Boot Question

Like I said, unrelated.

You say this, and then you say:

How do you reconcile this? I think it's clear priority number one is backwards compatibility/ legacy support. They absolutely built Windows vista/7 with security in mind, but obviously not as the number one goal or priority, because their customers don't demand security on the level that they demand compatibility.

I agree with most of what you're saying but I think the conclusion is off.

 

Well i guess Rainwalker question has bin answered if it hasn't ill get on topic in a jiffy,now to move on to more interesting things

--------------------------------

Ok you got me on the following Bill_Bright & and i see you have some skill at this,interesting.....

I stand corrected and i pumped that out in haste and from a perceptive of ignorance with out doing my home work{Kaspersky},i stand corrected.
You need not only use that one mistake from now on as your only reactionary defense punch line and smoke screen.
Kaspersky has nothing to do with the USA great ,other two on the other hand are propaganda and do.
At lest i got two out of three right and my disdain of the first two caused me to cut of corner and not research the last security topic {Kaspersky}.

Norton~ USA
NSS~ USA
home land security~ USA

Kaspersky~ Were you get that from ? right,the post you made just before mine....remember i listed you as quoting Norton not Kaspersky by mistake.

Other two are propaganda crud {home land security~NSS} as well your Firefox {sucks prof} link is broken in post #11

TSA & Home land security were invented to subjugate the rights of the US people and to force\promote propaganda.
The hole world knows how why 9\11 happened fool.

So you recommended that internet explorer 8 owns the pile from a security perceptive and taking the end users best interesting in mind {and not micro softs} you recommend IE8 for users of windows xp because it is the most secure browser {in your opinion}for windows xp even though atm it probably has 300+ known exploits and a nice one i found before that if flash player + IE8 is installed its a joke to convert your computer in to a command and control server for a bonnet.
and that exploit was only found like 7 weeks ago.

Micro soft all so from a perceptive of vender lock in tactics chose not to allow Winxp users to do better then IE8 {and more of cores like D3D10}

you all so claim that from independent testing, M$ internet explorer owns the pile from a security standpoint,ummmmm IE8 probably has 300+ known un-patched hackable vulnerability's, add flash player to that and ActiveX + java script and you might as well just brake out the virus DVD and just install the pile and save everyone the trouble of turning your Os in to a virus botnet fest and just do it your self to save everyone some time.

Win7 is secure for who might be the better question.
For the corporate machine or the people that use it is the real question.
Their so much integrated phone home spy-ware in it its not even funny anymore and its not limited to windows but becoming a new marketing model that is to say offer “not free” software that is payed for by data mining your computer of everything you would consider to be private and in some cases you get to pay them for the privilege of doing it to you and the software in question isn't even “not free”

Then add in corporate white\black trusted friends lists {decided by who ?} to the pile with cloud anti virus as well as online anti-cheating software or addware from pc video games and you know what you end up with ?
Infective security software that can't do anything vs ALOWED spy-ware software that’s backed by useless closed preparatory code that your not allowed to know what its doing even if the people that make it 100% brake the law {lol what privacy laws} and a policy of opt-out and not pot-in for phone home behavior assuming you found the option to do that and that.
Though you can know whats going on up to a point by watching your network stack and use on the phone home topic.

As for most software legal agreements they are more often then not little more then useless labyrinthine maze's of indecipherable legal gibberish defined in a way that is so obscure as to be meaningless and of little use to anyone {but the people it protects meaning not you} and lastly that translates into privacy invasion, limited liability for the people handing you the software in question and giving up your legal rights to sue if you considered your rights to be violated and or you work for them and wish to speak out about something you consider to be morally or legally questionable being hidden\hosted\data mined from others on their servers.

ummmm ya ok whatever if that's not propaganda and micro soft fud i don't know what is

source
ya ok shore..........

Becoming an MVP
The MVP Award recognizes exceptional technical community leaders from around the world who voluntarily share their deep, real-world knowledge about Microsoft technologies with others.
Potential MVPs are nominated by other technical community members, current and former MVPs, and Microsoft personnel who have noted their leadership and their willingness and ability to help others make the most of their Microsoft technology.
To receive the Microsoft MVP Award, MVP nominees undergo a rigorous review process. A panel that includes members of the MVP team and Microsoft product groups evaluates each nominee's technical expertise and voluntary community contributions for the past 12 months. The panel considers the quality, quantity, and level of impact of the MVP nominee's contributions. Active MVPs receive the same level of scrutiny as other new candidates each year.
MVPs are independent of Microsoft, with separate opinions and perspectives, and are able to represent the views of the community members with whom they engage every day.
if you would like to nominate an outstanding community leader, or an exceptional contributor to the technical community, for consideration as an MVP.

