Slashdot Mirror

Ok I know this is Slashdot, but come on we can't pretend to be stupid just to be anti-MS.

NT's security model is actually more robust and provides more security than the *nix model. (Remember the designers came from VMS, not an unsecure OS by any means.)

Just because XP let users run as the root equivalent so that compatibility would not break from Win9X applications that had no idea about security. If MS would have designed a 'root' or security prompt into XP instead of waiting until Vista to do this, it would no longer be an issue as software would adhere to the NT security model and not assume it has root level access when running under a user.

The NT team specifically designed the NT security model so that it would not have the inherent holes found in others OSes of the time, including *nix, and is one reason they reject the VMS and *nix models from that time period as they didn't want NT to be limited.

Go read Inside NT, or even read a tech article, this is not something fanbois make up:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/archive/ntwrkstn/reskit/security.mspx?mfr=true

M$ need to move corporate keys back to XP system. Businesses do not like the idea that there vista system must call in to M$ to check there key from time to time or go in to limited functionality mode or use a key sever that calls in to M$ and systems can also go in to limited functionality mode if the sever / network goes down.

To each their own I say, for me....
I've just purchased a new notebook (from an auction, 2 by mistake but, that's life - it sucks sometimes, the silver lining is the other notebook can be a dedicated Debian setup - unstable and yes "Bleeding Edge" is mentioned below) it has Vista Business installed. The first thing I will do is get rid of Vista and put XP on it, not because Vista is crappy, it has some nice features, but because XP would work better on the hardware, (AMD TURION 64 1.6 GHz 1 gig RAM) take up less space on the hard drive and also save me from working out how to disable a lot of the new "features" - no I do not think warning me I'm about to install something every time I am about to install something was well thought out.
When I go through the issues I have with Vista, it boils down to things that do not have to be there at all, some of them are:

DRM - a setup that seems to use a lot of resources, if a company wants to go down that path at least make it inobtrusive and not crippling.

Licensing (I am utterly bewildered by how Microsoft licensing works).

Enhanced Security. They have put in some good work in this area and then put things in that... well they are very frustrating it is a real pain installing anything - windows signed, user permissions - yes it is a good idea to limit an ordinary user (which can be done with XP) but compared to the OS X and Linux/Unix way, it is frustrating.

Drivers, yes I know that the driver situation is improving but this makes the whole thing feel like Bleeding Edge software rather than Leading Edge (note: with Deb Unstable I get a lot of benefit productivity wise with using unstable i.e. I'm not running it for Compiz/Beryl type features, not so with Vista)
What am I getting that improves my "productivity"? The features that work well would mainly be aimed at home users that would not know how to configure XP to do similar things and to protect them from themselves (this is a big plus for the joe-prons) I do not think business is interested in Aero, neither am I, nice to have if it doesn't get in the way but unfortunately at the moment it does.
This is what Microsoft believes will help my productivity the network backup could have been handy (why can't I pick what I want backed up?) bummer.....

If using .NET 3.5 you could simply use the new WeakEvent and WeakEventManager classes that no not keep listeners alive.

See http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.windows.weakeventmanager.aspx for details.

Agreed. It's a bunch of amateurs writing "production-quality" code and expecting it to be flawless the first time. "Yes mommy, it works! I wrote the code through the night and look, she drives! I don't know why she keeps dying every 40 minutes - must be a Microsoft bug. Those idiots can't even write a decent compiler."

From the description, it sounds very much like their objects were being promoted through to Gen2 and staying alive because they were referenced from the application root. They could have attempted to alleviate this by switching to WeakReferences or queuing calls to run a full garbage collection across all generations. And, hopefully, they were not using finalizers (whole new ball game). Also sounds like they had design issues. I'd like to know why they subscribed already seen obstacle objects to an event. Is the source available somewhere?

If only they had read Jeffrey Richter's book or the articles on garbage collection on MSDN, they could have got a faint idea with what may be going wrong. Remind me to never ever hire Bryan Cattle as a software dev. He deserves to be in sales or marketing, touting his Princeton credentials and selling bars of soap.

On a much more interesting note, which version of the framework were they using on Windows? Or were they using mono on Windows/Linux?

Agreed. It's a bunch of amateurs writing "production-quality" code and expecting it to be flawless the first time. "Yes mommy, it works! I wrote the code through the night and look, she drives! I don't know why she keeps dying every 40 minutes - must be a Microsoft bug. Those idiots can't even write a decent compiler."

