Slashdot Mirror

It leaves the upper and lower filter drivers on the CD-ROM in place and causes this http://support.microsoft.com/kb/311755/en-us. Early versions of Roxio/EX CD Creator did this as well, which blue screen quite a number of NT4 machines when you tried installed SP4.

Wow! Now i know why i feel extremely sick when i access this site...
I'd save some headacke medicine if i knew it before :(

Not sure though I believe these guys know. I nearly went insane trying to work out where the Exchange 2003 patches section was yesterday; and when I got there I was told it was only accessible via a password that you get from a phone tech...

Subject: Summary makes a flawed assumption, MS another

millions of Internet users who will soon be running IE7

This depends on millions of new Intel machines being purchased after January 30. Febrary and March are the slowest period of the year for any non-essential item, as people are recovering from their holiday spending binges. Retail box sales of Vista will be all but limited to hard core gamers who want DirectX 10 a year before any games actually take advantage of it.

Ok, so IE7 is available on XP if you have SP2 installed. Still not staggering market share if you ask me.

Internet Explorer 7 was released in late October 2006 and added to the "high-priority" section of Windows Update in November. W3Schools's Browser Statistics show IE7 with 2.5% in September (when it was still in beta), 3.1% in October, and 7.1% in November (IE6: 49.9%, Firefox: 29.9%).

Despite IE6's flaws, it still has 49.9%. Despite IE7's current flaws (which you commented on), I'd bet my right thumb that millions will be using IE7 by March.

Only one response needed: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin /MS01-017.mspx

This was a class-3 code-signing certificate from Verisign, giving all the correct details for Microsoft but the request was coming from a bunch of crackers. How long, then, until the phishers figure out how to get EV-SSL certificates of their own?

Actually I think the bigger problem is that Microsoft and Verisign in the past have allowed a completely valid, high-grade signing certificate with Microsoft's own corporate identity to be issued to crackers (see http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,45284-page,1/art icle.html or the more authoritative http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin /MS01-017.mspx for details). Note that a class-3 code-signing certificate was one of the more secure grades Verisign issues, it's not their standard e-mail-address-only ones. So how long until the bad guys start getting their own EV-SSL certificates and make the whole scheme not merely useless but advantageous to the phishers?

Pretty much all that you're missing is that whenever there's a state other than the default white, the address bar gets an extra box of alertiness, and the whole page turns into a warning (see here). This happens for certificate errors as well, which definately beats the click-through warnings that most browsers display in such a case.

Countdown to the phisher finding a way to subvert the system and obtain legitimate certs to green-light their scam sites :
4... 3... 2... 1...

Let's take a fun legitimate site like, oh... Wikipedia:

# Folks get annoyed when VfD discussions end up the number 1 google hit for
# their name. See bugzilla bug #4776
# en:
Disallow: /wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/
Disallow: /wiki/Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion/
Disallow : /wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/
Disallow: /wiki/Wikipedia%3AVotes_for_deletion/
Disallow: /wiki/Wikipedia:Pages_for_deletion/
Disallow: /wiki/Wikipedia%3APages_for_deletion/
Disallow: /wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/
Disallow : /wiki/Wikipedia%3AMiscellany_for_deletion/
Disall ow: /wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellaneous_deletion/
Disallow: /wiki/Wikipedia%3AMiscellaneous_deletion/
Disallo w: /wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_problems
Disallow: /wiki/Wikipedia%3ACopyright_problems

Let's see, what are some other sites? Ooh. Take a look at Slashdot's robots.txt! (disallows a variety of fun pages.) Microsoft's? How about whitehouse.gov? Google?

Having read that list, I don't think any of them are likely to happen to me.

1. Unlikely. If my computer ever crashes, it does so for a reason. The software I am using has been independently audited. I've read the Source Code of some of it myself.

2. Unlikely. I know how to use locate.

3. Unlimited traffic. Static IP. Anything less is not a proper internet connection.

4. Bloody unlikely. I use a web browser, not a virus magnet. That's on top of an Operating System which is immune to viruses, spyware and adware -- by design.

5. I know how to turn off Bluetooth. So does anyone who has to pay for their electricity by the joule.

6. It's right there in the Terms and Conditions of my bank account: We will never ask you for personal information via the Internet. And it means what it says.

7. See 6. Anyway, there are only two ways my bank could add an "internet-enabled" service I'd actually use: let me take a photo of a pile of pound notes and coins, upload it and pay it into my account; or let me print pound notes on my own printer.

