http://www.osnews.com/story/16110/Myths_Regarding_Windows_XP_Debunked Exploring the Future of Computing en-us Copyright 2001-2009, David Adams adam+nospam@osnews.com Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:47:27 GMT http://www.osnews.com/images/osnews.gif http://www.osnews.com http://osnews.com/thread?169977 http://osnews.com/thread?169977 This is the same source as the Firefox Myths guy, and this has been a source of conflict on OSNews before: http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=13439

However, this page of his doesn't seem to be as angry at anything, and the one-sided distortions on the above page don't seem to be carried over to this page. It has some information that less-experienced computer users may not know. I don't think every point he makes is valid, most differences of opinions I have with the content are minor. Mon, 09 Oct 2006 17:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (markjensen) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?169979 http://osnews.com/thread?169979 This guide and ALL versions thereof are protected by copyright under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). what an ass, really. Mon, 09 Oct 2006 17:51:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Matzon) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?169981 http://osnews.com/thread?169981 dos games There are several games that dont work in dos, why else would dosbox even exist?

firewall The windows firewall is NOT 'enough' - why else did they upgrade it in vista? Mon, 09 Oct 2006 17:57:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Matzon) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?169983 http://osnews.com/thread?169983 I wouldn't have called the Firefox review 'biased' - it simply points out the myths that have been spread about Firefox.

At the end of the day, debunking the myths has nothing to do with whether a product is good or bad, but simply ensuring that the reasons for moving to a given application or operating system is done on tangiable facts rather than old wives stories and hearsay from the rumour mill.

There have been myths spread about Internet Explorer,Opera, various Microsoft Office components, and Windows Vista - if he launched into every product myth out there, I'd think he would run out of pesonal webspace given out plentiful the myths are out there. Mon, 09 Oct 2006 18:05:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (kaiwai) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?169987 http://osnews.com/thread?169987 Because in the country I live in we do not have a DMCA. Conclusively his guide is protected by "Urheberrecht = creators right".

Fair use like citing from it is allowed.

If he wants to have his work "protected by copyright under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)", he'd better make sure it cannot be published outside the USA. Mon, 09 Oct 2006 18:10:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (gustl) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?169988 http://osnews.com/thread?169988 "233 MHz CPU (300 MHz Recommended) *
128 MB Recommended (64 MB of RAM minimum supported, limits performance and some features) *
1.5 GB of available hard disk space *"


Don't make me LAUGH. It's true however that windows doesn't need a powerful pc to run - because it has been 5 years since xp was released, and even the cheaper new pcs can run xp. But 233 MHz and 128/64 MB of RAM? Please...



"Reality - "Many MS-DOS-based games will run on Windows XP"

Reality: XP doesn't has MS-DOS, the msdos in XP is just an emulator and will never be 100% compatible with msdos games. The Vmware server is free and even with the performance disadvantage of virtualized environments any modern computer has enought power to make msdos games fly on vmware. Mon, 09 Oct 2006 18:14:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (diegocg) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?169992 http://osnews.com/thread?169992 Even if some of his points may be at least open for discussion, I am glad that he debunked most of the XP "optimization" myths. Inexperienced users rely on these utilities and often install (and even pay for them) crapload of various "optimizers" that promise ZOMG 400+ per cent speed increase and better sex, actually bogging the performance down.Edited 2006-10-09 18:19 Mon, 09 Oct 2006 18:19:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (stooovie) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?169994 http://osnews.com/thread?169994 @diegocg

Don't make me LAUGH. It's true however that windows doesn't need a powerful pc to run - because it has been 5 years since xp was released, and even the cheaper new pcs can run xp. But 233 MHz and 128/64 MB of RAM? Please...

My home server was Windows XP running on P200MMX with 128megs, Matrox Mystique 4megs and a 6.4Gigs HD. I later added another 128megs from other people's spare parts. eMule and BitTorrent running 24H/7D. Wasn't lightning fast, but stuff got downloaded. Mon, 09 Oct 2006 18:30:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (ronaldst) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?169997 http://osnews.com/thread?169997 "Myth - "It is impossible or difficult to secure Windows XP from Spyware, Malware or Viruses."

and then links to this.

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/SupportCD/SecureXP.html Mon, 09 Oct 2006 18:49:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (cyclops) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?169998 http://osnews.com/thread?169998 This is actually the first webpage I have ever seen that actually includes a changelog. A surprisingly simple yet handy idea.

Are you kidding? I used changelogs in my web pages back in 1996 (and stopped a few years after). It was part of the "Last Updated yyyy-mm-dd" era which ended around the same time as the "View Guestbook | Sign Guestbook" phenomenom. Mon, 09 Oct 2006 18:52:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (djst) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?169999 http://osnews.com/thread?169999 System Requirements

Yes, Windows XP will install and boot on a system with very little RAM, I've used it on a PC with only 96Mb and it was possible to type a letter or access the internet. However, it was painfully slow, with XP taking ages to boot, and a recent version of MS Word almost unusable. Open up a few web pages and the hard drive starts thrashing, just switching between windows with the taskbar takes several seconds.

Turning off unnecessary services can help, and maybe for very light usage 128Mb would be acceptable, but I'd consider 256Mb the minimum for multitasking or running modern apps. The 64Mb minimum stated by Microsoft is a completely unrealistic.

As for the CPU, I don't think Microsoft are being ridiculous by recommending 300Mhz. I run XP on a 400Mhz Celeron laptop with 512Mb RAM and it's perfectly usable.

DOS Game Compatibility

Who has actually said that Windows XP is completely incapable of playing any DOS games? I read quite a few PC gaming forums where there's regular discussion of DOS gaming in Windows, yet I've never seen anyone make this claim. I'd have thought that this would only count as a myth if people actually claimed it to be true?

Game compatibility in Windows XP isn't too bad really, certainly better than it was in Windows NT or 2000. I can't see DOS game compatibility being a high priority for Microsoft, so it's a nice surprise that it often does work. However, there are a lot of DOS games that run poorly in XP, or require a lot of messing about to run at all. Often people will recommend that DOSbox is used simply because it can be simpler and work better than XP's DOS compatibility. Maybe that's the source of the misconception that people think XP can't run DOS games.

Disable Certain Services

Notes - Disabling other unnecessary services in general has only one affect on performance and that is reduced Windows XP boot times.

In my experience this isn't true. Disabling certain unnecessary services can reduce the amount of RAM the OS uses quite considerably. This is especially useful if the system doesn't have much memory to begin with. Maybe not worth the effort if you have 256Mb+, but if you're stuck with a 128Mb RAM XP system, every extra Mb you can free up will make a difference.

Launch folder windows in a separate process

XP may be a stable OS, but explorer isn't always a perfectly stable file manager. For example, I've had explorer windows lock up due to corrupt image files when displaying thumbnails. For the tiny difference this might make to performance, it seems worth using if it'll prevent one explorer window from bringing down the file manager completely. Mon, 09 Oct 2006 18:57:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Dave_K) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170003 http://osnews.com/thread?170003 They did not say all DOS games would work, they said many of them would. Meaning some won't and they gave a link to DOSBbox so I'm not sure what your issue here is. Mon, 09 Oct 2006 19:07:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Zoidberg) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170005 http://osnews.com/thread?170005 Curious, why is this guy the best expert on these issues?

BTW, he is wrong on "Launch folder windows in a separate process". If explorer crashes it brings down all explorer processes, and the explorer desktop. This is the best tweak of them all. I wish all explorer processes where independent.

User Key: [HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer]
Value Name: DesktopProcess
Data Type: REG_DWORD (DWORD Value)
Value Data: (1 = Separate Process, 0 = Default)Edited 2006-10-09 19:11 Mon, 09 Oct 2006 19:09:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (IronWolve) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170006 http://osnews.com/thread?170006 XP doesn't has MS-DOS, the msdos in XP is just an emulator and will never be 100% compatible with msdos games.

They did not say XP had MS-DOS, in fact they explained that it didn't right in the article:

"The Windows NT kernel doesn't have any MS-DOS components in it at all-it's a pure 32-bit beast. It includes a 16-bit emulator and a command prompt mode that looks like MS-DOS."

They also didn't say it was 100% compatible, they just said that many DOS games will work in XP which is true.Edited 2006-10-09 19:12 Mon, 09 Oct 2006 19:10:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Zoidberg) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170008 http://osnews.com/thread?170008 "Myth - "It is impossible or difficult to secure Windows XP from Spyware, Malware or Viruses."

and then links to this.

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/SupportCD/SecureXP.html Mon, 09 Oct 2006 19:16:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (cyclops) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170009 http://osnews.com/thread?170009 Some of that Firefox page wasn't bad, but others were. There's a rebuttal here: http://nanobox.chipx86.com/blog/2005/12/re-firefox-myths.php
Sample:
Next in the disclaimer, he says, "All Myths relate to running the default install of Firefox in Windows with no Extensions." and yet he occasionally makes a statement in the article that only applies to Firefox on Unix/Linux, always to make Firefox look worse. For example, for months he had claimed that Secunia lists an "extremely critical" vulnerability in Firefox. If you actually look at Secunia's data, you'll see that the only "extremely critical" vulnerability listed only applied to Firefox on Unix/Linux (not on Windows) and was fixed the day after discovery. He knew this, and yet for several months he refused to correct his page, insisting that his page was "irrefutable". Finally, he recently made the correction without any indication and still insists that his page is and was "irrefutable". Under "Patch Time", the article still refers to a vulnerability that only applies to Mac OS X.

I think the big problem was that every single point he made was to show how Firefox wasn't as good as people thought. Would it have killed him to add 1 or 2 positive points among the dozens of negatives? I mean this article could have been all negative about how horrible XP was, but he put in quite a few postive things as well as some negatives.

BTW, I know you're not happy with Firefox on Macs. Take a look at this theme: http://kmgerich.com/2006/09/27/pinstripe-for-firefox-now-with-20-mo...
Is it good enough? (I know you'd still want native widgets in the pages.) Mon, 09 Oct 2006 19:18:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (smitty) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170010 http://osnews.com/thread?170010 Because people demanded outgoing filtering, but as we all know, if malware is trying to access the outside world, you're already infected, therefore, outgoing filtering is not much use Mon, 09 Oct 2006 19:18:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (BluenoseJake) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170013 http://osnews.com/thread?170013 "I wouldn't have called the Firefox review 'biased' - it simply points out the myths that have been spread about Firefox."

It just bothered me that he made up a bunch of myths that no one believes anyway, just so he could knock them down (teh strawman!). The whole section on standards compliance was a joke as well.

Happily, his XP myths page seems much more grounded, addressing issues and opinions I have actually heard before. The tweaks section was quite interesting. Maybe he could write a tweak debunker for Gentoo users. /rimshot Mon, 09 Oct 2006 19:23:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (MamiyaOtaru) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170018 http://osnews.com/thread?170018 most maybe not all, but definatly MOST of this artcile is wrong. and using MS as your source for correct information is down right laughable.. of course they want you to leave all the services running and things like that.

some of these i know are absolutly wrong from personal experience..

10 to 1 says this was a paid for article by MS. Mon, 09 Oct 2006 19:45:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Zedicus) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170022 http://osnews.com/thread?170022 So what? It's a guide. He's not selling anything. Why wouldn't he link to other GUIDES/ARTICLES on HIS own site? That's the purpose of the internet, is it not? Hyperlinks, ya? Mon, 09 Oct 2006 20:01:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (sappyvcv) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170024 http://osnews.com/thread?170024 Please point out what specifically was wrong if you are so sure.