From the description, it sounds very much like their objects were being promoted through to Gen2 and staying alive because they were referenced from the application root. They could have attempted to alleviate this by switching to WeakReferences or queuing calls to run a full garbage collection across all generations. And, hopefully, they were not using finalizers (whole new ball game). Also sounds like they had design issues. I'd like to know why they subscribed already seen obstacle objects to an event. Is the source available somewhere?

If only they had read Jeffrey Richter's book or the articles on garbage collection on MSDN, they could have got a faint idea with what may be going wrong. Remind me to never ever hire Bryan Cattle as a software dev. He deserves to be in sales or marketing, touting his Princeton credentials and selling bars of soap.

On a much more interesting note, which version of the framework were they using on Windows? Or were they using mono on Windows/Linux?

As others have already pointed out, this isn't a C# problem. The objects weren't getting freed because there were still event handlers referencing them.

Note to beginning C# programmers: A good way to avoid these types of problems is to use weak references when wiring up a large numbers of events.

I have a little utility class called WeakEvent which just uses an anonymous delegate to check if the object's still alive. If so, it calls the event. If not, the delegate removes itself from the event chain. Problem solved.

Your only other option is to remember to unsubscribe from every event when you're done with a listener object, so that it will be collected -- which pretty much defeats the purpose of using a managed language. Weak references: both .NET and Java provide them, but you have to make proper use of them.

The memory management system in .Net doesn't use the regular Windows memory management. In fact, it does a lot of what you describe, where it obtains a block of physical memory and attempts to use that as much as possible before going and getting more.

In fact, allocating and freeing object memory is one of the fastest operations you're going to see in .Net, they spent a *long* time optimizing it since they new they would get hammered on the performance of their GC.

Since you've obviously never looked in to it: http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/1100/GCI/

Feel free to educate yourself. Then again, this is Slashdot, so slamming MS for no reason (there are plenty of good reasons, use those) seems to be par for the course.

You mean like this:

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/1998/11-4msphone.mspx

?

It wont, but it'll play Microsoft own OTHER DRM ridden format: playready!

Isn't this a Mac? I thought they were supposed to be easy to use.

Nah. Apple secretly (?) threw all pretenses to ease of use out the window the day they chose to base their future OS on a bastardized version of UNIX, the hardest-to-use operating system in the sad and depressing history of mankind.

Actually, I'm not aware of a single example off the top of my head where a work would definitely have only been created if the author receives the legal assurance of copyright.

I can think of at least one example, and to be perfectly honest I think the world would have been better off without it. I'm not for abolishing copyright altogether, but to paraphrase one of my favorite quotes, those who create only for pay should go harm some other field.

Many charities and famous personalities get corporate assistance and no one complains when they wear that companies logo or do some other form of viral promotion. Yes I can understand people worrying about Google having sway over the code but lets be honest every corporate sponsorship comes with strings attached. if you can figure out how to pay "everyones" rent based on wishful thinking go for it otherwise we have to go with what we have. It could be worse, Mozilla could have been sponsored by a pro-closed source "Evil"(tm) company

I have almost the same set-up (64-bit Vista, OC E6700, 4GB RAM) it's delicious. I agree that with specs like these, Vista is great. Regarding the survey, the 2GB+ RAM stat isn't very useful. I'd like to know how many are actually greater than 2GB and how many only have 2GB. Anyone with more than 2GB of RAM and 32bit XP just wasted their money - http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx. There's more to it than that page describes, but it's a start for interested parties.

64 bit is still no picnic though. Manufacturers are freaking lazy when it comes to rolling out 64 bit drivers / versions of software. I've been waiting over a year for an update to my music mixing software.

P.S. Just played the Crysis Demo with DX10 and SLI... it's amazing.

