[News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs - Linux

This is a discussion on [News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs - Linux ; [snips] On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 16:17:14 +0000, tramp wrote: > On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 15:17:11 +0100, Hadron wrote: > >> tramp writes: >> >> >>> Agreed, once the developers become aware of such a problem then no >>> ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6
Results 101 to 119 of 119

Thread: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs

  1. Re: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, LessSpeed, More Bugs

    [snips]

    On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 16:17:14 +0000, tramp wrote:

    > On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 15:17:11 +0100, Hadron wrote:
    >
    >> tramp writes:
    >>
    >>
    >>> Agreed, once the developers become aware of such a problem then no
    >>> matter whose fault it is, they owe it to their users to make a
    >>> reasonable effort to develop a work-around. I am really peeved that the
    >>> Ubuntu developers

    >>
    >> So you agree it's a bug. Good.

    >
    > Yep, just as I said in the part you clipped, it's a bug in the firmware
    > the manufacturers install in their hard drives.


    Quack is trying to blame a firmware fault on a piece of software? Figures.

  2. Re: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, LessSpeed, More Bugs

    On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 05:02:41 -0800, HangEveryRepubliKKKan wrote:

    > "Erik Funkenbusch" wrote
    >> Yes, it is a bug in ubuntu. An operating system, especially on commodity
    >> hardware has to take into account quirks and bugs in hardware and work
    >> around them. You should see the Linux ATAPI code, for instance.. it's
    >> riddled with various code paths and patches for different chipsets.

    >
    > That's why smart people write individual drivers for individual chipsets
    > rather than writing one driver that tries to support all of the bugs from
    > every chipset.


    No, smart people don't reinvent wheels; if one codebase plus workarounds is
    sufficient, there's no point in creating 100 functionally identical
    codebases, each with a singular set of workarounds.

    Linux takes just that approach: 100 ATAPI chipsets work fundamentally the
    same way, so a single unified driver makes perfect sense; all that's
    required is including the workarounds for each chipset that needs them -
    something which would have to be done anyways, if deploying standalone
    drivers.

    Why *increase* development and maintenance effort for no benefit? That
    makes no sense at all.

  3. Re: [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed,More Bugs

    On Nov 20 2007, 9:26 pm, The Ghost In The Machine
    wrote:
    > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Erik Funkenbusch
    >
    > wrote
    > on Tue, 20 Nov 2007 19:21:48 -0600
    > :
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 23:59:41 +0000, William Poaster wrote:

    >
    > >>> Better yet, run a file system that doesn't need defragmentation.

    >
    > >> Absolutely.
    > >> Oops! Careful now! We'll have the Quack troll saying, that we said linux
    > >> filesystems don't fragment.

    >
    > >> I'm not joking, that's *just* what he said in another group. I replied to
    > >> someone that modern linux filesystems don't need defragmenting. The idiot Quack
    > >> troll claimed that I said linux filesystems don't fragment! See how dumb he is?

    >
    > > There are 2... well, maybe 3 possible reasons the statement "linux
    > > filesystems don't need defragmenting" could be true.

    >
    > > 1) Linx filesystems don't fragment (we know that's not true, and you are
    > > admitting to as much here)

    >
    > Any system can fragment, given code sequences such as the following:
    >
    > byte page[8192];
    >
    > int f1 = open("file0","w");
    > for(int i = 0; i < 10000; i++)
    > {
    > write(f1, page, sizeof(page));
    > int f2 = open(sprintf("tmp%d", i), "w");
    > write(f2, page, sizeof(page));
    > close(f2);
    > }
    > close(f1);
    > for(int i = 0; i < 10000; i++)
    > {
    > unlink(sprintf("tmp%d", i));
    > }
    >
    > (for purposes of simplicity I'm using char * sprintf()
    > instead of the sequence char buf[]; sprint(buf, ...), and
    > ignoring error issues.)
    >
    > If the system's smart enough file0's later pages might
    > be allocated from a different pool designed for use
    > with larger files. However, that's arguably the best
    > it can do without incurring a rather large performance penalty
    > while shuffling blocks around.
    >
    >
    >
    > > 2) Linux filesystems do not suffer any performance degradation from
    > > fragmentation (that's a silly argument)

    >
    > Pedant point: no filesystem suffers performance
    > degradation; the entire system does, but it depends on
    > what the user and the system are doing. In particular,
    > a badly fragmented paging file -- assuming one creates
    > such on a mostly full volume for some reason -- is not an
    > issue if it's never used.
    >
    >
    >
    > > 3) Linux filesystems automatically defrag themselves (which is, in effect
    > > saying #1, thus also not true).

    >
    > Pedant point: no filesystem defragments itself. One could
    > of course state that the filesystem management code --
    > in the case of Linux, a module loaded during startup --
    > makes a reasonable attempt to ensure that file blocks are
    > allocated in such a way as to resist fragment creation.
    > Also, the design of the ext2 filesystem tries to minimize
    > fragmentation in the first place, by using groups.
    >
    >
    >
    > > If none of those are true, then your statement is provably false.

