Myth - "The Windows Platform has more Security Vulnerabilities than the Linux/Unix Platform"
Reality - "Between January 2005 and December 2005 there were 5198 reported vulnerabilities: 812 Windows operating system vulnerabilities; 2328 Unix/Linux operating vulnerabilities; and 2058 Multiple operating system vulnerabilities" - Source-http://mywebpages.comcast.net/SupportCD/XPMyths.html
I specially like this one:Myth - "The Windows Platform has more Security Vulnerabilities than the Linux/Unix Platform"
Reality - "Between January 2005 and December 2005 there were 5198 reported vulnerabilities: 812 Windows operating system vulnerabilities; 2328 Unix/Linux operating vulnerabilities; and 2058 Multiple operating system vulnerabilities" - Source-http://mywebpages.comcast.net/SupportCD/XPMyths.html-jgpaiva (July 16, 2006, 06:20 AM)
Special AntiSpyware Hosts Files attempt to associate a known safe, numeric address with the names of sites you want to block. When the user or any process on the PC then tries to access a blocked site, it is instead directed to the safe location. This works as long as the site's numeric IP address never changes. But IP addresses do change and they're supposed to be able to. The Web operates via "dynamic" naming, where a human friendly name (www.google.com) is actually an alias for the real address, which is numeric. The numeric address can and will change from time to time as a site or server is moved or reconfigured.-Hosts File
The Hosts entry will permanently point them to a dead location!
People with out-of-date addresses hardwired into their Hosts File will no longer be able to connect to any site whose numeric address has changed.
It's almost impossible to update a Hosts file frequently enough to guard against all threats and even if you did, you'd probably also run into problems in accidentally blocking good sites that happened to move to new numeric addresses.
When cleaning Malware/Spyware from a PC, it is much easier to check a clean Hosts File then one filled with thousands of lines of addresses.
Notes - There is a much better solution for bad site blocking using SpywareBlaster which more intelligently use's Internet Explorer's built-in Zone Security settings and the registry.
Myth - "The Windows Platform has more Security Vulnerabilities than the Linux/Unix Platform"I hate when people quote stats like this. (The author, not here on DC.)
Reality - "Between January 2005 and December 2005 there were 5198 reported vulnerabilities: 812 Windows operating system vulnerabilities; 2328 Unix/Linux operating vulnerabilities; and 2058 Multiple operating system vulnerabilities" - Source-http://mywebpages.comcast.net/SupportCD/XPMyths.html
Myth - "The Windows Platform has more Security Vulnerabilities than the Linux/Unix Platform"I hate when people quote stats like this. (The author, not here on DC.)
Reality - "Between January 2005 and December 2005 there were 5198 reported vulnerabilities: 812 Windows operating system vulnerabilities; 2328 Unix/Linux operating vulnerabilities; and 2058 Multiple operating system vulnerabilities" - Source-http://mywebpages.comcast.net/SupportCD/XPMyths.html
2 points:
1 those are unix AND Linux OS vulnerabiliities. So I claim that Windows and Mac have more than OS/2. What the hell does that mean?
2 what that hell does Unix/Linux vulnerabilities mean? All of the software that runs on *nix included? Just the kernel? What?
That's like saying IE has less vulnerabilities that FF. On what OS?!!! FF supports several. IE only 1. Is that any kind of real comparison?
99% of all stats are made up on the fly....
Sorry for the rant. :-\-Rover (July 16, 2006, 12:35 PM)
I think also the key missing in that that myth is "exploit", a vunerability needs to be expoited, i.e Windows may have had less vunerabilities compared to every other Nix varient under the sun, but there a damn site easier to exploit.
But hey im an MS user, i like to be kept on my toes. ;D-mukestar (July 16, 2006, 08:17 PM)
my pc appears to working at the moment so i'll leave it well alone.
just when i thought it was time to stop believing in the myths. oh well, back to being confused and unsure of what to believe - just as well i can't really be bothered with all this tinkering - my pc appears to working at the moment so i'll leave it well alone.Well, those were the only two items I really disagree with :) - and leaving it alone if it works is probably a good idea. I've built up my collection of tweaks over several years, and merged them in my unattended XP setup CD. Otherwise I probably couldn't be bothered (but would swear at XP often ;)).-nudone (July 19, 2006, 02:35 PM)
And the only reason why there are more reported vulnerabilities for linux applications in the first place, is because they are easyer to spot, since it's all open source.That's not necessarily true... first of all there's (private) tools for finding exploits, appearantly some of them are pretty efficient. But even without such a tool and without source, it's not necessarily hard to find an exploit. I was chatting with a grey-hat friend of mine while he looked for holes in either AIM or Yahoo chat (can't remember which one). It took him between 30-60 minutes to find a 0-day exploit.
On linux they usually get spotted, reported, and fixed quite fast, which adds to the security.How long did the chunked-mode exploit exist in Apache before it was discovered? (Discovered by full-disclosure people, anyway ;) ).
Disk Defragmenter Partial
Myth - "The built-in Disk Defragmenter is good enough."
Reality - "This statement would be true if the built-in defragmenter was fast, automatic, and customizable. Unfortunately, the built-in defragmenter does not have any of these features. The built-in defragmenter takes many minutes to hours to run. It requires that you keep track of fragmentation levels, you determine when performance has gotten so bad you have to do something about it, and then you manually defragment each drive using the built-in defragmentation tool." - Source - Comparison Chart
Disk Defragmenter Limitations - "The Disk Defragmenter tool is based on the full retail version of Diskeeper by Executive Software International, Inc. The version that is included with Microsoft Windows 2000 and later provides limited functionality in maintaining disk performance by defragmenting volumes that use the FAT, the FAT32, or the NTFS file system. The XP version has the following limitations." - Source
- It can defragment only local volumes.
