You have hold down the side button on the pen while you touch the pen to the screen to right click. It takes a bit of getting used to the first few times but its much more efficient than click-n-hold.
Well he obviously doesn't really know what he's talking about. The 44 running processes is just a bit of information that Adaware gives you, it's not really related to how much spyware you've got, and its not as though he's picked up 44 processes that weren't there before since deactivating his antispyware. Windows XP starts with about 24 by default, then adding on a virus scanner is 3 or 4, a few system tray processes and a couple of applications open and you will easily be up to 44 without any spyware installed at all.
The other figure of 211 objects recognised will mostly be cookies, which he's already discussed as being relatively harmless. Stay up to date with patches and visit sensiblle websites, and cookies are the only thing you need to worry about. As for over 1000 different programs in a few days, I think he's just trying to scare people.
Delphi 2005 doesn't target WinFX, it targets.Net 1.1 and System.Windows.Forms. The Windows Forms API is just a wrapper around Win32 and is very similar in design to the VCL as it was created by the same engineers that were poached from Borland by Microsoft. Delphi 2005 is basically an alternative IDE for writing Object Pascal and C# applications targeting.Net or the evolution of Object Pascal native applications. Perhaps Delphi 2008 or so will target WinFX but I doubt a similar wrapper API will be required as WinFX is already high level and fully OO and appears to be quite well designed.
Re:If only I could get past the menu screen..
on
Review: Half-Life 2
·
· Score: 1
Thanks, thats really helpful..
If only I could get past the menu screen..
on
Review: Half-Life 2
·
· Score: 1
I'd love to be able to play this game. I paid £35 for it. Installed all 3.5GB, connected and verified with Steam etc. I get to watch the Valve splashscreen, a fuzzy picture with the word Loading, but as soon as the main menu appears I get a BSOD "Page fault in Nonpaged Area" from nv4_disp.dll
I have a fresh install of XP Pro + SP2, and all the latest drivers etc.
I don't know about a bonus, but they do get a 2" black cube as a desk ornament whenever a patent is filed in their name. If the patent is approved they get a metal plaque with the first page of the patent engraved on it. Thete is quite a competition going to see who can collect the most patent cubes, with some prolific patent filers having whole bookshelves full of them.
You can put multiple statements on the same line. just seperated them with the : character. You can also populate an array in the same statement as its definition in VB.Net, Dim values() As Integer = {1, 2, 3}
What would push and pop statements do on their own anyway?Where would it be pushing to and popping from? You can easily call the push and pop methods of an object that implements a stack if you need to.
You called method one of this object You called method two of this object These references point to the same objects You called method two of another object These references point to different objects
Dim myint1 As Interface1 Dim myint2 As Interface2 Dim myobj As New MyObject myobj = "this object" Set myint1 = myobj Set myint2 = myobj Set myobj = Nothing Debug.Print myint1 Debug.Print myint2 Debug.Print "These references point to " & IIf(myint1 Is myint2, "the same", "different") & " objects" Set myobj = New MyObject myobj = "another object" Set myint2 = myobj Debug.Print myint2 Debug.Print "These references point to " & IIf(myint1 Is myint2, "the same", "different") & " objects"
Ok, it turns out I am wrong about Is not evaluating to True when comparing two references to different interfaces of the same object.
On reading the documentation for QueryInterface is says that an object must always return the same pointer when queried for the IUnknown interface. This means that the Is operator must be querying both references for IUnknown and comparing the results.
Hey, you learn something new everyday.
Class declaration for myobject:
Implements Interface1 Implements Interface2
Private obname As String
Public Function Interface1_methodone() As String
Interface1_methodone = "You called method one of " & obname End Function
Public Function Interface2_methodtwo() As String
Interface2_methodtwo = "You called method two of " & obname End Function
Public Property Let objectname(value As String)
obname = value End Property
Public Property Get objectname() As String
objectname = value End Property
It's because in the versions of VB based on COM, objects can have a default property. So rather than writing Textbox1.Text = "ABC" you can write Textbox = "ABC" and it will check for the default property of the interface and call that, in this case the "Get/Let Text(value)" property will be called. The same applies for collections etc, where Get/Set Item(index) is the default property so instead of Forms.item(1) you can use Forms(1).
