Login:
Password:

Is Vista Really Bug-Plagued as the NY Times Claims?

By Scott M. Fulton, III, BetaNews

December 26, 2006, 6:36 PM

(continued from previous page)

At first, we attempted to address this matter by compiling the proof-of-concept code in Visual C++ Express in Vista, though we were precluded from doing so in short order, for reasons having more to do with integrating the old Win32 library into Vista than with the specific message box call. So we built a C++ project in Visual Studio 2005 under Windows XP using a compatible profile, and moved the resulting executable file into the Vista environment.

Indeed, after the third invocation of the MessageBox function, Vista did crash. Following a reboot, we noticed what appeared to be a corruption of the Security log files. Events were recorded during the period of the crash, including the "previous system shutdown...was unexpected" event. But not being able to detect what happened by virtue of a bug that corrupts the log file, is a serious problem.

With the Security log being corrupt, we then noticed certain critical administrative functions which would normally invoke UAC from a standard user account, in order to elevate privilege in order to run, simply denied access to the standard user account instead.

Our Windows XP Professional logs were not corrupted by the bug. However, in XP, no security events were recorded. Instead, the logs indicate that the application did attempt to have Windows record an event in a log file to which the application had not been granted access: specifically, SQL Server Express, whose services are not used by the application. XP's log files also acknowledged the unexpected system shutdown.

Based on the evidence we were able to see with our own eyes, here's what's appears to be happening:

An old Win32 function was designed to present messages to the user as though they came directly from the operating system, without any security checks beforehand (in the early '90s, few thought they'd ever be necessary). We know from searching existing documentation on the function that it does check the first one or two characters of message data for certain control characters, such as an exclamation point that indicates Unicode designed for typing right-to-left (called the RTL code, reserved for Arabic, Hebrew, and other scripts).

When the MessageBox function receives what may be a control code, specifically \??\, prior to the crash point, the application apparently attempts to access a log file. Maybe it's using an old method to gather this file, but in any event, it's the SQL Server Express log file (at least on our setup) that responds with an access denial. At some point when this attempt is repeated, Windows crashes.

Determina believes that this legacy code allocates a memory buffer, which it then leaves open after the application crashes. But since the crash apparently takes the system down with it, there doesn't appear to be a window of opportunity for a malicious user to execute random code.

Certainly there's a serious problem here -- one that has not been resolved in Windows Vista, despite a year-and-a-half of beta testing -- but our testing reveals no evidence of that problem fitting the standard template of a malicious user elevating his privilege and assuming control of Windows. Instead, any exploit involving this code would be limited to "nuisance code" that crashes Windows, and perhaps corrupts security files.

But this exploit code is not browser code, and that's important because it clearly falls outside the all-too-familiar profile, invoked by the Times description this morning, where "Web users could become infected with malicious software simply by visiting a booby-trapped site."

<< Prev | 1 | 2

Add a Comment (70 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By tscar12

posted Jan 3, 2007 - 3:20 PM

A more imortant question for the people of New York is how to get rid of the F****ing rats

Score: 0

By tscar12

posted Jan 2, 2007 - 4:39 PM

For once, I complement Betanews for doing it's job.

Score: 0

By tscar12

posted Dec 30, 2006 - 1:53 PM

As far as Vista is concern, just like apple's flaw plagued OS last year, this will need testing and updating. That's what happens in a world populated with hackers. As for anyone thinking that they are safe by using LInux or any other operating system then I got a bridge to sell you. All OSs are vulnerable because the hackers are as intelligent as the developers.

Score: 0

By cannie

edited Jan 4, 2007 - 10:22 AM

In special the new OS which relies on the Internet connection and not on the hard drive anymore, even more than XP. The "backdoor" that it opens is always active for a convenient distant access, but also is a free gift to hackers. That's why I love the oldfashioned, technically poor and not supported anymore Windows 98 SE. If you allow me to use your words, "That's what happens in a world populated with hackers".

