No evidence of any kind; not even any repeatable steps "system configurations, build numbers, etc".
The only time Windows ever degrades anything multimedia is when you play HD video (BluRay for example) and the vendor specifically states they want the output protected (so far nobody has set this flag) AND you don't have a secure-path display. Microsoft themselves admit this in clear and plain text; it's no secret.
This article here doesn't even explain how they themselves came to the conclusions they did; let alone any evidence from anywhere else. Complete and utter FUD, period.
Moonlight features codecs that have already been licensed by Microsoft from major media companies. Moonlight users are indemnified against litigation that might arise from their use in Moonlight due to the Novell whole agreement...thing. In other words, everyone's safe from the (possible or otherwise) threat of litigation, honest!
Also, Moonlight 1.0 has been tested with, and passed, all the regression-testing tools Microsoft tested with Silverlight. Meaning a guaranteed high level of compatibility.
Of course the motivation behind this isn't of course Microsoft's "throbbing heart" for the FOSS community; it's purely and simply that it wants to blow Flash out of the water, and is even willing to Open Source, support, and invest heavily in OSS to do it if necessary.
And that's good because it means Adobe will have to raise the bar on flash now someone's invading it's territory...put another way, did you REALLY think you'd get 64-bit flash support on Linux from Adobe if Silverlight hadn't been released?
When I read the headline...that they were going to implement proper user account permissions (a la UNIX) so UAC wouldn't be needed. Alas, I was disappointed.
By that you mean "put password in everytime you need to elevate?". UAC does that if you're not an admin. If you are, because you're not really an admin, it just confirms you want to...if the app is digitally signed; if not, it give you a big scary warning box you actually have to read.
Every time those words appear on the Front-Page of Slashdot, Bill Gates kills another kitten.
But seriously, are we expecting an objective and balanced news article from twitter on Microsoft? There's "provocative" reporting, then there's the "Fox News" of reporting. This article sinks below both.
...so in 10 years, that's 3 kernels & API sets (6 if you include x86 and 64bit) That's not so bad; the features different to each version are just the MS tools that come bundled.
Firstly, there's one disc for every version of Windows (per CPU arch)...
Secondly, the different versions really represent the different usage areas of Windows.
Essentially, you've got:
- Netbook hardware (basic windows runtime) - Home (all the multimedia bells and whistles) - Business user (enterprise functionality) - Ultimate (multimedia toys + enterprise + some extras)
Certainly, 1, 2, and 3 are quite distinct markets with very little cross-over. So that's why; it's a "more is less...unless you've got cash to burn" philosophy.
It seems some people on slashdot can't stand the idea Windows 7 might actually be a good OS, and so you see the barrage of posts exclaiming "But it's just Vista!", almost praying that people will start to believe this.
So, here's some plain, undebatable facts: - W7 is not the re-write Vista was over XP - W7 contains some brand new tech, some brand new UI stuff, and generally tweaks across the board. - Service Packs very very rarely change anything on the surface. Take a Windows XP machine & tell me what SP it's running without going to System Properties....just using it like grandma would. You probably won't be able to. - Windows 7 will look & feel vastly different from any other Windows. UAC will be less invasive, the GUI is distinct, and most people report it running faster than Vista.
It's quite clever having this hugely open beta; they get masses of free testing, but under the guise of "Well it's beta...of course [prod_name] doesn't work!". It's users that whine the loudest when software breaks; so letting every-day users test their hardware/software with W7 is as much about getting the Joe Sixpacks' to whine at their software vendors early on...rather than just Microsoft applying pressure alone.
Rather clever I think; it should make for a stable RTM all round.
"DRM" only kick in the moment you play hi-def media with copy-protection bits enabled only. Vista is in some tests ever-so-slightly slower than XP, but then XP was to 2k, 2k to 98, etc, etc. It's a phenomenon known as "more code".
I'd appreciate it if you could justify any of these claims with say some evidence? Not the Auckland guy though, his claims were debunked rather thoroughly a long time ago.
You might want to consider the source of that news item. IE standard have gotten much better since IE6 (not hard, admittedly), so a full compliance by their own accord isn't completely beyond the realms of reality.
ASP.Net has built in defences against XSS which are enabled by default. Most sites will however only catch this on the last line of defence; the server-side request causing HTTP error unless manually handled or overridden. It looks like this site also doesn't do any input validation for tags either causing said errors.
