Slashdot Mirror

There already is Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs

If the author is not familiar with current offerings, why should we trust the author to suggest future ones?

Wake me up in 2013 when a practical implementation exists.
No wait, in 2020 when IE implements it.

To be honest, I simply got tired of new amazing, wonderful and promising specs appearing, to only be supported by a minority of browsers - and in an incomplete way. Firefox 3 is still in alpha, and it's only started to pass the ACID2 test. 9 years after CSS2 was published. (And don't get me started on IE)

When the XSLT spec came out, I thought it would mean a whole new web. I started making my webpages on geocities with XML - only to find out that geo's ads defecated on my markup, rendering it unusable.

Call me pesimist - but I just lost almost all hope. What use is publishing the greatest spec in the world, if the industry doesn't give a damn?

A refreshment on the html standard is good - but how will we solve the problem of standards NOT being enforced? A practically optional standard is like no standard at all.

Yeah, better than Windows.

Since this is Slashdot the parent post will be modded up and I'll be modded down, but the truth of the matter is that the DNS server that ships with Windows has never has a single vulnerability.

Wow, you must have a VERY short memory. Try thinking back to just earlier this year, when Microsoft Security Advisory (935964) came out. And that is just one of MANY flaws over the years in MS DNS server! Hell, their DNS server for NT4 and earlier releases of Win2K (pre SP3) ran so sloppy that most people had to write scripts to stop/restart their MS DNS servers nightly! I should know, I was one of them. It was the only way to fix memory leaking problems that would lead to cache lookup failures. And lets not forget the long era of MS DNS cache poisoning...

No, BIND has proven it self to be MUCH more reliable for serious Internet servers than MS DNS. Just like Unix/Linux has proven to be a better OS for serious Internet servers than MS Windows. There is a reason the REAL Internet servers of the world use Unix/Linux and BIND. It's because they handle more critical traffic than any thing else, they absolutely have to work, and MS products are NOT up to that task! No amount of marketing hype can counter the real world expeirence of professional network engineers, and the pro's choose Unix. Windows Server has become more reliable over the years, and is viable product for small and medium businesses. But it has never been, currently isn't, and may never be reliable enough for those really critical high end servers that large ISPs, governments, and businesses need.

The only reason people like you bitch about the popularity of Unix/Linux for high end servers is because you obviously know little about such things, but want to pretend that because you can install Windows 2003 Server and Exchange that you now know something about network engineering. Sorry, you don't... No one who does would have said "the DNS server that ships with Windows has never has a single vulnerability" because they would have had the real world expeirence of dealing with the problems that DO EXIST with that product! Knowing your way around a Windows server does make you talented, but it doesn't put you in a position where you know enough to go around dissing technologies you have obviously never even used...

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/Bulletin /MS07-029.mspx

What was that again?

What about this one:

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/advisory /935964.mspx

Punk.

Would I rather run Linux? Yes. Vista thrashes the disk around like crazy the whole time the machine is on, and it can only see 2.5 gigs of the 4gigs of RAM I have installed. I suppose I could shell out a few hundred for 64but Vista, but who knows what drivers will and won't work in that.

Well if you purchased the retail version of Vista you can go to http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsv ista/editions/64bit.mspx to get a free dvd of the 64 bit version. It also appears that you don't get a new product key so if you have access to the 64 bit media you can just use your 32 bit key to install 64 bit vista. Though I have no idea if this works or is allowed with an OEM copy of Vista.

This might work for you until there's an update to Ubuntu which allows your 8800 GTX to be fully supported.

Actually, they already do this:

The compatibility fixes (also referred to as "shims" or "shim technology") contained in SysMain.sdb address common application compatibility problems when installing an application originally written for Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows NT 4.0, or Windows 2000. Fixes can provide simple solutions to the most common compatibility problems: For example, a fix might provide an older application with a previous operating system's credentials to enable the application to function properly. They can also be targeted at specific problems known to crop up with certain applicationssuch fixes might permit the operating system to ignore certain warnings or delay heap and memory release calls.

There will be roughly 200 compatibility fixes included in the SysMain database file at the time of the Windows XP release. These treat most of the compatibility problems that were encountered during the development of Windows XP. ...

They did do this (though not via VM's) back in the day with the NT kernel. You could have different subsystems such as OS/2, POSIX (Which has now been replaced by Services For Unix), and Win32 running as kernel mode processes. Of course, they've since abandoned the other subsystems in favor of Win32.

And, according to Microsoft, "Vista Home" does not, contrary to your list, identify a single version, the versions are "Vista Home Basic" and "Vista Home Premium", and you missed "Vista Business". Actually, the Wikipedia page you link to also points that out, so your description of what you missed is wrong even based on the source you used. You also missed, for Windows XP, again from the page you cite, Windows XP Starter, Windows XP Home Edition N, Windows XP Professional Edition N, Windows XP Professional Edition x64, Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, and, oddly enough, what was probably the most popular bundled version of XP in the last year or so before Vista, Windows XP Media Center Edition.

Did you even read the page you cited to claim that you only missed two Vista versions and the Server 2k3 versions?

Windows 95 OSR2, Windows 98, and Windows Me include an updated version of the FAT file system. This updated version is called FAT32. The FAT32 file system allows for a default cluster size as small as 4 KB, and includes support for EIDE hard disk sizes larger than 2 gigabytes (GB).

FAT32 provides the following enhancements over previous implementations of the FAT file system:
FAT32 supports drives up to 2 terabytes in size.

NOTE: Microsoft Windows 2000 only supports FAT32 partitions up to a size of 32 GB.

unless you have either win98 with all the patches already installed, or winme

Differences in Default Behavior for Windows Firewall
Windows Server 2003 SP1 includes Windows Firewall, which works the same way as Windows Firewall in Windows XP SP2. However, because the purpose of a server computer is to accept incoming unsolicited traffic, Windows Firewall for Windows Server 2003 SP1 is disabled by default.