Well for one there are sky high system requirements for Vista at least and unless you are buying computers online, you will be stuck with Vista which needs around 1-2 Gigs of RAM for sub-XP level performance and 4 gigs for decent performance, while a more recent Ubuntu then Vista (7.10 which came out a month ago in October 2007) runs happily on my 1.8 GHZ processor with 512 MB of slow RAM while Vista is unbelievably slow on my friend's Intel Dual Core (1.6 GHZ) with 512 MB of RAM thats about 3-4 years newer then my Dell which cost me $25 at a garage sale. Not to mention how slow running

1. A third party antivirus
2. A third party firewall
3. A third party anti-spyware
4. Adobe reader that preloads itself on Windows startup
Secondly, the license is barbaric,

Here are some examples from the Windows XP professional where you can pick up a PDF from http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/useterms/default.aspx

Internet Gaming/Update Features. If you choose to utilize the Internet gaming or update features within the Product, it is necessary to use certain computer system, hardware, and software information to implement the features. By using these features, you explicitly authorize Microsoft or its designated agent to access and utilize the necessary information for Internet gaming and/or updating purposes. Microsoft may use this information solely to improve our products or to provide customized services or technologies to you. Microsoft may disclose this information to others, but not in a form that personally identifies you.

So in other words, MS or any one of it's partners can spy on you as long as its for "internet games" and "Windows update" but they can't use it to identify you but anyone who is a "MS partner" can do it. How nice.

Security Updates. Content providers are using the digital rights management technology ("Microsoft DRM") contained in this Product to protect the integrity of their content ("Secure Content") so that their intellectual property, including copyright, in such content is not misappropriated. Owners of such Secure Content ("Secure Content Owners") may, from time to time, request Microsoft to provide security related updates to the Microsoft DRM components of the Product ("Security Updates") that may affect your ability to copy, display and/or play Secure Content through Microsoft software or third party applications that utilize Microsoft DRM. You therefore agree that, if you elect to download a license from the Internet which enables your use of Secure Content, Microsoft may, in conjunction with such license, also download onto your computer such Security Updates that a Secure Content Owner has requested that Microsoft distribute. Microsoft will not retrieve any personally identifiable information, or any other information, from your computer by downloading such Security Updates.

So whoever owns a DRM scheme, can force MS to download a "security update" that can make it so all your DRMed media can't play. How nice of them, you bought the content but now can't watch it.

Consent to Use of Data. You agree that Microsoft and its affiliates may collect and use technical information gathered in any manner as part of the product support services provided to you, if any, related to the Product. Microsoft may use this information solely to improve our products or to provide customized services or technologies to you. Microsoft may disclose this information to others, but not in a form that personally identifies you.

So any information about you thats deemed "technical" can be sent to other "Microsoft Partners"

So in other words, MS owns your computer. Linux doesn't have *any* of those problems, yes XP is broken and yes Linux does solve all of those problems.

You might be able to implement a web service to expose only the logic of the application rather than the database itself. Authentication is provided by the web service, I believe. More info on security can be found here

On the other hand ... Someone has already mentioned PhotoTours and GroupShot in an earlier post, and they really are quite cool. Do these qualify as proactive ?

My first thought was "Wow, can't wait until someone does an open source version of these that runs on Linux". But if someone did release an open source version of these, would that be reactive ?

I think we are all playing catch up with each other.

On the other hand ... Someone has already mentioned PhotoTours and GroupShot in an earlier post, and they really are quite cool. Do these qualify as proactive ?

My first thought was "Wow, can't wait until someone does an open source version of these that runs on Linux". But if someone did release an open source version of these, would that be reactive ?

I think we are all playing catch up with each other.

You forgot Windows Media Photo, which is more like how Microsoft likes to operate.

Don't write off MS on this one just yet. There are some very talented people at MS Research who have been working on some really cool algorithms for photo manipulation: Phototours, Groupshot, Photosynth. If they manage to string it all together in a decent UI, it might be MS's best and most successful effort at something cool and useful.

Don't write off MS on this one just yet. There are some very talented people at MS Research who have been working on some really cool algorithms for photo manipulation: Phototours, Groupshot, Photosynth. If they manage to string it all together in a decent UI, it might be MS's best and most successful effort at something cool and useful.

http://www.osnews.com/story.php/11506/Windows-Ext23-Filesystem-Driver/
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/driver/filterdrv/default.mspx
http://www.fs-driver.org/
https://sourceforge.net/projects/ffsdrv/

First of all, it's called the page file, not the swap file. This isn't Unix and this isn't Windows 3.x. If you're going to pretend to know something about this aspect of Windows, you'd do well to at least use the correct name.

A Unix admin can call your swap file whatever he f'ing pleases, because he's more qualified to speak on the subject than you are.

Second, and far more importantly -- You do not get fragmentation in the page file unless the page file is resized, and the only time the page file gets resized is when you consume ALL your physical memory, and ALL the memory in the page file. On a system with 1 GB of memory (which will be given a 1.5GB page file), you will have 2.5 GB of memory that you have to fill up first. Windows XP & later will display a pop-up balloon when this happen.

