Windows to Have Better CLI 742
MickyJ writes "The command line interface to the Windows Server OS will be changed to the new Monad Shell (MSH), in a phased implementation to take place over the next three to five years. 'It will exceed what has been delivered in Linux and Unix for many years', so says Bob Muglia, a Senior VP at Microsoft." More from the Tom's Hardware article: "The language in Muglia's comment offers the first clear indication that WMI may be yet one more component being left behind, as Microsoft moves away from portions of Windows architecture that have historically been vulnerable to malicious attack."
Balls? (Score:5, Funny)
Gr@ve_Rose
Re:Balls? (Score:5, Funny)
Yep.. gonads...
GNU/Gonads...
gonads.org??
Re:Balls? (Score:3, Funny)
GONADS Ovaries Nads Are Different Sexualorgans
Re:Balls? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well... I've played with technological preview of Monad. Being bash addict, I must however admit, that Monad offers functionality beyong imagination of modern Linux shells. It passes objects through pipes instead of text and is strictly object oriented. It uses a model of namespaces, so in Windows, you are able to browse registry, file systems, environment variables, etc. in unified way.
The authors claim, that it's modelled after the VMS shells. VMS seems to regain its fame in Microsoft, with Windows NT kernel being originally designed by Dave Cutler - a VMS guru.
Monad really rocks and is worth trying.
Way to go! (Score:5, Funny)
1. Write complex management interface
2. Shore up security holes over many years of use and testing
3. Ditch for new immature code
4. ?
5. Profit!
If they're ditching WMI it *won't* be for security reasons.
Re:Way to go! (Score:2, Interesting)
Monad? Rather than... (Score:5, Funny)
It's about time (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft ignoring the command line is just as silly as ignoring the Internet. It's only taken them longer to realise because only power-users and sysadmins are affected instead of every user.
Re:It's about time (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:It's about time (Score:5, Interesting)
- They took the code from a project called Mosiac
- They made a deal with a company called Spyglass to use their source code from Mosiac
- The deal was for a small quarterly payment and a big percentage of sales of Internet Explorer
- They screwed both Netscape and their partner Mosiac by giving it away for free - undercutting the competition and avoiding all royalties to Spyglass - putting them out of business also.
So maybe they just could not find any BSD based CLI or naive proprietary company to screw out of a good CLI? You have to admit though - that is quite some business innovation - Bill's pure genius at it's best. I heard Spyglass finally got a few million out of their lawsuit. It just amazes me that people don't remember these things.Re:It's about time (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's about time (Score:3, Interesting)
I have written a shell that uses the X clipboard for copy and paste, available here [no-ip.org], but the other features are still missing. I hope to support using the mouse to select completions from the
Diff between xterms and fullscreen consoles. (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, if X isn't running, using the X clipboard would not be very useful.
There are some features that would be nice to see when a shell program is running in an xterm, but keep in mind that shell programs also have to run in environments which are totally detached from the X server...
Re:It's about time (Score:3, Insightful)
Your argument is that since a feature might not be available in all situations, it is a bad idea to implement it at all. Along your line of reasoning, all GUIs are evil, since you sometimes only have terminal access. Hell, if I'm stranded on a tiny island in the middle of the ocean, I don't even have a computer, so any software is evil by your logic.
Of course, any feature that a shell implements should fail gracefully. In fish (my shell), if there is no X server connected, fish simply takes care of
Re:It's about time (Score:3, Funny)
DOS:
cd C:\PROGRA~1
2k+ cmd.exe:
cd C:\Program Files
smelling like DOS,
Which is why you no longer have a true DOS enviroment... in case you haven't noticed, 2000 on up no longer uses DOS as it's initial bootloader. It's gone, and it's been gone for a bit.
and quacking like DOS.
Can't help you there, I'm still getting this weird error about not finding '/dev/hda' in this script I made... it doesn't seem to like "echo 000000000000 >
Re:It's about time (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, I've been using 4DOS (now 4NT) for something like 15 years. I can't imagine any power user who wouldn't use something like 4NT or bash or any of number of shells with real functionality.
Re:It's about time (Score:3, Insightful)
It still has attrib, mem, and most of the other old DOS commands. dir still has the same options, and starts out by listing the drive label (if any).
Don't tell me cmd.exe doesn't look and smell like DOS.
