Boycott Microsoft Windows Vista [Archive]

CloneRanger

August 18th, 2006, 02:51 PM

@ dallen

With respect, you are also "assuming" that vista will be automatically migrated to. With all the delays to vista, I think people will be very wary of doing that, when it is eventually released, even companys.

If giant corporations, never mind smaller ones and individuals, can operate effectively and effeciently with what they have now, there is no need to change just for the sake of change or to keep up with the jones's.

This time round I have a feeling that just about everybody is older and wiser to the "upgrade" illusion. Not only that but people havn't forgotten all the patches etc that have been required, and still are, for xp. I sincerely hope that ms don't release vista, just to get it out there in the market place, as has happened before, before they have ironed out all the problems they are aware of with it. Not only would that be wrong, but also a very grave mistake on their part which will seriously backfire on them.

In the past not as many people were aware an alternative os to what ms had to offer existed. But now more of them are, and prepared to experiment with them. The fact that more user friendly packages are available, and often free, is very encouraging. Once the word spreads even more widely about them, and people recount their, hopefully positive, experiences with them, who needs vista ?

Freespire and linspire and the like are examples of the ms alternatives i touched on above. These, at last, appear to come in much easier to install and use packages with many useful applications included as standard.

ms excluding third party vendors from integrating their software with windows is outragous

sosaiso

August 18th, 2006, 02:56 PM

@cloneranger

I think the delays are making things better because it shows people M$ is making an effort to refine code instead of just shipping it like XP was.

Linux is still hard to use. [This is from the viewpoint of most computer users.]

There is still no out of the box solution that comes standard with MS. Lack of driver support, lack of codec support, non-universal repositories. These are all things that must be improved significantly before we even see another 10% of MS's business drift over to the opensource desktop. Linspire, Freespire have taken a lot of steps in the right direction, but it's still not enough. Understandable, because hardware manufacturers make drivers for Windows only, not caring about things like a Ubuntu distrobution more than half the time, but this is the hurdle that keeps many from making any sort of switch.

And plus, Mac's are about as expensive as a MS distro.

TNT

August 18th, 2006, 02:57 PM

-{ Quote: "However, I am giving them the credit they deserve. It's easy to sit around and complain about the dominant superpower. What's not so easy is to think of a better way, implement it, and challenge that superpower." }-There are better products already, and there always were for people who wanted to use the computer as a technical work platform, not as a toy. The fact that I can even use Windows in a productive way is because I installed a truckload of third party applications, most of them coming directly from the UNIX world.

Microsoft hasn't introduced much "new" technology at all. The Internet itself was created, developed, improved all on UNIX, and most of Microsoft pushed as a "revolution" was a disaster (Active Channel, ActiveX). To claim Microsoft is the leader because they have the best technology is like claiming McDonalds is so popular because their food is the best: nobody in his right mind would believe such absurdity.

dallen

August 18th, 2006, 04:17 PM

-{ Quote: "Opensource!" }-
sosaiso,
I agree. I feel that having millions of eyes on code creates more secure code than closed source. I recently tried three distros of Linux for the first time, Xandros, Mandriva, and Ubuntu. I did not like the first two very much, but was very surprised by the third. Ubuntu performed far better than I imagined.

CloneRanger,
You are correct to point out that I am assuming that people will migrate to Vista. This assumption is based on my observation of what happened when Windows 98 and Windows XP were released. It is an assumption nevertheless and I do not deny that, but it is an assumption that I am willing to bet on. What I think will happen is that people and businesses will eventually migrate to Vista, but that the migration will occur at a slow rate. Of course there will be an immediate jump by the early adopters, but most businesses will migrate more slowly and with more caution. Rest assured that the migration will occur and within 3 - 5 years of the release of Vista, we will be talking about XP like we do 98 now.

dallen

August 18th, 2006, 04:31 PM

-{ Quote: "There are better products already, and there always were for people who wanted to use the computer as a technical work platform, not as a toy. The fact that I can even use Windows in a productive way is because I installed a truckload of third party applications, most of them coming directly from the UNIX world.

Microsoft hasn't introduced much "new" technology at all. The Internet itself was created, developed, improved all on UNIX, and most of Microsoft pushed as a "revolution" was a disaster (Active Channel, ActiveX). To claim Microsoft is the leader because they have the best technology is like claiming McDonalds is so popular because their food is the best: nobody in his right mind would believe such absurdity." }-
TNT,
With all do respect, and I do respect you, what you say about UNIX is true and agree with your comments on third party applications. However, your assessment of Microsoft is problematic, in my mind. One only need go back to the introduction of Windows understand what things were like before Microsoft got involved and fully appreciate what they've done. You may be technically correct with your claim that Microsoft has not introduced "much new technology," although I'm not going to agree with that statement wholeheartedly, but if you consider Microsoft's product Windows XP in its entirity as a form of technology (i.e. a stable OS with all of its capabilities), then I think you will understand what I am saying.

Your McDonald's analogy is interesting.
-{ Quote: "To claim Microsoft is the leader because they have the best technology is like claiming McDonalds is so popular because their food is the best: nobody in his right mind would believe such absurdity." }-I will modify it to be a little more precise. To claim that Microsoft is not the leader knowing that they control an overwhelming majority of the marketshare is like claiming that McDonalds is not the fast food king knowing the current state of fast food sales: nobody in his/her right mind would believe such absurdity.

I hope that I don't offend you because I have a lot of respect for you. Your analogy just did not seem to accurately reflect my point.

TNT

August 18th, 2006, 06:58 PM

-{ Quote: "TNT,
With all do respect, and I do respect you, what you say about UNIX is true and agree with your comments on third party applications. However, your assessment of Microsoft is problematic, in my mind. One only need go back to the introduction of Windows understand what things were like before Microsoft got involved and fully appreciate what they've done. You may be technically correct with your claim that Microsoft has not introduced "much new technology," although I'm not going to agree with that statement wholeheartedly, but if you consider Microsoft's product Windows XP in its entirity as a form of technology (i.e. a stable OS with all of its capabilities), then I think you will understand what I am saying." }-I agree that Microsoft has "introduced" technology to the masses, yes. They made it possible for regular people to use the computer, but (here's the problem I have with their "new" course, and to some extent to much of their "old" course as well), the always had a VERY aggressive marketing approach, to the point that it always tried to crush/limit the others. Now granted, it's not just Microsoft, some of the other "big" companies do this too (I'm thinking Symantec for instance), but limiting the others on technology grounds can be very frustrating for those who are not "the majority".

Let's be real here, they majority of people don't want to know about programming, scripting, Internet protocols, etc... they just want to "use" some games and read the mail. They might not even NEED ssh, shell scripting, Perl, etc. But some do, and to me it's hard to consider Microsoft between the "advanced" ones in that respect. Frankly, there have been always MUCH stuff developed by minor vendors or open source "communities" that, for "technical" people, is heaps and bounds better than anything Microsoft was ever able to offer. One needs only to compare for instance a dos prompt to a UNIX shell, or Windows' firewall to pf, to see how WIDE the gap is.

dallen

August 19th, 2006, 12:08 AM

TNT,

You are correct and I agree with everything you say.

I am hoping that third party vendors are just freaking out right now because there has been a shift in the way their programs will have to interact with the OS. Some of the vendors are concerned that the change occurring with Vista will not allow for their products. I hope that once Vista is released, vendors will find a way to make products that are able to operate under the new rules and we are all safer as a result.

Call me naïve. Call me optimistic. I hope I’m right.

WSFuser

August 19th, 2006, 01:10 AM

im hoping things will change before Vista becomes final because I want a new OS and Mac/Linux is not my cup of tea.

When Vista does come out, then we will see how its changed and how security software will work with it.

Meriadoc

August 19th, 2006, 01:02 PM

Ilya I commend you for standing up for your livelihood and survival calling for a boycott of Windows Vista, although I think it will be the actions of the malware/concept writers or the courts that help direct Microsoft to change things.
Microsofts aim is to prevent modification by unknown code and foil the writers of rootkits, their designs have some merit some good ideas but this also impedes 3rd party security vendors which has to be undesirable - so you cant blame vendors claiming this is for a reason...
-{ Quote: "The security experts at Agnitum believe this move by Microsoft is designed to force users to rely on Microsoft and only Microsoft for Windows security" }-
...
-{ Quote: "I see only one purpose - to monopolize the market of Microsoft's security software -SoftSphere." }-
It is true to say that 3rd party vendors provide better protection than Microsoft, and the more options and diversity on offer make things significantly harder for malware writers.
Microsoft have always tried to dictate how security vendors should apply security, and now it seems this will force the issue.
SoftSphere comments...
-{ Quote: "Third-party security vendors won't be permitted by Microsoft to implement full-featured, anti-virus, firewall or HIPS with allowed 'low-level' functionality. " }-

Ilya Rabinovich

August 20th, 2006, 07:40 AM

Also, I would like to note that only one vulnerability in it's defense schemes without 3rd party security solutions will make millions computers infected in very short time.

Just remember WMF exploit- the first who've made the patch was Ilfak Guilfanov, not MS! So, I don't want rely only on MS in the field of security!

