Am I the only person who thinks that 1440x900 is a pretty low resolution for a 15" laptop?
Yes it is very low, especially when the Apple Marketing team tries to convince the world that graphic artists and people that want 'high quality' displays choose Macs...
10 Years ago maybe, but not anymore. My 3yr old Laptop was 1600x1200 15", and using the DPI scaling of Windows was as readable as I wanted, and if that wasn't good enough I could always run at a lower resolution with subscaling.
It appears OSX is going to keep lagging on a scalable UI technology, even though that is what they have advertised since the release of OSX, and yet have to deliver it. XP has been DPI scaling and that is sad when compared to what Vista is bringing to the computing world.
High Resolution displays SHOULD NOT mean TINY TEXT or TINY ICONS, PERIOD.
My 17" Laptop is 1920x1200, and is beautiful for doing graphic work. And with Vista running on it with a scaled UI, it is stunning.
Sorry Mac people, OSX and Apple are still failing you, and you need to demand BETTER from Apple instead of make excuses for them.
If Apple and Macs are the 'quality' you seem to believe, than I shouldn't be able to buy a cheaper Windows PC with a higher quality display that also runs faster...
Not bashing Apple per se, but hopefully encouraging the Mac Users to tell Apple, "WTF, this is NOT good enough to be called a Mac, we deserve better, Mac needs to mean something again!"
That's a fair bit more than modern Windows runs on. Windows CE would be more properly compared with an embedded distribution of linux, which run on everything from automobiles to cell phones to toasters. And this survey was of modern windows versus modern linux, so Windows NT doesn't count.
Well WinCE is actually an NT vairant, not an embedded version, there is a real embedded version of XP that runs in a very tiny footprint.
And you are right, this was about the modern XP against the modern Linux distributions. However, this doesn't mean your favorite Linux distribution is going to run better on old hardware, or run on more architectures (and not everyone have tech centers with many of these architectures sitting around like us super Nerds.)
But I should maybe restate my point. People were questioning Windows, specifically NT's ability to run on other architectures, and even though not many commercial variants currently exist, as the availability and market for the hardware has also disappeared, does NOT mean that NT is less capable than Linux.
NT is fully portable (as I was trying to illustrate by its past heritage), and still is fully portable, as you can find in the XBox 360, running on a new PPC CPU, and not only NT, but many of the other OS components like DirectX/XNA, which is also running on the XBox 360.
The same can be demonstrated by XP Embedded being used in routers and switches to the NT Variant CE based OS used in phones and PDAs.
NT is very capable of running on more than the x86. (Heck the name comes from the RISC system used in it original development.)
It is no longer a Wintel world, especially with the death of the Win9x/DOS Windows.
NT is pretty cool, look at even the R2 release of Windows 2003 Server, it ships with a full *nix subsystem that has just as much priority in the NT subsystem space as the 'Windows (Win32)/(Win64)' subsystem does.
And this is something NT has always been able to do, does well, and is something with its unique kernel architecture, can do that almost all other OSes cannot do.
I think Linux and FreeBSD and other Open Source projects would do better at times if they were not so defiant of MS and saw the actual 'good' things they did with technology and in the market. No matter how much you believe they suck, everyone does something right once in a while.
Sometimes you have to be led by your enemy, and often you will learn more from them than a friend that isn't brutally honest with you like an enemy will often be.
You mean like Gentoo? Available on x86, sparc, amd64, ppc, ppc64, alpha, hppa (also known as RISC), and mips. You can buy their CDs from multiple vendors.
Yes, you are right.
However I was referring to NT4.0 and the NT4.0 timeframe, I should of been a bit more clear on this. A consistent mature Linux distribution was not available on all the platforms mentioned at that time.
Since then both the NT Core and the Linux Core have advanced a lot to where they are running on many platforms. Although with aged platforms not a commerical interest, MS hasn't ported NT to each of them in a commerical version.
NT is alive and running on more tha x86, from Smartphones to PPC in the form of the XBox 360. It is not an issue of NT capability, but an issue of market necessity.
People were also talking out of the box, Linux out of the box is a hard thing to define, even today the distributions themselves are varied to a level of breaking compatibilty, which is a big problem and could further fragment the Linux movement. (Which is also what caused *nix a lot of problems in the last 80s, early 90s.)
It is great to have the diversity, but without any unified standards past the actual 'linux' layer, fragmentation will be as much of a problem as much of a feature of diversity.
Standarization is not always a bad thing, even if it doesn't address everyone's ideal OS or OS design.
Everyone tends to see Windows as beind successful because Microsoft was teh 800lb Gorilla, but there is another factor they overlook, and it is important for people to realize this. MS used Windows to standardize a lot of hardware and software devlopment and deliver this standardization not only to developers but also to end users.
Here is small example: At this time in the Personal Computer world, you were still dealing with HP PCL, Postscript, and 500 various printer drivers. WordPerfect for DOS is a great example of this, and it did not allow small developers to compete, as we couldn't write a good application and support 500 printers where a large company like WordPerfect could.
Microsoft in a freaky way was the champion of the small developers at the time, we could compete with bigger companies by letting MS abstract all the Video and Printers and other hardware in a standardization that wasn't perfect, but consistent from developer to most end users.
Even in the *nix world at the time, an across the board level of standardization for easy development and deployment to end users was not there, and it was so important, and still is.
(Yes part of my response is more to the topics of the thread than directly responding to you.)
Linksys WRT54GS router. Except you can't buy it. It's available for free, due to Linksys having used GPL'ed software
A very good example, and Linksys deserves a bit of kudos for releasing the 'entire' source for the embedded firmware and not what was just required under the GPL.
Unfortunately, this is not the norm, and even Linksys is cringing a bit with all the firmware mods that have come from this product
Linksys is also doing some reconsideration on future products with security concerns if a user gets conned into installing a moddifed firmware version that A) does not meet the security demands Linksys designed or B) the firmware intentionally breaks security for malicious reasons. Now the next hoop in this evolution and maybe Linksys will be a company that provides an answer - how to do this and yet protect users from themselves...
I do realize all firmware can easily be modded, but having the source makes it easier for both the good and the bad...
I do give Linksys true regard for an honest attempt to contribute and support Linux in a true open fashion.
Even if you insist on keeping the menu controls separate from the playback controls (I don't see why you want menu access while playing back videi but perhaps you do), just about everything else can be accessed by menu. Stop giving channels numbers. Group them by type and name. Go to Documetaries/Discovery channel or Music/MTV or whatever.
So you need play, record, fastforward, rewind, pause. Volume up and down, power, menu, 4 directions, enter. Maybe a couple of extras for shortcuts to TV guide but numbers are superfluous, and most of this can be accessed by menus.
Well 6 would be a little low, but I do agree that a UI could be designed so that any media center application could be used with less buttons than the MS Media Center Remote.
In fact Windows Media Center is quite useable with the arrow keys and the Enter key on the keyboard (or the directional keys and the select on the remote).
However what I think people are missing is a bit of the psychology in this product. It is common to us now, but Media Center when it was released was fairly new to the market and is very much a transitional or cross over type of application/device.
