Microsoft fixes severe 19-year-old Windows bug found in everything since Windows 95

[Weatherlawyer]

It makes sense that the USSS want it kept in place in case non Snowdenites wake up.

[Weatherlawyer]

Greyhounds or wolfhounds?

[The Natural Philosopher]

dachshunds

>

[Wildman]

You forgot Unity and the Shopping Lens (zeitgeist).

You could polish a turd until you see your reflection but you still have a piece of shit.

[tony sayer]

this POS what they did..

stopped using it:).

bugs ironed out..

[Good Guy]

None I am afraid to say. For business use nothing can beat Windows.

[Good Guy]

Because he is a dinosaur using nothing; He hasn't got any power in his house to run a computer.

[Johnny B Good]

+1

[dennis]

And you think linux developers don't rely on being told about them?

That's the same with linux and OSx and any other OS you care to name..

Care to name an instance other than where they aren't stupid enough to tell the hackers before they have a patch?

[dennis]

Its a poor VM if the OS can tell.

[The Natural Philosopher]

So why not have nothing, instead?

[Tim Watts]

Dead ones...

[Vir Campestris]

Because for some reason he has a chip on his shoulder about MS.

It's especially ironic as he says "You'd think they would pay some attention to fixing ancient bugs" when that's exactly what they did.

Andy

[tony sayer]

In article , Tim Streater scribeth thus

"Windows system" should have been inserted above....

[Andy Burns]

How will the OS know to use the relevant paravirtual drivers for performance, if it can't tell which hypervisor it's running in?

[Mike Tomlinson]

En el artículo , Vir Campestris escribió:

Only after it was brought to their attention and subsequently publicised. Not through any effort of their own.

And that's just one bug. There will be hundreds more, as yet undiscovered, ones.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

[]

I (more or less a Windows preferrer) would guess that Apple/Xerox would say theirs was a windows system (even if not a Windows system). [I don't know who first called the overlapping rectangles "windows", but I suspect it wasn't Microsoft - or, probably, Apple/Xerox either.]

[Tim Streater]

I visited PARC and saw the Star in 82 or 83 (can't remember which) - not that I appreciated what was being shown. I also can't remember whether the windows on the screens could overlap or not. Those on the Apple Lisa, released Jan 1983, a year before the Macintosh), could overlap.

Windows 2 (Dec 1987) was the first version of Windows allowing overlapping windows. The first usable version (IMO) of Windows would have been Win98.

(all the above according to Winky).

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message , Tim Streater writes: []

Given the state of hardware (and to a lesser extent software) at the time, I'd say 3.1 was usable; I was (and still am sometimes) DOS-minded, and remember transitioning to Windows when I had 3.1. (For internet use, I originally used the DOS suite [based around KA9Q, I think] supplied by my ISP, only using Windows for browsing, but I gradually moved to Windows at that time.) And although I never _had_ it, I saw 3.0, which looked similarly usable.

[Daniel James]

No ... the first usable version of Windows was Windows NT 3.1, which was fast and pretty solid. That was ... 1992?

Windows 95 and 98 were amazingly clever, considering that they managed to run 32-bit programs while being balanced on top of 16-bit DOS, but they were nothing like as usable as NT had been for some years before they were introduced.