- It can defragment only one volume at a time.
- It cannot defragment one volume while scanning another.
- It cannot be easily scheduled without scripts or third party utilities
- It can run only one Microsoft Management Console (MMC) snap-in at a time.
It's a good list, for the most part, but I think he's a bit clueless when it comes to blocking malware with a hosts file.Not at all it is not necessary to use Hosts files to stop malware. I support thousands of clients ranging from home users to businesses and never use Hosts Files and never have any problems.-app103 (July 16, 2006, 11:26 AM)
You are supposed to use the localhost IP of 127.0.0.1 as the safe location. I have never known that to change when some other site changes their IP. It doesn't point google.com to Google's IP. It points BadMalwareSite.com to your own pc, where you are not likely to pick up a malware infection from.Not all Hosts files work this way. The one's you are referring to these do not apply to these specific issues.
That's the whole point to it! That's how it works!
How can localhost be out-of-date? It doesn't change. And how can pointing the domain name of a bad site to yourself block a good site with a different domain name that wouldn't be in your hosts file to begin with?
But since you are only redirecting the bad ones to yourself, the good ones are not affected by an IP change....they were never in your hosts file to begin with.-app103 (July 16, 2006, 11:26 AM)
He is only partially right there...you can't add entries fast enough to block all malware, nor can you ever know all of the possible ones you should block.That is not partially right that is RIGHT.-app103 (July 16, 2006, 11:26 AM)
How hard is it to open the Hosts file in Word (or a small free proggie like my AlphaSort (http://www.appsapps.info/alphasort.php)) and alphabetize the lines?Huh? So alphabetizing something with ten thousand entries makes it easy to check? What is easy to check is NOT having a Hosts File filled with ten thousand entries.-app103 (July 16, 2006, 11:26 AM)
All the malware entries will be the lines beginning with a different IP than 127.0.0.1 ...and they will either rise to the top, listed after the #comment lines, or drop to the bottom, when you alphabetize the whole list.What if malware adds good sites? This is very common with Malware that trys to stop you from cleaning it. Malware can do whatever it is programmed to, it does not follow any rules. Malware can also simply delete entries just as easily as it can add them.-app103 (July 16, 2006, 11:26 AM)
That only works for IE and IE based browsers, which even though they are the ones that end up being the cause/victim of spyware most of the time, it is theoretically possible to get an infection while using Firefox, Opera, or something else....and sooner or later you will start hearing of it happening.It also works for Firefox and there are no known instances of Malware in Opera.-app103 (July 16, 2006, 11:26 AM)
ActiveX isn't the only way malware gets onto a PC through a browser...Java & Flash are also exploitable paths to your PC.This simply requires having the latest version of Java and Flash. That is a more intelligent solution than trying to block all sites that have one of these exploits, which is impossible.-app103 (July 16, 2006, 11:26 AM)
There is one thing I have to say about a hosts file he didn't mention...and his SpywareBlaster solution would also fail miserably too. And that is in the case of scripts that reference an IP directly and not use a domain name at all.Fail misrebably? How so when I nor any of my clients get infected? The key is to provide practical security advice not ridiculous things like Hosts Files which is the equivalent of trying to kill all the ants in the world by stepping on them as fast as possible.-app103 (July 16, 2006, 11:26 AM)
And if you start adding IP's to your security zones, you will eventually end up in a similar hell to one he was warning you about, where websites you want to use end up not working right because their IP's may have changed to ones you added. And finding the IP in your registry that is the cause of a problem is tougher than you could imagine when you have a whole bunch in there. You would have to remove them all and add them back 1 at a time till you discovered the one that breaks the good site.IP's are not added to the security zone but domains.-app103 (July 16, 2006, 11:26 AM)
I have to say I have used the HOSTS file from mvps.org and it broke quite a lot of legitimate websites as well as the annoying ones. In the end I had to remove it and I now manage my own.-Carol
Humm, that article isn't entirely correct.No it is completly correct.-f0dder (July 19, 2006, 02:14 PM)
Disable the PagefileNo it doesn't. Windows only pages to disk when necessary. Turning off the Pagefile only disables paging to disk. Windows Simply creates a page file in RAM which takes RAM away from your applications. The Windows Memory Manager is very efficient. I have yet to see any documented reproduceable proof on a clean install of XP confirming these claims.
They claim that there's no performance benefit from disabling the paging file... well, that's not true. Windows tends to page out to disk in a lot of situations where it doesn't really make sense (partially because of badly designed usermode programs, though). So if you have plenty (at least a gig, 2gig preferred) you can avoid some needless paging by turning off the paging file. It's not a big improvement for most situations, but it does help a little.-f0dder (July 19, 2006, 02:14 PM)
Also note that this only works for XP, Windows 2000 and below require at least a minimal (~20meg) paging file, and will create one at boottime if you've disabled it.Yeah in RAM and multitasking performance will suffer.-f0dder (July 19, 2006, 02:14 PM)
The article also seems to confuse 80386 protected mode "virtual memory"/"paging" with the process of paging in/out from disk - just because 80386 paging is enabled doesn't mean you have to page (or swap) to disk.People confuse paging to disk with Virtual Memory, thus they think disabling paging to disk is disabling virtual memory.-f0dder (July 19, 2006, 02:14 PM)
Large System Cache TweakThis is not wrong and is plainly stated by Microsoft. So you are essentially calling Microsoft liars? I don't think so: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/895932
This tweak can be nice on Desktop machines, not just servers, depending on the way you use your system. For me this is a VERY nice tweak. It means that, for instance, when I've used nLite to create a slipstreamed install CD, once the files are prepared and I go to the ISO creation stage, almost all files will be in the filesystem cache, so almost all reads will go from memory instead of drive... lots faster.
