FrontPage is a website design application.
It is NOT a full-fledged content-management services solution, which is what a company like Microsoft needs to maintain their truly vast network of websites.
Microsoft very likely uses their own Content Management Server, in conjunction with Visual Studio.NET to write aspx templates, and in conjunction with a web-based client for people to contribute content.
FrontPage is not the right tool for the job... that's why they don't use it.
FrontPage is a website design application.
One moment you say
Manip wrote:I don't know why your defending his ignorant and defamatory comments.
and the next moment you say
Manip wrote:Your a moron.
1) Learn the difference between "your" and "you're", and
2) If you're trying to make a point about defamatory comments, it's probably best to avoid making them yourself.
I'm absolutely correct about Linux users are intentionally lying and being wilfully ignorant about how Windows works.
I provided one example (Windows Registry), but there are hundreds more. The Windows 2000 SP3 EULA debacle is a good one; people took a single line in that EULA to mean that Microsoft was going to take control of your computer and deactivate software at their whim. People were misled into believing that somehow installing Service Pack 3 would result in this sort of thing.
Then you have the DRM whiners, who will (depending on what year it is) try to convince you that you won't be able to play unprotected content, that MS will deactivate your computer if pirated files are found, that you won't be able to rip MP3's anymore, that MS will basically abuse their customers for the sake of appeasing media companies, and so on and so forth...
You're probably rolling your eyes by now, but... hey, go read Slashdot, or The Register, and see what the clue-free individuals providing "content" on these sites are blathering on about. These sorts of ridiculous claims usually start at these (and a few other similar) websites -- and guess what? They're all pro-Linux, anti-Windows websites.
access to the registry are regulated by ntfs rights.
This isn't correct.
NTFS permissions apply to on-disk files; registry permissions are on a per-key or per-value basis. The term you're looking for is "ACLs", which is the standard security mechanism used with Windows.
I assume that Windows is build as a collection of components (kernel, middleware, graphical system, ...). My question is: why do we have to reboot the whole system after installing a patch or a new program?
Isn't it possible to stop that service/component, patch it and restart it without having to reboot the whole os?
That situation does happen, in cases where there is a service that can be stopped. Take MS04-015, for example, which is a patch to the Help system in Windows XP. The installer for the patch will stop the Help service, if it's running, replace the files, then restart the service -- no reboot required.
The problem is that sometimes core components are affected by the patches... for example, NTDLL.DLL... which basically every process running on a Windows system needs to use in order to be able to accomplish anything at all. There isn't a service you can 'stop' to end the usage of that component, even on a temporary basis. You could replace the file, but that doesn't mean that existing processes will pick up the changes -- that will require a reboot to ensure that every process is using the new, correct version of the file.
Heck, Windows Update itself might even be using components that need to be updated....
Believe me, if it was as simple as what you were suggesting, it would've been done years ago. Microsoft is surely working on ways of improving the situation, but such things take a lot of time and testing.
The registry has no security at all
Wrong. Short answer - regedt32.exe.
As for Remote Registry - not everything is accessible and it's trivial to restrict access.
You and I know that, but like I suggested, there is no lack of Linux users who will try and tell you otherwise.
Linux advocates tell far greater quantities of outright lies about Windows, than Microsoft and its hired research agencies could ever get around to saying about Linux. Why, just last week I had someone loudly INSISTING that the registry has no security -- and that Windows by default (ie. without firewall) allows anybody to connect to your computer and read the registry.
If Microsoft wants to play this game the Linux way, more power to them -- they're certainly the target of countless childish tactics, and some clever retaliation would give us Windows people something to snicker and laugh over.
object88 wrote:6) "My stuff"? Is this renamable? I hate all this "my" garbage, it's a little too cutesy. Personal gripe, I know.
Yes, it has been renamable since, umm... Windows 95 or thereabouts?
No, seriously... try it right now. Right-click on your 'My Documents' folder, and choose Rename. You can do this with all the other 'My' names, too, even ones that don't represent real folders on your system (e.g. My Network Places).
object88 wrote:14) Not related to the screenshots, but what's this garbage I hear about the "average" Longhorn computer needing dual-4GHz processors, 1G RAM, 1T HD storage, and TWO net connections?!? I mean, I know its two years off at least, but that's fucking suicide! I plan on keeping my ~9 month old computer around for at least another 3 years, and it doesn't have ONE EIGHTH THE POWER. Seriously, Microsoft is either going to loose a lot of customers, or our landfills are going to have a lot of discarded desktops. And again, think of the laptop users!!
Anti-Microsoft people invent all sorts of amazing and bizarre lies to try and convince you to switch away from Windows. It helps to remember that.
Your "one of the million" reasons has been shot down: Services for Unix.
So, you're presently at zero items. Would you like to list the other 999,999 reasons why Windows sucks, so that we can demonstrate to you that you don't actually know enough about Windows to be in a position to criticise it?
Go on, then...