Print - Windows Vista RTM Is Imminent

My Microsoft sources confirmed this past weekend that the company is set to finalize Windows Vista as early as Monday and release the product to manufacturing sometime this week. The final build number is expected to be 6000.16386.061101-2205. (Readers might recall that, back on August 25, WinInfo broke the news that Microsoft would iterate Vista to build 6000 for the final release.)

In its quest to finalize Vista, Microsoft has faced two hurdles in recent days, one technical and one a bit unusual. The proposed final build was marred by a few late-breaking bugs, which the company expected to squash over the weekend. Meanwhile, a power outage in the Windows build lab on Friday prevented Microsoft from creating a new Vista build that night.

As I've related in my "Road to Gold: The Long Road to Windows Vista" series on the SuperSite for Windows, Microsoft was angered earlier this year after it granted analysts at Gartner unprecedented access to Vista's bug database, and Gartner published an opinion stating that the company would delay Vista past its January launch. This week, however, Michael Silver, the research vice president at Gartner, finally admitted that his firm's repeated predictions about further Vista delays were wrong, delighting those on the Vista team.

"It appears that Microsoft will beat our prediction," Silver wrote in a Gartner blog. "We will congratulate Microsoft as they hit their dates." Prepare to issue those congratulations, Mr. Silver: Microsoft is set to finish Vista this week.

It's unfortunate that Microsoft feels they need to release this product to manufacturing at this time. While this is just a guess on my part, I have a sneaking hunch that they are going to regret this.....I know that I personally won't be purchasing this product which will be the first for me since I have used Windows from the time of its birth. But Microsoft's recent poor decisions in licensing and in several other areas (as well as my experience with the latest build....it was a dud) has turned me toward Open Source Linux and even a bit of experimenting with BSD. The difference has been like night and day. But seriously, if I was Microsoft I think I might give it another month before sending out a buggy product and yes, it will be full of bugs over time.

Just so you are aware, Microsoft has reversed its decision regarding their licensing. The activations for Vista are now unlimited as long as you uninstall it off your old device; similar to how it is in XP. You can see this at the following url: http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2006/11/02/news-revision-to-windows-vista-retail-licens ing-terms.aspx

Another zero-day exploit for Windows announced, using Internet Explorer 6 and 7 as its attack vector: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/advisory/927892.mspx I'm sure it's going to be more of the same for Vista as well. Just recently, the Department of Homeland Security's border screening system was taken out by the Windows Zotob worm. Embarrassing.

From: http://www.activewin.com/awin/comments.asp?HeadlineIndex=37139 Paul Thurrot has mailed me about our exclusive story yesterday evening about Windows Vista hitting RTM. Here is the quote he said post: "Sorry to burst your bubble, but Vista won't RTM until November 8th at the earliest. I guess you can quote me on that if you'd like. But Vista has *not* reached RTM and won't before Wednesday at the earliest. Paul"

I am aware of the reversal of licensing from Microsoft and it would help if everyone read the EULA carefully because you simply do not own your software and the reversal does nothing to change that....

You don't own any commercial software unless you develop it yourself. The entire commercial software industry has been like that for years now. What's your point?

Oh God...not another "RTM Imminent" story. This is becoming comical, watching one site attempt to scoop the other..."Vista RTM Now really truly almost nearly Imminent!" Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I have lost interest. It will get here when it gets here. Move along folks, you know the drill.

Waethorn, evidently we are talking about two different things? Indeed the entire industry has not been like that for years and my point is simply that when you purchase software at the shelf level it is entirely ridiculous that you can't use your copy on however many machines you have available. I know what you are driving at though and I agree Microsoft isn't the only one out there that runs a ridiculous license system. The bottom line though is that software shouldn't be licensed like this when it is merchandised on the shelves. However, at the integrated level where it is purchased pre-installed on a PC, I feel that is different. I won't get into that aspect here but compare shelved software to a book if you will....should I have the right to let my friends read the book or do they need to go get a license or their own copy? How about a CD? Oh yeah...piracy....whew....well the fact is that sharing music spurs record sales.....then again the industry wouldn't want you to know that....

