I'm still not exactly sure what they tested. They have vague terms like "Request per Second" and "Throughput", yet they don't actually say what each page that is being requested is actually doing.
For the.NET tests they say they used "Sharepoint". Huh? For what? Considering that Sharepoint is *extremely* complicated and has incredibly rich functionality they should be very clear as to what they used it for.
Not to mention the fact that using a portal application in your tests means that there is really very little way to isolate if it was a poorly written portal application or a crappy framework that the portal application was built on that's causing perf issues.
It is very difficult to test framework vs framework, but this is just about the worst way one could even attempt it.
At absolute best, this compares portal frameworks on various platforms. Even if they were trying to do that, they did a piss poor job.
Step 1: Open Windows Media Player 10 Step 2: Select random content purchased from Napster. (Napster account is a subscription account / unlimited music.) Step 3: Right click and selected "Add to burn list". Step 4: Click on the Burn tab. Step 5: Click Start Burn.
Wow... it works. Whatta ya know.
Perhaps you should actually try using the software your bashing.
Um, no. And I haven't stopped beating my wife either.
In any case the original poster is quite able to "liberate his DRM-encrusted apple content" by exactly what he is asking, by making a CD using iTunes and then ripping the result back in.
I believe the DRM comment and the CD ripping comment where two separate issues. He was not saying that he could rid himself of the first by way of the second. He was first making a jab at DRM in general (ignoring the fact that Apple also uses DRM, which is why I made my sarcastic comment), and then making a faulty assumption that Microsoft would somehow prevent the creation of CDs using content downloaded from their media store.
The question, which is perfectly legitimate, is whether this Microsoft device will allow the same thing to happen. I suspect not, so does the original poster. And you have completely shown your ignorance.
Well, judging by all the existing devices out there that use Microsoft DRM schemes, the answer would be yes. Using Windows Media Player I can take any of my purchased content, including content I bought via a subscription service, and burn it to a CD. I can then just as easily rip that CD back on to my machine and into a format that has no DRM restrictions. Why would Microsoft suddenly change this? Indeed, they would have to make WMA behave differently just for their device to prevent this.
So, seeing as you've obviously never used a WMA-based music player or service, it would seem that you are the one who is proving their ignorance.
It's justice for a man to die for theft and fraud?
I realize he stold millions of dollars. I realize that he cost the jobs of thousands of people. I realize he ruined many innocent people's lives. It's pretty obvious that this guy was a scum ball.
But how does that justify calling his death "justice"? Would it be justice if he was killed by the government or one of his bilked former employees?
Take away his money, his reputation, and his freedom... but don't call his death justice.
Big surprise. No HTML example, but an excuse instead. (The "failings" are obvious and you already told MS about them). If you've told MS about them do you have a bug id?
I'm fairly sure one simple example would have taken far less time than your long winded response.
Of course, since you have no such example, your only choice was to come up with the excuse just as I predicted. Thanks for proving me right.
The only reason I have to believe it is still not working is because either IE engineers are absurdly incompetent or MS does not want it to work.
You do realize how rediculous that statement is, right? It just makes you look stupid. If you want to bash MS and make stuff up to do so, feel free, but at least be a little less obvious about it.
If you have a bug, post a sample of the HTML here along with a screen shot (or detailed description) of the behavior your seeing. If I can verify it I will certainly make sure it gets into the bug tracker.
My hunch is that this you will fail to do this either by not responding at all, or by making up some reason why you can't post some example HTML.
Here is what Microsoft has to say about IE 7 and the ACID test:
"...I've seen a lot of comments asking if we will pass the Acid2 browser test published by the Web Standards Project when IE7 ships. I'll go ahead and relieve the suspense by saying we will not pass this test when IE7 ships. The original Acid Test tested only the CSS 1 box model, and actually became part of the W3C CSS1 Test Suite since it was a fairly narrow test - but the Acid 2 Test covers a wide set of functionality and standards, not just from CSS2.1 and HTML 4.01, selected by the authors as a "wish list" of features they'd like to have. It's pointedly not a compliance test(emphasis added) (from the Test Guide: "Acid2 does not guarantee conformance with any specification"). As a wish list, it is really important and useful to my team, but it isn't even intended, in my understanding, as our priority list for IE7."
