Slashdot Mirror

>Site triggers my AV with this attack: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/ms05-013.mspx

You admit to using Windows? Good for you!

Site triggers my AV with this attack: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/ms05-013.mspx

As several other posts have pointed out, Silverlight does include accessibility support: http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb980136.aspx

I used to work in a similar shop, with almost the exact same setup. While it "gets the job done", it by no means helps improve business. To get a view of whats going on, you need to manually enter all the info into a spreadsheet, then be handy with graphs and what not. Managing inventory is also all done by hand. For every fith item sold, you're basically slashing across four hash marks on a chalkboard. Back when I was still doing it, I was toying with some simple database programs and a cue cat. Never quite made it as the owner decided he'd had enough and closed down. If you search there are quite a few hardware and software solutions for all budgets (I know i see tons of ads in linux journal) of course theres always the other guy...

I have to agree. Plus, the technology that Microsoft has displayed seems more appealing to purchase and develop for, IMO.

Right, because every other platform that lets you run your own applications has been subject to malware that has actually existed in the wild, right?

Oh, what? They haven't?

Sorry to say, but this story smells apocryphal, given that you explicitly mention she had a "high-end" Nokia, which would be running S60. No S60 "viruses" ever existed that sent MMS messages. If you can find one and identify it, I'd be interested in seeing it. The only S60 viruses that have ever been shown to exist in the wild propagated over bluetooth and did nothing but propagate.

The "Security" issue IS a red herring. The iPhone has been wide open to anyone who runs 3rd party software on it for nearly a year now, and yet there is NO iPhone malware. If the concern is over security, then implement a granular permissions system like S60, where you can decide what each app can do at install time, but keep in mind that no phone virus that causes monetary harm has ever been proven to exist, for any mobile platform.

The security handwaving is a bullshit reason for Apple to make damn sure they control exactly what you run on the phone. No VOIP, no SSH clients, nothing that will use too much data, nothing that might bite into a revenue stream Apple wants to create. They can couch it in terms of "it's for the security of the network!," yet somehow, every other network and every other device can run whatever apps you want on it and there's no problem.

Name one thing XP pro can do that XP home cannot that home users would be interested in.

1. Remote desktop
2. Multi-processor (2) support
3. IIS web server
4. File-level access controls
5. Multi-language support
6. Various networking features (granted, in 2001 these wouldn't have been very popular at home)

Oops, you only asked for one. Anyway,

Some more here: http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/windowsxp_home_pro.asp/
and here: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/howtobuy/choosing2.mspx/

That is moderated insightful?

This Slashdot story is part of the complaining about Microsoft's abusiveness, and so is the class-action lawsuit. At present, Windows 2000 will be completely killed on 7/13/2010. However, that is only because people complained intensely. The original death date for Windows 2000 Professional was 2007. That's why it is so important to complain.

See a quote from this comment on an earlier Slashdot story: "Microsoft's customers were forced to upgrade to Windows XP because Windows 98 had an unstable file system, an unstable registry, and lots of problems with "DLL Hell" and the "Blue Screen of Death"." There were things that could have been done to make the FAT file system more stable, and Microsoft didn't do that.

Windows 2000 Professional represents a plateau of usefulness. However, most corporations moved from Windows 95 or Windows 98 to Windows XP.

Later in the thread mentioned above, there is another comment with a quote from a December 2003 Seclists article about corporate Windows users: "Inventory data of more than 372,000 PCs - from some 670 companies with between 10 and 49,000 employees - found that more than 80 percent of these companies were still using Windows 98 and/or Windows 95."

The Slashdot moderation system allows moderation only from those who have no interest in participating in the conversation about a story. That brings a lot of moderators to stories in which they have no interest. They simply look for a place to unload their moderation points. Moderators are likely to be ignorant about the issues being discussed.

But it is "Vista capable", just not "Full Vista-with-all-eye-candy-features capable".

As much as I dislike Microsoft products, I can't see how they have a basis for this law suit.

Is the machine incapable of running Vista? No, just the flashy bits that aren't a requirement of the OS. Did Microsoft have a separate designation for machines that could run Vista better? Yes, it was "Premium Ready". Is Vista completely unusable because of their system specs? No (or not any more than normal).

It isn't as if they've been sold a "High Def capable TV" that only has 640x480 res, they've been sold the equivalent of a 720i/p TV - it is capable of what is classed as "High Def", just not the really high HD because it is only "capable" of some minimum requirement to be called what it is called.

