| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Windows Vista Beta 2 CPP Launched! | |
|
||
| Time: 00:05 EST/05:05 GMT | News Source: the Hive | Posted By: Kenneth van Surksum | ||
|
Microsoft today launched their Customer Preview Program (CPP) for Windows Vista Beta 2. Available in English, German, and Japanese - you can now test drive the next version of Windows. The CPP Beta 2 is Build 5384.4 - the same build released at WinHEC 2006 this year and the same build the Technical Beta Testers got through Microsoft Connect. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 168 Last | Next |
The time now is
4:32:50 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 2960 (68.101.39.180) at 6/8/2006 8:38:40 AM |
|
Microsoft's servers have already cried uncle.
Anyone know of any other download sources for the ISO? I went through the process and already have a valid license key. TL |
| #2 By 3746 (216.16.225.210) at 6/8/2006 8:44:03 AM |
| You should be able to get it through bit torrent. |
| #3 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 6/8/2006 9:09:54 AM |
|
I notice tha the Vista Product Guidea are available in DOC and XPS format, but not PDF. MS must be so scared of Adobe that it's decided to not support PDF at all anymore. I'm sure this has nothing at all to do with MS pushing XPS as a PDF replacement, nor does it have anything to do with MS' "Big Bad Adobe" media offensive.
|
| #4 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 6/8/2006 10:43:36 AM |
|
The 2 biggest problems with PDF (aside from Adobes patents)
1) The so-called "standard" changes every year, forcing you to keep upgrading your "free" reader. 2) The "free" reader is immense and insecure and buggy as hell. I look forward to XPS. |
| #5 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 6/8/2006 11:57:23 AM |
|
#4: Oh no, you have to upgrade your free reader! It's the end of the world! What happens, Parkkker, when someone sends you an Office XP document and you only have Office 2000?
The Sun & Moon must be in alignment because we actually agree on one thing: Adobe Reader is a bloated piece of crap. I've tried FoxIt PDF Reader, but it leaks memory like you wouldn't believe. #5: I've burned DVD ISOs with Nero without any problem. |
| #6 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 6/8/2006 12:01:13 PM |
|
Latch and Parker agreed on somthing? Isn't that one of the signs of the apocolypse? :-) This post was edited by MysticSentinel on Thursday, June 08, 2006 at 12:05. |
| #7 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 6/8/2006 12:05:18 PM |
| #4: Yes, the "standard" changes yearly, and sometimes more frequently than that. This is called adding features. Microsoft does this too. That is why there are successive versions of Office. They add features, and the document format changes to support the new features. And you are not forced to upgrade. Acrobat Reader 5 still works for opening PDFs created with Acrobat 5 and below. However, if you want to take advantage of the newer features, such as inline forms, then you have to upgrade to a newer version. Such is life. This is nothing new. |
| #8 By 2960 (68.101.39.180) at 6/8/2006 12:10:27 PM |
|
#4,
Holy, um, crap. I agree with NotParker 100% :) TL |
| #9 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 6/8/2006 12:44:08 PM |
|
#6 "Oh no, you have to upgrade your free reader! It's the end of the world!"
Well ... when we have 3500 PC's, and Acrobat comes out with 6 or 7 versions of the Acrobat 6 Reader until they abandoned the buggy piece of crap, and came out with 7 -- of which they are up to version 7, yes, it is the "end of the world" in terms of effort. #8 "Yes, the "standard" changes yearly, and sometimes more frequently than that." 7 times a year or more? The minute Microsoft comes up with a PDF to XPS XPS to PDF converter and an XPS reader on Windows Update or WSUS, it is the end of the line for PDF at my workplace. Adobe is abusing people by bundling crap with it, making it bloatware, and making it buggy as hell. I mean ... 22 Security advisories on Secunia for Reader 5/6/7. Crap. |
| #10 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 6/8/2006 12:46:07 PM |
