Slashdot Mirror

All uppercase letters are harder to read because our minds see blocks of text, not individual letters. When you change the fundamental shape of a word (by making it one big block of uppercase text), you make the reader stop and look at each individual letter, as opposed to seeing the word shape.

Actually, that may not be correct. There is a study by Microsoft refuting what it says are mistaken ideas about word shape and reading. The old guard just hasn't incorporated newer findings yet. One excerpt:

"The weakest evidence in support of word shape is that lowercase text is read faster than uppercase text. This is entirely a practice effect. Most readers spend the bulk of their time reading lowercase text and are therefore more proficient at it. When readers are forced to read large quantities of uppercase text, their reading speed will eventually increase to the rate of lowercase text. Even text oriented as if you were seeing it in a mirror will quickly increase in reading speed with practice (Kolers & Perkins, 1975)."

Not being familiar with this font, I searched around and found the official "Type Specimen" page showing what it looks like in the different HTML sizes etc -- http://www.microsoft.com/typography/web/fonts/comicsns/default.htm

Why not just use OpenDNS Web Content Filtering and what about Family Safety if you are a Linux user?

First, JavaScript is a very nice language indeed. If you've never learned functional programming, JavaScript is a good language to learn in. Why? You can actually do real work while learning! As for the new language spec...

Getters and setters are nice, but I'm not sure they serve a purpose in javascript--javascript is more functional than it is OO and I think people learning the language should change mindsets rather than the langage get bastardized to something it is not. I dunno, somebody can challenge me on this.

Good to see they are thinking about adding a "use strict". You aren't an adult language until you have a way to force variable declaration. Hopefully "use strict" will apply to a module or block, not to the entire project. I want to "strictify" my own JavaScript, but I dont want the browser to choke on some sloppy copy-and-paste deal from AdSense or analytics.

Lastly, JSON. There are a couple "gotchas" with it... namely when you generate JSON using a loosely typed language like Perl and try to feed it into a strongly typed language like C# (i.e. silverlight). Depending on the serializer / deserializer used on the strongly-typed side, you'll run into things.

For example, the deserializer in C# just might choke on this:
"themes": [ // it will puke on this:
        {
                "theme_id": "34", // i am a string!
                "last_mod": "2009-04-09 13:04:27.232-07" // I am a postgresql date, but I'd also barf on ISO8601
        }, // puke free:
        {
                "theme_id": 34, // I am an int!
                "last_mod": new Date(3000, 00, 01, 00, 00, 00) // i am a legit Date()
        }

]

Why? Perl serialized the integers as a string. Depending on the deseralizer, it might choke on those strings if it was expecting a number. YUI would also be pissed off about the date not being a javascript Date()--good luck finding a serializer that produces such a thing! My point? These are some surprise gotchas you have to worry about when dealing with JSON. Not sure who is to "blame"--perl for being loosely typed, the deserializers for being to strict. This would be a problem with XML as well though.

Office 2007 -> Office 2003 Incompatibility Tax

Office 2007 Compatibility Packs for Office 2000, Office XP, and Office 2003 are free.

Reformat Every Six Months To Actually Clean The Registry Tax

You must install a lot of crapware, but there are free utilities that negate the need to reformat just to clean the registry of your crapware installs. One good utility is CCleaner (aka "CrapCleaner").

Call Microsoft Every Time You Have To Reformat Tax

I'm assuming you've "misspoken" because this is bullshit. Yes, you may have to call Microsoft if you change enough major hardware components (e.g. motherboard) before you reformat, and this may be annoying, but you don't need to call MS for a simple reformat.

UAC Windows Popping Up All The Freaking Time Tax

Again, you must install a lot of crapware that needlessly asks for administrator privileges. Or you must do administrative tasks while logged in as a standard user All The Freaking Time.

Nothing built into XP, Vista, or Group Policy supports time-of-day power management. Many cases the user never wants their PC to sleep/hibernate from 9-5, but after 7 it's fair game. Microsoft doesn't address such a situation. It's either all-or-nothing.

I blame you, the user.

Let me introduce you to the AT http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb490866.aspx and SHUTDOWN http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb491003.aspx COMMANDS, they have been around since Windows 2000.

This PRO Microsoft post sent to you from a computer running Linux.
Enjoy,

Nothing built into XP, Vista, or Group Policy supports time-of-day power management. Many cases the user never wants their PC to sleep/hibernate from 9-5, but after 7 it's fair game. Microsoft doesn't address such a situation. It's either all-or-nothing.