Score: 0

By bugmenot

posted Dec 29, 2006 - 8:55 PM

If Vista is this insecure, then there's to point to upgrading to Vista. Vista sucks. Linux rules!

Score: 0

By ana1234567

edited Dec 29, 2006 - 1:24 PM

The logic behind this article is deeply flawed at best. The author claims that since the flaw took down the whole system and thus does not give the attacker any chance to exploit it. Well, obviously he is not a hacker! When buffer overrun occurs, an attacker can carefully align his code in the corrupted buffer and causing his code to execute (e.g. a carefully placed jmp statement). This would by pass any security defence the OS might have.

Wether or not such attack can be carried out easily is certainly another story, nevertheless, we should take this very seriously because of the potential that it can be exploited.

Score: 0

By ds0934

posted Dec 28, 2006 - 10:36 PM

If the NYT gives it a thumbs-down, I'll definitely use it. Need I say more?

Score: 0

By robmanic44

posted Dec 28, 2006 - 1:16 PM

Murphy and his friends are still very much alive. They have taken up temporary residence at Microsoft. It is redundant to state that Murphy is an optimist.

Score: 0

By SorenMD

posted Dec 28, 2006 - 11:17 AM

Reminds me of how "cool" windows is... LOL@legacycrap

Score: 0

By whitwa

edited Dec 27, 2006 - 8:43 PM

Without the 'code' I have to post this:
Why on earth would the MessageBox function access a log file? Or any file? Or take/parse the lpText (2nd) parameter and go ahead and access that? As a software developer I'm astounded by this thread and would like to see some proof.

Score: 0

By The MAZZTer

posted Dec 28, 2006 - 11:00 AM

When it talks about log files, it refers to the Windows Event Logger logging the unexpected system shutdown (ie the BSoD). The proof-of-concept code itself does nothing with the log files.

You can view Event Logs by right clicking My Computer, clicking Manage, and then clicking the Event Viewer item in the tree and selecting an event category from the resulting list.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Dec 28, 2006 - 9:00 AM

Remember that we're talking about something that was written for Windows 3.1 or perhaps earlier...

...it isn't even OOP code, it's in plain-jane C, so who knows what they wanted it to access back in 1993?

Score: 0

By Hollywood__

posted Dec 27, 2006 - 7:55 PM

I'll take WindowsMe over all this junk.

Score: 0

By deminicus

posted Dec 28, 2006 - 8:32 AM

lol mentioning windowsme should be a bannable offense.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Dec 27, 2006 - 8:17 PM

That's probably the funniest thing I've read here in ages.

Thank God I was not drinking.

Score: 0

By dan-0

posted Dec 27, 2006 - 12:03 PM

John Markoff has a history of blowing things out of proportion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Markoff

If Beta News gave them the fuel to make the article, I would assume they (NYT) would get more than one source. maybe a comment from microsoft that is a direct quote and not something taken from another site...as far as I can tell most of the parent article from NYT is all heresay.
Anyway, Why does Vista, and XP still have an api from the win 3.1 era? anyone? anyone? I guess MS says "if it ain't broke, wait, what? oh, well, we will just bury that code..."
Good thing I make money doing patch mgnt.

"Microsoft has built technology into its recent operating systems that makes it possible for the company to fix its software automatically via the Internet." From the NYT article.
Didn't they have windows update for windows 98? I think so. its been around for 8 years or so.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Dec 28, 2006 - 9:07 AM

"Anyway, Why does Vista, and XP still have an api from the win 3.1 era? anyone? anyone? I guess MS says "if it ain't broke, wait, what? oh, well, we will just bury that code..."
Good thing I make money doing patch mgnt. "

Backwards compatability, dan. Yes, there are still many accounting firms, etc. that use old MS-DOS applications or even Windows 3.1 apps. Did you think Windows Metafiles were a new thing back in December 2005 when XP had a critical security flaw utilising an old Win16 API? Like it or not, Windows 3.1 APIs are here to stay--that is, until x64 catches on (cannot run "pure" 16 bit threads...)

