Slashdot Mirror
Windows 7 Hits Build 7600 (Possible RTM)
An anonymous reader writes "One Microsoft Way is reporting that Microsoft has significantly incremented the build number of both Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2: 'Reports across the Web are pointing to a build 7600 for both Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2. This is significant because the bump in the build number would suggest that Microsoft has christened this build as the Release to Manufacturing (RTM) build. The RTM is expected to be given out to Microsoft partners sometime later this month and launched on October 22, 2009, the day of General Availability (GA). The build string is "7600.16384.090710-1945," which indicates that it was compiled just a few days ago: July 10, 2009, at 7:45pm. Microsoft only increments the build number when it reaches a significant goal, and the only one left is the RTM milestone. The last builds that were leaking were all 72xx builds, so such a large bump is suspicious but at the same time it is something Microsoft would do to signify that this is the final build.'"
MS employees have no need for roommates, they earn enough to have their own place. Unlike the Linux, who barely pays their code monkeys.
A bunch of sheepherders have decided to fleece their flock yet again. In other news, the Sun continues to rise in the East and Steve Ballmer continues to be the second biggest cunt ever born.
Windows 7 is the first version of Windows that has me excited since as far back as I can remember.
Which version? Win 7 Home? Intermediate? Pro? Advanced Pro? Home Media? Home Education? Media Pro? Ultimate Home Media Pro? Win 7 Business? Business Pro Ultimate? Education Ultimate? Windows 7 Home Education Pro Ultimate Media? Intermediate Home Pro? Home Business?
Windows 7: There are so many versions to choose from...
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Windows 7, VISTA, & Server 2008 have a couple of "issues" I don't like in them, & you may not either, depending on your point of view (mine's based solely on efficiency & security):
1.) HOSTS files being unable to use "0" for a blocking IP address - this started in 12/09/2008 after an "MS Patch Tuesday" in fact for VISTA (when it had NO problem using it before that, as Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 still can)... & yes, this continues in its descendants, Windows Server 2008 &/or Windows 7 as well.
So, why is this a "problem" you might ask?
Ok - since you can technically use either:
a.) 127.0.0.1 (the "loopback adapter address")
b.) 0.0.0.0 (next smallest & next most efficient)
c.) The smallest & fastest plain-jane 0
PER EACH HOSTS FILE ENTRY/RECORD...
You can use ANY of those, in order to block out known bad sites &/or adbanners in a HOSTS file this way??
Microsoft has "promoted bloat" in doing so... no questions asked.
Simply because
1.) 127.0.0.1 = 9 bytes in size on disk & is the largest/slowest
2.) 0.0.0.0 = 7 bytes & is the next largest/slowest in size on disk
3.) 0 = 1 byte
(& HOSTS files extend across EVERY webbrowser, email program, or in general every webbound program you use & thus HOSTS are "global" in coverage this way AND function on any OS that uses the BSD derived IP stack (which most all do mind you, even MS is based off of it, as BSD's IS truly, "the best in the business"), & when coupled with say, IE restricted zones, FireFox addons like NoScript &/or AdBlock, or Opera filter.ini/urlfilter.ini, for layered security in this capacity for webbrowsers & SOME email programs (here, I mean ones "built into" browsers themselves like Opera has for example))
MS has literally promoted bloat in this file, making it load slower from disk, into memory! This compounds itself, the more entries your HOSTS file contains... & for instance? Mine currently contains nearly 654,000 entries of known bad adbanners, bad websites, &/or bad nameservers (used for controlling botnets, misdirecting net requests, etc. et al).
Now, IF I were to use 127.0.0.1? My "huge" HOSTS file would be approximately 27mb in size... using 0.0.0.0 (next smallest) it would be 19mb in size - HOWEVER? Using 0 as my blocking IP, it is only 14mb in size. See my point?
