Slashdot Mirror

No, in Windows the a WDM driver calls Windows and asks for a scatter gather list. Also you allocate something called map registers

http://blogs.msdn.com/peterwie/archive/2006/03/02/542517.aspx

Map registers are an abstraction the DMA API uses to track the system resources needed to make one page of memory accessible by your device for a DMA transfer. They may represent a bounce buffer - a single page of memory which the device can access that the DMA will use to double-buffer part of your transfer. They could (in the world of the future) represent entries in a page map that maps pages in the physical address space into the device's logical address space (another DDK term). Or in the case of a 32-bit adapter on a 32-bit system where there's no need for translation, it might represent absolutely nothing at all. However since you probably want to write a driver that makes your device work on any Windows system, you should ignore this last case and focus on the ones where translation is needed.

You'll want to allocate enough map registers to handle your maximum transfer size. This limit might be exposed by your hardware, or as a tunable parameter in the registry, or just by common sense (you probably don't need to transfer 1GB in a single shot now do you?). However since map registers can be a limited resource, you may not always get the number you asked for (it's an in/out parameter to IoGetDmaAdapter). In that case you'll need to cut down your maximum transfer size - either rejecting larger transfers or breaking them up into smaller pieces and staging them.

A map register is a abstraction for a resource that maps one page of memory into the memory that is visible to the device. When you map a transfer the HAL could double buffer, or program an IOMMU, or it could do nothing (this was almosts always the case on x86). And the Intel version of IOMMU is apparently better optimised for virtualising DMA. Though it seems like the AMD one would work too.

Mind you, there's an issue with drivers not following the rules because they could get away with it on x86. Still the NT DMA model has always supported all of these options (no buffering, an IOMMU or a bounce buffer) though - it's very foresighted in that respect.

That's an awesome resource! There's also a link provided in that blog article to another article in which the author gives us another nifty utility, PrivBar, which lets you know whether you're surfing in IE under admin privileges or not. Works well with the MakeMeAdmin script you mentioned.

Try this: http://blogs.msdn.com/aaron_margosis/archive/2004/07/24/193721.aspx This rather excellent script promotes the currently running user to admin but in a VERY interesting way. The user is given a command prompt that has admin rights. It's colored red to show the difference. Anything run from this command prompt has admin rights, but anything run anywhere else as the user does not. Any installs done from the command prompt will be run as the original user but with administrative privileges, thus preventing in 99% of cases the sort of problems you speak of.

Talk about fortuitous! Channel9 just posted an interview with the Microsoft hardware industrial design team: http://channel9.msdn.com/posts/PDCNews/Meet-the-Industrial-Design-Team/

Seriously, I (and many colleagues, friends and relatives) have discovered the delights of simply running Windows as a Limited User. No more signature file downloads. No more zero-day exploits as a result of out-of-date signature files. No more background scanning bogging down your machine. Just a nice, clean system that can only really be compromised as a result of user interaction (trojans, phishing, user-permitted privilege escalation, etc.). My current Windows XP system has been running this way for 2 1/2 years without any infection. AV vendors can f*** right off as far as I'm concerned.

"Sincerely, Yuri Urvanovich Klastalov (YUK)" - by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15, @01:29AM (#27582631)

Alias the "RUSSIAN HACKER"... lmao, "NOT!"

Hehe, I am Getting a picture of "Boris & Natasha" from "Bullwinkle" here, in fact - lol, ala -> http://msa4.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/boris_and_natasha_1.jpg !

(You know: The kind(s) of online scum who wreak havoc of all kinds on people, especially "noobz" (yes, that takes a real saint/hero to do, NOT)... The types who now is/are "upset" that I notified others of what strongly appears to be MISHAPS, on Microsoft's end, as regards VISTA &/or Windows 7 port filtering, AND custom HOSTS files... which has adversely affected BOTH speed/efficiency, AND layered security, both, also, which perhaps he intended on using no less? NO, couldn't be... lol!)

?

Well, then I guess it's "SORRY BORIS & NATASHA - Didn't mean to 'give away your plans for world domination'", ala "Pinky & the Brain" style...

APK

P.S.=> Oh well - until SOMEONE from Microsoft answers me back with a LOGICAL TECHNICALLY SOUND REASON as to why HOSTS files can no longer use the more efficient 0 blocking IP address (for blocking KNOWN bad sites, for added layered security no less in this capacity, vs. the larger & slower 127.0.0.1 loopback adapter address, OR, 0.0.0.0 VISTA &/or Windows 7 can still use, though both are less efficient on disk & in how much they can pack into a file, making them slower & more inefficient still) As well as WHY Port filtering's GUI was removed in Windows 7 + VISTA as well (which harms "layered security")?

I'll stick by my statement that MS has messed up, here -> http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/25/feedback-and-engineering-windows-7.aspx?CommentPosted=true%23commentmessage , apk

GP... not sure what that acronym means, so... "OH WELL!", & if THIS is supposed to be a 'put down':

"GP does not recognize Universal Truth of 4-bullet point simultaneous APK posting." - by cynical kane (730682) on Monday April 13, @01:19PM (#27558899)

?

Then, good luck, because you'll NEED it, vs. facts I noted here ->

http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1197039&cid=27556999

Which was my original reply in this thread, in regards to what I notified Microsoft of in problems in harming layered security there & at an MS site also, here ->

http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/25/feedback-and-engineering-windows-7.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage

(They're ALL facts, as regards PORT FILTERING being removed in Windows VISTA &/or Windows 7, which is a dumb move that cripples the OS by removing abilities its predecessors had that work in favor of layered security... AND, as regards the inefficient BLOAT that is now happening in VISTA &/or Windows 7, as regards HOSTS files no longer being able to use the MORE EFFICIENT ON DISK 0 blocking IP address (for stopping bad site access, vs. the larger, slower, & MORE INEFFICIENT 0 blocking IP address))

APK

P.S.=> IF your "replies" were meant as trolling? Good luck, it only makes you look like a TROLL (to be blunt about it) especially vs. facts!

(Facts, which even Ms' own networking engineers, management, & other figures there are unwilling to answer to anyone asking it of they)

Thus - I hate to say it, but, Microsoft is SLIPPING & badly, in trying to sell people something they do NOT want (a feature crippled OS, via those 2 examples I use in PORT FILTERING, &/or HOSTS files problems, as well as those for OpenGL gamers, DRM, & those are only SOME of what is wrong) - I hate to see good things, go bad, to worse is all... apk

Sure, greater productivity is one benefit, but the language is completely irrelevant for that.

It's about how flexible the system will be when you have to change it. And you will -- that's the whole point of software, that it is soft, and changeable.