It pretty much 'HAD' to offer the same type of buttons on the remote that other TV users would expect if they were going to use Media Center in their living rooms. From the Numbers for changing channels to the play/pause/etc that people are use to with DVD and VCR players.
So sure, you could make the remote simplier, but that wasn't the intent of the product.
Also one thing that surprises me, and no one has picked up on, is the 'media center basic' remote that ships with the premium XBox 360 only has a few buttons on it, a vast difference from teh 39 button Media Center Remote.
I don't remember the exact buttons on the remote with the XBox 360, (not willing to run downstairs to count them.), but I do know it fully operates all the media center functions from the XBox 360...
So again, it isn't that MS is stupid, but what the market the product is developed for.
If the Apple remote that everyone here is trying to compare the media center remote was designed for the average couch potato and was also used to control TV (which it is not) it might be designed significantly different as well. Apple loves the marketing when they can 'show a difference' whether it is a real or useful difference or not is another story.
Even a year ago, a basic computer for a family didn't need to have gamer level Video or RAM. But with the popularity of PC Games in general and PC Games like WoW and other MMORPGs that are attracting everyone from age 10 to 80 it is making a big difference in the basic PC needs for a lot of people.
Just in my own personal recommendations for friends and family I have adjusted minimum specs based on the increase in gaming.
And MMORPGs are about the hardest on RAM requirements as any games out there, caching mass amounts of textures and character diversity can bring many 512mb machines to their limit pretty fast.
Anyway, that is the only reason I recommend higher RAM for people these days. I also tell them to hit a slightly higher level of Video for the same reasons.
If the people are truly not going to play games, like office PCs, 256Mb of RAM is just fine, even though even low end systems today are shipping with 512mb of RAM.
(I enjoyed your post, and sorry for over-nerding my reply.)
believe it... I always felt that, given enough RAM, Windows NT 4.0 was a much snappier desktop than Win98, and all things considered, XP is not *that* much more bloated than NT4. I doubt your laptops are very pleasant for our modern tastes, but it is believable that they work as well as they did when new. There was a time when a developer would have loved to have a 200Mhz system.
Both in house and external tests by Microsoft demonstrated that Windows NT 4.0 was 25% faster than Win95 or Win98 if the hardware had 32mb of RAM.
(This was also a bit of an eyebrow raiser for Microsoft managers, since Windows NT 4.0 should of had a larger overhead, and NT 4.0 was restricted to portable C/C++ code, where the Win9x teams (Different teams) were allowed to use assembly for performance and didn't have a kernel on a kernel nor the NT layers to work through. - Needless to say it was a quite a level of kudos for the NT team at Microsoft.)
XBox 360 is windows based and running on a PowerPC variant.
Let me know when you can go to the store and pick up a copy of that OS.
Well even Wal-mart was selling XBox 360s, so I guess you could check there first. Or maybe Best Buy, they also were stocking them.
Oh and lets not forget that Windows NT4.0 was available on RISC, Alpha, PPC.
Let me know when you can put Windows XP on a box running one of those chips.
Who was talking about XP, we were talking about NT. Besides the fact that these architectures are not even supported by the hardware makers anymore, do you really think MS should do a full XP port to them? Brilliant...
And we could go on with Windows Embedded technologies that are also running Windows NT or a variant on everything from Network switches to Cable Boxes.
Let me know when you can purchase any of those OS'es without the associated hardware.
Actually, Windows Embedded can be purchased, goto www.microsoft.com and license it. It is just that simple.
BTW Since you see this as a Windows 'shortcoming' why don't you tell me how to purchase the version of Linux or FreeBSD running on my CableBox without the hardware. Oh wait, you can't do that.
In fact, pick any commerical hardware product that is running any specialized or 'embedded' form of Linux or *nix and show me where I can buy the software without the hardware.
Wow, guess Windows isn't so different...
The whole point of this article is how well you can run Windows XP or 2k3 (i.e., the *currently available* versions of Windows, not the old stuff) on legacy hardware.
Yes currently available... So show me where I can buy RedHat or SuSE for RISC or ALPHA then, or show me where I can Buy the embedded version of SuSE to put into a router I'm developing?
Stick to the topic if it is important to you, your misdirection is a waste of people's time.
Remeber it has to be 'out of the box' So that rules out embedded or CE. Leaving NT 3.x/4.0 high and dry with multi-platform.
First Leaving NT 4.0 High and Dry? It was sold for more platforms than ANY common Linux distribution. Go look it up. And keep looking until you can find a COMMON distribution of Linux that was available for X86, PPC, RISC, and ALPHA...
Now... Considering that Linux either has to be compiled to a common distribution, then that rules it out of the race completely according to your definition. What nonsense...
If you want to keep your definition then tell me where I can buy just Linux so I can compare Linux out of the box to Windows. There is no such thing, it is a OS Kernel Architecture that relies on XWindows any many other common *nix components.
The tests were ran using Novell and RedHat. (Linux distributions that ACTUALLY RUN ON fewer platforms than Windows.)
Why do people go off on crazy rants to try to make a point...?
This whole topic is a bit of a bunch of crap, but I do like the attention that Linux is not any better on legacy hardware than ANY other OS, even Windows. Not that am a Linux basher, but I get tired of the myth that it runs faster on lower end hardware.
We run WindowsXP SP2 on 200mhz laptops, and yes we make our developers use them, not just test on them.
BTW This is also with the XP 'eye candy' turned ON. XP Themes, menu animations, and ClearType.
As long as they have over 64Mb of RAM, they actually run faster and benchmark faster than when the units were new with Windows98 on them. And these are 1997 units.
200mhz is a bit low for the 'bar' today though, but our Windows development team is encouraged that any application they develop runs reasonably on these older machines.
As for Server configurations, our low end Server tests we use a couple of PII 400mhz systems, and they perform quite well, even when doing some stress tests for IIS and running SQL. (MySQL and MS SQL)
The key to any of the low end hardware and ANY OS is RAM. You can get by with a 400mhz Server as long as you have 256mb minimal RAM in it depending on your environment and load.
And with RAM prices today, these is easy to do - there is no reason most users should not be running 1Gb of RAM on the Desktop.
Come back when Windows can run on non-x86-hardware and toasters
Does this mean we can come back now then?
XBox 360 is windows based and running on a PowerPC variant. Also there are the smartphones and mobile devices, and even watches... (All running either embedded Windows or a Variant version of NT form of Windows as on the PocketPC devices).
Oh and lets not forget that Windows NT4.0 was available on RISC, Alpha, PPC.
And we could go on with Windows Embedded technologies that are also running Windows NT or a variant on everything from Network switches to Cable Boxes.
I guess your post was funny at least. Maybe not toasters, but watches and smartphones are enough off the norm to get a nod.
While the 360 doesn't record TV (nor would you expect it to), it does function as a high-definition media-center extender that allows you to veiw and control your Media Center PC.
You can also buy the Media Extender Software Kit for the original XBox and use the Media Center features from your Media Server as well.
So the posters rant above yours is not only ill informed, but has no basis of any fact.