but the changed pages occupy memory that might otherwise be used by applications is a moot point, since filesystem cache will always be dropped when applications request memory and there's currently not enough free memory. On workstations this increases paging and causes longer delays whenever you start a new app. is plainly wrong, there's actually a better chance of your .exe and .dlls being in memory (equals shorter loading time) if you have LargeSystemCache=1.-f0dder (July 19, 2006, 02:14 PM)
so in summary...
the hosts file is used for blocking domains you want no contact with, ever
firewall to block ip's you want no contact with, ever
and zones for sites & ip's you want contact with, but you want them to be broken.-app103 (July 16, 2006, 11:26 AM)
Wrong, on disk - easy to verify. And again, only 2k does this, XP doesn't. And again, no such thing as "paging file in RAM".Also note that this only works for XP, Windows 2000 and below require at least a minimal (~20meg) paging file, and will create one at boottime if you've disabled it.Yeah in RAM and multitasking performance will suffer.-f0dder (July 19, 2006, 02:14 PM)-Mastertech (October 10, 2006, 10:15 PM)
Some people do, I don't. x86 paging/virtual memory cannot be disable on windows, but the use of a paging file can (on XP). There's a big difference between "paging" (protected per-process virtual memory space) and the "paging file" (swap storage on disk).The article also seems to confuse 80386 protected mode "virtual memory"/"paging" with the process of paging in/out from disk - just because 80386 paging is enabled doesn't mean you have to page (or swap) to disk.People confuse paging to disk with Virtual Memory, thus they think disabling paging to disk is disabling virtual memory.-f0dder (July 19, 2006, 02:14 PM)-Mastertech (October 10, 2006, 10:15 PM)
Mastertech: I have to wonder if you're a troll or just dull. Windows will never ever "create a paging file in memory", and such a term doesn't even make any sense at all. The only thing that can happen from disabling the paging file is that you might run out of memory, and some greedy application will be denied a memory request.Disable paging to disk, reboot and look at the Task Manager, Performance Tab. Oh and I have already corrected you on your incorrect advice on LargeSystemCache.-f0dder (October 10, 2006, 04:54 PM)
Look at process explorer from sysinternals which has the real name for the value: "commit". The read up "Inside Windows 2000" (or Windows Internals as the more recent version is called) to get an idea of how the windows memory management works.Mastertech: I have to wonder if you're a troll or just dull. Windows will never ever "create a paging file in memory", and such a term doesn't even make any sense at all. The only thing that can happen from disabling the paging file is that you might run out of memory, and some greedy application will be denied a memory request.Disable paging to disk, reboot and look at the Task Manager, Performance Tab.-f0dder (October 10, 2006, 04:54 PM)-Mastertech (October 10, 2006, 06:02 PM)
Oh and I have already corrected you on your incorrect advice on LargeSystemCache.Nope :)-Mastertech (October 10, 2006, 06:02 PM)
Try doing disk-cache intensive stuff in a large-memory system and you'll see what I mean. The Microsoft cautions in the knowledge-base article you refer to apply to low-memory systems. The default windows 2k/xp memory management settings might have been fitting for ~128meg machines, but are a bit conservative for modern machines.The knowledgebase article (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/895932) makes no mention of less than 128 MB machines and specifically states the following:
Do keep in mind that the filesystem cache is dynamic, and will thus be adjusted depending on full system needs. LargeSystemCache simply means than, on a large-memory machine, your RAM won't be wasted.
System cache mode is designed for use with Windows server products that act as servers. System cache mode is also designed for limited use with Windows XP, when you use Windows XP as a file server. This mode is not designed for everyday desktop use. If you use a server product as a desktop, you should consider changing the resource allocation to Programs mode or adding more physical RAM.
When you enable System cache mode on a computer that uses Unified Memory Architecture (UMA)-based video hardware or an Accelerated Graphics Port (AGP), you may experience a severe and random decrease in performance. For example, this decrease in performance can include very slow system performance, stop errors, an inability to start the computer, devices or applications that do not load, and system instability.
The drivers for these components consume a large part of the remaining application memory when they are initialized during startup. Also, in this scenario, the system may have insufficient RAM when the following conditions occur:
• Other drivers and desktop user services request additional resources.
• Desktop users transfer large files.
Increasing the size of the file system cache generally improves server performance, but it reduces the physical memory space available to applications and services. Similarly, writing system data less frequently minimizes use of the disk subsystem, but the changed pages occupy memory that might otherwise be used by applications.
0 = Establishes a standard size file-system cache of approximately 8 MB. The system allows changed pages to remain in physical memory until the number of available pages drops to approximately 1,000. This setting is recommended for servers running applications that do their own memory caching, such as Microsoft SQL Server, and for applications that perform best with ample memory, such as Internet Information Services (IIS).
1 = Establishes a large system cache working set that can expand to physical memory, minus 4 MB, if needed. The system allows changed pages to remain in physical memory until the number of available pages drops to approximately 250. This setting is recommended for most computers running Windows Server 2003 on large networks.