You're missing the real issue. If nobody ever needs more active memory than 1.5 * RAM, why let it expand to begin with? If you knew it would EVER have to expand, you'd have set it bigger. Hell, why not grow it until it fills the hard drive? Fixed at 2 * RAM is a sane default for systems with swap partitions. The default way Windows and Mac OS X do swap is suitable for people who don't know what swap is, and almost know what a GB is. That is, most users. Most admins move the swap files to dedicated partitions and fix them to the maximum size.

Third, separate logical partitions for the page file is a bad idea because it significantly lowers the performance of paging operations. Regardless of whether you use all the physical memory in your machine or not, the page file is utilised to store data that hasn't been used recently, thus freeing more physicla memory for cacheing stuff that is used more often. Performance suffers because now the disk heads have to move further into the disk in order to get the page file. On a freshly-installed Windows system, the page file gets placed near the beginning of the disk (in the fastest portion), close to the operating system files that are likely candidates for ongoing file operations.

Consider that Mac OS X doesn't use a separate partition for its swap files, either.

Are you daft? Separate partitions are used so we can tell an OS EXACTLY where on each disk to use swap space.
I don't give a flying fuck if the POPE uses a swap file! Swap partitions are still around for very valid reasons, and do not lower performance. Have you EVER touched a Unix system? You're starting to piss me off.

Fourth, this is a bad idea because you are almost certainly not going to want to use a system that is so heavily loaded that you will need to use up to 300% of your total system memory. It's bad enough when you're running 20% over physical, isn't it? Now you're just wasting vast amounts of hard drive space for no particularly good reason.

Do you even know what swap is used for? He only needs enough physical memory for the task at hand, and how can you be a judge of how many idle tasks he needs to run? It's not unusual for developers to use more than one large application for a project, and might not make sense to deck every workstation out with enough RAM to handle using JDeveloper, Oracle, Dreamweaver, Photoshop, etc, all simultaneously. Shutting each one down when he's done with them isn't necessary with enough swap space, and a good OS.

Why? Is there a sound technical reason for this? The IE temporary files (and indeed the user's general-purpose temp directory) is in a disposable area of the profile directory structure... it isn't part of the "roaming" profile.

FYI, they were part of roaming profiles not too long ago. Today, his reasoning might be that temporary files that don't expire on their own should have the option to be placed somewhere other than the dark, hidden, depths o

First of all, it's called the page file, not the swap file. This isn't Unix and this isn't Windows 3.x. If you're going to pretend to know something about this aspect of Windows, you'd do well to at least use the correct name.

A Unix admin can call your swap file whatever he f'ing pleases, because he's more qualified to speak on the subject than you are.

Second, and far more importantly -- You do not get fragmentation in the page file unless the page file is resized, and the only time the page file gets resized is when you consume ALL your physical memory, and ALL the memory in the page file. On a system with 1 GB of memory (which will be given a 1.5GB page file), you will have 2.5 GB of memory that you have to fill up first. Windows XP & later will display a pop-up balloon when this happen.

You're missing the real issue. If nobody ever needs more active memory than 1.5 * RAM, why let it expand to begin with? If you knew it would EVER have to expand, you'd have set it bigger. Hell, why not grow it until it fills the hard drive? Fixed at 2 * RAM is a sane default for systems with swap partitions. The default way Windows and Mac OS X do swap is suitable for people who don't know what swap is, and almost know what a GB is. That is, most users. Most admins move the swap files to dedicated partitions and fix them to the maximum size.

Third, separate logical partitions for the page file is a bad idea because it significantly lowers the performance of paging operations. Regardless of whether you use all the physical memory in your machine or not, the page file is utilised to store data that hasn't been used recently, thus freeing more physicla memory for cacheing stuff that is used more often. Performance suffers because now the disk heads have to move further into the disk in order to get the page file. On a freshly-installed Windows system, the page file gets placed near the beginning of the disk (in the fastest portion), close to the operating system files that are likely candidates for ongoing file operations.

Consider that Mac OS X doesn't use a separate partition for its swap files, either.

Are you daft? Separate partitions are used so we can tell an OS EXACTLY where on each disk to use swap space.
I don't give a flying fuck if the POPE uses a swap file! Swap partitions are still around for very valid reasons, and do not lower performance. Have you EVER touched a Unix system? You're starting to piss me off.