Brian N

August 20th, 2006, 09:34 AM

I was planning on getting Vista 2-3 years after it hit the market, just so M$ could get some time to fix bugs & close security holes. But if they are going to exclude 3'rd party vendors I'm not gonna get it at all, because I feel hell of alot safer with those installed than anything M$ has ever made.

pykko

August 20th, 2006, 09:59 AM

Well, in this case Vista will never be installed on my PC. (if that article is fully true and other security vendors won't be able to implement 100% working apps. Another bad trick from MS. :(

sukarof

August 20th, 2006, 10:03 AM

If it is true that malware makers can circumvent the MS kernel protection but third party security software vendors will get sued if they do the same to protect the computer I will not buy Vista. MS should not do such drastic thing until they can guarante that their code is unbreakable. Everyone knows that is impossible so the user who pays for Vista should have the freedom to choose how to protect their computer.

bigc73542

August 20th, 2006, 10:37 AM

One thing to keep in mind when you are on an anti Microsoft rant is that there is no law that states you have to like Microsoft, you don't even have to like the company. But Microsoft is a company and they are going to look after no.1 first just like any other company that is still in business. Microsoft has the right to develope their software pretty much the way they see fit. The bottom line is that if you don't like the way Microsoft does business or you don't like their software you aren't required to use it. Personally I think Microsoft could do a bit better than they are in the public relations field. But I also like useing their software and will continue useing it until the time a real alternative is available, and Linux is not it for me. But if I didn't like Microsoft products I wouldn't bash them every chance I got I just wouldn't use their products.

END OF MY RANT

bigc

by the way I do have windows Vista and it seems to be pretty decent so far.

herbalist

August 20th, 2006, 01:18 PM

Microsoft seems to want an OS that's hostile to both users and software vendors. They want it to have DRM to make sure the users actually bought their music and video content. They don't want security vendors in the core operating system. Their own track record proves that Microsoft couldn't secure the box a PC comes in, but they want to prevent anyone else from doing so? Seems that the only "security" they're really interested in is their own, that and the big money entertainment industry with DRM. Either of these alone would make me think that money and industry monopoly are the real goals, but these 2 "behaviors" together suggest another possibility. Do they plan on hiding rootkit behavior of their own in the kernel? Not just DRM, but something more "national security" oriented? It would definitely explain why they won't let legitimate security software into the kernel, and their refusal to compromise or respond to those vendors. Wouldn't suprise me a bit.
Rick

TNT

August 20th, 2006, 01:29 PM

-{ Quote: "But if I didn't like Microsoft products I wouldn't bash them every chance I got I just wouldn't use their products." }-I certainly wouldn't use them, if I had the choice.

Maddoktor2

August 20th, 2006, 02:35 PM

The idea of boycotting Vista is all very well and good in protestational concept, but what happens when XP's support is simply scrapped like 9x's just recently was? What will your options be then, and what will you choose? ???

Alphalutra1

August 20th, 2006, 05:37 PM

-{ Quote: "The idea of boycotting Vista is all very well and good in protestational concept, but what happens when XP's support is simply scrapped like 9x's just recently was? What will your options be then, and what will you choose? ???" }-
*nix and / or continue to use XP. There are ways to prevent exploits without ms's patches as well. Remotely exploited services, just one example, can be prevented from being exploited by a firewall that blocks access to them, or by just disabling them all.

Cheers,

Alphalutra1

bigc73542

August 20th, 2006, 05:40 PM

-{ Quote: "I certainly wouldn't use them, if I had the choice." }-

you do have the choice not to use them. :thumb:

Alphalutra1

August 20th, 2006, 05:43 PM

-{ Quote: "you do have the choice not to use them. :thumb:" }-
unless your work/school requires it :-\ which I think is TNT's case. There always is cygwin though :thumb:

Cheers,

Alphalutra1

CloneRanger

August 20th, 2006, 06:20 PM

herbalist made some very sharp observations in #27 about some possible additional stealth etc reasons behind ms intentions with vista, which if true are very disturbing indeed. Their refusal to enter into dialogue with other software manufactures is, very very arrogant, and telling in itself

Everybody should ensure they make copies of whatever os they have now, and all their other applications and software, and keep all documentation, disks, info etc. Regular backing everything up would also be sensible and storing permanent copies of them

If at some point in future we discover things that we might be even less happy with than we are now, we can revert back to what we have now, or updated versions of them as we progress. Any os not being supported anymore would be the least of my concerns in circumstances such as those. And I know which option I have already chosen, and isn't the most current, for very similar reasons to those mentioned already.

Having a very effective selection of security software along with optimised os and computer settings, all correctly configured, has left me with a very secure setup that has been proven to work over and over again

TNT

August 20th, 2006, 06:30 PM

-{ Quote: "unless your work/school requires it :-\ which I think is TNT's case." }-Yeah, work. :dry: -{ Quote: " There always is cygwin though :thumb:" }-What do you think I commonly use? :D

Mrkvonic

August 21st, 2006, 12:57 AM

Hello,
I won't use Vista either. The way MS is going, first it's install crap behind your back, now it's going to be install crap in your face. I cannot stand the concept of DRM. For some reason, I see all the big companies with their false slogans and the hype of music / video insutrdy floating in front of my face, jeering, any time I hear or read the word DRM.
Political issues aside, which I think play majorly here, the little man has nothing but to lose unless he turns elsewhere - opersource.
Mrk

dallen

August 21st, 2006, 01:41 AM

People who are afraid of DRM…fear not. Two things need to be considered before you resort to fear.

First, given the current paradigm, content can only remain digital up to the point that it is transferred to our human senses. At that point it becomes analogue. Whether it is transferred into sound waves for our ears or light waves for our eyes, the moment that transfer occurs all DRM is lost and that signal can be recaptured in an unsecured manner. I’ve read quite a bit on the subject and listened to talks by some of the leading minds on the issue. In my opinion, which is based on hearing the opinions of those that know, there will not be a way to ensure that content is secure from duplication any time soon.

Second, have faith that many minds are more powerful than fewer. Anytime something is declared secure, you can bet that there are bright minds hacking to render that security defeated. This is true for your computer and this is true for content based media. DRM strategists and all their efforts will not withstand the pounding that millions of brains will give them. Have faith in thy hackers my friends.

Mrkvonic

August 21st, 2006, 01:31 PM

herbalist

August 21st, 2006, 09:50 PM

-{ Quote: "The idea of boycotting Vista is all very well and good in protestational concept, but what happens when XP's support is simply scrapped like 9x's just recently was? What will your options be then, and what will you choose?" }-
Win98, what I'm using now. A lack of M$ support doesn't translate into no choice. Eventually I'll migrate to Linux or BSD, but still have some hardware issues to resolve, starting with a modem. If it wasn't for the introduction of HIPS software and the fact that some of them like SSM (one of a very few) chose to support Win98/ME, those operating systems could well have been written off for security reasons alone. It's really bizarre if you think about it. A Russian company, a part of the old Soviet block, a former symbol of lack of choice and freedom, has given us back the choice of being able to use and secure older operating systems that a giant company from the "free world" wants to take away. Gotta love it!
-{ Quote: "First, given the current paradigm, content can only remain digital up to the point that it is transferred to our human senses. At that point it becomes analogue. Whether it is transferred into sound waves for our ears or light waves for our eyes, the moment that transfer occurs all DRM is lost and that signal can be recaptured in an unsecured manner." }-
This changes what? My PC doesn't store analog content. If I buy a few hundred blank cassettes I could store it in analog format but cassette decks don't last very long anymore. My previous one, a Pioneer dual unit was worn out in 2 years on the recording side. Sure, DRM will get defeated, then modified, then defeated again. Shouldn't have to rely on hacker or potentially illegal methods to keep from being treated as a potential criminal, which is the whole concept behind DRM, investigating your innocence or guilt with no probable cause. The entire concept is unconstitutional and should be challenged on those grounds.
Before you think you could safely use some other method to defeat DRM, remember they're locking the kernel to everyone, including security companies in a move that is clearly counter-productive to their stated intent, securing the OS kernel. They already know they can't actually accomplish it, but they could manage to hide something else there, such as a rootkit of their own. If not something national security oriented, something intended to detect and report tampering with other components like the DRM. Looking back at the course windows has taken over the different versions, the different "features" that have crept in over the years, I can't come to any other conclusion other than the entire OS is becoming spyware, monitoring the user. It used to be just index.dat files with histories that couldn't be read or erased without special software or by using DOS. Then they took DOS away and gave us ADS (alternate data streams) instead, where much more can be hidden. Then they gave us a kernel system that allows both processes and files to be hidden (rootkits) and called it a security advance. What did we truly gain? What did this fix that was more of a threat than rootkit technology? Now M$ want to keep security software from protecting the kernel, even though they can't secure it themselves, and that's been demonstrated. Maybe I am being paranoid, but too much of what's been happening points to a different reason for this course and their stated intentions and other alternative explanations make less sense all the time. If I've seen correctly, the beta versions of Vista were between 3 and 4 GB in size? Anyone want to decompile that and see what's really going on? How many pages of code would that be? How many executables are in that package? How much of it is hidden and inaccessible? Anyone know what all of them do? There's a prime example of making security through obscurity work, at least for their purpose. That's just the beta versions. How much will the actual release resemble it?
Is it a coincidence that M$ acquired Sysinternals and Winternals at this time, companies among the best able to develop and release tools that could look into these things? Is it a coincidence that M$ continues to expand its domination to more and more aspects of computers and software without being nailed on anti-trust laws even when their tactics make real competition impossible? AT&T was broken up for much less than they're getting away with. Maybe I am paranoid, but there's a pattern of behavior here that goes back many years that I can't explain away or ignore without running into too much contradictory information and conflicting statements of intent that don't agree with the results, plus a whole lot of circumstantial evidence that supports the same conclusion. Windows is being designed to be spyware/control-ware, Vista is greatly expanding its scope, and the powers that be support and most likely benefit from it. Their stated intentions for Vista, from DRM to keeping others out of the kernel, are perfectly aligned with our national security policies of monitoring and suspecting everyone. DRM was made because they don't trust the users. WGA is the same thing. Make sure the user didn't steal it. They've made their position clear. What would make anyone think that the rest of the OS isn't designed with the same distrusting behavior? The sick part of it is that Vista looks to be that perfect monitoring tool they want, able to record and pass on a wealth of info, from medical to financial to satisfying personal desires, thru connections that are available 24/7, eventually watching most (they hope) homes and businesses, and people are going to buy and install it for them. Their policy of planned obsolescense, pushing (or attempting to push) users to the new operating systems by terminating support of the older ones and deliberately leaving them vulnerable supports this conclusion. Works on most users.
For me, boycotting Vista is just a continuation of what I've been doing all along, using DOS based systems, which are the only Windows operating systems I trust. The last thing we need is an operating system that distrusts its owner.
Rick

CloneRanger

August 21st, 2006, 11:06 PM

@ herbalist

Very nice post thank you, and inline my thoughts and earlier post

JerryM

August 21st, 2006, 11:39 PM

I suspect that Vista will come installed on the next computer I buy in 4 or 5 years, and I'll just use it and not worry about it.
By the time I get ready to buy another computer Vista will be running as well as XP is now.

