Slashdot Mirror

See subject: MS Update servers are hardcoded into the OS (unless someone can show me differently) as follows:

http://.update.microsoft.com/

https://.update.microsoft.com/

http://download.windowsupdate....

* Per the Windows HELP system itself, regarding "Windows Update error 80072efd"...

(Still - using WSUS or SMS possibly can 'override' that so you can 'mass deploy' updates to end point user desktop nodes for example, on an internal LAN).

APK

P.S.=> Oddly enough though? Another article MENTIONS hosts files interfering with it per "Windows Update error 80072ee7" so it *MAY* be possible to "override" those above with the WRONG IP Addresses - however, I am *FAIRLY CERTAIN* that's not the case (hence my initial reply regarding hosts affecting it adversely is not possible since MS bypasses hosts for Windows update, afaik)... apk

VB6 was discontinued right away when Microsoft combined VBRUNxxx.DLL with their Java implementation that got shitcanned by the anti-trust courts.

I though it was because VB6 was a COM product?

... Later still, they added a functional programming language.

Nice sledge :)

Win32 has not become "irrelevant", since all of the newer technologies still rely on those older ones. (.Net "winforms" simply packages up the old Win32 WNDCLASSEX and window class registration and instantiation into a handy Form object, so instead of 80+ lines of boiler-plate code, you use a simple new Form() and be done with it. I fail to see how this is anything but progress.)

And .Net uses GDI and GDI+ directly, and has done so since day 1.

I completely agree with everything you've written... if you're a .net programmer, you're fine. But if you're a C programmer sitting directly on top of Win32, you're screwed

My point, and I guess I didn't make it clearly, is that although these new technologies are fantastic, there is older code out there that is company-critical to companies who invested heavily in the creation of a solution, based on Microsoft's past history of obsessive backwards compatibility, and now find themselves with no way forwards, other than a costly rewrite.

VB6 and FoxPro served their purpose and needed to end. They were prototypes for various parts of what became .Net.

VB6 was discontinued right away when Microsoft combined VBRUNxxx.DLL with their Java implementation that got shitcanned by the anti-trust courts. Then they refined it into a common language runtime for a VB variant, a Java variant, and a heavily modified variant of C and all of the object oriented stuff that has cropped up around it. Later, they dropped the Java variant. Later still, they added a functional programming language.

FoxPro was discontinued when they released LINQ, which basically mimics the one thing FoxPro had going for it that nothing else did.

Win32 has not become "irrelevant", since all of the newer technologies still rely on those older ones. (.Net "winforms" simply packages up the old Win32 WNDCLASSEX and window class registration and instantiation into a handy Form object, so instead of 80+ lines of boiler-plate code, you use a simple new Form() and be done with it. I fail to see how this is anything but progress.)

And .Net uses GDI and GDI+ directly, and has done so since day 1. More recently, it also uses Direct3D and Windows Media Framework directly.

It's actually rather amazing that otherwise well-informed people on tech sites keep parroting this panicky crap that naysayers said years ago without doing any research into whether it's correct or not. It seems that the one thing Microsoft hasn't been able to change is the level of trust people place in them. A good portion of that was earned, but it's also about time that some people at least brush a few of the chips off of their shoulders.

VB6 and FoxPro served their purpose and needed to end. They were prototypes for various parts of what became .Net.

VB6 was discontinued right away when Microsoft combined VBRUNxxx.DLL with their Java implementation that got shitcanned by the anti-trust courts. Then they refined it into a common language runtime for a VB variant, a Java variant, and a heavily modified variant of C and all of the object oriented stuff that has cropped up around it. Later, they dropped the Java variant. Later still, they added a functional programming language.

FoxPro was discontinued when they released LINQ, which basically mimics the one thing FoxPro had going for it that nothing else did.

Win32 has not become "irrelevant", since all of the newer technologies still rely on those older ones. (.Net "winforms" simply packages up the old Win32 WNDCLASSEX and window class registration and instantiation into a handy Form object, so instead of 80+ lines of boiler-plate code, you use a simple new Form() and be done with it. I fail to see how this is anything but progress.)

And .Net uses GDI and GDI+ directly, and has done so since day 1. More recently, it also uses Direct3D and Windows Media Framework directly.

It's actually rather amazing that otherwise well-informed people on tech sites keep parroting this panicky crap that naysayers said years ago without doing any research into whether it's correct or not. It seems that the one thing Microsoft hasn't been able to change is the level of trust people place in them. A good portion of that was earned, but it's also about time that some people at least brush a few of the chips off of their shoulders.

VB6 and FoxPro served their purpose and needed to end. They were prototypes for various parts of what became .Net.

VB6 was discontinued right away when Microsoft combined VBRUNxxx.DLL with their Java implementation that got shitcanned by the anti-trust courts. Then they refined it into a common language runtime for a VB variant, a Java variant, and a heavily modified variant of C and all of the object oriented stuff that has cropped up around it. Later, they dropped the Java variant. Later still, they added a functional programming language.

