And what makes you think the MS process is so different?
Windows Update only offers patches that have not gone through an extensive public testing when there is a major security concern. Period.
Other than that, patches are put through a long serious of tests, with many thousands of beta testers around the world. For example, the driver certification and the XP components updates that are not as important as having a 'security' fix immediately and other non-threat updates are put through public testing for a long period.
Trust me, our tech team have been Windows Update Beta Participants since its begining. We see the fixes before they are fully tested and released to the public, etc etc.
And we also have Microsoft's ear for feedback, just like the participation groups for Debian.
Just because it is Microsoft does NOT make it different tha Debian or other vendors providing the same process to users.
Microsoft does take the liberty of shielding the 'technical' jargon and experiental code from novice users.
So you won't see a patch written by 13 year old skippy posted at 3am as a Stable, or Unstable fix option on the Microsoft website. And thank God. *sigh*
Apple's OS X has a nice approach to this; it runs at a specified time that you decide, looks for updates, asks you to pick which you want to install, then installs and prompts for restarts if needed.
Let me guess, you never used WindowsXP?
What you describe (and is in OSX) is almost exactly how one of the options of auto-update works on XP. (The Default one in fact).
You can also tell XP to check and notify you but not download the updates, or to fully install the updates during the night for you.
And also let me guess, you think Apple came up with the Idea all by themseleves? Even though it had been in Microsoft Products for over a year before it was added to the OSX betas.
Yeah, OSX has this idea nailed down better than anyone, except from the companies they copied it from like Microsoft. - Give me a break.
Why do people try to find a Mac as a solution to everything. I like my computer, but sometimes the affection for a computer displayed here seems scary.
And no this is in no way bashing OSX, I use it as well, in addition to XP and Linux.
But Geesh, at least know what the compettition has in their OS before you tell the world that OSX is the solution and make yourself look silly.
And, 10.3 Panther will also let you save off the updates. That way, you won't have to re-download them in case you need to rebuild the system (provided that you archive the packages).
And you can do this already with WindowsXP as well... So?
In the case of Windoze, I do not mind. Windoze users gave up their freedom when they paid Big Brother Bill to lobby Washington to take away their freedom. But a few or even one individual controlling the entire Internet and, by extrapolation, most if not all world communication: That is frightening.
Sorry you have such contempt for others that don't choose the same OS as you do.
In response to your comments about super worms...
One thing that is coming from Microsoft is a Layer 7 filter with a simple user confirmation interface to augment the firewall for incoming and outgoing traffic.
It has the possibility to virtually remove any worm threat to Windows.
I hope other OSes will follow suit and make Layer 7 filtering a standard feature on the desktop and not just in server environments providing routing and caching.
This is so true. Thank goodness there are a lot of 'good' programmers that do have morals.
I personally know people that are capable of dropping a series of multi-os based worms hitting everything out there. Starting from obscure BeOS vulnerabilities to more predominant OSes like Linux and Windows.
Like I have said before, no OS is 100% secure and it would take just one bright programmer or group to drop a bomb on the net.
They could slowly let the virus out, let it set quietly and then pop the net coming from various OSes in various methods.
The biggest mistake of virus writers now is that they... (actually should reserve this portion to not give anyone an idea).
The Trusted Computing (Orange Book) C2 dealt with computer systems, not networks. The Orange Book didn't cover networking.
Or are you going to tell me that all C2 systems did not have a network interface or removable media?
No, but to say that the NT4 Certifcation was not a true C2 because of any network limitations is inaccurate. C2 has NOTHING to do with Networking, it covers basic system security not NETWORKING.
Also if you review the NT4 C2 certification, you will find that C2 also applies with Networking installed, but it is NOT A PART OF THE C2 Certification. Period.
A NT4 with Networking and Floppies were allowed with Netbios turned off, etc. Netbios being an old an unsecure protocol.
For example I haven't checked but the Windows 2000 Professional, Server, and Advanced Server with SP3 and Q326886 Hotfix (OS) EAL4+ certification may only be for systems without floppy drives and no networking, like the earlier NT4 C2 rating.
Does anyone here even understand the C2 rating?
Apparently NOT...
It is a REQUIREMENT for C2 Certification for the system to NOT HAVE EXTERNAL or NETWORK interfaces.
This was not a limitation in NT4 to obtain this certification, but is a REQUIREMENT OF THE CERTIFICATION ITSELF.
Very true that it got C2 certification, but if I recall correctly only when external drives where removed and the PC was not hooked up to a network.
But if you actually KNEW what you were talking about, you would know that in order to get C2 certfication, ALL EXTERNAL AND NETWORK Interfaces have to be removed.
So before you start to discount any NT C2 certifications, try to understand what the C2 certification is about.
As this is a GUIDELINE OF C2 Certficiation, NO OS IN THE WORLD CAN OBTAIN C2 Certificaiton with external or network inferfaces installed.
Oh yeah. Closed standards sure has killed off Word, Excel, Access...AVI...
(Lots of other companies have also done good business with "closed" standards...Adobe, Quark, even Apple with Quicktime and Sorenson)
We are talking about a 'DISTRIBUTED' media technology here, not a word processor. Two entirely different things.
Market access and proliferation are the KEYS to making it successful. Windows Media does make Windows itself better, but the long term ideal is for media distribution and to sell Windows Server products that can provide this media. (i.e. Like the new digital movie theater contracts for WMP9 distribution and playback.)
It doesn't take a genius to figure out why this dipshit company (ati) is prevalent on slashdot.
Ok, and this anger is coming from what stock loss?
I have used both ATI and NVidia for many years.
Why ATI has 'respect' is they were one of the first companies to offer a low cost 'graphics accelerated' video card with the ATI Vantage back in 1991 that supported 8bit accelerated video and was a low cost alternative to the IBM 8514 XVGA accelerated standard at the time.