And you can get DVI to HDMI adapters for the new HDMI-only sets. Obviously the audio will require a separate connection, but you can get a USB audio dongle to get something better than the minijack connection.
Hey, if Apple expands AirTunes to the entire system you'll be able to stream your DVD audio to an Airport Express, which has an optical output.
Or you could just buy a cheap $400 PC that already has these features and runs about 5 times faster.
Gotta love the Apple Marketing though... Too bad their designer and developers are not as bright...
I sometimes think their marketing team could tell the world that poop tasted good, was simple, and if bought from Apple would make people live for ever and we would have 1000s of people on/. trying to tell us how good the poop they were eating was.
Ok, I get the need to bash MS, but is this going to be another thing like computer screens only need shades of grey (like was the Mac buzz of the late 80s) or that mice only need one button.
Give me a break here. The media center remote designed by Microsoft may not be the world's best design, but to tell me that 6 buttons is enough is insane.
From typing in a number for channel 523 (I suppose you just click the up button on the Apple remote 523 times)...
Or how about the show you are watching you want to record to watch later, you just hit the record button and walk away.
Or you just hit pause to pause the movie or live TV.
Sure you could eliminate these buttons, but to me, it does seem a bit easier.
Also I like the ability to hit TV and have the TV turn on, or DVD and have the DVD player start and not sift through menus.
Also little concepts like fast forward and next chapter, are handy.
If half of the 'experts' here bashing the Media Center remote had actually ever used Media Center maybe there would be some credibility to this, but instead they would probably not even respond.
Lets take a basic remote for a TV... 2 - Channel Up Down 2 - Volume Up Down 1 - Mute 10 - Numbers so you don't have to scroll through 300 stations 1 - Power
And then add in DVR needed functions. 1 - Play 1 - Pause 1 - Fast Forward 1 - Rewind 1 - Record
And then add in an interface navigation set of buttons for selecting Media. 1 - Up 1 - Down 1 - Left 1 - Right 1 - Select
Also if we wanted a fancy remote we would add in direct access buttons like... 1 - Program Guide 1 - DVD 1 - TV 1 - Radio 1 - Pictures 1 - Music
And then if we wanted DVD or content features we could go crazy and want. 1 - Next Chapter 1 - Previous Chapter 1 - Title Menu (DVDs) 1 - Root Menu (DVDs)
So that is approx 36 buttons I find useful...
And this is just off the top of my head without walking down to my theater room to look at the buttons on my Media Center Remote.
So tell me that 6 buttons is really easier... Or maybe it is just designed for people that two mouse buttons confuse them, or maybe a 6 button remote is designed because it is just a media Viewer and only has to navigate the interface to select content and isn't for a DVR media center interface at all.
Go find something else to slam Microsoft over - even the remote from the freaking Cable company has more buttons and does less.
Go read up on the UAP technologies being added to Vista. This is an area of vast change. It moves users from running at a root level, but yet has features that go way beyond the 'root authenication' as found in *nix when running as a non-administrator.
Go read up on UAP, even in the current form MS already has a lot of information on it.
And if it just keeps the average home user from running as 'root/administrator' level that is vast enough...:)
I would argue the change from OSX 10.3 to 10.4 is more significant than Win2k to WinXP. Windows service packs are largely fixes and security updates, just like OSX has equivelent services packs (for free) to go from version 10.X.Y to 10.X.Y+1
I bet you could argue, but look at the base code, and architectural changes that 'people' don't see, and you will find there are 'vast' differences from Win2k and WinXP.
Even in my Example, the code base from WinXP Release to WinXP SP2 is a massive rewrite or recompile of most of the base OS and kernel based on advancements made in the Windows 2003 development.
I have a bit of insight on both the OSX architectural and Windows architectural changes, so I could just say, this is how it is and you are wrong, but I would rather encourage you to go do a bit of research on this if it truly interests you, stop taking the word of 'so called experts', even myself... (And Especially on Slashdot)
I will go as far to admit that Apple has tried to add in 'selling' features with each release of OSX, but as for major changes to the OS or even the Interface to the OS the changes are more minor than a lot of people would like to believe.
Expose looks cool, and the new widgets are nice add on, but these are not major OS feature changes and are not any more than the free add-ons provided by Microsoft like updates to Windows Media Player, Desktop Search, Movie Maker, etc... Ang again, even on this level, these are all free download updates from MS.
Take Care and I hope you do explore the issues I present.
Seriously, Why would you even care about the difference between the kernel and the platform?
Do you really think your boss will accept the excuse "Oh yeah, our entire servers were compromised by hackers, all our customer data was stolen, and pornography was placed on our home pages, but it's Ok! The vulernabilities weren't in the kernel".
It's splitting hairs to argue that the software that runs on your platform isn't just as important as the OS itself. The vulnerability of your system as a WHOLE is what's important, not whether the flaws are in this or that part of it.
Because as a 'security expert', information like this would be informative to people like us.
For example there are mass differences between thngs like a WMF exploit in the Win32 subsystem that is non Win32 kernel DLL bug, let alone a NT kernel bug.
Not all of us have to 'answer' to bosses about the problems, and are more on the research and reason side of security to prevent future problems or alert people of problems.
Also think of it this way, Linux is basically a *nix Kernel and base Architecture. So if there is a Kernel level Linux exploit this impacts EVERYONE, so this would important to know, where if the exploit was in XWindows or in GNome or an application in KDE are vast different senerios and would change the people at risk.
There are many GOOD reasons why 'splitting hairs' is necessary in the world of security - not everyone is out to just blame someone, but actually want to find who is at risk, how to get out, and alert 'potential' distributions of a possible problem.
The same can be said for almost every OS. Even in the Windows world where the distributions are 100% controlled by MS it makes a difference if it is a Kernel security flaw or something in a Movie Maker DLL.
Even in MS's base of OS, if it is a Kernel Bug, define whether it is a Win32 kernel bug or a lower level NT kernel bug makes a big difference. If it is an NT level flaw, it affect NT4, Win2k, WinXP, 2003 Server, and if it is Win32 Kernel it potentially could also affect the old DOS derived OSes like Win95, Win98, WinME.
So you see, the differences in the bugs ARE important to people in the security world, just for the last examples at the very least for Linux and Windows - where the bug lies can dramatically change what distributions are affected and additionally what problems could be cascading from this problem to other parts of the OS or applications.
Security is not just for 'how does it affect me' for people that do this for a living or are even curious and tying to be assitive to the security process.
Who's talking about a list? I'm talking about real world experience from the guys who have deal with this crap day in and day out. Which OS would a professional in IT security
Well considering 'this' is what I do, from working with NASA to the Pentagon in the past, I do know a bit about managing hands on, as well as managing administrative teams on several *nix server variants, Apple Servers, and Microsoft Server environments.
But even 'my' personal experience is not an actual account of the 'real' world others would experience.
If you want hearsay and the 'word' of self-proclaimed IT security experts, you are going to be sadly misled, no matter how noble or objective the person is.
I would rather have a list that flat out reported #1) the security bugs found and fixed and #2) the reported number of 'known' security compromises resulted from the security bugs. (In fact new reporting systems being built in some of the OSes are even tracking this information, so it wouldn't even have to be reported by human error.)
