Slashdot Mirror

These guys have built a really clean implementation of a peer-driven (as opposed to true P2P) spam filter. You install their MS Outlook extension on your desktop machine, and it filters incoming messages against a list of spam signatures reported by other Cloudmark users. You then have the opportunity to report any spam that makes it through the filter, which in turn reduces the probability that other users will be subjected to that particular spam message.

They are running an open beta test at the moment. I've only used it for a few days, but it seems like a definite win. It's been flagging around 75% of the spam I've received since I installed the beta, with zero false positives so far.

Not affiliated with Cloudmark, just a (so far) satisfied user...

Lets ignore linux support for just a momment. I think it's commonly agreed that printer manufacturers are out to extract every last cent from consumers any way they can.

What about the magazines that "Review" these printers? I mean it's pretty obvious that magazines like PC World, Home Computer Luser and all the other magazines that target clueless users, are basically just glorified advertising catalogs. But try researching a new printer.

I recently tried to find some reviews on photo printers and found that whatever reviews available are highly biased, largely unscientific, based on old models and generally useless. This article links to some other reivews which are horribly old:

Canon S820D February 2002
Epson Stylus Photo 785EPX July 2001
Epson Stylus Photo 2000P February 2002
HP PhotoSmart 1315 November 2001
Kodak Personal Picture Maker 200 by Lexmark January 2001

If you can make your way through those articles you'll see that there is no common baseline for comparison. A fault in one printer may be talked about extensively, but in another printer it's mentioned casually. The Canon 820D has been recently replaced with the 830D (about 1-2 weeks ago) and there is no mention of it. Compared to the offerings out there the units reviewed are few.

I wish more "reputable" hardware review sites would take the time to review printers. I still haven't been able to decide between the Canon 830D, the Epson 960 stylus photo and the Epson 2200 stylus photo mainly because I don't have enough information.

As it is now it seems like printer reviews are conspicuously absent or out of date. It's almost as if the printer manufacturers are supressing reviews so that people will "gamble" on printers due to their low price and how good those "specs" on the box are.

Anyone happen to know anything about the Canon 830D, Epson Stylus Photo 960 and the Epson Stylus Photo 2200?

Lets ignore linux support for just a momment. I think it's commonly agreed that printer manufacturers are out to extract every last cent from consumers any way they can.

What about the magazines that "Review" these printers? I mean it's pretty obvious that magazines like PC World, Home Computer Luser and all the other magazines that target clueless users, are basically just glorified advertising catalogs. But try researching a new printer.

I recently tried to find some reviews on photo printers and found that whatever reviews available are highly biased, largely unscientific, based on old models and generally useless. This article links to some other reivews which are horribly old:

Canon S820D February 2002
Epson Stylus Photo 785EPX July 2001
Epson Stylus Photo 2000P February 2002
HP PhotoSmart 1315 November 2001
Kodak Personal Picture Maker 200 by Lexmark January 2001

If you can make your way through those articles you'll see that there is no common baseline for comparison. A fault in one printer may be talked about extensively, but in another printer it's mentioned casually. The Canon 820D has been recently replaced with the 830D (about 1-2 weeks ago) and there is no mention of it. Compared to the offerings out there the units reviewed are few.

I wish more "reputable" hardware review sites would take the time to review printers. I still haven't been able to decide between the Canon 830D, the Epson 960 stylus photo and the Epson 2200 stylus photo mainly because I don't have enough information.

As it is now it seems like printer reviews are conspicuously absent or out of date. It's almost as if the printer manufacturers are supressing reviews so that people will "gamble" on printers due to their low price and how good those "specs" on the box are.

Anyone happen to know anything about the Canon 830D, Epson Stylus Photo 960 and the Epson Stylus Photo 2200?

Lets ignore linux support for just a momment. I think it's commonly agreed that printer manufacturers are out to extract every last cent from consumers any way they can.

What about the magazines that "Review" these printers? I mean it's pretty obvious that magazines like PC World, Home Computer Luser and all the other magazines that target clueless users, are basically just glorified advertising catalogs. But try researching a new printer.

I recently tried to find some reviews on photo printers and found that whatever reviews available are highly biased, largely unscientific, based on old models and generally useless. This article links to some other reivews which are horribly old:

Canon S820D February 2002
Epson Stylus Photo 785EPX July 2001
Epson Stylus Photo 2000P February 2002
HP PhotoSmart 1315 November 2001
Kodak Personal Picture Maker 200 by Lexmark January 2001

If you can make your way through those articles you'll see that there is no common baseline for comparison. A fault in one printer may be talked about extensively, but in another printer it's mentioned casually. The Canon 820D has been recently replaced with the 830D (about 1-2 weeks ago) and there is no mention of it. Compared to the offerings out there the units reviewed are few.

I wish more "reputable" hardware review sites would take the time to review printers. I still haven't been able to decide between the Canon 830D, the Epson 960 stylus photo and the Epson 2200 stylus photo mainly because I don't have enough information.

As it is now it seems like printer reviews are conspicuously absent or out of date. It's almost as if the printer manufacturers are supressing reviews so that people will "gamble" on printers due to their low price and how good those "specs" on the box are.

Anyone happen to know anything about the Canon 830D, Epson Stylus Photo 960 and the Epson Stylus Photo 2200?

Lets ignore linux support for just a momment. I think it's commonly agreed that printer manufacturers are out to extract every last cent from consumers any way they can.

What about the magazines that "Review" these printers? I mean it's pretty obvious that magazines like PC World, Home Computer Luser and all the other magazines that target clueless users, are basically just glorified advertising catalogs. But try researching a new printer.

I recently tried to find some reviews on photo printers and found that whatever reviews available are highly biased, largely unscientific, based on old models and generally useless. This article links to some other reivews which are horribly old:

Canon S820D February 2002
Epson Stylus Photo 785EPX July 2001
Epson Stylus Photo 2000P February 2002
HP PhotoSmart 1315 November 2001
Kodak Personal Picture Maker 200 by Lexmark January 2001

If you can make your way through those articles you'll see that there is no common baseline for comparison. A fault in one printer may be talked about extensively, but in another printer it's mentioned casually. The Canon 820D has been recently replaced with the 830D (about 1-2 weeks ago) and there is no mention of it. Compared to the offerings out there the units reviewed are few.

