Uh, yes, you can install alternatives to Microsoft products. I'm not sure how that invalidates my assertion that Microsoft's products tend to be somewhat mediocre offerings.
This is opinion, not a fact. Some of the highest traffic and bandwidth sites on the Internet are using standard IIS and SQL installations. And they not only work, but work well at what they do. If what you believe was true, these sites could not possibly do what they do using MS's products.
I don't think anyone would argue that IIS or MSSQL are the best for everything, but in a lot of areas they do pull better performance than a lot of other solutions.
MS is also vastly easier to deploy than most solutions. MS has done a good job of making easy to use administration tools and easing the lives of server administrators. This is also an area that a lot of competive products, especially in the Open Source world, need to pay more attention to. Not everyone has the *nix skills and even people like myself that do, would rather make a few clicks than edit several configuration files.
Can windows do process migration (aka mosix)? Ok, process migration and then you mention mosix? You do realize that even LINUX doesn't do this, as Mosix is a OS virtualization system and in theory could use any OS. There are products out there, even from Microsoft that allow processes to be split. MS also uses this technology in their Cluster Version of Windows 2003 Server.
Can you run Word, Excel etc. on a machine and display to another machine (a single application, not the entire display)?
There are several ways to do this. The reason this is easy on *nix is because of the standard input/output concepts and also the XWindows foundation which is a network GUI protocol. However, with Windows there are also ways to easily do this, and vendors like Citrix have been using these techniques for over 10 years using their and the standard MS RDP features.
This is also not an amazing feat, as programs like Netmeeting have been re-routing applicaitons using very crude bitmap based techniques.
Vista and Longhorn server also inherently support concepts like this using the built in RDP and will even push 3D applications remotely, something a 'bit' harder for a *nix to do as XWindows is not that robust with 3D.
Most things mentioned by people in this entire thread DO exist in the Windows world and are technically feasible with modern versions of Windows running on the NT Architecture. I think too many people in here truly still get stuck with a mindset of the Win9x versions of Windows where things like you and others have brought up up were not technically possible or would have been hard to implement on the DOS/Win9X OS core. Windows has moved a long way from that old OS model.
The NT architecture that is the foundation under Win32 and what people see as Windows is truly not something that is called poorly designed by true OS engineers and theorists. If you want to poke fun at Windows, it is much easier to pick on the Win32 subsystem than NT itself.
Virtually impossible? Had a sales call to demonstrate PDA security using a signature. The sales guy signed the screen and it unlocked. I had been studying how fast he did it, so when he passed it to me, I used roughly the same timings. And it unlocked. End of demo.
It's actually easier to observe signature timings than it is to shoulder-surf typing a password.
I think you are comparing Apples and Oranges...
Using code that computes the pressure, angle and speed of the signature can be very complex. Most of the PDA authenications don't have enough computing power, nor do they even monitor pressure or angle or speed when comparing the signature image. With most PDAs you can literally trace a person's signature and unlock the device even if you are bad at mimicking handwriting, so it is a bad baseline for this type of authenication.
Go look up all the data that is stored in Ink technologies, there is more to Ink than just the written image it creates. I think you will be surprised how much data is pulled in for Ink (using MS Ink as an example) and how this can be so personal to a person that it virtually impossible to match their movements, speed, pressure and other aspects that Ink can capture in addition to the final image of the signature.
I also said virtually, as I don't believe anything is completely fool-proof.
Being an ex-Windows user who moved to Linux in 97, I have to say the only reasons I moved were the things that I could do in Linux that you can't do in Windows. There are a ton of things like that. But, it's pretty much an even split. For all those things, I'm sure you can find things that Windows can do that Linux can't.
I do hope that you have at least worked with Windows since 97 or use it from time to time. Windows from 1997 Win95/Win98 is quite different from the NT based model of XP and Vista.
There are very few things you can do on Linux that you cannot do on a Windows system based on the NT architecture of today. From running in a GUI off mode to even not utilizing the Win32 subsystem and just using the BSD subsystem to write, compile and work with *nix based applications.
Your statement about capabilities is VERY true when comparing a *nix OS to the DOS model Windows of the 90s, but it fails when trying to make the same assertion about the NT and modern based Windows versions.
I don't want to pick on your post, but your comments would be like me saying I stopped using Mac at System 8.x and then defining my statements based on the limitations of the System 8 OS. And as most people know, the difference between a Mac running System 8 or 9 and a Mac running OSX is quite different, as OSX has very few architectural limitations. The same is true of modern Windows, there are very few architectural limitations.
I won't really go into what Linux offers over Windows unless pressed, because most of us here know the truth about what Linux can do that Windows can't.:)
In 1997 you could make a very long list of applicaitons and concepts in use on Linux that just were NOT possible on Win95/98, yet today there are almost no applications or concepts in use on Linux that are either available or in use on Windows.
So I will ask, give us even one example of something that Linux is capable of that Windows is not capable of doing.
I will even be kind enough to go first with a very basic example of something Windows can do that Linux cannot do at the core architectural level. Windows is based on the NT architecture, which is a hybrid kernel concept that allows it to host OS subsystems. This is also why the NT architecture has been called a client/server kernel concept. What this gives NT that Linux cannot do is the ability to natively run multiple OS subsystems concurrently that also can communicate with each other at the kernel level.
Win32 is an example of one subsystem in use on Windows and runs independantly of other subsystems like the *nix subsystem, OS/2, Win16, and Win64 subsystems to name a few examples. The subsystem OS architecture concept is not virtualization nor emulation, as each subsystem are true OSes acting independently with their own subsystem level kernels that sit on top of the NT architecture.