treeorc, your friends can use your copy of Windows just as legally and simply as they can read your book. What they cannot do is use your own purchase as a substitute for your own, just as you cannot install more than one copy of an OS. To stay with the book analogy, while your friend is welcome to use YOUR book, he is not allowed to photocopy it completely, and then peruse it at his leisure.

tom275, you are absolutely correct which is exactly my point...however, my friend can photocopy my book whenever he/she wishes if necessary.....which would be rather rare.... again, the bottom line is that to some extent, a person really does not own the copy of Windows purchased at the shelf level...just as I don't really own my copy of Steinberg Cubase SX with the famous dongle of which I can however, purchase another at about $100 approx. My point here is that I think it is unnecessary and a bit disturbing when the product ends up being less than adequate....but then I guess everybody is used to the remarkably well marketed Microsoft world of desktop computer operating software....no matter how it performs and how wide open it really is....

The reason the software industry moved into this is because they consider code (whether compiled or not) to be intellectual property. This is Basic Software Licensing 101, boys and girls. "however, my friend can photocopy my book whenever he/she wishes if necessary" That analogy is flawed, because doing that would break [international] copyright law. Indeed, authors would have each individual to have their own copy of a book, since the words printed are also intellectual property, and they benefit from each sale to a unique reader. Sure, that's just like saying that someone can copy your software off you, but is it legal?! (That's a rhetorical question. You know the answer.) You can argue that the BOOK is yours, but the printed words, are in fact, NOT. Same goes for software: you own the box and the CD/DVD, but the software on it isn't yours. Why do you think downloadable audiobooks are sold with DRM on them?

"sharing music spurs record sales" I missed that point the on the first read, but you're joking right?! Ya, all this illegal file-sharing that's going on has magically caused CD's to fly off store shelves! Really! That's why CD sales are at an all time low and have continually dropped in the last five years. That's why physical music stores are closing up shop. That's why DVD sales have been cut in half since two years ago. All because you say that they MUST be doing well because people are sharing them for free? Show me numbers to back up this claim, or else I will (continue to) completely disregard that total pile of bullplop.

Oh for crying out loud Paul. You give yourself too much credit: "Readers may recall that WinInfo broke the news that Microsoft would iterate Vista to build 6000 for the final release way back on August 25." We knew this a long time ago. As Vista got into the mid-upper 5000's, it became pretty obvious that the number would be artificially pushed up to 6000.

RTM ? I do hope the bugs that went out with the beta/RC Vista builds and the Windows XP version Of Media Player 11 are fixed!!! Track numbers blanked out Now show as Zero in Media Center and Windows Media Player Media Player 11 insists on overwriting user defined cover art (folder.jpg) when you scan or rescan a folder into the library. Also hope the search function in Vista is more intuitive with drop down options for the Local drives and network drives and folders shared!!!! Why do file open dialogues have the old style, yet explorer has the new (awful and cluttered) style of listing drives/Unc's etc?

Waethorn, Again you miss the point of the class you are teaching here....us boys and girls understand rights whether intellectual or proprietary. As for the numbers, it is an easy chore for anyone to come up with those that will back their debate points. Again, and I seriously concur with "most" of what you argue here, the point is that we agree that certain aspects of authorship stay with the owner. In the case of Microsoft, one doesn't have to buy their product as with other business products. I prefer not to buy their products anymore because they have proven to be of a paranoid/distrusting type....probably due to the idea that they truly understand how lousy their software really is....and the fact that us "boys and girls" are starting to catch on. Thanks for the lecture...

Waethorn, Actually I should refer to Microsoft's products as that of which I no longer see as necessary nor helpful to my personal work nor my preference to use. My apology there as I do understand their products can be innovative and I used them for years at quite an investment. However, at this point and through their lack of willingness to fix their mistake in rendering two of their products that I purchased as useless, I have simply switched to products that both work more efficiently for what I actually do which is the usual Email, Internet Research, Masters Degree Work Online, and Audio and Video Production....enough said and I do respect your opinion....believe it or not...

