Posted: 2006-08-02 02:56pm
Some of the biggest complaints likely have to do with all the ultra heavy DRM garbage that Vista keeps being rumored to have. Want to scare off a certain group of consumers? Install lots and lots of DRM.
Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid ideas
http://stardestroyer.dyndns-home.com/
Did anyone use the infamous "format C:" "ENTER" "Y" "ENTER" voice command?Admiral Valdemar wrote:I see no reason to upgrade bar DX10, and even then, I don't have the hardware. Frankly, MS' overconfident demo of the voice recognition software earlier this week speaks volumes to me.
Larry Osterman gives a decent description of the bug. Heisenbugs are wonderful.Admiral Valdemar wrote:I see no reason to upgrade bar DX10, and even then, I don't have the hardware. Frankly, MS' overconfident demo of the voice recognition software earlier this week speaks volumes to me.
That makes a hell of a lot more sense and saves more face than the "it was too noisy" excuse we got. Even when this is fixed, I have yet to see a voice recognition app. that can do anything but the most basic commands, and even then, after hours of tinkering. I hope I'm wrong though, because it's been a long time coming for some cool hands-free computing.Beowulf wrote:
Larry Osterman gives a decent description of the bug. Heisenbugs are wonderful.
Destructionator XIII wrote:But, I am losing track of my original purpose. I am not here to attack reviews of Vista, I am here to attack the reviewers.
I'm reading this 20 things, which you deplore as basically Mac fellatio and nitpicks on bugs. Only I'm having trouble seeing your point. The limitations running it on older machines, or mobile machines(Which are becoming increasingly prevalent), security nag screens that make even the oldest 'Nix systems seem intuitive, cumberous networking, peer networking that is still sucktastic, unnecessary changes, and a rising sticker price... Well, what the christ?I want to know what drives them to nitpick bugs in beta software, and post ignorant speculation against the system. I am starting to believe it is the same thing that makes Mac or Linux fanatics tick: plain, simple, blind stupidity.
Competent administrators are not exactly common these days. And for the home-user, there's little hope. They, there's already a rootkit and now they're taking it to the Black Hats in Vegas.Destructionator XIII wrote:With a competent administrator, it is no more easier than rootkiting a *nix system.Lisa wrote:I still have problems where I have to reboot occasionally but the biggest issue is how easily windows is rootkitted.
Not really. Dozens of programs get released with the WinXP logo which won't install or work unless under an Administrator-class account. Which is vunerable to all sorts of attacks.This is indeed the real problem. People from the 9x days, developers included, were used to a no security whatsoever system, and kept working like that in the NT / 2k / XP days. Microsoft can and should take some of the blame for this, but they are attempting to fix these problems. For a program to get the made for Windows XP logo, it has to be able to run in a more secure environment. With Vista, they are taking it to a whole new level, taking tremendous security steps, and people who are still used to the outdated approach to security are bitching about that.and it's always been that way.
Call me when they start succeeding instead of talking about it. There's a rootkit already which would require reworking the kernel to block. That's not a small issue for a normal beta.Sure, MSFT still has work to do, but they are making big steps, adding well known security enhancements so everyone can use them easily, and actually doing some real innovation in under the hood security as well.
Oh good lord, who fed you this line? It's so ridiculous it's not even worth entertaining, but since you'd whine: Yes, there are vunerabilities that go down all the way to the most basic levels. And these need fixed.No it doesn't. A very good portion of Windows is all ready for security, and parts that aren't are being thrown out in Vista. A complete rewrite of any one of the modern operating systems is not going to happen, but it is not necessary for any of them either.Windows will need a complete rewrite from the file system up to fix that
It's one thing to call it 'modern', it's another to dismiss the idea of a rewrite in the same breath as claiming that a rewrite was inevitable because of 'modernness'.MacOS was utterly primitive from a technical standpoint until OSX, and it needed a rewrite. One big difference between Windows XP and classic MacOS is Windows XP is a modern system, MacOS was not.Apple realized that with os9, which on it's own was fairly decent, they pretty much had to start over and that's what begat osx.
And what about the dozens, hundreds, thousands of users and administrators who don't know about this? Why not include it in XP, if it's a modern system, when two competitors already have?You do realize something can be entirely different under the hood and still be backwards compatible, don't you?being seamlessly backwards compatible proves that.
Windows programs, that need to be run as administrator on regular Windows, can be run as limited user on the very different system of Linux or BSD. There exist commercial products to allow something similar to that as well on Windows: it allows the programs to think they are in their old environment, when in actuality, they are locked down. This is done by adding another layer to the API, which, if done well, need not have a noticeable effect on speed.
You mean like when they discontinued service for their nineties-era systems?Microsoft is doing something similar to that in Vista, maintaining a high level of backward compatibility along with the new security enhancements. If it wasn't backwards compatible, Microsoft would alienate a good portion of their current advantage.
Reality and Microsoft claims collide again, and as usual, the reality wins again.Destructionator XIII wrote:They aren't supposed to. Take a look at the Logo program's requirements, found under "Build Products" on this page from Microsoft. I will quote the relevant section, 3.4. The first sentence sums it up quite well:SirNitram wrote:Not really. Dozens of programs get released with the WinXP logo which won't install or work unless under an Administrator-class account. Which is vunerable to all sorts of attacks.
The request is never to make it impossible, merely to not be released with one already waiting and working.Making the kernel impossible to rootkit is a nontrivial task at least, and might not even be possible while maintaining its general purpose usability. Instead, they aim for a more reasonable goal: making it hard to actually inject the rootkit.There's a rootkit already which would require reworking the kernel to block. That's not a small issue for a normal beta.