The exception to this behavior is the following: for a new installation of Windows Server 2003 that already includes SP1 (known as a slipstream installation), Windows Firewall is enabled by default for the duration of the Post-Setup Security Updates, a portion of the initial setup of the server computer in which the latest security fixes are downloaded and installed from Windows Update and Automatic Updates are configured. After the Post-Setup Security Updates is complete, Windows Firewall is disabled. If you do not want the Post-Setup Security Updates, you can use the Unattend.txt file or Group Policy to configure Windows Firewall settings. The Post-Setup Security Updates does not occur if there are configured Windows Firewall settings.

You can enable Windows Firewall on a computer running Windows Server 2003 with SP1 manually using the Windows Firewall component of Control Panel, through Group Policy settings as described in Deploying Windows Firewall Settings for Microsoft Windows XP with Service Pack 2, or you can use the new Security Configuration Wizard in Windows Server 2003 SP1. The Security Configuration Wizard is the recommended method to enable and configure Windows Firewall and other security settings on computers running Windows Server 2003 with SP1.

I do; caps/numbers/special chars. But i agree, 'T1me Out' would be a good choice. Even Microsoft's own Password checker thinks it's a pretty good choice ;)

"There's performance penalty in that, all those context switches when processes are communicating with other processes in the system."

Modern microkernel design is efficient, even in 80x86. You don't even need to context-switch.

"Add abstraction layer and databases above that and we need Intel to produce faster processor which sucks even more power"

The networking abstraction layer is required so as that any process can run in client-server mode. QNX does it successfully. A database is necessary because filesystems don't cut it any more.

"Object oriented toolkit? Well there's .NET for starters."

The .NET toolkit wraps over WIN32. I am talking about an object-oriented toolkit as the basis for the GUI, i.e. an object-oriented toolkit to replace WIN32.

"C# is object oriented, .NET API is object oriented, supports carbage collection, .NET strings and chars are UNICODE ect. In fact, NT has been UNICODE for ages (Win32 API 8 bit functions are just wrappers to UNICODE functions)."

I don't see why I am required to run in such a heavy environment where a simpler one could suffice.

"OS virtualization? Vista already does this. UAC virtualizes at least filesystem and registry."

It's only for legacy applications, and in Microsoft's own words, "it is a short-term measure--not a long-term solution" (copy-paste straight from http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsvista/aa 906021.aspx#EIC)

"But what you are talking about here is actually figured out at MS Research. Microkernel architecture where some of the performance issues are dealt by running everything in the user land in the same process. F# compiler makes sure that thread isn't messing up with other thread's memory (which is all the same virtual memory) and provides multithreading/IPC and so on. It's really interesting idea and I'd love to see it running on my desktop some day."

F# means no raw 80x86 assembly...which is not good if you want to write things like compilers etc.

"But at the mean time I think I stick to my Windows Vista, which is built on 80's technology (in fact, first NT was released 1993), not on 60's Unix technology ;)"

The model of user accounts/processes/filesystems, etc is 60's UNIX. Windows NT is based on VMS, which is like UNIX with some additional features. It is not adequate for today's computing environments, but it has a great advantage: separation of concerns. That's why I am talking about 'unix-like' technology.

Internet-facing applications written in an ASP.net language are called as .dlls on occasion.

POSTing to http://sqm.microsoft.com/sqm/windows/sqmserver.dll means it's sending some data to a web application on that port, and it's getting a 403 back. Pretend that it's called sqmserver.php or sqmserver.cgi if that'd help clarify it a bit.

They're called errata. The most recent bunch are more plentiful than usual but it's not unheard of. Get your microcode updates, whichever vendor you get your chip from. AMD calls them BIOS updates which partly makes sense since you usually patch the BIOS at the same time. You get them from the OEM of your motherboard or system usually but as you see from those links operating system vendors can put them out too. The errata that have been in the press lately are unlikely to affect chips you buy right now because new chips and systems will almost certainly have their BIOS and microcode updated from those issues before they ship.

No computer is future proof. You can get some extra months on one by buying above average, but the best desktop you can get today will still look sad in three years. Pay extra for bleeding edge if you want to but the best value is middle of the road and frequent upgrades.

Specifically, they run G. Because of the development of the Internet as on originally military project, and then subsequently adding US research institutions, it turns out there's a reasonable chance your query will go to some entity that's a part of, or beholden to, the US government. H is run by the Army Research Lab, and E is run by NASA (which is a government agency). The only roots not run by a US company, university of the US government are I, K, and M.

If this guy wants to actually prove anything ro see what is going on, he needs to first find out what the address is for, and then toss a software firewall or other sniffer on the Vista box to see what process is interacting with it.

I do love the conspiracy theorists that think that someone like MS is smart and sneaky enough to build monitoring like this in, and assume it won't be found (please remember there are a lot of places with the Windows source code http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/de fault.mspx) but stupid enough that the address it talks to is tagged as DoD. You know because the DoD couldn't quietly get a block of addresses from Cox that would show up to the world as just any other cable modem IPs.

magi:/home/peter $ pfexec snoop host 10.0.0.167
Using device /dev/rtls0 (promiscuous mode)
10.0.0.167 -> magi.intranet.lan TCP D=3128 S=49248 Syn Seq=2626883403 Len=0 Win=8192 Options=
magi.intranet.lan -> 10.0.0.167 TCP D=49248 S=3128 Syn Ack=2626883404 Seq=123510362 Len=0 Win=49640 Options=
10.0.0.167 -> magi.intranet.lan TCP D=3128 S=49248 Ack=123510363 Seq=2626883404 Len=0 Win=16425
10.0.0.167 -> magi.intranet.lan TCP D=3128 S=49248 Push Ack=123510363 Seq=2626883404 Len=409 Win=16425
magi.intranet.lan -> 10.0.0.167 TCP D=49248 S=3128 Ack=2626883813 Seq=123510363 Len=0 Win=49640
magi.intranet.lan -> 10.0.0.167 TCP D=49248 S=3128 Push Ack=2626883813 Seq=123510363 Len=843 Win=49640
10.0.0.167 -> magi.intranet.lan TCP D=3128 S=49248 Ack=123511206 Seq=2626883813 Len=0 Win=16214
magi.intranet.lan -> 10.0.0.167 TCP D=49248 S=3128 Fin Ack=2626883813 Seq=123511206 Len=0 Win=49640
10.0.0.167 -> magi.intranet.lan TCP D=3128 S=49248 Ack=123511207 Seq=2626883813 Len=0 Win=16214
10.0.0.167 -> magi.intranet.lan TCP D=3128 S=49248 Rst Ack=123511207 Seq=2626883813 Len=0 Win=0