Old Cobol apps generally are not flexible. (stolen from this comment). It's worth mentioning that a decent object-oriented system would've gone a long way towards eliminating this problem -- any idiot can stuff a date into a Date class, which then encapsulates all the date-handling code.

Maybe some of it is very well designed. Drupal proves that you can write good, elegant code in any language, even if you are fighting the language and reinventing the wheel every step of the way. But the converse is also true -- you can write bad COBOL in any language.

My point here is that when changing minimum wage is even a tech story at all, that program is really fucking broken*. It's very likely too broken to be patched. Really, we've learned things in the past 50 years, and not all of them are buzzwords or ways to waste five times the RAM.

Not all of them have anything to do with programming languages, either, but if you're building a new system, and you have a choice of languages, why would you choose COBOL?

I agree in spirit. But what people have to remember is, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. So, if it's broke, fix it!

* I apologize for the profanity, but any program that can't change a fucking constant is a broken program. Or did they copy/paste 6.55 all over the place?

Why would companies replace systems that are working well?

The question is not, 'Does the code work?', the question is, 'Does the code follow good design principles?' If the answer is 'No, the code is not well-designed', then maintenance can be very costly. I like the snippet from this page:

"I was once told by an instructor in a design patterns class that the Y2K problem wasn't caused by using 2 digits to represent 4. Instead, it was caused by doing so all over the place. While the reality of the situation is a little more complicated than that, the principle is true. If the date handling code had been all in one place, a single change would have fixed the whole codebase rather than having to pull tons of Cobol coders out of retirement to fix all the business applications."

Totally agreed, which is why I was careful with my wording there:

If you just want a modern dynamic language that runs on JVM ...

Personally, I do not much like dynamic languages for general-purpose programming, and in those very rare cases where dynamic typing is genuinely useful, I prefer it to be opt-in rather than opt-out (such as "dynamic" in C# 4.0). Furthermore, I think that FP languages had many neat ideas (such as variant types and pattern matching) that I also find very useful. So when it comes to JVM, I definitely prefer Scala over Groovy.

"I think we can ALL agree that Microsoft is slipping." - by Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) on Wednesday April 08, @02:04PM (#27506559)

You bet, & especially on Port Filtering, and HOSTS files' efficiency in VISTA &/or Windows 7...

----

1.) Port filtering functions perfectly operating simultaneously alongside software firewalls, & IP Security Policies (all 3 run FINE together, even w/ a NAT true stateful packet inspecting "firewalling" router, for example) &, in a layered security manner, just like door handle locks (firewall), deadbolt locks (port filters), & chain locks (IP Security policies) do... (I.E.-> Take 1 of those 3 layers down (which is what many malware seek to do, right away)? The others are STILL IN THE WAY, since they all operate via diff. drivers on DIFF. LEVELS of the IP stack...!)

AND

2.) The thing with HOSTS files involves EFFICIENCY more than security though!

See - in removing (after a 12/2009 Patch Tuesday update) 0 as a valid blocking IP address (vs. the larger & slower 0.0.0.0, & worse still the default 127.0.0.1 loopback adapter address)? MS made a blunder on disk, since the filemass is now larger & WILL be slower to read thru, as well as not being able to 'pack' as many entries into a tinier filespace to read them up from.

----

MS has made a mistake, imo, on BOTH of those issues!

(AND, so far @ least? WELL - I put this up for MS' personnel to look over & answer me back WHY it was done... no answers & I think I know why (they know they have no solid answer to either one is why, & it is a mistake on THEIR end - I was just 'warning them' & hope that they fix it here -> http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/25/feedback-and-engineering-windows-7.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage )).

APK

P.S.=>

"I dont know if you're a troll or not" - by Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) on Wednesday April 08, @02:04PM (#27506559)

No, I'm NOT out to "troll you", that's not my intent: I just wondered IF you had any idea about VISTA + Windows 7, on HOSTS files AND, also the fact that PORT FILTERING's GUI front is gone in VISTA &/or Windows 7 as well... apk

"I like Windows 7. I run them both. 7 is better in every way (except media playing. Beta has bugs) I'm liking 7's ui and library features. Its performance is better than vista - by Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) on Wednesday April 08, @08:44AM (#27501799)

Are you aware of these 2 issues, that affect BOTH efficiency & security, on VISTA &/or Windows 7 (vs. older MS Windows NT-based OS, such as 2000/XP/Server 2003)?

http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/25/feedback-and-engineering-windows-7.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage

Microsoft is slipping man, period, by trying to sell people something they do NOT want basically - I mean, do you think people WANT "DRM" built into their OS'?

I don't...

E.G.-> Do you think people want an OS that is crippled in these 2 capacities??

----

1.) HOSTS files no longer being able to use the more efficient-on-disk 0 based blocking IP address?

or

2.) The removal of the PORT FILTERING GUI front-end that all Windows NT-based OS (2000/XP/Server 2003) have (which aids "layered security")??

----

Fact is - I've brought these 2 points in regards to VISTA being "messed up on them", to MS' attention, there in the URL above - &, I have YET to receive a SOLID & LOGICAL TECHNICAL ANSWER as to why this was done to VISTA & yes, Windows 7 as well!

(Mainly because those are 2 things that affect layered security, and yes, efficiency (by "aiding bloat" in the HOSTS file, in it only being able to use 0.0.0.0 or worse yet, the default 127.0.0.1 loopback adapter address, as a valid blocking IP address in a HOSTS file, & neither is as efficient on disk as is 0))...

Doing more with less is GOOD ENGINEERING, don't you agree?

Apparently, MS does not lately @ least...

I.E.-> In the case of the HOSTS file issues, this definitely IS the case here!

I.E. #2 -> On PORT FILTERING removal? That's just plain-jane dead-up dumb to remove, because it functions @ another layer of the IP stack (vs. software firewalls &/or IP Security Policies, & thus, is just like door handle locks (port filter), deadbolt locks (software firewalls), & chain locks (IP Security Policies) in terms of layered security)!

APK

P.S.=> Whoever heads up marketing @ MS has been making a HUGE blunder, & on a very simple principal imo @ least: You cannot sell folks something they do NOT want, & then try to shove it down their throats...

AND, certainly not a something that has removed features customers valued over time (such as OpenGL, though this can be worked around, most folks are NOT willing to put up w/ it & the time + tricks required to 'hack them back in' or, perform other types of work-arounds in order to do so)... apk

"People are always bashing Vista at every opportunity" - by Shrike82 (1471633) on Wednesday April 08, @08:41AM (#27501781)

People do so, but, not w/ out justification: Microsoft is slipping man, period, by trying to sell people something they do NOT want basically - I mean, do you think people WANT "DRM" built into their OS'? I don't...