(For loads either in the local DNS cache, or system diskcache if you run w/out the local DNS client service running, this gets slower the larger each HOSTS file entry is (which you have to stall the DNS client service in Windows for larger ones, especially if you use a "giant HOSTS file" (purely relative term, but once it goes over (iirc) 4mb in size, you have to cut the local DNS cache client service)))
NO questions asked - the physics of it backed me up in theory alone, but when I was questioned on it for PROOF thereof?
I wrote a small test program to load such a list into a "pascal record" (which is analagous to a C/C++ structure), which is EXACTLY what the DNS client/DNS API does as well, using a C/C++ structure (basically an array of sorts really, & a structure/record is a precursor part to a full-blown CLASS or OBJECT, minus the functions built in, this is for treating numerous variables as a SINGLE VARIABLE (for efficiency, which FORTRAN as a single example, lacks as a feature, @ least Fortran 77 did, but other languages do not))!
I even wrote another that just loaded my HOSTS file's entirety into a listbox, same results... slowest using 127.0.0.1, next slowest using 0.0.0.0, & fastest using 0.
And, sure: Some MORE "goes on" during DNS API loads (iirc, removal of duplicated entries (which I made sure my personal copy does not have these via a program I wrote to purge it of duplicated entries + to sort each entry alphabetically for easier mgt. via say, notepad.exe) & a conversion from decimal values to hex ones), but, nevertheless? My point
well, obviously you should be in DLL hell, as well as having BSODs every few minutes. Also, all of your banks should've been hacked by now from the trojans m$ installed for their government butt buddies. You dog was to have been kicked around by some men in black as well.
Karma is for whores
"First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin, then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceedest on to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it." Amen.
Honestly describing to someone how to throw an hand grenade in Mojo Jojo style prayer is annoying at best.
Well, bully for you; you have personal preferences. You are not a standard to base everyone by, you know. You might like a minimalist environment, but a random bloke down the street might not. how much RAM does Ubuntu 9.04 need? I'm sure 4.10 needs a lot less than that to run comfortably. Why bother upgrading past that? Why even bother installing anything past, say, Qdos? You are only spewing FUD here, my friend. RAM is not the sole metric by which an OS' worth is measured...
Karma is for whores
Windows 7, VISTA, & Server 2008 have a couple of "issues" I don't like in them, & you may not either, depending on your point of view (mine's based solely on efficiency & security), & if my take on these issues aren't "good enough"? I suggest reading what ROOTKIT.COM says, link URL is in my "p.s." @ the bottom of this post:
1.) HOSTS files being unable to use "0" for a blocking IP address - this started in 12/09/2008 after an "MS Patch Tuesday" in fact for VISTA (when it had NO problem using it before that, as Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 still can)... & yes, this continues in its descendants, Windows Server 2008 &/or Windows 7 as well.
So, why is this a "problem" you might ask?
Ok - since you can technically use either:
a.) 127.0.0.1 (the "loopback adapter address")
b.) 0.0.0.0 (next smallest & next most efficient)
c.) The smallest & fastest plain-jane 0
PER EACH HOSTS FILE ENTRY/RECORD...
You can use ANY of those, in order to block out known bad sites &/or adbanners in a HOSTS file this way??
Microsoft has "promoted bloat" in doing so... no questions asked.
Simply because
1.) 127.0.0.1 = 9 bytes in size on disk & is the largest/slowest
2.) 0.0.0.0 = 7 bytes & is the next largest/slowest in size on disk
3.) 0 = 1 byte
(& HOSTS files extend across EVERY webbrowser, email program, or in general every webbound program you use & thus HOSTS are "global" in coverage this way AND function on any OS that uses the BSD derived IP stack (which most all do mind you, even MS is based off of it, as BSD's IS truly, "the best in the business"), & when coupled with say, IE restricted zones, FireFox addons like NoScript &/or AdBlock, or Opera filter.ini/urlfilter.ini, for layered security in this capacity for webbrowsers & SOME email programs (here, I mean ones "built into" browsers themselves like Opera has for example))
MS has literally promoted bloat in this file, making it load slower from disk, into memory! This compounds itself, the more entries your HOSTS file contains... & for instance? Mine currently contains nearly 654,000 entries of known bad adbanners, bad websites, &/or bad nameservers (used for controlling botnets, misdirecting net requests, etc. et al).
