Well, after that I have read all of this.. it's looking to me that Linux is going to be the one to use in times to come.. and it's a good things to use it right now. Only time will tell.

Funny how we use different rules of logic when discussing the automotive industry vs software or healthcare. Imagine if GM was forced to stop including speedometers so other vendors could compete for dashboard space. Or if hospitals were prevented from buying supplies from one vendor for a given interrelated suite of services. Man, that would suck indeed. However, we don't bat an eye over pushing these same rules at Microsoft. Nevermind that ANYONE CAN opt for Linux, OpenSolaris, MacOS or anything else at ANYTIME they wish. It's like everyone is completely helpless and can't even lift a spoon to their mouths without someone else's help. Stupid. So, MS is again, yes, again, rushing a product to market prematurely. So what? It gives all of us something to complain about. It gives magazines something to write about. It gives their competition something to aim at. Sounds like it generates jobs and revenue for everyone. So what's the problem then?

Software is not like an Automobile. You can customize your car. There are many thriving businesss that manufacture after market parts. Some people even replace their whole dashboard.

GM sells a lot of cars, but does not have anything close to the market share Microsoft enjoys. I wonder, if GM had a better than 95% market share, would it try to sell cars with the hood welded shut?

I have to agree with DS0934, if you don't like IE, then install Firefox, Opera or some other browser du'jour. If you don't like Media Player, then install Real or Winamp or anything else.

If you really don't like Windows as a whole, then buy a MAC or install Linux.

If I didn't like the layout of the dash on a GM vehicle, I'd buy something else. If I wanted racing pedals on my floor in my Camry, I'd go buy the parts. Just like I like the slick feel of things that I get from Stardock with Iconx, Winblinds and DesktopX.

Now, if MS made it so that only their software ran on their boxes, then we STILL WOULD NOT HAVE ANYTHING to complain about. We just wouldn't install Windows. Look at the AS/400, OS/360, etc. Back then, it was pretty much ONLY IBM software that ran on those boxes. Did people squawk and complain? No, they bought something else or wrote it themselves.

MS doesn't force you to use their stuff, if you don't like it, there's always someone else on the block who has something to offer.

"MS doesn't force you to use their stuff"

If "force" means at gun point then no, but they have tried everything short of physical threats. That is what all of those criminal convictions around the world have been about.

Windows' hood is by no means "welded shut." Please. Don't tell me that's all you understand about Windows.

"Imagine if GM was forced to stop including speedometers so other vendors could compete for dashboard space."

-- This is the best analogy I have ever read.

Using that same logic, Cable, Satellite, and for the Hell of it Radio of all things must be big kids waiting in the back of the school yard. You buy a TV, but you can only watch what is playing at the time. The radio has different stations, but they all play music. Nothing you can do about those things is there. On the other hand you have a computer which by its virtue can do anything you want it to. Nobody, Microsoft included is forcing you to run Windows. For every Windows app there are two Open Source alternatives. If you’re forced to use Exchange Server, you can still run Linux, and do just fine. I think the reason why you said what you just said is because you’re pissed that your $2,000 Dell computer is having trouble between the keyboard and the mouse.

"Windows' hood is by no means "welded shut.""

And for that we can thank anti-trust regulations and prosecutors from around the world.

"-- This is the best analogy I have ever read."

You should read more.

Thats total bull. MS had an excellent development platform way before any antitrust complaints were raised. I developed system level applications and drivers for Windows 3.1 using the Windows API which was excellently documented way back in the early 90s. As well as driver development and application development (kernel interrupts, etc.) for Windows NT and 95. This is all long before any antitrust cases were raised against Microsoft. I suggest you look up the first edition of Programming Windows by Charles Petzold and see what the first published date is, then you might see that Windows has always had very open documentation which allowed developers to interact with the system at a very low level.

If Windows had not been so well documented and so easy to develop for (compared to other platforms) it wouldn't be the worlds number one as nobody would be able to customise it.