E.G.-> Do you think people want an OS that is crippled in these 2 capacities??

1.) HOSTS files no longer being able to use the more efficient-on-disk 0 based blocking IP address?

or

2.) The removal of the PORT FILTERING GUI front-end that all Windows NT-based OS (2000/XP/Server 2003) have (which aids "layered security")??

Fact is - I've brought these 2 points in regards to VISTA being "messed up on them", to MS' attention here -> http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/25/feedback-and-engineering-windows-7.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage in fact...

(Mainly because those are 2 things that affect layered security, and yes, efficiency (by "aiding bloat" in the HOSTS file, in it only being able to use 0.0.0.0 or worse yet, the default 127.0.0.1 loopback adapter address, as a valid blocking IP address in a HOSTS file, & neither is as efficient on disk as is 0))...

Doing more with less is GOOD ENGINEERING, don't you agree, fellow software developer? In the case of the HOSTS file issues, this definitely IS the case here, & on PORT FILTERING removal? That's just plain-jane dead-up dumb to remove, because it functions @ another layer of the IP stack (vs. software firewalls &/or IP Security Policies, & thus, is just like door handle locks (port filter), deadbolt locks (software firewalls), & chain locks (IP Security Policies) in terms of layered security)!

----

"but it's never caused me any problems, never crashed, has support for all the devices I wish to use and pretty much checks all the boxes I want from an operating system." - by Shrike82 (1471633) on Wednesday April 08, @08:41AM (#27501781)

My man, that's for YOUR use patterns... A good friend of mine uninstalled VISTA 2 nights ago, & is looking to install XP (after slipstreaming in the latest service pack + hotfixes prior to installation), & why?

2 reasons: 1 being DRM, & the other is that Quake 4 refuses to install for he there (Ms playing w/ OpenGL to further "DirectX 'uber alles'" would be my guess... &, it's not working, & upsetting those who DO favor or like OpenGL based gaming).

----

"I'm speaking as a software developer, before I get mercilessly flamed as being some kind of computing retard." - by Shrike82 (1471633) on Wednesday April 08, @08:41AM (#27501781)

Well, for a software dev (as am I, for over 16++ yrs. now professionally, as well as being multiply internationally published in this field over 10x now the past decade in reputable respected publications in this field on my part)?

Well - You're not looking @ this from a perspective other than your OWN experiences, &/or needs...

----

"Now XP, before I upgraded, would crash semi-regularly and had at least as many bugs as Vista does." - by Shrike82 (1471633) on Wednesday April 08, @08:41AM (#27501781)

They all come that way, or, more errors/bugs are discovered over time after release... history's shown us ALL that, on ANY OS there is really... & not just MS ones, & there is no escaping that much (as a dev., you KNOW how this goes - bugs or even minor "useability issues" arise once users get ahold of things).

----

"I think at least some of the people critcising Vista are sheeple expressing a popular opinion without much foundation. "What's that?" you cry, "Peo

On the contrary... from the follow-up article:

On the almost-feature of floppy insertion detection in Windows 95

Gosh, that floppy insertion article generated a lot of comments.

First, to clarify the table: The table is trying to say that if you had a Style A floppy drive, then issuing the magic series of commands would return 1 if a floppy was present, or 0 if the floppy was not present. On the other hand, if you had a Style B floppy drive, then issuing the magic series of commands would return 0 if a floppy was present, or 1 if the floppy was not present. That's what I was trying to say in the table. The answer was consistent within a floppy style, but you first had to know what style you had.

The downside of waiting until the user uses a floppy for the first time is that you have the it sometimes works and sometimes doesn't problem. Dad buys a new computer and a copy of the Happy Fun Ball game for his son. Dad turns on the computer, and then follows the instructions that come with the Happy Fun Ball package: "Just insert the floppy and follow the instructions on the screen." Dad inserts the floppy and... nothing happens because this is the first time Dad used the floppy, and he was expecting autodetection to work.

Dad says, "Stupid program doesn't work."

Dad complains to his co-workers at work. "He loves this game Happy Fun Ball when he visits his cousin's house, so I bought a computer and a copy of Happy Fun Ball, and it doesn't work!"

Dad tries again that evening and this time it works, because in the meantime, he inserted a floppy to do something else (say, create an emergency boot disk). Bizarre. This just reinforces Dad's impression that computers are unpredictable and he will never understand how to use them.

One could say that a feature that mysteriously turns itself on and off is worse than a feature that simply doesn't work. At least when it doesn't work, it predictably doesn't work. Human beings value predictability.

You can't perform the test "the first time the drive is installed" because there is no way to tell that a drive has been installed. (Classic floppy drives are not Plug-and-Play.) Even worse, you can't tell that the user has replaced the Style A floppy drive with a Style B floppy drive. The user will see that floppy insertion detection stopped working and return the drive to the store. "This drive is broken. Floppy insertion detection doesn't work."

It is also not the case that the ambiguity in the specification indicated a flaw in the specification. The C++ language specification, for example, leaves a lot of behaviors at the discretion of the implementation. This allows implementations to choose a behavior that works best for them. The no-spin-up floppy presence detection algorithm relied on several behaviors which were covered by the specification, and one that was not. It was not part of the original charter for the floppy specification committee to support spinless presence detection; it's just something that my colleague discovered over a decade after the specification was written.

But the main reason for not bothering is that the benefit was minuscule compared to the cost. Nobody wants floppy drives to spin up as soon as a disk is inserted. That just makes them think they've been attacked by a computer virus. It'd all just be a lot of work for a feature nobody wants. And then you'd all be posting, "I can't believe Microsoft wasted all this effort on floppy insertion detection when they should have fixed insert favorite bug here."

Good solutions to the problem can be found in the comment thread of Raymond's article, although Raymond pretends not to have read those here. On the one hand, I really love his insights in Windows' architecture, but on the other hand I must admit that he can really be an ass when he knows he's right and closes his mind to all possible evidence to the contrary.

The follow-up article explains.

But if you read the follow-up, they talk about having a game autorun as a feature they planned to implement.
The "no-spinning-up" was probably just to avoid your machine go "Bzzt" every two seconds.

That was the most common comment on the blog post. His answer makes sense, basically saying that it would be confusing for the user that it not work the first time they put the disk in the drive but it would every time thereafter. In addition, if the disk drive were switched out for another one of the opposite type, then the user would return it with the statement that it was broken. Overall, it would cause more confusion than the training option, which had already been discarded as too onerous.

The article's author, Raymond Chen, posted a follow-up article to the one linked in the summary that answers some of the questions people had about it. Why that didn't make it into the summary, I don't know.

Assuming that you actually meant "behind the scenes the first time a floppy is accessed" and never do it aagain...

