DreamScene RTM dated July 19, Microsoft: what took so long?

After Dreamscene was finally released, the anger built up over the months was somewhat subdued amongst Windows Vista Ultimate users. And yet, everyone was quite curious on what took so long, as there didn't seem to be much of a difference between the beta preview released on February 28 (build 16455) and the final (build 16504) released yesterday. Well, unfortunately, what was discovered only raises mor questions. Dreamscene's core component, Dreamscene.dll, had some interesting information other than just build numbers embedded within. According to the PE header and build string of the library, the final Dreamscene build was compiled on July 19, 2007. Not only does that mean that there were a mere 49 builds in a grand total of 141 days, but one must ask, what exactly was Microsoft doing, other than testing of course, in the 68 days between build and release?

News source: anti|tgtsoft

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Communications Failure Grounds Memphis Airspace

Next Story

Sharp Blu-ray Recorders Include 1TB Storage

49 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Hmm....DreamScene's already been made to unofficially work on all versions of Vista including Home Basic as well, the only thing you dont get is DeskScapes from Stardock. So anyone that did buy Ultimate for the "Extras" probably feels really screwed right now if they werent already.

Sigh it's an issue because the product comes from MS not from Goo, err, some public darling company. Nobody seemed to notice that it took Adobe almost a year to release an Office 2007 compliant update for their flagship product Acrobat 8.0, which initially came out months after Office 2007 public beta.

But Acrobat can run without office, the office plugins is just a extra.

Never mind, dreamscene also is just a simple extra.

Ok, nobody guessed why that long.

Have you noticed Dreamscene is available in many different languages ? Translation time + testing.

Before getting RTM, the team test several builds, then choose which one is RTM regarding quality testing.

Anyway, Dreamscene is nothing, and extra is not the only value of Ultimate. Media Center + Enterprise componments made me take my decision... Extra stuff would be nice, but they are less verbose with it after applying SP1, so, do not expect too much.

excalpius said,
Dreamscene has no text options to be translated and the MS website help is one page of text...ahem.

Their is some little part of it that need to be translated, and not all part are by the way (the hover text in the "Change backgroud" dialog). But this could really be the big issue, and the translation getting late because of the upcoming SP1 beta that have been released into 36 different languages... (and WinServ2008 RC0 coming in few different languages)...

We could also have said that the content pack wasn't ready, we were promised high quality videos, but hey, didn't get it, just low quality. and Dreamscene is buggy.

All this Vista versions are just mental joke. All this features should be free and installed together with windows installation only if you really need it. Vista should have only 2 versions: client and server. Also price for the client version in real should be less than $150.
I really can’t believe big corporation like Microsoft is playing that kind of game. This is shame, joke, sick etc. It is so bad Microsoft does not have real competition. Os X should be legal on PC boxes, whole thing will have different look. But this is another game/politic… DreamScene, Poker, language pack, whatever…

Who bought Vista Ultimate for the Extras?

For me it was just the ideal combination for Vista Home Premium together with the network-capabilities of Vista Business all into one package...

kiddingguy said,
For me it was just the ideal combination for Vista Home Premium together with the network-capabilities of Vista Business all into one package...

You mean, the features that the ONE version of released Windows Vista should have had...instead of the eight MBA 101 market segmentation crippleware versions?

excalpius said,

You mean, the features that the ONE version of released Windows Vista should have had...instead of the eight MBA 101 market segmentation crippleware versions? :)

Wow... 9 months and you still don't know what crippleware means... things never change.

Crippleware...from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crippleware

"Crippleware is any product whose functions have been limited (or "crippled", thus the name) with the express purpose of requiring the user to pay for those functions (either paying a one-time fee or continually paying a service). Crippleware is also used to describe software that makes use of Digital Rights Management. Crippleware programs are usually free versions of computer programs that lack the most advanced (or in some cases, even crucial) features of the original program. Crippleware versions are made available in order to increase the popularity of the full program without giving it away for free. An example of crippleware is a word processor that cannot save or print.

