Here's my question: What's to prevent programs from simply adding themselves as authorized and opening the ports they need? After all, if the Firewall control panel applet can do it, can't any other program? And since many, many XP users run all the time in the "Adminstrator" group, can this somehow be blocked
There are a couple of things that circumvent this, even if a program did allow itself to be added, it still would not be allowed to hit massive amounts of connectionless outbound requets.
Secondly, with the new security measures, even morons will have to click through several warnings to get a malicious application installed on a system to do this. (i.e. the additional NTFS log attachment to any foreign EXE or component that is ran on the system)
I have yet to fully explore the API or talk with some of our other techs that have been working on it, so I can't give you a full answer, but I do know the above is a great step in preventing a application on a system from even getting installed in the first place.
Microsoft even nerfed Active X in IE to the point, that he user has to specicifially unblock a new ActiveX control, and then get an additionaly security warning.
That's part of the problem. To plug a few exploits and switch to safer default settings should only need a small patch, not a 200 megabyte "overhaul".
SP2 will change lots of things, more than most users care about. If Microsoft wants to rewrite half of XP out of a sense of perfectionism, fine. But security upgrades should be considered time-critical, and shouldn't wait on "nice to haves".
The OS hasn't been totally rewritten; however a lot of the code base has been recompiled with the newer compilers offering more speed and managed code.
Remember that WindowsXP is over 3 freaking years old, since then Windows 2003 has been released (which is common code base) and offers many security and performance optimizations just due to the security model and newer compilers. Hence the reason people were finding that running Windows 2003 server as a workstation was faster than the RTM of XP.
Please understand the difference between rewriting code and recompiling existing code with a new compiler that checks for security and adds performance.
Microsoft could be like Apple, adding.xx revision number to the OS and charging their users $100 bucks just to get the security and bug fixes that were in the previous version of OSX.
Microsoft is providing this update FREE, and is holding the faith of the users by making it a solid release. (Despite the spyware tested machines in the previous report "3 out of 5 didn't reboot")
Re:No more Kernel Panic and Linux Thinking
on
Moving To Linux
·
· Score: 1
Of course, I am not a certified Microsoft shill, so what the fuck do I know? I apologize for challenging your world view.
No apology needed, not even satirically. If we don't debate, discuss, and even disagree about the issues here, then there would be no need for SlashDot.
As for me being a Microsoft shill, you have no idea how far off base you are... It is actually quite amusing...
Take care, and thanks for the post, even if we don't fully agree.
Re:No more Kernel Panic and Linux Thinking
on
Moving To Linux
·
· Score: 1
Yeah , perhaps you should use a distro that compiles its drivers into modules rather then directly into the kernel. The result? Driver crashes but leaves the rest of the kernel standing.It's in the manual mate. I certainly have never ever ever had a Kernel panic in SUSe Linux since I started using it 3 yrs ago.
The debate over kernel panic does not solely lie in whether drivers are modules or compiled into the kernel. Most distributions do not compile a majority of the drivers, other than standard configuration drivers into the kernel.
I have read the manual, I'm not a *nix or Linux Newbie here.
BTW Do you realize that the concept of abstracting all the drivers from the kernel in the *nix Linux model is impossible? Contrast this with the NT model under XP/Win2k. For example, if you compiled a Linux kernel with the file system driver in a module, it won't even be able to boot.
There is vast difference in the underlying architecture of NT and the *nix world, and many reasons why Microsoft and Cutler abandoned plans to use a *nix model, having even owned rights to a strong Unix variant at the time.
NT and its HAL are a far more advanced concept of OS kernels than any *nix model currently offers, and it is sad that most people don't actually pay attention to this. I wish more people in the Open Source world would stop bashing NT all the time and learn from what Microsoft DID do right with the conceptual architecture of the OS.
It would be great to see an Open Source OS have the advanced abilities that NT inherently has offered since 1992.
For everyone that this does inspire a bit of curiosity, please read the architecture of NT and try to contrast the differences of what Microsoft has done right and how it could be used in the Open Source world. From the unique kernel model, often referred to as Client/Server kernel to the layers that the OS uses to create environments on the NT layer, to the ability to have a multi-subsystem OS intercommunicating and even managed hardware sharing.
Linux is a great OS, but technically it doesn't have the model that NT does, or the extensibility.
I wish you well, and I don't take offense your 'RTfM' response, slashdot has slowly become a home for the fan boy and girl posts rather than the intellectual meeting place to discuss open source and technologies it once was. I just don't happen to be one of the average fan boy/girls of any OS or Platform.
Re:No more Kernel Panic and Linux Thinking
on
Moving To Linux
·
· Score: 1
But there is still a significant amount of BSOD's on 2K/XP systems.
That is your belief; however it is not fact.
We have literally thousands of systems running Win2k and XP that have never had a full system crash (BSOD).
The onese that did, had RAM or Hard Drives fail, which NO OS could of continued functioning.
The only exception to this is the other.01% of the systems that have had full BSOD crashes was due to beta drivers.
Get over it, if you are having systems with ANY BSOD and running WindowsXP or Windows 2003 server, then you have hardware problems that you need to find someone that knows what they are doing to fix them for you.
Just because you say a belief or a lie often, does not make it eventually become truth.