This would at least be somewhat more straight forward and less objective - although the list of 'compromises' would have to accurately acknowledge if the systems were not up to date with security updates, etc. Or if the systems were not up to date because the automatic updater failed or the Sys Admin neglected the system or even turned off the automatic patching features of the OS. This would be important too, as almost all OSes now have fairly good automatic security update systems, even WindowsXP/2003.
Ok the point here is that the exploit allows the code to run, however it will NOT allow it to infect the system, as any system changes (registry, system, service, etc) would require a prompt.
So yes the code is from the NT and Win32 code base trunk, and the ability to display WMFs are very old DLLs within the OS, this is how OSes evolve.
However, Vista is #1)Beta #2)UAP (the new protection security manager) is not even fully functional, and #3) the vulnerbility will allow 'safe' applications like the calculator to run, but getting a trojan downloaded or a system level change is not so easy.
I'm not saying it is impossible, as the UAP in Vista is not even feature complete, but it for the most part blocks this type of activity, and if that even would fail in the beta, the Defender system would prompt for OS changes that would allow a trojan or other 'system' level task to execute.
See if the 'vulnerability' can even launch the Device Manager under a UAP account. It can't without asking the user for authenication - trust me on this...
Unless you consider the vulnerability to be a major security risk under 'beta' of Vista because it launches your calculator, then you need to look up what exploits and vulnerabilities are in 'realtive' terms. If it can install software or modifty protected areas of the OS, that would be a bit more newsworthy.
So even with this WMF DLL exploit code still in Vista, it is already protecting itself from being hacked using the other beta OS safeguards. This is actually a kudos to MS.
PS, what Build you even testing this on? Prior to 5270, UAP was not even partially functional and is still under going major changes.
I see the WMF thing as positive, as it proves that Microsoft is as mortal as any other OS vendor, and they need a kick in the head once in a while.
PS with all the press on this issue, shall I also list the remote code execution patches from OSX from the last two months? And yet this is the first one for Windows in months.
(And the OSXs ones were not so benign, from Safari exploits by browsing a site that are just as dangerous as this WMF exploit, to the Apache in OSX allowing a hacker to take control of the system.)
Don't beleive me, review your OSX patches or goto www.apple.com and look this up yourself.
It is fun to bash Microsoft, but some of the 'pet' companies like Apple need a kick in butt in the media as well to tighten their security.
Apple uncovers 20 exploits, and quietly patches them (and not any more timely than MS), yet the press doesn't jump on them like they need to.
The bad part of this is other Apple users I work with I have to alert to these problems, as they think their OS is immune because it is OSX. And this will someday come to bite Apple in the butt when hackers start targeting some of these vulnerbilties.
That's no better than what occurs with Windows XP or Windows 2000.
Ok, re-read my post, as there is NOW a difference between 'the' administrator account and accounts with administrator level privledges.
So there is a mass difference, as Vista does not by default set up users to run as the 'the' administrator, but instead as a user with administrator privledges.
And as you will note from my post, any other account with admin level privledges basically gets asked for authenication when anything tries to perform an administrative task on the system to alter it..
Ok, think of it this way although there are great differences. Administator on Vista is like Root on *nix. If you are running as Root on *nix you are foolish. The other accounts, like on most modern *nixes will prompt you for 'root' or in this case 'administor' authenication.
So it is vastly different than Windows XP or Windows 2000.
Go to www.microsoft.com and look up UAP, and even though it is not even a finalized feature in Vista, it is something that removes users from running as a 'root/administrator', but yet allows them to permit administrative tasks as the OS prompts them for permission.
The UAP is a bit more advanced than the 'authenication' passing of a non-root account as found in Linux for example, as it does more than just prompt for authenication when an application or process wants to perform something that would normally need administrator/root level access.
Just go read up on UAP and don't keep repeat the same FUD that it is the same as XP.
Additionally, if users of XP and Win2k would not run as administrators this problem would not have created problems like this in the first place, but in trying to provide 'ease of use' to the customer base MS made the mistake of allowing default users to be administrator level.
hate to say it, especially since I never downloaded the betas to this "groundbreaking" software, but isn't Vista simply another iteration of OS/2 / NT?
Not to be rude, but you need to learn a bit about OSes and OS Architecture... Especially the NT Kernel and Architecture, as it somewhat unique.
NT is the underlying technology that was designed to be the low level OS. Win32 (Windows) runs in a subsystem on top of NT. The NT architecture will be around for many many years, as it was designed to be very extensible and grow to support OSes for many more years to come.
NT is the actual OS technology, Windows and the majority of the changes of Vista are in the Win32 subsystem or truly a new subsystem that is evolved from the Win32 system, as there is a new API, Graphics Model, etc.
You see, NT doesn't even have to be Windows, it also run *nix subsystems and DOS subsystems and it even use to have a OS/2 subsystem, and they all ran side by side - being equal. (Win32 got a bit of preference as it was the base Window Manager for the other subsystems. And it has more of a role for managing NT that runs underneath it.)
Even today you can download a full blown *nix subsystem and install it on any NT based OS, like Win2k, WinXP, Win 2003, Vista, etc. It will run on top of NT just like Windows does and provide you with a full *nix OS with no emulation or vitualization and yet take advantage of the NT Kernel.
As for great new OSes, 10years from now, even a full Virtual Reality based OS that has no reference to Windows itself could be released by Microsoft and still use NT technology to run the higher level new OS.
Is the current test version of Vista susceptible to the.wmf exploit that is currently making the rounds on the internet?
Yep, although you need to be logged in as 'the' administrator for the exploit to do anything to the system.
Other accounts, even admin level ask for your permission to infect the system, so even with an open flaw, it would take the user to allow it to install. (And even some of the exploits still won't affect the system even with the user's permission with the new UAP system.)
Part of the WMF handling is in Win32K in current Windows versions, so it is in ring 0
WMF handling has been in the API of the OS since Win32 was designed. (i.e. it has always been able to inherently draw a WMF to any surface.)
However, this is not Ring 0, not even Ring 0 if you consider the Win32 Kernel as Ring 0, and in NT(XP,Win2k,2003), the Win32 Kernel is far from Ring 0 being in its own subsystem sitting above NT itself.
Just clearing up what you were saying in your post, trying not to nit pick too much...
Earlier I was logged in as Administrator. I just now went back and logged in as a regular user and got infected. I didn't do any analysis outside the fact my Vista box was trying to load up www.freecat.biz which was listed as one of the evil sites listed. This is kind of funny, actually.
Funny we can't reproduce this unless we are logged on as THE administrator. Even admin level accounts get a nice prompt that your system is trying to be infected.
Is it possible you might have already been infected when you were logged in earlier as administrator?
Slashdot Mirror
Am I the only person who thinks that 1440x900 is a pretty low resolution for a 15" laptop?
Yes it is very low, especially when the Apple Marketing team tries to convince the world that graphic artists and people that want 'high quality' displays choose Macs...
10 Years ago maybe, but not anymore. My 3yr old Laptop was 1600x1200 15", and using the DPI scaling of Windows was as readable as I wanted, and if that wasn't good enough I could always run at a lower resolution with subscaling.