Because of the default properties you need a way to disambiguate the assignment comparison of object references from assignment and comparison of the value of the default property. VB uses the Set keyword to denote object assignment
Suppose that the class myobject has a default property mytext that accepts a string.
Dim thisobject As myobject Set thisobject = New myobject thisobject = "Use the default property" debug.print thisobject.mytext Dim anotherobject As myobject Set anotherobject = thisobject Set thisobject = Nothing
and the Is operator to denote object reference comparison
If Not thisobject Is Nothing Then
thisobject = "Still Exists" Else
If anotherobject Is thisobject Then
anotherobject = thisobject
End If End If
This also leads to the property syntax where if the property accepted an object reference you had to create Get and Set methods, and if it accepted a value you had to create Get and Let properties.
VB hides all the COM reference counting details, so assigning one object reference to another is actually calling AddRef under the covers and assigning an object reference to Nothing is calling Release(). The New operator hides CoCreateInstance(), QueryInterface() etc.
Since they got rid of default properties with VB.Net the Set and Is are not strictly required, but they retained for source compatiblility and for the introduction of operator overloading.
I'm not sure if in VB6 two references to different interfaces of the same evaluate to the same, I would guess that they don't since one of the points of COM was to hide the object implementation.
Actually looks like I'm wrong. The IsNot operator is only being introduced in VB.Net 2005, it is not presently part of the language specification This blog entry on November 18th 2003 appears to be the earliest public announcement of the change for Whidbey, which was well after the patent was filed on May 14th 2003 so they are not attempting to patent something that was already part of the language.
Well Microsoft only introduced the IsNot operator in VB.Net, it was not present in earlier versions. But the early beta releases of the VB.Net compiler must have been available to the public at least 4 years ago, so they have taken a long time to get around to applying for a patent after the first public appearance. Unlike C# the VB.Net language has not been submitted to any standards bodies, so I guess Microsoft want to patent this feature of it to prevent a compatible implementation being created for Mono or Portable.Net.
It's a shame IsNot is only supported in VB.Net. I still have to use "If Not (variable) Is Nothing Then" to check for null object references in VB6 which seems backwards. IsNot makes much more sense to me, a definate improvement in the state of the art of language design.
With IE GDS searches in favourites, history and cache to give you results from Web pages you have visited recently. Sure you can Query GDS using firefox, but it does not integrate with your browsing experiance to the same extent.
October 2003- Microsoft delivers a Longhorn Preview at the PDC that includes WinFS which will aid in search as well as provide a much richer platform level integration of data storage
June 2004- Apple shows the next release of OSX will include search technology whose surface features will appear to serve a similar purpose to WinFS but without the deep levels of integration and application defined schemas. Claims Microsoft will be copying Apple by releasing WinFS after Tiger.
July 2004- Microsoft buys Lookout, just to get the developer, the technology itself it useless to them since it is just a thin shell over an open source indexing engine.
August 2004- Microsoft announces that WinFS will be delayed and will not be shipped with Longhorn, instead they will focus on improving search functionality in Longhorn and ship WinFS later as a service pack or interim release. October 2004- Google launches its desktop search product to wide hype and acclaim.
December 2004- Microsoft desperate to play catch up with Google puts out its own version of desktop search to bridge the gap before Longhorn arrives.
I've only read up to page 30 of the complaint so far but it seems to claim that Microsoft witheld critical information from Novell on the new "Browsing" functionality it was including in Windows during the beta stages of the development of Windows 95.
This seems odd as the "Browsing" features they claim relate to Internet Explorer, which was not included with Windows 95 until OSR2 and did not become a critical part of the system until Windows 98. What information could Novell have needed about Internet Explorer before the release of Windows 95, that would have prevented them from creating fully compliant and integrated software for Windows 95?