The article's author (Raymond Chen) addressed that in his follow-up article, posted yesterday.

http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/25/feedback-and-engineering-windows-7.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage

Quote of Mr. Oliver Day of SECURITYFOCUS.COM is there, where he notes he goes faster with a custom HOSTS file... apk

"So if you hit every site, every day for a year, you've saved yourself a whopping 9 minutes. Congratulations. How long did it take you to setup those 250 sites in your HOSTS file and write the script to maintain them?" - by Nos. (179609) on Thursday April 02, @06:10PM (#27437363) Homepage

I'll take it... every bit, helps!

(HOWEVER, & I MUST mention it? That's the least of the benefits of the HOSTS file I use though... the "greater good" is the added layered security it provides, vs. sites that house malicious scripts & such, though, which IS, imo @ least, the greater of its 2 benefits, & QUITE undeniable! More on that, below, in my "p.s."...)

----

"Congratulations. How long did it take you to setup those 250 sites in your HOSTS file and write the script to maintain them?" - by Nos. (179609) on Thursday April 02, @06:10PM (#27437363) Homepage

Thank you, & it only took me roughly 3 days to build the application I wrote to:

----

1.) Ping websites I use (250 of them, regularly) to maintain a CORRECT "IP-to-URL equation" within it

2.) Remove duplicated entries

3.) Change the larger & slower 127.0.0.1 (except for the loopback adapter address) into either 0.0.0.0 (next smallest on disk, & just as compatible), OR, into a 0 (smallest & fastest on disk, less compatible, especially on VISTA which no longer uses it after the 12/09/2009 MS patch tuesday 'update', which turned out to be a 'downdate' by MS imo & I have brought it to their attention here -> http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/25/feedback-and-engineering-windows-7.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage , along with other things (port filtering GUI removed in VISTA))

----

(See, I've been programming for nearly 25 yrs. now, total time, & 16++ of that as a pro... & some of my work is in commercially sold wares, & I experienced a good deal of success in the shareware/freeware world over time as well circa 1995-2002, appearing 10x or more, in respected publications in this field in fact... & I moved onto other things (coding larger enterprise class systems). Yes - folks have asked me to put the app out I note above, but, "been there, done that" & I leave that to younger men nowadays, instead)

APK

P.S.=> Now, since I take it you are a "doubting Thomas" (which is good, in any field that involves detail? It is wise, & I welcome it in fact)...? Take a read of SECURITYFOCUS.COM's own Mr. Oliver Day, in regards to speedups he has seen using HOSTS files (not to block adbanners as I do either, which yields HUGE speed-gains & security ones as well):

PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT:

"The host file on my day-to-day laptop is now over 16,000 lines long. Accessing the Internet particularly browsing the Web is actually faster now."

Nuff said... apk

The aging baby boomers now flacking the settlement don't seem to understand that PDF scanning (how Google and everyone else digitizes books) isn't rocket science; it's cheap and easy. Books will be digitized without Google.

Actually, from what I've read, scanning books on any large scale is not cheap or easy. It's a fairly expensive undertaking, involving more specialized equipment than your desktop flatbed scanner, and involves moving lots of books around, in and out of large libraries. It's not an undertaking for the faint of heart. Microsoft tried, and decided to quit. Furthermore, the value of having a single large repository is greater than a bunch of fractured repositories that probably won't have a good way of connecting with one another.

Running old programs in a virtual machine doesn't necessarily create a good user experience

If only the users who leave their printers unplugged habitually used linux...

To be fair, you can do something similar in Windows; but it sure isn't the soul of wit.

"More time into a RC will help crush any other bugs and errors that are there" - by xenolion (1371363) on Friday March 27, @08:29AM (#27355681)

You're not kidding, & there are 2 things I know of that need to be fixed in Windows VISTA/Server 2008, & Windows 7:

2 things BOTHER me about Windows VISTA, Windows Server 2008, & doubtless their offspring in Windows 7 (unless you can tell me otherwise on the latter),

(& 1 has to deal with A GUI SECURITY FEATURE, especially for the concept of "Layered Security", THAT DIDN'T "MAKE IT" INTO WINDOWS 7)

http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/25/feedback-and-engineering-windows-7.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage [msdn.com]

----

1.) The removal of IP Port Filtering GUI controls for it via Local Network Connections properties TCP/IP properties "ADVANCED" section!

(This is up there w/ when MS removed the GUI checkbox after NT 4.0 for IP Forwarding, only, this time, the difference is (and, it's a PAIN) is that it is NOT a single 1 line entry to hack via regedit.exe, but FAR MORE COMPLEX to do by hand)...

I.E.-> Port Filtering is a USEFUL & POWERFUL layered security (& to a degree, speed also) enhancing feature!

Afaik, on THIS case (vs. #2 below)? It has always been that way in VISTA &/or Windows Server 2008... & not just the result of a Patch Tuesday modification.

&

2.) The removal of being able to use 0 as a blocking IP address in a HOSTS file

(vs. 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1, which are bigger, slower on load into the local DNS Cache (as well as slower flushes via ipconfig /flushdns) & for NO GOOD REASON - 0 blocks as well as the other 2 do, & is smaller + faster!)

In this case, this happened on 12/09/2008 Microsoft "Patch Tuesday" updates, it wasn't LIKE that before then!

E.G.-> Here, using 0 as my blocking IP address in a FULLY normalized (meaning no repeated entries) HOSTS file with 650,000++ bad sites blocked in it, I get a 14++mb sized HOSTS file... using 0.0.0.0 it shoots up to 18++mb in size (& even worse using 127.0.0.1, to around the tune of 24++mb in size)...

(Senseless, & bloat creation is the result!)

----

WHY HAVE THESE 2 CRIPPLING REMOVALS BEEN DONE? Makes NO sense people!

APK

P.S.=> The reason for removing the PORT FILTERING gui, per the Microsoft VISTA resource kit is flimsy, & makes NO SENSE either!

I.E.-> Microsoft left IP Security Policies usage, Software Firewalling, & RRAS methods alone, & only pulled PORT FILTERING...

(The VISTA resource kit states because they each work @ diff. layers of the IP stack & don't immediately "sync" from a single point due to being powered by diff. drivers & working @ diff. levels of the IP stack, MS pulled the PORT FILTERING gui front controls from your local area connection object's advanced TCP/IP properties, & that one, ONLY (so, why leave the other 3 then? MS contradicts itself, right there, in doing so...))

No good reasons have been presented by MS to myself @ this point for EITHER 1 or 2 being done above, @ the URL where I stated it @ MSDN... @ least, none for efficiency & security @ least that I can see & thus? I'd like to know WHY these crippling things were done (these things DO affect my decisions to upgrade & possibly those of others as well, something to consider)... apk

No, it used MS-DOS 7.0 as a bootloader.