    >
    > None of these are true and the statement is not provably false.
    > The problem here is that "need" is a conditional term.
    >
    > > If Linux
    > > filesystems can fragment, and fragmentation results in degraded
    > > performance, then by definition Linux filesystems will need defragmenting
    > > at some point in time.

    >
    > > So, either you were claiming that linux fileysstems don't fragment, or you
    > > were claiming that they don't suffer any performance penalty from
    > > fragmentaiton. Which falsehood were you claiming?

    >
    > > Yes, i'm being a pedant here because you are being a pedant. You might
    > > have meant "Linux filesystems don't need defragmenting often" or maybe
    > > "Linux filesystems don't fragment often, so defragmenting isn't usually
    > > necessary" or maybe even "Linux filesystems fragment so infrequently that
    > > most people just don't bother to defragment them".

    >
    > I for one am curious about that issue. There's a number of factors
    > here, not the least of which is how the system writes the files.
    > There's also the issue of how the system reads them afterwards; it
    > does no good to make the files contiguous if they're stored in an
    > order not consistent with the system's usage model while doing so.
    >
    > I am also curious as to how often one might expect to have
    > to worry about it. Windows systems are defragmented as
    > often as once a month, as I understand it.
    >
    > --
    > #191, ewi...@earthlink.net
    > Been there, done that, didn't get the T-shirt.
    >
    > --
    > Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com


    Vista can be set to automatically defrag the hard disk. If the
    computer is not being used at your specified time, a background
    version of defrag begins running. If you move the mouse, it pauses
    until the computer goes into standby (or a screen saver) again, or
    until the machine is reset. As the computer starts up, defrag will run
    until you begin doing things with the computer. Meaning automatic
    defrag turned on with a highly fragmented HDD can cause longer boot
    times.

    Also, Vista is the first system to aggressively load programs into
    RAM. It basically looks at how often you run a program, and then as it
    starts up, prefetch's that program. Similar to the prefetch in XP, but
    it's called super prefetch for a reason in Vista. It will fill up over
    half your RAM at all times, unless specified otherwise. For example:
    My RAM was at 67% yesterday with 1 Gb of RAM. I installed an
    additional 1.5 Gb of RAM, and now it says 64%. My programs load much
    quicklier though, a they should.

    Vista's UAC's also go away over time, because they learn what you plan
    to do, and allow things you do often. Supposedly SP1 is going to make
    this even better, but we'll see. My Vista home premium runs much
    faster than XP Home edition did, and yes, it's the same machine.

    Vista has lots of things to set up that most people have no idea even
    exist. I was playing with settings one day and found some things for
    disk check, etc that I didn't realize were even in Vista, because they
    are not in the same place they were with XP. There's a reliability/
    performance monitor that monitors how many programs have crashed, what
    errors they had, how often crashes happen, and gives you advice on how
    to fix those issues, as well as options to send the stuff to
    Microsoft, and have Microsoft alert you when a fix is released. Many
    programs' issues actually send you to the correct manufacurers support
    site to have it repaired, or send you to the windows site to show you
    how to fix the issue. At this point, my machine's only had 1 problem
    in the past 4 months with crashes that I didn't force (I have Firefox
    3 beta 2, and have all my extensions running with some about:config
    edits, and as such, it's very unstable, so I use forcequit sometimes
    in Task Manager (yes, vista has force quit. It's located in the
    processes tab, and you simply find the program and quit the process.
    The force quit in applications (not End task but force quit) works
    alright, but ending the process is quicker), and that was with a
    SanDisk U3 drive. The older U3's are still not Vista compatible, but
    many have updates. Mine doesn't. My father's did. His is older, go
    figure.

    Overall, I use Vista more than my MacBook (I'm on it right now) and
    the MacBook more than my Ubuntu or my Fedora core 5 boxes. It's better
    looking, faster, more stable, and runs everything I've ever tried to
    run on it with no issues.

    Just because you like Linux doesn't mean Windows isn't exactly what
    some (most) people need, so stop spreading FUD.

  4. Re: [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed,More Bugs

    On Nov 20 2007, 10:13 pm, AZ Nomad
    wrote:
    > On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 19:21:48 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    > >On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 23:59:41 +0000, William Poaster wrote:
    > >>> Better yet, run a file system that doesn't need defragmentation.

    >
    > >> Absolutely.
    > >> Oops! Careful now! We'll have the Quack troll saying, that we said linux
    > >> filesystems don't fragment.

    >
    > >> I'm not joking, that's *just* what he said in another group. I replied to
    > >> someone that modern linux filesystems don't need defragmenting. The idiot Quack
    > >> troll claimed that I said linux filesystems don't fragment! See how dumb he is?

    > >There are 2... well, maybe 3 possible reasons the statement "linux
    > >filesystems don't need defragmenting" could be true.
    > >1) Linx filesystems don't fragment (we know that's not true, and you are
    > >admitting to as much here)

    >
    > nobody is saying that.
    >
    > >2) Linux filesystems do not suffer any performance degradation from
    > >fragmentation (that's a silly argument)

    >
    > nobody is saying that either
    >
    > >3) Linux filesystems automatically defrag themselves (which is, in effect
    > >saying #1, thus also not true).