Also, why would Microsoft pay someone to publish something like this which comes off as very amateurish? Is it fun making stupid claims that have no facts to back them? Mon, 09 Oct 2006 20:10:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (sappyvcv) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170025 http://osnews.com/thread?170025 EnablePrefetcher setting to 2 and deleting the contents of the prefetch folder, dropped my laptop booting time to a desktop with all apps loaded from 2 minutes down to 45 seconds, and it hasn't increased not 1 second a few months later. So it isn't a myth. It works.Edited 2006-10-09 20:12 Mon, 09 Oct 2006 20:11:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (vasper) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170026 http://osnews.com/thread?170026 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

2328 Unix/Linux vulnerabilities are actually more than 812 Windows operating system vulnerabilities? I don't think so. It must be the number of vulnerabilities in Unix/Linux kernels and applications all together. Well, There are several number of Unixes and Unix-like systems as everyone here knows. AIX, HPUX, Solaris, IRIX, Linx, Free/Net/OpenBSD, MINIX etc etc. what a nice comparison!! duh. Mon, 09 Oct 2006 20:13:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (t3RRa) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170028 http://osnews.com/thread?170028 [quote]
"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"
[/quote]

As fas as I know the total number of vulnerabilities of windows only accounted for vulnerabilities in just it: windows. On the other had, for linux it was accounted for more than one provider of distributions (so that a single vulnarability was counted twice or more times) and they also accounted vulnerabilities not only of the core of GNU/Linux but also of the software stack. Nice!!! let's see how windows meassures up after Office is accounted, and all antiviruses, and web servers, and databases and so on. Crappy!

Not to mention the fact of the severity of the vulnerabilities... I'd love to have 10 minor bugs instead of 1 single major bug that will bring my computer on its kneews right after I connect it to the internet... sounds familiar? ;-) Mon, 09 Oct 2006 20:17:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (eantoranz) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170032 http://osnews.com/thread?170032 Because people demanded outgoing filtering, but as we all know, if malware is trying to access the outside world, you're already infected, therefore, outgoing filtering is not much use

It is of use to all the other people on the Internet that your computer is trying to infect... Mon, 09 Oct 2006 20:26:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (tristan) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170037 http://osnews.com/thread?170037 you're already infected, therefore, outgoing filtering is not much use

So, if you're infected you say it's ok that your data will be freely sent ? Is this some kind of reward you give them for their success in infecting your machine ? ) Mon, 09 Oct 2006 20:33:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (l3v1) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170051 http://osnews.com/thread?170051 In Windows XP if Explorer crashes, it will simply restart itself. The point is it should not crash to begin with. "Launch folder windows in a separate process" is not a "tweak" since it will reduce performance, it is a troubleshooting option to help you find what is really causing the problem such as Malware infection, damaged or misconfigured hardware, driver issue or overclocking ect... Mon, 09 Oct 2006 21:02:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Mastertech) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170057 http://osnews.com/thread?170057 Further, he says, "Legal Notice - Reproduction of this page in whole or in part is strictly forbidden."

Well no, it's not. Even if this fell under the DMCA everywhere, fair use still applies: it's still legal to reproduce part of the work (such as I just have!) It's hard to take people seriously when they're so dramatically concerned with "protecting" their "intellectual property"---to the point that they think they can dictate exactly what can and cannot be done with it, down to the jot and tittle. It's rather sad to see someone actually favorably citing the DMCA in his copyright notice... Mon, 09 Oct 2006 21:12:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Bnonn) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170071 http://osnews.com/thread?170071 I agree that explorer shouldn't crash, in a perfect world no software would crash, but unfortunately it isn't perfect.

I've seen explorer crash on a completely clean system, with no malware, misconfigured hardware, driver issues, or any other fixable problems. Of course if it's crashing every few minutes then there's something badly wrong with the system, but I've learned to expect explorer to crash every once in a while whatever PC I'm using.

The reduction in performance due to opening folder windows in a separate process is tiny, especially if you aren't too short of RAM. Not having explorer restart completely, forcing me to reopen all the directories I'm working with, seems like a worthwhile time saver. Mon, 09 Oct 2006 21:28:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Dave_K) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170079 http://osnews.com/thread?170079 if that is what your worried about, a hardware firewall is better than software anyday of the week. Some common sense browsing habits are even better Mon, 09 Oct 2006 21:37:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (BluenoseJake) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170086 http://osnews.com/thread?170086 disabling system restore gives a NOTICEABLE performance increase. ALWAYS. this includes the service and everything. not just telling it to not scan a drive. (personal experience)

disk defrag. if your system is so fragmented or you are so careless to need the listed features, i feel sorry for your computer. (personal experience)

registry cleaners. sometimes these help, sometimes they make things worse. the registry DOES require periodic maintanance, i do NOT trust it to some random app. (personal experience)

vulnerabilitys... not even going to touch this one...

these are some key highlights, there ARE other articles on line to back this information up also, but this is a quicky about the things that iritated me the most, and that i have actuall personal experience to disagree with him. Mon, 09 Oct 2006 21:50:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Zedicus) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170088 http://osnews.com/thread?170088 "If he wants to have his work "protected by copyright under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)", he'd better make sure it cannot be published outside the USA."

True. It's a little stupid to publish something on internet, a world wide network, without understanding what internet, and specially the web is. That's why there are hyperlinks, HTML cite tags and other stuff. Mon, 09 Oct 2006 21:54:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (sbenitezb) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170099 http://osnews.com/thread?170099 Well, when viewing his site in our browsers aren't we sort of reproducing the site? Or doesn't that count as reproduction? (It does on some other occasions.) Mon, 09 Oct 2006 22:19:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (dylansmrjones) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170101 http://osnews.com/thread?170101 It doesn't always restart Explorer.exe. It does most of the time explorer crashes (which is rather rare, actually - it happened last week (and explorer did not reload), but apart from that it hasn't happend in a very long time).

I can recommend using this option if you have enough ram, let's say 1 GB. Then it works like a charm. Mon, 09 Oct 2006 22:27:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (dylansmrjones) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170110 http://osnews.com/thread?170110 There is a lot of good information, many optimization myths are debunked, which is very good.

However, I disagree with the author on the subject of "Limited User Account".
Yes yes, it's annoying and somewhat unusable on Windows XP, because applications don't care about user rights. But that can be solved by making the user a power user (it's doable - just use the hidden user configuration), or using the "Run as..."-option. It's a lot better than he makes it sound like. I use it a lot, because it works better than switching user, or logging off and on and off and on

And then of course... Vulnerabilities...
It's well known that the security bulletin from CERT, is unusable as a comparison tool, since most of the vulnerabilities are counted several times. The actual number of Windows vulnerabilities are around 200 (if I remember correct - divided by four), and the number of vulnerabilities for Linux/Unix have to reduced even more, resulting in both camps to be more or less equally insecure - in relation to numbers only (the windows security issues tend to be more critical than those in Linux/Unix). OpenBSD is the clear winner though.

He really loses credibility on this one. Mon, 09 Oct 2006 22:51:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (dylansmrjones) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170114 http://osnews.com/thread?170114 Well, perhaps some OSN-users are annoyed over the fact they have to move the mouse and click on a link? (Not to mention the fact that they don't have to click on the link. It gives them a choice - some people cannot handle choices...)

Personally I don't see the problem with "Secure XP". Some of it is rather good, though I disagree with some of it (but that is merely the more cosmetic-like things).

TweakUI is however very recommendable. Also on Win2K3 (perhaps the best Windows release ever - either that or Win2K Pro is better... I can't decide on that one). Mon, 09 Oct 2006 22:58:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (dylansmrjones) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170115 http://osnews.com/thread?170115 That's funny, 'cause I know from personal experience that several of them are true.

But of course, I've been using Windows for so many years that I must be a Microserf (haha.. that thought is hilarious). Mon, 09 Oct 2006 23:00:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (dylansmrjones) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170116 http://osnews.com/thread?170116 The following requirements are Microsoft's "official" minimum system requirements which I have tested to work fine with the exception of only 64 MB of RAM (performance is poor). Increasing your RAM to 128 MB would be the only upgrade I would strongly consider as my absolute minimum Windows XP system requirements

Are you kidding me? I believe the official minimum system requirements for XP is 128 MB, but I would never run XP with that little memory. It is horribly slow. I would recommend 256 MB as an absolute minimum and even that sucks.

The Windows NT kernel doesn't have any MS-DOS components in it at all-it's a pure 32-bit beast

That's entirely untrue. XP still has 16-bit DOS code although it's still a pain to run DOS programs.

Myth - "Windows 95/98/ME is as reliable as XP."

I don't know a single person who would make that claim.

If a program error occurs, Dr. Watson will start automatically but not before unless you manually start it. Which means disabling Dr. Watson has no effect on system performance.

Not true. If you have an error and Dr Watson starts it does not stop when you "send" or "don't send". It remains running, eating up resources.

Disabling other unnecessary services in general has only one affect on performance and that is reduced Windows XP boot times.

Actually, disabling services can be very beneficial for memory constrained systems. Services are constantly running in the background and the less you have running the more resources you have for other applications. The first thing I turn off in a memory constrained system is theming.

Myth - "The built-in Disk Defragmenter is good enough."

Let's face it, NTFS sucks in general compared to other filesystems available. The defragmenter actually does work well enough to gain considerable disk performance back, the only problem is that you shouldn't have 30, 40, or 50 percent fragmentation in the first place.

Myth - "The FAT32 file system is faster/better than NTFS."

FAT32 is definitely faster in many situations but I don't think anyone has claimed that it is better.

A cookie is a text file that has some non-personal information what banner ads have shown on certain sites.

Except when cookies have personal information, or allow unwanted access to personal information. By the way this isn't an XP issue. Cookies work on all networked operating systems.

Myth - "Limited User Accounts are a Realistic Security Solution."

HELLO. Limited user accounts are absolutely necessary for security. Anyone who says otherwise has absolutely no experience with security technology.

Windows isn't very useable with a non-Administrator account

Just because you don't know how to use it doesn't mean it is unusable.

"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"

Bogus. Linux statistics include all kinds of programs totally unrelated to the kernel. Windows vulnerabilities are strictly Microsoft programs.

Myth - "The Windows XP Firewall is not good enough because it lacks outbound filtering."

First of all a firewall is a bandaid anyway. A properly setup and patched machine will have few issues, but considering this is highly unlikely for the majority of XP machines out there it is absolutely ridiculous that XP doesn't block outgoing connections. These are the connections that make botnets possible. Mon, 09 Oct 2006 23:00:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (abraxas) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170122 http://osnews.com/thread?170122 Thanks for the laugh Mon, 09 Oct 2006 23:16:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (sappyvcv) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170162 http://osnews.com/thread?170162 Yeah.
And he wouldn't he be using Sinorca template from osw.org for his website by any chance would he?
The layout is slightly modified but otherwise it's very very similar.
So if I'm right then on one hand he finds it convenient to "borrow" from open source but then he licenses his stuff under the DMCA. Nice going. Tue, 10 Oct 2006 00:30:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (shapeshifter) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170166 http://osnews.com/thread?170166 No, it didn't.

You disabled application prefetching which will cripple your machine. Deleting the prefetch folder's contents makes Windows have to re-prefetch your applications (which only happens after 2 successive launches of said applications) and the prefetch files will have exactly the same contents as before.

You need to at least use BootVis if you're going to back your claim that your bootup time is faster, and tell it to Optimize your system (which performs ProcessIdleTasks for you) before benchmarking.

1) Perform BootVis's optimize function
2) Boot Windows twice in a row, allowing all startup processes to fully finish loading each time
3) Get md5 sums of all of the files in the Prefetch folder
4) Do a BootVis reboot + trace
5) Delete all the prefetch files and don't manually reboot; schedule another bootvis trace
6) Reboot two more times and perform another BootVis trace
7) Check the md5sums of all of the prefetch files that have come back against your previous list

Then you should have at least a slightly more scientific antecdote.Edited 2006-10-10 00:39 Tue, 10 Oct 2006 00:37:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (DjLizard) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170168 http://osnews.com/thread?170168 "If a program error occurs, Dr. Watson will start automatically but not before unless you manually start it. Which means disabling Dr. Watson has no effect on system performance."