Have a read of Raymond Chen's explanation if you wish to enlighten yourself.

My home desktop has 512Mb RAM and a Celeron D as a processor (ie, not cutting-edge). I run:

Windows XP fully patched with automatic updates from MS. No 3rd party AV (just use Limited User Accounts and you'll be safe as houses).

So long as you don't install tons of crap, basic Windows XP is a snappy, responsive and consistent OS. Chances are your wife already knows how to change desktop background, change volume, start program x, etc. No learning curve whatsoever. Other posters have told you what you need to know about hibernation. You can get OpenOffice.org for Windows. Job's a good 'un. Every piece of hardware you might currently own or wish to buy in the future will run with Windows. This is, ahem, not always the case with Linux - be prepared to have to fiddle with stuff.

I also dual-boot with Ubuntu. I like Ubuntu for several things - copying DVD's without having to fork out for AnyDVD, the Synaptic Package Manager - the biggest free-as-in-beer software catalogue in the worrrrrrrrrrrld, the choice of filesystems.

However, I don't see any real difference in performance or boot times on either OS. For that reason, I'm reticent to advise installing Linux to be a magic bullet for boot time woes. If you're looking for an excuse to try a flavour of Linux on the other hand, be my guest. Oh, and I tried Xubuntu but it didn't have much of a performance advantage compared to Ubuntu.

I also run Puppy Linux and have found it to be incredibly responsive, even on old hardware. You can run it off a live CD to see how compatible it is with your machine and you can even store the boot file on the file system of an NTFS-formatted disk (so you don't need to go through a lengthy partition/install phase if you want it permanently available as a boot option). I personally like SeaMonkey (the default browser in Puppy), though it's not to everyone's taste.

As the title implies though, I'd stick with streamlining Windows and getting used to hibernating rather than shutting down. Sometimes, the path of least resistance can in fact be the optimal solution (which is what every geek worthy of the name should choose).

2 things BOTHER me about Windows VISTA, Windows Server 2008, & doubtless their offspring in Windows 7 (unless you can tell me otherwise on the latter),

(& 1 has to deal with A GUI SECURITY FEATURE, especially for the concept of "Layered Security", THAT DIDN'T "MAKE IT" INTO WINDOWS 7)

http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/25/feedback-and-engineering-windows-7.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage [msdn.com]

----

1.) The removal of IP Port Filtering GUI controls for it via Local Network Connections properties TCP/IP properties "ADVANCED" section!

(This is up there w/ when MS removed the GUI checkbox after NT 4.0 for IP Forwarding, only, this time, the difference is (and, it's a PAIN) is that it is NOT a single 1 line entry to hack via regedit.exe, but FAR MORE COMPLEX to do by hand)...

I.E.-> Port Filtering is a USEFUL & POWERFUL layered security (& to a degree, speed also) enhancing feature!

Afaik, on THIS case (vs. #2 below)? It has always been that way in VISTA &/or Windows Server 2008... & not just the result of a Patch Tuesday modification.

----
&
----

2.) The removal of being able to use 0 as a blocking IP address in a HOSTS file

(vs. 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1, which are bigger, slower on load into the local DNS Cache (as well as slower flushes via ipconfig /flushdns) & for NO GOOD REASON - 0 blocks as well as the other 2 do, & is smaller + faster!)

In this case, this happened on 12/09/2008 Microsoft "Patch Tuesday" updates, it wasn't LIKE that before then!

E.G.-> Here, using 0 as my blocking IP address in a FULLY normalized (meaning no repeated entries) HOSTS file with 650,000++ bad sites blocked in it, I get a 14++mb sized HOSTS file... using 0.0.0.0 it shoots up to 18++mb in size (& even worse using 127.0.0.1, to around the tune of 24++mb in size)...

(Senseless, & bloat creation is the result!)

----

WHY HAVE THESE 2 CRIPPLING REMOVALS BEEN DONE? Makes NO sense people!

APK

P.S.=> The reason for removing the PORT FILTERING gui, per the Microsoft VISTA resource kit is flimsy, & makes NO SENSE either!

I.E.-> Microsoft left IP Security Policies usage, Software Firewalling, & RRAS methods alone, & only pulled PORT FILTERING...

(The VISTA resource kit states because they each work @ diff. layers of the IP stack & don't immediately "sync" from a single point due to being powered by diff. drivers & working @ diff. levels of the IP stack, MS pulled the PORT FILTERING gui front controls from your local area connection object's advanced TCP/IP properties, & that one, ONLY (so, why leave the other 3 then? MS contradicts itself, right there, in doing so...))

No good reasons have been presented by MS to myself @ this point for EITHER 1 or 2 being done above, @ the URL where I stated it @ MSDN... @ least, none for efficiency & security @ least that I can see & thus? I'd like to know WHY these crippling things were done (these things DO affect my decisions to upgrade & possibly those of others as well, something to consider)...

Linux people, keep THIS as "ammo", for your regular "Anti-Windows" rants here, because if you did, I wouldn't blame you 1 bit in these cases... apk

2 things BOTHER me about Windows VISTA, Windows Server 2008, & doubtless their offspring in Windows 7 (unless you can tell me otherwise on the latter),

(& 1 has to deal with A GUI SECURITY FEATURE, especially for the concept of "Layered Security", THAT DIDN'T "MAKE IT" INTO WINDOWS 7)

http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/25/feedback-and-engineering-windows-7.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage [msdn.com]

----

1.) The removal of IP Port Filtering GUI controls for it via Local Network Connections properties TCP/IP properties "ADVANCED" section!

(This is up there w/ when MS removed the GUI checkbox after NT 4.0 for IP Forwarding, only, this time, the difference is (and, it's a PAIN) is that it is NOT a single 1 line entry to hack via regedit.exe, but FAR MORE COMPLEX to do by hand)...

I.E.-> Port Filtering is a USEFUL & POWERFUL layered security (& to a degree, speed also) enhancing feature!

Afaik, on THIS case (vs. #2 below)? It has always been that way in VISTA &/or Windows Server 2008... & not just the result of a Patch Tuesday modification.

&

2.) The removal of being able to use 0 as a blocking IP address in a HOSTS file

(vs. 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1, which are bigger, slower on load into the local DNS Cache (as well as slower flushes via ipconfig /flushdns) & for NO GOOD REASON - 0 blocks as well as the other 2 do, & is smaller + faster!)

In this case, this happened on 12/09/2008 Microsoft "Patch Tuesday" updates, it wasn't LIKE that before then!

