Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 10th Aug 2005 11:52 UTC
Windows "Windows Vista is actually quite interesting for an administrator. When I first saw it on MSDN, I thought, "Over 2 Gig's. What could they have done for it to be that large without the drastic new UI?" Well, I have been looking at this thing for about a week now and I uncover more and more each time that I look into it. I am going to cover some of the enhancements that Vista will provide for administrators as well as a few neat little tidbits that I have not seen much of."
Order by: Score:
Hm
by Anonymous on Wed 10th Aug 2005 12:06 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Um, link to story? Or is this just a taster for what is to come?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Hm
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 10th Aug 2005 12:07 UTC in reply to "Hm"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

My bad, forgot = sign in the link. Fixed!

Reply Score: 5

Lazarus Member since:
2005-08-10

"Good luck, I'll stick with open source software; when it's bloated at least I can look in and see WHY."

Well duh. You only have to take a look at the package lists for any given Linux distribution to see why they're so bloated, and of course that has nothing to do with the ability to see the source code (making your point both rediculous and moot).

I like source code as much as the next computer geek, but gawd, the things you people come up with as reasons for you choices and preferences... absolutely bewildering.

Fedora core is far more bloated than Windows Vista, and much of it is redundant functionality and don't get me started on the brain-dead dependancy set that requires one to download *all four* cd images to do a "personal desktop" installation when the required packages would fit just nicely on *one* (assuming of course that you're not doing a network install).

Reply Score: 2

Daniel Borgmann Member since:
2005-07-08

Fedora core is far more bloated than Windows Vista, and much of it is redundant functionality and don't get me started on the brain-dead dependancy set that requires one to download *all four* cd images to do a "personal desktop" installation when the required packages would fit just nicely on *one* (assuming of course that you're not doing a network install).

You only need the first two actually. Hopefully they'll get it down to one at some point. ;)

Reply Score: 1

Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

You've been doing crack, haven't you? 500 MB tops ... lol. Try ~1 GB.

Reply Score: 0

abraxas Member since:
2005-07-07

Fedora core is far more bloated than Windows Vista

You don't have to install all four cds if you don't want to. Fedora gives you the option during install.

...and much of it is redundant functionality and don't get me started on the brain-dead dependancy set that requires one to download *all four* cd images to do a "personal desktop" installation when the required packages would fit just nicely on *one*

It only takes two cds. 90% of it fits on one and then you have to put the other disk in for a minute. It's really not as bad as you make it seem, especially since you usually have to put in a few driver disks for Windows after you install it and Windows comes with next to nothing for packages.

Reply Score: 1

Is it just me, or ...
by HagerR15 on Wed 10th Aug 2005 12:54 UTC
HagerR15
Member since:
2005-07-25

Does Explorer look more and more like Xandros' XFM to anyone else? This is definitely a good thing. Okay, so I'm a little partial to Corel, (and Corel based) products, but I like XFM and the way this updated Explorer looks.

I'm definitely warming toward Windows Vista, but I admit I'd only buy it if they keep the cost ~$100. Otherwise I'll just wait until I bought my next system.

Reply Score: 1

(new)features?
by Anonymous on Wed 10th Aug 2005 13:14 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

So you say a admin should consider windows vista because of;group policy,event viewer,parental controls and the management console?

Feel free to correct me but aren't these included in w2k allready?My take is most companies only upgrade when they are forced to do so because of support.This article doesn't really warm them up that's for sure.Or it's an sarcastic article just saying the opposite of what's written,lol anyway.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous
Member since:
---

"Fedora core is far more bloated than Windows Vista". Yeah, right. The crappy recycled and patched XP code base that's underlying Vista is HUGE.

Unlike Vista, Fedora is a real OS that is configurable, easy to use, stable, secure, virus and spyware free, and it has a beautiful UI and a great look and feel.

Reply Score: 0

OMG
by Anonymous on Wed 10th Aug 2005 13:42 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

This article is useless sorry...
1) This is a beta, developer-oriented. WPF, WinFX &Co are there and that's it. The first thing the writer does is to complain about the missing sidebar and new features of game menu.
2) Later, the author admits he has no beta invitation to the server version of Vista. So with what title is he talking about "administration"? Administering your 3-pc home lan doesn't make you a sysad.

As usual, when you don't know what you're talking about, you should shut up. Too bad you'll read my comment after reading the article, I can't save your time ;)

Reply Score: 1

Gooeez stink
by Sphinx on Wed 10th Aug 2005 13:44 UTC
Sphinx
Member since:
2005-07-09

Appears as useless bloat nobody asked for to me. Do you install adult games on your kids machine? You would be a complete ass to do so. Don't be stupid enough to think M$ has wrapped it so cleverly you no longer need to monitor their activity, like duh.
None of that appeared to be admin level stuff either, a decent command line grep for events would have been welcome. How are you supposed to automate your enterprise with weak sissy tools like those? pfffft!