Not true. If you have an error and Dr Watson starts it does not stop when you "send" or "don't send". It remains running, eating up resources.

Not true either -- Dr Watson runs before showing the dialog, and continues running until the logging facility and crash dump generator have finished running (both are stored in "%allusersprofile%\Application Data\Microsoft\Dr Watson") and then it exits normally. If you had a process that was using 100+ MB of RAM (for instance), then dumprep.exe is going to take quite a while to generate the crash dump file. If the process had quite a bit of threads going and a lot of shared modules loaded, drwatson.exe is going to take a while trying to debug and create the stack trace log file. After dumprep and drwatson are done with the crash dump file and log, they will exit normally. I've never once seen them hang around for a long time except in cases where the offending process' memory space and shared module usage was huge.

edit: what the heck, it ate my backslashesEdited 2006-10-10 00:44 Tue, 10 Oct 2006 00:43:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (DjLizard) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170188 http://osnews.com/thread?170188 Not necessarily native widgets, but widgets that have the same look and feel as a native widget; its already done via a ccs file which is available via download, which uses the themeing to change the widget itself to something that looks like Aqua, although it doesn't actually link back native IIRC to the Aqua widgets.

The problem with Mozilla is the lack of integration in MacOS X; for Firefox on Windows, it has NO problems using native win32 widgets for forms, same goes for GTK2 on Linux, so why is MacOS X treated like the redheaded bastard child of the family?

Right now, I've already sold my Mac (aorund a month ago), and since using Firefox, its been more or less 'ok' - pushing the definition of ok, and given the improvements in IE7, its going to be rather difficult for people to justify the Firefox hype after the release of IE7, and the subsequent releases after. Tue, 10 Oct 2006 02:04:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (kaiwai) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170211 http://osnews.com/thread?170211 >>Maybe he could write a tweak debunker for Gentoo users. /rimshot

http://funroll-loops.org/ Tue, 10 Oct 2006 03:35:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Havin_it) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170212 http://osnews.com/thread?170212 "if malware is trying to access the outside world, you're already infected, therefore, outgoing filtering is not much use"

Not true, outgoing filtering would still prevent you from infecting others.
Unless, of course, you run with admin privs (and if you want to play games, which you most likely do, then you run as admin) in which case the malware can just disable any filtering. Tue, 10 Oct 2006 03:37:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Soulbender) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170214 http://osnews.com/thread?170214 "Personally I don't see the problem with "Secure XP""

I have a problem with him linking to GRC stuff. If you want real security from someone with an actual clue, GRC is not your guy. Tue, 10 Oct 2006 03:41:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Soulbender) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170217 http://osnews.com/thread?170217 "or using the "Run as..."-option. It's a lot better than he makes it sound like."

sudowin (http://sudowin.sourceforge.net/) is even better than "Run as..." (which is pretty useless for me). Now if sudowin only had the ability to let you run certain executables without password it would be absolutely golden. Tue, 10 Oct 2006 03:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Soulbender) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170220 http://osnews.com/thread?170220 "HELLO. Limited user accounts are absolutely necessary for security."

He didnt say it wasnt. He said it's not realistic and he is right. Try running some games (just like what 95% of the users use their PC for) as a limited user and watch it most likely fail miserably.Edited 2006-10-10 03:50 Tue, 10 Oct 2006 03:49:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Soulbender) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170234 http://osnews.com/thread?170234 you and the "Myth" guy take look at regmon.
It allows to set any win program under very limited user rights: read only access to system partition.
In general that is why you have ACL (including registry)

DNS client is usefull in AD, no use in home environement. Tue, 10 Oct 2006 04:57:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (broch) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170243 http://osnews.com/thread?170243 "you and the "Myth" guy take look at regmon."

The only regmon I know of is the one from SysInternals and, as the name implies, it only monitors what registry keys a program access. You still have to set all the permissions yourself and this should not be needed. It's not 1995 anymore and there are no excuses for not making games work for limited users.
The problem of running games as a limited user is not limited to problems with registry keys alone.

"DNS client is usefull in AD, no use in home environement."

It is usefull anywhere since it caches DNS lookups resulting in faster response to the user and less load on the ISP's DNS resolvers. Tue, 10 Oct 2006 06:33:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Soulbender) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170263 http://osnews.com/thread?170263 Legal Notice - Reproduction of this page in whole or in part is strictly forbidden. This guide and ALL versions thereof are protected by copyright under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

Rrrrrrright. I think that tells you how seriously you can take this.

"Succeeding at getting your ancient games up and running on Windows XP can be as rewarding as playing the game itself!"

So basically you can't run the majority of DOS games at all unless you're lucky, which is what people have been saying for years? We then get some strange explanation of DOS being 16-bit and Windows 32-bit and some technical background telling us how hard it has been for Microsoft to do, which seems to be a justification as to why it doesn't work well. Microsoft should just have used DOSBox, but hey, Microsoft knows DOS and can make it work - right?

"With NTFS, however, permissions can play a factor in whether a game runs correctly or not. If you don't have access to a particular file that's needed by the software, it's not going to work."

So many games aren't going to work with NTFS because of permissions because games manufacturers didn't store their user files in the right place, and Microsoft never saw this coming and never recommended it? Doesn't sound like a myth to me.

"All it does is change your hash number - the OS is doing exactly the same thing it did before, and just saving the prefetch pages to a different file. It does not improve performance in any way....(This behavior isn't specific to WMP - it does the same for any app.)

Yer. It would appear that no one knows what this command line switch does - not even you. Any application can use it, but only WMP can use it? The confused explanation doesn't help.

"Do these same people recommend deleting the contents of the Windows folder because it is a popular location to find an infected file(s)? Of course not, you simply clean or delete the infected file(s) not the contents of the folder."

With one difference - the prefetch folder is temporary and not necessary,

"This Myth got started due to the indiscriminate nature of the Windows Prefetcher, which will Prefetch any executable file that you load or loads during Windows start up."

You have just said above that Windows does not use prefetch to prefetch any executable file. Apparently it contains no executable code whatsoever, but is used to work out 'how best' to start an application and loads pages into memory. That's as vague as it gets. If it only did this on application start up then it wouldn't be prefetching.

Besides, if you have removed some malware but it is still trying to start up on Windows start up - what happens? It doesn't answer that question.

"Finally the useless, performance slowing cleaning option "Old Prefetch data" was moved to the advanced section and is now not selected by default. Never select this option for cleaning as it will increase application and Windows load times."

It really depends on how many files are in there. I've seen this work on many PCs that have had a lot of apps installed on them. Really, if this was a myth people would notice that it just slows down the system. It doesn't. The initial restart may be slower but I've seen it help many systems.

"Recommendations to disable Prefetching on low memory systems (128 MB - 512 MB) is based on the fallacy that portions of application code are preloaded into memory before the application load is initiated during Windows startup."

Well, if you have something running on startup then it will preload obviously, but given the vague 'rebuttal' as to how this works above, I wouldn't pay much attention.

The slower the system the more it will benefit from Prefetching.

That's a pretty vague statement. Prefetching takes RAM - no two ways about it. If you haven't got much of it then prefetching is not such a good idea.

"System Restore does not cause any noticeable performance impact when monitoring your computer. The creation of a Restore point also is a very fast process and usually takes only a few seconds."

Dream on.

Disk Defragmenter Limitations: It can defragment only local volumes.

Wow. Major disadvantage.

It can defragment only one volume at a time.

Right. That's generally what I do anyway as doing more than one volume will tie up disks and partitions.

It cannot defragment one volume while scanning another.

Damn.

It cannot be easily scheduled without scripts or third party utilities

Trying to schedule defragmentation is like trying to carry moonbeams home in a jar. It takes a great deal of time and slows down your system when you'll inevitably be using it. The key is to make defragmentationg go away.

It can run only one Microsoft Management Console (MMC) snap-in at a time.

Well, I can't use it then *rolls eyes*.

He wouldn't want me to be buying successive version of Diskeeper, would he?

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/SupportCD/DiskeeperComparison.html

LOL.

"On resuming from hibernation, the BIOS reads Hiberfil.sys"

I may be hazy, but I very much doubt that the BIOS would read a Windows file on an NTFS partition directly.

"It can, however, be defragmented safely at startup using an enterprise-level defragmenter such as Diskeeper or the freeware utility PageDefrag."

So I need to buy Diskeeper to defragment it, which means the built in defragmenter can't and this myth is true? Thanks.

"Cookies are not Spyware. It's grossly irresponsible for these Anti-Spyware companies to treat cookies like Spyware. REAL Spyware is malicious, machine-hijacking junk that throw pop-ups on your computer, resets your start page, and all sorts of other ugly tricks"

It is grossly irresponsible for anyone to suggest that cookies put on to your system cannot be used to spy and track what you've been doing, and that they don't deserve scrutiny. This is possibly the worst thing on the page.

"A cookie is a text file that has some non-personal information what banner ads have shown on certain sites."

No. Cookies can store anything.

"On a nonmanaged XP machine today, it isn't realistic to run without Administrator privileges"

If so, why bother with ordinary users?

"Windows isn't very useable with a non-Administrator account, largely because so many applications are ignorant of rights and were written to work only with Administrator-level accounts."

Because Windows is crap in this area and Microsoft never thought ahead. Not anyone's problem but theirs.

CoolWebSearch hijackers are masters at altering Read-only ("locked down") Hosts files. They can also redirect Windows to use a Hosts File that has nothing to do with the one you keep updating.

If you're not running as an administrator it gets a tad more difficult ;-).

"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"

Alas, this is absolute tosh. How many of those are serious, exploitable problems and how many are worms which spread over a network? Additionally, Linux and Unix systems include software that is never included with Windows, such as database systems, word processors etc. For an article that is supposedly a rebuttal I never cease to be amazed at how many joined at the hip to Windows keep reproducing this utter rubbish. On top of that, in open source systems people report any and every potential security exploit.

All in all I found this a poor rebuttal, and in parts, just one great big advert.Edited 2006-10-10 09:47 Tue, 10 Oct 2006 09:41:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (segedunum) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170278 http://osnews.com/thread?170278 If you have seen explorer crash that is a sign something is wrong with the machine, such as a driver issue, is not clean of malware or the hardware is miconfigured, defective or overclocked. You may also not have all updates applied or you may need a hotfix for a specific issue. The fact that you think explorer just randomly crashes is a sign you do not know what you are talking about. Tue, 10 Oct 2006 10:44:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Mastertech) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170279 http://osnews.com/thread?170279 This is completely impossible. Windows XP will boot in the exact same amount of time with the Enable Prefetcher value set to 3 or 2. It is most likely you either had prefetching (0) or boot prefetching completely disabled (1). Many people do not understand how to properly test this and use their non clean install of XP as a test bed, they also never take into account the fact that the Prefetcher requires a minimum of 3 cold boots before the boot prefetch is partially optimized the other part (defrag files referenced in layout.ini) happens after 3 days when the system goes idle for ten minutes. Tue, 10 Oct 2006 10:47:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Mastertech) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170280 http://osnews.com/thread?170280 (Firewall) Once a Windows XP system is compromised it is impossible to guarantee that outbound filtering is having any effect since it can be circumvented at will and without the outbound filtering having any idea.

"True, it stops some malware, today, but only because current malware has not been written to circumvent it. There simply are not enough environments that implement outbound rules for the mass market malware authors to need to worry about it. In an interactive attack the attacker can circumvent outbound filters at will." Tue, 10 Oct 2006 10:51:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Mastertech) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170281 http://osnews.com/thread?170281 (System Restore) - Really? Please provide documented reprodubeable evidence of this using a clean install of XP and the only variable being System Restore. This is a standard placebo argument.

(Disk Defrag) - It is quite common to see systems severely defragmented. But this is obviously subjective to the use of the machine. An advanced defragmenter that is automated and more thorough will prevent performance being reduced due to defragmentation. Being "careless" has nothing to do with defragmentation. It simply has to do with the use of the machine.