Re:No more Kernel Panic and Linux Thinking
on
Moving To Linux
·
· Score: 1
You do know the the default behavior in 2k and XP is to auto-reboot instead of bluescreen (if it can), right?
Yep, but even with the auto reboot, a brief BSOD appears before the system restarts.
Re:No more Kernel Panic and Linux Thinking
on
Moving To Linux
·
· Score: 1
This is about the dozenth reply like this that I've seen so far scrolling down this story. Are you all paid shills of Microsoft or something?
You are proving my point for me. 99.9% of people on XP don't have the instability the slashdot world assumes. This is why you are getting so many posts saying, what in the heck are they talkig about, our XP systems run without BSODs or crashes.
No more Kernel Panic and Linux Thinking
on
Moving To Linux
·
· Score: 1
Someone should put out a book on moving Linux users from the mindeset that Win98 and WinME and DOS are NOT Win2k, or WinXP...
BSOD, you are kidding right? If you see one of these with WinXP or Win2K you have serious hardware issues, PERIOD.
How about a book that get Linux users to open their eyes to the NT model and WinXp and get away from the world of hacker quality drivers and frequent Kernel Panic bringing the Linux system to halt.
Title should be: "Kernel Panic No More - Move to WindowsXP!"
I truly don't even dislike Linux, I just wanted to throw a concept across the fence that people here seem to forget about.
Also, there are many people that use WindowsXP and 200x servers in production environments with consistent stability.
Windows may have had the BSOD back in the DOS days, or a infrequent one with the NT core when having a hardware or driver issue, but 99% of the users don't see WindowsXP as instable EVER.
If you keep harping on Windows as being instable you are never going to get anyone's attention. Mainstream users on XP just don't have the BSOD or other problems that you like to portray them as having.
So now lets talk about Kernel problems with Linux and the Kernel Panic of Death. (KPOD)
Which I have seen more often than the BSOD on Windows and we run 90% Windows/ 10% *nix systems. Ironic or just silly?
That's the only time I ever did see a blue screen when I had a 2000 box. I went to post-98 but then went back because I just got tired of patching things on my home machine. I do plenty of that at work. I keep thinking I might go back to 2000 now that automatic update has been out for a while, but my wife insists I keep 98 on "her" machine. For what she does on it, we don't see blue screens too often (twice last year and once so far this year).
Not that Win2k isn't a solid OS, but compared to XP, there is QUITE a difference.
Don't think Win2000, think XP. Not only can you do easy upgrades from 98 and 2K systems, but it also has better reliability in the way it handles DLLs and calls within the system.
Like most modern OSes, XP only crashes when Hardware dies, and it has better 'stable' driver support than any OS in history. Not only will 99% of all your hardware work with XP, so with 99.9% of all your old software.
People need to think pask Win2k and WAY past Win98. There is such a difference in architecture between 98 and XP, it is like comparing Linux and DOS.
BTW WinXP will also run faster than Win2k, even on lowerend systems. There are many more optimizations in XP that Win2k didn't get.
Additionally Service Pack 2 for Windows XP will introduce a whole new set of system optimizations becuase of the OS being recompiled in the new MS Compilers, more managed code for stability and many, many performance enhancements.
And yes SP2 is a large download, but unlike Apple's mini updates, it is free, even 3 years after XP was released.
What about an open spec so that you can read and write it on non-Windows systems without having to reverse engineer? Can NTFS be used on a digital camera or Palm organizer? Not reliably.
Technically the FAT and other file systems used on these devices are not open either. They are reverse engineered, and technically illegal.
NTFS could be reverse engineered for these devices, but Win98,WinME users would not have access to the content, so providers have not used NTFS for this.
While it is true that NTFS is a journalling file system its implementation is *very feature poor*. NTFS can save you from MFT corruption which would be fatal to something like FAT but little more. NTFS' current journalling capabilites cannot provide enough data to roll back incremental changes (WinFS is supposed to have this) like Reiser and all other journalled FSes that Linux can use. NTFS' crappy journaling implementation is the main reason everyone on a Windows box STILL has to sit through those LONG volume scans if a disk isn't unmounted cleanly. In more robust FS like ReiserFS, Ext3, XFS, etc. the OS can just replay the log and redo any transactions that didn't go as planned. You cannot do this with NTFS as I understand it.
I don't even have to respond. You know nothing about NTFS and even journalling in nature. Go pretend your smart somewhere people don't know how dumb you sound.
NTFS is journaled and has been for a long time, I think back to NT4 or earlier, but for sure Windows 2000.
NTFS has always been journaled, back to when it was created in 1992, even in the Alpha builds before NT was even in Beta...
Apple's HFS+ has been journaled since at least MacOS 10.3 if not 10.2. I believe OSX has always had journalling, but it was not turned on in early releases because it was a major performance bottleneck. (Which is strange, when MS and NTFS were doing journalling with little to no performance loss on 486 systems in 1993.)
A layer is something that stays on top of some other layer and below of yet another layer, while a subsystem is something that stays on top of another subsystem and below of yet another subsystem.
Actually a layer is another technological theory that is not the same as the subsystem in NT.
And as to your reference about RAM usage, even Linux sucks as much RAM as NT, even without the XWindows 'layer' loaded.
Have you not ever used NT, or just never paid attention?