I wonder why I cannot get excited when MS does something or introduces a new OS?

Jerry

JRCATES

August 21st, 2006, 11:57 PM

-{ Quote: "I suspect that Vista will come installed on the next computer I buy in 4 or 5 years, and I'll just use it and not worry about it.
By the time I get ready to buy another computer Vista will be running as well as XP is now.

I wonder why I cannot get excited when MS does something or introduces a new OS?

Jerry" }-

I'm right there with ya. It'll be 4 or 5 years before my next PC, and I'm sure at that time Vista will be the standard bearer.

As for getting excited about anything MS releases....I'm actually looking forward to IE7!!!! It looks kinda promising, well, at least some new ideas and things have been implemented. And hey, it can't be any worse than IE6, can it??? :-\

iceni60

August 22nd, 2006, 12:01 AM

i think Ubuntu is the best alternative if anyone's thinking of leaving MS. i stopped using ubuntu because it's so easy i wasn't learning anything about Linux.

it takes me about 5 hours to set up XP so it's secure and everything works, Ubuntu takes just over 30 mins. i'll write a how to set up Ubuntu if anyone wants it.

http://www.ubuntu.com/

herbalist

August 22nd, 2006, 12:25 AM

-{ Quote: "i'll write a how to set up Ubuntu if anyone wants it." }-
Got anything on making it work with a Win98 internal winmodem, Rockwell HCF 56K data Fax PCI? Maybe with a US Robotics 56K Faxmodem, USB model 5633? I have Ubuntu 5.1 installed on my "E" drive, secondary slave. Seems to work, including the bootloader, but I can't get either modem to work. The USB itself seems to be working properly. I can access my external hard drive with Ubuntu. Just can't get it to go online, and right now a hardware modem is out of reach.
Rick

dallen

August 22nd, 2006, 12:55 AM

Rick,

Your comment about tapes and storing analogue content on your PC indicates that you do not get it. The digital signal can be converted to an analogue signal for the purpose of filtering out the DRM then converted back to digital and stored on you PC in digital format DRM free.

That being said, I now understand that DRM is not your central concern. It is obvious from reading your postings that you are a very educated person. Please do not take my first statement “you do not get it” to in any way be a criticism or to be condescending. It is simply intended to mean that you did not accurately comprehend what I was saying.

Much of what you said in you lengthy, but interesting, posting was eye opening, albeit borderline conspiracy theorist, but interesting nonetheless.

Devinco

August 22nd, 2006, 01:49 AM

-{ Quote: "i'll write a how to set up Ubuntu if anyone wants it." }-
This would be great Iceni! If you decide to make it, could you keep us Windows migrants in mind with general purpose computing, security, and some multimedia as a focus?

herbalist

August 22nd, 2006, 02:38 AM

I'm wasn't thinking of DRM content contained in the audio file itself, but of software on the PC monitoring and reporting on incoming or stored audio files, attempting to identify where you got them, etc. I don't think we've seen the full extent of what DRM will be capable of doing when it's finally released in Vista. Will digital-to-analog conversion software be allowed to run on Vista or will it be made incompatible? An audio file doesn't have to contain DRM for an OS or other software to identify it as an audio file. If it's a digital copy of material that was already released in digital format, it's signature is already recognizable. Since the whole concept of DRM is assuming that people are obtaining audio and video material illegally, I doubt they plan on taking an innocent until proven guilty approach. M$ didn't treat the owners of XP that way with WGA, checking and calling home daily. Look at some of the extremes the entertainment industry is going to already. File sharing has been equated with terrorism. If you think I'm kidding, do a Google search with these 3 words: Terrorism File Sharing. When depriving a big music company the price of a CD is equated with supporting terrorism, just what do you expect from software designed to find illegally obtained music and video material, software that's built into an OS by a company that distributed WGA as a security patch? No conspiracy theory is necessary to see where this all leads. Just combine their own statements with their actions and it's quite clear. If file sharing is equated with terrorism, then DRM has to be viewed as an anti-terrorism tool, which more than explains why they're locking legitimate apps out of the kernel and refusing to talk about it. If DRM software is treated as an anti-terrorism tool, what does that make an OS that it's an integral part of? Spyware in the truest sense of the word.
Rick

CloneRanger

August 22nd, 2006, 02:55 AM

herbalist

You asked

-{ Quote: "Will digital-to-analog conversion software be allowed to run on Vista" }-

DAC doesn't have to be inside the computer ie your soundcard. A digital signal can be linked to an external DAC for conversion, this would be then free of DRM

The quality of DAC and analog recoder can be as high as you like. An external CD recorder could then record that, or be fed into the computer for CD recording

Another alternative is to feed the digital signal from the computer into an external CD recorder and record it digitally

Ngwana

August 22nd, 2006, 05:59 AM

-{ Quote: "Microsoft seems to want an OS that's hostile to both users and software vendors." }-

Microsoft is advancing(IMHO) a different security strategy and one does not have to look too far:

1. There was a blog article at Microsoft technet site not too long ago about 'Deconstructing 10 Common Security Myths' which somewhat suggests third-party sofware products are not really as important as they claim. There are even some 'security experts' also trumpeting the idea that software firewalls and some other security products offer 'false security'. This idea is seemingly shared by Microsoft.

2. The legailty of 'Kernel Patching' is slowly becoming an issue, how far will Microsoft allow software vendors to modify(deeper and deeper) Windows OS in the name of providing security? Even Agnitum has recently cried foul over people making illegal modifications of Outpost and has since encrypted some OP files.

3. Security is a serious issue this days, and if money is to be made MS cannot be left out. I heard someone blaming security vendors for 'scare-mongering' so that they could sell products. So we are yet to see where ONE CARE goes. ;D

iceni60

August 22nd, 2006, 08:13 AM

-{ Quote: "Got anything on making it work with a Win98 internal winmodem, Rockwell HCF 56K data Fax PCI? Maybe with a US Robotics 56K Faxmodem, USB model 5633? I have Ubuntu 5.1 installed on my "E" drive, secondary slave. Seems to work, including the bootloader, but I can't get either modem to work. The USB itself seems to be working properly. I can access my external hard drive with Ubuntu. Just can't get it to go online, and right now a hardware modem is out of reach.
Rick" }-
i just checked it out. you can download the drivers from this link, they aren't open source, so there's two versions - a slow free one (limited to 14.4Kbps data) and a faster paid for version (with 56K and FAX)

http://www.linuxant.com/drivers/hsf/full/downloads.php

this is the download
http://www.linuxant.com/drivers/hsf/full/archive/hsfmodem-7.47.00.02full/hsfmodem_7.47.00.02full_i386.deb.zip

when you've got that you do this
open a terminal -
Applications>Accessories>Terminal
and type in this
uname -r
that will tell you which kernel you have.

then open synaptic -
System>Administration>Synaptic Package Manager
and search for kernel-headers-and attach the output from uname -r here
install the result from the search, there should only be one result which will be an exact match to the query.

then you need to install the drivers, if the zip is on the desktop do this -
right-click the zip and select extract
then i think in Dapper you can double-click the .deb and it will install.
if it doesn't install do this in the terminal - (Desktop needs to have a capital letter below)
cd Desktop/
sudo dpkg -i hsfmodem_7.47.00.02full_i386.deb

i'm not sure what happens next, maybe it will work, or perhaps you'll need to configure it ???

-{ Quote: "This would be great Iceni! If you decide to make it, could you keep us Windows migrants in mind with general purpose computing, security, and some multimedia as a focus?" }-OK, i'll do it in the next day or so.

Lamehand

August 22nd, 2006, 08:25 AM

I think it wil be very hard proving this 'kernel patching' as illegal, because after all it is MS who designed and owns the software, and i never heard of a law that says you have to allow other software to interact with it.
I'm not saying this is a good thing, the user will be dependend from only MS for his security.This spells trouble, because not everything that is, is percieved as a threat by MS.
And boycotting this thing?, have you ever tried convincing an average user to install another OS?. Most of them i know are unaware of these issues and are eager to install the 'latest and the greatest'

Lamehand

iceni60

August 22nd, 2006, 08:49 AM

-{ Quote: "I think it wil be very hard proving this 'kernel patching' as illegal" }- i thought you were talking to me for a second lol.

i haven't read this thread, but if it's about not being allowed to touch the MS kernel, maybe you can protect the computer with somekind of virtualisation by using the new processors which support it. at the recent hacking cons there were talks about totally undetectable malware which work with the new processors - it virtualizes the whole computer i think.

