| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Microsoft exec says marketing effort faltered with Windows XP | |
|
||
| Time: 07:56 EST/12:56 GMT | News Source: Associated Press | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
People who use Microsoft's Windows XP operating system aren't taking advantage of many of the systems best features, a top executive said - and the world's largest software maker has only itself to blame. Jim Allchin, Microsoft's group vice president for software platforms, including Windows, said he thinks customers aren't using gadgets like Windows Messenger and Movie Maker because Microsoft hasn't done a good enough job telling people about them. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 329 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:40:41 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 2201 (194.205.219.2) at 2/27/2004 9:33:49 AM |
|
#3 You're describing the Windows Messenger SERVICE, which is NOT the same as Windows Messenger! The Windows Messenger Service allows network users to send popups to other PCs via NET SEND <ipaddress> commands. It's installed and set to ON by default on Windows XP (Windows 95, 98 & Me had something similar, but it was an actual application called Winpopup, which had to be manually run to send and receive these network messages). Unfortunately, idiots out there on the net have hijacked it and used it to send annoying ads to unsuspecting users. There is 2 ways to stop it 1. switch off the service or 2. use a firewall.
Windows Messenger is a chat application that uses either the .net, SIP or Exchange networks to send messages to connected users. And it's completely unrelated. #4 you should do your research before you mouth off. MSN initially used to be able to connect to the AIM network, until AOL stopped it. Then Microsoft patched their software so it used to work again. Then AOL patched their network to stop it again. This went on for a while till Microsoft gave up. So it was AOL who decided to make it's AIM software non-interoperable with other IM clients, while Microsoft have been trying to convince AOL to adopt an IM standard, this is well documented. As for security issues, Apple has it's fair share of security issues, that's why they are always updating their OS every few months (and charging the public for the priviledge to update their machines), it's just that they aren't reported as much as Microsoft. This post was edited by testman on Friday, February 27, 2004 at 09:38. |
| #2 By 2201 (194.205.219.2) at 2/27/2004 9:40:22 AM |
| #7 yeah, you're right. It would help if Microsoft actually named their stuff properly. |
| #3 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 2/27/2004 12:34:13 PM |
| Remote Desktop is an XP Pro-only feature, so it won't apply to most home users. I think it's a nice alternative to a Citrix/terminal server solution for a business's remote access needs, though. |
| #4 By 9589 (68.17.52.2) at 2/27/2004 1:30:46 PM |
|
By standardizing on Windows XP Pro at my company, we saved big time simply by eliminating the cost of remote control software like PC Anywhere and Net OP and using Remote Desktop.
By not having to buy this additional software utility, the purchase of WinXP Pro paid for itself. This is especially true as the number of our workers working remotely, from a conference, hotel room or at home has soared. Just a couple of years ago we had about 10% of work force requiring remote computer capability, it has risen to over 60% now. For example, I am working from home due to the snow storm, but VPN'd back to work and using Remote Desktop to complete the connection. |
| #5 By 37 (67.38.160.172) at 2/27/2004 1:30:57 PM |
| Excellent point made bluvg! |
| #6 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 2/27/2004 1:44:18 PM |
|
Same here, jdhawk--much, much less expensive than Citrix/terminal server or local remote-control (PCAnywhere, etc.) licensing. If you've paid for XP Pro, you've already paid for your remote access solution. :) This post was edited by bluvg on Friday, February 27, 2004 at 13:45. |
| #7 By 19992 (66.101.204.156) at 2/27/2004 3:10:16 PM |
| Remote Desktop really shouldn't be used as a replacement for Citrix. Remote Desktop is designed for a 1-to-1 (home-to-work or vice versa) connection. Not generally a good idea to open your clients to the Internet like that |
| #8 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 2/27/2004 3:29:23 PM |
| They don't have to be open to the internet, happyguy. A VPN connection works very well. |
| #9 By 931 (66.180.122.62) at 2/27/2004 4:21:54 PM |
|
"I don’t think that MS marketed its programs badly; I just think people have no use for them. "
..exactly |
| #10 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 2/27/2004 4:31:38 PM |
|
I've used Remote Assistance on occasion, but it seems to be really pokey to me. Maybe it's our machines (PIII 500s and 600s, mostly), but it takes between a minute and two minutes or so to finally start controlling the remote machine. Once you're on, though, it's very fast and reliable/predictable.
We also use SMS, but we've found that the remote control client doesn't play well on the XP machines--you can't issue Ctrl+Alt+Del key sequences (essential for remote login if the machine is at the logon screen), and after a few days, the Remote Desktop sessions slow down to an unusable state (though both the console and remote control sessions act normally... very strange). We've ended up uninstalling the SMS remote control client, which is a shame--it connects much, much more quickly to the remote machines, and with better remote control functionality (no prompts "Do you want allow the remote assistance session?" "Do you wish to allow xxx user to control your machine" etc.). It doesn't offer high bit-depth color support or sound or the exceptional performance of Remote Assistance, but for remote assistance I'd much rather have the SMS features. SMS 2003 lets you use Remote Assistance instead, but it doesn't offer what is already included in XP for free. In other words, it still takes as long, it doesn't allow you to take control without prompts, etc. If only you could have the best of both worlds.... |
| #11 By 19992 (68.69.127.19) at 2/27/2004 9:01:31 PM |
|
bluvg - I'll concede the VPN point, even though I personally think it's a really bad idea to use a VPN connection to allow users to run Remote Desktop. That and by the time I purchased company approved VPN hardware I could have built out my Citrix environment 2X over. This post was edited by happyguy on Friday, February 27, 2004 at 21:02. |
| #12 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 2/28/2004 1:37:44 PM |
|
happyguy, I think it depends on your environment. I'm not sure why you think VPN is a bad idea for remote desktop. For example, you can open only the RDP port for VPN clients--you accomplish more or less the same thing as a Citrix server in a DMZ. In our case, we already were set up for VPN, so the VPN costs were already paid. It sounds like you either have a great agreement worked out with Citrix or some rather expensive approved VPN hardware. But, if it's already in place, no need to fix what ain't broke... Citrix is a good solution, and does offer some added value beyond straight terminal services/RDP.
