Charlie White, is an asshole. BOXX is a small manufacturer of Opteron systems
Ok, that clears it all up, since he is an asshole, then the Opteron machines that 'various' small manufacturers have released no longer exist. Poof, magic of an asshole reviewer can do miracles. Geesh.
BTW, considering market share, wouldn't Apple be considered a 'small manufacturer'? Hmm...
Get over it, the G5 is not, and will not be the first 64bit Desktop Computer. Additionally, Panther isn't even a 64bit OS, so where do all those 64bit benefits go?
WindowsXP for Itanium (Both a real 64bit OS, and a real 64bit processor) have been available for over a year now, in fact I think WindowsXP 64, is approaching its two year release date.
Microsoft stopped making PowerPC (and MIPS) versions of NT with version 4.0. Current NT (aka XP) only runs on Intel.
But that does not mean that the (XP) NT Kernel and HAL layer are not fully portable, just as they were first designed in the early 90s.
Don't get the Win32 kernel (Windows) confused with the NT kernel.
XP is just as portable as NT4 was, as you can witness with how easily the Native 64bit Itanium port of WindowsXP came about two years ago. And it is a full native 64bit native support of the Itanium CPU, not a x86 OS sitting on Itanium.
So don't think it couldn't happen. If a CPU market that surpassed Intel or AMD arrived, Microsoft could easily move to it.
Even after all these years the biggest mistake of competitors is that they CONTINUE to underestimate Microsoft and what their architectural plans allow them to do.
All that R&D money is doing more than just making cute furry bunnies that spin on the screen.:)
The NT kernel WAS portable. It has been said by MS kernel engineers that with Windows 2000, the changes made to the kernel made it very non-portable.
I'd like to see this quote, since the majority of the Win2k development cycle (including up to beta 2) supported the Alpha CPU.
So if Microsoft made NT (Win2k) non-portable did they do it in the Release Client a month or two before release just to screw with people or maybe in a mysterious service pack? Give me a break.
Win2k WAS designed for FULL Alpha support, and since the ALPHA development was cancelled LATE in the Beta, I seriously doubt they went back to the drawing board and rewrote the NT kernel after 10 years of portable design just to lock it into the x86 platform.
Besides, do you NOT get that the Itanium support in WindowsXP is not BASED upon x86, but a NATIVE NT Kernel running on the Itanium CPU, which has been available for almost two years now? Additionally the Windows 2003 Server support for the Itanium is a FULL 64 bit OS with a 64bit NATIVE kernel sitting on the Itanium processor. Geesh.
From the developers we worked with at Microsoft in the past year, even Windows 2003 server (which would include Win2k and XP) still have the basic HAL underpinning design and the lower NT kernel itself is STILL written in portable C.
According to the 'official' NT kernel development team, NT has been portable, stands by a portable design, and STILL is fully portable even TODAY.
So if you have some magical information that even the NT designers don't have, please share...
Oracle 9i and maybe 8 allows you to use Java for stored procedures
In addition you get free days off when the Oracle system dumps.
Ask, Orbitz, they love the 'unbreakable' Oracle.
It is amazing that products with humble beginnings like MySQL can truly put a dent in the big guys in terms of reliability and performance.
As a side note, I admit that MS SQL has down well for our clients too.
Re:CDBurners not the end for high-capacity Zip dri
on
DVD Burner Round-up
·
· Score: 1
NT4 is especially laughable because USB ports had been showing up on motherboards (a few brands like shuttle and i think intel) for about a year by mid 1996.
Yep, and even at the time, the manufacturers did NOT even have ANY driver support. I was in the PC OEM business at the time, and even though they were there, NO OS could use them until 1997 when a few third party drivers started appearing.
Additionally, NT4 was released in mid 1996, which means the driver and feature set was completed in 1995.
(BTW - You also forgot to mention ASUS in your cute little mainboard list - as ASUS was one of the Built in USB connection leaders of the time. And they didn't have drivers for any OS at the time either.)
You may like the fact that there's a web browser built into your OS, and that HTML code can change things on your hard drive without your permission. I'll keep using Mozilla, thank you.
And what makes you think Mozilla doesn't have the same level of access to your computer?
Actually, not only does it, but the Sun Java you are using BOTH have full access to your system, and there have been bugs in both products that have allowed users to gain full access to a person's hard drive via HTML or JAVA.
So, go ahead and feel safer using Mozilla, it is a fine product, but you are misleading yourself into thinking it is any safer because its HTML core isn't a part of the OS.
Re:CDBurners not the end for high-capacity Zip dri
on
DVD Burner Round-up
·
· Score: 1
It'd be good if Windows could make up it's mind whether or not it needs a driver disk for the bloody things! Sometimes it works, other times it needs drivers installed. Strangely, when it does need them, it seems to need them installed twice! This is independant of whether its xp, or 2000. And of course, there's the laughable lack of USB support on NT...
Not to rain on your parade, but we have yet to see a USB storage device fail to install and work properly the first time on any Win2K or XP based system in our testing labs, and we process more systems than most companies do in a lifetime.
Additionally, NT (Assuming you are referring to 4.0 and earlier) was developed before the USB specification was even finalized or available in hardware.
If you can find 'native' USB support in Linux, any *nix, or OS in 1995-1996 I'll eat your hat.
In OS reference for USB, it won't be until 2.6 of the Linux kernel that the full USB specification makes it into Linux along with finally supporting the full Plug and Play specification that is over seven years old. (And why is NT 4.0 laughable again? - it even had Plug and Play back 1996. So why we are all laughing, let's give Linux a big chuckle as well.):)
And the irony is that Kerberos is a security authentication system.
I am not attesting that any company is perfect or that I don't respect OpenBSD.
I do bring contention to the previous post that said Microsoft was able to be subjugated to ridicule because they bragged about their security and were still producing un-secure software.
