Slashdot Mirror

You can be pretty certain that isn't what he meant, since that's completely different.

An insized array at the end of a struct is a microsoft extension to C (http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url =/library/en-us/vccelng/htm/decla_16.asp). And since we are on the topic of code by Microsoft that makes it legal syntax.

It's an idiom that was used a lot in unix software too, though there [0] or [1] (depending on how paranoid the programmer was) was used in the declaration. Saves one level of indirection, hip hip hooray.

"You don't have a firewall, you have a program that attempts to implement a network policy on your PC."

I'm not sure what level of sarcasm to read into your comment, but it's labelled "Windows Firewall"...

http://update.microsoft.com/microsoftupdate

Does for office (etc) what Windows Update does for Windows. It actually integrates the Office and Windows updates into the same thing, so it still just says "You have updates available" and lets you install them from the taskbar thing.

RPC on Windows is a set of runtime libraries, compiler support (MIDL), and a server process (rpcss) for coordinating connections and hosting libraries, used to abstract function calls so that they can be used across process and possibly machine boundaries. Since every process runs in a different address space, the application interface for making a remote function call is the same if the call destination is just in another process or on another machine, so Microsoft uses the same system for both local and remote out-of-process function calls, a system called RPC.

Every RPC interface has a set of allowed transports. One of these transports, NCALRPC, is a wrapper over LPC ports, a primitive IPC method that the OS provides that uses shared memory and only works on the local machine. If the only allowed transport is NCALRPC, then the interface can only be connected to from the local machine, even though it's still called RPC and still uses most of the common RPC components. This way, while the RPC system is used in local calls for the convenient marshaling support, support for connections to remote computers is disabled.

True! A perfect example are the BITV5HEADER structures, which are not true C structures at all, but instead use dangling stuff.

However, I always explicitly initialize those to the type I'm using... Any code that uses them will do the same. I'm not going to accept a COM/Corba or RPC object of a Bitmap object with the header already filled out.

So, the vulnerability is 6 months old, and it never got fixed as a minor risk. It got escalated to a highly critical risk (by almost all security bulletin systems) over 1 week ago, when a proof of concept came out showing that a malicious site could cause take control of PC remotely. Now there is even malicious trojans out on the net exploiting this hole in IE.

So in 1 week, what did MS do? The promoted their new Live product of course. Microsoft released a security advisory stating that no patch exists to fix the problem, but you can visit the Windows Live Safety Center and get the trojan removed by Microsoft. So instead of using some resources to fix the problem, they instead devoted resources to their "anti-virus" software, and promote it as the workaround. Well, one wonders, if this causes them to get significant visibility and traffic to their new product, why bother even fixing the original problem?

Maybe young William wants to play one of these games and so dad let him have admin rights?

How much better was Office 2000 compared to (the proprietary) StarOffice 5.2? How much better is Office 2003 compared to OpenOffice.org 2.0? What is the trend here?

Well, I do not know what you where trying to show there but, From this page I got some of the features of Microsoft Office 2003.
Note: If you do not know what any of these features mean, feel free to visit the information page

Connecting People
Collaborating on Documents with Team Members
Document Workspaces
Shared attachments
Shared Workspace task pane
Integration with Windows SharePoint Ser
Exchanging Contact Information
Synchronize contacts
Organizing Meetings and Events
Meeting Workspaces
Side-by-side calendars in Outlook 2003
Events
Share Outlook free/busy information
Managing Document Changes
Word 2003 editing restrictions
Word 2003 formatting restrictions
Reviewing Toolbar
Markup Balloons
Controlling Access to Vital Business Information
Information Rights Management (IRM) in Office Professional Edition 2003 files
IRM document expiration dates
IRM organizational policy templates
Digital Signatures
File password encryption
Connecting Information
Preventing E-Mail Overload
E-Mail Desktop Alerts
E-Mail Reading Pane
Enhanced privacy features
Safe Senders/Block Senders lists
Improved junk mail filtering
Organizing Your E-Mail Inbox
Arranged By conversation
Quick Flags
Search Folders
Saving Time with Tools
Research and Reference task pane
Office Online services
Help improvements available in a task pane
Task panes
Application-Specific Improvements
Word 2003 Reading Layout view
Excel 2003 list integration with Windows SharePoint Services
Excel 2003 enhanced statistical functions

I would have to agree with this comment. On my home PC I use GAIM for talking on AIM, MSN, & GoogleTalk and it works great. The plug-in environment makes it easy to configure/customize to work My-Way (tm). And at work I use GAIM for the above 3 plus Sametime. However, as the parent said, it does tend to break/not support much beyond the basic chat functionality.

