[News] Internet Explorer 7 is Spyware
Roy Schestowitz
Not only does it send Microsoft a list of pages you visit, but it also
enables Microsoft to extend its monopoly and use it for search technologies.
No wonder Internet Explorer 7 was made a high priority update. Security?
Security my ass. They just want to spy on every Web surfer.
Erik Funkenbusch
What does that make Firefox then? You do know that Mozilla gets millions
of dollars from google for all the searching people do with FF, right?
Plus, google tracks your searching habits. They say they won't release it,
but if they get court orders they have to.
High Plains Thumper
Here is something that is an eye opener from the same
Microsoft Watch site:
http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,2180,2010894,00.asp
| Thursday, August 31, 2006
| What Is the Business Case for Upgrading to Vista?
| By Mary Jo Foley
| MR. Biz: how are they going to make a business case for
| Vista?
| MJF: that's a good question…. I'm not really sure
| MR. Biz: no matter how much tweaking MS does, it's still
| not going to solve the resource requirements issue
| MR. Biz: the 3D desktop should have been part of Plus
| MR. Biz: vista will NEVER run on a $1000 PC
| MR. Biz: EVER MR. Biz: maybe a $1500 PC, but that one
| doesn't exist Yet
| MR. Biz: there aren't cheap dual cores yet
| MR. Biz: price point is still around $2000
| MJF: u are right
| MR. Biz: basic users don't need this
| MR. Biz: corporate users don't need this
| MR. Biz: the corps are gonna scream bloody Murder
| MR. Biz: they can't afford to put $2000+ desktops on each
| desk
| MR. Biz: and buy all new copies of office to run on It
| MR. Biz: what we're talking about is a TCO of about $3000
| per desktop
| MR. Biz: maybe even more than that
| MR. Biz: that's before support costs
| MR. Biz: that's just the damn software and hardware
| MR. Biz: even if they leave the server infrastructure the
| same
| MR. Biz: which really, they can't
| MR. Biz: so I bet its more like $5000 a desktop
| MR. Biz: never before has a windows release required such a
| major pill to swallow
| MJF: good points
Vista apparently is very hardware intensive. For example,
minimum requirements for Windows XP
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/upgrading/sysreqs.mspx
is a 300 MHz Pentium, 128 MB RAM and super VGA graphics.
However, anyone who has run XP on 300 MHz Pentium and/or 128 MB
knows that the system is wheezing seriously with such a
processor and/or limited memory.
Several years ago, I found found an AMD 2.4 GHz, 256 MB system
with XP Home to be wheezing until I added a further 512 MB,
which then sped things up (768 MB total).
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsvista/evaluate/hardware/
vistarpc.mspx
Vista will run on an 850 MHz Pentium with 512 MB memory.
However, those are considered minimal requirements. I see the
hardware inflationary cycle continuing.
This is a positive indicator for Linux to capitalise on, since
it will operate well using less resources. Like an old beer
commercial used to state, "Less filling, more taste."
--
HPT
BearItAll
It just occured to me reading this and Thumper's post. I wonder if it is
valid to buy a lot of XP software to put into the company safe so that for
the next few years companies can ignore the higher cost of Vista machines?
As far as I know there isn't a 'Use By Date' on software boxes.
If that is valid, then could buy a few MS Office boxes too.
It isn't as if there is anything worth having in the new versions so no real
need to go to the extra costs to run them.
Roy Schestowitz
The only snag I can think of is neglect of old versions of Windows, e.g. 2000
which makes a good candidate (ME is no longer supported). The machines that
run these O/Sen would then need to be replaced and, as of last year, half of
all US businesses still used Windows 2000.
In reality, thanks to Linux, it is improbable. But what if Microsoft
continued to make its O/S poor on security (it's ineviable and it's not a
matter of will, just inability due to bad state of the code). It could spend
half of that one billion dollar Vista marketing budget on forcing people to
think that Vista (the third XP service pack) will actually add security.
Let's wait to see how the cattle reacts to brainwash.
Best wishes,
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | "ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI"
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
9:05am up 43 days 21:17, 7 users, load average: 0.12, 0.32, 0.44
http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project
BearItAll
It doesn't actually matter if MS still support the OS that you have. It
doesn't suddenly stop working, you just stop getting the pop ups about
updates. Bit of a relief I suspect :)
![[H]omer's profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjWMQWyYwHeIwxhG3nGUeGWmLQD0R8TeZrvdWDiv5-2S_z3rHg=s40-c)
[H]omer
> It just occured to me reading this and Thumper's post. I wonder if it is
> valid to buy a lot of XP software to put into the company safe so that for
> the next few years companies can ignore the higher cost of Vista machines?
>
> As far as I know there isn't a 'Use By Date' on software boxes.
No, but there is an EOL for support, and remember, legal copies of XP
must be activated by Microsoft; who's to say how MS might try to coerce
their customers in the future.