WindowsNT when released, performed with 8-12mb of RAM, and ran at full performance with a mere 16mb of RAM. WindowsNT 4.0 with 32mb of RAM, consistently benchmarked 25% faster than Windows 95/98.
As to your other comments, apparently you have not actually used an NT version of Windows. You should try it; you would be surprised that it isn't as evil as the people that bring your food make you believe.
Ah, you seem to be confusing the checked beta builds with the public beta. Public beta has symbols stripped, but minor debugging info in place. The checked beta build has full debugging info.
A beta version of windows with the debugging tools built into the OS is no where close to the same level as an "un-optimized" linux system.
Debugging tools built into the OS? Uhh.. Task manager and perfmon.. are not debugging tools.
Either you are a newbie, or have no idea how beta products are produced.
There are LOTS of debug and checking code throughout the Windows OS for reporting errors, even in the non-checked builds.
The performance between a beta and RTM can be surprisingly different by just having the debugging code pulled from the OS. - Let alone the RAM and service usage that is removed from these debugging portions of the OS and services running removed.
Wouldn't it be great for microsoft to ship a "Runs on linux" version of windows? This way, stability, etc. Windows crashes, Linux takes over and restarts it after some fancy memory shenanigans.
Yeah, and they could give up the stability of the NT kernel architecture for older methodologies, that would be brilliant. Take the only good thing of Windows, the NT core architecture and remove it for older *nix concepts that even the Cutler team determined to be too old to support an OS that would extend to the future.
People! Windows98, and even Win32 is NOT windows per se. The NT Kernel is one of the great things that Microsoft actually has, and Windows is already sitting on top of it. Hence the reason WindowsXP doesn't crash.
Hate to break it to yall, but there have been some VERY nice UNIX(tm) layers for Windows since NT 4.0 The same people that made Exceed X11 for Windows also made a kernel add-in with full POSIX support. All the UNIX goddies where there and it even seemed to increase stability. Microsoft purchased the company after they failed to get their software to run well on Windows 2k (they ran out of money and couldn't afford to redevlope). If they get this stuff working again in Longhorn, I'll be first in line to buy it when its released.
Just a couple of corrections.
The UNIX support in WindowsNT is not a 'layer' but a subsystem, i.e. just like Win32 is a subsystem. (This is part of the what makes the NT architecture unique)
Also NT had a POSIX subsystem, and even third party UNIX subsystem support since 3.1 when it was released in 1993, not NT 4.0.
With the subsystem technology of the NT architecture, Microsoft could actually implement a binary level subsystem that is fully Linux compaitble, and sit on top of the NT kernel, with full intertaction with the other subsystems that sit on NT. (i.e. Win32, etc) Just in case Linux or other *nix overtakes the desktop, Microsoft could put out a NT kernel based version that could in theory be even more solid than a generic Linux implementation itself.
Particularlly, you can't do any blending against windows that are being drawn with DirectX/DirectDraw which is the way that any program that wants to approach full-motion video or 3D graphics has to do things. And that's what prevents Windows from handling this application.
Mac's OSX is a lot cleaner in this department because in their universe there are no exceptions to the rules... everything passes through Quartz, so there's a chance to capture and play with anything on the screen. DirectX and DirectDraw are painted onto the screen after all mortal windows are drawn in Windows, and that's why there's no chance to add an overlay to them.
DirectX and Windows 2000 also introduced a new dynamic accelerated overlay that allows transparency of even video being played back. (In an actual overlay.)
Products like WinDVD, and other Video players use this technology. For example, ATI video cards can display Transparent TV video playback, etc using this technology.
And yes it is different from the transparent Window GDI calls of Win2k, but it has been around for quite a while in the Windows world, and most windows users are taking advantage of it in their DVD and other Video playback software, even if they doen't realize it.
And yes it was available before OSX was even released, so I hate to burst any bubbles, but Apple was not ahead in this area of graphical capabilities.
Stating that Microsoft doesn't support, and Apple was the first to implement this type of technology is just factually wrong.
Some of them actually tried this, and they were slapped down by MS, who increased the cost of their licenses to the point they could no longer remain competitive. Is it worth it to them to add another 100 to the cost of each PC they make for the privelige of installing some extra software on there? Hell no. Hence why every new mom and pop PC comes with IE, and nothing else.
This simply isn't true. I was the Managing Director of a large computer company from 1997-2000, and we licensed OEM Windows, just like everyone else did, and were given the options.
Microsoft could have cared less about what software we put on the system, we installed Netscape, etc etc.
They never altered our licensing or our fees.
Do people also forget that Windows since 1995 has shipped with connectivity Icons for companies like AOL, Compuserve, in addtion to their own MSN sign up icons?
If Microsoft was as much of a control freak as everyone here seems to believe, they never would have done this.
As for Microsoft and the licensing issues with OEMs, the people that should have been being slapped around were the OEMs, they had the choices, and it was less than a couple of dollars per each copy of Windows to sign and exclusive distribution license for their systems. No one forced them to do these agreements with Microsoft but their own greed.
Additionally, exclusive distribution licences for OEM had been around for a long time and were used by many software companies that provided OEM level utilities and software. Microsoft just got a bad rap because the OEM would not take their own accountability into acknowledgement and instead tried to make the end users think it was a forced thing by Microsoft.
