ActiveWin.com - The Most Activated Windows Resource

ActiveWin

User Controls

New User

Edit/View My Profile

Active Network

ActiveMac

ActiveWin

ActiveXbox

DirectX

Downloads

FAQs

Interviews

MS Games & Hardware

Reviews

Rocky Bytes

Support Center

TopTechTips

Windows 2000

Windows Me

Windows Server 2003

Windows Vista

Windows XP

News Centers

Windows/Microsoft

Apple/Mac

Xbox/Xbox 360

News Search

XML/RSS Newsfeeds

Pocket PC Site

FAQ's

Windows Vista

Windows 98/98 SE

Windows 2000

Windows Me

Windows Server 2003

Windows XP

Windows 7

Windows 8

Internet Explorer 6

Internet Explorer 5

Xbox 360

Xbox

DirectX

DVD's

Latest Reviews

Xbox/Games

Fable 2

Applications

Windows Server 2008 R2

Windows 7

Adobe CS5 Master Collection

Hardware

Microsoft Express Mouse

Latest Interviews

Mike Swanson

Site News/Info

About This Site

Advertise

Affiliates

Default Home Page

Link To Us

Ultimate Extras, Where are you?

Time: 00:27 EST/05:27 GMT | News Source: Windows Connected | Posted By: Kenneth van Surksum

It has been over three months since we last saw anything from the Ultimate Extra team. Intially this was offered by Microsoft as one of the big value adds to the Ultimate version of Windows Vista, but to date I can't say they have delivered that much value. DreamScene was sweet but lasted only a few hours, Holdem was fun again only a half usable thing since it wasn't network capable, the Bitlocker tool was useful for some....

So what is up guys, have you gone on an extended vacation? Are we not going to see any more Extras? Is Microsoft out of ideas for what to offer? Anyone else disappointed in this so far?

Read Only Comments
Return to News

Displaying Comments 1 through 39 of 39

This is an archived static copy of ActiveWin.com.

#1 By 11131 (24.136.209.253) at Thursday, June 14, 2007 12:49:17 AM

I guess because all of the hype around Vista has died down....

#2 By 2960 (24.254.95.224) at Thursday, June 14, 2007 07:58:52 AM

It's about time someone addressed this rip-off.

TL

#3 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at Thursday, June 14, 2007 08:23:44 AM

As much as "Ultimate Extras" may disappoint, Windows Vista Ultimate can't be viewed in that limited context.

Here's just one example [okay, 2], let's say that a home power user (not to be confused with a user type in XP) wants to maintain UAC, but also wants UAC elevations to be less jarring - well, the user of Vista Ultimate has support for group policies and can disable the "Secure Desktop" when a UAC event is fired - Vista Home Premium users do not have the GPO Local Security Policy editor and they can't do this - they're stuck without as many options.

Seems small, but it lets home users of Ultimate control and balance their experience with UAC. Another area is the credential cache - not present in Home Premium, but fully supported in Ultimate - and that matters for home SOHO users who lease space and services with a hosted Exchange provider using NTLM in support of user authentication.

Just a couple of tiny areas that can have a huge impact on how a person works with a machine and as regards Vista Ultimate, that is only the a small part of what makes it unique and worth the difference in price.

I know the temptation will be to brand me a shill <again> and a "Defender of the Empire" - which is silly - the threads track along the lines of "what makes Vista Ultimate different and worth the price?" I assess there is a lot that is different, more complete and better - and much that does not apply to purely business versions, or systems dedicated for home media support [hence the segmentation across Vista's different versions].

This post was edited by lketchum on Thursday, June 14, 2007 at 08:34.

#4 By 16797 (142.46.227.65) at Thursday, June 14, 2007 08:35:01 AM

#3 Oh, come on Iketchum - no need to defend Vista Ultimate. He is very specific and targeting Ultimate Extras.

#5 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at Thursday, June 14, 2007 08:41:30 AM

Well, no... a lot of guys have stated, "If I had it to do over again, I'd have skipped Ultimate and bought Home Premium" - when the topic was about Ultimate Extras.

Also, my defense is not of Ultimate, or Microsoft - that is for sure - my defense is of the people who bought Ultimate and their investment - trying to show how they can get the most out of it [for those that may not be in the business as TL is].

