jaclaz

buyerninety , do read the thread. The OP ALREADY FOUND what he was looking for : And shifted the question to: jaclaz

I did not present him as such, I merely cited him, Chris Hallum is also not - AFAIK - a security professional. However, most probably you are posting in the wrong place. It is possible that noone here will be able to understand the mindboggingly complexity of the technical papers that you fail to provide, but it is not nice of you highlighting this assumption of yours about the technical inadequacy of the members of this board every two or three posts. To recap: You expressed your opinion, which - as said - is much respected.You backed up your take on the subject (over and over) with reported opinions, "general consensus" and other meaningless (scientifically) "fluff", besides the fallacious argument "I am a security professional, hence I know the truth".You by now twice or thrice hinted - not so covertly - how this audience is not at a sufficient level of technical knowledge to understand the "real stuff".There is nothing more to say, your opinion on the higher level of security of both Windows 8 and Windows 8.1 over Windows XP has been duly set on records, you cannot provide further real material (as according to your opinion it won't be understood by the undereducated members of this board), there is no point in going on with this discussion. jaclaz

OR some Registry entries affecting the way the flight simulator runs.... jaclaz

Yeah, sure, the consensus of the people working in the security field is good enough proof. Go back in time. Around 1630. Ask all the Astronomers about the earth revolving around the sun.... And here is an opinion on security people: jaclaz

Yes, we only have the word of me, a security professional, and various other security professionals and hackers.Well, no. We have much less than that. We have your word, and you are merely claiming to be a security professional. And we have the reported (by you) opinion by various security professionals and hackers. BTW, being a security professional does not necessarily means that you are infallible. We are now evaluating a single (i.e. anecdotal) evidence (Charlotte's) against an apodictical one (yours). Neither are in any way worth anything when it comes to support a scientific theory, data may. Your opinion is much respected , but it remains an opinion. And no, a theory being "popular" does not particularly means it is true, JFYI: If you want some good reference about the matter, you can use this one: http://www.techradar.com/news/software/operating-systems/windows-8-1-security-what-s-been-improved-1156705#null And of course, 8.1 is much more secure than Windows 8: I just got back my crystal ball from the tuning shop and I can see the similar statement that will be provided in the imminence of the release of Windows 9 :. But I can also see at fast forward Chris Hallum's nose growing in length. jaclaz

Seems like Season 4 Episode 79 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Stiles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24_(season_4) http://24.wikia.com/wiki/Edgar_Stiles (I knew I has seen the first scene, but simply couldn't "place" it) The second one should be Season 5: http://24.wikia.com/wiki/Day_5:_5:00am-6:00am jaclaz

Then, you cannot cite 1,000 as source. You can cite at the most a dozen (+ a handful), and as said - once excluded the good guys or "ethical hackers" - I would not particularly trust the word of someone that "by trade" and for money deceives people compromising their PC's. Basing your statements on second-hand opinion expressed by a very limited number of unreliable people is not a particularly convincing way to support a thesis. Ah, well. I thought that a castle with one less door was more secure when it came at ways of access through doors... jaclaz

@Charlotte Source of those two last "movie" photos? (Which movie is it?) jaclaz

There is a "flaw" in the implementation of some Windows dialogs (of the kind that replace actual characters with "bullets", "dots" or "asterisks"), dialup dialog is one of them, the actual plain text password is only hidden, and can be "reverted" by simple programs (about that specific kind of password there are tens similar utilities around). Surely the password is stored *somewhere*, it may be "safe storage" (and there is a nirsoft thingy for that too) or somewhere else, cannot say. Also consider that more often than not an "average" user will re-use a password for more than a single specific access/dialog/use. This means that - example- if the password you found was "mickeymouse", if other tools find "a" password "mickeymouse" (or you find it by direct disk carving, etc.) that string may be connected to that dialog or "belong" to something else. jaclaz

OK, can we say that specifically, and limited to IPv6 exploits, an OS that DOES NOT have IPv6 is less vulnerable than one that has the IPv6 stack? (while it lasts) I don' t know 1,000 hackers. it seems like you do. Maybe you could do a poll among them and present a proper report (that would be anyway statistical work, not entirely unlikely the experiment dencorso suggested, which would have however provided objective data, as opposed to opinions of people that you shouldn't trust by definition). @JorgeA, JFYI: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/networking/ipv6-when-do-you-really-need-to-switch/2444 and double flip : http://www.zdnet.com/stick-to-limited-ipv6-deployments-businesses-warned-7000003055/ http://ipv6friday.org/blog/2012/08/why-bother-with-ipv6/ jaclaz

But that may depend on the actual way the recovery process has been designed by the manufacturer, or - if you prefer - on the exact contents of the recovery partition and the exact way those contents are deployed to the OS partition. jaclaz

Possibly that feeling is because now computers generally are cheap, flimsy pieces of crap. jaclaz