8. I don't buy software, I download it using apt-get. What is a CD key?

9. Bit far-fetched. Anyway, if anybody's going to be selling off the toner cartridges, it's me!

10. Unlikely. I don't travel by air anyway.

They already dropped their transaction-based filesystem in order to get Vista out the door

The article mentions the vulnerability of cookies to XSS attacks. There is actually a way of protecting cookies from javascript, by using the HttpOnly option. It was introduced in IE6. Hopefully, it will get implemented in other browsers too, as it is a step forward in security for cookies.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/author/dhtml/ht tponly_cookies.asp

Of course since this is all university sponsered research. It's all free of patents and free for slashdotters to create their own devices in the comfort of their basement labs to give away to the masses who have seen the light and repented their evil ways.

No, it's real. He's parroting Microsoft's selling of the feature. It's called Windows ReadyBoost (they helpfully don't offer an anchor to link directly to it, it's there, scroll down). Another poster offered a FAQ about ReadyBoost on an MSDN blog, where the blogger assures his readers that Microsoft has worked out the issues involved with limited writes and removing the drive.

To quote the linked Microsoft advertising page:

Windows Vista introduces a new concept in adding memory to a system. Windows ReadyBoost lets users use a removable flash memory device, such as a USB thumb drive, to improve system performance without opening the box.

They really are selling it as "add a USB drive to improve your system's memory."

Also, apparently SQL server does run on Vista, but since it is not officially released yet, it's not supported:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/windowsvista support.mspx

For your edification, here are the system requirements for SQL Server 2005:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/sysreqs/defa ult.mspx

Also, apparently SQL server does run on Vista, but since it is not officially released yet, it's not supported:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/windowsvista support.mspx

For your edification, here are the system requirements for SQL Server 2005:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/sysreqs/defa ult.mspx

How ever I did not that a customer of mine had ACT, installed on the server, but all the client workstations also had an instance of MSDE installed, never worked out why, I just assumed the installation guy (from ACT) didn't really know what he was doing.

It's nice to see community achievements getting some positive recognition; especially when contrasted with the spectacle of the forces of evil, who oppose freedom, being panned in the press and in court ;-) It's a good end to the year!

Who would have thought it; we're not just a bunch of commie anti-capitalists and foil-hat wearing conspiracy theorists...

• Files are left over in system directories (e.g. %SystemRoot%\System32) that aren't used anymore. NTFS uses B+ trees to index directory entries. You'd have to at least double the number of entries to cause a noticeable slowdown. The leftover files will waste space, but they'd have to be hundreds of megabytes to impact system performance.
• Keys are left over in the registry. The registry uses B-trees to index key and registry data. The HKCR tree alone contains about 94 thousand keys and 34 thousand values in a fresh XP install. There would have to be at least an increase of that magnitude to impact performance.
• References are left to non-existent shell extensions and startup items. It'll only take Explorer one failed call to CreateProcess or LoadLibrary to figure out that the items are broken. From those functions, the OS would only have to perform a few failed file lookups to realize the files are non-existent. Fixing this kind of thing is easy with autoruns.
• Broken COM references. Like other leftover registry keys above, there'd have to be an awful lot to cause slowdown. The only time I can think of that a program would actually list all of the COM components is when an IDE like Visual Studio is giving you a list of available components. In all other cases, a program will already know what its looking for and be unaffected by unrelated entries.

• The individual you are planning to share the game with must be logged in to Xbox Live and have an active subscription to the XNA Creators Club
• The receiving user must have downloaded the XNA Framework runtime environment for the Xbox 360
• The receiving user must have XNA Game Studio Express installed on their own development PC
• The game project, including all source and content assets, must be shared with the receiving user. The receiving user then compiles and deploys the game to their Xbox 360.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to compare NT/Cairo with Vista/Singularity?

Kind of amusing considering that XP is, primarily, a cosmetic upgrade of the shell, plus a few minor changes to drivers. The kernel itself is even only a minor version # change from that of 2k's.

cause the windows updater is driving me crazy with microsoft's anti spyware product. i'm not interested in it, so when i tell to the updater not to install it, and to never ask it again, it'll soon ask me to install the version of the month before, if i disable that one, next month, etc.... i HATE that thing already (and haven't even installed it yet)

If Microsoft wants people to upgrade from Windows 2000 to Vista then why doesn't the Vista Upgrade Advisor http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/upg radeadvisor/default.mspx run under Windows 2000?

But Microsoft does, through their announced product lifecycle, promise to deliver security and other fixes for a period of up to 10 years beyond "general availability" (NOT date of license purchase, a nice loophole penalising customers who buy late in the lifecycle). According to that page, Business customers can expect security updates through 2010. Perhaps they don't classify Spyware as a security issue (would explain a lot).

Al Capone put it best. You can get more upgrades bought with flashy launch hype and a gun, than just flashy launch hype.

It's better than that. Check out the choices they give you:

http://www.netscape.com/download/ (leads to a 404 page)
  and a generic download search page at microsoft that doesn't even have Internet Explorer listed.