I blame you, the user.

Let me introduce you to the AT http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb490866.aspx and SHUTDOWN http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb491003.aspx COMMANDS, they have been around since Windows 2000.

This PRO Microsoft post sent to you from a computer running Linux.
Enjoy,

Ditch deep freeze, microsoft has a lesser known and free substitute which is smart enough to allow windows updates or antivirus updates to work properly, but freeze the remainder of the system.

Steady State.

And yes, it is a huge pain. Much more so if you realize that most organizations who'd consider power usage as a significant amount of their bottom line probably have hundreds if not thousands of PCs.

You're right that those saying they're "SEO experts" (funny, how they don't actually optimize search engines), have no clue about what they're doing. Those with a quarter of a clue toss around some terms they heard like "latent semantic indexing" and have no idea what that actually means, nor even if it's still relevant.

FYI: NO ONE at Google, Yahoo, LiveSearch, or any other big search company knows what a page "looks like" to the algorithm, because there's no one algorithm. It's a set that builds on top of each other. Simultaneously boosting and penalizing words and phrases. Wheels within wheels within wheels. Then it all goes into a big neural net, and out comes some weights. Why is foo more important than bar? Who knows? It just works better that way.

Actually they don't. From the reviews I've read so far, Windows 7 is more like Vista SP3. As in, the proverbial third service pack that finally brings a mature product ;-) And backwards compatibility is still king.

If Microsoft wanted to do something revolutionary, they'd try to push this: http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/singularity/. But that would mean giving up the greatest advantage of Windows, the huge base of existing and windows-compatible software.

I've looked at this before. Let's run through the numbers:

Exchange 2007 pricing boils down to $699/server for Standard with $67/CAL, which gives you five storage groups and five databases per Mailbox server role. In my experience, one database on a reasonably well equipped server can handle 100 mailboxes without any serious effort; it would take each user pulling in a 500 MB mailbox before you run into the artificial 50 GB database limit, which is easily circumvented with a well-documented registry change. Obviously, this being Microsoft, you get an "Outlook connector" for free, as well as mobile support. With a single tweak to the registry, a single server should be able to handle hundreds of large mailboxes.

Looking at Zimbra's feature matrix, meanwhile, the only version that comes with the Outlook connector is the Professional Edition, which "starts" at $28/user/year.

Let's do the math.

Assume that, whether you get Exchange or Zimbra, you'll be able to run it for about three years before you have to upgrade to the latest and greatest version. This is probably a bit fast for most corporations, but it'll give us an idea of what we can do. Assuming this is the case, we're looking at an equation that resembles:

699+67x = 3(28x)

Solving for x, we find that, for x > 42, Exchange is actually cheaper if we amortize the up-front licensing costs for Exchange over a three year period. This gets even worse for Zimbra if we push it farther than that. Now, that said, this is only true if we ignore Windows 2008 licensing, which does push things into Zimbra's favor, provided we're installing Zimbra on a free-as-in-beer OS of some sort. On the other hand, we didn't even include Zimbra mobile pricing, which isn't even included with Zimbra Professional.

In short, if you install Zimbra on a free-as-in-beer system, yes, it will come in slightly cheaper than Exchange. If you don't, though, Exchange pricing is actually comparably affordable.

Windows Filtering Platform:

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/device/network/wfp.mspx

This is NOT the same as it was done in Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003, as I stated here earlier... &, here is the "issue" I have with it, in a single sentence there:

----

"Because all the applications and services use the same filtering engine, it is easier to determine whether other applications or services exist that perform the same function."

&

"You have a fine level of access control to the TCP/IP packet processing path. This control differs from the filter and firewall hook methods that are supported in Windows XP and Windows Server 2003"

----

That? That seems to say that the Windows VISTA/Server 2008/Windows 7 protective measures of IPSec, &/or Windows Firewall are DRIVEN by the same engine, & thus, that represents a SINGLE POINT OF POSSIBLE FAILURE (and only a single point to attack, for an interloper)...

The "older method" of using IPFLTDRV.SYS (PORT FILTERING), IPSEC.SYS (IP Security Policies), IPNAT.SYS (Windows Software Firewall) had 3 diff. spots/levels/layers it worked in (yes, they did not "sync" automatically, which is GOOD in respect to making it harder for intruders to attack just a SINGLE POINT as WPF seems to say it allows)...