Back when NVidia was, well, what were they...
I am not sure why you replied this to my post, nor am I am going to debate which company is better or makes better products.
I have ATI cards in some computers, and NVidia cards in other computers. (And I am talking about my home, not our test labs)
The theater room has a ATI All In Wonder card in the server that controls the projection and sound systems. My laptop has an NVidia Geforce4 440Go. And I bought BOTH intentionally for the features they offered at the time.
Microsoft has a terrible record on security. This is hard to dispute. So why would any company upgrade from Windows 95 to Windows XP on security reasons alone?
Are you going to tell me that a *nix from the early 90s, is just as secure as a modern *nix?
Are you going to tell us that Mac System 7.x or 8.x software was just as secure as OSX?
No... There was a time that computer OSes were made with the idea that the computer would not be on a world wide network. They were designed to be used on 'closed' computers that had very little if NO connectivity.
When Windows 95 was developed (93-94), the concept of the Internet and the HTML revolution was just a starting glimmer. Microsoft totally missed the boat at first and developed MSN, which allowed connectivity by browsing 'Explorer' like folders for information even.
Sure these old OSes had some networking or connectivity ideals in them, but they were NOT designed to be ON PUBLIC NETWORKS.
So as you ask, why would a company upgrade from Windows95 to WindowsXP? A good reason would be that in 1995 when they bought Windows95, the computer they were using it on was not on a vast public network and being targeted for security flaws.
The computing world of today is completely different from 1995. 1995 was eight years ago.
Just like CPM, *nixes of the 70s, 80s, early 90s, DOS, Mac System Software, Windows 1.0-3.1, OS/2 1.x, GEM, and the AmigaOS - these operating systems were NOT secure, or DESIGNED to be secure. There was usually NO LOGIN, NO NETWORK, and NO NETWORK protection.
Windows95, was also NOT SECURE, the LOGIN was easily bypassed, it had limited 'corporate network' security, and had NO INTERNAL security mechanisms in its File System, or internal workings.
I can show you many *nixes that also fall into this SAME category from the same time frame that Windows95 was created. (Remember, back when NFS, the basic File Systems and other 'features' of *nixes were inherently insecure?)
I won't ever, pay to download anything in WMA format just like I won't install Real player no matter how many porn sites need it.
The sad thing, is the actual compression technology in Windows Media 8 and 9 is quite impressive, both audio and video.
I just don't understand why Microsoft has gotten off the path that actually made them a respected company at one time.
They were really strong about providing clients for their technologies for other platforms in the early 90s, and then it stopped.
Whoever the donkey at Microsoft that decided it was bad business to provide a media player client for *nix and other OSes should be knocked up side the head.
If WMA is ever going to really show its abilities, Microsoft MUST provide clients and encoders for other OSes than Windows.
I can almost understand them stopping the IE client development for other OSes. But not having clients for WMA/WMV on every platform is just shooting themselves in the head.
On my laptop where space is a premium, I like the fact I can use WMA for my audio, and have the files almost half the size at the same quality as a MP3.
I just want to see Microsoft start doing the right thing again, and get client players for these technologies on all OSes if they truly believe in them.
If not, give up the goat. Go back to the standards body and release the codecs into the public domain and give up the idea of being their 'own' standard. Which is a concept that has killed so many companies and products over the years.
In competing for the x-box, ati cancelled all support for linux.
Shit company, shit people, shit product
Actually, there was no competing... Microsoft killed off any chance of NVidia being in the XBOX2 after NVidia tried to milk them for more money when console prices dropped.
(After Microsoft had giving NVidia a ton of cash to develop the next generation Geforce GPU technology that they not only used in the XBOX, but got to package and put the the technology in the Geforce3 and future versions.)
Like I said before, if you are using a Geforce3 or newer NVidia card, Microsoft's bankroll from the XBOX project is the money that supported the creation of the technology in your card.
So NVidia, not only got money from the GPUs in the XBOX, they got DEVELOPMENT money that made all their products better. Double dipped from MS and the XBOX.
So ATI didn't drop Linux to get the XBOX contract, NVidia gave it to them.
nothing like feeding hits to another boring hardware review.... yes, there are heatpipes, no doubt mfgr's wills start to use them....
old and boring news, move along people...
The sad part is that heat pipe technology has been used in laptops for a LONG time now, and quite effectively for CPU and GPU cooling.
It is strange the the desktop board manufacturers are just now finding them to be an asset.
My Geforce4 440 laptop is virtually silent 99.9% of the time, and even when it hits load and heat increases, the auxiallary fan turns on for only a few seconds - and then it still is not any louder than someone exhailing. The DVD spinning is louder.
And this is an average laptop, but performs faster than many desktops, hitting 6000 on 3D2001 Mark.
Why Desktops are still SO loud is just amazing with the technology that IS available.
Of other note, a card shardard for laptops so I could upgrade my PowerBook G4 would be huge for me, expecially as laptops become the PC of choice for the younger, more mobile 20 somethings
ATI with the new ATI Mobility GPUs are pushing a standard interface for being upgradeable.
It is up to the manufacturers to take advantage of using this interface though, so with Apple, cross your fingers.
In the PC world, there are a couple of manufacturers that are already supporting the ATI GPU with the upgradeable interface, so that you will be able to drop in the next faster ATI Graphics Processor when it comes out and not have your laptop locked into the GPU it shipped with.
I only hope NVidia is working on a similar design or even a compatible design so that a laptop user could switch GPU manufacturers.
PS - Yes I know that within product lines, you can already rip out most Laptop GPU boards and replace them with the next minimal upgraded versions(i.e. Pull Geforce4 440Go 32mb - Replace with Geforce4 460Go 64mb); however, the ATI interface specification is for moving all the way to an entire new GPU architecture as the technology advances over a few years.