For example, this past weekend I was trying to help a family member fix their M$ box, and I wanted to login remotely and let them watch me/talk them through the fix. Normally I'd use a VNC-over-SSH type solution for this. But I knew that would be too much configuration on my family memeber's side... especially when it came to configuring their firewall. So, I decided to give Microsoft's "Remote Assistance" feature.

The easiest way to do this is for both parties to be on MSN (and be running MS Messenger), and the party in need of help just right-clicks on the "expert's" name, and sends an invite to help them. The "expert" then accepts the invite and is connected to the "novice's" desktop (via MS Terminal Services/Remote Desktop). The nice thing is that since the _novice_ started the conversation (session) their (Windows XPSP2) firewall will let the expert connect b/c the service will open a hole in the firewall. (M$'s How-To: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/helpandsu pport/learnmore/remoteassist/viaim.mspx)

Granted, I still had to talk my family member thru opening a hole in their hardware firewall. But since it was just your basic consumer router (Linksys, Dlink, etc...) it was pretty painless.

Anyhow, the point of this rant is that this is not possible thru GAIM, but only when using M$'s own MSN Client.

- just my $0.000002

To wit, I'd like to hear how any of this application level firewalls are protecting against Ajax? (Well, perhaps an XML firewall like the recently-bought-out Datapower) Or how to teach an application firewall that 1) the cookies may change as a result of client-side javascript, 2) hidden form values may change as a result of client-side javascript, or 3) completely new forms may be created and submitted as a result of client-side javascript.

Application firewalls will continue to be a niche player - or deployed en masse as a stop gap measure to satisfy regulatory compliance requirements.

What needs first and foremost is to integrate security into the SDLC. Until that happens, we will simply continue to change the type, model, and price of fancy bandaids.

Well, sort of. I'm not sure, but I believe that it works because they use MIME sniffing to determine what type of data IE is dealing with.

Here are a few links on the subject. Notice all the SP2 talk.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/networking/moni ker/overview/appendix_a.asp
http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/networking/moni ker/overview/mime_handling.asp

Well, sort of. I'm not sure, but I believe that it works because they use MIME sniffing to determine what type of data IE is dealing with.

Here are a few links on the subject. Notice all the SP2 talk.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/networking/moni ker/overview/appendix_a.asp
http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/networking/moni ker/overview/mime_handling.asp

take a look,

the really dont

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb; en-us;304261

When reading code, most of the code is actually, if well coded, clear to me. But a useful things to do, if using visual studio .NET is to use the XML comment to comment a class, function, etc. Especially when the other that will use the class, will only have a Dll, or have nothing to care about the code. XML comment give useful information in the popup and the object browser that can help the user to understand what exactly do the following class or function.

sure a class like class says a lot, but if when you check it it says Implemented the = and &= opperator to the stringbuilder class then you know what new.

In a function you can comment each parameter to know exactly what they do and what to send there.

Comment is no more just for those modifying your code later when you are gone, but also for the Dll user. to help them use your class.

Check there for more info

No company will be able to comply with the law it seems if they have to hand over OS Source + all developers who worked on it, then they ought to have to hand over hardware firmware too, plus all the code they write that actually is the voting system...

There were four companies other than Diebold that placed a bid, so it seems that either they're lying about what they're disclosing (which is now a felony) or they developed an in-house system.

Even if Diebold persued a shared source license with MS, I don't think that gives them the right to distributed the source code to a third party.

Even if they got a Government Security Program license? Keep in mind that one of the primary reasons for coming up with the Shared Source program was to keep governments happy. Diebold just didn't try.

And you can say "Diebold isn't distributing, they're just placing it in escrow" well, someone is going to audit that code, and it won't be someone from Diebold, so now you have a third party combing through code they aren't legally allowed to see.

"Legally" on what grounds? Violating an NDA? The Shared Source license removes that problem. Trade secrets? That's a state, not federal, issue, so the state sets the limits of trade secrets and confidentiality. The law says that only certain election officials and each party chair -- or three people hired by each of the above -- can see the escrowed code, and none of these people are allowed to work for competitors of the vendor.