I don't know why Paul thinks it's significant news that Microsoft will bump the OS build number to an artificial, but signicant-for-other-reasons number. They've been doing that since Win95. Heck, they even added the year "1998" to the build number one of the Win98 releases. Not news. As for Vista's RTM vs Gartner, I think the important point is that, despite how many open bugs are in the list, Vista was going to ship regardless. Gartner was just basing their decision on the list of bugs. An uninformed decision. The truth is, lots of products ship with bugs. So long as the customer can pop-in the CD and install themelves a usable copy of the software, the "RTM" is an RTM. Having a massive patch handy for download on retail launch day is a plus. Gartner's access to the bug list just sort of broke the reality barrier. Vista's going to ship with known (to devs) bugs. Lots of them, in fact, but the ones that would cause a problem with the retail user experience have been squashed, making it suitable for RTM status. So here's what's going to happen: 1. Vista goes to RTM in Nov.2006. A bit is set in the OS's install image to, by default, to ask that Windows Update be consulted during the installation. Users who click through will get a visit to Windows Update during their install in the background. 2. Vista's bug team goes to work making hotfixes. 3. From late-Nov.2006 to mid Jan.2007, hotfixes get released for MSDN/Corporate Vista testers/users. 4. In mid-january (after Patch Tuesday), the bug team preps an Update Rollup containing all the Vista hotfixes. "Insiders" will start telling Paul and other tech writers about how many bugs were fixed and how big the upcoming patch is. 5. Vista goes on sale. Users pop in the retail CD, and the autorun prompts them to grab the updates from Windows Update. 6. Users complete their Vista install, fully patched, hopefuly fixing additional bugs from the Vista RTM to-do list.

vandil2, as close to right on the money as it can be....well stated....here is to hoping this OS turns out to be a good one.....eventually I'd like to use it but the latest build was a mess....at least in my experience.....I'll be keeping my eyes open on the whole things as it goes through the process though.

Something interesting I found on Microsoft's website: it's an article that explains some technical issues regarding EFI and Microsoft's support policy on it. Here's a few quotes: "In 2005, Intel and Microsoft were among the founding members of the Unified EFI Forum. Other founding members of the forum include AMD, American Megatrends, Dell, Hewlett Packard, IBM, Insyde, and Phoenix Technologies." "Using the EFI 1.10 specification as the starting point, the forum began to develop, manage, and promote the Unified Extended Firmware Interface (UEFI) specification with the goal to bring UEFI to mainstream systems that have traditionally used a BIOS to boot. On January 31, 2006, the UEFI 2.0 specification from UEFI Forum was released." (That was only this year) "any UEFI implementation can be written to provide boot support for native 32-bit, native 64-bit, and legacy BIOS-based operating systems. However, supporting all three requires a very large firmware image which would not fit on a traditional PROM" "Although a platform vendor could choose to have UEFI 32-bit support, this has a short life and diminishing returns." "Microsoft expects that most UEFI platforms in the near future will choose native 64 bit support" "Given the advent of mainstream 64-bit computing and the platform costs previously discussed, Microsoft determined that vendors would not have any interest in producing native UEFI 32-bit firmware. Microsoft has therefore chosen to not ship support for 32-bit UEFI implementations. "However, because BIOS boot is ingrained into all existing x86 and x64 deployments, Microsoft will continue to support BIOS-based boot for the foreseeable future. If UEFI becomes a well-established standard for booting systems, then Microsoft might consider a gradual transition away from BIOS-based boot support." "Although the initial release of Windows Vista will not include UEFI x64 64-bit support, a subsequent Windows Vista release will..."

I think it's much simpler than that. The majority of Microsoft's success with Windows lies in backwards compatibility and being able to install the OS onto just about any rig you can conjure up parts to build. Allowing Vista to boot on an EFI-bios system may cause the memory management or HAL to appear "different" to legacy applications and cause them to crash or not function at all. (Legacy = DOS, Win16, and apps written explicitly with Win9x and WinNT4 in mind) I think they key here is to ask what features of EFI or OpenFirmware are desirable enough to be worth completely killing off access to legacy applications on real hardware (assuming x86-BIOS-emulating virtual machines are not an option due to slow/poor performance). If a new type of BIOS allows me to do much more with my hardware than the current x86-BIOS, then great. Otherwise, if it's just another way to POST a machine and not much else, I don't see x86-BIOS going away quickly. I use OpenFirmware and EFI on Macs and it's fine. But it's nothing so stellar above what x86-BIOS currently does. Unless Microsoft wants to kill backwards compatibility, I don't see x86-BIOSes leaving mobos anytime soon.

