Vista or Not

[tw]

Originally Posted by NoBoxes

From what I've read by tech reporters, Vista is supposed to address most of the security issues in XP. ... I've not seen anything on the heuristic aspects of its security features though.

Software development kit updates are chock full of new procedures modified for security reasons. Some features are only Vista compatible. For example, any string function that can access memory location outside of that string has been modified so that string overruns are not possible. Apparently an order two years ago from Bill Gates to stop and totally rewrite Vista for security caused most everything to change. That means everything would be rewritten with new and secure procedures and other changes to legacy code.

Vista probably will have some teething problems only because it involved rewrite or reassessment of virtually everything inside Windows. That does not mean Vista will be a reliability disaster since every new OS suffered from those same speculations.

But like each new version of Windows (and like Apple's OSX), new software will make new demands on hardware. That has always been a good thing once we eliminate doomsday hype.

[Maui Nick]

Originally Posted by be-bop

Was rooting around the Microsoft website the other night and noticed they had a small programme Vista upgrade advisor..down load and see if your PC will run Vista.
Downloaded programme and it did it's thing it the started to churn out the programmes that I've got that will be incompatible starting with Nero then it went on to the cd burner programme I use in all it listed i would have problems with around 6/7 programmes I use frequently.
It even stated my H/P printer would have compatibility problems
Methinks I'll be running XP for a while yet.

Meh. I might install Vista around the time Microsoft releases Service Pack 2 (given that SP2 was basically Windows XP.5).

[Bullitt]

Originally Posted by Maui Nick

Meh. I might install Vista around the time Microsoft releases Service Pack 2 (given that SP2 was basically Windows XP.5).

I'm with you there. With my new laptop I get one of those free upgrade to Vista things, but I wont get around to installing it even though I have the hardware (Core 2 Duo and 2 gigs ram makes it run oh so nice..) until I am convinced that my most often used programs will work close to flawlessly with it. I am having no problems with XP Media Center right now and so I'll be following the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" advice.

[Elspode]

.

[mbpark]

Tom,

Yes, Microsoft did order a rewrite of Vista two years ago.

However, it's going to take a long time to go through over 40 million lines of code, and also the design decisions made in the past. Any software project has these issues. Microsoft just built the major underpinnings of Windows before they realized what these security issues are. There will be major issues.

Vista is at best going to be an interim release before Blackcomb where they are transitioning between the old Windows and the new Windows, kind of like what Apple did with OS X. Remember, OS X didn't get to have a full API until the 10.2/10.3 era, and did away with a lot of backward compatibility with the move to Intel processors. Many people did not upgrade until 10.2 or 10.3 due to the fact that the apps were not there, and neither was the OS.

In other words, companies like Citrix are going to make a lot of money offering legacy apps in a Terminal Services environment.

Thanks,

Mitch

[tw]

Originally Posted by mbpark

Tom,

Yes, Microsoft did order a rewrite of Vista two years ago.

However, it's going to take a long time to go through over 40 million lines of code, and also the design decisions made in the past.

Changes to procedures in the ‘software development kit’ does not mean existing program code changes. But it does mean that all Windows legacy code has been rewritten in Vista to include those new security procedures.

Unknown is the condition of hardware drivers. Drivers have access to the OS that regular applications do not. A Vista compatible driver rewritten for security must include the new 'software development kit' procedures and would meet other new security requirements.

And so the unanswered question is whether old drivers will still work in Vista. It would explain, for example, why some devices will not operate under Vista.

Yes, old application software should still work in Vista. Upgrades to application software should include those new security enhancements. The point is not that all software code will or must be upgraded. The point is that new security code means all of Vista has been rewritten and that new security enhancements might mean some older drivers may not work. But then hardware manufacturers are expected to provide upgraded drivers - and for free.

Change is necessary for life - no matter how some don't like it.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by tw

...necessary for life...

[mbpark]

Tom,

Developers, like everyone else, look for the best way to do things.

Unfortunately, the Win16 API (which is not part of 64-bit Windows, so 16-bit programs won't run on it- unfortunately this includes many Installshield installers!) and early Win32 API (pre XP Service Pack 2) was designed poorly in many spots. Many of the API calls which older applications use, such as Access 97 (which I have personally seen with a vertical market app) and others rely on functions which are either deprecated or no longer exist. In the case of Access 97, the Buffer Overflow protection introduced in Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1 gets tripped when you try and execute the runtime. Vista is based on Windows Server 2003 SP1, which is a superset of Windows XP Service Pack 2.

Microsoft has even gone on record as saying that the older Microsoft Access runtime (based on Office 97) and MSDE (versions based on SQL Server 7.0 and 2000) will not be supported in Windows Vista, and will not work correctly.

Microsoft, due to their emphasis on security which was several years late IMHO, had to cut out Service Pack 5 for Windows 2000 because they would have had to deliver a whole new OS, literally, as a service pack. Many organizations would have balked at this. In fact, many organizations treated XP SP2 like a new OS and had to requalify and retest their deployed applications.