Fourth, this is a bad idea because you are almost certainly not going to want to use a system that is so heavily loaded that you will need to use up to 300% of your total system memory. It's bad enough when you're running 20% over physical, isn't it? Now you're just wasting vast amounts of hard drive space for no particularly good reason.

Do you even know what swap is used for? He only needs enough physical memory for the task at hand, and how can you be a judge of how many idle tasks he needs to run? It's not unusual for developers to use more than one large application for a project, and might not make sense to deck every workstation out with enough RAM to handle using JDeveloper, Oracle, Dreamweaver, Photoshop, etc, all simultaneously. Shutting each one down when he's done with them isn't necessary with enough swap space, and a good OS.

Why? Is there a sound technical reason for this? The IE temporary files (and indeed the user's general-purpose temp directory) is in a disposable area of the profile directory structure... it isn't part of the "roaming" profile.

FYI, they were part of roaming profiles not too long ago. Today, his reasoning might be that temporary files that don't expire on their own should have the option to be placed somewhere other than the dark, hidden, depths o

Drop activation. At the very least, go back to offering a corporate version which doesn't require activation. Activation makes it hard to manage lots of machines, image them, and I don't need my computer going into "reduced functionality" because of an error".

Any decent multi-function server should be able to add the KMS functionality to it to track and update all the workstation and server licenses with zero upkeep other than setting it up and adding or removing licensing when needed. And a MAK key can be reserved for all laptops, so you have to have a 2nd image for laptops with that key, big deal.

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsvista/bb335280.aspx

Improve imagine support and booting from external drives. For a model to copy, watch how easy it is for someone to copy their whole OSX install to an external USB drive using Carbon Copy Cloner, and then to immediately reboot and run the copy on the USB drive, or boot that USB drive on *any* Mac without needing to reconfigure anything or install drivers.

Oh please. There are so many imaging options with Vista it could easily get "more" confusing if they added another one (you can use a thumb drive as an answer file during unattended installs if you want, but that's a pretty pointless exercise). Their "microsoft deployment" (formerly BDD 2007) is almost too granular in its ability to create images preloaded with everything you want on a fresh image, plus the update to WDS (formerly RIS) lets you boot straight to an image library so you don't have to look like a first year helpdesk tech plugging in your silly thumb drive to reimage a machine.

http://blogs.technet.com/msdeployment/

Add it to your RSS feeds so you can get some MS dogma to complement your /. indoctrination.

When installing Windows, I make a partition specifically for the swap file and temp files. That way they don't add to the fragmentation mess of the OS partition.


This hasn't been necessary for several years now, NT usually creates a non-fragmented pagefile.

Speaking of which, why does Windows still use a variable sized swap file? I lock it down to 2x RAM or 4GB. Whichever is larger. I do not want fragmentation in the swap file. I'd prefer not to need one, but that's another story.

Again it hasn't since Win98, default is system managed and this means the OS picks the size, and it stays the same. Although with system managed if your HD does run out of room, it can automatically decrease the fixed size.

And how about moving IE's temp files somewhere else? Okay, you can still set permissions on the folder, but get it out of the user's profile.

Because for security reasons, the IE temp files are the 'users'. If a co worker was sharing a system with you, and looking at kiddie porn, would you like for his temp files to be in a public folder?

And I'm tired of seeing C:\WINDOWS\Temp
Temp directories do not belong in the OS directory.

Again, only old applications use this, Windows and any application made by a credible developer uses the TEMP variable, which points to the users Temp folder.

Yeah, I'm whining. But I spend 15 extra minutes just getting the directories and swap arranged correctly every time I set up someone's Windows machine.

Sounds like you are doing extra work, and gaining nothing in the process. You should take a look at how Windows works today, it is far different from your assumptions. Some of the stuff you are talking about is from the Win9x OS, which was completely different than the NT based OSes like 2K,XP,Vista.

PS Even if you have a lot of settings or changes you like to make to a default installation, take a look at the install and deployment tools and policies for Windows, you can slipstream your install so that all the settings you want are done by default.

Deployment tools and easy customization of the Windows installation is one of the things that makes it popular in the business world, and you can use these tools at home or in the field as well.

Here are a couple of links you might find of interest, they come from an article talking about how Windows IT people shouldn't ever be using DVDs or stock Windows images to install Windows.

