Microsoft to add 'black box' to Windows

[RoadClosed]

Hi Nihil;

Some of us view it all anyway. Through IDS triggers and filters on key words. Or pure unadulterated packet sniffing. Depends on your risks and policy. Once this thing is released in a year or two I might agree with you and turn it off, if the risk outweighs the benefit. As for the home user that may not have the state of mind to make those decisions... that is a valid issue. But at work, your mine.

[morganlefay]

From my experience...

Most crashes are badly written drivers, and or software....holding on to a process that it shouldnt be. Now there is the arguement that it shouldnt be allowed to do that in the first place...valid.

other major crashes....bad hardware.

fixing...remove replace hardware...software...drivers..

All fixed.

MS has come a long way from the NT4 days...and the buggy updates..probably due to this type of reporting

MLF

[Tiger Shark]

Morgan:

SIT!!!! Jeez girl.... Don't beat around the bush - Say what you mean....

I utterly agree with you and I thank you for saving me all that typing - I would have said the same thing.

For those that seem to think this is a major issue let's think for a minute....

M$ makes the most installed OS in the world. A gazillion other people make apps that run on the OS that M$ have no control over. One of the biggest complaints historically went as follows:-

"WinX craps out all the time and M$ does bugger all to fix it".

So they listened to you all whining and did something about it. They added a nice little feature that allows you to decide if you want the OS to improve and now we hear:-

"OMG, they are idiots... confidential data could be being sent, blah, blah, blah"

Regardless of the fact that it was probably one of those crappy free apps you downloaded from some no-body programmer off the internet because you were too cheap to buy a proprietary product to do the job that crashed your precious box.

I download either proprietary _or_ software written for windows by reputable and recommended authors. Since I started running Win2k some 4 years ago my box has crashed less times than I have fingers on my hands if you accept that 2 crashes by the same POS app count as one and the app was subsequently uninstalled. I have only seen WinXP crash once and t was caused by Norton.... So, since Win2K Windows has been pretty damn stable... and M$ are still trying to improve it by _asking_ for your help.... if you don't want to help... don't... This isn't difficult you know.

As to security breaches.... Firstly, don't send the damn report.... Duh!!! It doesn't go if you say "no"... Do you know how I know.... I tested it and sniffed the connection... Zip, Zilch, Nada. So M$ is "behaving"... Secondly, if you think that sending the report is a breach of security because it can be sniffed then you have bigger problems than sending the damn report. Lastly, if M$ receives data that they know is not part of their OS or the offending app, (therefore _your_ data), do you really think they are going to start using it or publishing it? The poeple they hire to look through these reports are not Comcast's level one techs reading a frigging script, they are proven coders and troubleshooters that aren't just hired off the street... trust me.

There... now I did all my own typing....

[RoadClosed]

... or just run linux at home.

[nihil]

Hi Road~

Well I don't think that I have managed to crash my XP box in 2 years And I am not concerned about private home users, as they don't have the legal restrictions that corporates and institutions do.

My main concern is that someone may "forget" to check the data and remove something compromising............This fear is likely to encourage IT managers to turn the thing off, which sort of defeats the object of fault reporting IMHO

So, the current system may in fact, be better than this proposed one, because it does not have this potential weakness.

I am fairly confident that when it comes out, MS will have removed the element.

After all, one of the reasons that I only send selected stuff is because in a lot of cases I know what caused the crash me, and I don't think the info would help.

On the other hand, persistent problems reported by corporates is doubtless far more interesting to MS anyway?

cheers

EDIT:

Well Tiger~ I was watching CSI Miami so I got a bit distracted there. I did have a bit of a problem with Win2K and the AV software scanning large compressed files, a while back..........didn't send it to MS though, I informed the AV company.............after all it was their problem, not MS's?

Similarly, I don't run the software on test boxes unless I find something which I think MS might want to know about............hell information overload isn't going to help is it.

[morganlefay]

There... now I did all my own typing....

Ahh Tiger...and you just say things much more elegantly than I could possibly hope to.

Off to the gym....to get rid of all this anger!!!!

My 2k....crashed with a bad cdrw driver...oh yeah and this stupid import export utility a legacy foxpro database used....but it used to crash NT4 too(badly written software...dont get me started on the printing issues )..havent had to use it on XP yet...and hope I dont have too....(I will use someone else machine to do that...yeah thats it..thats what Ill do)

Like I said...havent crashed XP Pro yet. Have had XP home machines become unstable...and that was due to malware or failed hardware...


MLF

[gore]

Maybe instead of those stress balls, Microsoft should start handing out Midol at trade shows. I wonder if Steve Ballmer thought this idea up when his machine froze in front of Comdex. Cam you imagine what that report would have said?

"System frozen, you're out of RAM Uncle It. Everyone is laughing at you".

"Send small electronic current through chairs in Audience? [y/n]? Y"



Attachment:

SUSE Linux 8.2

Software running in background and on other desktops (KDE and most other GUIs allow you to have 4 desktops or more on the screen):

AIM, Gaim, Yahoo, XMMS with 1200 song play list, Postfix Mail server, PureFTPD FTP server, downloads coming from 4 other machines on my LAN, Mail being checked in background my daemon of fetchmail, SSH, getty, about 900 other processes.

Machines specs;

Pentium 3 733 MHz, 384 RAM, 43 GB Hd (Not lying, but sometimes it's 42.9 if I use Windows)

Sound Blaster Live!

Nvidia Riva TNT2

XMMS has been playing 30 days straight, signed in AIM for 2 months, FTP and Mail have been running since boot up.

Looks like I don't crash either.

[guardian alpha]

gore, I'm usually a fan of your posts. But uptime does not equal the capability and stability of an Operating System. I havn't had to shut down my Windows 2003 server in 9 months (updates were applied as hotfixes manually) and my desktop machine can run everything you've listed and still keep stability with uptime although it is an XP machine.

So, what was the point of bragging about Suse uptime and lack of crashing in a windows-based thread where people are discussing windows uptime and lack of crashing?

[gore]

I think you may have missed the threads a few weeks ago. There were three reasons I posted:

1. Crack a joke (The midol one and how Microsoft handed out stress balls... they said they were stressed, I played on that)

2. Show how pretty my desktop was.

3. Piss off a certain someone who's been smackin' my balls for 3 months.


Ummm, as for Server 2003, I'd hope your machine didn't crash after a few months, I mean, it's a server OS. What I'm running is not. Although I use it as one. So I'm cool with you as long as you're not about to get Windows zealot on me. I've had more than I can handle of that in the last 3 months.

Heh, just type gore and SUSE in a search here and hit enter, you'll see about 200 posts of me getting bashed every time I made a thread no matter what I said.

[MoonWolf]

So it could be a potential threat. Actually maybe some company's based on the ruleset they live under simply deactivate it anyway.

(what does ibm run on the desktops. if windows do you think ibm wants their lets say spreatsheet in the "safe" hands of ms ?)

But how hard could it be for ms to implement a more configurable way to use it. Preset what can and cannot be sent per OU/user/Domain/Usergroup/box. Would that not solve a lot of problems and keep it safe to run in situations where you want to keep your information "safe" ?