The 'magi' is my main Solaris server, port 3128 is the port used by the Java webproxy. These logs were created while I was simply checking the control panel and device properties on the Vista box. The proxy server logs show this:

10.0.0.167 - - [22/Jul/2007:23:34:25 +0200] "POST http://sqm.microsoft.com/sqm/windows/sqmserver.dll HTTP/1.1" 403 0 403 0 472 472 162 353 206 261 0
10.0.0.167 - - [22/Jul/2007:23:34:25 +0200] "POST http://sqm.microsoft.com/sqm/windows/sqmserver.dll HTTP/1.1" 403 0 403 0 472 472 162 353 206 286 0
10.0.0.167 - - [22/Jul/2007:23:34:26 +0200] "POST http://sqm.microsoft.com/sqm/windows/sqmserver.dll HTTP/1.1" 403 0 403 0 472 472 162 353 206 261 0
10.0.0.167 - - [22/Jul/2007:23:34:26 +0200] "POST http://sqm.microsoft.com/sqm/windows/sqmserver.dll HTTP/1.1" 403 0 403 0 472 472 162 353 206 261 0
10.0.0.167 - - [22/Jul/2007:23:40:18 +0200] "GET http://money.service.msn.com/StockQuotes.aspx?v=1& symbols=$NL:AEX,NL:GTN,NL:JETIX,NL:KPN HTTP/1.1" 200 465 200 465 - - 409 378 449 304 0

OH NOES! Vista is trading on the stock market without me knowing, MS is stealing my money!!!
And now for the people who don't believe in fairytales: the only thing it did was polling from time to time to get recent information. My Vista's sidebar is keeping track of a few stock funds. Next to that it seems to be downloading "sqmserver.dl

magi:/home/peter $ pfexec snoop host 10.0.0.167
Using device /dev/rtls0 (promiscuous mode)
10.0.0.167 -> magi.intranet.lan TCP D=3128 S=49248 Syn Seq=2626883403 Len=0 Win=8192 Options=
magi.intranet.lan -> 10.0.0.167 TCP D=49248 S=3128 Syn Ack=2626883404 Seq=123510362 Len=0 Win=49640 Options=
10.0.0.167 -> magi.intranet.lan TCP D=3128 S=49248 Ack=123510363 Seq=2626883404 Len=0 Win=16425
10.0.0.167 -> magi.intranet.lan TCP D=3128 S=49248 Push Ack=123510363 Seq=2626883404 Len=409 Win=16425
magi.intranet.lan -> 10.0.0.167 TCP D=49248 S=3128 Ack=2626883813 Seq=123510363 Len=0 Win=49640
magi.intranet.lan -> 10.0.0.167 TCP D=49248 S=3128 Push Ack=2626883813 Seq=123510363 Len=843 Win=49640
10.0.0.167 -> magi.intranet.lan TCP D=3128 S=49248 Ack=123511206 Seq=2626883813 Len=0 Win=16214
magi.intranet.lan -> 10.0.0.167 TCP D=49248 S=3128 Fin Ack=2626883813 Seq=123511206 Len=0 Win=49640
10.0.0.167 -> magi.intranet.lan TCP D=3128 S=49248 Ack=123511207 Seq=2626883813 Len=0 Win=16214
10.0.0.167 -> magi.intranet.lan TCP D=3128 S=49248 Rst Ack=123511207 Seq=2626883813 Len=0 Win=0

The 'magi' is my main Solaris server, port 3128 is the port used by the Java webproxy. These logs were created while I was simply checking the control panel and device properties on the Vista box. The proxy server logs show this:

10.0.0.167 - - [22/Jul/2007:23:34:25 +0200] "POST http://sqm.microsoft.com/sqm/windows/sqmserver.dll HTTP/1.1" 403 0 403 0 472 472 162 353 206 261 0
10.0.0.167 - - [22/Jul/2007:23:34:25 +0200] "POST http://sqm.microsoft.com/sqm/windows/sqmserver.dll HTTP/1.1" 403 0 403 0 472 472 162 353 206 286 0
10.0.0.167 - - [22/Jul/2007:23:34:26 +0200] "POST http://sqm.microsoft.com/sqm/windows/sqmserver.dll HTTP/1.1" 403 0 403 0 472 472 162 353 206 261 0
10.0.0.167 - - [22/Jul/2007:23:34:26 +0200] "POST http://sqm.microsoft.com/sqm/windows/sqmserver.dll HTTP/1.1" 403 0 403 0 472 472 162 353 206 261 0
10.0.0.167 - - [22/Jul/2007:23:40:18 +0200] "GET http://money.service.msn.com/StockQuotes.aspx?v=1& symbols=$NL:AEX,NL:GTN,NL:JETIX,NL:KPN HTTP/1.1" 200 465 200 465 - - 409 378 449 304 0