|
# 6 "What happens, Parkkker, when someone sends you an Office XP document and you only have Office 2000?"
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=95e24c87-8732-48d5-8689-ab826e7b8fdf&displaylang=en "Word Viewer 2003 lets you open Word 2003 documents and documents created with all previous versions of Microsoft Word for Windows® and Microsoft Word for Macintosh. In addition to Word document files (.doc), you can also open files saved in the following formats: Rich Text Format (.rtf) Text (.txt) Web Page formats (.htm, .html, .mht, .mhtml) WordPerfect 5.x (.wpd) WordPerfect 6.x (.doc, .wpd) Works 6.0 (.wps) Works 7.0 (.wps) XML (.xml) With Word Viewer 2003, you can view, print, and copy document contents to another program. " |
| #11 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 6/8/2006 2:20:10 PM |
|
#11: I was hoping you would fall into my trap...
How is this any different from the PDF situation then??? When the next version of Office comes out, you'll be forced to upgrade your free Word reader. So, by your very definition, Office suffers from Parkkker's Adobe Problem #1 (and probably Number #2 as well, except for the immense part.) |
| #12 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 6/8/2006 3:24:27 PM |
|
#12 Latch, there has been one Word Reader for Office 2003. One. Because the format for .doc has not changed since the introduction of Word 2003 in beta!
Acrobat Reader 7 is up to 7 versions itself, Acrobat 6 hit a similar number. All since 2003. Some of those are security updates. Some are for changes to PDF. So, to keep the word reader up to date, we had to install it once since 2003. Once we had it on our XP images ... no problem. Acrobat Reader ... 14 versions or more. Are you that big a moron you can't figure out the difference in workload for shop with 3500 PC's and 200 servers? |
| #13 By 13030 (198.22.121.110) at 6/8/2006 4:02:51 PM |
|
#4: The 2 biggest problems with PDF (aside from Adobes patents)
1) The so-called "standard" changes every year, forcing you to keep upgrading your "free" reader. 2) The "free" reader is immense and insecure and buggy as hell. I use Adobe Reader 5.1 at work and all my computers at home use 4.05. I haven't had to upgrade my home machines for about 5 years. Adobe Reader maintenance is a non-issue. In the past 6 years, I have only had one PDF that I was not able to read with these versions and I deal with a lot of PDFs from different sources. It seems to me that NotParkkker is fine with Microsoft's software being upgraded year after year and having lots of security issues, but other vendors are not provided the same freedom even if their software is free. |
| #14 By 13030 (198.22.121.110) at 6/8/2006 4:05:12 PM |
|
#12: I was hoping you would fall into my trap...
lol... |
| #15 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 6/8/2006 5:33:14 PM |
|
#14 Acrobat 5 has 11 security issues ... including an arbitrary code execution vulnerability.
http://secunia.com/product/389/ http://www.adobe.com/support/techdocs/321644.html http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/08/07/security_hole_in_adobe_acrobat/ "Adobe has quietly released a patch for a security hole in its latest version of Acrobat, 4.05. The hole is a "buffer overrun" problem, which basically means that malicious code can get through Acrobat and run on the client machine. This, of course, means that all means of nasties can get at your PC. The hole's discovery was posted on 26 July by Shadow Penguin Security (its techie explanation is displayed below), having sent Adobe its findings. Amazingly, Adobe claims to have posted a patch on 25 July. The problem only affects Acrobat for Windows (what a surprise). Acrobat, the Acrobat reader, Acrobat Business Tools and Acrobat Fill In are all affected." Feel free to keep using them ... "It seems to me that NotParkkker is fine with Microsoft's software being upgraded year after year" By the way. 7.0.8 came out on June 1st. I missed that one. http://www.adobe.com/support/techdocs/327817.html "Security: several security bug fixes have been made, including one considered critical." Critical is defined as: "A vulnerability, which, if exploited would allow malicious native-code to execute, potentially without a user being aware." If it was only once a year, I'd have no problem with it. Acrobat Reader is up to 8 updates in the last year. This post was edited by NotParker on Thursday, June 08, 2006 at 17:42. |
| #16 By 37047 (70.25.214.232) at 6/9/2006 9:39:17 AM |
|
#16: Gee, another month has gone by. I must go and download this month's Internet Explorer security hole fixes. Or it is okay for MS to fix a new hole in IE every month or two? Do you believe that MS should only perform security updates on all their products on a yearly basis too? Heaven help all those Windows PCs if that were the case. I would much rather a company fix a security problem and release a fixed version as soon as the fix was ready, and not wait for a new version of the product every couple of years. That would be an extrordinarily stupid thing for a company to do. But NotParker thinks it is good when MS gives monthly updates on all their products, but bad when any other competing company does it. Stop being such a hypocrite, Parker.