Re:It's about time (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's about time (Score:3, Insightful)
If your criteria is "Microsoft making their own web browser" then by your standards, Apple didn't start paying attention to the Internet until 2002... what sense does that make?
I'm sure Linux and Unix had PPP dialers in 199
Next Slashdot Headline (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft Pushes Back Longhorn Until 2008 Over New CLI and Changing of "My"
Re:Next Slashdot Headline (Score:5, Funny)
vaporware (Score:5, Funny)
"...will exceed what has been delivered in Linux and Unix for many years. It will take three to five years to fully develop and deliver."
Somehow I'm not too worried.
Re:vaporware (Score:5, Informative)
http://channel9.msdn.com/wiki/default.aspx/Channe
Re:vaporware (Score:2)
why does it take 3 to 5 years to develope it to exceed what has been shipped with linux for ages then?
Re:vaporware (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, I actually looked at some of the sample code before posting. The "vapor" part is the in-three-to-five-years-this'll-be-better-than-Uni
Re:vaporware (Score:3, Insightful)
So, you've seen the marketing materials, but haven't actually used the product?
Microsoft has excellect marketdroids and sales weasels. Their actual software doesn't usually live up to the expectations given by their marketing.
Re:vaporware (Score:4, Insightful)
You previous post strongly implied that you had only seen marketing materials and not used the product; thanks for clarifying that.
I'm not jumping to the "Oh, it's from Microsoft and it must be stopped!" conclusion that most of Slashdot seems to jump to anytime Microsoft does anything.
I work at an almost-all-Microsoft shop that develops, uses, and supports a custom application running on Windows. My comment about hype not living up to reality is from experience.
They make some good products, some bad. But almost all are hyped up beyond their actual working capabilities.
Microsoft is not unique in that respect, either.
Re:vaporware (Score:2, Insightful)
Right, because endless feedback, coding, feature requests, bug squashing, and use of the *nix shells for how many years now isn't worth anything.
Open mouth, insert foot.
Re:vaporware (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:vaporware (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:vaporware (Score:5, Insightful)
I hate to be in any way sticking up for Microsoft, but don't underestimate the value of starting from a clean slate.
Apple has done some pretty nifty things, for instance launcd [slashdot.org] . I know it's not popular with everyone, but I think it was pretty cool replacing all these different scipts and daemons, and having one XML based config file. They simplified by daring to question established wisdom (the "We've always done it this way so it must be perfect" mindset.)
Actually (Score:5, Interesting)
Note that prior to joining MS, i did admin and development work on linux, solaris, irix, and even hp-ux. i know my way around a unix shell pretty well. I started making noise a few years back about how awful cmd.exe is and how we need a real scriptable admin experience. Some people said "go check this out". I was blown away at what they already had.
There are some things about MSH that are really, really good. I'm looking forward to it. I'm frustrated that a lot of the early momentum it had seems to have fizzled and its now bogged down in "product development"
well.. (Score:5, Informative)
anyway, heres what i thought was cool
- entirely object based. objects are pased via pipeline composition. that means you can do something like
ls | pick name, size | tableout
ls is going to return you a collection of "file" objects. the file object has properties "name" and "size" (and lots of others). the pick command takes each incoming object, and looks for properties called name and size. it then passes down a "new" object that is a bag of the name/size combos (or, it may pass along the original file objects.. i dont remember precisely). finally, tableout is a generic formatter that takes objects and formats them one per row, where each property in the object is displayed in a column.
note that you could replace tableout with say, csvout, or maybe "Excelout"
so the pipe paradigm changes in a way thats pretty cool.
Also, because you're working with
(note that a problem i asked them about when i saw the demo - if you have a pipeline where you want tab completion in stage 3, but stage 1 "modifies" state (i.e. in stage 3 you are reporting on what you deleted in stage 1) how do you get the tab complete info without doing the state change in stage one?.. they were aware of this problem and were thinking about it.. but that was years ago
finally, what was cool is that across MS people are buying into the idea that a commandline shell that manipulated object representations of data in a generic way was going to be the path forward for adminsterting windows. Consider that the IIS metabase is now xml instead of what it used to be.. and that msh is a shell that works on structured objects... its not coincidental.
probably.. (Score:3, Insightful)
i think the unix model fits unix really well right now, because so much of administration in unix is manipulating text.
Windows never had that - everything was locked away in some opaque object (good and bad, depending on your viewpoint).