E.G.-> Here, using 0 as my blocking IP address in a FULLY normalized (meaning no repeated entries) HOSTS file with 650,000++ bad sites blocked in it, I get a 14++mb sized HOSTS file... using 0.0.0.0 it shoots up to 18++mb in size (& even worse using 127.0.0.1, to around the tune of 24++mb in size)...

(Senseless, & bloat creation is the result!)

----

WHY HAVE THESE 2 CRIPPLING REMOVALS BEEN DONE? Makes NO sense people!

APK

P.S.=> The reason for removing the PORT FILTERING gui, per the Microsoft VISTA resource kit is flimsy, & makes NO SENSE either!

I.E.-> Microsoft left IP Security Policies usage, Software Firewalling, & RRAS methods alone, & only pulled PORT FILTERING...

(The VISTA resource kit states because they each work @ diff. layers of the IP stack & don't immediately "sync" from a single point due to being powered by diff. drivers & working @ diff. levels of the IP stack, MS pulled the PORT FILTERING gui front controls from your local area connection object's advanced TCP/IP properties, & that one, ONLY (so, why leave the other 3 then? MS contradicts itself, right there, in doing so...))

No good reasons have been presented by MS to myself @ this point for EITHER 1 or 2 being done above, @ the URL where I stated it @ MSDN... @ least, none for efficiency & security @ least that I can see & thus? I'd like to know WHY these crippling things were done (these things DO affect my decisions to upgrade & possibly those of others as well, something to consider)... apk

2 things BOTHER me about Windows VISTA, Windows Server 2008, & doubtless their offspring in Windows 7 (unless you can tell me otherwise on the latter), & 1 has to deal with A GUI FEATURE THAT DIDN'T "MAKE IT" INTO WINDOWS 7:

http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/25/feedback-and-engineering-windows-7.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage

----

1.) The removal of IP Port Filtering GUI controls for it via Local Network Connections properties TCP/IP properties "ADVANCED" section

(This is up there w/ when MS removed the GUI checkbox after NT 4.0 for IP Forwarding, only, this time, the difference is (and, it's a PAIN) is that it is NOT a single 1 line entry to hack via regedit.exe, but FAR MORE COMPLEX to do by hand)...

I.E.-> Port Filtering is a USEFUL & POWERFUL layered security (& to a degree, speed also) enhancing feature!

Afaik, on THIS case (vs. #2 below)? It has always been that way in VISTA &/or Windows Server 2008... & not just the result of a Patch Tuesday modification.

&

2.) The removal of being able to use 0 as a blocking IP address in a HOSTS file

(vs. 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1, which are bigger, slower on load into the local DNS Cache (as well as slower flushes via ipconfig /flushdns) & for NO GOOD REASON - 0 blocks as well as the other 2 do, & is smaller + faster!)

In this case, this happened on 12/09/2008 Microsoft "Patch Tuesday" updates, it wasn't LIKE that before then!

E.G.-> Here, using 0 as my blocking IP address in a FULLY normalized (meaning no repeated entries) HOSTS file with 650,000++ bad sites blocked in it, I get a 14++mb sized HOSTS file... using 0.0.0.0 it shoots up to 18++mb in size (& even worse using 127.0.0.1, to around the tune of 24++mb in size)...

(Senseless, & bloat creation is the result!)

----

WHY HAVE THESE 2 CRIPPLING REMOVALS BEEN DONE? Makes NO sense people!

APK

P.S.=> The reason for removing the PORT FILTERING gui, per the Microsoft VISTA resource kit is flimsy, & makes NO SENSE either!

I.E.-> Microsoft left IP Security Policies usage, Software Firewalling, & RRAS methods alone, & only pulled PORT FILTERING...

(The VISTA resource kit states because they each work @ diff. layers of the IP stack & don't immediately "sync" from a single point due to being powered by diff. drivers & working @ diff. levels of the IP stack, MS pulled the PORT FILTERING gui front controls from your local area connection object's advanced TCP/IP properties, & that one, ONLY (so, why leave the other 3 then? MS contradicts itself, right there, in doing so...))

No good reasons have been presented by MS to myself @ this point for EITHER 1 or 2 being done above, @ the URL where I stated it @ MSDN... @ least, none for efficiency & security @ least that I can see & thus? I'd like to know WHY these crippling things were done (these things DO affect my decisions to upgrade & possibly those of others as well, something to consider)... apk

2 things BOTHER me about Windows VISTA, Windows Server 2008, & doubtless their offspring in Windows 7 (unless you can tell me otherwise on the latter), & 1 has to deal with A GUI FEATURE THAT DIDN'T "MAKE IT" INTO WINDOWS 7:

http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/25/feedback-and-engineering-windows-7.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage

----

1.) The removal of IP Port Filtering GUI controls for it via Local Network Connections properties "ADVANCED" section

(This is up there w/ when MS removed the GUI checkbox after NT 4.0 for IP Forwarding, only, this time, the difference is (and, it's a PAIN) is that it is NOT a single 1 line entry to hack via regedit.exe, but FAR MORE COMPLEX to do by hand)... port filtering is a USEFUL & POWERFUL security (& to a degree, speed also) enhancing feature!

Afaik, on THIS case (vs. #2 below)? It has always been that way in VISTA &/or Windows Server 2008... & not just the result of a Patch Tuesday modification.

&

2.) The removal of being able to use 0 as a blocking IP address in a HOSTS file

(vs. 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1, which are bigger, slower on load into the local DNS Cache (as well as slower flushes via ipconfig /flushdns) & also occupy more RAM once loaded, for NO GOOD REASON - 0 blocks as well as the other 2 do, & is smaller + faster!)

In this case, this happened on 12/09/2008 Microsoft "Patch Tuesday" updates, it wasn't LIKE that before then!

E.G.-> Here, using 0 as my blocking IP address in a FULLY normalized (meaning no repeated entries) HOSTS file with nearly 650,000 bad sites blocked in it, I get a 14++mb sized HOSTS file... using 0.0.0.0 it shoots up to 18++mb in size (& even worse using 127.0.0.1, to around the tune of 24++mb in size)... senseless & bloat creation is the result!

----

APK

P.S.=> WHY HAS THIS BEEN DONE? Makes NO sense people!

The reason for removing the PORT FILTERING gui, per the Microsoft VISTA resource kit is flimsy, & makes NO SENSE either!

I.E.-> Microsoft left IP Security Policies usage, Software Firewalling, & RRAS methods alone, & only pulled PORT FILTERING...

(The VISTA resource kit states because they each work @ diff. layers of the IP stack & don't immediately "sync" from a single point due to being powered by diff. drivers & working @ diff. levels of the IP stack, MS pulled the PORT FILTERING gui front controls from your local area connection object's advanced TCP/IP properties, & that one, ONLY (so, why leave the other 3 then? MS contradicts itself, right there, in doing so...))