Get it now, ComputersHack?

APK

P.S.=> ADDED INFORMATION/PROOF:

http://www.osronline.com/ShowThread.cfm?link=120152

Re: IpFilterDriver firewall hook in Windows Vista

"The filter hook extension interface is not supported on Vista. Vista
provides the Windows Filtering Platform (WFP) which replaces this hook as
well as the firewall hook - it is well documented in the WDK. As for why the
driver is still loaded, I am not sure."

(What he is NOT sure of, is WHY IPFLTDRV.SYS is still loading in VISTA... same thoughts here, also!)

apk

Computershack I think you are wrong.

I read the link from Microsoft what apk put up in his second reply here and this is where the packet processing order as well as what drivers correspond to what layers of security in windows as it occurs.

(From http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb878072.aspx )

*****

1.) After receiving the IP packet, Tcpip.sys passes it to Ipfltdrv.sys for processing.

2.) Based on the interface on which the IP packet was received, Ipfltdrv.sys compares the packet to the configured inbound IP packet filters.

a.) If the inbound IP packet filters do not allow the packet, Ipfltdrv.sys silently discards the IP packet.

b.) If the inbound IP packet filters allow the packet, Ipfltdrv.sys passes the IP packet back to Tcpip.sys.

3.) Tcpip.sys passes the packet to the IP forwarding component to determine the next-hop interface and address for forwarding the packet.

4.) Tcpip.sys passes the packet to Ipnat.sys.

a.) If Internet Connection Sharing or the NAT/Basic Firewall is enabled and the interface on which the packet was received is a private interface connected to the intranet, Ipnat.sys compares the packet to its NAT translation table.

b.) If Internet Connection Sharing or the NAT/Basic Firewall finds an entry, it translates the IP packet and treats the resulting packet as source traffic.

c.) If Internet Connection Sharing or the NAT/Basic Firewall does not find an entry, it creates a new NAT translation table entry, translates the IP packet, and treats the resulting packet as source traffic.

d.) If Internet Connection Sharing or the NAT/Basic Firewall is not enabled, Ipnat.sys passes the IP packet back to Tcpip.sys.

5.) Tcpip.sys passes the packet to Ipfltdrv.sys.

a.) Based on the next-hop interface, Ipfltdrv.sys compares the packet to the configured outbound IP packet filters.

c.) If the outbound IP packet filters do not allow the packet, Ipfltdrv.sys silently discards the IP packet.

d.) If the outbound IP packet filters allow the packet, Ipfltdrv.sys passes the IP packet back to Tcpip.sys.

6.) Tcpip.sys passes the packet to Ipsec.sys for processing.

a.) Based on the set of IPsec filters, Ipsec.sys determines whether the packet is permitted, blocked, or secured.

b.) If permitted, Ipsec.sys passes the packet back to Tcpip.sys without modification.

c.) If blocked, Ipsec.sys silently discards the packet

d.) If secured, Ipsec.sys adds the appropriate IPsec protection to the packet before handing it back to Tcpip.sys.

7.) Tcpip.sys then sends the IP packet over the next-hop interface to the next-hop address.

and

The TCP/IP filtering portion = IPFLTDRV.SYS

The Windows Firewall portion = IPNAT.SYS

The IPSec portion - IPSEC.SYS

(Each operates with TCP/IP (tcpip.sys) and at different stages or layers of its packet processing stream)

Good article and this is quite clear now, and that makes you appear to be the stupid one Computershack.

I didn't remember seeing a warning "only use for 3-4 hours" in the manual so I checked out the manual at the support.xbox.com http://download.microsoft.com/download/f/3/e/f3ebacb4-146e-431e-8c36-9407667f1213/Console_Ins_Manual.pdf

There are some guidelines to prevent Musculoskeletal Disorders in the Healthy Gaming Guide that suggest taking breaks, but I didn't see any recommendation to only play your console for 3-4 hours. It's possible I missed it. If I did please let me know the page #.

... when used as identification rather than authentication.

Actually, W2k is getting security fixes until 13.7.2010, as the extended support phase covers them:

http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?p1=3071

As I have one W2k box (mostly for playing some older games every now and then, but also for some random surfing and other lightweight use; the hardware isn't very new and shiny either; 650 MHz Slot-A Athlon etc), I can confirm still seeing a fairly steady trickle of fixes every now and then.