FoxPro was discontinued when they released LINQ, which basically mimics the one thing FoxPro had going for it that nothing else did.

Win32 has not become "irrelevant", since all of the newer technologies still rely on those older ones. (.Net "winforms" simply packages up the old Win32 WNDCLASSEX and window class registration and instantiation into a handy Form object, so instead of 80+ lines of boiler-plate code, you use a simple new Form() and be done with it. I fail to see how this is anything but progress.)

And .Net uses GDI and GDI+ directly, and has done so since day 1. More recently, it also uses Direct3D and Windows Media Framework directly.

It's actually rather amazing that otherwise well-informed people on tech sites keep parroting this panicky crap that naysayers said years ago without doing any research into whether it's correct or not. It seems that the one thing Microsoft hasn't been able to change is the level of trust people place in them. A good portion of that was earned, but it's also about time that some people at least brush a few of the chips off of their shoulders.

There are ways to work around UAC without disabling it in this case. I know, because I wrote MaxTo, which does much the same things, and works with software running under UAC.

If you want MaxTo to work with UAC, you'll need to run MaxTo elevated. If you say deny elevation, it simply won't work with elevated software.

I'm pretty sure LG just took the "easy way" out (or they may have nefarious purposes, but I won't speculate), instead of figuring out how to communicate between elevated and non-elevated processes.

To do this sort of thing, you'll need to divide your software into a few parts. First and foremost, you'll need to install a global system hook. That hook has to be written in unmanaged code (meaning C/C++). You'll need software that controls the hook (but it can be written in a managed language). Now, both the controlling software and the hook has to be compiled as both x64 and x86 code. They will probably also have to communicate with eachother across the x86/x64 platform boundary.

Now, to get the software to communicate (using window messages) across the UAC boundary, you have to specifically let Windows know which window messages your app will accept from the other side. This is probably the step they missed. You do this by using ChangeWindowMessageFilter or ChangeWindowMessageFilterEx .

There are ways to work around UAC without disabling it in this case. I know, because I wrote MaxTo, which does much the same things, and works with software running under UAC.

If you want MaxTo to work with UAC, you'll need to run MaxTo elevated. If you say deny elevation, it simply won't work with elevated software.

I'm pretty sure LG just took the "easy way" out (or they may have nefarious purposes, but I won't speculate), instead of figuring out how to communicate between elevated and non-elevated processes.

To do this sort of thing, you'll need to divide your software into a few parts. First and foremost, you'll need to install a global system hook. That hook has to be written in unmanaged code (meaning C/C++). You'll need software that controls the hook (but it can be written in a managed language). Now, both the controlling software and the hook has to be compiled as both x64 and x86 code. They will probably also have to communicate with eachother across the x86/x64 platform boundary.

Now, to get the software to communicate (using window messages) across the UAC boundary, you have to specifically let Windows know which window messages your app will accept from the other side. This is probably the step they missed. You do this by using ChangeWindowMessageFilter or ChangeWindowMessageFilterEx .

Why does Apple get to decide what certs are trusted or untrusted? They should send out a security notice advising customers about the situation and then let individuals deal with it from there. Also, all certs should be shipped as "untrusted" so that the user can selectively enable what he wants to be trusted.

Have you looked at the root CA list in any of the major browsers/OSs? Why are we required to implicitly trust every single one of these entities to sign anything they want? If those lists illustrate how broken the CA system is, I don't know what will.

Kodu from MSR is excellent.

http://research.microsoft.com/...

"Kodu is a new visual programming language made specifically for creating games. It is designed to be accessible for children and enjoyable for anyone. The programming environment runs on the Xbox, allowing rapid design iteration using only a game controller for input."

This thing is going to be a hard sell wit the new Surface 3 that just came out. $499, or $629 for this android tablet is exactly the same price as the Surface 3. Why would I want an Android laptop when I could have a full Windows laptop. The base model comes with 64 GB of storage.

Well, Microsoft, for example, has over 500 open job positions in Seattle metro area alone. Can you point out an example that has a "job description which is impossible" or is "geared to bringing in a specific foreign worker" out of those?

This is the only security fix you need:
http://windows.microsoft.com/e...

I'm not convinced its he best designed, nor is the chap in the first link I posted where he complains that in 9 years of using WPF it hasn't gone anywhere and is pretty complex and bloated to use.

The "it hasn't gone anywhere" claim is plain wrong. He gives a very simple "Hello world" sample which hasn't changed (and why would it?), and then contrasts it with the same in ASP.NET and ASP.NET MVC - which are of course different, because they are two vastly different frameworks! There were plenty of major incremental improvements in WPF since then, as the changelogs clearly show.

What hasn't changed is the basics of the framework. And yes, I agree that some of it is not too well designed - e.g. XAML syntax is unnecessary verbose, and QML is much better in that regard. But most of those are surface issues. The core design - the notion of element tree, layout engine, layout and render transforms, data binding, styles, triggers etc - is solid, very powerful, and very flexible.