No good reasons have been presented by MS to myself @ this point for EITHER 1 or 2 being done above, @ the URL where I stated it @ MSDN... @ least, none for efficiency & security @ least that I can see & thus? I'd like to know WHY these crippling things were done to otherwise possibly FINE OS (these things DO affect my decisions to upgrade & possibly those of others as well, something to consider)... apk

Sorry, just to quickly respond to my post.
This is the blog which clearly shows that some thought is being put in to the OS.
http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/

I've been in correspondence with one of the gents from there and while he was polite and somewhat helpful, that's where I stumbled across the attitude of 'there's nothing wrong with this backwards change, you can always do this instead'

You might want to see this: http://channel9.msdn.com/shows/Going+Deep/Dave-Probert-Inside-Windows-7-User-Mode-Scheduler-UMS/.

Windows 7 will support 256 cores in the 64-bit version. Microsoft has made significant tweaks to the thread dispatcher code to make this possible. A good discussion can be found here: See http://channel9.msdn.com/shows/Going+Deep/Mark-Russinovich-Inside-Windows-7/

Microsoft did rebuild Windows from the ground up as a modern operating system. That was Windows NT (as compared with Windows 3.0) back in 1993. Thus, they predated the "let's rebuild the OS from scratch" thing that Apple did by 8 years.

That said, even as a modern operating system, it has a number of anachronisms kept primarily for backward compatibility with legacy 16-bit code, and has even more backward compatibility "hacks" for poorly written 32-bit apps (see the oldnewthing archives -- lots of apps do stupid things), but their priority is keeping existing code working, instead of breaking existing (poorly written) apps. I can't fault them for this.

The only thing removing such anachronisms would do is prevent older programs from working, which really does no one any good (unless you like the thought of Microsoft shooting their own lower-torso off...)

Out of those that you've listed, you should definitely consider C++ a priority. Here's why.

First of all, it gives you C essentially for free. Yes, there are differences, but they are minor enough. The general philosophy is radically different, too, but it's much easier to adjust from C++ to C than vice versa (if you go C++ -> C, you will always remember what you missed, but you'll know how to work around it; if you go C -> C++, you'll just be annoyed by all the RAII stuff that gets in your way, and probably just end up writing C code with C++-style comments).

Java is on a slow decline. It's still the most popular language out there by and large, but it hasn't seen any significant advances in the last few years. With Sun not feeling well, it's quite likely that it will be taken over by IBM, and that will seal its fate as COBOL-2. It's not that you'll run out of Java job offers anytime soon - new stuff will keep being written, and there's always need of maintenance for existing code, but it's not going to be much fun, especially when you compare your toolset with other guys on the block ("what do you mean, no closures?..").

As for C++, it's still the language of choice for writing desktop software on any platform, and even in the "enterprisey" Java/.NET/whatever solutions there are often bits and pieces that are best left to C++ for performance reasons, or just because there's a C++ library available that does that thing. Picking up Java (or C#, or VB) after C++ is generally pretty easy (and there is plenty of literature catering precisely to such a transition - google "Java for C++ developers" etc). Furthermore, I've found that people who are looking for senior Java or .NET developers often want at least some C++ experience as well. I guess it shows that you're less inclined to treat things such as GC as "magical", which can matter.

By the way, while you're at it, have a look at C++0x. Draft standard is already there, and compiler providers are racing to get it implemented. I don't know about g++ release schedule with respect to that, but Visual C++ will have bits and pieces (such as e.g. lambdas) in the upcoming major release, and there are
new Microsoft libraries that rely on them heavily (e.g. google for "Parallel Patterns Library"). If you know that stuff when no-one else does, that's another one in your favor.

Of course, as others have suggested, learning just one or two languages is not good enough these days, anyway. Learn something functional. If you want to be pragmatic, go for F# on Windows, or OCaml on Unix. Haskell is worth studying just for the pure aesthetic beauty of the language, even if you'll probably never use it except as a glorified calculator. Same for Scheme.

There actually is a bit about standards compliance on the IEBlog's launch announcement:

Build on real world interoperability, standards, and compatibility. IE8 shows Microsoftâ(TM)s commitment to an open and interoperable web. IE8 by default shows web pages in its most standards compliant mode. With IE8, weâ(TM)re delivering the most complete and correct implementation of CSS 2.1 available in any browser. To improve interoperability not just for IE but for all browsers, weâ(TM)ve contributed over 7,000 test cases to the W3C (and taken feedback along the way). This will make it easier for the people who build the web to develop with standards. Weâ(TM)ve started delivering on HTML5. Weâ(TM)ve also made the specifications for webslices, accelerators, and visual search available to the community (under the appropriate open licenses) for a more open, interoperable, and rich web. IE creates great opportunities for developers and sites to integrate themselves into their users workflow and make their experience stand out.

As for whether it's true... but I have been reading the IEBlog for a while and they have SEEMED to go to a lot of effort re: standards. I haven't tested it yet though.

Hear hear! and if anyone replies to this post touting the IE development toolbar, I think I'll wretch. IE Dev toolbar is like Firebug's retarded inbread cousin.

IE8 comes with built in Developer Tools that aren't bad.

m$ specifically stated fixing JS string concatenation was an early goal of ie8.

I haven't looked to see if they really did or not, though.

http://blogs.msdn.com/jscript/archive/2007/10/17/performance-issues-with-string-concatenation-in-jscript.aspx

I wonder if they will do something about power outages -

http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2005/09/19/471240.aspx

Actually from a free market point of view it seems like this sort of thing should be a public/private arrangment. I.e. the companies should come to the Federal government and say "this is worth $X to us so we'll pay $X between us". If $X is less than what it costs, the power gets upgraded. If not they will continue to protect critical systems with a UPS.

It's okay, Microsoft is helping with the CSS 2.1 testing.

http://samples.msdn.microsoft.com/ietestcenter/

http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2009/01/27/microsoft-submits-thousands-more-css-2-1-tests-to-the-w3c.aspx

Either you're standards compliant or you're not. WebKit claims they're not. I believe them.

Acid2 isn't a standard. It also isn't a part of the test suite of W3C. Acid3 isn't a standard. It also isn't part of the test suite of W3C. It's a marketing gimmick of Opera and people lap it up like it is more important than real standards work from the W3C. Plus, Acid3 is more about DOM than CSS, and Acid3 tests for features that have not yet been standardized.

You can push for implementation of standards, but to knock someone's products because they haven't implemented DRAFT standard recommendations is just stupid.