--
K.
http://slated.org - Slated, Rated & Blogged
This message has not been photoshopped in any way.
Fedora Core release 5 (Bordeaux) on sky, running kernel 2.6.16-1.2133_FC5
14:30:34 up 76 days, 14:47, 5 users, load average: 0.87, 0.80, 0.73
Jim
concerning [H]omer:
> BearItAll wrote:
>
>> It just occured to me reading this and Thumper's post. I wonder if it is
>> valid to buy a lot of XP software to put into the company safe so that
>> for the next few years companies can ignore the higher cost of Vista
>> machines?
>>
>> As far as I know there isn't a 'Use By Date' on software boxes.
>
> No, but there is an EOL for support, and remember, legal copies of XP
> must be activated by Microsoft; who's to say how MS might try to coerce
> their customers in the future.
>
think about it for half a second: WPA is Microsoft's second most powerful
kill switch. They could quite easily pull the plug on that and force anyone
trying a reinstall to buy Vista (and the requisite hardware that goes with
it).
Or, if they're smart like me, give MS the finger and go Linux.
:)
--
I hereby testify that the above statement is an accurate recollection of the
events mentioned therein.
http://dotware.co.uk
Registered Linux user #426308 -*- http://counter.li.org
Erik Funkenbusch
>| MR. Biz: no matter how much tweaking MS does, it's still
>| not going to solve the resource requirements issue
>| MR. Biz: the 3D desktop should have been part of Plus
>| MR. Biz: vista will NEVER run on a $1000 PC
>| MR. Biz: EVER MR. Biz: maybe a $1500 PC, but that one
>| doesn't exist Yet
That's bull. Vista will run on a $300 PC you buy today. It may not have
the highest end features, but it will run just as well as Vista with the
biggest resource hogs disabled (like Aero)
> Vista apparently is very hardware intensive. For example,
> minimum requirements for Windows XP
Vista is hardware intensive for the high end features, but not hardware
intensive to simply run. Just like you can turn off KDE and run with
Fluxbox on a Linux distro to save resources.
> Vista will run on an 850 MHz Pentium with 512 MB memory.
> However, those are considered minimal requirements. I see the
> hardware inflationary cycle continuing.
That's for all features. If you're willing to do without the 3D desktop,
then it will run in significantly less.
Gubo Dangle
> On Sat, 2 Sep 2006 06:31:37 +0000 (UTC), High Plains Thumper wrote:
>> Vista will run on an 850 MHz Pentium with 512 MB memory.
>> However, those are considered minimal requirements.
Try running something a modern Distro with KDE on a 850MHz Pentium and
see how it crawls.
>>I see the hardware inflationary cycle continuing.
Why wouldn't it? Or should the entire PC industry pack up, go home and
accept that 'users will never need more than 640K' ?
Gubo Dangle
..Insert the word "Like" where necessary.
Kier
> Erik Funkenbusch has brought this to us :
>> On Sat, 2 Sep 2006 06:31:37 +0000 (UTC), High Plains Thumper wrote:
> ...
>
>>> Vista will run on an 850 MHz Pentium with 512 MB memory.
>>> However, those are considered minimal requirements.
>
> Try running something a modern Distro with KDE on a 850MHz Pentium and
> see how it crawls.
Does an AMD Duron 850 count? That's what my second PC is, and it's running
Fedora Core 5.
--
Kier
High Plains Thumper
> On Sat, 2 Sep 2006 06:31:37 +0000 (UTC), High Plains Thumper wrote:
>
>>| MR. Biz: no matter how much tweaking MS does, it's still
>>| not going to solve the resource requirements issue
>>| MR. Biz: the 3D desktop should have been part of Plus
>>| MR. Biz: vista will NEVER run on a $1000 PC
>>| MR. Biz: EVER MR. Biz: maybe a $1500 PC, but that one
>>| doesn't exist Yet
>
> That's bull. Vista will run on a $300 PC you buy today. It may not have
> the highest end features, but it will run just as well as Vista with the
> biggest resource hogs disabled (like Aero)
I thought Mary Jo Foley made a very good point in
>> http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,2180,2010894,00.asp
as she usually does. Then you propose running a crippled Vista version?
>> Vista apparently is very hardware intensive. For example, minimum
>> requirements for Windows XP
>
> Vista is hardware intensive for the high end features, but not hardware
> intensive to simply run. Just like you can turn off KDE and run with
> Fluxbox on a Linux distro to save resources.
Oh? Who is going to want to install Vista, so they can just surf the 'net,
write letters or E-mails, chat? One could save considerable costs by
running Linux, and that with better security.
No, they will want to run bloatware Microsoft Office latest version,
AutoCAD, business spreadsheets, high end Adobe graphics, high end games,
etc. You do not take a $300 PC and expect it to run these. Of course one
could take Linux and the equivalents and do well.
>> Vista will run on an 850 MHz Pentium with 512 MB memory.