Regarding worms and viruses, I have yet to see any on that machine, even though the OS installation is now quite a few years old and in semi-active use.

B.S. to this article, on 2 issues, as regards security (AND, bloat/inefficiency), & with 2 concrete examples thereof:

----

1.) THE REMOVAL OF THE PORT FILTERING GUI FRONT-END CONTROLS in VISTA &/or Windows 7, for one thing - Port filtering functions perfectly operating simultaneously alongside software firewalls, & IP Security Policies

(All 3 security "filters" for IP here, run FINE together, even w/ a NAT true stateful packet inspecting "firewalling" router, for example)

They do so in a layered security manner, just like door handle locks (firewall), deadbolt locks (port filters), & chain locks (IP Security policies) do...

(I.E.-> Take 1 of those 3 layers down (which is what many malware seek to do, right away)? The others are STILL IN THE WAY, since they all operate via diff. drivers & on DIFF. LEVELS of the IP stack...!)

AND, FOR ANOTHER?

2.) The issue with HOSTS files involves EFFICIENCY more than security though!

See - in Microsoft removing (after the 12/2009 Patch Tuesday update) 0 as a valid blocking IP address, in a HOSTS file (vs. the larger & slower 0.0.0.0, & worse still the default 127.0.0.1 loopback adapter address)? MS made a blunder on disk, & made things less efficient in HOSTS files, since the filemass is now larger & WILL be slower to read thru, as well as not being able to 'pack' as many entries into a tinier filespace to read them up from.

(Contributing to inefficiency & yes, "bloat", in doing this latter blunder to HOSTS files... I merely note this, because HOSTS files do have a tremendous security benefit as well - blocking out KNOWN BAD SITES, & making THAT less efficient, is rather dumb!)

----

AND, before I see another "raging/foaming @ the mouth" name tossing reply, like I had here (& set him straight on his misunderstanding) -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1198841&cid=27579551 [slashdot.org]

?

Take a read all, & the quote of "ComputersHack"'s, from here -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1198841&cid=27578863 in response to the points I also noted in THIS reply:

"Utter fucking bullshit. Point 1. Port filtering is still there. Control Panel, Administrative Tools, Windows Firewall with Advanced Security. Just because you're too fucking stupid to find it doesn't mean it doesn't exist." - by Computershack (1143409) on Tuesday April 14, @06:37PM (#27578863)

Ok:

It sounds as if you're talking about Windows' Firewall, & its ability to "filter ports" (by known services/ports)? That's NOT THE SAME as classical PORT FILTERING in Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003...

(AND, the one you're talking about operates via Windows' own firewall driver level, & that's NOT the same driver used for PORT FILTERING (or IPSec either, not even same listener ports, like IPSec uses 445 iirc) in earlier models of Windows, unless YOU can prove otherwise... I don't think you will be able to either & I think your understanding of this is limited to be honest...)

SO - Before you go tossing anymore names in the uncouth manner in which you do this?

Take a read here, & realize a few things:

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb878072.aspx [microsoft.com]

----

TCP/IP filtering Allows you to specify by IP protocol, TCP port, or UDP port, the types of traffic that are acceptable for incoming local host traffic (packets destined for the host). You can configure TCP/IP filtering on the Options tab from the advanced properties of the Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) component in the Network Connections folder.

Filter-h

From the article: "A year's email at a typical medium-sized business uses 50,000 KWh."

What's a "medium sized business"? In the US, 100 to 500 employees. In the EU, 50 to 250 employees. So let's use 250 employees as a "typical medium sized business".

How much email infrastructure is needed for 250 employees? Not much. If you use Microsoft's sizing data for Exchange servers, Microsoft says you need 2.5 MIPS per mailbox, and 0.75 I/O operations per second per mailbox. So for 250 employees, one low-end rackmount server is more than enough; it's about 3x the capacity needed. You'd like to have at least two, for redundancy, of course, with RAID disks in both. So you need two 1U servers, four drives, and a router or two. One study suggests 200 watts per server, but that's based on Google, which worries about power efficiency. And it doesn't include air conditioning load. So figure 1KW for the mail system, or 12KWH/day, or 8760 KWh/year. That's based on very generous sizing of everything.

This is less than 20% of the number in the paper. How did they possibly get a number 5x that big? Are they allocating idle desktop machine resources to mail?