...use the 64-bit version and avoid this 'type' of problem altogether.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Dec 27, 2006 - 8:19 PM

The NYT has the credibility and integrity of a London sewer rat.

But, you quote is mis-understood. Vista is actually the first OS to have Windows update as a functional application, not a web-site or web-based distribution service. It's actually quite a bit like many of the Linux update apps now....

If only they would now allow support in WU for third-party, non-MS apps.

Score: 0

By ds0934

posted Dec 28, 2006 - 10:28 AM

MS has considered that quite a few times. The worry this time around was the same as in the past: opening more opportunities for third-party weaknesses to allow malicious exploits. They (MS) didn't think it was prudent to divert labor and focus to that API to make it more bulletproof for opening up to peripheral extension. I seriously hope they reconsider and make that possible in the future.

Score: 0

By JacenSolo

posted Dec 27, 2006 - 7:39 PM

I THINK both can run 16 and 8 bit (Windows 3.1 and dos) programs, but I think their compatibility is extremely limited.

"Didn't they have windows update for windows 98? I think so. its been around for 8 years or so."
98, 98SE, ME, NT4, 2000, XP... so I don't think thats anything new :P But they might be refering to something other then windows update?

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

edited Dec 28, 2006 - 9:34 AM

Actually, Windows 95 OSR 2.1 (1997 version--only came in OEM flavors) had Windows Update as well--of course, in 2001 it was no longer supported due to Windows 95's support lifecycle being slightly different back then.

Just some useless information for the nit-pickey :D

Score: 0

By ds0934

posted Dec 28, 2006 - 10:29 AM

Actually, PC_Tool is correct in that Vista is the first to have WU (now MU) included as a native service, not a web-based feature.

Score: 0

By dan-0

edited Dec 28, 2006 - 11:29 AM

Not that I think I'm misunderstood, I think it is funny that any company would stack sh!t on top of sh!t and call it reliable. win 3.1-vista. While certain parts have become reliable, it is still a big pile.

Although MU is the default now, it uses an api with a client as a local application does. With vista, it has a local application interface instead of a web based one. same functionality, but all that I get out of the NYT guy is that he really doesn't know what he is talking about, which is what I said in sarcasm--no offense.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

edited Dec 28, 2006 - 11:20 AM

Ahh, I see what you mean.

I guess one could argue the BITS is used as the windowsupdate service for 2000/XP, as well as IE having the built-in Windows update link-- but that is just for the sake of arguing.

I do appreciate the fact that Vista has its own service strictly for windows/microsoft update. Makes it easier for me to disable the otherwise uneeded services that only windowsupdate needed in the past.

Score: 0

By mannaggia

posted Dec 27, 2006 - 9:27 AM

The NY Slimes will never let the truth stand in the way of a good story.

Plus the owner (Pinch Sulzberger) and editorial board is so filled with personal hatred of President Bush that they will publish anything (true or not, damaging to the USA or not) that might show him in a negative light.

The NY Slimes is with the terrorists.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Dec 27, 2006 - 8:21 PM

NYT = The terrorist tip-sheet.

Don't remember where I heard that, but considering how harshly they view the current government of the US, it's not all that far from the truth, sadly.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Dec 27, 2006 - 2:15 PM

I agree. I guess NYT is in a new era of anti-Microsoft now. Should a Democrat win in 2008, I'll venture to say that besides criticising the few conservatives that may still be in office, they will have to find someone else to hate as much as Bush--after all, what are the NYT best at? Bashing--so if Dems win, they will either have to bash them or find something/someone else to bash. Apparently Bill Gates will be the lucky guy...

