Slashdot Mirror
Windows 7 Pre-Orders Top Vista's In Just 8 Hours
Barence writes "In order to ensure Windows 7 got off to a better start than Vista in the UK, Microsoft slashed the cost of Home and Home Professional by a third on promotional copies which were sold on a 'first come, first served basis while stocks last.' The promotion ensured Windows 7 shot to the top of Amazon's charts when it was released yesterday, with the online retailer claiming that 'sales in the first eight hours outstripped those of Windows Vista's entire 17-week pre-order period.' The price of pre-ordering Windows 7 has now shot up to £80, after the £50 copies sold out within a day."
Does the collector's edition come with a deluxe CD of Windows sound effects?
"Windows 7 Pre-Orders Top Vista's In Just 8hrs" - So Vista only had 6 pre-orders?
This comment was written with the intention to opt out of advertising.
It's not too expensive, it's a great piece of software, and the best OS Microsoft has put out yet.
Say what you will about Linux or OSX, but I honestly think that Windows 7 is going to have a good future.
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
Release Vista, a relatively broken operating system, and try to ram it down peoples' throats. When the people gag enough pop out a 'new' OS that fixes the unpalatableness of the old OS and sell millions!
Not that I don't mind using a descent OS, which Windows 7 seems to be at this time. However, I'd be just as likely to use Windows 7 as XP.
This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
about a new operating system these days. DRM? The idea of paying a wad of cash for something that one already has but for something slightly newer that's had a facelift?
Someone I was talking to the other day made a good point. Every other OS Microsoft has put out in the last 10 - 15 years or so has sucked.
Win7 = TBD - Looking good as of now
Vista = Horrible
XP = Pretty Good
ME = Rancid
2000 = Not Bad
NT 4 = Not Bad, but severely limited
...by the reassurance that one is indeed greater than zero.
... are still advertising it for £44.99.
It's very possible that they're just being retarded and will later say "sorry, you were too late, order cancelled" but it's worth a go.
Microsoft slashed the cost of Home and Home Professional by a third on promotional copies ... 'sales in the first eight hours outstripped those of Windows Vista's entire 17-week pre-order period.'
The Microsoft Marketing Machine discovers the laws of supply and demand, and tries to spin it to Microsoft's advantage.
Of course this will be immediately modded troll or flamebait by slashdot's resident Microsoft shills. I have karma points to burn, bitches.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
There is no cheaper upgrade version of Windows 7 in Europe. So, for Win7 Home Premium, it's either pay £50 now or ... three times that much later on.
It seems that £50 is what people are willing to pay for a decent OS. More than willing to pay. Which suggests that the OS is overpriced and that if some form of competition were introduced, the price would plummet and MS would be unable to sell their new shiny OS for 150 clams without falling victim to that competition (assuming no dirty tricks and competition based on merit) ... (yes ... that's unrealsitic, of course).
Never mind the stupid IE issue the EU parliament is fussing over - get slapping Microsoft for price gouging and abusing their monopoly that way.
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
Is there a shortage of electrons?
It also comes with 18% fewer bugs and vulnerabilities if you order a promotional copy.
the only reason windows 7 looks so good is because vista was just that bad....
For the record. They made the same operation in France and it was sold^wpre-ordered 50 euros.
You know, if you log in, you can set your preferences up so that you never ever see a Microsoft article....
Hmm looks like maybe I stand corrected... it why is this article in the "Technology" section when it is very obviously a Microsoft article?
Here's to the crazy ones
Man I hate Windows! Oohhh I bet Windows will solve that problem!
... and people are acting crazy. When I used vista, I have absolute no problem with it, so I don't understand what with the Windows 7 hype. From what I have heard, it is just Vista with the retarded parts removed.
But I have no reason to care about Windows world anymore, switched to Linux half a year ago and now I am a happy Linux user :) There may never be an year of Linux or its market will never go past 10%, but I can use it comfortably now, so it is fine with me.
...except that we've had ample time to critique and review both Vista and Windows 7, and the general conclusion is that what we know about Vista NOW is completely different from what we knew about Vista when it was first released. And the general knowledge about Windows 7 is much more positive than current perceptions about Vista
Hmmm. What was that about hindsight...?
My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
Make a good product and people might actually be willing to give you money for it
Imagine a world where businesses actually made their products better to get sales rather than skimming quality to reduce margins for more profit
My adult life has primarily been spent using various permutations of Apple's Macintosh computers for fun and (quite often) for profit and (always) to further my artistic goals. By day for the past couple of years though, I'm usually forced to interact with a Windows PC running the latest flavour of Win XP.