He's also complaining about things which don't have much to do with WPF - for example, MVVM, which is a generic UI design pattern (which I personally find unnecessary in WPF, because its data binding facilities are flexible enough that it can bind directly to a properly designed model, with converters effectively covering the VM layer).

Some of the point-by-point small things that he brings up are plain wrong, e.g. "Allow binding events directly to methods instead of via commands" - you could do it since WPF 1.0, right in XAML. Some are valid, but can be easily extended by third-party libraries, e.g.: "Allow C# expressions like basic boolean logic instead of requiring converters all the time" - as it happens I have implemented this personally. Some points (again, mostly about XAML syntax and verbosity) are valid but are minor. In any case, the only other comparable framework, even taking into account all these idiosyncrasies, is Qt+QML - and it took Qt a few years longer to even ship a first version of that, and then a couple more years to get it to usable shape. I'm not aware of any other viable competitors in this area.

Imagine if Microsoft had done that instead of reinventing the GUI wheel - you'd create a control in WPF and could drop it onto a Winforms dialog. That would have been good.

You can actually do it (and also the other way around).

The problem is that it's very hard to marry a UI framework that uses immediate, resolution-dependent, non-compositing 2D rendering (WinForms) with a transformation- and composition-based pipeline (WPF). It is possible only if you rewrite the former to be like the latter, but that also breaks backwards compatibility. Qt did that during the 3.x -> 4.x transition, and if you remember that, it wasn't exactly a smooth move.

As it is, WPF is just now very well designed, and not vey well implemented. As the other link showed, the chart controls only work for small datasets, if you want something that works well - you use the old winforms one!

WPF grid is slow largely because it uses the WPF layout engine, which is optimized for at most a few hundred widgets on the form, rather than many thousands of small cells. There are plenty of third-party grid controls for WPF that are blazing fast. By the way, the original WinForms grid control was also painfully slow (for some of the same reasons), and it took until .NET 2.0 to make a new one that was fast.

And remember, WPF development began some time in 2003, and the first alphas went public in 2004 - and the first release was in 2006. This was back whe

I'm not convinced its he best designed, nor is the chap in the first link I posted where he complains that in 9 years of using WPF it hasn't gone anywhere and is pretty complex and bloated to use.

The "it hasn't gone anywhere" claim is plain wrong. He gives a very simple "Hello world" sample which hasn't changed (and why would it?), and then contrasts it with the same in ASP.NET and ASP.NET MVC - which are of course different, because they are two vastly different frameworks! There were plenty of major incremental improvements in WPF since then, as the changelogs clearly show.

What hasn't changed is the basics of the framework. And yes, I agree that some of it is not too well designed - e.g. XAML syntax is unnecessary verbose, and QML is much better in that regard. But most of those are surface issues. The core design - the notion of element tree, layout engine, layout and render transforms, data binding, styles, triggers etc - is solid, very powerful, and very flexible.

He's also complaining about things which don't have much to do with WPF - for example, MVVM, which is a generic UI design pattern (which I personally find unnecessary in WPF, because its data binding facilities are flexible enough that it can bind directly to a properly designed model, with converters effectively covering the VM layer).

Some of the point-by-point small things that he brings up are plain wrong, e.g. "Allow binding events directly to methods instead of via commands" - you could do it since WPF 1.0, right in XAML. Some are valid, but can be easily extended by third-party libraries, e.g.: "Allow C# expressions like basic boolean logic instead of requiring converters all the time" - as it happens I have implemented this personally. Some points (again, mostly about XAML syntax and verbosity) are valid but are minor. In any case, the only other comparable framework, even taking into account all these idiosyncrasies, is Qt+QML - and it took Qt a few years longer to even ship a first version of that, and then a couple more years to get it to usable shape. I'm not aware of any other viable competitors in this area.

Imagine if Microsoft had done that instead of reinventing the GUI wheel - you'd create a control in WPF and could drop it onto a Winforms dialog. That would have been good.

You can actually do it (and also the other way around).

The problem is that it's very hard to marry a UI framework that uses immediate, resolution-dependent, non-compositing 2D rendering (WinForms) with a transformation- and composition-based pipeline (WPF). It is possible only if you rewrite the former to be like the latter, but that also breaks backwards compatibility. Qt did that during the 3.x -> 4.x transition, and if you remember that, it wasn't exactly a smooth move.

As it is, WPF is just now very well designed, and not vey well implemented. As the other link showed, the chart controls only work for small datasets, if you want something that works well - you use the old winforms one!

WPF grid is slow largely because it uses the WPF layout engine, which is optimized for at most a few hundred widgets on the form, rather than many thousands of small cells. There are plenty of third-party grid controls for WPF that are blazing fast. By the way, the original WinForms grid control was also painfully slow (for some of the same reasons), and it took until .NET 2.0 to make a new one that was fast.