Automatic tiered storage is definitely coming, but probably not in the form of multiple disks that run at different speeds or RAID levels.
Microsoft announced a while back that Windows Vista would support three technologies designed to improve disk speed called SuperFetch, ReadyBoost, and ReadyDrive. SuperFetch is simply a way of preloading applications and data when the OS anticipates that you'll be loading those soon.
ReadyBoost and ReadyDrive both utilize persistent memory caches to speed up access to the disk.
ReadyBoost treats normal USB keys and flash disks like temporary caching locations for data from the disk.
ReadyDrive is essentially the term Microsoft uses to described their support for hybrid hard drives, which are disks that have a built in flash memory module that's used as a persistent cache.
Not only do hybrid disks dramatically increase performance, but they also result in huge power savings for mobile devices like laptops and media players.
As others have point out, they're missing a number of free alternatives.
The one I use is RoamDrive. It's free, it no longer has ads (it used to have a banner at the bottom), and it works with Gmail or Hotmail.
They've been promising a pro version that lets you link an unlimited number of gmail and hotmail accounts for a virtually unlimited amount of free storage, but it's been over a year and nothing has been released yet.
Still, the free version works really well. No limitations on file names or types, it automatically compresses files when necessary, and the only limitation for how much you can store is how much free space you have on the e-mail account in question.
Let's see, a tiny sample size and a web site that refers to Microsoft as "the Vole" isn't enough to derail this bad boy from its trip to the front page. After all, it's anti-MS so it MUST be true!
Wait... I have an idea!
1.) Write anti MS blog entry with lots of unsubstantiated or specious claims. 2.) Place tons of AdSense ads on it. 3.) Submit it to Slashdot. 4.) Sit back and watch the cash flow in!
I accidentally posted this for the wrong article so I'll probably get flammed and modded down for it, but here it is again.
At one time, IIS 5 looked hopeless. It was completely riddled with security holes and was basically the joke of the industry. People who used it did so with either ignorance or extreme caution.
Microsoft realized they needed to fix this but it took Code Red and various other major worms that took advantage of IIS to really kick the company into gear.
What was the result of this? IIS 6. IIS 6 is an excellent web server and is one of the most secure web servers you can use. It's certainly the most secure application server you can use. It's had a total of 2 vulnerabilities since its release about 4 years ago. (See: http://secunia.com/product/1438/ [secunia.com]) Add to that the fact that IIS 6 is extremely performant, easily configurable and maintainable, and is very robust, you have to conclude that Microsoft improved. A great deal in fact.
I see the work on Windows Vista and IE 7 being very similar in nature to the work done on IIS. They've completely revamped their development methodologies to focus on security.
IE 7+ (the one that comes with Vista) has a feature that essentially runs the browser as a very low privs user. Any operations that need high privs (such as writing to the user's desktop or other directories) are done by a broker. This broker has only a few thousand lines of code (and is therefore FAR easier to audit for security issues) and runs with the privs of the current user. This is actually fairly innovative and will undoubtedly make it far more difficult to exploit and holes in IE.
Obviously we'll have to wait and see if Microsoft has done with Vista and IE what they did with IIS, but it's hard to deny that Microsoft has proven they can take a product people view as a hopeless security mess and turn it into one of the most secure products on the market.
The only other web server out there with significant market share is Apache. If IIS is "one of the most secure web servers", that would imply it's not THE most secure web server. Therefore Apache is more secure and anyone using IIS is being foolish.
Wow, that's some interesting logic.
Of course, you could just go search for the number of vulnerabilities in Apache 2.x over the past 4 years and see that it absolutely dwarfs the number in IIS 6.
But I'm sure you'd rather be content in your ignorance and hatred of Microsoft. Continue as you were.
As compared to what exactly? Um, other web servers... such as Apache.
As compared to what exactly? Um, other application servers, such as Apache, WebLogic or WebSphere.
Flash Video Showing Microsoft IIS Being Hacked Wow, congrats. Considering this proves absolutely nothing I'm not sure why you posted it. Also, considering this is a video of hacking IIS 5, it shows that you're a moron.
What's innovative about copying what has for years been standard in nix land. Renaming it low-rights, Least-Privilege User Account (LUA) or User Account Protection (UAP) doesn't change this fact. By what standard of logic is low privs any different.