Score: 0

By Floodland

edited Dec 27, 2006 - 8:23 AM

In short: yes. Vista is another monster. Which will work only after millons of people give microsoft their money and the first service pack show up. Now? M$ need to sell the beta to finish the product.
See windows XP, 5 years on the market and now we can say it's stable. The same goes for Vista.
I hope the market turns against Microsoft and start seeing good alternatives: Name it Mac OS, some Linux distro, whatever..
I had nightmares installing Vista. The stupid system deactivated DMA mode on SETUP (setup lasted 10hs) and you have no choice on activate it. Later I found that Vista did not like my removable case enclosure (IDE, standard, transparent). I installed EVERY OS on this simple case without problem, but Vi$ta, no... it need "more". Vista need a clean kernel and no colored mirrors.. what a crap OS!

Score: 0

By cannie

posted Dec 28, 2006 - 3:25 AM

"I hope the market turns against Microsoft and start seeing good alternatives" you say. At home I went back to Windows 98 SE, updated and with all available improvements (firewall, mail, explorers, registry cleaners, optimizers, etc), and it works perfect even without any antivirus. I believe many are already doing the same. I know some of them.

Score: 0

By HoIIywood__

posted Dec 29, 2006 - 5:55 AM

Win98 has serious design issues under the bonnet, any application can write to any other part of memory, this alone is a security nightmare, there are plenty of other reliability and secuiry headaches in the Win9x line.

As suggested, switch to Win2000, with it's NT based kernel, you get protected memory, and many other NT features, and it's resource requriements are very similar to win98.

Score: 0

By cannie

posted Dec 29, 2006 - 7:33 AM

I'll try it. Thank you very much for your help.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Dec 28, 2006 - 9:42 AM

I was a die-hard Windows 98SE fan up until 2004. Reason? Try running Windows 98 with 1GB of RAM or more, or on a 2.0GHz or faster CPU. Try getting Windows 98SE drivers for your new video card, usb thumb drive, etc. Sure, it was great in its heyday, but it is finally time to move on.

If you appreciate Windows 98's simplicity, try using Windows 2000 Professional. It only "requires" (I'd use 64MB at least) 32MB of RAM, 133MHZ Pentium, just over 1GB of hard drive space needed to install (but uses less than that), and still has extended security support through at least 2009. It is much better than Windows 98 in almost every way, yet without the bulk of Windows Me or the overhauled interface/workspace of Windows XP.

Windows 2000 is far from it's heyday, but it has simplicity and compatability that make die-hard anti-bloat folks such as yourself attracted to it. Check it out.

Score: 0

By cannie

edited Dec 28, 2006 - 6:33 PM

Thank you for your kindness. Until now I have enough for my needs: I keep my computer with 512 Mb ram and a 900 Mhz processor to avoid problems. I appreciate sincerely this good news because earlier or later I know I shall not find spare parts (some of them are already difficult to find), and Windows 2000 may be then the best solution. I thought MS had decided to get rid of everything we all have bought before Vista, a cruel decision in my opinion. Please look here:
http://www.microsoft.com.../lifecycle/default.mspx

Score: 0

By The Man

posted Dec 28, 2006 - 12:40 PM

yup,
windows 2000 is the sweet spot.
:-)

Score: 0

By templarâ„¢

posted Dec 27, 2006 - 11:29 AM

As far as I know, Vista does not install on an external drive. Installation on an internal drive is part of its requirements. Correct me if I'm wrong.

"I installed EVERY OS on this simple case without problem"
:Really? Tried OS X yet?

Score: 0

By Floodland

edited Dec 27, 2006 - 9:43 PM

Yes, I installed Tiger on the same case and it work flawlessly, with relative ease (I still need some drivers like Sound Blaster). It is NOT an external case. It just make easy to swap IDE disks. It fits in a 5 1/4 bay and you can connect any 3 1/2 drive without open the CPU case. Cheap, still internal, no software, no drivers. Any OS but Vista can read/write without any problem...

Score: 0

By Niro

posted Dec 27, 2006 - 8:27 PM

ah...lol. You think he by a "transparent enclosure" he means external hard drive and not an actual computer case? :)

Score: 0

By dwaterman

posted Dec 27, 2006 - 11:24 AM

Huh? trouble installing a Beta OS, why I never...