I think multitasking is a requirement even on mobile phones and certainly on PDAs. I want to be able to switch between perhaps a browser, an RSS reader and a game while I wait for data to be transfered over GPRS. I'd also want to be able to play an MP3 in the background at the same time. Fortunately my Symbian phone, a Nokia 6600 can do this quite well. I'd never want a FDA that couldn't.
Well they are working on a compromise for Longhorn, Filesystem and Registry redirection. The app running under a limited user account will try to write to HKLM or System files and the operation will appear to succeed, except the api call will be redirected to the limited users profile instead. So the app goes on running but the system is protected.
Apps must be already be able to be run under a limited user account to even get a Designed for Windows XP, somehow there don't seem to be that many programs that work all that well so far.
AFAIK the last time the IE engine was rewritten was the Trident engine for IE5. But there have been so many security patches since then I wouldn't be surprised if the code had become quite messy. The main problem seems to be that they are paranoid about breaking any compatibility, especially the non-standard IE extensions that have internal Corperate systems have become heavily reliant upon.
Well only the very top layer. Most of the core engine is xpcom componants written in C++. Thats where any major buffer overflow errors are likely to appear. It won't just be Firefox thats effected but the whole Mozilla suite. Mozilla, Firefox, Thunderbird, Sunbird, Nvu, Camino, Galeon, KMeleon etc.
We are always hearing about this Apache thing as to disprove attacks being focused on the biggest targets. "Why is IIS attacked more when apache runs virtually all of the internet?", hardly anyone seems to question this assertion.
People keep saying how their apache server logs are filled with code red and nimbda probes as evidence of how many IIS servers are being broken into.
Code Red and nimbda are really old worms, the exploits they attacked were patched years ago. The fact that the traces still show up in logs is evidence that there are a lot of unpatched IIS5 machines out there, machines that havn't been patched in the last two years. If a similar number of Apache servers were being left unpatched for that length of time how would they be faring?
Why are these old machines still around to keep spewing this stuff? Because IIS5 was installed and active by defualt on new Windows 2000 server installations and the admins never figured out they were even running it let alone that it was highly insecure out of the box and should be locked down and kept up to date with patches. Anyone running Apache is most likely doing so deliberately and is at least trying to keep it up to date and locked down.
Is IIS being broken into on a daily basis?, probably, but so is Apache as hacks on various high profile open source projects have shown. Is a patched and up to date IIS6 server being broken into more often than the most recent Apache? I don't know, but somehow I doubt it.
IIS6 and Server2003 are some of the first products to benifit from Microsofts focus on security. So far there have been very few updates required for IIS6, and it is disabled and configured in a locked down state out of the box.
The Grandparent has shown that attempted attacks on both IIS and Apache are roughly equal in scale, how many of those are successful with competant admins is rarely discussed.
If you stop counting the exploits of unmaintained and possibly unknown IIS5 boxes as examples of problems endemic to all versions of IIS you would probably find that there is not such a clear devide between them.
Also the Netcraft server usage figures are probably misleading. They count the number of servers hosting sites with different domain names.
A lot of sites run on shared hosting services running apache which probably means there are fewer actual apache servers than the count of domains would tend to indicate. Also a lot of IIS servers are being used for corperate intranet applications which are not supposed to be externally acessible and without a domain name, these servers are not counted by netcraft at all.
The few IIS servers that are (deliberately) on the public internet tend to be serving up large internet applications for businesses and so present a much larger target to potential hackers than the vast number of shared hosting accounts with a few php scripts running someones blog or homepage running on apache.
Slashdot Mirror
You have hold down the side button on the pen while you touch the pen to the screen to right click.
It takes a bit of getting used to the first few times but its much more efficient than click-n-hold.
Well he obviously doesn't really know what he's talking about. The 44 running processes is just a bit of information that Adaware gives you, it's not really related to how much spyware you've got, and its not as though he's picked up 44 processes that weren't there before since deactivating his antispyware. Windows XP starts with about 24 by default, then adding on a virus scanner is 3 or 4, a few system tray processes and a couple of applications open and you will easily be up to 44 without any spyware installed at all.