What kind of guarantee that Win XP won't turn out to have very similiar flaws to Win 9X and in 5 yrs people would be saying "This is reason enough to migrate to Windows 2008"?
Because Win9X was NEVER designed as a SECURE OS. It was a stepping stone from the DOS world. No internal Security system, no secured FS, nothing, it was just an open OS.
NT which XP is based on, was designed as a Secure OS, and is a whole other league.
Mac's back in 1999 also were NOT secure, OSX was the first 'security' conscious Mac OS.
Just like DOS did not have security, and even early versions of *nix. Even Linux variants in 1995-1999 were subject to some of these SAME security problems.
I can remember hacking BSD passwords from our company email server in 1998, all it took was administrator access.
So don't let everyone get off on this is as a Windows thing.
I took "two year release date" to mean that it was due two years after the regular XP, not that it had been out for two years. But hey, feel free to harp on this small point endlessly, you'd make Charlie proud.
Considering you couldn't even read the wording in the post and figure out what was said, says something in and of itself. Secondly, if you actually knew what you were talking about, you WOULD HAVE KNOWN that WindowsXP 64bit edition had been shipping since 2001. Almost everyone else here, and most people in the world seem to know this, so if you have such great understanding, even if you mis-read the post, you would have known better.
He was correct in pointing out that even if they are only several 'small' manufacturers, that there are already PERSONAL computers shipping with 64bit CPUS
Really? Show me some. I couldn't find any at Dell, Acer, Gateway, Sony, HP or IBM. And don't be half-assed like Charlie, go find an Opteron system that is actually targeted for the consumer pc market and isn't a bare bones box.
Like I said before the PC market is not just made up of Large Vendors. You would be surprised to know that close to 50% of PCs sold are made by small OEM companies and not just LARGE vendors. Unlike Mac users, PC users are not tied to BIG vendors and are an OPEN SYSTEM that can be designed and sold by many small companies. Just because the specific company that Charlie referenced is small is more of a reflection that many PC are sold by SMALL companies and just just DELL, Gateway or the other Manufacturers listed.
Even one of my independent computer companies has been shipping Opteron based systems for quite some time as well.
Get your head out of the BIG NAME only thoughts. They are not the ONLY players in the market. When our company designed systems for the government, and even the pentagon, we put in our own CUSTOM branded servers, not something from a large vendor.
This is the power of not being locked into a proprietary hardware and software offering from one vendor like Apple.
Got it yet?
You have to be kidding right? It took them over 10 years to even offer Mac users an OS that was not tied to the System OS underpinnings with its poor memory management, and lack of simple things like pre-emptive multitasking.
The buzzwords were the easy part, my friend. The hard part was comming up with a feasible migration path so developers wouldn't have to rewrite all of their applications from scratch. You must really hate using x86 with all the cruft thats been kicking around in there for over 20 years.
That is why Microsoft designed WindowsNT, it has NO allegiance to any architecture. If you had any knowledge, you would have known that version 4.0 of NT shipped for RISC, Alpha, and EVEN Power PC based computers.
Additionally, with the 'legacy' free PC specifications, what you consider the 'cruft' (not even a word) of the x86 architecture is NOT really a part of the current PC. There was this thing called legacy free PC specifications designed by Microsoft and several hardware vendors that eliminated the 'antiquated' pieces of the x86 system.
For example, the Laptop I am using today, is a 'Legacy Free' PC architecture, it has NO Serial, Parallel ports or controllers, as well it has does not have any ISA bus architecture, nor does it have any of the 'restricting' controllers that the 'older architectures' of the x86 systems were limited by.
Just because the main CPU itself supports the basic x86 instruction set, in NO way defines the chipsets of the computer itself.
You need a Computer Architecture 101 class bad.
Woo! Thats pretty earth shattering! But are you SURE that concept was actually thought up by Microsoft? The list of 'Microsoft inventions' that were actually thought up by other companies is pretty long, such as how DOS wasn't written from scratch by Microsoft, they bought it from somebody else, the 3-button mouse that was in
Trolls" don't use hard facts to back their points up. Please, allow me to translate your post: I whipped out a big old pile of hard evidence that Apple has been a huge force of innovation in the computing industry, but rather than take the time to make a reasoned reply with "perspective and knowledge", you just declare victory and try to walk away. I don't think so. Far from "discrediting" me, you are merely intellectually lazy.
Some people work and aren't 15 year olds living with mom. I'm glad you have the luxury of time.
However, I will prepare a response for your last post, even though there is so much CRAP in it, it will not be a quick response.
I bought an Alpha machine that seems to have come from Microsoft itself (has an MS serial id tag). It's CD-ROM happened to contain a cd-r (laser printed label affixed) that said MS internal test (or something) WIN2k Rc3 build #(I forget).
Well, I'd be willing to bet $10 that 1000>0 too. But wait - if we count units shipped to developers, the G5s probably already outnumbers AMD 64bit desktops.
Even one of my independant companies has shipped several hundred dual processor Opteron systems.
If you think Apple is GOD and can do no wrong, just live with it, quit trying to make excuses...
As I said before, I actually like Apple, but their marketing likes to stretch the truth too much.
I apologize for replying to you, I mistakenly assumed you were not a bloviating troll...
However, I did enjoy your last post; it was quite a demonstration of your lack of perspective and knowledge. I couldn't have tried to discredit you myself better than you were able to do so with your own words.
And you would be right. HOWEVER, NFS is not even REMOTELY similar to NTFS.
NTFS is a file structure used by the disk.
NFS is a NETWORK SERVER
You missed the point completely.