Smells like the micro $oft forum troll team.

 

Like I said, clearly you don't understand the MS MVP program. BTW, most MVPs never visit, and did not get their MVP for contributing to forums.

Are personal insults necessary to make your case?

It takes time to turn a juggernaut around - not just the company itself, but the mindset of the 100s of millions of users.

But the trend is obvious, if you take a closer look. XPSP3 forced many security features on users. Windows Defender (Giant Antispyware) was purchased by MS and released free as Windows Defender. Vista introduced UAC and the Windows Firewall was enabled by default - AND required all new drivers. MS was first to introduce private browsing and the first to integrate (without using add-ons) a viable phishing filter.

If legacy support was a priority, why have the Windows 7 Upgrade Advisor that checked your legacy stuff to see if compatible?

If legacy support was a priority, why did millions of XP to Windows 7 upgraders have so many upgrade failures due to lack of hardware/driver support? Why did articles like this pop up all over the place 3 years ago?

Those who were involved in early Windows 7 beta testing saw how security was put ahead of legacy support. Windows 7 has been out for 3 years. I see no reason to argue this further as the evidence is there for the reading.

Is MS moving in the right direction? Yes. Fast enough? Heck no!

 

They didn't. Not the ones who needed legacy support at least. Hence 13 or so years of Windows XP support for Enterprise.

I wouldn't call backwards compatibility issues evidence that Security was thought of first. Maybe if those backwards compatibility issues were due to security. But most of the time, outside of programs that didn't elevate properly, issues were with drivers and drivers didn't work because Vista was such a major change.

I can agree here. Actually, with Windows 8 they're moving pretty quickly. Hopefully we don't have to wait for Windows 9 to see SMAP, but I'm pretty sure we will.

We an just agree to disagree about the rest.

I don't think calling anyone who thinks MS is serious about security a 'M$ troll' is that conducive to conversation either. It should be clear MS has made big changes.

 

Huh? Sure they did. By the 10s of 1000s! Not sure where you were 3 years ago when Windows 7 came out, but my shop and the tech forums were swamped by people who attempted to upgrade their old legacy XP systems to Windows 7 and failed! Why? Because the old legacy hardware (and many of their favorite programs) were not compatible with Windows 7 and they failed to check that before taking the upgrade leap.

That is not my opinion. Those are just 3 year old facts! Windows 7 was not designed to support legacy stuff - not the way XP was purposely designed to support DOS era stuff.

I didn't. Were you involved in early Windows 7 beta testing? Did you see and read the documentation on design decisions showing where security was a priority and legacy support was not?

I am saying if there was a choice between backwards compatibility (legacy support) or tighter security, Microsoft went the path of tighter security with Windows 7, and they have extended that policy with Windows 8.

Why do you guys keep going back to XP to support your claims about Windows 7? XP is not Windows 7. Microsoft then is not Microsoft now (or of 3 years ago when W7 was released).

This persistence to perpetuate these mis-perceptions that W7 is like XP, IE9 is like IE6 and Microsoft of 15 years ago is the same as MS has really got to stop. It is all unfounded.

Does it mean we need to trust MS in all they say? Of course not. But BECAUSE of all the changes at Redmond, it means we need to verify the facts and set aside our pre-conceptions before passing judgment.

 

lol maybe on some levels bill but why o why can't windows 7 "direct draw" replaced by "direct2d" support 256bit colors ~ useless

compatibility mode as well last i checked in win7 is a joke that douse nothing.

as well im doing a lot of research on the browser topic of late and theirs some real conflicting information out their.
lot of sites have bin payed off to BS.
one things for shore the min were talking about ActiveX run for cover on the variability topic.

seems like theirs a lot of rouge sites out their or something, one place is saying one thing and the other saying the reverse.

 

See, that is just bashing Windows for bashing's sake as clearly, that has absolutely nothing to do with Windows security.

And BTW, there is no such thing as 256-bit color. I am tired of your lack of fact checking. It is clear you are not here to get to the truth, or more importantly, to ensure readers have the truth.

I'm gone.