I'm not trolling, but what real work gets doen at Microsoft these days? Does is take tens of thousands of engineers to make essentially cosmetic changes to an Operating System or a word-processing application?
Out here in India the only employees one gets to see from Microsoft is the legal team; not the sales-people or MVPs. Except for CD-packaging and license printing; I cannot think of any sphere of activity that requires lots of manpower at Microsoft.
There are enough Vista Beta testers already and they've paid billions for the privilege. Windows 7 is just Vista with a new label.... why make the beta available when sheeple can be milked for billions for a more polished junk?
The bug reportedly affected only fully patched and updated Zunes.... those that did not receive firmware updates were safe. In which case, how can this be a fundamental bug affecting *ALL* Zunes from production?
Looks like the bug was deliberately introduced as a firmware update. That has to be properly explained.
BTW, I haven't seen a similar explanation for the Excel 2007 '100000' bug yet.
"eFilm Workstation 2.1.2 is currently undergoing testing for operation within the MS Vista operating system environment, and will be validated for use in Vista systems soon".
It has been 'soon' for more than 2 years now.... and there has been zero progress so far. We are hence evaluating Linux based PACS viewers so that things don't get obsoleted because of Microsoft's unilateral WDDM changes.
For the main HMS software, we are replacing the current VB/SQL / Oracle setup with a Ruby-on-Rails setup that requires just a browser on the front-end. This way, if Windows 7 is different from XP and is more of Vista, we can completely migrate to Linux on the client side.
At a hospital I consult, we use the E-Film PACS viewer to allow doctors to look at patient's XRays, MRIs, CT Scans etc. The problem with Vista is that even at this date, E-Film does not still work.
I think it could be because of DRM and video stuff, but that is the job of Microsoft to worry.
And if as per recent reports, Windows 7 is just Windows Vista with rebranding, then XP will be the last version of Windows for a very long time indeed.
But according to one Mr. Josh Bancroft, I remember that the Intel 915 was indeed capable of doing the Aero as well... and that Vista Beta actually ran Aero on the 915. This changed when Vista was actually released though.
You may be right but to suggest Ballmer is capable of coherent and logical speech is very iffy. His email assigning the blame on Will Poole suggests poor comprehension and grammar.
So while Vista may not be capable, Ballmer definitely is not.
"We're releasing yet another version of Windows. We need new drivers for all of your hardware. Go away and write them for us".
Excellent point, well made. Another thing that irritates h/w mfrs. is that their product becomes less valuable every time Microsoft decides to change their driver model. A network card for instance costs just about $2; where is the money to keep writing drivers every few years? What to do with all the unsold stock? It is impossible to keep on re;leasing newer varieties and part nos. and time them perfectly so there's a model with every single version of Windows.
XP has provided a stable API for drivers for almost 8 years now, and with the rise of Netbooks, XP will have a life of 10 years or so. There is too much inventory right now for h/w mfrs. to carry, and make them work with yet another OS. A better approach would be, for Microsoft to make all devices work with XP drivers instead.
You can pick any browser you want from these alternatives: IE6, IE7, IE8
Not always. You can't pick IE6 AND Vista. Many sites work well only with IE6.
Recent versions of Exchange Server work well only with IE7 or later. So in a Corporate setting with Win2K systems running IE6 for the Corporate Intranet, things get very clunky and unmanagable. Add multiple versions of SharePoint, Office, Active Directory... and pretty soon, you realise even Microsoft's products do not work well between and amnongst themselves. Unless you upgrade all of them, all at once. Which is pretty much impractical and terribly expensive.
"....Microsoft provides a broad range of policies, programs, and products that are focused on our commitment to responsible and ethical business practices that promote user choice, industry opportunity, interoperability, and transparency....."
Last I checked Microsoft's Exchange Server works well only with IE. Unlike Gmail or Yahoo mail. Exchange is lousy with Firefox, Opera or Safari. Where is the choice?
And Exchange Server 2008 I belive even screws up the IMAP support, so Thunderbird users get the bird as well... So much for interoperability and transparency.
