View Single Post
  #22  
Old March 18th 10, 04:32 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsme.general
webster72n
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 1,526
Default ping Mike and Noel



"Shane" facetious'r'.us wrote in message
...
Did you expect problems downloading it then Harry?


No, but with the test drive, Shane.
Just wanted to let everyone know, there are no problems in running this
precursor.
I'm taking the leg or wing myself. H.


As for M$, I'd have prefered a leg or a wing if I still et the stuff.


Shane

webster72n wrote:
"Shane" wrote in message
...
I daresay you know about this, but I only just saw it (on El Reg) -
the IE9 preview? Not XP compatible! Anyway I just downloaded it.
I'll boot Win7 shortly and try it. After all I don't use IE8 there.


I took this very partial forerunner for a brief test drive on my Vista
machine after downloading it without any problems, but also no earth
moving surprises. Most of it seems to be designed for developers. But
it is by far not the finished product either. MS promised to keep me
abreast as they go.
Harry.



Shane


Mike M wrote:
I am a
little (albeit very little) surprised that you appear to be running
Vista/Win7 still, Mike.

I don't use Vista, in truth I loath it, although I do have it
installed as an option on a laptop and two PCs (everything here
multi-boots) and probably gets booted once a month or even
bi-monthly and then primarily only to patch. Win 7 is something
different again, it works and there are a number of features that I
like so it is the os of choice on one of my PCs (XPP being the os
of choice on this PC). Whilst I have both 64 and 32 bit installed
I stick with 32 bit as I have some hardware for which only 32 bit
drivers are available (video capture used for digitizing VCR tapes,
and my flat bed and film scanners). I think that probably the
biggest downside for me (or rather my elder daughter) is the
limited support for scsi, she has an older Nikon film scanner that
connects via scsi. This means that she has to use her laptop
(which runs XPP) to access the scanner as she fortunately got a
pcmcia/scsi connector with the scanner when she bought it,
You mention memory, I've got Win 7 HP running here on a five year
old Tosh laptop I recently bought on eBay and it runs sweetly on
1.25GB of RAM. The big bugbear is that there appear to be no WDDM
Win 7 drivers for the Intel 855 graphics chip so am having to use XP
drivers (installed via a small hack) the downside of which is that
you can't change screen brightness whilst the os is running although
you can change it then reboot for the change to take effect - as if
I'm going to be doing that.
Mike,

Been a while!

As to locking down IE other than for WU, IE fortunately isn't
required for updates when running Vista or Win 7 so on those OSs
if wanted IE can
be locked down/crippled so as to be inoperable.

Yes. That's good. Though I rarely run either now they're final
releases. I wasn't when you posted this, but have put Win7 back now
out of the same kind of curiosity that leads me to install a Linux
distro from time to time (though I think I have really learnt my
lesson this time around and never will again!). I won't be running
Win7 until I get a new PC (correction: *build* a new PC) as I don't
think it is worth splashing out on more RAM, especially as I
already replaced the mobo, and that I expect to go multicore next
time too. As for so very, very many of those M$ (I do, these days,
think they are about money and nothing but - except for the guy at
the top who also likes a rant) want to upgrade to Vista/Win7, it
means a lot more here than just shelling out for the
exorbitantly-priced OS. I am a little (albeit very little)
surprised that you appear to be running Vista/Win7 still, Mike.
As for running Opera
due to the current Firefox potential vulnerability, no way. I
have a low opinion of those running Opera and wouldn't give them
the satisfaction of further promoting their product by using it.

No, I don't like Opera. The Opera fanbois seem like the Ubuntu
fanbois, blind to a multitude of dysfunctionalities. Oh well, I
could launch into my analysis of the implications of their
Apple-like blinkered, philistine pig-ignorance and enjoy myself
greatly in doing so, but I'm all corruscated out of late. Opera
seems to be safe, probably because no-one can be bothered to
compromise it, so I keep it available as a last-ditch stand-by
(and uninstall it when I trust FF again). However, the main source
of the implications of unfixed FF vulnerability seems to be
Secunia - and having been running the PSI on various installations
for quite some time now can confirm that it regularly gives false
positives (just on my preferred software) and continues to flag
vulnerable earlier versions even after they have been updated, to
the extent that I don't trust Secunia as much as I did. And if
memory serves, like Opera, Secunia is Finnish, so perhaps there's
an unconscious bias there.
Interestingly, to myself at
least, I don't think I've ever suffered as a result of a browser
vulnerability
but that could be because of the limited number of sites I visit
and that I block lots of the adserving sites with my hosts file
since many exploits tend to use poisoned ads.

Indeed. And that is part of why I dislike Opera: using that,
suddenly I see ads I haven't seen in many years (and to digress a
little - the colour scheme options are a trifle limited! I don't
know why they bother including them. You'd think it was meant for
Windows 95 in that respect!).

As to a third party firewall being able to prevent spyware sending
out your info to a third party my view is that once the spyware is
on your PC
all is lost until the system is either flattened and restored
from a backup
or rebuilt. For most users removing spyware that has somehow got
installed doesn't guarantee a 100% clean system unless one knows
it very well. So no, I see little benefit in adding to the
firewall in the OS since those
who are most likely to need it are the very same that will
probably grant access or egress to all requests from the firewall.

Hopefully I'd be aware of
the presence of spyware on my systems before it got a chance to
call up its friends, send them invites to come and play and send
its masters copies of my back details.

In many ways I agree with you Mike. But I'll trot out my trusty ol'
anecdote of how I found out about spyware, back in 2000. I
installed ZoneAlarm and PKZip on a recommendation, then I got a
request to let tsadbot access the net. I denied it and googled
tsadbot. On further research I found Ad-aware, bought it (with the
lifetime of updates they eventually reneged on) and recommended it
far and wide. Maybe only 1 in 100, or 1 in 1000 (or - probably -
worse!) would be like me, but still that's much better than
nothing. True, today the rogues are likely to have opened a
backdoor or installed a rootkit. What I'd suggest the benefit
would be is the promotion of security awareness that would reduce
the likelihood of the compromise happening at all. I remember back in
Crediton when I was working on the Bonnie in my
workshop, open to passers by on a sunny day. I didn't think kids
had any appreciation of old Brit bikes any more, but one group came
nosing around, most behaving like they tend to, finding there was
nothing there they cared about and wandering off after a minute or
two looking for something to smash. But one kid was interested and
knowledgable and it was really encouraging. There are still *some*
out there. Probably always will be.
Anyway, there remain plenty of modules in trusted apps for phoning
home that are not necessary and better blocked than not, but that
users won't likely find out about without the 3rd party firewall.
There are enough of them in Windows alone!

It is probably getting off topic a little to suggest that in this
increasingly intrusive, CCTV-saturated, database state, people
should be encouraged to look at what supposedly benign software is
sending details about their sessions back to some company in it
for the money. It is far more realistic than to ask them to read
the EULAs anyway.