Features you wish for in Windows XP Service Pack 3.......please post your views

Features you wish for in Windows XP Service Pack 3.......please post your
views



URL: http://winxpsp3.blogspot.com/

RSS Feed - http://winxpsp3.blogspot.com/atom.xml

What's really needed is an additional windows setup option for F6, to
look for cd-roms instead of a floppy



Apoorv wrote:
> Features you wish for in Windows XP Service Pack 3.......please post your
> views
>
>
>
> URL: http://winxpsp3.blogspot.com/
>
> RSS Feed - http://winxpsp3.blogspot.com/atom.xml
>
>
>

I'd agree Mark, though I honestly wouldn't count on this until the next full
release of Windows (codenamed Longhorn, at present).

--
Mike Kolitz MCSE 2000
MS-MVP - Windows Setup / Deployment


"Mark H" <> wrote in message
news:...
> What's really needed is an additional windows setup option for F6, to look
> for cd-roms instead of a floppy
>
>
>
> Apoorv wrote:
>> Features you wish for in Windows XP Service Pack 3.......please post your
>> views
>>
>>
>>
>> URL: http://winxpsp3.blogspot.com/
>>
>> RSS Feed - http://winxpsp3.blogspot.com/atom.xml
>>
>>

Interesting idea.
However if people really want something, it may be a better idea to
contact Microsoft directly:
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=114491
Or
http://register.microsoft.com/mswish...2Fthanks%2Ehtm

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/


"Apoorv" <apoorvbadami-at-hotmail-dot-com> wrote in message
news:...
> Features you wish for in Windows XP Service Pack 3.......please post
> your views
>
>
>
> URL: http://winxpsp3.blogspot.com/
>
> RSS Feed - http://winxpsp3.blogspot.com/atom.xml

Microsoft Anti-Virus (which is a possible feature in "Longhorn")

"Apoorv" <apoorvbadami-at-hotmail-dot-com> wrote in message
news:...
> Features you wish for in Windows XP Service Pack 3.......please post your
> views
>
>
>
> URL: http://winxpsp3.blogspot.com/
>
> RSS Feed - http://winxpsp3.blogspot.com/atom.xml
>
>
>

Most people get infected with a virus if they want random data destruction. But some idiots install MS Antispywear.

--
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.uscricket.com
"Will Hoenig" <> wrote in message news:...
> Microsoft Anti-Virus (which is a possible feature in "Longhorn")
>
> "Apoorv" <apoorvbadami-at-hotmail-dot-com> wrote in message
> news:...
>> Features you wish for in Windows XP Service Pack 3.......please post your
>> views
>>
>>
>>
>> URL: http://winxpsp3.blogspot.com/
>>
>> RSS Feed - http://winxpsp3.blogspot.com/atom.xml
>>
>>
>>
>
>

What programs will people run on this OS?

--
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.uscricket.com
"Leythos" <> wrote in message news...
>
> I want MS to stop including applications with Service Packs and with the
> OS. I want MS to produce a stable/exploit-free OS.
>
> I would never trust the MS SP2 Firewall or their AV product, they just
> don't have a quality track-record in security or AV areas.
>
> Instead of buying up those companies and their products, they should just
> release the source code to them so that they can produce even better
> applications to protect people.
>
> What we really need is not another service pack, but another OS that is
> different from the ground up. Abandon DOS/Windows foundation and create
> something that is secure, forward looking, stable, growth oriented, and
> provides several modes - Workstation (Developer), Home User, and Small
> Server options in the install.
>
>
> --
>
> remove 999 in order to email me
>

But noone will buy it. That is why MS is sucessful. They will run your programs.

--
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.uscricket.com
"Leythos" <> wrote in message news...
> On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 00:22:10 +1100, wrote:
>
>> What programs will people run on this OS?
>
> A new and revised batch of the same that we run now. Programs that don't
> allow "User" level account to run them should be eliminated (like
> installing MS Office 2003 or QuickBooks as a User).
>
> We need, if we're going to move into safer computing areas, adopt the idea
> that backwards compatability is not all it's cracked up to be. You can
> leave the current Windows platforms where they are, service packs to fix
> security problems, but get out of the past and design something that takes
> into account the real-world use of computers currently in the market.
>
> I'm not advocating that we all switch to Linux or AIX or MAC OS, but we
> need something that's a little more secure for the average user based on
> the extensive threat base out there, and that takes FULL computing
> advantage of the P4 line and above (not to mention other vendors CPU).
>
> It would be nice to see the next Windows have the ability to install a
> kernel based on type of CPU, where it's completely optimized for that CPU
> out of the box, where security is first, ease of use second, and
> applications third.
>
> Don't suggest that MS can't do it, if I can install MS Office 2000/XP on a
> linux box and have it run perfectly, MS can create a new OS and update
> Office 2003 to run on it.
>
> Do you know how many people (home users and small businesses) run as local
> administrators because they can't run QuickBooks, MS Office 2003, or other
> apps without being an admin? Lots!
>
>
> --
>
> remove 999 in order to email me
>

But your customers wouldn't. They like their apps to work.

--
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.uscricket.com
"Leythos" <> wrote in message news...
> On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 00:50:38 +1100, wrote:
>
>> But noone will buy it. That is why MS is sucessful. They will run your programs.
>
> I bet you would find that many would buy it. MS is currently the leader
> due to marketing and pricing and strategy. If they designed a new OS that
> was more secure and provided different kernels for different CPU's, I
> would buy it - and we handle more than 1000 desktops.
>
>
> --
>
> remove 999 in order to email me
>

Leythos <> writes:
....
>Customers want security and stability tempered with price - if MS could
>give us Windows Secure Platform Version 1, and vendors would make proper
>use of the platform, meaning they only have to retool parts of their apps
>for the security changes, it would sell like hot-cakes on a cold day.

Question: With trillions of dollars to be made in the online marketing/
banking/service industry, why haven't those folks looking at making the
trillions gotten together and produced one new piece of software:

A secure tool that is somewhere between a mailer and a browser,
that is only used for these business transactions, something
that when you get a message from your bank or your store you
know it can't be forged, it can't be a fraud, it can't be phishing?
Something that has a reputation for dependability and safety?
And, they give it to you because they want the trillions.

Why hasn't this been done? Much smaller than an OS. Way more profit.
Shouldn't be impossible to make this more secure than using your Visa
card or your ATM card, in fact, maybe that is what you need to stuff
into the drive to authenticate your end of the communication or
transaction. And that same card is what authenticates the bank/
merchant's traffic coming to you, any and everything else that doesn't
authenticate maibombs the national credit fraud swat team with a message.
Six-Sigma quality software, one failure per thousand year (full time year
round, round the clock) customer use is actually feasible if you limit
the trazillion feature crap down to "it works, never fails, with the
bare minimum number of features you really need to do your job."