There are several types of crippleware programs. A crippleware version can be the full program with the features disabled; this type can be "unlocked" into a fully functional version of the software, usually via a serial number. A crippleware version can also be a special trial version of the program that does not even include the executable code for the disabled features. In this case, only users who buy a license are given access to another version of the program, which is fully functional.

For something to become crippleware, it usually requires the manufacturer or author to take active steps to reduce the capabilities that the hardware or software could otherwise handle. As can be inferred from the name, crippleware is generally not held in high regard. The authors of crippleware note that regular shareware versions are often cracked, so that the authors are not paid for their work.[citation needed] Therefore, crippleware can be a solution to that problem. Ironically, crippleware tends to be cracked more frequently than other shareware as a result of demand.[citation needed] For this reason, most companies that are serious about crippleware have a separate trial version of the program. Users who dislike crippleware argue that they cannot test the program under real life conditions and therefore do not know whether it will truly meet their needs."

Since Vista Ultimate is the ONLY version of Vista that contains ALL of the advertised and promoted features (the ones not stripped out over the past five years, mind you), and Microsoft offers "upgrades" to Ultimate from the "lower end" versions of Vista installed by OEMs (unlockable with a serial number), I think the case can be made that ALL versions of Vista OTHER than Ultimate are "crippleware" per the above definitions.

Or do I need to boldface the relevant passages for you?

Except it's not crippled, and home premium containts al the fetures advertised. I don't remember seeing any ads or hpe about the business features in ultimate that's not in premium.


besides that, nobody's telling you ot to buy ultimate, despite it eing full of server services and business crap that you don't have a need for and that will make your OS slowers unless you disable the services.


The business versions exists to provide a limited version to, guess what, businesses, without the need for the extra features likeplaying DVD's and all the other crap. Thses are for workstations, and can be sol cheaper because they contain less licensed stuff too. and they get a bonus off the price to entce business to invest in it.

ame deal with the versions below home premiums, home basic ans starter editions, hey're versions provided for those that can't afford to get the full version but can stil get the Vista experience, or in the case of basic, people who don't need Aero because they're computer isn't capable, and they don't use Media center anyway.


But guess what, all versions do fucntions just fine as an OS, and containt all advertized fetures for their segment. Selling ultimate to everyone is besides unecessary, stupid. Since Ultimate is essentially bloatware, for a regular computer it has too much unecessary stuff runnign in the backgroun, for a business it has too much non business crap running.

If anything the home premium version would be the non cruippleware version you keep whining about, while the bunes versions would be kept as a separate OS branch, like NT used to be. I''m not entirely sure why you feel the need to complain that MS provides scaled down versions of the OS at a much lower price for those that can't afford or don't need the full premium version though.


and for the record, I run Ultimate on one computer and VHP on the laptop.

You know how Apple does it? One version/price for consumers, professionals, and businesses.

The only version of Vista that should have shipped was Ultimate. You can always choose NOT to use a given feature, etc. But they come on the same DVD for a reason.

Everything except Ultimate is a crippleware version (removed functionality to justify an upgrade price) of Vista to justify the separate price stratification...period.

Wow... The DreamScene RTM was on my birthday! :laugh:

(I think MS should send me a free copy of Vista Ultimate for this honour........ Maybe? If I ask nicely? :P)

I'm not sure how much testing they actually did, but Dreamscene keeps crashing my 8800gts. My screen would blank out ever few mins. and when it up again, I would get this message about my video froze or something like that

I'm just glad I never went for Vista Ultimate, Vista full stop.

And be honest, who's really going to sit in front of their computer looking at nothing but the desktop? Urm, no one. :suspicious:

Sazz181 said,
I'm just glad I never went for Vista Ultimate, Vista full stop.

And be honest, who's really going to sit in front of their computer looking at nothing but the desktop? Urm, no one. :suspicious:

You buy ultimate to get the business components in addition to the home components, not for "extras".

I havent seen any company migrating from Microsoft Office to OpenOffice... :-) Employees using the Outlook & Excel wont go for Lotus notes or Spreadsheet :-)

But OpenOffice is really good...but not into the direct fight with Office 2007..way ahead!!

