It just makes it seem doomed from the outset.
Microsoft has unveiled the security improvement is expects to deliver with Windows 7, the next version of its flagship operating system. To coincide with the opening of the RSA Conference on Monday, Redmond unveiled a much more detailed list of security enhancements and tweaks. It is, of course, routine for Microsoft to describe …
It just makes it seem doomed from the outset.
"Microsoft has unveiled the security improvement is expects to deliver with Windows 7, the next version of its flagship operating system"
So if Windows is Microsoft's flagship operating system what is their "non flagship" operating system?
"the next version of its flagship operating system"
Don't you mean its only operating system?
"makes setting up secure remote access far easier"
I hope they've also made setting up insecure remote access much harder.
Like the concept of file ownership and an overhaul of the idea that file extension alone dictates execution?
Don't hold your breath.
"So if Windows is Microsoft's flagship operating system what is their "non flagship" operating system?"
It's called DOS
"Don't you mean its only operating system?"
Anyone who's used CE, let alone developed for it, will tell you that it is not a port of anything MS ever released for the desktop. So, no, MS do have more than one OS. They're both shit, though.
Their non-flagship operating systems are the backend OS's: the Windows Server line. Either that, or it's flagship in that Windows is Microsoft's cash cow compared to other products like Office.
Maybe I'm just cynical, but I wouldn't be surprised if this is exactly what this program provides... to anyone that asks for it.
When MS were first prepping up the masses for the big influx to Vista they release the same sort of PR.
They even had commercials where people would sit at thier desks and turning on Windows based boxes would make the desk take off like a car. Now anyone who uses Vista will have to agree that this is not the case.
Why should this OS be any different?
"including the ability to remotely purge disavowed applications."
So if Microsoft don't like certain competing applications, or if the security organisations or any other body licenced under RIPA (as part of the war on terror of course) seek to remove specific applications from the system, they can do so. No Mozilla,
Mine's the one behind the firewall.
.... Windows 7 turned out to be pretty good and no-one bought it because of the bad taste Vista left.
I've been using the beta, and liking it. I've even been wondering about whther I would buy it if I don't get given a free copy. And I am someone who has been told to refrain from giving his opinion of microsoft software to end users in previous jobs.
I dislike XP and detest vista, I would quite like windows 2000 were it still supported properly. Were the W& beta not on my system, it would probably have Puppy or Ubuntu Linux.
Paris, because she is quite slim, like windows 7 is (compared to Vista)
for the OS. Ready for chipping users next.
Un-chipped users, access denied.
Indeed. Another case of MS calling papering over cracks in the walls "enhanced security" when all the doors and windows are still left wide open... However, the media lemmings still fall for the same old PR BS and will call Windows "more secure" now even though it isn't and never will be.
All the right noises are being made here about Window 7, both in recthoric and personal testing.
I've Been running the Beta as my main desktop since it landed, and it's worked very well for me - Especially UAC, which is so unintrusive, I've left it turned on; the vista version was turned off after about 10 minutes of trying to run the thing. Vista RC1 lasted two weeks on my system, before I lost my rag and got rid of it.
From my point of view, Windows 7 a responsive, unobtrusive operating system that's miles easier to live with than Vista. If the security proves up to scratch in The Real World(tm), then I'm looking forward to fnal code - again, after the traditional 1-2 month wait to see what it breaks.
Not a big enough improvement to upgrade XP to 7 just for the sake of it, but then again, no need to activly avoid it, a la vista
This feature has been available under group policy for server 2003 for quite some time now, called software restriction policies.
Admittedly, not the easiest to set up, but incredibly secure if configured correctly. You can identify software by certificate, file hash, internet zone, or local path.
You can define whether each rule is inclusive or exclusive, and because it's applied from group policy, you can apply combinations of policies by user, computer or security group.
Still, any improvements are always welcome.
"feature will allow sys admins to patch remotely-connected devices"
"sys. admin" eh ? Not virus writers at all ?
Leaving aside the split infinitive, isn't "disavow" what the Secretary always promised to do to the Mission:Impossible team?
So does Windaz-7 usher in the new age of ubiquitous 64-bit secure computing?
No, I thought not. Paris because she has a better grasp of things to come
There's nothing wrong with split infinitives, just as there's nothing wrong with using a preposition to end a sentence with. (Nor is there anything wrong with using a conjunction to begin one.)
Yes I caught a vague reference to Mission Impossible. Is Microsoft going to disavow the disavowment (?) of an application?
I don't think BS is smoke. MS might be smoking BS...maybe that's it...
WIN7 DRM = FAIL
WIN7 open registry = FAIL
WIN7 unlocked WIN folder = FAIL
WIN7 programs don't run in discrete memory = FAIL
WIN7 programs don't load in their own folder only = FAIL
WIN7 programs don't get permission to run = FAIL
WIN7 programs don't get permission to access network = FAIL
WIN7 looks like MAC = FAIL
WIN7 I'm not in control = FAIL
systemd-free Devuan Linux hits version 1.0.0
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017