Windows 7 has same flaw as Windows NT 3.1

[deadrats]

just unbelievable, in a previous post on all the "God" modes present in Win 7, i speculated that microsoft had deliberately placed "back doors" in their OSes, meant for law enforcement to gain easy access to computers running windows. needless to say i was lambasted by most respondents, labeled as "paranoid" and in need of a tin foil hate, well here's this article that says there is an exploit that exists within all 32 bit Windows NT based OSes, from NT 3.1 to Win 7 that makes it possible to open a command prompt at the highest privilege levels:

Reports have surfaced about a new security hole that has been in Windows since the release of Windows NT 3.1 on July 27, 1993. The vulnerability is present in all 32-bit versions of Windows released since then, including all supported versions: Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Server 2003, Windows Vista, Windows Server 2008, and Windows 7. Microsoft has issued Security Advisory (979682) to address the elevation of privilege vulnerability in the Windows kernel, making sure to note that 64-bit versions of Windows, including Windows Server 2008 R2, are not affected.

make no mistake, this is a very big deal, once you have access to the command prompt at the highest levels to effectively have full control of the OS, allowing you to change all passwords, full read/write access to all files, there is effectively nothing you can't do, firewalls, file system encryption, strong passwords, all the protections you used to lock down the system become useless.

as an interesting side note, microsoft, through "unofficial" channels, has said "no one should use any of the "God" modes, ever, at any time":

http://brandonlive.com/2010/01/04/the-so-called-god-mode/

The existence of this folder and its CLSID are implementation details and should not be relied upon by anybody for any purpose*.

you just have to love microsoft and windows...

[aedipuss]

pinhead - microsoft themselves released the "godmode" codes. stop believing that everything you read online is true.

osx just released fixes for 12 critical flaws, it happens to all os's, even linux believe it or not has new versions released that fix "flaws".

[M Bruner]

Dogs and cats living together...!

[guns1inger]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3ZOKDmorj0

[deadrats]

pinhead - microsoft themselves released the "godmode" codes. stop believing that everything you read online is true.

before i respond, i would like to ask you a question: if i called you a rubber-assed slap-nutted fruit cake, do you think i would be violating this forum's rules? just curious.

as far as microsoft "releasing" the "God" mode codes, they did no such thing, at least not through "official" channels, they released them the same way they released the statement that they shouldn't be used and will most likely be closed in a future update.

in so far as believing everything i read on the internet, i am not sure what you are referring to, everything i have said is based on my knowledge of OS design, programming and the fact that anything you believe automatically means the exact opposite is true.

i also have one more belief, i strongly believe that you may in fact be a cartoon character, though i know i won't be able to prove it.

osx just released fixes for 12 critical flaws, it happens to all os's, even linux believe it or not has new versions released that fix "flaws".

there is a major difference between a "critical" flaw in a new OS release and a flaw in the fundamental way 16 bit code is run that dates back 17 YEARS. yes, there are flaws in ever OS X release that may potentially allow a hacker to remotely run code on a system, or every once in a while a bug shows up in a linux app, such as a buffer overflow, that could allow an attacker to run code that can potentially do something, but to have a flaw in the kernel of every single 32 bit Windows NT based OS since the Win NT 3.1 released in 1993?!?

and it's not even a small bug, the flaw can actually be used to open a command prompt with admin privileges, come on, for the love of God, squeeze your head out of your can and see the shine rise for a change, get some fresh air, it will do you good.

[MJPollard]

a rubber-assed slap-nutted fruit cake

Okay, this I need to remember for future reference.

[aedipuss]

call me anything you like, a BIG meanie is closer to the truth. pinhead was not my first choice but seemed to approximate the shape a head would take on for someone who's lived under a tinfoil hat. sorry if i got that wrong.

the 17 year exploit isn't even a problem at all for 99.99% of m.s. windows users. to exploit this vulnerability, an attacker must already have valid logon credentials and be able to log on to a system locally, meaning they must already have an account on the system.

do your reading on legitimate security sites before running around screaming "the sky is falling".