#6 By 1474 (138.162.0.42) at Thursday, June 14, 2007 09:02:31 AM

You are 100% correct #3; it's Ultimate because of what you get; comparing it to it's lesser versions; I wish that my MCE 2005 had all the processes of Windows XP (not Home). I have a copy of each Windows Vista; including the one I use at work (Enterprise) editions. Each one has been put thru the wringer; Ultimate (user) or Enterprise (business) is the best Vista’s. I don’t know why anyone would keep using XP. iPhone will have the same type problems because it won’t have buttons.

#7 By 25030 (12.159.165.115) at Thursday, June 14, 2007 09:24:10 AM

Yeah, somewhat disappointed about the lack of Extra's, but anyone who would buy Ultimate solely on the basis of the "extras" is simply either foolish or has too much money to spend. I run a domain at home, wanted the media features of Home Premium, and thus Ultimate was my choice for my main PC, and Business suits my other "lesser" boxes quite nicely.

Plus, since I run a small computer business, I would have gotten Ultimate anyway just so that I had every Vista feature and could provide better support to my Vista customers, given the array of "flavors".

#8 By 135 (216.17.26.137) at Thursday, June 14, 2007 10:11:20 AM

Like #7, I have Ultimate on one, and Business on another. I find nothing worthwhile about Ultimate. The only media stuff I use is in Media Player. If i wasn't on a domain, I'd say Home Premium is good enough.

That being said, I'm about ready to yank Vista and reinstall XP. It's just not ready yet. I had to turn off UAC. I don't like the new file explorer, because it has bugs. (Create New Folder, and you have to hit refresh to see it so you can rename it.)

The main feature I like is the ability to user switch while on a domain. That's the compelling feature. Everything else just isn't ready yet.

#9 By 3 (86.1.34.106) at Thursday, June 14, 2007 10:40:55 AM

#5 Well on my new system I did just that, went with Home Premium, couldn't be bothered with the other guff that comes with it.

#10 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at Thursday, June 14, 2007 11:21:13 AM

I have to disagree with lketchum here, too. Yes, the Ultimate Extras aren't the only defining feature of Ultimate. Here's the problem I have with it (and what I posted on Josh's blog as well)--Microsoft needs a way of boosting revenue, and how can they do it with Windows? It's pretty much saturated already, so they can only increase the cost. If they stick with one or two SKUs, they'll never hear the end of it if they increase the cost (even if it only keeps up with inflation, I think!). So... someone had the bright idea of "premium" SKUs. When Ultimate was announced, not only did it include the features present in other versions, it included Ultimate Extras--something exclusive to Ultimate. Nothing else is exclusive to Ultimate--the rest of the features are found in other versions, just not all of them in the same version.

Now, that's all fine, but with Ultimate, those exclusives were future promises, not already shipping product. I think they've essentially collected their money in advance for those promised features, and now they don't care so much about delivering. It's great to say to shareholders "we're having great sales of premium SKUs," but hey, that's only the buyer's part of the bargain. Microsoft has to own up to theirs with Ultimate.

#11 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at Thursday, June 14, 2007 03:33:42 PM

#10, Good points. I now have to agree that Microsoft will have to do more to differentiate Vista Ultimate. Thanks for the perspective. L

#12 By 2960 (24.254.95.224) at Friday, June 15, 2007 08:07:51 AM

That's a very good question someone wrote up there.

"If I knew then what I know now, would I have still purchased Vista Ultimate".

I've thought about this quite a bit. And I have to say my answer is............. No. I just can't help but feel a bit suckered on this deal.

If I knew then what I know now, I would have purchased Premium instead.

The only thing I would really miss is the backup program. While simple (frustratingly simple in ways), it does indeed keep the machine backed up in a non-intrusive way.

I'm also with #7. If my HD were to fail, or the system irrepairably crash where I would have to rebuild, I really would have to thing long and hard about reinstalling Vista instead of XP. This decision would be based solely on:

1. The hardware I have that isn't fully functional on Vista (doesn't matter who's fault it is)
2. Slow file/network performance. I've got 3TB of server space at home and it's a pain in the ass to get to it quickly.

And that's it. I don't have any problems with stability or overall performance. Those two items above are enough to make me consider shelving it for a while though.