As for Acrobat 5 having 11 security issues, that is not bad at all. MS has had 3 or 4 security holes in a single month in IE. IE is likely close to that just for this year's discovered security holes. If you want to talk about ALL the IE holes found to date, IE has many, many, more than 11 holes. |
| #17 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 6/9/2006 10:44:44 AM |
|
#17 In the real world, a normal person would question why the PDF standard has to change so often that 8 updates a year are needed.
Its not much of a standard is it? I'm not sure I would go out on a limb like you and equate the difficulties in building a perfectly secure web browser (that no none has been capable of doing so far - especially the Mozilla team) versus a program that was just supposed to read and print PDF's. As I've said, once XPS is a nailed down standard, I would love to dump PDF. |
| #18 By 12071 (203.206.253.53) at 6/9/2006 11:25:02 PM |
|
#18 "PDF standard has to change"
The PDF standard hasn't changed between those updates - the implementation of the standard has including the "value addons" that Adobe has implemented above and beyond the standard. "program that was just supposed to read and print PDF's." If you're going to simplify things to such a stupid level then why is it that IE is so notoriously buggy given that all it needs to do is read and display a simple markup language? Because we all know that there's a lot more under the covers than just reading and displaying the content! Don't act like such a moron. |
| #19 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 6/10/2006 2:01:56 AM |
|
#19 "The PDF standard hasn't changed between those updates "
Thats not what adobe said about the 7.07 "update". http://www.adobe.com/support/techdocs/332877.html "PDF/A specification: The Adobe PDF settings now support the final published ISO version of the PDF/A-1b standard. In addition, the Acrobat Preflight tool now supports validation against this final published ISO version (Acrobat Professional only)." etc etc. You sure kiss the ass of all of Microsofts competitors ... but that what OSS is about: Hating Microsoft and siding with anyone who hates them and mandates the use of Linux. Like Cuba and China. |
| #20 By 12071 (203.206.253.53) at 6/10/2006 10:57:26 PM |
|
#20 "Thats not what adobe said about the 7.07 "update"."
You really need to learn to stop putting words in other people's mouths. Adobe said nothing of the sort, you just thought you could pass off one of your typical lies hoping no-one would bother to correct you. PDF/A (ISO 19005-1), like PDF/X, PDF/E and PDF/UA are entirely different standards to PDF - yes they are subsets of PDF for a particular purpose but they are completely separate ISO standards. Here, go educate yourself: http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/formats/fdd/fdd000125.shtml "You sure kiss the ass of all of Microsofts competitors" Not at all, you see it that way because unlike you I'm not permanently stuck to Bill Gates' backside. I have exactly the same issues with Adobe's software that other people here do. In fact, I probably have more issues as we use Adobe's software to publish reports and the number of issues that we have had automating it (as well as it's half-assed Word plug-in brother) is horrendous. Add to that the fact that things change between versions that for whatever reason stop outputting the same document and it's enough to sh*t you right off. So I have no ties to Adobe's software whatsoever, but there's nothing wrong with the PDF format (for what we need it for at least). "mandates the use of Linux" I didn't realise that Adobe mandated the use of Linux. You would think that if they mandated it that they would at least have all their software available for Linux! "Like Cuba and China." You love being a hypocrite don't you. It's ok if those countries are using Windows up until now... but if they so so much as dare to switch to anything else, like Linux, you'll be the first to throw up your favourite strawman! Not every country can do the "right thing" and start unprovoked wars against other countries and lying about the reasons! |
| #21 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 6/11/2006 1:15:48 AM |
|
#21 Still bitter about Saddam not being able to pay $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers so they can kill jews?