    >
    > three strikes. You're out.
    >
    > Which word in "doesn't need defragmentation" don't you understand?


    doesn't need defragmentation either means the disk doesn't fragment,
    the system automatically defrags, or defrags don't cause an issue...
    He's perfectly correct, imbecile.

  5. Re: [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed,More Bugs

    On Nov 20 2007, 10:14 pm, AZ Nomad
    wrote:
    > On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 18:26:48 -0800, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > >In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Erik Funkenbusch
    > >
    > > wrote
    > >on Tue, 20 Nov 2007 19:21:48 -0600
    > >:
    > >> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 23:59:41 +0000, William Poaster wrote:

    >
    > >>>> Better yet, run a file system that doesn't need defragmentation.

    >
    > >>> Absolutely.
    > >>> Oops! Careful now! We'll have the Quack troll saying, that we said linux
    > >>> filesystems don't fragment.

    >
    > >>> I'm not joking, that's *just* what he said in another group. I replied to
    > >>> someone that modern linux filesystems don't need defragmenting. The idiot Quack
    > >>> troll claimed that I said linux filesystems don't fragment! See how dumb he is?

    >
    > >> There are 2... well, maybe 3 possible reasons the statement "linux
    > >> filesystems don't need defragmenting" could be true.

    >
    > >> 1) Linx filesystems don't fragment (we know that's not true, and you are
    > >> admitting to as much here)

    > >Any system can fragment, given code sequences such as the following:
    > > byte page[8192];
    > > int f1 = open("file0","w");
    > > for(int i = 0; i < 10000; i++)
    > > {
    > > write(f1, page, sizeof(page));
    > > int f2 = open(sprintf("tmp%d", i), "w");
    > > write(f2, page, sizeof(page));
    > > close(f2);
    > > }
    > > close(f1);
    > > for(int i = 0; i < 10000; i++)
    > > {
    > > unlink(sprintf("tmp%d", i));
    > > }
    > >(for purposes of simplicity I'm using char * sprintf()
    > >instead of the sequence char buf[]; sprint(buf, ...), and
    > >ignoring error issues.)
    > >If the system's smart enough file0's later pages might
    > >be allocated from a different pool designed for use
    > >with larger files. However, that's arguably the best
    > >it can do without incurring a rather large performance penalty
    > >while shuffling blocks around.

    >
    > >> 2) Linux filesystems do not suffer any performance degradation from
    > >> fragmentation (that's a silly argument)

    > >Pedant point: no filesystem suffers performance
    > >degradation; the entire system does, but it depends on
    > >what the user and the system are doing. In particular,
    > >a badly fragmented paging file -- assuming one creates
    > >such on a mostly full volume for some reason -- is not an
    > >issue if it's never used.

    >
    > >> 3) Linux filesystems automatically defrag themselves (which is, in effect
    > >> saying #1, thus also not true).

    > >Pedant point: no filesystem defragments itself. One could
    > >of course state that the filesystem management code --
    > >in the case of Linux, a module loaded during startup --
    > >makes a reasonable attempt to ensure that file blocks are
    > >allocated in such a way as to resist fragment creation.
    > >Also, the design of the ext2 filesystem tries to minimize
    > >fragmentation in the first place, by using groups.

    >
    > >> If none of those are true, then your statement is provably false.

    > >None of these are true and the statement is not provably false.
    > >The problem here is that "need" is a conditional term.
    > >> If Linux
    > >> filesystems can fragment, and fragmentation results in degraded
    > >> performance, then by definition Linux filesystems will need defragmenting
    > >> at some point in time.

    >
    > >> So, either you were claiming that linux fileysstems don't fragment, or you
    > >> were claiming that they don't suffer any performance penalty from
    > >> fragmentaiton. Which falsehood were you claiming?

    >
    > >> Yes, i'm being a pedant here because you are being a pedant. You might
    > >> have meant "Linux filesystems don't need defragmenting often" or maybe
    > >> "Linux filesystems don't fragment often, so defragmenting isn't usually
    > >> necessary" or maybe even "Linux filesystems fragment so infrequently that
    > >> most people just don't bother to defragment them".

    > >I for one am curious about that issue. There's a number of factors
    > >here, not the least of which is how the system writes the files.
    > >There's also the issue of how the system reads them afterwards; it
    > >does no good to make the files contiguous if they're stored in an
    > >order not consistent with the system's usage model while doing so.
    > >I am also curious as to how often one might expect to have
    > >to worry about it. Windows systems are defragmented as
    > >often as once a month, as I understand it.

    >
    > I just checked my FS's. 0.5% fragmentation. I didn't say it doesn't fragment,
    > or that there's no performance penalty, or that it unfragments as it goes. Just
    > that it doesn't require defragmentation.


    Then either: your system didn't fragment, it auto defragged, or frag
    doesn't matter.
    THOSE ARE THE ONLY OPTIONS.

    I am sure my PS3 is closer to sentience than you are.

