Linked by Rahul on Sat 11th Oct 2008 04:47 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 333450
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: The question no ones asks is WHY?
by Lunitik on Mon 13th Oct 2008 05:34
in reply to "RE[3]: The question no ones asks is WHY?"
RE[5]: The question no ones asks is WHY?
by PlatformAgnostic on Mon 13th Oct 2008 22:08
in reply to "RE[4]: The question no ones asks is WHY?"
It's considered a security bug in the system if one non-administrative use of a Windows machine can affect another user. The only thing one user is able to do to another by design is DoS them via excessive CPU and resource consumption. The system as of Vista/WS08 has strong resource quota support, so this scenario can be prevented if you're willing to put up with a significant management burden (I'm not sure how good Windows Server Resource Manager is... never used it).
Can you elaborate on the differences between 'true separation between users, etc' and what Windows provides?





Member since:
2006-01-02
I'm not sure how you can justify your statement. Windows has supported multiple users logging in at the same time since NT 4 with Terminal Services. Before Terminal Services, you could have multiple remote users at a time, but the graphical system was tied to the single console user so your statement would have been accurate for those versions of NT.
But TS is more than a decade and a half old by now and it's been in consumer OSes since the advent of XP.