Figures. The copyright is 2000.

The most valid point for me is going to be the inability of wordpad to open .doc files but I don't use them so much anymore.

"Evil" MS has a free .doc viewer that works well.

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?fa milyid=95E24C87-8732-48D5-8689-AB826E7B8FDF&displa ylang=en

Windows XP Professional Common Criteria Configuration Guide:
http://download.microsoft.com/download/5/3/b/53b53 a3e-39d5-4d30-86f2-146aa2c7be45/wxp_common_criteri a_configuration_guide.zip

If you have the patience to follow that guide, then your WinXP will be locked down and secure.

http://www.microsoft.com/msft/earnings/

Their headquarters is here

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/technetmag/

http://www.microsoft.com/msft/earnings/

Their headquarters is here

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/technetmag/

... my analysis of Vista so far has yielded little in the way of concrete security improvments ...

Exchange 2007 requires 64-bit processors (Itanium need not apply). Additionally, resellers such as Dell have discontinued sales of Exchange 2003. Looks like Microsoft wants to move to 64-bit, and that is going to be enough for the server world to move entirely to 64-bit, and certainly enough to recommend 64-bit systems to my clients. Exchange 2007 System Requirements

from
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/editions/express/sysr eqs.mspx

Vista Home Basic and above (SQL Express SP1 and SQL Express Advanced SP2)

Here's the deal. SQL Server 2000 is not supported on Vista, this includes MSDE. For SQL Server 2005 SP1, only Express Edition is supported on Vista. The other editions must wait for SP2 to be officially supported.

I was very surprised go here, and Google will have more on this http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms692882. aspx My app uses only standard SQL so it was no problem, but a few of the queries have to be switched (count distinct being one I had to change immediately)

I believe Management Studio Express allows you to display a query plan, which is also a free product.

I work for a M$ Small Business Specialist, and I have a laptop with Vista Ultimate RTM, I also have SQL Server 2005 Enterprise (with Business Intelligence services).

<rant> Short answer? I hate it.

The laptop is a 64 bit HP Turion AMD 2000+ with 2GBs RAM (which my boss considered enough to disable the swap file entirely, it barely is: my load average is 1.5GBs).
One of the reasons SQL Server 2005 craps out (even during the INSTALLATION of it) is because of the new UAC. Info.

Also, Business Intelligence (SSIS, at least) services buggy as all hell (regardless of OS):
1) You can't debug Script Tasks or Script Components (known bug).
2) With Vista, I can't run my scripts because PrecompileScriptIntoBinaryCode must be True, and when it is, I get "The script files failed to load" error. As far as I can tell, there is no known work-around for this Vista-related bug, yet.
3) Web Service Tasks (which in our case is the primary reason we're using it to begin with) only work for "some" web services (no known list of these mysterious services, of course).
4) The Script VBA editor only allows GAC library references (I ended up creating my own DLL to act as a proxy between the web service and the SSIS package), which is a pain in itself.

The closest "working" dev environment you can have in Vista with VS2005/SQL Server 2005 is with VS2005 running as Administrator, and using SQL Server Management Studio purely for access to remote DBs (running on win2k3, of course). That's IF you exclude SQL Server Business Intelligence Services. This essentially means: Vista is GREAT, if you work around or avoid all the new features.
</rant>
Is anyone here currently hiring?

Wow. Okay, the rant went a tad off-track, now for the positives of Vista:
1) "Flip 3D": How innovative, but to be fair, the rolodex style is cool.
2) ???
3) Aero makes Minesweeper looks cooler!$!$!

I work for a M$ Small Business Specialist, and I have a laptop with Vista Ultimate RTM, I also have SQL Server 2005 Enterprise (with Business Intelligence services).

<rant> Short answer? I hate it.

The laptop is a 64 bit HP Turion AMD 2000+ with 2GBs RAM (which my boss considered enough to disable the swap file entirely, it barely is: my load average is 1.5GBs).
One of the reasons SQL Server 2005 craps out (even during the INSTALLATION of it) is because of the new UAC. Info.

Also, Business Intelligence (SSIS, at least) services buggy as all hell (regardless of OS):
1) You can't debug Script Tasks or Script Components (known bug).
2) With Vista, I can't run my scripts because PrecompileScriptIntoBinaryCode must be True, and when it is, I get "The script files failed to load" error. As far as I can tell, there is no known work-around for this Vista-related bug, yet.
3) Web Service Tasks (which in our case is the primary reason we're using it to begin with) only work for "some" web services (no known list of these mysterious services, of course).
4) The Script VBA editor only allows GAC library references (I ended up creating my own DLL to act as a proxy between the web service and the SSIS package), which is a pain in itself.