This tweak can be nice on Desktop machines, not just servers, depending on the way you use your system.-f0dder (July 19, 2006, 02:14 PM)
Microsoft target their knowledgebase articles at the general masses and the general needs. Now let me quote myself, this time with a bit of emphasis: This tweak can be nice on Desktop machines, not just servers, depending on the way you use your system.No they clearly explain how something works and what it is for. This tweak is ONLY for if you use your machine as a File Server. The reason is it will consume up to 80% of your RAM with the file cache thus forcing the working set down on running applications and causing more paging. The absolute last thing you should do with large applications that need more RAM like Adobe Photoshop is limit how much RAM the application has available. Adobe is well aware of the default memory situation in XP and is designed to cache what it needs. Increasing paging because you constrained the available memory for applications is a bad idea.-f0dder (October 11, 2006, 09:25 AM)
No they clearly explain how something works and what it is for. This tweak is ONLY for if you use your machine as a File Server. The reason is it will consume up to 80% of your RAM with the file cache thus forcing the working set down on running applications and causing more paging.filesystem cache will be purged if needed. While windows does use the paging file when not needed, it will still prefer to resize FS cache before paging out to disk.
Please quote and post from what page in the WinInternals book that says this setting is recommended for applications or desktop use in XP. And I mean this exact setting LargeSystemCache. If it doesn't or you don't have the latest version of the book don't tell me to read something you are guessing at.It doesn't mention LargeSystemCache, but it describes how the windows memory system works, how the filesystem cache works, how paging works, et cetera.
It doesn't mention LargeSystemCache, but it describes how the windows memory system works, how the filesystem cache works, how paging works, et cetera.Therefore the book is irrelevant to this setting. If the book does not describe how the FS cache works or Windows Memory in direct relation to this setting your argument is moot. Microsoft clearly documents this setting and what it should be used for, which is only if you use Windows as a pure file server not as a workstation or application server.-f0dder (October 12, 2006, 02:18 AM)
Whatever, I'm not going to waste any more time on you. People can try out the settings for themselves and judge whether it works for them or not.Yes please don't waste anymore time NOT being able to provide a single reputable source to back up your claims. Microsoft clearly documents how this setting works and what it should be used for, which is ONLY for use as a file server. This is not something that is an opinion, it is about how something clearly works. Enabling this setting increases the size of the file cache to 80% of available RAM, which reduces the amount of RAM available for your applications, which reduces their working set and increases paging when running applications. Anyone who uses their PC for anything other then a pure file server should NOT enable this setting.-f0dder (October 13, 2006, 03:31 AM)
Remember, folks...this is the same Microsoft that brought you things like WinME...which even they have never had any clue on how to make it stable. ;DWindows ME was more stable than 98 since that is what it was based on. It simply required ME compatible drivers and Bioses. During the time ME was released, mainboard manufacturing moved over to mainland china, we saw the beginning of the capacitor fiasco and people were trying to install Win9x drivers on ME. There was nothing inherently unstable about ME, no more than 98. It was not Microsoft making ME unstable but the end users and the hardware. Both of which are obsolete and don't hold a candle to 2000 and XP.-app103 (October 13, 2006, 06:43 AM)
Remember, folks...this is the same Microsoft that brought you things like WinME...which even they have never had any clue on how to make it stable. ;DWindows ME was more stable than 98 since that is what it was based on. It simply required ME compatible drivers and Bioses. During the time ME was released, mainboard manufacturing moved over to mainland china, we saw the beginning of the capacitor fiasco and people were trying to install Win9x drivers on ME. There was nothing inherently unstable about ME, no more than 98. It was not Microsoft making ME unstable but the end users and the hardware. Both of which are obsolete and don't hold a cadle to 2000 and XP.-app103 (October 13, 2006, 06:43 AM)-Mastertech (October 13, 2006, 06:48 AM)
Then you should have contacted the vendor and had them give you working systems with compatible ME drivers and hardware. BSODs are clear sign of a hardware/driver incompatibility. If you think for a minute ME just caused random BSODs then you have no business giving anyone advice. Yes we saw initial compatibility issues with drivers and Bioses but we got them resolved by demanding updates from the hardware vendors who fixed the problems and the clients never saw any problems because of it. I sold thousands of ME systems the year it was out before XP was released and tech support was down 25% because of it.Remember, folks...this is the same Microsoft that brought you things like WinME...which even they have never had any clue on how to make it stable. ;DWindows ME was more stable than 98 since that is what it was based on. It simply required ME compatible drivers and Bioses. During the time ME was released, mainboard manufacturing moved over to mainland china, we saw the beginning of the capacitor fiasco and people were trying to install Win9x drivers on ME. There was nothing inherently unstable about ME, no more than 98. It was not Microsoft making ME unstable but the end users and the hardware. Both of which are obsolete and don't hold a cadle to 2000 and XP.-app103 (October 13, 2006, 06:43 AM)-Mastertech (October 13, 2006, 06:48 AM)
Back in the day my school bought 20 new boxes from a big vendor with pre-installed WinME with only WinME drivers... after a month, it contacted Microsoft and got all the WinME licenses swapped for win98. The amount of BSODs simply was too much.-f0dder (October 13, 2006, 06:51 AM)
Remember, folks...this is the same Microsoft that brought you things like WinME...which even they have never had any clue on how to make it stable. ;DWindows ME was more stable than 98 since that is what it was based on. It simply required ME compatible drivers and Bioses. During the time ME was released, mainboard manufacturing moved over to mainland china, we saw the beginning of the capacitor fiasco and people were trying to install Win9x drivers on ME. There was nothing inherently unstable about ME, no more than 98. It was not Microsoft making ME unstable but the end users and the hardware. Both of which are obsolete and don't hold a cadle to 2000 and XP.-app103 (October 13, 2006, 06:43 AM)-Mastertech (October 13, 2006, 06:48 AM)