I work with a Fortune 500 company which is one of the largest in the world (300,000 employees). Guess what? Microsoft is still a douche. They are price wrangling over Microsoft Office and the end result? We are migrating to OpenOffice in the near future. Blows, because I love MS Office 2007. Microsoft is too big for its own good. They need to break the company into smaller chunks. If you notice, their smaller, more independent chunks do better (Ex: The MSN team, now the Live team, The XBOX team) See the trend?

To be honest, DreamScene gives me a headache, literally. They only way I use is when I output my display to 46 inch HD and play Internet Radio in the background. I usually do other stuff (not sitting in front of the computer) when I do that. When I have to work or do whatever at the computer, I must switch off, it makes me dizzy.

Pippin666 said,
It's NOT like the OS is unusable without this crap.

When you pay premium for a product, you'd expect to actually get something in return for your money.

Right now Vista Ultimate Edition looks a bit like a joke - The Media Center is about as stable as Bush, the Defender doesn't defend against anything and on top of paying a few hundred extra you've so far gotten.. err, well.. uhm.. hey well you got Dreamscenes and a poker game.

Definitely worth paying premium for. Looks I got the same for free months ago.

daPhoenix said,

When you pay premium for a product, you'd expect to actually get something in return for your money.

Right now Vista Ultimate Edition looks a bit like a joke - The Media Center is about as stable as Bush, the Defender doesn't defend against anything and on top of paying a few hundred extra you've so far gotten.. err, well.. uhm.. hey well you got Dreamscenes and a poker game.

Definitely worth paying premium for. Looks I got the same for free months ago.

You might want to investigate a bit more into what exactly are the differences between premium and ultimate.

And exatly how is media center not stable ? besides it being part of both premium and ultimate....


I didn't pay a premium for ultimate because of the extras, the extras are... now what's a good word for this.. hmm... yeah I think I'll go with "extras", little bonuses you get on top for buying the top of the line version, with all the features.

Not shocking. Microsoft isn't in the business of pleasing their customers, they're in the business of making money and I honestly think they don't care how that's done anymore.

They seem to be more in the business of pleasing their Enterprise level customers.

I'd bet that if some Fortune 500 company with millions of dollars sunk into Microsoft products and services raised a stink about Windows Dreamscene, they'd have been done and rolled out a LONG time ago.

raskren said,
They seem to be more in the business of pleasing their Enterprise level customers.

I'd bet that if some Fortune 500 company with millions of dollars sunk into Microsoft products and services raised a stink about Windows Dreamscene, they'd have been done and rolled out a LONG time ago.

Right, how many of those Fortune 500 companies are even using Vista yet?

Hurmoth said,
Right, how many of those Fortune 500 companies are even using Vista yet?

Not many BUT they have already got the licensing for it. Home users make Microsoft money BUT the real chunk of change comes from their large businesses using volume licenses for their product.

Agreed. Ultimates extra cost for extras is not worth this. As I said before we've been able to run videos as backgrounds for YEARS, why are they making this to be such a big stink worth paying extra for. WMP should have been able to do this a long time ago. I'll wait till a decent extra comes out that is actually worth looking at. I have a feeling I'll be waiting a long time..... especially if it took them this long to produce something thats been out for years....

zeroomegazx said,
Agreed. Ultimates extra cost for extras is not worth this. []

No one who bought Ultimate did so because of the Extras. I bought it because it has the Home Premium features plus RDP. Other people bought it because [insert whatever reason here, but not Extras].

Islander said,
zeroomegazx said,
Agreed. Ultimates extra cost for extras is not worth this. []

No one who bought Ultimate did so because of the Extras. I bought it because it has the Home Premium features plus RDP. Other people bought it because [insert whatever reason here, but not Extras].

Pardon, you might have very low expectations after throwing NZ$800 for a retail copy, but for most people, they expect some extras - not some crummy language packages that should be part of the default tool and a spiffy thing to keep the ADD afflicted happy.

kaiwai said,
Islander said,
zeroomegazx said,
Agreed. Ultimates extra cost for extras is not worth this. []

No one who bought Ultimate did so because of the Extras. I bought it because it has the Home Premium features plus RDP. Other people bought it because [insert whatever reason here, but not Extras].