(Registry Cleaners) - Registry Cleaners can correct problems but they have no effect on performance except in exhaustive searches. Tue, 10 Oct 2006 10:56:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Mastertech) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170296 http://osnews.com/thread?170296 (Power Users) - "Power User accounts allow the installation of software, including ActiveX controls and can easily be elevated to fully-privileged administrators. The lesson is that as an IT administrator you shouldn't fool yourself into thinking that the Power Users group is a secure compromise on the way to running as limited user."

http://www.sysinternals.com/blog/2006/05/power-in-power-users.html Tue, 10 Oct 2006 11:28:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Mastertech) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170300 http://osnews.com/thread?170300 (Requirements) - No one is kidding you why not try installing XP on the requirements mentioned. It is clear you obviously have not. XP will install.

XP has 16-bit DOS code? Please provide documentation to this has nothing to do with emulation.

(Win9x vs XP) - You have obviously never visted many forums.

(Dr. Watson) - This "tweak" is recommended in certain "tweak" guides with the assumption that Dr. Watson is running from Windows Boot. As for it "staying running" please provide documented reproduceable proof on a clean install of XP that this negatively effects performance.

(Services) - Please provide documented reproduceable proof on a clean install of XP that the default Windows services negatively effect performance.

(Disk Defragmenter) - The debate on "how good NTFS is" is irrelevant to the Myth. It is clearly stated that the Disk Defragmenter does give a partial performance improvement.

(FAT32) - FAT32 is clearly NOT faster except on small volumes 32GB. The performance claim is easily debunked here:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/games/expert/durham_fs.msp...

(Limited User) - You don't have to run as a limited user to remain secure. The points made are valid, it is not REALISTIC on XP since so many application break.
How "useable" it is, is a typical elistist statement. Certain games will NOT run (Battlefield 1942 as one example) unless you give it admin rights. There is NOTHING you can do for an application not designed to run as a limited user except give it admin priviledges to run.

(Firewall) - There is no way to guarantee that outbound filtering is not compromised on XP with a software firewall solution. The key with any security solution is to NOT get infected in the first place. Tue, 10 Oct 2006 11:48:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Mastertech) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170323 http://osnews.com/thread?170323 (Copyrights) - Not respecting someone's copyright only shows your true character as a person.

(DOS Games) - Luck has nothing to do with it. It is clearly documented that many DOS games will work with XP Emulation and the sources explain how to get others to work and what the common cause of failures are. DOSBox was register at Sourceforge in 2002 which is AFTER XP was released. Besides that obvious fact I don't think Microsoft has any legitimate reason to improve DOS emulation in XP.

(NTFS) - Please Provide documentation from a game developer that their game will not work due to NTFS. And it is NOT stated as "MANY" Games - you added that.

(Prefetch Switch) - He just explained what it does. Try reading the source:
http://blogs.msdn.com/ryanmy/archive/2005/05/25/421882.aspx

(Prefetch Folder) - Is very necessary for optimal performance. It is clearly explained why people incorrectly clean this folder because they associate non infected, non executable .pf prefetch trace files as Malware. Cleaning this folder is a useless waste of time that hurts performance.

Where does it say that Windows does not Prefetch any executable file? It doesn't say that. You are misinterpretting the meaning of Prefetch to mean PreCache. Windows Prefetchs all executables you launch. But this does not mean it PreCaches them in RAM BEFORE the application is launched. It does this AFTER you initiate the launch. There are many meanings to the word Prefetch and you are using an incorrect definition here.

Prefetch files are only REFERENCED when the application is started. If the infected executable is still trying to load at startup than it references the associated Prefetch file to optimally load it. If the infected executable is deleted, the associated Prefetch file is no longer referenced. The executable MUST be present. If you simply have a pointer to a deleted executable than Prefetching can do nothing. Prefetch files have nothing to do with whether an executable loads at start up or not, it is only there to improve performance.

(Cleaning Old Prefetch Data) - How many files are present in the Prefetch folder is IRRELEVANT! Only ONE file is referenced at boot up = NTOSBOOT-B00DFAAD.PF. You have no idea how Windows Prefetching works. Otherwise please provide documented reproduceable evidence of you claim on a clean install of XP so I can point out what you don't understand.

(Prefetch Low Memory) - NO you misread that. People are claiming that with Prefetching enabled applications that DO NOT load at Startup are Preloaded (Prefetched) thus this hurts performance on low memory systems. This is not true.

No, XP Prefetching only improves cold start times of Windows XP and applications it has nothing to do with using RAM. The RAM used is the same amount that the application would have used, prefetching simply optimizes the process that applications are loaded TO RAM. You are still using an incorrect definition of Prefetching as it applies to Windows XP.

(System Restore) - Please provide documented reproduceable evidence on a clean install of XP that System Restore hurts performance.

(Disk Defragmenter) - The limitations listed will effect different people differently. To make fragmentation go away in NTFS, you need to defragment.

(Hiberfil.sys) - The Myth is that it is NECESSARY to delete this file. PageDefrag is free and will defrag Hiberfil.sys. Or you can use a commercial defragmenter. The problem with this Myth is people continue to do this when there are better, easier ways to defragment it.

(Cookies) - Spying and tracking are two different things. Cookies are not executable code. Like it says they can cause some privacy concerns but they are clearly not Spyware.

(Limited User Accounts) - "Why bother?" That is the point. They are there however for managed situations. The gripes about it doesn't change the facts. These are being addressed in Vista.

(Hosts File) - They are still irrelevant when you can use a better, safer solution that is easier to manage with none of the negative effects = Spyware Blaster. Tue, 10 Oct 2006 12:51:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Mastertech) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170329 http://osnews.com/thread?170329 so let me get this straight... by pressing ctrl-U i am violating international law? Tue, 10 Oct 2006 13:23:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (google_ninja) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170339 http://osnews.com/thread?170339 You already stated this but never stated anything else. So either we are to take it you are laughing because the guide links to another page or laughing at the content of link. Maybe you are unable to secure your version of Windows? Maybe you don't believe it? Maybe you don't use Windows? I would rather not guess but you leave me no choice.

So I will take my best guess you are laughing because you have never seen a hyperlink before. Tue, 10 Oct 2006 14:11:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Mastertech) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170340 http://osnews.com/thread?170340 Violating Copyright Law is violating Copyright Law. Either you respect other people's intellectual content or you do not. Tue, 10 Oct 2006 14:14:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Mastertech) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170353 http://osnews.com/thread?170353 He didnt say it wasnt. He said it's not realistic and he is right. Try running some games (just like what 95% of the users use their PC for) as a limited user and watch it most likely fail miserably.

If you read what I said after that you might not have made this comment. It is possible to run as a limited user and do all the things you want to do. You just have to set it up correctly. It's not like it's any different in Linux or OSX. It's difficult to do much out of the box but it's supposed to be that way. Otherwise you wouldn't be a limited user.

On a side note 95% of computer users don't use their PC for games. Maybe 5% do. Why do gamers always think that everyone else is just like them? Tue, 10 Oct 2006 15:03:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (abraxas) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170365 http://osnews.com/thread?170365 XP has 16-bit DOS code? Please provide documentation to this has nothing to do with emulation.

Almost the entire Windows 3 code is still in XP. That is an awful way to emulate. edlin.exe still works for crying out loud.

(Win9x vs XP) - You have obviously never visted many forums.

I do actually visit a lot of forums, but none of them have a single user who would ever make that claim.

(Dr. Watson) - This "tweak" is recommended in certain "tweak" guides with the assumption that Dr. Watson is running from Windows Boot. As for it "staying running" please provide documented reproduceable proof on a clean install of XP that this negatively effects performance.

(Services) - Please provide documented reproduceable proof on a clean install of XP that the default Windows services negatively effect performance.

You don't really understand how services work do you? They are always running. There is no magical way to make them take up no resources. One service by itself usually doesn't take much but if you can do without multiple services then you will increase performance by turning them off.

(Disk Defragmenter) - The debate on "how good NTFS is" is irrelevant to the Myth. It is clearly stated that the Disk Defragmenter does give a partial performance improvement.

I guess I just have an issue with the author saying that the Disk Defragmenter isn't good enough when he should be saying the File system isn't good enough. Of course it all makes sense when you see the Diskeeper ads on his website.

(FAT32) - FAT32 is clearly NOT faster except on small volumes 32GB. The performance claim is easily debunked here:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/games/expert/durham_fs.msp.....


What else would Microsoft claim? Try getting some unbiased sources.

(Requirements) - No one is kidding you why not try installing XP on the requirements mentioned. It is clear you obviously have not. XP will install.

Actually I never said it won't install, and in fact I've probably installed windows a thousand times more than you have in your lifetime but that's besides the point. XP runs like a three legged dog on anything under 256MB of memory and is barely usable with anything less than 512MB.

(Limited User) - You don't have to run as a limited user to remain secure. The points made are valid, it is not REALISTIC on XP since so many application break.
How "useable" it is, is a typical elistist statement. Certain games will NOT run (Battlefield 1942 as one example) unless you give it admin rights. There is NOTHING you can do for an application not designed to run as a limited user except give it admin priviledges to run.

I don't understand windows users. They have no concept of how limited users work. It's like this in all multiusers operating systems. There are ways to make admin programs run as a user and it's perfectly legit to do that. With all this "fine grained" security BS that I hear from the windows side, it's kinda ironic that no one can even grapple the idea of limited users. Just forget about ACLs all together.

(Firewall) - There is no way to guarantee that outbound filtering is not compromised on XP with a software firewall solution. The key with any security solution is to NOT get infected in the first place.

Like I said before, but you obviously failed to read, I would love it if everyone was smart enough to indulge in proper security, such as limited user accounts, but they are not, so outbound filtering is necessary. The last thing we need is any more botnet traffic. Tue, 10 Oct 2006 15:30:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (abraxas) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170368 http://osnews.com/thread?170368 Here is a quick list of programs that do not work as a limited user:

1602 AD
3D Frog Frenzy
3D GameStudio World Editor
ACDSee 3.0
Acid
Age Of Empires II - The Age of Kings
Age Of Empires II - The Conquerors
Age of Mythology
Axion 3D World Atlas
Axis and Allies
Backyard Baseball 2001
Baldur's Gate II
Barbie as Princess Bride
Baseball 2001
BodyWorks 6.0
Browning Duck Hunter
Caesar III
Calendar Creator 7.0
Championship Bass
Cleaner 5.02
Combat Flight Simulator
Combat Flight Simulator 3
Combat Flight Simulator WWII Europe Series
Command and Conquer Tiberian Sun
Command AntiVirus 5.9.1
Cook'n 2000
Copernic 2001 Basic 5.0
Create Resumes Quick and Easy 3.0
Custom Cookbook 1.0
Dark Majesty Links 2001
Dear Parents
Deer Hunter 3
Delta Force 2
Delta Force Land Warrior
Diablo II
Dirt Track Racing
Dirt Track Racing Sprint Cars
Driver
DropStuff 5.0
Earthlink 5.05 Limited User
EasyUninstall 2000
Falcon 4
Fix-It 2000
Flight Simulator 2004, A Century of Flight
Forgotten Realms Interactive Atlas
Freelancer
Greetings 2001
Gunman Chronicles
Hallmark Card Studio 2 Deluxe
Harley Davidson Race Across America
Harley Davidson Wheels of Freedom
High Heat 2002
Hitman
Home Design 3D 5.0
Home Publishing 2000
Homeworld
Hoyle Solitaire and Mahjong Tiles
Icewind Dale
Incredimail 2001
Internet Cleanup 1.04
IomegaWare
Jedi Knight Dark Forces ll
Jumpstart 1st Grade
JumpStart Toddlers Deluxe
Legal Forms and Guide 1.0
Links LS 2001
Little Mermaid II
M
Madden 2001
Mary-Kate and Ashley's Dance Party of the Century
MasterCook Suite 6.0
Matchbox Construction Zone
Math Blaster Ages 6 - 7
Math Blaster Ages 8 - 9
Mavis Beacon Teaches Typing 11
MechCommander 2
MechWarrior 4
MechWarrior 4: Black Knight
Mechwarrior 4: Mech Paks
MechWarrior 4: Mercenaries
Media Studio Pro 6.0.0.2
Mickey Mouse Preschool
Microsoft Flight Simulator 98
Microsoft Flight Simulator 2000
Microsoft Flight Simulator 2002 Professional
Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004 Century of Flight
Microsoft Train Simulator 1.x
Microsoft Money 2000
Microsoft Money 2001
Microsoft Money 2002
Microsoft Money 2003
Midtown Madness
Midtown Madness 2
Monster Truck Madness 2
Motocross Madness
Motocross Madness 2
MSN Messenger Service
Multimedia Law Library 1.0
My Disney Kitchen
NASCAR 4
NASCAR Heat
NBA Inside Drive 2000
NBA Live 2000
NeoTrace 3.01
NHL 2000
NHRA Drag Racing
No One Lives Forever
Norton AntiVirus 2001
Norton CrashGuard 4
Paint Shop Pro 7.0
Pandoras Box
PC Attorney
Pheasant Hunt Challenge
PhotoSuite 4.0
PictureIt! Publishing Platinum 2001
Plus Game Pack
Pokemon Project Studio Blue Version
Pokemon Project Studio Red Version
Pooh Kindergarten
Pooh Toddler
Print Master Gold 10
PrintShop Deluxe 11
Professional Resume Plus 1.0
Proventure Greeting Cards 1.0
Quicken 2001 Suite
Quicktime 5 Preview 3
Radio Control Racers
Railroad Tycoon II
Rainbow Six
Rainbow Six Covert Ops Essentials
Rainbow Six Rogue Spear
Rainy Day Adventures
Rapigator 2.15
Reader Rabbit 2nd Grade
RealPlayer 8 6.0.9.450
Resume Maker Deluxe 2001
Resume Maker Deluxe 7.0
Resumes Quick and Easy 4.0
Return of Arcade
Riven
Rocky Mountain Trophy Hunter 3
Rugrats in Paris
Rugrats Totally Angelica Boredom Buster Program
Rune
SANDRA 2001
Scrabble 2
Shogun Total War
Sim City 2000
Sim Theme Park
Ski Resort Tycoon
Star Wars Episode 1 Racer
Star Wars The Phantom Menace
Stuart Little Big City Adventures 1.0
Test Drive Off-Road 1.0
The Grinch
The Mummy
The New Way Things Work
The Sims
The Sims Livin Large Expansion
The Wild Thornberrys Rambler
Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2000
Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2001
Tonka Space Station
Tony Hawks Pro Skater 2
Traitors Gate
Triple Play Baseball 2002
Ulead Photo Explorer Pro 7.0
Ultimate Hunt Challenge
Unreal
Unreal Tournament
VideoStudio 5
VideoWave 4
VMware
Wheel of Fortune 2nd Edition
Who Wants To Be A Millionaire 2nd Edition
Willmaker 8
WinOptimizer 2000
WInTune 98
WInTune 98 Direct 3D
WinWay 9.0
Works Suite 2001 Streets and Trips
Works Suite 2001/Picture It Publishing 2001
You Don't Know Jack 3
Zeus
Zip Magic 4.0
Zoo Tycoon
Zoo Tycoon: Dinosaur Digs
Zoo Tycoon: Marine Mania
Zoo Tycoon: Complete Collection
Zeus
Zip Magic 4.0
Zoo Tycoon
Zoo Tycoon: Dinosaur Digs
Zoo Tycoon: Marine Mania
Zoo Tycoon: Complete Collection

And the percentage of users that play games is quite high. Tue, 10 Oct 2006 15:33:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Mastertech) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170376 http://osnews.com/thread?170376 If you have seen explorer crash that is a sign something is wrong with the machine, such as a driver issue, is not clean of malware or the hardware is miconfigured, defective or overclocked. You may also not have all updates applied or you may need a hotfix for a specific issue. The fact that you think explorer just randomly crashes is a sign you do not know what you are talking about.

Bull. I've had explorer crash the first time a brand new install boots up. Usually a reboot fixes the problem. No bad hardware, no malware, not defective or overclocked. This stuff happens much more than you think. Tue, 10 Oct 2006 15:43:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (abraxas) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170381 http://osnews.com/thread?170381 (XP has 16-bit DOS Code) - Please provide documentation to this that has nothing to do with emulation.

(Win9x vs XP) - So that means it was never said? I've heard it before, plenty of times.

(Services) - I understand fully how they work. Now please stop making unsubstantiated statements and provide documented reproduceable proof on a clean install of XP that the default Windows services negatively effect performance. I realize many people think this but it is simply not true.

(Disk Defragmenter) - Saying NTFS is not good enough usually comes from the NIX side of things. I find NTFS to be a very reliable, good performing and secure file system. But regardless this is the best Windows users have to work with so complaining about it is irrelevant.

(FAT32) - Are you kidding? They clearly documented what they tested and how. The FAT file system is clearly an inferior file system compared to NTFS on performance, reliability and security. It doesn't make any sense you slam NTFS yet recommend FAT?

(Requirements) - Actually no you haven't I have been working for a system OEM for over 15 years. Your claims of it running like a "three legged dog" and requiring 512MB of RAM to be usable only proves you have little experience with this. I have an older PII 233 system with 128MB RAM sitting right here and it runs fine.

(Limited Users) - I clearly understand how they work. Limited User accounts are pushed as the be all end all by NIX users who have no practical experience with Windows Platforms. The fact is they are simply impractical in XP in a nonmanaged environment. I would go absolutely insane trying to do what I do everyday on a LUA. Not because it is impossible but because it is IMPRACTICAL! I also have NO SECURITY PROBLEMS.

(Firewall) - How is outbound security necessary if you don't get infected to begin with? And how can it be necessary if it can be easily circumvented? Outbound filtering in XP is not going to stop "botnet" traffic since any outbound filtering can be circumvented at will. People get infected and become Bots for simple reasons such as not applying security patches, NO FIREWALL at all, no AV or it being outdated ect.... I have yet to see a severly infected machine meet these basic security requirements. Tue, 10 Oct 2006 15:51:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Mastertech) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170382 http://osnews.com/thread?170382 Well then there is something wrong with the system! This is typical as many people incorrectly blame Microsoft for their problems. Tue, 10 Oct 2006 15:52:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Mastertech) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170383 http://osnews.com/thread?170383 You should probably read this: http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=34&threadid=... Tue, 10 Oct 2006 15:53:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (DjLizard) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170385 http://osnews.com/thread?170385 (System Restore) - Really? Please provide documented reprodubeable evidence of this using a clean install of XP and the only variable being System Restore. This is a standard placebo argument.

I made a software installation script that loads software onto an XP machine (hotfixes, Free Software, etc). Disabling system restore before running this script greatly reduces the time it takes to complete the script. Try it for yourself. Make a hotfix install script and see how long it takes to complete with and without system restore enabled.

(Disk Defrag) - It is quite common to see systems severely defragmented. But this is obviously subjective to the use of the machine. An advanced defragmenter that is automated and more thorough will prevent performance being reduced due to defragmentation. Being "careless" has nothing to do with defragmentation. It simply has to do with the use of the machine.

NTFS defragmentation is out of hand. It is no where near as bad on other modern filesystems. The blame should be squarely on NTFS for this one, not the defragmenter. I found that the defragmenter is actually very good at doing what it is designed to do. It is just needed more than it should be.

(Registry Cleaners) - Registry Cleaners can correct problems but they have no effect on performance except in exhaustive searches.

It can help when you clean out reg entries that are attempting to load applications at boot time. Tue, 10 Oct 2006 15:54:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (abraxas) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170391 http://osnews.com/thread?170391 Here is a quick list of programs that do not work as a limited user:...

What is your point? Of course not all applications run as a limited user. It's not like there aren't ways to run those applications. It is the same way in other operating systems. That's what things like sudo and setuid are for. There are similar options in Windows.

And the percentage of users that play games is quite high.

No. It isn't. The typical family isn't a family of game enthusiasts. Maybe the teenage son plays a lot of games but his sister just uses the computer for myspace and aim, while the mother forwards jokes and organizes her family pictures. Dad is buying stocks or looking at porno. Then you have the majority of PC users, corporate workers. Games are very low on the list when you look at it without the bias that you have. Tue, 10 Oct 2006 16:05:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (abraxas) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170394 http://osnews.com/thread?170394 You should probably read this: http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=34&threadid=.....


This confirms exactly what I said. Memory constrainded systems can benefit greatly from disabling services, unless you don't consider 40% a large savings. Tue, 10 Oct 2006 16:10:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (abraxas) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170401 http://osnews.com/thread?170401 This guy needs to learn a little more about how Windows works.

DOS Game compatablility
Reality: I have tons of old games that I still play. If you can get them to install, you can probably get them to run in XP. IF you can get them to install. Good luck with that. Save yourself some aggrevation and get DOSBox or a virtual machine with FreeDOS.

Cleaning the Prefetch Folder
The first boot after cleaning the prefetch is slower. After that, Windows XP boots much faster than it did before cleaning the prefetch. Explain this if the prefetch isn't accessed till you run an app.

EnablePrefetcher
In my experience, most systems run better if you set this key to 2 and then clean the prefetch. True, programs are a little slower loading, but they run better once they are loaded.

Moving the Paging File
I have no problem with what he said here. I'd add that you get get a further boost by having paging files on multiple physical disks.

Disabling Services
He says "Disabling other unnecessary services in general has only one affect on performance and that is reduced Windows XP boot times". I say bull. Services take up memory. Less memory usage=better preformance. Simple as that.

The built-in Disk Defragmenter is good enough.
First: Consider his source....someone trying to sell a defragmenter. Biased? I think so.
Second: XP has a command like defragger that can be started with task scheduler. If you need more than that, just start it before you go to bed once in a while.

Limited User Accounts are a Realistic Security Solution.
Limited user accounts are the first step to a realistic security solution. I've never seen a program have trouble running under a limited account, and if you NEED and administrative account, it usually pops up a ran as dialogue.

It is impossible or difficult to secure Windows XP from Spyware, Malware or Viruses.
I actually agree that it's easy to secure Windows XP. Remove any phone cords or ethernet cables from the computer. It's now secured. Seriously though, it can be done. The biggest part of doing so is changing your habits though.

The Windows XP Firewall is not good enough because it lacks outbound filtering.
The Windows firewall lets all kinds of goodies through. If your computer asks for it (which it does if you access a malicious webpage or a host of other things) Windows firewall ignores it. Outbound filtering is VITAL. Tue, 10 Oct 2006 16:24:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (sisk) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170406 http://osnews.com/thread?170406 (Services) - I understand fully how they work. Now please stop making unsubstantiated statements and provide documented reproduceable proof on a clean install of XP that the default Windows services negatively effect performance. I realize many people think this but it is simply not true.

Check out the other response to my last comment, which contains a link showing the RAM savings possible. I think 40% is a pretty big improvement if you ask me.

(Disk Defragmenter) - Saying NTFS is not good enough usually comes from the NIX side of things. I find NTFS to be a very reliable, good performing and secure file system. But regardless this is the best Windows users have to work with so complaining about it is irrelevant.

You see a lot of flak from NIX users about NTFS because NIX has so many filesystems that are all better than NTFS. Just look at Linux alone. ReiserFS, Ext3, XFS, and JFS are all better filesystems by a large margin. They do not get nearly as fragmented as NTFS. They do not degrade in performance nearly as much as NTFS.

After 3 years of heavy disk usage with ReiserFS (with the notail option enabled) I didn't even break 10% fragmentation. Nearly every XP machine passes 10% fragmentation after less than 6 months of normal use. Three years would result in something like 30 to 40 percent fragmentation.