However, I worry as I stated that even a well intentioned, complete, secure, open source solution would be disallowed under this law, as I see no reasonable way to comply.

Again, four other companies felt they could meet these provisions without resorting to a lawsuit. I think you overestimate the frequency of use of off-the-shelf OSes and applications used by the vendors.

-jdm

Some of them still are. I have done zero hours of actual work this week because of a certain newly-released game :-)

It's like music, or films, or just about any other creatively-based industry. 90% of the stuff produced is mass-market plasticised sugar-coated crap, but there's always that 10% left over that makes the whole process worthwhile - of course, my 10% might not be the same as your 10%...

I came to realize that PCs have started producing games that are fundamentally the same ones as the ones you get on consoles

Sometimes games are technically superior on the PC than they are on the consoles. There are also many I can't play without a mouse and keyboard (and not just Quake and friends, think Baldur's Gate 2 with all its keyboard shortcuts), which isn't an option on consoles at least AFAIK.

There are also some types of games - ones that you don't just pick up and play for ten minutes, basically - that I don't think are really suited to consoles at all. Equally, there are some games - usually ones involving dance mats, light guns, or other funky hardware - that I don't think work well on PCs.

YMMV, of course, but I think to achieve gaming nirvana you still need a console *and* a computer. Hopefully in five years this statement will no longer be true, but I've been hoping that for twenty years now and it hasn't happened yet.

Oh and 3- Computer games have become obscenely ressource-hungry,

I am in violent agreement with you on this one, but then I can remember saying the same thing in 1990 when I had to upgrade the memory in my Atari ST from 512k to 1Mb so I could play Powermonger. Irritatingly this sort of "push the boundaries by releasing a game that isn't quite runnable on the hardware available today" attitude only used to be taken by luminaries like Molyneux or Carmack (who could be forgiven, as they made up for it with the games they released), whereas now everyone seems to think all PC gamers have upwards of £2,000 to spend on hardware every year.

Personally my favourite game is still the original arcade version of Defender.

I've made a low-budget game for Windows and have ported it to Mac OSX with little hassle. For Windows I have the MSDN and for OSX I have the Apple Developer Connection. What resources are available for Linux?

Note: I have been working on voting integrity issues in North Carolina for a little while now, and advised the committees that drafted the bill in question.

The state passed a pretty comprehensive election reform bill, which included the provision that all vendors must hand over all code that runs, is installed on, or is otherwised used in the operation of the voting machines. No if, ands, or buts.

Our State Board of Elections did not like this. They want paperless voting machines, and badly. Like a six-year-old that's been told to clean up its room, they're dragging their feet on enforcing these (and other provisions). When writing the Request For Purchase (bid requirements), some staffer added a "clarification" that the vendors only had to hand over "available" software, and simply explain why they couldn't hand over the rest. In other words, "Here's why I'm going to be breaking the law today."

Lawmakers were not happy. The SBOE, however, didn't particularly care. They didn't see a problem with only handing over a portion of the code, and wanted to interpret the law as loosely as possible.

Diebold pointed out that "available" was different than "everything", and actually got a restraining order that prevented the state from suing them for not complying with any of the new provisions of the law. This case essentially overturned that ruling, saying "Uh, no, you actually have to comply with the law." Technically it says, "Ask your lawyers for legal advice, not the court, we're not going to pre-judge the law before there's an actual conflict (i.e., you actually get sued for violating these provisions."

So Diebold is going to take their ball and go home, since they would actually have to play by the rules. Oh well.

On a side note, I didn't see any evidence that Diebold actually tried to get a Shared Source license from Microsoft, which would actually let them escrow the code. Maybe Diebold didn't actually want to escrow, well, anything?

Imagine that.

-jdm

Please buy a clue thanks.

Windows CE source code is available
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/Li censing/WindowsCE.mspx

With Windows CE, "OEM customers worldwide can create and distribute commercial derivatives of the Windows CE 5.0 operating system source code for shipping in commercial devices without notifying Microsoft or sharing their derivative works with the embedded community."

Then again, Apple and MS have one product that infuriates me--both of them call their remote-control app Remote Desktop.