And remember, WPF development began some time in 2003, and the first alphas went public in 2004 - and the first release was in 2006. This was back whe

It uses Virtual actors, which is quite a different model to traditional actors in libraries like Akka.
This paper from Microsoft details exactly how they work and what the difference is. Orbit is modeled off that Microsoft project.

“If you open a file, we may collect information about the file, the application used to open the file, and how long it takes any use [of] it for purposes such as improving performance, or [if you] enter text, we may collect typed characters, we may collect typed characters and use them for purposes such as improving autocomplete and spell check features,”

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-gb/windows/preview-privacy-statement

First, when you say shit like "intellectually honest developer" you are committing an Ad Hominem logical fallacy in your argument, therefore making your argument invalid.

Now, why do I think VS is a hot mess? Stuff like this:

https://social.msdn.microsoft....

When the features of your IDE is driven by the bean counters, then it is time to switch.

If I were using Windows and considering using Windows 10 it would be a big point in its favor if it either had a more traditional UI by default, or an easy way to switch to that look. I gather that Windows 7 had that, and I don't think that I'm the only one who would want it in Windows 10.

Actually Windows 10 is based on the traditional UI with Start Menu, desktop icons, and a taskbar. It also comes with virtual desktops.

If you haven't been following this stuff, now is good time to try the free preview to see if it is something you could like. :) The Feedback button is right in the Start Menu.

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/preview-iso

Actually they did mention it. They just rolled it out - however it is currently for businesses. (I don't mean Software Assurance - SA.) This is a subscription like Office 365 for business that covers Windows per user on multiple devices. It IS listed under Software Assurance, but it is a per user subscription license. Sorry it is a PDF: http://download.microsoft.com/....

W10TP has virtual desktops. :)

You can still try it out for free: http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/preview-iso

It's using this: http://cordova.apache.org/ (via https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-...

Have you seen OOXML?

Yes. Have you?

The reason they had to fork is because the format is SO binary and tied into the old legacy codebase that - even masquerading behind an XML front - there's no illusion of portability whatsoever.

There's nothing "binary" about it at all. It's pretty much just XML in a Zip archive with a known archive structure. The XML is well documented, and is basically the WordprocessingML, SpreadsheetML, DatadiagramML, and other Office XP-era XML schemas. The archive wrapper around the *ML formats allows for local resource embedding. The old *ML formats didn't allow for embedded images, charts, and other OLE-style document embedding, but using in-archive resource references allows for that now. That's all OOXML is, really.

And you know what? That's all the iWork formats are, too. They're a Zip file with XML files and other binary resources embedded (like a JPEG that you pasted into a document, so the "binary" part is your fault, dumbass). The only notable difference between OOXML and iWork formats is that OOXML is an actual standard (however it got there is irrelevant now), while iWork's XML schema is not, and iWork includes a Plist manifest file as a sort of "header" to the archive that isn't present in the OOXML archive format.

They were forced to document it, by the EU, and all they did was describe every hack, binary fudge and kludge that went into it so that it was almost impossible to make a compatible format.

No, they documented it because they document everything and release it to developers because that's how their bread gets buttered.

Here's the MSDN documentation for the System.IO.Packaging namespace that allows .Net to interact with OOXML archives in an easy and abstract way.

When you're talking Office on Mac, it's not a question of just adding Mac UI code and incorporating another platform into the build process. It's replicating all those stupid bit-wise assumptions made throughout the format. It's like WMF used to be - literally just a description of the Windows GDI commands required to replicate the object on the screen (which is why WMFs were capable of containing executable code!). That's pretty much the best analogue to something like MS's "open" XML formats.

That's why Microsoft is getting rid of the old OLE formats, but that has nothing to do with OOXML.

Meanwhile, ODF, however well-documented it is, is still a big pile of OLE-style binary failure. Microsoft has abandoned those formats because they get unstable when you add support for all of the features that Office has. They corrupt easily and are unfixable. A broken OOXML or iWork file can be unzipped and read with a text editor.

I'm not surprised that the Mac versions are staggered by several years and not entirely compatible. That's how long it takes to emulate the Windows-specific fudges in the format.

The Mac versions are delayed by a year (one, not "several") and aren't entirely compatible because they're made by a different development team (MacBU) and they're working with different constraints in a different operating system, and that causes different bugs. The file format has little to do with any of the differences between the two versions of Office.

Oh, and Office has supported ODF without any additional plugins since Office 2007. The UK's demands likely were met with laughter at Microsoft HQ, since Office 365 is just a maintenance subscription for a locally-downloadable copy of the current version of Office. It includes ODF support just like 2007, 2010, and 2013. (Right now, Office 365 literally is Office 2013.) So this...

What MS are scared of is a format that works across all platforms because, then, what's to say you'll

Microsoft have decided that the buck stops with MCS Holdings and will be revoking all of their certificates, but letting CNNIC and their other customers off the hook. I suspect the update will go out as part of the regular patch batch on April 14th.

one of the dlls is mshtml.dll and I know several applications that use it - anything that has an embedded browser for example, MS Money is one that uses a browser control as its entire display surface.