The closest "working" dev environment you can have in Vista with VS2005/SQL Server 2005 is with VS2005 running as Administrator, and using SQL Server Management Studio purely for access to remote DBs (running on win2k3, of course). That's IF you exclude SQL Server Business Intelligence Services. This essentially means: Vista is GREAT, if you work around or avoid all the new features.
</rant>
Is anyone here currently hiring?

Wow. Okay, the rant went a tad off-track, now for the positives of Vista:
1) "Flip 3D": How innovative, but to be fair, the rolodex style is cool.
2) ???
3) Aero makes Minesweeper looks cooler!$!$!

Oh, one more thing, it turns out you CAN develop SQL Server Reporting solutions on SQL Server Express. See this document.

Yet more evidence that you have no real interest in the facts. It took me about 20 seconds to find that document.

*OWNED* :)

Ever heard of PowerShell? I know, horrible name, but it does give MS servers some scripting legs...

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/technol ogies/management/powershell/default.mspx

Actually, not only does it not work with SQL 2005 but it doesnt work with SQL 2000 either. In fact if you try to install SQL 2000 on vista it will try to stop you with messages saying the software has been tested to be incompatible with Vista. MS has not gone on the record that SQL 2000 will NEVER work with Vista. They want everyone to upgrade to SQL 2005 and have no plans to fix SQL 2000. If anyone hasn't used SQL 2005, they have removed DTS packages and the replacement is so horribly broken that simple things like copying a table from one database to another does not work.

Good thing there is windows server 2003 still.

From Microsoft's Page regarding Advantages for Content Providers .

To customize Internet Explorer, you can add your organization's name or other wording to the title bar. For example, the phrase "Windows Internet Explorer Provided by Proseware, Inc." could appear on your title bar.
You can preset the following Web pages and links:
Customer support page
Users' home page
Users' search providers

So no, it's EXACTLY what Microsoft intended. And the very fact that it's being offered by Google is actually a boon to Microsoft. They may be competitors in some areas, but this has obvious benefits for both.

> Microsoft would want everyone out there(Amazon, eBay, Apple for gods sakes) to be pushing out a customized version of IE7.

Nothing to see here, move along...

IEAK is old, old, old news. It's been available since the 16 bit IE for Windows 3.1, for crying out loud.

The most interesting part about this is that Google qualifies as every type of organization that can use the
IEAK, according to the IEAK home page. http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/ie/ie ak7/default.mspx

With their wireless offering, they're an ISP. As a search engine, news aggregator and portal site, they're an ICP (Internet Content Provider), and with their various software, they're an ISV (Independent Software Vendor). There is absolutely nothing at all surprising about their usage of the IEAK.

If anything, this is a feather in MSFT's cap, because Google's customization of IE7 amounts to no less than a tacit endorsement of the browser. I view this as more of a virtual atta-boy for MSFT finally releasing a browser that isn't completely sucktastic.

I'd be interested to know (but too lazy to find out) if Google customized the user-agent string. This, combined with all of their internet advertising, could yield them some interesting data-mining opportunities.

There certainly has been an admin kit for prior versions, at least for IE6 anyway. Not sure why this hasn't been thought of before.

Teredo uses similiar ( if not the same techniques ) for running IPv6 over IPv4 networks. http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxp pro/maintain/teredo.mspx

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/Bulletin /MS06-058.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/Bulletin /MS06-059.mspx

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/Bulletin /MS06-058.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/Bulletin /MS06-059.mspx

What about using the Word Viewer?

Why can't I go Managed C++ or C++/CLI?
you can... didn't think I had to hand-hold you through every choice... theres like 50 other languages you can choose from as well.

Right now, I'm working on a project where the PC and Game Boy Advance versions of the same program share the same game logic source tree. Is this possible with an environment that requires the C# language? Or would I have to code the game logic twice and keep them in sync manually, which as far as I can tell would appear to have a huge potential for introducing bugs?

Game boy uses an ARM and Z80 processor right? doubtful (I mean yea you could compile Mono against an ARM but Linux is painful slow on a Gameboy to begin with). But you are probably programming in C/C++ right? You could write a wrapper (not re-code game logic, just write a wrapper to the interfaces) and BAM! a .NET module.

Compatibility with Microsoft Windows Mobile perhaps?

Uh, yea. From the press release: The XNA development platform will serve as the foundation for future game platforms from Microsoft, including Windows, Xbox and Windows Mobile-based devices. Link

Or even better, get a decent virtual desktop application from Windows like virt-dimenstion which is Free or Virtual Desktop Manager from Microsoft and free or even pay for one.

I do it at work. My mail client is one desktop, my editors are one another, web browser on a third, etc, etc.