I wish more "reputable" hardware review sites would take the time to review printers. I still haven't been able to decide between the Canon 830D, the Epson 960 stylus photo and the Epson 2200 stylus photo mainly because I don't have enough information.

As it is now it seems like printer reviews are conspicuously absent or out of date. It's almost as if the printer manufacturers are supressing reviews so that people will "gamble" on printers due to their low price and how good those "specs" on the box are.

Anyone happen to know anything about the Canon 830D, Epson Stylus Photo 960 and the Epson Stylus Photo 2200?

Lets ignore linux support for just a momment. I think it's commonly agreed that printer manufacturers are out to extract every last cent from consumers any way they can.

What about the magazines that "Review" these printers? I mean it's pretty obvious that magazines like PC World, Home Computer Luser and all the other magazines that target clueless users, are basically just glorified advertising catalogs. But try researching a new printer.

I recently tried to find some reviews on photo printers and found that whatever reviews available are highly biased, largely unscientific, based on old models and generally useless. This article links to some other reivews which are horribly old:

Canon S820D February 2002
Epson Stylus Photo 785EPX July 2001
Epson Stylus Photo 2000P February 2002
HP PhotoSmart 1315 November 2001
Kodak Personal Picture Maker 200 by Lexmark January 2001

If you can make your way through those articles you'll see that there is no common baseline for comparison. A fault in one printer may be talked about extensively, but in another printer it's mentioned casually. The Canon 820D has been recently replaced with the 830D (about 1-2 weeks ago) and there is no mention of it. Compared to the offerings out there the units reviewed are few.

I wish more "reputable" hardware review sites would take the time to review printers. I still haven't been able to decide between the Canon 830D, the Epson 960 stylus photo and the Epson 2200 stylus photo mainly because I don't have enough information.

As it is now it seems like printer reviews are conspicuously absent or out of date. It's almost as if the printer manufacturers are supressing reviews so that people will "gamble" on printers due to their low price and how good those "specs" on the box are.

Anyone happen to know anything about the Canon 830D, Epson Stylus Photo 960 and the Epson Stylus Photo 2200?

Lets ignore linux support for just a momment. I think it's commonly agreed that printer manufacturers are out to extract every last cent from consumers any way they can.

What about the magazines that "Review" these printers? I mean it's pretty obvious that magazines like PC World, Home Computer Luser and all the other magazines that target clueless users, are basically just glorified advertising catalogs. But try researching a new printer.

I recently tried to find some reviews on photo printers and found that whatever reviews available are highly biased, largely unscientific, based on old models and generally useless. This article links to some other reivews which are horribly old:

Canon S820D February 2002
Epson Stylus Photo 785EPX July 2001
Epson Stylus Photo 2000P February 2002
HP PhotoSmart 1315 November 2001
Kodak Personal Picture Maker 200 by Lexmark January 2001

If you can make your way through those articles you'll see that there is no common baseline for comparison. A fault in one printer may be talked about extensively, but in another printer it's mentioned casually. The Canon 820D has been recently replaced with the 830D (about 1-2 weeks ago) and there is no mention of it. Compared to the offerings out there the units reviewed are few.

I wish more "reputable" hardware review sites would take the time to review printers. I still haven't been able to decide between the Canon 830D, the Epson 960 stylus photo and the Epson 2200 stylus photo mainly because I don't have enough information.

As it is now it seems like printer reviews are conspicuously absent or out of date. It's almost as if the printer manufacturers are supressing reviews so that people will "gamble" on printers due to their low price and how good those "specs" on the box are.

Anyone happen to know anything about the Canon 830D, Epson Stylus Photo 960 and the Epson Stylus Photo 2200?

Hey, son, I have been in the software development business for 9 years. Just because you miss a reference to the dancing monkey boy you don't have to lash out. And if you think it is all about finding someone to blame, then you have a lot more to learn.

listen here:

http://chkpt.zdnet.com/chkpt/hud00058rad/http://ww w.cnet.com/radio/playlist/live.asx

How about a hardware compatibility list. I would expect something like that straight off of kernel.org. Why should I search through message boards to see if someone was able to get my ethernet card to work,

Have you looked at this yet? Please add your own hardware details.

"I want tech-news, esp. from the fs/os area!"

Like martyn s, you also have the power!

It never ceases to amaze me how stupid large companies can be. What did they think, nobody would notice?

So true, so true. Powell seems to really have absolutley NO CLUE on how to apporach or handle his job. Everything he has done so far has been primarily a benefit to big business (allowing telephone records to be sold, forcing TVs to use digital recievers, etc). And even that (benefiting business) he does poorly. I wish my daddy was secretary of state. Then I could be put in charge of an important government regulatory commision that I have no clue about too, as long as I support the president's ideology: business first--consumers (I hate that word!) second. It makes me sick.

----rhad

• Osnews
  
• MacIntouch
  
• Zdnet
  
• Macworld
  
• MacCentral

...because other (former) Linux users are doing the job for them. Between Tim O'Reilly, plenty of folks here on / and various others, it would be difficult for geeks not to know that OS X is "Unix Inside (tm)".

• Jordan Hubbard (pre-employment): "it was impressive just how much "Unix stuff" did work exactly as I'd expected."
• David Coursey: "if all I wanted was a Unix (or Unix-ish) OS I could actually use, I'd choose Mac OS X"
• Chris Coleman: "I didn't have to dual boot. I could use my Unix applications on the same screen"

I really wish that article submitters would not put ambiguous links in the
article.

Seriously, though, would it be too much effort to say "three Kahn titles: Title 1, Title 2, and Title 3"? As it is, it's annoying because you have no idea where each of the three links points. Come on, editors, you can do better than this.

If I were Microsoft, I would attempt to buy the patents to the Mandatory Access Controls as used in SELinux, in order to stop the scenario described here from playing out.