It is even rumored that MS has worked on a non BSD based *nix subsystem for Windows that is Linux based and would be able to run anything Linux could run with no virtualization or emulation and it would also have the ability to talk to the other subsystems, like the Win32 subsystem.
As for login times, you're not going to be able to do much about them. It's simply the nature of Windows and most other login/logoff systems.
Windows2K, XP, Vista (And even all the older variations of NT) have time restricted and control login and usage policies. This is something that an administrator can easily set in the domain or authenication server or even a local machine policy. This is something that is very easy to set, even on a home computer for Kids let alone a domain where you can flip a switch all the systems obey.
Sometimes people scare me when they are so out of touch with basic technology that any credible IT person would know.
and Fast User Switching doesn't work on machines that are part of a domain, according to Microsoft's docs
This is true of WindowsXP, but not Vista. There are tricks to make Fast User Switching work in XP, you might want to check into them, although I wouldn't recommend them and would enforce a user policy that would just force the users to log off.(Make sure the policy is not just on the machines, but an employee manual policy as well, so that users log off when they are done.) You might also put in plans for Vista in any planned upgrades for your systems if this is important to your organization to allow the multi-user access method in a domain environment.
Stay away from fingerprint biometric (and variations) for true security, even though they are nice that the user doesn't have to cary a card or device with them. You can easily circumvent them by lifting a fingerprint of the user from a glass for example and using it to gain access to their login.
One technology that holds has a ligh level of security is tablet or signature sign on devices. The user signs their name. This is hard to defeat for most of the advanced devices, as they not only do a recognition of the input, but also compute the stroke pressure, speed, etc. So it makes it virtually impossible even for someone that can copy signatures to circumvent as they don't use the same pressure, speed, angle, etc as the real person. This is using the cool parts of Ink technology in that it is not just the image created, but all the other stored information making the signature very unique.
However, for true security go with a Smart Card solution. It does require the users to carry a card or device with them - look at Cell phones and other devices that are implementing this technology, that way users don't have to carry a card. There is a reason Casinos and Gold Mines use this technology, and if the user loses the card you can easily disable the card from the central domain and replace it with a new card for the user. These devices are also nice in that many non-computer devices use them, and employees can also use the same card for access to doors, phones, and other types of security and access throughout the building. So if you need other levels of access or security later on in your organization the same device can be used for authenication away from the computer.
Do some research and start with the main sites on security. They will have plenty of solutions and suggestions for helping with your login and security. Even go to MS's website and look up smart cards and biometrics since you are using Windows workstations.
Mmmm. And you've fallen for the notion that Microsoft is actually writing DirectX's core APIs *in*.NET, have you? Bull Honky..NET is getting an API to DirectX and certain high-level, non-performance-related elements of DirectX may be written in.NET libraries for.NET programs only. There is no relevant difference between this and jogl. You're a twit, and I'm done with you. Go read a book on computer science.
Wow, write a few lines and all the crazy people come out to play.
Direct9.0c moved portions of the code base into managed.NET code. Go do a bit of research on this before you just declare yourself God and strike down anything you don't understand.
Well of course only an "Apple" monitor could ever have these HIGH levels of capabilities...
Is everyone here AppleStupid? - Or maybe the term is MacInTard?
My freaking laptop has a 1920x1200 LCD, and it is at the bottom of the list of displays in my HOME let alone at my office. Even my old 2002 Toshiba Laptop has a 1600x1200 LCD display.
I suppose people are going to go all crazy and start saying that they play games on PCs above 1024x768 next. Oh my, the insanity, how could this be possible?
I hope people are getting the difference, beyond your humor. Because if people don't get it, we won't ever see Google catch up to what MS is dong.
MS's version actually models the building in a city in 3D, so you can virtually walk or fly around the city and see the building in 3D space.
MS also does a better job at matching the elevation maps with mountains and other non-flat aspects in all areas. So for example the mountains are properly elevated and to scale, where Google tends to leave a lot of data of elevation missing or the mountains are not elevated in the right proportion or detail.
Google does NOT do this yet... (And I hope this is a yet).
What MS doesn't do as well is the LOD of the image quality levels, Google is a slower in pulling up detail, but does a better job of the distance images melding with the closer images.
I have noticed that both have advantages depending on the area of the world for detail levels. Some areas like Nevada and Iowa, MS has better detail, and in some areas of Europe Google has much better detail.
Oh and MS needs to offer a non-browser version of this technology or at least be planning for a WPF/E version so non Windows Users can utilize the technology. I would assume they are, but who knows. MS does have an advantage because of their SDK for web developers allows other sites to use the new technology on their web sites. Again, a WPF/E version would make this available to all browsers and platforms.
You mean like jogl? Seriously, do you know anything about this language?
Wow a Java API interface for OpenGL. There is a difference between APIs for Java to use OpenGL and actually writing OpenGL in Java.
Do you even know what you are talking about? Guess not...
In reference to your link: JOGL provides full access to the APIs in the OpenGL 2.0 specification as well as nearly all vendor extensions, and integrates with the AWT and Swing widget sets.
I jumped the gun on your post, disregard my post as in my pre-coffee mode I totally missed the emphasis on activation...
In a side note, I think MS's hardline on activation is going to be the only possible longterm downfall. It was the ease of 'trying' earlier versions of Win3.x and NT3.x that actually allowed MS to get their foot in the door, and now they reject these concepts, sadly.
