Slashdot Mirror

Very odd. I checked out the image on both my Linux and Mac computers and the Mac displays the center two lines blurry in both Safari and Firefox. Safari and Firefox both display the image fine outside of the web page. http://img.microsoft.com/typography/faq/brg.gif It look fine when I display my Linux Firefox on my Mac screen via X.

There seems to be some issue interpreting the image as either 444x210 or 444x211. The web page specifies the image's demensions as 444x210 but the actual dimensions are 444x211.

So is the Mac the only system that is rightfully distorting the image as the HTML dictates?

Ok, looking at the ClearType FAQ, it seems Windows doesn't support the vertical arrangements, but they're probably even rarer. Hopefully you don't have one of those.

Sounds like your display has one of the less common subpixel arrangements. Most displays (I believe) line them up as RGB from left to right, but it's possible to have the order reversed, or to have either order from top to bottom. Try playing around with the ClearType Tuner (the web version requires IE, or there's a downloadable version that installs in Control Panel) and see if one of the other configurations helps. It also works better if your display is set to its native resolution, but you probably already knew that.

Sounds like your display has one of the less common subpixel arrangements. Most displays (I believe) line them up as RGB from left to right, but it's possible to have the order reversed, or to have either order from top to bottom. Try playing around with the ClearType Tuner (the web version requires IE, or there's a downloadable version that installs in Control Panel) and see if one of the other configurations helps. It also works better if your display is set to its native resolution, but you probably already knew that.

So you would be OK if Microsoft purchased all searches for RedHat, SuSe, Ubuntu, Mac, etc.... And every time you tried to search for any of those Items in any search engine you got nothing but links to Microsoft Vista?

ClearType is more than just enabling subpixel anti-aliasing.

Its whole point is the wizard that allows the user to choose not only between whether he has BGR or RGB device (first step) but also checks the gamma correction in the second step - thats why most user se the big difference in before and after. There is more than one thing involved there. Actually it is a bit more complicated.

A good read would be: http://research.microsoft.com/~jplatt/cleartype/si d2000.pdf

I just looked at a screenshot of "Cleartype" on OS X (From http://www.microsoft.com/typography/ClearTypeFAQ.m spx). It looks revolting. I use Linux and OS X with subpixel rendering enabled. The first three lines look OK, but it starts to look blurry after that.

Screenshot of my OS X system: http://img248.imageshack.us/my.php?image=picture3r p7.png

If you zoom in, you can see I'm definitely using subpixel rendering. I get the odd blurry looking font on my OS X system, but nowhere near the sort of stuff I see on other people's Windows laptops.

Perhaps if people bothered to tune it for their specific display, it might not look so dodgy? Microsoft provide a tool to do so...

You don't even have to wait.

Firefox 2.x supports DOM:Storage objects that will already let you store arbitrary data client-side, and IE supports something similar with Persistence and DHTML Behaviors. If you want the same mechanism for multiple browser types you can do some crazy Flash-based stuff as well.

Within the browser storage objects there are some limitations as to size, so that could be part of the new versions. But make no mistake: this feature is already a reality. See Ajaxian or Dojo for more of the same, including concrete implementations.

Install PowerShell. :-)

Learn how to use a real database. MySQL losers...

Yes, updating is as simple as a single click. It may take a while, but it isn't complicated. If you can't afford a couple hunndred megs of storage, broadband connection, and a firewall, you shouldn't complain about getting owned after 25 seconds online. You can also get SP2 on a CD mailed to you directly from Microsoft .

Actually just running windows update will fix both of the named worms...so even if you do get infected with either of them, once you finally get your updates it should fix it.

Ordered in increasing levels of system modification...

PsTools (not exactly the same, but you can rename "PsList" to "ps" and get much the same information, and the other "PsTools" function similarly to programs described in the article)
Cygwin
Ubuntu.

What flavor of kool-aid do you want today?
Trusting MS or any other sociopathic corporation marketdroids to be honest or complete in their touting is naive at best.
None of URL given reference the lack of IPv6 DHCP stateful address acquisition in the stacks noted in my post. A painful 30 minutes of searching through the boasting turned up "IPv6 protocol for the Windows Server 2003 family does not currently support DHCPv6 or any other stateful address configuration protocol" http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsServer/en/lib rary/6c05c210-e5f9-4882-b760-d275a80f35091033.mspx
I am well aware the MS has done its typical "bragging rights" half-assed preliminary implemtation of standards for IPv6. Even if they had stateful DHCP implemented in the client, they don't have a functional DHCPv6 server yet to provide the addresses and options (e.g. static CIDR route or NTP server) and wont even be taking a swat at it until 2007Q4 (http://forums.microsoft.com/TechNet/ShowPost.aspx ?PostID=1436592&SiteID=17) for pity's sake. My point still stands, without the ability of DHCP to shape and organise address allocations according to enterpise requirements, any IPv6 implementation beyond a trivial single site is pretty much masturbatory, while it might feel good to you, nobody else gets anything out of it.