Ngwana

August 22nd, 2006, 09:09 AM

Microsoft has a good excuse against Kernel Patching by third-party software vendors, see the answer to the problems associated with kernel patching: http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/driver/kernel/64bitpatch_FAQ.mspx ;D

MikeNash

August 22nd, 2006, 09:20 AM

-{ Quote: "Microsoft has a good excuse against Kernel Patching by third-party software vendors, see the answer to the problems associated with kernel patching: http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/driver/kernel/64bitpatch_FAQ.mspx ;D" }-

Actually, Microsoft has good *reason* against Kernel patching. However, I'm sure MS could do this in a vendor-friendly way, and one does wonder about the timing of this..... *cough* onecare *cough*.... MS buying AV companies *cough*... seems a bit strange to me.

My 2c....

Mike

herbalist

August 22nd, 2006, 04:44 PM

iceni60,
Thanks for those links and the detailed instructions. I had tried to install a modem driver before but wasn't successful. Linux is brand new to me so I can't say if it was the driver or my installation that didn't work.
One other quick question for you. Right now, I'm running my regular 98 unit on the "C" drive. Ubuntu is on the "E" drive. "D" is going to have another 98 OS on it for testing and research purposes. These are all separate hard drives, varying from 3.8 to 5.1 GB. If I understand correctly, I should be able to see and access both the C and D windows drives from Linux. Should I be able to access the Linux hard drive from Windows 98? The "E" drive containing Ubuntu is displayed in win98 "my computer" as an apparently empty CDROM drive. The only drive I can access from all the OSs is the first partition on my 80GB USB drive, which is 34.1 GB, drive "G". I can't access the 2nd 34.1 GB partition, drive "H" from linux, only from windows.
Is this normal or do I have something mis-configured?
Rick

Lamehand

August 23rd, 2006, 03:10 AM

You can mount a windows-partition into linux, but from windows you can't see anything from a linux install, so that is normal.
If you want both systems to work with a certain partition for storage or backups, it must be converted to FAT or vFAT as they call it in linux.

ubuntuguide.org/wiki/Dapper

Lamehand

Mele20

August 23rd, 2006, 04:31 AM

-{ Quote: "People who are afraid of DRM…fear not. Two things need to be considered before you resort to fear.

First, given the current paradigm, content can only remain digital up to the point that it is transferred to our human senses. At that point it becomes analogue. Whether it is transferred into sound waves for our ears or light waves for our eyes, the moment that transfer occurs all DRM is lost and that signal can be recaptured in an unsecured manner. I’ve read quite a bit on the subject and listened to talks by some of the leading minds on the issue. In my opinion, which is based on hearing the opinions of those that know, there will not be a way to ensure that content is secure from duplication any time soon.

Second, have faith that many minds are more powerful than fewer. Anytime something is declared secure, you can bet that there are bright minds hacking to render that security defeated. This is true for your computer and this is true for content based media. DRM strategists and all their efforts will not withstand the pounding that millions of brains will give them. Have faith in thy hackers my friends." }-

Have your sources explained how they intend to hack the Intel or AMD chip? That is the real concern here as far DRM goes ...not software DRM. I am not worried about software DRM...in that regard I do have faith in "thy hackers". But hardware DRM on all currently sold computers combined with Microsoft's software DRM contained in vista...well, I see a bleak future for those who value privacy much less have concerns regarding DRM.

I suggest that anyone concerned about their privacy and DRM grab some Pentium 4 chips before they are all gone so that when you need another computer you can build one free of hardware DRM. Those of us with Vista capable rigs who have Pentium 4's don't have the real worry (that most users buying computers in 2005-2006 have) regarding privacy and DRM if we run Vista. There is no hardware DRM on our Pentium4 chips (or AMD chips until recently) to be activated by Vista. The real worry as I see it is the craze that is already in effect that brings most users to want dual core computers and they are like lambs to the slaughter ...no idea or understanding that they have just bought hardware DRM that will be fully activated in Vista.

Ilya Rabinovich

August 23rd, 2006, 06:25 AM

-{ Quote: "
i haven't read this thread, but if it's about not being allowed to touch the MS kernel, maybe you can protect the computer with somekind of virtualisation by using the new processors which support it. at the recent hacking cons there were talks about totally undetectable malware which work with the new processors - it virtualizes the whole computer i think." }-

Yup, at BlackHat. BluePill that woks under AMD and two guys report about same technique under Inter. Hardware level virtualization has it's own pros and cons for malware writers too!

-{ Quote: "
And boycotting this thing?, have you ever tried convincing an average user to install another OS?. Most of them i know are unaware of these issues and are eager to install the 'latest and the greatest'" }-

Yes, I understand it. But I can't just sit and watch how M$ deprive me any choice with 3rd party security solutions! Boycott is the only legitimate way for all the 3rd party security vendors and users who want have choise. There is other way- ask M$ to allow 3rd party vendors survive, but Symantec aldeary made it and failed...

herbalist

August 23rd, 2006, 07:24 AM

Mele20

August 23rd, 2006, 07:36 AM

I agree abut boycotting. Joilet Jake, early in this thread, makes the excellent point that those lucky enough to reside in Europe will be unaffected. Boycott though is not enough. The public in the USA has to (1) understand the issues here and then (2) become outraged enough to cause our politicans to make this such a hot potato that Microsoft is forced to back off on this issue of shutting out third party vendors who need access to the kernal. The only thing that will stop Microsoft's relentless grab for world power is the citizens of the USA demanding that our government put a stop to Microsoft's monoply.

Devinco

August 23rd, 2006, 01:22 PM

What about the other Intel processors?
Which AMD processors have hardware DRM?
To be clear, could someone mark which of these have hardware DRM? (with an asterisk)
Thank you.

Intel
Desktop ›
Intel® Core™2 Extreme processor
Intel® Core™2 Duo processor
Intel® Core™ Duo processor
Intel® Pentium® processor Extreme Edition
Intel® Pentium® D processor
Intel® Pentium® 4 processor Extreme Edition supporting Hyper-Threading Technology
Intel® Pentium® 4 processor supporting Hyper-threading Technology
Intel® Pentium® 4 processor
Intel® Celeron® D processor
Intel® Celeron® processor

Laptop ›
Intel® Core™ Duo processor
Intel® Core™ Solo processor
Intel® Pentium® M processor
Mobile Intel® Pentium® 4 processor
Intel® Celeron® M processor

Server ›
Intel® Itanium® 2 processor
Intel® Xeon® processor
Intel® Xeon® processor MP
Intel® Pentium® D processor
Intel® Pentium® 4 processor supporting Hyper-Threading Technology
Intel® Pentium® 4 processor

Workstation ›
Intel® Xeon® processor
Intel® Pentium® D processor
Intel® Pentium® 4 processor supporting Hyper-Threading Technology
Intel® Pentium® 4 processor

AMD
Turion™ 64 Mobile Technology Family For Thin and Light Notebooks
Turion™ 64 X2 Mobile Technology
Turion™ 64 Mobile Technology

Opteron™ Processor - Multiprocessors
1000 Models
2000 Models
8000 Models
100 Models
200 Models
800 Models

Athlon™ 64 Processor Family
Athlon™ 64 X2 Dual-Core Processor
Athlon™ 64 FX Processor
Athlon™ 64 Processor

Mobile AMD Athlon™ 64 Processor for Full-Size Notebooks
4000+
3700+
3400+
3200+
3000+

Sempron™ Processor Family
AMD Sempron™ Processor
Mobile AMD Sempron™ Processor for Full-Size Notebooks
Mobile AMD Sempron™ Processor for Thin and Light Notebooks (Socket S1)
For Thin & Light Notebooks (Socket 754)

phasechange

August 23rd, 2006, 01:59 PM

I predict Vista will be fine and wont force you into a life of DRM slavery. There is no big bad wolf. The reality is never as scary as the Anti-Microsoft hype. I'm an x-IBMer, former HP-UX programmer for HP, grew up on Apollo Domain, SunOS, Solaris, and AIX. I've been using Linux since the early days of Slackware when Slackware was considered as having the most user friendly installer :-P However I have to say that even though I skipped Windows 95 (and stuck with OS/2, I was an OS/2 Engineer for IBM) I must admit that as from NT 3.51 Microsoft have been making increasing good NT based Operating Systems.

XP and Windows Server 2003 are very reliable and stable operating systems. They may not beat an AS/400 box for uptime but their still pretty good.

The Vista launch will be like the XP one... scares over phoning home, DRM on by default in media player, etc... and the reality will be that it's fine. I don't find XP any harder to use than Ubuntu and in many ways I have less to do to get all my hardware working properly. (99% of my gear works out of the box with Ubuntu it's the 1% that doesn't that causes me the extra inconvenience that causes me to stick with Windoze on the desktop).

Typical inaccurate anti-Vista nonsense: "Put the testing aside, I can't find a valid antivirus software that works with it," said Michael Cherry, an analyst with research firm Directions on Microsoft. "That is a key application and runs at a core level. If the antivirus vendors, who work closely with Microsoft, can't get Vista working, then the core is not stable." http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1985 I had no problems running Avast! on Vista.

Back soon, just putting my flame retardant coat on,
Fairy

Notok

August 23rd, 2006, 02:56 PM

-{ Quote: "1. There was a blog article at Microsoft technet site not too long ago about 'Deconstructing 10 Common Security Myths' which somewhat suggests third-party sofware products are not really as important as they claim. There are even some 'security experts' also trumpeting the idea that software firewalls and some other security products offer 'false security'. This idea is seemingly shared by Microsoft." }-
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/technetmag/issues/2006/05/SecurityMyths/default.aspx

I think you might be misinterpreting some things. There are lots of people out there that think that security just means having a good firewall, and that's about it. That blog states that a firewall is absolutely critical to have, however, and states that it should be mandantory for each and every host - speaking especially to those that believe they don't need sofware firewalls because they have a hardware one, but also stating that they don't necessarily need outbound filtering to be safe.