The brain behind MSH was one of the WMI guys and he (rightfully so, i think) likes WMI but its too hard to use and too hard to author providers for (his thoughts).
But fundamentally, an inquisitive object based admini
Re:vaporware (Score:5, Interesting)
Flash-forward to Windows 2000/ XP, and Microsoft apparently accomplished a miracle, producing a version of Windows that would literally run and run, and was still fairly nippy. Meanwhile, the writers of Linux Desktop Environments were discovering that it's very easy to be fast and light when you don't do much, or aren't particularly user-friendly, and that increased functionality almost always comes at the price of bloat.
So these people saw two pillars of the superiority of Linux (speed and stability) snatched away from them. The truly curious thing is what happened next: instead of being spurred into action by this new competition and addressing these concerns on the Linux side, these people instead simply went into a state of denial, and refused to let go of these cherished (and rapidly shrinking) areas where Linux once scored over Windows. Read through any anti-MS slashdot article on any given day and count the number of horribly outdated criticisms of Microsoft you see (BSOD's; bloat; Clippy(!)) - as a passionate believer in F/OSS, it really grieves me to see people behaving like this, rather than aiming to improve Linux to the state where it once again has many advantages over Windows.
Flash-forward to now, as one of the other areas in which Linux scores over Windows (a UNIX command-line is an awesome and enjoyable tool to use; the Windows command line, by contrast, is a rubber hammer with nails in the handle :)) may well be snatched away, and we see the same thing: people are hoping against hope that Microsoft foul it up, because if they don't another area of Linux superiority disappears, along with another shred of their self-esteem. This, I think, is why people care, and why they do not wish Microsoft well in this project, however helpful it may be to the common good.
Re:vaporware (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:vaporware (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:vaporware (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyway, point by point:
On this, we'll have to agree to disagree; I've seen XP crash a handful of times: a few times when it turned out my graphics card was faulty (this crashed Linux, too) and once when I was copying a file from my Linux comp to a friend of mine's XP comp via samba. The latter is inexcusable (but funny side-note: my friend blamed "Linux's crappy Samba implementation", even though it was his computer that crashed, not mine!). The rest of the time, my XP computer at work truly does run and run, requiring a reboot only when a critical Windows Update is required. Your experiences are apparently different. This is true - KDE has been getting faster and more memory-friendly - check out the "top" output for KWrite (or is it Kate) under the KDE4 prototype code. I'm very pleased with the progress of KDE, and a recent talk by Robert Love (on optmising GNOME) shows that the Desktop Linux developers are very committed to reducing bloat, which I couldn't be happier about. However, the fact that KDE is getting faster either tells us that something that's always been good is getting better, or something that was slow and memory hungry before is getting better - much like Mac OS X, which started out dog-slow but which has been improving in speed with each successive release. Respectfully, I'd have to say it was the latter: on my 256MB laptop, KDE starts to swap more and much sooner than XP does (i.e. with fewer apps open). Firefox consumes far more resources than IE (although admittedly it also accomplishes far more). Having said that, the focus on the Linux side is on getting faster (I'm drooling with anticipation at XGL), so on the speed/ memory consumption side I see Linux ultimately winning out. Cross-platform-ness is admirable, but a shell where objects are first-class citizens sounds pretty good to me. I determine the power of a shell by how much easier it will make my life.Re:vaporware (Score:3, Insightful)
Right. Because it's not like one of the keystones of Microsoft's empire is backwards compatibility. Nope, they never go out of their way to make sure old stuff still works on newer versions. That's Microsoft, all right.
Re:vaporware (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't belive you wrote that page-long screed without even reading what he wrote. I see this kind of crap on slashdot all the time. The only "Microsoft shill" there is the strawman you set up. I'll bet if I go back through your posting history you've made the same speech several times.
I'm so sick of this kind of brainless Microsoft bashing. Most of the people here parrot the group-think line without having any idea what they're talking about. I suspect that means you, since my experience with XP is much different.
Right now at work I'm using RHEL for development and XP for gaming/taxes/whatever at home. Guess what? XP, in my experience, is more stable than Redhat. That's not shilling, it's just my experience. I've never (not once) had XP crash on me. I wish I could say the same for Linux.