I wouldn't call XP or Vista evil, cause if you are an honest OEM or customer it doesn't really affect you. And sadly I think it was the OEM and pirated copies that were being sold in the late 90s that prompted MS to go this route, and not the end users. Although the end users feel it is directed at them.
As an OEM during that timeframe, we had sales reps from certified MS distributors always offering 'lower cost' versions through a 'friend', and it was quite rampant with the scum of business taking advantage of the users that didn't know better, so in a twisted way to protect customers MS's policies end up seeming to put off or hurt these same customers.
Take Care and sorry about the way off post above...
I'm guessing the poster was referring to the fact that while XP (and vista) are also NT-based like 2k, 2k was the last to not have any sort of activation.
Ya, after reading your post I re-read the post (with coffee in me) and I think you are correct.
Windows 2000 was the last *good* and *non-evil* (for an MS definition of non-evil) version of Windows. It had the NT kernel, and didn't have any of that activation crap. All the "evilness" you are complaining about with Vista first started being introduced in Windows XP, and its obviously gotten worse from there.
Are you being serious and that mis-informed?
WindowsXP and 2003 and Vista are all based on the same NT kernel that Windows2000 and NT3.1 and NT4.0 were. The NT architecture is STILL in place and one of the few true strengths of the Windows OSes.
Please go learn a little bit about operating systems so your opinions won't seem so silly.
To put it mildly, Java beats the socks and b*lls off.net in enterprise computing which involves making your server running with 5 nine's reliability. I doubt whether.net would meet 3 nine's satisfactorily without screwing up somewhere
Deployments in this scale are more common than you seem to realize. Just because you may not be working in environments with large scale MS.NET, don't assume they don't exist and don't assume that just because the solutions you are being fed based on Java are the best for reliability or performance.
You are trying to paint a pretty picture of Java, which is fine, but the context isn't working in this example.
We could spend 100 pages of posts on just the 'necessary' integration software for the Java examples you cite. These are tools to not only integrate messes, but also work around massive flaws.
Java works in the deployments you are referencing because of the legacy integration that is necessary, not because it is the MOST reliable.
I can give you examples of companies still dragging COBOL along, but this doesn't mean it is reliable, fast, nor even the enterprised model, it is still used because it is based on data systems 25 years old.
I prefer the mac way, the menu bars are out of the way, but always in a consistent location (top of the screen) so easy to reach when needed. The IE7/Vista was is just retarded and not intuitive
And 95% of the computing world would argue the Mac one menu paradigm is retarded.
Non-isolation of menu and program features are not only confusing but a throw back to the concepts of 'one application' at a time, not something that works well in multi-tasking OSes where people have several application Windows open all the time.
Even the Menu paradigm is OLD - as in XEROX old, and is in the process of being replaced my innovative new ideas. Why have menus when you can have access to all menu features based upon smart applications offering the features needed at the time for the user. Menus are the 'text' based GUI overthrow from the non-graphical days, and as graphical concepts are introduced will eventually disappear in their modern form.
MS is at least willing to try some of these concepts instead of sticking with the old ways and saying they are good enough. But like everyone else, when MS does actually innovate, people slap it down because Steve Jobs didn't rip it off of someone else and put it in a pretty case.;) (Remember this, as I remember people down playing select and modify and format concepts MS first introduced in MS Word for the Mac, yet this is a common practice of application use in every consumer OS in the world now. So highlight this sentence, select "Bold" on your Mac and then thank MS for this concept and how easy it is - of course unless you prefer the Wordperfect start and stop tags.)
Microsoft already created their own pseudo-Java (.NET), so now there's nothing worse they could do to Java. Likewise, there are already N different incompatible open source JVMs, so that situation can't get any worse either. Having nothing to lose, Sun can now give up some control.
1).NET is a far distance from JAVA, at least.NET can pull credible performance out of its engine.
2) The original post is quite right, SUN (even though it was a license dispute) argued specifically against JAVA being NOT under their control or have ANYTHING added to it that they didn't want. Opening of JAVA would do exactly what they argued was bad about MS's JAVA implementations.
3) You are correct, MS is no longer an issue, but on the same front, JAVA is no longer an issue as well. JAVA development is at an all time low in the industry for serious development where you see.NET used on everything from Web Servers to even even performance areas like DirectX9 - again something JAVA just can't reach. And now you have the graphic and communication libraries of Vista added to.NET making it 3.0, allowing for easily coded 3D application interfaces, new communication concepts and even possible wider cross platform support with WPF/E.
You can't possibly be serious. I live in Texas. There is NO state tax, ALL related federal withdrawals amount to 19% out of every paycheck, tolls are fairly cheap AND can be avoided most of the time.
As far as health insurance, unless you live in Scandinavia, free health coverage by definition cannot be better than the one you pay for. Besides, in the US there's a flexible system of payment for health - employer matching, etc. You can trust me on the superiority of "bought" social services over the "provided free" ones - as an immigrant from Eastern Europe, I should know.
I spent a considerable amount of time in Europe and I would gladly pay 15% more tax than I do now to have all the services and care the government provides. I don't know about Eastern Europe, but I do know a bit about Belgium and the Netherlands.
Even the most conservative of Americans stand by a common definition. When the economy can't provide services, Government MUST. This seems to fall on deaf ears of the modern conservatives.
BTW the quality of health care in the US in not even in the top 10 in the world.. Go look it up. We have horrible infant mortality rates and many other things because of people NOT having ANY access to health care.
