Vista disables Cool'N'Quiet on some motherboards

[Alexander Grigoriev]

My guess is that the beta in question didn't provide new functionality yet
and didn't include Vista-complete HAL, thus it included ACPI 1.0 HAL from
XP. That could also be done to let it run on not-up-to-date systems.

 

[nobody]

When was the last time you looked at linux? The last time I recall
having to edit source code to make something work could have been 4-5
years ago! Things have moved on a LOT since then.

Some of the stories about certain 'features' in Vista should scare the
hell out of anyone thinking about using it. It looks like Vista is just
one huge bloated piece of spyware that will never make it onto my desktop!

The ability to go to the source code and edit it to one's pleasure has
long been touted by Linuxoids as main advantage of Open Source.
Quoting the OP: "...somebody else could go into the source code and
discover the problem and fix it again." If, as you say, it is not
necessary, then what is the advantage of Linux? Just that it's
un-Microsoft? Bashing MS and Bill Gates personally might be
fashionable in certain circles, but making business decisions based on
that is not exactly the most prudent thing to do, to say the least.
As for the "features" of Vista that bother you so much, just wait, and
somebody will post somewhere how to disable or otherwise fool them.
AFAIK, the activation (not the smallest of those "features") has
already been cracked. ;-)
As much as I'd prefer to stay away from Vista, eventually I'll have to
surrender because such will be the requirement of my then-current job.
It's your right to shun Vista or MS in general, but eventually most of
the businesses will transition to Vista, and you will have to walk
away from many prospective jobs because of that. Last time I looked,
there were plenty of jobs requiring skills in one MS product or the
other, and quite lesser demand for Linux-based stuff.

Rgds,

NNN

 

[Yousuf Khan]

My guess is that the beta in question didn't provide new functionality yet
and didn't include Vista-complete HAL, thus it included ACPI 1.0 HAL from
XP. That could also be done to let it run on not-up-to-date systems.

More ACPI related disorders in Vista. Looks like with the pulling of
the ACPI 1.0 stuff, Vista can't even reawaken some PCs properly from
sleep-states:

Slashdot | Prescription Meds For Vista Sleep Disorder
http://it.slashdot.org/it/07/03/11/015251.shtml

 

[know code]

The ability to go to the source code and edit it to one's pleasure has
long been touted by Linuxoids as main advantage of Open Source.
Quoting the OP: "...somebody else could go into the source code and
discover the problem and fix it again." If, as you say, it is not
necessary, then what is the advantage of Linux?

With linux, if you *want* to go into the source code and examine/improve
it/fix bugs, you *can*, though to run a linux system successfully there
is no need to these days. With MS, you don't even have that option.
That is the advantage of linux, everything is out in the open with no
hidden spyware that phones home every so often (never mind the usual
traits of better stability, no viruses, etc).

Just that it's
un-Microsoft? Bashing MS and Bill Gates personally might be
fashionable in certain circles, but making business decisions based on
that is not exactly the most prudent thing to do, to say the least.

I used to use XP at home and I still use XP at work. I now use openSUSE
at home and have no intention of ever changing back to XP or Vista. As
a result, I use both OS's on a daily basis and have concluded that linux
is the better product, and not by a small margin. If the company I work
for wants to continue to use an inferior product, well, that is their
business decision that they'll have to live with.

As for the "features" of Vista that bother you so much, just wait, and
somebody will post somewhere how to disable or otherwise fool them.
AFAIK, the activation (not the smallest of those "features") has
already been cracked. ;-)

But that is the very point about Vista. It shouldn't be necessary to
wait on a crack to deactivate some of the more unsavoury "features".
The in-built spyware and other "features" should not be there in the
first place! If the source code had been available, MS would not have
been able to sneak these "features" in.

As much as I'd prefer to stay away from Vista, eventually I'll have to
surrender because such will be the requirement of my then-current job.

It might be necessary to use it in work if the business you work for has
made that decision (as I do), there is no necessity to use it at home!