As a similar situation: Am I capable of running a marathon? Probably. Would I do very good at it? No, because I'm not ready, not trained and not fit enough.

People need to get a dictionary and learn the definition of the word "capable".

http://www.microsoft.com/OneCare/

THERE! fixed it for you:

http://archive.netscape.com/history

AOL has a long checkered history on the internet, of being the home of clueless users, being one of the first companies to really get people online and then cutting their connection every 10 minutes. Throughout AOL's lifetime, it has been involved with a number of high profile scandals, perhaps the largest of which was the 1999 hostile takeover of the Netscape Communications Corporation. Netscape was known to many as the leader in web browsing at the time, and had developed a number of complementary pieces of software that allowed for a rich suite of internet tools. That had to be stopped. So, as we continued to use an IE back end for our AOL branded browser, we were then allowed to, at our leisure, slowly and quietly strangle the Netscape suite in to irrelevance.

At the time of the acquisition, the newly demoralized Netscape team had been working on converting their flagship product - the Netscape Communicator web suite - into open source software, under a new name: Mozilla in a foolish bid to attempt to minimize what they (correctly) perceived as a move to kill the legendary browser. AOL played a significant role in the launch of the NEW IMPROVED(TM) Netscape 6 browser, the first Mozilla-based, Netscape-branded browser that was released in 2000 and continued to solely fund the development and marketing efforts of Netscape-branded browsers. In 2003, an "independent foundation" was created to support the continued development of the open source web suite. AOL was a major source of interference for the Mozilla Foundation and the company continued to develop versions of the Netscape browser based on the work of the "foundation".

While internal groups within AOL have invested a great deal of time and energy in attempting to sabotage the now, beleaguered Netscape Navigator, these efforts have not been totally successful. Gaining market share from Microsoft's Internet Explorer had to be ultimately crushed (mainly because the Netscape developers were, as we perceived, "weenies"). Recently, support for the Netscape browser has been limited to a handful of former Microsoft "engineers" tasked with stuffing the browser with obsfucated bloat and then creating a skinned version of Firefox with a few extensions.

AOL's focus on transitioning to an ad-supported web business leaves little room for the size of investment needed to get the Netscape browser to a point many of its fans expect it to be. Given AOL's current business focus of providing ad riddled social site rip offs and, with the success the Mozilla Foundation has had in developing critically-acclaimed products, we feel it's the right time to end development of Netscape branded browsers forever, hand the reins fully to Mozilla and encourage Netscape users to adopt Firefox. Because, mainly, we've been unsuccessful at infiltrating that organization at this time.

To our shareholders: This day has been long in arriving, and looking back (mission accomplished) - it was WORTH IT!
The King is dead - long live the King.

Windows Internet Explorer:

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=9ae91ebe-3385-447c-8a30-081805b2f90b&DisplayLang=en

OS X 10.4 (Tiger), released in April 2005, will stop being supported when OS X 10.6 is released if Apple continues their support lifecycle "pattern" (Apple has no official support lifecycle policy). The current Long Term Support (LTS) version of Ubuntu desktop (released in June 2006) will stop being supported in June 2009 (the next LTS is coming this April).

OS X 10.4 (Tiger), released in April 2005, will stop being supported when OS X 10.6 is released if Apple continues their support lifecycle "pattern" (Apple has no official support lifecycle policy). The current Long Term Support (LTS) version of Ubuntu desktop (released in June 2006) will stop being supported in June 2009 (the next LTS is coming this April).

OS X 10.4 (Tiger), released in April 2005, will stop being supported when OS X 10.6 is released if Apple continues their support lifecycle "pattern" (Apple has no official support lifecycle policy). The current Long Term Support (LTS) version of Ubuntu desktop (released in June 2006) will stop being supported in June 2009 (the next LTS is coming this April).

Microsoft is being extraordinarily abusive towards its customers, in my opinion.

Customers are being pushed toward buying Windows Vista, even though it is clearly not a finished product, and maybe even not a desirable product.

If a company needs to buy 1,000 new computers, it is placed in a terrible position. Will it buy Windows XP, a product that Bill Gates, software's Dr. Death, has declared is Mainstream Support Retired on 4/14/2009? If it does, it will be forced to pay extra when Microsoft desides to stop supporting Windows XP. And every Microsoft customer needs official support because of the huge, huge number of vulnerabilities that are found in Microsoft products.

