Don't worry Paul. I hear that when Windows XP comes out you won't have to reboot your computer when you change settings. Man, I can't wait!

You can disable and reenable your network connection and your settings will work without a reboot. It's not that hard, Paul.

Tried that MH, try again.

Besides, -even if it worked- why should the user be required to know a kludge to get around a bug?

Maybe they all went to the beach on stack server day.
==================================

>> Why, if Vista has an all new networking stack, do I STILL freaking need to reboot when I change name servers?

Because Microsoft hires a bunch of twenty-something hackers straight out of college who don't know the first thing about good software design. You can see this sort of sloppiness in all of their products.

What's more amazing is they have the money to do it right.

I'm just glad you're not bitter.

Reminds me, BTW, of an oldie but goodie. When NT 3.1 came out (which, marketing aside, should have been called NT 1.0 beta 2), it seemed like anything you did required a reboot. For a while, since I was supporting NT at the time for one of my clients, my sig line was "You have moved your mouse. Please reboot for WindowsNT to recognize these settings."

How about ipconfig /flushdns to clear the DNS cache?

>>How about ipconfig /flushdns to clear the DNS cache?

Geeze as if it where not inexcusable enough already... I googled it and that is new to Vista. (Although I get an "elevation required" error.)

That's even more embarrassing. They have a hunk of code but they don't call it when you switch NS servers.

What the hell are these people thinking?

Interestingly, 'ipconfig /?' does not show this command.

Paul, this works on XP. I don't know about Vista but it is worth trying. Obviously you have to substitute the IP address of the DNS server you want to use.

netsh interface ip set dns "Local Area Connection" static 192.168.0.200

Regards,
Greg

I sure hope you're running sites on Windows because clients require it and not by choice.

Got an AI post in the works? I see Doolittle got the axe.

mantis, all my servers are *nix (or Macs)

As for workstations, I use what is in front of me.

==

I was not actually surprised about Doolittle. Everyone agrees (including Blake's mother) that she's head and shoulders above the other two vocally... but she didn't have the WOW factor.

see also: last night's show where the mayor of the local towns where in front of thousands of screaming fans for BL and JS but ML was in the Gov office with the Gov and a single secretary.

That was the moment I knew the gig was up.

Greg, a little more googling showed me that.

DUMBNESS SQUARED... Why would you change DNS servers and want to keep the cache?

And why not (at least) put it in ipconfig /?

Like I said, dumbness squared.

And mantis.. I'll only make an AI post if the media does what I sorta expect and overuse the word "shocker" which it wasn't.

It's the most bloated OS I've ever seen and it's delivered on a DVD (though it includes several versions).

Color me not impressed. Sticking with Windows 2000 Pro.

mantis, all my servers are *nix (or Macs)

As for workstations, I use what is in front of me.

Ah, I was starting to wonder...

Shocker!

Nerds.

I see Doolittle got the axe.

Oh crap, thanks a lot! You just blurt that out out of nowhere? How about a spoiler warning next time? *grumble*

Yeah, I dug it up on the Google News main page. Before I blew it that news was hidden real good.

I didn't say the news was hidden. But that's why those in earlier time zones know to avoid the news sites. Just asking for common courtesy, that's all.

Usually the spoiling information is preceded by a warning...

Gee, I ruined the suspense of American Idol for people in Hawaii? Sorry.

Thanks for the Wikipedia entry on spoiler warnings though, twit.

Apology accepted. You could have just said that to begin with.

Sarcasm is not always easy to detect in text, but I think I made it pretty clear.

Hey Mantis, you're a jerk. [No sarcasm intended or implied.] Twit.

Google the phrase "A cost analysis of windows vista content protection" to see what Microsoft really cared about in Vista.The prospect of paying 400 dollars for this crapware motivated me to try Linux.

And there's something the matter with Macs.....how?

Actually, the /flushdns switch is a part of ipconfig in XP as well. I have a DNS server that periodically picks up stray registrations. After I purge them, I run the /flushdns command and it cleans everything up.

Um, Paul, your posts are normally spot on, but you are showing your lack of knowledge regarding the DNS/NS situation. First, you've not had to reboot to change your settings since way, way back. I'm 99% sure you didn't have to in 98, either.

Second, the reason you'd keep your DNS cache is that DNS isn't just used for external lookups. If you have two DNS servers set up and decide to change one or more, you wouldn't want to lose your cached settings for your internal network, nor have to repeat lookups for things you've already found.

While I agree it may not sound simple to manually do something with IPConfig, you can alternatively do as suggested above: disable/renable, or just click repair.

Regarding outside the new network stack, ipconfig /? does indeed list the options you said above.

I happen to agree with you that Vista is a poor decision for a lot (almost all) of people, but your main complaints before the flip there don't really make sense.