Now I am not a huge Microsoft fan and I certainly believe they need to get their act together however spreading such total BS about Windows gets on my nerves just as much as Microsoft's attitude and business practices, perhaps more so as it only makes things harder for Microsoft to do the right thing.

Every application I need is available on every platform right? Glad to hear it.

An OS is like the roads, not an automobile. Now imagine if when MS sold you the road they included an automobile. Other manufacturers would be put out of business, even if the MS automobile was a piece of trash. Because most people will just use the included automobile. Some might not even realise there were other automobiles (like someone to whom I recently introduced Firefox - she thought there was only Internet Explorer; she loves Firefox though). On top of that some automobiles would only run on MS roads, others only on Apple roads.

The Windows API is inconsistent, not that well documented and Microsoft likes to change the behaviour without telling anyone.

Windows is not easy to develop for and the ubiquity of the OS is not related any alleged ease of development.

And yes I have been developing on Windows for several years. I still find Unix a more consistent system, but I mainly develop for Windows because it is the more common OS.

Yes people did complain about being locked into IBM. Buying something else was an expensive proposition just as switching to any new OS.

Automobiles are a silly analogy. Automobiles are fundamentally interchangeable. Operating systems are not. Windows has some horrible defects, but I have to use it since critical software I require is only available for Windows.

There are no competing Win32 operating systems.

If automobiles and roads were like operating systems your choice of vehicle would determine which roads you could use.

Yes Microsoft change things however it is their property so they can change what they want. I personally find developing graphically rich applications on Unix (BSD/Solaris) to be very difficult. I have found the Microsoft documentation to be very good. Not perfect but good. I have never not been able to do something I needed to do. This is why I find the EUs argument of poor documentation to be a bit pathetic. (sorry to bring the EU argument up). I have developed several multimedia applications for Windows and never had a problem with Windows Media Player being on the system. It is simple and painless to replace WMP as the default audio/video player on the system and then it is never heard from again unless it is directly called.

I do respect your opinion though and agree that Microsoft could do more however I can see why they are not motivated to do so, after all no matter what they do sites like this just has people attacking all their decisions. They cant win so why bother fighting?

Boy was I right.

Years ago I said that "Software Assurance" was just another way to increase profits while providing minimal if any updates to software.

Now, they are delivering exactly what I said.

Vista is still WAY off, Office is now delayed too, and W2K3 SR2 should have been SP2.

It's nice to be right again. heh

Oh, and even the EMPLOYEES of Microsoft are starting to sit up and call for Balmer et al to be canned. I called that one too (to walk Balmer), now didn't I. HEH

http://minimsft.blogspot...ire-leadership-now.html

Some years ago, when the OS formerly known as Longhorn was scheduled for release in 2004, I read that Microsoft was taking a lesson from Linux. It was going to design it's new OS to be modular with dependable APIs that would allow incremental improvements to every driver, component, and application in their system. That story must have been bunk too.

Only a monolithic wad of code with hard-wired integration through mutable APIs would be this difficult to ship on time.

I think they want to pull another Win95 OLE switcheroo. You remember Novell, Corel, Adobe, Borland, and all the others developed products for OLE1 then at the last minute Microsoft whipped out OLE2. That caused products that were ready to ship to just crash. It gave Microsoft six months to sell their applications without any real competition.

Sure, Microsoft has produced good software, but nobody likes a cheater.

I vaguely remember a similar article, although it did not stipulate that Longhorn would use that particular design technique, but rather it should. I think Alchin made the comment recently that Microsoft needed to change how it developed software, particular it's OS, so that it could be far more adaptable than it is today.

Perhaps the next gen might take this path.

Windows XP was already supposed to be modular.

We need a Windows 64 bit version that works and so far MS seems not to care for 64 bit. Windows x64 is a joke a lot of apps don't work with it never mind finding drivers,

Microsoft should just wait now til 2010 and put WinFS back in.