[deadrats]

the 17 year exploit isn't even a problem at all for 99.99% of m.s. windows users. to exploit this vulnerability, an attacker must already have valid logon credentials and be able to log on to a system locally, meaning they must already have an account on the system.

i guess you have never heard of the "guest" account on XP and later iterations, nor are you aware that for computers on a network the account in some cases must be turned on and in some cases it is highly recommended that it be turned on for proper access to network resources:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/300489

do your reading on legitimate security sites before running around screaming "the sky is falling".

i "run around screaming 'the sky is falling'" because i have more than a decent knowledge of OS security, both windows and *nix, this vulnerability is exploitable one of three ways:

1) a hacker actively uses this exploit to penetrate a windows network by entering via an permitted guest account and gaining root access.

2) a virus uses it locally to elevate it's privileges, connect to a remote pc and give a hacker full control of your pc for use in ddos or similar style attacks, or acts as a proxy to allow a hacker to hide behind your ip addy as he attacks bigger networks.

3) a virus uses it locally to elevate it's privileges and install spyware in the form of a keylogger or in a more benign attack simply screw up your system to the point a fresh install is the only option.

lastly, assuming your "99.99%" argument is valid, Ballmer, in 2007, estimated that there were 1 BILLION computers world wide running windows. let's assume that only half of those run an NT based windows, that's 500 million computers. .01% of 500 000 000 equals 5 million computers world wide that based on their usage patterns could potentially fall victim to this exploit, according to your argument (the reality is that they are all in danger).

for an OS that supposedly used a new kernel when it transitioned from NT to 2000, that supposedly had it's kernel upgraded from 2000 to XP, that suposedly recieved yet another new kernel when it went from XP to Vista and then supposedly got another update when it went from Vista to Win 7, for all of them to still have the same exploit that microsoft has known about since 1993?!?

it's ridiculous, why not close that exploit, unless they purposely put it there in the first place.

[JohnnyMalaria]

@OP

MS are saying don't rely on the CLSID to be recognized in the future - i.e., it is unsupported/undocumented. It has nothing to do with saying that it is a security risk. MS do this all the time including statements such as not relying on FPU instructions to be supported in future 64-bit compilers or non-string safe C functions.

Your point about the NT 3.1 security hole (which you imply is a LEO back door) applies to 32-bit versions. You very own Ctrl-C/Ctrl-V makes it clear that it doesn't apply to 64-bit. So, unless you run a PC with a >5yr old processor you have no reason to not use 64-bit versions of Vista or 7.

Moreover, 97968 is a CVE. This means it has been reported to MS but has not been proven. This is probably why there is a blanket statement for 32-bit NT kernel OSes from version 2000 and on.

Please - show me where it is claimed that this vulnerability has been around since 3.1. Or, indeed, the nature of the vulnerability. Here's a clue:

A privilege escalation vulnerability exists in some versions of the Microsoft Windows Kernel. Windows is prone to a privilege escalation vulnerability due to incorrect assumptions in kernel support for 16 bit applications. Exploitation requires local access to a vulnerable machine. Upon exploitation, an attacker (local) may gain the ability to execute arbitrary code in kernel mode.

Hmmm. Relates to 16-bit apps *and* the attacker sitting at the PC.

You should be ashamed of yourself. You persistently paste snippets from articles to justify false claims even though those articles often state the contrary opinion. Your actions are nothing more than those of a troll.

[JohnnyMalaria]

it's ridiculous, why not close that exploit, unless they purposely put it there in the first place.

Other than the idiotic ramblings inside your head from too much exposure to pesticides, where is it stated that MS had a priori knowledge of this?

[deadrats]

Other than the idiotic ramblings inside your head from too much exposure to pesticides, where is it stated that MS had a priori knowledge of this?

heeere's johnny!!! sorry, could resist. i was in the middle of writing a rather pointed reply, thinking of new and creative ways i could tear you a new one when i decided to go back to my original post and reread the article i linked to when i discovered that i had failed to supply the link, so:

http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/01/microsoft-investigates-17-year-old-windows-flaw.ars

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/advisory/979682.mspx

according to the article microsoft was officially notified of this exploit on june 12 2009 but it shouldn't take a genius to realize that something is very wrong with the story; microsoft has repeatedly claimed that kernel has changed from NT to 2k to xp to vista to win 7, as well as supposedly changed whole chunks of the code, supposedly making it more secure, yet in all the kernel rewrites, in all the new code that been changed and added, this exploit has somehow managed to survive.