The main thing that comes to my mind is that security is a vast field, with only a small part represented in this forum. Security goes beyond malware, and true security is a part of each and every aspect of life, both cyber and real life. So when considering things like the Microsoft blog Deconstructing 10 Security Myths, you have to realize that there are more concerns than just malware to think of, especially in the corporate world, and that security is more than just software. While exploits are often used in worms, they are also used in direct attacks deployed by a live person (attacker). I would say that if you've seen conspiracy in this article, it would be worth reading again more closely. It's very much corporate oriented (which is an entirely different world than anything discussed around here), and it still does encourage you to buy third party solutions - just with a more critical eye. Also keep in mind the human factor - every Microsoft blogger is going to have different opinions. Some will be more slanted towards Microsoft and others will be more relaxed. Different experts will come up with different solutions for different reasons, and not going solely with 3rd party solutions is important to many people and companies.

A large part of the vast security field is security research. There are lots of very talented hackers (in the positive sense, not speaking of malware writers or other malicious attackers) that are, and will always be, breaking into every nook and cranny of Windows. As we've already seen, some, like Symantec, are already there! The issue isn't whether third parties *can* get into the kernel, it's whether they will be given a free pass to do so. When it comes to the idea of hiding spyware in the kernel, under the premise that everyone will be locked out, this is just not realistic. Whatever they "planted" would be revealed, probably before it even hit your desktop. Microsoft may not share their source code, but there aren't going to be any secrets when it comes to functionality. To see just how active this community is feel free to visit secunia.com, securitytracker.com, the Full Disclosure mailing list, the Daily Dave mailing list, and any of the other of the multitude of communities out there.. and just think at how much money it would make other companies, such as Symantec, to find such things! Not only would it be counter-productive, it would be just plain stupid. At the very least, there would be thousands of people sniffing their networks (legitimately) wondering why all this data is being sent to MS all the time.

I also think the idea of Microsoft putting in a "rootkit" is kind of misnomer.. why would they make a kit to get into the kernel when they MADE the kernel? All they'd have to do is add/enhance some logging (hiding it would be anohter matter entirely).

_____________

Ok, so to address the original point, I certainly do disagree with their policy of completely locking the kernel. It's obvious that they won't be able to keep the malware writers out, but locking out 3rd party software is certainly anti-competitive and demands to be addressed. The problem is that user-mode applications are completely restricted from anything that works on a system-wide scale without asking Windows to do it. For any securiy software to be worth anything it will need kernel level access, otherwise the security software is going to depend entirely on the integrity of the system - which completely defeats the purpose.

Personally, not being a direct participant in the debate, I think there will have to be a lot of changes to Vista before it can go public, if they want to do so without incident. I just don't see a lot of the features panning out well, for many reasons. Microsoft may have been well intentioned (or not) in devising some of these features, but I just don't think a lot of them are realistic. I don't want user-mode graphics drivers (I already hate ATI's .NET components), and I don't want to answer 5 prompts just to delete something, and I don't think many other people will want to either. I also don't agree with DRM and don't want it built into my OS, and I think this will probably raise a lot more trouble than it's really worth. When it comes down to it, my MP3 player has a nice line-in port with a nice patch cord that fits right into my sound card, no DRM is going to be able to restrict that.

Boycotting is one idea, but I really wonder if enough people would join to really make it worthwhile. Ultimately some lines of communication do need to be opened. As long as Vista is still beta I think there is hope, but if they don't take reasonable steps I would certainly expect there to be some lawsuits. I'm certainly not eager to adopt Vista, but I think the ultimate solution is going to have to come from multiple directions - there just aren't simple answers, I'm afraid. I do commend Ilya for the posting, though, and wish him all the support possible. This tangled mess of an issue is something that affects everyone. Every stand, whether a small symbolic act or a large scale movement, contributes to making a difference.

I think Fairly Liquidizer also makes an excellent point that these things end up being exaggerated in the end. I tend to think, though, that at least part of it is people doing just this: talking about it, raising concerns, and pressuring MS to come to a compromise that everyone can live with.

Note: this post is entirely personal, and does not reflect the views of my employer, parents, pets, or the evil overlords whose reign of oppression I will embrace during the coming revolution of intelligent robots

Mele20

August 24th, 2006, 04:32 AM

-{ Quote: "What about the other Intel processors?
Which AMD processors have hardware DRM?
To be clear, could someone mark which of these have hardware DRM? (with an asterisk)
Thank you.

Intel
Desktop ›
Intel® Core™2 Extreme processor
Intel® Core™2 Duo processor
Intel® Core™ Duo processor
Intel® Pentium® processor Extreme Edition
Intel® Pentium® D processor
Intel® Pentium® 4 processor Extreme Edition supporting Hyper-Threading Technology
Intel® Pentium® 4 processor supporting Hyper-threading Technology
Intel® Pentium® 4 processor
Intel® Celeron® D processor
Intel® Celeron® processor

Laptop ›
Intel® Core™ Duo processor
Intel® Core™ Solo processor
Intel® Pentium® M processor
Mobile Intel® Pentium® 4 processor
Intel® Celeron® M processor

Server ›
Intel® Itanium® 2 processor
Intel® Xeon® processor
Intel® Xeon® processor MP
Intel® Pentium® D processor
Intel® Pentium® 4 processor supporting Hyper-Threading Technology
Intel® Pentium® 4 processor

Workstation ›
Intel® Xeon® processor
Intel® Pentium® D processor
Intel® Pentium® 4 processor supporting Hyper-Threading Technology
Intel® Pentium® 4 processor

AMD
Turion™ 64 Mobile Technology Family For Thin and Light Notebooks
Turion™ 64 X2 Mobile Technology
Turion™ 64 Mobile Technology

Opteron™ Processor - Multiprocessors
1000 Models
2000 Models
8000 Models
100 Models
200 Models
800 Models

Athlon™ 64 Processor Family
Athlon™ 64 X2 Dual-Core Processor
Athlon™ 64 FX Processor
Athlon™ 64 Processor

Mobile AMD Athlon™ 64 Processor for Full-Size Notebooks
4000+
3700+
3400+
3200+
3000+

Sempron™ Processor Family
AMD Sempron™ Processor
Mobile AMD Sempron™ Processor for Full-Size Notebooks
Mobile AMD Sempron™ Processor for Thin and Light Notebooks (Socket S1)
For Thin & Light Notebooks (Socket 754)" }-

Do not buy ANY multicore product from AMD or Intel. ALL are DRMed on the chips. Buy a fast single core AMD or a Pentium 4. I would include the Intel Core Solo in that admonition to not buy. The Intel Core Solo is simply a Core Duo with one core disabled so it would also have DRM on the chip. The Pentium M, Celeron, Celeron M, Celeron D are ok. Stay away from the Pentium D and any newer Intel chips. Stay away from Presidio and Pacifica processors from AMD (dual core). AMD announced back in 2004 that they intended to incorporate hardware DRM into their processors and announced again in 2005 that all 2006 processors would have this.

This is why I have said buy Pentium 4s before they are gone or single core AMD. In other words, don't buy a new AMD from Dell or a Pentium D or any Intel dual or single core unless you intend to not run Vista. It took me THREE MONTHS earlier this year to get Dell to send me a Pentium 4 3.8GhZ instead of Pentium D. They kept changing the specs in production. I kept sending the machines back. I sent four machines back before they finally sent me what I had asked for.

Some believe that the answer will be a mobo manufacturer who makes a board that disables DRM and that will become very popular among those in the know and then other mobo manufacturers would follow suit. I don't see this as likely. Microsoft won't allow it. If Microsoft can lock the kernal to third party vendors they can stop mobo manufacturers from disabling DRM. Oh, and don't buy an Apple with with one of the new Intel processors either.

Ngwana

August 24th, 2006, 08:27 AM

-{ Quote: " I think you might be misinterpreting some things... " }-

Thanks Notok: That is possible and point taken. I am actually aware that the blog about Deconstructing Security Myths slanted towards Corporate world for most part (and where did I get the number 10 again?). My point was merely that it contained a plain poor jibe against Outbound Filtering that needs no interpretation.

Here seems to be the issue, new security software is being released in droves and all these vendors seek to delve deeper into the Windows OS kernel and also perform who-knows-what changes to the Registry. Microsoft in response is raising a concern that it cannot guarantee how good or secure the code from some of the Third-party vendors is.

As for Vista boycott i not so sure, in my part of the world IT strategy for most Corporations is based around Microsoft products and that very strategy is shaped mainly by 'Consultants and Experts' who are Microsoft CERTIFIED in about every way. Now most of us will not want to talk about biting the hand that feeds us. ;D

Devinco

August 24th, 2006, 01:26 PM

Thank you Mele20 :)

WSFuser

August 24th, 2006, 03:34 PM

Mele20 - do u have a link/article that states AMD/Intel multi-core processors as having DRM?

Notok

August 25th, 2006, 02:57 AM

-{ Quote: "that very strategy is shaped mainly by 'Consultants and Experts' who are Microsoft CERTIFIED in about every way. Now most of us will not want to talk about biting the hand that feeds us. " }-Hehe, I've actually found a lot of these guys to be just really close minded about security. Had one guy (consultant) that was very quick to dismiss and even belittle me because he knew "all about" security, because he had a favorite firewall... so now I know where to go the next time I need a true expert :P ::)

Joliet Jake

August 26th, 2006, 05:17 AM

-{ Quote: "One thing to keep in mind when you are on an anti Microsoft rant is that there is no law that states you have to like Microsoft, you don't even have to like the company. But Microsoft is a company and they are going to look after no.1 first just like any other company that is still in business. Microsoft has the right to develope their software pretty much the way they see fit. The bottom line is that if you don't like the way Microsoft does business or you don't like their software you aren't required to use it. Personally I think Microsoft could do a bit better than they are in the public relations field. But I also like useing their software and will continue useing it until the time a real alternative is available, and Linux is not it for me. But if I didn't like Microsoft products I wouldn't bash them every chance I got I just wouldn't use their products.