Ignorance of the End User prevailed, and everyone still buy into the myth that Microsoft forced OEMs to do anything they didn't want to do.
Even the creator of Netscape himself acknowledged that the Monopoly suit against Microsoft because of the OEM licensing issue was non-sense.
Everyone here that hates Microsoft for the OEM and Windows licensing deals should be pissed at companies like Gateway and DELL that wanted to save a couple of dollars on the systems they shipped (and I literally mean a couple of dollars), not Microsoft for offering them an exclusive contract.
aren't drivers running in "ring 0",... equivalent to compiling drivers into a kernel?
There is too much crap and miss information in your post, and I don't have the time to waste in addressing it all.
Drivers do not run in Ring 0 on NT. The only low level driver access that was given to NT, was in version 4.0 and it was the Video drivers, and in technical terms, they run at Ring 1, not Ring 0. (And yes you can find references to where people state the video drivers are running at Ring 0, but technically this is an incorrect statement with the NT architecture)
Although it could have been disastrous for a driver to run at Ring 1 for NT, it has proven that it was the right decision; hence the reason graphics and games on the NT platform have the ability to take full advantage of the latest graphics hardware.
As to your reference of it being equivalent to compiling drivers into a kernel, do you even understand the difference between the two? Scary that you would even say this...
Apparently you didn't read Inside Windows NT, or you would have known these simple facts.
NT is NOT a MACH Kernel, nor a monolithic Micro-kernel, it is a combination of both concepts with extra ideas added by the NT team when NT was designed. The best way to describe it is a Client/Server Kernel model.
I worked on the Solaris 2.3 & 2.4 kernel, so I hope I can hang with your superior intellect?
If you were working on the Solaris kernel, now we know why Solaris has gone to hell, and even Sun is moving to the Linux world.
but you don't know dick about this subject. DEC & NT, was a disaster, and it took DEC down.
Really? Funny that DEC is still alive in the soul of Compaq/HP, and was more than just a microprocessor company that provided many technologies. So for you to assert that one CPU division (The Alpha) made DEC fail by aligning with NT, you are off your nut.
I'm done with your inane ramblings; go find some other post to preach your religion. I like to live in a world of reality and logic, not fanaticism.
BTW - Love the run on paragraphs, did you know that you can hit the Enter key to make new paragraphs once in a while?
Not a bad reply Mensa, still wrong, weak and bais. I agree I should have spelled Phoenix correctly, to much Miller. What happened to DEC after the NT debacle "Super Man".?? Let that speak for itself. And. the poor guy (NT 3.1 Designer) designed VMS, but Microsoft got the best of him.
First it is 'too', not 'to' and this is how you spell 'bias'.
Secondly, what even is your reference to the NT Debacle and its effect on DEC? Again you know nothing of the subject.
Compaq bought DEC and the Alpha mid 1999. Windows 2000 was in beta and available up to RC1 for the Alpha CPUs. Compaq had no interest in continuing support of their newly acquired Alpha CPU, and halted their end of production in working with Microsoft. Microsoft had no choice but to pull the Windows 2000 for Alpha. (Even though I know of a few old time Alpha nerds that are still using Windows 2000 on the Alpha CPUs)
If Compaq had not bought DEC and scrapped the Alpha projects, there would have been a commercially released Windows 2000 and Windows XP for the Alpha CPU.
As for you argument about performance optimized OSes and their relation to the CPU and hardware, I suggest you take time to read about the design history of NT, the novel approaches in the HAL, and the modified kernel model that is still in theory one of the best designs that came out of both the MACH and Microkernel development worlds. Go look up Client/Server kernel and some of these terms that will be quite new to you.
Just put on your T-Shirt that says, "I am Mac/Linux/Solaris fan boy/girl," and leave the posting and debates for people that have been around and actually worked in and on the very projects you are trying to argue about.
Hey Computer "Mensa", compiling XP in 64-bit mode does not make it 64-bit "useful", and computationally fast. A tuna-fish can release a 64-bit OS, but to truely leverage 64-bit, please Microsoft. Come on Phoneix On-Line Grad. Sun Solaris and Linux are much better, heck, even AIX 5.2 is a better 64-bit OS then the "Been there since 1996" Microsoft.
You know, what you say sounds really good, until a person that has a brain reads your words and concludes that you are just bloviating opinion.
If NT was not 'performance' optimized as a 64bit OS, then it would have been really stupid for DEC to use NT as the demonstration OS/Platform to showcase the power and speed of the Alpha CPU.
But yet, DEC did exactly that, not only in performance numbers they touted and released, but at every new CPU launch and exhibition, NT was the OS DEC primarily used.
You would think a company that could envision and build a CPU as powerful as the Alpha would be as 'smart' as you and pick a truly 'performance' enhanced OS so their CPU would even look more impressive. Darn, they really needed your 'wisdom'.
Should I say you are an intellectually insecure, arrogant ass in my response or do you think that everyone that read your posting has already figured it out?
PS - When trying to sound intellectually superior and doing the whole dated condescending post, you might want to at least spell Phoenix correctly.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's my question: What's to prevent programs from simply adding themselves as authorized and opening the ports they need? After all, if the Firewall control panel applet can do it, can't any other program? And since many, many XP users run all the time in the "Adminstrator" group, can this somehow be blocked
There are a couple of things that circumvent this, even if a program did allow itself to be added, it still would not be allowed to hit massive amounts of connectionless outbound requets.