What flavor of kool-aid do you want today?
Trusting MS or any other sociopathic corporation marketdroids to be honest or complete in their touting is naive at best.
None of URL given reference the lack of IPv6 DHCP stateful address acquisition in the stacks noted in my post. A painful 30 minutes of searching through the boasting turned up "IPv6 protocol for the Windows Server 2003 family does not currently support DHCPv6 or any other stateful address configuration protocol" http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsServer/en/lib rary/6c05c210-e5f9-4882-b760-d275a80f35091033.mspx
I am well aware the MS has done its typical "bragging rights" half-assed preliminary implemtation of standards for IPv6. Even if they had stateful DHCP implemented in the client, they don't have a functional DHCPv6 server yet to provide the addresses and options (e.g. static CIDR route or NTP server) and wont even be taking a swat at it until 2007Q4 (http://forums.microsoft.com/TechNet/ShowPost.aspx ?PostID=1436592&SiteID=17) for pity's sake. My point still stands, without the ability of DHCP to shape and organise address allocations according to enterpise requirements, any IPv6 implementation beyond a trivial single site is pretty much masturbatory, while it might feel good to you, nobody else gets anything out of it.

None of the MS stacks support it.

Are you sure? I thought it was supported on Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Server 2003, and Windows Vista? And I thought there was a whole upgrade plan laid out?

Perhaps I'm wrong. Thanks for letting me know!

None of the MS stacks support it.

Are you sure? I thought it was supported on Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Server 2003, and Windows Vista? And I thought there was a whole upgrade plan laid out?

Perhaps I'm wrong. Thanks for letting me know!

None of the MS stacks support it.

Are you sure? I thought it was supported on Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Server 2003, and Windows Vista? And I thought there was a whole upgrade plan laid out?

Perhaps I'm wrong. Thanks for letting me know!

None of the MS stacks support it.

Are you sure? I thought it was supported on Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Server 2003, and Windows Vista? And I thought there was a whole upgrade plan laid out?

Perhaps I'm wrong. Thanks for letting me know!

None of the MS stacks support it.

Are you sure? I thought it was supported on Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Server 2003, and Windows Vista? And I thought there was a whole upgrade plan laid out?

Perhaps I'm wrong. Thanks for letting me know!

None of the MS stacks support it.

Are you sure? I thought it was supported on Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Server 2003, and Windows Vista? And I thought there was a whole upgrade plan laid out?

Perhaps I'm wrong. Thanks for letting me know!

Microsoft actually released the Critical Update Notification Tool. They later changed the "tool" to "utility", but fear not, it is still referenced in a couple of places with its original name.

Microsoft actually released the Critical Update Notification Tool. They later changed the "tool" to "utility", but fear not, it is still referenced in a couple of places with its original name.

You're right, it also work in Vista (the only intouchable processes are the "protected" ones, like Winlogon). Unfortunately, we are forced to use it, for achieve trivial tasks such grabbing the cursor icon used inside third party application window, and other "accessibility" hooks, as the officially provided by Microsoft are not enough. Personally, I hate to use these tricks, IMO it is the result of a bad OS design, as we are not using it for "evil" applications, just normal ones that make the average Joe's life easier.

advisory: http://www.determina.com/security.research/vulnera bilities/ani-header.html
proof of concept source code: http://www.milw0rm.com/exploits/3651
third party patch source code: http://aircash.sourceforge.net/zerodaypatches.html
information from Microsoft: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/Bulletin /MS07-017.mspx

When you start a process, you start it with a certain set of privileges. If you're logged on as administrator, your calls to CreateProcess can start processes with a different set of privileges.

When you make a Windows API call to something like CreateRemoteThread, you need a handle to the process you're interested in. If the right security bits aren't set (and they get set by the call to CreateProcess), CreateRemoteThread returns unsuccessfully.

Anyway, what could you do to give debuggers special privileges that you could prevent other people from using?