I am always struck by the lack of understanding just who Bill Gates customers are. It annoys all of the IT professionals that Microsoft seldom makes their job easier ... Guess what, not his intention, mission or frankly his concern ... The desktop user is his customer, whether at home or in the office ... easy or hard networking settings ? Thats the IT guys problem not the end users problem ...

What I hate is how they play games with the names for their products. With Windows 3.0 and 3.1, you knew what you were getting. Ditto with NT4. But then, they started with Windows 95, and all of those goofy names since.
95 was Windows 4.0, 98 was 4.1.
Win2k was NT5, Win2k3 was NT5.1.
But that gets in the way of marketing. And nothing can do that.

Super Technical: Why is XP's Space Cadet pinball so much crummier than Win95's NASCAR pinball game? It had voice-overs, animated runaway tires, real drivers' rides and EV'RYTHANG!

The rest of XP is good, though.

Except the seeaaarrrcchh ennnggggiinne.

>Um, Paul, your posts are normally spot on, but you are showing your lack of knowledge regarding the DNS/NS situation. First, you've not had to reboot to change your settings since way, way back. I'm 99% sure you didn't have to in 98, either.

>Second, the reason you'd keep your DNS cache is that DNS isn't just used for external lookups. If you have two DNS servers set up and decide to change one or more, you wouldn't want to lose your cached settings for your internal network, nor have to repeat lookups for things you've already found.

BOOOMP Thank you for playing. Collect your consolation prize on your way out.

First, I've run my own DNS servers since 1995... I'm pretty sure I understand DNS by now. But let's look at your reply anyway...

Your argument is just silly.

If I change my DNS server that means I really don't want information from that server I want to still use the old server just so my machine can save 3ms on the OFF CHANCE that I have an internal DNS server. -- Why then, did I bother change servers?

Bull Excrement.

Then let's do the same for browsers...

When you type in a new URL into the address bar, the browser should say on the same page you're on JUST IN CASE you want to come back, it will load faster.

Sorry, you get the award for the most strained logic in support of abject stupidity I've ever seen.

This got me thinking. Whatever happened to Wizbang Tech? All that promotion last winter, and now one new post since February?

Wow. Just....Wow.

Of all the things to bitch about for Vista, you have to pick something that's not even broken. You haven't had to reboot on changing DNS servers since at least Win2K, and probably earlier. I'm fairly sure that you did have to do it in Windows 95, though.

To start with, what percentage of people using Microsoft OS's actually change their DNS servers on a regular basis? I'd be shocked if it was one in ten thousand. So if I was project manager on this area any optimization here would be very low on the totem pole. Because what's the normal case here? That the values being returned by the new DNS server will be identical to the ones returned by the old server, because they're serving the same DNS cloud.

But ok, lets say that you're one of the few hundred people in the US who regularly have to switch between DNS servers that serve completely disjoint DNS clouds. As long as there are no name collisions, you're still OK. But even if there are, this would be such a highly specialized setup that I'd expect anyone running in it to know what to do. Because there are several options, some already mentioned, some not.

1) ipconfig /flushdns - the small hammer approach
2) if your main problem is that you're needing responses that were negative returns on one server actually resolved, you can either wait the 5 minute timeout, or set the negative response timeout to a shorter time or disable caching negative returns entirely.
3) or alternatively, the big hammer approach. You can simply disable the local DNS cache. In Win2K I believe that the service name was 'DNS Resolver Cache" or soemthing like that, I don't still have any boxes. In WinXP it's the 'DNS Client' service. Id be shocked if Vista doesn't have something similar.

So to summarize, you're bitching about something that isn't broken at all, requires no effort for the vast very large majority of people ever, and very minimal effort for everyone else.

I've been using a Macbook Pro as my laptop since October and one of the "problems" I have is explaining to pure Windows users the frustration with having to deal with stupid, poorly designed, annoying processes after the simplicity of using a Mac. Once you get used to easy, hard because someone built it stupid really makes you crazy.

Decision tree for deciding to upgrade to Vista.

I like it

http://www.bbspot.com/Images/News_Features/2007/02/vista_upgrade_flowchart.pdf

First off, m$ is the only supplier of OS that requires anything else to be done to have a change in the DNS work its way through the system.

NT4 WS & Server definitely requires a reboot,
W98SP2 can sometimes get it done with a login and logout but not on the fly.
W2K SP3+ - it seems to depend on the exact version of IE that is installed (in itself another story), but it doesn't always see the change. May also be driver issues (see next)
WXP has been a real head scratcher, best we can figure is that it depends on the NIC driver.
RH9 has no issue
SUN 2.6 has no issue
CentOS4.4 has no issue
Fedora4 has no issue

all of the above are what is currently running at my place of work.

Windows gives your computer AIDS

That reminds me to seel my m-soft stock.When it was down to 72(split since then made it 36) I bought thinking it would go up.I resisted the urge to buy Apple and boy ,what a relief.Time to get rid of it.