Secondly, with the new security measures, even morons will have to click through several warnings to get a malicious application installed on a system to do this. (i.e. the additional NTFS log attachment to any foreign EXE or component that is ran on the system)
I have yet to fully explore the API or talk with some of our other techs that have been working on it, so I can't give you a full answer, but I do know the above is a great step in preventing a application on a system from even getting installed in the first place.
Microsoft even nerfed Active X in IE to the point, that he user has to specicifially unblock a new ActiveX control, and then get an additionaly security warning.
and 640k should be enough memory for anyone, right?
Cool quote, but it is an internet tale, Gates never said it.
That's part of the problem. To plug a few exploits and switch to safer default settings should only need a small patch, not a 200 megabyte "overhaul".
.xx revision number to the OS and charging their users $100 bucks just to get the security and bug fixes that were in the previous version of OSX.
SP2 will change lots of things, more than most users care about. If Microsoft wants to rewrite half of XP out of a sense of perfectionism, fine. But security upgrades should be considered time-critical, and shouldn't wait on "nice to haves".
The OS hasn't been totally rewritten; however a lot of the code base has been recompiled with the newer compilers offering more speed and managed code.
Remember that WindowsXP is over 3 freaking years old, since then Windows 2003 has been released (which is common code base) and offers many security and performance optimizations just due to the security model and newer compilers. Hence the reason people were finding that running Windows 2003 server as a workstation was faster than the RTM of XP.
Please understand the difference between rewriting code and recompiling existing code with a new compiler that checks for security and adds performance.
Microsoft could be like Apple, adding
Microsoft is providing this update FREE, and is holding the faith of the users by making it a solid release. (Despite the spyware tested machines in the previous report "3 out of 5 didn't reboot")
Of course, I am not a certified Microsoft shill, so what the fuck do I know? I apologize for challenging your world view.
No apology needed, not even satirically. If we don't debate, discuss, and even disagree about the issues here, then there would be no need for SlashDot.
As for me being a Microsoft shill, you have no idea how far off base you are... It is actually quite amusing...
Take care, and thanks for the post, even if we don't fully agree.
Yeah , perhaps you should use a distro that compiles its drivers into modules rather then directly into the kernel. The result? Driver crashes but leaves the rest of the kernel standing.It's in the manual mate. I certainly have never ever ever had a Kernel panic in SUSe Linux since I started using it 3 yrs ago.
The debate over kernel panic does not solely lie in whether drivers are modules or compiled into the kernel. Most distributions do not compile a majority of the drivers, other than standard configuration drivers into the kernel.
I have read the manual, I'm not a *nix or Linux Newbie here.
BTW Do you realize that the concept of abstracting all the drivers from the kernel in the *nix Linux model is impossible? Contrast this with the NT model under XP/Win2k. For example, if you compiled a Linux kernel with the file system driver in a module, it won't even be able to boot.
There is vast difference in the underlying architecture of NT and the *nix world, and many reasons why Microsoft and Cutler abandoned plans to use a *nix model, having even owned rights to a strong Unix variant at the time.
NT and its HAL are a far more advanced concept of OS kernels than any *nix model currently offers, and it is sad that most people don't actually pay attention to this. I wish more people in the Open Source world would stop bashing NT all the time and learn from what Microsoft DID do right with the conceptual architecture of the OS.
It would be great to see an Open Source OS have the advanced abilities that NT inherently has offered since 1992.
For everyone that this does inspire a bit of curiosity, please read the architecture of NT and try to contrast the differences of what Microsoft has done right and how it could be used in the Open Source world. From the unique kernel model, often referred to as Client/Server kernel to the layers that the OS uses to create environments on the NT layer, to the ability to have a multi-subsystem OS intercommunicating and even managed hardware sharing.
Linux is a great OS, but technically it doesn't have the model that NT does, or the extensibility.
I wish you well, and I don't take offense your 'RTfM' response, slashdot has slowly become a home for the fan boy and girl posts rather than the intellectual meeting place to discuss open source and technologies it once was. I just don't happen to be one of the average fan boy/girls of any OS or Platform.
But there is still a significant amount of BSOD's on 2K/XP systems.
.01% of the systems that have had full BSOD crashes was due to beta drivers.
That is your belief; however it is not fact.
We have literally thousands of systems running Win2k and XP that have never had a full system crash (BSOD).
The onese that did, had RAM or Hard Drives fail, which NO OS could of continued functioning.
The only exception to this is the other
Get over it, if you are having systems with ANY BSOD and running WindowsXP or Windows 2003 server, then you have hardware problems that you need to find someone that knows what they are doing to fix them for you.
Just because you say a belief or a lie often, does not make it eventually become truth.
You do know the the default behavior in 2k and XP is to auto-reboot instead of bluescreen (if it can), right?
Yep, but even with the auto reboot, a brief BSOD appears before the system restarts.
This is about the dozenth reply like this that I've seen so far scrolling down this story. Are you all paid shills of Microsoft or something?
You are proving my point for me. 99.9% of people on XP don't have the instability the slashdot world assumes. This is why you are getting so many posts saying, what in the heck are they talkig about, our XP systems run without BSODs or crashes.