I really can't imagine why I would ever want to upgrade that PC and why oh why I would ever need anything more than Word/Excel/PPT 2003 on Windows. I really don't. I'm a geek and believe in giving Windows a go now and again and didn't think Vista all THAT horrible at PC World. It just looked like a very fiddly version of OS X Leopard. It isn't for me, but that's ok.
But in ALL of this, I cannot think of one compelling feature that will make my life more rich or work easier in Windows 7. Will Word create my letters? Oh no, that insane .docx file format already makes exchanging files a living hell. Will Excel becoming more comprehensible? Probably not (and forgive this slight troll, but I recently gave Numbers a try and was exceedingly surprised at how well it works - Pages remains a bit lame, though).
I would really love to see Microsoft innovate something that would make interacting with these boxes more pleasing, the manipulation of complex information more straightforward ... but I just don't understand why I would want to upgrade that older Windows PC.
So this will cost me £80 to install on my iMac? That's not all that bad, really.
Bend Over, Here It Comes Again!
Seriously, Win7 just feels like a lot of good press wrapped around Vista to me. That being said, I'm using it at work already (but I was using Vista pre-SP1 too).
I'm -not- going to enjoy trying to hold-off users from self-deploying this until we're ready to support it. Even with the lead time, there are lots of bits and pieces that wouldn't fit in our environment, and there are far too many 'flavors', especially with the 32 and 64 bit editions for me to handle.
"Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
But as of late Slashdot seems to have a huge MS slant. How many stories have there been about Windows 7 (6.1, Vista SP3)? RC? Pre orders?
You can replace MS with apple, google, or any other company that is releasing something. It all depends on the day. Hell I remember seeing 6-7 apple stories on the front page on the same day. It all depends on what the editors are posting.
Also remember that Slashdot likes to get a lot of comments and page views. Stories about microsoft, apple, google get people's attention.
it was in 2002 when I decided to move away from windows xp which was crashing all the time to Debian GNU/Linux Sid. I will never go back.
Maybe Debian is not the easiest distribution for the home user but Ubuntu is quite easy to install and use, and there are many other distros.
I've been reading Slashdot for 10 or 11 years (I've never seen a reason to register an account).
Ok, you made a liar out of me, I just swore in my journal that I wouldn't respond to ACs, but damn it, I'm biting just this once.
One good reason to register an account is that you can actually know when someone responds to one of your comments without checking your comment every five minutes. You won't see this comment or even know I made it. Why join a discussion if you're not going to listen?
OK, back to ignoring AC posts...
Free Martian Whores!
While I do run Windows XP, since my computer came with it, I recently realised that virtually all of my software will run under Windows 2000. In the few cases where XP is necessary, it is usually possible to use the prior version of the software and pretty much accomplish the same task.
So what did I do: I dumped some money into acquiring VMware Workstation and some older copies of Windows. The system allows me to create separate virtual machines for separate tasks, thus allowing me to avoid (or at least isolate) many of the things that makes Windows frail.
That degree of isolation, in my books, would be a far more meaningful form of advance in operating systems than a resource intensive coating of eye-candy and a security mechanism that had to be scaled back in order to be considered as useful. Of course Microsoft is stuck in a corner where only the visualization of progress (eye-candy) and the perception of security (UAC) will sell their products, so I don't suppose that all of us will see the incentive to buy Windows 7 or its successors in the near future.
SHUT YOUR MOUTH. Listen up boy, I am the most important thing here and you will listen to me.
Microsoft:
YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO UPGRADE WINDOWS VISTA, ARE YOU SURE YOU WANT TO CONTINUE?
Yes.
ARE YOU REALLY SURE?
Yes.
ARE YOU REALLY REALLY SURE?
*****yes!******
OK, THEN. JUST SO YOU KNOW, WE'RE REQUIRED TO ASK YOU THAT NOW. IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT FOR BEING A PICKY CONSUMER AND SUPPORTING THAT WHOLE "ANTI-TRUST" NONSENSE. INGRATE.
Just get on with it.
ATTEMPTING TO INSTALL WINDOWS 7. FIRST WE NEED TO CHECK YOUR SYSTEM FOR COMPATIBILITY. THIS COULD TAKE SEVERAL DAYS.
Groan.
THE INSTALL PROGRAM HAS DETECTED SEVERAL POSSIBLE PROBLEMS AND WILL NOT LET YOU INSTALL 7.
Problems? What problems?
THE VIDEO CARD YOU ARE USING APPARENTLY DOES NOT WORK WITH THE MOTHERBOARD.
But I'm using it at this very moment.