you "write" code, if you were constantly pushing out new revisions of a large app you had created and were maintaining, do you really think that a flaw in the original version, even one that you weren't aware of, would somehow survive countless code rewrites, countless updates for over 17 years?!?

it's no secret that federal law prohibits the exportation of certain encryption/decryption technology, including hardware and software (hell, it was, and still is, illegal to export the playstation 1 to certain countries on the watch list because it could potentially be used for things that the U.S. government considers a threat to national security) to countries on the federal watch list, yet windows is sold in korea, china, saudi arabia, russia with no problem, how do you think microsoft is allowed to sell their OS over their? how is it that the chinese government has been able to hack computers world wide, including computers belonging to u.s. agencies in this country as well as u.s. military computers.

if you wish to graduate from a "programmer" to a programmer then start thinking like one, ask yourself the tough questions, maybe questions you don't want to consider, maybe answers you don't want to hear, treat this as if you were on a jury and the prosecutor presented the following evidence:

1) there is an exploit in every NT version released for the last 17 years, an exploit that allows someone from a restricted account to gain full admin privileges.

2) u.s. law prohibits the sale of any encryption/decryption technology to nations on a certain watch list.

3) windows is sold in said countries without any problem.

4) computers running windows have been hack repeatedly by chinese hackers, each time being fully compromised, with some computers belonging to government agencies. in more attacks, numerous and repeated attacks on u.s. networks, originating in korea, have taken place.

the accusation: microsoft has purposely built in back doors into windows OSes, meant for u.s. law enforcement agencies and to comply with exportation laws.

how do you, the jury, find?

if your answer is "not guilty", i have to conclude that you most likely also served on the first simpson jury as well.

[aedipuss]

this is from the arstechnica page you link to.

"Microsoft is investigating new public claims of a possible vulnerability in Windows," a Microsoft spokesperson told Ars. "We are currently not aware of active attacks against this vulnerability and believe risk to customers, at this time, is limited. To exploit this vulnerability, an attacker must already have valid logon credentials and be able to log on to a system locally, meaning they must already have an account on the system. An attacker could then elevate their privileges to the administrative level and run programs of their choice on the system.

you have to physically be sitting at the computer you want to hack with this flaw.

that'a not a "exploit" or security hole. geez, i've been able to "recover" any admin password on any windows computer i've sat at in under a minute.

[deadrats]

you have to physically be sitting at the computer you want to hack with this flaw.

that'a not a "exploit" or security hole. geez, i've been able to "recover" any admin password on any windows computer i've sat at in under a minute.

i'm going to go out on a limb and say that you don't have any networking experience, when computers are networked you can access resources on one computer from a different computer as if you were sitting at the first computer, when this is done you are logged into the host pc in the same manner as if you were sitting right in front of it.

have you never used telnet? ssh? pc anywhere? any remote access technology?

as for the claim that you "have been able to "recover" any admin password on any windows computer i've sat at in under a minute", i find that very hard to believe. windows stores passwords in a SAM file and said file can only be accessed from within the admin account, any account that doesn't have admin privileges can't access said file, nor can a non-admin account hash it.

i seem to recall an exploit that allowed someone to get around this security measure but i don't recall the exact procedure but again, it was an exploit, not something that could be done "in a minute".

to recover the admin password on a windows pc that you already don't have admin access to would require you to use a linux live cd/dvd, find and copy the SAM file and then crack it on a different pc, which depending on how complex the admin password, would take quite some time.

be that as it may however, this attack would only work on a pc locally, the exploit i have referenced in my original post can be use remotely, it can be used to gain full control of any 32 bit windows server OS, regardless of configuration, regardless of service packs or updates installed, ever made.

it's a very big deal.