Exmerge has been depreciated for years, primarily due to it not supporting the new PST formats.

In keeping with Exchange 2007's newfound love of PowerShell, you should use the Export-Mailbox and Import-Mailbox cmdlets to replace Exmerge.

Exmerge has been depreciated for years, primarily due to it not supporting the new PST formats.

In keeping with Exchange 2007's newfound love of PowerShell, you should use the Export-Mailbox and Import-Mailbox cmdlets to replace Exmerge.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa142634(EXCHG.65).aspx

it isn't exactly normal SQL but it is alot closer than most things - and it does work.

"And how much for a motherboard and CPU that can take that much RAM?"

Around $125 for the pair right here: http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.178918

"Not for hardware hackers. Windows Vista 64-bit editions require all kernel-mode code to be digitally signed"

True enough and depending on what you're doing it can be a show stopper, but if you're writing drivers for USB, they don't need to be kernel mode: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa511026.aspx . But you probably already know the options.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/941377
Only cause listed: "This problem occurs when the Xbox 360 console experiences a general hardware failure."
So the original warranty covers general hardware failures and Microsofts kb article acknowledges E74 as a general hardware failure.

So aren't they simply covering this under warranty because they have to?

And if it's not, then I suppose you'll claim it's evidence that this site is biased... as opposed to the site the article is on, which is completely fair and balanced?

hmm, does that remind me of something??

Corporate users have been dealing with things like this for a year now, without even an acknowledgment of the issue by Microsoft. However, the same issue was fixed in Vista 6 months ago.

Stick with SP2 until they release a couple more fixes.

If VISTA is so sooper-dooper, why is there no mention of it on the front page of microsoft.com. Lots of other MS products, including Windows 7 Beta! Poor VISTA, she must feel unwanted even in her own birthplace. Strange way to treat your flagship product, if you are really, really proud of it.

Perhaps it's best not to make these kinds of claims on Patch Tuesday.

"Pity that it will be MicroSofts' customers, not MS that will suffer when the hackers, script kiddies and miscellaneous ne'er-do-wells inevitably trash the security for their latest offering." - by m0nkyman (7101) on Tuesday April 14, @05:24PM (#27577555) Homepage

B.S. to this article, on 2 issues, as regards security (AND, bloat/inefficiency), & with 2 concrete examples thereof:

----

1.) THE REMOVAL OF THE PORT FILTERING GUI FRONT-END CONTROLS in VISTA &/or Windows 7, for one thing - Port filtering functions perfectly operating simultaneously alongside software firewalls, & IP Security Policies

(All 3 security "filters" for IP here, run FINE together, even w/ a NAT true stateful packet inspecting "firewalling" router, for example)

They do so in a layered security manner, just like door handle locks (firewall), deadbolt locks (port filters), & chain locks (IP Security policies) do...

(I.E.-> Take 1 of those 3 layers down (which is what many malware seek to do, right away)? The others are STILL IN THE WAY, since they all operate via diff. drivers & on DIFF. LEVELS of the IP stack...!)

AND, FOR ANOTHER?

2.) The issue with HOSTS files involves EFFICIENCY more than security though!

See - in removing (after the 12/2009 Patch Tuesday update) 0 as a valid blocking IP address (vs. the larger & slower 0.0.0.0, & worse still the default 127.0.0.1 loopback adapter address)? MS made a blunder on disk, & made things less efficient in HOSTS files, since the filemass is now larger & WILL be slower to read thru, as well as not being able to 'pack' as many entries into a tinier filespace to read them up from.

(Contributing to inefficiency & yes, "bloat", in doing this latter one... I merely note this, because HOSTS files do have a tremendous security benefit as well - blocking out KNOWN BAD SITES, & making THAT less efficient, is rather dumb!)

----

AND, before I see another "raging/foaming @ the mouth" name tossing reply, like I had here (& set him straight on his misunderstanding) -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1198841&cid=27579551

?

Take a read all, & the quote of "ComputersHack"'s there:

"Utter fucking bullshit. Point 1. Port filtering is still there. Control Panel, Administrative Tools, Windows Firewall with Advanced Security. Just because you're too fucking stupid to find it doesn't mean it doesn't exist." - by Computershack (1143409) on Tuesday April 14, @06:37PM (#27578863)

Ok:

It sounds as if you're talking about Windows' Firewall, & its ability to "filter ports" (by known services/ports)? That's NOT THE SAME...