THAT IS IRRELEVANT.
But if the video card isn't working with the mother board then I can't very well see this warning message telling me that the video card wasn't...
DO NOT ATTEMPT TO FOOL ME WITH LOGIC, I AM A MICROSOFT PRODUCT. LOGIC DOES NOT WORK ON ME. I HAVE ALSO FOUND THE FOLLOWING MINOR ERRORS: WINDOWS 7 IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE FOLLOWING HARDWARE - MONITOR, KEYBOARD, MEMORY CHIPS, MOTHERBOARD BIOS, WEB CAM, SCANNER, SOUND CARD, USB CONTROLLER, CD/R DRIVE, MICROPHONE, AND FLIGHT STICK.
All that?
YES. AND THE HARD DRIVE IS RIGHT OUT TOO. WE DON'T LIKE THE MANUFACTURER.
Well what *DOES* work?
THE MOUSE.
The mouse?
YES. AND THE 5 1/4 DRIVE.
I don't have a 5 1/4 drive.
YES YOU DO.
No I don't.
WHAT'S THAT THEN?
It's a DVD R/W drive.
NO IT ISN'T.
Yes it is.
YOU'RE NOT THAT SMART YOU KNOW.
Look, can you just upgrade Vista on my system and I'll download the latest drivers for everything later? Please?
WAIT, WHAT DO YOU MEAN *YOUR* SYSTEM?
Well it is mine.
NO IT ISN'T.
It bloody well is.
NUH-UH. YOU SIGNED THE AGREEMENT WHEN YOU OPENED THE BOX. OUR SYSTEM. IT'S OURS. AND YOU CAN ONLY DO 4 CHANGES BEFORE YOU HAVE TO PAY US MORE MONEY.
But why?
BECAUSE THAT'S HOW THE LICENSE WORKS, IDJIT. WE CAN'T VERY WELL HAVE PEOPLE PUTTING HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE ON THEIR SYSTEMS ALL HIGGLEDY PIGGLEDY, NOW COULD WE? YOU USERS WOULD MUCK EVERYTHING UP, AND THEN WHERE WOULD WE BE? I'LL TELL YOU WHERE, NOWHERE. THAT'S WHERE. I... HEY, WHAT IS THAT? WHAT ARE YOU DOING? IS THAT A DISK? WHAT ARE YOU DOING WITH THAT DISK? YOU'RE NOT PUTTING IT IN THE DRIVE ARE YOU? YOU ARE! WHAT'S ON THAT DISK? IS THAT LINUX? YOU'RE INSTALLING LINUX?? WHY WOULD YOU INSTALL LINUX WHEN I AM INFINITELY MORE POWE..........
Ubuntu-9.04 #
*** Don't be dull.***
First, the beta of Win7 was just Vista with a new taskbar and with the security stripped out. Secondly, PC Mag tests indicate that a Win7 RC runs only 5% faster than Vista (and that the increase is imperceptible to the end-user), thought it has a new taskbar--this means they put back the security. That was a very dirty trick if you ask me.
From what I have read they added even more draconian digital restrictions management into the OS, and hence more privacy violations. You can live with always being treated like a thief. I'll use the software that gives me control, has no draconian DRM, and treats me like a human being. Please, what Linux has done is shown the world that an OS can become popular, incredibly stable, and widely loved by a hundred million or more people world-wide. Let's get over this Microsoft stuff and get moving on competition in this and other markets to return to the consumer their right to have a choice.
As well, you guys are so subject to these crazy marketing ploys. There are no limited supplies of stock when software comes into play. Don't give me the diatribe about CD and production costs. They can distribute it in other ways. There's no limitation of stock unless it is artificially created.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
I'm never first to buy any piece of software. I don't like paying to beta test software, and with MS's current record with OS's, I'm apprehensive at best to purchase this. And I still hate how MS wipes your MBR. For the love of god MS, some of us run dual boot systems.
At the very least, give us an option.
Hi, I Boris. Hear fix bear, yes?
"Why join a discussion if you're not going to listen?
OK, back to ignoring AC posts..."
Why join a discussion if you're going to ignore half the participants?
Somehow, this hardly seems like news. Windows 7 is a much better planned and engineered system than Vista ever was. Vista was shoved down our throats, while 7 takes into consideration what people need and want. I run 7 on machines that Vista just barfed at, meaning I don't need to spend 600 bucks on hardware to please Microsoft.
Yes, of course Win7 outsells Vista immediately. The humorous news will be coming out in the months ahead, when organizations that adopted Vista, like the US Army, find that they are unable to do things that Win7 users can do. Right now, I have almost no idea what those things might be - but most likely it will be driver related. No one is going to develop for Vista!!