(Requirements) - Actually no you haven't I have been working for a system OEM for over 15 years. Your claims of it running like a "three legged dog" and requiring 512MB of RAM to be usable only proves you have little experience with this. I have an older PII 233 system with 128MB RAM sitting right here and it runs fine.

I guess we have a different definition of "runs fine". XP with 128MB of memory is no longer a multitasking environment. As soon as you try to use it like this it swaps to all hell. 256MB isn't much better with SP2.

Even after you made the claim of working for an OEM for 15 years I still stand by my claim of installing it on more systems than you, especially when it comes to memory constrained systems. Hell, that's part of the reason for my move to Linux.

(FAT32) - Are you kidding? They clearly documented what they tested and how. The FAT file system is clearly an inferior file system compared to NTFS on performance, reliability and security. It doesn't make any sense you slam NTFS yet recommend FAT?

I don't recommend FAT, have never recommended FAT, and will never recommend FAT, even over NTFS.

(Limited Users) - I clearly understand how they work. Limited User accounts are pushed as the be all end all by NIX users who have no practical experience with Windows Platforms. The fact is they are simply impractical in XP in a nonmanaged environment. I would go absolutely insane trying to do what I do everyday on a LUA. Not because it is impossible but because it is IMPRACTICAL! I also have NO SECURITY PROBLEMS.

I'm not going to deny that it takes some time to set up a limited user account, but a seperation of priveledges is absolutely necessary for security. Just because you haven't been bit yet doesn't mean you won't be. Advocating against the use of limited user accounts is just irresponsible.

(Firewall) - How is outbound security necessary if you don't get infected to begin with? And how can it be necessary if it can be easily circumvented? Outbound filtering in XP is not going to stop "botnet" traffic since any outbound filtering can be circumvented at will. People get infected and become Bots for simple reasons such as not applying security patches, NO FIREWALL at all, no AV or it being outdated ect.... I have yet to see a severly infected machine meet these basic security requirements.

You would be amazed out how many time outgoing filtering is not circumvented, which is most of the time. If you and others ran as limited users we wouldn't have to worry about any of this anyway. Tue, 10 Oct 2006 16:29:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (abraxas) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170408 http://osnews.com/thread?170408 I made a software installation script that loads software onto an XP machine (hotfixes, Free Software, etc). Disabling system restore before running this script greatly reduces the time it takes to complete the script. Try it for yourself. Make a hotfix install script and see how long it takes to complete with and without system restore enabled.,

Do you know why? Hotfix installs will usually force a restore point. This is something you want incase something goes wrong. This has nothing to do with system operation since you are not going to be playing Quake 4 while you are installing Hotfxes.

NTFS defragmentation is out of hand. It is no where near as bad on other modern filesystems. The blame should be squarely on NTFS for this one, not the defragmenter. I found that the defragmenter is actually very good at doing what it is designed to do. It is just needed more than it should be.

Actually NTFS isn't that bad, no where near as bad as FAT. How does blaming NTFS going to make the built-in Disk Defragmenter do more than it is designed to do? Yes the Disk Defragmenter is better than nothing but it has many faults not being automatic or easy to schedule being come of them. Tue, 10 Oct 2006 16:32:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Mastertech) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170412 http://osnews.com/thread?170412 It can help when you clean out reg entries that are attempting to load applications at boot time.

No it doesn't. Registry Cleaners do not clean pointers to applications that load at startup. Invalid entries do nothing and go nowhere. To improve startup times by removing applications that load during startup you need to use a program like Autoruns:

http://www.sysinternals.com/Utilities/Autoruns.html Tue, 10 Oct 2006 16:36:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Mastertech) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170417 http://osnews.com/thread?170417 What is your point? Of course not all applications run as a limited user. It's not like there aren't ways to run those applications. It is the same way in other operating systems. That's what things like sudo and setuid are for. There are similar options in Windows.
Yeah sudo is practical to use for end users. Have you actually ever supported end users before? They have a hard enough time clicking on the right icons and not making duplicates all over their desktop. It does not state it is IMPOSSIBLE only that it is NOT REALISTIC!

No. It isn't. The typical family isn't a family of game enthusiasts. Maybe the teenage son plays a lot of games but his sister just uses the computer for myspace and aim, while the mother forwards jokes and organizes her family pictures. Dad is buying stocks or looking at porno. Then you have the majority of PC users, corporate workers. Games are very low on the list when you look at it without the bias that you have.

Then show me evidence that most people don't play games. Your family is not an indisputable scientific survey. Almost every end user client I have plays some form of game and that list does not only incude games. Not all business applications work well with with LUA. Hell even something as simple as Flash has problems:

http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/knowledgebase/index.cfm?id=624850b5

My "bias" is based on practical experience with thousands of clients from home to business users not some sampling of my immediate families use. Lets see according to my study 100% of people play games because everyone in my immediate family plays games, please. Tue, 10 Oct 2006 16:44:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Mastertech) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170424 http://osnews.com/thread?170424 However, more available memory that's not doing anything does not automatically equal performance gains, as the rest of the benchmark shows. It actually ends up showing quite the opposite. Tue, 10 Oct 2006 16:54:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (DjLizard) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170438 http://osnews.com/thread?170438 DOS Game compatablility
Reality: I have tons of old games that I still play. If you can get them to install, you can probably get them to run in XP. IF you can get them to install. Good luck with that. Save yourself some aggrevation and get DOSBox or a virtual machine with FreeDOS.

The source explains how to work around these issues, it does not change the fact that many DOS games will run in XP will a little effort and again DOSBox is mentioned.

Cleaning the Prefetch Folder
The first boot after cleaning the prefetch is slower. After that, Windows XP boots much faster than it did before cleaning the prefetch. Explain this if the prefetch isn't accessed till you run an app.

Placebo. No faster than it was before you cleaned the folder. Prefetching is also used to accelerated Windows Boot. During Boot only one file is accessed = NTOSBOOT-B00DFAAD.PF

EnablePrefetcher
In my experience, most systems run better if you set this key to 2 and then clean the prefetch. True, programs are a little slower loading, but they run better once they are loaded.

Placebo and total nonsense. If you set it to 2 than they do not benefit from Prefetching and this load slower. I don't understand people's stubborn insistence to slow their system down. Many people do not understand how Windows Prefetching works, please read about it before you carelessly REDUCE your performance.

Moving the Paging File
I have no problem with what he said here. I'd add that you get get a further boost by having paging files on multiple physical disks.

This is mentioned from the source.

Disabling Services
He says "Disabling other unnecessary services in general has only one affect on performance and that is reduced Windows XP boot times". I say bull. Services take up memory. Less memory usage=better preformance. Simple as that.

Nope check the link: http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=34&threadid=...

The built-in Disk Defragmenter is good enough.
First: Consider his source....someone trying to sell a defragmenter. Biased? I think so.
Second: XP has a command like defragger that can be started with task scheduler. If you need more than that, just start it before you go to bed once in a while.

The points are all valid, if you have ever used Diskeeper you will clearly see it is superior to the built-in Disk Defragmenter. And it mentions scripting it but this is not easy for the average end user.

Limited User Accounts are a Realistic Security Solution.
Limited user accounts are the first step to a realistic security solution. I've never seen a program have trouble running under a limited account, and if you NEED and administrative account, it usually pops up a ran as dialogue.

It is clearly stated why it is NOT realistic for the average end user. To many things break. Anyone who has extensive experience with end user support understands this.

The Windows XP Firewall is not good enough because it lacks outbound filtering.
The Windows firewall lets all kinds of goodies through. If your computer asks for it (which it does if you access a malicious webpage or a host of other things) Windows firewall ignores it. Outbound filtering is VITAL.

Any Firewall can let anything through on XP because there is no way to prevent outbound filtering from becoming compromised on XP, read the source again. Tue, 10 Oct 2006 17:08:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Mastertech) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170447 http://osnews.com/thread?170447 Check out the other response to my last comment, which contains a link showing the RAM savings possible. I think 40% is a pretty big improvement if you ask me.

This is the same incorrect argument pushers of RAM Optimizers/Defragmenters make. RAM Usage does not equal performance.

You see a lot of flak from NIX users about NTFS because NIX has so many filesystems that are all better than NTFS. Just look at Linux alone. ReiserFS, Ext3, XFS, and JFS are all better filesystems by a large margin. They do not get nearly as fragmented as NTFS. They do not degrade in performance nearly as much as NTFS.

How much "better" they are is debatable but this is still irrelevant. This is dealing with Windows.

I guess we have a different definition of "runs fine". XP with 128MB of memory is no longer a multitasking environment. As soon as you try to use it like this it swaps to all hell. 256MB isn't much better with SP2.

You can multitask but it depends solely on the applications you use. People incorrectly associate third party software requirements with the OS. Windows XP SP2 requirements are identical, except for HD Space which is understandable: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/sysreqs.mspx

Even after you made the claim of working for an OEM for 15 years I still stand by my claim of installing it on more systems than you, especially when it comes to memory constrained systems. Hell, that's part of the reason for my move to Linux.

I really doubt that at one time I was in charge of volume imaging business clients who were getting a couple hundred systems at a time. Now I am doing more management related duties. When XP came out we were upgrading many clients to XP who had what would be called low end systems by todays standards. Many, many low end PII systems

I'm not going to deny that it takes some time to set up a limited user account, but a seperation of priveledges is absolutely necessary for security. Just because you haven't been bit yet doesn't mean you won't be. Advocating against the use of limited user accounts is just irresponsible.

In a managed environment. I deal with the security issues everyday and it is the same story with new clients, no patches applied, no AV or it is out of date, no firewall ect....

LUA has nothing to do with whether I will have a security issue or not. What is irresponsible is recommending impractical security suggestions to end users that break applications and cause unneeded support costs to them and businesses.

You would be amazed out how many time outgoing filtering is not circumvented, which is most of the time. If you and others ran as limited users we wouldn't have to worry about any of this anyway.

These systems are still infected! That is the whole point! I want to STOP them from getting infected in the first place. Third Party Firewalls create massive amounts of headache for end users and support staff more than the useless outbound filtering does for anything. People simply click yes and let everything connect to the Internet just to get rid of the dialog box. BTW You don't have to worry about me or any of my clients. Tue, 10 Oct 2006 17:32:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Mastertech) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170466 http://osnews.com/thread?170466 I actually have an xbox to play games, I code and do useful stuff on my computer. I don't tend to worry about other people on the internet, as I think it is everyone's resposibility to keep thier own machine running smoothly and cleanly, I don't have any problems doing it, it's not that hard. That's why I think that outgoing filtering is like closing the door after the horse is gone, it's useless because you've already done something stupid. Now virus scanning on outgoing email, that is something much more useful, as that is still how most viruses replicate Tue, 10 Oct 2006 18:29:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (BluenoseJake) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170584 http://osnews.com/thread?170584 Not respecting someone's copyright only shows your true character as a person.

You're off to a good start :-). Never said I didn't respect copyright - but quoting the DMCA is about as low as it gets.

Luck has nothing to do with it. It is clearly documented that many DOS games will work with XP Emulation

The vast majority won't. Microsoft should just adopt DOSBox.

Please Provide documentation from a game developer that their game will not work due to NTFS.

Fact: NTFS permissions will stop a user from running a game with user specific files because Microsoft did not foresee this scenario and did not recommend where developers should save them. Other operating systems did. The fact that NTFS may not strictly be responsible is irrelevant to an end user. Games work fine using FAT32. Games stop working when using NTFS, unless running as an administrator - which negates using NTFS for security in the first place!

I'm assuming this will be 'fixed' with Vista ;-).

And it is NOT stated as "MANY" Games - you added that.

Many is enough, wouldn't you say? Vast majority, I should have said.

He just explained what it does.

No he didn't. He says that any application can use this, but only WMP can. It's anything but clear.

Windows Prefetchs all executables you launch. But this does not mean it PreCaches them in RAM BEFORE the application is launched.