Which I still submit, this is about the silliest excuse to discredit Microsoft I have come across in the past few weeks.
Now maybe you can get back to answering my questions, rather than ignoring the issue altogether: Microsoft have been focusing on features rather than security in the past - by admission of a representative of Microsoft, and also Bill Gates himself.
First I was responding to your words, not mine... Didn't a Microsoft representative say that their products had never been created with security in mind...
Now, I will again assert that this is NOT what any person from Microsoft has ever conveyed.
Microsoft noted that with previous generations of Windows, such as 3.1, 95, 98, and ME, security was not a major focus of the products. And that as a whole, the company could have been doing a better job, especially as the desktop leader, to provide a higher level of security for its consumers.
However SECURITY has been a MAJOR role of NT since 1992, and holding to its track record of maintaining a VERY credible security history from C2 certification, to maintaining secure Web Sites even on NT4 that was in the mid Internet boom and the beginning of new security attack techniques that were developed about that time.
So re-read the words from any source at Microsoft you quote.
NT was built to be secure from day one, and even with the evolution of security exploits, I would say that an OS that is as OLD as NT 4.0 is, it holds a pretty good pattern of having a solid internal security system, and the ability to easily extend past the initial security concerns that it was designed to protect at the time to protect against new attacks that have become common since its release.
My company specifically has deployed NT4 and Win2k in many government installations, and to this day, we have NEVER had a client have their system compromised while running NT4 or Win2k.
Unless you can find a quote that specifically says that security was NEVER a priority or concern on the NT platform, I will stand by my words. NT was built as security being a top priority, that is why the underlying security system is an object/token based system that has features reaching far beyond what we can currently get in any *nix. Period.
There have been 0 linux security advisories in the last week. The advisories you mention are in software that can run under Linux
I would assert that a bug in a component that is shipped with and used by the basic NFS of Linux is a serious problem, especially considering the severity of the bug.
Call it a component and not part of Linux if you want, but it is still shipped with most Linux distributions and NFS is used as a 'part of Linux' on a daily basis.
I could also argue that NTFS is not a part of Windows, because the NT kernel has no allegiance to any File System as well, but if there was a problem in NTFS or the network access of NTFS, then we could pretty much call it a 'Windows' problem.
Ok. As soon as You show me how to remove IE from Windows altogether as I can do with Mozilla on a Linux box I'll agree with You.
Sure, and then we will show you how to remove the font rendering system, the GDI bitmap APIs, and the File System drivers.
The basic ability to display HTML content is a core piece of Windows since 1998. Just as TrueType was added to Win3.1 in 1992, and the ability to show bitmaps and buttons was added in Windows 1.0
IE is just the pretty interface browser that Microsoft provides.
You seem to forget that developers actually like the idea of letting Windows draw the buttons, draw the font, display bitmaps, and display HTML by just telling Windows to do it instead of having to code it yourself.
Additionally, it is nice that these features are consistent in almost all Windows application that use any of these features for the end user.
I truly get tired of the 'remove IE' comments. IE is just a browser that uses the HTML engine in Windows - PERIOD.
The HTML core for Windows was Microsoft's original intention to allow developers and Windows itself to display the new (at the time) HTML standard natively, and IE was secondary.
Because it is a component technology built into Windows, you have seen it used in many mainstream applications, including AOL up until they finally rewrote Mozilla to be a 'HTML engine' much like the HTML engine that Microsoft built into Windows in 1998.
BTW - To remove IE (Open "C:\Program Files\" and delete the folder called "Internet Explorer") It will save almost a full megabyte of space on your hard drive. (Satire intentional)
Microsoft has been bragging up their Trustworthy Computing [sic] and talking about how much better their efforts have been then open source projects. Meanwhile OpenBSD (for example) has had a much, much better security record.
If you brag about your secure code, yet continue to have ridiculous security holes, the technical community should have every right to call you on your unjustified haughtiness! There still appear to be systemic problems with Windows that won't be fixed in a year or two no matter how arrogant Microsoft is.
Stating that security has taken a new role in the development of all Microsoft software products is not bragging.
They are very quick to state that the level of security they want to provide is a process as their software engineers and the industry itself matures and is NOT and will NOT ever become a complacent issue.
They have been and are restructuring their development model by adding security experts to all development teams. If you think this is bragging or a bad policy, I suggest wish@microsoft.com to tell them to not have security consultants work directly in the development process.
I won't debate the security level provided by OpenBSD, as they have and do produce well respected products, but they also 'brag' about their security and they also are not impervious to security flaws.
For example... OpenBSD believes in strong security. Our aspiration is to be NUMBER ONE in the industry for security (if we are not already there). (from OpenBSD.org)
This sounds a bit like bragging to me......
And then they go on to list a series of major flaws in the past year. March 31, 2003: A buffer overflow in the address parsing in sendmail(8) may allow an attacker to gain root privileges. March 24, 2003: A cryptographic weaknesses in the Kerberos v4 protocol can be exploited on Kerberos v5 as well. March 19, 2003: OpenSSL is vulnerable to an extension of the ``Bleichenbacher'' attack designed by Czech researchers Klima, Pokorny and Rosa. March 18, 2003: Various SSL and TLS operations in OpenSSL are vulnerable to timing attacks. March 5, 2003: A buffer overflow in lprm(1) may allow an attacker to elevate privileges to user daemon.. March 3, 2003: A buffer overflow in the envelope comments processing in sendmail(8) may allow an attacker to gain root privileges.
So maybe you are missing the point, and if not, maybe you should write OpenBSD yourself to request they stop bragging about security on the same page they list several major security flaws (far more than Win2k or Windows 2003 Server) in the past year.
Apparently they are subjecting themselves to the same public ridicule that you suggest Microsoft should be subjected to.