OH NOES! Vista is trading on the stock market without me knowing, MS is stealing my money!!!
And now for the people who don't believe in fairytales: the only thing it did was polling from time to time to get recent information. My Vista's sidebar is keeping track of a few stock funds. Next to that it seems to be downloading "sqmserver.dl

magi:/home/peter $ pfexec snoop host 10.0.0.167
Using device /dev/rtls0 (promiscuous mode)
10.0.0.167 -> magi.intranet.lan TCP D=3128 S=49248 Syn Seq=2626883403 Len=0 Win=8192 Options=
magi.intranet.lan -> 10.0.0.167 TCP D=49248 S=3128 Syn Ack=2626883404 Seq=123510362 Len=0 Win=49640 Options=
10.0.0.167 -> magi.intranet.lan TCP D=3128 S=49248 Ack=123510363 Seq=2626883404 Len=0 Win=16425
10.0.0.167 -> magi.intranet.lan TCP D=3128 S=49248 Push Ack=123510363 Seq=2626883404 Len=409 Win=16425
magi.intranet.lan -> 10.0.0.167 TCP D=49248 S=3128 Ack=2626883813 Seq=123510363 Len=0 Win=49640
magi.intranet.lan -> 10.0.0.167 TCP D=49248 S=3128 Push Ack=2626883813 Seq=123510363 Len=843 Win=49640
10.0.0.167 -> magi.intranet.lan TCP D=3128 S=49248 Ack=123511206 Seq=2626883813 Len=0 Win=16214
magi.intranet.lan -> 10.0.0.167 TCP D=49248 S=3128 Fin Ack=2626883813 Seq=123511206 Len=0 Win=49640
10.0.0.167 -> magi.intranet.lan TCP D=3128 S=49248 Ack=123511207 Seq=2626883813 Len=0 Win=16214
10.0.0.167 -> magi.intranet.lan TCP D=3128 S=49248 Rst Ack=123511207 Seq=2626883813 Len=0 Win=0

The 'magi' is my main Solaris server, port 3128 is the port used by the Java webproxy. These logs were created while I was simply checking the control panel and device properties on the Vista box. The proxy server logs show this:

10.0.0.167 - - [22/Jul/2007:23:34:25 +0200] "POST http://sqm.microsoft.com/sqm/windows/sqmserver.dll HTTP/1.1" 403 0 403 0 472 472 162 353 206 261 0
10.0.0.167 - - [22/Jul/2007:23:34:25 +0200] "POST http://sqm.microsoft.com/sqm/windows/sqmserver.dll HTTP/1.1" 403 0 403 0 472 472 162 353 206 286 0
10.0.0.167 - - [22/Jul/2007:23:34:26 +0200] "POST http://sqm.microsoft.com/sqm/windows/sqmserver.dll HTTP/1.1" 403 0 403 0 472 472 162 353 206 261 0
10.0.0.167 - - [22/Jul/2007:23:34:26 +0200] "POST http://sqm.microsoft.com/sqm/windows/sqmserver.dll HTTP/1.1" 403 0 403 0 472 472 162 353 206 261 0
10.0.0.167 - - [22/Jul/2007:23:40:18 +0200] "GET http://money.service.msn.com/StockQuotes.aspx?v=1& symbols=$NL:AEX,NL:GTN,NL:JETIX,NL:KPN HTTP/1.1" 200 465 200 465 - - 409 378 449 304 0

OH NOES! Vista is trading on the stock market without me knowing, MS is stealing my money!!!
And now for the people who don't believe in fairytales: the only thing it did was polling from time to time to get recent information. My Vista's sidebar is keeping track of a few stock funds. Next to that it seems to be downloading "sqmserver.dl

magi:/home/peter $ pfexec snoop host 10.0.0.167
Using device /dev/rtls0 (promiscuous mode)
10.0.0.167 -> magi.intranet.lan TCP D=3128 S=49248 Syn Seq=2626883403 Len=0 Win=8192 Options=
magi.intranet.lan -> 10.0.0.167 TCP D=49248 S=3128 Syn Ack=2626883404 Seq=123510362 Len=0 Win=49640 Options=
10.0.0.167 -> magi.intranet.lan TCP D=3128 S=49248 Ack=123510363 Seq=2626883404 Len=0 Win=16425
10.0.0.167 -> magi.intranet.lan TCP D=3128 S=49248 Push Ack=123510363 Seq=2626883404 Len=409 Win=16425
magi.intranet.lan -> 10.0.0.167 TCP D=49248 S=3128 Ack=2626883813 Seq=123510363 Len=0 Win=49640
magi.intranet.lan -> 10.0.0.167 TCP D=49248 S=3128 Push Ack=2626883813 Seq=123510363 Len=843 Win=49640
10.0.0.167 -> magi.intranet.lan TCP D=3128 S=49248 Ack=123511206 Seq=2626883813 Len=0 Win=16214
magi.intranet.lan -> 10.0.0.167 TCP D=49248 S=3128 Fin Ack=2626883813 Seq=123511206 Len=0 Win=49640
10.0.0.167 -> magi.intranet.lan TCP D=3128 S=49248 Ack=123511207 Seq=2626883813 Len=0 Win=16214
10.0.0.167 -> magi.intranet.lan TCP D=3128 S=49248 Rst Ack=123511207 Seq=2626883813 Len=0 Win=0

The 'magi' is my main Solaris server, port 3128 is the port used by the Java webproxy. These logs were created while I was simply checking the control panel and device properties on the Vista box. The proxy server logs show this:

10.0.0.167 - - [22/Jul/2007:23:34:25 +0200] "POST http://sqm.microsoft.com/sqm/windows/sqmserver.dll HTTP/1.1" 403 0 403 0 472 472 162 353 206 261 0
10.0.0.167 - - [22/Jul/2007:23:34:25 +0200] "POST http://sqm.microsoft.com/sqm/windows/sqmserver.dll HTTP/1.1" 403 0 403 0 472 472 162 353 206 286 0
10.0.0.167 - - [22/Jul/2007:23:34:26 +0200] "POST http://sqm.microsoft.com/sqm/windows/sqmserver.dll HTTP/1.1" 403 0 403 0 472 472 162 353 206 261 0
10.0.0.167 - - [22/Jul/2007:23:34:26 +0200] "POST http://sqm.microsoft.com/sqm/windows/sqmserver.dll HTTP/1.1" 403 0 403 0 472 472 162 353 206 261 0
10.0.0.167 - - [22/Jul/2007:23:40:18 +0200] "GET http://money.service.msn.com/StockQuotes.aspx?v=1& symbols=$NL:AEX,NL:GTN,NL:JETIX,NL:KPN HTTP/1.1" 200 465 200 465 - - 409 378 449 304 0