MS should also do away every version of vista but, for home and pro. We don't need 8 different versions.

Yeah but see, microsoft has to justify why it's taking so long and try to add some kind of "value" for your hard earned hundreds of dollars. If it was just like xp, or was lean and mean not to mention stable and just plain worked with nothing cramed down your throat like media player, messenger, browser and now antispyware app plus calender dvd builder and whatever else they feel like bundling. Well that wouldn't be a good value package, people wouldn't upgrade (why bother) and people would use their existing os forever. I mean granted you will be using the new os eventually anyway because they tied directx 10 to it. That means future hardware and games will be vista required.

I am sure they would love to wait to 2010, or heck just not put it out period, it would save them headaches, bad public relation and well. What else is there, now keep in mind they would still be making their billions, their os would still be on most computers and security will still be a nightmare. As for the 8 differnet versions, well see they have to taylor their os to every part of the world, depending on where europe and parts of asia need the "bundled" crap removed due to antitrust problems and well they need a way to combat the piracy as well in certain third world countries where their software is sold on street corners for a few dollars.

Funny because I am running XP x64 without any problem. I have drivers for all my hardware and all the applications I use are 64bit versions.

Oh wait what you mean is that no third party companies have written 64bit drivers for x64? Oh and you also mean that no third party companies have written 64bit applications for x64?

As for the versions of Vista. It doesn't really make much difference does it? Does Ford offering 20+ different model cars making things worse or does it add choice? The product lines have not changed (still home and business) you just have more choice and choice is something that everyone has been moaning at Microsoft for for years. Now you get it and you moan more?! If you don't want/need all the features of Windows Home Premium save some money and buy Windows Home Basic. The versions available are pretty simple to understand. The N versions don't really count as they are just OEM versions anyway. The business versions also don't really affect the home user so it is really just a choice between Home Basic, Home Premium or Ultimate. Not rocket science is it?

Ahh yes I see how other companies not developing things for x64 is Microsoft's fault.

Actually, wait a second, I don't see how that is Microsoft's fault at all. If a company doesn't want to release a 64bit version of this application or a 64bit driver for this hardware why should Microsoft be blamed? Is it Ford's fault when you buy an LPG car yet there are hardly any LPG stations to fill the car up from? You should be hassling the companies not making the drivers/software and not moaning here about how its Microsoft's fault.

Part of the problem is that 64bit is still very new and not many people want or care for 64bit. I don't know any statistics but I doubt very many home users/regular business users will need a 64bit OS. Only people who need the advantages it brings will really benefit from 64bit and most of what they (we) need is already catered for. All of my scientific applications that we *NEED* to be 64bit enabled are available as 64bit applications now. All of the hardware need now has 64bit drivers available.

Whatever. I'm in no hurry to use Vista anyway. 2gig min memory requirement. 4gigs optimal for games. The bloat of vista is gonna be retarded. Why don't they just try and may a lean and mean OS that just works. XP isn't perfect but it has it's charms. They just needed to fix alot of core elements. Not create a monster that sucks up memory like a vaccum. But what do i know right. Actually alot, but no one ever listens to those who know alot. They just ignore the obvious.

It's too bad isn't it that they cant just put out actual bug fixes for their current os, instead they focus everything they have on adding stupid crap that is just going to land them in antitrust trouble once again, I can guarentee they will be back in court once again, mainly the antispyware and i am sure they will try to tie antivirus to it as well bugging you to pay them for the service. I think that is ironic they can try to charge extra, for their own lack of security. They should provide free antivirus, but don't bundle it to windows.

why can't they understand that the problem isnt that they enter these markets, it's the fact they have to welding the fricken crap to the os, why is it necessary to make it impossible to get rid, of the browser, the media player or the messenger, hiding it was only implemented as a resolve for the legal issues it was told to fix. That was a very poor bare minimum.