Or, to rephrase, isn't it better that the system is built for security to begin with? Didn't a Microsoft representative say that their products had never been created with security in mind, but "we'll make it better now, honest!"?
Ok, NT was built with security as its main feature, pick up Inside Windows NT so you don't sound silly next time you post.
The NT platform, which includes Win2k,XP,2003 have a token client/server object based security model, which is something that no *nix to this date has or even matches.
So a new flaw has been found in a piece of Windows, and one of the first flaws in Windows 2003 Server.
Let's compare this to an average Linux distribution security alert list from the past week.
Although not many are too serious, but denial of service, and gaining full access to the Linux server do seem a bit of a problem. Of course since this Linux distribution didn't come from Microsoft, I'm sure we won't see any of these in the main press.
Additionally since it didn't come from Microsoft we won't see posts upon posts how 'Security has never been a priority to Linux' as has been stated about Microsoft Windows.
Sure I will give you full credit that Win3.1, Win95, Win98, and WinME were NOT designed with security in mind.
But I do have to stand up when you say that any of the NT kernel based products were 'never created with security in mind'.
Not only is this not true, as it was a main design goal for the NT project, but it is also a slap in the face of people like Cutler and many of the other NT creators that were some of the top OS and Unix gurus of the time.
Even something as SIMPLE as obtaining C2 level government security certification is something NT obtained, but yet I see no listing of any Linux distribution even meeting this 'dated' and simple security certification.
I suppose Apple could implement the cut'n paste metaphor and restrict its use to intra-volume files. But they didn't want newbies worrying their pretty little heads about volumes, partitions, and networks. So is Mr Newbie going to use cut'n paste (which only works within this here 'volume' thingy), or is Mr Newbie going to use move 'n duplicate, which doesn't require any knowledge about volumes?
Ok, got it... Although I still disagree with the Apple metaphor on this.
Speaking of virtual desktops, I've set my Panther up to have multiple users up with different environments: Admin, Web, [myusername], etc. Then have started using the "Fast Login" feature to switch between environments. Sounds like a kludge, I know, but I'm enjoying the multiple Docks optimized for different purposes, multiple desktop paterns and multiple permissions.
I know what you mean, I have used this type of thing on one of my Windows XP machines for quite a while now. It is nice to just flip between the users I have setup.
(Again some may it is as kind of a Kludge of the Fast User Switching that has been in XP, but it is a novel way of working I think).
I am very happy to see Apple is adding Fast User Switching, sometihng that I truly miss from XP when I'm on OSX.
But the truth is the cut-n-paste is a metaphor that is only suitable for small data chunks that are 'easy' to duplicate. (eg bits of text) Files are not 'easy' to duplicate, in the sense that the time for duplication is linear to the size of the file. (do you really want to duplicate that 640MB CDROM image just to move it? Yes it's possible, but who wants to wait that long for duplication just to move the damn file?)
I guess I am totally missing what you are trying to convey.
Cutting and Pasting a file on the same volume should ONLY entail changing the entry in the FS table, and not move the data, just its pointed location.
So why would this be any different for a small file and a large file?
I must be completely missing something in your post, and apologize up front.
yet. I haven't seen anyone mention this, but I realized the other day that since Jaguar is fully 32-bit, you should be able to take 64-bit hardware and run two full instances of Jaguar on it in parallel.
Based on your post, I am assuming you are new to the techie side of things, so I hope I don't offend.
However, it doesn't work like this, a 64bit CPU is not two 32bit CPUS. Besides, running multiple copies of Jaguar would gain you what exactly?
The architecture of OSX allows for multiple process and applications already, running OSX twice would be silly and redundant.
Sorry Longhorn, MacOS X has been able to do rippling, rotating windows for awhile now
And there have been third party addins for Windows2000 and XP that have had these features for several years as well. Stardock just to name one off the top of my head.
The Mac does not have an exclusive on this stuff guys. Just because 'you' have not seen it, does not mean it doesn't exist.
I've used iChat AV and it is soooo much better than windows messenger. Unlike messenger, which forces me to a single postage-stamp sized video window, I can scale my video to any size and even go full screen
Funny my version of MSN messenger supports three video sizes, up to 640x480... Is the reviewer just a newbie with Windows or just trying to hype up iChat?
Win95-->Win98-->WinME--->WinXP is a case in point. Nothing for a user in XP, that he can't do with Win95.
Not even considering that they are two 'completely different' operating systems, I can probably name at lesat 50 major things off the top of my head that you can do in XP that you cannot do Win95.
Should we start the list?
1.) NT Kernel Layer - Abstracts Win32 Kernel from OS, giving system stability, and the ability to add additoinal OS subsystems on the NT Kernel in addtion to the Win32 subsystem.
