Windows Vista Beta can be downloaded...

[hard candy]

I know, I know, you are thinking why the h*** is he posting about this?? Here!!??
Well, the downloads are not going so well according to the Anandtech forum, so I thought, I'm not busy, let's see what kind of server is being hammered 'cause I was thinking it was probably Windows 2003 sever. Lo and behold:
According to Netcraft, Site info, click on the uptime graph
Site http://download.windowsvista.com Last reboot unkown
Domain windowsvista.com
Netblock owner Akamai Technologies
IP address 80.67.87.41 Site rank unknown
Country US
Nameserver ns1.msft.net
Date first seen unknown
DNS admin msnhst@microsoft.com
Domain Registry register.com
Reverse DNS unknown
Organisation Microsoft Corporation, One Microsoft Way, Redmond, 98052, United States Nameserver Organisation Microsoft Corporation, One Microsoft Way, Redmond, 98052, United States
Uptime graph:
Linux unknown 8-Jun-2006 84.45.224.7 ADSL endpoints NAT conections only



Vista download site
So is the Vista download via Linux OS servers? What about TCO?
I realize Akamai owns the servers, but I was impressed the servers were getting hammered so hard and had yet to produce a 404 message. Go linux!

[bwkaz]

A web server isn't going to 404 because it's getting hit too hard (as long as it's not buggy). It may give a 500 error, or maybe a 503 (service unavailable), or it may just refuse the connection. But 404 is reserved for "the item you asked for doesn't seem to be here at the moment".

As for the Linux -- that's almost assuredly the Akamai server, not anything inside Microsoft. The Akamai server probably just re-directs the request to whatever Microsoft's server is (as a caching HTTP proxy); I believe that's one way to use their service. What would be interesting is to see the actual response headers (specifically the Server: header) in the HTTP response that downloads the actual file. I'm thinking that will be IIS, and knowing Microsoft, it's likely version 6.

[nikodell]

got it downloaded but it cannot seem to work on my amd 64 just fails at setup other than that its awsome

[leonpmu]

Erm , those of you that downloaded it, why are you downloading Microsoft Beta software? We all know from long experience that Microsofts final release software is of exquivalent quality to an open source beta software... please tell me why you are surprised?

[EnigmaOne]

got it downloaded but it cannot seem to work on my amd 64 just fails at setup other than that its awsome

Coffee -> Mouth -> Nose -> Keyboard
You caught me off guard with that one...LOL.

[paj12]

Erm , those of you that downloaded it, why are you downloading Microsoft Beta software?

Theme designers want to get started right away on making KDE and GNOME look as much like Vista as possible.

[Piko]

Well I'm going to fire up VMWare, and see what all this crap is about. Though from reviews I read it isn't all the great, most people agree you should stick with XP if you use windows. I'm still using 2000 pro, because all I do is play some games on it.

[Parcival]

Erm , those of you that downloaded it, why are you downloading Microsoft Beta software?

Probably they ran out of coasters.

[Piko]

Ok, the file system need at least 24GB!? You guys think SuSE is bloated.

You must have your drivers on CD, or it won't install.

I feel like I'm battling the installer right now, and I'm loosing, I'm going to take one more go using some information I got off a VMWare forum.

I'll put screen shots up of the stupidity of this as soon as I can.

God this is awful, and I know lots of morons who are going to want me to install this tripe on their computers.

[paj12]

Does this mean that Windows isn't ready for the desktop?

Seriously though, I wonder why so many people are having so many problems with Windows Vista. Before Ubuntu released Dapper Drake, people were using it for months beforehand and had few complaints. Some people even run the unstable or testing branch of Debian full-time. Isn't this how beta software is supposed to work: a few problems to iron out, but mostly complete and working? From what I've heard, it seems like this new version of Windows is pretty far from being from ready to be deployed on millions of desktops and workstations all over the world.

[nikodell]

well I admit i play counter strike on windows and I was relieved that I could get the beta VISTA to use as my XP64 trial version was due to run out in days. so I try Vista which I did get installed my problem was that I needed a preformated partition at at least 14gb so it would not even run the installer but i figured it out

By the way it sucks for counter strike I get les than half the frame rate than i did from XP

[Parcival]

I feel like I'm battling the installer right now, and I'm loosing

The fun doesn't really start until you got it installed. Already posted this link over at "Hating Microsoft in a nutshell", but in case you haven't seen it yet it's worth a read:

Visual Tour: 20 Things You Won't Like About Windows Vista

[bwkaz]

Seriously though, I wonder why so many people are having so many problems with Windows Vista.

Because no matter how many people Microsoft hires, they will never be able to get the kind of manpower that most Linux distros have.

How many people work on KDE or GNOME? How many people occasionally submit patches to either project? What about X? What about every other open-source package you have installed? Every distro gets the benefit of having all those people, working on the code they distribute. Not to mention that if you run into a bug in one of these beta versions (or even in a "stable" version), and you're a programmer, you can probably fix it yourself because you have the source.

Before Ubuntu released Dapper Drake, people were using it for months beforehand and had few complaints. Some people even run the unstable or testing branch of Debian full-time. Isn't this how beta software is supposed to work: a few problems to iron out, but mostly complete and working?

It's how beta software works in the open-source world. "Beta" in the closed-source world basically means "this sucks, don't go anywhere near it unless you enjoy pain".

As far as "is windows not ready for the desktop?", I don't think it's been ready for the desktop for the last ten years. But see, almost nobody installs it from scratch, so almost nobody sees this kind of crap. Everyone buys a computer with it preinstalled, and the computer manufacturers have enormous support resources at Microsoft. Not that those support people can actually fix the code, but they can recommend workarounds, etc., so the OEMs can get their images up and running. And once they have an image, they just drop it down on every new hard drive they send out the door.

[Piko]

Visual Tour: 20 Things You Won't Like About Windows Vista

The guy who wrote this article must be basing his ideas of Linux off 4 year old screen shots he found in a back issue of Linux Format.

Trying to do any work on Windows is imposable for me now. I just can't do it. It's so frustrating. No multi desktop, no super powerful file browser, no 1000+ apps to help me out. No wonderful SFTP, FTP, SMB, SVN, and so on protocols in one system, all intergrated in the greatest file browser ever, Konqueror! What would I do with out LInux... Wow, I don't think I would be a computer scientist if the world was without Linux.

Vista is crap, I couldn't get past the first install screen.

[Pafnoutios]

Visual Tour: 20 Things You Won't Like About Windows Vista

Apparently Linux has moved up from Office '97 to Windows 2000. We've gained 3 years.