It's your right to shun Vista or MS in general, but eventually most of
the businesses will transition to Vista, and you will have to walk
away from many prospective jobs because of that. Last time I looked,
there were plenty of jobs requiring skills in one MS product or the
other, and quite lesser demand for Linux-based stuff.

I'll not be walking away from any job. As I said, if a company makes a
decision to use an inferior product, that is a decision they will have
to live with. I will still use the MS products in work, out of
necessity, but I will NOT be using them at home!

 

[Wes Newell]

The ability to go to the source code and edit it to one's pleasure has
long been touted by Linuxoids as main advantage of Open Source.
Quoting the OP: "...somebody else could go into the source code and
discover the problem and fix it again." If, as you say, it is not
necessary, then what is the advantage of Linux?

These are the main advantages that I care about, in no certain order.

Design was for a secure multiuser protected kernel system.

It's open source available on almost all known cpu platforms.

It, and most apps for it or free.(if it weren't I'd still use it over MS)

It's not MS. It has no agenda. MS does. They want to lock you into their
OS and also want to control the hardware you use and everything to do with
any technology you use. AFAIK, the Linux developers have never been
convicted of piracy. MS has been many times, in many countries.

I want a choice of user interfaces. I get that with linux. I don't run the
most popular desktops (KDE and Gnome) on Linux.

The main reason is stability. It's not often a runaway app will halt a
Linux system. Can't say the same for MS.

I also use it because MS will and has gone to criminal lenghts to try and
force companies not to support it. I will not use MS products because I
refuse to support anything BG has anything to do with. Just as I would not
support any company that uses unethical and illegal tactics given a choice.

While I've used MS products. I've never purchased any except for the
original MS basic, which was so bad, I used a different one. About the
only product they had that was decent was MS-Dos, and if you know how it
was aquired, you know they didn't write the original.

 

[beoweolf]

While I'm usually a big fan of backwards compatibility, in this case I'd
say hardware manufacturers are at fault. If you desgin your products such
that it requires "undocumented features" to work then you get what you
deserve, burned (which has started happening more and more on the Windows
platform). On the whole I'd say what Microsoft is doing is probably a
positive thing. Let's face it, backwards compatibility is a source of many
of their greatest troubles... i.e. allowing third party apps to patch the
kernel, take over critical functionality the list goes on... While it's
annoying now, in the end it'll probably ensure a better more secure
project going forward. I guess I should say I'm writing this being in the
uniquly lucky position of A) having a modern system (I"m an enthusiest),
and B) have an MSDN subscription which was paid for me (I'm a developer).
So I"m now running Vista ultimite. I have to say over all it's a great
expereince.

Very simple explanation - you sell new M/B when you no longer support or
produce BIOS upgrades for older boards. This has been a long time coming.
For several years, the picking have been pretty slim at all the mother board
download site after a year or 2 (two). Some of them transfer driver, BIOS
support to Pay-for sites so they can get on to the next, latest, greatest
thing. There is little or no money in supporting old M/B or retrofitting.

Microsoft deserves (earned) a lot our suspicion, but you are way off base on
this one. It's like blame car makers when they changed over to unleaded gas.
Displaced anger, since the real culprits were government mandates, and oil
companies.

As far as any of the "nix Os, when are you guys going to grow up and realize
that the average user is more than happy with Microsoft, they do not want to
learn how or know how to install a distro, or how to custom configure their
system/machine. Most of the regular people that I talk to, have begun to
recognize that MS is much better than it was 10 years ago, and twice as good
5 years ago. Even Vista,...once you quit whining and take the time to learn
it - is not as onerous as you make it seem. every version of Ms windows has
been an improvement (lets just forget about NT 3.5 and Millennium).

Why is it that any, mention of Microsoft ...good, bad or indifferent, seems
to spawn another rebirth of Linux outbreaks, its not like people don't
already know there is an alternative. Face it..they - just - Don't - care!
People are funny that way they: drive to fast,smoke, use recreational
drugs, eat too much, drink, want to hunt or own guns, play video games to
excess - do all manner of things that puritans wish they could outlaw.
Because it is either fun, easy or satisfying. We tried prohibition - in case
you missed it...here's the memo - It didn't work, it was repealed.

