Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Windows XP

This is topic Windows XP in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=000414

Posted by Jerry Chase (Member # 660) on 08-09-2001, 01:53 PM:

Those of us that have been around the net for a while know of Steve Gibson, the massively intelligent creator of "Zone Alarm." Steve is raising another red flag that everyone would be wise to heed. In essence, the planned intro of Windows XP will have the capability of bringing the internet to its knees because of security leaks.

A lot of what Steve talks about is technical and isn't easy reading, but he has posted a summary at: http://grc.com/dos/xpsummary.htm

The whole GRC website is a must-go place on the net. His story of a dDOS attack and his response is fascinating reading for those people interested in how hackers work. Plan on spending at least an hour digesting what he says at:
http://grc.com/dos/grcdos.htm

Given what is said on Steve's pages, I infer that anyone who buys XP without being fully computer literate is setting themself up for trouble, and anyone who is semi-computer literate and buys XP for anything other than use as a toy may be a fool.

Comments on this subject appreciated.

Posted by Steve Scott (Member # 630) on 08-09-2001, 02:51 PM:

If you've got a good Firewall, should this be a problem?
I'm just hoping that XP will be a lot more stable than ME.
I end up restarting ME with the reset button at least three times a day after the thing locks up.

Frankly, I think that there's still enough time to fix the security hole, if they've worked on the stability issue.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-09-2001, 03:30 PM:

Well, I think if you buy ANY Windows product (other than 2000) you are making a big mistake. Why worry? If people wanna put ME and XP on their systems, then they will have to take what comes with it. I don't care if they have a security leak. They bought the software, not me. They should make wiser purchases.

Why would anyone buy a Windows version OTHER than 2000, anyway? I don't get it. Is it because of DOS? DOS sucks.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 08-09-2001, 08:49 PM:

I'm going to make it short and sweet:

Using Windows is like walking around with a pebble in your shoe.

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 08-09-2001, 09:24 PM:

Randy: or a thorn in the rear end.

I don't know about XP, but ME seems to have a few neat features. So far, I am quite happy with ME over 98. But I don't think I'll fiddle with XP for quite a while.

Steve, if you have problems with ME, you might have a BIOS issue of some sort that is not set correctly. Insult your MB manual and get the correct settings.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 08-09-2001, 10:18 PM:

For an alternative viewpoint: http://www.grcsucks.com/

Gibson makes a few reasonable points, but he has a tendency to over-react and provide mis-information or half-truths which tends to annoy and alarm people without actually doing any good.

The "raw sockets" issue is really just an artifact of the real issue--OS's that don't distinguish among various levels of user privilege--and isn't the real problem in and of itself.

No, Windows isn't secure nor is anything else. The problem is that MS has done such a good job of sugar-coating things and making a point of how _easy_ it is (so they say) to administer a Windows machine that many users fail to keep abreast of security issues and patch their machines. The fact is that it's actually _harder_ to administer a Windows machine or network than many other systems, mostly because it is virtually impossible to debug Windows issues due to a lack of decent error messages and logging capabilities.

My personal feeling about firewalls is that they should (emphasis on "should") be entirely unnecessary; if a system is configured properly, there should be no need for a firewall. In reality, firewalls (and router access lists and other forms of traffic control) serve to protect against misconfigured machines that may be set up on a network. In any case, a firewall should _never_ be a primary line of defense against attack; rather, firewalls and access lists and so forth should serve to supplement proper machine configuration.

As for Windows ME, it's toy OS. Just like Win95 and Win98. WinNT and Win2000 are the only MS products resembling "real" operating systems that feature such basic concepts as true multitasking and memory protection. Still, I'm personally rather partial to Unix-y stuff: Linux, Solaris, BSD, etc....

Posted by JC Cowles (Member # 914) on 08-10-2001, 01:45 AM:

I've run just about every Microsoft operating system, except maybe a few prepubescent versions of DOS. I am currently typing this through Netscape 6.1 running on Windows XP Build 2505 (Public Preview RC1). This operating system is much more than a toy.