Just look at the paths to the applications on their web servers:

Apple: /remotedesktop/

Microsoft:/windowsxp/using/mobility/getstarted/rem oteintro.mspx

Doesn't that just encompass the whole difference between Apple and Microsoft?

Windows debuggers are free downloads:

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/devtools/debugging/d efault.mspx

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?Fa milyId=FE118952-3547-420A-A412-00A2662442D9&displa ylang=en/

Check it out (warning, windows install only). You download it. You install it. You do NOT have to agree to any EULA.

Here's the license for it http://www.microsoft.com/office/xml/licenseovervie w.mspx/

I suggest you actually read it. It's not binding on you. It's binding on Microsoft, saying they won't ever exercise any of their patent rights against you when you build software that operates on their file format (unless you sue them first, when of course they'd sue back).

If this was just some open standard divorced from Microsoft there would be nothing stopping Microsoft from suing you if they felt your implementation violated the patents they hold.

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?Fa milyId=FE118952-3547-420A-A412-00A2662442D9&displa ylang=en/

Check it out (warning, windows install only). You download it. You install it. You do NOT have to agree to any EULA.

Here's the license for it http://www.microsoft.com/office/xml/licenseovervie w.mspx/

I suggest you actually read it. It's not binding on you. It's binding on Microsoft, saying they won't ever exercise any of their patent rights against you when you build software that operates on their file format (unless you sue them first, when of course they'd sue back).

If this was just some open standard divorced from Microsoft there would be nothing stopping Microsoft from suing you if they felt your implementation violated the patents they hold.

.NET (as defined by the MSIL) simply does not have support for a "going-out-of-scope" method. Making your application developers call a .cleanup function defeats the purpose of wrapping the resource in the class. And .Finalize is still only called at GC time, not when it goes out of scope. So yes, having access to that functionality through the C++ side is a "good thing." The C++/CLI language is good for developers. It allows us to access .NET functionality from ordinary C++, but it isn't quite the same as a full .NET assembly.

Take a look at this article on MSDN about the differences betweeen mixed, pure and verifiable ("safe") code.

you usually have to pay for at least the IDE (say, visual studio), and they tend to be pretty expensive..

Nope. Visual Studio Express Editions are completely free equivalents to the commercial versions of Visual Studio. They lack some features but allow people to do commercial or non-commercial development for windows.

-everphilski-

Because it's not like Microsoft, HP, Dell, Compaq, Toshiba and Sony (and many, many more) haven't been building Windows Media Center Edition PC's and Laptops for the last two and a half years.

The disclaimer is only to avoid confusion. The Mac was named after the Macintosh apple, "America's favorite apple."

On the other hand, who in the industry should we look to for originality--Microsoft with "Media Center"? Fucking Windows?!?!? "Windows" in a GUI were called "windows" long before MS came along and co-opted the word for their whole stupid OS.

Then again, Apple and MS have one product that infuriates me--both of them call their remote-control app "Remote Desktop."

Amid all the philosophy, did anybody notice that the article is objectively full of cr*p? It says the IE7 beta won't be available "until next year", when in truth it's already been available for a couple of months:

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?Fa milyId=718E9B3A-64FE-4A4C-9DDF-57AF0472EAD2&displa ylang=en

Your experience is not the be all end all of OS use.
My experience is different from yours.
yes, back in 2001 I had Windows XP blue screen on install, because of the driver for my Adaptec SCSI card, a driver certified and included in Windows XP. It was in the knowledge base, I think it was http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314063/ , but I'm not sure, as I never found the problem from the search option of MS knowledge basde, but from Google.
I haven't seen lots of blue screen since then, mostly for 2 reasons :
- Windows will lock instead of displaying a BSOD (so it's worse than before, you can't even search the web for some of the numbers the BSOD gave you)
- I'm exclusively using Linux at home since Jan. 2001
But I've seen another BSOD in 2003 on XP, when my sound card died (one of the first SB Live !). When I installed Linux to investigate, it worked flawlessly, except with no sound, and the log said the sound card had a problem. So I don't understand why Windows BSOD when Linux could report the problem and tag along. Of course, it was a hardware problem like you said.