2.) NTFS - Journalled File System 3.) NTFS - Object Oriented Based file Security System. 4.) NTFS - File/Folder Encryption 5.) NTFS - File/Folder Compression 6.) System Restore Protection 7.) OS Self Repair and File Protection 8.) DLL abstraction (multiple DLL instances in memory) 9.) Increased Boot & ShutDown Speeds 10.) Suspend to Disk Hibernation 11.) Full ACPI support with Scheduler with Even Scheduler - Wake Up Support 12.) RDP - Remote Desktop 13.) Telnet Server 14.) FTP Server 15.) IIS Server 16.) Application Crash protection that catches bad Memory and API calls in Real-time and prevents application crashes without the user ever knowing it is happening. 17.) POSIX supported naming conventions 18.) NTFS - HardLinks 19.) NTFS - Mount Points 20.) NTFS - Reparse Points 21.) DFS 22.) NTFS - 16exabyte Partions 23.) 4GB of RAM Access - 64bit Desktop 16GB RAM - Server 64GB/512GB RAM 24.) Native CDR-CDRW Support 25.) Intellimirror 26.) Offline Network Files & Synchronization 27.) ZDLabs reports 27 percent faster than Win95/Win98 with more than 64Mb of RAM 28.) Internet Connection Sharing 29.) Basic Firewall (Built In Firewall mechanisms for third party Firewalls to directly Plug In) 30.) Full Unicode Support 31.) Mutli-Processor Support (2 in Professional - 32 in Server) 32.) IPSec 33.) Smart Card Support 34.) Built in WiFi and UPnP 35.) Native Multi Monitor Support 36.) ClearType Throughout the OS 37.) Remote Assistance 38.) NLA 39.) Full VPN Support In & Out 40.) Driver Rollback (Windows Protection) 41.) Network Bridging 42.) Web Folder Support 43.) Fast User Switching 44.) WMI 45.) Group Policy (Local & Active Directory) 46.) Enhanced Power Management (Supporting CPU Throttling in addtion to other device Power control for improved Mobile battery Life) 47.) Kerbos 48.) IPv6 49.) Qos 50.) Volume Shadow Copy (Shadow Volumes - Versioning on Server)
That is just 50 'technical' things I could pull off the top of my head.
Should we also list another 100 other items that are in the UI of XP like common folder tasks, photo printing, built in Zip Folders, Image Acquisition, etc?
"Yeah, there sure is not anything in XP that a Win95 user can't do." - Said the person living in a cave.
You can easily spot the people that either do not get this stuff, or just have not used XP and only base their experience on the time they used Win9x and the FUD they read about XP.
In addition, as I said before, I also use OSX, Mac System 8.1, Mandrake, FreeBSD, Solaris, and Redhat everyday, so I am not a sold MS XP zealot by any sense of the word.
Nevertheless, saying that XP does not offer a user anything more than Win95 is just ridiculous.
MS is paying less than the cost of manufacture for the integrated chipset/graphic controller in the xbox. See this report [yahoo.com] and scroll down to the Microsoft Agreement heading. Microsoft also needed changes to the encryption keys hard coded into the chipset and left Nvidia with almost 10 million chips that they couldn't sell at all. They settled [yahoo.com] on February 6, 2003 with Nvidia agreeing to help further reduce the costs of making the current xbox. Just a couple of months later, MS announces they are partnering with Ati for the xbox2 design. Don't be fooled into thinking that nvidia made money on the xbox chips.
Whether you believe that NVidia is making or losing money on the chips (which I have sources that contradict the stories you cited and the figures that NVidia presented), it is a KNOWN fact that the GeForce3 TI and Geforce4 line of GPUs would not have been what they were if NVidia did not get the money from Microsoft to push the GPU development cycle for the chips.
So even if NVidia wants to say they are losing money on the XBox chips, they are making LOTS of money of the Geforce3 & Geforce4 GPUS that swept the market. Which they would not have been able to bring to manufacturing or possibly even produce if it were not for the money and assistance from Microsoft.
So if you were a business person, would you lose $1 on 10,000 items sold to get funding to create a new product line that sold 1,000,000 items that paid NO royalties back to the financier.
Get real, NVidia made off like bandits, not to even mention the public notoriety of the NVidia logo in the XBOX and the press that it generated.
I like and use both NVidia and ATI chip based video cards, I also like and own XBOX and PS2 consoles. I do not have a bias in this.
Instead of reading the NVidia press, read ALL the press on these issues and then use your own mind.
Besides the source you mention announcing Microsoft choosing the ATI chip for the XBOX II is a rumor announcement, 'citing senior sources in the UK', it is not official and is still on the table, but chances are, that you are right and it will be ATI in the XBOX II.
So, how did NVidia hardware get into the current one?
Microsoft paid them BIG BUCKS to develop the next generation processor that would be used in the XBOX and the technology from the Microsoft money was also then used to further their Geforce line development.
Then NVidia decided that wasn't enough because they weren't making enough per chip for the XBOXes, even though their entire GeForce project was expanded and funded by Microsoft.
So NVidia played the we will take your money use it to make our products better and then run with it.
Which gives us two things, better Geforce Chips based on Microsoft funding, and Microsoft denying NVidia any more funding money for the XBOX II chips.
Even though NVidia and the press played it like NVidia chose not to be in the XBOX II project, it was actually Microsoft that was not offering them the chance once NVidia wanted more money for each chip sold in the XBOX. (Inside MS information from late last year - can't quote sources, just have to trust me on this.)
In reality, like Microsoft or not, NVidia kind of screwed them. They used the infusion of cash to expand their GPU development to make the Geforce3, Geforce4, and GeforceFX what they are.
So if you are a NVidia card owner, you are using chips that Microsoft had a hand in funding.
Ironic, uh?
PS. Sad if it is true that ATI is dropping official Linux support, but I seriously doubt MS had anything to do with it. Especially considering there is not a deal with MS and ATI yet for the XBOX II, official or unofficial. (Again inside MS information)
The only ATI/MS alliance is the full support of DirectX 9 and DirectX in whole in hardware that ATI has been more committed to than NVidia, even pushing the MS envelope of what needs to be in the DirectX Video standard.
Slashdot Mirror
Charlie White, is an asshole. BOXX is a small manufacturer of Opteron systems
Ok, that clears it all up, since he is an asshole, then the Opteron machines that 'various' small manufacturers have released no longer exist. Poof, magic of an asshole reviewer can do miracles. Geesh.
BTW, considering market share, wouldn't Apple be considered a 'small manufacturer'? Hmm...
Get over it, the G5 is not, and will not be the first 64bit Desktop Computer. Additionally, Panther isn't even a 64bit OS, so where do all those 64bit benefits go?
