both systems of the mac are EFI 1.1 based. not based on UEFI.
As well as some Intel Motherboards that are based on EFI.
there are some significant changes between EFI and UEFI.
They didn't say that they were dropping UEFI from vista. just that it will not be in the Initial release.
And Since there is NO systems with UEFI available, nor none on the current Horizon I can understand that decision. Although I do Agree that it would be nice to eliminate as much of bios as possible. and move the PC into the 21st century at boot time.
Tom I do agree, it is past time for a New FS, NTFS is showing its age in some areas. although it has worked great in larger systems that are distributed.
Although some of the issue is that most Local HD are not enterprise level hardrives and yet still try to push more data into the same area. Although without a huge difference in drive speed or mechanics. so the larger it gets the more time it takes to start doing simple things such as defraging or disk scans. Virus scans etc etc. Somve it isn't the fs issue but the physical limitations of the HDD themselves.
It would be nice to see an FS that is fast and can help to "Understand" the data that is stored on it.
Although I mekon has a few things wrong.
1.) I have been running windows since the 3.1 days (and earlier if you count playing with 1.0 and 2.0 as running windows)
In all those years I have never gotten a virii, and only a few spyware but more from downloading shareware that loaded it then from drive bys.
I have only been hit once with a drive by. and this is using IE OE and the like.
I never used Virus scanners or the like until recently and only added firewalls up when I went connected to the inet 24/7.
So what does this say. is FireFox more secure or is responsible browsing a better view.
The one thing I wish MS would have done is brought the new admin system forward from LH to XP so we have a chance to start requireing the ISV's to run in LUA mode. and fixed LUA so that you don't have to switch to admin to update the clock.
I agree with Tim Anderson that SP2 is a step forward. but it didn't go far enough, programs that run in Admin level access now need to break so that they are forced to be update if they don't need admin rights to run. Waiting another 2 years to fix this is just going to make it worse.
from a developer perspective, if given a choice on CSS support especially 2 and above. What would you rather have.
Support for a known broken spec (better worded as a poorly written spec with implementation sorely lacking in most of the spec, and several areas in question at that) aka css 2.0
Or support for the replacement to 2.0, 2.1 and the and 3.0 specs??
While granted there is several poorly implemented features of 2.0 in IE that have become standard.
Others have expressed the need for support of SVG. I would ask which version. 1.2 is effectively becomeing a language host and far outstepping what SVG was going to do (imo) almost to the point that it may replace what HTML does.
Dare says one thing correctly implementing specs for specs sake doesn't always accomplish the goal set forth. the Web community and the w3 have acknowledge the weakness in css 2.0 and have redirected to make the 2.1 and 3.0 specs I believe it would be better for MS to focus on implementing those even in early technical previews.
Not to mention what is the direction that w3 is going. there seems to be dicord between the html team and the xml teams.
but if I had my wish I would rather see IE switch to an adaptable XML browser that can take a schema and present it with adaptable rendorers.