(AND, the one you're talking about operates via Windows' own firewall driver level, NOT the same driver used for PORT FILTERING (or IPSec either, not even same listener ports, like IPSec uses 445 iirc) in earlier models of Windows, unless YOU can prove otherwise... I don't think you will be able to either & I think your understanding of this is limited to be honest...)

SO - Before you go tossing anymore names in the uncouth manner in which you do this?

Take a read here, & realize a few things:

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb878072.aspx

----

TCP/IP filtering Allows you to specify by IP protocol, TCP port, or UDP port, the types of traffic that are acceptable for incoming local host traffic (packets destined for the host). You can configure TCP/IP filtering on the Options tab from the advanced properties of the Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) component in the Network Connections folder.

Filter-hook driver A Windows component that uses the filter-hook API to filt

That leaves Vista

The OS that still has an unpatched remote exploit that grants 'system' execution via the TCP stack, which was been in windows since 2k and still was up through vista and 2k3 server...

If you think One distro of linux (out of all of them) leaving random numbers mucked up for two years, only affecting software not included out of the box... compare that to a remote code execution exploit needing nothing more than TCP connectivity, for EIGHT years!

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/ms08-001.mspx

That is some messed up logic there

"Utter fucking bullshit. Point 1. Port filtering is still there. Control Panel, Administrative Tools, Windows Firewall with Advanced Security. Just because you're too fucking stupid to find it doesn't mean it doesn't exist." - by Computershack (1143409) on Tuesday April 14, @06:37PM (#27578863)

It sounds as if you're talking about Windows' Firewall, & its ability to "filter ports" (by known services/ports)? That's NOT THE SAME...

(AND, the one you're talking about operates via Windows' own firewall driver level, NOT the same driver used for PORT FILTERING (or IPSec either, not even same listener ports, like IPSec uses 445 iirc) in earlier models of Windows, unless YOU can prove otherwise... I don't think you will be able to either & I think your understanding of this is limited to be honest...)

SO - Before you go tossing anymore names in the uncouth manner in which you do this?

Take a read here, & realize a few things:

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb878072.aspx

----

TCP/IP filtering Allows you to specify by IP protocol, TCP port, or UDP port, the types of traffic that are acceptable for incoming local host traffic (packets destined for the host). You can configure TCP/IP filtering on the Options tab from the advanced properties of the Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) component in the Network Connections folder.

Filter-hook driver A Windows component that uses the filter-hook API to filter incoming and outgoing IP packets. On a computer running Windows Server 2003, the filter-hook driver is Ipfltdrv.sys, a component of Routing and Remote Access. When enabled, Routing and Remote Access allows you to configure separate inbound and outbound IP packet filters for each interface using the Routing and Remote Access snap-in. Ipfltdrv.sys examines both local host and transit IP traffic (packets not destined for the host).

Firewall-hook driver A Windows component that uses the firewall-hook API to examine incoming and outgoing packets. On a computer running Windows XP, the firewall-hook driver is Ipnat.sys, which is shared by both Internet Connection Sharing and Windows Firewall. Internet Connection Sharing is a basic network address translator (NAT). Windows Firewall is a stateful host-based firewall. Ipnat.sys examines both local host and transit IP traffic. On a computer running Windows Server 2003, Ipnat.sys is shared by Internet Connection Sharing, Windows Firewall, and the NAT/Basic Firewall component of Routing and Remote Access. If the NAT/Basic Firewall component of Routing and Remote Access is enabled, you cannot also enable Windows Firewall or Internet Connection Sharing.

IPsec The IPsec component, Ipsec.sys, is the implementation of IPsec in Windows to provide cryptographic protection to IP traffic. Ipsec.sys examines both local host and transit IP traffic and can permit, block, or secure traffic.

----

Things like the fact that IP Security Policies, Software firewalls, & PORT FILTERING, all work with the security of the Tcp/IP stack, via diff. drivers & at diff. levels of the ip stack, via these discrete drivers:

ipsec.sys
Ipfltdrv.sys
ipnat.sys
tcpip.sys (IPv4)
& any custom "hooking drivers" that other software firewalls do...