It appears OSX is going to keep lagging on a scalable UI technology, even though that is what they have advertised since the release of OSX, and yet have to deliver it. XP has been DPI scaling and that is sad when compared to what Vista is bringing to the computing world.
High Resolution displays SHOULD NOT mean TINY TEXT or TINY ICONS, PERIOD.
My 17" Laptop is 1920x1200, and is beautiful for doing graphic work. And with Vista running on it with a scaled UI, it is stunning.
Sorry Mac people, OSX and Apple are still failing you, and you need to demand BETTER from Apple instead of make excuses for them.
If Apple and Macs are the 'quality' you seem to believe, than I shouldn't be able to buy a cheaper Windows PC with a higher quality display that also runs faster...
Not bashing Apple per se, but hopefully encouraging the Mac Users to tell Apple, "WTF, this is NOT good enough to be called a Mac, we deserve better, Mac needs to mean something again!"
That's a fair bit more than modern Windows runs on. Windows CE would be more properly compared with an embedded distribution of linux, which run on everything from automobiles to cell phones to toasters. And this survey was of modern windows versus modern linux, so Windows NT doesn't count.
Well WinCE is actually an NT vairant, not an embedded version, there is a real embedded version of XP that runs in a very tiny footprint.
And you are right, this was about the modern XP against the modern Linux distributions. However, this doesn't mean your favorite Linux distribution is going to run better on old hardware, or run on more architectures (and not everyone have tech centers with many of these architectures sitting around like us super Nerds.)
But I should maybe restate my point. People were questioning Windows, specifically NT's ability to run on other architectures, and even though not many commercial variants currently exist, as the availability and market for the hardware has also disappeared, does NOT mean that NT is less capable than Linux.
NT is fully portable (as I was trying to illustrate by its past heritage), and still is fully portable, as you can find in the XBox 360, running on a new PPC CPU, and not only NT, but many of the other OS components like DirectX/XNA, which is also running on the XBox 360.
The same can be demonstrated by XP Embedded being used in routers and switches to the NT Variant CE based OS used in phones and PDAs.
NT is very capable of running on more than the x86. (Heck the name comes from the RISC system used in it original development.)
It is no longer a Wintel world, especially with the death of the Win9x/DOS Windows.
NT is pretty cool, look at even the R2 release of Windows 2003 Server, it ships with a full *nix subsystem that has just as much priority in the NT subsystem space as the 'Windows (Win32)/(Win64)' subsystem does.
And this is something NT has always been able to do, does well, and is something with its unique kernel architecture, can do that almost all other OSes cannot do.
I think Linux and FreeBSD and other Open Source projects would do better at times if they were not so defiant of MS and saw the actual 'good' things they did with technology and in the market. No matter how much you believe they suck, everyone does something right once in a while.
Sometimes you have to be led by your enemy, and often you will learn more from them than a friend that isn't brutally honest with you like an enemy will often be.
Sorry for the extranious post...
You mean like Gentoo? Available on x86, sparc, amd64, ppc, ppc64, alpha, hppa (also known as RISC), and mips. You can buy their CDs from multiple vendors.
Yes, you are right.
However I was referring to NT4.0 and the NT4.0 timeframe, I should of been a bit more clear on this. A consistent mature Linux distribution was not available on all the platforms mentioned at that time.
Since then both the NT Core and the Linux Core have advanced a lot to where they are running on many platforms. Although with aged platforms not a commerical interest, MS hasn't ported NT to each of them in a commerical version.
NT is alive and running on more tha x86, from Smartphones to PPC in the form of the XBox 360. It is not an issue of NT capability, but an issue of market necessity.
People were also talking out of the box, Linux out of the box is a hard thing to define, even today the distributions themselves are varied to a level of breaking compatibilty, which is a big problem and could further fragment the Linux movement. (Which is also what caused *nix a lot of problems in the last 80s, early 90s.)
It is great to have the diversity, but without any unified standards past the actual 'linux' layer, fragmentation will be as much of a problem as much of a feature of diversity.
Standarization is not always a bad thing, even if it doesn't address everyone's ideal OS or OS design.
Everyone tends to see Windows as beind successful because Microsoft was teh 800lb Gorilla, but there is another factor they overlook, and it is important for people to realize this. MS used Windows to standardize a lot of hardware and software devlopment and deliver this standardization not only to developers but also to end users.
Here is small example: At this time in the Personal Computer world, you were still dealing with HP PCL, Postscript, and 500 various printer drivers. WordPerfect for DOS is a great example of this, and it did not allow small developers to compete, as we couldn't write a good application and support 500 printers where a large company like WordPerfect could.
Microsoft in a freaky way was the champion of the small developers at the time, we could compete with bigger companies by letting MS abstract all the Video and Printers and other hardware in a standardization that wasn't perfect, but consistent from developer to most end users.
Even in the *nix world at the time, an across the board level of standardization for easy development and deployment to end users was not there, and it was so important, and still is.
(Yes part of my response is more to the topics of the thread than directly responding to you.)
Take Care...
Linksys WRT54GS router. Except you can't buy it. It's available for free, due to Linksys having used GPL'ed software
A very good example, and Linksys deserves a bit of kudos for releasing the 'entire' source for the embedded firmware and not what was just required under the GPL.
Unfortunately, this is not the norm, and even Linksys is cringing a bit with all the firmware mods that have come from this product
Linksys is also doing some reconsideration on future products with security concerns if a user gets conned into installing a moddifed firmware version that A) does not meet the security demands Linksys designed or B) the firmware intentionally breaks security for malicious reasons. Now the next hoop in this evolution and maybe Linksys will be a company that provides an answer - how to do this and yet protect users from themselves...
I do realize all firmware can easily be modded, but having the source makes it easier for both the good and the bad...
I do give Linksys true regard for an honest attempt to contribute and support Linux in a true open fashion.
You need more than 6. But not that may more.
Even if you insist on keeping the menu controls separate from the playback controls (I don't see why you want menu access while playing back videi but perhaps you do), just about everything else can be accessed by menu. Stop giving channels numbers. Group them by type and name. Go to Documetaries/Discovery channel or Music/MTV or whatever.
So you need play, record, fastforward, rewind, pause. Volume up and down, power, menu, 4 directions, enter. Maybe a couple of extras for shortcuts to TV guide but numbers are superfluous, and most of this can be accessed by menus.
Well 6 would be a little low, but I do agree that a UI could be designed so that any media center application could be used with less buttons than the MS Media Center Remote.
In fact Windows Media Center is quite useable with the arrow keys and the Enter key on the keyboard (or the directional keys and the select on the remote).
However what I think people are missing is a bit of the psychology in this product. It is common to us now, but Media Center when it was released was fairly new to the market and is very much a transitional or cross over type of application/device.
It pretty much 'HAD' to offer the same type of buttons on the remote that other TV users would expect if they were going to use Media Center in their living rooms. From the Numbers for changing channels to the play/pause/etc that people are use to with DVD and VCR players.
So sure, you could make the remote simplier, but that wasn't the intent of the product.
