[News] [Rival] How Bad is Windows Vista? Read This. - Linux

This is a discussion on [News] [Rival] How Bad is Windows Vista? Read This. - Linux ; just a warning for people using AIM 6.5 ,----[ Quote ] | hi mates. this problem happened to me 4 TIMES and the first two times i had | to clean format, the last two, i went to a restore ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: [News] [Rival] How Bad is Windows Vista? Read This.

  1. [News] [Rival] How Bad is Windows Vista? Read This.

    just a warning for people using AIM 6.5

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | hi mates. this problem happened to me 4 TIMES and the first two times i had
    | to clean format, the last two, i went to a restore point.
    |
    | basically when using the newest version of AIM 6.5 on my vista 32, i get
    | these problems.
    |
    |
    | 1. Vista Displays a Red X saying that its not connected to a Network even
    | though it is.
    |
    | 2. Connection may say "Connection status: unknown. Server execution failed."
    |
    | 3. WMI is corrupted
    |
    | 4. Windows Media Player won’t be able to play Mp3s
    |
    | 5. No sound can be heard from computer
    |
    | 6. Windows Security Center reports errors
    |
    |
    |
    |
    | this is a known issue.
    |
    | http://forums.microsoft.com/technet/...tf=0&pageid=15
    |
    | i just want to help others before they made the same mistake i did!
    `----

    http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=181355

    What a chain reaction. How can /upgrading/ a program do so much damage?

    Also see:

    Sure, Vista will run - just don’t use any games or apps

    http://blog.strafenet.com/2007/10/26...games-or-apps/

  2. Re: [News] [Rival] How Bad is Windows Vista? Read This.

    Roy Schestowitz wrote:

    > just a warning for people using AIM 6.5
    >
    > ,----[ Quote ]
    > | hi mates. this problem happened to me 4 TIMES and the first two times i
    > | had to clean format, the last two, i went to a restore point.
    > |
    > | basically when using the newest version of AIM 6.5 on my vista 32, i get
    > | these problems.
    > |
    > |
    > | 1. Vista Displays a Red X saying that its not connected to a Network
    > | even though it is.
    > |
    > | 2. Connection may say "Connection status: unknown. Server execution
    > | failed."
    > |
    > | 3. WMI is corrupted
    > |
    > | 4. Windows Media Player won’t be able to play Mp3s
    > |
    > | 5. No sound can be heard from computer
    > |
    > | 6. Windows Security Center reports errors
    > |
    > |
    > |
    > |
    > | this is a known issue.
    > |
    > | http://forums.microsoft.com/technet/...tf=0&pageid=15
    > |
    > | i just want to help others before they made the same mistake i did!
    > `----
    >
    > http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=181355
    >
    > What a chain reaction. How can /upgrading/ a program do so much damage?
    >
    > Also see:
    >
    > Sure, Vista will run - just don’t use any games or apps
    >
    >

    http://blog.strafenet.com/2007/10/26...games-or-apps/

    Furthermore, as I posted to Linonut, I read in a UK group that some people
    are having problems with Vista not getting an IP address from their routers
    or from some non-Microsoft DHCP servers? Some other poster said that
    apparently M$ have configured Fista *differently from XP*, so that out of
    the box it does NOT work with all routers!
    Now I suppose on a small network you could allocate a static IP, but *would*
    the 'average joe' (that the wintrolls are so fond of) know how to do that?

    Here it explains how to get around those problems...by editing the registry:
    http://support.microsoft.com/kb/928233

    BUT note, it says that:

    Serious problems might occur if you modify the registry incorrectly by using
    Registry Editor or by using another method. These problems might require
    that you reinstall your operating system. Microsoft cannot guarantee that
    these problems can be solved. Modify the registry at your own risk.


    Ummmm.....weren't some of the wintrolls saying (some time ago) that the
    average windoze user didn't *need* to know anything about the registry &
    had *no* need to know how to edit it?

    So, M$ *deliberately* cripple their latest crapware offering, presumably to
    stop it working with non-M$ router & server products. THEN they say that
    *they* won't take responsibility for anyone trying to get their ****e to
    work!

    Wonderful.

    --
    Operating systems: FreeBSD 6.2, PC-BSD 1.4,
    Testing: FreeBSD 7.0-BETA1.5
    Linux systems: Debian 4.0, PCLinuxOS 2007,
    Kubuntu 7.10 "Gutsy"

  3. Re: [News] [Rival] How Bad is Windows Vista? Read This.

    ____/ William Poaster on Saturday 27 October 2007 15:13 : \____

    > So, M$ deliberately cripple their latest crapware offering, presumably to
    > stop it working with non-M$ router & server products.


    I remember this.

    Entire city of Vista users can't access the internet

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Lundis Energi blamed Microsoft because Vista has got a bug and it isn't going
    | to change the configuration of the server just to cope with the flaw.
    `----

    http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=42043


    Also see:

    FLOSS Weekly 14: Jeremy Allison of Samba

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | 'In the section of the interview from around 33m30s to 39m00 Jeremy
    | Allison reports how he was told that the Microsoft team implementing
    | SMB2 were ordered to "f**k with Samba".'
    `----

    http://www.twit.tv/floww14


    Longhorn server and Ubuntu do they still play together?

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | There real question however is can linux boxes still join and
    | authenticate against Active Directory domains running at Native
    | Longhorn Server levels. Well the answer a non surprising NO!
    `----

    http://odin749.blogspot.com/2007/05/...tu-active.html

    They could be trying to push out Linux from the server room, using the
    desktop. Usually it's the other way around, but they found a way to leverage a
    desktop monopoly /across/ domain. The same goes for XAML, among other lockins
    like SOA (REST).