TL.

BTW...

Has anyone else ended up with a "Hit Ctrl-Alt-Delete To Log In" screen instead of the usual password screen since installing tuesday's updates?

Where can that be turned off?

#13 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at Friday, June 15, 2007 08:53:00 AM

#12, TL, you may have tried this already, so if you have, pardon the recommendation:

Open a command line as an admin in Vista.

Enter the following command:

netsh interface tcp set global autotuninglevel=highlyrestricted

Reboot the computer.

If you ever want to set it back to Vista's default, enter the following command and reboot:

netsh interface tcp set global autotuninglevel=normal

***Some network devices and interfaces do not fully support auto frame tuning, which is native to Windows Vista and Windows Server 2003 with SP/1

#15 By 48398 (130.13.158.88) at Friday, June 15, 2007 09:40:27 AM

I've been using Ultimate x64 since November and so far my only complaint is the lack of the repair install feature. That's a BIG one in my book. Almost had to break my 3 year no-reload record.

This post was edited by Crand2 on Friday, June 15, 2007 at 09:40.

#16 By 2960 (24.254.95.224) at Friday, June 15, 2007 01:24:29 PM

What exactly does that do IK ?

Also, my server does indeed run Server 2003 SP1 enterprise.

TL

#17 By 2960 (24.254.95.224) at Friday, June 15, 2007 01:25:30 PM

Thanks for the idea's IK!

TL

#18 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at Friday, June 15, 2007 09:58:24 PM

#16, 17, TL, first, TCP isn't a very good protocol - one has to think of it as a very long pipe that works best when it is full - so filling that pipe and keeping it filled is important, which reveals its biggest problems - there is no really good way to communicate how full the pipe is, or how full it needs to be, or what the flow rate would be if it were full.

So take one PC at one end and some kind of interface at the other - NAS, another PC, etc...
As the RFC states, TCP performance depends not upon the transfer rate itself, but rather upon the product of the transfer rate and the round-trip delay. This "bandwidth*delay product" measures the amount of data that would "fill the pipe"; it is the buffer space required at sender and receiver to obtain maximum throughput on the TCP connection over the path, i.e., the amount of unacknowledged data that TCP must handle in order to keep the pipeline full.

It is the unacknowledged data that is the killer - dropped packets [per window] devastate TCP performance. This would be like the pipe draining out and having to fill back up again - and that is exactly what is happening to your I/O.

Ok... on to Vista... it attempts to compensate for this by tuning the window scale, but the problem is that with spme interfaces, devices and drivers the packet loss can go up dramatically. So the command tells the software that controls the automating window scaling to use a more restricted size - lowering the probability that one will drop packets. It works very simply by lowering what we'll call a factor [for the sake of illustration] - e.g., window size as to window scale, where we're telling the window scale to be smaller.

Vista's and W2K3's auto tuning attempts to adjust this on fly - we're just telling it to use a smaller factor to stop the dropping of packets and keep the pipe full.

Let me know if this work - even a little and then I can suggest more about how to tune the stack and if you swap out gear - say a Linksys router for a new D-Link with support for MS's Rally technologies, let me know and I'll help you tune it up.

#19 By 2960 (24.254.95.224) at Sunday, June 17, 2007 12:37:44 PM

Ok, so basically you're talking about the TCP window. Got it :)

It would take one hell of a lot for me to give up my DLink DGL-4300 Router. Probably never happen :)

TL

#20 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at Monday, June 18, 2007 09:15:11 AM

#19, Very nice router you have there. D-Link has impressed us and we use their equipment for many home builds. Their newest routers and access points leverage MS Rally technologies that make us of the Link Layer Topology Discovery [LLTD] protocol and MS's "Responder" in Vitsa [also available as a patch for XP] and UPnP-x - it pretty much makes setting up a home wired/wireless network a matter of clicking on the discovered device - something as simple as, "I'm in a home network [where Vista uses a profile for that], and I want to go to the Internet via this device..."

On the 4300, what firmware rev are you running and what QoS filters [if any] have you enabled, or disabled? The 4300 support SPI and Vista users have reported some issues with that router [going back to build 5308], which were more or less resolved in RC2 and later. I say more or less, as some users continued to have issues under Vista, depending upon what router firmware they were running and what settings thay had applied [SPI (on by default) and QoS, ToS, etc..].