>> However, those are considered minimal requirements. I see the
>> hardware inflationary cycle continuing.
>
> That's for all features. If you're willing to do without the 3D desktop,
> then it will run in significantly less.
That is not what the Microsoft website stated that you conveniently snipped:
>>
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsvista/evaluate/hardware/vistarpc.mspx
>>
>> or http://tinyurl.com/a655s
Also, you conveniently snipped:
>> Vista apparently is very hardware intensive. For example, minimum
>> requirements for Windows XP
>>
>> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/upgrading/sysreqs.mspx
>>
>> is a 300 MHz Pentium, 128 MB RAM and super VGA graphics. However, anyone
>> who has run XP on 300 MHz Pentium and/or 128 MB knows that the system is
>> wheezing seriously with such a processor and/or limited memory.
>>
>> Several years ago, I found found an AMD 2.4 GHz, 256 MB system with XP
>> Home to be wheezing until I added a further 512 MB, which then sped
>> things up (768 MB total).
Vista follows in the footsteps of previous Microsoft products and will
require greater resources to run satisfactorily. Running a crippled
version on minimal hardware will only frustrate users.
--
HPT
High Plains Thumper
> Erik Funkenbusch brought:
>> High Plains Thumper wrote:
> ...
>
>>> Vista will run on an 850 MHz Pentium with 512 MB memory.
>>> However, those are considered minimal requirements.
>
> Try running something a modern Distro with KDE on a 850MHz Pentium and
> see how it crawls.
Oh, really? See:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/browse_frm/
thread/cd3ef1aae26c30ad/68c018b47f1f62f1?lnk=gst&q=And+another+
happy+family%2C+courtesy+of+Linux&rnum=1#68c018b47f1f62f1
| Turns out she was talking about a seven year old Compaq with an AMD
| Athlon 650 MHz, only 128MB of RAM and equally ancient video and sound
| cards. They had already tried reinstalling Windows 98, but the Compaq
| But then, to my surprise, the installation was all done in 45 minutes -
| and imagine my even bigger surprise when I found that KDE was working
| just fine - and that even OpenOffice took perhaps 15 seconds to start,
| and then worked just as snappy as ever. I called up the hardware list,
| and double checked that yes, indeed, there was only 128MB of RAM in
| this machine. But it works just fine! OK, things get quickly bogged
| down with e.g. OO.o, Mozilla, and Kaffeine running at the same time -
| but if you refrain from carelessly starting several concurrent
| applications, the machine was perhaps not the fastest horse in the
| race, but certainly workable.
Scroll down to 5th thread:
| Just a vanilla Mandriva 2006 install, i.e. a default install with the
| desktop/game/multimedia categories selected, with KDE as a WM; after the
| initial install, I just added all relevant mplayer components, plus some
| encumbered stuff not included in the distribution (Windows codecs,
| DeCSS), which is offered through a couple of separate, easily installed
| repositories.
Customer satisfaction from initial thread (scroll up):
| You should have seen the faces of these people: all big eyes and open
| mouths, for two hours solid ... "What, no driver disks needed?" "Huh,
| it found and configured the printer all by itself?" "AND the network
| card?" "Even the old scanner??? That thing has been dead for years, and
| now it works!" "OpenOffice can use Microsoft .doc by default? So I don't
| need MS Office?" "What, I can just plug in my MP3 player and drag the
| songs anywhere I want? Hey mom, look! Even the camera works in one go! We
| don't have to use that other stupid software any more!" "OK, but there's
| no MSN on this thing, or is there? There is??? Damn, this is cool!" "But
| where's the antivirus? Whaddyamean, we don't need it? You must be
| kidding ... no, you're not?"
The punchline:
| And so on and so on ... I patiently demonstrated everything and answered
| all their questions - all but te final one: "But why do people keep paying
| for Windows when you can get all this for free?" This turned out to be the
| only question I couldn't answer in a satisfactory manner ...
>>> I see the hardware inflationary cycle continuing.
>
> Why wouldn't it? Or should the entire PC industry pack up, go home and
> accept that 'users will never need more than 640K' ?
Why should the user accept excessive inflationary cycles to the point where
they cannot get at least 5 years solid use without serious upgrading? This
hurts not only the home/small office user, but corporate
return-on-investments.
With longer ROI, one can order much more sturdy equipment and better
hardware.
--
HPT
Nigel Feltham
> It doesn't actually matter if MS still support the OS that you have. It
> doesn't suddenly stop working, you just stop getting the pop ups about
> updates. Bit of a relief I suspect :)
Versions up to Win2k don't just stop working (as long as you find non-MS
ways to keep them secure) but XP can - it already has a mechanism to make
fresh installs stop working until MS supply it with an activation code
(either automatically over the net or manually over the phone).