Score: 0

By Niro

posted Dec 27, 2006 - 10:41 AM

LOL you're so full of it it's not even funny.

XP has been stable for me and my company for years now.

Vista I've installed on about 10 machnes in under an hour each with no problems...a few dells, HP a home built machine and a couple of laptops...no problem on any of them and they're still running solid.

Just mentioning that you have a "clear removable case ENCLOSURE" and saying Vista won't install because of it is hilarious...thanks for making me realize how full of ish people can really be on here. :)

Score: 0

By dougggg

posted Dec 27, 2006 - 7:45 AM

The NY Times is irrelevant. period.

Score: 0

By Joey Deacon

edited Dec 27, 2006 - 7:50 AM

Indeed, did you see their laughable review of the PS3? Talk about having made their mind up before they even plugged it in...

Still, I would imagine Microsofts advertising budget with NYTimes makes for interesting reading...

Score: 0

By dwaterman

posted Dec 27, 2006 - 1:25 PM

I realize that this is a Vista thread, but do you have a PS3? or did you make up your mind without one? The review I read said that he used the PS3 for 30 hours with thirteen different games before writing his review.

"Still, I would imagine Microsofts advertising budget with NYTimes makes for interesting reading..."

If you are trying to indicate a bias towards MS you should re/read the first paragraph of this article.

Score: 0

By Joey Deacon

edited Dec 27, 2006 - 1:57 PM

Yes, I do have a PS3, and it's an awesome console, Motorstorm, the free download of Gran Turismo HD and Restance FOM, show what potential it has.. totally different to the biased review in the New York Times, I was suggesting that Microsoft spend lots of $$$ with NYT, hence the slagging review of the PS3...

Score: 0

By dwaterman

edited Dec 27, 2006 - 3:36 PM

He wasn't overly impressed and you are. He appeared to be looking for fun and exciting game play and you appear to be looking for cool graphics. That's the thing about opinions...

"I was suggesting that Microsoft spend lots of $$$ with NYT, hence the slagging review of the PS3..."

...you realize that this is the wrong thread for that argument, don't you?

Score: 0

By aacampbe

posted Dec 27, 2006 - 3:07 PM

Here's the thing about reviews ... they are ALWAYS biased. It is no more (or less) than one person's opinion. I'm not criticizing anyone for not knowing this. I believe it is a huge failing that most newspapers don't inform their readers that editorials, commentaries, and reviews contain opinions. Most newspapers go to great lengths to separate their news gathering and opinion staffs, but they then turn around and print news and commentaries right next to each other.

That being said, the Times story on the Vista flaw is your typical unbiased story. Print the allegation. Print Microsoft's response. Make no determination whether it's true or not (because you don't want to be accused of being biased or offending an advertiser). Story finished.

Score: 0

By mjm01010101

posted Dec 27, 2006 - 6:15 AM

"Still, after we made that small modification to the code, it did indeed crash Windows XP."

Doesn't this public admission violate the EULA that you agreed to with Windows XP? For shame/hire attorney/blah.

Score: 0

By caronn

posted Dec 27, 2006 - 4:59 AM

New York Times journalists are incompetents! They only are reliable when they write about pink chronicle and politics; Computer security should only rely on security firms

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Dec 27, 2006 - 8:23 PM

They only are reliable when they write about...politics

Wow. Take off the reality-blocking sunglasses, man. They haven't written an unbiased political article in over 20 years.

Score: 0

By Joey Deacon

posted Dec 27, 2006 - 4:39 AM

"was picked up by The New York Times this morning, although its severity was substantially elevated in the process. "

LOL, Betanews are the worst spinners out there, talk about pot calling the kettle black...

Score: 0

By godofthunder

edited Dec 27, 2006 - 3:22 AM

BLAH BLAH BLAH...Why make a big issue over another crappy bug. Please, we've seen bugs before, its not news, so get over it.