2 char's short...HMMM. Anyway, I hope that was a good read.... The article further goes on to explain that EFI (and UEFI) requires a special type of disk partition to boot (a GUID partition table). So that's probably one of the major compatibility issues that's preventing system vendors from supporting it whole-heartedly. And without going heavily into quotes again, it looks like the code will be integrated into Windows Vista when Longhorn Server ships, which is supposed to be the Vista SP1 timeframe, or possibly Vista R2 which Microsoft (and Paul) have said is supposed to be a major release. Does EFI really make a difference though? I don't think so. It just adds more complexity to a system because of compatibility issues. Now with modern systems, BIOS's take less and less time to boot, most only display the BIOS screen long enough so you can hit the BIOS Setup button, but really don't take any time. I know my Acer notebook only displays the splash screen for a half-second before it starts to boot, and most of the Intel motherboards I've been building systems from also have a rapid BIOS POST. Still, moving forward is rarely a bad thing. On all motherboards sporting the Intel 945 chipset and higher, EFI support is already integrated, but is not enabled. A firmware flash would be able to activate it in the future if the need arose, but for now, and for compatibility reasons, the BIOS is still the standard. FYI for all the Mac people out there: Apple only started to support EFI in Intel Mac's. PowerPC systems used OpenFirmware, developed by Sun Microsystems. Intel was the company that designed EFI afterall. It was easy for Apple to support it, since they didn't need to worry about any backwards compatibility for previous Intel systems. They were starting from scratch with Intel and EFI. That's not so in the Windows world, where BIOS has been around a lot longer and needs to be made 100% with legacy apps and hardware. Apple was lucky!!!!

vandil2: looks like you snuck in before I could write more....you hit the nail on the head though, before I got my response posted. Also in the article, Microsoft says that they will only support a limited set of EFI features initially (probably so they can iron out any inconsistencies with compatibility). Really, it doesn't make much difference to me. If it boots, I'm happy. Whoop-dee-doo, otherwise. Just thought I'd put up some anti-troll propoganda. ;)

Honestly I don't see the big issue with BIOS. I mean, if its all the text and screen flickers, just turn your monitor on 3 seconds after you turn on your PC. I like seeing my boot splash, then seeing my raid controller and logical partition status, then windows splash. What does EFI bring to the table other than a unified boot environment for 64 and 32bit? Currently I only run 32bit OSes, and will so for the forseeable future. 2GB memory footprint suits me just fine right now, and I don't really need to go through the hassle of changing OSes for 64bitness in hopes that I get a 0.5% performance increase in SciMark FP calculations. I can get that with a simple overclock. Sure EFI is 'newer' but it does the same old thing, just in a different way. I could get out of my bed on a different side every day too, it'd be new, but would it be better?

"What does EFI bring to the table other than a unified boot environment for 64 and 32bit?" Actually Will, as I pointed out, Microsoft says that most vendors won't actually use 32-bit UEFI (EFI 2.0) - only 64 bit - but the rest you say is true, except that Intel stresses that increased performance is not an absolute "feature" in the 64-bit world. If anything, it's just a positive, albeit very occasional side-effect, depending on the code. AMD would have you believe that there are double-digit percentage jumps in performance when switching to 64-bit code, but tests have shown very miniscule amounts in actuality. Intel is smarter than that, only marketing towards the increase of addressable memory ala "EM64T" (Extended MEMORY 64-bit Technology). Microsoft's whole take seems to be "We're not supporting Mac's at all since they are not our target market. They have to continue using Boot Camp, since they are the only platform that is built exclusively with an EFI" (except for Itanium, but it's not likely to be supported by Microsoft much longer). We already know full well that the plain old BIOS is still just fine for 64-bit O/S support too, and there's no need in using GUID-partitioned hard drives, like they have in the Itanium realm.