(As it is implemented in Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003)

APK

P.S.=> People who use VISTA told me that the PORT FILTERING gui interface is gone, & I have not seen it in Windows VISTA (logged on a normal user, not administrator @ least), so, care to tell me otherwise? I also noted you "steer clear" of the portion of my original post regarding HOSTS files also... why is that?apk

Microsoft will be dropping support at this time as well.

How are they in many ways ahead? You act as though vista hasn't had any security problems lately.

How are they in many ways ahead? You act as though vista hasn't had any security problems lately.

How are they in many ways ahead? You act as though vista hasn't had any security problems lately.

How are they in many ways ahead? You act as though vista hasn't had any security problems lately.

How are they in many ways ahead? You act as though vista hasn't had any security problems lately.

How are they in many ways ahead? You act as though vista hasn't had any security problems lately.

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-gb/windows/dd262148.aspx

And if it's not, then I suppose you'll claim it's evidence that this site is biased... as opposed to the site the article is on, which is completely fair and balanced?

If you are aiming for even a somewhat technical position this programme is not targeted at you.

I ought to rectify this a little; part of the programme does actually involve more advanced knowledge (namely Elevate America for Technical Professionals) but still, the majority of people utilising this programme will be at lower tiers.

Personally, I want EVERY government training program to be training people is skills the real free market considers useless. Don't you?

Your point is well taken, but I think you underestimate the value of basic computer skills that Microsoft is offering training in. I found the list of stuff they're offering (three different tiers).

So apparently they are offering some more advanced training in stuff like .NET, Visual Studio, etc., but I'm betting that the vast majority of people who find this useful are going to be learning basic computer/MS Office skills, and those are things the free market values highly - in fact, they're pretty much taken for granted in a lot of jobs.

I also suspect that Microsoft is probably going to be getting a tax break out of this, somehow...

Personally, I want EVERY government training program to be training people is skills the real free market considers useless. Don't you?

Your point is well taken, but I think you underestimate the value of basic computer skills that Microsoft is offering training in. I found the list of stuff they're offering (three different tiers).

So apparently they are offering some more advanced training in stuff like .NET, Visual Studio, etc., but I'm betting that the vast majority of people who find this useful are going to be learning basic computer/MS Office skills, and those are things the free market values highly - in fact, they're pretty much taken for granted in a lot of jobs.

I also suspect that Microsoft is probably going to be getting a tax break out of this, somehow...

Personally, I want EVERY government training program to be training people is skills the real free market considers useless. Don't you?

Your point is well taken, but I think you underestimate the value of basic computer skills that Microsoft is offering training in. I found the list of stuff they're offering (three different tiers).

So apparently they are offering some more advanced training in stuff like .NET, Visual Studio, etc., but I'm betting that the vast majority of people who find this useful are going to be learning basic computer/MS Office skills, and those are things the free market values highly - in fact, they're pretty much taken for granted in a lot of jobs.

I also suspect that Microsoft is probably going to be getting a tax break out of this, somehow...

http://www.microsoft.com/canada/learning/QuebecMCSE/default.mspx

Microsoft didn't actually leave anything out of the APIs for their version of Java

Yes they did; Sun took them to court. Specifically, they left out JNI and RMI in favour of their own COM object APIs.

Proof? Microsoft's own document reveals this.

Updates for Win2000 went away ages ago
MS has released security updates for 2K pretty recently see for example http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=98bb7d40-89a0-470a-8eb7-06f15072a635&displaylang=en

Non-security updates are not availible for free, but those usually aren't so important for older products.

2K will be stopping support pretty soon though so it is probablly a good idea to plan for migration of any exposed 2K.

Security? Although software doesn't wear out, one must keep updated against the newest vulnerabilities.

XP will receive security support until 2014. Just to put that into perspective, XP will still be receiving security patches after the next, not-yet-released Ubuntu LTS is already retired.

APP-V and MED-V...

Specifically MED-V in the case you have mentioned above.

http://www.microsoft.com/systemcenter/appv/default.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/enterprise/products/med-v.aspx

APP-V and MED-V...

Specifically MED-V in the case you have mentioned above.

http://www.microsoft.com/systemcenter/appv/default.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/enterprise/products/med-v.aspx

Extended support includes security updates and paid support. It's still quite a ways off, in computer years. You'll have security updates for about 5 years still.

If you buy new hardware and want XP on it, it's up to you to make sure it works in XP.

This page made me select a country.
http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifeselect

US - 4/8/2014
UK - 08/04/2014
China - 2014/4/8