All MS need to do is switch off the XP activation server and shutdown the
activation phone line and any installs that need activation will die after
30 days - even restoring from a ghost image will only work as long as you
keep the same hardware, 3 changes and it needs activation again. Removing
support for XP can make it as useless as all the old Keydisk and Dongle
protected applications where the disk/dongle won't fit modern PC's.
And before you suggest using any independent patches to remove activation
you cannot legally do this either - this is against the licence terms so if
you do this you're running a pirate copy and liable to fines if you get BSA
audited.
Unless MS release their own no-activation patch before discontinuing support
(and all XP users download and keep their own copy of the patch to allow
for reinstalls) they can effectively make it illegal to keep XP running on
your PC for more than 30 days between reinstalls.
Erik Funkenbusch
>> That's bull. Vista will run on a $300 PC you buy today. It may not have
>> the highest end features, but it will run just as well as Vista with the
>> biggest resource hogs disabled (like Aero)
>
> I thought Mary Jo Foley made a very good point in
>
>>> http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,2180,2010894,00.asp
>
> as she usually does. Then you propose running a crippled Vista version?
And what point might that be? Be more specific.
Are you seriously suggesting that using Vista without Aero is "crippled"?
By that logic, using Linux without Fluxbox is "crippled".
>>> Vista apparently is very hardware intensive. For example, minimum
>>> requirements for Windows XP
>>
>> Vista is hardware intensive for the high end features, but not hardware
>> intensive to simply run. Just like you can turn off KDE and run with
>> Fluxbox on a Linux distro to save resources.
>
> Oh? Who is going to want to install Vista, so they can just surf the 'net,
> write letters or E-mails, chat? One could save considerable costs by
> running Linux, and that with better security.
Yeah, and Linux advocates have been making that argument for 10 years, and
yet there is still very little Linux adoption on the desktop.
No, people will buy new PC's when their old ones wear out, and they will
get Vista just like they got their previous OS. Microsoft has
traditionally sold less than 1% of it's OS's at retail. People don't
upgrade that way.
> No, they will want to run bloatware Microsoft Office latest version,
> AutoCAD, business spreadsheets, high end Adobe graphics, high end games,
> etc. You do not take a $300 PC and expect it to run these. Of course one
> could take Linux and the equivalents and do well.
What equivelent is there to AutoCad? Or high end games or most of the
other things you mention?
>>> Vista will run on an 850 MHz Pentium with 512 MB memory.
>>> However, those are considered minimal requirements. I see the
>>> hardware inflationary cycle continuing.
>>
>> That's for all features. If you're willing to do without the 3D desktop,
>> then it will run in significantly less.
>
> That is not what the Microsoft website stated that you conveniently snipped:
It's talking about all features. I promise you, Vista runs just fine in
256MB and a celeron 500 (I'm using one for a test machine, I know).
> Vista follows in the footsteps of previous Microsoft products and will
> require greater resources to run satisfactorily. Running a crippled
> version on minimal hardware will only frustrate users.
That's like calling a Honda Civic "crippled" just because it can't go
200MPH on a race track. Aero is the big memory waster, and you don't
really need it. There's a shit load of other new stuff in Vista that works
just fine in less memory.
Peter Köhlmann
> On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 07:36:53 +0900, High Plains Thumper wrote:
>
>>> That's bull. Vista will run on a $300 PC you buy today. It may not
>>> have the highest end features, but it will run just as well as Vista
>>> with the biggest resource hogs disabled (like Aero)
>>
>> I thought Mary Jo Foley made a very good point in
>>
>>>> http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,2180,2010894,00.asp
>>
>> as she usually does. Then you propose running a crippled Vista version?
>
> And what point might that be? Be more specific.
>
> Are you seriously suggesting that using Vista without Aero is "crippled"?
It sure is. You could just as well (or even better) stay on XP then
> By that logic, using Linux without Fluxbox is "crippled".
>
Your "logic" as usual is crap
A linux machine without Fluxbox could be one with KDE / Gnome/ whatever
>>>> Vista apparently is very hardware intensive. For example, minimum
>>>> requirements for Windows XP
>>>
>>> Vista is hardware intensive for the high end features, but not hardware
>>> intensive to simply run. Just like you can turn off KDE and run with
>>> Fluxbox on a Linux distro to save resources.
>>
>> Oh? Who is going to want to install Vista, so they can just surf the
>> 'net,
>> write letters or E-mails, chat? One could save considerable costs by
>> running Linux, and that with better security.
>
> Yeah, and Linux advocates have been making that argument for 10 years, and
> yet there is still very little Linux adoption on the desktop.
>
This has exactly nothing to do with running vista as a glorified web-browser
There is *ZERO* need to run vista for writing letters/webbrowsing/email
> No, people will buy new PC's when their old ones wear out, and they will
> get Vista just like they got their previous OS. Microsoft has
> traditionally sold less than 1% of it's OS's at retail. People don't
> upgrade that way.
