wired.com — It?s the most secure distribution version of Windows XP ever produced by Microsoft: More than 600 settings are locked down tight, and critical security patches can be installed in an average of 72 hours instead of 57 days. The only problem is, you have to join the Air Force to get it.
May 1, 2009 View in Crawl 4
whatitMay 1, 2009
You have no idea what you're talking about. At least read the comments before you type.
enlefoMay 1, 2009
/. sux now too
craftyguyMay 1, 2009
@RexxxMaster Wtf?AMD tri-core processors are the result of manufacturing a quadcore processor with 1 core being disabled from having too many defects. Look at a 'tricore' under the heatspreader/polished die, and you'll see 4 cores, one has been fused off.
kunnavangMay 2, 2009
...is pstools.
fearphageMay 10, 2009
Windows 7 == What Vista should have been
johnnysoftwareJul 22, 2009
"and critical security patches can be installed in an average of 72 hours instead of 57 days"Oh, yawn. How accurate are those responsiveness statistics anyway?I mean after all, they just announced earlier this month a flaw that was being exploited in the wild. Then, when the press started to pin down what they knew and when they new it that turned out to be 18 mnoths ago. And the researchers who reported it knew aoubt it longer than that.And nobody knows which researchers found it before or after that and did not inform about it to Microsoft but merely sold it to computer crooks or used it themselves. Would computer crooks use undisclosed flaws? Duh.
johnnysoftwareJul 22, 2009
They've been in hardcore cost-cutter mode for IE and MS-Windows development since 2001. It is hardly surprising that things have blown up.That said, they fused their web browser to their OS which violates every modularity principle there is. And they made ActiveX an inherent part of their browser. Plus, they chose to implement a box model that makes their CSS layouts incompatible with standard HTML+CSS and delayed fixing it forever.That alone should give you a pretty solid general feeling of why they are capable of seeing after the fact their OS is secure but fail to see it before the fact or be able to fix it after the fact. Had they been more knowledgeable, these systemic flaws would not have been there in the first place.
johnnysoftwareJul 22, 2009
Sure, what better way to infect pirate's computers than an altered version of the OS. That way you won't have to do anything to ge your system infected. You'll get pre-infected builds from pirates instead of the hopefully initially virus-free one from Microsoft.Not that you can ever be completely certaim because they have shipped a couple software products that came with viruses in them already. At least they disclosed them after the fact.
brian78347Aug 11, 2009
interesting comments. is anything really "safe"?