Operating systems don't naturally have so many vulnerabilities. Users of Mac computers don't even bother to run anti-spyware and anti-virus software because they don't have problems. Large numbers of vulnerabilities are a built-in shortcoming of Microsoft products; apparently Microsoft doesn't let its programmers finish their work. Huge numbers of vulnerabilities force an unnatural connection with the supplier; the user is dependent on the supplier for patches; that creates opportunities for control. Vulnerabilities make more money for Microsoft because people are forced to "upgrade".

When Windows XP was first released, it was very, very buggy. Windows XP became relatively usable without hassles 3 years after its introduction, with the release of SP2. Service Pack 2 for XP fixed more than 330 problems, if I remember correctly, and some of those were not documented.

We have seen numerous reasons to believe that Windows Vista will also be full of hassles at least until Vista SP2.

Microsoft's customers were forced to upgrade to Windows XP because Windows 98 had an unstable file system, an unstable registry, and lots of problems with "DLL Hell" and the "Blue Screen of Death". Customers had to endure 3 bad years with Windows XP pre-SP2. Since the release of SP2, there have been only 3 relatively good years with Windows XP, and now Microsoft is arranging pressure to have bad years again.

That's ugly in my opinion, and I'm only one of many who think that way. This is all being done by billionaires who want nothing more than more money; that's sick.

Remember, Microsoft managers are sinking the company over the long term to get short-term profit.

With operating systems, there is lock-in. Linux is not an easy option because re-writing software and re-training is too expensive in most cases. But once a reasonable alternative is available, Microsoft will have difficulty finding customers, it seems to me.

It's fine if Microsoft introduces a new product. But there should not be pressure to buy the new product until it is stable. The "new" OS product should not be designed to require users to buy new hardware, as it seems is true with Windows Vista. Remember that Microsoft serves the system builders, who want everyone to need more hardware; the final customer can be dis-regarded and dis-repected because of OS lock-in.

One of the biggest and most respected IT magazines is rejecting Windows Vista: Save Windows XP. Quote: "More than 75,000 people have signed InfoWorld's "Save XP" petition in the three weeks since it was launched - many with passionate, often emotional pleas to not be forced to make a change."

Having downloaded the office documents formats and the Windows protocol documentation et having had a look at it I wonder why nobody is at least recognizing the fact that this information is no more secret now. So it's a big step in getting the Ms monopoly to be a little less controlling. Here is the links if you want to take a look : Windows Server Protocols http://download.microsoft.com/download/a/e/6/ae6e4142-aa58-45c6-8dcf-a657e5900cd3/windows_server_protocols.zip Windows Communication Protocols http://download.microsoft.com/download/9/5/e/95ef66af-9026-4bb0-a41d-a4f81802d92c/windows_communication_protocols.zip Office Files format (Word, Excel, Powerpoint) http://www.microsoft.com/interop/docs/OfficeBinaryFormats.mspx What do you think ?

Having downloaded the office documents formats and the Windows protocol documentation et having had a look at it I wonder why nobody is at least recognizing the fact that this information is no more secret now. So it's a big step in getting the Ms monopoly to be a little less controlling. Here is the links if you want to take a look : Windows Server Protocols http://download.microsoft.com/download/a/e/6/ae6e4142-aa58-45c6-8dcf-a657e5900cd3/windows_server_protocols.zip Windows Communication Protocols http://download.microsoft.com/download/9/5/e/95ef66af-9026-4bb0-a41d-a4f81802d92c/windows_communication_protocols.zip Office Files format (Word, Excel, Powerpoint) http://www.microsoft.com/interop/docs/OfficeBinaryFormats.mspx What do you think ?

Having downloaded the office documents formats and the Windows protocol documentation et having had a look at it I wonder why nobody is at least recognizing the fact that this information is no more secret now. So it's a big step in getting the Ms monopoly to be a little less controlling. Here is the links if you want to take a look : Windows Server Protocols http://download.microsoft.com/download/a/e/6/ae6e4142-aa58-45c6-8dcf-a657e5900cd3/windows_server_protocols.zip Windows Communication Protocols http://download.microsoft.com/download/9/5/e/95ef66af-9026-4bb0-a41d-a4f81802d92c/windows_communication_protocols.zip Office Files format (Word, Excel, Powerpoint) http://www.microsoft.com/interop/docs/OfficeBinaryFormats.mspx What do you think ?