>
Right. They are force-fed with garbage they would not buy in the first place
< snip >
>> That is not what the Microsoft website stated that you conveniently
>> snipped:
>
> It's talking about all features. I promise you, Vista runs just fine in
> 256MB and a celeron 500 (I'm using one for a test machine, I know).
>
Your "assurances" mean absolutely nothing. You are lying way to often to
believe any of your claims
>> Vista follows in the footsteps of previous Microsoft products and will
>> require greater resources to run satisfactorily. Running a crippled
>> version on minimal hardware will only frustrate users.
>
> That's like calling a Honda Civic "crippled" just because it can't go
> 200MPH on a race track. Aero is the big memory waster, and you don't
> really need it. There's a shit load of other new stuff in Vista that
> works just fine in less memory.
Minesweeper?
After all, the promised features of Shorthorn MCD have all vanished in a
puff of smoke
--
Microsoft's Guide To System Design:
Form follows malfunction.
Roy Schestowitz
Good example. I never realised why you even bother with Erik. All he ever
farts out is FUD, FUD, FUD. He could put it in his resume.
Experience: FUD
Skills: FUD
Dietary preference: FUD
What's he got to find in COLA anyway?
Roy Schestowitz
Oops. Reply to Erik was inended to be descendent of yours (wrong article in
focus). To repeat it:
Good example. I never realised why you even bother with Erik. All he ever
farts out is FUD, FUD, FUD. He could put it in his resume.
Experience: FUD
Skills: FUD
Dietary preference: FUD
What's he got to find in COLA anyway?
Best wishes,
Roy
Peter Köhlmann
Shit happens
> Good example. I never realised why you even bother with Erik.
Well, he /tries/ to sound reasonable. To a newbie in this group he even
might be convincing if he is not shown to be an outright liar and FUDder
> All he ever
> farts out is FUD, FUD, FUD. He could put it in his resume.
>
> Experience: FUD
> Skills: FUD
> Dietary preference: FUD
>
That is for sure exactly what he did. He had lots of experience ion the OS/2
group before
> What's he got to find in COLA anyway?
>
His employers worst nightmares
> Best wishes,
>
> Roy
--
Microsoft? Is that some kind of a toilet paper?
BearItAll
Thats another example then of MS simply being too powerful. Having the power
to hold the ecconomic world to ransom. Which to me suggests that it has to
be power that is in the hands of elect government bodies.
I don't suppose for a moment that Bill or even Ballmer would be a risk in
that way, but where are their successors coming from, what is their
political history? So to me that strengthens what the EU is trying to do as
well as the ODF lobyists. MS can run their business, but someone else has
to lay down the rules.
Tim Smith
Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
> Just worth clarifying this.
>
> Not only does it send Microsoft a list of pages you visit, but it also
> enables Microsoft to extend its monopoly and use it for search technologies.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ezeey
The place that link goes to says no such thing, and neither does the
story it links to. Why are you lying like this?
--
--Tim Smith
Tim Smith
More the to the point, the story he links to has nothing to do with IE7,
and says nothing even remotely like what he's claiming.
--
--Tim Smith
[censored]
Why do I NEED this stupid 3D desktop anyway? Isn't it a bit like BOB or
the animated characters on crack in Office?
Peter Hayes
(in article <1j8x5si4wn56r$.d...@funkenbusch.com>):
> On Sat, 2 Sep 2006 06:31:37 +0000 (UTC), High Plains Thumper wrote:
>
>>> MR. Biz: no matter how much tweaking MS does, it's still
>>> not going to solve the resource requirements issue
>>> MR. Biz: the 3D desktop should have been part of Plus
>>> MR. Biz: vista will NEVER run on a $1000 PC
>>> MR. Biz: EVER MR. Biz: maybe a $1500 PC, but that one
>>> doesn't exist Yet
>
> That's bull. Vista will run on a $300 PC you buy today. It may not have
> the highest end features, but it will run just as well as Vista with the
> biggest resource hogs disabled (like Aero)
So why buy it? All it has to offer the £300 PC user is what XP already
offers.
--
Peter
Erik Funkenbusch
Lots of reasons. Maybe you want Entire disk encryption. Maybe you want
the faster search functionality. Maybe you want the improved security,
especially with IE7's new reduced privileges mode.
There are hundreds of new features that require very few, if any,
additional resources than current day XP. Aero is just one of the most
obvious.
The new UI is only a tiny fraction of the what's new in Vista.
Erik Funkenbusch
Well, it is useful. For example, Flip3D lets you see a large scale
rendering of the current screen when you're switching windows. Also, it
makes the "window redraw" phenomenon a thing of the past (just as XGL has
made window refreshes amazingly fast on Linux).