Slaughtering jews is not a provocation to you? Does that mean you think jews are subhuman? What a surprise. |
| #22 By 12071 (203.206.253.53) at 6/11/2006 1:48:50 AM |
|
#22 So you've been completely wrong and hypocritical up until this point and your best defense is.... more strawmen! Why didn't you take your moronic argument to the next level whilst you were there... here I'll help you along... Hitler killed jews, Hitler was German... it's no suprise then that Germany is switching over to OSS. Of course we do have to forget about the fact they've been using Windows up until now!
God you're a moron! |
| #23 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 6/11/2006 2:41:17 PM |
|
#23 Ok. I'll be clearer.
You argue that the US "start unprovoked wars" in regards to the Liberation of Iraq. I say that Saddam subisdising the murder of jews is a provocation, and a clear indication to anyone with half a brain that Saddam needed to be overthrown and that anyone who considers the mass murder of jews not to be a provocation is a jew hater. If the shoe fits ... (I'm also not ignoring all the UN resolutions Saddam violated, but Kabuki doesn't care about those) (I'm also not ignoring all the Kurds who were murdered by poison gas and nerve gas but Kabuki is) (And I'm also not ignoring all the marsh arab who were exterminated or all the other Shiites who were murdered Saddam) Kabuki thinks Saddam was a sweetheart and deserved to continue in power and pass on his murderous regime to his sons and to their sons. I don't. I'm glad he is dead. I'm glad Iraq is a democracy. Kabuki isn't. |
| #24 By 12071 (203.206.253.53) at 6/11/2006 10:31:26 PM |
|
#24 Hang on a second there soldier...
In #18 you argued that the PDF standard is changing sue to the fact that Adobe release several updates a year ("a normal person would question why the PDF standard has to change so often that 8 updates a year are needed"). You also questioned if PDF is really a standard given this information ("Its not much of a standard is it?"). Subsequently in #19, I informed you that no changes to the PDF standard were made. You still weren't satisfied with that as per your comment in #20 where you decided to not only start by putting word's in Adobe's mouth but also show your complete and utter ignorance about the difference between PDF and PDF/A which I cleared up for you in #21. Sensing that you were, once again, completely wrong, you decided to end that comment with your favourite strawman (i.e. OSS = hating Microsoft and therefore OSS = hating capitalism). Given that I like to entertain your dillusions and ignorance I pointed out what a hypocrite you are complaining about Cuba, China etc switching to OSS yet you were deafing quiet up until this point where they've been using Windows. We're all still waiting for one of your fantastic stories to explain that little bit of hypocrisy! In #22, you finally gave up on the whole PDF thing - perhaps you finally realised you were completely wrong and just didn't want to admit it - and decided to keep going with the strawmen! At this point it was just hilarious to see where you would take things and I figured I would help out your strawman by taking it to the next "Parkkker" logical level. Finally in #24, you have tried to convince us that Iraq did provoke a war against them by the US because Saddam paid for murdering Jews. Of course these would have had to be US jews to count otherwise I'd love to hear the connection on how Iraq provoked the US! Better yet, let's make a deal, don't bother replying back to support the US and it's lying corrupt administration unless you can a) point us all to all the WMD's that Iraq supposedly had (we don't want to hear fairy tales of how things might have and could have been transported here and there... we want to know exactly where they are. Oh yes, shells and other potential evidence doesn't count either - according to your lying corrupt administration they had vast stocks so they should be easy to show us. It shouldn't be that difficult after all, your lying corrupt administration still has all the receipts! :) ) and b) answer all the other lies that your lying corrupt administration put out. And you ended with your typical "put words into another person's mouth" even with a beauty like "I'm glad he is dead." When did the US kill Saddam Parkkker? Keep them coming champ! |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 168 Last | Next |
The time now is
4:32:50 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