And as far as I'm concerned, people who own Computers, let alone Windows XP, that aren't computer literate should spend their money elsewhere. Like computer classes! (side note: my parents own a $3000 solitaire machine)

In regard to stability, I believe driver signing/certification, and installing separate DLL and other system files for individual programs will go a long way in providing stability. Also, finally shredding the Win9x platform that 'ME' almost did, will greatly improve stability.

I've been running XP for almost a month now. Not one crash. I don't even know if the built-in error reporting feature works.

As far as alternative operating systems. I'm all for them. I have several partions of this box dedicated to Linux. I think the advances of KDE and GNOME over the last few years have been astounding. However, unless you're in an enclosed business environment, an enthusiast, or such, you're not going to run Linux, BSD, BE, or any other operating system besides Windows and maybe MacOS. The sugar coating make it easier. The popularity of the OS makes application support an almost no-brainer. The chances for interoperability between friends, co-workers, and family isn't going to come close with an alternative OS.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-10-2001, 02:13 AM:

Windows was originally a rip-off of the Mac OS and they are doing it again, only this time they are copying more from Mac OS X. And boy, if you thought Mac OS X looked ugly, Windows XP is at least 4 to 5 times as bad. Even if you think Mac OS X looks good, XP is still ugly. I think they coated this one with salt instead of sugarcoating it. At least from the last build I saw. I have also heard that the OS will not natively let you play MP3's. It only supports a new, proprietary MicroSoft format (of course). I'm sure that developers will get around to programming real MP3 players for the OS, though.

I don't like the fact that you must buy a new copy of XP for every computer you own. OS's are not cheap. Although I'm sure that there will be a crack for this very soon. Usually the people who program from their garages are MUCH smarter than those who work for the big companies. You think the guy(s) who wrote the Code Red worm was a dumbass? It's a damn impressive worm. I don't condone it, but you gotta respect the abilities of who wrote it.

Posted by Jerry Chase (Member # 660) on 08-10-2001, 08:47 AM:

"Gibson makes a few reasonable points, but he has a tendency to over-react and provide mis-information or half-truths which tends to annoy and alarm people without actually doing any good."

Scott, I think you are being too hard on the man. What Gibson runs up against constantly is the complacency of the big ISPs and Microsoft. He reacts similarly to how we react to TES and others.

A few years back, soon after the release of Win 95, I kept noticing the upload bar on my internet connection graph showing that it was actively transmitting, even though I wasn't doing anything. I contacted tech support at my ISP and didn't get an answer. I searched the net as best I could and didn't find any answer.

Much later, I heard about a leak if Windows networking was installed and I fixed the leak but didn't dare have any network connected to that machine, and I still noticed occasional unexplained activity. Then Gibson came out with Zone Alarm and for the first time I had no ghost activity and I felt relatively safe on the net. I don't have a static IP and anyone trying to hit me is most likely either random or from a web site I might visit. I know a lot of the hits may be nothing to worry about, but there are enough that I am thankful for his firewall, which is better than Black Ice and other commercial firewalls.

If someone thinks they don't need a firewall, here is a segment of the log from this computer showing hits this month:
FWIN,2001/08/02,15:04:40 -5:00 GMT,168.82.56.155:137,63.30.194.195:137,UDP
FWIN,2001/08/02,18:05:16 -5:00 GMT,206.86.140.22:137,63.30.194.195:137,UDP
FWIN,2001/08/02,18:05:16 -5:00 GMT,208.176.178.22:137,63.30.194.195:137,UDP
FWIN,2001/08/02,18:05:16 -5:00 GMT,216.233.64.22:137,63.30.194.195:137,UDP
FWIN,2001/08/04,22:04:46 -5:00 GMT,63.105.48.75:137,63.30.196.39:137,UDP
FWIN,2001/08/05,01:55:26 -5:00 GMT,63.242.170.3:137,63.30.196.39:137,UDP
FWIN,2001/08/09,12:28:34 -5:00 GMT,206.222.97.82:53,63.30.197.254:137,UDP
FWIN,2001/08/09,12:28:38 -5:00 GMT,206.222.97.50:53,63.30.197.254:137,UDP
FWIN,2001/08/09,15:58:16 -5:00 GMT,208.255.208.14:137,63.30.197.254:137,UDP
FWIN,2001/08/10,08:50:38 -5:00 GMT,207.71.92.221:137,63.30.195.60:137,UDP

