Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: FAKE! Windows Vista Backward Compatible with BSoD (was: [News] Windows Vista Backward Compatible with BSoD)

  • Subject: Re: FAKE! Windows Vista Backward Compatible with BSoD (was: [News] Windows Vista Backward Compatible with BSoD)
  • From: "Rex Ballard" <rex.ballard@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: 7 Aug 2006 08:36:09 -0700
  • Complaints-to: groups-abuse@google.com
  • In-reply-to: <r37o2ifbhzen$.dlg@funkenbusch.com>
  • Injection-info: m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com; posting-host=; posting-account=W7I-5gwAAACdjXtgBZS0v1SA93ztSMgH
  • Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
  • Organization: http://groups.google.com
  • References: <3125945.R4nCkeYgg1@schestowitz.com> <r37o2ifbhzen$.dlg@funkenbusch.com>
  • User-agent: G2/0.2
  • Xref: news.mcc.ac.uk comp.os.linux.advocacy:1137663
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 13:26:03 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> > http://www.geek24.com/g/funny-picture-of-the-day-microsoft-windows-vista-is-backwards-compatible-with-blue-screen-of-death
> Fake.
> That's a Windows 9x blue screen.  These are very different form an NT based
> bluescreen which will show a stack dump as part of the trace.

I've had a few Windows XP Blue screens, and they didn't give the full
stack dump.
In this case, I think you might be right.  On the other hand, the
animations showing before that, did look like it was running Vista.

Has anybody seen a Vista Blue Screen to know whether his might be

> Someone has photoshopped a Windows 9x bluescreen on top of the image.

It also looked like someone had confused a Windows 9x clip and a Vista
In one of the clips, Bill got the crash and said "Maybe that's why we
haven't released Windows 98 yet".  Even if it really was a Vista crash,
it was a great "save".

I don't get terribly worked up one way or another about a crash or BSOD
during a public demonstration of a "Beta" version of Windows, they
happen pretty regularly, and it's no surprise that similar things
happen with Vista.  Typically these are machines that are running beta
code, with lots of diagnostic coding ,and lots of tracing and auditing

I'm not even terribly surprised when we see a BSOD of the initial GA
release.  It takes a few months to sort out the "real" requirements of
the hardware (often 2-4x the "reccomended minumum"), and the SP1
release generally fixes the really ugly stuff.  The SP2 patch seems to
be almost like deliberate sabotage of 3rd party applications.  The SP3
release is really when things get "Stable".  There is still not an SP3
release for XP.

XP does at least provide lots of automated security fixes.  For anyone
who used to have to manually track all of the security and "bug fix"
patches for Windows NT/2K manually, it's a very much appreciated
service.  Ironically, most corporations still have to filter and test
patches before passing them on to their employees.

Linux has had that since Mandrake 1.0.  Mandrake was originally focused
on the newbie user making the transition from Windows to Linux.
Mandrake even shipped new drivers and applications via their "update
service".  They just wanted to make it easier for new users to get
these upgrades and bug fixes without having to recompile kernels or
script modprobe sequences.  I remember one Mandrake system I installed
where the sound card didn't work.  One day, I ran the update, and I
suddenly started hearing sounds coming out of the speakers.  It was a
bit startling.

Bill Gates has press following him and videotaping him every time he
speaks or does a demo.  Beta Demonstrations generally do fail.  But
when they fail while Bill Gates is demonstrating them, it used to be
national news.

The sad thing is that it has become so common that it's no longer

Microsoft says they will release Vista sometime in mid-2007, which
means that they will put out SP1 around the end of 2007, and SP2 should
be out around early 2008.  At about that point, customers who still
want to be loyal to Microsoft will sign new support contracts which
increase their support costs, and start rolling out Vista based
systems.  Maybe by then, they will have enough 64 bit applications to
compete with Linux.  Or maybe the 64 bit applications will even BE

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index