| 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 |
 |
Windows: What's Next? | |
|
||
| Time: 12:37 EST/17:37 GMT | News Source: eWeek | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
It's been exactly a year since Microsoft launched Windows XP. So, what's the operating system kingpin doing for an encore? Microsoft says it's all Longhorn, all the time. Platforms Group VP Jim Allchin and others on the Windows team say that Microsoft already is well on its way toward developing this next major version of Windows for clients and servers. And the fact that alleged screen shots of an early alpha Longhorn build leaked across the Web this week would seem to indicate that Microsoft is proceeding quite nicely with Longhorn. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 187 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:58:37 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 2960 (156.80.64.132) at 10/28/2002 1:28:47 PM |
|
We don't need new.
We need what we have to be polished. TL |
| #2 By 2332 (12.105.69.158) at 10/28/2002 1:29:40 PM |
|
#1 - Why?
Name a single aspect of the Linux kernel that makes it better than the NT kernel? Sigh... |
| #3 By 2459 (24.233.39.98) at 10/28/2002 1:35:14 PM |
| Why should MS take a major step backwards? I'd rather not have a monolithic kernel that is isn't as advanced as the current Windows kernel. |
| #4 By 2459 (24.233.39.98) at 10/28/2002 2:22:41 PM |
|
Hey beeyp, Linux finally gets WMA support.
http://slashdot.org/articles/02/10/28/1331251.shtml?tid=141 |
| #5 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 10/28/2002 2:39:53 PM |
| I think the next version of Linux should use the Solaris kernel because it's superior. |
| #6 By 61 (65.32.170.1) at 10/28/2002 3:37:42 PM |
|
beeyp:
Your posts are becoming more and more pathetic, how about trying to post something that is at least worth the time it takes to read it. What some people don't seem to understand is that the Windows kernel is very much modularized, that's how it was built from the ground up to now, and that's how it is going to stay. How do you think that Emmbedded XP is possible? |
| #7 By 2459 (24.233.39.98) at 10/28/2002 4:20:51 PM |
| It's almost 2003 now. You won't have to wait 4 years, just 1-2. |
| #8 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/28/2002 4:57:19 PM |
|
People, beeyp calls himself a troll. Don't talk to him. He doesn't know what he's talking about. Whether he goes away or not, just don't respond to his posts.
#17 Ceazar, I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Can you explain using specifics the differences between the NT model and the Linux model with respect to process security. |
| #9 By 415 (68.54.10.120) at 10/28/2002 6:51:34 PM |
|
man... this is the most pathetic group of comments I've seen in a while... :-s
Some of you need to take an operating systems class, or read a book, or something... |
| #10 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/28/2002 6:52:26 PM |
| Thanks Ceazar. I'm not sure that I'd call it a process security model issue, since a process without a window wouldn't be vulnerable, but it is nonetheless an issue. |
| #11 By 1896 (208.61.156.128) at 10/28/2002 7:18:25 PM |
| As usual Bobsmith is right on target! Let the troll disappear for lack of recognition. |
| #12 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/28/2002 7:26:09 PM |
|
Thanks, Fritzly.
z00k, I'm not familiar with "Inside Windows NT", but I'm putting it on my reading list. It sounds like a good read. |
| #13 By 5444 (208.180.130.104) at 10/28/2002 7:46:49 PM |
|
#32,
Well garbage Collection is a two way street, to Use it you give up some control of your programming style. But that is general is where MS is heading, the New UI in Longhorn will be fully managed and most apps should be also. Only low level drivers and the like will need to not be managed. With it being managed, it also brings in the New security platform of the managed platform. So there will be higher security. I would like to see consumer based Roles implemented. Take for example MSN 8 with parental Controls, that should be a feature in the OS at the sign on Level. In the NT platform that should be easy to implement even easier if the Windows Platform is based on the Managed platform. With a Good file system and meta data for files. it should be easy to implement a User role that takes Age into account. Let the parent be in control of what can and can't run on the system or the childs system. For example Video or Media that I find objectionable on the systems should be able to be blocked from playing on my childrens accounts that I set up. Or I can block all mp3 at a ultra low quality of recording;) etc:) Oh well, another day. another wish.;) El |
| #14 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/28/2002 9:46:34 PM |
| I didn't mean that the window had to be visible. I imagine a Windows service wouldn't be vulnerable. Am I wrong here? I understood that the attack worked by sending a message to a window (a control, a form, etc). An application that didn't have a window wouldn't be vulnerable, would it? If it were, how would the malicious code find the windows less app and how would it attack? |
| #15 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/29/2002 4:07:35 AM |
| Thanks again, z00k. |
| #16 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/29/2002 6:39:44 AM |
| lol, that's why I'm asking questions. |
| #18 By 4240821 (109.94.216.41) at 10/29/2023 9:28:11 AM |
| https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1oucfmzOm0bH0Lr3Gsbg4mdTPYdxwIXk |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 187 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:58:37 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
