Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 29th Jan 2010 16:26 UTC
Permalink for comment 406791
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 20:46 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 17:32 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2008-06-02
Bull, lazy developers are the ones who are at fault for not make sure there applications worked under regular user accounts on NT.
In that first point, you've revealed yourself as completely clueless. NT has had proper user-level security since its first release.
That statement is even more clueless than the last one, if that's possible. XP uses the exact same implementation of user accounts/security as all previous releases of NT. It wasn't crippled in any way, it only defaulted to an admin account (thanks all the software from lazy/incompetent devs who only tested their applications in Win9x or in admin accounts on NT).
Instead of making wild guesses, you could, oh, I don't know... try educating yourself? Even just ten minutes skimming the wikipedia "Windows NT" article would make you better informed than you are right now.