When you start a process, you start it with a certain set of privileges. If you're logged on as administrator, your calls to CreateProcess can start processes with a different set of privileges.

When you make a Windows API call to something like CreateRemoteThread, you need a handle to the process you're interested in. If the right security bits aren't set (and they get set by the call to CreateProcess), CreateRemoteThread returns unsuccessfully.

Anyway, what could you do to give debuggers special privileges that you could prevent other people from using?

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/vista/process _Vista.mspx

Protected processes have additional security restrictions, but apparently in vista, they are strange beasts. Parent processes can always obtain a handle to a child process. So, you can't have a child process become a true daemon?

Processes can "inject threads" into other processes? Buhuh?

Here's apparently more of what processes can't do to Protected Processes do in Windows:

Inject a thread into a protected process
Access the virtual memory of a protected process
Debug an active protected process
Duplicate a handle from a protected process
Change the quota or working set of a protected process

So yer telling me, normal processes can do this to other normal processes in windows?

Irrespective of any kind of access restrictions on Linux, process memory space is a lot more sacrosanct. To even get the same level of process seperation would apparently require the setting of a lot of ACLs in windows, if it can be done at all.

The footnote at the end is the best though!

"Do not attempt to circumvent this restriction by installing a kernel-mode component to access the memory of a protected process because the system and third-party applications may rely on the fact that protected processes are signed code that is run in a contained environment. "

Please play nice with our restriction scheme!

I bet this is what our enterprising hacker has done.

Before MS sics their lawyers on me, the above quotes were used for the purposes of review.

It is telling that a scaled down version of Vista is already available to customers in countries other than the so called first world.http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/wi ndowsvista/editions/starter/default.mspx

Considering the fact that the majority of small businesses in so called developed countries are living a hand to mouth existance the move to create a secure cheap version of Windows might increase Microsofts revenues. There are many who would welcome not having to run stupid anti-virus crap just so that they can do their books!

It also is aesthetically pleasing. While there has been lots of effort put into making things like KDE look good, the individual shiny buttons and bars don't agree with a universal theme. Windows development is centralized, so the everything fits together visually. I personally prefer the look of Windows XP to any OS (note I haven't used Vista), just because the gradients, buttons, and esp the fonts all fit together smoothly.

Sadly, it seems that the time of uniform UI L&F experience on Windows is almost passed.

I work for a large aerospace company. The job I do requires that I switch between about 5 different programs to gather the information I need to generate our final product. Working with one screen was very tedious and error prone.

I was successful in getting dual monitors accepted by my manager and my manager's manager and I started in the position you are in now.

One of the things that I did that I believe was helpful in getting dual monitors accepted was sharing the monitor I had with as many people possible. I used it for a week, then put it on another person's desk for a couple of days with the understanding that they would write up how they used it and what they thought of it. About 15 people got to test drive it and I got positive responses from almost every one who used it. We found that setup time was about 5 minutes and the learning curve was almost non-existent.

The other thing that helped was figuring the number of minutes per week that it would take to pay for the monitor over its lifespan.
A monitor must be purchased (assume your company will get a loan to pay for them and will therefore pay interest), delivered, installed, maintained, insured, and cooled by the building's A/C. My calculations (very rough calculations) brought the cost of a 15 inch flat panel monitor over a lifespan of 5 years to about $1000. At my "fully burdened labor rate" (basically what the company charges the customer for my labor; HR might be able to get this data for you) of about 120 dollars per hour in 5 years I would need to save 2 minutes a week to break even. 2 minutes a week for 5 years is about 9 hours over the life of the monitor and some of the testimonials that I got back from the people I shared the monitor with were reporting saving 30 minutes in the first day.

Do the calculations for saving 2 minutes per day and suddenly you are making the company some money. If you even get close to the commonly reported 10% boost in productivity (4 hours per week!?!) they should rename a holiday for you.

MANAGERS: If your people use multiple programs concurrently to do their jobs, you will be hero to your employees AND to your management if you introduce multiple monitors.

As far as research that supports the claim of increased productivity with multiple monitors, as of a year ago when I was looking, I found that most articles referenced a paper from the University of Utah entitled "Productivity and Multi-Screen Displays" . This paper makes the claim that productivity is increased by 10%.
The other study I found was done by Microsoft and was called "Toward Characterizing the Productivity Benefits of Very Large Displays" This study concludes "...Users were significantly faster working on the large display. In addition, all but one participant preferred carrying out the tasks on the larger display surface, and user satisfaction measures were significantly better for the larger display...".