Also one thing that surprises me, and no one has picked up on, is the 'media center basic' remote that ships with the premium XBox 360 only has a few buttons on it, a vast difference from teh 39 button Media Center Remote.
I don't remember the exact buttons on the remote with the XBox 360, (not willing to run downstairs to count them.), but I do know it fully operates all the media center functions from the XBox 360...
So again, it isn't that MS is stupid, but what the market the product is developed for.
If the Apple remote that everyone here is trying to compare the media center remote was designed for the average couch potato and was also used to control TV (which it is not) it might be designed significantly different as well. Apple loves the marketing when they can 'show a difference' whether it is a real or useful difference or not is another story.
I don't see why anyone who's not a gamer
This is where you hit the nail on the head...
Even a year ago, a basic computer for a family didn't need to have gamer level Video or RAM. But with the popularity of PC Games in general and PC Games like WoW and other MMORPGs that are attracting everyone from age 10 to 80 it is making a big difference in the basic PC needs for a lot of people.
Just in my own personal recommendations for friends and family I have adjusted minimum specs based on the increase in gaming.
And MMORPGs are about the hardest on RAM requirements as any games out there, caching mass amounts of textures and character diversity can bring many 512mb machines to their limit pretty fast.
Anyway, that is the only reason I recommend higher RAM for people these days. I also tell them to hit a slightly higher level of Video for the same reasons.
If the people are truly not going to play games, like office PCs, 256Mb of RAM is just fine, even though even low end systems today are shipping with 512mb of RAM.
(I enjoyed your post, and sorry for over-nerding my reply.)
believe it ... I always felt that, given enough RAM, Windows NT 4.0 was a much snappier desktop than Win98, and all things considered, XP is not *that* much more bloated than NT4. I doubt your laptops are very pleasant for our modern tastes, but it is believable that they work as well as they did when new. There was a time when a developer would have loved to have a 200Mhz system.
Both in house and external tests by Microsoft demonstrated that Windows NT 4.0 was 25% faster than Win95 or Win98 if the hardware had 32mb of RAM.
(This was also a bit of an eyebrow raiser for Microsoft managers, since Windows NT 4.0 should of had a larger overhead, and NT 4.0 was restricted to portable C/C++ code, where the Win9x teams (Different teams) were allowed to use assembly for performance and didn't have a kernel on a kernel nor the NT layers to work through. - Needless to say it was a quite a level of kudos for the NT team at Microsoft.)
XBox 360 is windows based and running on a PowerPC variant.
Let me know when you can go to the store and pick up a copy of that OS.
Well even Wal-mart was selling XBox 360s, so I guess you could check there first. Or maybe Best Buy, they also were stocking them.
Oh and lets not forget that Windows NT4.0 was available on RISC, Alpha, PPC.
Let me know when you can put Windows XP on a box running one of those chips.
Who was talking about XP, we were talking about NT. Besides the fact that these architectures are not even supported by the hardware makers anymore, do you really think MS should do a full XP port to them? Brilliant...
And we could go on with Windows Embedded technologies that are also running Windows NT or a variant on everything from Network switches to Cable Boxes.
Let me know when you can purchase any of those OS'es without the associated hardware.
Actually, Windows Embedded can be purchased, goto www.microsoft.com and license it. It is just that simple.
BTW Since you see this as a Windows 'shortcoming' why don't you tell me how to purchase the version of Linux or FreeBSD running on my CableBox without the hardware. Oh wait, you can't do that.
In fact, pick any commerical hardware product that is running any specialized or 'embedded' form of Linux or *nix and show me where I can buy the software without the hardware.
Wow, guess Windows isn't so different...
The whole point of this article is how well you can run Windows XP or 2k3 (i.e., the *currently available* versions of Windows, not the old stuff) on legacy hardware.
Yes currently available... So show me where I can buy RedHat or SuSE for RISC or ALPHA then, or show me where I can Buy the embedded version of SuSE to put into a router I'm developing?
Stick to the topic if it is important to you, your misdirection is a waste of people's time.
Remeber it has to be 'out of the box' So that rules out embedded or CE. Leaving NT 3.x/4.0 high and dry with multi-platform.
First Leaving NT 4.0 High and Dry? It was sold for more platforms than ANY common Linux distribution. Go look it up. And keep looking until you can find a COMMON distribution of Linux that was available for X86, PPC, RISC, and ALPHA...
Now...
Considering that Linux either has to be compiled to a common distribution, then that rules it out of the race completely according to your definition. What nonsense...
If you want to keep your definition then tell me where I can buy just Linux so I can compare Linux out of the box to Windows. There is no such thing, it is a OS Kernel Architecture that relies on XWindows any many other common *nix components.
The tests were ran using Novell and RedHat. (Linux distributions that ACTUALLY RUN ON fewer platforms than Windows.)
Why do people go off on crazy rants to try to make a point...?
Oh yeah, WXP by default has a limit that it wouldn't install on sub-500mhz and 128mb
Not true.
Although if remmebering correctly, anything below a Pentium, it will not install, as much of the code is compiled for Pentium class and higher.
We have several 200mhz 64Mb & 80Mb Laptops as well as some 266PII Laptop that are runing WindowsXP, and have been since even early betas of XP.
(Our Windows development is encouraged to use these units and make sure applications will even run reasonably on them.)
This whole topic is a bit of a bunch of crap, but I do like the attention that Linux is not any better on legacy hardware than ANY other OS, even Windows. Not that am a Linux basher, but I get tired of the myth that it runs faster on lower end hardware.
We run WindowsXP SP2 on 200mhz laptops, and yes we make our developers use them, not just test on them.
BTW This is also with the XP 'eye candy' turned ON. XP Themes, menu animations, and ClearType.
As long as they have over 64Mb of RAM, they actually run faster and benchmark faster than when the units were new with Windows98 on them. And these are 1997 units.
200mhz is a bit low for the 'bar' today though, but our Windows development team is encouraged that any application they develop runs reasonably on these older machines.
As for Server configurations, our low end Server tests we use a couple of PII 400mhz systems, and they perform quite well, even when doing some stress tests for IIS and running SQL. (MySQL and MS SQL)
The key to any of the low end hardware and ANY OS is RAM. You can get by with a 400mhz Server as long as you have 256mb minimal RAM in it depending on your environment and load.
And with RAM prices today, these is easy to do - there is no reason most users should not be running 1Gb of RAM on the Desktop.
Come back when Windows can run on non-x86-hardware and toasters
Does this mean we can come back now then?
XBox 360 is windows based and running on a PowerPC variant. Also there are the smartphones and mobile devices, and even watches... (All running either embedded Windows or a Variant version of NT form of Windows as on the PocketPC devices).
Oh and lets not forget that Windows NT4.0 was available on RISC, Alpha, PPC.
And we could go on with Windows Embedded technologies that are also running Windows NT or a variant on everything from Network switches to Cable Boxes.
I guess your post was funny at least. Maybe not toasters, but watches and smartphones are enough off the norm to get a nod.
While the 360 doesn't record TV (nor would you expect it to), it does function as a high-definition media-center extender that allows you to veiw and control your Media Center PC.