WindowsXP for Itanium (Both a real 64bit OS, and a real 64bit processor) have been available for over a year now, in fact I think WindowsXP 64, is approaching its two year release date.
Apple is SO innovative (with marketing maybe)....
Give me a break...............
Microsoft stopped making PowerPC (and MIPS) versions of NT with version 4.0. Current NT (aka XP) only runs on Intel.
:)
But that does not mean that the (XP) NT Kernel and HAL layer are not fully portable, just as they were first designed in the early 90s.
Don't get the Win32 kernel (Windows) confused with the NT kernel.
XP is just as portable as NT4 was, as you can witness with how easily the Native 64bit Itanium port of WindowsXP came about two years ago. And it is a full native 64bit native support of the Itanium CPU, not a x86 OS sitting on Itanium.
So don't think it couldn't happen. If a CPU market that surpassed Intel or AMD arrived, Microsoft could easily move to it.
Even after all these years the biggest mistake of competitors is that they CONTINUE to underestimate Microsoft and what their architectural plans allow them to do.
All that R&D money is doing more than just making cute furry bunnies that spin on the screen.
The NT kernel WAS portable. It has been said by MS kernel engineers that with Windows 2000, the changes made to the kernel made it very non-portable.
I'd like to see this quote, since the majority of the Win2k development cycle (including up to beta 2) supported the Alpha CPU.
So if Microsoft made NT (Win2k) non-portable did they do it in the Release Client a month or two before release just to screw with people or maybe in a mysterious service pack? Give me a break.
Win2k WAS designed for FULL Alpha support, and since the ALPHA development was cancelled LATE in the Beta, I seriously doubt they went back to the drawing board and rewrote the NT kernel after 10 years of portable design just to lock it into the x86 platform.
Besides, do you NOT get that the Itanium support in WindowsXP is not BASED upon x86, but a NATIVE NT Kernel running on the Itanium CPU, which has been available for almost two years now? Additionally the Windows 2003 Server support for the Itanium is a FULL 64 bit OS with a 64bit NATIVE kernel sitting on the Itanium processor. Geesh.
From the developers we worked with at Microsoft in the past year, even Windows 2003 server (which would include Win2k and XP) still have the basic HAL underpinning design and the lower NT kernel itself is STILL written in portable C.
According to the 'official' NT kernel development team, NT has been portable, stands by a portable design, and STILL is fully portable even TODAY.
So if you have some magical information that even the NT designers don't have, please share...
Oracle 9i and maybe 8 allows you to use Java for stored procedures
In addition you get free days off when the Oracle system dumps.
Ask, Orbitz, they love the 'unbreakable' Oracle.
It is amazing that products with humble beginnings like MySQL can truly put a dent in the big guys in terms of reliability and performance.
As a side note, I admit that MS SQL has down well for our clients too.
NT4 is especially laughable because USB ports had been showing up on motherboards (a few brands like shuttle and i think intel) for about a year by mid 1996.
Yep, and even at the time, the manufacturers did NOT even have ANY driver support. I was in the PC OEM business at the time, and even though they were there, NO OS could use them until 1997 when a few third party drivers started appearing.
Additionally, NT4 was released in mid 1996, which means the driver and feature set was completed in 1995.
(BTW - You also forgot to mention ASUS in your cute little mainboard list - as ASUS was one of the Built in USB connection leaders of the time. And they didn't have drivers for any OS at the time either.)
You may like the fact that there's a web browser built into your OS, and that HTML code can change things on your hard drive without your permission. I'll keep using Mozilla, thank you.
And what makes you think Mozilla doesn't have the same level of access to your computer?
Actually, not only does it, but the Sun Java you are using BOTH have full access to your system, and there have been bugs in both products that have allowed users to gain full access to a person's hard drive via HTML or JAVA.
So, go ahead and feel safer using Mozilla, it is a fine product, but you are misleading yourself into thinking it is any safer because its HTML core isn't a part of the OS.
It'd be good if Windows could make up it's mind whether or not it needs a driver disk for the bloody things! Sometimes it works, other times it needs drivers installed. Strangely, when it does need them, it seems to need them installed twice! This is independant of whether its xp, or 2000. And of course, there's the laughable lack of USB support on NT...
:)
Not to rain on your parade, but we have yet to see a USB storage device fail to install and work properly the first time on any Win2K or XP based system in our testing labs, and we process more systems than most companies do in a lifetime.
Additionally, NT (Assuming you are referring to 4.0 and earlier) was developed before the USB specification was even finalized or available in hardware.
If you can find 'native' USB support in Linux, any *nix, or OS in 1995-1996 I'll eat your hat.
In OS reference for USB, it won't be until 2.6 of the Linux kernel that the full USB specification makes it into Linux along with finally supporting the full Plug and Play specification that is over seven years old. (And why is NT 4.0 laughable again? - it even had Plug and Play back 1996. So why we are all laughing, let's give Linux a big chuckle as well.)
I guess it's settled, then. A bug in IE is a bug in Windows.
Depends on if it is in the browser interface itself or the HTML rendering components of Windows.
But, yes, you would be correct that if the bug is in the HTML core, then it is a Windows bug. I will not argue against that.
Take Care,
TheNetAvenger
Kerberos is disabled by default
And the irony is that Kerberos is a security authentication system.
I am not attesting that any company is perfect or that I don't respect OpenBSD.
I do bring contention to the previous post that said Microsoft was able to be subjugated to ridicule because they bragged about their security and were still producing un-secure software.
Which I still submit, this is about the silliest excuse to discredit Microsoft I have come across in the past few weeks.
Now maybe you can get back to answering my questions, rather than ignoring the issue altogether: Microsoft have been focusing on features rather than security in the past - by admission of a representative of Microsoft, and also Bill Gates himself.
First I was responding to your words, not mine... Didn't a Microsoft representative say that their products had never been created with security in mind...
