I'm almost positive that TCP/IP was an add-on product for OS/2 at the 2.0 version, which was the version from that era (92-ish). As others have pointed out, there was a 3rd party market for Windows TCP/IP stacks at the time. It's typical that people would criticize Microsoft for not having a TCP/IP stack or charging for it, but as soon as they include a free one they're being monopolists.
>>cc:Mail and Netware-based products. You are right on these as far as larger coprorates are concerned. You are wrong as far as SMBs are concerned. They were Pegasus and Eudora territory and this is what Windows took over before going after the larger fish which had solutions in place.
This is rich. First of all, you did say "corporate" initially. Second, in the early 90's the Internet e-mail client market for SMBs was about as big as the "trip to space on a Russian rocket" market is today. It was a token market at best.
On the wireless point, as with TCP/IP, and unlike with other operating systems, when Microsoft doesn't have a product their customers aren't screwed, since anyone who wants to make a living in that market sells Windows versions, and 802.11 was like that.
Windows 2000 went gold at the end of 1999 and was more or less finalized in 98, long before 802.11 was mainstream. They addressed it when it was worth addressing.
>>Never wondered why you need a thirdparty program to make use of bluetooth under Windows? Especialy since he also mentions thin clients etc.
Microsoft was pretty explicit that the blew off Bluetooth because it wasn't ready, and they were right. What does that have to do with thin clients? Thin clients use protocols like RDP, which Microsoft brought out, I believe, around '96 or so. Yes, they were later than Citrix, but they were relatively early in the industry and they have been leaders in thin client products.
>>Under basicly every other networked OS you can use the same computer simulatiously via remote login. (Yes yes, there are products and hacks that add that to Windows NT/2k/XP too)
Obviously they see this as a server option, since they've supported it there in every version since NT4. You can disagree with that policy, but the only connection it has to what the poster said was with respect to thin clients, and Microsoft has a long history of thin client support. I'm writing this on a Windows-based thin client right now.
>>1. MSFT ignoring TCP IP, saying it is inferior to NetBIOS as well as charging a small fortune for a minimal add-on IP Stack ported from BSD. That was only 10 years ago. They caught up on this one
Where did this come from? TCP/IP on Windows NT (starting in 92 at least) was a core part of the OS. I specifically remember that TCP/IP for Win 3.x was free. WTF are you talking about?
>>2. Same with browsers - IE 3.0 was nothing but mosaic repackaged. It took them less then 2 years to catch up.
IE 1.0 fits this description, but IE 3.0 had CSS in it for heaven's sake! It had ActiveX controls and Netscape plug-ins. It was way more than (Spyglass) Mosaic.
>>3. Mail clients - I still remember the days when Pegasus and Eudora were the de-facto corporate standards as far as Email on windows is concerned. 3 years to get from 0% market share to 90%+ market share.
Back when this could possibly have been true the corporate standards on Windows were cc:Mail and Netware-based products. Eudora and Pegasus have never actually had any meaningful market share.
>>4. Microsoft ignoring wireless, thin clients, etc.
Ignoring Wireless? They built it in to Windows XP. How long before that could they have been "ignoring" it? Every wireless vendor ever (except Apple) has released Windows support for their products. And Microsoft has had their own thin client product since the mid-90's.
I think the public, especially business users, are aware of these alternatives and have been for many years.
Anti-Microsoft advocates can't stand the fact that buyers have chosen not to buy the alternatives and instead largely stick with Microsoft, but all of these users have alternatives and they know about it, if only that there are Macintoshes.
Do you contend that large businesses are apathetic about these things? They obviously know about Linux and UNIX.
It puts a proper perspective on Narrator: "Narrator is a basic screen reader that provides speech output for blind computer users. It is not intended to replace more powerful commercially available screen readers. Rather, it is intended to help you when your normal adaptive equipment is not available. "
Do we know that the Mac reader is any more than this?
"Narrator is a text-to-speech utility for users who are blind or have impaired vision. Narrator reads what is displayed on your screen: the contents of the active window, menu options, or the text you have typed.
Narrator is designed to work with Notepad, Wordpad, Control Panel programs, Internet Explorer, the Windows desktop, and Windows setup. Narrator may not read words aloud correctly in other programs."
I'm almost positive there's also an API if you want to make your own programs explicitly compatible with Narrator, which I believe has been around since at least Win98.
I have the same Lojack device (it's called the "LoJack Early Warning Recovery System"). Had it about 6 months and I've had about 6 false alarms. I get phone calls at home, on my cell, and I get an e-mail.
Not very confidence-inspiring. So far I'd call it a waste of money.
>>It shouldn't be too difficult to set up a trojan remailer which uses the user's email account to forward spam.