The other is ShDocVw,dll which is a browser control - Explorer uses this.

https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-...

I liked the part how you overlooked the text in your own quote about collecting data by external means not related to a Microsoft Account.

We collect this information in a variety of ways, including from web forms, technologies like cookies, web logging and software on your computer or other device.

I also like how you overlooked the sentences like these:

We use demographic information – gender, country, age and postal code but not your name or contact information – from your Microsoft account to provide personalized ads to you.

I also liked how you overlooked that was the privacy policy for Microsoft Services. You still have privacy policies for

Bing & MSN: http://www.microsoft.com/priva...
CRM: http://www.microsoft.com/priva...
Microsoft.com: http://www.microsoft.com/priva...
Mobile Devices: http://www.microsoft.com/en-us...
Office: http://www.microsoft.com/priva...
Enterprise Services: http://www.microsoft.com/priva...
XBox: http://www.microsoft.com/priva...
All other products(Including the Windows OS): http://www.microsoft.com/priva...

I liked the part how you overlooked the text in your own quote about collecting data by external means not related to a Microsoft Account.

We collect this information in a variety of ways, including from web forms, technologies like cookies, web logging and software on your computer or other device.

I also like how you overlooked the sentences like these:

We use demographic information – gender, country, age and postal code but not your name or contact information – from your Microsoft account to provide personalized ads to you.

I also liked how you overlooked that was the privacy policy for Microsoft Services. You still have privacy policies for

Bing & MSN: http://www.microsoft.com/priva...
CRM: http://www.microsoft.com/priva...
Microsoft.com: http://www.microsoft.com/priva...
Mobile Devices: http://www.microsoft.com/en-us...
Office: http://www.microsoft.com/priva...
Enterprise Services: http://www.microsoft.com/priva...
XBox: http://www.microsoft.com/priva...
All other products(Including the Windows OS): http://www.microsoft.com/priva...

I liked the part how you overlooked the text in your own quote about collecting data by external means not related to a Microsoft Account.

We collect this information in a variety of ways, including from web forms, technologies like cookies, web logging and software on your computer or other device.

I also like how you overlooked the sentences like these:

We use demographic information – gender, country, age and postal code but not your name or contact information – from your Microsoft account to provide personalized ads to you.

I also liked how you overlooked that was the privacy policy for Microsoft Services. You still have privacy policies for

Bing & MSN: http://www.microsoft.com/priva...
CRM: http://www.microsoft.com/priva...
Microsoft.com: http://www.microsoft.com/priva...
Mobile Devices: http://www.microsoft.com/en-us...
Office: http://www.microsoft.com/priva...
Enterprise Services: http://www.microsoft.com/priva...
XBox: http://www.microsoft.com/priva...
All other products(Including the Windows OS): http://www.microsoft.com/priva...

I liked the part how you overlooked the text in your own quote about collecting data by external means not related to a Microsoft Account.

We collect this information in a variety of ways, including from web forms, technologies like cookies, web logging and software on your computer or other device.

I also like how you overlooked the sentences like these:

We use demographic information – gender, country, age and postal code but not your name or contact information – from your Microsoft account to provide personalized ads to you.

I also liked how you overlooked that was the privacy policy for Microsoft Services. You still have privacy policies for

Bing & MSN: http://www.microsoft.com/priva...
CRM: http://www.microsoft.com/priva...
Microsoft.com: http://www.microsoft.com/priva...
Mobile Devices: http://www.microsoft.com/en-us...
Office: http://www.microsoft.com/priva...
Enterprise Services: http://www.microsoft.com/priva...
XBox: http://www.microsoft.com/priva...
All other products(Including the Windows OS): http://www.microsoft.com/priva...

I liked the part how you overlooked the text in your own quote about collecting data by external means not related to a Microsoft Account.

We collect this information in a variety of ways, including from web forms, technologies like cookies, web logging and software on your computer or other device.

I also like how you overlooked the sentences like these:

We use demographic information – gender, country, age and postal code but not your name or contact information – from your Microsoft account to provide personalized ads to you.

I also liked how you overlooked that was the privacy policy for Microsoft Services. You still have privacy policies for

Bing & MSN: http://www.microsoft.com/priva...
CRM: http://www.microsoft.com/priva...
Microsoft.com: http://www.microsoft.com/priva...
Mobile Devices: http://www.microsoft.com/en-us...
Office: http://www.microsoft.com/priva...
Enterprise Services: http://www.microsoft.com/priva...
XBox: http://www.microsoft.com/priva...
All other products(Including the Windows OS): http://www.microsoft.com/priva...

I liked the part how you overlooked the text in your own quote about collecting data by external means not related to a Microsoft Account.

We collect this information in a variety of ways, including from web forms, technologies like cookies, web logging and software on your computer or other device.