  6. Re: [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed,More Bugs

    On Nov 21 2007, 12:24 am, Sinister Midget
    wrote:
    > On 2007-11-21, Erik Funkenbusch claimed:
    >
    > > So what you meant then is that you find the level of fragmentation and
    > > typical performance of a fragmented linux filesystem to be acceptable. Or
    > > perhaps you're saying that you don't feel the need to defragment.

    >
    > > That's a subjective argument. I'm sure many people don't "need" to ever
    > > defragment a Windows OS either.

    >
    > Unless they want it to run worth a crap. Or perhaps they're having
    > someone else do it. Or maybe it doesn't stand up to malware and bitrot
    > long enough for them to see deficinecies caused by fragmentation.
    >
    > I used a program to defrag (called 'defrag') on linux a long, long time
    > ago. I thought I needed it. Since I stopped using it I've seen zero
    > difference in performance between using it and not using it.
    >
    > I've seen the previous system (500MHz, 384M) report fragmentation of
    > more than 25% since then. Probably higher, but that's the ballpark
    > number I remember. I've had no slowdown that I could detect. If I
    > allowed the Windows machine (1.7GHz, 512M) at work to get to that level
    > it would take forever just to open the defrag program to fix it.
    >
    > --
    > Hey Santa! How much for your list of naughty girls?


    Vista has had 0 Viruses to date. Windows mail had an exploit. IE7 had
    an exploit. If you use either of those you're an idiot to begin with.
    On the other hand, they just did a study with Linux, Windows, and Mac
    OS X (which is Unix based, in case you didn't know. I was unsure,
    seeing as you are an idiot.) on which had the most exploitable
    exploits. Vista came in last, followed by Xp, followed by Linux, and
    in first place was mac. Mac, and linux were full of exploits, and
    possibilities of malware. They don't have any for the same reason that
    robbers don't rob beggars: there's no point. No one uses Linux or Mac
    other than for servers and FinalCut.
    Windows owns 90% of the market. Get over it, and go buy yourself an OS
    that runs things without you having to do anything more than put the
    disk in the tray.

    I'm so sick and tired of you stupid primarily Linux users who think
    you're superior. I'll bet you've never owned Vista, or if you have,
    didn't use it more than a week. In which case you have no idea what
    you're talking about, and are just another idiot filling the air with
    your verbal diarrhea. GOOD DAY TO YOU SIR.

  7. Re: [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs

    ____/ evilkillerwhale@gmail.com on Saturday 05 January 2008 02:54 : \____

    > Vista has had 0 Viruses


    Whatever or whovever you are, *plonk* (you're here just to troll).

    FWIW, Vista has had its large share of remotely exploitable flaws that turn
    Vista PCs to zombies. Examples include:


    2008 kicks off with critical Vista/XP patch

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Microsoft's first set of security bulletins for 2008 may be slim, but will
    | include a fix for a critical vulnerability in XP and Vista.
    `----

    http://www.itwire.com/content/view/15956/53/

    [Windows Vista Has Another New Critical Vulnerability]

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | One of the updates is considered critical for Windows Vista and XP users
    | because the flaw it fixes could be used by attackers to install unauthorized
    | software on a victim's computer. Â*
    `----

    http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/...updates_1.html
    http://tinyurl.com/2ls6x4


    Microsoft fixes 11 flaws in 7 patches; 5 affect Windows Vista

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Microsoft on Tuesday released its December 2007 security bulletin, which
    | includes seven updates: three are designated as critical by the software
    | giant and four are deemed important. Â*
    `----

    http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-983...=2547-1_3-0-20


    December 2007's Patch Tuesday's Going to Be Big - Really Big

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | A Trio of Critical Patches
    |
    | First up is a remote code execution patch for DirectX versions 7.0 (Windows
    | 2000) through 10.0 (Windows Vista). Â*
    `----

    http://www.maximumpc.com/article/dec...big_really_big


    Security hole in MS-Windows Vista on Thanksgiving

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Microsoft, although late, but did acknowledge that it is a flaw even in the
    | latest OS (Vista) which should have been fixed long back.
    `----

    http://technology.millionface.com/20...-thanksgiving/
    http://tinyurl.com/32uq44


    Thirty-Six Updates Later—and Counting

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Over the Thanksgiving holiday, I refreshed one of my Windows Vista test
    | machines. Oh my, there were so many Windows Updates.
    `----

    http://www.microsoft-watch.com/conte...129TX1K0000535
    http://tinyurl.com/355uqw


    Vista security threats to rise in 2008: McAfee

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Microsoft’s Windows Vista operating system will face increasing security
    | threats, according to McAfee Avert Labs predictions for top 10 security
    | threats in 2008. Â*
    `----

    http://www.business-standard.com/com...Left=0&chkFlg=


    Microsoft issues 6 'critical' patches

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | The updates affect many versions of Windows, Server and Office software --
    | including Windows XP and Windows Vista -- and are meant to prevent hackers
    | from breaking into Web surfers' computers using specially crafted Web pages. Â*
    `----

