GrofLuigi

Let me expand that a little bit. Windows checks if SuppressionPolicy exists for every action you can do in windows (double click things, right click, executing programs, context menu entries...) Verified with ProcMon. Many functions are checked if they have SuppressionPolicy, and yet few SuppressionPolicy values exist on a plain installation. What I have in mind is that any of those actions can be controlled to the user's liking if the SuppressionPolicy (in the individual control) is defined. It would allow very fine level of tweaking. I really think this has great potential. Some examples of the level of control achieved is the two examples upon which I always stumble upon when searching about this: 1. Slow network performance when you open a file that is located in a shared folder on a remote network computer (a very elegant solution, but what does it do?) 2. and this topic (adding services context menu to my computer - everyone's listing the SuppressionPolicy value, but nobody seems to knows why?) I want to find the place where those policies are defined. The place I mentioned above just lists them, but doesn't state their numerical values. And it seem they are too many to fit in a dword bitmask? Or not? That's why I would be grateful if anyone has any more information about this. Where do I find shlobj.h? GL

Any info anywhere how to translate the RESTRICTIONS into corresponding numbers in SuppressionPolicy value? GL

First post works with NetFx20SP2_x86.exe - all steps the same, creating admin point. Haven't installed it yet, but it seems it'll work - everything seems OK. strel, haven't gotten around yet to play with Synthesized, sorry GL

Wow! I'm very very amazed! Good work! GL

Sadly, if they do that, they would have hard time justifying new OSs. So, from their perspective, they have to put new junk in. It applies to any software (see Nero, Acrobat...) When it becomes successful, it starts to bloat beyond proportion... Dammit. GL

How are you checking that "ports" aren't working - what is the exact message and/or procedure? GL

Smart boy. Stays out of trouble. GL

With all due respect, this is no argument at all. If you couldn't say more, you had better said nothing. Gutmann speaks in general terms. And I agree, his 'slides' are not organized well. Bott is a trained journalist and uses the language (inserting implications) very cleverly. But what's most important, his 'rebuttal' is based on individual cases. If something isn't implemented or activated yet (or is circumvented by hardware vendors) doesn't mean it isn't there. In his own words: - so it isn't activated yet, and then he proceeds to criticize Gutmann for not proving increased CPU usage?!And so on... From what I have seen from the outside, if this isn't 'tilt bit' (albeit in another form and for another purpose, but still related), I don't know what is. I find it outrageous (as a principle/method of operation) and was surprised when it did not get much more attention in the media (passed by as one-off story). And yet many try to persuade me that the tilt bit doesn't exist. Sure, there is no need to, if it can be achieved in many different ways. Incidently, here's Ed Bott's response on this. I agree with him, but here's what happens in the real world when you try to excercise your right. * This is my last comment for now on this * - as I realise neither 'side' will change its mind. But, again, I had to start commenting above when too many beliefs started being passed on as facts. GL *Edit* - sorry I misattributed the quote, it's from here, but I think it doesn't change much.

WFP is already solved on XP SP3. But your find has great potential for disabling annoying driver signing check (which is performed even if driver signing policy is set to silently succeed). !!!BUT!!! it also has a great potential for trashing one's windows installation if something goes wrong or if the caller of Wintrust.dll functions doesn't fall back gracefully. A lot more testing is needed. GL * Edit - and one must hope the dll doesn't re-register itself. Also, I think deleting it is out of question.

Please, if we want to compare two confronted authors, we first must establish their credibility. I did not know much about any of them before, so I googled about them with various terms and queries. What I have found (not necessarily the whole truth): Ed Bott - spent 2 decades writing about Microsoft software. Here you can see some of his books. I haven't read any of them, but their level looks to me like "for dummies" or slightly above. Some criticize him even harder. Peter Gutmann, Ph.D. - His biography can be found more easily. On many places. Professional Paranoid, according to himself. Has devised one more or less famous algorithm for wiping hard disks. Guess who I'd trust more about Vista's in-depth security? And something more about the discussed topic... GL

Dun think so if it is used for system restore or complete pc restore as 200mb is insufficient for the whole os which by default installation uses 10.7gb of hdd space... Its more like a protected system files or the main core files of win7 which is hosted there hidden from the user in the os which also speed up the loading of windows or the responsiveness of the windows at the same time preventing unauthorized modification to the system files... my 2cents If it's true, then it's the first OS that's one giant rootkit. GL

Because I paid for the computer and for the OS and now someone else arranges my HDD? It would be OK if actually there was useful information in there, but when not using SR, there is no need for the folder to exist. On reboot, the folder is recreated if deleted and if any privileges taken away from SYSTEM, they are restored. <- This is on XP, I can't imagine it would be more relaxed in Vista. This is flexing of muscles - to show the user who's the boss. GL

It was funny to read about indeed. GL

Nooo.... It's a very serious topic. GL

There are all kinds of experts... GL *Edit (not to make another post) : Let's hear the other side again

RMClock, has many options for power management, does not fully support the very latest processors. CrystalCPUID, very good, does only processor management. <- I use this. Basically, you'd want to UNDERVOLT <- search for this on Google, there are many guides. (pozdrav) GL

I disagree. I think Vista lovers are just louder. I too tried (and said to myself I would give it a chance for at least one week), but came running back in disgust after two days - I couldn't stand it anymore. GL

There was a change in SP3 (or maybe SP2) - the mess service was changed to manual. See if it is. Also there may be other "security fixes" (cleaning their own mess). GL

Pestering us since XP SP2. GL

That's not it. It's: Command-line tools and/or Ethernet (LAN) NetShell Cmd-Tool GL

I don't know what happened to your system, but you could try: Search in registry for "defaulticon". Delete them all. Icon cache gets recreated if deleted. You can try to shrink it with "Max Cached Icons" (in registry). This should apply to most, if not all versions of Windows. GL

Have you searched for "NoWinKeys" ? GL

No mista Beware, some moderator might slap your wrista GL

Maybe there was a typo in one of your batches. ...command(s)... >echo GL

What about us GoogleBots? I always spoof it because it lets me enter far more pages. GL