The scenario is that by further developing the SELinux concept, linux would become such a secure OS for general government use that governments would be forced to use it instead of Windows.

Better yet, make it a chick-flick. Sensitive geek is the leading man, but all the action/fighting scenes involve his wife who just happens to be a
national karate champion.

We demoed an early version of the product at the "Demo 98" conference, in February 1998. PCWeek ran an article about us mentioning the DingBot SDK later that month.

The Activerse press release announcing the product's general availability, in November 1998, is still available at the Internet Archive.

ActiveBuddy was founded in March 2000. So, not only were their "IM bots" a old idea by the time they filed their patent (August 2000), a ripoff of both Activerse's offerings and more than a decade of practice on IRC networks and in MUDs/MOOs, but their very name was derivative of an existing player in the same market ("Activerse"->"ActiveBuddy") and their main product (an SDK/server) and business model (licensing) mimicked Activerse as well.

Their founder claims with a straight face "we invented interactive agents" and "I am fairly confident, there were no interactive agents on IM at that point when the application was filed. I'm certainly not aware of any." That only goes to show you have to be *studiously* ignorant and/or dishonest in order to effectively twist the flaws of the software patent system to personal advantage.

(Postscript on Activerse: It was acquired by high-flying internet conglomerate CMGI in April 1999. Though the initial aim was to expand and promote the Ding IM/bot products throughout the CMGI network of compnaies, as CMGI itself unravelled, Activerse was dismantled through a series of mostly arbitrary and faddish organizational moves which completely ignored the promise of the growing IM space.)

The article is about software, not music, but the same principle applies. I think.

Crootec link!!!! another link to teh arical!!!!

link here

Correct Link

Try Here

Danger's Sidekick PDA: Why it's worth the wait - you meant this, right?

The correct, non-404 link is here

to the story.

They tried it before. AOL partnered with Gateway to make an internet appliance. It was pretty pricey at $599 and flopped. There may be hope yet for a web appliance device. This OEOne could try to capitalize on cheap PC OEMs who want to avoid the Microsoft tax, but give a richer user experience than say... Lindows.

He's probably referring to a prediction by Bear Stearns analyst Andrew Neff (who owns Intel stock, BTW). According to the article, "There's a better than 80 percent chance Apple will make the jump [to Intel] in two to four years, he said." Shortly after Neff's report was released, AnchorDesk Executive Editor David Coursey made a similar prediction, predicting the change would take place in less than 18 months. No word on how much Intel stock he owns ;-)

Of course Apple makes virtually all its money from hardware sales, so I can't imagine why they'd want to make such a move. Not to mention, direct competition with Microsoft is never a good idea...

The project has faced numerous setbacks in recent years, leading to waning developer interest and participation, a user-base migrating to Linux, Windows XP and Mac OS X, and no financial support whatsoever.

How did it happen? Well, these were the main events. First, *BSD split into 3 incompatible projects - FreeBSD, which focused on 386 and 486 machines; NetBSD, which focused on little-used architectures like Sparc and PPC; and OpenBSD, which focused on minimal functionality and poor performance. This split divided the already-small community and served to set up bitter rivalries. Then, Linux came along and stole all of *BSD's press, funding, and much of it's thunder with its better performance, functionality and ease-of-use. As if that weren't enough, OS X later took nearly all of the desktop *BSD users. And finally, in what has all but spelled out the demise of *BSD, two core developers have quit the project. First, Jordan Hubbard quit *BSD to get an actual paying job at Apple. He made this move citing OS X's superiority, *BSD's imminent demise, and his inability to feed his family with the broken promises of an SMP-enabled kernel. Shortly after that, Michael Smith left, saying simply, "It's true, *BSD is dying."

Where does all this leave the IT industry at large? Fortunately, the IT world is now healthier than ever. The death of *BSD is simply natural selection at work, as companies leave the shoddily written *BSD behind and move ahead with Windows XP, Mac OS X, and Linux.

RIP *BSD.

The project has faced numerous setbacks in recent years, leading to waning developer interest and participation, a user-base migrating to Linux, Windows XP and Mac OS X, and no financial support whatsoever.

How did it happen? Well, these were the main events. First, *BSD split into 3 incompatible projects - FreeBSD, which focused on 386 and 486 machines; NetBSD, which focused on little-used architectures like Sparc and PPC; and OpenBSD, which focused on minimal functionality and poor performance. This split divided the already-small community and served to set up bitter rivalries. Then, Linux came along and stole all of *BSD's press, funding, and much of it's thunder with its better performance, functionality and ease-of-use. As if that weren't enough, OS X later took nearly all of the desktop *BSD users. And finally, in what has all but spelled out the demise of *BSD, two core developers have quit the project. First, Jordan Hubbard quit *BSD to get an actual paying job at Apple. He made this move citing OS X's superiority, *BSD's imminent demise, and his inability to feed his family with the broken promises of an SMP-enabled kernel. Shortly after that, Michael Smith left, saying simply, "It's true, *BSD is dying."

Where does all this leave the IT industry at large? Fortunately, the IT world is now healthier than ever. The death of *BSD is simply natural selection at work, as companies leave the shoddily written *BSD behind and move ahead with Windows XP, Mac OS X, and Linux.

RIP *BSD.

There are a few utilities on the web that use various techniques for blocking pop-ups, from Javascript filtering to just watching for them and closing them. Here's an article with a few links to some.

What do you forsee as the likelihood of a subscription model adaptation for most web sites? With companies like ZDNet, Salon and many other news/article web sites falling under due to lack of money for a) bandwidth and b) writers salary, a subscription model tends to lend itself very favourably since it actually incorporates a source of income beyond advertising - which has proven to be a flop on the Internet. Do you see a subscription model taking reign over many of our favorite free sites in the future?