There also is NO flexible system of health - employer matching available in the US. Hillary Clinton proposed one in 1993, but before the public even took time to read the system, the Republicans had it discredited on false arguments. Incidentally, her system was very close to the Beligum health care system that actually is a 'flexible system of payment for health that is truly employer matching' and works quite well.
I can understand your love of America, as there are some really good things, the whole melting pot of people and ideas, etc. But in social terms there are many things in America that are on the level of 3rd word countries, and Health Care is one of them, not only in terms of accessiblility, but in terms in the quality of medicine.
Sorry, but the GUI of IE7 is like someone without any knowledge of HCI or how people use browsers or PCs in general is responsible for the disaster that is IE7
The UI design of IE7 is based directly on the UI design specifications of Vista. So on XP it looks a little out of place, but on Vista it looks proper.
As for the usability, this is always debateable. Some people like B&W and some people like one Menu on the entire screen.
Vista and MS have gone away from Menu concepts and are trying to move beyond and introduce some new paradigms, whethere they are successful in the real world or now is to be seen; however, they are at least trying new things based on their research of usuability.
I also thought the IE7 and Vista concepts were stupid at first, a couple of days it made sense and I prefer not having to deal with Menu Bars anymore.
Yes, but this ignores one point. If you're encrypting your root filesystem, and you don't want to have to enter a password to simply boot the computer (as opposed to logging in) then the system has to be able to decrypt the boot record, and all the OS system files to boot the OS to the login prompt (thus not having to enter a password twice, or give a single password to multiple users of the computer, or allow multiple passwords to decrypt the volume).
Using only encrypted filesystems, then the decryption keys for the public areas have to be available unencrypted, because you need to be able to boot enough of the OS to be able to read the filesystem and decode everything.
I'm not sure which part you are confusing. Are you suggesting using FS level encryption for a volume's boot record, or do you not understand that volume level encryption is below the FS level encryption?
Let me try to shed light in both directions...
You wouldn't or shouldn't use a filesystem level encryption in this instance. File System level protection is not a viable choice for volume protection, it is only viable for select files or folders on the volume.
This is why for example NTFS's encryption (Filesystem level) is not meant to encrypt the entire volume, and why Vista's Bitlocker IS DESIGNED to encrypt the Volume. (I know these are MS analogies, but go look up NTFS encryption and then lookup BitLocker.) They give a good pro and con of each concept.
Trying to protect a volume with FS level encryption won't work without a two key stategy, pre-user authorization and user authorization. In contrast, bitlocker being below the FS, has a single integrated key concept, but yet lies underneath the FS for the volume. This allows the volume to boot, yet leaves it encrypted even while showing the Windows Login Screen.
What you suggest is not possible as it is circular in reasoning. If you want the to encrypt the boot record, then you want to encrypt the volume and not just the file system on the volume.
There is no way to encrypt a boot record at the FS level without needing a key or password to access it. So you are right that the volume key would have to be issued prior to boot, and why FS level encryption is not a good option for an entire volume.
I don't think I disagree with you, but I disagree that a FS encryption concept is securely viable for boot record/volume level encryption.
Unfortunately, MS encrypted folders use a key that is uniquely generated for your account, and once you lose the account (on the dead computer) you can't decrypt anything. There are ways to add corporate keys to the system, so that in a company setting it's possible to recover the data; however this is/way/ beyond abilities of a typical user.
Actually it is quite easy to back up the key, MS doesn't educate the users on this enough though and users are stupid enough to believe that a big key fairy in the sky will help them recover their files.
PS Anyone using encryption on Windows2K,XP,Vista - GO BACK UP YOUR Key now if you have not done so.
Even on a home system, you can turn on an administrator level key so the admin key is combined with the user's key, that way little billie can't encrypt his porn without mommy being able to bypass it.
The tools are there and work good, but part of it is the education of users.
One thing good about BitLocker, Vista won't even let you turn it on, until you have the backup device and takes you through an education process.
Encrypted filesystems require your boot partition have the encryption keys unencrypted so that they can be read, which sort of mitigates the whole point.
For the most part you are correct. However there are file level encryption technologies that DON'T leave the keys unprotected even if they are store on an non-protected volume.
NTFS for example has file level encryption, but unless you logging into the system to access the keys or have the key backup, the encrypted files are visible in the MFT but not readable.
Full volume encryption is the most secure obviously, but doesn't mean that you can't make use of file level encryption for sensitive data as well.
Question: Suppose you use FDE to encrypt your disk, then your laptop dies. Is it possible to hook it up to another machine via USB enclosure and recover the data?
(I apologize for my ignorance, I've never looked into disk encryption before
A USB or passcode can be used to access the volume with most of the full volume technologies.
Using the newest one in town as an example, Vista's BitLocker, you can use a USB device to backup your key. Bitlocker also will allow a non TP computer to encrypt a volume as long as the computer has a USB drive and the system is capable of seeing it at boot, and then uses the USB device in place of the TP mechanisms.
Most technologies have passkey or other methods that are user accessible, so that a volume will never be lost due to any hardware failures except if the drive itself fails.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, yes, you can install alternatives to Microsoft products. I'm not sure how that invalidates my assertion that Microsoft's products tend to be somewhat mediocre offerings.
This is opinion, not a fact. Some of the highest traffic and bandwidth sites on the Internet are using standard IIS and SQL installations. And they not only work, but work well at what they do. If what you believe was true, these sites could not possibly do what they do using MS's products.
I don't think anyone would argue that IIS or MSSQL are the best for everything, but in a lot of areas they do pull better performance than a lot of other solutions.
