If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Vista disables Cool'N'Quiet on some motherboards
And I bet you get ****ed off with this when you eventually discover it.
It installs with Vista and lives in WINLOAD.EXE in the System32 folder. Let's see you try to get rid of it. Threat Details Copyright © 2007 Sunbelt-Software. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited. PC Tattletale Type Surveillance Tool Type Description Surveillance Tools are software applications that monitor and capture data from computers including screenshots, keystrokes, web cam and microphone data, instant messaging chat sessions, email, visited websites, programs run and files accessed and files shared on a P2P (peer to peer) network. Many Surveillance Tools can run in stealth mode, hidden from the user, and have the ability to store captured data for later retrieval by or transmission to another computer. A key logger is one simple, standard type of Surveillance Tool. Category Commercial Key Logger Category Description A Commercial Key Logger is a program that captures and logs keystrokes as they are entered on the computer for the purpose of monitoring the user. The logged data, which may be encrypted, is saved or sent to the person who installed the key logger. These applications often run in stealth mode and are invisible to the user that is being monitored. Such key loggers are sold commercially and may be used legitimately if deployed by authorized administrators and disclosed to the persons being monitored, as in a business environment. The use of a key logger to monitor persons without their knowledge has been ruled illegal in at least one jurisdiction. Level Elevated Level Description Elevated risks are typically installed without adequate notice and consent, and may make unwanted changes to your system, such as reconfiguring your browser's homepage and search settings. These risks may install advertising-related add-ons, including toolbars and search bars, or insert advertising-related components into the Winsock Layered Service Provider chain. These new add-ons and components may block or redirect your preferred network connections, and can negatively impact your computer's performance and stability. Elevated risks may also collect, transmit, and share potentially sensitive data without adequate notice and consent. Advice Type Remove Description PC Tattletale is an advanced keystroke logger records that records all keystrokes - including passwords, "hidden characters", and ordinary keystrokes. It can even capture both in and outbound e-mails. Add. Description PC Tattletale is a powerful chat recorder that records all chat sessions & instant messages - capturing both sides of any chat conversation or instant messages, including: AOL chat rooms and instant messenger, ICQ chats, MSN Messenger, Yahoo! Messenger, and Trillian chat. It features easy to read color coding for each "Chat Personality" recorded, and can record up to 20 different chat sessions simultaneously. PC Tattletale has "VCR like controls & playback", making it as simple as clicking the PLAY button to watch screenshots captured when the victim was online. Author Cyber Samurai Marketing, Inc. Author Description PC Tattletale solves the problem of helping you stay on top of what your child does, and is exposed to online when you're not there to watch over their shoulder by giving you the tools and the power to invisibly monitor your child and help keep them safe on the Internet Author URL pctattletale.com/download.htm Alias Spyware.PCTattletale File Traces %DESKTOPDIRECTORY%\ 5dpcttsetupfull791005.exe %system%\ explorer32\ AutoUpdateClient.exe %system%\ explorer32\ explorer.exe %system%\ explorer32\ explorer32.exe %system%\ explorer32\ msn6mngr.exe %system%\ explorer32\ Netlogon.exe %system%\ explorer32\ svchost.exe %system%\ explorer32\ Wincmd.exe %system%\ explorer32\ WinLoad.exe %system%\ explorer32\ WinSysMngr.exe %system%\ explorer32\ WinSysMngr32.exe %system%\ PCTT.exe %system%\ UninstallPCTT.exe %system%\ winload32.exe 5dpcttsetupfull791005.exe AutoUpdate.dll CompControls.ocx Netlogon.exe pcttse~1.exe pcttsetup.exe pcttsetupfull790805.exe pcttsetupfull791005.exe svchost.exe Wincmd.exe winload32.exe WinSysMngr.exe |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Vista disables Cool'N'Quiet on some motherboards
On Mar 10, 9:39 am, "Venom" wrote:
And I bet you get ****ed off with this when you eventually discover it. It installs with Vista and lives in WINLOAD.EXE in the System32 folder. Let's see you try to get rid of it. Threat Details Copyright © 2007 Sunbelt-Software. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited. PC Tattletale Type Surveillance Tool snip Thats a feature as the developers would say! We need to protect you from yourself, as you can not be trusted in doing the right thing towards the **AA's. It's funny that if everyone paid detail attention to what the eula's say as well as what is running on their Windows system they would be horrified at what is going on. Heck people are upset that a few FBI agents have misused privacy laws, just imagine if they found out what the the software they are using does. Gnu_Raiz |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Vista disables Cool'N'Quiet on some motherboards