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070814/...osoft_security


    Buffer the Overflow Slayer v. the ActiveX Files

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | The vulnerability was discovered by Krystian Kloskowski and is rated "highly
    | critical" in this posting on Secunia. It's also discussed here on the US-Cert
    | website. Proof-of-concept code can be found on MilW0rm here. Â*
    `----

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08...ads_vuln_love/


    Microsoft plans six critical patches

    ,----[ Quote
    | At least one of the critical vulnerabilities involves Internet Explorer 7 and
    | Windows Vista, both of which were conceived under new and highly vaunted
    | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    | development rigors designed to produce more secure products. Â*
    `----

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08...patch_tuesday/


    Patch Tuesday: Critical IE, Vista patches on deck

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Of the four criticals, two will include high-severity patches for
    | Windows Vista. The bulletin rated ?moderate? only affects Vista.
    `----

    http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=273


    June Patch Tuesday to deliver Vista fixes and more

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Four of this month's bulletins are labelled 'critical' and
    | relate to vulnerabilities that may allow remote code execution.
    `----

    http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/12751/


    Microsoft Plugs Critical Vista Hole

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Microsoft has just patched another critical hole in Vista that it
    | knew about as long ago as last Christmas. The delay was similar
    | to its lag in patching the serious (and heavily targeted)
    | animated-cursor flaw I told you about last month.
    `----

    http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,132082/article.html


    Microsoft Patches Not One, But Three Vista Holes

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Microsoft today released an update for the recently popular 'animated
    | cursor' vulnerability. The update was originally scheduled for April
    | 10th, but due to recent exploits, was rushed out today. The update
    | wasn't just for this one vulnerability though, in Vista, it addressed two
    | others, and in all covered seven vulnerabilities in Vista, XP and
    | 2000.
    `----

    http://itsvista.com/2007/04/microsof...e-vista-holes/


    Windows Vista's Built-in Rootkit

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | This poor implementation of the permissions structure can be exploited
    | by malware to make files that are undetectable to Anti-Virus products.
    `----

    http://www.jmcardle.com/blog/?p=361


    More Windows cursor patch trouble

    ,----[ Quote
    | A new issue with the fix has also come up. Some customers have
    | experienced trouble when printing from SQL Reporting Services to
    | a Printer Command Language (PCL) printer, Microsoft said.
    `----

    http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-971...=2547-1_3-0-20
    http://tinyurl.com/3xrm4k


    Windows cursor patch causing trouble

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Installing Microsoft's Tuesday patch for a "critical" Windows
    | vulnerability is causing trouble for some users.
    `----

    http://news.com.com/Windows+cursor+p...3-6173413.html


    MS Patch Tuesday: Vista dinged again

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | For the second time this month, Microsoft has shipped a security
    | bulletin with patches for a "critical" Vista vulnerability that
    | puts millions of users at risk of code execution attacks.
    `----

    http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=161


    Security Researchers Say Windows .ANI Problem Surfaced Two Years Ago

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Security researchers say the Windows .ANI bug that has been plaguing
    | users for the past week first surfaced -- and was patched --
    | in early 2005.
    `----

    http://www.informationweek.com/news/...leID=198800828


    Week in review: Cursing Windows' cursor flaw

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | The software giant broke with its monthly patch cycle to fix a bug
    | that cybercrooks had been using since last week to attack Windows
    | PCs, including those running Vista.
    `----

    http://news.com.com/2100-1083_3-6173...0-20&subj=news


    ANI takers for Asus website virus?

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Asus.com.tw, the website of Taiwanese motherboard maker Asustek,
    | has been spraying visitors with the .ANI virus, security software
    | makers confirmed today.
    `----

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04...bsite_viruses/


    Cursor hackers target WoW players

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | World of Warcraft players are being targeted by hackers exploiting
    | flaws in how Windows handles animated cursors.
    `----

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6526851.stm


    Will Next Tuesday's 3 Updates Effect Vista?

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | I would suspect that one will be a patch for the Windows MessageBox
    | exploit, so Vista should get it. Might another be for the Vista
    | 'Timer/2099 Crack'? I wouldn't consider it critical, but
    | Microsoft probably does.
    `----

    http://itsvista.com/2007/01/will-nex...-effect-vista/


    Windows Vista now has its first exploit spotted in the public

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Security experts have confirmed that a proof of concept code for an
    | unpatched vulnerability in Windows Vista has been released on
    | the internet.
    `----

    http://www.it-networks.org/?news=172


    Also see:

    Windows Vista: It's More Secure, We Promise

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Well, allow me to take a moment to remind everyone of something that
    | you might not remember - XP was also touted as being ultra secure.
    | Seriously, can anyone honestly look themselves in the mirror and say
    | this is the gospel truth? You have got to be kidding me. Similar to
    | XP, Microsoft promises to have the most secure Windows version to date
    | yet again.
    `----

    http://www.osweekly.com/index.php?op...357&Itemid=449


    Cisco exec: Windows Vista is scary

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | "Parts of Vista scare me," Gleichauf said at the Gartner Security Summit
    | here on Monday. "Anything with that level of systems complexity will have
    | new threats, as well as bringing new solutions. It's always a struggle
    | in security, trying to build for what you don't know."
    `----

    http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-6116823.html


    Symantec Finds Flaws In Vista's Network Stack

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Researchers with Symantec's advanced threat team poked through
    | Vista's new network stack in several recent builds of the
    | still-under-construction operating system, and found several bugs
    | -- some of which have been fixed, including a few in Â*Monday's
    | release -- as well as broader evidence that the rewrite of the
    | networking code could easily lead to problems.
    |
    | [...]
    |
    | Among Newsham's and Hoagland's conclusions: "The amount of new
    | code present in Windows Vista provides many opportunities for
    | new defects."
    |
    | "It's true that some of the things we found were 'low-hanging
    | fruit,' and that some are getting fixed in later builds,"
    | said Friedrichs. "But that begs the question of what else
    | is in there?"
    `----

    http://www.techweb.com/wire/security...id=MWLALDT21M1


    Many of the flaws Microsoft will continue to hide (it will 'fix' them without
    telling anyone).

    See:

    Critical Vulnerability in Microsoft Metrics

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | This is a small subset of all the vulnerabilities, because the
    | vulnerabilities that are found through the QA process and the vulnerabilities
    | that are found by the security folks they engage as contractors to perform
    | penetration testing are fixed in service packs and major updates. For
    | Microsoft this makes sense because these fixes get the benefit of a full test
    | pass which is much more robust for a service pack or major release than it is
    | for a security update.
    `----

    http://blog.mozilla.com/security/200...osoft-metrics/


    http://antitrust.slated.org/www.iowa...00/PX03096.pdf


    Skeletons in Microsoft’s Patch Day closet

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | This is the first time I’ve seen Microsoft prominently admit to silently
    | fixing vulnerabilities in its bulletins — a controversial practice that
    | effectively reduces the number of publicly documented bug fixes (for those
    | keeping count) and affects patch management/deployment decisions.
    `----

    http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=316


    Beware of undisclosed Microsoft patches

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Forget for a moment whether Microsoft is throwing off patch counts
    | that Microsoft brass use to compare its security record with those
    | of its competitors. What do you think of Redmond’s silent patching
    | practice?
    `----

    http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=527


    Microsoft is Counting Bugs Again

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Sorry, but Microsoft's self-evaluating security counting isn't really a
    | good accounting.
    |
    | [...]
    |
    | The point: Don't count on security flaw counting. The real flaw is
    | the counting.
    `----

    http://www.microsoft-watch.com/conte...129TX1K0000535

  8. Re: [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed,More Bugs

    On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 18:54:29 -0800, evilkillerwhale wrote:

    > Vista has had 0 Viruses to date.



    That's quite a claim.



    -Thufir

  9. Re: [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs

    Thufir wrote:

    > On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 18:54:29 -0800, evilkillerwhale wrote:
    >
    >> Vista has had 0 Viruses to date.

    >
    >
    > That's quite a claim.
    >


    Yup, given that it is susceptible to about half of the XP viruses.
    Apart from the fact that the first Vista-only viruses appeared *before*
    Vista was available (when it was still in beta)

    Yes, our "evil whale" is full of it.
    But then, he is just a lowly wintendo luser
    --
    The early bird gets the worm.
    The early worm ... gets eaten.


  10. Re: [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs

    evilkillerwhale@gmail.com wrote:



    > Overall, I use Vista...


    Says it all, another windoze fanboi. Fista doesn't seem to have a
    newsreader, as fanboi's posting through googlegroups, & his
    X-HTTP-UserAgent is Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh). So Fista wasn't even good
    enough for him to use to post the message.

    --
    : It takes time, this. One slight error in any of my thirteen billion
    calculations and we'll be blasted to smithereens. Here we go, then: 10, 9,
    8, 6, 5--
    Holly, *where's* 7?
    --Red Dwarf--

  11. Re: [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs

    evilkillerwhale@gmail.com wrote:



    > Vista has had 0 Viruses to date.



    Wrong!

    Aug 4, 2005
    http://www.macworld.com/article/4627...taviruses.html


    I'm so sick and tired of you stupid primarily Windoze lusers who don't use
    linux. I'll bet you've never used a linux distro, (oh, you *claim* to, but
    when it comes down to it, it's obvious you know *nothing*).
    In which case *you* have no idea what you're talking about, and are just
    another idiot wintroll filling the air with *your* verbal ****.
    AND GOOD DAY TO *YOU*, SIR.

    --
    : It takes time, this. One slight error in any of my thirteen billion
    calculations and we'll be blasted to smithereens. Here we go, then: 10, 9,
    8, 6, 5--
    Holly, *where's* 7?
    --Red Dwarf--

  12. Re: [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed,More Bugs

    nymshifting troll wrote:

    > I'm so sick and tired of you stupid primarily Linux users who think
    > you're superior. I'll bet you've never owned Vista, or if you have,
    > didn't use it more than a week. In which case you have no idea what
    > you're talking about, and are just another idiot filling the air with
    > your verbal diarrhea. GOOD DAY TO YOU SIR.