Because this is not what Unix-land has done. In Unix/Linux/Whatever, if you execute an application it will run with your privledges. If you go run whatever browser you prefer right now it will be running as you. Period. That is now what IE 7+ does. There is no concept of a broker in any other browser that I know of.
As compared to what exactly? Man, you're pretty dense, huh?
At one time, IIS 5 looked hopeless. It was completely riddled with security holes and was basically the joke of the industry. People who used it did so with either ignorance or extreme caution.
Microsoft realized they needed to fix this but it took Code Red and various other major worms that took advantage of IIS to really kick the company into gear.
What was the result of this? IIS 6. IIS 6 is an excellent web server and is one of the most secure web servers you can use. It's certainly the most secure application server you can use. It's had a total of 2 vulnerabilities since its release about 4 years ago. (See: http://secunia.com/product/1438/) Add to that the fact that IIS 6 is extremely performant, easily configurable and maintainable, and is very robust, you have to conclude that Microsoft improved. A great deal in fact.
I see the work on Windows Vista and IE 7 being very similar in nature to the work done on IIS. They've completely revamped their development methodologies to focus on security.
IE 7+ (the one that comes with Vista) has a feature that essentially runs the browser as a very low privs user. Any operations that need high privs (such as writing to the user's desktop or other directories) are done by a broker. This broker has only a few thousand lines of code (and is therefore FAR easier to audit for security issues) and runs with the privs of the current user. This is actually fairly innovative and will undoubtedly make it far more difficult to exploit and holes in IE.
Obviously we'll have to wait and see if Microsoft has done with Vista and IE what they did with IIS, but it's hard to deny that Microsoft has proven they can take a product people view as a hopeless security mess and turn it into one of the most secure products on the market.
That "fairly decent machine" is about 6 years old. It plays 6 year old games like a champ. Put FEAR or Doom 3 on there and, regardless of the OS, you'll have problems.
The point of my post was to show that Vista appears to run just about as well as XP on old machines despite all the new eye candy and nifty features.
Leave it to Slashdotters to find fault in anything and everything Microsoft.
I've been running beta 2 on an Athlon 1.2Ghz / 512MB / Radeon 9800 128MB setup. I would consider this pretty much bare bones.
How does it run? Well, considering it uses about 800 MB of ram just sitting there, suprisingly well. This memory usage is almost certainly due to the fact it's a beta. I remember beta 2 of XP used like 600 MB of ram just sitting there.
But given the fact that on XP if you're using that much more ram than you have you'd be swapping like crazy, Vista runs suprisingly smoothly. I rarely notice UI lag, even when opening up new applications. In fact, the UI lag on Vista beta 2 is better than on my primary desktop running XP. (My primary desktop has 2 GB of ram, and a 3.8 Ghz P4.)
The Vista search features are very fast as well.
Of course, the iffy specs of my test machine cause some things to be painfully slow. Opening an explorer folder with hundreds of videos in it will takes a very long time to render all the previews. (The folder itself, however, comes up almost instantly.)
Assuming they cut the memory requirements by 50% post beta (which is close to what we saw with XP), Vista would run just fine for "normal" use on that old Athlon. No games, probably no coding, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm still not exactly sure what they tested. They have vague terms like "Request per Second" and "Throughput", yet they don't actually say what each page that is being requested is actually doing.
.NET tests they say they used "Sharepoint". Huh? For what? Considering that Sharepoint is *extremely* complicated and has incredibly rich functionality they should be very clear as to what they used it for.
For the
Not to mention the fact that using a portal application in your tests means that there is really very little way to isolate if it was a poorly written portal application or a crappy framework that the portal application was built on that's causing perf issues.
It is very difficult to test framework vs framework, but this is just about the worst way one could even attempt it.
At absolute best, this compares portal frameworks on various platforms. Even if they were trying to do that, they did a piss poor job.
Step 1: Open Windows Media Player 10
Step 2: Select random content purchased from Napster. (Napster account is a subscription account / unlimited music.)
Step 3: Right click and selected "Add to burn list".
Step 4: Click on the Burn tab.
Step 5: Click Start Burn.
Wow... it works. Whatta ya know.
Perhaps you should actually try using the software your bashing.
Are you purposely being an idiot?
Um, no. And I haven't stopped beating my wife either.