Now, I will again assert that this is NOT what any person from Microsoft has ever conveyed.
Microsoft noted that with previous generations of Windows, such as 3.1, 95, 98, and ME, security was not a major focus of the products. And that as a whole, the company could have been doing a better job, especially as the desktop leader, to provide a higher level of security for its consumers.
However SECURITY has been a MAJOR role of NT since 1992, and holding to its track record of maintaining a VERY credible security history from C2 certification, to maintaining secure Web Sites even on NT4 that was in the mid Internet boom and the beginning of new security attack techniques that were developed about that time.
So re-read the words from any source at Microsoft you quote.
NT was built to be secure from day one, and even with the evolution of security exploits, I would say that an OS that is as OLD as NT 4.0 is, it holds a pretty good pattern of having a solid internal security system, and the ability to easily extend past the initial security concerns that it was designed to protect at the time to protect against new attacks that have become common since its release.
My company specifically has deployed NT4 and Win2k in many government installations, and to this day, we have NEVER had a client have their system compromised while running NT4 or Win2k.
Unless you can find a quote that specifically says that security was NEVER a priority or concern on the NT platform, I will stand by my words. NT was built as security being a top priority, that is why the underlying security system is an object/token based system that has features reaching far beyond what we can currently get in any *nix. Period.
There have been 0 linux security advisories in the last week. The advisories you mention are in software that can run under Linux
I would assert that a bug in a component that is shipped with and used by the basic NFS of Linux is a serious problem, especially considering the severity of the bug.
Call it a component and not part of Linux if you want, but it is still shipped with most Linux distributions and NFS is used as a 'part of Linux' on a daily basis.
I could also argue that NTFS is not a part of Windows, because the NT kernel has no allegiance to any File System as well, but if there was a problem in NTFS or the network access of NTFS, then we could pretty much call it a 'Windows' problem.
Go blow smoke up another hole.
Ok. As soon as You show me how to remove IE from Windows altogether as I can do with Mozilla on a Linux box I'll agree with You.
Sure, and then we will show you how to remove the font rendering system, the GDI bitmap APIs, and the File System drivers.
The basic ability to display HTML content is a core piece of Windows since 1998. Just as TrueType was added to Win3.1 in 1992, and the ability to show bitmaps and buttons was added in Windows 1.0
IE is just the pretty interface browser that Microsoft provides.
You seem to forget that developers actually like the idea of letting Windows draw the buttons, draw the font, display bitmaps, and display HTML by just telling Windows to do it instead of having to code it yourself.
Additionally, it is nice that these features are consistent in almost all Windows application that use any of these features for the end user.
I truly get tired of the 'remove IE' comments. IE is just a browser that uses the HTML engine in Windows - PERIOD.
The HTML core for Windows was Microsoft's original intention to allow developers and Windows itself to display the new (at the time) HTML standard natively, and IE was secondary.
Because it is a component technology built into Windows, you have seen it used in many mainstream applications, including AOL up until they finally rewrote Mozilla to be a 'HTML engine' much like the HTML engine that Microsoft built into Windows in 1998.
BTW - To remove IE (Open "C:\Program Files\" and delete the folder called "Internet Explorer") It will save almost a full megabyte of space on your hard drive. (Satire intentional)
You're missing the point
.....
Microsoft has been bragging up their Trustworthy Computing [sic] and talking about how much better their efforts have been then open source projects. Meanwhile OpenBSD (for example) has had a much, much better security record.
If you brag about your secure code, yet continue to have ridiculous security holes, the technical community should have every right to call you on your unjustified haughtiness! There still appear to be systemic problems with Windows that won't be fixed in a year or two no matter how arrogant Microsoft is.
Stating that security has taken a new role in the development of all Microsoft software products is not bragging.
They are very quick to state that the level of security they want to provide is a process as their software engineers and the industry itself matures and is NOT and will NOT ever become a complacent issue.
They have been and are restructuring their development model by adding security experts to all development teams. If you think this is bragging or a bad policy, I suggest wish@microsoft.com to tell them to not have security consultants work directly in the development process.
I won't debate the security level provided by OpenBSD, as they have and do produce well respected products, but they also 'brag' about their security and they also are not impervious to security flaws.
For example...
OpenBSD believes in strong security. Our aspiration is to be NUMBER ONE in the industry for security (if we are not already there). (from OpenBSD.org)
This sounds a bit like bragging to me.
And then they go on to list a series of major flaws in the past year.
March 31, 2003: A buffer overflow in the address parsing in sendmail(8) may allow an attacker to gain root privileges.
March 24, 2003: A cryptographic weaknesses in the Kerberos v4 protocol can be exploited on Kerberos v5 as well.
March 19, 2003: OpenSSL is vulnerable to an extension of the ``Bleichenbacher'' attack designed by Czech researchers Klima, Pokorny and Rosa.
March 18, 2003: Various SSL and TLS operations in OpenSSL are vulnerable to timing attacks.
March 5, 2003: A buffer overflow in lprm(1) may allow an attacker to elevate privileges to user daemon..
March 3, 2003: A buffer overflow in the envelope comments processing in sendmail(8) may allow an attacker to gain root privileges.
So maybe you are missing the point, and if not, maybe you should write OpenBSD yourself to request they stop bragging about security on the same page they list several major security flaws (far more than Win2k or Windows 2003 Server) in the past year.
Apparently they are subjecting themselves to the same public ridicule that you suggest Microsoft should be subjected to.
Or, to rephrase, isn't it better that the system is built for security to begin with? Didn't a Microsoft representative say that their products had never been created with security in mind, but "we'll make it better now, honest!"?
Ok, NT was built with security as its main feature, pick up Inside Windows NT so you don't sound silly next time you post.