1. Application Layer Gateway Service (Requires server rights.)
2. Fax Service
3. File Signature Verification
4. Generic Host Process for Win32 Services (Requires server rights.)
5. Microsoft Application Error Reporting
6. Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer
7. Microsoft Direct Play Voice Test
8. Microsoft Help and Support Center
9. Microsoft Help Center Hosting Server (Wants server rights.)
10. Microsoft Management Console
11. Microsoft Media Player (tells Microsoft the music you like)
12. Microsoft Network Availability Test
13. Microsoft Volume Shadow Copy Service
14. MS DTC Console program
15. Run DLL as an app
16. Services and Controller app
17. Time Service, sets the time on your computer from Microsoft's computer.
18. Microsoft Office keeps a number in each file you create that identifies your computer. Microsoft has never said why.
19. Microsoft mouse software has reduced functionality until you let it connect to Microsoft computers.

1. Application Layer Gateway Service (Requires server rights.)
2. Fax Service
3. File Signature Verification
4. Generic Host Process for Win32 Services (Requires server rights.)
5. Microsoft Application Error Reporting
6. Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer
7. Microsoft Direct Play Voice Test
8. Microsoft Help and Support Center
9. Microsoft Help Center Hosting Server (Wants server rights.)
10. Microsoft Management Console
11. Microsoft Media Player (tells Microsoft the music you like)
12. Microsoft Network Availability Test
13. Microsoft Volume Shadow Copy Service
14. MS DTC Console program
15. Run DLL as an app
16. Services and Controller app
17. Time Service, sets the time on your computer from Microsoft's computer.
18. Microsoft Office keeps a number in each file you create that identifies your computer. Microsoft has never said why.
19. Microsoft mouse software has reduced functionality until you let it connect to Microsoft computers.

1. Application Layer Gateway Service (Requires server rights.)
2. Fax Service
3. File Signature Verification
4. Generic Host Process for Win32 Services (Requires server rights.)
5. Microsoft Application Error Reporting
6. Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer
7. Microsoft Direct Play Voice Test
8. Microsoft Help and Support Center
9. Microsoft Help Center Hosting Server (Wants server rights.)
10. Microsoft Management Console
11. Microsoft Media Player (tells Microsoft the music you like)
12. Microsoft Network Availability Test
13. Microsoft Volume Shadow Copy Service
14. MS DTC Console program
15. Run DLL as an app
16. Services and Controller app
17. Time Service, sets the time on your computer from Microsoft's computer.
18. Microsoft Office keeps a number in each file you create that identifies your computer. Microsoft has never said why.
19. Microsoft mouse software has reduced functionality until you let it connect to Microsoft computers.

1. Application Layer Gateway Service (Requires server rights.)
2. Fax Service
3. File Signature Verification
4. Generic Host Process for Win32 Services (Requires server rights.)
5. Microsoft Application Error Reporting
6. Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer
7. Microsoft Direct Play Voice Test
8. Microsoft Help and Support Center
9. Microsoft Help Center Hosting Server (Wants server rights.)
10. Microsoft Management Console
11. Microsoft Media Player (tells Microsoft the music you like)
12. Microsoft Network Availability Test
13. Microsoft Volume Shadow Copy Service
14. MS DTC Console program
15. Run DLL as an app
16. Services and Controller app
17. Time Service, sets the time on your computer from Microsoft's computer.
18. Microsoft Office keeps a number in each file you create that identifies your computer. Microsoft has never said why.
19. Microsoft mouse software has reduced functionality until you let it connect to Microsoft computers.

Thought this was appropriate..

"I've heard WinXP removed the cmd/command prompt."

No, Microsoft didn't remove the CMD.EXE or COMMAND.COM prompt from Windows XP. But Windows XP has reduced functionality, in many ways, not just in the command line. The command line is a big embarrassment because of its limited capabilities, but at least in Win 95 it worked. With every version since then it has worked less well. (There are two kinds of command prompt, and, according to Microsoft employees, the differences between them are not documented.)

The command line prompt sometimes begins to display short file names. Microsoft employees say that Microsoft has no fix, although someone not connected with Microsoft did make a work-around.

Cutting and pasting into a command line program often puts successive extra spaces before each line. Microsoft employees say that there is no plan to fix this.

The fast paste mode that is in Windows 98 is gone in Windows XP. Microsoft employees say there is no plan to fix this.

When using the command line interface, Windows XP doesn't always update the time. After several hours, the time reported to command line programs can be several hours in error.

There is a DOS program called START.EXE that can be used to start other programs. But it does operate the same way as in other versions of Windows. It starts a program, but cannot be made to return control to the command line program as previous versions did. There is no technical reason for this; it is just one of the shortcomings that are allowed to exist.

People often say that DOS has gone away. But Microsoft still calls the command line interface DOS, and in Windows XP Microsoft has added new programs for configuring the OS that work only under DOS.

Sometimes when you press a key while using Windows XP, it is seconds until there is any response. Apparently there is something wrong with the CPU scheduler in XP, because there are a lot of complaints about this in the forums and MS people have said that they are working on it. On one particular fresh installation of XP, on an Intel motherboard with either a Matrox G550 or an ATI Radeon video adapter, it requires 18 seconds to display a directory listing of 94 items. This is apparently related to a bug in the video software, not the adapter drivers.

Something is wrong with the Alt-Tab display of running programs under Windows XP. If there are a lot of programs, not all of them are displayed. The order jumps around in a seemingly random way.

Although articles often say negative things about Microsoft, I've never seen an article that fully documents how bad the situation really is. Microsoft's management is so bad that the company has become self-destructive. For example, Windows XP is spyware. Here is a list of ways Windows XP connects to Microsoft's servers:

1. Application Layer Gateway Service (Requires server rights.)
2. Fax Service
3. File Signature Verification
4. Generic Host Process for Win32 Services (Requires server rights.)
5. Microsoft Application Error Reporting
6. Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer
7. Microsoft Direct Play Voice Test
8. Microsoft Help and Support Center
9. Microsoft Help Center Hosting Server (Wants server rights.)
10. Microsoft Management Console
11. Microsoft Media Player (tells Microsoft the music you like)
12. Microsoft Network Availability Test
13. Microsoft Volume Shadow Copy Service
14. MS DTC Console program
15. Run DLL as an app
16. Services and Controller app
17. Time Service, sets the time on your computer from Microsoft's computer.
18. Microsoft Office keeps a number in each file you create that identifies your computer. Microsoft has never said why.
19. Microsoft mouse software has reduced functionality until you let it connect to Microsoft computers.