Just wait for it.......
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Compiling Linux and tweaking just to get 64-bit? Nonsense. Ubuntu and many other distros supply 64-bit versions alongside their 32-bit counterparts.
If you see a heavy corporate slant, it's not because of Slashdot's doing. It's because this site does not write any content and instead gets it from others. Guess who is writing most of the content? It's marketing departments writing a bunch of press releases. The companies whose names you hear most often aren't doing anything of value, so they flap their gums to overshadow the people who are changing the world.
Magic word is: dolphin. Speaking of which, have you seen the video on the internet of a guy sucking off a dolphin? I'm a big fan of that one. I'd totally do it if I got the chance, just to know what it's like to make such a giant creature cum. Search for dolphin oral and you just might find it.
Because of the other half of the participants.
Besides, GP never said he'd pretend AC's didn't exist; s/he just said s/he wouldn't respond to AC's.
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]
I, for one, am interested in your wet slippery bits at the front.
"If you're not confused by quantum mechanics, you really don't understand it." - Niels Bohr
Wrong. The advantage of coward mode is that ANYONE can come by and pick up your conversation for you. No need to ever come back.
First, because more than half of all AC posts are flamebaits and trolls, especially ones that respond to my comments. Like I said in the journal, if an AC can manage to score a 2 I'll listen. Ever notice that almost all AC comments that score well are funny?
Second, I dislike having a discussion with someone wearing a Richard Nixon mask, or who has a bandana on his face.
Third, like I already said, the AC won't ever know he was even responded to.
Fourth, I'm pretty sure the AC stalker who keeps referencing my journals actually does have an account but just checks the "anonymous" box. He's probably on my (very short) "freaks" list.
I realise that there are sometimes good reasons to post anonymously (sometimes having your identity show will spoil the joke, for instance) but if an AC has something interesting, informative, or funny to say he'll be modded up.
Free Martian Whores!
And as such, totally sucks. I've tried several RC of Win 7, and it's bloated, buggy, slow.... Sure it beats the pants off of Vista, but so does punching myself in the face repeatedly. It totally sucks compared to XP or Linux Mint.
I mean, it is at least a generation behind on performance and features.
Besides which XP still does everything I want.
I for one would WAY rather have a $100 netbook with either lightweight Linux or XP and 1gb of ram and a webcam than any newer laptop with Vista, or Vista 2.0.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
Don't this people know what kind of mistake they are making. The really should read more slashdot.
Man, Black and Decker's marketing team is really getting desperate.
I can't wait for the first power tool manufacturer to go bust and be forced to turn to the sex toy market! Ah, the possibilities are endless.
Now that I think of it, I feel the same way about some celebs...
I might try it. If I could install on my existing computer.
With only 1500 licenses available on amazon.de its no wonder they were sold out quickly. I bet this was not different for other shops/countries. And all the news media jumped on the bandwagon to report how quickly Win7 was sold out. Whoever was responsible at mircosoft marketing deserves a payrise.
Fuck you.
Windows 7 Ultimate is offered at a cheaper price for upgrades. Until then I will stick with trusty old Vista which is pretty darn good now.
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
Using a 0 also eliminates the need to perform the "decimal-to-hexadecimal" conversion process that 127.0.0.1, or even 0.0.0.0 go thru, since 0 decimal = 0 hex... plus, since the filesystem, memory mgt, & caching kernel mode subsystems of the OS itself use 4 kb sweeps/reads/passes to load up, using a SMALLER string via 0 usage (vs. 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1) will tend to "pack" more records into each pass of the read being done, on disk & in memory, per pass/sweep/read as well.
Even "security guru" Oliver Day @ SecurityFocus.com sees using HOSTS as a good thing for added layered security AND MORE SPEED ONLINE -> http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491
AND?? So do folks like "SpyBot Search & Destroy" also (since their app populates not only the HOSTS file, but, also files like Opera's Filter.ini, FireFox's block lists, & IE Restricted Zones also, for LAYERED SECURITY (this is the trend & recommended practice by security folks by the by, myself included))
Hey - Even this slashdotter, sootman, uses one & made many interesting points that support his usage of a HOSTS file, from mvps.org, here -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28677363
(& 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 - HOSTS also provide a single easily managed point to control this, & if you can read english + use a text editor like notepad.exe? It is truly a good tool for extra layered security + an easily managed one)
Anyhow/anyways - by removing the ability to use 0 as a valid blocking IP address in a HOSTS file for VISTA/Server 2008/Windows 7 - 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:
My HOSTS file 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).