I also like how you overlooked the sentences like these:

We use demographic information – gender, country, age and postal code but not your name or contact information – from your Microsoft account to provide personalized ads to you.

I also liked how you overlooked that was the privacy policy for Microsoft Services. You still have privacy policies for

Bing & MSN: http://www.microsoft.com/priva...
CRM: http://www.microsoft.com/priva...
Microsoft.com: http://www.microsoft.com/priva...
Mobile Devices: http://www.microsoft.com/en-us...
Office: http://www.microsoft.com/priva...
Enterprise Services: http://www.microsoft.com/priva...
XBox: http://www.microsoft.com/priva...
All other products(Including the Windows OS): http://www.microsoft.com/priva...

I liked the part how you overlooked the text in your own quote about collecting data by external means not related to a Microsoft Account.

We collect this information in a variety of ways, including from web forms, technologies like cookies, web logging and software on your computer or other device.

I also like how you overlooked the sentences like these:

We use demographic information – gender, country, age and postal code but not your name or contact information – from your Microsoft account to provide personalized ads to you.

I also liked how you overlooked that was the privacy policy for Microsoft Services. You still have privacy policies for

Bing & MSN: http://www.microsoft.com/priva...
CRM: http://www.microsoft.com/priva...
Microsoft.com: http://www.microsoft.com/priva...
Mobile Devices: http://www.microsoft.com/en-us...
Office: http://www.microsoft.com/priva...
Enterprise Services: http://www.microsoft.com/priva...
XBox: http://www.microsoft.com/priva...
All other products(Including the Windows OS): http://www.microsoft.com/priva...

I liked the part how you overlooked the text in your own quote about collecting data by external means not related to a Microsoft Account.

We collect this information in a variety of ways, including from web forms, technologies like cookies, web logging and software on your computer or other device.

I also like how you overlooked the sentences like these:

We use demographic information – gender, country, age and postal code but not your name or contact information – from your Microsoft account to provide personalized ads to you.

I also liked how you overlooked that was the privacy policy for Microsoft Services. You still have privacy policies for

Bing & MSN: http://www.microsoft.com/priva...
CRM: http://www.microsoft.com/priva...
Microsoft.com: http://www.microsoft.com/priva...
Mobile Devices: http://www.microsoft.com/en-us...
Office: http://www.microsoft.com/priva...
Enterprise Services: http://www.microsoft.com/priva...
XBox: http://www.microsoft.com/priva...
All other products(Including the Windows OS): http://www.microsoft.com/priva...

Not sure if you've wandered over to the Microsoft Privacy Policy: http://www.microsoft.com/priva... but they collect info about you too.

Not really sure if you're a Microsoft employee, but it looks like one or two have visited based on some of the comments I see here. People rambling on about Google spying as if no other web service collects data about its users. At the same time try to lift up Microsoft as if they're the bastion of hope for a 100% private internet when they are really doing the same thing Google is doing. It's the pot calling the kettle black and nothing more. Furthermore, Microsofts continual attempts at smear campaigns against any competitors just makes me desire their products less and less.

Just look at the difference in advertising, Google just promotes their products while Microsoft just bashes the competition. It comes off as extremely immature and childish of Microsoft. To top it off they throw in astroturfing on boards like this and reddit and it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

For the OCR2.x (95b and 95c), Yes
Personally, I like Win 95C better than 98 First Edition, mainly because IE was an optional component installed after the first Boot of the initial Windows install.

I picked up a Fitbit One at a local thrift store just last week for $20. It is in unopened packaging, iow brand new.

I haven't opened it yet but plan to soon.

I am interested in a Microsoft Band, too. Though they're kind of pricey. It's weird how Microsoft has already come out with their 'health smart watch' and few people seem to know it's even available. It works with ALL the mobile platforms, btw.

C# has checked blocks.

Now you know two languages that check for integer overflows.

Starting with Windows 8 / 2012, developers have restricted disk / volume I/O access. I'm not sure how this plays in regards to the testing, but link below nonetheless.

https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-...

Sounds like the Windows install media is picking up the OEM key in the BIOS instead of prompting you for a key. Best way around this is to create a Windows 8.1 USB stick and setup an ei.cfg file to force the Pro version to install. https://technet.microsoft.com/...

Eh, there is less control in SQL Server over locking than there is in other RDBMSs, and it is infamous for escalating locks to the page or table level even when you ask for lower level locks. It's rare that it happens, but it's not unheard of. The fact that the system uses optimistic locking and there's no good equivalent to SELECT ... FOR UPDATE is also somewhat problematic.

It's greatly mitigated in 2005+ by using read committed row versioning (MVCC) and/or snapshot isolation, but those are database level options and you may need to specifically request the right isolation levels with your code. The biggest problem is that you have to remember to use the feature; it's just always on with Oracle from what I hear (I haven't used it since I was in school).

There's a mountain of documentation (and videos!) from Microsoft on all this. The greatest thing about SQL Server is the extremely high quality of the documentation. It's a joy to learn about compared to IBM's DB2 documentation (but then, anything is better than IBM documentation), and Books Online is a step ahead of Oracle, MySQL, and PostgreSQL.