MS is also vastly easier to deploy than most solutions. MS has done a good job of making easy to use administration tools and easing the lives of server administrators. This is also an area that a lot of competive products, especially in the Open Source world, need to pay more attention to. Not everyone has the *nix skills and even people like myself that do, would rather make a few clicks than edit several configuration files.
Can windows do process migration (aka mosix)?
Ok, process migration and then you mention mosix? You do realize that even LINUX doesn't do this, as Mosix is a OS virtualization system and in theory could use any OS. There are products out there, even from Microsoft that allow processes to be split. MS also uses this technology in their Cluster Version of Windows 2003 Server.
Can you run Word, Excel etc. on a machine and display to another machine (a single application, not the entire display)?
There are several ways to do this. The reason this is easy on *nix is because of the standard input/output concepts and also the XWindows foundation which is a network GUI protocol. However, with Windows there are also ways to easily do this, and vendors like Citrix have been using these techniques for over 10 years using their and the standard MS RDP features.
This is also not an amazing feat, as programs like Netmeeting have been re-routing applicaitons using very crude bitmap based techniques.
Vista and Longhorn server also inherently support concepts like this using the built in RDP and will even push 3D applications remotely, something a 'bit' harder for a *nix to do as XWindows is not that robust with 3D.
Most things mentioned by people in this entire thread DO exist in the Windows world and are technically feasible with modern versions of Windows running on the NT Architecture. I think too many people in here truly still get stuck with a mindset of the Win9x versions of Windows where things like you and others have brought up up were not technically possible or would have been hard to implement on the DOS/Win9X OS core. Windows has moved a long way from that old OS model.
The NT architecture that is the foundation under Win32 and what people see as Windows is truly not something that is called poorly designed by true OS engineers and theorists. If you want to poke fun at Windows, it is much easier to pick on the Win32 subsystem than NT itself.
Virtually impossible? Had a sales call to demonstrate PDA security using a signature. The sales guy signed the screen and it unlocked. I had been studying how fast he did it, so when he passed it to me, I used roughly the same timings. And it unlocked. End of demo.
It's actually easier to observe signature timings than it is to shoulder-surf typing a password.
I think you are comparing Apples and Oranges...
Using code that computes the pressure, angle and speed of the signature can be very complex. Most of the PDA authenications don't have enough computing power, nor do they even monitor pressure or angle or speed when comparing the signature image. With most PDAs you can literally trace a person's signature and unlock the device even if you are bad at mimicking handwriting, so it is a bad baseline for this type of authenication.
Go look up all the data that is stored in Ink technologies, there is more to Ink than just the written image it creates. I think you will be surprised how much data is pulled in for Ink (using MS Ink as an example) and how this can be so personal to a person that it virtually impossible to match their movements, speed, pressure and other aspects that Ink can capture in addition to the final image of the signature.
I also said virtually, as I don't believe anything is completely fool-proof.
Being an ex-Windows user who moved to Linux in 97, I have to say the only reasons I moved were the things that I could do in Linux that you can't do in Windows. There are a ton of things like that. But, it's pretty much an even split. For all those things, I'm sure you can find things that Windows can do that Linux can't.
:)
I do hope that you have at least worked with Windows since 97 or use it from time to time. Windows from 1997 Win95/Win98 is quite different from the NT based model of XP and Vista.
There are very few things you can do on Linux that you cannot do on a Windows system based on the NT architecture of today. From running in a GUI off mode to even not utilizing the Win32 subsystem and just using the BSD subsystem to write, compile and work with *nix based applications.
Your statement about capabilities is VERY true when comparing a *nix OS to the DOS model Windows of the 90s, but it fails when trying to make the same assertion about the NT and modern based Windows versions.
I don't want to pick on your post, but your comments would be like me saying I stopped using Mac at System 8.x and then defining my statements based on the limitations of the System 8 OS. And as most people know, the difference between a Mac running System 8 or 9 and a Mac running OSX is quite different, as OSX has very few architectural limitations. The same is true of modern Windows, there are very few architectural limitations.
I won't really go into what Linux offers over Windows unless pressed, because most of us here know the truth about what Linux can do that Windows can't.
In 1997 you could make a very long list of applicaitons and concepts in use on Linux that just were NOT possible on Win95/98, yet today there are almost no applications or concepts in use on Linux that are either available or in use on Windows.
So I will ask, give us even one example of something that Linux is capable of that Windows is not capable of doing.
I will even be kind enough to go first with a very basic example of something Windows can do that Linux cannot do at the core architectural level. Windows is based on the NT architecture, which is a hybrid kernel concept that allows it to host OS subsystems. This is also why the NT architecture has been called a client/server kernel concept. What this gives NT that Linux cannot do is the ability to natively run multiple OS subsystems concurrently that also can communicate with each other at the kernel level.
Win32 is an example of one subsystem in use on Windows and runs independantly of other subsystems like the *nix subsystem, OS/2, Win16, and Win64 subsystems to name a few examples. The subsystem OS architecture concept is not virtualization nor emulation, as each subsystem are true OSes acting independently with their own subsystem level kernels that sit on top of the NT architecture.
It is even rumored that MS has worked on a non BSD based *nix subsystem for Windows that is Linux based and would be able to run anything Linux could run with no virtualization or emulation and it would also have the ability to talk to the other subsystems, like the Win32 subsystem.
Ok, your turn...
Whoops... Notably I was not even on the same tracks, let alone the same train.
Thanks for pointing this out.
As for login times, you're not going to be able to do much about them. It's simply the nature of Windows and most other login/logoff systems.