Someone should put out a book on moving Linux users from the mindeset that Win98 and WinME and DOS are NOT Win2k, or WinXP...
BSOD, you are kidding right? If you see one of these with WinXP or Win2K you have serious hardware issues, PERIOD.
How about a book that get Linux users to open their eyes to the NT model and WinXp and get away from the world of hacker quality drivers and frequent Kernel Panic bringing the Linux system to halt.
Title should be:
"Kernel Panic No More - Move to WindowsXP!"
I truly don't even dislike Linux, I just wanted to throw a concept across the fence that people here seem to forget about.
Also, there are many people that use WindowsXP and 200x servers in production environments with consistent stability.
Windows may have had the BSOD back in the DOS days, or a infrequent one with the NT core when having a hardware or driver issue, but 99% of the users don't see WindowsXP as instable EVER.
If you keep harping on Windows as being instable you are never going to get anyone's attention. Mainstream users on XP just don't have the BSOD or other problems that you like to portray them as having.
So now lets talk about Kernel problems with Linux and the Kernel Panic of Death. (KPOD)
Which I have seen more often than the BSOD on Windows and we run 90% Windows/ 10% *nix systems. Ironic or just silly?
That's the only time I ever did see a blue screen when I had a 2000 box. I went to post-98 but then went back because I just got tired of patching things on my home machine. I do plenty of that at work. I keep thinking I might go back to 2000 now that automatic update has been out for a while, but my wife insists I keep 98 on "her" machine. For what she does on it, we don't see blue screens too often (twice last year and once so far this year).
Not that Win2k isn't a solid OS, but compared to XP, there is QUITE a difference.
Don't think Win2000, think XP. Not only can you do easy upgrades from 98 and 2K systems, but it also has better reliability in the way it handles DLLs and calls within the system.
Like most modern OSes, XP only crashes when Hardware dies, and it has better 'stable' driver support than any OS in history. Not only will 99% of all your hardware work with XP, so with 99.9% of all your old software.
People need to think pask Win2k and WAY past Win98. There is such a difference in architecture between 98 and XP, it is like comparing Linux and DOS.
BTW WinXP will also run faster than Win2k, even on lowerend systems. There are many more optimizations in XP that Win2k didn't get.
Additionally Service Pack 2 for Windows XP will introduce a whole new set of system optimizations becuase of the OS being recompiled in the new MS Compilers, more managed code for stability and many, many performance enhancements.
And yes SP2 is a large download, but unlike Apple's mini updates, it is free, even 3 years after XP was released.
What about an open spec so that you can read and write it on non-Windows systems without having to reverse engineer? Can NTFS be used on a digital camera or Palm organizer? Not reliably.
Technically the FAT and other file systems used on these devices are not open either. They are reverse engineered, and technically illegal.
NTFS could be reverse engineered for these devices, but Win98,WinME users would not have access to the content, so providers have not used NTFS for this.
While it is true that NTFS is a journalling file system its implementation is *very feature poor*. NTFS can save you from MFT corruption which would be fatal to something like FAT but little more. NTFS' current journalling capabilites cannot provide enough data to roll back incremental changes (WinFS is supposed to have this) like Reiser and all other journalled FSes that Linux can use. NTFS' crappy journaling implementation is the main reason everyone on a Windows box STILL has to sit through those LONG volume scans if a disk isn't unmounted cleanly. In more robust FS like ReiserFS, Ext3, XFS, etc. the OS can just replay the log and redo any transactions that didn't go as planned. You cannot do this with NTFS as I understand it.
I don't even have to respond. You know nothing about NTFS and even journalling in nature. Go pretend your smart somewhere people don't know how dumb you sound.
NTFS is journaled and has been for a long time, I think back to NT4 or earlier, but for sure Windows 2000.
NTFS has always been journaled, back to when it was created in 1992, even in the Alpha builds before NT was even in Beta...
Apple's HFS+ has been journaled since at least MacOS 10.3 if not 10.2.
I believe OSX has always had journalling, but it was not turned on in early releases because it was a major performance bottleneck. (Which is strange, when MS and NTFS were doing journalling with little to no performance loss on 486 systems in 1993.)
NTFS is its tendency to get corrupted
A journalled file system, and you think it corrupts easily? Have you actually used NTFS beyond installing it on one PC?
I haven't seen NTFS corruption or a corrupted NTFS partition short of hard drive failure. Period.
BTW, I have only worked with several thousand servers and desktops with NTFS since 1993. So maybe you are the more experienced expert on this subject.
Just how exactly does one right-click on a file he or she has deleted? :)
Well, you right click on the folder that it was in before you deleted it. Same holds for folders of folder of folders... They can all be brought back.
Not that hard of a concept...
A layer is something that stays on top of some other layer and below of yet another layer, while a subsystem is something that stays on top of another subsystem and below of yet another subsystem.
Actually a layer is another technological theory that is not the same as the subsystem in NT.
And as to your reference about RAM usage, even Linux sucks as much RAM as NT, even without the XWindows 'layer' loaded.
Have you not ever used NT, or just never paid attention?
WindowsNT when released, performed with 8-12mb of RAM, and ran at full performance with a mere 16mb of RAM. WindowsNT 4.0 with 32mb of RAM, consistently benchmarked 25% faster than Windows 95/98.