The NT platform, which includes Win2k,XP,2003 have a token client/server object based security model, which is something that no *nix to this date has or even matches.
So a new flaw has been found in a piece of Windows, and one of the first flaws in Windows 2003 Server.
Let's compare this to an average Linux distribution security alert list from the past week.
[15 Jul 2003] DSA-350 falconseye - buffer overflow
[14 Jul 2003] DSA-349 nfs-utils - buffer overflow
[11 Jul 2003] DSA-348 traceroute-nanog - integer overflow, buffer overflow
[08 Jul 2003] DSA-347 teapop - SQL injection
[08 Jul 2003] DSA-346 phpsysinfo - directory traversal
[08 Jul 2003] DSA-345 xbl - buffer overflow
[08 Jul 2003] DSA-344 unzip - directory traversal
[08 Jul 2003] DSA-343 skk, ddskk - insecure temporary file
Although not many are too serious, but denial of service, and gaining full access to the Linux server do seem a bit of a problem. Of course since this Linux distribution didn't come from Microsoft, I'm sure we won't see any of these in the main press.
Additionally since it didn't come from Microsoft we won't see posts upon posts how 'Security has never been a priority to Linux' as has been stated about Microsoft Windows.
Sure I will give you full credit that Win3.1, Win95, Win98, and WinME were NOT designed with security in mind.
But I do have to stand up when you say that any of the NT kernel based products were 'never created with security in mind'.
Not only is this not true, as it was a main design goal for the NT project, but it is also a slap in the face of people like Cutler and many of the other NT creators that were some of the top OS and Unix gurus of the time.
Even something as SIMPLE as obtaining C2 level government security certification is something NT obtained, but yet I see no listing of any Linux distribution even meeting this 'dated' and simple security certification.
I suppose Apple could implement the cut'n paste metaphor and restrict its use to intra-volume files. But they didn't want newbies worrying their pretty little heads about volumes, partitions, and networks. So is Mr Newbie going to use cut'n paste (which only works within this here 'volume' thingy), or is Mr Newbie going to use move 'n duplicate, which doesn't require any knowledge about volumes?
Ok, got it... Although I still disagree with the Apple metaphor on this.
Thanks for reclarifying it...
Speaking of virtual desktops, I've set my Panther up to have multiple users up with different environments: Admin, Web, [myusername], etc. Then have started using the "Fast Login" feature to switch between environments. Sounds like a kludge, I know, but I'm enjoying the multiple Docks optimized for different purposes, multiple desktop paterns and multiple permissions.
I know what you mean, I have used this type of thing on one of my Windows XP machines for quite a while now. It is nice to just flip between the users I have setup.
(Again some may it is as kind of a Kludge of the Fast User Switching that has been in XP, but it is a novel way of working I think).
I am very happy to see Apple is adding Fast User Switching, sometihng that I truly miss from XP when I'm on OSX.
Because it is something you can easily do in MS Windows, Apple has deemed it evil and will never implement it. ;)
Just like a two button mouse, pure evil...
*smile*
But the truth is the cut-n-paste is a metaphor that is only suitable for small data chunks that are 'easy' to duplicate. (eg bits of text) Files are not 'easy' to duplicate, in the sense that the time for duplication is linear to the size of the file. (do you really want to duplicate that 640MB CDROM image just to move it? Yes it's possible, but who wants to wait that long for duplication just to move the damn file?)
I guess I am totally missing what you are trying to convey.
Cutting and Pasting a file on the same volume should ONLY entail changing the entry in the FS table, and not move the data, just its pointed location.
So why would this be any different for a small file and a large file?
I must be completely missing something in your post, and apologize up front.
yet. I haven't seen anyone mention this, but I realized the other day that since Jaguar is fully 32-bit, you should be able to take 64-bit hardware and run two full instances of Jaguar on it in parallel.
Based on your post, I am assuming you are new to the techie side of things, so I hope I don't offend.
However, it doesn't work like this, a 64bit CPU is not two 32bit CPUS. Besides, running multiple copies of Jaguar would gain you what exactly?
The architecture of OSX allows for multiple process and applications already, running OSX twice would be silly and redundant.
Sorry Longhorn, MacOS X has been able to do rippling, rotating windows for awhile now
And there have been third party addins for Windows2000 and XP that have had these features for several years as well. Stardock just to name one off the top of my head.
The Mac does not have an exclusive on this stuff guys. Just because 'you' have not seen it, does not mean it doesn't exist.
I've used iChat AV and it is soooo much better than windows messenger. Unlike messenger, which forces me to a single postage-stamp sized video window, I can scale my video to any size and even go full screen
Funny my version of MSN messenger supports three video sizes, up to 640x480... Is the reviewer just a newbie with Windows or just trying to hype up iChat?
Win95-->Win98-->WinME--->WinXP is a case in point.
Nothing for a user in XP, that he can't do with Win95.
Not even considering that they are two 'completely different' operating systems, I can probably name at lesat 50 major things off the top of my head that you can do in XP that you cannot do Win95.
Should we start the list?
1.) NT Kernel Layer - Abstracts Win32 Kernel from OS, giving system stability, and the ability to add additoinal OS subsystems on the NT Kernel in addtion to the Win32 subsystem.
2.) NTFS - Journalled File System
3.) NTFS - Object Oriented Based file Security System.
4.) NTFS - File/Folder Encryption
5.) NTFS - File/Folder Compression
6.) System Restore Protection
7.) OS Self Repair and File Protection
8.) DLL abstraction (multiple DLL instances in memory)
9.) Increased Boot & ShutDown Speeds
10.) Suspend to Disk Hibernation
11.) Full ACPI support with Scheduler with Even Scheduler - Wake Up Support
12.) RDP - Remote Desktop
13.) Telnet Server
14.) FTP Server
15.) IIS Server
16.) Application Crash protection that catches bad Memory and API calls in Real-time and prevents application crashes without the user ever knowing it is happening.