Now, IF I were to use 127.0.0.1? My "huge" HOSTS file would be approximately 27mb in size... using 0.0.0.0 (next smallest) it would be 19mb in size - HOWEVER? Using 0 as my blocking IP, it is only 14mb in size. See my point?
(For loads either in the local DNS cache, or system diskcache if you run w/out the local DNS client service running, this gets slower the larger each HOSTS file entry is (which you have to stall the DNS client service in Windows for larger ones, especially if you use a "giant HOSTS file" (purely relative term, but once it goes over (iirc) 4mb in size, you have to cut the local DNS cache client service)))
NO questions asked - the physics of it backed me up in theory alone, but when I was questioned on it for PROOF thereof?
I wrote a small test program to load such a list into a "pascal record" (which is analagous to a C/C++ structure), which is EXACTLY what the DNS client/DNS API does as well, using a C/C++ structure (basically an array of sorts really, & a structure/record is a precursor part to a full-blown CLASS or OBJECT, minus the functions built in, this is for treating numerous variables as a SINGLE VARIABLE (for efficiency, which FORTRAN as a single example, lacks as a feature, @ least Fortran 77 did, but other languages do not))!
I even wrote another that just loaded my HOSTS file's entirety into a listbox, same results... slowest using 127.0.0.1, next slowest using 0.0.0.0, & fastest using 0.
And, sure: Some MORE "goes on" during DNS API loads (iirc, removal of duplicated entries (which I made sure my personal copy does not have these via a program I wrote to purge it of duplicated entries + to so
"tl;dr" - by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 12, @10:38PM (#28671973)
"Too Long; Don't Read", eh?
The post I put up does contain some serious information + evidences as well (ones I found, as well as the folks @ ROOTKIT.COM mind you) that those considering purchasing Windows 7 ought to take note of, & MAY VERY WELL WISH TO READ & BE INFORMED ABOUT!
(As well as users of Windows VISTA (since the 12/09/2009 "patch Tuesday" DOWN-date (@ least as far as HOSTS files are concerned)) as well as problems in the Windows "WFP" &/or NDIS6 networking layers are concerned).
If you are the troll that has been impersonating me all week in various threads, as well as down-modding my posts? I truly pity you... if you want to discredit me?? Try proving the points I made in the thread you told others not to read via your "pkzip'd English" attempt @ a set of acronyms I quoted - that'd server you better.
(Thing is, I actually HOPE I am wrong - but on HOSTS? I know I am not, & on WFP I am fairly certain I am not, but the NDIS 6 problem that rootkit.com's folks turned up looks pretty solid too, just supplementing what I suspect (more than suspect actually) is a possible problem in WFP)
APK
P.S.=> IF you have difficulties reading? That doesn't mean everyone else does, & this is a problem I'd like to see Microsoft address... have you considered that others might also? So, please - take whatever treatments it is that you have to for your ADD/ADHD or Dyslexia, & don't give others order to not read this! Thank you... apk
Its funny how that when you take statisitics out of context or only looking at a small subset of the factors involved in a statistical analysis that you can prove just about anything.
Sadly you like to ignore the fact that a lot more people use Windows than Linux, so naturally Windows stories are going to be more popular.
Its not anti-Linux. Its pro-howTheWorldActuallyWorksIfYouAren'tWearingYourFanboyBlinders.
Why do you think Apple gets more press for its OS than Linux, but less than MS does for Windows?
Why do you think anything iPod outranks any other music player these days?
It must be beautiful to be able to ignore all the other evidence screaming at you in order to keep your inner fanboy happy.
IMHO, FreeBSD is a far more useful OS than Linux. Must be a conspiracy from slashdot since Linux stories get a lot of news here but FreeBSD doesn't.
Of course its more likely that most everyone here prefers Linux, but I'm going to ignore that and scream about your evil anti-FreeBSD conspiracy
!@$!@%!@%!@%!@
and yet another example of what GGP is pointing out.