It's true Microsoft pays "journalists" to come up with nice reviews in trade magazines. They know that's what non-technical management reads to make up it's collective mind. The only way Linux is going to make inroads into the corporate desktop is by being demonstrably better than Windows. That way the one or two honest tradesheet writers will write a nice article to give some backing to those of us that want to support OSS.
But how can Linux improve if a substantial portion of its advocates can't even fucking see it's not perfect? As the grandparent noted, every release of Windows narrows the gap. If Microsoft adds a shell that I can use from a remote machine that removes one of the three reasons I don't use Windows for serious work:
- no shell (cmd doesn't count)
- viruses
- I want to support OSS
I hope there never comes a day when the only reason I have to run Linux is the third reason. I'll never be able to sell that to the boss.Oh, and by the way, don't bother accusing me of having "no knowlege" of the FOSS world. I've been writing and using FOSS since the internet was born. Have you?
Re:vaporware (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course it exists, I don't think I've ever seen anybody claim it doesn't exist. But it can only be caused by *hardware problems*... that's the part that Linux users seem to miss all the time.
If WinXP bluescreens more than Linux, the only thing that tells you is that most WinXP computers have cheap faulty hardware in them... and really, isn't that common sense anyway? (After all, anybody who knew PCs well enough to use Linux also knows how to build a computer with quality components.)
Hmm... (Score:2, Insightful)
So Apple IS faster.... (Score:5, Funny)
ooooh (Score:3, Insightful)
How about announcing great new technology that actually works today?
Re:ooooh (Score:2)
Re:ooooh (Score:2)
Sorry your shot of cash to Bay didn't work out better for you, Bill*.
(*Not really...)
Re:ooooh (Score:5, Informative)
From someone I know who uses it:
Re:ooooh (Score:5, Interesting)
This is trivial to implement with a programming language that supports serialization, esp. if it can serialize to stdin/stdout.. In Objective-C, it's a simple matter of objc_open_typed_stream(stdin, OBJC_READONLY); and objc_open_typed_stream(stdout, OBJC_WRITEONLY); and read:'ing and write:'ing to the stream.
Re:ooooh (Score:3, Informative)
I'm sure a Python app can send serialized (pickled) objects to a stdio pipe.
Better than Bash? (Score:3, Insightful)
Windows already has an excellent CLI (Score:5, Funny)
...you just gotta go download it from here. [cygwin.com]
Re:Windows already has an excellent CLI (Score:4, Funny)
Y
Re:Windows already has an excellent CLI (Score:3, Insightful)
I refuse to use it! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I refuse to use it! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I refuse to use it! (Score:3, Funny)
I've got an infinite number of transparent terminals up on the desktop already. Each time I start one I can't find the damn close icon to shut it down...
Re:I refuse to use it! (Score:5, Interesting)
I havent seen any difference. Transparent shells are acutally quite usefull. When I am reading documents on how to install a program I never installed before I usually have the webpage open and when I am typing in the text I can see the Website threw the shell and make sure I am typing it in correctly. (because I am a bad speller it is usefull) also it is quicker to type then cut and paist a lot of the time. espectilly when you need options that may be on the screen but not part of the example.
I've already got one, you see...? (Score:2, Funny)
Can you say bash from cygwin?!? thought you could
Cut/Copy/Paste (Score:2)
About time MS got on the fucking ball in terms of CLI.
Re:Cut/Copy/Paste (Score:3, Informative)
hot damn. (Score:2)
I am on dialup. A good command line interface for remote support? All I can say is HOT DAMN.
Anyone else (Score:2)
What the fuck (Score:2)
Legacy DOS vs Unix'ish (Score:2)
Will the c: conventions be replaced (or simply aliased) alias d:='mount
or EVEN WORSE: will I have to swap all my "\" to "/" =)
Are they finally moving to A Better Place(tm) ?
I beta tested this thing (Score:2, Informative)
Microsoft Shell (Score:2, Interesting)
I wonder what exeeds a windowed session over SSH2? (Score:2)
Those who do not understand UNIX.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Soon they'll be storing config in files, and have a CLI only version of their server.
Re:Those who do not understand UNIX.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Heck, this is probably what's taking them so long to actually release Monad. It's one thing to create a scripting language, it's another thing completely to create hooks that allow you to actually administer systems with the scripting language. UNIX has the advantage that A) everything is a file, and B) nearly all configuration files are some sort of structured text.