Just this morning I was talking with another software developer and mentioned that he should go to the GRC site. He was confident that his firewall was fine but he went there and found that his firewall was full of holes. Now this is a totally computer literate person who writes some serious code for use in unix systems, so imagine the average Joe with a computer and his possibility of getting hacked. I don't think Gibson is over-reacting at all to the problems out there.

We are fortunate that most of the enemies of the U.S. aren't up to speed with computer literacy. The problems created by a very few hackers are minimal compared to what would happen if there was a country dedicated to funding advanced methods of cyber-terrorism.

Leaving gaping holes, as Microsoft is wont to do, is borderline criminal behavior just as much as opening up an unregulated and uninspected pipeline to Columbia would be.

If Gibson looks at the dark side first and yells, more power to him. Sometimes that is what is needed to sound an alarm and I'm glad he is on our side.

Posted by Greg Borr (Member # 386) on 08-10-2001, 04:38 PM:

"The sky is falling, the sky is falling" Steve Gibson developed a nice product for the home user with Zone Alarm, but he over-reacts to everything, marketing hype.

XP will enable raw sockets support, something every major UNIX OS has and can easily be added to existing Windows OS with wincap.

I'm sure all the publicity may make Steve Gibson famous, but in reality the problem isn't with XP or any OS, it is the fact that most ISP's allow spoofed packets to pass through their networks, something they can easily stop at the source. Instead of all the phantomware he claims to be working on "Spoofarino", "Project X" etc. He should spend more time lobbying ISP's to disable spoofed packet accesss to their networks, thus disabling the ability for 13 year olds to bring his grc.com site down. (If I was a self-proclaimed security expert I would not be bragging about my site being knocked out by hackers)

Greg Borr
Ready Theatre Systems

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-11-2001, 12:22 AM:

Aside from the obvious security leaks and other issues with WindowsXP, many PC industry pundits are blasting Bill Gates' move to introduce a "sofware authentication code" built into the program.

Basically what it amounts to is Microsoft getting their pound of flesh from each Windows user. They use the ploy of copy protection as a reason for a user to reportedly have to connect to Microsoft's servers to activate your Windows installation just so the machine will work. Microsoft claims this authentication code thingie will be on all of their products by February of 2002.

The real crime in all of this is that Microsoft wants to change from a user-buying-once model for software purchases to making them pay Microsoft a monthly fee --just like your cable bill or something like that. I think this TURD OF AN IDEA will bring the computer industry to its knees.

I damned sure won't buy a new PC with WindowsXP running on it, especially if it has all that Big Brother In My Wallet crap. Few other users will do so either. They'll just continue to hold onto their old machines like they have already been doing (this is the primary reason why the computer industry is struggling so badly). The computer industry is heavily dependent on people upgrading their machines every 2 to 3 years. Many people are just not doing that anymore. And this crap will give them more reason not to upgrade.