Windows2K, XP, Vista (And even all the older variations of NT) have time restricted and control login and usage policies. This is something that an administrator can easily set in the domain or authenication server or even a local machine policy. This is something that is very easy to set, even on a home computer for Kids let alone a domain where you can flip a switch all the systems obey.
Sometimes people scare me when they are so out of touch with basic technology that any credible IT person would know.
and Fast User Switching doesn't work on machines that are part of a domain, according to Microsoft's docs
This is true of WindowsXP, but not Vista. There are tricks to make Fast User Switching work in XP, you might want to check into them, although I wouldn't recommend them and would enforce a user policy that would just force the users to log off.(Make sure the policy is not just on the machines, but an employee manual policy as well, so that users log off when they are done.) You might also put in plans for Vista in any planned upgrades for your systems if this is important to your organization to allow the multi-user access method in a domain environment.
Stay away from fingerprint biometric (and variations) for true security, even though they are nice that the user doesn't have to cary a card or device with them. You can easily circumvent them by lifting a fingerprint of the user from a glass for example and using it to gain access to their login.
One technology that holds has a ligh level of security is tablet or signature sign on devices. The user signs their name. This is hard to defeat for most of the advanced devices, as they not only do a recognition of the input, but also compute the stroke pressure, speed, etc. So it makes it virtually impossible even for someone that can copy signatures to circumvent as they don't use the same pressure, speed, angle, etc as the real person. This is using the cool parts of Ink technology in that it is not just the image created, but all the other stored information making the signature very unique.
However, for true security go with a Smart Card solution. It does require the users to carry a card or device with them - look at Cell phones and other devices that are implementing this technology, that way users don't have to carry a card. There is a reason Casinos and Gold Mines use this technology, and if the user loses the card you can easily disable the card from the central domain and replace it with a new card for the user. These devices are also nice in that many non-computer devices use them, and employees can also use the same card for access to doors, phones, and other types of security and access throughout the building. So if you need other levels of access or security later on in your organization the same device can be used for authenication away from the computer.
Do some research and start with the main sites on security. They will have plenty of solutions and suggestions for helping with your login and security. Even go to MS's website and look up smart cards and biometrics since you are using Windows workstations.
Good Luck.
Mmmm. And you've fallen for the notion that Microsoft is actually writing DirectX's core APIs *in* .NET, have you? Bull Honky. .NET is getting an API to DirectX and certain high-level, non-performance-related elements of DirectX may be written in .NET libraries for .NET programs only. There is no relevant difference between this and jogl. You're a twit, and I'm done with you. Go read a book on computer science.
.NET code. Go do a bit of research on this before you just declare yourself God and strike down anything you don't understand.
Wow, write a few lines and all the crazy people come out to play.
Direct9.0c moved portions of the code base into managed
huge Apple LCDs.
Well of course only an "Apple" monitor could ever have these HIGH levels of capabilities...
Is everyone here AppleStupid? - Or maybe the term is MacInTard?
My freaking laptop has a 1920x1200 LCD, and it is at the bottom of the list of displays in my HOME let alone at my office. Even my old 2002 Toshiba Laptop has a 1600x1200 LCD display.
I suppose people are going to go all crazy and start saying that they play games on PCs above 1024x768 next. Oh my, the insanity, how could this be possible?
Geesh.
copying google 100%
I hope people are getting the difference, beyond your humor. Because if people don't get it, we won't ever see Google catch up to what MS is dong.
MS's version actually models the building in a city in 3D, so you can virtually walk or fly around the city and see the building in 3D space.
MS also does a better job at matching the elevation maps with mountains and other non-flat aspects in all areas. So for example the mountains are properly elevated and to scale, where Google tends to leave a lot of data of elevation missing or the mountains are not elevated in the right proportion or detail.
Google does NOT do this yet... (And I hope this is a yet).
What MS doesn't do as well is the LOD of the image quality levels, Google is a slower in pulling up detail, but does a better job of the distance images melding with the closer images.
I have noticed that both have advantages depending on the area of the world for detail levels. Some areas like Nevada and Iowa, MS has better detail, and in some areas of Europe Google has much better detail.
Oh and MS needs to offer a non-browser version of this technology or at least be planning for a WPF/E version so non Windows Users can utilize the technology. I would assume they are, but who knows. MS does have an advantage because of their SDK for web developers allows other sites to use the new technology on their web sites. Again, a WPF/E version would make this available to all browsers and platforms.
You mean like jogl? Seriously, do you know anything about this language?
Wow a Java API interface for OpenGL. There is a difference between APIs for Java to use OpenGL and actually writing OpenGL in Java.
Do you even know what you are talking about? Guess not...
In reference to your link:
JOGL provides full access to the APIs in the OpenGL 2.0 specification as well as nearly all vendor extensions, and integrates with the AWT and Swing widget sets.
This is NOT OpenGL being written in Java.
I jumped the gun on your post, disregard my post as in my pre-coffee mode I totally missed the emphasis on activation...
In a side note, I think MS's hardline on activation is going to be the only possible longterm downfall. It was the ease of 'trying' earlier versions of Win3.x and NT3.x that actually allowed MS to get their foot in the door, and now they reject these concepts, sadly.
I wouldn't call XP or Vista evil, cause if you are an honest OEM or customer it doesn't really affect you. And sadly I think it was the OEM and pirated copies that were being sold in the late 90s that prompted MS to go this route, and not the end users. Although the end users feel it is directed at them.