 

[know code]

As far as any of the "nix Os, when are you guys going to grow up and
realize that the average user is more than happy with Microsoft, they do
not want to learn how or know how to install a distro, or how to custom
configure their system/machine.

And these same people whose machines are probably riddled with viruses
and worms because "they do not want to learn.... how to custom configure
their system/machine" are usually the first to shout when their mailbox
fills with spam from viruses and worms..... I always find that somewhat
ironic

 

[YKhan]

As far as any of the "nix Os, when are you guys going to grow up and realize
that the average user is more than happy with Microsoft, they do not want to
learn how or know how to install a distro, or how to custom configure their
system/machine. Most of the regular people that I talk to, have begun to
recognize that MS is much better than it was 10 years ago, and twice as good
5 years ago. Even Vista,...once you quit whining and take the time to learn
it - is not as onerous as you make it seem. every version of Ms windows has
been an improvement (lets just forget about NT 3.5 and Millennium).

And let's face another reality: most people don't know how to install
any Microsoft operating system or custom configure it either. They
mainly buy pre-fabbed PCs, with pre-installed operating systems, and
hardware pre-selected to work with it. So there's not much here that
can't also done with any other operating system. The only reason this
doesn't happen already is because Microsoft prevents the OEMs from
trying it, on threats that their discounts will be pulled.

Yousuf Khan

 

[P Settli]

And let's face another reality: most people don't know how to install
any Microsoft operating system or custom configure it either. They
mainly buy pre-fabbed PCs, with pre-installed operating systems, and
hardware pre-selected to work with it. So there's not much here that
can't also done with any other operating system. The only reason this
doesn't happen already is because Microsoft prevents the OEMs from
trying it, on threats that their discounts will be pulled.

I thought that was illegal now, and if not, why? Seem to remember an
anti-trust suit over there in the USA a while back.

--PS

 

[The little lost angel]

its not like people don't
already know there is an alternative. Face it..they - just - Don't - care!

A lot of people still don't know there is an alternative. And like you
said, a lot of people don't care, as long as the PC does what they
need it for.

Which means a pre-installed Linux box is just as good, if not better,
for the non-gaming majority, who just want to surf web, check email,
do some office work and chat on IM, as a pre-installed Windows box.
Except they wouldn't have problems with viruses, built-in spyware and
what not "features".

 

[Yousuf Khan]

YKhan wrote:

I thought that was illegal now, and if not, why? Seem to remember an
anti-trust suit over there in the USA a while back.

I might have been a bit dramatic in making my point. I have no knowledge
that's what Microsoft does. However, it has some hold over the OEMs that
goes beyond mere "ease of use" of the operating system.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Sebastian Kaliszewski]

His example of editing source code to make things work isn't very
correct, but the basic point he was trying to make is dead-on. I use
Linux fairly regularly, both at home and at work, and I find it to
often be the best choice for many situations. However I have yet to
see a distribution that wasn't FULL of bugs.

When MS released Vista they said they had 500 bugs.

I love such counting! They simply estimate they have something around that
(yet I somehow don't belive that number)

I would be VERY
surprised if there is ANY Linux distribution on the planet that could
pass the same level of Software QA with fewer than 10,000 bugs.

Yyeah, but now strip that distirbution down to the level which is provided
by MS (i.e. bare bones OS + minimal basic tools).

The
only one I've encountered that might come close is the Debian 'stable'
branch, which is always 2+ years out of date. I gave up on Debian
'testing' and Gentoo because they were HUGELY buggy and never could
get any version of Redhat/Fedora working at anything resembling a
reliable system.

Right now I'm using SuSE, which seems ok, but it's still much, MUCH
buggier than any current version of Window (meaning Win2K, WinXP or
Vista). The Linux kernel is extremely solid, and certain key
applications are well tested and very reliable, but beyond that the
quality level goes downhill rapidly.

But there is nothing beyond that in Windows to begin with!