Microsoft is all excited about being able to pipe objects on the command line, but that's really only because that's what Microsoft has to work with. All of the information that you want is locked up in some poorly documented binary file somewhere that was designed to be accessed from some sort of GUI. The beauty of UNIX's strategy is that I don't have to read some sort of API for a certain configuration object. Instead I simply eyeball the text files and use a vast array of text manipulation tools to do what needs doing.
Yeah, but (Score:2, Insightful)
About all these monad/gonad jokes... (Score:3, Informative)
MSH: QuickRef (Score:5, Informative)
http://channel9.msdn.com/wiki/default.aspx/Channe
Its about bloody time.
VBS is a peice of crap, and is way to complicated for what should be simple tasks, MSH looks pretty damn promising.
random current cmd gripes (Score:5, Interesting)
1. The tab completion behavior (the 'half' part of my 2 1/2 gripes is sometimes you have to fiddle with a registry setting to turn on tab completion). A unix shell (well, the one I'm used to, not even sure which) will complete only up to the point where its unique, and then I can hit Ctrl-D to see possible completions. A lot more predictable than tabbing through all completions that might fit what you've typed...the distinction between "characters I typed myself" and "characters showing up because I'm cycling through" has no visual cue, even though it completely controls what files get shown.
2. up arrow behavior. It took me a while to finally "get" the logic of Windows...if you type command A, then command B, then command C, then arrow back up to B and run that, pressing down will then take you to C and up will take you to A. I think that it's meant to cover a long sequence of commands that you do over and over, so you don't have to keep uparrowing, but just pressing down once per repeated command, but its much harder to keep a mental model of.
Both of these things are classic Window's trade off of predictability for perceived "user friendliness". I think hackers often prefer predicitability and ease of mental modeling, since they can always make it easier by some scripting or whatever.
On the other hand, I like that I can add "\.." to the end of a filename and get to its directory. That's something that seems logical to me that Unix shells don't generally do.
Re:random current cmd gripes (Score:5, Interesting)
If you liken up-arrowing in the command history to up-arrowing in a text file, if you make an edit in the file, your cursor doesn't magically fly down to the bottom of the file, it stays where it is. That, I suspect, is the reasoning behind the Windows command shell's behaviour - it stays where you left it. Think of it as editing the list of executed commands.
Yes yes language blah (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Yes yes language blah (Score:4, Informative)
But can you _do_ anything with it? (Score:3, Interesting)
Windows, on the other hand, has always been particularly bad about that - most apps don't have any support for that sort of thing. Scripting in the windows world has been fairly pointless. Sure, a lot of sysadmin tasks can be performed using the command line, but limitations in the shell make that a pain in the ass. CMD.exe isnt' anywhere near UNIX shells as far as programmability is concerned, and windows lacks the plethora of command line shell enhancing utilities (i.e. sed, grep, etc.) that makes the UNIX shell environment so useful?
This is talking about using COM and
Magical Microsoft Moments (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Magical Microsoft Moments (Score:3, Informative)
It's a spoof based on the (true) story about Microsoft and the Korn shell: ... when Microsoft reality collides with everybody elses... [petting-zoo.net]
Here's a screenshot! (Score:4, Funny)
(courtesy of mopslik [slashdot.org]. Original post [slashdot.org].
why not posix? (Score:3, Insightful)
I seem to remember Microsoft's new "scripting" and CLI mentioned before, and descriptions of its powerful features. Basically it was described as object-oriented in architecture with claims of superior technology then!
From the article: Monad was started as a project to provide a more powerful command line competitive with the BASH shell on Unix and Linux, using ideas gleaned from WMIC, but using the .NET Framework as its core component instead.
What concerns me is not Microsoft's improvement of their technology, especially their CLI (as a long time forced-to-use-DOS CLI, believe me, it's long needed the overhaul), but Microsoft's yet another implementation of a primitive that goes against quasi standards, albeit in this case a fairly high level standard.
I wonder why they wouldn't implement a POSIX compliant shell... that would go oh so far to allow portability of apps across platforms. Instead they come up with their idea of CLI.
I know there's always cygwin to handle POSIX scripts, but I find it slow, and difficult to manage effectively in the morass that is Windows. Certainly a POSIX-like interface in Window's CLI would attract more scripters if Microsoft supplied their own native implementation.