    Well, here's what former Microsoft executive Alex St John, someone who
    DOES know what he's talking about, thinks about Vista security.

    "The biggest foolishness is Vista's security architecture. Any time
    someone questions Vista's security, Microsoft accuses that person of
    being anti-security, or is just bummed because they can't do naughty
    things that they otherwise wanted to do. Vista's security is weird,
    it's like a house made out of concrete walls but has screen doors.
    It's an enormously overbuilt security system with huge, gaping holes.
    It's extremely intrusive, and it gets in the way of the user's
    experience without actually being secure. It makes it even harder for
    consumers to download things and play games, without actually gaining
    any security benefits. It basically ****s up legitimate applications
    while leaving holes for the bad ones to just climb on through."

    http://www.shacknews.com/extras/2007...lexstjohn1_3.x






  13. Re: [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs

    On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 09:51:17 GMT, Thufir wrote:
    >On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 18:54:29 -0800, evilkillerwhale wrote:


    >> Vista has had 0 Viruses to date.



    >That's quite a claim.


    And a boldfaced lie. Does he think that microsoft has released no security
    updates and will not issue any in the future?


  14. Re: [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs

    ____/ William Poaster on Saturday 05 January 2008 13:52 : \____

    > evilkillerwhale@gmail.com wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >> Vista has had 0 Viruses to date.

    >
    >
    > Wrong!
    >
    > Aug 4, 2005
    > http://www.macworld.com/article/4627...taviruses.html
    >
    >
    > I'm so sick and tired of you stupid primarily Windoze lusers who don't use
    > linux. I'll bet you've never used a linux distro, (oh, you *claim* to, but
    > when it comes down to it, it's obvious you know *nothing*).
    > In which case *you* have no idea what you're talking about, and are just
    > another idiot wintroll filling the air with *your* verbal ****.
    > AND GOOD DAY TO *YOU*, SIR.


    I've posted many examples. Vista will be Zombiesta once it's actually adopted
    (still under 1% market share in the enterprise!). With Vista-capable quad-core
    PCs, that pace of SPAM spewage is likely to increase and penetrate filters
    too.

    --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    Roy S. Schestowitz | Here be hills, there be dragons!
    http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    run-level 2 2007-12-10 11:12 last=
    http://iuron.com - help build a non-profit search engine

  15. Re: [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs

    * evilkillerwhale@gmail.com fired off this tart reply:

    > Vista can be set to automatically defrag the hard disk. If the
    > computer is not being used at your specified time, a background
    > version of defrag begins running. If you move the mouse, it pauses
    > until the computer goes into standby (or a screen saver) again, or
    > until the machine is reset. As the computer starts up, defrag will run
    > until you begin doing things with the computer. Meaning automatic
    > defrag turned on with a highly fragmented HDD can cause longer boot
    > times.


    Wouldn't it be better if the defrag was just non-intrusive, so that you
    wouldn't notice it while working?

    > Also, Vista is the first system to aggressively load programs into
    > RAM. It basically looks at how often you run a program, and then as it
    > starts up, prefetch's that program. Similar to the prefetch in XP, but
    > it's called super prefetch for a reason in Vista. It will fill up over
    > half your RAM at all times, unless specified otherwise. For example:
    > My RAM was at 67% yesterday with 1 Gb of RAM. I installed an
    > additional 1.5 Gb of RAM, and now it says 64%. My programs load much
    > quicklier though, a they should.


    I prefer the Linux way: if you run an app, it stays in RAM as long as
    possible.

    But then, I'm running 4 Gb, and I still have 1.2 Gb yet unused.

    > Vista's UAC's also go away over time, because they learn what you plan
    > to do, and allow things you do often. Supposedly SP1 is going to make
    > this even better, but we'll see. My Vista home premium runs much
    > faster than XP Home edition did, and yes, it's the same machine.


    I would hope Vista optimizes the code somewhat. Windows is very fast
    when you can tune your code to run on it, but it falls somewhat flat for
    running a hodgepodge of apps.

    As for your same machine claim, well, 1 Gb should be enough to keep both
    systems "peppy", since you're not running Aero.

    > Vista has lots of things to set up that most people have no idea even
    > exist. I was playing with settings one day and found some things for
    > disk check, etc that I didn't realize were even in Vista, because they
    > are not in the same place they were with XP.


    This is indeed true of all OS's, which is one reason to hold back a bit
    before blasting a system for not having a given feature.

    > Overall, I use Vista more than my MacBook (I'm on it right now) and
    > the MacBook more than my Ubuntu or my Fedora core 5 boxes. It's better
    > looking, faster, more stable, and runs everything I've ever tried to
    > run on it with no issues.


    Cool. It's nice you can afford three systems, and it should make you
    better able to appreciate their differences. However, we can't forget
    that your OS preference is /your/ preference.

    > Just because you like Linux doesn't mean Windows isn't exactly what
    > some (most) people need, so stop spreading FUD.


    Nonetheless, Microsoft is a company that any informed person should look
    askance on, and be wary of committing fully to. You are using multiple
    systems, so I believe that you know what I mean.