Reply Score: 1

RE: Gooeez stink
by Anonymous on Wed 10th Aug 2005 17:17 UTC in reply to "Gooeez stink"
Anonymous Member since:
---

google "monad", pls

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Gooeez stink
by Anonymous on Wed 10th Aug 2005 20:40 UTC in reply to "RE: Gooeez stink"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"google monad pls"

I did. It won't be included in vista.
It _might_ ship with the next exchange release.

Reply Score: 0

v No need for a GUI
by Anonymous on Wed 10th Aug 2005 13:47 UTC
v Wow
by Anonymous on Wed 10th Aug 2005 13:55 UTC
RE: Wow
by Anonymous on Wed 10th Aug 2005 14:30 UTC in reply to "Wow"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"Microsoft (and it's fan boys) need to give up.

You lost. Apple and OSS are eating your lunch."


Wake me when either apple or OSS reach 5% of the market

Reply Score: 0

M$!!!!!11111oneone
by StephenBeDoper on Wed 10th Aug 2005 14:13 UTC
StephenBeDoper
Member since:
2005-07-06

It's good to see that the "From my parent's basement, I stab at thee!" ABM crowd are enjoying their summer vacation.

Reply Score: 2

v RE:RE: Wow
by Anonymous on Wed 10th Aug 2005 14:39 UTC
RE[2]:RE: Wow
by cwdrake on Wed 10th Aug 2005 15:33 UTC in reply to "RE:RE: Wow"
cwdrake Member since:
2005-08-09

This article is about Windows Vista... a desktop OS.

Since when is Linux even close to 5% on the desktop?

Reply Score: 0

Multiple logins
by Anonymous on Wed 10th Aug 2005 15:18 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I want to know if you can have more than one person logged on at the same time. That feature almost made it in to an XP service pack but then was pulled.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Multiple logins
by Anonymous on Wed 10th Aug 2005 15:19 UTC in reply to "Multiple logins"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Just to clarify, I don't meant the fast switch thing. I mean someone logged in locally and another user logged in remotely.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Multiple logins
by CPUGuy on Wed 10th Aug 2005 15:35 UTC in reply to "RE: Multiple logins"
CPUGuy Member since:
2005-07-06

XP Pro can do that, just not home.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Multiple logins
by Anonymous on Wed 10th Aug 2005 16:04 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Multiple logins"
Anonymous Member since:
---

> XP Pro can do that, just not home.

No it can't. In XP Pro the local user will be kicked off when a remote user logs in. XP Home doesn't even have Remote Desktop. Officially you need Terminal Server or Windows 2003 to get multiple logins.

Some beta builds of XP SP2 included the functionality, but it was pulled from the release version. You can restore it with this unsupported patch:
http://sala.pri.ee/?page_id=11
which overwrites some files from the files from the beta SP2. Be warned though, that security issues in Remote Desktop will not be patched if you install this.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous
Member since:
---

What does a system admin care about parental rights or games? Are you talking about sys admins in companies or people at home??

Reply Score: 0

2 GB ???
by Anonymous on Wed 10th Aug 2005 15:34 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

2 GB! I bet that each new version of Windows is just a wrapper for the previous version, so under all these eye-candy features there is still Win3.1 working very hard :-)

Reply Score: 2

RE: 2 GB ???
by rajan r on Wed 10th Aug 2005 15:56 UTC in reply to "2 GB ???"
rajan r Member since:
2005-07-27

2 GB! I bet that each new version of Windows is just a wrapper for the previous version, so under all these eye-candy features there is still Win3.1 working very hard :-)

You call bloated, others call useful. That "bloat" is what's keeping Microsoft's dominant position - its unrivaled (in the desktop sector) recod of backward compatiblity (BTW, Windows Vista is based on Windows NT )

You think a lot of people would be happy they can't run so-and-so program from 1997 and that custom app from 1995 solely because instead of taking up 2GB of their 80GB harddrive, it now *hurray!* takes 500MB! Maybe even less! I bet they would have rave parties celebrating that Windows would be a tiny portion now on harddisks that would soon commonly be measured in three digits!

Reply Score: 1

v RE:RE[2]:RE: Wow
by Anonymous on Wed 10th Aug 2005 15:36 UTC
RE[2]:RE[3]:RE: Wow
by Anonymous on Wed 10th Aug 2005 16:18 UTC in reply to "RE:RE[2]:RE: Wow"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Did you even bother to read the article before you linked to it?

Quoted from your article:

"By 2008, for instance, IDC estimated that Linux will carve out about 9 percent of the desktop market in those two regions, while the Americas will lag behind at under 4 percent. Worldwide, Linux will account for about 7 percent of all desktop OSes."