In any case the original poster is quite able to "liberate his DRM-encrusted apple content" by exactly what he is asking, by making a CD using iTunes and then ripping the result back in.
I believe the DRM comment and the CD ripping comment where two separate issues. He was not saying that he could rid himself of the first by way of the second. He was first making a jab at DRM in general (ignoring the fact that Apple also uses DRM, which is why I made my sarcastic comment), and then making a faulty assumption that Microsoft would somehow prevent the creation of CDs using content downloaded from their media store.
The question, which is perfectly legitimate, is whether this Microsoft device will allow the same thing to happen. I suspect not, so does the original poster. And you have completely shown your ignorance.
Well, judging by all the existing devices out there that use Microsoft DRM schemes, the answer would be yes. Using Windows Media Player I can take any of my purchased content, including content I bought via a subscription service, and burn it to a CD. I can then just as easily rip that CD back on to my machine and into a format that has no DRM restrictions. Why would Microsoft suddenly change this? Indeed, they would have to make WMA behave differently just for their device to prevent this.
So, seeing as you've obviously never used a WMA-based music player or service, it would seem that you are the one who is proving their ignorance.
"will it be for me to liberate my DRM-encrusted content purchased from microsoft"
What, like you can liberate your DRM-encrusted content purchased from Apple?
"Do I get to burn unencumbered audio CDs that I can then rip?"
You can now and you will be able to in the future. Not sure why you would think otherwise.
"Can I virtualize this process from within the latest, greatest windows OS (Vista)?"
I would make a clever comment about how you're wrong here, but I have no idea what you're talking about.
It's justice for a man to die for theft and fraud?
I realize he stold millions of dollars. I realize that he cost the jobs of thousands of people. I realize he ruined many innocent people's lives. It's pretty obvious that this guy was a scum ball.
But how does that justify calling his death "justice"? Would it be justice if he was killed by the government or one of his bilked former employees?
Take away his money, his reputation, and his freedom... but don't call his death justice.
Big surprise. No HTML example, but an excuse instead. (The "failings" are obvious and you already told MS about them). If you've told MS about them do you have a bug id?
I'm fairly sure one simple example would have taken far less time than your long winded response.
Of course, since you have no such example, your only choice was to come up with the excuse just as I predicted. Thanks for proving me right.
The only reason I have to believe it is still not working is because either IE engineers are absurdly incompetent or MS does not want it to work.
You do realize how rediculous that statement is, right? It just makes you look stupid. If you want to bash MS and make stuff up to do so, feel free, but at least be a little less obvious about it.
If you have a bug, post a sample of the HTML here along with a screen shot (or detailed description) of the behavior your seeing. If I can verify it I will certainly make sure it gets into the bug tracker.
My hunch is that this you will fail to do this either by not responding at all, or by making up some reason why you can't post some example HTML.
Those aren't press releases. They're developers actually doing the work on IE 7.
As far as the rendering looking the same as IE 6, I would say you're probably full of crap.
Here is what Microsoft has to say about IE 7 and the ACID test:
"...I've seen a lot of comments asking if we will pass the Acid2 browser test published by the Web Standards Project when IE7 ships. I'll go ahead and relieve the suspense by saying we will not pass this test when IE7 ships. The original Acid Test tested only the CSS 1 box model, and actually became part of the W3C CSS1 Test Suite since it was a fairly narrow test - but the Acid 2 Test covers a wide set of functionality and standards, not just from CSS2.1 and HTML 4.01, selected by the authors as a "wish list" of features they'd like to have. It's pointedly not a compliance test (emphasis added) (from the Test Guide: "Acid2 does not guarantee conformance with any specification"). As a wish list, it is really important and useful to my team, but it isn't even intended, in my understanding, as our priority list for IE7."
The IE 7 team has talked in length about the changes to the rendering engine and the decisions they've made.
Some particularly interesting posts are:
Standards and CSS in IE
Improving the CSS 2.1 strict parser for IE 7
Layout Complete Announced at MIX06
What's New for CSS in Beta 2 Preview
The prolog, strict mode, and XHTML in IE
All your are belong to us
Call to action: The demise of CSS hacks and broken pages.
It's not perfect, but it's a major improvement in basically every way over IE 6.
... it's not your machine anymore.
Automatic tiered storage is definitely coming, but probably not in the form of multiple disks that run at different speeds or RAID levels.