First off, even though NTFS is a file system, it is 'integrated with the networking security model of NT' and NTFS provides the basic security mechanisms that are used by the object based security model that is used in NETWORK access of NTFS volumes. It is INTEGRATED with the Networking security structure that NT offers.
Sure NFS is not a 'part' of the base OS, just like 'Microsoft File & Printer Sharing' is not a 'part' of the base OS or the base kernel of NT. Actually NTFS isn't even a part of the BASE kernel of NT. (Remember installable file system technology here)
However, the point I was making is that NFS is a 'commonly used' component (just like "Microsoft File Sharing" is a 'commonly used' component of WindowsNT.
And for there to be so many SEVERE security flaws in such an 'intrinsic component' is quite disturbing.
If NFS was designed like the NETWORK access is in NT with the additional NTFS security model, it would not solely rely upon its security mechanisms of sharing. You see with NT, not only do you have the Networking sharing security mechanism for volume access, you also have to get through the NTFS security system before you can access files on any volume.
No matter whether the user is accessing them locally, from a Networking Share, FTP, IIS, or any other form of volume access you can imagine not only do you have to get through the Networking mechanism for security but NTFS as well.
In no way could the Itaniums currently be considered for personal computers. But hey, if you want to buy an Itanium for a lot more money that will perform far more slowly than a P4 or an Athlon, be my guest. And I wonder why it would take Microsoft so long to release a 64 bit version of XP, considering they had NT running on Alphas, PowerPC's and I think Sparcs as well.
How do you get that it TOOK SO LONG for Windows XP 64bit edition to ship? It was released only a month or two after Windows XP was released back in 2001? Where have you been?
Two months from the major release is really not 'considered a long time', especially considering that the final manufacturing Itanium CPUS were just becoming available.
In addition it WAS THE Professional 'desktop' version of WindowsXP for PERSONAL computers, not a server version. So sweep the idea that it was not meant for personal computer use out the window, ok.
How about giving you a clue instead?
I love these posts, people are so quick to jump into a post to 'enlighten' everyone, and they don't have a clue about what they are even talking about.
I am not going to debate whether Charlie White is an asshole or not, it has NOTHING to do with the issue. He was correct in pointing out that even if they are only several 'small' manufacturers, that there are already PERSONAL computers shipping with 64bit CPUS, and even Dual 64bit Cpu configurations that DO cost less than what Apple is offering.
If you want to believe the Apple lie that they are 'the great innovator and the first to do this or that, then pledge allegiance to them and admit it, but if you want to look at the real world, THEY ARE NOT.
Considering how portable the whole *nix world is (Panther's roots) it is AMAZING that Apple won't even have a 64bit OS for the machines when they ship, or anytime in the near future. People will be dropping a 64bit version of Linux on them before Apple even has their own 64bit OS.
It would be nice for the applications to have access to not only the additional data pipelines, but the 64bit addressing and be able to access at minimal 512GB of RAM using 48bit addressing in the CPU instead of the big 8GB Apple touts as if it is supposed to be impressive.
Dual Processor 32bit x86 systems have employed 36bit addressing for SEVERAL years now, allowing OSes like Win2k to access 64GB of RAM on dual processor machines.
Geesh Apple, what are you thinking? And it is embarrassing that they are touting 8GB of RAM access as a superior feature.
WindowsXP for Intanium (The Personal Computer DESKTOP version - that has been shipping since 2001, even supports 16GB of RAM. Funny Apple couldn't even keep up with a two year old Microsoft OS.
I don't see where the sarcasm applies, since Apple has innovated far more than Linux and Microsoft combined. The only company that could compete with Apple for the title of Most Innovated Computer Company, Ever would be IBM.
You have to be kidding right? It took them over 10 years to even offer Mac users an OS that was not tied to the System OS underpinnings with its poor memory management, and lack of simple things like pre-emptive multitasking. I am so amazed at new OSX users when they are happy to be able to play MP3s, browse the Net and run other tasks without the Music skipping... DO you NOT realize that NT has been like that since 1993?
As for other 'Apple' innovations, I could go on all day but just don't have the time.
Here take a couple of QUICK examples of 'innovations' that YOU use on almost any OS, EVEN a Mac that was designed by Microsoft and CHANGED the way users worked forever.
#1.) Highlight a word or sentence in your word processor, then click on the toolbar to change its Font or alignment. Guess, what, this is a Microsoft innovation from the mid 1980 designed by the Microsoft Word team. The concept is called - 'Selected and Modify' (Also look up highlighted spell check, and almost 120 other inn
Ten bucks that Apple will sell more G5s in the first week than BOXX will sell computers ever
Maybe, but PC users don't look at 'vendors'; they look at products from MANY vendors. - Which somehow seems to be a foreign concept to Mac zealots.
How about let's bet ten bucks there have been more AMD 64bit desktop computers sold & shipped before ANY Apple 64bit Desktop is ever sold & shipped...
Additionally, I will also put 10 bucks that by the end of August there will be more 64bit Desktop AMD systems sold & actually shipped (by various manufacturers) than all of Apples G5s.
Well just maybe there was some problem they ran into during that late Beta stage that was way too much trouble to fix on Alpha?
Um... Maybe not... Win2k on Alpha was a fully running version, and when DEC was sold to Compaq, Compaq pulled the plug on the Alpha.
(Win2k on Alpha was at the Beta 2 stage, which means that not only was it running, but stable, and full featured.)
Microsoft was still willing to ship Win2k for Alpha, but Compaq was going to phase out Alpha - intentionally as it competed with their own server lines. In the end, Compaq all but killed the Alpha chip technologies.
PS (Just a hint, my tech team was in the Win2k Beta, and we were testing Win2k on Alpha as well. So you are barking up the wrong tree if you think I am giving misinformation.)
Slashdot Mirror
And what makes you think the MS process is so different?