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]:RE[3]:RE: Wow
by cwdrake on Wed 10th Aug 2005 16:20 UTC in reply to "RE:RE[2]:RE: Wow"
cwdrake Member since:
2005-08-09

hmmm... according to the article, in 2008 Linux will have about 4% of the desktop market share in America and 7% worldwide.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]:RE[4]:RE: Wow
by Anonymous on Thu 11th Aug 2005 17:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]:RE[3]:RE: Wow"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Keywords here "according to the article". We shall need to wait until 2008 before being able to prove the worth of this claim. I find this to be highly unlikely without a huge shift in direction by the OEM's selling new systems.

Consider for a second how many new Windows based systems were sold in the single minute which it took me to type this comment.

Reply Score: 0

re: multiple logins
by Anonymous on Wed 10th Aug 2005 16:30 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Multiple logins is included in the server version. In that version, hundreds of additional users can log on remotely. In terms of a workstation or desktop computer, seeing how this product is aimed for single users, I don't see in what situation the remote desktop will not work.

Reply Score: 0

RE: re: multiple logins
by robnix on Wed 10th Aug 2005 18:44 UTC in reply to "re: multiple logins"
robnix Member since:
2005-08-10

Multiple logins is included in the server version. In that version, hundreds of additional users can log on remotely. In terms of a workstation or desktop computer, seeing how this product is aimed for single users, I don't see in what situation the remote desktop will not work.

Even on the server you're stuck at two simultaneous logins without additional liscencing.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: re: multiple logins
by Beryllium on Wed 10th Aug 2005 19:46 UTC in reply to "RE: re: multiple logins"
Beryllium Member since:
2005-07-08

I think he meant Terminal Services Edition, and since it's designed for thin client computing, I highly doubt that TSE is limited to two logins.

Now, licensing is another story. AFAIK, you need to buy CALs for each client. And an OS - luckily, though, the clients can get away with running Linux+RDesktop.

Where I work, we use FC2+Xorg+XDM to provide thin client services. I'd *love* for something TerminalServices style, where the current login session follows the user's login name. It gets VERY annoying when the user logs in at one desk, then walks to another one and logs in there, and then wonders why OOo or Firefox go wonky. All the dud profiles that Firefox and Thunderbird make when a profile-lock conflict occurs are VERY annoying.

So, in summary, something that logs out the user's thin client, but keeps their programs running & ready for display on some new desktop, would be nice for Linux/xorg/xdm. Now, what was I talking about?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: re: multiple logins
by robnix on Thu 11th Aug 2005 04:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: re: multiple logins"
robnix Member since:
2005-08-10

I think he meant Terminal Services Edition, and since it's designed for thin client computing, I highly doubt that TSE is limited to two logins.

It's limited to two administrative logins. IIRC, additional TS CAL's so users can run applications run about $3,000 per 20, plus $8,000 for the TS External access lisence.

Reply Score: 1

More bad press...
by aGNUstic on Wed 10th Aug 2005 17:54 UTC
aGNUstic
Member since:
2005-07-28

http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/09/technology/ms_security.reut/index.h...

As a sysadmin I get really tired of service packs and patches. I wonder how many Vista will have.

Reply Score: 1

sidebar
by Anonymous on Wed 10th Aug 2005 18:03 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

he complains about the sidebar missing from this build. I really hated the sidebar

Reply Score: 0

It's a BETA!
by Anonymous on Wed 10th Aug 2005 18:29 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

How can someone write a review of a software that is only Beta1 when even MS is saying that all the real good stuff will be included in Beta2...

This "Administrator" review of a Desktop OS is a little bit on the terrible side...

Oh and again, note to self : It's only BETA 1!

Reply Score: 0

5% market OSS + mac
by Anonymous on Wed 10th Aug 2005 18:56 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

here's your wake up call:

2005 Win XP W2000 Win 98 Win NT Win .NET Linux Mac
August 66.3% 17.5% 3.2% 0.6% 1.7% 3.3% 2.9%

Linux and Mac combined are now at 6.2% of the market! WooT!

I think some of the stuff in here does look cool, but it's nothing that can't be done with any current OS. Even win 2000 has file access privileges.

(if your curious I got those stats from:
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

it's interesting that both macs and linux have been slowly increasing in percentage since 2000.)

--->
Fedora Core ships with a full range of software to give you a complete desktop out of the box. The base install of Linux with a GUI is 500MB tops. So it is not a fair compare.

I completely agree look at all the one disk distros that come with WAY MORE software than Vista AND you can still choose which pieces of software not to install (I admit they could be better named or better described, but it's better than losing 2+ gigs to the black hole of vista.)