So you have not seen BSOD, but that does not mean it's true for everyone, or that Win XP is robust.

the source of the information is not a blog. the blog is just a discussion of it. linked from the blog, the source of the information is here.

the author is herbert h. thompson, of securit innovation,
About Dr. Herbert Thompson, Chief Security Strategist Dr. Thompson is a world-renown expert in application security and is an adjunct professor at Florida Institute of Technology. He has co-authored or edited 12 books including, "How to Break Software Security: Effective Techniques for Security Testing" (2004, Addison Wellesley) and most recently, "The Software Vulnerability Guide." (2005, Charles River Media)

At Security Innovation, Dr. Thompson is responsible for the overall security and research efforts, along with training developers and security testers at some of the world's largest software companies including Microsoft, VISA, HP, IBM, Cisco, Symantec, ING and SAP

ya okay so now you are going to call his credentials into question. okay, go ahead. the point is, he does have credentials, and the source of this story is not some nobody with a blog and an opinion.

They may fall like snowflakes on Buffalo here,

Maybe if you mean Buffalo, NY

I have yet to come across a BSOD joke "in the wild." A quick search of Google returned 81 pages of what passes for Geek humor. But damn few questions from end-users, and nothing from sources like "Consumer Reports."

That's funny, my Google search for BSOD yielded all sorts of links:
http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=1 647
http://www.ntbrad.com/bsod.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_screen_of_death
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/helpandsu pport/learnmore/russel_july09.mspx
http://www.sun.com/desktop/products/sunpci/bsod.pd f
http://www.sun.com/desktop/products/sunpci/bsod.pd f
http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/bus iness/columnists/gmsv/10581891.htm
http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/bus iness/columnists/gmsv/10581891.htm

I think you are giving your 6 year old too much credit.

He was six-years-old twelve years ago.

I don't think your six year old does things like your average home computer user would do. That is, import photos from a camera, hook up a printer/scanner, listen to and download music.

My eighteen-year-old son does that now on RedHat Linux. So does my sixteen-year-old daughter and my eleven-year-old daughter.

Face it, linux is meant for fanboys.

Or fangirls, as the case may be.

With several billion dollars at their disposal, all Microsoft can say at this point is that Linux isn't as good Windows on a few minor points.

Stunning success considering the wealth of Microsoft, don't you agree? I mean, how many fellows do they employ?

Surely you would think that with their capital they would be shitting all over Linux, desktop AND server, right?

What the fuck is wrong with Microsoft? Don't they have enough money to bury Linux?

What is wrong with Microsoft's management that they cannot completely bury Linux in the market? They have the intellectual firepower, money, market position, user base, developers, and world-wide support network.

If I read your post correctly, they are being matched by a bunch of fanboys and a rag-tag army of uncoordinated developers working with inferior coding tools.

What does that say about Microsoft? If Linux never existed, would this be the best that Microsoft can produce?

Rather sad, I'd say.

Being a programmer, I like participating in my favorite products' forums. Like, I report a bug, and a couple of days later, it's "fixed in CVS". I only have to recompile, and voila.

Anyway, one thing that is very needed, is the frequent release of products (release early, release often), which is why I love looking at the latest beta's of a product.

However, what I wouldn't like, is having to widthstand an awful beta full of bugs, specially if i can't contact the programmer.
And it's even more frustrating if said "beta" is actually a finished product, like this one or this one.

Haven't you guys been frustrated by the stupid MSN window re-scrolling whenever your buddy types something and you haven't finished reading what you missed? It's a nightmare!

This is why I like beta. At least I expect bugs to be present, and I'm ASSURED that, since it's beta, those bugs will be fixed soon.

And beta is also where the newest features are implemented, and I can say "wow! you rock!" I think Beta is the best part of a software development.

So, it depends. Beta, for open source products, is a dream come true. For closed source products, it's a nightmare.

Agreed. I also disagree on the point where company patches aren't beta or thouroughly tested: Case & Point, Windows Server 2003 Service Pack One.

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=898 060

This fixes and issue with 2003 SP1 (Being the idiot I am I downloaded and installed SP1 and put it on a production machine - because if you don't you leave yourself open) where specific setups revealed a bug in the tcpip.sys driver. I was on the unfortunate end of that suckah, before they had the fix available for download from the website (you had to call M$ support and M$ would send the fix by email). I argued with our vendor who supplied the database for two weeks:

Me: It ain't corperate firewall. It ain't the server's firewall. I can't access the database, but I can ping ip of the database server. When I reboot the database is accessible again. Wtf is wrong? It almost points out a bug in Windows' TCP/IP.
Vendor: Dunno. Lets capture packets.
Me: Okay. Here's the log. Now, tell me, WTF is wrong?
Vendor: Interesting. We don't know what it is, but not our problem. The database isn't causing it.
Me: To heck with you. I'm following what I learned from this knowledge base article from a completely different resource.

