came on, however the message was simply alond the lines of, "Windows has detected a fatal problem and to preven futher hardware problems it will shutdown." Just my two cents

 

[melon]

I've had a handful of BSODs in XP over the years, so, yes, it still exists.

Melon

 

[Perris Calderon]

I've had a handful of BSODs in XP over the years, so, yes, it still exists.

Melon

of course blue screens exist, it's just an error...I got a blue screen when I dropped my laptop and when the hardrive popped out...also when the memory card came loose

speedy's point is they are just about non existant

 

[Son Goku]

Well, as Vista moves through beta, details on new features will tend to become non-existent. The real question becomes how close it is to the build that will be considered "feature complete", and at what point they'll be focusing on bug fixing exclusively.

Two things though:

- Treating Microsoft's "hardware recomendations" more like a requirement isn't exactly a bad thing. Anyone remember Windows 95? I do, some of it's spec recommendations were like:

* 8 MB RAM
* 486 DX
.....

The minimum requirements were like

* 4 MB RAM
* 386 SX
.....

Ugh, I had win95 first on a Pentium 75 (exceeded the recomendation) with the 8 MB recommendation when I first got it. It was one of the most painful computer experiences I have ever had. The fricken thing would throw up invalid page fault errors just sitting at the desktop with no apps running, on top of the system at all

It'd be like "A program has performed an illegal operation." Click for details, and then "Explorer.exe has caused an invalid page fault in krnl32.dll at..."

I don't even want to know what win95 would have run like on the "minimum required" 4 MB of RAM... And true to form, Microsoft's recommended 8 MB, was more like everyone else saying, if you don't have at least 16 MB, forget it. For years then, and up through NT 4, and several generations beyond, I more followed with RAM (whatever MS recommends, double it) rule... And yes, though win95 had fewer probs with the 40 MB RAM, and far fewer crashes then with 8, by that time I had had it, and switched to NT 4.0 for my home PC, for the most part, out of disgust... I'll have to see their box spec recommended RAM to say if it will still apply

Course, remember, one doesn't just want to run Vista either. One wants to run apps on top of it, and have resources for one's apps as well...

- winXP does have BSOD's, and I've seen some. Ironically, I haven't been seeing them since I put this new memory in the comp here. I wonder if perhaps my older memory got toasted by my older AXP mobo, and the problems it was having. I already suspected the north bridge on that thing was having problems, a problem with the memory controller might have...

 

[Steevo]

"You'll be able to forward event logs to a central location."

I wonder if this is because of the HIPAA compliance that is coming down the road (in April I think)?

I am looking forward to the central administration that it offers, but not the initial cost, and hardware specs. I feel that it is a good move in that direction, but they should expect many small-medium business to leave off untill the next set of system upgrades. So the plan of in a couple years makes sense for the release date.

Large business is a good possibility for moving to it. Just for the administration cost reduction.

 

[Son Goku]

Well, for businesses, it can make sense that they stick with the "tried and true" for awhile, rather then become an early adopter. Many initial problems, which might be a nuisance for many, could be disasterious when business critical operations are at stake. If I were making a recommendation, for instance I wouldn't recommend the World Bank switch all their business critical operations over to Vista on launch day. A screw up there, could be real money, wherever the world financial network comes into play. Needless to say, banks tend to be rather conservative when it comes to upgrading their operations, and changing things, and for good reason considering what's at stake.

What will likely happen, is many organizations well get a hold of a limited number of copies of Vista sometime around launch, but put them on a test network, rather then in production. They'll mess with it, do some in-house testing, and try to ascertain how it will function in their operation, while also trying to weed out any potential issues, before putting their operations on it. Many might also continue to follow the "wait until after SP1" recommendation.

The other side to this, for both the companies as well as anyone providing support is that until we've had it in our hands and have had a chance to play with it, we haven't yet had time to discover any issues that might arise. It's kinda difficult to provide support for something new, until one's had it long enough to learn how it will operate and what one might run up against. It's especially so with beta testers, where running into an issue, does someone know how to resolve it? Everyone's a n00b of sorts with the given product, and everyone's still learning.

On my home PC I will likely buy it sometime around launch, albeit I'm thinking I might want 2 GB of RAM then (if 1 GB is just holding out with winXP and my uses today). I do expect Vista to require more RAM then XP... But my home PC also isn't a critical operation where a crash, could literally effect the stock market or something... I'm also not the ol granny who would be having to try to get support from people who themselves are new to a given product and haven't had much time to mess with it either.

 

[NetRyder]

has anyone read or heard rumor of newer specs for the min reqs yet??

Not yet. There's still quite a bit of perf work left to be done.

 

[NetRyder]

The latest from Paul:

In the ever-changing release schedule for Windows Vista, nothing stays constant. But according to internal Microsoft documentation, the following dates are correct for the next several major milestones in the product. Currently, Microsoft plans to ship the feature-complete internal build on January 31, 2006, and then ship a near-feature-complete Community Technology Preview (CTP) build to testers on February 17. (To date, more than 50 product teams have submitted code for the feature-complete builds.) Windows Vista Beta 2 is due on April 12, followed by a release candidate (RC) build in July and release to manufacturing (RTM) in August. Assuming this last date is met, the general release of the product will occur in October.

http://www.windowsitpro.com/windows...rticleID/49117/windowspaulthurrott_49117.html