[ocgw]

you have to physically be sitting at the computer you want to hack with this flaw.

that'a not a "exploit" or security hole. geez, i've been able to "recover" any admin password on any windows computer i've sat at in under a minute.

i'm going to go out on a limb and say that you don't have any networking experience, when computers are networked you can access resources on one computer from a different computer as if you were sitting at the first computer, when this is done you are logged into the host pc in the same manner as if you were sitting right in front of it.

have you never used telnet? ssh? pc anywhere? any remote access technology?

as for the claim that you "have been able to "recover" any admin password on any windows computer i've sat at in under a minute", i find that very hard to believe. windows stores passwords in a SAM file and said file can only be accessed from within the admin account, any account that doesn't have admin privileges can't access said file, nor can a non-admin account hash it.

i seem to recall an exploit that allowed someone to get around this security measure but i don't recall the exact procedure but again, it was an exploit, not something that could be done "in a minute".

to recover the admin password on a windows pc that you already don't have admin access to would require you to use a linux live cd/dvd, find and copy the SAM file and then crack it on a different pc, which depending on how complex the admin password, would take quite some time.

be that as it may however, this attack would only work on a pc locally, the exploit i have referenced in my original post can be use remotely, it can be used to gain full control of any 32 bit windows server OS, regardless of configuration, regardless of service packs or updates installed, ever made.

it's a very big deal.

If there is no defense against this vulnerability, what have the hackers been doing for 17 years?, biding their time?, waiting for the right moment?

ocgw

peace

[aedipuss]

never more than 40 seconds to crack any admin password in my experience, vista and win7 included. hashes from encrypted SAM are no problem

lots of branches out there, you should watch out for the thin ones.

[lordsmurf]

Locusts! Locusts! Locusts!

[aedipuss]

Locusts! Locusts! Locusts!

yes, grasshopper?!?
(in a tibetan accent of course with a polite bow)

[deadrats]

If there is no defense against this vulnerability, what have the hackers been doing for 17 years?, biding their time?, waiting for the right moment?

clearly this exploit wasn't widely known, i'm hypothesizing that microsoft intentionally put it in place as a way of complying with export restrictions that i have already talked about.

it should be noted however that there have been numerous security breaches on systems running 32 bit NT based windows, though it is impossible to know how many of them was a result of this exploit.

i should point out that even though the theory that microsoft intentionally put it in windows may seem far-fetched, it's the most logical conclusion when you consider that Win 7 is supposedly completely different from NT yet the entire line has the same vulnerability, in 17 years, with all the code re-writes, with all the patches and updates, with all updates to the api's, kernel, shell, driver model and HAL, this one exploit that allows the escalation of privileges to the point where you can run the command prompt as admin, has managed to somehow survive. am i the only one that finds that a bit odd? am i the only one that things the only way for this exploit to survive for so long is if someone wanted it to survive?

just think about it for a while...

[deadrats]

never more than 40 seconds to crack any admin password in my experience, vista and win7 included. hashes from encrypted SAM are no problem

instead of spouting idiotic insult attempts revolving around branches, how about you enlighten me and tell me the exact procedure you use to hash the SAM file within 40 seconds.

and i don't mean while sitting in from of a pc where you already have admin access, i mean from a pc where you are only allowed to log in using the guest account or some other limited privileges account. what folder does the SAM reside in? what folder is the backup in? what application do you use to hash the SAM? how do you access the SAM when only admin has read/write/execute permissions?

lastly, since XP SP1 windows uses AES 256 encryption by default when using EFS, you're actually going to sit there and claim that you can crack 256 bit variant of the advanced encryption standard algorithm inside of 40 seconds?

excuse me for a moment but i need to sneeze...ah ah ah bullshit.

if you are going to make outlandish, ridiculous claims, then either make them a tad more believable or at least tell them to someone that has a level of computer knowledge that is as low as yours.

thank you, come again.

[ocgw]

If there is no defense against this vulnerability, what have the hackers been doing for 17 years?, biding their time?, waiting for the right moment?

clearly this exploit wasn't widely known, i'm hypothesizing that microsoft intentionally put it in place as a way of complying with export restrictions that i have already talked about.

it should be noted however that there have been numerous security breaches on systems running 32 bit NT based windows, though it is impossible to know how many of them was a result of this exploit.

i should point out that even though the theory that microsoft intentionally put it in windows may seem far-fetched, it's the most logical conclusion when you consider that Win 7 is supposedly completely different from NT yet the entire line has the same vulnerability, in 17 years, with all the code re-writes, with all the patches and updates, with all updates to the api's, kernel, shell, driver model and HAL, this one exploit that allows the escalation of privileges to the point where you can run the command prompt as admin, has managed to somehow survive. am i the only one that finds that a bit odd? am i the only one that things the only way for this exploit to survive for so long is if someone wanted it to survive?

just think about it for a while...