Eh, there is less control in SQL Server over locking than there is in other RDBMSs, and it is infamous for escalating locks to the page or table level even when you ask for lower level locks. It's rare that it happens, but it's not unheard of. The fact that the system uses optimistic locking and there's no good equivalent to SELECT ... FOR UPDATE is also somewhat problematic.

It's greatly mitigated in 2005+ by using read committed row versioning (MVCC) and/or snapshot isolation, but those are database level options and you may need to specifically request the right isolation levels with your code. The biggest problem is that you have to remember to use the feature; it's just always on with Oracle from what I hear (I haven't used it since I was in school).

There's a mountain of documentation (and videos!) from Microsoft on all this. The greatest thing about SQL Server is the extremely high quality of the documentation. It's a joy to learn about compared to IBM's DB2 documentation (but then, anything is better than IBM documentation), and Books Online is a step ahead of Oracle, MySQL, and PostgreSQL.

This isn't year 2000 anymore. Most of the commercial database vendors have "developer editions" available for free. There's usually a bunch of restrictions such as total database size, number of concurrent connections (usually 1) or local access only. Microsoft has made a pared-down SQL Server available for free under monikers such as "Compact Edition", "Express Edition" and (I think?) "Embedded Edition". Currently, with SQL Server 2014, it's Express Edition and a size limit of 10 GB per database. I don't see a connection limit specified, just a compute restriction of "the lesser of 1 socket or 4 cores". I've seen some Windows games utilize this engine to store game assets.

I Googled "sql server xml" and this was the second result. One caveat from someone who has ripped it out of several lazily-coded systems that used it: It's slow as shit. Only use this if you don't care how long a process takes.

Just as an example, a process using this took 45 minutes to run for 6000 rows of data. To be fair, there was a heavy amount of processing going on behind all of that. But removing the XML formatting from the database and returning a simple datatable back to the .NET program that called it improved processing time to about 45 seconds. It still had to do that same "heavy processing", it just didn't have to format it as XML. It only took another 45 seconds for .NET to generate and spit out those 6000 rows as XML files, giving us a 96% reduction in run time.

Rule of thumb: Databases are good at searching, filtering, and returning resultsets of strongly-typed data. Forcing it to do formatting and presentation will just bog it down doing a job that it's not designed to do.

That's why Microsoft released Sysprep. Run that, then make your image. When you boot the image, it will detect all hardware and not assume it is running on the machine the image was taken from. This works in Windows 2000, XP, & Vista, at least.

IE6s only "problem" was that it was supported for 10+ years and that business uptake of Vista was low. If Vista had been a business success we'd generally be having this conversation around IE9 now, not IE6.

IE6 is still technically supported when installed on Server 2003 and in Windows XP Embedded for example.

Microsoft have thankfully corrected this policy, however they have to maintain their existing commitments: https://support.microsoft.com/...

Why keep upgrading your internal web apps, when you can keep them static for 10 years.

Jason.

In particular the sidewinder X6 keyboards.

I also like that it has an adjustable red backlight.

http://www.microsoft.com/hardw...

Drag (with either the mouse, a stylus, or your finger) from anywhere on the very top of the screen to anywhere at the very bottom in one long continuous motion and then let go.

http://windows.microsoft.com/e...

Apparently you can also hold it there for a sec and the tile will flip around to indicate that you are closing it and any other processes that may be associated with it.

I'm not defending Microsoft's complete paradigm change of a user interface but I also won't defend people who don't take a second to try to learn new things.

Problem 1: Multiple instances of the same program.

This was answered in the link that you provided. Right click on the task bar icon and open a new instance of the application (or access the jump list of recently used files). It works for Windows 7 and 8.

Problem 2: The start screen forces me into a mobile interface.

Yeah, I hate the Metro interface too. But this is the high profile change that they made to Windows 10, so it is already a solved problem.

Problem 3: Windows 8 sends to Microsoft everything we locally search.

This is a configurable option in Windows 8.1, so that isn't a problem.

Problem 4: Functionality isn't everything.

It will be interesting how many of Windows 8's less intuitive user interface features will still be around in the final version of Windows 10. My most hated modern user interface idea is the removal of UI hints to simplify the screen. You end up having to try clicking and swiping everything just to see if it does something. Having to move the mouse to particular corners of the screen is a crap idea too

Problem 5: The new paradigm has a negative impact on consumer perceptions.
The absolute best way for Microsoft to introduce the changes we've seen with Windows 8 would have been to make them optional at the moment of installation. We could then have chosen the interface that best suits our device.

Well that is what they have done now. I read a great article once on the though process that went on behind the scenes about the new interface. I wish I could find it again, because it put it all into perspective. I will still always hate the Metro interface and the loss of functionality that it brings, but I have been surprised at the change of heart about it that the staff at my company have had about it. They went from hating it to acceptance (and even one who loves it).