These are just the ones I know. There may be others.

So, if you use Windows XP, your computer is dependent on Microsoft computers. That's bad, not only because you lose control over your possession, but because Microsoft produces buggy software and doesn't patch bugs quickly. For example, as of July 7, 2002, there are 18 unpatched security holes in Microsoft Internet Explorer. This is a terrible record for a company that has $40 billion in the bank. Obviously, with that kind of money, Microsoft could fix the bugs if it wanted to fix them. Since the bugs are very public and Microsoft has the money, it seems reasonable to suppose that top management at Microsoft has deliberately decided that the bugs should remain, at least for now.

It seems possible that there is a connection between all the bugs and the U.S. government's friendly treatment of Microsoft's law-breaking . The U.S. government's CIA and FBI and NSA departments spy on the entire world, and unpatched vulnerabilities in Microsoft software help spies.

Windows XP, and all current Windows operating systems, have a file called the registry in which configuration information is written. If this one (large, often fragmented) file becomes corrupted, the only way of recovering may be to re-format the hard drive, re-install the operating system, and then re-install and re-configure all the applications. The registry file is a single, very vulnerable, point of failure. Microsoft apparently designed it this way to provide copy protection. Since most entries in the registry are poorly documented or not documented, the registry effectively prevents control by the user.

Note that Microsoft does not support making functional complete backups under Windows XP. Look at Microsoft's policy about this: Q314828 Microsoft Policy on Disk Duplication of Windows XP Installation . Only those who work with Microsoft software will understand the true meaning of Microsoft's policy. Since almost all programs use the registry operating system file, if you cannot make a functional copy of the operating system you cannot make a functional copy of all your application installations and configurations. There are other software companies that try to fix this, but they don't work well, and Microsoft can, of course, break their implementations, as they have often done with other kinds of competitors.

Because the configuration information for the motherboard and the configuration information for the are mixed together in the registry file, the registry tends to prevent you from moving a hard drive to a computer with a different motherboard. That's another implication of the above Microsoft policy. So, if you have a motherboard failure, and a good complete backup, you may not be able to recover unless you have a spare computer with the same motherboard.

Note that Windows XP Professional can support only ten simultaneous incoming network connections. If you want more than that, you must use Windows 2000 server, and pay much, much more. (There is no Windows XP server yet.) Many businesses have very light network traffic; they just move files from staff member to staff member; they really don't need a dedicated server computer. The staff computers could easily handle the load except for this artificial limitation.

Apparently because the Windows XP GUI comes from Windows 98, Windows XP has the same problem with desktop icons that Windows 98 has. The icons sometimes flicker. Sometimes they move themselves around, particularly after the user switches monitor resolutions. Also, sometimes the taskbar settings un-configure themselves, as they do in Windows 98.

Only technically knowledgeable people know how to avoid signing up for a Microsoft Passport account during initial use of Windows XP. The name Passport gives an indication of Microsoft's thinking. A passport is a document issued by a sovereign nation. Without it, the nation's citizens cannot travel, and, if they leave, won't be allowed back in their own country. In Microsoft's corporate thinking, the company seems to be moving in the direction of believing that they own the user's computer. Most people are both honest and intimidated. Apparently about 95% do whatever they are asked on the screen. They give their personal information to Microsoft. They don't realize that, if they feel forced to get a Passport account, they should enter almost completely fictitious information, since the real question is not "What is your name and address", but "Can we invade your privacy". The honest answer to this is "No, you cannot invade my privacy", and the only effective way to communicate that is to give completely fictitious information. Since it is the educated people who have computers, Microsoft is building a database of the personal lives of educated people. Microsoft knows when they connect and from what IP address (which tends to show the area), what kind of help they ask, and information about what they are doing with their computers, including what music they like. It is not known, and there is no way to know, how much Microsoft or other organizations make use of this information, or their plans for future use.

Not only has Windows XP definitely gone further in the direction of allowing the user less control over his or her own machine, but with Palladium, Microsoft apparently intends to finish the job: Microsoft will have ultimate control over the user's computer and therefore all his or her data. Even now, under Windows XP, a recent security patch requires that the user agree to a contract that gives Microsoft administrator privileges over the user's computer . The contract says that if a user wants to patch his or her system against a bug which would allow an attack over the Internet, he or she must give Microsoft legal control over the computer. See this article also: Microsoft's Digital Rights Management-- A Little Deeper . You may need to be a lawyer to take apart the crucial sentence. "These security related updates may disable your ability to copy and/or play Secure Content and [my emphasis] use other software on your computer" legally includes this meaning: "These updates may disable your ability to use other software on your computer." Note that the term "security related updates" is meaningless to the user because the updates have no relation to user security. So, the sentence effectively means that Microsoft can control the user's computer without notice and whenever it wants. That kind of sentence is known in psychology as "testing the limits". If there is no strong public complaint about this, expect to see more and stronger language like this.

This Register article shows the direction Microsoft is going: MS Palladium protects IT vendors, not you . Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and Microsoft is well down that road. See this ZDNet article, also: MS: Why we can't trust your 'trustworthy' OS .

Microsoft's self-destructiveness does not mean that the user should be self-destructive. There is no need to apologize for using Microsoft software. The correct solution to abuse is persuading the abuser to stop being abusive. Once I posted to a Slashdot story a link to an article on a web site of mine. By far the majority of visitors from the Slashdot story used Microsoft operating systems. Rather than feel embarrassed because Microsoft is abusive, action needs to be taken to prevent the abuse. If you are against Microsoft abuse, you are not against Microsoft; you are more pro-Microsoft than Bill Gates.

These Microsoft policies mean that any government which wants to be independent of the United States government, and any government which represents itself as controlled by the people, cannot use Microsoft operating systems, or other Microsoft proprietary systems.