Otherwise, what is the motivation? Once again, with Microsoft's leverage and monopoly, it feels like a new "product", that if they can leverage with their monopoly, they continue their assimilation of another niche in the marketplace.
as usual, Microsoft doesn't get it (Score:3, Informative)
If Microsoft wanted to come up with a decent shell, they should carefully look at bash and rc, and figure out a minimal set of changes to make it compatible with their non-standard parameter and pathname syntax, and leave it at that. Or they should make careful, incremental changes to the current command interpreter.
Apocryphal Story (Score:5, Interesting)
During the bit about KSH an old guy at the back kept piping up with comments like "that feature wasn't implemented properly" and "that doesn't conform to the specification". Apparently the MS flack expostulated a lot and try to cast doubt on the old guy's qualifications. It was only then that it was pointed to him that the person making the comments was David Korn.
Re:Apocryphal Story (Score:3, Insightful)
It's great (Score:3, Funny)
echo $PATH
Monad:
Private Sub echo1_CLI(ByVal sender As System.Object, ByVal e As
System.EventArgs) Handles echo1.CLI
Try
AddHandler EchoCL1.PrintLine, AddressOf Me.PrintCL1_PrintLine
PrintLine1.Print(Sys.Init.Windows.PATH)
Catch ex As Exception
Message.Show("An error occurred while printing PATH ", _
ex.ToString())
End Try
Way to go, team "miss the point by a mile" (Score:3, Insightful)
The whole Unix design is based on the idea of unified file descriptor and a single filesystem tree. Windows still lacks those, and this shell is not even trying to emulate them (like what cygwin does).
Monad leverages WMI (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Monad .. Gonad (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Monad .. Gonad (Score:4, Informative)
mo-nad n.
1. Philosophy. An indivisible, impenetrable unit of substance viewed as the basic constituent element of physical reality in the metaphysics of Leibnitz.
So it's a real word, and I can kinda sorta see why they chose it. I agree that it's unfortunate, though, and I think "MSH" (pronounced the obvious way) is a perfectly reasonable name.
Re:Monad .. Gonad (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Monad .. Gonad (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Better late than .... (Score:5, Funny)
The year is 1973. Apple Computations Inc. have just announced that they are switching to the cutting-edge Zilog Z80 architecture for their range of low-cost pocket calculators; Sony Industrial Consumer Electronics are making use of an innovative new Integrated Circuit for their Alpha-Max-3 video system which contains at least five separate transistors; the Duke Nukem Forever board-game has been given a favourable reception at the Entertaining Entertainment Exposition at the Crystal Palace, London, and now Micro-Soft-Ware are designing their new, BASIC-derived timesharing shell for competing against the burgeoning MULTICS.
Well, you did ask...
Re:Better late than .... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Better late than .... (Score:4, Funny)
This requires RED security clearance.
What is RED security clearance and how do I get it?
Attention, User, you have requested information on a clearance level you are not authorized to know about. Please press the red button to complete your termination. Disobedience is cause for termination. Have a nice day.
Re:Nice, but not earthshattering (Score:4, Interesting)
There is an article about the shell here [lwn.net], and the shells homepage is here [no-ip.org].
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Informative)
1. You will need need a passport account. If you do not have one yet, you can sign-up for one at the beta website listed below.
2. Goto http://beta.microsoft.com/ [microsoft.com]
3. Log into the site using the following guest ID: mshPDC
4. Select Microsoft Command Shell
5. Select Survey in the left column
6. Register with a valid email address.
7. Wait for the information to be sent to you through email. (May take a day or two)
8. Once you receive your confirmation email, log back into http://beta.microsoft.com/ [microsoft.com] for the content
Re:WTF? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)
However, until I actually see it implemented I am regarding it as vapor ware and the latest noise from the MS executives version of WWF trash talk.
The GP merely pointed out that there is a beta implementation available. Therefore, widely-installed or not, it's hardly vapour-ware.
You may have meant "shipped with Windows", but you actually said "implemented".
Re:WTF? (Score:3, Insightful)
2. Goto http://beta.microsoft.com/ [microsoft.com]
steps removed......
7. Wait for the information to be sent to you through email. (May take a day or two)
8. Once you receive your confirmation email, log back into http://beta.microsoft.com/ [microsoft.com] for the content
Sweet Jesus - and to think that some people think that Microsoft software is easy to use.
Re:Been testing MSH since october..... (Score:3, Informative)