Did you read that Microsoft claims "Win 7 is supposedly completely different from NT"? or is it merely your own supposition?

Yeah, maybe your theory can be "palmed off" as rational if you first accept a false premise, naah, not even then, sorry

ocgw

peace

[JohnnyMalaria]

if you are going to make outlandish, ridiculous claims, then either make them a tad more believable or at least tell them to someone that has a level of computer knowledge that is as low as yours.

I think you really ought to subscribe to lonelykettles.com - you might just be someone's pot in black shining armour.

[JohnnyMalaria]

Given your obvious disgust with MS and religious crusade to malign them, why do you use XP (according to your profile)?

[JohnnyMalaria]

It seems there is an exploit floating around that allows full access via a script. It’s a good idea to only download software from trusted sources, but you might want to be extra cautious – or at least let this serve as a reminder to be cautious.

The good news is it’s not a remote exploit. So someone has to physically have access to your computer, or you need purposefully run a nasty program for the exploit to work. However, it’s still a scary bug, and a bit disturbing.

Familiar, huh?

The OS was released in January 1999. The exploit was reported in 2008. So, nine years and the exploit was still there? It may even still be there.

Well, okay, I made two editorial changes. The original text is here.

[deadrats]

Did you read that Microsoft claims "Win 7 is supposedly completely different from NT"? or is it merely your own supposition?

microsoft has never explicitly compared Win 7 to NT but they have done so tacitly, all you have to do is read through the change logs that outline all the changes from one variant to another, here's a good place to start:

http://www.operating-system.org/betriebssystem/_english/bs-winnt31.htm

keep in mind that just within the NT designation, NT went from using the windows 3.1 file and program manager to using explorer, it went from having the server, video and print spooler subsystems running in ring-3 to having them integrated into the kernel (NT 3.1 to 4.0), the HAL changed with each NT variant, the kernel build was updated with each release (and in some cases with wach service pack), the driver model changed from NT to 2k to Vista (from the NT diver model to WDM to WDF), the tcp/ip stack has been reworked countless times, the scheduler, the api's, every subset of NT has been either changed or updated, God knows how many different programmers worked on the OS in the 17 years from NT 3.1 to Win 7 and yet somehow, miraculously, this one exploit has managed to survive all the changes and code rewrites and you blindly accept that no one in microsoft knew about it and purposely put it there?

really?!?

[deadrats]

Given your obvious disgust with MS and religious crusade to malign them, why do you use XP (according to your profile)?

first i use XP 64, i don't use any 32 bit microsoft OS. XP 64 is significantly more robust than xp, it features kernel patch protection, the only proper implementation found in a windows OS as far as i'm concerned. i like some of the security features implemented in 64 bit Vista and Win 7 but they are negated by the previously mentioned additions to their api's, which as a major security risk as well as their weaker implementations of KPP.

as for my "crusade", i have no problem with anyone using 64 bit windows, so long as they understand the added attack vectors the new Vista and Win 7 api's present, i wouldn't recommend anyone use any 32 bit windows OS, including Vista and Win 7.

i do however have a serious problem with microsoft's business practices but my issues are part of a bigger disgust with "Big Business" in general, regardless of market segment. i have the same disdain for apple, oracle, pse&g, terminix, orkin, AIG, "The Street" in general, as well as for the system that we have in place that not only allows them to flourish but also does it's best to help them do so.

but that is a post for another day.

[deadrats]

It seems there is an exploit floating around that allows full access via a script. It’s a good idea to only download software from trusted sources, but you might want to be extra cautious – or at least let this serve as a reminder to be cautious.

The good news is it’s not a remote exploit. So someone has to physically have access to your computer, or you need purposefully run a nasty program for the exploit to work. However, it’s still a scary bug, and a bit disturbing.

Familiar, huh?

The OS was released in January 1999. The exploit was reported in 2008. So, nine years and the exploit was still there? It may even still be there.