You said, and I quote: "Nobody is forcing them to make a change. They can run windows xp for as long as they like. People out there are still running windows 95."

That is exactly Microsoft's idea, forcing a change, in my opinion.

If a corporation needs to buy 1,000 new computers, they are placed in a terrible position. Will they buy Windows XP, a product that Bill Gates, software's Dr. Death, has declared is Mainstream Support Retired on 4/14/2009? If they do, they will be forced to pay extra when they can't get official support for Windows XP. And they need official support because of the huge, huge number of vulnerabilities that are found in Microsoft products. Remember that people don't even bother to run anti-spyware and anti-virus software on Apple Macs because they don't have problems. Operating systems don't naturally have vulnerabilities, vulnerabilities are a feature of Microsoft products that make more money for Microsoft.

On the other hand, Windows XP became usable without hassles 3 years after its introduction, with the release of Service Pack 2. There is every clue that Windows Vista will also be full of hassles at least until Vista SP2.

People were forced to upgrade to Windows XP because Windows 98 had an unstable file system, an unstable registry, and lots of problems with the "Blue Screen of Death" and "DLL Hell". That means they had to endure 3 bad years with Windows XP pre-SP2. There have been only 3 relatively good years with Windows XP, and now there is pressure to have bad years again.

That's ugly in my opinion, and I'm not the only one who thinks that way. This is all being done by billionaires who want nothing more than more money. That's sick.

Remember, they are sinking the company over the long term to get short-term profit.

With operating systems, there is lock-in. Linux is not an easy option because re-writing software and re-training 1,000 employees would be too expensive.

It's fine if Microsoft introduces a new product. But there should not be pressure to buy the new product until it is stable.

There is a lot of feet dragging going on, partly because too many business plans rely on short term spending. The irony is that some of the companies which you expect to be leading the way in IPv6 migration don't even have web sites that are IPv6 enabled. This includes IBM, Apple, Microsoft, RedHat and Cisco. I make the point because they should be picking up the torch now that research sites have already done their part, and showing that it is an achievable goal, and not some sort of pipe-dream. /. readers at the same time, should probably get to know and understand the technology, since it is not a question of whether it will happen, but when. When it happens if the IT crowd doesn't understand IPv6, then we really have issues.

If you want to get an IPv6 web site running there are number of solutions, including using Apache 2 with IPv6 support activated and making sure you have an OS that supports an IPv6 stack - most modern OSs do.

Migration technologies for people stuck behind IPv4 NATs include Aiccu and Teredo (Vista includes this, and for other OSs there is Miredo). If you are at home, then one of the 'consumer' routers to support IPv6 out of the box is the Airport Extreme. If others support it out of the box I am not aware of this.

When you are ready see the dancing turtle - if you don't see it you are accessing it via IPv4.

Other stuff you can do in the meantime is checking to see if some your favourite network based applications handle IPv6 and if they don't make some noise. Its best to make the noise now, when it doesn't matter so much, than waiting until it does. On the bonus side they can advertise the fact they are IPv6 ready.

It took me longer then 4 hours to get vista past the "Windows is configuring updates" dialog box.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/932141

Open Office - they've documented the EMF/EMF+/WMF graphics formats. Email clients (if they ever release MAPI.) Anyone trying to write a Remote Desktop client or server. Web browsers that want to implement NTLM. Have a look at what's released, although you should check terms and conditions yourself. I think it's really a grab bag of all sorts of little things.

WINE, oddly, wouldn't benefit that much This is largely about inter-computer communication and program-to-program - Wine benefits far more from the Win32 API documentation, which focusses on program-to-operating-system communication.

"open source developers will be able to use the documentation to develop implementations of these protocols without paying for a patent license", Brad Smith

Companies that subsequently engage in commercial distribution of these protocol implementations will be able to obtain a patent license from Microsoft", Brad Smith.

"with respect to companies that are engaged in commercial distribution, or use internally, there is a need to obtain a patent license where there are applicable patent rights", Brad Smith

"We have valuable intellectual property in our patents .. and we will monetize from .. all users of that patented technology, all commercial developers, and all commercial users of that patented technology", Steve Ballmer

Can't read their doc as it's not published in a format that's interoperable: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/presskits/interoperability/docs/MicrosoftInteroperabilityAnnouncement.docx

"a pledge not to sue open source developers who use the APIs"

"Microsoft is providing a covenant not to sue open source developers for development or non-commercial distribution of implementations of these protocols."

yeah.. if only they had some research capabilities..