1. Application Layer Gateway Service (Requires server rights.)
2. Fax Service
3. File Signature Verification
4. Generic Host Process for Win32 Services (Requires server rights.)
5. Microsoft Application Error Reporting
6. Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer
7. Microsoft Direct Play Voice Test
8. Microsoft Help and Support Center
9. Microsoft Help Center Hosting Server (Wants server rights.)
10. Microsoft Management Console
11. Microsoft Media Player (tells Microsoft the music you like)
12. Microsoft Network Availability Test
13. Microsoft Volume Shadow Copy Service
14. MS DTC Console program
15. Run DLL as an app
16. Services and Controller app
17. Time Service, sets the time on your computer from Microsoft's computer.
18. Microsoft Office keeps a number in each file you create that identifies your computer. Microsoft has never said why.
19. Microsoft mouse software has reduced functionality until you let it connect to Microsoft computers.

1. Application Layer Gateway Service (Requires server rights.)
2. Fax Service
3. File Signature Verification
4. Generic Host Process for Win32 Services (Requires server rights.)
5. Microsoft Application Error Reporting
6. Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer
7. Microsoft Direct Play Voice Test
8. Microsoft Help and Support Center
9. Microsoft Help Center Hosting Server (Wants server rights.)
10. Microsoft Management Console
11. Microsoft Media Player (tells Microsoft the music you like)
12. Microsoft Network Availability Test
13. Microsoft Volume Shadow Copy Service
14. MS DTC Console program
15. Run DLL as an app
16. Services and Controller app
17. Time Service, sets the time on your computer from Microsoft's computer.
18. Microsoft Office keeps a number in each file you create that identifies your computer. Microsoft has never said why.
19. Microsoft mouse software has reduced functionality until you let it connect to Microsoft computers.

1. Application Layer Gateway Service (Requires server rights.)
2. Fax Service
3. File Signature Verification
4. Generic Host Process for Win32 Services (Requires server rights.)
5. Microsoft Application Error Reporting
6. Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer
7. Microsoft Direct Play Voice Test
8. Microsoft Help and Support Center
9. Microsoft Help Center Hosting Server (Wants server rights.)
10. Microsoft Management Console
11. Microsoft Media Player (tells Microsoft the music you like)
12. Microsoft Network Availability Test
13. Microsoft Volume Shadow Copy Service
14. MS DTC Console program
15. Run DLL as an app
16. Services and Controller app
17. Time Service, sets the time on your computer from Microsoft's computer.
18. Microsoft Office keeps a number in each file you create that identifies your computer. Microsoft has never said why.
19. Microsoft mouse software has reduced functionality until you let it connect to Microsoft computers.

1. Application Layer Gateway Service (Requires server rights.)
2. Fax Service
3. File Signature Verification
4. Generic Host Process for Win32 Services (Requires server rights.)
5. Microsoft Application Error Reporting
6. Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer
7. Microsoft Direct Play Voice Test
8. Microsoft Help and Support Center
9. Microsoft Help Center Hosting Server (Wants server rights.)
10. Microsoft Management Console
11. Microsoft Media Player (tells Microsoft the music you like)
12. Microsoft Network Availability Test
13. Microsoft Volume Shadow Copy Service
14. MS DTC Console program
15. Run DLL as an app
16. Services and Controller app
17. Time Service, sets the time on your computer from Microsoft's computer.
18. Microsoft Office keeps a number in each file you create that identifies your computer. Microsoft has never said why.
19. Microsoft mouse software has reduced functionality until you let it connect to Microsoft computers.

Windows XP Shows the Direction Microsoft is Going.

"I've heard WinXP removed the cmd/command prompt."

No, Microsoft didn't remove the CMD.EXE or COMMAND.COM prompt from Windows XP. But Windows XP has reduced functionality, in many ways, not just in the command line. The command line is a big embarrassment because of its limited capabilities, but at least in Win 95 it worked. With every version since then it has worked less well. (There are two kinds of command prompt, and, according to Microsoft employees, the differences between them are not documented.)

The command line prompt sometimes begins to display short file names. Microsoft employees say that Microsoft has no fix, although someone not connected with Microsoft did make a work-around.

Cutting and pasting into a command line program often puts successive extra spaces before each line. Microsoft employees say that there is no plan to fix this.

The fast paste mode that is in Windows 98 is gone in Windows XP. Microsoft employees say there is no plan to fix this.

When using the command line interface, Windows XP doesn't always update the time. After several hours, the time reported to command line programs can be several hours in error.

There is a DOS program called START.EXE that can be used to start other programs. But it does operate the same way as in other versions of Windows. It starts a program, but cannot be made to return control to the command line program as previous versions did. There is no technical reason for this; it is just one of the shortcomings that are allowed to exist.

People often say that DOS has gone away. But Microsoft still calls the command line interface DOS, and in Windows XP Microsoft has added new programs for configuring the OS that work only under DOS.

Sometimes when you press a key while using Windows XP, it is seconds until there is any response. Apparently there is something wrong with the CPU scheduler in XP, because there are a lot of complaints about this in the forums and MS people have said that they are working on it. On one particular fresh installation of XP, on an Intel motherboard with either a Matrox G550 or an ATI Radeon video adapter, it requires 18 seconds to display a directory listing of 94 items. This is apparently related to a bug in the video software, not the adapter drivers.

Something is wrong with the Alt-Tab display of running programs under Windows XP. If there are a lot of programs, not all of them are displayed. The order jumps around in a seemingly random way.

Although articles often say negative things about Microsoft, I've never seen an article that fully documents how bad the situation really is. Microsoft's management is so bad that the company has become self-destructive. For example, Windows XP is spyware. Here is a list of ways Windows XP connects to Microsoft's servers:

1. Application Layer Gateway Service (Requires server rights.)
2. Fax Service
3. File Signature Verification
4. Generic Host Process for Win32 Services (Requires server rights.)
5. Microsoft Application Error Reporting
6. Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer
7. Microsoft Direct Play Voice Test
8. Microsoft Help and Support Center
9. Microsoft Help Center Hosting Server (Wants server rights.)
10. Microsoft Management Console
11. Microsoft Media Player (tells Microsoft the music you like)
12. Microsoft Network Availability Test
13. Microsoft Volume Shadow Copy Service
14. MS DTC Console program
15. Run DLL as an app
16. Services and Controller app
17. Time Service, sets the time on your computer from Microsoft's computer.
18. Microsoft Office keeps a number in each file you create that identifies your computer. Microsoft has never said why.
19. Microsoft mouse software has reduced functionality until you let it connect to Microsoft computers.