You can also buy the Media Extender Software Kit for the original XBox and use the Media Center features from your Media Server as well.
So the posters rant above yours is not only ill informed, but has no basis of any fact.
And you can get DVI to HDMI adapters for the new HDMI-only sets. Obviously the audio will require a separate connection, but you can get a USB audio dongle to get something better than the minijack connection.
/. trying to tell us how good the poop they were eating was.
Hey, if Apple expands AirTunes to the entire system you'll be able to stream your DVD audio to an Airport Express, which has an optical output.
Or you could just buy a cheap $400 PC that already has these features and runs about 5 times faster.
Gotta love the Apple Marketing though... Too bad their designer and developers are not as bright...
I sometimes think their marketing team could tell the world that poop tasted good, was simple, and if bought from Apple would make people live for ever and we would have 1000s of people on
Ok, I get the need to bash MS, but is this going to be another thing like computer screens only need shades of grey (like was the Mac buzz of the late 80s) or that mice only need one button.
Give me a break here. The media center remote designed by Microsoft may not be the world's best design, but to tell me that 6 buttons is enough is insane.
From typing in a number for channel 523 (I suppose you just click the up button on the Apple remote 523 times)...
Or how about the show you are watching you want to record to watch later, you just hit the record button and walk away.
Or you just hit pause to pause the movie or live TV.
Sure you could eliminate these buttons, but to me, it does seem a bit easier.
Also I like the ability to hit TV and have the TV turn on, or DVD and have the DVD player start and not sift through menus.
Also little concepts like fast forward and next chapter, are handy.
If half of the 'experts' here bashing the Media Center remote had actually ever used Media Center maybe there would be some credibility to this, but instead they would probably not even respond.
Lets take a basic remote for a TV...
2 - Channel Up Down
2 - Volume Up Down
1 - Mute
10 - Numbers so you don't have to scroll through 300 stations
1 - Power
And then add in DVR needed functions.
1 - Play
1 - Pause
1 - Fast Forward
1 - Rewind
1 - Record
And then add in an interface navigation set of buttons for selecting Media.
1 - Up
1 - Down
1 - Left
1 - Right
1 - Select
Also if we wanted a fancy remote we would add in direct access buttons like...
1 - Program Guide
1 - DVD
1 - TV
1 - Radio
1 - Pictures
1 - Music
And then if we wanted DVD or content features we could go crazy and want.
1 - Next Chapter
1 - Previous Chapter
1 - Title Menu (DVDs)
1 - Root Menu (DVDs)
So that is approx 36 buttons I find useful...
And this is just off the top of my head without walking down to my theater room to look at the buttons on my Media Center Remote.
So tell me that 6 buttons is really easier... Or maybe it is just designed for people that two mouse buttons confuse them, or maybe a 6 button remote is designed because it is just a media Viewer and only has to navigate the interface to select content and isn't for a DVR media center interface at all.
Go find something else to slam Microsoft over - even the remote from the freaking Cable company has more buttons and does less.
It's somewhat different, not vastly.
:)
Go read up on the UAP technologies being added to Vista. This is an area of vast change. It moves users from running at a root level, but yet has features that go way beyond the 'root authenication' as found in *nix when running as a non-administrator.
Go read up on UAP, even in the current form MS already has a lot of information on it.
And if it just keeps the average home user from running as 'root/administrator' level that is vast enough...
I would argue the change from OSX 10.3 to 10.4 is more significant than Win2k to WinXP. Windows service packs are largely fixes and security updates, just like OSX has equivelent services packs (for free) to go from version 10.X.Y to 10.X.Y+1
I bet you could argue, but look at the base code, and architectural changes that 'people' don't see, and you will find there are 'vast' differences from Win2k and WinXP.
Even in my Example, the code base from WinXP Release to WinXP SP2 is a massive rewrite or recompile of most of the base OS and kernel based on advancements made in the Windows 2003 development.
I have a bit of insight on both the OSX architectural and Windows architectural changes, so I could just say, this is how it is and you are wrong, but I would rather encourage you to go do a bit of research on this if it truly interests you, stop taking the word of 'so called experts', even myself... (And Especially on Slashdot)
I will go as far to admit that Apple has tried to add in 'selling' features with each release of OSX, but as for major changes to the OS or even the Interface to the OS the changes are more minor than a lot of people would like to believe.
Expose looks cool, and the new widgets are nice add on, but these are not major OS feature changes and are not any more than the free add-ons provided by Microsoft like updates to Windows Media Player, Desktop Search, Movie Maker, etc... Ang again, even on this level, these are all free download updates from MS.
Take Care and I hope you do explore the issues I present.
Seriously, Why would you even care about the difference between the kernel and the platform?
Do you really think your boss will accept the excuse "Oh yeah, our entire servers were compromised by hackers, all our customer data was stolen, and pornography was placed on our home pages, but it's Ok! The vulernabilities weren't in the kernel".
It's splitting hairs to argue that the software that runs on your platform isn't just as important as the OS itself. The vulnerability of your system as a WHOLE is what's important, not whether the flaws are in this or that part of it.
Because as a 'security expert', information like this would be informative to people like us.
For example there are mass differences between thngs like a WMF exploit in the Win32 subsystem that is non Win32 kernel DLL bug, let alone a NT kernel bug.
Not all of us have to 'answer' to bosses about the problems, and are more on the research and reason side of security to prevent future problems or alert people of problems.
Also think of it this way, Linux is basically a *nix Kernel and base Architecture. So if there is a Kernel level Linux exploit this impacts EVERYONE, so this would important to know, where if the exploit was in XWindows or in GNome or an application in KDE are vast different senerios and would change the people at risk.
There are many GOOD reasons why 'splitting hairs' is necessary in the world of security - not everyone is out to just blame someone, but actually want to find who is at risk, how to get out, and alert 'potential' distributions of a possible problem.
The same can be said for almost every OS. Even in the Windows world where the distributions are 100% controlled by MS it makes a difference if it is a Kernel security flaw or something in a Movie Maker DLL.
Even in MS's base of OS, if it is a Kernel Bug, define whether it is a Win32 kernel bug or a lower level NT kernel bug makes a big difference. If it is an NT level flaw, it affect NT4, Win2k, WinXP, 2003 Server, and if it is Win32 Kernel it potentially could also affect the old DOS derived OSes like Win95, Win98, WinME.
So you see, the differences in the bugs ARE important to people in the security world, just for the last examples at the very least for Linux and Windows - where the bug lies can dramatically change what distributions are affected and additionally what problems could be cascading from this problem to other parts of the OS or applications.
Security is not just for 'how does it affect me' for people that do this for a living or are even curious and tying to be assitive to the security process.
Who's talking about a list? I'm talking about real world experience from the guys who have deal with this crap day in and day out. Which OS would a professional in IT security
Well considering 'this' is what I do, from working with NASA to the Pentagon in the past, I do know a bit about managing hands on, as well as managing administrative teams on several *nix server variants, Apple Servers, and Microsoft Server environments.
But even 'my' personal experience is not an actual account of the 'real' world others would experience.