17.) POSIX supported naming conventions
18.) NTFS - HardLinks
19.) NTFS - Mount Points
20.) NTFS - Reparse Points
21.) DFS
22.) NTFS - 16exabyte Partions
23.) 4GB of RAM Access - 64bit Desktop 16GB RAM - Server 64GB/512GB RAM
24.) Native CDR-CDRW Support
25.) Intellimirror
26.) Offline Network Files & Synchronization
27.) ZDLabs reports 27 percent faster than Win95/Win98 with more than 64Mb of RAM
28.) Internet Connection Sharing
29.) Basic Firewall (Built In Firewall mechanisms for third party Firewalls to directly Plug In)
30.) Full Unicode Support
31.) Mutli-Processor Support (2 in Professional - 32 in Server)
32.) IPSec
33.) Smart Card Support
34.) Built in WiFi and UPnP
35.) Native Multi Monitor Support
36.) ClearType Throughout the OS
37.) Remote Assistance
38.) NLA
39.) Full VPN Support In & Out
40.) Driver Rollback (Windows Protection)
41.) Network Bridging
42.) Web Folder Support
43.) Fast User Switching
44.) WMI
45.) Group Policy (Local & Active Directory)
46.) Enhanced Power Management (Supporting CPU Throttling in addtion to other device Power control for improved Mobile battery Life)
47.) Kerbos
48.) IPv6
49.) Qos
50.) Volume Shadow Copy (Shadow Volumes - Versioning on Server)
That is just 50 'technical' things I could pull off the top of my head.
Should we also list another 100 other items that are in the UI of XP like common folder tasks, photo printing, built in Zip Folders, Image Acquisition, etc?
"Yeah, there sure is not anything in XP that a Win95 user can't do." - Said the person living in a cave.
You can easily spot the people that either do not get this stuff, or just have not used XP and only base their experience on the time they used Win9x and the FUD they read about XP.
In addition, as I said before, I also use OSX, Mac System 8.1, Mandrake, FreeBSD, Solaris, and Redhat everyday, so I am not a sold MS XP zealot by any sense of the word.
Nevertheless, saying that XP does not offer a user anything more than Win95 is just ridiculous.
Geesh...
MS is paying less than the cost of manufacture for the integrated chipset/graphic controller in the xbox. See this report [yahoo.com] and scroll down to the Microsoft Agreement heading. Microsoft also needed changes to the encryption keys hard coded into the chipset and left Nvidia with almost 10 million chips that they couldn't sell at all. They settled [yahoo.com] on February 6, 2003 with Nvidia agreeing to help further reduce the costs of making the current xbox. Just a couple of months later, MS announces they are partnering with Ati for the xbox2 design. Don't be fooled into thinking that nvidia made money on the xbox chips.
Whether you believe that NVidia is making or losing money on the chips (which I have sources that contradict the stories you cited and the figures that NVidia presented), it is a KNOWN fact that the GeForce3 TI and Geforce4 line of GPUs would not have been what they were if NVidia did not get the money from Microsoft to push the GPU development cycle for the chips.
So even if NVidia wants to say they are losing money on the XBox chips, they are making LOTS of money of the Geforce3 & Geforce4 GPUS that swept the market. Which they would not have been able to bring to manufacturing or possibly even produce if it were not for the money and assistance from Microsoft.
So if you were a business person, would you lose $1 on 10,000 items sold to get funding to create a new product line that sold 1,000,000 items that paid NO royalties back to the financier.
Get real, NVidia made off like bandits, not to even mention the public notoriety of the NVidia logo in the XBOX and the press that it generated.
I like and use both NVidia and ATI chip based video cards, I also like and own XBOX and PS2 consoles. I do not have a bias in this.
Instead of reading the NVidia press, read ALL the press on these issues and then use your own mind.
Besides the source you mention announcing Microsoft choosing the ATI chip for the XBOX II is a rumor announcement, 'citing senior sources in the UK', it is not official and is still on the table, but chances are, that you are right and it will be ATI in the XBOX II.
So, how did NVidia hardware get into the current one?
Microsoft paid them BIG BUCKS to develop the next generation processor that would be used in the XBOX and the technology from the Microsoft money was also then used to further their Geforce line development.
Then NVidia decided that wasn't enough because they weren't making enough per chip for the XBOXes, even though their entire GeForce project was expanded and funded by Microsoft.
So NVidia played the we will take your money use it to make our products better and then run with it.
Which gives us two things, better Geforce Chips based on Microsoft funding, and Microsoft denying NVidia any more funding money for the XBOX II chips.
Even though NVidia and the press played it like NVidia chose not to be in the XBOX II project, it was actually Microsoft that was not offering them the chance once NVidia wanted more money for each chip sold in the XBOX.
(Inside MS information from late last year - can't quote sources, just have to trust me on this.)
In reality, like Microsoft or not, NVidia kind of screwed them. They used the infusion of cash to expand their GPU development to make the Geforce3, Geforce4, and GeforceFX what they are.
So if you are a NVidia card owner, you are using chips that Microsoft had a hand in funding.
Ironic, uh?
PS. Sad if it is true that ATI is dropping official Linux support, but I seriously doubt MS had anything to do with it. Especially considering there is not a deal with MS and ATI yet for the XBOX II, official or unofficial. (Again inside MS information)
The only ATI/MS alliance is the full support of DirectX 9 and DirectX in whole in hardware that ATI has been more committed to than NVidia, even pushing the MS envelope of what needs to be in the DirectX Video standard.
Judging from your manners, I'd say it was you who might have recently emerged from a cave.
Considering the source, thank you very much.
Take care,
TheNetAvenger