Why? There are plenty of studies showing that dual monitors provide a benefit. Sounds like he'd be better of just finding them. Since it sounds like he's dealing with PHBs I'd start with a nice Microsoft article http://research.microsoft.com/displayArticle.aspx? id=433 Googling "dual monitor productivity study" gives plenty of answers to this question, whereas asking slashdot apparently leads to a lot of tangents (have you seen the first half of the responses, it's something about hidden costs and government companies who print money, I don't know, I skimmed alot) It's true though, the studies are pretty useless as anyone who's used one will attest, it's just better. The question, in my opinion, is what's the right number... 2,3,4... I think our biggest rig monitor wise is around 18 (not a developer), but I think 4 is the right number for me, though 3 suffices pretty well.

I looked around a bit and found a paper that shows up to 73% increase of productivity for people who use large (30"+) screens. Two small (17"+) screens are equal to one large one at the fraction of the price right? Here is the paper http://research.microsoft.com/users/marycz/Interac t2003productivityfinal.pdf. Good Luck!

Microsoft has a research article up about this very subject:

http://research.microsoft.com/displayArticle.aspx? id=433

Sorry if this is a dup post.

I think the story you were searching for can be found here:

http://lifehacker.com/software/dual-monitor/dual-m onitors-increase-productivity-168488.php

this is a good one too, but it's written by microsoft...so i have to believe it's riddled with lies
  http://research.microsoft.com/displayArticle.aspx? id=433

Vista has an Equivalent Tool.

Home and Entertainment division lost $1.2billion dollars in 2006. If that is "worked", then I have a bridge to sell you.

i personally refuse to dig through the sea of comments just to see if this is a dupe or not.. so sue me... but heres what you're asking for: http://research.microsoft.com/displayArticle.aspx? id=433 a link to some funded research... hope it helps.

additionally, if you are one of "those" and are gonna start a microsoft flame war here then just don't... save it.. been done, and its old. This is research and its directly related to what the writer was asking, so there.

Would some study results from a research company help persuade your bosses?

Microsoft researchers haven't perfected the genie, but they've found a tool that can increase your productivity by 9 to 50 percent and make your work day easier. And you can begin using it right away. The researchers conducted user studies that proved the effectiveness of adding a second or even third monitor to your workstation, creating a wide-screen effect. In addition, they found out how the operating system needs to change to accommodate a larger screen area.
http://research.microsoft.com/displayarticle.aspx? id=433

Or how about this one?

A systematic study conducted by NEC-MitsubishiOpen link in new window, ATI TechnologiesOpen link in new window and the University of UtahOpen link in new window has concluded that the use of multiple monitors in the workplace increases productivity.

Granted, you have to take the results of research with a grain of salt when the team is headed by a company that makes monitors, but still...

And if they're the kind of folks that like anecdotal evidence, just send them here and here.

Check out the TouchLight video on Andy Wilson's web page. It's strikingly similar to the Minority Report displays, and it doesn't even need any crazy glowing gloves to use it.

Report by consulting company hired by apple (benchmarking data between monitor sizes and ROI related info)
http://pfeifferreport.com/Cin_Disp30_Bench_Rep.pdf

New York Times Article
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/20/technology/20bas ics.html?ei=5090&en=6fc17b9bf54ea2ef&ex=1303185600 &adxnnl=1&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1169 331633-thFPjylVxCrYamq2v9S3Vw

Microsoft Related Info
http://research.microsoft.com/displayArticle.aspx? id=433

Microsoft provides a free virtual desktop manager as a part of PowerToys that works pretty well.

Microsoft provides a free virtual desktop manager as a part of PowerToys that works pretty well.

Contrary to how it looks like it installs on Firefox, it's not an addon, it's a plugin.

On top of that you need ADMINISTRATIVE rights to install.

Here's the xpi for your viewing pleasure.

I haven't been able to extract the exe yet (using uniextract) to see what that might contain.

The rest of you comment is pro-Apple fanboy gibberish. All bold statements with no facts or proof. No wonder you got modded up.

You also might want to read this site: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/advisory /935423.mspx

'We've been saying for a while that we are aware that consumers want to have unprotected content.'

Since when? As far as I know, what they are trying is to provide the ultimate protection to content, from the file format to the media player software to the output hardware.

'We've been saying for a while that we are aware that consumers want to have unprotected content.'

Since when? As far as I know, what they are trying is to provide the ultimate protection to content, from the file format to the media player software to the output hardware.