END OF MY RANT

bigc

by the way I do have windows Vista and it seems to be pretty decent so far." }-

That's not really the case when you consider all the law suits filed both in the states, EU and further afield. I know for a fact that the EU will not tolerate any Microsoft OS that locks out third party vendors. Microsoft will be legally obliged to hand over the full coding to these vendors under pain of severe financial punishment.

Joliet Jake

August 26th, 2006, 05:23 AM

-{ Quote: "i think Ubuntu is the best alternative if anyone's thinking of leaving MS. i stopped using ubuntu because it's so easy i wasn't learning anything about Linux.

it takes me about 5 hours to set up XP so it's secure and everything works, Ubuntu takes just over 30 mins. i'll write a how to set up Ubuntu if anyone wants it.

http://www.ubuntu.com/" }-

I want it! :D Cheers.

Joliet Jake

August 26th, 2006, 05:28 AM

-{ Quote: "I think it wil be very hard proving this 'kernel patching' as illegal, because after all it is MS who designed and owns the software, and i never heard of a law that says you have to allow other software to interact with it.
I'm not saying this is a good thing, the user will be dependend from only MS for his security.This spells trouble, because not everything that is, is percieved as a threat by MS.
And boycotting this thing?, have you ever tried convincing an average user to install another OS?. Most of them i know are unaware of these issues and are eager to install the 'latest and the greatest'

Lamehand" }-

EU competition laws mate.

Joliet Jake

August 26th, 2006, 05:39 AM

-{ Quote: "I agree abut boycotting. Joilet Jake, early in this thread, makes the excellent point that those lucky enough to reside in Europe will be unaffected. Boycott though is not enough. The public in the USA has to (1) understand the issues here and then (2) become outraged enough to cause our politicans to make this such a hot potato that Microsoft is forced to back off on this issue of shutting out third party vendors who need access to the kernal. The only thing that will stop Microsoft's relentless grab for world power is the citizens of the USA demanding that our government put a stop to Microsoft's monoply." }-

I think that when EU citizens get their hands on a version of Vista that has the code released for third party vendors, the buying pubic in America will be up in arms demanding to know why they are getting a raw deal.

spm

August 26th, 2006, 07:17 AM

-{ Quote: "That's not really the case when you consider all the law suits filed both in the states, EU and further afield. I know for a fact that the EU will not tolerate any Microsoft OS that locks out third party vendors. Microsoft will be legally obliged to hand over the full coding to these vendors under pain of severe financial punishment." }-
You don't seriously believe the EUs actions are anything but political, do you?

Lamehand

August 26th, 2006, 09:33 AM

I've been searching for what EU law says about antitrust.

http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/antitrust/overview/

This part of it would apply in this case:
-{ Quote: "# Firms in a dominant position may not abuse of that position (Article 82 of the EC Treaty). This is for example the case for predatory pricing aiming at eliminating competitors from the market " }-

So, Joliet you're right, this could lead to financial punishment again.

Lamehand

zcv

August 26th, 2006, 12:54 PM

-{ Quote: "You don't seriously believe the EUs actions are anything but political, do you?" }-
Hell spm,

I'm curious as to why that's damming, and two, what else is a policy of any Government but "political"?

If I lookup the definition of politics, it basically is the interaction among individuals and groups.

So the isssue is whether its good "policy" (word related to "political") or not.

I understand that you disapprove of this policy and it would be helpfull to a non EU citizen if you were to explain why you dislike it.

For the record, I'm a citizen of the US.

Regards - Charles

spm

August 26th, 2006, 02:47 PM

-{ Quote: "Hell spm,

I'm curious as to why that's damming, and two, what else is a policy of any Government but "political"?

If I lookup the definition of politics, it basically is the interaction among individuals and groups.

So the isssue is whether its good "policy" (word related to "political") or not.

I understand that you disapprove of this policy and it would be helpfull to a non EU citizen if you were to explain why you dislike it.

For the record, I'm a citizen of the US.

Regards - Charles" }-
<rant>Well, your calling these people a 'government' is to completely misunderstand the situation here in Europe. Speaking loosely, there is a European government of sorts, but it exists primarily to rubber stamp the proposals of the EU Commission (which is nothing more than a civil service of unelected officials). The European Court, on the other hand, which is the body who have prosecuted MS is ostensibly a judicial body. Now, there is every reason to believe that the EU Court's prosecution of MS is motivated purely by political and monetary (read 'anti-American' here, rather than any altruistic dictionary definition) reasons, and little else.

Now, I'm not saying I'm against the actions they have taken against MS (nor the laws the EU work to pass to enable them to attack US interests), but it is their root motivations I object to. If the EU (in its various forms) instead directed its energies and money intelligently to underpin European businesses through positive means there would be no need for them to attack US interests so transparently.

What I do find amusing, though, is the belief of some people in this thread that the EU's actions against MS are in some way in support of the individual's right to choice.</rant>

Joliet Jake

August 27th, 2006, 06:30 AM

-{ Quote: "You don't seriously believe the EUs actions are anything but political, do you?" }-

Anti competition laws in Europe don't just apply to American companies, there's been plenty European companies who have had similar judgements against them. Microsofts decision to lock out third party vendors isn't in the best interests of consumers, never has been and never will be.
If you had the choice of a locked down Vista OS or one that was open to third party vendors, which would you choose?;)

spm

August 27th, 2006, 05:14 PM

-{ Quote: "Anti competition laws in Europe don't just apply to American companies, there's been plenty European companies who have had similar judgements against them." }-
This "observation" could be debated forever, given the actual statistics, but ...

-{ Quote: "Microsofts decision to lock out third party vendors isn't in the best interests of consumers, never has been and never will be.
If you had the choice of a locked down Vista OS or one that was open to third party vendors, which would you choose?;)" }-
... this is not the real issue here, despite it being what certain people would like it to be. What we have here is one single third-party vendor attempting to whip up support for what is really a false issue. There will be no boycott (at least none of even the slightest significance).

Third party security vendors live off what they joyfully publicise as security deficiencies in other's products (in this case Microsoft). Then, when they find themselves facing the plugging of the very holes they live off, they complain. Instead, these people could approach matters with some inventiveness (like most of their competitors will do), and work to find ways they can continue their market or, heaven forbid, recognise that change happens, and work to capitalise on it and forge new markets. The static, inertial, negative ones will perish. That is the way of things.

It is amazing to see how many people follow along like sheep, fuelled by their own conspiracy theories and inability to accept the success of others.

The software industry is probably the only one which ever reacts like certain people demonstrate in this thread. For goodness' sake, if architects and builders improved the security of dwellings in such a way that would make intruder alarms less of a necessity, how many people would mourn the death of one or two alarm vendors?

It's not a question of choice, it's not a question of systems being deliberately 'closed' to third parties.

sukarof

August 27th, 2006, 05:50 PM

-{ Quote: "This "observation" could be debated forever, given the actual statistics, but ...

... this is not the real issue here, despite it being what certain people would like it to be. What we have here is one single third-party vendor attempting to whip up support for what is really a false issue. There will be no boycott (at least none of even the slightest significance).

Third party security vendors live off what they joyfully publicise as security deficiencies in other's products (in this case Microsoft). Then, when they find themselves facing the plugging of the very holes they live off, they complain. Instead, these people could approach matters with some inventiveness (like most of their competitors will do), and work to find ways they can continue their market or, heaven forbid, recognise that change happens, and work to capitalise on it and forge new markets. The static, inertial, negative ones will perish. That is the way of things.

It is amazing to see how many people follow along like sheep, fuelled by their own conspiracy theories and inability to accept the success of others.

The software industry is probably the only one which ever reacts like certain people demonstrate in this thread. For goodness' sake, if architects and builders improved the security of dwellings in such a way that would make intruder alarms less of a necessity, how many people would mourn the death of one or two alarm vendors?

It's not a question of choice, it's not a question of systems being deliberately 'closed' to third parties." }-

Isnt the problem here that 3rd party vendors will get sued trying to take care of eventual holes Vista might have? Or will Vista be impossible to crack? The malware makers dont care about getting sued, they will explore Vista´s code to find those holes, and if Vista is not impossible to crack, they will. What I have seen of Vista´s security features this far, it is working as a quite simple HIPS, and even HIPS can be circumvented. So what is wrong having many choices to choose from?

spm

August 27th, 2006, 06:22 PM

-{ Quote: "Isnt the problem here that 3rd party vendors will get sued trying to take care of eventual holes Vista might have?" }-
No. The problem here is that one single vendor is unhappy about having one of their technical hooks being closed to them.

-{ Quote: "Or will Vista be impossible to crack? ..." }-
Of course not. *NO* O/S is impossible to crack. In this sense, the only real question (for those so inclined) is "is it worthwhile cracking"?