This is Microsoft Office 2007 Open XML, not Open XML. An API for producing documents containing deprecated features is of no use to anyone bar Microsoft, who can claim tha they are making available tools that support a yet-to-be-defined standard.
For all we know, the next version of Office will support the officially defined and documented standard, which will have hundreds of changes compared to the current O2K7 format of Open XML. Thus, everyone will have to recode all new stuff just to stay in sync. A wasted effort, in my opinion.
People buy desktops for connecting to backend office infrastructure, and sad to say, the Windows-Office lockin still rules in this space. Skype and other stuff like Image manipulation might make sense in the Home Linux market, but there are already plenty cheap hardware out there that can run Linux for under $200. The gBox for one.
So Asus will find it very hard to push these desktops unless they race to the bottom. Which might rule out Windows XP as well.
The exploit involves rewriting cmd.exe with Utilman.exe by booting the system into Linux. How can the Linux ntfs utility gain access to the Vista partition if it was encrypted... remember we haven't booted Vista yet?
Secondly, which moron in Microsoft would allow 'root' level programs to run 'before' the user has logged in as root? Pretty dumb, it seems to me. Maybe they did it on purpose?
Thirdly, why not validate the cmd.exe before actually allowing it to run as root? This appears to have been done in XP / 2000 etc. so why not in Vista?
The exploit seems to be just the tip of an iceberg.
How is physical access == game over? What about BitLocker encryption? Can a Linux distro decrpt BitLocker?
Also interesting to note this hack works only with Vista but not XP or earlier versions of Windows. Why would Microsoft go out of its way to make a system less secure?
Both reports agree that an open format would be beneficial, but neither were willing to endorse a particular choice. The State Legislature should not mandate in statute the use of any specific document creation and preservation technologies , as technologies can easily become outdated.
Looks like Microsoft has effectively brainwashed these clueless legislators.
Formats and technologies are completely different things. ODF is an Open Format. Open Office is a technological implementation of this format. Microsoft has recently merely proclaimed that they will also be implementing ODF in the current version of Office.
OOXML claims to be an open ISO certified format. But as on date, there is no technological, compliant iomplementation... in fact, the specification is not yet documented, as required by ISO processes.
Why can't they simply legislate on ODF, and then go about choosing the ideal technological implementation of the same?
For the hobbyist and the experimenter, PC hardware is far cheaper than a license of Leopard. No charm in getting pricey OSX apps and software working on a commodity piece of hardware.
Microsoft decides when it's time to kill Foxpro, when to drop support for old versions etc. Hitching a company's business to Microsoft tools like Access, Excel, Sharepoint and VBA... keeps them on the upgrade treadmill forever. It should teach the Corporate beancounters to go for standards-based tools and programming languages instead.
Microsoft even warns quite emphatically not to install service packs on a system that may have viruses, spyware, or any other system problems.
Microsoft always advertises its products as being easy to install, use and administer. A Service Pack, which is basically supposed to be a collection of bug fixes, must not break things like network drivers, antivirus software, browser dependencies etc. SP3 does all that and more.
XP is becoming very difficult to manage in large corporate networks. Win2K systems do not get these frequent updates, and keep chugging along peacefully. Looks like MS has gone out of its way to screw XP users, trying to make it as bad as Vista. Shame on the overpaid, bloated development teams.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not trolling, but what real work gets doen at Microsoft these days? Does is take tens of thousands of engineers to make essentially cosmetic changes to an Operating System or a word-processing application?
Out here in India the only employees one gets to see from Microsoft is the legal team; not the sales-people or MVPs. Except for CD-packaging and license printing; I cannot think of any sphere of activity that requires lots of manpower at Microsoft.
There are enough Vista Beta testers already and they've paid billions for the privilege. Windows 7 is just Vista with a new label.... why make the beta available when sheeple can be milked for billions for a more polished junk?
The bug reportedly affected only fully patched and updated Zunes.... those that did not receive firmware updates were safe. In which case, how can this be a fundamental bug affecting *ALL* Zunes from production?