As an OEM during that timeframe, we had sales reps from certified MS distributors always offering 'lower cost' versions through a 'friend', and it was quite rampant with the scum of business taking advantage of the users that didn't know better, so in a twisted way to protect customers MS's policies end up seeming to put off or hurt these same customers.
Take Care and sorry about the way off post above...
I'm guessing the poster was referring to the fact that while XP (and vista) are also NT-based like 2k, 2k was the last to not have any sort of activation.
:)
Ya, after reading your post I re-read the post (with coffee in me) and I think you are correct.
Whoops...
Windows 2000 was the last *good* and *non-evil* (for an MS definition of non-evil) version of Windows. It had the NT kernel, and didn't have any of that activation crap. All the "evilness" you are complaining about with Vista first started being introduced in Windows XP, and its obviously gotten worse from there.
Are you being serious and that mis-informed?
WindowsXP and 2003 and Vista are all based on the same NT kernel that Windows2000 and NT3.1 and NT4.0 were. The NT architecture is STILL in place and one of the few true strengths of the Windows OSes.
Please go learn a little bit about operating systems so your opinions won't seem so silly.
To put it mildly, Java beats the socks and b*lls off .net in enterprise computing which involves making your server running with 5 nine's reliability. I doubt whether .net would meet 3 nine's satisfactorily without screwing up somewhere
.NET, don't assume they don't exist and don't assume that just because the solutions you are being fed based on Java are the best for reliability or performance.
Deployments in this scale are more common than you seem to realize. Just because you may not be working in environments with large scale MS
You are trying to paint a pretty picture of Java, which is fine, but the context isn't working in this example.
We could spend 100 pages of posts on just the 'necessary' integration software for the Java examples you cite. These are tools to not only integrate messes, but also work around massive flaws.
Java works in the deployments you are referencing because of the legacy integration that is necessary, not because it is the MOST reliable.
I can give you examples of companies still dragging COBOL along, but this doesn't mean it is reliable, fast, nor even the enterprised model, it is still used because it is based on data systems 25 years old.
Care to back up that ridiculous implication (that .NET is much more efficient than Java) with even a modicum of evidence?
.NET in places, and it is a PERFORMANCE graphics library? Port part of OpenGL to JAVA and see how well that works for you...
How about DirectX 9.0 uses
I guess I should expect as much from someone who thinks "JAVA" is an acronym.
Almost as funny as someone that thinks it is a viable development enviroment. Stick with the drink, it at least moves faster than molasses...
I prefer the mac way, the menu bars are out of the way, but always in a consistent location (top of the screen) so easy to reach when needed. The IE7/Vista was is just retarded and not intuitive
;) (Remember this, as I remember people down playing select and modify and format concepts MS first introduced in MS Word for the Mac, yet this is a common practice of application use in every consumer OS in the world now. So highlight this sentence, select "Bold" on your Mac and then thank MS for this concept and how easy it is - of course unless you prefer the Wordperfect start and stop tags.)
And 95% of the computing world would argue the Mac one menu paradigm is retarded.
Non-isolation of menu and program features are not only confusing but a throw back to the concepts of 'one application' at a time, not something that works well in multi-tasking OSes where people have several application Windows open all the time.
Even the Menu paradigm is OLD - as in XEROX old, and is in the process of being replaced my innovative new ideas. Why have menus when you can have access to all menu features based upon smart applications offering the features needed at the time for the user. Menus are the 'text' based GUI overthrow from the non-graphical days, and as graphical concepts are introduced will eventually disappear in their modern form.
MS is at least willing to try some of these concepts instead of sticking with the old ways and saying they are good enough. But like everyone else, when MS does actually innovate, people slap it down because Steve Jobs didn't rip it off of someone else and put it in a pretty case.
Microsoft already created their own pseudo-Java (.NET), so now there's nothing worse they could do to Java. Likewise, there are already N different incompatible open source JVMs, so that situation can't get any worse either. Having nothing to lose, Sun can now give up some control.
.NET is a far distance from JAVA, at least .NET can pull credible performance out of its engine.
.NET used on everything from Web Servers to even even performance areas like DirectX9 - again something JAVA just can't reach. And now you have the graphic and communication libraries of Vista added to .NET making it 3.0, allowing for easily coded 3D application interfaces, new communication concepts and even possible wider cross platform support with WPF/E.
1)
2) The original post is quite right, SUN (even though it was a license dispute) argued specifically against JAVA being NOT under their control or have ANYTHING added to it that they didn't want. Opening of JAVA would do exactly what they argued was bad about MS's JAVA implementations.
3) You are correct, MS is no longer an issue, but on the same front, JAVA is no longer an issue as well. JAVA development is at an all time low in the industry for serious development where you see
You can't possibly be serious. I live in Texas. There is NO state tax, ALL related federal withdrawals amount to 19% out of every paycheck, tolls are fairly cheap AND can be avoided most of the time.
As far as health insurance, unless you live in Scandinavia, free health coverage by definition cannot be better than the one you pay for. Besides, in the US there's a flexible system of payment for health - employer matching, etc. You can trust me on the superiority of "bought" social services over the "provided free" ones - as an immigrant from Eastern Europe, I should know.
I spent a considerable amount of time in Europe and I would gladly pay 15% more tax than I do now to have all the services and care the government provides. I don't know about Eastern Europe, but I do know a bit about Belgium and the Netherlands.
Even the most conservative of Americans stand by a common definition. When the economy can't provide services, Government MUST. This seems to fall on deaf ears of the modern conservatives.
