Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> Vista scoots to new boot, but it's still kinda rooted
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
>> While Microsoft would like the world to believe that anyone
>> running Windows has no need of any other operating system,
>> that attitude doesn?t cut much mustard with many of its
>> users.
>>
>> Why settle for one OS when your PC is easily capable of
>> running two or more?
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> One of the more questionable tactics that Microsoft has
>> implemented in Vista is to automatically overwrite any
>> existing MBR during the installation process without asking
>> if you mind or giving you an option to back up.
>>
>> Microsoft says that the Windows installation system can't
>> intelligently interrogate an existing non-MS MBR, although
>> such features are quite common in the install routine for
>> other OSes.
>>
>> It also argues that an "official" Vista MBR is required for
>> security features -- such as measured boot, which works with
>> Trusted Platform Module (TPM)-enabled chips to check that
>> the OS hasn't been hacked or altered each time it boots --
>> to work correctly.
> `----
>
> http://www.apcstart.com/site/akidman/2006/09/1656/vista-scoots-to-new-boot-but-its-still-kinda-rooted
Got a 404 Error. After Googling, found it at:
http://apcmag.com/vista_scoots_to_new_boot_but_its_still_kinda_rooted.htm
I don't know if the problem has ever been fixed. One thing that
has always been a problem is that if Windows 95, 98, XP were
reinstalled on a dual boot system overwrote the master boot
record, requiring reinstalling it under Linux, which was a PITA,
rather sloppy IYKWIM.
They have finally gotten XP patched to the extent that memory
management problems have been corrected. It used to act
unreliably after playing EA Games' Command and Conquer General,
requiring reboot. IIRC had something to do with a bug in the OS'
memory management.
However, we still get disfunctionality on systems with HP
scanners installed at work, can't seem to keep them up for more
than a couple days without them acting squirrelly. I don't think
it is a matter that HP does not know how to write drivers and
application software.
It is a quaint reminder of limiting software competition with its
products by inhibiting functionality with the OS:
[quote]
In contrast to the RPFJ, a meaningful remedy must account for the
fact that Microsoft manipulates interface information in a
variety of ways to preclude competition. Although too numerous to
recount, Microsoft's tactics include:
* "Secret Interfaces" - Microsoft does not publish all the
interfaces it uses and does not publish all the interface
information that others need to develop products that
interoperate with Microsoft software.
* "Crippled Interfaces" - For some functions, Microsoft
publishes information about an interface that is inferior to the
interface that Microsoft itself uses to accomplish a function, or
publishes incomplete information about an interface.
* "Kick Me Interfaces" - Sometimes, Microsoft publishes
information about an interface that Microsoft uses to perform a
function, but it "marks" non-Microsoft software in a way that
assures the interface will operate in an inferior way. Microsoft
can "mark" competitors software through tagging, signing,
encrypted passwords, or by noting the absence of such features.
* "Moving Interfaces" - If, by some means, a third party has
been able to obtain adequate interface information that Microsoft
doesn't want it to have, Microsoft will simply move the
interface. For example, Novell successfully figured out how to
enable its directory services software to interoperate with
Windows NT. To counter Novell's success, in Windows 2000
Microsoft broke up and moved the computer files containing the
interface information used by Novell and marked, or signed,
information required for the interfaces so that Novell could
neither use Microsoft's interface information nor replace it.
The typical result of such tactics is that Microsoft makes
competing products appear inferior to Microsoft's products.
Microsoft's actions may make a competing product appear slower,
require more memory, or perform with limited functionality. These
tactics also enable Microsoft to persuade customers to buy
Microsoft's inferior and/or more expensive products simply to
avoid Microsoft's roadblocks.(15)
[/quote]
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_tuncom/major/mtc-00029523.htm
Why did it took so long for Microsoft to produce their 6,000
pages of documentation on their OS for the European Union court
order? They also broke Sun's ODF plug-in for Microsoft Word and
can't seem to produce a decent plug-in of their own.
--
HPT
|
|