Really, you need to switch off the XSS checking and instead HttpEncode all the inputs manually so at least you don't break the site for potentially dangerous requests.
Still, small point though...just makes me slightly uneasy the web-admins left the server to fend for itself when dealing with potentially malicious inputs. Nevermind; It's a nice site overall.
You did really well upto the last two words, at which point you lost all credibility, so I'll make this brief for you.
The point is, Apple, KDE, Windows....they all integrate browsers. Frankly, Microsoft own it's own ecosystem more than EU/US so if consumers are worried about have IE as a default, there are other operating systems. No one forces consumers to buy Windows. Just ask the Mac users.
What we have here is people complaining that Windows comes with IE by default. Except that pretty much every other OS/Window Manager does too, but they're ok because they're not dominant.
So what we have is a case whereby if a company becomes the dominant player in OS's specifically, they are expected to strip down their offerings of any bonus/extra software just in case it's seen as squashing the competition.
Oh how I would laugh should this complaint ever be directed at Apple for example. In a parallel universe, where Apple has 95% of the desktop, could you imagine Steve Jobs saying "Yeah no problem, we'll take out iTunes/Safari".
Oh, and who is leading this complaint again? Opera you say? What do they make again?
...there's not actually any games that needs anywhere near the horsepower they pack. I'm rarely impressed by a machine that with full details at super HD resolutions can run any game....at 400fps. Your eyes can only pickup 80fps anyway; you wouldn't know if it was 100 or 10,000 fps unless the fps counter didn't say.
Oh, and in 1-2 years comparable hardware can be picked up at a tenth of the price.
Still, I'm all for the advancement of benchmarking science, so this is still a good thing.
One strong-hold of IE has and probably always will be the corporate desktop, simply because it can be configured on the AD from factory install. That means basically that admins can lock it down (No ActiveX, no Javascript on Internet sites, etc) without needing any extra config or installations.
FireFox I know can be managed this way too, but as a general rule, 3rd-party browsers have never had too much support for enterprise manageability from the get-go.
WGA exists to bug users that have stolen the software and so Microsoft has an overall clue about how many people have stolen the software, not go after specifics.
I remember seeing a report from Microsoft saying they knew for a fact that 1 in 3 corporate machines were stolen. If they wanted to target for the purposes of bringing them to court it wouldn't exactly be difficult; they just want to irritate thieves and have an idea how many rogue copies there are.
Personally I don't use IE for most things, but I don't use FireFox for reasons of security at all; just because the extensions rock. To my mind, all browsers have more or less the same number of security problems; name me a single mainstream browser that's not had a vulnerability this year for example.
So in other words, we should find ways to seal off browsers from the normal desktop; lock it down in some low-rights, sandboxed safe environment planning that when it is hacked, it at least will be very limited in scope.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why if I had to choose my browser on purely default security scope, I'd go for IE7/Vista or some customised FireFox setup that nailed it to the floor.
For one, let's consider the built in software system that allows you to install any of many thousands of apps easily and quickly.
And you think when a general consumer wants some software to do XYZ, the first thing they're going to do is fire up apt? Don't be silly; it'll be in the wallmart's/retailers where it's boxed up & shiny; that's where your average Joe the Plumber will be getting most of his software....only to return it again when his Linux netbook doesn't know what to do with it.
When I see Linux software being sold in my local retailer, that's when I'll know Linux is being taken seriously as an all-purpose consumer desktop OS.
Slashdot Mirror
Just out of curiosity (and because I had suspicions) I just tried your command-line piece. It fails; wanting a "password".
So
/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/3.0.6/win32/en-US/
ftp ftp.mozilla.org
USER anonymous
[enter password]
cd
get "Firefox Setup 3.0.6.exe"
quit
You then have to find the file in C:\users\[windows login name] and manually run the program, following all on-screen steps.
I'm sure grandma would have no problems whatsoever.
Alternatively her machine could just come with a browser already of course.
No evidence of any kind; not even any repeatable steps "system configurations, build numbers, etc".
The only time Windows ever degrades anything multimedia is when you play HD video (BluRay for example) and the vendor specifically states they want the output protected (so far nobody has set this flag) AND you don't have a secure-path display. Microsoft themselves admit this in clear and plain text; it's no secret.