-{ Quote: "So what is wrong having many choices to choose from?" }-
Absolutely nothing. Who suggested otherwise?

mercurie

August 27th, 2006, 09:00 PM

Sales of Vista maybe slow at first, but a full blown boycott. Not going to happen my fellow friendly Wilders Creatures. ;D

As for the EU and the MS fines and all that stuff. :-\ I am still attempting to figure out why in the world GE and Honeywell were not allowed to merge. And that is all I have to say about that or I will not stay on topic. :wacko:

herbalist

August 27th, 2006, 09:10 PM

-{ Quote: "-{ Quote: "
Or will Vista be impossible to crack? ..." }-Of course not. *NO* O/S is impossible to crack. In this sense, the only real question (for those so inclined) is "is it worthwhile cracking"?" }-
How "crackable" an OS is depends on many things, not the least of which is the amount of code it contains. The more code, the more opportunity for mistakes or weaknesses. Vista is huge. There's a lot of code to look for flaws in. As to whether it's worthwhile, consider the following. They're locking security-ware out of the kernel, lessening their ability to defend the system. Boycott or not, it will likely be the common operating system sometime in the near future and contains some very tempting targets, like the DRM. M$ has never been able to secure anything. Even their security patches need patching regularly. Give me one reason why Vista will be any different.
By claiming to have secured the kernel and preventing security software from legitimately securing it, they've made Vista a very tempting and worthwhile target. Vista may enjoy a period of calm while crackers find the flaws, but in the long run, they'll rip it apart. IMO, Vista will be a security disaster. I won't own it. I won't service it for others for the simple reason that I won't be responsible for what happens on an OS that I can't control.
Rick

MakoFusion

August 27th, 2006, 10:38 PM

To bad for Microsoft that I've already switched to Linux a while back. Open source software is good for me and good for you.

Joliet Jake

August 28th, 2006, 03:54 AM

-{ Quote: "This "observation" could be debated forever, given the actual statistics, but ...

... this is not the real issue here, despite it being what certain people would like it to be. What we have here is one single third-party vendor attempting to whip up support for what is really a false issue. There will be no boycott (at least none of even the slightest significance).

Third party security vendors live off what they joyfully publicise as security deficiencies in other's products (in this case Microsoft). Then, when they find themselves facing the plugging of the very holes they live off, they complain. Instead, these people could approach matters with some inventiveness (like most of their competitors will do), and work to find ways they can continue their market or, heaven forbid, recognise that change happens, and work to capitalise on it and forge new markets. The static, inertial, negative ones will perish. That is the way of things.

It is amazing to see how many people follow along like sheep, fuelled by their own conspiracy theories and inability to accept the success of others.

The software industry is probably the only one which ever reacts like certain people demonstrate in this thread. For goodness' sake, if architects and builders improved the security of dwellings in such a way that would make intruder alarms less of a necessity, how many people would mourn the death of one or two alarm vendors?

It's not a question of choice, it's not a question of systems being deliberately 'closed' to third parties." }-

There has been a ruling fairly recently that says car manufacturers must not insist that car owners have to use their service departments under pain of loss of warranty if they do not. This was rightly seen as protectionism and meant that third party services were squeezed out of a very large market. A similar ruling was made regarding buying cars anywhere in Europe to get the best price. Car manufacturers used to have this stitched up.
Microsoft is doing something similar. There's no real evidence that Microsoft can/will produce a secure OS. Imagine two years down the line and every third party security company has gone out of business and an enterprising hacker/virus writer finds a hole in Microsofts system we are then left with only Microsoft to plug it.

sosaiso

August 29th, 2006, 01:33 PM

Then wouldn't security companies have something to do? They will have to then develop security software to prevent that hole from working.

I believe "the market is self correcting" would be how an economist would put it. :T

nadirah

September 4th, 2006, 06:41 AM

A very conflicting situation I should say. Somehow, this is a great opportunity for MS to improve themselves, but at a certain price.

With all this, they can make Vista more harder to crack than ever. A little more effort put in and it would be near 90%, no, 98% I think.
The saying that MS is doing this to force total reliance on them only seems flawed. We people have been complaining umpteen times:
MS!!! Why so many holes in IE?
Why so many updates, exploits!?
Windows SUX!!!
I'll switch to another OS!!!

So, this is THEIR ( Microsoft) response to all our pleas. What more do we possibly expect of them?
As a matter of fact, are YOU going to RELY ON 3RD-Party products FOREVER? I mean for security only, not other aspects.
3rd-party security vendors are more of a backup for MS. When MS Windows fails, the third party guys jump into action first.
Why worry about losing jobs or going $ less? The industry is so big today, lots of jobs available.
Instead of being so pessimistic, the security vendors can surely use their creativity in more ways than one, right? If you are scared that you'll go bust when Vista comes knocking on the door, how're you going to survive till the next day?

If MS learns from all the 3rd-party sec. vendors, they can succeed. All you need in security is an open mind.
The general public should've saw this coming already.

Devil's Advocate

September 4th, 2006, 11:22 AM

Rick,

-{ Quote: "I won't service it for others for the simple reason that I won't be responsible for what happens on an OS that I can't control.
" }-

Arguably you don't have full control of any MS OS anyway, even if you run SSM.

herbalist

September 4th, 2006, 07:23 PM

-{ Quote: "
-{ Quote: "I won't service it for others for the simple reason that I won't be responsible for what happens on an OS that I can't control." }-
Arguably you don't have full control of any MS OS anyway, even if you run SSM." }-
I guess that depends on what you call "full control". On the DOS based systems I choose to run, you can get quite close, within the limits of the OSs ability to function. "Control" may not be the right word for what I was trying to say. For me, the ability to access, monitor, and control if necessary whatever I may choose to is the issue. On the DOS based systems I can access (not necessarily read) or delete any file I choose. I don't have to worry about hidden processes and files, unwanted services opening ports, OS components calling home, etc. These things are easy to control on the DOS based systems. On the NT systems, XP in particular, it's more difficult (and there's a lot more of it to do) but still do-able. You can still deny a hook or block a process.
If I've read correctly, with Vista there will areas of the file system that can't be accessed. Hooks can't be blocked. The entire idea of DRM is based on a distrust of the user. How do you stop it from calling home? For me, it comes down to one simple question. Why should I trust an operating system that is designed to distrust the user? The whole concept behind Vista is unacceptable, especially when their stated reasons for locking the kernel don't hold up.
Rick

Ilya Rabinovich

September 6th, 2006, 11:39 AM

-{ Quote: "
Why worry about losing jobs or going $ less? The industry is so big today, lots of jobs available." }-

Sorry, but you don't understand the topic. The point is that if you allow MS kill 3-rd party vendors there will be no 3-rd party firewalls, no 3-rd party HIPS for Vista. There will be no choice for you as rely at MS security ONLY!

BTW, you've just confirmed my article's point- people who rely on MS don't need 3-rd party security solutions... But there are a lot of people who need choice!

Yes, and don't warry for me- I'll find something for myself in the industry, I'm professional. I will survive.

spm

September 6th, 2006, 11:48 AM

-{ Quote: "Sorry, but you don't understand the topic. The point is that if you allow MS kill 3-rd party vendors there will be no 3-rd party firewalls, no 3-rd party HIPS for Vista. There will be no choice for you as rely at MS security ONLY!" }-
Ilya, this is a gross overstatement. MS are not "killing 3rd party vendors", they are plugging security weaknesses. Third party vendors who are able to adapt and innovate will survive and continue to flourish with Vista. Making fruitless calls for people to boycott Vista is not the way forward for you, I suggest.

dallen

September 6th, 2006, 03:48 PM

I agree with spm's previous post. Anyone that thinks Microsoft's attempt at locking down the kernel will be the demise of all third party security software companies is, as spm put it, grossly overstating, in my opinion. Some companies that fail to adapt to the new landscape will, of course, suffer the consequences. However, in business isn’t often the case that companies that fail to change also fail to stay in existence?

Also, as someone that is not particularly fond of Microsoft, I hear differing points of view and I feel that Microsoft is going to be criticized one way or another. If they do not improve security, they get criticized for being insecure. Now that they are taking steps to improve security, they are getting criticized for the manner in which they are doing it.

The moral of the story is that Microsoft will never make everyone happy. Until someone develops a superior alternative that appeals to the masses, we will continue to follow Microsoft in the direction they decide to head.

toadbee

September 6th, 2006, 04:01 PM

-{ Quote: "I agree with spm's previous post. Anyone that thinks Microsoft's attempt at locking down the kernel will be the demise of all third party security software companies is mistaken, in my opinion." }-

I kind of think it's more the demise of many computers, not third party companies. What you've written is dead on - "attempt". It's already been bypassed. Several different ways, some just in theory thus far. Now if that is the only Kernel level protection allowed, then I will stick with XP - or simply move onto something else.

Notok

September 7th, 2006, 01:47 PM

I agree with toadbee. MS will be providing APIs for 3rd party vendors, but there is still a major problem with PatchGuard. Think about how rootkits work, they patch the kernel so that none of the standard APIs can see it - the integrity of the system has been violated. To get around this, 3rd party vendors use kernel level drivers to add more functionality, so they don't have to rely on the integrity of the kernel (after all, that's the point). You can bet that rootkit authors will still be patching the kernel in Vista (they're already there), which leaves 3rd party vendors two choices: use documented APIs, which have been evaded by the rootkit, or force in a kernel mode driver and get sued.

Third party vendors may have the solutions, but could get sued if they try to use them. That is, unless Microsoft can come to some compromise. Hopefully that will happen and we can all be the better for it.

Considering that Vista will have so much more protection for user-space, I would predict that rootkits will be the biggest problem with Vista. If security software can pretty much only detect user-mode stuff, this could end up being a big step backwards for security, in the end. Both will be more advanced, in many ways, but the malware will have the advantage simply by the fact that they have no concern for the rules.

Note: Again, just my views, not representative of the views of my employer or anyone else.

Lamehand

September 9th, 2006, 01:45 AM

There might not even be a launch of vista in Europe, for a while anyway, if they don't comply to the antitrust laws.