Well, okay, I made two editorial changes. The original text is here.

you seem to be under the impression that i believe only microsoft has implemented back doors in their OS, nothing could be further from the truth. any OS from any vendor that needs to acquire a general export license under the "Export Administration Regulations" should be looked at with suspicion, this includes OS X, Red Hat's and Novell's Linux distros, any commercial UNIX, all of them.

the reality is that it is explicitly forbidden to export encryption/decryption technology, including software, to certain countries, such as N Korea, Cuba, Iran (the list goes on) yet the software is available in those countries. now granted, microsoft and apple don't officially sell their OSes in those countries but it still winds up there on the black market, the u.s. government and the companies know that, hell there are language and region packs you can download for those countries, so if they can't stop the unofficial exportation of said OSes why wouldn't the u.s. government have them build in a back door into the OSes?

as far as the linux distros i outlined are concerned, the export restrictions apply to internet downloads as well and since you can get both redhat's and novell's distros from their websites it stands to reason that those 2 should be suspect as well. as far as them being open source is concerned and someone discovering the back door, it's ludicrous, firefox alone is 10 million lines of code, God only knows how many lines the complete redhat distro is, i know when i used to remaster redhat from source into my own custom distro it required that i download about 23 gigs worth of code for me to re-spin the distro, who the hell would find a back door in 23 gigs worth of source?

red flag linux is another one, there web site has been changed but when it was first released it said that it was based off red hat, remastered by the chinese government for use as a free OS by chinese citizens and they were also making available to the world. do you really think i would be crazy enough to use any OS designed by any government? you don't think that one had back doors in it?

seriously, considering it has been revealed that since 9/11 the NSA monitors all electronic communications, including emails, phone calls, etc, made anywhere in this country, regardless of place of origin, and said practice has been confirmed, considering the FBI has been given new powers such as being able to issue a national security letter instead of having to get a subpoena, considering all the invasive searches being done at airports with full body scanners, are you really prepared to accept that in 17 years, after numerous code rewrites and updates by countless programmers, this exploit somehow managed to either be overlooked or that portion of code and the way it hooks into the rest of the OS was never touch?

[aedipuss]

instead of spouting idiotic insult attempts revolving around branches, how about you enlighten me and tell me the exact procedure you use to hash the SAM file within 40 seconds.

boot from live cd to run the "recovery program", and 16gb usb stick of rainbow tables. typical 6 character password 40 sec. 16 character maybe 3 min. depends somewhat on the host machine but the current "recovery program" will use multiples cores.

it's even faster to just "replace" the password, but there is the possibility of losing encrypted data, thankfully not may people bother using that feature.

[ocgw]

Did you read that Microsoft claims "Win 7 is supposedly completely different from NT"? or is it merely your own supposition?

microsoft has never explicitly compared Win 7 to NT but they have done so tacitly, all you have to do is read through the change logs that outline all the changes from one variant to another, here's a good place to start:

http://www.operating-system.org/betriebssystem/_english/bs-winnt31.htm

keep in mind that just within the NT designation, NT went from using the windows 3.1 file and program manager to using explorer, it went from having the server, video and print spooler subsystems running in ring-3 to having them integrated into the kernel (NT 3.1 to 4.0), the HAL changed with each NT variant, the kernel build was updated with each release (and in some cases with wach service pack), the driver model changed from NT to 2k to Vista (from the NT diver model to WDM to WDF), the tcp/ip stack has been reworked countless times, the scheduler, the api's, every subset of NT has been either changed or updated, God knows how many different programmers worked on the OS in the 17 years from NT 3.1 to Win 7 and yet somehow, miraculously, this one exploit has managed to survive all the changes and code rewrites and you blindly accept that no one in microsoft knew about it and purposely put it there?

really?!?

My understanding is that all windows NT OS are based on the same basic kernel and that Win 7 is still based on that basic kernel and that the only way to make a glitch free completely safe OS is to abandon the kernel and start fresh but that all your previous software would be no good, kinda like the switch over from NTSC HDTV to ATSC HDTV

All I have ever heard is that Windows 7 should have been a service pack to Vista, and that MS basically capitulated to that premise w/ the huge discounts to Vista owners

So Windows 7 having some of the same flaws as its predecesdors was imo inevitable

Honestly, you are the first person I have read that expected Windows 7 to be "all new"

ps. Even the worst computer iliterate technophobes know that Windows 7 is simular to Vista and us "early adopters" have to explain to them that it isn't a huge resource hog like Vista

Basically Win 7 is a Vista SP3 w/ performance tweaks imho, and I love it

ocgw

peace

[deadrats]