Problem 6: Nothing about the new Windows features is necessary.

That gets said about every version of Windows. XP was just a face-lift on 2000. Vista was just XP run as a limited user. Windows 7 was just Vista, which, for some reason, the people who hated Vista decided that they loved. The changes in each version are more noticeable when moving back to an old version. You suddenly realise how many of the new features you use when they suddenly disappear.

Now I write that though (on my Windows 7 computer), I can't think of any examples of things that I miss from Win8 right now.

You didn't say what platform, but this has been an on-going emphasis for both Apple and Microsoft for a long time.

For OS X and iOS, see

http://www.apple.com/accessibi...
http://www.apple.com/accessibi...

For Windows, see

http://www.microsoft.com/enabl...

Hope this helps.

--Paul

Fine motor control? So gross is okay, can move arms or legs in a big way, but not fine finger movement? The general term is "Assistive Technology".

Use built-in system adaptations: change mouse sensitivity, keyboard repeat rate, use the numeric keypad to move the mouse. See Control Panel > Ease of Access Center in Windows. "Make the mouse easier to use" and "Make the keyboard easier to use". http://www.microsoft.com/enabl...

Tremors? http://www.steadymouse.com/ to dampen mouse movement.

Move the mouse using a trackball, can't click? Dwell clicker. http://sensorysoftware.com/mor...

Could move a game controller or joystick, not the mouse? JoyToKey http://www.oneswitch.org.uk/2/...

Can move head? Cameramouse, http://cameramouse.org/

Not use a keyboard? Probably up to using an "on-screen keyboard" and "switching". There's an OSK in Windows, 7 and later is OK, before then not so good. Many others, The Grid 2 is probably the best. http://sensorysoftware.com/gri.... You'll find at this point that everything is starting to look very "special needs" - the market usually addresses people with cognitive as well as physical problems, and starts to get called "AAC". But the technology is in there. You might also want to check out switching with an iPad/iPhone - recent iOS releases have fantastic switching capacity built in. Proloquo2Go is the most famous iOS app. It's expensive for an app, but it's dirt cheap compared to dedicated hardware solutions (like Stephen Hawking stuff)

Operate one control only? http://www.webbie.org.uk/onesw...

In the USA? Try finding your state's Assistive Technology Resource Center. In the UK? ACE Centre is good, http://acecentre.org.uk/.

Key thing: usually people put off acquiring and learning to use the technology until it is too late, because it's too depressing. The medical channels for getting this stuff are often slow (at least in my country, the UK) so if your friend has a progressive, degenerative disease, you might be best going with something you can get right away and is not too off-putting - if you get an iPad and use that, you can get it right now and it doesn't have as much stigma as an obviously medical device. Many of these conditions have a very limited lifespan, so you need to get something soon if it's going to be useful.

It's also worth noting that switching is really slow and painful for someone who is used to normal usage, and that the role of the main carer/partner is essential in successful adoption of this kind of technology.

(Quick whirlwind notes from a technical rather than medical guy, excuse any slightly-off nomenclature. And your friend might just need to adjust her Windows settings, and I've leapt to much more "advanced" systems than she needs - but you don't think a trackball will cut it, and she's clearly been normal up to now, so I'm thinking the worst...)

I've had a PC running Windows Media Center recording TV on the broad cast schedule for about 10 years now. It currently has 6 tuners (records 6 things at once) for cable broadcasts, and an older tuner to pick up FM on occasion. I can watch live TV/radio, schedule recordings or watch recordings from anywhere in the house that has a TV via Windows Media Center extenders, one Ceton Echo extender and a few Xbox 360s. I can watch iTunes videos or play music, Amazon streaming, or transcode (on the fly) pretty much anything else without any effort by myself or anyone else in the family. With RemotePotato, I can also do anything that I can do in the house from anywhere with a fast enough Internet connection. I can watch TV on my phone, my iPad, or any laptop (we all use OS X, but Windows is easier) in the house.

To put it bluntly, my PC that is slaved to broadcast/scheduled TV kicks the living shit out of every DVR on the planet you've ever seen or known about, especially the shitty ones that the cable companies provide. Whats more important, it means I'm not slaved to the schedule or the commercials.

There are many PCs that come with built in tuners still to this day, as well as a few laptops, though you won't find a laptop that takes a CableCARD as best I can tell, where as full sized PCs or devices like the HDHomeRun Prime do.

I'm fairly certain the only miss here is your analysis.

http://windows.microsoft.com/e...

http://www.silicondust.com/pro...

http://cetoncorp.com/

The only miss here is your knowledge on the subject. Either that or your a cable company shill still trying to kill the CableCARD requirement.

Yeah, if there was any serious "miss" in the HTPC/set top box arena, it was that Microsoft didn't market Media Center correctly. It does seem to be the top of the food chain when it comes to HTPC. I am a huge Apple fan, but I *almost* want to set up a WMC machine myself.