From Arstechnica;
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060908-7697.html

-{ Quote: "Is this simply FUD designed to get the EU to back off, or is legitimate criticism? The Commission has already issued veiled warnings about Vista, and Microsoft is claiming that it may have to delay its European Vista release if legal uncertainty remains. Kroes is having none of it, though. A spokesman for her office said, "It is not up to the Commission to give Microsoft a definitive 'green light' before Vista is put on the market. It is up to Microsoft to accept and implement its responsibilities as a near monopolist to ensure full compliance with EU competition rules."" }-

Lamehand

the Tester

September 9th, 2006, 02:34 AM

All I know for sure is that if it comes down to me trusting M$ for my pc's security or 3rd party programs, the choice is obvious for me.
I won't ever rely on M$ for security!
This sounds a lot like an old on-line article exposing a program called Palladium for the next(at that time un-named) version after XP.
Palladium was basically an idea that M$ would control the security for pc users.
This isn't the article,but it is similar and from approximately the same time.

http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/1378731

Vista with DRM?No thanks!

Joliet Jake

September 9th, 2006, 12:47 PM

http://tinyurl.com/ou4v2

Microsoft has engaged in a fresh war of words with the European Commission over the launch of its new Windows Vista operating system in Europe.

The software giant suggested Brussels' vigorous attempts to force it to comply with anti-trust rulings could lead to delays in Vista's European launch.

Brussels said the firm's comments were "misleading" and that it was its duty to comply with competition laws.

The already delayed software program is due to be launched in January.

Microsoft has been locked in a bitter struggle with the European Commission over its business practices for years. (Just comply with the law)

It was fined $640m for anti-competitive behaviour in 2004 and was hit with a $357.5m penalty earlier this year for failing to meet Commission demands for it to share technical information with other firms.

It is misleading to imply that the Commission could be the cause of delays in launching Vista in Europe-European Commission spokesman.

Vista is not under formal scrutiny but competition commissioner Neelie Kroes wrote to Microsoft earlier this year outlining potential concerns about features of the system.

Functions highlighted included its integrated internet search facility and software capable of creating fixed-document formats.

Microsoft said Brussels had not answered a request for guidance on what it needed to do to ensure Vista did not fall foul of regulatory problems.

In response, the Commission said it sent detailed information to Microsoft in July and the US firm had only replied last week.

Microsoft said it was too early to tell whether Brussels was "seeking additional product design changes (to Vista) that would result in delay in Europe".

Microsoft and its boss Steve Ballmer is seeking more information.

But Brussels said it had given Microsoft specific competition guidance on many occasions and was continuing to do so.

"It is not up to the Commission to give Microsoft a definitive 'green light' before Vista is put on the market," said a Commission spokesman.

"It is therefore misleading to imply that the Commission could be the cause of delays in launching Vista in Europe."

Microsoft hoped to release Vista - the first major update to its operating system since Windows XP was introduced five years ago - in the second half of 2006 but the launch date was put back.

There has been recent speculation that Vista could be further delayed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Microsoft should realise that if they want to operate in the European Union then they, like every single other company, must comply with the rules. This for me highlights Microsofts style of management where they think they can do as they please.

nadirah

September 9th, 2006, 01:31 PM

Frankly, the person who is asking people to boycott Windows Vista is just obviously wasting his/her time. You don't think everybody, yeah, I mean, EVERYBODY would boycott Vista do you?

I don't know much about all the business/corporate stuff. I'm just an ordinary secondary school student. But what I do know is that Windows Vista is not going to be like any ordinary product that's going to be sold like between 10 to 20 bucks. It's NOT like your everyday necessity type of product found at the good ol' provision store/mart, those are way cheaper than Vista.

Asking people to boycott a product, ANY product, I mean, c'mon man, you ain't the jugde or lawyer in the legal system or any court of law, you ain't the government and you CAN'T control the marketing and shipment of a product which IS NOT OWNED OR CREATED BY YOU, unless you're a person with some sort of governmental authority or power, or the creator of the product, then only can you dictate the fate of the product. WHO ARE YOU!? Microsoft? Or the government? Why should people listen to you?

The general public should be wise enough to make their own decisions as to whether they want Vista or not. Windows Vista is a MAJOR product and if you're just an ordinary person working for an ordinary company and you want to get the general public to boycott a MAJOR product of a MAJOR company, is something like wow, you know the story in the bible, david vs goliath, its something like that. But I don't think the end result would be the same in this vastly different landscape and situation.

If you are just an ordinary person and you are doing something like asking people to boycott a major product such as Windows Vista, in my own hokkien ( if you know hokkien then you will understand what i am saying) it is something like: wah lau eh, sway jia eh bang kia ai pah dua dua jia eh bang kia, eh sai meh? Yi eh dua dua jia eh bang kia xing ka li pa lo khi ah!

Saying all this does NOT mean I disrespect any person here in any way, don't misunderstand me and start flaming me like a guest on this forum did a long time ago.

I mean, the point is, if you are just an ordinary person and you are doing something like this, I guess it just goes to show that you do not know where your limits are. Yeah sure, people will listen to what you are saying, but I'm god-damn sure they will not buy such a request. Look at the late Steve Irwin. He is just an ordinary bloke, an ordinary guy, who does all his wildlife conservation, protection and rehabilitation work humbly. Does he ever go around and tell people what they can or cannot do to animals? I don't think so. He earns quite a lot from his Australia Zoo, but he still remains as an ordinary and well-loved guy. He contributed so much to his nation and the world and gained so much from it all, but even till the end when he died a untimely and tragic death, his humbleness was immeasurable. Yeah sure he's a wildlife conservationist expert, but does he go around telling people what they can or cannot do? No. He knows where his limits are and he just sticks with it and carries out his work normally without telling others what to do.

The moral of the whole story here is NOT learning and deciding to boycott Windows Vista. People KNOW what to do with Windows Vista when it comes out, Vista is good or bad they will find it out themselves and make the appropriate decision. Why should they listen to just one man's opinion only? And those who buy the story of just this lone one man alone and decide to boycott Vista based on just 1 person's remarks are obviously just nuts.

What's Vista like at this stage? It's not even released yet and here you are making a premature accusation and asking people to boycott a product that has not even been fully perfected and developed. Immature. And you don't know where your limits are. What Singaporeans say: Mouth say very easy, its just say only what huh, but when come to do? No action!

So instead of coming to WSF and asking people to boycott a developing product, which IMHO is very immature, you might as well go and play some sudoku (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudoku). Microsoft, just like every other thing on this planet, is imperfect. There can never be a wholesomely perfect product to suit everybody's needs. So instead of having our dear 3rd-party sec. vendors whining out loud and going to the extent of telling people directly in the face to boycott Vista, I'm sure everyone would be very appreciative if they could stop talking and start doing ( something better ).

Goody Singapura Night to you all. ;)

Mrkvonic

September 9th, 2006, 04:06 PM

Hello,
It's not a one-man's opinion. I know of at least 15 people, some of whom are my friends who share this idea, plus numerous developers around the world.
There's a difference between a perfect product and ... an immoral one. It's not about Vista being good or bad - it's about eliminating competition and preventing others from putting up a fair fight.
Mrk

Hyperion

September 9th, 2006, 04:20 PM

-{ Quote: "Do not buy ANY multicore product from AMD or Intel. ALL are DRMed on the chips. Buy a fast single core AMD or a Pentium 4." }-

Actually,i would say that AMD dual cores for socket 939 (won't be in commerce anymore after Xmas i think),are TPM (trusted platform module) free.TPM can (and i am certain it WILL) be used for DRM enforcement together with Vista (which is TPM 1.2 compatible).

AMD's new CPUs (socket AM2),do contain TPM (Presidio technology) and i think the same for Intel dual Core 2 or codename "Conroe" (LaGrande technology).

That's why i just bought an AMD Athlon 64x2 3800+ dual core socket 939 ,plus i ll soon assemble another rig with my "old" Athlon64 3200+.I strongly reccomend ANY AMD socket 939 over ANY Pentium 4,they consume and heat MUCH less and perform better (things now changed with Conroe).Practically with Cool 'n' quiet enabled,you have your Athlon running at 1000Mhz and reduced voltage,and goes up in frequency and voltage automatically when needed (like a laptop).Great temperatures and consumption.And there are motherboards out there very cheap for AMD 939 (AsRocks with ULI chipset-i have 3 of them- at about 60 Euros and very good performance) and one can really stay with such a rig for a loooong time unless he is a gamer.

And i certainly won't buy Vista.I ve had enough with MS policies,from the activation hassle with the phone calls to the TPM thing and now this that Ilya says (which of course won't pass in the EU as a postee already said,but is irritating anyway).

Hyperion

September 9th, 2006, 04:31 PM

-{ Quote: "This sounds a lot like an old on-line article exposing a program called Palladium for the next(at that time un-named) version after XP." }-

MS doesn't use the name Palladium anymore.Maybe because it spreaded quite quickly and got a bad reputation.Later it was called NGBSC

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/archive/security/news/ngscb.mspx?mfr=true

To be changed again in TPM (Trusted Platform Module) in Vista.It's always the same thing.MS says that Vista will ship with only the "first implementation" of the project(Secure start) and the rest will be implemented with methods and time to be determined (service pack?).

They plan to dilute the "pill" in a wide time frame,so not to have the people protesting.My guess is that from the Windows after Vista,TPM will be standard,fully implemented and no longer possible to disable (theoretically,in the new motherboards,you can disable it in BIOS).Once it becomes standard and software comes out to run as trusted (and who will certify a software as trusted and how?Certainly not the user) or DRM-TPM appears,it will be too late for people to revert to TPM-free PCs or OS or find "free" software.This is their plans for out future.Make "trusted" programs:

In May 2004, following criticism from software makers, Microsoft said it was retooling NGSCB so some of the benefits would be available without the need to recode applications.
http://news.com.com/Microsofts+leaner+approach+to+Vista+security/2100-7355_3-5843808.html?tag=nefd.lede

And it will be served as a "security feature".People do and allow many things that normally they wouldn't ,when someone evoked their "protection" and "security"...