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-gb/desktopdeployment/default.aspx

http://blogs.msdn.com/ptstv/archive/2007/04/03/partner-tv-adam-shepherd-and-richard-smith-on-deployment.aspx

Good luck to you, and I hope this makes your life a bit easier.

Do the time sensitive parts of your code in C/C++/Asm and the rest do in a higher level language such as Python

C++ is more on par with Java, not assembler. Go looky at MFC, for example - your program is an object, your window is an object, everything you can think of is a CSomeObject that does CSomeObject->SomeMethod() stuff - not MOV AH, AL

"Seems like Microsoft might even agree. http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/netframework/default.aspx [microsoft.com] Seems like they are moving to .net for mobile devices."
I'm fairly certain .NET CF is just a library framework - the code itself is still native.

Native or not, the framework itself is generally considered to automatically cause any app built against it to be bloatware. The most common feature request given to developers of .NET apps is "Please rewrite without .NET - uses too much RAM and flash storage." If it does actually use interpreted bytecode instead of native code, it's yet another example of why native code is the way to go unless you want to write a halfassed quick-and-dirty application and don't care at all about efficient use of a mobile device's limited resources.

It is given as an option for developers who want to write "quick and dirty" apps for Windows Mobile, and is SEVERELY limited in its capabilities on Windows Mobile devices. For example, it's either not possible or extremely difficult to write a Today screen plugin using .NET CF.

"BlackBerries do a few things extremely well. (Email, calendar, and... That's about it.) They're not very expandable/flexible."
Really?
Well here are two navigation programs for the Blackberry
http://na.blackberry.com/eng/builtforblackberry/navigation.jsp.
Here is a collection of software for the Blackberry. http://na.blackberry.com/eng/builtforblackberry/
Here is a list of Favorite apps for the Blackberry from blackberry users.
http://www.blackberryforums.com/aftermarket-software/316-updated-blackberry-killer-software-utilities-thread.html
And this is a site for Blackberry Freeware.
http://www.blackberryfreeware.com/
There may be more software for Windows Mobile but the Blackberry seems to do a lot more than just Email and Calendering.
So as you can see using Java doesn't have to cause the downside that claim it does while offering great flexibility in the underlining CPU that native code just will not provide. Seems like Microsoft might even agree. http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/netframework/default.aspx Seems like they are moving to .net for mobile devices.

you can be sure that the Crypto programmers at MS are at least aware of the issue

Yes, for instance, you'd think they would instruct .NET developers to use System.Security.Cryptography.RNGCryptoServiceProvider instead of System.Random, in their .NET secure coding practices.

It's a shame other coding teams at Microsoft evidently don't follow their advice.

you can be sure that the Crypto programmers at MS are at least aware of the issue

Yes, for instance, you'd think they would instruct .NET developers to use System.Security.Cryptography.RNGCryptoServiceProvider instead of System.Random, in their .NET secure coding practices.

It's a shame other coding teams at Microsoft evidently don't follow their advice.

you can be sure that the Crypto programmers at MS are at least aware of the issue

Yes, for instance, you'd think they would instruct .NET developers to use System.Security.Cryptography.RNGCryptoServiceProvider instead of System.Random, in their .NET secure coding practices.

It's a shame other coding teams at Microsoft evidently don't follow their advice.

M$'s XNA is cheap (free) and works rather well. You just have to get used to coding in C# and working with DirectX (for the XBox). The compiler is even free. Sure, it's not a complete Visual Studio, but it has a lot of the goodies.

This being slashdot, I know a lot of people shun M$ software and the XBox as well, but it is a decent platform and you can make games on the cheap. I'm actually working with a friend on a homebrew XBox 360 version of Crossbows and Catapults.

M$'s XNA is cheap (free) and works rather well. You just have to get used to coding in C# and working with DirectX (for the XBox). The compiler is even free. Sure, it's not a complete Visual Studio, but it has a lot of the goodies.

This being slashdot, I know a lot of people shun M$ software and the XBox as well, but it is a decent platform and you can make games on the cheap. I'm actually working with a friend on a homebrew XBox 360 version of Crossbows and Catapults.

Well done for suggesting something Windows has had available since 1998. Hardware encryption and random number generators have been available for Windows for quite some time making use of their pluggable architecture.

Well your wish has been granted. The Windows Vista cryptography API (CNG) provides just this kind of functionality.