OH NOES! Vista is trading on the stock market without me knowing, MS is stealing my money!!!
And now for the people who don't believe in fairytales: the only thing it did was polling from time to time to get recent information. My Vista's sidebar is keeping track of a few stock funds. Next to that it seems to be downloading "sqmserver.dl

Wow! At first I thought you were describing OSX, then Plan9, then ... Vista :)

A lot of layers there I see. I'm just a little worried about performance here. You want microkernel architecture? There's performance penalty in that, all those context switches when processes are communicating with other processes in the system. Add abstraction layer and databases above that and we need Intel to produce faster processor which sucks even more power.

Object oriented toolkit? Well there's .NET for starters. It does everything required by modern apps (allthough I miss ORM support but I can always code one myself), as you put it. C# is object oriented, .NET API is object oriented, supports carbage collection, .NET strings and chars are UNICODE ect. In fact, NT has been UNICODE for ages (Win32 API 8 bit functions are just wrappers to UNICODE functions).

Multithreading... I come back to this at the end.

OS virtualization? Vista already does this. UAC virtualizes at least filesystem and registry.

But what you are talking about here is actually figured out at MS Research. Microkernel architecture where some of the performance issues are dealt by running everything in the user land in the same process. F# compiler makes sure that thread isn't messing up with other thread's memory (which is all the same virtual memory) and provides multithreading/IPC and so on. It's really interesting idea and I'd love to see it running on my desktop some day. But at the mean time I think I stick to my Windows Vista, which is built on 80's technology (in fact, first NT was released 1993), not on 60's Unix technology ;)

Wow! At first I thought you were describing OSX, then Plan9, then ... Vista :)

A lot of layers there I see. I'm just a little worried about performance here. You want microkernel architecture? There's performance penalty in that, all those context switches when processes are communicating with other processes in the system. Add abstraction layer and databases above that and we need Intel to produce faster processor which sucks even more power.

Object oriented toolkit? Well there's .NET for starters. It does everything required by modern apps (allthough I miss ORM support but I can always code one myself), as you put it. C# is object oriented, .NET API is object oriented, supports carbage collection, .NET strings and chars are UNICODE ect. In fact, NT has been UNICODE for ages (Win32 API 8 bit functions are just wrappers to UNICODE functions).

Multithreading... I come back to this at the end.

OS virtualization? Vista already does this. UAC virtualizes at least filesystem and registry.

But what you are talking about here is actually figured out at MS Research. Microkernel architecture where some of the performance issues are dealt by running everything in the user land in the same process. F# compiler makes sure that thread isn't messing up with other thread's memory (which is all the same virtual memory) and provides multithreading/IPC and so on. It's really interesting idea and I'd love to see it running on my desktop some day. But at the mean time I think I stick to my Windows Vista, which is built on 80's technology (in fact, first NT was released 1993), not on 60's Unix technology ;)

is to build a new OS from scratch. This is the only thing that can save Windows from its own increasingly complex API and general sluggish performance The Singularity Project could give us a clue of what a future OS from MS could look like.

The problem is that MS cannot just abandon all the software that is built on NT so the only solution is to take it very very slowly. .NET is a move in the right direction, pushing and encouraging developers to use managed code. Legacy code will probably run under some virtualization technology.

Getting good performance under a virtual machine still requires a lot of resources that the average home user never has. Perhaps in order to push home users to buy this new version of windows - which will give everyone worse performance when using the software they all know and love (NT software) - MS will decide to give it away for free and make their money selling ads

Of course this is just wild speculation and I haven't really looked into its viability from a business point of view.

This doesn't even account for people who buy Vista, and then downgrade to XP legally. At my business, we have at least 20 computers that were purchased with Vista, but we immediately RIS them back down to XP. Same for Office 2007 (Downgraded to 2003 for the time being). Of course, we can always upgrade back to Vista later on, but we don't have any plans for that in the near future.

Wow I coulda sworen that I had seen a statement like yours when XP came out and was even in beta on Slashdot, also coulda sworen that I heard Windows ME was gonna advance desktop Linux into the mainstream. Hmmm hyping an overexaggerated product like Linux doesn't sound like anything new around.
Hell people around here all during that time when XP has been out they have been crying it is a terrible OS that all of a sudden now they are advocating it. Yah one more reason not to switch to Linux and go for XP. Only common goal for Linux users is that they seem hell bent on getting MS and not catering to the average Joe during the whole PC computer boom. So now Linux developers show up late to the game and cry unfair when they cannot cut right to the front of the line.

Any sane person who comes across a forum whose users aren't trying to push Linux or are so bitter/jealous could easily see that most drivers are stable now and hundreds of programs now work for Vista through 'MS Compatibility List' coming out every couple months. Yet you will never hear about these big update list of compatibility around here but hear more of how many users hate Vista and how for some reason Linux should be on the same playing field as OSX.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/932246
I bet you will not ever see a list of programs like that for Linux or OSX.
Go to Majorgeeks.com and see all the free programs that now work for Vista and that used to be labeled for 98/NT/XP and now majority of those programs also work for Vista.

My big issue with Vista is that it doesn't let network admins do their job. UAC is a major pain in the ass obstacle that treats everyone like some n00b who doesn't know how to use a computer. It takes me 5 minutes to do in Vista what would have taken me 20 seconds in XP.

If you want to consistently throw a BSOD on Vista, try syncing an iPod. I'm going to wait until they come out with a SP2 to re-evaluate this crappy OS.