ROFLMAO - you serious! Even MS abandonned ME and recommended users with win98 stay with it. They didn't even run through the usual lifecycle process for a new OS.Where did Microsoft recommend users stay with Win98? Please post your source. Microsoft retired 98 and ME at the same time since XP was already out. Since 98 and ME are so similar (ME is simply a newer version of 98) it makes no sense to keep supporting ME when you drop support for 98. I here alot of this nonsense online as everyone just fabricates things about ME.-Carol Haynes (October 13, 2006, 11:59 AM)
I purchased notebooks with each of the o/s's mentioned above (98SE, ME, 2k, XP Pro and XP Home) preinstalled (and desktops with 98 and 98SE), all labelled with the "Designed for Win [version here]" label attached, at least a year after the OS was released. I would rank ME far below the others in terms of stability. Whether these were driver compatibiltiy issues or not is irrelevant. As an end-user (and not a system administrator/techie) ME was a nightmare. All I did was install Office 2k on my ME system (which came with ME preinstalled and all the drivers were ME certified from the OEM - Compaq) and use it for light word processing and e-mail/net surfing, and it blue screened a lot more often than 98. So much so that I was leary of newer windows versions and stuck with the 98SE machine before discovering that 2k was a quantum leap over both in terms of stability. I switched to Win2k late in 2001 and finally bought my first XP Pro machine in March 2004. I'd rank 2k slightly ahead of XP Pro/Home for stability and speed, with XP far ahead of 98/98SE and ME dead last with a comfortable gap separating it from 98. I still use the original 98 machine, which has been upgraded to W2k, and it is ROCK solid (remarkable for a notebook that is 6 1/2 years old). The ME machine, too, shines with Win2k installed and is still in service with my sister, who uses it in exactly the capacity I had envisioned for myself when I bought it (light office duty and e-mail/Internet). I've numerous friends that had the same experience with ME preinstalled on notebooks/desktops from major manufacturers. The two XP machines see the most use now and are very solid, though I remain convinced (and it's a gut feeling only) that the Win2k machines (which saw two years service with me before I moved on to XP) were less susceptible to blue screening.If you have a BSOD it clearly tells you the error, of which you can determine what hardware device or driver is the cause. Any BSOD's due to bugs in ME are documented in Microsoft's Knowledgebase and patched. The rest were all caused by Hardware and Driver issues. 98 should never BSOD either if you have working hardware and drivers. This is a very common logical fallacy with people blaming Microsoft for their problems.
Just my 2 bits - an end-user's perspective.-Darwin (October 13, 2006, 12:31 PM)
I read it somewhere a number of years ago - unfortunately I haven't got a photographic memory and I can't bothered looking for it. It was certainly the advice on MS forums from MVPs providing consumer support.MVPs are not Microsoft employees. The fact is Microsoft never made any such statement.-Carol Haynes (October 13, 2006, 01:44 PM)
The main point is that the life cycle of ME was significantly shorter than 98 - and given that MS work on a fixed number of years support cycles I think that is a significant statement about their feelings on the viability of ME. It was also slated in just about every computer mag in the world when it was released for its apalling stability issues.ME was just discontinued this year. That follows the standard 5 year product life cycle. The fact is 98's lifecycle was extended. I already explained why it made no sense to extend ME beyond the standard 5 years. And no it was not stated in every computer mag about ME having "apalling stability issues". Maximum PC was recommending ME before XP came out. Any rational PC magazine did the same thing (ones that understand the real cause of problems).-Carol Haynes (October 13, 2006, 01:44 PM)
You should NEVER get a BSOD! If you do something is WRONG! And it needs to be fixed. I can't believe people just continue to use PCs that have problems thinking it is the OS. I work on machines and can tell instantly when something is wrong. People just reboot and curse Microsoft. I meet people all the time that are using PCs with defective RAM, failing HDs, defective Mainboards, are Virus/Malware infected ect... Hardly the fauly of Microsoft and the OS.
If I get a BSOD something's wrong? Really? Thanks for the insight... You've completely missed my point, which was not that I was whinging about BSOD in XP being the fault of MS but rather that under ME with certified drivers my notebook was simply not stable. This suggests to me that there were serious problems with ME that cannot be explained away by incompatibilities between my OS and the device drivers that I was using. I got BSOD with my notebook out of the box. Regarding BSOD under XP, I rarely get them - I simply noted that it seems to happen more often than under Win2k. When I do get a BSOD under XP, I note the error code, research it, and fix the problem.If you were getting a BSOD in ME "out of the box" then something was wrong with either your hardware or a device driver period. I guarantee you that all the drivers were not certified. The cause could have also been a BIOS incompatibility or defective or misconfigured hardware. What was wrong with your notebook in ME was explained away in the BSOD you were getting. That is how they work. There were no "serious issues" with ME except with people who didn't understand the nature of a problem. Time and time again I saw people loading Windows 98 and even worse 95 drivers in ME and then complaining that ME was unstable. I saw people overclocking, using Beta Drivers, having infected machines you name it the cause was never some impossible problem with ME.
Anyway, I respectfully disagree with you about ME in particular, but agree with you about BSOD in general. This discussion needs to move on.-Darwin (October 13, 2006, 03:34 PM)
Win95 is good
Win98 is better
WinMe is even better
Win2000 is close to the best
and
WinXp is the best
Win95 is good
Win98 is better
WinMe is even better
Win2000 is close to the best
and
WinXp is the best
Because they are all from MS, they are perfect!
When MS come up with service patches for any of the above, they are all mean to correct bugs or problems in hardware drivers from the hardware manufacturers, it is their fault not MS's
If you get BSOD, blame the hardware manufacturer like Acer, NVidia, Intel and so on or at least blame yourself for not understanding what the message on a BSOD is trying to tell you...