This article here doesn't even explain how they themselves came to the conclusions they did; let alone any evidence from anywhere else. Complete and utter FUD, period.
Moonlight features codecs that have already been licensed by Microsoft from major media companies. Moonlight users are indemnified against litigation that might arise from their use in Moonlight due to the Novell whole agreement...thing. In other words, everyone's safe from the (possible or otherwise) threat of litigation, honest!
Also, Moonlight 1.0 has been tested with, and passed, all the regression-testing tools Microsoft tested with Silverlight. Meaning a guaranteed high level of compatibility.
Of course the motivation behind this isn't of course Microsoft's "throbbing heart" for the FOSS community; it's purely and simply that it wants to blow Flash out of the water, and is even willing to Open Source, support, and invest heavily in OSS to do it if necessary.
And that's good because it means Adobe will have to raise the bar on flash now someone's invading it's territory...put another way, did you REALLY think you'd get 64-bit flash support on Linux from Adobe if Silverlight hadn't been released?
When I read the headline...that they were going to implement proper user account permissions (a la UNIX) so UAC wouldn't be needed. Alas, I was disappointed.
By that you mean "put password in everytime you need to elevate?". UAC does that if you're not an admin. If you are, because you're not really an admin, it just confirms you want to...if the app is digitally signed; if not, it give you a big scary warning box you actually have to read.
Every time those words appear on the Front-Page of Slashdot, Bill Gates kills another kitten.
But seriously, are we expecting an objective and balanced news article from twitter on Microsoft? There's "provocative" reporting, then there's the "Fox News" of reporting. This article sinks below both.
...so in 10 years, that's 3 kernels & API sets (6 if you include x86 and 64bit) That's not so bad; the features different to each version are just the MS tools that come bundled.
Firstly, there's one disc for every version of Windows (per CPU arch)...
Secondly, the different versions really represent the different usage areas of Windows.
Essentially, you've got:
- Netbook hardware (basic windows runtime)
- Home (all the multimedia bells and whistles)
- Business user (enterprise functionality)
- Ultimate (multimedia toys + enterprise + some extras)
Certainly, 1, 2, and 3 are quite distinct markets with very little cross-over. So that's why; it's a "more is less...unless you've got cash to burn" philosophy.
It seems some people on slashdot can't stand the idea Windows 7 might actually be a good OS, and so you see the barrage of posts exclaiming "But it's just Vista!", almost praying that people will start to believe this.
So, here's some plain, undebatable facts:
- W7 is not the re-write Vista was over XP
- W7 contains some brand new tech, some brand new UI stuff, and generally tweaks across the board.
- Service Packs very very rarely change anything on the surface. Take a Windows XP machine & tell me what SP it's running without going to System Properties....just using it like grandma would. You probably won't be able to.
- Windows 7 will look & feel vastly different from any other Windows. UAC will be less invasive, the GUI is distinct, and most people report it running faster than Vista.
Finally..... if you have any "doubt" W7 is indeed not a service pack here's some bedtime reading for you - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_7
It's quite clever having this hugely open beta; they get masses of free testing, but under the guise of "Well it's beta...of course [prod_name] doesn't work!".
It's users that whine the loudest when software breaks; so letting every-day users test their hardware/software with W7 is as much about getting the Joe Sixpacks' to whine at their software vendors early on...rather than just Microsoft applying pressure alone.
Rather clever I think; it should make for a stable RTM all round.
The best thing about you "Linux shills" is that you make outrageous claims about Windows while in the same breath letting it known publicly you've never touched it with a 10-foot pole.
And I include Peter Gutmann in that bracket too; find me a single example where one of his claims has been substantiated with actual hands-on testing.
It's awesome; kinda like you build up an almost convincing argument, only to smash it down again in the next paragraph.
Oh? That's quite a claim.
"DRM" only kick in the moment you play hi-def media with copy-protection bits enabled only. Vista is in some tests ever-so-slightly slower than XP, but then XP was to 2k, 2k to 98, etc, etc. It's a phenomenon known as "more code".
I'd appreciate it if you could justify any of these claims with say some evidence? Not the Auckland guy though, his claims were debunked rather thoroughly a long time ago.
The real problem is that Windows 7 is just a service pack for Vista.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_7
...and gives every Slashdotter a blowjob.
Please; continue!