As to your other comments, apparently you have not actually used an NT version of Windows. You should try it; you would be surprised that it isn't as evil as the people that bring your food make you believe.
Ah, you seem to be confusing the checked beta builds with the public beta. Public beta has symbols stripped, but minor debugging info in place.
The checked beta build has full debugging info.
A beta version of windows with the debugging tools built into the OS is no where close to the same level as an "un-optimized" linux system.
Debugging tools built into the OS? Uhh.. Task manager and perfmon.. are not debugging tools.
Either you are a newbie, or have no idea how beta products are produced.
There are LOTS of debug and checking code throughout the Windows OS for reporting errors, even in the non-checked builds.
The performance between a beta and RTM can be surprisingly different by just having the debugging code pulled from the OS. - Let alone the RAM and service usage that is removed from these debugging portions of the OS and services running removed.
Wouldn't it be great for microsoft to ship a "Runs on linux" version of windows? This way, stability, etc. Windows crashes, Linux takes over and restarts it after some fancy memory shenanigans.
Yeah, and they could give up the stability of the NT kernel architecture for older methodologies, that would be brilliant. Take the only good thing of Windows, the NT core architecture and remove it for older *nix concepts that even the Cutler team determined to be too old to support an OS that would extend to the future.
People! Windows98, and even Win32 is NOT windows per se. The NT Kernel is one of the great things that Microsoft actually has, and Windows is already sitting on top of it. Hence the reason WindowsXP doesn't crash.
What Windows doesn't have is security.
Actually Windows (NT kernel versions) have more security than any *nix out there, the *nixes are just not as targeted.
Take a look at security compromises for any month; *nixes, specifically Linux, are hacked more than any Windows Server by a scale of 10 each month.
Hate to break it to yall, but there have been some VERY nice UNIX(tm) layers for Windows since NT 4.0 The same people that made Exceed X11 for Windows also made a kernel add-in with full POSIX support. All the UNIX goddies where there and it even seemed to increase stability. Microsoft purchased the company after they failed to get their software to run well on Windows 2k (they ran out of money and couldn't afford to redevlope). If they get this stuff working again in Longhorn, I'll be first in line to buy it when its released.
Just a couple of corrections.
The UNIX support in WindowsNT is not a 'layer' but a subsystem, i.e. just like Win32 is a subsystem. (This is part of the what makes the NT architecture unique)
Also NT had a POSIX subsystem, and even third party UNIX subsystem support since 3.1 when it was released in 1993, not NT 4.0.
With the subsystem technology of the NT architecture, Microsoft could actually implement a binary level subsystem that is fully Linux compaitble, and sit on top of the NT kernel, with full intertaction with the other subsystems that sit on NT. (i.e. Win32, etc) Just in case Linux or other *nix overtakes the desktop, Microsoft could put out a NT kernel based version that could in theory be even more solid than a generic Linux implementation itself.
Particularlly, you can't do any blending against windows that are being drawn with DirectX/DirectDraw which is the way that any program that wants to approach full-motion video or 3D graphics has to do things. And that's what prevents Windows from handling this application.
Mac's OSX is a lot cleaner in this department because in their universe there are no exceptions to the rules... everything passes through Quartz, so there's a chance to capture and play with anything on the screen. DirectX and DirectDraw are painted onto the screen after all mortal windows are drawn in Windows, and that's why there's no chance to add an overlay to them.
DirectX and Windows 2000 also introduced a new dynamic accelerated overlay that allows transparency of even video being played back. (In an actual overlay.)
Products like WinDVD, and other Video players use this technology. For example, ATI video cards can display Transparent TV video playback, etc using this technology.
And yes it is different from the transparent Window GDI calls of Win2k, but it has been around for quite a while in the Windows world, and most windows users are taking advantage of it in their DVD and other Video playback software, even if they doen't realize it.
And yes it was available before OSX was even released, so I hate to burst any bubbles, but Apple was not ahead in this area of graphical capabilities.
Stating that Microsoft doesn't support, and Apple was the first to implement this type of technology is just factually wrong.
Sorry...
Some of them actually tried this, and they were slapped down by MS, who increased the cost of their licenses to the point they could no longer remain competitive. Is it worth it to them to add another 100 to the cost of each PC they make for the privelige of installing some extra software on there? Hell no. Hence why every new mom and pop PC comes with IE, and nothing else.
This simply isn't true. I was the Managing Director of a large computer company from 1997-2000, and we licensed OEM Windows, just like everyone else did, and were given the options.
Microsoft could have cared less about what software we put on the system, we installed Netscape, etc etc.
They never altered our licensing or our fees.
Do people also forget that Windows since 1995 has shipped with connectivity Icons for companies like AOL, Compuserve, in addtion to their own MSN sign up icons?
If Microsoft was as much of a control freak as everyone here seems to believe, they never would have done this.
As for Microsoft and the licensing issues with OEMs, the people that should have been being slapped around were the OEMs, they had the choices, and it was less than a couple of dollars per each copy of Windows to sign and exclusive distribution license for their systems. No one forced them to do these agreements with Microsoft but their own greed.