There are lots of things that Microsoft does that I don't agree with.
They make some really boneheaded design decisions which have
negatively affected the security of their systems, and IMO with Vista
they are going way too far with taking away a users control of their
own PC. However when it comes to a purely *quality* standpoint (ie
they follow their design correctly, even if the design itself is
stupid), Microsoft is WAY ahead these days. That wasn't always the
case (Win9x was *TERRIBLE* in this regard and even WinNT 4.0 was
pretty poor), but it is now.

XP sp2 is poor as well and Vista seems to be worse.

Just an example: the day before yesterday by ISP had some problems and the
connection was broken for few hours. I've several computers behind
NAT/firewall. When my ISP was down my home intranet worked normally.

But stupid Windows iformed me that the ethernet cable is unplugged. I went
under the table checking all the connections, but they were OK. So i tried
wireless -- it also informed that it can't connect. Went to check router --
seeemed ok, rebooted it to be sure, but of course it didn't help a bit.
Finally went to my linux machine to see that local network is ok, it's just
problem at the ISP. I went to taht Windows box to try to ping other local
machines -- and it worked. Yet this imbecilic Windows insisted that cable is
disconnected and that it can't connect to my access point -- funny that
pings were going with 0ms roundtri via that "disconnected" cable.

Then comes that stupid MS 'find' utility which did not work yet they could
not afford to fix for so many years.

rgds

 

[Sebastian Kaliszewski]

A lot of people still don't know there is an alternative. And like you
said, a lot of people don't care, as long as the PC does what they
need it for.

Which means a pre-installed Linux box is just as good, if not better,
for the non-gaming majority, who just want to surf web, check email,
do some office work and chat on IM, as a pre-installed Windows box.
Except they wouldn't have problems with viruses, built-in spyware and
what not "features".

Exactly!
That's why my Mother's computer is a Suse box, not Windows box. It does all
the stuff she needs it to do, yet I'm free from trobles coming from virii,
spyware and "features".

rgds

 

[beoweolf]

The OEM's have tried to sell Linux based systems...Dell still has warehouses
full of them. Just as I am (as many other enthusiasts) seldom satisfied
with the pre-configured selection of branded computers; the same problem
comes up with 'Nix OS systems. Lets suppose we develop a consumer market
for 'Nix OS machines.The first big question is which distribution of 'Nix
should be installed? You need to have standards, if you want to sell a
standardized product. There are several versions in the top 10, and each can
be configured in hundreds of ways - then comes the issue of which components
to install. The wild frontier of 'Nix systems would play havoc with
business, government policy enforced standardization. Who do you really
think drives the computer market, consumers or business/government? Ask any
volume seller which market he would chose above the other, if his business
could only service one. Consumers want an appliance, businesses want a tool.
Neither is going to make a choice that doesn't fit it requirements. For
consumers, ease of use it the guiding force. For business use, ease of
management and software compatibility are paramount.

'Nix based machines have two areas in which they can excel, both are
remarkable in the fact that they serve a niche community. Enthusiast make up
one end of the spectrum and less technically advanced environments the
second. The wide middle ground, marked by people who wish to have internet
access, software and games as a commodity make up the broad middle ground.
If the PC community had been driven by the requirements of 'Nix systems, we
would still be running 286/386 processors with 128 mb memory. There would
have been no need to develop anything faster or more powerful. Like I said,
you 'Nix proponents need to quit whining and be happy to sop up the waste
that falls off the Microsoft driven gravy train. Microsoft, by virtue of
standardized packaging in the beginning and force of its size today, has
benefited all users. Not a popular sentiment, but true never the less. If
you have any historical memory of computing prior to '90's, then you should
recall how often it was a question if something as simple as a NIC would
work in your new system. It was necessary to keep and update drivers for
very expensive network cards or manually set switches for them to
communicate - trivia what is IRQ? PnP, championed by/brought to you by MS
has removed a lot the unnecessary headaches of computing

The extremes are not able to support an industry aimed at a consumer market.
Apple tried to market on the basis of a quality product, running a "Nix
based OS; it reward has been accolades by the puritans and minimal market
penetration...it has flirted with bankruptcy at least twice, as it stands, I
would submit it remains a "computer company" only because it is subsidized
by its other branches (entertainment) in plain truth, its computer wing only
survives as an indulgence by its board of directors.