From the MSDN page on CNG features:

Another improvement that CNG provides is the ability to replace the default random number generator (RNG). In CryptoAPI, it is possible to provide an alternate RNG as part of a cryptographic service provider (CSP), but it is not possible to redirect the Microsoft Base CSPs to use another RNG. CNG makes it possible to explicitly specify a particular RNG to use within particular calls.

It seems that the CNG is very extensible. You can add new RNGs, encryption providers, hashing algorithms, etc.

You'll note that Windows 2000 passed FIPS-140-1.

There is also the Tweak UI power toy (from MS themselves)
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/xppowertoys.mspx

I use that to disable autorun for all drives, and disable all autoplay handlers.

MSS: (NoDriveTypeAutoRun) Disable Autorun for all drives (recommended) DWORD 0xFF

from http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/guidance/serversecurity/tcg/tcgch10n.mspx

and http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/prodtech/windowsxp/secwinxp/xpsgch03.mspx

just FYI

MSS: (NoDriveTypeAutoRun) Disable Autorun for all drives (recommended) DWORD 0xFF

from http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/guidance/serversecurity/tcg/tcgch10n.mspx

and http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/prodtech/windowsxp/secwinxp/xpsgch03.mspx

just FYI

Already been done.

Q: What must I do to trigger Autorun on my USB storage device?
The Autorun capabilities are restricted to CD-ROM drives and fixed disk drives. If you need to make a USB storage device perform Autorun, the device must not be marked as a removable media device and the device must contain an Autorun.inf file and a startup application.

The removable media device setting is a flag contained within the SCSI Inquiry Data response to the SCSI Inquiry command. Bit 7 of byte 1 (indexed from 0) is the Removable Media Bit (RMB). A RMB set to zero indicates that the device is not a removable media device. A RMB of one indicates that the device is a removable media device. Drivers obtain this information by using the StorageDeviceProperty request.

Yup, the fastest profit growth since 1999 and MSFT is definitely in a downward spiral...

You misspelled coff.

Sure, MS will pay you to use Windows! Here you go: http://www.microsoft.com/careers/

17. EXCLUSION OF INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL AND CERTAIN OTHER DAMAGES. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IN NO EVENT SHALL MICROSOFT OR ITS SUPPLIERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, PUNITIVE, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS OR CONFIDENTIAL OR OTHER INFORMATION, FOR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION, FOR PERSONAL INJURY, FOR LOSS OF PRIVACY, FOR FAILURE TO MEET ANY DUTY INCLUDING OF GOOD FAITH OR OF REASONABLE CARE, FOR NEGLIGENCE, AND FOR ANY OTHER PECUNIARY OR OTHER LOSS WHATSOEVER) ARISING OUT OF OR IN ANY WAY RELATED TO THE USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE THE SOFTWARE, THE PROVISION OF OR FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUPPORT OR OTHER SERVICES, INFORMATON, SOFTWARE, AND RELATED CONTENT THROUGH THE SOFTWARE OR OTHERWISE ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF THE SOFTWARE, OR OTHERWISE UNDER OR IN CONNECTION WITH ANY PROVISION OF THIS EULA, EVEN IN THE EVENT OF THE FAULT, TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE), MISREPRESENTATION, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF CONTRACT OR BREACH OF WARRANTY OF MICROSOFT OR ANY SUPPLIER, AND EVEN IF MICROSOFT OR ANY SUPPLIER HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.

So, the slashdot lameness filter doesn't like the the clip of the microsoft eula I posted because it has too many caps. Well I'm not retyping all of that in lower case, so I guess I'll post another part of the eula that doesn't abuse the caps lock key...

18. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY AND REMEDIES. Notwithstanding any damages that you might incur for any reason whatsoever (including, without limitation, all damages referenced herein and all direct or general damages in contract or anything else), the entire liability of Microsoft and any of its suppliers under any provision of this EULA and your exclusive remedy hereunder (except for any remedy of repair or replacement elected by Microsoft with respect to any breach of the Limited Warranty) shall be limited to the greater of the actual damages you incur in reasonable reliance on the Software up to the amount actually paid by you for the Software or US$5.00. The foregoing limitations, exclusions and disclaimers (including Sections 15, 16 and 17) shall apply to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, even if any remedy fails its essential purpose.

Upgrade your driver here: http://www.macrovision.com/promolanding/7352.htm
Microsoft Security Advisory(944653)http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/advisory/944653.mspx

If it's the same issue I had then http://support.microsoft.com/kb/909095 should fix it