Halcyon-x12, VNC isn't bad, but RDP is superior in many ways. First, the performance is much higher, as the hooks are deeper--the latency is much lower, and the caching techniques and the glyph/font methods go far beyond a straight screenshot-over-the-wire solution. It also allows for higher color bit-depths and sound, among other things. And, it is also free on XP. I use VNC on my W2K Pro box, but I would definitely prefer RDP if it was available. As for Linux designed to be administered remotely, this is also true of the W2K/W2K3 servers, which have terminal services built-in. X11 is a bandwidth hog compared to RDP, though... RDP's performance is simply much better. If you're talking about command-line operations, W2K3 is much improved in this regard, but I guess I was thinking more about end-user apps. I think most users won't get much work done on a console on either platform. |
| #13 By 19992 (68.69.127.19) at 2/28/2004 4:47:34 PM |
|
#22 Yes it is.
#23 It's to much of a headache to update 15K desktops in the company, I don't want to have to worry about the home machines as well. With Citrix and the web client I don't have to worry about that. It's not that my VPN hardware overpriced, but the network requirements make the cost of the appliance astronomical. |
| #14 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 3/1/2004 3:16:06 AM |
|
happyguy--yes, there is the disadvantage of maintaining the desktops internally, but normally that would be something you're doing already, correct? If the user's desktop is working well for them while at work, it should work for them at home also. You can also set up the terminal services web control as part of your workstations' standard image, but I can see where that might be undesirable. At any rate, you'll still have to set up users with instructions... instructing them to download the RDP client might not be such a big deal. Then, I suppose we could debate the merits of ICA vs. RDP... :)
Halcyon--RDP is also quite usable on a 56kbps connection, but it always has beat VNC with regards to latency, in my experience (TightVNC is the VNC I've used). It also offers more consistent rendering, from what I've seen. As for X11, it was designed for LANs (10 Mb Ethernet), not remote access connections. There's no question that it uses much more bandwidth than RDP. |
| #15 By 19992 (164.214.4.61) at 3/1/2004 8:21:22 AM |
|
bluvg - you misunderstood my point. I have to maintain the users workstation at work. But I am not going to maintain their home PCs. If they are not updating their machine at home, thy are connecting to my network with a known insecure version of RDP. With Citrix, I do not have to worry about them applying patches from MS for the client piece of the puzzle, I can push a new version out to my users, automatically, whenever I want.
|
| #16 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 3/1/2004 11:28:18 AM |
|
happyguy--I've only heard of a couple vulnerabilities with RDP--two denial of service vulnerabilities, the lack of encryption on the checksums, and the possibility of man-in-the-middle attacks. (Incidentally, among remote access methods, this is a very good record.) Now in the VPN scenario I've identified, if you have problems with denial of service or man-in-the-middle attacks or someone sniffing checksums on your internal LAN, then you have problems far beyond these vulnerabilities with RDP. At any rate, except for the man-in-the-middle attack, these are vulnerabilities that are patched server-side (and again, if you're open to a man-in-the-middle attack on your LAN, you've got bigger fish to fry...). And again, you don't have to use the client... you can enable the web version on the host PCs, which you could update remotely--no maintenance of home PCs required.
You're right, though--updating one host is much simpler than updating 15,000. On the other hand, you can host 15,000 remote sessions (if your VPN device could handle the load) on your PCs, all with the full processor power and resources of the individual boxes, and if one locks up or has a hardware failure, it doesn't affect the other 14,999 sessions. There are pros and cons to each scenario. |
| #17 By 1107599 (213.170.84.210) at 2/12/2014 11:47:41 AM |
|
ООО «Престиж» осуществляет вывоз мусора в любых объемах по низким ценам и в кратчайшие сроки.
Вывоз мусора в СПб производится различными машинами ,исходя из ваших потребностей. Работаем за наличный и безналичный расчет. Заключаем договора, с предоставлением полного комплекта документов на вывоз и утилизацию мусора на полигонах. Предлагаем вывоз мусора : Вывоз мусора из квартиры (оценивается индивидуально, услуги грузчиков) Наша компания всегда готова к взаимовыгодному сотрудничеству. Рассмотрим ваши пожелания и предложения. Мы любим свою работу и ценим каждого клиента! по тел +7(921)921-741-54-58 (812)959-88-19 Наш сайт <a href=http://www.zxcars.ru> http://www.zxcars.ru</a> |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 329 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:40:41 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