Score: 0

By Natrunner

posted Dec 27, 2006 - 3:18 AM

I agree with most in that you should wait on Vista. I say that only because driver and support kinks need to be ironed out first. Wait about six months and buy it, although the price will be hard to swallow.

Score: 0

By bugmenot

posted Dec 26, 2006 - 8:13 PM

One major bug is that the NY Times reader built into Vista only brings up news from a really crappy source!

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Dec 27, 2006 - 4:49 PM

Ahh--the gullibility vulnerability :D

Score: 0

By uberfly

posted Dec 26, 2006 - 10:36 PM

LOL. Too funny (and true)...

Score: 0

By uberfly

edited Dec 26, 2006 - 10:42 PM

dup

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

edited Dec 26, 2006 - 7:55 PM

I wouldn't describe Vista as bug-plagued... at least, no more than any other product on the market.

I don't particularly *like* Vista, because I think it's a usability nightmare from an administrative support standpoint, but it's not horrible enough to make me discourage users from buying new machines with it installed... I just don't recommend upgrading right away either.

In terms of the NY Times article, well... I haven't considered them a reliable source of information for ANY topic since, hmm, forever.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Dec 27, 2006 - 4:45 PM

"In terms of the NY Times article, well... I haven't considered them a reliable source of information for ANY topic since, hmm, forever."

I have come to realise that if NYT has a controversial article--they're flat-out wrong 100% of the time in my personal experience :)

I must admit, Vista will not be the easiest OS to support, there I definately agree with you. However, the security and stability are definately there, IMO.

Score: 0

By fibreiv

posted Dec 26, 2006 - 7:48 PM

"Web users could become infected with malicious software simply by visiting a booby-trapped site."

That makes for a better headline.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Dec 27, 2006 - 4:47 PM

How about that old "format c:" vulnerability? Windows still has that bug, and heck, it deletes everything on your hard drive :P

Score: 0

By templarâ„¢

posted Dec 27, 2006 - 2:36 AM

Indeed. Who's gonna read "Old API bug can't do much harm"?

Score: 0

By theoldcoot

edited Dec 26, 2006 - 7:44 PM

So Vista is still beta in my mind and Microsoft rushed it's release to appease it's shareholders.

Score: 0

By uberfly

posted Dec 26, 2006 - 10:41 PM

If anyone even kept half an eye on the development of this OS during its last 6 months or so this definitely seems the case. Thrown together to keep some kind of face. It'll probably be approachable some time next summer.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

edited Dec 27, 2006 - 4:00 PM

Rushed to the market, only 5+ years since the last one was released, right? Nope, XP is great cause it was released just 1 and a half years away from Windows 2000, it is such a stable operating system base since it essentially evolved from Windows NT which goes back the the early 1990's...

Seriously people, spouting opinion as truth when it is possibly incorrect is no different from flat-out lying, regardless of how you trick your mind into thinking this is the case. Fact is that anything short of truth that is spouted as truth is NOT truth, regardless of how true you perceive it to be.

Now, I don't expect any of you to know what I am talking about right now--but perhaps in ten years, you will remember and realise how illogical your thought process is here.

The goal here is to discover truth, is it not? The truth we are after here, at least from what I am able to determine: Is Windows Vista as secure/revolutionary/great as Microsoft touts it to be?

Having used beta 2 of the 32 bit edition and RC2 of the 64-bit editions myself, and having submitted feedback to Microsoft on multiple occassions where the issues are actually addressed in the next revisions--also having used Windows extensively since Windows 3.1 in 1993--I can honestly say it is a much more stable OS than any previous version. Is it perfect? Far from it. The Aero graphics is the biggest part of it that I'm sure there are bugs Microsoft has yet to discover in, but third-party "Windows XP" programs will cause the biggest complaints.