You might want to consider the source of that news item. IE standard have gotten much better since IE6 (not hard, admittedly), so a full compliance by their own accord isn't completely beyond the realms of reality.
Microsoft donates to Apache ...and of course, the "Windows 7 might actually be rather good" article in TFA.
Microsoft donates to moonlight
Microsoft supports ODF
IE to be standards compliant by default
Microsoft assist SAMBA team with interop
Maybe; just maybe, Microsoft isn't the evil machine some slashdotters make out.
This is a classic one:
ASP.Net has built in defences against XSS which are enabled by default. Most sites will however only catch this on the last line of defence; the server-side request causing HTTP error unless manually handled or overridden. It looks like this site also doesn't do any input validation for tags either causing said errors.
Really, you need to switch off the XSS checking and instead HttpEncode all the inputs manually so at least you don't break the site for potentially dangerous requests.
Still, small point though...just makes me slightly uneasy the web-admins left the server to fend for itself when dealing with potentially malicious inputs. Nevermind; It's a nice site overall.
You did really well upto the last two words, at which point you lost all credibility, so I'll make this brief for you.
The point is, Apple, KDE, Windows....they all integrate browsers. Frankly, Microsoft own it's own ecosystem more than EU/US so if consumers are worried about have IE as a default, there are other operating systems. No one forces consumers to buy Windows. Just ask the Mac users.
What we have here is people complaining that Windows comes with IE by default. Except that pretty much every other OS/Window Manager does too, but they're ok because they're not dominant.
So what we have is a case whereby if a company becomes the dominant player in OS's specifically, they are expected to strip down their offerings of any bonus/extra software just in case it's seen as squashing the competition.
Oh how I would laugh should this complaint ever be directed at Apple for example. In a parallel universe, where Apple has 95% of the desktop, could you imagine Steve Jobs saying "Yeah no problem, we'll take out iTunes/Safari".
Oh, and who is leading this complaint again? Opera you say? What do they make again?
net stop dnscache ...is your friend. A lot of places disable it altogether.
...there's not actually any games that needs anywhere near the horsepower they pack. I'm rarely impressed by a machine that with full details at super HD resolutions can run any game....at 400fps. Your eyes can only pickup 80fps anyway; you wouldn't know if it was 100 or 10,000 fps unless the fps counter didn't say.
Oh, and in 1-2 years comparable hardware can be picked up at a tenth of the price.
Still, I'm all for the advancement of benchmarking science, so this is still a good thing.
One strong-hold of IE has and probably always will be the corporate desktop, simply because it can be configured on the AD from factory install. That means basically that admins can lock it down (No ActiveX, no Javascript on Internet sites, etc) without needing any extra config or installations.
FireFox I know can be managed this way too, but as a general rule, 3rd-party browsers have never had too much support for enterprise manageability from the get-go.
WGA exists to bug users that have stolen the software and so Microsoft has an overall clue about how many people have stolen the software, not go after specifics.
I remember seeing a report from Microsoft saying they knew for a fact that 1 in 3 corporate machines were stolen. If they wanted to target for the purposes of bringing them to court it wouldn't exactly be difficult; they just want to irritate thieves and have an idea how many rogue copies there are.
...for gaming at least.
I've got a BlueTooth mouse, and even that has a noticeable delay that would just kill me mid frantic quake session.
2 mice FTW!
Personally I don't use IE for most things, but I don't use FireFox for reasons of security at all; just because the extensions rock.
To my mind, all browsers have more or less the same number of security problems; name me a single mainstream browser that's not had a vulnerability this year for example.
So in other words, we should find ways to seal off browsers from the normal desktop; lock it down in some low-rights, sandboxed safe environment planning that when it is hacked, it at least will be very limited in scope.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why if I had to choose my browser on purely default security scope, I'd go for IE7/Vista or some customised FireFox setup that nailed it to the floor.
Just a thought.
For one, let's consider the built in software system that allows you to install any of many thousands of apps easily and quickly.
And you think when a general consumer wants some software to do XYZ, the first thing they're going to do is fire up apt?
Don't be silly; it'll be in the wallmart's/retailers where it's boxed up & shiny; that's where your average Joe the Plumber will be getting most of his software....only to return it again when his Linux netbook doesn't know what to do with it.
When I see Linux software being sold in my local retailer, that's when I'll know Linux is being taken seriously as an all-purpose consumer desktop OS.