Peter Hayes
(in article <1vlj954mwn1q2$.d...@funkenbusch.com>):
> On Sun, 3 Sep 2006 20:32:21 +0100, Peter Hayes wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 2 Sep 2006 20:33:52 +0100, Erik Funkenbusch wrote
>> (in article <1j8x5si4wn56r$.d...@funkenbusch.com>):
>>
>>> On Sat, 2 Sep 2006 06:31:37 +0000 (UTC), High Plains Thumper wrote:
>>>
>>>>> MR. Biz: no matter how much tweaking MS does, it's still
>>>>> not going to solve the resource requirements issue
>>>>> MR. Biz: the 3D desktop should have been part of Plus
>>>>> MR. Biz: vista will NEVER run on a $1000 PC
>>>>> MR. Biz: EVER MR. Biz: maybe a $1500 PC, but that one
>>>>> doesn't exist Yet
>>>
>>> That's bull. Vista will run on a $300 PC you buy today. It may not have
>>> the highest end features, but it will run just as well as Vista with the
>>> biggest resource hogs disabled (like Aero)
>>
>> So why buy it? All it has to offer the £300 PC user is what XP already
>> offers.
>
> Lots of reasons. Maybe you want Entire disk encryption.
Bitlocker? You'll need a new machine, because for sure today's $300 PC won't
have the Fritz chip.
> Maybe you want the faster search functionality.
OK
> Maybe you want the improved security,
Are you suggesting the user buys a whole new OS just to overcome the security
flaws in the old one?
> especially with IE7's new reduced privileges mode.
Doesn't IE7 run on XP?
> There are hundreds of new features that require very few, if any,
> additional resources than current day XP. Aero is just one of the most
> obvious.
>
> The new UI is only a tiny fraction of the what's new in Vista.
Aero is where all the marketing's been aimed, and I suspect a large part of
the development effort too.
--
Peter
Erik Funkenbusch
>>> So why buy it? All it has to offer the £300 PC user is what XP already
>>> offers.
>>
>> Lots of reasons. Maybe you want Entire disk encryption.
>
> Bitlocker? You'll need a new machine, because for sure today's $300 PC won't
> have the Fritz chip.
While that's not for certain, it doesn't matter. BitLocker doesn't require
a TPM chip. It will make use of one if one exists, but it's not required.
>> Maybe you want the improved security,
>
> Are you suggesting the user buys a whole new OS just to overcome the security
> flaws in the old one?
If you buy a lock for your door, and a year from now, someone figures out
an easy method to pick it. Would you demand the lockmaker replace it for
free? It still does it's job, but if you want something more secure, you
buy a more secure lock.
>> especially with IE7's new reduced privileges mode.
>
> Doesn't IE7 run on XP?
Not with reduced privileges. There are several features that only work on
Vista.
>> There are hundreds of new features that require very few, if any,
>> additional resources than current day XP. Aero is just one of the most
>> obvious.
>>
>> The new UI is only a tiny fraction of the what's new in Vista.
>
> Aero is where all the marketing's been aimed, and I suspect a large part of
> the development effort too.
Not really. Aero really is only a small part of what's new in Vista, and
certainly not where the all the marketing is aimed. Just look at the Vista
web site.
Peter Hayes
(in article <qn9g4bwh...@funkenbusch.com>):
> On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 09:25:55 +0100, Peter Hayes wrote:
>
>>>> So why buy it? All it has to offer the £300 PC user is what XP already
>>>> offers.
>>>
>>> Lots of reasons. Maybe you want Entire disk encryption.
>>
>> Bitlocker? You'll need a new machine, because for sure today's $300 PC
>> won't have the Fritz chip.
>
> While that's not for certain, it doesn't matter. BitLocker doesn't require
> a TPM chip. It will make use of one if one exists, but it's not required.
So it's no better than FileVault on my Mac.
>>> Maybe you want the improved security,
>>
>> Are you suggesting the user buys a whole new OS just to overcome the
>> security flaws in the old one?
>
> If you buy a lock for your door, and a year from now, someone figures out
> an easy method to pick it. Would you demand the lockmaker replace it for
> free? It still does it's job, but if you want something more secure, you
> buy a more secure lock.
Locks aren't updateable, OSs are.
>>> especially with IE7's new reduced privileges mode.
>>
>> Doesn't IE7 run on XP?
>
> Not with reduced privileges. There are several features that only work on
> Vista.
So the user has to buy a whole new OS just to obtain features that should
have been included in IE5 at the latest.
--
Peter
Erik Funkenbusch
>> While that's not for certain, it doesn't matter. BitLocker doesn't require
>> a TPM chip. It will make use of one if one exists, but it's not required.
>
> So it's no better than FileVault on my Mac.
FileVault and BitLocker have overlap, but FileVault only encrypts your home
folder. BitLocker encrypts the entire disk.
>> If you buy a lock for your door, and a year from now, someone figures out
>> an easy method to pick it. Would you demand the lockmaker replace it for
>> free? It still does it's job, but if you want something more secure, you
>> buy a more secure lock.
>
> Locks aren't updateable, OSs are.
Locks are just as updateable, and probably costs a lot less to update than
the man hours necessary to rewrite an OS.