Windows Update only offers patches that have not gone through an extensive public testing when there is a major security concern. Period.
Other than that, patches are put through a long serious of tests, with many thousands of beta testers around the world. For example, the driver certification and the XP components updates that are not as important as having a 'security' fix immediately and other non-threat updates are put through public testing for a long period.
Trust me, our tech team have been Windows Update Beta Participants since its begining. We see the fixes before they are fully tested and released to the public, etc etc.
And we also have Microsoft's ear for feedback, just like the participation groups for Debian.
Just because it is Microsoft does NOT make it different tha Debian or other vendors providing the same process to users.
Microsoft does take the liberty of shielding the 'technical' jargon and experiental code from novice users.
So you won't see a patch written by 13 year old skippy posted at 3am as a Stable, or Unstable fix option on the Microsoft website. And thank God. *sigh*
Apple's OS X has a nice approach to this; it runs at a specified time that you decide, looks for updates, asks you to pick which you want to install, then installs and prompts for restarts if needed.
Let me guess, you never used WindowsXP?
What you describe (and is in OSX) is almost exactly how one of the options of auto-update works on XP. (The Default one in fact).
You can also tell XP to check and notify you but not download the updates, or to fully install the updates during the night for you.
And also let me guess, you think Apple came up with the Idea all by themseleves? Even though it had been in Microsoft Products for over a year before it was added to the OSX betas.
Yeah, OSX has this idea nailed down better than anyone, except from the companies they copied it from like Microsoft. - Give me a break.
Why do people try to find a Mac as a solution to everything. I like my computer, but sometimes the affection for a computer displayed here seems scary.
And no this is in no way bashing OSX, I use it as well, in addition to XP and Linux.
But Geesh, at least know what the compettition has in their OS before you tell the world that OSX is the solution and make yourself look silly.
And, 10.3 Panther will also let you save off the updates. That way, you won't have to re-download them in case you need to rebuild the system (provided that you archive the packages).
And you can do this already with WindowsXP as well... So?
In the case of Windoze, I do not mind. Windoze users gave up their freedom when they paid Big Brother Bill to lobby Washington to take away their freedom. But a few or even one individual controlling the entire Internet and, by extrapolation, most if not all world communication: That is frightening.
Sorry you have such contempt for others that don't choose the same OS as you do.
In response to your comments about super worms...
One thing that is coming from Microsoft is a Layer 7 filter with a simple user confirmation interface to augment the firewall for incoming and outgoing traffic.
It has the possibility to virtually remove any worm threat to Windows.
I hope other OSes will follow suit and make Layer 7 filtering a standard feature on the desktop and not just in server environments providing routing and caching.
This is so true. Thank goodness there are a lot of 'good' programmers that do have morals.
I personally know people that are capable of dropping a series of multi-os based worms hitting everything out there. Starting from obscure BeOS vulnerabilities to more predominant OSes like Linux and Windows.
Like I have said before, no OS is 100% secure and it would take just one bright programmer or group to drop a bomb on the net.
They could slowly let the virus out, let it set quietly and then pop the net coming from various OSes in various methods.
The biggest mistake of virus writers now is that they... (actually should reserve this portion to not give anyone an idea).
The Trusted Computing (Orange Book) C2 dealt with computer systems, not networks. The Orange Book didn't cover networking.
Or are you going to tell me that all C2 systems did not have a network interface or removable media?
No, but to say that the NT4 Certifcation was not a true C2 because of any network limitations is inaccurate. C2 has NOTHING to do with Networking, it covers basic system security not NETWORKING.
Also if you review the NT4 C2 certification, you will find that C2 also applies with Networking installed, but it is NOT A PART OF THE C2 Certification. Period.
A NT4 with Networking and Floppies were allowed with Netbios turned off, etc. Netbios being an old an unsecure protocol.
For example I haven't checked but the Windows 2000 Professional, Server, and Advanced Server with SP3 and Q326886 Hotfix (OS) EAL4+ certification may only be for systems without floppy drives and no networking, like the earlier NT4 C2 rating.
Does anyone here even understand the C2 rating?
Apparently NOT...
It is a REQUIREMENT for C2 Certification for the system to NOT HAVE EXTERNAL or NETWORK interfaces.
This was not a limitation in NT4 to obtain this certification, but is a REQUIREMENT OF THE CERTIFICATION ITSELF.
Geeesh...
Very true that it got C2 certification, but if I recall correctly only when external drives where removed and the PC was not hooked up to a network.
But if you actually KNEW what you were talking about, you would know that in order to get C2 certfication, ALL EXTERNAL AND NETWORK Interfaces have to be removed.
So before you start to discount any NT C2 certifications, try to understand what the C2 certification is about.
As this is a GUIDELINE OF C2 Certficiation, NO OS IN THE WORLD CAN OBTAIN C2 Certificaiton with external or network inferfaces installed.
Period...
Go read the C2 Cerfication requirements...
Geesh...
Oh yeah. Closed standards sure has killed off Word, Excel, Access...AVI...
(Lots of other companies have also done good business with "closed" standards...Adobe, Quark, even Apple with Quicktime and Sorenson)
We are talking about a 'DISTRIBUTED' media technology here, not a word processor. Two entirely different things.
Market access and proliferation are the KEYS to making it successful. Windows Media does make Windows itself better, but the long term ideal is for media distribution and to sell Windows Server products that can provide this media. (i.e. Like the new digital movie theater contracts for WMP9 distribution and playback.)
It doesn't take a genius to figure out why this dipshit company (ati) is prevalent on slashdot.
Ok, and this anger is coming from what stock loss?
I have used both ATI and NVidia for many years.
Why ATI has 'respect' is they were one of the first companies to offer a low cost 'graphics accelerated' video card with the ATI Vantage back in 1991 that supported 8bit accelerated video and was a low cost alternative to the IBM 8514 XVGA accelerated standard at the time.