Microsoft thinks they are untouchable, and well i guess they are right if they have enough to lobby congress, pay presidential campaign money and everything else.

haha what did this have to do wit this post or your in general, nothing I just felt like going on a rant. I am sure everyone here knows me as a microsoft hater. They would be right.

You should really check your sources buddy because I have a test box running Vista 5308 unstaged right now and it purrs.

"2gig min memory requirement."
-- Sorry, but Microsoft can't and will not set that requirement. That would increase the average computer price about $80 per unit OEM, which is currently anti-business because people are already b****ing about the prices as they are. Most consumers would keep their old computer for several more years just because the cost of upgrading would be too high. Think about your Grandma's budget.

"4gigs optimal for games."
-- Maybe in 2010. Even demo machines at E3 don't use that much. See above comment.

"The bloat of vista is gonna be retarded."
-- Don’t you hate how much memory Notepad takes up? Silly Microsoft for releasing programs that don’t have any value.

"Why don't they just try and may a lean and mean OS that just works."
-- If you want a lean OS switch to Linux. Meanwhile Microsoft has to consider 800 million consumers world wide and create a product that works on every system with endless hardware and software compatibility issues. Let’s see you fill that bill.

"XP isn't perfect but it has it's charms."
-- I remember when people said they would never switch to XP because it was bloated and Windows 98 worked better. Oh how times change. Oh wait, I forgot, Windows ME worked like a charm for you.

"They just needed to fix alot of core elements. Not create a monster that sucks up memory like a vaccum."
-- Like what? The drop down menus? Could you be a little more specific please?

The above statements are why I have chosen to tear apart your post. You think that because you know how to use regedit and system cleanup that you’re a pro? Because your brother gave you his old 486 you know all about computers. That since you messed around with Windows XP and bought stupid games with bad code and never used a virus scanner that Microsoft is suddenly not good enough for you and that their next OS is utter crap because you could figure out how to use their previous versions? Your the same kind of guy who will brag to his friends about using Unix, but then calls tech support for help setting up your monitor, oh wait, did I confuse you? - yah there are other Operating Systems out there, UNIX is one of them, in fact it's the core of most other OS's. So when you complain about the Core of windows sucking, try debugging a Linux kernel or at least learn BASIC.

"But what do i know right. Actually alot, but no one ever listens to those who know alot. They just ignore the obvious."
-- Do me and everyone else on this site a favor and not post crap like that. If your going to preach your opinion at least make it readable. Telling people you know what your talking about even when it’s apparent that you don’t is just stupid. So the next time you choose to put down Microsoft or some other vendor, ask yourself this question: Is my comment going to contribute to this conversation, or is it going to make me sound like a moron?

By the way, try using some Microsoft Bloat and spell check your post next time. Oh, I forgot, your have better spelling and grammar than the dictionary. Sorry, my bad.

Quote:
""2gig min memory requirement."
-- Sorry, but Microsoft can't and will not set that requirement. That would increase the average computer price about $80 per unit OEM..."

*cough*Win NT!*cough*

Microsoft has done it before, but you're right, it's not happening again with Vista.

There is no 2GB min memory requirement. I test with Vista at work and none of my Vista machines have more than 1GB of memory.

Seems you take everything you read as gospel truth. Vista does not need 2Gb memory min, 4Gb optimal, this is totally ridiculus, you should take everything you read with a pinch of salt.

Whilst I have found someone guliable, You don't want to buy a slice of toast I have, where you can see Jesus and the Virgin Mary on it? Looking for £1,000,000

Well said..Most users that put all this s*** on Microsoft should try using Linux for a few days. I am not a MS fanboy, and I use Linux at work everyday. But most people that write stuff against MS have no clue about the complications (not bugs) in Linux.

What about Windows NT? When it was released (July/Augest 1996) it would run on a system with 32MB pretty well which was pretty much the standard back then. By 1997/1998 (when most business were switching) most computers were coming with 64 to 128MB RAM. I would hardly call that Microsoft pushing the limit like you seem to be implying.