Technically, let's say you get N BSOD on WinXX using machine A and M BSOD from WinYY using machine B, you may take A and B as factors which contribute to N and M but please DO NOT take XX or YY into account, they are suppose to be exempted.
In brief, the whole world can be wrong except MS, especially when O/S is concerned!
If you don't agree with me for the above, the fault could only be yours not mine.
I am sorry for wasting anyone's time to read till this point... :)
IMHO, this is the perfect point to close the thread!-tslim (October 13, 2006, 11:07 PM)
I have a stable ME box in the other room. Part of the trick to making it stable was NOT using the WinME drivers that were supplied by Microsoft.That has nothing to do with it. There were no stability issues with the drivers Microsoft supplied with ME so long as you were using the exact hardware they were written for. In the end it is simply a matter of getting the correct Windows ME certified drivers for your hardware WHQL being the best.
It runs much better with Win95 drivers supplied by the hardware manufacturers. :D-app103 (October 14, 2006, 01:24 AM)
Exactly right app103. The high and mighty myth of using "correct" drivers is nonsense and what has giving WinME a bad name since it is not universal solution.Using correct Windows ME drivers is the solution to any DRIVER related problems. Not all problems people were having were driver related. Some were BIOS related others were damaged or misconfigured hardware.-dk70 (October 14, 2006, 03:37 AM)
Especially gamers will know this. You can do all the right things but it still blows (blew?) WinME WDM drivers were cool for office computers, not for gamers. I once spend a day testing a soundcard. Worked Mastertechnially perfect with MS supplied WDM drivers, computer could even go to sleep and wake up again. Too bad games were unplayable. Big fps loss and poor audio. Solution was to use Win98 VXD drivers - yummy. Very hard to make that driver change btw, WinME/MS insisted on WDM drivers, had to do some hacking I think. WDM were automatically installed during boot, had to delete some inf-file or something. Can look it up. Card was Creative SB10, I seem to remember SBlive card was in more or less same mess at some point. There are similar stories where user were forced to either live with situation, wait for driver solution (may be it will never come) or start to tweak away. Has been feeding WinME hate for years.Creative Labs has long ago addressed any issues with their drivers for ME. But you have to remember that the WDM drivers were written by Creative Labs any performance issues you may have seen were their fault NOT Microsoft's or ME. Gamers are notorious for not understanding the root of the problem and misplacing blame. If you use a hacked 98 driver in ME and have ANY issues the problem is YOUR FAULT.-dk70 (October 14, 2006, 03:37 AM)
OS buyers are not happy about having to tune a freshly released OS. Driver hunting/testing not quality time for majority either. Many really should not touch - will go wrong! Does not help to say they did not have to. Whole WinME problem comes from going by the book yet solution is a pain and possibly risky. Some people just expect things to work out of the box even if it has Microsoft written all over it 8)Tuning and resolving issues are two different things. Out of the box the PC and OS should be error free. Tuning for maximum performance is a separate issue and not one that the OEM is required to address, unless of course you are buying from an OEM that specializes in high performance rigs.-dk70 (October 14, 2006, 03:37 AM)
Hi, I see you wisely say goodbye to Mastertech. Just to make sure and to prevent future damage, you do know who he is right? Try Google if not. Banned from tons of tech forums due to spamming, manipulation of quotes, forum rules, facts and generally being a pain in the butt. Last week he got kicked out of Avast forum of all places, list is never ending. Even has a website dedicated to him http://nanobox.chipx86.com/FirefoxFables/ about his favorite topic which he have no idea about.
If you get the idea all it takes is cool facts think again. If lucky he will simply ignore you. Somehow I doubt many DC members are interesting to his black/white/myth logic but dont forget you have no idea what he can make you do
The regular annoying clown X 10 = Mastertech.-anonymous
I suggest all the rest of you stop wasting time on this troll as well... I got a nice privmsg from another member, which I hope he won't mind me quoting anonymously.I know who you got that from too. Fodder just because you are unable to back up anything you claim does not mean you are allowed to try and discredit me as a troll. You posted two disputes with the XP Myths page, I posted multiple sources stating clearly that you are wrong and you are unable to provide a single one. This is not my problem nor does it warrant some personal attack to save face.-f0dder (October 14, 2006, 07:43 PM)
Oh and I was not kicked off the Avast Forums. I have also not been banned from tons of forums. And please read www.FirefoxFables.com (http://www.firefoxfables.com) not that this has anything to do with Firefox Myths but at least it confirms where you got your PM from. Calling me a troll and trying to attack me personally doesn't change any of the facts on how these features work in XP.Hi, I see you wisely say goodbye to Mastertech. Just to make sure and to prevent future damage, you do know who he is right? Try Google if not. Banned from tons of tech forums due to spamming, manipulation of quotes, forum rules, facts and generally being a pain in the butt. Last week he got kicked out of Avast forum of all places, list is never ending. Even has a website dedicated to him http://nanobox.chipx86.com/FirefoxFables/ about his favorite topic which he have no idea about.
If you get the idea all it takes is cool facts think again. If lucky he will simply ignore you. Somehow I doubt many DC members are interesting to his black/white/myth logic but dont forget you have no idea what he can make you do
The regular annoying clown X 10 = Mastertech.-anonymous-f0dder (October 14, 2006, 07:43 PM)
I only have one thing to add: http://www.google.com/search?q=mastertech+troll :-*Of course you do, instead of a single source to back up any of your claims.-f0dder (October 14, 2006, 08:04 PM)
I dont like spreading false information of course. If the good Avast people indeed did not ban you Im sorry for getting that impression. 8)So then why bring it up? It has nothing to do with the topic except attempt to undermind my credibility. Myth topics are controversial because people do not want to accept the reality especially when they can't back up how they "think" something works.-dk70 (October 14, 2006, 08:59 PM)
From Avast forum. Lets take Administrator first - replaced Mastertech mythical words with these (in big red letters):Like I said I'm not banned from these forums. The Avast forums has a few delusional Firefox Fanatics who are obsessed with the browser and cannot handle a rational discussion of it. This is not my problem. None of which changes the facts that were presented.