Back when NVidia was, well, what were they...
I am not sure why you replied this to my post, nor am I am going to debate which company is better or makes better products.
I have ATI cards in some computers, and NVidia cards in other computers. (And I am talking about my home, not our test labs)
The theater room has a ATI All In Wonder card in the server that controls the projection and sound systems. My laptop has an NVidia Geforce4 440Go. And I bought BOTH intentionally for the features they offered at the time.
Geesh...
Microsoft has a terrible record on security. This is hard to dispute. So why would any company upgrade from Windows 95 to Windows XP on security reasons alone?
Are you going to tell me that a *nix from the early 90s, is just as secure as a modern *nix?
Are you going to tell us that Mac System 7.x or 8.x software was just as secure as OSX?
No... There was a time that computer OSes were made with the idea that the computer would not be on a world wide network. They were designed to be used on 'closed' computers that had very little if NO connectivity.
When Windows 95 was developed (93-94), the concept of the Internet and the HTML revolution was just a starting glimmer. Microsoft totally missed the boat at first and developed MSN, which allowed connectivity by browsing 'Explorer' like folders for information even.
Sure these old OSes had some networking or connectivity ideals in them, but they were NOT designed to be ON PUBLIC NETWORKS.
So as you ask, why would a company upgrade from Windows95 to WindowsXP? A good reason would be that in 1995 when they bought Windows95, the computer they were using it on was not on a vast public network and being targeted for security flaws.
The computing world of today is completely different from 1995. 1995 was eight years ago.
Just like CPM, *nixes of the 70s, 80s, early 90s, DOS, Mac System Software, Windows 1.0-3.1, OS/2 1.x, GEM, and the AmigaOS - these operating systems were NOT secure, or DESIGNED to be secure. There was usually NO LOGIN, NO NETWORK, and NO NETWORK protection.
Windows95, was also NOT SECURE, the LOGIN was easily bypassed, it had limited 'corporate network' security, and had NO INTERNAL security mechanisms in its File System, or internal workings.
I can show you many *nixes that also fall into this SAME category from the same time frame that Windows95 was created. (Remember, back when NFS, the basic File Systems and other 'features' of *nixes were inherently insecure?)
Geesh...
I won't ever, pay to download anything in WMA format just like I won't install Real player no matter how many porn sites need it.
The sad thing, is the actual compression technology in Windows Media 8 and 9 is quite impressive, both audio and video.
I just don't understand why Microsoft has gotten off the path that actually made them a respected company at one time.
They were really strong about providing clients for their technologies for other platforms in the early 90s, and then it stopped.
Whoever the donkey at Microsoft that decided it was bad business to provide a media player client for *nix and other OSes should be knocked up side the head.
If WMA is ever going to really show its abilities, Microsoft MUST provide clients and encoders for other OSes than Windows.
I can almost understand them stopping the IE client development for other OSes. But not having clients for WMA/WMV on every platform is just shooting themselves in the head.
On my laptop where space is a premium, I like the fact I can use WMA for my audio, and have the files almost half the size at the same quality as a MP3.
I just want to see Microsoft start doing the right thing again, and get client players for these technologies on all OSes if they truly believe in them.
If not, give up the goat. Go back to the standards body and release the codecs into the public domain and give up the idea of being their 'own' standard. Which is a concept that has killed so many companies and products over the years.
In competing for the x-box, ati cancelled all support for linux.
Shit company, shit people, shit product
Actually, there was no competing... Microsoft killed off any chance of NVidia being in the XBOX2 after NVidia tried to milk them for more money when console prices dropped.
(After Microsoft had giving NVidia a ton of cash to develop the next generation Geforce GPU technology that they not only used in the XBOX, but got to package and put the the technology in the Geforce3 and future versions.)
Like I said before, if you are using a Geforce3 or newer NVidia card, Microsoft's bankroll from the XBOX project is the money that supported the creation of the technology in your card.
So NVidia, not only got money from the GPUs in the XBOX, they got DEVELOPMENT money that made all their products better. Double dipped from MS and the XBOX.
So ATI didn't drop Linux to get the XBOX contract, NVidia gave it to them.
nothing like feeding hits to another boring hardware review.... yes, there are heatpipes, no doubt mfgr's wills start to use them....
old and boring news, move along people...
The sad part is that heat pipe technology has been used in laptops for a LONG time now, and quite effectively for CPU and GPU cooling.
It is strange the the desktop board manufacturers are just now finding them to be an asset.
My Geforce4 440 laptop is virtually silent 99.9% of the time, and even when it hits load and heat increases, the auxiallary fan turns on for only a few seconds - and then it still is not any louder than someone exhailing. The DVD spinning is louder.
And this is an average laptop, but performs faster than many desktops, hitting 6000 on 3D2001 Mark.
Why Desktops are still SO loud is just amazing with the technology that IS available.
Ok, my two cents...
Of other note, a card shardard for laptops so I could upgrade my PowerBook G4 would be huge for me, expecially as laptops become the PC of choice for the younger, more mobile 20 somethings
ATI with the new ATI Mobility GPUs are pushing a standard interface for being upgradeable.
It is up to the manufacturers to take advantage of using this interface though, so with Apple, cross your fingers.
In the PC world, there are a couple of manufacturers that are already supporting the ATI GPU with the upgradeable interface, so that you will be able to drop in the next faster ATI Graphics Processor when it comes out and not have your laptop locked into the GPU it shipped with.
I only hope NVidia is working on a similar design or even a compatible design so that a laptop user could switch GPU manufacturers.
PS - Yes I know that within product lines, you can already rip out most Laptop GPU boards and replace them with the next minimal upgraded versions(i.e. Pull Geforce4 440Go 32mb - Replace with Geforce4 460Go 64mb); however, the ATI interface specification is for moving all the way to an entire new GPU architecture as the technology advances over a few years.