Reply Score: 0

RE: RE: 5% market OSS + mac
by Anonymous on Wed 10th Aug 2005 20:19 UTC in reply to "5% market OSS + mac"
Anonymous Member since:
---

The base install off Fedora Core 4 960MB last time I looked it and it is JUST for a server and no desktop enviroment. But Fedora is horrible example.

Ubuntu on the other hand takes up 900MB for a full install and you get a full Gnome Desktop Enviroment complete with Firefox, Gaim, Rhythmbox, Totem, Xchat, Evolution 2 and OpenOffice.org. Plus you can apt-get install anything else you need.

Reply Score: 0

Compartments
by TechStorm on Wed 10th Aug 2005 20:25 UTC
TechStorm
Member since:
2005-07-06

I am speculating here, but I think what compartments might be. Some time ago, I read that one of the *NIX OSes (was it Linux or a *BSD?) was going to implement a concept called jails or something like that. Basically, you put different network services (like web server, or FTP server, etc.) in different jails (you may put more than one in each jail) and the idea was that, if a hacker broke into one of those, they would only have gained access to whatever is in one jail, but would have to spend more effort getting into the other jails. Now, I'm not an expert at networking, so maybe someone else could give us more information and/or speculation.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Compartments
by Anonymous on Wed 10th Aug 2005 22:36 UTC in reply to "Compartments"
Anonymous Member since:
---

If you're talking about "chroot", then it's been in Unix environment for some time.

There are several documents on "chrooting" processes, predominantly with setting up Apache web services under a "chroot jail".

Very popular with webservers under Linux.

- Ken
Slackin' since 1993
http://www.slackware.com

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Compartments
by TechStorm on Wed 10th Aug 2005 23:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Compartments"
TechStorm Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, it looks more or less like what I had read about. I do remember that each jail would expose the same host to the outside world as having different IP addresses. So, say, if you set up 5 jails, the system would use up 5 IP addresses, each offering a different set of services. Is that correct? So, all in all, that's what compartments seem to be, anyway. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

Reply Score: 1

RE OMG
by anand78 on Wed 10th Aug 2005 20:34 UTC
anand78
Member since:
2005-07-07

"Later, the author admits he has no beta invitation to the server version of Vista. So with what title is he talking about "administration"? Administering your 3-pc home lan doesn't make you a sysad."

I beg to disagree, I have seen dumb Sysads who despite managing multiple systems are no good. Infact a normal sysad has so many policies to follow and enforce that there is no area where he could experiment.
Re not being a beta tester, where do you live on MARS or JUPITER. Haven't you heard of pirates, torrent sites et al. I have MSDN universal license but give a sh** about MS software.

Reply Score: 1

credit where credit is not due
by Anonymous on Wed 10th Aug 2005 21:05 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

UNIX has had all of these features either directly or through 3rd party software (free) for years.

Just because Windows has a few "new to Windows" features doesn't make them MS inventions.

Fact1... MS has never inovated anything.

Fact2... Until OSnews.com and others like Activewin.com wake up and learn the truth about the reality of both the history and features of UNIX, then they are part of the problem too.

Anything MS should never have been allowed access to the Internet. We wouldn't have the malicious code circulating around the net today if this was the case.

UNIX was created in a lab, Windows was stolen and pieced together for profit.

Which would you trust if you were a serious, educated admin?

Reply Score: 0

RE: Lazarus
by Anonymous on Wed 10th Aug 2005 22:22 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I like source code as much as the next computer geek, but gawd, the things you people come up with as reasons for you choices and preferences... absolutely bewildering.
--------

As Windows keeps improving you gotta find new and creative ways to continue to hate it....

Reply Score: 0

Fast user switching!
by Nate on Wed 10th Aug 2005 23:53 UTC
Nate
Member since:
2005-07-20

To me, the strongest Administrator feature in Vista is that fast user switching now works if your computer is joined to a domain. In XP it only worked for non-domain PCs.

This means that you can really run as a limited user and quickly switch into the Administrator account to do admin tasks. No more logging out/logging in (or, what most people did: add their user account to the Administrators or even the Domain Administrators group).

Reply Score: 1

RE: Fast user switching!
by Anonymous on Thu 11th Aug 2005 17:48 UTC in reply to "Fast user switching!"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Just keep in mind that this is a hack more than anything else. Neither the server nor client allow for real multi-user computing.

Let's see... a so-called 'Enterprise OS' that is single user only.

Yah. I can see the logic in that. NOT!


Cheers,

Nick

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous
Member since:
---

their eyes, yes is is OK, and WOW MS did make something that is not 100% crap... but the DRM and the making us pay for hardware and software that we have ALREADY bought is TOO much.... someonw MUST crack the DRM before I will put it on my systems.... even legal retail versions...

Reply Score: 0

info about windows vista - longhorn
by Anonymous on Tue 16th Aug 2005 22:58 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---