Favorite Files

No favorite files added yet

Recent Posts

1. Comment - XP SP3 Beta Preview Out, Last Update to XP

   (Oct 9, 2007 - 12:47 PM)

   "Windows XP (Home, Pro & MCE) is a Windows NT based system (first released in 1993 - 14 years ago). It is based on a platform that is aged and has many known security issues that are not able to be patched."
   "-Vista is based on Windows Server 2003.."
   
   This is wildly inaccurate and proves nothing if it were.
   
   XP (NT5.1) was an update of 2000 (NT5). As with anything, there were changes in 2000, and then in XP that made going back and fixing bugs that related to all 3 more and more difficult. We have and are still going to uncover bugs and vulnerabilities that affect XP that go back as far as NT 3.1 (less and less as time goes on), but the "oldest OS affected" will only reflect the supported OS'es at the time. I don't see how pointing out that NT has issues that will remain unpatched (on older versions) reflects at all on XP.
   
   Saying Vista is based on 2003 is meaningless. If you are going to slam the NT codebase, you have to slam 2003 too. 2003 was branched off of XP. Rebranding occurred, server daemons were added in, whatever else was changed to make it into the "server os" but there was no less relation to XP and 2003 than there was 2000 Pro to 2000 Server except the release dates and updated core files which made it into XP in patches anyway. 2003 didn't even include the XP SP2 Security improvements until it's SP1 came out. There's nothing that says server 2003 SP1 was better that XP SP2 at the core.
   
   When it was time for Vista to be branched from somewhere, M$ branched Vista off of Server 2003 likely because the 2003 SP1 milestone just happened to be newer as a package, although a post-SP2 XP slipstreamed install would be at the same patch level.
   
   Although some parts of Vista will be different than it's predecessors, you can't begin to tell me that NT 3.1 thru Vista don't share some common code and that there couldn't be vulnerability found in Vista that would affect Vista down through the unsupported versions.

2. Comment - Safari for Windows Tops 1 Million Downloads

   (Jun 18, 2007 - 11:36 AM)

   Netscape 9? You realize that's one of those bloated, crash-prone & memory-hooging messes from Moz that you just bashed? Netscape 8 was based on FF 2, and Netscape 9 is going to be FF 3 based.
   
   People never cease to amaze me.

3. Comment - XM Outage Continues to Second Day

   (May 22, 2007 - 5:29 PM)

   "The problem also took out the service’s terrestrial repeaters."
   
   Uhm, yeah.. It took out the REPEATERS because they REPEAT the signal, which was not there.
   
   Come on!

4. Comment - Microsoft Calls Reports of Missing Outlook Files 'Not Accurate'

   (Mar 18, 2007 - 1:44 AM)

   No kidding..

5. Comment - Windows Server 2003 SP2 Quietly Released

   (Mar 14, 2007 - 11:55 PM)

   You tell me you agree, yet dispute it in the same paragraph...
   
   You're correct, there won't be a rollup or SP before Server 07.. but your point was:
   
   "If a similar tidal wave of bad news erupts from SP2, Microsoft will probably have a solution in the wings: "Windows Server 2007".."
   
   No, I believe their solution will be a SP2a in the case of a major bug caught early, or definitely a hotfix for whatever problems may erupt. You do realize that SPs are packaged fixes and security updates, many of which get released either on patch tuesday or in the case of hotfixes, as needed.. right?
   
   I called it FUD because you're essentially saying "Prepare for the worst.. if SP2 has problems, you'll need Server 2007 to save you, because that's likely Microsoft's answer." That's my problem with this writeup.
   
   There's many things to complain about when it comes to Microsoft. The sarcasm is best saved for the real problems.. like WPA/WGA false positives and the whole Novell IP thing.