What kind of guarantee that Win XP won't turn out to have very similiar flaws to Win 9X and in 5 yrs people would be saying "This is reason enough to migrate to Windows 2008"?
Because Win9X was NEVER designed as a SECURE OS. It was a stepping stone from the DOS world. No internal Security system, no secured FS, nothing, it was just an open OS.
NT which XP is based on, was designed as a Secure OS, and is a whole other league.
Mac's back in 1999 also were NOT secure, OSX was the first 'security' conscious Mac OS.
Just like DOS did not have security, and even early versions of *nix. Even Linux variants in 1995-1999 were subject to some of these SAME security problems.
I can remember hacking BSD passwords from our company email server in 1998, all it took was administrator access.
So don't let everyone get off on this is as a Windows thing.
I took "two year release date" to mean that it was due two years after the regular XP, not that it had been out for two years. But hey, feel free to harp on this small point endlessly, you'd make Charlie proud.
Considering you couldn't even read the wording in the post and figure out what was said, says something in and of itself. Secondly, if you actually knew what you were talking about, you WOULD HAVE KNOWN that WindowsXP 64bit edition had been shipping since 2001. Almost everyone else here, and most people in the world seem to know this, so if you have such great understanding, even if you mis-read the post, you would have known better.
He was correct in pointing out that even if they are only several 'small' manufacturers, that there are already PERSONAL computers shipping with 64bit CPUS
Really? Show me some. I couldn't find any at Dell, Acer, Gateway, Sony, HP or IBM. And don't be half-assed like Charlie, go find an Opteron system that is actually targeted for the consumer pc market and isn't a bare bones box.
Like I said before the PC market is not just made up of Large Vendors. You would be surprised to know that close to 50% of PCs sold are made by small OEM companies and not just LARGE vendors. Unlike Mac users, PC users are not tied to BIG vendors and are an OPEN SYSTEM that can be designed and sold by many small companies. Just because the specific company that Charlie referenced is small is more of a reflection that many PC are sold by SMALL companies and just just DELL, Gateway or the other Manufacturers listed.
Even one of my independent computer companies has been shipping Opteron based systems for quite some time as well.
Get your head out of the BIG NAME only thoughts. They are not the ONLY players in the market. When our company designed systems for the government, and even the pentagon, we put in our own CUSTOM branded servers, not something from a large vendor.
This is the power of not being locked into a proprietary hardware and software offering from one vendor like Apple.
Got it yet?
You have to be kidding right? It took them over 10 years to even offer Mac users an OS that was not tied to the System OS underpinnings with its poor memory management, and lack of simple things like pre-emptive multitasking.
The buzzwords were the easy part, my friend. The hard part was comming up with a feasible migration path so developers wouldn't have to rewrite all of their applications from scratch. You must really hate using x86 with all the cruft thats been kicking around in there for over 20 years.
That is why Microsoft designed WindowsNT, it has NO allegiance to any architecture. If you had any knowledge, you would have known that version 4.0 of NT shipped for RISC, Alpha, and EVEN Power PC based computers.
Additionally, with the 'legacy' free PC specifications, what you consider the 'cruft' (not even a word) of the x86 architecture is NOT really a part of the current PC. There was this thing called legacy free PC specifications designed by Microsoft and several hardware vendors that eliminated the 'antiquated' pieces of the x86 system.
For example, the Laptop I am using today, is a 'Legacy Free' PC architecture, it has NO Serial, Parallel ports or controllers, as well it has does not have any ISA bus architecture, nor does it have any of the 'restricting' controllers that the 'older architectures' of the x86 systems were limited by.
Just because the main CPU itself supports the basic x86 instruction set, in NO way defines the chipsets of the computer itself.
You need a Computer Architecture 101 class bad.
Woo! Thats pretty earth shattering! But are you SURE that concept was actually thought up by Microsoft? The list of 'Microsoft inventions' that were actually thought up by other companies is pretty long, such as how DOS wasn't written from scratch by Microsoft, they bought it from somebody else, the 3-button mouse that was in
Trolls" don't use hard facts to back their points up. Please, allow me to translate your post: I whipped out a big old pile of hard evidence that Apple has been a huge force of innovation in the computing industry, but rather than take the time to make a reasoned reply with "perspective and knowledge", you just declare victory and try to walk away. I don't think so. Far from "discrediting" me, you are merely intellectually lazy.
Some people work and aren't 15 year olds living with mom. I'm glad you have the luxury of time.
However, I will prepare a response for your last post, even though there is so much CRAP in it, it will not be a quick response.
I bought an Alpha machine that seems to have come from Microsoft itself (has an MS serial id tag). It's CD-ROM happened to contain a cd-r (laser printed label affixed) that said MS internal test (or something) WIN2k Rc3 build #(I forget).
Yep... Exactly.
Well, I'd be willing to bet $10 that 1000>0 too. But wait - if we count units shipped to developers, the G5s probably already outnumbers AMD 64bit desktops.
Even one of my independant companies has shipped several hundred dual processor Opteron systems.
If you think Apple is GOD and can do no wrong, just live with it, quit trying to make excuses...
As I said before, I actually like Apple, but their marketing likes to stretch the truth too much.
I apologize for replying to you, I mistakenly assumed you were not a bloviating troll...
However, I did enjoy your last post; it was quite a demonstration of your lack of perspective and knowledge. I couldn't have tried to discredit you myself better than you were able to do so with your own words.
And you would be right. HOWEVER, NFS is not even REMOTELY similar to NTFS.
NTFS is a file structure used by the disk.
NFS is a NETWORK SERVER
You missed the point completely.