On Mar 9, 4:27 pm, Benjamin Gawert wrote:
* YKhan: Microsoft has already made clear that Vista would require ACPI 2.0-compliant hardware and BIOS to work properly when they published the first specifications over a year ago. Every hardware manufacturer that got surprised by Vista RTM not supporting ACPI 1.0 any more is just an idiot. Yet, somehow, the beta and RC versions of Vista were all supporting and working with ACPI 1.0, right up until the end. Why disable such a fundamental feature in the final version but leave them enabled in the beta versions? Because they were *beta* versions? It's quite common that beta versions contain things that won't be there in the final version. And it's really not that MS made a secret out of the fact that Vista RTM won't support ACPI 1.0 any more. Yes, things are usually removed from final versions that were in beta versions. But that usually refers to debugging code, such as breakpoints, triggers, dumps, etc. It doesn't usually refer to removal of functionality. Functionality might be removed if a particular feature is so buggy that it doesn't work, and there's no time to fix it. For example, MS quite publically removed their new WinFS filesystem from the feature list because it didn't work, and they couldn't fix it quickly enough for release. Removal of that kind of functionality is quite related to beta-testing and debugging problems. However, this is a first I've heard of a feature being removed that was working perfectly. Actually it isn't the first I've heard of Microsoft removing perfectly working functionality without informing anybody. My brother does tech support for HP, and he tells me that a program used to help sync iPaq PDAs to PCs was mysteriously deleted from Vista, which used to be in XP. So it's now upto HP to come up with a replacement for it. Even big companies have to put up with Microsoft's arrogance. The point is fining bugs and non-working features. Betas are *not* final code, nor contain they everything that is in the final versions. In this case, the final version contains *less* than what was in the betas. These testers would've likely caught the problem, and Microsoft or the mobo makers would've issued fixes beforehand. Nope. The manufacturers of these mobos were sitting on their arses for over a year while the rest of the world was already aware that ACPI 1.0 is a dead horse. Still they didn't fix their crap. There are cases where there is not likely going to be any further BIOS upgrades, such as older P3 or Athlon XP systems. They may have been part of the original beta test of Vista and they worked fine (even with Aero, with a sufficiently powerful video card). The people who beta-tested Vista may have been confident enough in Vista that they decided to buy the final version, based on their good beta experience. Little did they know that they were beta testing some other OS. Yousuf Khan |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Vista disables Cool'N'Quiet on some motherboards
* YKhan:
Yes, things are usually removed from final versions that were in beta versions. But that usually refers to debugging code, such as breakpoints, triggers, dumps, etc. It doesn't usually refer to removal of functionality. It does. It happened on Vista, it happened on Windowsxp, it happened on Windows2000 and on every release before... Functionality might be removed if a particular feature is so buggy that it doesn't work, and there's no time to fix it. For example, MS quite publically removed their new WinFS filesystem from the feature list because it didn't work, and they couldn't fix it quickly enough for release. Removal of that kind of functionality is quite related to beta-testing and debugging problems. However, this is a first I've heard of a feature being removed that was working perfectly. ACPI 1.0 working perfectly? Yeah, right. It works so perfectly that AMD and MS had to provide kernel patches for several CPUs with power management like Athlon64/Opteron or Pentium-M/Core just to have powermanagement working correctly. ACPI 1.0 is very old (probably around a decade now), and just lacks functionality for modern hardware... Actually it isn't the first I've heard of Microsoft removing perfectly working functionality without informing anybody. That's simply not true. Every developer who was part of MSDN should know for over a year now that ACPI 1.0 is a dead end on Vista. My brother does tech support for