Looks like the bug was deliberately introduced as a firmware update. That has to be properly explained.
BTW, I haven't seen a similar explanation for the Excel 2007 '100000' bug yet.
"eFilm Workstation 2.1.2 is currently undergoing testing for operation within the MS Vista operating system environment, and will be validated for use in Vista systems soon".
It has been 'soon' for more than 2 years now.... and there has been zero progress so far. We are hence evaluating Linux based PACS viewers so that things don't get obsoleted because of Microsoft's unilateral WDDM changes.
For the main HMS software, we are replacing the current VB/SQL / Oracle setup with a Ruby-on-Rails setup that requires just a browser on the front-end. This way, if Windows 7 is different from XP and is more of Vista, we can completely migrate to Linux on the client side.
At a hospital I consult, we use the E-Film PACS viewer to allow doctors to look at patient's XRays, MRIs, CT Scans etc. The problem with Vista is that even at this date, E-Film does not still work.
https://www.merge.com/EMEA/estore/content.aspx?pname=eFilm%20Workstation%E2%84%A2&returnUrl=&productID=185&contentTypeID=4
I think it could be because of DRM and video stuff, but that is the job of Microsoft to worry.
And if as per recent reports, Windows 7 is just Windows Vista with rebranding, then XP will be the last version of Windows for a very long time indeed.
But according to one Mr. Josh Bancroft, I remember that the Intel 915 was indeed capable of doing the Aero as well... and that Vista Beta actually ran Aero on the 915. This changed when Vista was actually released though.
http://software.intel.com/en-us/blogs/2007/04/02/video-why-intel-915-graphics-dont-have-a-wddm-driver-for-vista/
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=451104&cid=22395296
It would be far simpler to handcuff Ballmer instead.
You may be right but to suggest Ballmer is capable of coherent and logical speech is very iffy. His email assigning the blame on Will Poole suggests poor comprehension and grammar.
So while Vista may not be capable, Ballmer definitely is not.
After I boot my computer, the first thing I do is read Slashdot. And my company pays me for it.
"We're releasing yet another version of Windows. We need new drivers for all of your hardware. Go away and write them for us".
Excellent point, well made. Another thing that irritates h/w mfrs. is that their product becomes less valuable every time Microsoft decides to change their driver model. A network card for instance costs just about $2; where is the money to keep writing drivers every few years? What to do with all the unsold stock? It is impossible to keep on re;leasing newer varieties and part nos. and time them perfectly so there's a model with every single version of Windows.
XP has provided a stable API for drivers for almost 8 years now, and with the rise of Netbooks, XP will have a life of 10 years or so. There is too much inventory right now for h/w mfrs. to carry, and make them work with yet another OS. A better approach would be, for Microsoft to make all devices work with XP drivers instead.
You can pick any browser you want from these alternatives: IE6, IE7, IE8
Not always. You can't pick IE6 AND Vista. Many sites work well only with IE6.
Recent versions of Exchange Server work well only with IE7 or later. So in a Corporate setting with Win2K systems running IE6 for the Corporate Intranet, things get very clunky and unmanagable. Add multiple versions of SharePoint, Office, Active Directory... and pretty soon, you realise even Microsoft's products do not work well between and amnongst themselves. Unless you upgrade all of them, all at once. Which is pretty much impractical and terribly expensive.
"....Microsoft provides a broad range of policies, programs, and products that are focused on our commitment to responsible and ethical business practices that promote user choice, industry opportunity, interoperability, and transparency....."
Last I checked Microsoft's Exchange Server works well only with IE. Unlike Gmail or Yahoo mail. Exchange is lousy with Firefox, Opera or Safari. Where is the choice?
And Exchange Server 2008 I belive even screws up the IMAP support, so Thunderbird users get the bird as well... So much for interoperability and transparency.
This is Microsoft Office 2007 Open XML, not Open XML. An API for producing documents containing deprecated features is of no use to anyone bar Microsoft, who can claim tha they are making available tools that support a yet-to-be-defined standard.