"Who said anything about TV?" -- Smug PC weenies

I agree with you that a set-top box should be the best solution for some entertainment environments. But unfortunately, all stand-alone set-top boxes that are significantly cheaper than a Mac mini are thoroughly Tivoized. I want to help us come up with some ammunition against smug PC weenies who almost unconditionally prefer the 2-foot experience over the 10-foot experience, so here are four of their objections in increasing order of devil's advocacy:

1. I can't buy a modded Xbox in U.S. retail stores or on eBay; where else should I buy a modded Xbox?
2. If you mean that I should learn to mod one myself, can version 1.6 be modded without soldering? Does your "no cheaper way" estimate include training for somebody who has never soldered before? And I still can't buy modchips in U.S. retail stores or on eBay for the same reason as above.
3. Does your "no cheaper way" estimate include the potential $750 to $30,000 statutory damages (per 17 USC 504 and foreign counterparts) for infringement of the copyright in the Xbox BIOS and/or the XDK libraries against which XBMC and most of these emulators are compiled?
4. Per several comments in other console vs. PC discussions on Slashdot, isn't television output overrated? Isn't it "better" to buy one set of PC, monitor, keyboard, and mouse per person and play multiplayer games over the LAN, because that way each player has a hundred triggers for discrete actions and can't easily cheat off other players' screens?

I call bullshit. If the "real problem might not be Firefox password manager", then why IE6 and IE7 password managers are not vulnerable?

Actually, the IE6 and IE7 password managers will most likely equally vulnerable. If you do a little looking at the code, all they really do is just scoop the login and pass from the input fields. Mozilla fills it in by default if only one login is available. I don't know exactly what IE does in this case, but I'm guessing that even if IE doesn't fill out the password right away, you can still add an extra onSubmit to the form and do your thing.

From the MSDN website I can quote:

When the AutoComplete feature is set to save passwords, a password is automatically filled in when a known user name is provided, and the password and user name are stored by URL. When changing passwords, the user is prompted to save the new password.

So as far as I can tell, you just need to enter a username and be on the correct URL. If by URL they mean "exactly the same page" this won't work unless you can trick the browser somehow, but if it is "the same (sub)domain" it will. Since I don't have an IE at my disposal right now, I can't test it, but I suppose it will work when you use onSubmit.

Then redirect to the login page hoping that the site doesn't check referrers (most likely they don't), and you're set to go. Sites that allow users to enter HTML and especially javascript are begging for this sort of thing, and there are much worse things you can do once someone gives you free play with javascript anyway (cookies anyone?)

Just stating the obvious, although now I'm actually curious if this works on IE...

And You, my respected fellow man, obviously have not read the following part of the license:
  http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.mspx#E3D

(see "MATERIALS PROVIDED TO MICROSOFT OR POSTED AT ANY MICROSOFT WEB SITE")

So live in blessed ignorance, and keep posting your valuable data to HotMail!

Is this really a computer virus? Malware sure, virus, no. It's like that program that would show you the drink holder (I think coke, sorry can't find a link) and open your cdrom drive. Only this adds a reg entry or puts something in the startup folder that and does a ExitWindowsEx call.

I guess that's all it takes to be "l33t" these days...

IIRC, anyone is allowed to take the standard, write a codec for it, and play mp3s as much as they like, legally, for either a royalty fee per copy or US $50 000. The license fees are here. (When it says US $2.50 - $5.00 per unit I presume it's per copy of the codec, not per song).

I believe the technical term is "RAND" (Reasonable and Non Discriminatory) licensing: Thomson S.A and the Fraunhofer Institute are playing nice, they don't refuse anyone who wants to license their invention (they have that monopoly right because it's a patent), and they don't change their mind about the license price when they don't like you (they have that monopoly right because it's a patent).

There's only one catch, that RAND doesn't resonate with F/LOSS software at all.

This is why it matters that standards are not only open but that also RAND is out of the question if you want to allow FLOSS to use your patented standard; Suppose you ask a license fee of only $5.00 per copy of the software distributed, who's going to pay it? Licenses such as the FSF's GPL state that (paragraph 10 GPL3)

You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License. For example, you may not impose a license fee, royalty, or other charge for exercise of rights granted under this License, and you may not initiate litigation (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that any patent claim is infringed by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the Program or any portion of it.

But, you want everyone who copies your program to pay you the $5.00 so you can pay Thomson back their rightful royalties! Do you see the problem? Suddenly you need an administration organisation to count who has downloaded the FLOSS program. And you are not allowed to sanction them if they don't comply because the license forbids you that. And you'd need to monitor everyone who downloaded it to see whether they copy the program further (which is their right by the GPL anyway) otherwise YOU piss off Thomson. etc. etc. It's a nightmare.

This is why there are no legal GPL'ed mp3 players. Incidentally, I think this is also why some British linux and mac users complain that the BBC wants to use a proprietary video standard which they can't be allowed to play.

Think about using Ogg/Vorbis and Ogg/Theora, will you?

Now let's see if we can also tie in the raging ODF - OOXML battle and then this fanboi will shut up :-)

AFAIK, this is why there is such a difference between "real open" data interchange standards such as ODF (ISO/IEC 26300) which is free to use because Sun have made an irrevocable patent pledge that they won't sue anyone ever for implementing ODF, and on the other hand OOXML (ISO *DRAFT* international standard 29500) where Microsoft states that they'll grant a R.a.n.D license for Office XML Schema. So it's all good, you see!

Can you still see under which walnut shell the pea is?
If I'm not horribly mistaken:

Office XML (R.a.n.D licensed)

=

Office 2003 XML

!=

Office 2007 XML

which is

Office Open XML (= nothing to do with OpenOffice.org which uses Open Document Format)

No worries!

I actually think they've amended their ways because on this page it states in quite reasonable terms that Office Open XML 1.0 (ECMA-376) is now a Covered Specification. Still I wouldn't trust it as far as I can throw a printed 6000 page document because on that same page it says:

This promise applies to the identified version of the following specifications. New versions of previously covered specifications will be separately considered for addition to the lis

IIRC, anyone is allowed to take the standard, write a codec for it, and play mp3s as much as they like, legally, for either a royalty fee per copy or US $50 000. The license fees are here. (When it says US $2.50 - $5.00 per unit I presume it's per copy of the codec, not per song).