Microsoft announced a while back that Windows Vista would support three technologies designed to improve disk speed called SuperFetch, ReadyBoost, and ReadyDrive. SuperFetch is simply a way of preloading applications and data when the OS anticipates that you'll be loading those soon.
ReadyBoost and ReadyDrive both utilize persistent memory caches to speed up access to the disk.
ReadyBoost treats normal USB keys and flash disks like temporary caching locations for data from the disk.
ReadyDrive is essentially the term Microsoft uses to described their support for hybrid hard drives, which are disks that have a built in flash memory module that's used as a persistent cache.
Not only do hybrid disks dramatically increase performance, but they also result in huge power savings for mobile devices like laptops and media players.
As others have point out, they're missing a number of free alternatives.
The one I use is RoamDrive. It's free, it no longer has ads (it used to have a banner at the bottom), and it works with Gmail or Hotmail.
They've been promising a pro version that lets you link an unlimited number of gmail and hotmail accounts for a virtually unlimited amount of free storage, but it's been over a year and nothing has been released yet.
Still, the free version works really well. No limitations on file names or types, it automatically compresses files when necessary, and the only limitation for how much you can store is how much free space you have on the e-mail account in question.
Let's see, a tiny sample size and a web site that refers to Microsoft as "the Vole" isn't enough to derail this bad boy from its trip to the front page. After all, it's anti-MS so it MUST be true!
Wait... I have an idea!
1.) Write anti MS blog entry with lots of unsubstantiated or specious claims.
2.) Place tons of AdSense ads on it.
3.) Submit it to Slashdot.
4.) Sit back and watch the cash flow in!
How about we compare the percentage of code available to be audited by outside developers?
Prove to me that open source is inherently more secure than closed source and I'll conceed the point... or at least some evidence to suggest it.
The original statement stands. Anyone running IIS is a fool, ignorant, or in someone else's pocket.
And my original statement stands, plus I'll add that you're a fool for dismissing software entirely based on its maker.
I've heard this argument many times, and it just doesn't hold water.
IIS 6 has been for about the same amount of time that IIS 5 had been out before IIS 6 was released.
In 4 years IIS 5 had over 6x the number of vulnerabilities that IIS 6 has had, but people are hitting IIS 6 just as hard as they were hitting IIS 5.
The mere fact that far fewer exploits have been found suggests that IIS 6 is more secure.
The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of worms, hacks, etc. are created using known exploits, not zero-day or underground exploits.
I accidentally posted this for the wrong article so I'll probably get flammed and modded down for it, but here it is again.
At one time, IIS 5 looked hopeless. It was completely riddled with security holes and was basically the joke of the industry. People who used it did so with either ignorance or extreme caution.
Microsoft realized they needed to fix this but it took Code Red and various other major worms that took advantage of IIS to really kick the company into gear.
What was the result of this? IIS 6. IIS 6 is an excellent web server and is one of the most secure web servers you can use. It's certainly the most secure application server you can use. It's had a total of 2 vulnerabilities since its release about 4 years ago. (See: http://secunia.com/product/1438/ [secunia.com]) Add to that the fact that IIS 6 is extremely performant, easily configurable and maintainable, and is very robust, you have to conclude that Microsoft improved. A great deal in fact.
I see the work on Windows Vista and IE 7 being very similar in nature to the work done on IIS. They've completely revamped their development methodologies to focus on security.
IE 7+ (the one that comes with Vista) has a feature that essentially runs the browser as a very low privs user. Any operations that need high privs (such as writing to the user's desktop or other directories) are done by a broker. This broker has only a few thousand lines of code (and is therefore FAR easier to audit for security issues) and runs with the privs of the current user. This is actually fairly innovative and will undoubtedly make it far more difficult to exploit and holes in IE.
Obviously we'll have to wait and see if Microsoft has done with Vista and IE what they did with IIS, but it's hard to deny that Microsoft has proven they can take a product people view as a hopeless security mess and turn it into one of the most secure products on the market.
The only other web server out there with significant market share is Apache. If IIS is "one of the most secure web servers", that would imply it's not THE most secure web server. Therefore Apache is more secure and anyone using IIS is being foolish.
Wow, that's some interesting logic.
Of course, you could just go search for the number of vulnerabilities in Apache 2.x over the past 4 years and see that it absolutely dwarfs the number in IIS 6.