So, quitcherbitchen! If you want a 'Nix OS, then buy one - just quit telling
the rest of us that we need to go back to the stone age to see the future.
We can embrace both OS, its just a fact the as it stands - MS suits the
needs of the wider majority of users.

 

[Tony Hill]

I love such counting! They simply estimate they have something around that
(yet I somehow don't belive that number)

It's not an estimate, it's a count of how many open tickets they have
in their bug tracking system. And 'bugs' can be VERY simple things,
like spelling mistakes, slight formatting errors, or even things that
don't have any effect on the code at all (ie source code not meeting
the set standard for formatting).

Yyeah, but now strip that distirbution down to the level which is provided
by MS (i.e. bare bones OS + minimal basic tools).

I AM talking about only the level which is provided by MS. Linux
distributions track FAR fewer bugs then MS does because they do not
generally track the bugs of their component applications, only bugs in
packaging those applications. For example, if there's a bug Konqueror
that causes some web pages to display incorrectly, it would only be
logged as a bug under the KDE group, not as a bug under Redhat or
SuSE. However for Microsoft a bug in IE would get logged as a bug in
Windows because it's all Microsoft stuff.

But there is nothing beyond that in Windows to begin with!

Right, I should have known that this GUI I'm looking at was just a
figment of my imagination, and that IE was not really integrated with
Windows. And that Windows Media Player, it must be a third party app,
right?

There is a LOT more to Windows then just the kernel. A lot of it is
common in Linux, some of it is not. Comparing the two using absolute
metrics is never going to be possible. Even then it's fairly normal
for Linux distributions to be released with thousands of open bugs
(Redhat currently has 3,000+ open bugs for Enterprise Linux, Gentoo
has 1,000+ for release 2006.1). If one were to compare like software
to like software, and do the same level of software QA that Microsoft
does, those numbers would skyrocket.

Now, where Linux distributions tend to excel is in the design
decisions. Microsoft makes some really boneheaded design decisions,
and no amount of software quality will ever make up for bad design
decisions. Some of these designs are based off the desire to keep
media companies all happy (see DRM), but most are based off what
Microsoft thinks will make things "easier" for users. The result is
that often things are more difficult for users who really understand
what they are doing because Microsoft felt that they needed to hide
configuration options from end users so as to not confuse them.

 

[The little lost angel]

It was necessary to keep and update drivers for
very expensive network cards or manually set switches for them to
communicate - trivia what is IRQ? PnP, championed by/brought to you by MS
has removed a lot the unnecessary headaches of computing

I believe that was more correctly "PnP, copied from Apple/TI/others,
again." It was Apply who really championed the principle of ease of
use with the use of Nubus in the Mac that brought PnP to Redmond's
attention and subsequent push for it in W95. If not for Apple having
it, I would seriously wonder when, if ever, we would had walked out of
the jumpers, irq and dma conflict mess.

 

[Alexander Grigoriev]

Yes, when those people will switch to much hyped *ux, they will be more than
happy to fall to the same social engineering that gets those viruses to
Windows. Those who buy Limdows machines that run as root by default.

 

[MattersNot]

I love such counting! They simply estimate they have something around
that (yet I somehow don't belive that number)




Yyeah, but now strip that distirbution down to the level which is
provided by MS (i.e. bare bones OS + minimal basic tools).




But there is nothing beyond that in Windows to begin with!




XP sp2 is poor as well and Vista seems to be worse.

Just an example: the day before yesterday by ISP had some problems and
the connection was broken for few hours. I've several computers behind
NAT/firewall. When my ISP was down my home intranet worked normally.

But stupid Windows iformed me that the ethernet cable is unplugged. I
went under the table checking all the connections, but they were OK. So
i tried wireless -- it also informed that it can't connect. Went to
check router -- seeemed ok, rebooted it to be sure, but of course it
didn't help a bit. Finally went to my linux machine to see that local
network is ok, it's just problem at the ISP. I went to taht Windows box
to try to ping other local machines -- and it worked. Yet this imbecilic
Windows insisted that cable is disconnected and that it can't connect to
my access point -- funny that pings were going with 0ms roundtri via
that "disconnected" cable.