ADMIN WARNING: Mastertech, that was the last time you posted here the flame bait. Next time you're getting permaban.
Others: Don't feed the troll.-dk70 (October 14, 2006, 08:59 PM)
Lots more but no need since there is living proof right here... This is the true internet story http://nanobox.chipx86.com/FirefoxFables/Proof from who? David Hammond? The most rabid Firefox Fanboy in existence? You mean the one that when you visited his site in Internet Explorer you received a Window warning you of how dangerous it was to use Internet Explorer? Like I said please do read: www.FirefoxFables.com (http://www.firefoxfables.com).-dk70 (October 14, 2006, 08:59 PM)
Also use Google to refresh real life WinME problems from real life users next time you look yourself up Mastertech - this is very old news/facts. The WinME hate which has annoyed me since long is understandable from a consumers point of view - most are consumers. If you insist I can look up my SB10 story - I was gamer, I understood problem with certified by MICROSOFT and automatically installed wdm-drivers and I fixed it with older Win98 version. WDM drivers were cpu hogging and hopeless at the time - but as said computer could go into standby and wakeup. Ideal for 1000s of client machines right? And who needs more than 1 reputable source.Refresh myself with what? That the majority of people do not now what they are doing? How is that news? I deal with consumers daily, irrational fear and fud simply spreads like wildfire online. What does that prove? Nothing. All that matters in the end is the truth. Gamers are the worst, they jump to irrational conclusions before anyone and most barely have the technical knowledge to properly install a soundcard. They jump on forum post bandwagons no matter what the source and just spread nonsense even faster. The facts of your problem do not change. The driver issue is purely a creative labs one and has nothing to do with Microsoft of ME. Creative Labs does not have a great track record with drivers.-dk70 (October 14, 2006, 08:59 PM)
Compared to Win98 ME was close to waste of time - or buying time from MS perspective. Not much value for money, also adds to negative ME-vibes. Not much to see or like.Why because you had one alleged PERFORMANCE issue (long ago resolved) with a creative labs driver in ME when it came out? The DEFAULT WDM driver was written by CREATIVE LABS! Why did you not slam them? Or did they cop out and blame ME too? This is the typical knee-jerk reaction from people when they have any issue. Not to mention this in no way relates to XP Myths or the original mention of ME as being "unstable". You need to learn how to identify who is at fault and who is to blame.-dk70 (October 14, 2006, 08:59 PM)
Remember, folks...this is the same Microsoft that brought you things like WinME...which even they have never had any clue on how to make it stable. ;D-app103 (October 13, 2006, 06:43 AM)
I suggest you check out F0dders link before you get impressed with "knowledge". And re-read this thread again nudone, obvious who is attacking who and most definitely who is for the xxxxth twisting argumentes and stated facts, like my poor old certified by Microsoft WDM driver. Point is there is no room for disagreement with this guy, exactly the point. Check F0dders tons of links again, same story everywhere. Impressed with his spamming to own site and linkage to his many "sources" is irelevant, or should be. The old wise man approach dont work either. You do realize Im now supposed to explain why WinME gave problems to many unknowlegable users (including myself of course) and explain their knee-jerk reactions, right? We are now not focusing on the WinME release, driver support, need for WinME, history of WinME etc. but stupid crybabies on forum. Of course we are. Can you spot the tactics by any chance? If you dont wish to take sides then dont.Funny I can't find any links from Fodder to back up his dispute with the XP Myths page, he mentioned a book that doesn't even mention the setting he was referring to by his own admission. Yet I provide direct links to Microsoft Knowledgebase articles and those are to be just brushed aside?-dk70 (October 15, 2006, 06:06 AM)
Only people Ive ever seen padding his back are those who live out their inner troll through him or somehow see entertainment value in a thread/debate which ALWAYS will digress into this. And so he eventually end up with warnings and bans - 1+1 is 2. Simply stating facts which can be verified.What is you obsession with labeling me as a "troll", actually Fodder started that when he couldn't defend his argument and resorted to stating that Microsoft does not know what it is talking about with it's own operating systems. I think it is sad that once you get beat in the technical argument you choose to try and personally attack someone.-dk70 (October 15, 2006, 06:06 AM)
I just gave you direct qoutes from ADM and Moderator from Avast forum Mastertech. Zig-zag away, these are the facts. If I bothered I could find many more of same type but your breaking of every forum rule imaginable and general behavior is fully documented. I doubt very much ADM here should give thumbs up to that.The moderators at the Avast Forums don't know how to moderate, instead of removing the personal attacks posts they resorted to deleting all of mine. That is not how you moderate, you don't punish the victim simply because a few people don't like you. Please look for more if you are so confident. You have already made these unsubstantiated claims. What is "breaking a forum fule"? Posting or replying to a topic and then trying to rationally discuss it? Or is it clearly explaining how a feature of XP works with documented sources? Please tell me what that is? Apparently slandering someone by labeling them a troll and then making more slanderous statements you are unable to substantiate is "within forum rules". Why are so afraid of hearing what I have to say? Why are all the Firefox Fanboys so afraid? That is the real question.-dk70 (October 15, 2006, 06:06 AM)
I dont think I should talk about another forum member like this - unless Im right.How much money do I win if I bet you use Firefox?-dk70 (October 15, 2006, 06:06 AM)
My other link is outdated yet show enough, more forums have him in "banned" group now.How many is that? Why not actually do the math instead of making sweeping statements attempting to imply I have been banned at all these forums when I haven't. I am not even banned at Avast were you incorrectly have already claimed.-dk70 (October 15, 2006, 07:13 AM)