Considering that the download they have posted for "Messenger Plus! Live 8.0.0566" add-on for Windows Live Messenger is actually a virus that deletes your entire contact list, I wouldn't trust their downloads to save my life.

Never use a pre-public beta software - Ever.

lol

beta software is awesome - more like:

"Never use beta or pre beta software without knowing the potential consequences and being prepared to cope with those same consequences."

your comment seems a little odd, considering you're posting on a site with a focus on software in development (aka Pre-Public, or as it's more commonly known, beta)

It's funny to see that everybody probably knew that the article was bogus.

60% was maybe an awful lot but to post something like this there had to be someone who was pretty sure his sources were correct. Because if it isn't correct (like it seems), the techsite in question has lost a lot of its credibility.

On the other hand does MS have an history of huge delays. A good thing calling its new version Windows Vista instead of Windows 2004, uh 2005, oh no 2006 or is it Windows 2007.
I know that planning can be difficult at times first hand but MS surely could have done better.

When you release an OS that is used by 90% of the world and can do so on time without any delays or bugs along the way, then you can say that Microsoft can do better. Until then, thanks for your opinion, but that's all it is.

"thanks for your opinion, but that's all it is."

Ya think? Ladies and gentlemen, the dumbest comment of the day.

Delays? Still possible. Bugs? Those come after its release.

I only tried to make clear that MS could have done a better job planning Vista. If it is difficult to get the whole thing up and running they shouldn't have announced release dates that aren't realistic.
Surely MS with its vast experience could have done better. For Vista they borrowed code from XP which in its turn was based on 2000. They knew that they would run into problems.
So i'm just saying that MS has to announce realistic launch dates and not some that are years apart from the truth.

On the other hand... MS can get away with this because it supplies 90% of the OS' in the world (not used by 90% of the world by the way... not even 50% of the world has computer access). And it's better for all of us that they deliver a more secure and bug-free OS.

Its not as simple as you make out. The dates they announced were realistic however things change and they have to adapt for those changes. Nobody can see into the future (but if they could I am sure Billy G could afford to do it ;) so you can't really have a go at them too much. The other factor is they get a lot of pressure from shareholders, the media, etc to set some dates.

I understand why your post, it is just things get a lot more complex than you might think. People changing their minds about the product spec is the worst (in my experience). I have had managers come to us 3 weeks before launch on a product we have been developing for 12+ months and request few features, then they moan that it will take another 3 months and ask "but it is only 3 weeks from release, why does one tiny feature take 3 more months?". The problem is they don't understand development and while in an ideal world it wouldn't take so long in the real world it does. There are many reasons why it does take so long, lots of which people have tried to solve and failed.

seems like another company is sick of Microsofts security or a "lack" of it an prolly using linux an took a swipe at Microsoft

All lies. And what could hurt by improving Vista-nothing!

Any "news" that comes out of Mexico or Australia I'm very skeptical of.

??... I'm very skeptical about your comment.

There is nothing wrong with Australia thank you.

No, they just decided to scrap the whole project and just give up, they want to continue using xp forever as security and a full feature modern browser and operating system is just too difficult for a company with billions of dollars in research and development and access to the windows source code it's impossible. They are software engineers not miracle workers you know. No amount of money or yelling can make them pull a rabit out of a pile of steaming crap.

The only way this can be proved true is if the OS doesnt hit RC1 or RC2 by summer

Microsoft delivering late and then lying about it? Never!!

Oh yeah? MY unnamed source says the correct figure is 43.6667% of Vista code which contains the letter "r" in it, so clearly Smart House is spreading fabricated information.

MY Unnamed source said Microsoft is going to hand out one million dollars to every one on the planet.

If anything says "source unknown" or doesn't know their source, don't believe them, ever.