Pardon, you might have very low expectations after throwing NZ$800 for a retail copy, but for most people, they expect some extras - not some crummy language packages that should be part of the default tool and a spiffy thing to keep the ADD afflicted happy.

outside of the language packs, none of the "extras" are any reason to buy the ultimate, nor should they be.

if you think that the extras are the only difference between premium and ultimate, and the etras is why you bought ultimate. you have bigger isues that MS not releasing boatloads of cool extras....

Islander said,
zeroomegazx said,
Agreed. Ultimates extra cost for extras is not worth this. []

No one who bought Ultimate did so because of the Extras. I bought it because it has the Home Premium features plus RDP. Other people bought it because [insert whatever reason here, but not Extras].

Ermmmm I did.

I don't need any of the extras Ultimate has.
However I got it due to the fact I thought the "extras" would lengthen the life of the OS

And I'm still waiting on a decent "extra"

What is decent to you?


However I got it due to the fact I thought the "extras" would lengthen the life of the OS

Why did you think the life of an OS would be longer from some extras?

More testing? Even now there seem to be some problems here and there, I guess they tried to get as much debug information as possible in order to make sure this thing works. Of course, somehow odd that there was no bug after July 19th...

Or maybe they are going to release a updated version with SP1.

Your not supposed to be testing after something gets the "RTM" mark on it. That's all supposed to be done in the Beta and RC stages. Microsoft does some silly things, but I don't think even they would be that nutty.

It's more likely that they were delaying it for marketing reasons. Specifically, I think they were waiting for Server 2008 enter their respective beta stages.

Croquant said,
Your not supposed to be testing after something gets the "RTM" mark on it. That's all supposed to be done in the Beta and RC stages. Microsoft does some silly things, but I don't think even they would be that nutty.

It's more likely that they were delaying it for marketing reasons. Specifically, I think they were waiting for Server 2008 enter their respective beta stages.


Every program ever made was tested after RTM.. that's why we have service packs... Nothing is ever final... and even more then ever companies are going to a perpetual beta process... even the RTM build is still a "beta" just considered release quality... RTM never ment final, it just meant it stable enough to go out the door

Oh I don't know... Perhaps it wasn't the DreamScene DLL that needed work before release, but the deployment mechanism? And perhaps ensuring compatibility with SP1?

neufuse said,

Every program ever made was tested after RTM.. that's why we have service packs... Nothing is ever final... and even more then ever companies are going to a perpetual beta process... even the RTM build is still a "beta" just considered release quality... RTM never ment final, it just meant it stable enough to go out the door

Do you even know what "RTM" means? It stands for 'Release to market', guy. How does anything you said have anything to do with why this RTM took so bloody long to get to market? 68 days between the final RTM build and it's actual release... I'm sorry, but the distribution pipeline does not take that long, even for Microsoft. It's not like they had to burn it to disks and package it in boxes or anything like that...

While I agree that anything that comes from Microsoft is Beta quality, they still follow the policy of actually releasing RTM builds as-is.

Croquant said,
Do you even know what "RTM" means? It stands for 'Release to market', guy. How does anything you said have anything to do with why this RTM took so bloody long to get to market? 68 days between the final RTM build and it's actual release... I'm sorry, but the distribution pipeline does not take that long, even for Microsoft. It's not like they had to burn it to disks and package it in boxes or anything like that...
Perhaps the build wasn't originally planned to be the RTM build?

Croquant said,
Do you even know what "RTM" means? It stands for 'Release to market', guy.

RTM actually means "release to manufacturing", guy.

Litespeed said,

RTM actually means "release to manufacturing", guy.

lol, so funny that he got it totally wrong AND added his patronising ",guy" just for further self destruction!

ZombieFly said,

lol, so funny that he got it totally wrong AND added his patronising ",guy" just for further self destruction! :laugh:


It still essentially means 'release to market', smartass.

Croquant said,

It still essentially means 'release to market', smartass.

No, no it doesn't

The RTM (Release to Manufacturing) date for Vista was in November of 2006.

We all know the "RTM" (Release to Market) date was in January of 2007.


So please explain how a 2 month difference is actually the same.