These are just the ones I know. There may be others.

So, if you use Windows XP, your computer is dependent on Microsoft computers. That's bad, not only because you lose control over your possession, but because Microsoft produces buggy software and doesn't patch bugs quickly. For example, as of July 7, 2002, there are 18 unpatched security holes in Microsoft Internet Explorer. This is a terrible record for a company that has $40 billion in the bank. Obviously, with that kind of money, Microsoft could fix the bugs if it wanted to fix them. Since the bugs are very public and Microsoft has the money, it seems reasonable to suppose that top management at Microsoft has deliberately decided that the bugs should remain, at least for now.

It seems possible that there is a connection between all the bugs and the U.S. government's friendly treatment of Microsoft's law-breaking . The U.S. government's CIA and FBI and NSA departments spy on the entire world, and unpatched vulnerabilities in Microsoft software help spies.

Windows XP, and all current Windows operating systems, have a file called the registry in which configuration information is written. If this one (large, often fragmented) file becomes corrupted, the only way of recovering may be to re-format the hard drive, re-install the operating system, and then re-install and re-configure all the applications. The registry file is a single, very vulnerable, point of failure. Microsoft apparently designed it this way to provide copy protection. Since most entries in the registry are poorly documented or not documented, the registry effectively prevents control by the user.

Note that Microsoft does not support making functional complete backups under Windows XP. Look at Microsoft's policy about this: Q314828 Microsoft Policy on Disk Duplication of Windows XP Installation . Only those who work with Microsoft software will understand the true meaning of Microsoft's policy. Since almost all programs use the registry operating system file, if you cannot make a functional copy of the operating system you cannot make a functional copy of all your application installations and configurations. There are other software companies that try to fix this, but they don't work well, and Microsoft can, of course, break their implementations, as they have often done with other kinds of competitors.

Because the configuration information for the motherboard and the configuration information for the are mixed together in the registry file, the registry tends to prevent you from moving a hard drive to a computer with a different motherboard. That's another implication of the above Microsoft policy. So, if you have a motherboard failure, and a good complete backup, you may not be able to recover unless you have a spare computer with the same motherboard.

Note that Windows XP Professional can support only ten simultaneous incoming network connections. If you want more than that, you must use Windows 2000 server, and pay much, much more. (There is no Windows XP server yet.) Many businesses have very light network traffic; they just move files from staff member to staff member; they really don't need a dedicated server computer. The staff computers could easily handle the load except for this artificial limitation.

Apparently because the Windows XP GUI comes from Windows 98, Windows XP has the same problem with desktop icons that Windows 98 has. The icons sometimes flicker. Sometimes they move themselves around, particularly after the user switches monitor resolutions. Also, sometimes the taskbar settings un-configure themselves, as they do in Windows 98.

Only technically knowledgeable people know how to avoid signing up for a Microsoft Passport account during initial use of Windows XP. The name Passport gives an indication of Microsoft's thinking. A passport is a document issued by a sovereign nation. Without it, the nation's citizens cannot travel, and, if they leave, won't be allowed back in their own country. In Microsoft's corporate thinking, the company seems to be moving in the direction of believing that they own the user's computer. Most people are both honest and intimidated. Apparently about 95% do whatever they are asked on the screen. They give their personal information to Microsoft. They don't realize that, if they feel forced to get a Passport account, they should enter almost completely fictitious information, since the real question is not "What is your name and address", but "Can we invade your privacy". The honest answer to this is "No, you cannot invade my privacy", and the only effective way to communicate that is to give completely fictitious information. Since it is the educated people who have computers, Microsoft is building a database of the personal lives of educated people. Microsoft knows when they connect and from what IP address (which tends to show the area), what kind of help they ask, and information about what they are doing with their computers, including what music they like. It is not known, and there is no way to know, how much Microsoft or other organizations make use of this information, or their plans for future use.

Not only has Windows XP definitely gone further in the direction of allowing the user less control over his or her own machine, but with Palladium, Microsoft apparently intends to finish the job: Microsoft will have ultimate control over the user's computer and therefore all his or her data. Even now, under Windows XP, a recent security patch requires that the user agree to a contract that gives Microsoft administrator privileges over the user's computer . The contract says that if a user wants to patch his or her system against a bug which would allow an attack over the Internet, he or she must give Microsoft legal control over the computer. See this article also: Microsoft's Digital Rights Management-- A Little Deeper . You may need to be a lawyer to take apart the crucial sentence. "These security related updates may disable your ability to copy and/or play Secure Content and [my emphasis] use other software on your computer" legally includes this meaning: "These updates may disable your ability to use other software on your computer." Note that the term "security related updates" is meaningless to the user because the updates have no relation to user security. So, the sentence effectively means that Microsoft can control the user's computer without notice and whenever it wants. That kind of sentence is known in psychology as "testing the limits". If there is no strong public complaint about this, expect to see more and stronger language like this.

This Register article shows the direction Microsoft is going: MS Palladium protects IT vendors, not you . Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and Microsoft is well down that road. See this ZDNet article, also: MS: Why we can't trust your 'trustworthy' OS .

Microsoft's self-destructiveness does not mean that the user should be self-destructive. There is no need to apologize for using Microsoft software. The correct solution to abuse is persuading the abuser to stop being abusive. Once I posted to a Slashdot story a link to an article on a web site of mine. By far the majority of visitors from the Slashdot story used Microsoft operating systems. Rather than feel embarrassed because Microsoft is abusive, action needs to be taken to prevent the abuse. If you are against Microsoft abuse, you are not against Microsoft; you are more pro-Microsoft than Bill Gates.

These Microsoft policies mean that any government which wants to be independent of the United States government, and any government which represents itself as controlled by the people, cannot use Microsoft operating systems, or other Microsoft proprietary systems.