#21 By 2960 (24.254.95.224) at Monday, June 18, 2007 10:05:45 AM

Firmware 1.8. I have no issues with it other than the known quirk with IPSec Pass-Thru.

With certain VPN clients (such as CheckPoint SecureClient) you actually have to DISABLE IPSec Pass-Thru.

Strange, but true.

I have a very high speed Cable Connection and need a router than can handle all the Wan-To-Lan thru-put it provides. This was one of the few that could do it (passing 90+ mbit/sec -Second fastest router ever tested at the time). It also supports 1000 IP connections, about 10 times more than the average router.

It has been online with no resets or maintenance for 6 months now, other than the firmware update to 1.8.

TL

#22 By 2960 (24.254.95.224) at Monday, June 18, 2007 10:19:09 AM

Oh, and I don't use QoS at all. I've got enough bandwidth that it just doesn't matter :)

I can be downloading 10 files and my VOIP is still clear as a bell.

TL

#23 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at Monday, June 18, 2007 11:12:45 AM

#22, Then, you'd have turned it <QoS> off the the interface(s) in Vista - as it the QoS Packet Scheduler is on by default, and would be seen by the router's SPI [State-full Packet Inspector and favor the packets associated with popular games. It uses packet shaping and applies some intelligence to route such packets over others.

D-Link brands their packet shaping as "GameFuel" - their priority technology. While we love the router, among the first things we teach a customer using this router is how to turn this feature on/off and how to add applications rules to the SPI/GameFuel filter and how to use the firmware update notification utility. As you point out, it is a great router and opposite that hog of an Internet connection you have, it would be ideal.

This post was edited by lketchum on Monday, June 18, 2007 at 11:13.

#24 By 2960 (24.254.95.224) at Monday, June 18, 2007 11:57:13 AM

Yep, have configured the router so :)

I'll look into the Vista settings.

Another thing I love about this router is the ability to assign Static IP's to everything on the Network via the MAC address instead of having to go to every device and manually set it up. It's a lot easier to maintain static's in a web page instead of running all over the house and setting 10 devices manually :)

TL

#25 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at Monday, June 18, 2007 01:42:06 PM

TL, what kind of connection (speed) do you have??? Did you get in a beta to test channel-bonding or something???

I have been avoiding DLink--I don't know if they had a bad run of hardware for awhile there or what, but everything I bought had some serious reliability issues. I have a Belkin pre-N router now, and though I haven't been a Belkin fan (and though the router is pretty light when it comes to features), it has been rock-solid.

#26 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at Monday, June 18, 2007 07:41:46 PM

#25, bluvg, the last two series, TL's and the new D-Link gear, like that featured at WinHEC06/07 have been pretty good. Even the low end EB series stuff, while dirt cheap, has been reliable.

I don't if you/others have tested some of Linksys'/Cisco's small business gear, but it shows real promise. Cisco's influence has certainly been felt and early tests reflect that the new line has a lot to offer - especially as management is concerned. As to reliability, it is still way too early to tell. I never thought I'd start to recommend Linksys as a brand, but the new kit may change that.

BTW* Belkin as made some of the best network interfaces I have ever used and I was surprised that they have proven to be so good. While I have not built for sale, any system on them, I started to use them personally late last year and I have been very impressed - they seem to love Vista and W2K3 SP/1 and SP/2

#27 By 2960 (24.254.95.224) at Tuesday, June 19, 2007 08:14:24 AM

My latest test, which is actually a bit low. Just took it 2 min ago:

Last Result:
Download Speed: 25441 kbps (3180.1 KB/sec transfer rate)
Upload Speed: 2060 kbps (257.5 KB/sec transfer rate)

Officially, I have a 15mbit pipe. For unknown reasons I won't argue with, I usually get 27-28mbit out of it. It's not speedburst, or whatever they call it. I've had this for 2 years long before that was ever created.

Many routers won't pass that kind of wan-to-lan thruput.

TL

#28 By 2960 (24.254.95.224) at Tuesday, June 19, 2007 08:17:19 AM

I don't really want Linksys any more.