Actually, this is trickier than you'd think if the ISP requires smtp-auth. You'd have to find a way to steal the credentials, and these are MUA private data. (Outlook stores them in an obscured form in the registry.) So how would you do it?
Google's traffic is overwhelmingly IE6. See the graph http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist/jan04_browse rs.gif ("Web Browsers Used To Access Google, March 2001 - January 2004") on the page http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist.html
It's a perfect metaphor. Computers don't run C code, just as we don't live in drawings of houses. Both are human-readable representations that we can use to build the implementation.
I've looked into this, and it's always a projection based on a survey of businesses. They ask businesses how much it cost them. Doesn't sound reliable to me.
For Outlook see, for example, here, here, and here.
You completely misunderstand the KB article you refer to. It does not include jpeg and gif; the list of extensions it does include (from here) is:.ad,.adp,.asp,.bas,.bat,.chm,.cmd,.com,.cpl,.crt,.exe,.hlp,.hta,.inf,.ins,.isp,.js,.jse,.lnk,.mdb,.mde,.msc,.msi,.msp,.mst,.pcd,.pif,.reg,.scr,.sct,.shb,.shs,.url,.vb,.vbe,.vbs,.vsd,.vss,.vst,.vsw,.ws,.wsc,.wsf,.wsh.
I agree with others who say that most of the poor would be better-served with economic development and honest government than with direct aid. Even so, there are plenty of cases miles ahead of servicing a dead rocket. I recently gave money to an orphanage in Guatemala for HIV+ children. I'd be ashamed to give money to something as pointless as a Saturn V when there are causes like that.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm almost positive that TCP/IP was an add-on product for OS/2 at the 2.0 version, which was the version from that era (92-ish). As others have pointed out, there was a 3rd party market for Windows TCP/IP stacks at the time. It's typical that people would criticize Microsoft for not having a TCP/IP stack or charging for it, but as soon as they include a free one they're being monopolists.
>>cc:Mail and Netware-based products. You are right on these as far as larger coprorates are concerned. You are wrong as far as SMBs are concerned. They were Pegasus and Eudora territory and this is what Windows took over before going after the larger fish which had solutions in place.
This is rich. First of all, you did say "corporate" initially. Second, in the early 90's the Internet e-mail client market for SMBs was about as big as the "trip to space on a Russian rocket" market is today. It was a token market at best.
On the wireless point, as with TCP/IP, and unlike with other operating systems, when Microsoft doesn't have a product their customers aren't screwed, since anyone who wants to make a living in that market sells Windows versions, and 802.11 was like that.
Windows 2000 went gold at the end of 1999 and was more or less finalized in 98, long before 802.11 was mainstream. They addressed it when it was worth addressing.
TCP/IP for Windows NT 3.1 is described in this document
>>Are you trying to say PCs don't come _bundled_ with MS software?
Are you saying you can't buy them without if you want? You haven't looked very hard.
>>Never wondered why you need a thirdparty program to make use of bluetooth under Windows? Especialy since he also mentions thin clients etc.
Microsoft was pretty explicit that the blew off Bluetooth because it wasn't ready, and they were right. What does that have to do with thin clients? Thin clients use protocols like RDP, which Microsoft brought out, I believe, around
'96 or so. Yes, they were later than Citrix, but they were relatively early in the industry and they have been leaders in thin client products.
>>Under basicly every other networked OS you can use the same computer simulatiously via remote login. (Yes yes, there are products and hacks that add that to Windows NT/2k/XP too)
Obviously they see this as a server option, since they've supported it there in every version since NT4. You can disagree with that policy, but the only connection it has to what the poster said was with respect to thin clients, and Microsoft has a long history of thin client support. I'm writing this on a Windows-based thin client right now.
How can you be wrong on every one of these?
>>1. MSFT ignoring TCP IP, saying it is inferior to NetBIOS as well as charging a small fortune for a minimal add-on IP Stack ported from BSD. That was only 10 years ago. They caught up on this one
Where did this come from? TCP/IP on Windows NT (starting in 92 at least) was a core part of the OS. I specifically remember that TCP/IP for Win 3.x was free. WTF are you talking about?
>>2. Same with browsers - IE 3.0 was nothing but mosaic repackaged. It took them less then 2 years to catch up.
IE 1.0 fits this description, but IE 3.0 had CSS in it for heaven's sake! It had ActiveX controls and Netscape plug-ins. It was way more than (Spyglass) Mosaic.
>>3. Mail clients - I still remember the days when Pegasus and Eudora were the de-facto corporate standards as far as Email on windows is concerned. 3 years to get from 0% market share to 90%+ market share.
Back when this could possibly have been true the corporate standards on Windows were cc:Mail and Netware-based products. Eudora and Pegasus have never actually had any meaningful market share.