Backwards compatability is not as nice as it was from, say Windows 2000 to Windows XP or even Windows 95 to Windows 98. Not all XP programs will run properly under Vista without some tweaking, so if history is any indicater, HP, Dell, Adobe, and many other software and driver manufacturers will adamantly refuse to write or test any software with Vista until AFTER consumers (us) find the problems for them. Why? Because they are either cheap, inexperienced, or just plain lazy.

SP2 is a prime example. Funny that the folks who claimed SP2 was so horrific back in 2004 are now using it and, strangely enough, the majority is no longer complaining. Why? Because:

1. I-WORM.Netsky.P, the worm that was shown to be the #1 CAUSE OF ALL SP2 INSTALLATION FAILURES IN 2004, is no longer the big threat it once was,

2. TVMEDIA, that !@#$ing software that decided to specifically overwrite system files with its own versions, is no longer rampant,

3. HP has finally forced "critical" driver fixes for outdates software in their nvidia drivers (which by the way were not updated for 2 and a half years until they absolutely HAD to update them. By the way, notice the same bug with those existed in the old RC's of SP2 released in May of 2004, a good 3 and a half months before the service packs final release, but HP didn't give a $%^t since they decided SP2 isn't that important anyway), and

4. Symantec finally certified their software to work with SP2 a good 9 months after its release.

So is Microsoft really even the villian here? Maybe in that they make it too easy to write code for their OS, perhaps, but that is about all the fault I can objectively find with them. Windows XP Gold (pre-SP1), on the other hand, was a catastrophic failure initially because MS did rush its release, but Vista is anything but rushed, folks.

Sorry I'm exhausting the points here again, but it bothers me that some folks decide that having heard someone without any expertise claim something is bad, they believe them without argument. I live and breathe Windows, not because I'm a blind supporter of Microsoft or even a fanboy, but because my job requires me to use it 40 hours a week, and I support it over the phone at work as well as on the side--usually while I'm fixing other Windows-based PCs. I don't claim to be some super-expert, but I've several Microsoft certifications, my obsessive compulsive disorder refuses to allow me to sleep at night if there is a problem with Windows that I cannot explain or begin to understand, and I've spent hours literally every day with Windows since I was nine years old.

Windows Vista Beta 2 is workable and even stable in almost every situation I've tested it in. I've done my best to try to break it, and while there are ways that I have succeeded, some if not all of the issues have actually been addressed in RC1 and RC2.

Bottom line: In my experience, Vista will only disappoint those who use software from manufacturers who refuse to test their software on beta operating systems.

Score: 0

By uberfly

edited Dec 28, 2006 - 4:16 AM

I hope so. It just seems the dev this goliath of an OS has been a bit rushed since last summer to meet self-imposed deadlines. This too taking into account some comments by their own developers criticizing the process. Hopefully it only seems that way as we all get to watch every step through a magnifying glass.

Yes, the new york times is a tabloid anymore.

Score: 0

By templarâ„¢

posted Dec 26, 2006 - 8:02 PM

Did you even read the article at all?

Score: 0

By terminalx

edited Dec 27, 2006 - 12:14 AM

Didn't realize we were being graded.

Why read the article when you can troll instead!

Yes, the bug should have been fixed a long time ago, but its not really a security issue.

It is more of a nuisance and once again no OS is 100% when it comes out.

It is physically impossible, especially when its all over the torrent sites and every hacker/cracker has had time to exploit and search for any possible way to knock it down.

Score: 0

By Skizelli

edited Dec 27, 2006 - 8:19 AM

/joke Almost, Johnny. But you left a comma in there. D+ for effort.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Dec 26, 2006 - 9:30 PM

Thanks, for, your, input, it, was, much, appreciated, go, away, thanks.

Score: 0

By Skizelli

edited Dec 27, 2006 - 8:33 AM

@terminalx: There was no need to fix it. I can care less how you type (who's "we"?). I just thought it was amusing. I guess I forgot the /joke. :P

And thanks for YOUR input, Tool. It's always appreciated. However, I think I'll stick around.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Dec 27, 2006 - 3:04 PM

No problem. I am here to help.

*grins*

Score: 0