I believe the technical term is "RAND" (Reasonable and Non Discriminatory) licensing: Thomson S.A and the Fraunhofer Institute are playing nice, they don't refuse anyone who wants to license their invention (they have that monopoly right because it's a patent), and they don't change their mind about the license price when they don't like you (they have that monopoly right because it's a patent).

There's only one catch, that RAND doesn't resonate with F/LOSS software at all.

This is why it matters that standards are not only open but that also RAND is out of the question if you want to allow FLOSS to use your patented standard; Suppose you ask a license fee of only $5.00 per copy of the software distributed, who's going to pay it? Licenses such as the FSF's GPL state that (paragraph 10 GPL3)

You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License. For example, you may not impose a license fee, royalty, or other charge for exercise of rights granted under this License, and you may not initiate litigation (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that any patent claim is infringed by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the Program or any portion of it.

But, you want everyone who copies your program to pay you the $5.00 so you can pay Thomson back their rightful royalties! Do you see the problem? Suddenly you need an administration organisation to count who has downloaded the FLOSS program. And you are not allowed to sanction them if they don't comply because the license forbids you that. And you'd need to monitor everyone who downloaded it to see whether they copy the program further (which is their right by the GPL anyway) otherwise YOU piss off Thomson. etc. etc. It's a nightmare.

This is why there are no legal GPL'ed mp3 players. Incidentally, I think this is also why some British linux and mac users complain that the BBC wants to use a proprietary video standard which they can't be allowed to play.

Think about using Ogg/Vorbis and Ogg/Theora, will you?

Now let's see if we can also tie in the raging ODF - OOXML battle and then this fanboi will shut up :-)

AFAIK, this is why there is such a difference between "real open" data interchange standards such as ODF (ISO/IEC 26300) which is free to use because Sun have made an irrevocable patent pledge that they won't sue anyone ever for implementing ODF, and on the other hand OOXML (ISO *DRAFT* international standard 29500) where Microsoft states that they'll grant a R.a.n.D license for Office XML Schema. So it's all good, you see!

Can you still see under which walnut shell the pea is?
If I'm not horribly mistaken:

Office XML (R.a.n.D licensed)

=

Office 2003 XML

!=

Office 2007 XML

which is

Office Open XML (= nothing to do with OpenOffice.org which uses Open Document Format)

No worries!

I actually think they've amended their ways because on this page it states in quite reasonable terms that Office Open XML 1.0 (ECMA-376) is now a Covered Specification. Still I wouldn't trust it as far as I can throw a printed 6000 page document because on that same page it says:

This promise applies to the identified version of the following specifications. New versions of previously covered specifications will be separately considered for addition to the lis

The Geek may someday get it pounded into his head that in Microsoft's core middle clasx market there is no need for a home user to pirate Office: Home Use Program, Microsoft Office Home and Student 2007 $122 US Three-seat license. No 1 in software sales at Amazon.com

He may also learn that mass market pricing can make Vista Ultimate look attractive and affordable: HP 17" Pavilion Widescreen Laptop PC w/ Intel Core 2 Duo Processor"

2 GB RAM 240 GB HDD
HD DVD-ROM / Multilayer DVD Burner
HDTV Tuner Card. Integrated Webcam, Fingerprint reader, and remote control.
NVIDA DX 10 GeForce 8600 GS w/ 256 MB dedicated RAM/upto 1 GB shared
1000 GiB Ethernet, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth
8 cell Lion batteru + 90 watt AC adapter
$2000

SuperFetch. Possibly even somewhat useful, if your usage of your computer follows a fairly similar schedule each day (e.g. start Thunderbird, Firefox and IM at 9am, start Solitaire at 12pm, start Word at 1pm).

It could have been just a stupid random act or it could have something to do with the billions of dollars Microsoft invested in Comcast... that's a tough call.

Here's an e-mail I sent to Earthlink, my ISP...

====

Comcast is the largest ISP in America AND provides "last mile" connection for Earthlink High Speed customers in come areas. They're requiring Internet Explorer for installations and even for viewing one's bill -- even if you're using a Mac.

The Comcast homepage even specifies that the page is optimized for IE 5.5 (which was released in 2000), and 'is not optimized for Firefox browsers and Macs.' With 13 million subscribers, and as a provider of services for Earthlink, a 'recommended' or 'featured' ISP for Apple computers, you'd think they could spring for a web developer who could handle multiple browsers.

No only do their site 'requirements' list MSIE as the ONLY supported browser, since their recent redesign of the site, major portions of it no longer work with Firefox, even though they did before. (For example, the ability to view one's bill, etc.)

In my communication with them via telephone, chat, and e-mail in attempting to see my bill on-line, the repeated response is the following canned reply:

Thank you for contacting us regarding your Comcast High Speed Internet service. The recommended browser for use with the Comcast service is Internet Explorer. To obtain the latest version of Internet Explorer for use with a Macintosh Operating System, please go to
http://www.microsoft.com/mac/DOWNLOAD/IE/ie52.asp

(SEE: http://www.microsoft.com/mac/products/internetexpl orer/internetexplorer.aspx?pid=internetexplorer )

Even after my replying each time that Microsoft not only hasn't supported MSIE for Macs for over four years, that particular link resolves to a "404" response since Microsoft no longer even offers a download of MSIE for Macs, and hasn't for a year and a half, and there is no valid reason for insisting on a seven year old browser version, the response continues as "We only support MSIE."

As my ISP, and as a recommended ISP by Apple, would it be possible for Earthlink to exert pressure on Comcast, your last mile provider and billing partner, for them to quit demanding that Apple Macintosh users use only a browser that was last updated in 2000 hasn't been supported for over four years, and hasn't even been available for download since January, 2006?