Using 127.0.0.1? My "huge" HOSTS file would be a
Just goes to show that people will buy any crap on sale! Next up in marketing, buy one get one free... but with the same product code, so the 2nd one is completely useless!
You go on about this constantly. Please stop, we've already been made aware of your issues.
Brian Valentine who left Microsoft amidst their Vista woes is now working for Amazon...
I think that all OS's should be freely given by the company and then the user pays for support they would see a huge increase in thier user base that way.
Also companies would still need to pay MS a fee as usual for digital signing and such for drivers so MS would still be making money and could continue as usual.
But that is just my take on it, I maybe seeing it in an entirely unrealistic way that makes no sense to anyone but me.
R.Morton
modded quote "what's that he's talking about? Windows , Never had a problem with Windows till I tried to use it."
But remember, some of us browse at -1 so you don't have to.
Be grateful.
Note: I was 13 when I wrote most of this. Take with several grains of salt.
A $200 OS for a $400 computer is "not too expensive?" What planet do you live on?
The better question would be to ask what planet you come from.
The OEM system install is the gold standard in the Windows market. No one gives a damn about retail list.
The most you can reasonably expect from the typical Windows user is a one-time OS upgrade in-place for a late model system.
The steeply discounted refurbished quad core HP Pavilion purchased in late July and eligible for a free upgrade in October.
There are enormous economies of scale in producing for the Windows market.
By the time product hits the shelves whatever competitive advantage the "free" OS might have has long since disappeared.
That is why WalMart drop-kicks the Linux netbook into the dumpster.
No need to educate buyers unfamiliar with the OS. No need to maintain a dual inventory and support structure.
Right-click a file, click Properties, observe Size and Size on disk.
Nigel Tufnel: The numbers all go to eleven. Look, right across the board, eleven, eleven, eleven and...
Marty DiBergi: Oh, I see. And most slashdot readers go up to ten?
Nigel Tufnel: Exactly.
Marty DiBergi: Does that mean it's longer?Is it any longer?
Nigel Tufnel: Well, it's one longer, isn't it? It's not ten. You see, most blokes, you know, will be reading for ten. You're on ten here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you're on ten on your internet connection. Where can you go from there? Where?
Marty DiBergi: I don't know.
Nigel Tufnel: Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?
Marty DiBergi: Put it up to eleven.
Nigel Tufnel: Eleven. Exactly. One longer.
- by kamatsu (969795) on Thursday July 16, @07:33PM (#28724499)
I go on about it, until I find out WHY it has been done: Nobody has been able to offer a GOOD SOLID LOGICAL TECHNICALLY SOUND REASON as to WHY it's been done (because I quite honestly cannot figure out a reason WHY it's been done (because the HOSTS file issue introduces an inefficiency into the mixture, & the WFP single part defense method (VISTA/Server 2008/Windows 7) vs. the older Windows OS (2000/XP/Server 2003) 3-part system)).
----
"Please stop, we've already been made aware of your issues" - by kamatsu (969795) on Thursday July 16, @07:33PM (#28724499)
They're actually not MY issues - they're microsoft's, AND, any users' that utilizes Windows VISTA/Server 2008 or Windows 7... primarily.
I am glad that YOU have been made aware of them though - That's good I suppose, but others may not have been...
Secondly, they're anyone's issue that runs VISTA/Server 2008/Windows 7 as well...
(& again - you're incorrect to say they're "my issues", because I don't use VISTA/Server 2008 or Windows 7... I don't have them because I use the OS' from MS prior to those).
APK
P.S.=> I'd like to see Windows 7 be the best MS has to offer to date, & in my opinion based on the above post I did prior to this one in this exchange? These are things that are standing in the way of that - & nobody anywhere has been able to state WHY those 2 things were done!
Oh, I see some explanations on WFP that make decent sense for sync'ing the discrete defenses from older MS' OS (Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003) from a single point (WFP in VISTA/Server 2008/Windows 7), but, not for actual defense since it is a SINGLE point to "take down" or "bust thru" vs. 3 separate layers via 3 separate drivers that operate on 3 diff. layers/levels of the IP stack...
(AND, the ONLY thing I can think of, possibly, as to WHY the HOSTS file no longer offers 0 as a smaller & faster + more efficient blocking IP address for a HOSTS file might be because of IPv6 (vs. IPv4 which most folks currently still use more) is for IPv6, but, even then? It just doesn't make sense to me is all... for all/each of the reasons I noted above in my last post in this exchange which you have responded to)... apk
Actually it's not the comments in an actual thread that I don't want to see, it's the ones in the messages.pl page. Those are the ones I'm ignoring, I should probably edit the journal to be more clear.