Do keep up the good work for your employer.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
You also omitted reading the rest about NDIS 6 firewall problems ROOTKIT.COM spotted, + WFP being only a single layer to "take down" vs. the older 3 part method in Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 used for protection online as well...
Read on...
"And why would you use GetTickCount() to time anything? Besides being inaccurate, all it's measuring is how long it takes to return focus to your program from the context switch it makes to do a hosts lookup" - by Z34107 (925136) on Sunday July 12, @11:24PM (#28672263)
I used it as a SECOND level check, NOT my primary one (just to be sure is all) & yes, I was aware of that API call NOT being very accurate, but...?
QueryPerformanceCounter was also used!
Funny you missed that & it is NOT as inaccurate as GetTickCount...
AND?
Why did you fail to note that when I mention it in the SAME sentence also, since I also utilized that?
AND??
Same results, using QueryPerformanceCounter also - Slower loads from disk, period, when using 127.0.0.1 or 0.0.0.0 vs. plain 0 in a HOSTS file.
You're not doing such a good job!
----
"You lost me at complaining about having to type out the few extra bytes in "0.0.0.0" versus just "0"." - by Z34107 (925136) on Sunday July 12, @11:24PM (#28672263)
I am not talking about typing ANYTHING in, I am talking about a HOSTS file being bloated needlessly, when it was not before & a slowdown occurring on reads & loads of its data... first of all!
Secondly? Read on:
"You realize Windows has to read the whole 4KB (or whatever) disk cluster anyways, right? And probably "read ahead" many more clusters to fill its buffer?" - by Z34107 (925136) on Sunday July 12, @11:24PM (#28672263)
Every BIT counts (pun intended), on the initial & subsequent read of file data line by line... AND??? What you state, doesn't really matter in the least, because the file "bloats" period, & line by line????
The reads & loads, just take longer, period because each line, line by line, get larger as you go by using larger blocking IP addresses of 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1 vs. smaller & faster 0, period...
(Tests I did "bore this out", & you are more than welcome to try what I noted, yourself).
APK
P.S.=> Feigning ADD/ADHD or DYSLEXIA on your part just isn't a very credible defense, first of all...
I state that, since everyone's stating the MS 'shills' are populating forums like this one & others online to feed the "PR MACHINE"... your reply, such as it was? Well - You sound suspiciously like one...
(Especially saying "you lost me" & omitting the fact I used a MORE ACCURATE timing method also -not even a "nice try", pr man!)... apk
I bought a $750 computer+monitor (gateway box set probably from wally world) because Vista SP1 + Symantec utterly failed some poor woman. Trust me, Vista still blows, just like Windows always blew. I didn't even have to bad-mouth Vista, she did it, and she's the kind of person who buys a new computer when a computer fails... and Vista wasn't her first Windows.
So far I have no complaints other than interface annoyances. In fact, it's interface^2... where is my "repair"? Fuck diagnose, just FIX the damned thing.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
"The AC is a retard." - by ericfitz (59316) on Monday July 13, @01:21AM (#28672821)
See subject above: INTERIOR-TO-FILE I/O IS WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT & STRING WORK (which IS not easy on the CPU either - string work's some of the most complex work it does!)
With Files? You open a file/read-write it/Close it, in the typical File I/O access to a file's interior... question: Do YOU even code?
APK
P.S.=>
"String parsing is fast." - by ericfitz (59316) on Monday July 13, @01:21AM (#28672821)
What? STRING WORK is some of the MOST "expensive" cpu time there is... again, do you even code??
----
"Perhaps it would be a reduction of a couple dozen CPU cycles to read a "0" rather than "127.0.0.1"," - by ericfitz (59316) on Monday July 13, @01:21AM (#28672821)
Aha: HE ADMITS THIS MUCH... lol!