Viola. All fixed. Do not ever claim that all patches from vendors are polished fixes.

For those wondering, it's an extension on the RDP protocol used by Microsoft Remote Desktop Connection. Audio and Video are sent in sideband channels: http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url= /library/en-us/medctrsdk/htm/mediacenterextenders. asp

As far as Office is concerned, Yes, you can.

With the noted provisos of course.

Have you tried Neowin.net or Microsoft newsgroups?

I don't have any problems recording HBO shows.

I believe you are effected by the issue described in http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=891664

Does MS Office cost that much? I've never paid more than $20 for a full copy, and my copies came straight from Microsoft. I've worked for a couple of large companies where employees could buy copies of Office for home use for $20. It's the same with the military. Military members (and Reservists) can also participate. Here is the MS site on the program. So if employees are only paying $20/copy, it's probably the case that the companies aren't paying $350 a copy either, so the savings of OO are overstated.

Calling the $100 per computer a "tax" is a mischaracterization. Not only are you getting software but also support. If the price of that is a "tax", then I guess the Linux tax is the time spent searching out answers, installing missing or updated libraries, or looking for compatible hardware.

I'm not saying he is lying because I have not repeated the experiment. He could be right. I think this study is highly suspect because Security Innovation seems to be Microsoft-biased. In all three reports that Security Innovation has performed for Microsoft, they have concluded "Microsoft SQL Server 2000 on Windows Server 2003 had fewer security vulnerabilities and fewer days of risk compared to the MySQL and Oracle solutions[...]", or something similiar.

So, let's not pretend that SI is some independant company that was called on to do this study one day by Microsoft. They had delivered before for Microsoft.

I'm not saying he is lying because I have not repeated the experiment. He could be right. I think this study is highly suspect because Security Innovation seems to be Microsoft-biased. In all three reports that Security Innovation has performed for Microsoft, they have concluded "Microsoft SQL Server 2000 on Windows Server 2003 had fewer security vulnerabilities and fewer days of risk compared to the MySQL and Oracle solutions[...]", or something similiar.

So, let's not pretend that SI is some independant company that was called on to do this study one day by Microsoft. They had delivered before for Microsoft.

I'm not saying he is lying because I have not repeated the experiment. He could be right. I think this study is highly suspect because Security Innovation seems to be Microsoft-biased. In all three reports that Security Innovation has performed for Microsoft, they have concluded "Microsoft SQL Server 2000 on Windows Server 2003 had fewer security vulnerabilities and fewer days of risk compared to the MySQL and Oracle solutions[...]", or something similiar.

So, let's not pretend that SI is some independant company that was called on to do this study one day by Microsoft. They had delivered before for Microsoft.

I was hoping I could just install .NET on the power supply and adjust its heat with a string .

I would've thanked Microsoft for their proactive thinking.

Answers on a postcard to: http://www.microsoft.com/xbox360-fires

You should contact the legal firm of Spiro Moss Barness, etc... They are one of many firms united in a class action lawsuit about the Thompson DVD drives that were used in the Xbox. Microsoft seem to have been aware of the lack of quality in these drives as later models used different manufacturers. Despite this, if you talk to their customer service reps, they continue to ask you if your discs are dirty despite the fact you tell them you just bought the damn game.

I don't give a rat's ass about Sony's problems. I'm here to ask about the awful consumer experience I had with my original Xbox and what exactly is the truth about this new product. Here are links that show what a known issue those drives were.

http://sentientcreations.com/xboxIssues/problem.ph p

http://www.llamma.com/xbox/Repairs/xbox_dvd_repair .htm

Now there's an entire market based upon replacing your Xbox's DVD drive with a better one such as Samsung.

Microsoft's support solution: clean the disc. No matter how many times you tell them the disc is brand new, they say it's a dirty disc.