Not after their fiasco with the WRT54G series, and the way they took well regarded routers, stuffed them with shit parts (starting with Rev 5), and never even changed the model numbers. That was a clear case of trying to pull the wool over people's eyes.

They didn't get away with it.

TL

#29 By 2960 (24.254.95.224) at Tuesday, June 19, 2007 08:22:49 AM

Here is a very important chart if you have really high-speed access:

http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/component/option,com_chart/Itemid,189/

It shows the wan-to-lan thru-put performance.

When I bought the DGL-4300, it was the second fastest router ever tested.

Now, um, holy crap! Look at the DLink DIR-655!

Remember, your cable modem has to be able to pass it as well. Many older modems are stuck at 5mbit.

I have the Motorola 5120, which can pass around 33mbit/sec which covers my speeds fine.

TL

#30 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at Tuesday, June 19, 2007 10:03:00 AM

#29, :) See, I told ya, the new gear is pretty smok'in

All the new D-Link grear is testing well, but as I said, the new business oriented line from Linksys/Cisco is a lot more Cisco than it is Linksys.

#31 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at Tuesday, June 19, 2007 11:20:03 AM

TL--cool link!! Thanks for sharing! Nice to see that my old Belkin pre-N gear fared pretty well... not that I need it at 6mbps.... 8-|

May I ask how much the 15mbps pipe costs? What provider is that? In what part of the country are you? I wonder how many websites can actually push that kind of bandwidth, too--seems like many of the ones I visit can barely fill a DSL connection. :-/

Do you consistently get 2mpbs upload speed, or is that their burstable speed? I get 2mpbs for the first 10MB, then it goes down to 384kpbs. :( I can understand that they want to discourage hosting servers, but 384kpbs is pretty miserly.

#32 By 2960 (24.254.95.224) at Tuesday, June 19, 2007 03:53:41 PM

It's cox cable in Northern Virginia @ $57 a month.

I need it because 100% of the service I do is Via VNC and RDC, and I also have to push a lot of files around.

The 2mbit is very consistent. Never see below 1.9mbit that I can remember.

I get downloads at 2-3MB/Sec very often :)

TL

#33 By 2960 (24.254.95.224) at Tuesday, June 19, 2007 04:24:52 PM

#30,

If I don't have ANY time at all to play with my Guitar collection, I sure as hell don't have time to learn the Cisco router OS :)

TL

#34 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at Tuesday, June 19, 2007 04:46:11 PM

$57/mth... that rocks. That's separate from the cable TV service, right? I pay over $100 to Comcast for 6mbps up/384mbps down including the cable TV service. :( And I hardly watch TV....

Do they have rules against server hosting on that?

#35 By 2960 (24.254.95.224) at Wednesday, June 20, 2007 09:25:20 AM

Correct. My total cable bill is $158 a month :(

Looks like this story is about to push over the cliff. It's been fun!

TL

#36 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at Wednesday, June 20, 2007 10:46:45 AM

#33, I hear you on that one. That being the case, you'd love the new kit.. discovery and installation are automated with Vista and using/setting up a device is a matter of one double click. LLTD, the responder and MS's Rally technologies leverage UPnP-X - so you see it in the network for what it is, click on it and you're done.

#37 By 2960 (24.254.95.224) at Thursday, June 21, 2007 11:02:30 AM

I almost picked up a DIR-655 when I was at best buy for something else yesterday. But, luckily, Best Buy is being it's usual self (WORST-Buy), and charging list so I held off.

I need to verify a few features from the DGL-4300 are duplicated first (in-router STATIC IP Assignment, etc...) before I do it.

I love my DGL-4300 and highly recommended it. No issues, no reason to replace.

The DIR-655 is just cooler LOL

TL

#38 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at Thursday, June 21, 2007 10:42:06 PM

#37, Kit that looks cooler is a perfectly valid reason to buy - I do it all the time and I try and tell myself that it adds to the range of gear I know :) Fact is, sometimes ya just gotta have it! That's a good reason to buy.

#39 By 2960 (24.254.95.224) at Friday, June 22, 2007 08:43:50 AM

I was never more broke than the 5 years I flew Radio Controlled Helicopters. Thank god I managed to get myself out of that!

TL

replica watches