The other figure of 211 objects recognised will mostly be cookies, which he's already discussed as being relatively harmless. Stay up to date with patches and visit sensiblle websites, and cookies are the only thing you need to worry about.
As for over 1000 different programs in a few days, I think he's just trying to scare people.
Well apparently they used motion capture on facial expressions to produce the characters in The Polar Express. Thats how Tom Hanks was able to play 8 different characters in the film.p ?articleid=346&zoneid=3
http://www.skwigly.co.uk/magazine/news/article.as
So they could get cheap, ugly, unknown actors to create the facial expressions and them map them onto CGI creations for the actual films.
Delphi 2005 doesn't target WinFX, it targets .Net 1.1 and System.Windows.Forms. The Windows Forms API is just a wrapper around Win32 and is very similar in design to the VCL as it was created by the same engineers that were poached from Borland by Microsoft. .Net or the evolution of Object Pascal native applications.
Delphi 2005 is basically an alternative IDE for writing Object Pascal and C# applications targeting
Perhaps Delphi 2008 or so will target WinFX but I doubt a similar wrapper API will be required as WinFX is already high level and fully OO and appears to be quite well designed.
Thanks, thats really helpful..
I'd love to be able to play this game. I paid £35 for it. Installed all 3.5GB, connected and verified with Steam etc. I get to watch the Valve splashscreen, a fuzzy picture with the word Loading, but as soon as the main menu appears I get a BSOD "Page fault in Nonpaged Area" from nv4_disp.dll
I have a fresh install of XP Pro + SP2, and all the latest drivers etc.
AMD Athlon 1.33Ghz
512MB PC133 SDRAM
Abit KT7A Rev 1.1
PNY GeforceFX 5600 256MB
SB Live
I know its not the fastest machine around but it ought to be enough to at least see something.
I'm a bit fed up now, all the hastle to get it installed, authenticated, updated, decrypted and validated and it won't work at all.
I don't know about a bonus, but they do get a 2" black cube as a desk ornament whenever a patent is filed in their name. If the patent is approved they get a metal plaque with the first page of the patent engraved on it.
Thete is quite a competition going to see who can collect the most patent cubes, with some prolific patent filers having whole bookshelves full of them.
You can put multiple statements on the same line. just seperated them with the : character.
You can also populate an array in the same statement as its definition in VB.Net,
Dim values() As Integer = {1, 2, 3}
What would push and pop statements do on their own anyway?Where would it be pushing to and popping from?
You can easily call the push and pop methods of an object that implements a stack if you need to.
You called method one of this object
You called method two of this object
These references point to the same objects
You called method two of another object
These references point to different objects
Dim myint1 As Interface1
Dim myint2 As Interface2
Dim myobj As New MyObject
myobj = "this object"
Set myint1 = myobj
Set myint2 = myobj
Set myobj = Nothing
Debug.Print myint1
Debug.Print myint2
Debug.Print "These references point to " & IIf(myint1 Is myint2, "the same", "different") & " objects"
Set myobj = New MyObject
myobj = "another object"
Set myint2 = myobj
Debug.Print myint2
Debug.Print "These references point to " & IIf(myint1 Is myint2, "the same", "different") & " objects"
Ok, it turns out I am wrong about Is not evaluating to True when comparing two references to different interfaces of the same object.
On reading the documentation for QueryInterface is says that an object must always return the same pointer when queried for the IUnknown interface. This means that the Is operator must be querying both references for IUnknown and comparing the results.
Hey, you learn something new everyday.
Class declaration for myobject:
Implements Interface1
Implements Interface2
Private obname As String
Public Function Interface1_methodone() As String
Interface1_methodone = "You called method one of " & obname
End Function
Public Function Interface2_methodtwo() As String
Interface2_methodtwo = "You called method two of " & obname
End Function
Public Property Let objectname(value As String)
obname = value
End Property
Public Property Get objectname() As String
objectname = value
End Property
It's because in the versions of VB based on COM, objects can have a default property. So rather than writing Textbox1.Text = "ABC" you can write Textbox = "ABC" and it will check for the default property of the interface and call that, in this case the "Get/Let Text(value)" property will be called. The same applies for collections etc, where Get/Set Item(index) is the default property so instead of Forms.item(1) you can use Forms(1).