"If anything says "source unknown" or doesn't know their source, don't believe them, ever."

let me add "ever,ever,ever"
you would think that would be obvious, but sadly it isn't, to be sceptical of any thing these days is scorned at, gullibility rules.
At least that's what I was told by a person I cant name.

Clearly we have no way of knowing whether there is any truth to the Smart House article claims. A major rewrite at this point would seem to preclude a Jan., 2007 release so I guess we need to stay tuned. The Vista update is taking forever even after much of the planned functionality was pulled. A lot of the rumors as to cause seem to center on efforts to improve security while maintaining sufficient backward compatibility. This software must support a vast array of hardware and fielded applications. There is an army of hacker gunslingers out there waiting to exploit any weakness so I don't envy them their task.

I think the whole article was bogus and nothing more than a rumor or someone just blowing smoke out their butt in an attempt to capitalize on the announcement regarding the delay.

"blowing smoke out their butt"

Now don't that just paint a pretty picture?

Gads, man... It's going to be Dinner-time soon. Some poor SOB will lose his apetite for sure now.

if said butt belongs to a 19yo coed, I venture to speculate 98% of readers here would want nothing more than to witness the performance live. (The other 2% are just jealous fugly PC chicks).

if they had lit a match they could have shot the article down in flames at the same moment it was generated ;-o

My heart bleeds! :P

Who are you wincement's alter ego.Microsoft hasn't written worthwhile code since Bill Gates wrote the code for Dos so how do you expect these dimwits to write 6 million lines of source code Gates was an innovator,these guys are graduates of M.I.T. If the coding process is finished why is Vista not shipping until 2007 ? Microsoft is blowing smoke out their butt.I believe the Australians and that's no dinkum

".........and that's no dinkum"

Strewth mate, you need a few lessons in Oz slang, fair dinkum. Why don't you knock the top off a stubby, pull up a pew, and have a squizz at this http://www.koalanet.com.au/australian-slang.html#F
as a matter of fact I'm as dry as a dead dingo's donga so I'll join you in that stubby, after I get rid of all these dunny budgies :-)

Uhh Bill Gates BOUGHT the code for DOS.

Sorry..

Bill Gates and Paul Allen made their own version of DOS appropriately named MS-DOS.

Microsoft clearly does not wish to relive the past with a minor upgrade like WinME. They will lose face as innovators and start the downward spiral that IBM similary took when it was on top back in the 80's. They are holding onto a thread; only because there are no real competitors. If any company were to make a formidable OS, now would be the time. Apple seems comfortable paying second fiddle and picking up whatever Microsoft leaves behind. Linux or UNIX based systems (other than OSX) will and can not go further than being server based machines because of their inferiority or fear of actually being a competitor. Niche markets are where it's at for those companies. I used to think Apple could do it if they had something truly innovative to offer, but all they have are Dell or Gateway-like systems with program clones of what Microsoft offers.

Yes, Macs look cool. But it's not what is on the outside that keeps the user interested.

This entire article and the majority of the comments in it devalues BetaNews and the people who actually know what they are talking about who read it for information and not hearsay gossip about Vista or Microsoft.

Rumours start and spread quickly until it invariably becomes a belief that is difficult to contain.

Almost like a virus.

NO, Bill Gates and Paul Allen rebranded QDOS as MS-DOS then matured it into a 1/2 way decent product.

Thanks, man. Always enjoy the ramblings of complete morons. Thanks for playing!

Ha. That's funny. I didn't know Bill Gates wrote Dos all by himself. Won't he be surprised to learn that.

Yup.

You have obviously never used OSX. The first versions sucked, but Apple has made dramtic improvements and it is a good OS. It has the robust backend that Linux has and Windows lacks along with a good interface. OSX is the first Apple OS that doesn't suck. Pity it doesn't run 90% of my software, just like Linux (which is still lacking in the general useability stakes).