Unless it does some form of caching in memory at some point then the system is essentially useless as a performance advantage.

There are many meanings to the word Prefetch and you are using an incorrect definition here.

Again, you're dancing around what the system will need to do to improve performance. It's specified that prefetch files are used to 'improve performance', but it's not specified what those files contain or how they are used.

It's just a case of going round in circles. Unless you can prove that's how it works through source code(!) or via some other means then it isn't going to make a blind bit of difference to the people who observe the behaviour they do.

Please provide documented reproduceable evidence on a clean install of XP

So I'm going to need to re-install to reproduce it? ;-) Point made. Again, this isn't going to make any difference to the people who manage to make their system somewhat more trouble-free when disabling System Restore.

The Myth is that it is NECESSARY to delete this file.

A play on words ;-). Within a clean install of Windows XP, with no other software or tools available, you simply cannot defragment the hybernate file via the default defragmenter. The only way to free this up is to delete it.

The problem with this Myth is people continue to do this when there are better, easier ways to defragment it.

By buying tools that are not in the OS.

Spying and tracking are two different things. Cookies are not executable code.

Sigh. Cookies are used to store all manner of information and can be used by sites and applications to track, and spy (the line is so thin), on what a person does. What the hell do you think all those adlink things do?

"Why bother?" That is the point.

Because it improves a little thing called security, that's why.

They are still irrelevant when you can use a better, safer solution that is easier to manage with none of the negative effects = Spyware Blaster.

Again, an even easier way to stop this file from being altered is to run yourself under a limited user account. No intervention or software required. Tue, 10 Oct 2006 22:27:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (segedunum) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170652 http://osnews.com/thread?170652 You're off to a good start :-). Never said I didn't respect copyright - but quoting the DMCA is about as low as it gets.

Only to someone who doesn't care about copyrights.


The vast majority won't. Microsoft should just adopt DOSBox.

No, did you even read the source? Many will work, it did not state only a minority will work. And Microsoft will never adopt DOSBox because there is no reason too. People need to get out of the stone age anyway. DOS has been dead since 1995.


Fact: NTFS permissions will stop a user from running a game with user specific files because Microsoft did not foresee this scenario and did not recommend where developers should save them. Other operating systems did. The fact that NTFS may not strictly be responsible is irrelevant to an end user. Games work fine using FAT32. Games stop working when using NTFS, unless running as an administrator - which negates using NTFS for security in the first place!

Wrong, Windows defaults to an admin account #1 and even in a limited user environment you can simply run the DOS game from the MyDocuments folder to get full permissions. Running as Admin does not negate NTFS security. Again, please Provide documentation from a game developer that their game will not work due to NTFS.


I'm assuming this will be 'fixed' with Vista ;-).

What will be fixed? DOS emulation will be the same or worse.


Many is enough, wouldn't you say? Vast majority, I should have said.

That is still wrong.


No he didn't. He says that any application can use this, but only WMP can. It's anything but clear.

The switch does not improve load performance beyond what prefetching already does. What it does is for applications that have multiple components like WMP, it does not waste memory unnecessarily prefetching pages unneeded when the application is loaded. If you are just playing a CD you do not need the DVD component so it makes no sense to prefetch that and have it page back to disk at some point since it is unused. But people do not understand this and simply add this swich to applications which do not have multiple components like this. The switch creates a separate prefetch trace file per component; /preftech:1, prefetch:2 ect... when assigned to the shortcut of each component. Automatically every executable that loads has a prefetch trace file created. So when people attempt to do this useless tweak, the way they use this switch does nothing but create a new prefetch file, which does nothing more than what it was doing automatically.


Unless it does some form of caching in memory at some point then the system is essentially useless as a performance advantage.

You don't understand how this works. Read this:
Windows XP: Kernel Improvements Create a More Robust, Powerful, and Scalable OS
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/01/12/XPKernel/default.asp...

What it does is reduce unnecessary IO seeks by optimizing the way pages are brought into memory.


Again, you're dancing around what the system will need to do to improve performance. It's specified that prefetch files are used to 'improve performance', but it's not specified what those files contain or how they are used.

No one is going in circles. You keep asking different questions. Why not spend five minutes and do some reaseach at Microsoft.com Did you read any of the sources? Here are more:

Windows XP Prefetcher References:

Misinformation and the The Prefetch Flag - Ryan Myers Microsoft Windows Client Performance Team
http://blogs.msdn.com/ryanmy/archive/2005/05/25/421882.aspx

Windows XP: Kernel Improvements Create a More Robust, Powerful, and Scalable OS
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/01/12/XPKernel/default.asp...

Kernel Enhancements for Windows XP
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/driver/kernel/xp_kernel.mspx

Benchmarking on Windows XP
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/sysperf/benchmark.mspx

Windows XP Performance
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/evaluate/xppe...

Windows XP Professional Resource Kit
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/reskit/c28621...


It's just a case of going round in circles. Unless you can prove that's how it works through source code(!) or via some other means then it isn't going to make a blind bit of difference to the people who observe the behaviour they do.

It is obvious you have no concept of how this works, that is fine many people do not but do not make assumptions on things you have not even attempted to research. Read the above references.


So I'm going to need to re-install to reproduce it? ;-) Point made. Again, this isn't going to make any difference to the people who manage to make their system somewhat more trouble-free when disabling System Restore.

Of course you have to use a clean install to prove that System Restore reduces performance in any meaningful way. That is how to properly test these things. You have to eliminate all variables. You keep making unsubstantiated claims. What is "trouble-free"? If you have no documented reproduceable evidence to support any of these allegations they will be simply considered Placebo.


A play on words ;-). Within a clean install of Windows XP, with no other software or tools available, you simply cannot defragment the hybernate file via the default defragmenter. The only way to free this up is to delete it.

No there is no play on words, what is stated is clear. It is NOT necessary to delete this file you can use the FREE PageDefrag or a commercial defragmenter like Diskeeper.


By buying tools that are not in the OS.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO BUY ANYTHING! PAGEDEFRAG IS FREE AS IN FREE!


Sigh. Cookies are used to store all manner of information and can be used by sites and applications to track, and spy (the line is so thin), on what a person does. What the hell do you think all those adlink things do?

Cookies record session information, an example is how many times you visit a page. Many pages that have pop-ups use cookies to prevent you from getting a pop-up every session. The point is they are not malicious software. They don't install anything, hijack your web browser ect...


Because it improves a little thing called security, that's why.

But it is unnecessary and is not practical in Windows XP. I can unplug my Cable Modem and improve security too but then I can't use the Internet. Just like Limited User Accounts prevent me from running certain software.


Again, an even easier way to stop this file from being altered is to run yourself under a limited user account. No intervention or software required.

Limited User accounts are not practical on non managed Windows XP machines. That is the reality no matter how much you wish is was not true. Too many applications do not work, look at the previous page for a short list. Wed, 11 Oct 2006 02:00:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Mastertech) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170659 http://osnews.com/thread?170659 This is the same incorrect argument pushers of RAM Optimizers/Defragmenters make. RAM Usage does not equal performance.

It certainly does when your machine starts swapping like crazy.

How much "better" they are is debatable but this is still irrelevant. This is dealing with Windows.

Better is not debatable at all. NTFS is by far the worst compared to the filesystems I mentioned. Fragmentation is by far the worst when using NTFS. As for it being irrelevant, it isn't. The author doesn't address the real issue.

You can multitask but it depends solely on the applications you use. People incorrectly associate third party software requirements with the OS. Windows XP SP2 requirements are identical, except for HD Space which is understandable: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/sysreqs.mspx

An OS is useless if you cannot run applications with it.

I really doubt that at one time I was in charge of volume imaging business clients who were getting a couple hundred systems at a time. Now I am doing more management related duties. When XP came out we were upgrading many clients to XP who had what would be called low end systems by todays standards. Many, many low end PII systems

Sounds similar to what I did at one time. So I doubt you have any more experience with it than I do.

In a managed environment. I deal with the security issues everyday and it is the same story with new clients, no patches applied, no AV or it is out of date, no firewall ect....

LUA has nothing to do with whether I will have a security issue or not. What is irresponsible is recommending impractical security suggestions to end users that break applications and cause unneeded support costs to them and businesses.

You're looking at this from the wrong angle. With proper security you shouldn't need AV or a firewall. Proper security includes up to date patches and LUA, amongst other things. With LUA you aren't supposed to be able to run everything under the sun. Games are an issue but they can be made to run under a LUA (although they shouldn't be designed like that).

These systems are still infected! That is the whole point! I want to STOP them from getting infected in the first place. Third Party Firewalls create massive amounts of headache for end users and support staff more than the useless outbound filtering does for anything. People simply click yes and let everything connect to the Internet just to get rid of the dialog box. BTW You don't have to worry about me or any of my clients.

Without outgoing filtering the security hell hole that people like you condone causes the rest of us on the internet a ton of problems. Not only that even infected systems can at least protect themselves from identity theft. Wed, 11 Oct 2006 02:42:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (abraxas) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170662 http://osnews.com/thread?170662 Yeah sudo is practical to use for end users. Have you actually ever supported end users before? They have a hard enough time clicking on the right icons and not making duplicates all over their desktop. It does not state it is IMPOSSIBLE only that it is NOT REALISTIC!

Maybe you just lack the skills to setup a computer properly, or educate your users. That is your problem not mine. I don't seem to have any issues.

Then show me evidence that most people don't play games. Your family is not an indisputable scientific survey.

I'm not talking about my family. I'm talking about the thousands of users I have interacted with. Despite what you think most people don't live their lives in WoW.

Almost every end user client I have plays some form of game and that list does not only incude games. Not all business applications work well with with LUA. Hell even something as simple as Flash has problems:

Set it up properly! You cannot have security without having some kind of accessiblity problems. Take it or leave it. There is always going to be a tradeoff. There is no magical cure for security.

My "bias" is based on practical experience with thousands of clients from home to business users not some sampling of my immediate families use. Lets see according to my study 100% of people play games because everyone in my immediate family plays games, please.

I didn't sample my family. My experience comes from the thousands of users I deal with. My family would actually be quite odd. My mother is a programmer. My father has trouble even turning on a computer, one brother has limited knowledge yet doesn't have many problems with LUA, my other brother works with computers also, and my sister is an average aim/email user. Not that it matters but NONE of us play games. Get your facts straight before attacking me. Wed, 11 Oct 2006 02:55:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (abraxas) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170667 http://osnews.com/thread?170667 It certainly does when your machine starts swapping like crazy.

Service Paging in real time does not affect performance. If you think it does please provide documented reproduceable proof. Stop making unsubstantiated statements.


Better is not debatable at all. NTFS is by far the worst compared to the filesystems I mentioned. Fragmentation is by far the worst when using NTFS. As for it being irrelevant, it isn't. The author doesn't address the real issue.

Yes that is YOUR OPINION, it is still IRRELEVANT! What is not being addressed? That you should replace your NTFS file system with what? How do you do this in Windows? What is being addressed is a Myth of built-in Disk Defragmenter and you use it as a chance to start a Linux vs. Windows argument.


An OS is useless if you cannot run applications with it.

Wow no kidding! Many applications will run on those requirements especially office, email and your browser. Which makes it VERY USEABLE.


Sounds similar to what I did at one time. So I doubt you have any more experience with it than I do.

Apparently I do with respect to XP and the minimum requirements it will run on.


You're looking at this from the wrong angle. With proper security you shouldn't need AV or a firewall. Proper security includes up to date patches and LUA, amongst other things. With LUA you aren't supposed to be able to run everything under the sun. Games are an issue but they can be made to run under a LUA (although they shouldn't be designed like that).

No I am looking at it from the angle of the end user. This is the reality, what they want to do not what you want them to do. Security solutions need to be created around what they want to do or they will not do them. Which is why Microsoft has created UAC in Vista.


