I totally think SP2 is going in the right direction.
The functionality changes being introduced will do a great job at stopping people from unknowingly filling their computer with junk...based on yesterday & todays threats. As I've posted elsewhere, I think there is a long way to go yet when protecting threats from inside the OS...not all threats come from the outside (i.e. internet) in.
I get a tad jumpy when a PM @ MS considers going to a "grassroots" support org. for help with the new features the ideal choice...That implies some subtle...but...disturbing trends going forward. Windows isn't open source and shouldn't be supported like it is...
Either way, SP2 is really coming together and will be a must-have for all Windows XP users.
I totally think SP2 is going in the right direction.
Rebecca Norlander - What are the big security improvements in the upcoming Windows XP Service Pack 2Jun 03, 2004 at 7:49AMAndyC wrote:One of the things that really impressed me about Mac OS X was not the pretty visuals but the fact that it prompts you to re-authenticate when you're about to do something potentially unwanted.
That's a *really* good idea. I won't presume to know how difficult it would be to implement...but...I've already come up with a crafty plan...just while drafting this msg...and...I can't code well enough to get the turtle to go where I want him to in LOGO. =)
Rebecca Norlander - What are the big security improvements in the upcoming Windows XP Service Pack 2Jun 02, 2004 at 12:12PM
You can put a bubble around it...but...if you've ever seen the movie alien...you know that bugs can get inside and pop out yer tummy.
Where's the intra-bubble protection for the OS? Where's the built-in proactive defense against malware in general?
Service Pack 2 will be an excellent update to protect "The Smith's next door" from getting the slammer worm and having a system that broadcasts junk packets...however, from my experience it won't do anything to help clean up the mess.
Frankly, I'm ready for integrated anti-virus/anti-malware utilities. Without such things I don't think it's fair to call SP2 anything more than a "bad press prevention kit".
Ah, I must be getting old. I was raised in DOS...if it werent' for DOS, I wouldn't be able to type so fast (Sorry MS, I started with IBM PC-DOS 2.0).
But, I can totally relate to Michael on this. There are many times I find myself dropping to a command-line so I can run xcopy" to move a bunch of folders from one place to another. Some more modern tasks I still do solely from the command-line...e.g. ipconfig, netstat, just to name a couple...
I gave up on the command-line as a primary interface sometime around 1997...but I was a hard one to convert to Windows 95.
Well, I feel better...the last two posts cleared up every bit of confusion in my simple mind. =)
The registry is one of the most powerful innovations that Windows has brought to the PC. Without the registry, there is no sensical way to link software.
The practical implications of a registry for the file system are limitless...and will only get better with time (e.g. the existing registry).
The future looks mighty fun... =)
So...to bring this up a few levels...to give it an elevator pitch...would you say that WinFS is the file sys. equiv. of the registry being introduced in Win95? If that's not an accurate analogy, do you have one? As I work for an ISV that makes its living from file systems support.......winFS has some neat potential...however, WinFS currently confuses me more than it intrigues me...
May 07, 2004 at 7:36AM
Do you guys ever hire undereducated, overexperienced, and highly knowledgable folks?
I like where I am now, but, the draw of doing large scale projects with the biggest company [ever] in the industry does have a certain appeal to it....
I could keep up with ya, Euan.
Let me change the original question...to one I'm personally interested in. How do you position Yukon next to less costly products (e.g. MySQL)?
saraford wrote:I think the "us versus them" feeling comes from the nature of the work we do. Our job is to break the dev's code. In my mind, the dev can never write code that I can't find issues with; otherwise, i'm not doing my job. Many times, i've sat looking at a piece of UI or a piece of code thinking, "what am i missing? what am i not testing?" when i stop finding bugs.
Nothing wrong with testers or "QA" folks being perfectionists. =) Striving for perfection is usually the best way to achieve quality.
Does your perception of how users will accept a given feature (such as the window mgmt. you're working on now) ever come into play, or, is your testing more black & white? (e.g. it works or it doesn't)
I'm always intrigued by the very specific vertical roles that I perceive many at MS having...as it's such a drastic departure from what I'm personally used to. =)
Very interesting viewpoint...I've been in the ISV industry on and off for quite a few years now...and I've never fostered the feeling that it was ever a "QA vs. Devs" situation. While some dev. folks can get a bit defensive when faults are found in their code most are more than appreciative that the fault was found and are anxious to fix it.
A technique that's always worked well for me to convince dev execs is to layout the business impact of not compensating for the bug...