    --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    An aristocrat's sexual escapades equate to Technocrat's hot RSS feed
    http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    Tasks: 111 total, 1 running, 109 sleeping, 0 stopped, 1 zombie
    http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine

  4. Re: [News] [Rival] How Bad is Windows Vista? Read This.

    On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 01:10:59 +0100, [H]omer wrote:

    > Verily I say unto thee, that William Poaster spake thusly:
    >
    >> Furthermore, as I posted to Linonut, I read in a UK group that some
    >> people are having problems with Vista not getting an IP address
    >> from their routers or from some non-Microsoft DHCP servers?

    >
    > In fairness, Microsoft are merely implementing RFC1542:
    >
    > http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1542.html (section 3.1.1)
    >
    > However, they should have a fallback method for DHCP servers that do
    > not support the broadcast flag, which is a comparatively new
    > feature.
    >
    > Actually they /do/, but it should be automatic, not something which
    > requires users to edit the registry.


    They are implementing it wrongly. From the rfc:

    DISCUSSION:

    This addition to the protocol is a workaround for old host
    implementations. Such implementations SHOULD be modified so
    that they may receive unicast BOOTREPLY messages, thus making
    use of this workaround unnecessary. In general, the use of
    this mechanism is discouraged.

    If vista defaults to setting the broadcast bit then they have not
    understood the purpose of the flag. Any fallback should be to set the
    broadcast bit when no IP address is received when configured for
    unicast replies. Microsoft's philosophy seems to be, lets flood
    subnets with broadcasts whenever possible (not just boot[ps]).

  5. Re: [News] [Rival] How Bad is Windows Vista? Read This.

    [H]omer espoused:
    > Verily I say unto thee, that p5000011 spake thusly:
    >
    >> They are implementing it wrongly. From the rfc:
    >>
    >> DISCUSSION:
    >>
    >> This addition to the protocol is a workaround for old host
    >> implementations. Such implementations SHOULD be modified so
    >> that they may receive unicast BOOTREPLY messages, thus making
    >> use of this workaround unnecessary. In general, the use of
    >> this mechanism is discouraged.
    >>
    >> If vista defaults to setting the broadcast bit then they have not
    >> understood the purpose of the flag. Any fallback should be to set the
    >> broadcast bit when no IP address is received when configured for
    >> unicast replies. Microsoft's philosophy seems to be, lets flood
    >> subnets with broadcasts whenever possible (not just boot[ps]).

    >
    > Yes, they've configured the discovery method backwards. Unicast should
    > be the default, and multicast should be the fallback. Microsoft seem to
    > have a fetish for flooding networks, don't they? Ref: 1500 packets just
    > to delete a file over SMB2:
    >
    > http://twit.cachefly.net/FLOSS-014.mp3
    >


    Going back to the original issue, though - I'm more inclined to believe
    incompetence as the cause of the problem with Vista on this occasion. I
    can't see that Microsoft would get any benefit from having Vista only
    work with some routers.

    --
    | Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
    | Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
    | Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
    | My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |

  6. Re: [News] [Rival] How Bad is Windows Vista? Read This.

    ____/ Mark Kent on Monday 29 October 2007 10:07 : \____

    > [H]omer espoused:
    >> Verily I say unto thee, that p5000011 spake thusly:
    >>
    >>> They are implementing it wrongly. From the rfc:
    >>>
    >>> DISCUSSION:
    >>>
    >>> This addition to the protocol is a workaround for old host
    >>> implementations. Such implementations SHOULD be modified so
    >>> that they may receive unicast BOOTREPLY messages, thus making
    >>> use of this workaround unnecessary. In general, the use of
    >>> this mechanism is discouraged.
    >>>
    >>> If vista defaults to setting the broadcast bit then they have not
    >>> understood the purpose of the flag. Any fallback should be to set the
    >>> broadcast bit when no IP address is received when configured for
    >>> unicast replies. Microsoft's philosophy seems to be, lets flood
    >>> subnets with broadcasts whenever possible (not just boot[ps]).

    >>
    >> Yes, they've configured the discovery method backwards. Unicast should
    >> be the default, and multicast should be the fallback. Microsoft seem to
    >> have a fetish for flooding networks, don't they? Ref: 1500 packets just
    >> to delete a file over SMB2:
    >>
    >> http://twit.cachefly.net/FLOSS-014.mp3
    >>

    >
    > Going back to the original issue, though - I'm more inclined to believe
    > incompetence as the cause of the problem with Vista on this occasion. I
    > can't see that Microsoft would get any benefit from having Vista only
    > work with some routers.


    You've probably seen the refs (appended again below), by why wouldn't they
    pressure out Linux routers? They were accused of playing the interop trick in
    the server room before. I read the EC ruling in the airport, so I know this
    for a fact.
    ___
    Entire city of Vista users can't access the internet

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Lundis Energi blamed Microsoft because Vista has got a bug and it isn't going
    | to change the configuration of the server just to cope with the flaw.
    `----

    http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=42043


    FLOSS Weekly 14: Jeremy Allison of Samba

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | 'In the section of the interview from around 33m30s to 39m00 Jeremy
    | Allison reports how he was told that the Microsoft team implementing
    | SMB2 were ordered to "f**k with Samba".'
    `----

    http://www.twit.tv/floww14


    Longhorn server and Ubuntu do they still play together?

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | There real question however is can linux boxes still join and
    | authenticate against Active Directory domains running at Native
    | Longhorn Server levels. Well the answer a non surprising NO!
    `----

    http://odin749.blogspot.com/2007/05/...tu-active.html

    --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    Roy S. Schestowitz | Free software is what's left and what's also right
    http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    Mem: 515500k total, 444404k used, 71096k free, 3304k buffers
    http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms

+ Reply to Thread