If you want hearsay and the 'word' of self-proclaimed IT security experts, you are going to be sadly misled, no matter how noble or objective the person is.
I would rather have a list that flat out reported #1) the security bugs found and fixed and #2) the reported number of 'known' security compromises resulted from the security bugs. (In fact new reporting systems being built in some of the OSes are even tracking this information, so it wouldn't even have to be reported by human error.)
This would at least be somewhat more straight forward and less objective - although the list of 'compromises' would have to accurately acknowledge if the systems were not up to date with security updates, etc. Or if the systems were not up to date because the automatic updater failed or the Sys Admin neglected the system or even turned off the automatic patching features of the OS. This would be important too, as almost all OSes now have fairly good automatic security update systems, even WindowsXP/2003.
Take Care.
Ok the point here is that the exploit allows the code to run, however it will NOT allow it to infect the system, as any system changes (registry, system, service, etc) would require a prompt.
So yes the code is from the NT and Win32 code base trunk, and the ability to display WMFs are very old DLLs within the OS, this is how OSes evolve.
However, Vista is #1)Beta #2)UAP (the new protection security manager) is not even fully functional, and #3) the vulnerbility will allow 'safe' applications like the calculator to run, but getting a trojan downloaded or a system level change is not so easy.
I'm not saying it is impossible, as the UAP in Vista is not even feature complete, but it for the most part blocks this type of activity, and if that even would fail in the beta, the Defender system would prompt for OS changes that would allow a trojan or other 'system' level task to execute.
See if the 'vulnerability' can even launch the Device Manager under a UAP account. It can't without asking the user for authenication - trust me on this...
Unless you consider the vulnerability to be a major security risk under 'beta' of Vista because it launches your calculator, then you need to look up what exploits and vulnerabilities are in 'realtive' terms. If it can install software or modifty protected areas of the OS, that would be a bit more newsworthy.
So even with this WMF DLL exploit code still in Vista, it is already protecting itself from being hacked using the other beta OS safeguards. This is actually a kudos to MS.
PS, what Build you even testing this on? Prior to 5270, UAP was not even partially functional and is still under going major changes.
I see the WMF thing as positive, as it proves that Microsoft is as mortal as any other OS vendor, and they need a kick in the head once in a while.
PS with all the press on this issue, shall I also list the remote code execution patches from OSX from the last two months? And yet this is the first one for Windows in months.
(And the OSXs ones were not so benign, from Safari exploits by browsing a site that are just as dangerous as this WMF exploit, to the Apache in OSX allowing a hacker to take control of the system.)
Don't beleive me, review your OSX patches or goto www.apple.com and look this up yourself.
It is fun to bash Microsoft, but some of the 'pet' companies like Apple need a kick in butt in the media as well to tighten their security.
Apple uncovers 20 exploits, and quietly patches them (and not any more timely than MS), yet the press doesn't jump on them like they need to.
The bad part of this is other Apple users I work with I have to alert to these problems, as they think their OS is immune because it is OSX. And this will someday come to bite Apple in the butt when hackers start targeting some of these vulnerbilties.
That's no better than what occurs with Windows XP or Windows 2000.
Ok, re-read my post, as there is NOW a difference between 'the' administrator account and accounts with administrator level privledges.
So there is a mass difference, as Vista does not by default set up users to run as the 'the' administrator, but instead as a user with administrator privledges.
And as you will note from my post, any other account with admin level privledges basically gets asked for authenication when anything tries to perform an administrative task on the system to alter it..
Ok, think of it this way although there are great differences. Administator on Vista is like Root on *nix. If you are running as Root on *nix you are foolish. The other accounts, like on most modern *nixes will prompt you for 'root' or in this case 'administor' authenication.
So it is vastly different than Windows XP or Windows 2000.
Go to www.microsoft.com and look up UAP, and even though it is not even a finalized feature in Vista, it is something that removes users from running as a 'root/administrator', but yet allows them to permit administrative tasks as the OS prompts them for permission.
The UAP is a bit more advanced than the 'authenication' passing of a non-root account as found in Linux for example, as it does more than just prompt for authenication when an application or process wants to perform something that would normally need administrator/root level access.
Just go read up on UAP and don't keep repeat the same FUD that it is the same as XP.
Additionally, if users of XP and Win2k would not run as administrators this problem would not have created problems like this in the first place, but in trying to provide 'ease of use' to the customer base MS made the mistake of allowing default users to be administrator level.
This ALL changes in Vista...
hate to say it, especially since I never downloaded the betas to this "groundbreaking" software, but isn't Vista simply another iteration of OS/2 / NT?
Not to be rude, but you need to learn a bit about OSes and OS Architecture... Especially the NT Kernel and Architecture, as it somewhat unique.
NT is the underlying technology that was designed to be the low level OS. Win32 (Windows) runs in a subsystem on top of NT. The NT architecture will be around for many many years, as it was designed to be very extensible and grow to support OSes for many more years to come.
NT is the actual OS technology, Windows and the majority of the changes of Vista are in the Win32 subsystem or truly a new subsystem that is evolved from the Win32 system, as there is a new API, Graphics Model, etc.
You see, NT doesn't even have to be Windows, it also run *nix subsystems and DOS subsystems and it even use to have a OS/2 subsystem, and they all ran side by side - being equal. (Win32 got a bit of preference as it was the base Window Manager for the other subsystems. And it has more of a role for managing NT that runs underneath it.)
Even today you can download a full blown *nix subsystem and install it on any NT based OS, like Win2k, WinXP, Win 2003, Vista, etc. It will run on top of NT just like Windows does and provide you with a full *nix OS with no emulation or vitualization and yet take advantage of the NT Kernel.
As for great new OSes, 10years from now, even a full Virtual Reality based OS that has no reference to Windows itself could be released by Microsoft and still use NT technology to run the higher level new OS.
Is the current test version of Vista susceptible to the .wmf exploit that is currently making the rounds on the internet?
Yep, although you need to be logged in as 'the' administrator for the exploit to do anything to the system.
Other accounts, even admin level ask for your permission to infect the system, so even with an open flaw, it would take the user to allow it to install. (And even some of the exploits still won't affect the system even with the user's permission with the new UAP system.)
Part of the WMF handling is in Win32K in current Windows versions, so it is in ring 0
WMF handling has been in the API of the OS since Win32 was designed. (i.e. it has always been able to inherently draw a WMF to any surface.)
However, this is not Ring 0, not even Ring 0 if you consider the Win32 Kernel as Ring 0, and in NT(XP,Win2k,2003), the Win32 Kernel is far from Ring 0 being in its own subsystem sitting above NT itself.
Just clearing up what you were saying in your post, trying not to nit pick too much...
Earlier I was logged in as Administrator. I just now went back and logged in as a regular user and got infected. I didn't do any analysis outside the fact my Vista box was trying to load up www.freecat.biz which was listed as one of the evil sites listed. This is kind of funny, actually.
Funny we can't reproduce this unless we are logged on as THE administrator. Even admin level accounts get a nice prompt that your system is trying to be infected.
Is it possible you might have already been infected when you were logged in earlier as administrator?