>>4. Microsoft ignoring wireless, thin clients, etc.
Ignoring Wireless? They built it in to Windows XP. How long before that could they have been "ignoring" it? Every wireless vendor ever (except Apple) has released Windows support for their products. And Microsoft has had their own thin client product since the mid-90's.
I think the public, especially business users, are aware of these alternatives and have been for many years.
Anti-Microsoft advocates can't stand the fact that buyers have chosen not to buy the alternatives and instead largely stick with Microsoft, but all of these users have alternatives and they know about it, if only that there are Macintoshes.
Do you contend that large businesses are apathetic about these things? They obviously know about Linux and UNIX.
Better yet, here's a review of Windows XP on the web site of the American Foundation for the Blind.
It puts a proper perspective on Narrator: "Narrator is a basic screen reader that provides speech output for blind computer users. It is not intended to replace more powerful commercially available screen readers. Rather, it is intended to help you when your normal adaptive equipment is not available. "
Do we know that the Mac reader is any more than this?
Here's a quote from one page on Narrator:
Narrator is designed to work with Notepad, Wordpad, Control Panel programs, Internet Explorer, the Windows desktop, and Windows setup. Narrator may not read words aloud correctly in other programs."
I'm almost positive there's also an API if you want to make your own programs explicitly compatible with Narrator, which I believe has been around since at least Win98.
I have the same Lojack device (it's called the "LoJack Early Warning Recovery System"). Had it about 6 months and I've had about 6 false alarms. I get phone calls at home, on my cell, and I get an e-mail.
Not very confidence-inspiring. So far I'd call it a waste of money.
>>It shouldn't be too difficult to set up a trojan remailer which uses the user's email account to forward spam.
Actually, this is trickier than you'd think if the ISP requires smtp-auth. You'd have to find a way to steal the credentials, and these are MUA private data. (Outlook stores them in an obscured form in the registry.) So how would you do it?
No, it's all the 5.x versions, up to and including 5.5 SP2
>>It is entirely possible that some people did indeed know about this bug and had used it to exploit Windows systems for quite some time.
This is just as possible with open source software. As long as someone else doesn't notice it it's your bug to exploit.
Sorry about the busted links.
Click here for the Google Zeitgeist.
Click here just for the graph.
Google's traffic is overwhelmingly IE6. See the graph http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist/jan04_browse rs.gif ("Web Browsers Used To Access Google, March 2001 - January 2004") on the page http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist.html
It's a perfect metaphor. Computers don't run C code, just as we don't live in drawings of houses. Both are human-readable representations that we can use to build the implementation.
Autoplay has been in Windows since the original Windows 95, and it was in betas for a while before that. It has to predate this patent.
It's Mike "Prettejohn"
I've looked into this, and it's always a projection based on a survey of businesses. They ask businesses how much it cost them. Doesn't sound reliable to me.
For Outlook see, for example, here, here, and here.
.ad, .adp, .asp, .bas, .bat, .chm, .cmd, .com, .cpl, .crt, .exe, .hlp, .hta, .inf, .ins, .isp, .js, .jse, .lnk, .mdb, .mde, .msc, .msi, .msp, .mst, .pcd, .pif, .reg, .scr, .sct, .shb, .shs, .url, .vb, .vbe, .vbs, .vsd, .vss, .vst, .vsw, .ws, .wsc, .wsf, .wsh.
You completely misunderstand the KB article you refer to. It does not include jpeg and gif; the list of extensions it does include (from here) is:
And you can edit the list.
Therefore, everyone who is infected with this worm meets one of the following conditions:
- running a very, very old version of Outlook or Outlook Express
- running a non-Microsoft e-mail client (e.g. Eudora, Notes)
- has turned off the executable-stripping feature, which wasn't even possible to do in some versions.
The ironic truth is now complete. You may go back to your regularly-scheduled Microsoft-bashing.You think you can't do this in Windows? You don't know Windows very well.
I agree with others who say that most of the poor would be better-served with economic development and honest government than with direct aid. Even so, there are plenty of cases miles ahead of servicing a dead rocket. I recently gave money to an orphanage in Guatemala for HIV+ children. I'd be ashamed to give money to something as pointless as a Saturn V when there are causes like that.
Moron! How many people in the world can actually do this? Can you face ordinary people and tell them they should use Linux for this reason?
What a load of crap. I hope he does time. He has no business intruding on other people's systems and they should make an example of him.
He fraudulently gained access to a private system, stole usage of pay services from them, and accessed personal, private data.
How'd you like me to break into your house to prove to you that you need better locks?
It's called stealing. He fraudulently gained access to someone else's system and used a pay service from it.