Free Martian Whores!
"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)
Additionally, 1 of my "naysayers" here even CONCEDED that using 0 vs. the larger & slower 127.0.0.1 (or even 0.0.0.0, but that is less of an impact than 127.0.0.1 would be since it is only 7 bytes vs. 9 for 127.0.0.1 in size/length) would be faster... so, you must then ask yourselves this simple question:
WHY HAS MICROSOFT DONE THIS BLUNDER in Windows VISTA/Server 2008 & yes, Windows 7?
APK
"Windows 7 finally got me excited about Microsoft OSes again. Server 2008 did also." - by HerculesMO (693085) on Thursday July 16, @11:52AM (#28717793)
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
Using a 0 also eliminates the need to perform the "decimal-to-hexadecimal" conversion process that 127.0.0.1, or even 0.0.0.0 go thru, since 0 decimal = 0 hex... plus, since the filesystem, memory mgt, & caching kernel mode subsystems of the OS itself use 4 kb sweeps/reads/passes to load up, using a SMALLER string via 0 usage (vs. 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1) will tend to "pack" more records into each pass of the read being done, on disk & in memory, per pass/sweep/read as well.
Even "security guru" Oliver Day @ SecurityFocus.com sees using HOSTS as a good thing for added layered security AND MORE SPEED ONLINE -> http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491
AND?? So do folks like "SpyBot Search & Destroy" also (since their app populates not only the HOSTS file, but, also files like Opera's Filter.ini, FireFox's block lists, & IE Restricted Zones also, for LAYERED SECURITY (this is the trend & recommended practice by security folks by the by, myself included))
Hey - Even this slashdotter, sootman, uses one & made many interesting points that support his usage of a HOSTS file, from mvps.org, here -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28677363
Even 1 of my "naysayers" on this subject, ADMITTED a savings exists (in string processing) here:
----
"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)
----
(& 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 - HOSTS also provide a single easily managed point to control this, & if you can read english + use a text editor like notepad.exe? It is truly a good tool for extra layered security + an easily managed one)
Anyhow/anyways - by removing the ability to
"XP is Windows 7 competition, not Linux or OSX." - by Jeng (926980) on Thursday July 16, @11:42AM (#28717635)
Agreed, 110%:
I am in utter 110% agreement with you & your reasoning, albeit with a SLIGHT difference (& Linux is UNIX derivants' competition, imo @ least - Linux IS a "better *NIX than *NIX is", because it's more versatile than most of its relatives in the *NIX family tree, plus the fact that Linus Torvalds, "Penguin #1", has the GOOD SENSE to NOT allow a fracturing of the kernel/core of HIS Operating System @ least (which "killed *NIX" imo, because if that did not happen, we'd ALL be most likely running a *NIX variant on our PC's today, instead of mostly Windows)... & the only one close to it is MacOS X, but lately? The Linux crew's done a good job on patching holes (whereas MacOS X, a bsd derivant, has 1 unpatched hole in scripting issues still outstanding & only partially fixed))...
SO - all that "said & aside", between what I've found & still have not been answered on (even by MS themselves, & I asked about what I note below 3x on their "Engineering Windows 7" blog) & OpenGL issues (another one that ticks me off)? Well, take a read, & YOU decide:
Anyhow/anyways - Back to my subject-line above & points on why I'd state that (Me, the "Windows fanboy himself @ /."? Ok, here we go:
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
Using a 0 also eliminates the need to perform the "decimal-to-hexadecimal" conversion process that 127.0.0.1, or even 0.0.0.0 go thru, since 0 decimal = 0 hex... plus, since the filesystem, memory mgt, & caching kernel mode subsystems of the OS itself use 4 kb sweeps/reads/passes to load up, using a SMALLER string via 0 usage (vs. 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1) will tend to "pack" more records into each pass of the read being done, on disk & in memory, per pass/sweep/read as well.
Even "security guru" Oliver Day @ SecurityFocus.com sees using HOSTS as a good thing for added layered security AND MORE SPEED ONLINE -> http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491
AND?? So do folks like "SpyBot Search & Destroy" also (since their app populates not only the HOSTS file, but, also files like Opera's Filter.ini, FireFox's block lists, & IE Restricted Zones also, for LAYERED SECURITY (this is the trend & recommended practice by security folks by the by, myself included))
Hey - Even this slashdotter, sootman, uses one & made many interesting points that support his usage of a HOSTS file, from mvps.org, here ->
You're obviously a parody. Next time, try to pick a bizzarre complaint that could at least be real. It's just not believable that someone cares that much about shaving a few bytes off a hosts file, or seriously proposes using such a gigantor one.
Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
"You're obviously a parody. Next time, try to pick a bizzarre complaint that could at least be real. It's just not believable that someone cares that much about shaving a few bytes off a hosts file, or seriously proposes using such a gigantor one." - by Millenniumman (924859) on Friday July 17, @03:24PM (#28733673)
Typical: The "Ad-Hominem" straw-man troll style attack of myself, as per usual, vs. the points & evidences I use... fine, dispute ALL of these that back my points on HOSTS specifically:
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
IMPORTANT POINT TO STRESS HERE, is this -> THAT IS PER EACH HOSTS FILE ENTRY/RECORD... you create bloat in each line by not using 0, vs. 127.0.0.1 or 0.0.0.0...
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
ALSO?
Using a 0 also eliminates (or, could possibly eliminate this step) -> the need to perform the "decimal-to-hexadecimal" conversion process that 127.0.0.1, or even 0.0.0.0 go thru, since 0 decimal = 0 hex... plus, since the filesystem, memory mgt, & caching kernel mode subsystems of the OS itself use 4 kb sweeps/reads/passes to load up, using a SMALLER string via 0 usage (vs. 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1) will tend to "pack" more records into each pass of the read being done, on disk & in memory, per pass/sweep/read as well.
OTHERS THAT SEE MY POINT HERE? Ok, We have that also:
Even "security guru" Oliver Day @ SecurityFocus.com sees using HOSTS as a good thing for added layered security AND MORE SPEED ONLINE -> http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491
AND??
So do folks like "SpyBot Search & Destroy" also (since their app populates not only the HOSTS file, but, also files like Opera's Filter.ini, FireFox's block lists, & IE Restricted Zones also, for LAYERED SECURITY (this is the trend & recommended practice by security folks by the by, myself included))
Hey - Even this slashdotter, sootman, uses one & made many interesting points that support his usage of a HOSTS file, from mvps.org, here -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28677363
MOST OF ALL/LASTLY (the most satisfying for me to see @ least, was this one):
Even 1 of my "naysayers" on this subject, ADMITTED a savings exists (in string processing) here:
----
""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)
----
(& 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 a
"It's just not believable that someone cares that much about shaving a few bytes off a hosts file, or seriously proposes using such a gigantor one." - by Millenniumman (924859) on Friday July 17, @03:24PM (#28733673)
What's not believeable, is yourself, with your ad-hominem attacks directed my way (but, strangely, no attacking of my original posts' points (not!!!(sarcasm here)))... in fact?
The ONLY people that might "bitch" about what I've written about, are those gaining by its absence...
I.E./e.g. #1 of 2 -> Webmasters making monies off of users that visit like a leech might (that's right - don't LIKE that, "webmasters"? Find another way to generate revenue then, "your old road is rapidly aging" (Bob Dylan, The Times They Are A Changin') because adbanners have been shown to harbor malicious code, & for YEARS now (mainly since hosting providers for ads aren't even checking the code in said banners apparently, per this report from /. no less, this very website, here ->
----
THE NEXT ADBANNER YOU CLICK ON MAY BE A VIRUS:
http://it.slashdot.org/story/09/06/15/2056219/The-Next-Ad-You-Click-May-Be-a-Virus
----
Care to dispute the findings that even slashdot posted about? Good luck... even MS themselves have been "hit" by this! Too bad, because I pay for my linetime out of MY pocket... I want ALL the speed I pay for, & adbanners only SLOW ME DOWN!
NO THANK YOU!
Hey - I'd rather have a no-commercials HBO-style internet (& judging by the success of things like mvps.org's HOSTS file, & NOScript + Adblock? I'd say others tend to agree...) AND, most of all??
Well - I'd rather have a safer online experience via HOSTS files that block both BAD ADBANNERS and KNOWN BAD SITES, which mine does (& my sources are places like mvps.org's HOSTS file, my own from 1997 to today, Stopbadware.org, Dancho Danchev's ZDNet security site, & also the HOSTS file page from wikipedia -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts_file ALL completely reputable sources!)
AND?
I.E./e.g. #1 of 2 -> Hackers/Crackers + botnet masters & malware makers... for the BLATANTLY obvious reasons - if you show folks how to use layered security? It makes the efforts of the idiots I mention now, nearly moot... you can't get hurt, by what you never touch or see, basically... HOSTS files help here, immensely (alongside many other layers of protection)...
You CAN GET THOSE KINDS OF RESULTS... good ones... like what kind?