At one of my customer sites, which is a large healthcare organization, many of the third-party vendor applications had to have portions rewritten for Windows XP Service Pack 2, not to mention IE7. Thankfully, I help manage the internal development team and client deployments, and we had no major issues transferring our client/server apps to XP SP2 .

Microsoft made really bad design decisions IRT the Win32 API. Part of their security cleanup was cleaning up the APIs and code that they consisted of. Due to the major changes in the OS infrastructure, many applications that were written according to the API rules of a few years back will no longer work because either the parameters or return values from functions are different.

I've seen way too many applications require patches and updates for XP Service Pack 2 and beyond to ever believe that Microsoft can keep the APIs consistent across OS versions and preserve backward compatibility.

These aren't mom and pop software shops, either. The list includes Microsoft themselves, Symantec, GE Health Systems, and Oracle.

Change is necessary, and I don't disagree with you on that. However, I am just noting that the backward compatibility which Windows was once famous for is no longer there in Vista. Whether or not this is a good thing for vendors other than Citrix has yet to be decided.

[tw]

Originally Posted by mbpark

However, I am just noting that the backward compatibility which Windows was once famous for is no longer there in Vista. Whether or not this is a good thing for vendors other than Citrix has yet to be decided.

Clearly to gain security, then backwards compatibility is at risk. However previously we were told MS-DOS applications would not work on NT. Some did not only because they were written in violation of previous standards for code writing. But most all did contrary to the rumors.

As I understand it, Microsoft had a 'change of heart' concerning Windows. They invited security experts into a large meeting. As a result of MS 'new attitude', this meeting is said to have continued all through the night and into morning. MS was given an earful.

Some things are said to have changed with Vista. MS has provided security coders deeper access into NT's core functions. MS's Operating System group is now working more cooperatively with non-MS application software vendors. This would have happened earlier had MS been broken up. As a result of 'turning the ship', even the head of MS's Operating Systems group lost his job. He could not implement the change.

So yes, Vista is the beginning of big changes. History says we will learn what really does and does not work with Vista. History also says some hardware manufacturers are so anti-innovative as to not adapt their drivers, properly, to Vista security requirements. Yes there will be some software that cannot make the cut. History says, at this point, we don't know how much 'legacy compatibility' will be lost.

My guess is that security enhancements to Vista will be as major (only in the Operating Systems group) as the need to adpat to Internet was maybe a decade earlier. Back then, MS was on the verge of going like DEC only because MS had ignored the Internet - until some MS employees kept Bill up all night showing him this thing called Internet. Same could be said of MS Operating System group ignoring security for too long.

Products will 'fall off the deck' as the SS Microsoft turns abruptly - as did MS mailbox based programs and Netbios, NetBeui, etc before MS discovered the internet (without Al Gore's help).

[Flint]

Vista DRM blog

[tw]

From EE Times on 12 Feb 2007:

Nvidia fails the Vista test
Nvidia is scrambling to improve the low performance of its graphic-card drivers on Windows Vista.

The maker of the GeForce graphic processors and related daughterboard products has received lots of flack from gamers who say their computer games crashed as a result of Nvidia drivers that have proven to be incompatible with Microsoft's latest operating system. ...

Current Nvidia drivers designated as compatible for Vista include the v96.85 for GeForce FX Series, the v97.46 for GeForce 6 and GeForce 7 Series, and the v100.59 beta driver for GeForce6, GeForce 7 and GeForce 8800. ...

Nvidia is not the only company to experience problems with Vista. Apple has said on its Web site that none of the software that it's made available for the Windows environment has been updated for Vista.

From http://www.nvidiaclassaction.org

Looks like the good folks at Dell have had enough with NVidia as well and aren't offering Vista with their top of the line PC (with the "top of the line video card") due to driver issues. One can't help but wonder how this is damaging partner relationships with Microsoft and Dell (and any others for that matter).

[mbpark]

TW,

I invite you to try any app that relies on a serial port and DOS-style timing APIs to do its work. I also invite you to try some of the older direct APIs (which were part of previous standards) for direct printer port access .

When I worked in the controls field, we had all machines that had Windows 95 booted into DOS mode for a reason. Windows was not (and still isn't) a hard real-time system. OS/2 was quite better at handling timing, and you had to rewrite everything to use the Windows API and pray that it worked. Many good apps were written close to the hardware in DOS to get the timing right.

However, change is good. Many of those apps have been rewritten for other OSes. Windows is still a decent SCADA platform, but not much else .

Windows Vista is a good step forward for enhanced security. However, we need to evaluate how the product works on the market for a few months before drawing any conclusions. Remember, Windows XP was the most secure Windows ever (as said by MS themselves).

There will be victims of this approach, as there have been at every previous generation (Novell, WordPerfect, Ashton-Tate), however there will be new software vendors to replace them.