First off, even though NTFS is a file system, it is 'integrated with the networking security model of NT' and NTFS provides the basic security mechanisms that are used by the object based security model that is used in NETWORK access of NTFS volumes. It is INTEGRATED with the Networking security structure that NT offers.
Sure NFS is not a 'part' of the base OS, just like 'Microsoft File & Printer Sharing' is not a 'part' of the base OS or the base kernel of NT. Actually NTFS isn't even a part of the BASE kernel of NT. (Remember installable file system technology here)
However, the point I was making is that NFS is a 'commonly used' component (just like "Microsoft File Sharing" is a 'commonly used' component of WindowsNT.
And for there to be so many SEVERE security flaws in such an 'intrinsic component' is quite disturbing.
If NFS was designed like the NETWORK access is in NT with the additional NTFS security model, it would not solely rely upon its security mechanisms of sharing. You see with NT, not only do you have the Networking sharing security mechanism for volume access, you also have to get through the NTFS security system before you can access files on any volume.
No matter whether the user is accessing them locally, from a Networking Share, FTP, IIS, or any other form of volume access you can imagine not only do you have to get through the Networking mechanism for security but NTFS as well.
In no way could the Itaniums currently be considered for personal computers. But hey, if you want to buy an Itanium for a lot more money that will perform far more slowly than a P4 or an Athlon, be my guest. And I wonder why it would take Microsoft so long to release a 64 bit version of XP, considering they had NT running on Alphas, PowerPC's and I think Sparcs as well.
How do you get that it TOOK SO LONG for Windows XP 64bit edition to ship? It was released only a month or two after Windows XP was released back in 2001? Where have you been?
Two months from the major release is really not 'considered a long time', especially considering that the final manufacturing Itanium CPUS were just becoming available.
In addition it WAS THE Professional 'desktop' version of WindowsXP for PERSONAL computers, not a server version. So sweep the idea that it was not meant for personal computer use out the window, ok.
How about giving you a clue instead?
I love these posts, people are so quick to jump into a post to 'enlighten' everyone, and they don't have a clue about what they are even talking about.
I am not going to debate whether Charlie White is an asshole or not, it has NOTHING to do with the issue. He was correct in pointing out that even if they are only several 'small' manufacturers, that there are already PERSONAL computers shipping with 64bit CPUS, and even Dual 64bit Cpu configurations that DO cost less than what Apple is offering.
If you want to believe the Apple lie that they are 'the great innovator and the first to do this or that, then pledge allegiance to them and admit it, but if you want to look at the real world, THEY ARE NOT.
Considering how portable the whole *nix world is (Panther's roots) it is AMAZING that Apple won't even have a 64bit OS for the machines when they ship, or anytime in the near future. People will be dropping a 64bit version of Linux on them before Apple even has their own 64bit OS.
It would be nice for the applications to have access to not only the additional data pipelines, but the 64bit addressing and be able to access at minimal 512GB of RAM using 48bit addressing in the CPU instead of the big 8GB Apple touts as if it is supposed to be impressive.
Dual Processor 32bit x86 systems have employed 36bit addressing for SEVERAL years now, allowing OSes like Win2k to access 64GB of RAM on dual processor machines.
Geesh Apple, what are you thinking? And it is embarrassing that they are touting 8GB of RAM access as a superior feature.
WindowsXP for Intanium (The Personal Computer DESKTOP version - that has been shipping since 2001, even supports 16GB of RAM. Funny Apple couldn't even keep up with a two year old Microsoft OS.
I don't see where the sarcasm applies, since Apple has innovated far more than Linux and Microsoft combined. The only company that could compete with Apple for the title of Most Innovated Computer Company, Ever would be IBM.
You have to be kidding right? It took them over 10 years to even offer Mac users an OS that was not tied to the System OS underpinnings with its poor memory management, and lack of simple things like pre-emptive multitasking. I am so amazed at new OSX users when they are happy to be able to play MP3s, browse the Net and run other tasks without the Music skipping... DO you NOT realize that NT has been like that since 1993?
As for other 'Apple' innovations, I could go on all day but just don't have the time.
Here take a couple of QUICK examples of 'innovations' that YOU use on almost any OS, EVEN a Mac that was designed by Microsoft and CHANGED the way users worked forever.
#1.) Highlight a word or sentence in your word processor, then click on the toolbar to change its Font or alignment. Guess, what, this is a Microsoft innovation from the mid 1980 designed by the Microsoft Word team. The concept is called - 'Selected and Modify' (Also look up highlighted spell check, and almost 120 other inn
Ten bucks that Apple will sell more G5s in the first week than BOXX will sell computers ever
Maybe, but PC users don't look at 'vendors'; they look at products from MANY vendors. - Which somehow seems to be a foreign concept to Mac zealots.
How about let's bet ten bucks there have been more AMD 64bit desktop computers sold & shipped before ANY Apple 64bit Desktop is ever sold & shipped...
Additionally, I will also put 10 bucks that by the end of August there will be more 64bit Desktop AMD systems sold & actually shipped (by various manufacturers) than all of Apples G5s.
Well just maybe there was some problem they ran into during that late Beta stage that was way too much trouble to fix on Alpha?
Um... Maybe not... Win2k on Alpha was a fully running version, and when DEC was sold to Compaq, Compaq pulled the plug on the Alpha.
(Win2k on Alpha was at the Beta 2 stage, which means that not only was it running, but stable, and full featured.)
Microsoft was still willing to ship Win2k for Alpha, but Compaq was going to phase out Alpha - intentionally as it competed with their own server lines. In the end, Compaq all but killed the Alpha chip technologies.
PS (Just a hint, my tech team was in the Win2k Beta, and we were testing Win2k on Alpha as well. So you are barking up the wrong tree if you think I am giving misinformation.)
So try again...