Am I blind or did f0dder edit/delete one of his post? I send him a PM which he quoted here.Probably just like how you just assumed I am banned from all these forums like some Firefox Fanboy said, you didn't check before you made the statement.-dk70 (October 15, 2006, 07:13 AM)
Which is only reason why I jumped in - would love not to. As said ALWAYS the same outcome. I told him not to go infight with this dude because that and link-spamming is only motive as has been seen on majority of all techy sites you know of!Spamming? That is odd because I did not post this topic here. My "motive" is to educate people on these Myths and for some reason I still don't know why, try to get people to stop slowing their systems down. Mainly because I can't stand misinformation.-dk70 (October 15, 2006, 07:13 AM)
For years even, hence the milelong list of bans and warnings.Years? Milelong list of bans and Warnings? Please provide evidence of this.-dk70 (October 15, 2006, 07:13 AM)
Again stating facts anyone can verify, not personal attacks.Yes it is a personal attack since my whole discussion has been technical in nature not why you argued about something you don't understand (Windows Prefetching) at the Avast Forums.-dk70 (October 15, 2006, 07:13 AM)
Not relevant - or is it? His last trick, as you can see, is just to turn all arguments into "personal attacks" which he then expect to be saved from. Might even turn to moderator asking for help! Same old MT game. Anyway, feel free to quote it again f0dder, all considered I couldnt care less - though next time ask first. Not entirely pleased seeing my PM in public, ok exception from the rule though.I'm really confused here, so calling me a "Troll" is what? Please explain this. My question is why you PMed Fodder some slanderous BS about a topic we are not even talking about?-dk70 (October 15, 2006, 07:13 AM)
True about Avast ADM and moderators - they should have banned you long ago. I told you they would already in 2005! Can see it miles away. Sadly you have the ability to drag some down to your level, possibly getting them into trouble, and generally taking advantage of the "good spirit", like here. Why my PM to f0dder which I sensed where obvious target since he dont submit and know too much...What should they have banned me for? Posting facts about Firefox that you don't like? If dragging people down to my "level" of Windows Knowledge is what you call, then that is an accomplishement.-dk70 (October 15, 2006, 07:13 AM)
Opposite you MT I did investigate features and details of prefetching, only you make a big deal of it. I gave you links to plenty of MS sources even.You crack me up, please post where you gave me these "links". And why you endlessly argued something you had no understanding of. If I recall you even refused to test it. Let I remind you CCleaner did exactly what I recommended and removed the useless "Old Prefetching Option" for the reasons I clearly stated. If it was no big deal they would have done nothing of the sort.-dk70 (October 15, 2006, 07:13 AM)
I would like to thank the "MasterTech" guy and the site administration for giving me that extra oomph to decide not to donate or return to this site. This thread has more than inspired this set of actions and the fact that it has been allowed to survive this long. I've sat in the shadows for about the past 3 weeks reading these forums and the fact that this thread has been allowed to continue for as long as it has and the long time members bad mouthed publicly rather than nailing the root of the problem in this thread, is the nail in the coffin to me.
Administrator, what is your direct email address so that I can send you more details as to why I will not be returning nor will I be recommending the site to others.
In closing, you have an OK site, but any site that places more value on trying to win over the "unchangable" user and what should be "Intolerable" comments and flaming over the value of its long time members is not a place I want to be a part of.
Thanks
YouCantCountTo5
Shaun Costello
Phoenix AZ-YouCantCountTo5 (October 15, 2006, 10:59 AM)
I tried very hard to resist replying to mastertech's attacks on my point of view, and instead tried to lighten up the mood of this thread twice, with humor.This is what you do not understand they are not "points of view" they are factually incorrect statements. A point of view is that you like orange juice better than cranberry juice. How a feature or setting works in Windows is not a "point of view".-app103 (October 15, 2006, 12:17 PM)
Yeah... I'm actually one of the long-term site members that rose to Mastertech's bait but I escaped Mouser's censure...There is no "bait". You implications towards me are as wrong as your understanding of Windows. I don't post something to "bait you". I post something to correct what you did not understand and you made factually incorrect statements. You "baited yourself". Don't post something blatantly incorrect and I will not respond to it. But since you just did by claiming I "baited" anybody I must again respond to clear that up.-Darwin (October 15, 2006, 12:51 PM)
I don't see a problem with how mouser has handled the situation and haven't taken any insult. I'm used to deal with much worse trolls like ***** (my own censure there). Personally I would probably have locked the thread, and looking at the track record MasterTech has, would have banned him.First of all Fodder you still have not supplied ONE SOURCE to back up either of your incorrect claims. Why is that? And why have you now turned this into a personal attack on me? Simply it is the only way you think you can win the argument. I have no track record, except for being accurate about what I state. Of course you want me banned so their is no one to challenge you on things you cannot back up.-f0dder (October 15, 2006, 05:02 PM)
I'm going to be 100% honest though and say that I believe MasterTech is a annoying little troll and that I'd kick him in the stomach if I met him face-to-face... and yes mouser, I'll have some chocolate and cola now ;)Of course you do because I asked you to prove what you can't. It is much easier to call me a troll than to provide proof. But I am not falling for it and never will. I wonder how much other incorrect information you provide here?-f0dder (October 15, 2006, 05:02 PM)