>>>> especially with IE7's new reduced privileges mode.
>>>
>>> Doesn't IE7 run on XP?
>>
>> Not with reduced privileges. There are several features that only work on
>> Vista.
>
> So the user has to buy a whole new OS just to obtain features that should
> have been included in IE5 at the latest.
Funny, but if they should have been included in IE5 at the latest, why is
it no other browser has them either?
Peter Köhlmann
> On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 13:01:18 +0100, Peter Hayes wrote:
>
< snip >
>>> Not with reduced privileges. There are several features that only work
>>> on Vista.
>>
>> So the user has to buy a whole new OS just to obtain features that should
>> have been included in IE5 at the latest.
>
> Funny, but if they should have been included in IE5 at the latest, why is
> it no other browser has them either?
You mean like tabbed browsing? I am sure, Erik, this will be "copied" by
linux browsers shortly
Or enhanced security? Another area where linux will "follow" suite in the
very near future
Do you have /any/ idea how ridiculous you sound, Erik?
--
Ogden's Law:
The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up.
Erik Funkenbusch
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 13:01:18 +0100, Peter Hayes wrote:
>>
> < snip >
>
>>>> Not with reduced privileges. There are several features that only work
>>>> on Vista.
>>>
>>> So the user has to buy a whole new OS just to obtain features that should
>>> have been included in IE5 at the latest.
>>
>> Funny, but if they should have been included in IE5 at the latest, why is
>> it no other browser has them either?
>
> You mean like tabbed browsing?
No. Pay attention Peter. We're talking about low rights IE.
> Or enhanced security? Another area where linux will "follow" suite in the
> very near future
It wouldn't surprise me if Linux browsers start using the "low rights"
method.
> Do you have /any/ idea how ridiculous you sound, Erik?
Not anywhere near as ridiculous as someone who's not even paying attention
but chooses to comment anyways.
Peter Köhlmann
> On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 01:47:29 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 13:01:18 +0100, Peter Hayes wrote:
>>>
>> < snip >
>>
>>>>> Not with reduced privileges. There are several features that only
>>>>> work on Vista.
>>>>
>>>> So the user has to buy a whole new OS just to obtain features that
>>>> should have been included in IE5 at the latest.
>>>
>>> Funny, but if they should have been included in IE5 at the latest, why
>>> is it no other browser has them either?
>>
>> You mean like tabbed browsing?
>
> No. Pay attention Peter. We're talking about low rights IE.
>
"Low rights" IE? What ridiculous idea
Why not make an OS which can run properly as a restricted user and be done
with it?
Face it, Erik, MS is doing this idiocy because of that, they can't make
windows behave properly when not running as admin or limited admin
>> Or enhanced security? Another area where linux will "follow" suite in the
>> very near future
>
> It wouldn't surprise me if Linux browsers start using the "low rights"
> method.
>
Why should they, Erik? What good would it do? You should know that linux
never had a problem with running as normal user, so this bollocks idea
of "low rights" applications need not apply
>> Do you have /any/ idea how ridiculous you sound, Erik?
>
> Not anywhere near as ridiculous as someone who's not even paying attention
> but chooses to comment anyways.
Well, Erik, *you* asked why not other browsers have these "features"
And you know very well why not. Because they are not run by this garbage
called "windows"
And even *if* they run under windows, they simply avoid several idiotic
design decisions which bite MS into the ass
--
Microsoft's Guide To System Design:
It could be worse, but it'll take time.
Erik Funkenbusch
>> No. Pay attention Peter. We're talking about low rights IE.
>
> "Low rights" IE? What ridiculous idea
> Why not make an OS which can run properly as a restricted user and be done
> with it?
Because Low rights IE reduces rights even of restricted users. For
instance, suppose a new 0-day flaw is discovered in a browser. Without
low-rights, that flaw could be used to, for example, delete the users
entire home directory. With low rights IE, that's not possible as IE
doesn't even have rights to access anything but a subfolder under the home
directory.
> Face it, Erik, MS is doing this idiocy because of that, they can't make
> windows behave properly when not running as admin or limited admin
Wrong. Vista already solves what few remaining problems there are to
running as a restricted user. Low rights IE is in addition to all that.
>>> Or enhanced security? Another area where linux will "follow" suite in the
>>> very near future
>>
>> It wouldn't surprise me if Linux browsers start using the "low rights"
>> method.
>
> Why should they, Erik? What good would it do? You should know that linux
> never had a problem with running as normal user, so this bollocks idea
> of "low rights" applications need not apply
It could do a lot of good. The deleting the users home directory is a good
example.
>>> Do you have /any/ idea how ridiculous you sound, Erik?
>>
>> Not anywhere near as ridiculous as someone who's not even paying attention
>> but chooses to comment anyways.