And slashdot needs to pull this headline. SP1 is not being withdrawn from release next March.

Actually, I just received a technet flash today that announces availability of Vista SP1 for all Technet subscribers, which is different from "news" featured earlier here.

Also worth mentioning is that in the TN flash was a link to Russinovich's blog on the way Vista RTM and SP1 handles file copy operations (http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=8345230)

If you want to know about this sort of stuff, find a source other than slashdot. MS's newsletters are more accurate for chrissake.

Microsoft does not innovate they acquire, they always have. When IBM approached Bill Gates for an operating system they thought he had, when he only had a basic interpreter, he went out and bought Rdos a CPM clone, and used it to make PCdos. They bought Hot Mail. And here is some more: http://www.microsoft.com/msft/acquisitions/history.mspx

I totally agree. This is about an update that was released on Windows Update, and then withdrawn. SP1 has not been released yet to the end user.

This update just installs updates, and is a PREREQUESIT to SP1. Much as you have to install the Microsoft Genuine Advantage tool in XP before you can install Internet Explorer 7.
Slashdot really needs to start validating their sources

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/937287

Yeah, a think tank with all the engineers they could hire!

They could call it, um... Microsoft Research!

It doesn't even really matter at this point. Let's be honest... the average computer user doesn't know the difference between U2-Somesong.mp3 and U2-SomeSong.exe.

To make matters worse, some attacks may even occur if you are dealing with safe file types, like a PNG or even PDF. Some security problems exist due to the user's ignorance or idiocy but "some" isn't exactly the same thing as "all".

I stand corrected, Microcode updates for Intel or AMD processors can come from ROM BIOS or DISK Files:

Ref: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/936357/

Nuff said. Get the update already!

Actually NOT. That is not how dynamic recompliation works.
CISC instructions, that are not fully implemented in microcode, get dynamically recomplied into other intructions. Microcode is HOW those instructions get implemented.
Also: Jump/Load/Store instructions do go through microcode. All memory accesses do. It makes things faster and simpler.

Microcode is HOW CPU instructions get implemented. ADD is implemented in microcode, becuase it has to interface the data queues with the ALU.

The way Intel Does it, is that The microcode gets copied from a disk file, and then gets loaded into a special place on the CPU, that stores bug-fixed instructions. ROM does not contain microinstruction fixes, except on Intel Boards. (It does not get updated often enough.)

The CPU driver handles Multiple CPUs. ( Its called the HAL ). Cool and Quiet/ACPI is also handled here.

Refrence: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/234558

and

Refrence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microcode.

I cannot believe that I brough this up, and only got a 1, while others, in just adding a tiny explaination get a 4 or 5. PickyWicky

Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Sales 111.1 173.5 200.2 193.4 169.7 111.91 89.19
Posts 12223 29265 106531 155724 169060 288622 302124

Before jumping up and down gleefully, those working on related open source efforts, such as OpenOffice, might want to take a very close look at Microsoft's Open Specification Promise to see if it seems to cover those working on GPL software; some believe it doesn't.

From MS's own mouth - and mind you that these quotes probably had to be vetted by a billion lawyer-types to ensure that MS wouldn't incur any sort of bizarre liability fifty years down the road by saying them. Based on what is said here, the only other thing that MS reserved is the ability to sue anyone who sues them for violating the patents that they already own, and are releasing to the public. That would be kind of like placing a legal disclaimer on your Halloween candy bowl: "Attention: You can all take as much candy from this bowl as you want, and I legally give up my right to prosecute anyone taking candy from this bowl of Theft, forever. But if any of you accuses me of Theft for eating candy from *my own candy bowl,* then I reserve the right to accuse that person (and *only* that person) of Theft, too." Here's a few pertinent excerpts:

Q: Is the Open Specification Promise intended to apply to open source developers and users of open source developed software?

A: Yes. The OSP applies directly to all persons or entities that make, use, sell, offer for sale, imports and/or distributes an implementation of a Covered Specification. It is intended to enable open source implementations, and in fact several parties in the open source community have specifically stated that the OSP meets their needs. Moreover there are already a significant number of implementations of Covered Specifications that have been created and/or distributed under a variety of open source licenses as well as under proprietary software development models. Because open source software licenses can vary you may want to consult with your legal counsel to understand your particular legal environment.