----
"but that actually might be offset if the code to look for 0 caused a page fault due to code bloat to support special cases." - by ericfitz (59316) on Monday July 13, @01:21AM (#28672821)
If you don't use the local DNS cache, the diskcache makes up for it... BUT, ONLY AFTER THE READ TO THAT SECTION OF DATA/URL to IP is called upon only which may NOT be from the file's TOTAL INTERIOR MASS EITHER... thus, it may take more reads, allocation units/clusters 4k @ a time, the first time - which does NOT guarantee the entire file mass was read, & then, more reads would be needed for others lower into the file...
AND, it creates a string parse & load penalty to LOAD each longer line (ones that use 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1 vs. smaller & faster 0) than it does one using the shorter/smaller/faster to load 0)
Do you even KNOW what you're talking about here?
----
"Under the covers Windows would still have to alloc a SOCKADDR so we're only talking about a difference in parsing complexity." - by ericfitz (59316) on Monday July 13, @01:21AM (#28672821)
Right, & that is EXACTLY all I ever said in regards to the HOSTS file - STRING PARSING COMPLEXITY (which string work is EXPENSIVE to the CPU mind you & the longer it gets the longer it takes) ... & funny: You steer COMPLETELY clear of the rest of the posting (NDIS 6 problems in various firewalls & WFP single layer vs. older Windows' using a 3 part defense which operates @ 3 diff. levels of the IP stack, via 3 diff. discrete drivers you'd have to 'take down' no less to do so, which function (if you use all of them, I do) as a "zone defense"/"greek phalanx" backing one another up... apk
This is absolutely not true at all.
Every expression is true, for a given value of 'true'
Please read this thru, & consider its points (above & beyond what I wrote above)... thanks for your time:
"To really fix the security of windows they'd have to redesign it from the ground up" - by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13, @03:13AM (#28673255)
All that's REALLY needed, is to "ship WINDOWS out the door", thus:
HOW TO SECURE Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 & VISTA even, + make it "fun-to-do", via CIS Tool Guidance (& beyond):
http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=e4473be2a007d388932bb27882f6f31c&showtopic=2662
TESTIMONIALS OF ITS EFFECTIVENESS:
----
http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=97c1e368dad75689a8da7df5a0e97418&t=28430&page=3
"Its 2009 - still trouble free!
I was told last week by a co worker who does active directory administration, and he said I was doing overkill. I told him yes, but I just eliminated the half life in windows that you usually get. He said good point. So from 2008 till 2009. No speed decreases, its been to a lan party, moved around in a move, and it still NEVER has had the OS reinstalled besides the fact I imaged the drive over in 2008.
Great stuff!
My client STILL Hasn't called me back in regards to that one machine to get it locked down for the kid. I am glad it worked and I am sure her wallet is appreciated too now that it works. Speaking of which, I need to call her to see if I can get some leads.
APK - I will say it again, the guide is FANTASTIC! Its made my PC experience much easier. Sandboxing was great. Getting my host file updated, setting services to system service, rather than system local. (except AVG updater, needed system local)" - THRONKA user @ xtremepccentral.com
----
"In any case any filtering / firewalling / proxying that windows itself can do generally can be done a LOT more efficiently by a dedicated function setup not running Windows but something like PFSENSE, IPTABLES, SQUID, SNORT" - by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13, @03:13AM (#28673255)
WELL, the fellow above (& myself + others I can produce quotes from if you wish, no less, who have used my guide above)? MIGHT tend to disagree... lol!
AND, my guide (which goes FAR above the points I note here in this post you replied to, proactively showing users how to use layered security via easy points to follow + an EASY TO USE well noted tool, in CIS TOOL)?
My man - IT works & goes FAR beyond mere HOSTS files usage, which mind you? Even OTHER "security gurus", like Oliver Day of SECURITYFOCUS.COM "see the light on" & agree with me on, per this posting of his -> http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491
No... you CAN secure a Windows system to the levels that you don't see hassles like infections by malwares etc. et al... In fact, I am doing something here called "running naked" & NOT using ANTIVIRUS + ANTISPYWARES RESIDENT (which produce false positives, & slow you down etc. & sometimes just DO NOT WORK vs. threats they are not aware of, rootkits, or various new "blended threats", period)... no infestations, & THRONKA's heading on 2++ yrs. solid now with his clients seeing the same... myself? Thru my past 3 systems, 10++ yrs. now... no joke, no lie.