And your claims that Microsoft isn't really implementing the CSS 2.1 standard correctly and that they're just "checking a checkbox" don't actually stand up to the test of reality:

http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2009/01/27/microsoft-submits-thousands-more-css-2-1-tests-to-the-w3c.aspx

Your arguments are a subjective standard, you want to appeal to the W3C for "standards" authority, but then set the bar for judgement to be whatever "people are using" or whatever marketing gimmick "standards" test IE fails and others ALSO fail, just fail less.

Stick to the W3C standard test suites for an actual measure of standards compliance and leave the Acid tests to the fanbois who are out to prove a point. And don't talk about "standards" that are not yet standards.

Yes, really: And, turning on acceleration is as easy as clicking 1 checkbox & sliding a slider control to the right in the display properties' settings tab, advanced button, troubleshoot tab (slide the slider to FULL hardware accelerated assist & check the "write combining" checkbox... & on this note:

"I wonder why Microsoft has never marketed Windows Server 2003 as a desktop OS. Could it be that it's because it's a server OS?" - by Svenne (117693) on Saturday March 14, @11:37AM (#27192705) Homepage

Could be they wanted it thought of THAT way, yet they have it install literally as a workstation class one (because unlike its predecessor in Windows Server 2000, it doesn't install things like IIS right off the bat - you only add them, as you need them (this is better/smarter)).

I am personally surprised that this commonly shared design (Server 2008 does the same iirc, & others noted it in this exchange above) of default install of only installing the OS core only in a "workstation/pro" like mode was never "yelled from the high-heavens" about it, so more folks knew about it.

Also: Windows Server 2003's code IS the "init. codebase foundation" that was used for Windows VISTA &/or Server 2008 too, more-or-less showing anyone, that same codebase can run either way (workstation or server)... &, as far as I am concerned, the "real windows" is in their "server-class" versions, not the lesser ones (& most certainly NOT "home" models)...

APK

P.S.=> There are, however, some things in its newer iterations/versions (VISTA &/or Server 2008) that I have found & reported to MS on, for improving Windows 7, that you MIGHT find somewhat "interesting", here -> (bottom most 2-3 posts there go into it, in detail, in research myself, Harm Sorensen, & Mitch Tulloch of Windowsnetworking.com are looking into in this regards) http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/25/feedback-and-engineering-windows-7.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage ... enjoy the read! apk

Believe it or not, some people do like Windows Server 2003/2008 as a workstation OS. Some Examples: 1 2 3

Yes it did. They had an emulator on non x86 platforms -

http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2006/05/25/607075.aspx

Using Yoda on an x86 may be hazardous to your systems' health

In former times very cross-platform NTVDM was.

If you view NTVDM.EXE in a hex editor, you'll find the message "Using Yoda on an x86 may be hazardous to your systems' health" buried inside it. Yoda was the name of the internal debugger that was used to debug the MS-DOS emulator, also known as the Virtual DOS Machine or VDM. (Buried inside the Yoda source code are such wonderful variables as "luke" and "chewy".)

The Intel 80386 has a mode known as "Virtual-8086 mode" or just "V86 mode" wherein the CPU ran as if it were an 8086, except that if the program did anything interesting like issue a privileged instruction, call a software interrupt, or fault, control would return to the protected-mode supervisor for handling. (Win386 used this same CPU mode to support multiple MS-DOS sessions.) When running on an 80386-class processor, NTVDM used this mode to do its emulation, making the CPU do the heavy lifting of decoding instructions and emulating them, which took place at very close to full speed.

On the other hand, NTVDM on the non-x86 processors (Alpha, PPC, MIPS, etc.) had to implement an entire 8086 emulator, with all the decoding and execution performed in software. Yoda was the debugger you used if you needed to debug the emulator.

NTVDM only supported 16 bit code though, not x86 Win32 binaries. Hence FX!32.

I know firsthand how poorly IE7/8's JavaScript performs compared to Firefox and WebKit. I created a 75+ printed page article where, in pursuit of my fluid and near tableless design, used JavaScript primarily to resize XHTML elements on the page.

Processing takes around 5 seconds on Firefox, less than 10 on Chrome. IE8- easily over 30 seconds. It was unusable.

To get processing down to around ~30 seconds, I did all I could to optimize the script, using recommendations to from the IE Blog. I cached DOM elements I'm interested in, only modified each element once and cached function pointers (why calling a function directly in IE is a costly performance hit is beyond ridiculous).

In the end, when you visit my article using IE, I do some initial caching which takes about 5 seconds. Then I resize the elements slowly over time using simulated multithreading (setTimeout()). You actually see the progress in the caption bar.

Visit with any other browser and I run the script all at once. You hardly notice.

Check it out yourself if you'd like.

Actually there are other reasons.

See Raymond Chen's Why doesn't Windows 95 format floppy disks smoothly?

I hope you took time to explain to them that Windows Defender is not a firewall. If you want a firewall then Windows....erm, Firewall might be more appropriate, funnily enough.

I've been running Windows XP malware-free for over 2 years thanks to Windows Firewall, Windows Defender and LUA accounts. Do your friends a favour and set them up properly. Free them from third-party AV hell.

"At this point I'm pretty skeptical of every pro Windows 7 article and poster, though of course by now you'd expect Vista to have been improved" - by SuperKendall (25149) on Tuesday March 10, @10:12PM (#27144623)

Well, Microsoft HAS been asking folks what they would like to see in Windows 7, openly (& there was a posting on this site about it that led to this blog @ MS where you do have @ least SOMEKIND of chance to make changes in Windows 7 prior to its "full blown final release" here -> http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/25/feedback-and-engineering-windows-7.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage ) which was led to from a thread here called "Windows 7 Testers Going Unheard" here at /. ...

I posted a few things there that "perturb" me about Windows VISTA &/or Server 2008, in HOSTS files no longer being able to use the less diskbloating & faster to read 0 as a blocking IP address (vs. 127.0.0.1 the "loopback adapter address", which afaik does use SOME cpu cycles and is larger than 0.0.0.0 which is the next best one & they still allow that one, but as of the 12/09/2009 Microsoft "patch tuesday"? 0 as a blocking IP address in a HOSTS file is no longer useable... dumb!)

I also noted that PORT FILTERING has been removed there, & for VERY CONTRADICTORY REASONS (if you read what the VISTA reskit says, it literally DOES contradict itself as proves FLIMSY reasoning for its removal also there)

APK

P.S.=> Anyhow - that's your chance, or @ least PART OF IT hopefully as an end-user &/or potential customer to voice your views on those things, UAC, DRM, & whatever else bothers you about VISTA &/or Server 2008, so it is not like that in the upcoming Windows 7... apk