Because of the default properties you need a way to disambiguate the assignment comparison of object references from assignment and comparison of the value of the default property. VB uses the Set keyword to denote object assignment
Suppose that the class myobject has a default property mytext that accepts a string.
Dim thisobject As myobject
Set thisobject = New myobject
thisobject = "Use the default property"
debug.print thisobject.mytext
Dim anotherobject As myobject
Set anotherobject = thisobject
Set thisobject = Nothing
and the Is operator to denote object reference comparison
If Not thisobject Is Nothing Then
thisobject = "Still Exists"
Else
If anotherobject Is thisobject Then
anotherobject = thisobject
End If
End If
This also leads to the property syntax where if the property accepted an object reference you had to create Get and Set methods, and if it accepted a value you had to create Get and Let properties.
VB hides all the COM reference counting details, so assigning one object reference to another is actually calling AddRef under the covers and assigning an object reference to Nothing is calling Release(). The New operator hides CoCreateInstance(), QueryInterface() etc.
Since they got rid of default properties with VB.Net the Set and Is are not strictly required, but they retained for source compatiblility and for the introduction of operator overloading.
I'm not sure if in VB6 two references to different interfaces of the same evaluate to the same, I would guess that they don't since one of the points of COM was to hide the object implementation.
Actually looks like I'm wrong. The IsNot operator is only being introduced in VB.Net 2005, it is not presently part of the language specification
This blog entry on November 18th 2003 appears to be the earliest public announcement of the change for Whidbey, which was well after the patent was filed on May 14th 2003 so they are not attempting to patent something that was already part of the language.
Well Microsoft only introduced the IsNot operator in VB.Net, it was not present in earlier versions. But the early beta releases of the VB.Net compiler must have been available to the public at least 4 years ago, so they have taken a long time to get around to applying for a patent after the first public appearance. .Net.
Unlike C# the VB.Net language has not been submitted to any standards bodies, so I guess Microsoft want to patent this feature of it to prevent a compatible implementation being created for Mono or Portable
It's a shame IsNot is only supported in VB.Net.
I still have to use "If Not (variable) Is Nothing Then" to check for null object references in VB6 which seems backwards.
IsNot makes much more sense to me, a definate improvement in the state of the art of language design.
With IE GDS searches in favourites, history and cache to give you results from Web pages you have visited recently. Sure you can Query GDS using firefox, but it does not integrate with your browsing experiance to the same extent.
October 2003- Microsoft delivers a Longhorn Preview at the PDC that includes WinFS which will aid in search as well as provide a much richer platform level integration of data storage
June 2004- Apple shows the next release of OSX will include search technology whose surface features will appear to serve a similar purpose to WinFS but without the deep levels of integration and application defined schemas. Claims Microsoft will be copying Apple by releasing WinFS after Tiger.
July 2004- Microsoft buys Lookout, just to get the developer, the technology itself it useless to them since it is just a thin shell over an open source indexing engine.
August 2004- Microsoft announces that WinFS will be delayed and will not be shipped with Longhorn, instead they will focus on improving search functionality in Longhorn and ship WinFS later as a service pack or interim release.
October 2004- Google launches its desktop search product to wide hype and acclaim.
December 2004- Microsoft desperate to play catch up with Google puts out its own version of desktop search to bridge the gap before Longhorn arrives.
I've only read up to page 30 of the complaint so far but it seems to claim that Microsoft witheld critical information from Novell on the new "Browsing" functionality it was including in Windows during the beta stages of the development of Windows 95.
This seems odd as the "Browsing" features they claim relate to Internet Explorer, which was not included with Windows 95 until OSR2 and did not become a critical part of the system until Windows 98. What information could Novell have needed about Internet Explorer before the release of Windows 95, that would have prevented them from creating fully compliant and integrated software for Windows 95?