I look forward to your assistance in bringing Comcast, your last mile provider, into this century.

Thank you very much for your time and attention,

Tom

Here's an e-mail I sent to Earthlink, my ISP...

====

Comcast is the largest ISP in America AND provides "last mile" connection for Earthlink High Speed customers in come areas. They're requiring Internet Explorer for installations and even for viewing one's bill -- even if you're using a Mac.

The Comcast homepage even specifies that the page is optimized for IE 5.5 (which was released in 2000), and 'is not optimized for Firefox browsers and Macs.' With 13 million subscribers, and as a provider of services for Earthlink, a 'recommended' or 'featured' ISP for Apple computers, you'd think they could spring for a web developer who could handle multiple browsers.

No only do their site 'requirements' list MSIE as the ONLY supported browser, since their recent redesign of the site, major portions of it no longer work with Firefox, even though they did before. (For example, the ability to view one's bill, etc.)

In my communication with them via telephone, chat, and e-mail in attempting to see my bill on-line, the repeated response is the following canned reply:

Thank you for contacting us regarding your Comcast High Speed Internet service. The recommended browser for use with the Comcast service is Internet Explorer. To obtain the latest version of Internet Explorer for use with a Macintosh Operating System, please go to
http://www.microsoft.com/mac/DOWNLOAD/IE/ie52.asp

(SEE: http://www.microsoft.com/mac/products/internetexpl orer/internetexplorer.aspx?pid=internetexplorer )

Even after my replying each time that Microsoft not only hasn't supported MSIE for Macs for over four years, that particular link resolves to a "404" response since Microsoft no longer even offers a download of MSIE for Macs, and hasn't for a year and a half, and there is no valid reason for insisting on a seven year old browser version, the response continues as "We only support MSIE."

As my ISP, and as a recommended ISP by Apple, would it be possible for Earthlink to exert pressure on Comcast, your last mile provider and billing partner, for them to quit demanding that Apple Macintosh users use only a browser that was last updated in 2000 hasn't been supported for over four years, and hasn't even been available for download since January, 2006?

I look forward to your assistance in bringing Comcast, your last mile provider, into this century.

Thank you very much for your time and attention,

Tom

So many firms have merely pretended to be at war with Microsoft - only to cave in later and become partners - Novell and Linspire being recent cases. Have any significant no. of customers actually signed up with Linspire for patent protection? I don't think so.

Microsoft's Covenant to Customers (Linspire's customers it would seem - not Microsoft's) hardly makes compelling business sense to consider Linspire for the business desktop. Few home users would consider themselves vulnerable to patent lawsuits by Microsoft, if they used Linux.

So this announcement merely indicates that GPL3 has won, and Microsoft has been compelled to publicly qualify their pre-negotiated deals with business partners, and customers gain more from GPL3 than covenants from Microsoft.

As many people have pointed out, Microsoft's problem is that they don't seem to take the "big picture" approach to bug fixing often enough. I mean, how often have we known that buffer overflows are a problem? Microsoft itself even has a page on safe string handling functions to replace strcpy and its ilk. Switching to these functions is trivial.

Microsoft has harder problems facing it-- buffer overflows are only one class of problem. But it seems that Microsoft's highly compartmentalized development process prevents someone from saying, "You know what? We keep seeing the same kinds of bugs. We need to require that all our developers do X." Until someone at MS does this, we're going to see this patching go on indefinitely.

Windows NT 5+ w/at least IE6.0 can browse WebDAV resources ... they call them Web Folders or something like that. The interface is similar to browsing FTP resources (you can drag-n-drop, and when you doubleclick stuff it downloads to a temp directory and then runs the shell action selected in the menu)

And I'm pretty sure if you have XP or 2003 or Vista the standard file dialog supports it too.

Supporting evidence: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/321932/en-us

They aren't going to keep it from everyone else, since they've included the Home Use Program in Software Assurance for years. See the SA site for more details. Among the other benefits that most people don't know about are things like the fact that companies with 1500+ licenses can access the Windows source at no cost for use in troubleshooting, debugging, and analyzing security.

There is nothing new in this.

Employees can get a licensed copy of Microsoft Office desktop applications, such as Microsoft Office Professional, Microsoft Project, and Microsoft Visio Professional, to install and use on a home computer. The only cost to employees for the Home Use Program benefit is the cost of media (CDs), shipping, and handling. Volume Licensing: Home Use Program

Employees are encouraged to discontinue use of the software on termination of their employment, but there has never been a mechanism in place to enforce the rules.

If you work for the NHS you can order Office 2007 on-line for a S&H cost of eighteen pounds, Microsoft Home User Programme

There is nothing new in this.

Employees can get a licensed copy of Microsoft Office desktop applications, such as Microsoft Office Professional, Microsoft Project, and Microsoft Visio Professional, to install and use on a home computer. The only cost to employees for the Home Use Program benefit is the cost of media (CDs), shipping, and handling. Volume Licensing: Home Use Program

Employees are encouraged to discontinue use of the software on termination of their employment, but there has never been a mechanism in place to enforce the rules.

If you work for the NHS you can order Office 2007 on-line for a S&H cost of eighteen pounds, Microsoft Home User Programme

Seems likely, seeing as this CIO used to work for Microsoft. http://www.microsoft.com/nz/presscentre/articles/2 004/feb_04_wilson.mspx

Since I can't find it in the article itself:
http://www.microsoft.com/interop/letters/userchoic e.mspx

It's a month old, but who's counting..?

You can download the Bluescreen screensaver directly from Microsoft themselves! It's better than your method, because bumping the mouse doesn't do anything like it would normally; you have to hit a key. And, it "restarts" itself manually, even reading NTOSKRNL to find the bootscreen, so that if it's a modified boot screen, or a different version of Windows, it still works. My favorite download all time on microsoft.com. Perfect for April 1.

*Well, sysinternals made it, but Microsoft bought them out, so now they distribute it.