HP, and he tells me that a program used to help sync iPaq PDAs to PCs was mysteriously deleted from Vista, which used to be in XP. So it's now upto HP to come up with a replacement for it. Even big companies have to put up with Microsoft's arrogance. What for? It would be enough for your brother just to stay current on the facts. The program you mention is called Mobile Device Center and is the replacement for ActiveSync in Vista. Yes, it has been removed from the final version. Now you have to download it separately: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsmobile/devicecenter.mspx Nope. The manufacturers of these mobos were sitting on their arses for over a year while the rest of the world was already aware that ACPI 1.0 is a dead horse. Still they didn't fix their crap. There are cases where there is not likely going to be any further BIOS upgrades, such as older P3 or Athlon XP systems. Which are probably the best systems for running Vista ;-) They may have been part of the original beta test of Vista and they worked fine (even with Aero, with a sufficiently powerful video card). The people who beta-tested Vista may have been confident enough in Vista that they decided to buy the final version, based on their good beta experience. Little did they know that they were beta testing some other OS. Then these peoples should have used their brains. Someone who tests a beta version and believes the final product will work exactly the same is a moron. Benjamin |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Vista disables Cool'N'Quiet on some motherboards
"know code" wrote in message ... wrote: If you want to name more - look at any flavor of Linux, why the hell the end users have to edit the source code in attempt (often futile) to make things work? When was the last time you looked at linux? The last time I recall having to edit source code to make something work could have been 4-5 years ago! Things have moved on a LOT since then. Some of the stories about certain 'features' in Vista should scare the hell out of anyone thinking about using it. It looks like Vista is just one huge bloated piece of spyware that will never make it onto my desktop! You know... It seems to me I keep hearing that argument with Linux, even the last time I tried it 5 years ago they were saying the same thing... Not that Linux is a bad choice, it certainly is capable of doing what most people need it to (particularly people who just want to surf the web). But I do wish the OSS community would take a step back, breath deeply and finally admit that yes... They are *very* far behind Microsoft and Apple in the desktop market. Once they can finally admit that to them selves, they can start taking a better look at OSX and Vista and start creating their own versions of the best parts of these OS's. Search functions, enhanced kernel protection, better organized UI's (I have yet to see a version of X Windows that appeals to me at all) the list goes on. Carlo |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Vista disables Cool'N'Quiet on some motherboards
On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 13:35:05 +0100, know code
wrote: wrote: If you want to name more - look at any flavor of Linux, why the hell the end users have to edit the source code in attempt (often futile) to make things work? When was the last time you looked at linux? The last time I recall having to edit source code to make something work could have been 4-5 years ago! Things have moved on a LOT since then. His example of editing source code to make things work isn't very correct, but the basic point he was trying to make is dead-on. I use Linux fairly regularly, both at home and at work, and I find it to often be the best choice for many situations. However I have yet to see a distribution that wasn't FULL of bugs. When MS released Vista they said they had 500 bugs. I would be VERY surprised if there is ANY Linux distribution on the planet that could pass the same level of Software QA with fewer than 10,000 bugs. The only one I've encountered that might come close is the Debian 'stable' branch, which is always 2+ years out of date. I gave up on Debian 'testing' and Gentoo because they were HUGELY buggy and never could get any version of Redhat/Fedora working at anything resembling a reliable system. Right now I'm using SuSE, which seems ok, but it's still much, MUCH buggier than any current version of Window (meaning Win2K, WinXP or Vista). The Linux kernel is extremely solid, and certain key applications are well tested and very reliable, but beyond that the quality level goes downhill rapidly. There are lots of things that Microsoft does that I don't agree with. They make some really boneheaded design decisions which have negatively affected the security of their systems, and IMO with Vista they are going way too far with taking away a users control of their own PC. However when it comes to a purely *quality* standpoint (ie they follow their design correctly, even if the design itself is stupid), Microsoft is WAY ahead these days. That wasn't always the case (Win9x was *TERRIBLE* in this regard and even WinNT 4.0 was pretty poor), but it is now. -- Tony Hill hilla underscore 20 at yahoo dot ca |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Vista disables Cool'N'Quiet on some motherboards