Originally Posted by tw

Clearly to gain security, then backwards compatibility is at risk. However previously we were told MS-DOS applications would not work on NT. Some did not only because they were written in violation of previous standards for code writing. But most all did contrary to the rumors.

As I understand it, Microsoft had a 'change of heart' concerning Windows. They invited security experts into a large meeting. As a result of MS 'new attitude', this meeting is said to have continued all through the night and into morning. MS was given an earful.

Some things are said to have changed with Vista. MS has provided security coders deeper access into NT's core functions. MS's Operating System group is now working more cooperatively with non-MS application software vendors. This would have happened earlier had MS been broken up. As a result of 'turning the ship', even the head of MS's Operating Systems group lost his job. He could not implement the change.

So yes, Vista is the beginning of big changes. History says we will learn what really does and does not work with Vista. History also says some hardware manufacturers are so anti-innovative as to not adapt their drivers, properly, to Vista security requirements. Yes there will be some software that cannot make the cut. History says, at this point, we don't know how much 'legacy compatibility' will be lost.

My guess is that security enhancements to Vista will be as major (only in the Operating Systems group) as the need to adpat to Internet was maybe a decade earlier. Back then, MS was on the verge of going like DEC only because MS had ignored the Internet - until some MS employees kept Bill up all night showing him this thing called Internet. Same could be said of MS Operating System group ignoring security for too long.

Products will 'fall off the deck' as the SS Microsoft turns abruptly - as did MS mailbox based programs and Netbios, NetBeui, etc before MS discovered the internet (without Al Gore's help).

[tw]

Originally Posted by mbpark

TW,

I invite you to try any app that relies on a serial port and DOS-style timing APIs to do its work. I also invite you to try some of the older direct APIs (which were part of previous standards) for direct printer port access .

Do you mean on Vista or on any Windows?

[mbpark]

both, seriously

[tw]

Originally Posted by mbpark

both, seriously

I am not sure what was posted. I still use my DOS programs (ir Word Star 4 and a DOS based schematic capture program) even with XP and also to print. Restrictions exist because some functions in NT based Windows are were not available in DOS. But what worked in DOS still works in XP.

I am curious what we have gained and lost in Vista because Vista may be the first major step since NT obsoleted Windows 95 and since ME finally gave up and conceded to Windows 2000.

In the case of DOS serial access, I would write serial programs to work in DOS and NT. If the serial progarm used serial hardware in functions not intended, then the NT version failed. Only some serial access fucntions initiated in software actually appeared on that serial port hardware because the action was simulated - part of the NT separation of hardware from appliction software. And those programs worked just fine IF standard access was used when written for DOS.

Even some hardware functions - dedicated access to printer port - work just fine in both DOS and XP. But again, access to the printer required acces via standard DOS functions. Some software tried printing using 'innovative' techniques.

Well some of those functions always left me wondering how much security was lost because DOS compatibility was preserved. And with the complete rewrite of NT - now called Vista - are those DOS simulations still available?

The point is that even my WordStar 4.0 only for DOS works even in XP. I can access files, use serial ports, and print to local printers even using Wordstar 4.0 - a program with a 1978 copywrite works even in 2003 XP.

What was the problem with Windows in real time? Its clock time period was too slow (something like 1 millisecond). Its abilities to reply to real time events - too slow. OS/2 was better suited to real time applications because it was faster at responding to real time events, faster at switching between processes, and used a faster real time event clock. But then Windows was not intended to be a real time operating system. Windows was intended for multitasking to an operator interface; need not be so fast as a real time OS.

Meanwhile, the OS called Vista is a major change. So radical that Nvidea GeForce controller drivers - one of the few hardware items that can crash a real pre-emptive multitasking system - are defective.

I don't know the major changes that MS performed to change APIs. I would expect that many programs were written using API in manner not originally intended by MS.

Futhermore, it is my experience with MS, Unix, Dec, Perkin Elmer, HP, Macrodata, and even GE computers - the developer has little regard for the user - often does not bother to properly document what is intended. Seen this often with some MS products and would not be surprised to see many MS APIs implemented as not intended - just as I have found uses of the serial port as a total violation of what that hardware was intended for.

As an example, look at MS APIs for TCP-IP access. Where in MS documentation is there anything related to TCP/IP defined functions. The code is describes as if the author had no idea was the seven ISO layers were.

Mbpark - in short, I am not sure where you are going and whether above paragraphs agree or disagree with some part of your posts. I expect Vista to be chock full of surprises because I expect Vista to be a change as fundamental as Windows 3.1 was to Windows 95 - but without those changed causing anything immediately obvious to the user. Curious will be whether all DOS compatibilty that existed in XP is lost in Vista. But with emphasis on security, I would not be surprised to see some DOS compatibility lost. Still my DOS programs from the 1980s still worked in XP.