Caldor

ehelp are you sure that allows CCleaner to do its job fully? My understanding is when emulating older Windows it changes what a program like CCleaner can actually do and see.

Windows bundles its services into various versions of the service host. Thered actually be alot more if they ran individually. On *nix the deamons arent bundled and its nice for fine grained control buts its even more messy than what your highlighting here.

IMHO, why mess with the kernels memory caching? What could this do that the normal caching wont? Especially with superfetch in Vista.

Mr G will fix it I'm sure IMHO there's a lack of experienced professionals getting involved in the product. Too many people are coming on board, posting about them being pleased for a new beta release and then dont really go and test it. We should be encouraging more people to properly test the software. Ive reported many issues about Vista and I know Mr G is looking at those. I think people should be asking how much their helping with solid bug reports and getting their friends to help with testing too.

Easier instructions to turn off UAC: http://www.mydigitallife.info/2006/12/19/t...-windows-vista/ I recommend you dont do it though. There is many problems associated with running as admin all the time which is what MS are trying to fix with UAC. IMHO by turning it off to "fix" your issue its an invitation to encounter more serious problems ahead like silent malware install that UAC would otherwise trap. CCleaner is an administrative tool that requires administrative rights plain and simple. One option might be to appeal to Mr G to write a service based version of CCleaner and run it under the system security context on a scheduled basis.

Dont sweat it - its just the client server run time process for windows internals. No malware can get at protected systems files which is why virus' have largely been supplanted by worms and trojans that dont rely on protected windows stuff.

Substantially yes. Turning off UAC is a poor decision IMHO but if we assume someone does that some immediate strengths of Vista that come to mind are: * Boot time address space randomisation * Service hardening for least priveledge execution of services * No more default LanManager SAM hive weaknesses * Atomic transactional NTFS that prevents some methods for hiding spyware files * Better default firewall * Ability to run in low priveledge mode such as IE7 protected mode to sand box the browser out of the box * Bitlocker and improved EFS Theres hundreds of new things - it really needs interested people to read a book on it.

You dont understand the way Vista security works - its more like *nix. You can fiddle with the setup through the local security policy editor (secpol.msc) but I do not support turning UAC off.

Not using XP is my submission. Vista is far more secure. Its the first OS to go through MS's secure development lifecycle from square one. Read Roger Grimesa book on security changes in vista for the details theres many

Bug confirmed on ntfs. Use cipher /w(volume name) as a workaround until its fixed. e.g. cipher /w:C:\

I agree with the OP - its bad UI design to have a progress bar actually be a status indicator not a progress bar

Are all you people running NTFS or is anyone of you on FAT32?

Flash drives have redundant spaces to allow for some failure - youd need a special firmware reader to identify if the firmware has any known bad blocks its not writing too anymore and the ones I know of are proprietary. With wear levelling these days it wont wear out quick anyway.

XP does not make very good use of your RAM. Vista does much better for various technical reasons. I have 4GB on one channel in Vistax64 and love it. Personally on XP I would try to stretch to 2GB but the problems with the XP kernel amongst other things means that you wont get more than 2gb addressable memory to applications so 3GB in XP is overkill IMHO.

I think the point I was making was probably not explained well. As the ISP login is sent on plain text to the ISP its open for snarfing. This isnt a serious problem because every ISP I know has intrusion detection systems and security measures for that kind of stuff. The exploit I was talking about that to me is more of an issue is the clear text credentials for ISP mail accounts. Hazelnut if the passwords are in someones registry instead of properly secured in the users Vista sam hive (or modified XP installs so they dont have the lanman weaknesses) that is a harder target than simply snarfing out the clear text credentials over the connection from the user to the ISP. If the user has the same main mail password as their isp account (which many do) thats an easy backdoor into their mail for spamming / identity fraud etcetc

In general I agree with the bloke. Though I think hes wrong on some points - e.g. I set somethings deliberately as I dont agree with MS defaults in all areas. In an enteprise environment MS expects most environments to use group policy templates anyway. Some comments I made recently http://forum.piriform.com/index.php?showtopic=12770

Second hand near field reference monitors (mag shielded) is what I recommend. All the so called computer ones are junkish IMHO.

Gnutmann is the go

Folks I was bemuzed while reading a so called Vista Optimisation "guide". I think this "guide" was written by a 13 year old who uses his computer to play games and wanted to do "leet stuffz" with his Vista install. I was suprised that a fairly major website backed it, and then a number started linking to it. Disabling services, fiddling with page file settings, turning off UAC and similar things never did much at all for actually improving performance and certain does alot to weaken the operating system. I keep Vista at defaults, and change deliberate things such as the following: 1. Secpol.msc edits for account lockout, not remembering last logon, enforcing ctrl-alt-del on logon, making UAC deny for users, making UAC prompt for credentials for admins, change logging of security policy events to enabled 2. Bitlocker with tpm / pin / usb key (requires sp1 on ms connect though) 3. gpedit.msc to enable IE7 cipher strength of aes 256 bit default for all tls sessions instead of 128 which is default in Vista 4. Enabled IE7 memory protection, no ssl to disk, tls only no sslv3 or sslv2 5. Enable signing policy to only install signed software 6. Disable all hidden shares such as C$ and ADMIN$ There might be other things I have forgotten but I think thats more or less standard stuff I do post install.

Proper windows security is to use the sam hive for passwords. And with Vista, no more lanmanager attacks are possible by default. Whats more concerning is that most people use the same mail password for their main mail account as their isp login account which is all sent in plain text to the isp being easily picked up by promiscous nics. Which is easily fixed by using encrypted mail if important information is being shared in email.

Ccleaners defintions are wrong on vista and it wont cleaup the dat files properly by default. You have to unmount the filesystem to delete dat files.

Its extensible and came be made to work with any windows platform. The defintions arent up to date anyway in the default install.

Java may run anywhere on byte code but the old story for those in the know is that its write once debug everywhere....Three apps now on Java have failed on update 3. Meh. And what I dont like even further is that Securina dont explain the details so I cant analyse the threat model. Double meh.

Thats exactly what I was thinking Talldog. Just another example of why I never let even ring 4 processes onto my system that I dont know and trust. And when it comes to ring 0 with kernel mode processes I am super strict. Direct plug into the kernel = bad blue pill.

I have it installed on IE7 Vista. I like it but it reduced the robustness of the browser - it causes crashes. I only use the adblock and spell features so it is one of those for sure.