1. Application Layer Gateway Service (Requires server rights.)
2. Fax Service
3. File Signature Verification
4. Generic Host Process for Win32 Services (Requires server rights.)
5. Microsoft Application Error Reporting
6. Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer
7. Microsoft Direct Play Voice Test
8. Microsoft Help and Support Center
9. Microsoft Help Center Hosting Server (Wants server rights.)
10. Microsoft Management Console
11. Microsoft Media Player (tells Microsoft the music you like)
12. Microsoft Network Availability Test
13. Microsoft Volume Shadow Copy Service
14. MS DTC Console program
15. Run DLL as an app
16. Services and Controller app
17. Time Service, sets the time on your computer from Microsoft's computer.
18. Microsoft Office keeps a number in each file you create that identifies your computer. Microsoft has never said why.
19. Microsoft mouse software has reduced functionality until you let it connect to Microsoft computers.

1. Application Layer Gateway Service (Requires server rights.)
2. Fax Service
3. File Signature Verification
4. Generic Host Process for Win32 Services (Requires server rights.)
5. Microsoft Application Error Reporting
6. Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer
7. Microsoft Direct Play Voice Test
8. Microsoft Help and Support Center
9. Microsoft Help Center Hosting Server (Wants server rights.)
10. Microsoft Management Console
11. Microsoft Media Player (tells Microsoft the music you like)
12. Microsoft Network Availability Test
13. Microsoft Volume Shadow Copy Service
14. MS DTC Console program
15. Run DLL as an app
16. Services and Controller app
17. Time Service, sets the time on your computer from Microsoft's computer.
18. Microsoft Office keeps a number in each file you create that identifies your computer. Microsoft has never said why.
19. Microsoft mouse software has reduced functionality until you let it connect to Microsoft computers.

1. Application Layer Gateway Service (Requires server rights.)
2. Fax Service
3. File Signature Verification
4. Generic Host Process for Win32 Services (Requires server rights.)
5. Microsoft Application Error Reporting
6. Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer
7. Microsoft Direct Play Voice Test
8. Microsoft Help and Support Center
9. Microsoft Help Center Hosting Server (Wants server rights.)
10. Microsoft Management Console
11. Microsoft Media Player (tells Microsoft the music you like)
12. Microsoft Network Availability Test
13. Microsoft Volume Shadow Copy Service
14. MS DTC Console program
15. Run DLL as an app
16. Services and Controller app
17. Time Service, sets the time on your computer from Microsoft's computer.
18. Microsoft Office keeps a number in each file you create that identifies your computer. Microsoft has never said why.
19. Microsoft mouse software has reduced functionality until you let it connect to Microsoft computers.

1. Application Layer Gateway Service (Requires server rights.)
2. Fax Service
3. File Signature Verification
4. Generic Host Process for Win32 Services (Requires server rights.)
5. Microsoft Application Error Reporting
6. Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer
7. Microsoft Direct Play Voice Test
8. Microsoft Help and Support Center
9. Microsoft Help Center Hosting Server (Wants server rights.)
10. Microsoft Management Console
11. Microsoft Media Player (tells Microsoft the music you like)
12. Microsoft Network Availability Test
13. Microsoft Volume Shadow Copy Service
14. MS DTC Console program
15. Run DLL as an app
16. Services and Controller app
17. Time Service, sets the time on your computer from Microsoft's computer.
18. Microsoft Office keeps a number in each file you create that identifies your computer. Microsoft has never said why.
19. Microsoft mouse software has reduced functionality until you let it connect to Microsoft computers.

1. Application Layer Gateway Service (Requires server rights.)
2. Fax Service
3. File Signature Verification
4. Generic Host Process for Win32 Services (Requires server rights.)
5. Microsoft Application Error Reporting
6. Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer
7. Microsoft Direct Play Voice Test
8. Microsoft Help and Support Center
9. Microsoft Help Center Hosting Server (Wants server rights.)
10. Microsoft Management Console
11. Microsoft Media Player (tells Microsoft the music you like)
12. Microsoft Network Availability Test
13. Microsoft Volume Shadow Copy Service
14. MS DTC Console program
15. Run DLL as an app
16. Services and Controller app
17. Time Service, sets the time on your computer from Microsoft's computer.
18. Microsoft Office keeps a number in each file you create that identifies your computer. Microsoft has never said why.
19. Microsoft mouse software has reduced functionality until you let it connect to Microsoft computers.

1. Application Layer Gateway Service (Requires server rights.)
2. Fax Service
3. File Signature Verification
4. Generic Host Process for Win32 Services (Requires server rights.)
5. Microsoft Application Error Reporting
6. Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer
7. Microsoft Direct Play Voice Test
8. Microsoft Help and Support Center
9. Microsoft Help Center Hosting Server (Wants server rights.)
10. Microsoft Management Console
11. Microsoft Media Player (tells Microsoft the music you like)
12. Microsoft Network Availability Test
13. Microsoft Volume Shadow Copy Service
14. MS DTC Console program
15. Run DLL as an app
16. Services and Controller app
17. Time Service, sets the time on your computer from Microsoft's computer.
18. Microsoft Office keeps a number in each file you create that identifies your computer. Microsoft has never said why.
19. Microsoft mouse software has reduced functionality until you let it connect to Microsoft computers.

1. Application Layer Gateway Service (Requires server rights.)
2. Fax Service
3. File Signature Verification
4. Generic Host Process for Win32 Services (Requires server rights.)
5. Microsoft Application Error Reporting
6. Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer
7. Microsoft Direct Play Voice Test
8. Microsoft Help and Support Center
9. Microsoft Help Center Hosting Server (Wants server rights.)
10. Microsoft Management Console
11. Microsoft Media Player (tells Microsoft the music you like)
12. Microsoft Network Availability Test
13. Microsoft Volume Shadow Copy Service
14. MS DTC Console program
15. Run DLL as an app
16. Services and Controller app
17. Time Service, sets the time on your computer from Microsoft's computer.
18. Microsoft Office keeps a number in each file you create that identifies your computer. Microsoft has never said why.
19. Microsoft mouse software has reduced functionality until you let it connect to Microsoft computers.