Going to another computing platform might sound like a good idea, but once you have been using a certain platform for awhile, you are pretty well locked into it. And the silly software companies are partly to blame for it. I cannot very well throw out the PCs in my sign company studio and replace them with new G4 Macs when hardly any of my software offers a Mac version of the product in the box. Linux? Crap. As long as Photoshop isn't available for it, I will not consider using it. It would cost a fortune for me to replace all my software titles with new Mac versions. It is bad enough that there are years and years worth of archive PC and DOS files that would not translate too gracefully either. Perhaps this is something the folks at Macromedia, Adobe, Corel and Quark ought to be considering when they ship their products. If they shipped a multi-platform "single inventory" product, it would not only make it easier for a Wintel user like myself to jump ship to the Mac, it might help put a big dent in that Microsoft monopoly.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-11-2001, 02:24 AM:

Why would anyone purchase a Windows machine completely assembled? The best way to upgrade your Windows-based PC is to do it piece by piece, from scratch. Buy a nice case, a really good motherboard. Get an AMD processor (stay away from Intel, they run hot and have other problems). You can get PC133 RAM for about $1 per terabyte these days, so put the maximum amount in. If you get one of the new motherboards that they are coming out with, you can put two AMD processors on it and they will basically work as one superfast unit (much better than the dual motherboards that are available today). Get a multi terabyte 14400 rpm hard drive or three for pennies on the dollar. And then put the copy of Windows 2000 (why would you use any other Windows OS?) that you already own onto the new machine. And it will all cost less than buying a new HP or Compaq box. Sure, you won't get the fancy "internet buttons" and all that crap. But no one on the planet cares about the special features Compaq and HP and Gateway and whoever else offer anyway. Oh, and Compaq hardware is GUARANTEED to fail, or your money back! I built my PC for $500, and that included a good 17-inch monitor, keyboard and mouse. That was well over a year ago, but the thing has 192 megs of RAM, a 500mhz AMD (not bad for its time), lots of hard drive space, CD-RW, floppy drive (wasted purchase), etc etc etc.

Of course if you are into graphic design you'll want a Mac. You gotta buy those in one piece. But buy the RAM separately because Apple charges like $2 per terabyte instead of $1. But if you wanna do more than word processing and running Winamp, then the Mac is the way to go. Unless you are Scott Norwood and need a UNIX based machine. I have seen Scott use his computer and it is hard wired directly into his brain. Amazing

Posted by Joshua Voorhies (Member # 824) on 08-13-2001, 06:20 AM:

Scott Norwood should use Mac OS X. It's built on BSD Unix.
You get all the advantages on Unix with the interface of a Mac, and none of the bull---- of Windows.
When Windows XP and Mac OS X come out, they're going to compete head-to-head for the title of the best operating system out there. Of course, the outcome will be the same as it's always been: Macintosh will be the best, everyone will still use Windows.

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 10-06-2002, 10:28 PM:

If a computer is Running XP, an error message comes up every time when it boots up.

The error message says: "cannot find C:\Windows\wt\DDCMPatch.exe"

Anyone have any ideas?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-07-2002, 01:41 AM:

Funny sounding error. Did you load up XP Service Pack #1 or something like that. It could also be from a software app whose installer program botched something. I've seen some errors occur on Wintel boxes that I could not "recreate" on another identical machine just to figure out how it happened.

At any rate, back up all your critical data to disc and make sure you have all of your software and driver install discs handy in case the problem is bad enough to warrant a clean install.

I usually do a completely clean install (reformatting the hard disc, etc.) at least once a year on a PC.

Posted by Sam Hunter (Member # 1119) on 10-07-2002, 10:42 PM:

I use XP and McAffee Virus Scan Pro and have it setup to autoupdate itself. I ran the Leaktest that is listed on the GRC site and came up clean, the program couldn't connect. My point is, if you have XP or any other windows product keep it updated as well as any virus scan/firewall software you have. Why did I buy XP? Got bored with Win98 plus it seems to be more stable than any other version I've used. I havent had any crashes with XP as I have had with Win98 or 95. I have seen several instances of port scans on my PC but Mcaffee canned it. SO all in all I am happy with my purchase, but then again I am to passive for my own good.

------------------
Samual Hunter Sr.

KC5ZSL