Then comes that stupid MS 'find' utility which did not work yet they
could not afford to fix for so many years.

rgds

Are you sure? On my Asua A8N SLI the BIOS sends out that
message (if the option is enabled) - not the operating system.

 

[Sebastian Kaliszewski]

It's not an estimate, it's a count of how many open tickets they have
in their bug tracking system.

So it's even more worthless. Knowing how the accept bug reports (try to
report something to them, good luck) that number is meaningless.

And 'bugs' can be VERY simple things,
like spelling mistakes, slight formatting errors, or even things that
don't have any effect on the code at all (ie source code not meeting
the set standard for formatting).

Or things like that infamous search utility which didn't work for how many
years?

I AM talking about only the level which is provided by MS. Linux
distributions track FAR fewer bugs then MS does because they do not
generally track the bugs of their component applications, only bugs in
packaging those applications.

Of course they track. They might forward those further, but they track them.
And at least we were able to succesfully report bugs (RHEL) and then see
those very bugs fixed.

Trying to report bugs to MS is an excercise in futility unless you're big
vendor.

For example, if there's a bug Konqueror
that causes some web pages to display incorrectly, it would only be
logged as a bug under the KDE group, not as a bug under Redhat or
SuSE.

Nope. It would be tracked there as well (at least RedHat does).

However for Microsoft a bug in IE would get logged as a bug in
Windows because it's all Microsoft stuff.

Yeah, sure. That's why IE6.0 was so bug ridden -- it is not compatible with
W3 standards (while MS is a part of W3 organisation).

Right, I should have known that this GUI I'm looking at was just a
figment of my imagination, and that IE was not really integrated with
Windows. And that Windows Media Player, it must be a third party app,
right?

Please, try to understand what you read (and in fact write). You wrote:
"The Linux kernel is extremely solid, and certain *key applications* are
well tested and very reliable". I think that GUI is a key application.

There is a LOT more to Windows then just the kernel. A lot of it is
common in Linux, some of it is not. Comparing the two using absolute
metrics is never going to be possible. Even then it's fairly normal
for Linux distributions to be released with thousands of open bugs
(Redhat currently has 3,000+ open bugs for Enterprise Linux, Gentoo
has 1,000+ for release 2006.1). If one were to compare like software
to like software, and do the same level of software QA that Microsoft
does, those numbers would skyrocket.

Or not. Judging with MS past performance, I don't trust their low open bugs
numer at all. Redhat accepts and handles bug reports from every damn
customer, not just selected few. And those bugs include all that apps coming
with the OS, no just barebones kernel, GUI, OS tools, solitaire game,
unusable text editor and standards uncmpliant browser.

Now, where Linux distributions tend to excel is in the design
decisions. Microsoft makes some really boneheaded design decisions,
and no amount of software quality will ever make up for bad design
decisions. Some of these designs are based off the desire to keep
media companies all happy (see DRM), but most are based off what
Microsoft thinks will make things "easier" for users. The result is
that often things are more difficult for users who really understand
what they are doing because Microsoft felt that they needed to hide
configuration options from end users so as to not confuse them.

It's not only that. Like the idiotic stuff wioth that disconnected cable --
this plain bug, and easy to fix in fact (istead of trying to ping MS server
or whatever thing they do, they shuld just ping the configured gatway first
and only if gateway does not respond to pings they could try pinging
something outside, just to be on the safe side if someome (mis)configured
gatway to not respond to pings). Gosh, I've come with that fix in just 5
minutes.

rgds

 

[Sebastian Kaliszewski]

Are you sure?
Absolutely.

On my Asua A8N SLI the BIOS sends out that message (if the
option is enabled) - not the operating system.

BIOS can send message on boot. But icon in system tray is an OS thing.


And then bios is usually right (it has the information which NIC has, to
turn that little green LED at the ethernet socket).

rgds