Home > Windows > Vista Feature Exposes Beta MachinesVista Feature Exposes Beta Machines Thom Holwerda 2005-08-19 Windows 16 CommentsWindows Vista beta testers have stumbled upon a networking feature in the operating system that could pose a security risk to them – but they say they’re not worried.About The Author Thom HolwerdaFollow me on Twitter @thomholwerda 16 Comments 2005-08-19 5:58 pm ma_dYou expect bugs in a beta ya know. You expect them more in pre-beta software like Windows Vista (sorry, but beta implies feature-complete).Kinda surprising it took this long to become news.. If I’d been beta testing Vista network scans would have been the second thing I’d do! 2005-08-19 7:07 pm Wrong doofus. It will be turned off in the final. 2005-08-19 7:28 pm And what did he say that was wrong?Beta does imply feature complete. There are more bugs in beta software than when it is final. He would have checked this right away, so he’s suprised it didn’t come out until now, that’s an opinion so it can’t be wrong. 2005-08-19 8:07 pm Obviously Microsoft’s marketing department is calling Vista as beta but this isn’t beta as in conventional software development sense. Beta software imply feature complete release. For public beta, it should be quite usable and it should resemble final product pretty closely with some very minor flaws. Obviously Vista is no where near that. They should have called it a Developer Preview. Frankly Microsoft’s definition of final release is what I would consider as beta. To me, Microsoft Vista’s “beta” is nothing more than an attempt to generate hype and it’s just not working. There has been much more excitement generated by Mac OS X running on x86 than this Vista “beta”. 2005-08-19 9:32 pm segedunumTo me, Microsoft Vista’s “beta” is nothing more than an attempt to generate hype and it’s just not working. There has been much more excitement generated by Mac OS X running on x86 than this Vista “beta”.Yes, quite funny. OS X on x86 has stolen the show right now really. The trouble for Microsoft is that when Vista actually releases, people will have waited so long it will all be an anti-climax and go out with a whimper. 2005-08-19 9:33 pm prismXRC is featere-complete product, whereas beta product IS NOT, so do not confuse people here. According to your logic there is no final product in Linux (that is correct, actually, but this is not a topic of discussion now), but somehow Linux vendors distribute them and even sell.Some people think that beta product is for everyday use, that is not correct. Beta product is for rigorous testing and not for just installing and screenshot taking. Beta product should be tested in all configurations, and even in the least secure configuration in order to elucidate all possible scenario of a software behaviour. Beta product may crash and lead to data loss, but only stupid tester may use beta product for sensitive data or for daily business. So, calm down shaming all the time MS, and at least once be brave to tell the truth (this is not for you personally, but for everybody making similar conclusions, including you). 2005-08-19 10:14 pm segedunumRC is featere-complete productYes, and a release candidate is a shakedown on the road to making a decision on whether you’ve reached that final release. It’s a little bit more than a feature-complete release in that all the features are in there to a robust enough quality and standard to be considered final.whereas beta product IS NOTYes it certainly is. A beta release is where you’ve itemised and coded all the features you intend to have in your software which you’ve planned for and they are there to be tested. They may not be robust or of a reasonable quality, but they are there. If they’re not then it’s not a beta release and you still have a moving target.According to your logic there is no final product in LinuxThere is, because we get to stable releases of each kernel. However, you’re confusing what Linux actually is and what you think it is.Beta product should be tested in all configurations, and even in the least secure configuration in order to elucidate all possible scenario of a software behaviour.Yer. And? 2005-08-19 8:26 pm buttersTFA says that MS turned this p2p feature on by default knowingly, because while they are committed to “security by default” now, they do things differently with beta releases. I can’t argue with that, but there’s a limit to how differently you should treat beta releases from a default configuration standpoint. Apparently a significant number of beta testers weren’t even aware of the new p2p protocol, not to mention the fact that it was turned on by default. So the question is, why did MS turn this on by default, yet fail to publicize it as well as less important features like virtual folders? Were the testers supposed to be testing this service? Were they even supposed to know about it? 2005-08-19 10:08 pm n4cerSo the question is, why did MS turn this on by default, yet fail to publicize it as well as less important features like virtual folders? Were the testers supposed to be testing this service? Were they even supposed to know about it?This feature was publcized via the beta newsgroups and possibly the online documentation. There’s even a blog about PRNP on MSDN. 2005-08-19 10:27 pm segedunumSo the question is, why did MS turn this on by defaultMicrosoft has turned this on because they desperately want to have an answer to BitTorrent and Kazaa out there so that users will use theirs rather than anyone else’s. 2005-08-20 12:09 am n4cerThere’s a lot more to p2p than file sharing. MS could easily build competitors to those clients in XP as the p2p infrastructure is already there. 2005-08-19 8:44 pm http://radsoft.net/resources/rants/20050819,00.html 2005-08-20 8:38 am very good info is here: <a href=”http://windows.czweb.org“>http://windows.czweb.org 2005-08-21 1:49 pm very good info is here: Ah, looks like a spam message for a link farm.Where’s the good information? Be specific. Provide a direct link. 2005-08-21 2:06 pm 2005-08-21 2:39 pm MS has major issues I’ll agree, but that guy really dosen’t present anything coherent. Its a wasted read.Well, it’s a rant. That said, as a rant, it is fairly restrained.The core parts were well worth the effort to read and to share with a group of friends.His tools (along the lines of what sysinternals.com have) are quite handy, so I think he does know what he’s talking about even if it does not interest you.