And until they show they will actually force their 3rd party programmers to ensure that their programs will run like that, I'm gonna have to shake my head at the naivete.This is all ready accomplished on all modern operating systems. The method is called limited user accounts, and Vista is trying to get everyone to use them at all times.
Okay, Destructinator, actually stop and engage the grey matter. There is a rootkit, designed now, going to be demonstrated in all it's nasty glory at the Black Hat convention in Vegas, on Vista. I want you to stop and actually think: Which is more damaging, the anticipated, perhaps nigh inevitable delay, or releasing with a wide open hole that will be crawling with malicious users exploiting it?The reason why I am dismissing the idea of a rewrite is it would take a very long time, and probably not be that much better than what Microsoft has now.It's one thing to call it 'modern', it's another to dismiss the idea of a rewrite in the same breath as claiming that a rewrite was inevitable because of 'modernness'.
Because of course, MacOS had no good code, nothing that worked... Oh wait, that's a steaming load.If MacOS wasn't tossed out, it would have simply died. Also important to note it wasn't actually rewritten either: they built on top of a different product (the Berkeley Software Distribution). Windows is in no such position - they have years of work, millions of lines of code, all working well enough to survive, with some faults. Would you rather work on fixing those faults, building off what does work, and have a product within a reasonable amount of time, or just toss it all out, good and bad, and start down the very long process of rewriting all that code again, with people once again making mistakes as they code?
Have you played any games lately? Because they've been unable to run. Just an example would be Dawn of War, albeit in this case, it's possibly patch-related from the time.Destructionator XIII wrote:Name a few of these programs. I'd like to see them myself.SirNitram wrote:Reality and Microsoft claims collide again, and as usual, the reality wins again.
The utter naivete....Rootkits are meaningless if they cannot be installed. They are going to exist on all systems unless a big change comes about (like DRM on everything to ensure you only run trusted code). Rootkits use legitimate device driver and API facilities to carry out their nefarious deeds. Preventing these would seriously limit the capabilities of the system. What is important is not allowing them to do any serious damage, and this is accomplished by restricting administrative actions to trusted users and programs.Okay, Destructinator, actually stop and engage the grey matter. There is a rootkit, designed now, going to be demonstrated in all it's nasty glory at the Black Hat convention in Vegas, on Vista. I want you to stop and actually think: Which is more damaging, the anticipated, perhaps nigh inevitable delay, or releasing with a wide open hole that will be crawling with malicious users exploiting it?
Undoutably, but Microsoft would be a moron not to delay to deal with it. Given that the convention we're talking to is the Black Hat one, and that these are people who would specifically enjoy the chaos and damage this thing could do.. Which they will see with their own eyes.We'll have to wait for the convention and see what it actually does before we can say anything truly informed on this Vista rootkit specifically though.
Which is a state of affairs that will come to WinOS sooner or later(For brevity, I will address your 'what's so bad?!' reply here.). The legacy code and the problems that have stuck with it(Particularly the uptime issues and tendency for memory to remain filled until restarted, two glaring issues I've yet to see even approaching resolved across several versions), are survivable now. They will not always be so. The question then becomes when and why that moment, and given Vista's continuing collapse(Haven't they totally scrapped the new filesystem, or are my wire's crossed), they might as well get it over with.I never said it had no good code. What I said is it was not good enough to survive in the modern world.Because of course, MacOS had no good code, nothing that worked... Oh wait, that's a steaming load.
Exactly. At work we XP, and my team keeps our boxes up 24/7. The only time they get reboot is for updates and new installs. A former coworker and I had a competition at one point to see who go the longest without rebooting - I lost at 3 months because of a driver install. And don't get my started on our 2k3 servers, they only go down when the UPS run dry (or the dumbass IT guy at another division remote desktops into the thing and fucks something up - idiot). Windows up time issues are due to poor setup and configuration aka user error.Ace Pace wrote:EDIT regarding uptime. Properly managed, a Windows box can remain uptime for quite a while, didn't Farem post about some NT4 box he had running for years?
If that is indeed the case, I withdraw the point. Mea culpa.Ace Pace wrote:Nitram, the rootkit in this case relied upon the user confirming administrator level acess for the program. This means its fucking social engineering attack. If we want to look at those, Linux, MacOSX, any OS in the world can fall when the user clicks Yes on the wrong thing.
He might have. I must admit I doubt it. But the whole concept of 'properly managed' and 'competent administrator' rings rather empty to me. I've seen most folks in charge of such things, and they're never terribly competent.EDIT regarding uptime. Properly managed, a Windows box can remain uptime for quite a while, didn't Farem post about some NT4 box he had running for years?
I've yet to see a game with a "Designed for Windows XP" Logo on the box. Games will typically require some version of windows, but they don't go through the Logo program. If you could show me say, a picture of the Dawn of War box, that has the Logo on it, then you win.SirNitram wrote:Have you played any games lately? Because they've been unable to run. Just an example would be Dawn of War, albeit in this case, it's possibly patch-related from the time.Destructionator XIII wrote:Name a few of these programs. I'd like to see them myself.SirNitram wrote:Reality and Microsoft claims collide again, and as usual, the reality wins again.
My first job was a lab assistant for my college. Given the idiots I saw taking Windows training courses (just general, every day stuff, not IT), I seriously doubt giving away classes will solve the problem. Oh, did I mention that the instructor for this courses didn't know how to format a floppy?unless they start offering free Microsoft training classes or something.