(AND, that guy above in THRONKA's NOT THE ONLY ONE WHO SEES THAT EITHER - the guide's become a 5/5 star rated one, or "most viewed" in forums, or made an "ESSENTIAL GUIDE", or sticky/pinned thread @ across 15/20 forums it has been on in 1 yrs' time, to the tune of 250,000++ views strong... but, more/MOST importantly is, it works, & is proof that Microsoft Windows CAN be secured... now, if only MS woul
Per my subject-line above? THANKS FOR GIVING YOURSELF AWAY arstech troll... lol, too transparent (you're doubtless modding this down, but, your mod downs don't work vs. the facts & tests I put out, now do they?? Who do you think you are fooling @ THIS point, with an attempt @ an ad-hominem attack on myself???)
Ah, hilarious, but here we go (time to make you "eat your words" for what? Around the 5th time this week as I have in other threads where you tried this????)
"But you try and justify it all by talking about security so I figured hey, I'll see what this guys credentials are. Well, a quick search turned this up:
http://www.ca.com/us/securityadvisor/pest/pest.aspx?id=51276 [ca.com]
A piece of software that can arbitrarily run applications invisibly? Sorry what, did you really try and throw such a security threat onto consumer's PCs??" - by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13, @05:00AM (#28673669)
AHEM, another test (readers, you're going to LOVE this one) PLUS, proofs as is usual from me vs. my "naysayers/detractors" like this one all thru this thread & others:
I want you to write NIR SOFER, or Dr. Mark Russinovich even of MS fame, & ask them if THEIR wares have been detected as malwares as mine has falsely!
(Nir & I have a conversation going on this too by the by)...
YES - soon, we're going to make another "break thru", with Nir's help & possibly the "good doctor's" also... in regard to 'false positives' by AV & AntiSpyware companies so please - do write NIR SOFER of Nirsoft fame...
AND, By the by?
My app is LISTED WITH ZERO THREAT LEVELS
(Fact is, almost to this day last year? I approached Greg Jensen about this, took their removal test, 21 questions? I do NOT violate even 1 of them (but, my program, like Dr. Russinovich's PSExec & other PsTools? Can be misused, unfortunately))
Now, they also list it & have since 2004 when a fool named "THOR SHROCK" (schmuck is more like it) put it up there as "Peter Kowalski", so I would never find it by querying google... all others removed it from their lists mind you, but not Thor SCHMUCK or CA.
(Fact is - I wrote it, in GOOD faith & with GOOD intent, for a forums person @ NTCompatible.com & decade ago or more, to launch Apache server for Windows "invisibly" since it would not by default in older models back then on Windows is all... but, like a gun (or ping even)? It can be misused, depending on parameters used (like ping of death) OR, what is loaded into it).
I can't control people, or how they use a program, anymore than I can with what folks do with guns which are useful, but also, deadly... & guns? Guns do NOT kill folks, people do.
APK
P.S.=> You seem "bent on discrediting me", ad-hominem, & apparently after you reading ALL my proofs above, & challenges above to my 'naysayers' which none dare to 'bite on' or try by this point?
WELL, this is ALL you are left with?
LOL... ok, fine, it's enough for me to see you "reduced to that", lol, but now? My turn (as to accomplishments of mine that help folks):
HOW TO SECURE Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 & VISTA even, + make it "fun-to-do", via CIS Tool Guidance (& beyond):
http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=e4473be2a007d388932bb27882f6f31c&showtopic=2662 [tcmagazine.com]
TESTIMONIALS OF ITS EFFECTIVENESS:
----
http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=97c1e368dad75689a8da7df5a0e97418&t=28430&page=3 [xtremepccentral.com]
"Its 2009 - still trouble free!
I was told last week by a co worker who doe