My understanding is that all windows NT OS are based on the same basic kernel and that Win 7 is still based on that basic kernel and that the only way to make a glitch free completely safe OS is to abandon the kernel and start fresh but that all your previous software would be no good, kinda like the switch over from NTSC HDTV to ATSC HDTV

All I have ever heard is that Windows 7 should have been a service pack to Vista, and that MS basically capitulated to that premise w/ the huge discounts to Vista owners

So Windows 7 having some of the same flaws as its predecesdors was imo inevitable

Honestly, you are the first person I have read that expected Windows 7 to be "all new"

ps. Even the worst computer iliterate technophobes know that Windows 7 is simular to Vista and us "early adopters" have to explain to them that it isn't a huge resource hog like Vista

Basically Win 7 is a Vista SP3 w/ performance tweaks imho, and I love it

http://www.geoffchappell.com/viewer.htm?doc=studies/windows/km/ntoskrnl/history/index.htm

note that the above only goes back to NT 3.51, the kernel version numbers correspond to any other software numbering sequence, i.e. small additions and refinements result in the numbers after the decimal being incremented, major changes/added features/changed functionality result in the number before the decimal being incremented.

as such i wouldn't expect any flaws found in kernel version 3.51.1025.1 to be present in kernel version 6.1.7600.16385.

in so far as a completely new kernel resulting in your "old" software not working, i fail to see why you would conclude such a thing. the kernel and device drivers run in ring-0 (i.e. kernel mode) and applications sun in ring-3 (i.e. user mode), so long as any api's the applications rely on are present they should work with a completely new kernel.
as far as resource usage, my understanding is that Win 7 uses the same amount of resources that Vista did, which is what one would expect. Vista, and as a consequence Win 7, was significantly better threaded than XP, the more threads a piece of software launches the more ram it requires and the more cpu resources, i don't see how Win 7 could improve on this unless it was less threaded than Vista.

[ocgw]

My understanding is that all windows NT OS are based on the same basic kernel and that Win 7 is still based on that basic kernel and that the only way to make a glitch free completely safe OS is to abandon the kernel and start fresh but that all your previous software would be no good, kinda like the switch over from NTSC HDTV to ATSC HDTV

All I have ever heard is that Windows 7 should have been a service pack to Vista, and that MS basically capitulated to that premise w/ the huge discounts to Vista owners

So Windows 7 having some of the same flaws as its predecesdors was imo inevitable

Honestly, you are the first person I have read that expected Windows 7 to be "all new"

ps. Even the worst computer iliterate technophobes know that Windows 7 is simular to Vista and us "early adopters" have to explain to them that it isn't a huge resource hog like Vista

Basically Win 7 is a Vista SP3 w/ performance tweaks imho, and I love it

http://www.geoffchappell.com/viewer.htm?doc=studies/windows/km/ntoskrnl/history/index.htm

note that the above only goes back to NT 3.51, the kernel version numbers correspond to any other software numbering sequence, i.e. small additions and refinements result in the numbers after the decimal being incremented, major changes/added features/changed functionality result in the number before the decimal being incremented.

as such i wouldn't expect any flaws found in kernel version 3.51.1025.1 to be present in kernel version 6.1.7600.16385.

in so far as a completely new kernel resulting in your "old" software not working, i fail to see why you would conclude such a thing. the kernel and device drivers run in ring-0 (i.e. kernel mode) and applications sun in ring-3 (i.e. user mode), so long as any api's the applications rely on are present they should work with a completely new kernel.
as far as resource usage, my understanding is that Win 7 uses the same amount of resources that Vista did, which is what one would expect. Vista, and as a consequence Win 7, was significantly better threaded than XP, the more threads a piece of software launches the more ram it requires and the more cpu resources, i don't see how Win 7 could improve on this unless it was less threaded than Vista.

I didn't conclude it, I read it

and from this statement alone I see you don't know much about nothing past XP

"my understanding is that Win 7 uses the same amount of resources that Vista did, which is what one would expect. Vista, and as a consequence Win 7, was significantly better threaded than XP, the more threads a piece of software launches the more ram it requires and the more cpu resources, i don't see how Win 7 could improve on this unless it was less threaded than Vista."

enjoy living in the past

lol

ocgw

peace