    --
    This sig has expired. Please reactivate your sig by paying $0.25
    and entering the 30-character activation key that will be emailed to
    your account.

  16. Re: [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs

    * evilkillerwhale@gmail.com fired off this tart reply:

    >> I've seen the previous system (500MHz, 384M) report fragmentation of
    >> more than 25% since then. Probably higher, but that's the ballpark
    >> number I remember. I've had no slowdown that I could detect. If I
    >> allowed the Windows machine (1.7GHz, 512M) at work to get to that level
    >> it would take forever just to open the defrag program to fix it.

    >
    > Vista has had 0 Viruses to date.


    That's apparently why Microsoft dropped MSH from Vista:

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/08/08/monad_vista/

    > Windows mail had an exploit. IE7 had
    > an exploit. If you use either of those you're an idiot to begin with.


    Thanks for the advice, especially about IE7.

    > On the other hand, they just did a study with Linux, Windows, and Mac
    > OS X (which is Unix based, in case you didn't know. I was unsure,
    > seeing as you are an idiot.) on which had the most exploitable
    > exploits. Vista came in last, followed by Xp, followed by Linux, and
    > in first place was mac. Mac, and linux were full of exploits, and
    > possibilities of malware. They don't have any for the same reason that
    > robbers don't rob beggars: there's no point. No one uses Linux or Mac
    > other than for servers and FinalCut.


    evil, you've just become a Bozo in my mind.

    > Windows owns 90% of the market. Get over it, and go buy yourself an OS
    > that runs things without you having to do anything more than put the
    > disk in the tray.


    This from the guy who requested us not to FUD.

    > I'm so sick and tired of you stupid primarily Linux users who think
    > you're superior. I'll bet you've never owned Vista, or if you have,
    > didn't use it more than a week. In which case you have no idea what
    > you're talking about, and are just another idiot filling the air with
    > your verbal diarrhea. GOOD DAY TO YOU SIR.


    Funny how they always start out so reasonable, and then (often quickly)
    turn into gibbering idiots.

    These WinTrolls need a little more self-control.

    --
    This sig has expired. Please reactivate your sig by paying $0.25
    and entering the 30-character activation key that will be emailed to
    your account.

  17. Re: [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs

    * Peter Köhlmann fired off this tart reply:

    > Thufir wrote:
    >
    >> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 18:54:29 -0800, evilkillerwhale wrote:
    >>
    >>> Vista has had 0 Viruses to date.

    >>
    >> That's quite a claim.

    >
    > Yup, given that it is susceptible to about half of the XP viruses.
    > Apart from the fact that the first Vista-only viruses appeared *before*
    > Vista was available (when it was still in beta)
    >
    > Yes, our "evil whale" is full of it.
    > But then, he is just a lowly wintendo luser


    Man, you sure have to watch out for Microsoft sophistry. Who would have
    thought that, when a guy like evilkillerwhale says that "Vista has had 0
    viruses to date" (with fingers crossed behind his back), he's actually
    saying

    "There are zero Vista-specific viruses to date. There is one in the
    Monad shell (MSH), but Microsoft decided to not ship it with Vista,
    though you can download it and thus acquire the vulnerability. There
    are also a large number of XP viruses that can harm Vista, but we
    won't count those, so that I can use the Z word."

    --
    This sig has expired. Please reactivate your sig by paying $0.25
    and entering the 30-character activation key that will be emailed to
    your account.

  18. Re: [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs

    On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 17:49:21 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >____/ William Poaster on Saturday 05 January 2008 13:52 : \____


    >> evilkillerwhale@gmail.com wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> Vista has had 0 Viruses to date.

    >>
    >>
    >> Wrong!
    >>
    >> Aug 4, 2005
    >> http://www.macworld.com/article/4627...taviruses.html
    >>
    >>
    >> I'm so sick and tired of you stupid primarily Windoze lusers who don't use
    >> linux. I'll bet you've never used a linux distro, (oh, you *claim* to, but
    >> when it comes down to it, it's obvious you know *nothing*).
    >> In which case *you* have no idea what you're talking about, and are just
    >> another idiot wintroll filling the air with *your* verbal ****.
    >> AND GOOD DAY TO *YOU*, SIR.


    >I've posted many examples. Vista will be Zombiesta once it's actually adopted
    >(still under 1% market share in the enterprise!). With Vista-capable quad-core
    >PCs, that pace of SPAM spewage is likely to increase and penetrate filters
    >too.



    Vista has a brilliant method for reducing the damage that can be caused by
    a zombie system: it is such a ridiculous pig that the resources available for
    mounting attacks on the network are roughly equivalent 60mhz pentium I.
    During the numerous 20+ second lockups, the world is safe from the vistazombie.


  19. Re: [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed,More Bugs

    On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 13:38:35 -0500, Linonut wrote:


    > That's apparently why Microsoft dropped MSH from Vista:
    >
    > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/08/08/monad_vista/



    Oh, too bad. The power shell looked interesting. Is this why there's no
    "netsh diag" in vista?


    -Thufir


+ Reply to Thread
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6