Q: Is this Promise consistent with open source licensing, namely the GPL? And can anyone implement the specification(s) without any concerns about Microsoft patents?

A: The Open Specification Promise is a simple and clear way to assure that the broadest audience of developers and customers working with commercial or open source software can implement the covered specification(s). We leave it to those implementing these technologies to understand the legal environments in which they operate. This includes people operating in a GPL environment. Because the General Public License (GPL) is not universally interpreted the same way by everyone, we can't give anyone a legal opinion about how our language relates to the GPL or other OSS licenses, but based on feedback from the open source community we believe that a broad audience of developers can implement the specification(s).

Q: I am a developer/distributor/user of software that is licensed under the GPL, does the Open Specification Promise apply to me?

A: Absolutely, yes. The OSP applies to developers, distributors, and users of Covered Implementations without regard to the development model that created such implementations, or the type of copyright licenses under which they are distributed, or the business model of distributors/implementers. The OSP provides the assurance that Microsoft will not assert its Necessary Claims against anyone who make, use, sell, offer for sale, import, or distribute any Covered Implementation under any type of development or distribution model, including the GPL. As stated in the OSP, the only time Microsoft can withdraw its promise against a specific person or company for a specific Covered Specif

Looks like SQL Server Gal has the female "Standard Issue Triangle" going on. How very 70's of her. Though, it is inverted.

That policy page is controlled by Microsoft, and I suppose that they're only bound by it to the extent it doesn't hurt their profits. Microsoft can change the policy at any time. "Microsoft makes no warranties". "Microsoft may occasionally change any of its online policies...at any time." "...but will not provide any other notice to you".

They're only bound by that policy until they change it. Even then, there's no guarantee.

I'll see that and raise you: "Rule 34 on ISV Super Gal!"

Does SQL Server Gal look just like Trillian with pony tails, or is it just me?

I suppose this is the point at which one remarks upon the amusing end result of doing
mplayer -dumpstream http://download.microsoft.com/download/4/4/b/44bf323f-0132-4775-bf9e-4b719646b54f/episode1_100.wmv
which then returns
Everything done. Thank you for downloading a media file containing proprietary and patented technology Core dumped ;)

Uh, the download seems to be broken, but ... http://msdn.microsoft.com/events/hero/game/

Charlie Brown? http://msdn.microsoft.com/events/hero/images/episode1.jpg

Cartman? http://msdn.microsoft.com/events/hero/images/episode2.jpg

Charlie Brown? http://msdn.microsoft.com/events/hero/images/episode1.jpg

Cartman? http://msdn.microsoft.com/events/hero/images/episode2.jpg

...because it looks like the riddler is the "architect" behind the MS Source Force!

One may wonder, why release the documentation now?

I would say it's because they get good PR for for pretending to be transparent/friendly, whilst not actually giving away any new information.

Look at page 129 of the PDF specifying the .doc format.. (The page is actually labelled 128 in the corner, but it's page 129 of the PDF). You will see there's a bit field. One of the many flags that can be set in this bit field: "fUseAutospaceForFullWidthAlpha".

The description?:

Compatibility option: when set to 1, use auto space like Word 95

Gee, thanks. That's helpful. You know, an earlier Slashdot article said Microsoft were going to release a BSD licensed converter to convert from .doc to .docx. But this will never help anyone further understand either of the two formats: binary .doc files which are auto spaced like Word 95 will be converted to "XML" files which are auto spaced like Word 95.

We've got White Guy, Asian Guy, white power-suit chick, asian chick, another white guy, a white guy in a wheelchair, and I'm not sure what Visual Studio Guy is supposed to be. But no black one! C'mon, even South Park knows that much. And right in the middle of Black History Month, too! I'm so mentally distraught. I'm going to sue them for twenty hojillion dollars.

However, I love that webcast guy giving the thumbs-up. I don't know what it is about that little guy, but I think they should make him the boss of the whole crew.

I found the comments on the last two on the bottom of the page rather interesting -- how their "parents" lack creativity.

Hey, Microsoft said it. I didn't.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/events/hero/sfbio/#msdnwebcastguy
http://msdn.microsoft.com/events/hero/sfbio/#visualstudioguy

I found the comments on the last two on the bottom of the page rather interesting -- how their "parents" lack creativity.

Hey, Microsoft said it. I didn't.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/events/hero/sfbio/#msdnwebcastguy
http://msdn.microsoft.com/events/hero/sfbio/#visualstudioguy