>
> Well, Erik, *you* asked why not other browsers have these "features"
> And you know very well why not. Because they are not run by this garbage
> called "windows"
No, Peter. Pay attention. It was said that IE5 should have had these
features, as if they are common and everyone has had them for years. I
countered by saying if that were the case, why doesn't any other browser
have them?
And since when don't other browsers run on Windows?
> And even *if* they run under windows, they simply avoid several idiotic
> design decisions which bite MS into the ass
Such as? Don't say ActiveX, since other browsers have plug-in
architectures as well.
Peter Hayes
(in article <luoa6qd2...@funkenbusch.com>):
> On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 13:01:18 +0100, Peter Hayes wrote:
>
>>> While that's not for certain, it doesn't matter. BitLocker doesn't require
>>> a TPM chip. It will make use of one if one exists, but it's not required.
>>
>> So it's no better than FileVault on my Mac.
>
> FileVault and BitLocker have overlap, but FileVault only encrypts your home
> folder. BitLocker encrypts the entire disk.
Why would you want to encrypt the entire disk? Nobody should place sensitive
data outwith their home folder, so there's no point in encrypting everything.
--
Peter
Erik Funkenbusch
That depends. Is your /etc folder sensitive? Is your /System folder
sensitive? Is your /Application folder sensitive? I've seen lots of cases
where information is stored in configuration files in the app bundle.
Then let's consider daemons, like mysql. Are all your mysql databases
stored in your home directory? What about php in an apache site that may
contain passwords for and usernames for remote sites or databases?
You just inadvertantly gave the #1 reason for full disk encryption. You
simply don't know what is and isn't going to contain sensitive information.
Peter Hayes
(in article <1k4izlyqsdng4$.d...@funkenbusch.com>):
> On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 11:06:02 +0100, Peter Hayes wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 23:35:55 +0100, Erik Funkenbusch wrote
>> (in article <luoa6qd2...@funkenbusch.com>):
>>
>>> On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 13:01:18 +0100, Peter Hayes wrote:
>>>
>>>>> While that's not for certain, it doesn't matter. BitLocker doesn't
>>>>> require
>>>>> a TPM chip. It will make use of one if one exists, but it's not
>>>>> required.
>>>>
>>>> So it's no better than FileVault on my Mac.
>>>
>>> FileVault and BitLocker have overlap, but FileVault only encrypts your home
>>> folder. BitLocker encrypts the entire disk.
>>
>> Why would you want to encrypt the entire disk? Nobody should place
>> sensitive
>> data outwith their home folder, so there's no point in encrypting
>> everything.
>
> That depends. Is your /etc folder sensitive? Is your /System folder
> sensitive? Is your /Application folder sensitive? I've seen lots of cases
> where information is stored in configuration files in the app bundle.
All I've come across are a few application keys in their .plist file.
It's annoying if someone steals your key to an expensive app, but hardly
world shattering.
> Then let's consider daemons, like mysql. Are all your mysql databases
> stored in your home directory? What about php in an apache site that may
> contain passwords for and usernames for remote sites or databases?
>
> You just inadvertantly gave the #1 reason for full disk encryption. You
> simply don't know what is and isn't going to contain sensitive information.
Given the level of risk you suggest, it begs the question why Apple don't
include a whole disk encryption option.
--
Peter
Peter Hayes
(in article <87d5aam...@mail.com>):
> Actually, most sensitive data is stored outside of the home
> folder. Think real businesses with sensitive customer data. Where would
> apache store its databases? OK, you could have an apache "user", but
> generally you store data in /var or some such striped, fast, humongous
> mount.
I thought Bitlocker was being aimed particularly at laptop users, so if it
were stolen the thief would have considerable difficulty accessing sensitive
data.
Real businesses will store their sensitive customer data on secure servers
with controlled physical access (or they should...).
> I'd like to hear what yttrx has to say on this.
--
Peter
Peter Köhlmann
> True, but its not unreasonable for the HOME directories to reside on the
> same machine as the database.
>
What is hindering them to encrypt more than one directory?
--
Warning: You have moved the mouse.
Windows will reboot now to make the change permanent
Erik Funkenbusch
> I thought Bitlocker was being aimed particularly at laptop users, so if it
> were stolen the thief would have considerable difficulty accessing sensitive
> data.
That's one reason. Another reason is to protect desktops and servers from
physical access security issues.
> Real businesses will store their sensitive customer data on secure servers
> with controlled physical access (or they should...).
Perhaps. Maybe it's a developer machine, and he has a copy of the database
on there for testing purposes. Maybe it's an "offline" system where much
data is available because there's no easy way to connect to a remote
device.
I know lots of people who keep their ACT database on their laptop, for
instance.
Tim Smith
Peter Hayes <not_i...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Why would you want to encrypt the entire disk? Nobody should place sensitive
> data outwith their home folder, so there's no point in encrypting everything.
What about your swap files? On OS X, for example, they are in
/private/var/vm, which is outside your home folder.
--
--Tim Smith