BTW the quality of health care in the US in not even in the top 10 in the world.. Go look it up. We have horrible infant mortality rates and many other things because of people NOT having ANY access to health care.
There also is NO flexible system of health - employer matching available in the US. Hillary Clinton proposed one in 1993, but before the public even took time to read the system, the Republicans had it discredited on false arguments. Incidentally, her system was very close to the Beligum health care system that actually is a 'flexible system of payment for health that is truly employer matching' and works quite well.
I can understand your love of America, as there are some really good things, the whole melting pot of people and ideas, etc. But in social terms there are many things in America that are on the level of 3rd word countries, and Health Care is one of them, not only in terms of accessiblility, but in terms in the quality of medicine.
Sorry, but the GUI of IE7 is like someone without any knowledge of HCI or how people use browsers or PCs in general is responsible for the disaster that is IE7
The UI design of IE7 is based directly on the UI design specifications of Vista. So on XP it looks a little out of place, but on Vista it looks proper.
As for the usability, this is always debateable. Some people like B&W and some people like one Menu on the entire screen.
Vista and MS have gone away from Menu concepts and are trying to move beyond and introduce some new paradigms, whethere they are successful in the real world or now is to be seen; however, they are at least trying new things based on their research of usuability.
I also thought the IE7 and Vista concepts were stupid at first, a couple of days it made sense and I prefer not having to deal with Menu Bars anymore.
Yes, but this ignores one point. If you're encrypting your root filesystem, and you don't want to have to enter a password to simply boot the computer (as opposed to logging in) then the system has to be able to decrypt the boot record, and all the OS system files to boot the OS to the login prompt (thus not having to enter a password twice, or give a single password to multiple users of the computer, or allow multiple passwords to decrypt the volume).
Using only encrypted filesystems, then the decryption keys for the public areas have to be available unencrypted, because you need to be able to boot enough of the OS to be able to read the filesystem and decode everything.
I'm not sure which part you are confusing. Are you suggesting using FS level encryption for a volume's boot record, or do you not understand that volume level encryption is below the FS level encryption?
Let me try to shed light in both directions...
You wouldn't or shouldn't use a filesystem level encryption in this instance. File System level protection is not a viable choice for volume protection, it is only viable for select files or folders on the volume.
This is why for example NTFS's encryption (Filesystem level) is not meant to encrypt the entire volume, and why Vista's Bitlocker IS DESIGNED to encrypt the Volume. (I know these are MS analogies, but go look up NTFS encryption and then lookup BitLocker.) They give a good pro and con of each concept.
Trying to protect a volume with FS level encryption won't work without a two key stategy, pre-user authorization and user authorization. In contrast, bitlocker being below the FS, has a single integrated key concept, but yet lies underneath the FS for the volume. This allows the volume to boot, yet leaves it encrypted even while showing the Windows Login Screen.
What you suggest is not possible as it is circular in reasoning. If you want the to encrypt the boot record, then you want to encrypt the volume and not just the file system on the volume.
There is no way to encrypt a boot record at the FS level without needing a key or password to access it. So you are right that the volume key would have to be issued prior to boot, and why FS level encryption is not a good option for an entire volume.
I don't think I disagree with you, but I disagree that a FS encryption concept is securely viable for boot record/volume level encryption.
Does this make sense?
Unfortunately, MS encrypted folders use a key that is uniquely generated for your account, and once you lose the account (on the dead computer) you can't decrypt anything. There are ways to add corporate keys to the system, so that in a company setting it's possible to recover the data; however this is /way/ beyond abilities of a typical user.
Actually it is quite easy to back up the key, MS doesn't educate the users on this enough though and users are stupid enough to believe that a big key fairy in the sky will help them recover their files.
PS Anyone using encryption on Windows2K,XP,Vista - GO BACK UP YOUR Key now if you have not done so.
Even on a home system, you can turn on an administrator level key so the admin key is combined with the user's key, that way little billie can't encrypt his porn without mommy being able to bypass it.
The tools are there and work good, but part of it is the education of users.
One thing good about BitLocker, Vista won't even let you turn it on, until you have the backup device and takes you through an education process.
Or, you can use a fingerprint reader. I doubt that anybody will forget their fingerprints...
Only if it is a removeable fingerprinter reader with a key in the device.
There are way to many ways to bypass the reader, even watch an old MacGyver episode where he uses sheet rock dust, it actually works.
Fingerprint readers are great for average users that want some security, but not for fool proof security.
Encrypted filesystems require your boot partition have the encryption keys unencrypted so that they can be read, which sort of mitigates the whole point.
For the most part you are correct. However there are file level encryption technologies that DON'T leave the keys unprotected even if they are store on an non-protected volume.
NTFS for example has file level encryption, but unless you logging into the system to access the keys or have the key backup, the encrypted files are visible in the MFT but not readable.
Full volume encryption is the most secure obviously, but doesn't mean that you can't make use of file level encryption for sensitive data as well.
Question: Suppose you use FDE to encrypt your disk, then your laptop dies. Is it possible to hook it up to another machine via USB enclosure and recover the data?
(I apologize for my ignorance, I've never looked into disk encryption before
A USB or passcode can be used to access the volume with most of the full volume technologies.
Using the newest one in town as an example, Vista's BitLocker, you can use a USB device to backup your key. Bitlocker also will allow a non TP computer to encrypt a volume as long as the computer has a USB drive and the system is capable of seeing it at boot, and then uses the USB device in place of the TP mechanisms.
Most technologies have passkey or other methods that are user accessible, so that a volume will never be lost due to any hardware failures except if the drive itself fails.