Without outgoing filtering the security hell hole that people like you condone causes the rest of us on the internet a ton of problems. Not only that even infected systems can at least protect themselves from identity theft.

Outgoing filtering in XP is useless because it can be circumvented. YOU CANNOT SECURE OUTGOING TRAFFIC IN XP with a software solution. I am not causing anyone any problems but am eliminating them by having people run clean machines that stay clean without LUA and useless outboung filtering. Wed, 11 Oct 2006 03:18:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Mastertech) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170668 http://osnews.com/thread?170668 Maybe you just lack the skills to setup a computer properly, or educate your users. That is your problem not mine. I don't seem to have any issues.

Maybe you have no real world experience supporting end users? I provided a small list of known applications that do not work, there are more. I provided a link that showed how something as simple and common as Flash breaks in LUA.


I'm not talking about my family. I'm talking about the thousands of users I have interacted with. Despite what you think most people don't live their lives in WoW.

How long you play a game is irrelevant to "if" you play a game. Don't change the subject or distort what is being said.


Set it up properly! You cannot have security without having some kind of accessiblity problems. Take it or leave it. There is always going to be a tradeoff. There is no magical cure for security.

It is setup properly in an Admin account. I don't need to make any tradeoffs because I do not have security issues and I don't use LUA.


I didn't sample my family. My experience comes from the thousands of users I deal with. My family would actually be quite odd. My mother is a programmer. My father has trouble even turning on a computer, one brother has limited knowledge yet doesn't have many problems with LUA, my other brother works with computers also, and my sister is an average aim/email user. Not that it matters but NONE of us play games. Get your facts straight before attacking me.

But you did use the analogy that I was refering too:

"No. It isn't. The typical family isn't a family of game enthusiasts. Maybe the teenage son plays a lot of games but his sister just uses the computer for myspace and aim, while the mother forwards jokes and organizes her family pictures. Dad is buying stocks or looking at porno. Then you have the majority of PC users, corporate workers. Games are very low on the list when you look at it without the bias that you have."

Don't use poor analogies and they will not be disputed. Wed, 11 Oct 2006 03:27:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Mastertech) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170702 http://osnews.com/thread?170702 "It is possible to run as a limited user and do all the things you want to do."

Of course it is possible but it's a LOT of work to do and Joe User shouldn't have to do that.

"It's not like it's any different in Linux or OSX"

No, it is very different because in Linux or OSX the large majority of games and applications work out of the box with a limited use account.

"It's difficult to do much out of the box but it's supposed to be that way."

It is not supposed to be difficult to actually get applications and games working.

"On a side note 95% of computer users don't use their PC for games. Maybe 5% do."

True, 95% was an exaggeration but 5% is also way too low.

"Why do gamers always think that everyone else is just like them?"
I'm not a gamer and I dont play much games. Granted, it's the ONLY thing I use XP for but I don't do it much. Wed, 11 Oct 2006 09:45:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Soulbender) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170716 http://osnews.com/thread?170716 by ctrl-U I was referring to view source. view source is not violating copyright law (in my country at any rate), but it would be violating the DMCA, as one could look at it as "reverse engineering", which is against that particular act. Wed, 11 Oct 2006 11:49:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (google_ninja) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170872 http://osnews.com/thread?170872 Maybe you have no real world experience supporting end users? I provided a small list of known applications that do not work, there are more. I provided a link that showed how something as simple and common as Flash breaks in LUA.

Flash can be made to work with a LUA, just as other applications can be made to work with a LUA. Some applications must be given admin priveledges but they CAN be made to work.

How long you play a game is irrelevant to "if" you play a game. Don't change the subject or distort what is being said.

You completely missed the point...again.

It is setup properly in an Admin account. I don't need to make any tradeoffs because I do not have security issues and I don't use LUA.

Oh really. Please explain to me how giving your users total access to their systems at all times is in any way secure. Maybe you need to take some comp sci classes concerning security.

Don't use poor analogies and they will not be disputed.

That wasn't an anology. I'm not so sure you know what that word means. That was a generalization, which means that it doesn't apply to everyone but in general those are the types of users I see and deal with everyday. Wed, 11 Oct 2006 19:08:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (abraxas) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170877 http://osnews.com/thread?170877 Do you know why? Hotfix installs will usually force a restore point. This is something you want incase something goes wrong. This has nothing to do with system operation since you are not going to be playing Quake 4 while you are installing Hotfxes.

Yeah I know how it works. That is exactly why it is important for someone like me to disable. It increases performance when installing software. So just because you want to discount certain cases doesn't make it any less true.

Actually NTFS isn't that bad, no where near as bad as FAT. How does blaming NTFS going to make the built-in Disk Defragmenter do more than it is designed to do? Yes the Disk Defragmenter is better than nothing but it has many faults not being automatic or easy to schedule being come of them.

It looks like you don't have much experience with filesystems other than NTFS and FAT. Let me tell you there is a world of difference. I've never seen fragmentation as bad as NTFS on any Linux filesystem that I have used. Like I've said before, the author doesn't address the real problem, which is NTFS, instead he's trying to sell Diskeeper. Wed, 11 Oct 2006 19:14:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (abraxas) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170990 http://osnews.com/thread?170990 Flash can be made to work with a LUA, just as other applications can be made to work with a LUA. Some applications must be given admin priveledges but they CAN be made to work.

Look it is obvious you don't support anyone in any meaningful way. Flash initially required manually editing the registry to get it to work with LUA:

http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/knowledgebase/index.cfm?id=624850b5

That is just one recent example of something that works flawlessly everytime as Admin. I wasted many hours with that stupid issue as I do with all LUA issues. Now imagine every home user having the same problem because they all start running as LUA. The problems with LUA are well documented.

You completely missed the point...again.

What point? Then say what you mean instead of making ridiculous statements and then claiming people do not understand them.

Oh really. Please explain to me how giving your users total access to their systems at all times is in any way secure. Maybe you need to take some comp sci classes concerning security.

How old are you? Do you realize out of the box XP defaults to an admin account? Please STOP pushing the nix agenda on Windows users. You obviously have no experience with managing LUA on Windows in any meaningful way. It is simply not practical in a NON MANAGED environment as I have clearly demonstrated OVER AND OVER AND OVER, too many applications break.

That wasn't an anology. I'm not so sure you know what that word means. That was a generalization, which means that it doesn't apply to everyone but in general those are the types of users I see and deal with everyday.

Yeah sure, your analogy/generalization was ridiculous and related to nothing. Please provide documented proof of any more absurd statistics you try to present. Wed, 11 Oct 2006 23:32:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Mastertech) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?170996 http://osnews.com/thread?170996 Yeah I know how it works. That is exactly why it is important for someone like me to disable. It increases performance when installing software. So just because you want to discount certain cases doesn't make it any less true.

No you don't know how it works. It does not increase performance for installing SOFTWARE, only certain HOTFIXS which force the creation of a Restore Point. This is a GOOD IDEA! Incase something goes wrong you have a guaranteed way to remove it, if the uninstall fails. You need to understand how something works instead of making assumptions and spreading misinformation. Hotfix install time is NOT why this Myth exists, people assume System Restore is consuming resources in the background that negatively affects performance, which is not true.

It looks like you don't have much experience with filesystems other than NTFS and FAT. Let me tell you there is a world of difference. I've never seen fragmentation as bad as NTFS on any Linux filesystem that I have used. Like I've said before, the author doesn't address the real problem, which is NTFS, instead he's trying to sell Diskeeper.

Yes I have used Linux file systems and am well aware of the arguments. What the hell is the author supposed to say? Don't use NTFS or don't use FAT? Why should the author add Linux propaganda to the website? This is the most idiotic argument yet. If you use NTFS, Diskeeper is a very good solution. Don't like it? Too bad, don't use Windows. The page is calle XP MYTHS not "how Linux users can spread propaganda about Windows". Wed, 11 Oct 2006 23:42:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Mastertech) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?171457 http://osnews.com/thread?171457 No you don't know how it works. It does not increase performance for installing SOFTWARE, only certain HOTFIXS which force the creation of a Restore Point. This is a GOOD IDEA! Incase something goes wrong you have a guaranteed way to remove it, if the uninstall fails. You need to understand how something works instead of making assumptions and spreading misinformation. Hotfix install time is NOT why this Myth exists, people assume System Restore is consuming resources in the background that negatively affects performance, which is not true.

Hotfixes aren't the only type of software to force restore points. Besides that system restore sucks and doesn't work very well anyway. It fails half the time so why do I want it running anyway?

Yes I have used Linux file systems and am well aware of the arguments. What the hell is the author supposed to say? Don't use NTFS or don't use FAT? Why should the author add Linux propaganda to the website? This is the most idiotic argument yet. If you use NTFS, Diskeeper is a very good solution. Don't like it? Too bad, don't use Windows. The page is calle XP MYTHS not "how Linux users can spread propaganda about Windows".

You miss the point every single time. The author doesn't actually address the real problem, instead he tries to sell software on his site. The myth he should have listed was the myth of NTFS not getting fragmented and being a good filesystem. Instead he wants to bitch about how he cannot defrag many filesystems at once, which would be completely unneccessary if he had a decent filesystem in the first place. The fact is that the defragger is fine for 99% of people. It's the filesystem that sucks. Fri, 13 Oct 2006 15:33:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (abraxas) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?171461 http://osnews.com/thread?171461 How old are you? Do you realize out of the box XP defaults to an admin account? Please STOP pushing the nix agenda on Windows users. You obviously have no experience with managing LUA on Windows in any meaningful way. It is simply not practical in a NON MANAGED environment as I have clearly demonstrated OVER AND OVER AND OVER, too many applications break.

You have no experience with security. You falsely claim that you can have security without limiting access to the computer. LUA can be difficult in some situations but it is always doable. The problem I have with your statements is that you are telling people that they can be secure without limited access. They can't. You also falsely believe that these issues don't arise for *nix systems. They do arise and we deal with them. Fri, 13 Oct 2006 15:43:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (abraxas) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?171619 http://osnews.com/thread?171619 Hotfixes aren't the only type of software to force restore points. Besides that system restore sucks and doesn't work very well anyway. It fails half the time so why do I want it running anyway?

They are the only one that does consistently. Some other programs also do but this is during INSTALLATION and does not affect operating performance. You can't substantiate that it sucks or prove that it fails "half the time". You simply do not like it. None of this has anything to do with this Myth which has people disabling System Restore for performance reasons AKA FPS in a game, applications running slower than normal ect...


You miss the point every single time. The author doesn't actually address the real problem, instead he tries to sell software on his site. The myth he should have listed was the myth of NTFS not getting fragmented and being a good filesystem. Instead he wants to bitch about how he cannot defrag many filesystems at once, which would be completely unneccessary if he had a decent filesystem in the first place. The fact is that the defragger is fine for 99% of people. It's the filesystem that sucks.

There is a Myth on the page about NTFS not getting fragmented. You simply think it is not a good file system, that is your opinion and does nothing to address any of the Myths that people have about it. This is the most IDIOTIC argument you are trying to make. The built-in defragmenter is not good enough which is the whole point and why it is not is clearly stated with sources. So for the Disk Defragmenter being not good enough the reality should be the "file system sucks"? Are you retarted? How does that help anyone when they get good factual information to get a better defragmenter. Do you even operate in the realm of reality? Sat, 14 Oct 2006 01:17:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Mastertech) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?171621 http://osnews.com/thread?171621 You have no experience with security. You falsely claim that you can have security without limiting access to the computer. LUA can be difficult in some situations but it is always doable. The problem I have with your statements is that you are telling people that they can be secure without limited access. They can't. You also falsely believe that these issues don't arise for *nix systems. They do arise and we deal with them.

I have over 15 years of experience dealing with security and never use limited user accounts in non managed environments. Of course you can be secure without LUA, that is the whole point. No LUA is NOT "always doable" many games WILL NOT RUN IN LUA!! DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS???!!! Sat, 14 Oct 2006 01:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Mastertech) Comments