To add to your comments (shamelessly stolen from Wikipedia)

MS-DOS was created by computer manufacturer Seattle Computer Products (SCP) in 1980 as QDOS (for Quick and Dirty Operating System), but was renamed 86-DOS because it was designed to run on the Intel 8086 processor. In a sequence of events that would later inspire much folklore, Microsoft licensed QDOS to IBM on behalf of SCP. Microsoft acquired the system for only $50,000 from SCP shortly before the PC's release.

Maybe it's 60% of new code...

... Or 60% is old code that needs to be rewritten

Read before bashing...that's all I ask.

Not that anyone listens or cares what I have to say though ;=(

I thought that article yesterday was a tad unfounded.

I saw it on just about every tech-news site I ran across, all pointing to the same source. Looked 'em up and pretty much laughed it off.

Un-named sources and baseless conjecture....wait, was that column written by rijp?? ;)

And c'mon man, no-one cares what *anyone* has to say here. That's the beauty of it.

QUOTE
And c'mon man, no-one cares what *anyone* has to say here. That's the beauty of it.

You hit THAT nail on the head. Kudos!

"You hit THAT nail on the head."

Ain't that the truth. heh

Considering that MS onloy s***ed to an entirely new code base after 2-3 years of work of trying to take the much mutated NT kernel to the next level. They decided that a system that had some code that predated Windows 95, perhaps it was time to start again from scratch. That rehashing like ME, was never going to get MS anywhere.

I'd take most Australian journalists articles with grains of salt, since most have no idea what they are writing about.

So, to anyone out there that believes Vista is an evolution from XP - from a software point of view, it's a revolution, and a clean slate.

As mentioned previously, IF companies wanted to take MS's thunder, then Apple would've not only jumped to the Intel chips, BUT developed the OS to be installable on ALL configurations, not such a select few.

Oh, for those that care, per installed machine, Windows is found to have less security holes that Apple and anything Unix based...

"Oh, for those that care, per installed machine, Windows is found to have less security holes that Apple and anything Unix based..."

That's not true at all.

oh yes it is ...
do some reading ....
specially apple .... if you think Windows has security holes .... PFFFFFFFF unix, not so much ....

I don't need to do any reading. I get paid quite a lot of money to know which needs what how and where thanks.

Unix is not an OS. It's a standard, HP-UX is an OS as is Solaris, Linux, and Windows.

Out of all of the above, Windows is the most patched. It is also the most vulnerable to attacks.

Apple has a few holes here and there, but there were what over *600* patches rolled into XP SP1 alone?

Yeah, how about YOU do some reading. ;-)

Start here:
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=324720

Next, work up through all of the known changes since. Don't forget any fixes that aren't included in the service pack.

Let me know the real number. I guessed @ 600.

When you are done, start working on all of the other supported versions of Windows. Then jump to HPUX, Solaris, Linux, and *BSD and get back to us with a number.

Thanks.

linux-loving fanboys please spam this thread with yer stoopid anti-ms crap. it's so much fun to read...

/me goes back to typing this via a Win XP Pro corporate-supplied laptop. oh...how many companies use linux as a standard...? lmao.

Because fewt is criticle of MS makes him a "linux-loving fanboy"?

I have no idea who fewt is other than the fact his posts contain valid points and real facts. He adds more to this site than pretty much any other member. You would be wise to read what he says, you might learn from it.

Also nobody cares about your Windows XP laptop and why does it matter how many companies run Linux? You seem to feel so threatened by the idea of Linux being used which is pretty strange. If you a serious computer user you will want to use the best tool for the task. Windows isn't always the best tool, deal with it and stop posting such pathetic comments.

Thank you for your profound drivel Dorkmonkey. It was, by far, the funniest read yet.

Stick to yer Linux-loving (fanboy) and geek yourself into oblivion. I'll continue to use what works and is supported.

PS- Did I state, anywhere, in my comment someone's particular name? Was I attacking someone in particular?? No, it was to ALL fanboys (like yourself). Idiot, maybe you should learn to read.