I don't get it. If some code can initiate an exploit through a stack overflow, then the code may need to be patched and the OS is vulnerable (and the patch has a very high priority , or "Critical"). If some code can initiate an exploit through a stack overflow BUT *something else* in the OS SURELY prevents stack overflows, then there is NO need to patch anything as the OS is NOT vulnerable, or at least the patch becomes very low priority or "Not Critical". The former is "less secure" than the latter. But while the patch is issued with the same priority level, at least here it means that it is needed on both systems and at the same time and with the same intensity in the minds of those that produce the patch. You are saying that because of the big changes in the way the OS works, a same vulnerability has less chances to be exploited in practice. The concept of "probability" of making use of a known vulnerability , which Charlotte The Harlot introduced through the use of "intelligent" and "safe" settings of the setup of the machine is very similar. A well made setup (and intelligent use of the PC ) lowers the probabilities that an existing vulnerability can be used by a malicious attacker. So, we are into "weighting" the efficiency of the "automatic internal mitigation factors" introduced in the OS against the efficiency of "manual external mitigation factors" suggested by Charlotte, right? If this is the case, then the only (anyway approximated) meaningful data we can get is statistical and can only be obtained by a test similar to the one dencorso hypothised: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/163539-are-ms-updates-for-xp-really-necessary/page-2#entry1046197 jaclaz

Naah, I thought that would be Naked WIndows 7 ⅓ : The Final insult! (to MS ) : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_Gun_33%E2'> jaclaz

NO, you don't. You DO NOT EVEN understand how this thread is for 7200.11 ONLY AND NOT any other model AND NOT for 7200.12. (BTW AFTER having been told that) You are POSTING ON THE WRONG THREAD! This is ONLY for 7200.11. Start a NEW thread for your issues with the 7200.12 AFTER having checked (searching) that your issue has been not already addressed in previous other threads dedicated to the 7200.12. In ANY case, BEFORE posting, you should have READ the READ ME FIRST thread here: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/143880-seagate-barracuda-720011-read-me-first/ particularly point #8 of it AND THE FGA's here: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/147532-fga-for-the-seagate-720011-drives/ particularly FGA #4. That do talk of the matter. jaclaz

Well, with Windows 8 also they "have gone bananas" and were "shooting for the goal" of making a good OS , the point is that actually they didn't manage to get it. jaclaz

What is the difficult part in "The Solution for Seagate 7200.11 HDDs" that you don't understand? jaclaz

But - just like getting old - the alternative is worse jaclaz

Sure, I never used TC and I do not personally think I will ever miss that, but you just confirmed what I was trying to say, you "survived" alright using the "old" version. About dependencies, of course there are "static dependencies" and "runtime dependencies", that's why I suggested to trace the thingy with DW on a OS that fulfilled that dependency (if you prefer an OS on which that plugin does work aòright) to get the list of *all* dependencies. jaclaz

Sure, it's your Utah, your taxes, and your "country of Freedom" . Poor ol' Benjamin Franklin's soul (and a lot of other very nice people of the time, like those that signed the US constitution and the Declaration of Independence) must be really sad when observing the world from the *wherever* they are now. jaclaz

Check your Windows 8 license, downgrade rights should be stated there (it may depend on the version of Windows 8, too) see: http://www.zdnet.com/hp-clarifies-windows-8-consumer-pc-downgrade-and-warranties-7000007280/ http://www.pcworld.com/article/2015107/downgrading-from-windows-8-to-7-what-you-need-to-know.html In a nutshell, Pro is downgradable, "plain" 8, NO... jaclaz

normally=daily=everyday="in service"="The phone I currently use is a P910i" jaclaz

Sure, It was a really nice little thingy. But the article is right, the price at the time was the show stopper. I never owned one, but I remember having used some other people's ones, and they - with all due respect - were very little beyond a "nice, technology edge, gadget". The actual "switch" in both usability and "usefulness" (besides processor and OS) came a few years later, with the 9210: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_Communicator http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_9210_Communicator Just like the Ericsonn 380: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ericsson_R380 was in comparable times. The first "real things" (comparable to the 9210) were the P800 and P900: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Ericsson_P800 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Ericsson_P900 And yes, I still own a P910i : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Ericsson_P910 which I use normally :. jaclaz

Well one can always trace the app with (say) dependency walker under a OS that actually has that GetFileSizeEx() and check the list of used functions. About the features, of course it is assumed that a later version (with some exceptions, like a number of MS Windows Operating Systems ) will offer "better" or more "features", I was only trying to (indirectly) state how it is not like for 4 (four) years, i.e. since late 2007 up to late 2011 the "occasional developer or advanced user" had been prevented from "occasionally develop" or "advancedly use" anything because of the crashes . If you prefer the OP - which BTW realized in 2013 how the "latest" versions (since almost 2 years) are not compatible with Win9x - may well risk using the old version, bearing with a few, rare, crashes without a substantial worsening of his overall computing experience, until someone - possibly because of a more "serious" *need*, finds the time (and way) to add that fuinction to KernelEx. jaclaz

A few good questions would be IMHO: WHICH added features/betterings does the current fileinfo 2.21 when compared to the 2.0.10.0 that does work in Win9x? Are this added features/betterings useful on a 9.x machine? Is there among the above a particular added feature that represents a "cannot live without" item? jaclaz