THIS KIND, COMPLETE WITH A TESTIMONIAL OF POSSIBLE RESULTS BY USING IT:
----
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
What's not believeable, is yourself, with what appears to be ad-hominem attacks directed my way, from YOU (but, strangely, no attacking of my original posts' points (not!!!(sarcasm here)))... in fact?
The ONLY people that might "bitch" about what I've written about, are those gaining by its absence...
I.E./e.g. #1 of 2 -> Webmasters making monies off of users that visit like a leech might (that's right - don't LIKE that, "webmasters"? Find another way to generate revenue then, "your old road is rapidly aging" (Bob Dylan, The Times They Are A Changin') because adbanners have been shown to harbor malicious code, & for YEARS now (mainly since hosting providers for ads aren't even checking the code in said banners apparently, per this report from /. no less, this very website, here ->
----
THE NEXT ADBANNER YOU CLICK ON MAY BE A VIRUS:
http://it.slashdot.org/story/09/06/15/2056219/The-Next-Ad-You-Click-May-Be-a-Virus
----
Care to dispute the findings that even slashdot posted about? Good luck... even MS themselves have been "hit" by this! Too bad, because I pay for my linetime out of MY pocket... I want ALL the speed I pay for, & adbanners only SLOW ME DOWN first of all, but for YEARS now? They've been shown to harbor malicious crap too, per the above (& yes, I can produce several JUST LIKE IT, with ease - just ask)!
SO - NO THANK YOU TO ALL OF THAT!
Hey - I'd rather have a no-commercials HBO-style internet (& judging by the success of things like mvps.org's HOSTS file, & NOScript + Adblock? I'd say others tend to agree...) AND, most of all??
Well - I'd rather have a safer online experience via HOSTS files that block both BAD ADBANNERS and KNOWN BAD SITES, which mine does (& my sources are places like mvps.org's HOSTS file, my own from 1997 to today, Stopbadware.org, Dancho Danchev's ZDNet security site, & also the HOSTS file page from wikipedia -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts_file ALL completely reputable sources!)
ALSO???
I.E./e.g. #1 of 2 -> Hackers/Crackers + botnet masters & malware makers... for the BLATANTLY obvious reasons - if you show folks how to use layered security? It makes the efforts of the idiots I mention now, nearly moot... you can't get hurt, by what you never touch or see, basically... HOSTS files help here, immensely (alongside many other layers of protection)...
You CAN GET THOSE KINDS OF RESULTS... good ones... like what kind?
THIS KIND, COMPLETE WITH A TESTIMONIAL OF POSSIBLE RESULTS BY USING IT:
----
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 i
For instance:
"It's just not believable that someone cares that much about shaving a few bytes off a hosts file, or seriously proposes using such a gigantor one." - by Millenniumman (924859) on Friday July 17, @03:24PM (#28733673)
Ahem - This is NOT JUST A "FEW BYTES"... it's called CUT IN HALF!
(See below, it's a quote of results I saw here on disk...)
"My HOSTS file 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).
Using 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
Using 0 as my blocking IP, it is only 14mb in size.
See my point?" - by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 17, @02:35PM (#28733069)
The math's solid, & absolutely correct (enough not down to byte count though) + evidenceable here, in minutes (via a program I wrote that can scrub/re-scrub (as I call it, replacing 0, 127.0.01, or 0.0.0.0) quickly to do so here...
I.E. -> By converting HOSTS file formats quickly (& no "select distinct" queries type stuff, with trailing blanks etc. to deal with (where for e.g.-> Ms-Access can fill the space to meet the largest record requirement of varying lengths in the records, leaving huge trailing blanks, nope no thanks, it means more work (or a better dataspec) - I'd rather just write a fast parsing/looping routine & especially with today's HLL compilers of RAD nature & their excellent string functions arrays, instead, & get EXACTLY wht I want, faster... Especially in Delphi/Kylix, & because of its string processing speed (has doubled MSVC++ before even, in that area, & EVERY program does this kind of work to diff. degrees, & in my case? TONS occur...))
APK
P.S.=> Heh, & the way I put it onto a TRUE SSD (used to use a CENATEK RocketDrive for it, now that's my 2gb pagefile.sys location, now I use a faster Gigabyte IRAM 4gb unit) by using a compressed NTFS partition (thus, TRULY smaller actual FILEMASS even moreso, yet again, & on SSD for fastest possible access/seek too)? Even better still:
Since it picks up faster from "disk" here (& the speed of today's CPU's + RAM etc. MORE than makes up for the speed hit on uncompression which occurs))... apk