Additionally, exclusive distribution licences for OEM had been around for a long time and were used by many software companies that provided OEM level utilities and software. Microsoft just got a bad rap because the OEM would not take their own accountability into acknowledgement and instead tried to make the end users think it was a forced thing by Microsoft.
Ignorance of the End User prevailed, and everyone still buy into the myth that Microsoft forced OEMs to do anything they didn't want to do.
Even the creator of Netscape himself acknowledged that the Monopoly suit against Microsoft because of the OEM licensing issue was non-sense.
Everyone here that hates Microsoft for the OEM and Windows licensing deals should be pissed at companies like Gateway and DELL that wanted to save a couple of dollars on the systems they shipped (and I literally mean a couple of dollars), not Microsoft for offering them an exclusive contract.
aren't drivers running in "ring 0", ... equivalent to compiling drivers into a kernel?
There is too much crap and miss information in your post, and I don't have the time to waste in addressing it all.
Drivers do not run in Ring 0 on NT. The only low level driver access that was given to NT, was in version 4.0 and it was the Video drivers, and in technical terms, they run at Ring 1, not Ring 0. (And yes you can find references to where people state the video drivers are running at Ring 0, but technically this is an incorrect statement with the NT architecture)
Although it could have been disastrous for a driver to run at Ring 1 for NT, it has proven that it was the right decision; hence the reason graphics and games on the NT platform have the ability to take full advantage of the latest graphics hardware.
As to your reference of it being equivalent to compiling drivers into a kernel, do you even understand the difference between the two? Scary that you would even say this...
Apparently you didn't read Inside Windows NT, or you would have known these simple facts.
NT is NOT a MACH Kernel, nor a monolithic Micro-kernel, it is a combination of both concepts with extra ideas added by the NT team when NT was designed. The best way to describe it is a Client/Server Kernel model.
I worked on the Solaris 2.3 & 2.4 kernel, so I hope I can hang with your superior intellect?
If you were working on the Solaris kernel, now we know why Solaris has gone to hell, and even Sun is moving to the Linux world.
but you don't know dick about this subject. DEC & NT, was a disaster, and it took DEC down.
Really? Funny that DEC is still alive in the soul of Compaq/HP, and was more than just a microprocessor company that provided many technologies. So for you to assert that one CPU division (The Alpha) made DEC fail by aligning with NT, you are off your nut.
I'm done with your inane ramblings; go find some other post to preach your religion. I like to live in a world of reality and logic, not fanaticism.
BTW - Love the run on paragraphs, did you know that you can hit the Enter key to make new paragraphs once in a while?
Not a bad reply Mensa, still wrong, weak and bais. I agree I should have spelled Phoenix correctly, to much Miller. What happened to DEC after the NT debacle "Super Man".?? Let that speak for itself. And. the poor guy (NT 3.1 Designer) designed VMS, but Microsoft got the best of him.
First it is 'too', not 'to' and this is how you spell 'bias'.
Secondly, what even is your reference to the NT Debacle and its effect on DEC? Again you know nothing of the subject.
Compaq bought DEC and the Alpha mid 1999. Windows 2000 was in beta and available up to RC1 for the Alpha CPUs. Compaq had no interest in continuing support of their newly acquired Alpha CPU, and halted their end of production in working with Microsoft. Microsoft had no choice but to pull the Windows 2000 for Alpha. (Even though I know of a few old time Alpha nerds that are still using Windows 2000 on the Alpha CPUs)
If Compaq had not bought DEC and scrapped the Alpha projects, there would have been a commercially released Windows 2000 and Windows XP for the Alpha CPU.
As for you argument about performance optimized OSes and their relation to the CPU and hardware, I suggest you take time to read about the design history of NT, the novel approaches in the HAL, and the modified kernel model that is still in theory one of the best designs that came out of both the MACH and Microkernel development worlds. Go look up Client/Server kernel and some of these terms that will be quite new to you.
Just put on your T-Shirt that says, "I am Mac/Linux/Solaris fan boy/girl," and leave the posting and debates for people that have been around and actually worked in and on the very projects you are trying to argue about.
Good Day
Hey Computer "Mensa", compiling XP in 64-bit mode does not make it 64-bit "useful", and computationally fast. A tuna-fish can release a 64-bit OS, but to truely leverage 64-bit, please Microsoft. Come on Phoneix On-Line Grad. Sun Solaris and Linux are much better, heck, even AIX 5.2 is a better 64-bit OS then the "Been there since 1996" Microsoft.
You know, what you say sounds really good, until a person that has a brain reads your words and concludes that you are just bloviating opinion.
If NT was not 'performance' optimized as a 64bit OS, then it would have been really stupid for DEC to use NT as the demonstration OS/Platform to showcase the power and speed of the Alpha CPU.
But yet, DEC did exactly that, not only in performance numbers they touted and released, but at every new CPU launch and exhibition, NT was the OS DEC primarily used.
You would think a company that could envision and build a CPU as powerful as the Alpha would be as 'smart' as you and pick a truly 'performance' enhanced OS so their CPU would even look more impressive. Darn, they really needed your 'wisdom'.
Should I say you are an intellectually insecure, arrogant ass in my response or do you think that everyone that read your posting has already figured it out?
PS - When trying to sound intellectually superior and doing the whole dated condescending post, you might want to at least spell Phoenix correctly.