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb; en-us;8167

Then there was the power supply issue. A recall in which power cords were issued to cover up shoddy circuitry that could and did cause house fires. Mostly due to bad soldering. In the recall, older Xboxes were given power cords with breakers, so in the event of a short, you may burn out your Xbox but at least your house won't burn down.

http://s4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/ar/t 215.htm

So a few weeks ago we started to see Xbox 360s in demo retail models showing the dreaded Error 74. Photograph of it here.

http://joystiq.com/entry/1234000480066825/

Now we have reports of crashes that yes, are online and could be from a vocal minority, but I have never heard of or owned a console that crashes the way photographs show us is happening to the 360 - and let's remember the people complaining about it are the ones who braved the cold and the nuisance of picking one up.

http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/xbox-360/hours-old-an d-pgr3-crashing-like-mad-138978.php

Now apparently there is a fix in the form of suspending the power supply. People are finding it's working. Ergo, the power supply is defective. Just like the one on the original Xbox which was RECALLED.

Whatever marketing spiel Microsoft want to give, I want for them to answer one thing. What exactly is Error 74 and Error 79 - what does it mean is happening to the box. They have refused, as they did with the Thompson DVD drive, to let us know what is going wrong. Even if it isolated. Does it bode poorly for the future? Why is there a SPECIFIC error message already in the box's OS that is happening to people?

Now we know for certain that the machine is not only prone to overheating, there is an inbuilt error message related to it.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/907533/

And did you hear about how the tech support person told that guy to "wipe his video cables with a soft cloth"? Too rich.

You should contact the legal firm of Spiro Moss Barness, etc... They are one of many firms united in a class action lawsuit about the Thompson DVD drives that were used in the Xbox. Microsoft seem to have been aware of the lack of quality in these drives as later models used different manufacturers. Despite this, if you talk to their customer service reps, they continue to ask you if your discs are dirty despite the fact you tell them you just bought the damn game.

I don't give a rat's ass about Sony's problems. I'm here to ask about the awful consumer experience I had with my original Xbox and what exactly is the truth about this new product. Here are links that show what a known issue those drives were.

http://sentientcreations.com/xboxIssues/problem.ph p

http://www.llamma.com/xbox/Repairs/xbox_dvd_repair .htm

Now there's an entire market based upon replacing your Xbox's DVD drive with a better one such as Samsung.

Microsoft's support solution: clean the disc. No matter how many times you tell them the disc is brand new, they say it's a dirty disc.

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb; en-us;8167

Then there was the power supply issue. A recall in which power cords were issued to cover up shoddy circuitry that could and did cause house fires. Mostly due to bad soldering. In the recall, older Xboxes were given power cords with breakers, so in the event of a short, you may burn out your Xbox but at least your house won't burn down.

http://s4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/ar/t 215.htm

So a few weeks ago we started to see Xbox 360s in demo retail models showing the dreaded Error 74. Photograph of it here.

http://joystiq.com/entry/1234000480066825/

Now we have reports of crashes that yes, are online and could be from a vocal minority, but I have never heard of or owned a console that crashes the way photographs show us is happening to the 360 - and let's remember the people complaining about it are the ones who braved the cold and the nuisance of picking one up.

http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/xbox-360/hours-old-an d-pgr3-crashing-like-mad-138978.php

Now apparently there is a fix in the form of suspending the power supply. People are finding it's working. Ergo, the power supply is defective. Just like the one on the original Xbox which was RECALLED.

Whatever marketing spiel Microsoft want to give, I want for them to answer one thing. What exactly is Error 74 and Error 79 - what does it mean is happening to the box. They have refused, as they did with the Thompson DVD drive, to let us know what is going wrong. Even if it isolated. Does it bode poorly for the future? Why is there a SPECIFIC error message already in the box's OS that is happening to people?

Now we know for certain that the machine is not only prone to overheating, there is an inbuilt error message related to it.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/907533/

And did you hear about how the tech support person told that guy to "wipe his video cables with a soft cloth"? Too rich.

Microsoft's best product is their mice. Simple is beautiful.

due to my team's lack of experience in automating remote Hostname changes

You can change the port RDP listens on via a registry key.

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb; en-us;555031

Very true. On windows '95. Problems with system resources like this haven't been there since '98.

The GDI problems in Win9x were never fixed outright, just reduced. And the problems in Windows 2000 and XP are completely different, since they derive from NT.

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=126 962

I've had older versions of ZoneAlarm hit this limit:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=326 591