I think multitasking is a requirement even on mobile phones and certainly on PDAs. I want to be able to switch between perhaps a browser, an RSS reader and a game while I wait for data to be transfered over GPRS. I'd also want to be able to play an MP3 in the background at the same time. Fortunately my Symbian phone, a Nokia 6600 can do this quite well. I'd never want a FDA that couldn't.
Someone might say ;-)
"Of course you're having stability problems, you're copying Windows!"
but I would never be that unkind.
Well they are working on a compromise for Longhorn, Filesystem and Registry redirection. The app running under a limited user account will try to write to HKLM or System files and the operation will appear to succeed, except the api call will be redirected to the limited users profile instead. So the app goes on running but the system is protected.
More details here Security in Longhorn: Focus on Least Privilege
Apps must be already be able to be run under a limited user account to even get a Designed for Windows XP, somehow there don't seem to be that many programs that work all that well so far.
It all sounds good, if only I had any friends or colleagues to exchange files, emails, and IMs with.
The only thing spotlight is going to do on my system is make it easier to find all the penis enlargement spams I get every day.
Every time they come up with another one these cool systems for managing social interactions it just makes me feel more and more inadequate.
But I don't have any friends or contacts, you insensitive clod!
AFAIK the last time the IE engine was rewritten was the Trident engine for IE5.
But there have been so many security patches since then I wouldn't be surprised if the code had become quite messy.
The main problem seems to be that they are paranoid about breaking any compatibility, especially the non-standard IE extensions that have internal Corperate systems have become heavily reliant upon.
Well only the very top layer. Most of the core engine is xpcom componants written in C++. Thats where any major buffer overflow errors are likely to appear. It won't just be Firefox thats effected but the whole Mozilla suite. Mozilla, Firefox, Thunderbird, Sunbird, Nvu, Camino, Galeon, KMeleon etc.
We are always hearing about this Apache thing as to disprove attacks being focused on the biggest targets. "Why is IIS attacked more when apache runs virtually all of the internet?", hardly anyone seems to question this assertion.
People keep saying how their apache server logs are filled with code red and nimbda probes as evidence of how many IIS servers are being broken into.
Code Red and nimbda are really old worms, the exploits they attacked were patched years ago. The fact that the traces still show up in logs is evidence that there are a lot of unpatched IIS5 machines out there, machines that havn't been patched in the last two years. If a similar number of Apache servers were being left unpatched for that length of time how would they be faring?
Why are these old machines still around to keep spewing this stuff? Because IIS5 was installed and active by defualt on new Windows 2000 server installations and the admins never figured out they were even running it let alone that it was highly insecure out of the box and should be locked down and kept up to date with patches. Anyone running Apache is most likely doing so deliberately and is at least trying to keep it up to date and locked down.
Is IIS being broken into on a daily basis?, probably, but so is Apache as hacks on various high profile open source projects have shown.
Is a patched and up to date IIS6 server being broken into more often than the most recent Apache? I don't know, but somehow I doubt it.
IIS6 and Server2003 are some of the first products to benifit from Microsofts focus on security.
So far there have been very few updates required for IIS6, and it is disabled and configured in a locked down state out of the box.
The Grandparent has shown that attempted attacks on both IIS and Apache are roughly equal in scale, how many of those are successful with competant admins is rarely discussed.
If you stop counting the exploits of unmaintained and possibly unknown IIS5 boxes as examples of problems endemic to all versions of IIS you would probably find that there is not such a clear devide between them.
Also the Netcraft server usage figures are probably misleading. They count the number of servers hosting sites with different domain names.
A lot of sites run on shared hosting services running apache which probably means there are fewer actual apache servers than the count of domains would tend to indicate. Also a lot of IIS servers are being used for corperate intranet applications which are not supposed to be externally acessible and without a domain name, these servers are not counted by netcraft at all.
The few IIS servers that are (deliberately) on the public internet tend to be serving up large internet applications for businesses and so present a much larger target to potential hackers than the vast number of shared hosting accounts with a few php scripts running someones blog or homepage running on apache.