But I'm sure you'd rather be content in your ignorance and hatred of Microsoft. Continue as you were.
As compared to what exactly?
Um, other web servers... such as Apache.
As compared to what exactly?
Um, other application servers, such as Apache, WebLogic or WebSphere.
Flash Video Showing Microsoft IIS Being Hacked
Wow, congrats. Considering this proves absolutely nothing I'm not sure why you posted it. Also, considering this is a video of hacking IIS 5, it shows that you're a moron.
What's innovative about copying what has for years been standard in nix land. Renaming it low-rights, Least-Privilege User Account (LUA) or User Account Protection (UAP) doesn't change this fact. By what standard of logic is low privs any different.
Because this is not what Unix-land has done. In Unix/Linux/Whatever, if you execute an application it will run with your privledges. If you go run whatever browser you prefer right now it will be running as you. Period. That is now what IE 7+ does. There is no concept of a broker in any other browser that I know of.
As compared to what exactly?
Man, you're pretty dense, huh?
You're 100% correct. I actually meant to reply to: http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/0 6/21/0446236
Didn't realize my mistake until after I hit submit.
At one time, IIS 5 looked hopeless. It was completely riddled with security holes and was basically the joke of the industry. People who used it did so with either ignorance or extreme caution.
Microsoft realized they needed to fix this but it took Code Red and various other major worms that took advantage of IIS to really kick the company into gear.
What was the result of this? IIS 6. IIS 6 is an excellent web server and is one of the most secure web servers you can use. It's certainly the most secure application server you can use. It's had a total of 2 vulnerabilities since its release about 4 years ago. (See: http://secunia.com/product/1438/) Add to that the fact that IIS 6 is extremely performant, easily configurable and maintainable, and is very robust, you have to conclude that Microsoft improved. A great deal in fact.
I see the work on Windows Vista and IE 7 being very similar in nature to the work done on IIS. They've completely revamped their development methodologies to focus on security.
IE 7+ (the one that comes with Vista) has a feature that essentially runs the browser as a very low privs user. Any operations that need high privs (such as writing to the user's desktop or other directories) are done by a broker. This broker has only a few thousand lines of code (and is therefore FAR easier to audit for security issues) and runs with the privs of the current user. This is actually fairly innovative and will undoubtedly make it far more difficult to exploit and holes in IE.
Obviously we'll have to wait and see if Microsoft has done with Vista and IE what they did with IIS, but it's hard to deny that Microsoft has proven they can take a product people view as a hopeless security mess and turn it into one of the most secure products on the market.
That "fairly decent machine" is about 6 years old. It plays 6 year old games like a champ. Put FEAR or Doom 3 on there and, regardless of the OS, you'll have problems.
The point of my post was to show that Vista appears to run just about as well as XP on old machines despite all the new eye candy and nifty features.
Leave it to Slashdotters to find fault in anything and everything Microsoft.
Yes, kinda.
I've been running beta 2 on an Athlon 1.2Ghz / 512MB / Radeon 9800 128MB setup. I would consider this pretty much bare bones.
How does it run? Well, considering it uses about 800 MB of ram just sitting there, suprisingly well. This memory usage is almost certainly due to the fact it's a beta. I remember beta 2 of XP used like 600 MB of ram just sitting there.
But given the fact that on XP if you're using that much more ram than you have you'd be swapping like crazy, Vista runs suprisingly smoothly. I rarely notice UI lag, even when opening up new applications. In fact, the UI lag on Vista beta 2 is better than on my primary desktop running XP. (My primary desktop has 2 GB of ram, and a 3.8 Ghz P4.)
The Vista search features are very fast as well.
Of course, the iffy specs of my test machine cause some things to be painfully slow. Opening an explorer folder with hundreds of videos in it will takes a very long time to render all the previews. (The folder itself, however, comes up almost instantly.)
Assuming they cut the memory requirements by 50% post beta (which is close to what we saw with XP), Vista would run just fine for "normal" use on that old Athlon. No games, probably no coding, etc.
1.) Um, ok.
p hp?id=1134
2.) http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.
Of everything you said, only the fact that he didn't campaign on climate change during the 2000 election is true.
He did a huge amount both as a senator and as VP (or at least as much as he could given the opposition.)