For all we know, the next version of Office will support the officially defined and documented standard, which will have hundreds of changes compared to the current O2K7 format of Open XML. Thus, everyone will have to recode all new stuff just to stay in sync. A wasted effort, in my opinion.
Will this technology prevent someone from throwing chairs, though? I think that is considered good manners by Microsoft!
I hereby hand over my chair to Mr. Ballmer.
Microsoft needs a bash up. Why should standards compliance need a version upgrade?
People buy desktops for connecting to backend office infrastructure, and sad to say, the Windows-Office lockin still rules in this space. Skype and other stuff like Image manipulation might make sense in the Home Linux market, but there are already plenty cheap hardware out there that can run Linux for under $200. The gBox for one.
So Asus will find it very hard to push these desktops unless they race to the bottom. Which might rule out Windows XP as well.
And what do you suppose is going to stop the attacker from overwriting whatever program performs this validation,
That is called defence in depth. The attacker should not be able to simply boot and change system files.
absent full-disk encryption coupled with a hardware security module?
I thought Vista is touting 'full disk encryption' as a great security feature! If it can be broken so easily, it is an anti-feature.
(And even then, what if they take a soldering iron to the TPM?)
This exploit did not involve a soldering iron... just inserting a CD, that's it.
The exploit involves rewriting cmd.exe with Utilman.exe by booting the system into Linux. How can the Linux ntfs utility gain access to the Vista partition if it was encrypted... remember we haven't booted Vista yet?
Secondly, which moron in Microsoft would allow 'root' level programs to run 'before' the user has logged in as root? Pretty dumb, it seems to me. Maybe they did it on purpose?
Thirdly, why not validate the cmd.exe before actually allowing it to run as root? This appears to have been done in XP / 2000 etc. so why not in Vista?
The exploit seems to be just the tip of an iceberg.
How is physical access == game over? What about BitLocker encryption? Can a Linux distro decrpt BitLocker?
Also interesting to note this hack works only with Vista but not XP or earlier versions of Windows. Why would Microsoft go out of its way to make a system less secure?
Both reports agree that an open format would be beneficial, but neither were willing to endorse a particular choice.
The State Legislature should not mandate in statute the use of any specific document creation and preservation technologies , as technologies can easily become outdated.
Looks like Microsoft has effectively brainwashed these clueless legislators.
Formats and technologies are completely different things. ODF is an Open Format. Open Office is a technological implementation of this format. Microsoft has recently merely proclaimed that they will also be implementing ODF in the current version of Office.
OOXML claims to be an open ISO certified format. But as on date, there is no technological, compliant iomplementation... in fact, the specification is not yet documented, as required by ISO processes.
Why can't they simply legislate on ODF, and then go about choosing the ideal technological implementation of the same?
Not the XP drivers or TiVo. Microsoft should be answering this.
http://thegreenbutton.com/forums/45/262419/ShowThread.aspx
For the hobbyist and the experimenter, PC hardware is far cheaper than a license of Leopard. No charm in getting pricey OSX apps and software working on a commodity piece of hardware.
Microsoft decides when it's time to kill Foxpro, when to drop support for old versions etc. Hitching a company's business to Microsoft tools like Access, Excel, Sharepoint and VBA... keeps them on the upgrade treadmill forever. It should teach the Corporate beancounters to go for standards-based tools and programming languages instead.
Microsoft even warns quite emphatically not to install service packs on a system that may have viruses, spyware, or any other system problems.
Microsoft always advertises its products as being easy to install, use and administer. A Service Pack, which is basically supposed to be a collection of bug fixes, must not break things like network drivers, antivirus software, browser dependencies etc. SP3 does all that and more.
XP is becoming very difficult to manage in large corporate networks. Win2K systems do not get these frequent updates, and keep chugging along peacefully. Looks like MS has gone out of its way to screw XP users, trying to make it as bad as Vista. Shame on the overpaid, bloated development teams.