On Mar 10, 2:27 pm, Benjamin Gawert wrote:
* YKhan: Yes, things are usually removed from final versions that were in beta versions. But that usually refers to debugging code, such as breakpoints, triggers, dumps, etc. It doesn't usually refer to removal of functionality. It does. It happened on Vista, it happened on Windowsxp, it happened on Windows2000 and on every release before... Well, when I talk about "normal", I'm talking about normal software companies and their beta test programs, which apparently doesn't include Microsoft. You might say that Microsoft shouldn't be included in the category of a "normal" software company because those others don't do operating systems development. But even ones that do operating systems development, such as Sun, HP, or IBM, you can pretty much expect the betas to be truly representative of the final product. Each newer beta release gets closer to what the final release will look like, and things don't magically completely disappear between beta and release, as if the betas and release code were from completely separate revision control systems. For example, let's take Sun's Solaris as an example. Sun had one time completely stopped development on the x86 version of Solaris and sunsetted it. Sun later changed course and decided that x86 was a course that it should follow. It brought the x86 code out from the archives, dusted it off, updated it by two major version releases (it had stopped developing after Solaris 8, and it brought it back with Solaris 10), and added 64-bit x64 support to it. It started this development about 3 years after Microsoft was first given the specifications for AMD64, and it beat Microsoft out the door with an x64 operating system by more than a year! And Microsoft's first x64 operating system Windows XP/Server 2003 x64 still never caught on due to lack of drivers. What is wrong with Microsoft's software development process that they are so ****ed up? Why should we buy software from a company that has such a ****ed up software development process? Functionality might be removed if a particular feature is so buggy that it doesn't work, and there's no time to fix it. For example, MS quite publically removed their new WinFS filesystem from the feature list because it didn't work, and they couldn't fix it quickly enough for release. Removal of that kind of functionality is quite related to beta-testing and debugging problems. However, this is a first I've heard of a feature being removed that was working perfectly. ACPI 1.0 working perfectly? Yeah, right. It works so perfectly that AMD and MS had to provide kernel patches for several CPUs with power management like Athlon64/Opteron or Pentium-M/Core just to have powermanagement working correctly. ACPI 1.0 is very old (probably around a decade now), and just lacks functionality for modern hardware... ACPI 1.0 is obviously not what was working, it was the support for ACPI 1.0 that was in Vista betas that was working perfectly. Why pull functionality from something that was working? As for AMD or MS having to provide kernel patches to get power management working, that was only in Windows XP, where the power management functions in the CPU were added after the operating system came out. And so they had to provide device drivers to enable the support, quite understandably. But Vista is released after those power management features have been around for a long while, so MS is now building the features natively into the kernel. ACPI 1.0 was good enough to let the kernel know that some form of power management was present in the CPU, maybe not all of the latest advanced features, but at least basic features could be enabled with it, which is better than nothing. During the betas, people were reporting that that their hardware remained as cool as they did under XP, which is not surprising because it included the same power management support inside it. What for? It would be enough for your brother just to stay current on the facts. The program you mention is called Mobile Device Center and is the replacement for ActiveSync in Vista. Yes, it has been removed from the final version. Now you have to download it separately: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsmobile/devicecenter.mspx Which I am sure was the solution he was told to use. It's just the whole idea of having to download something to get the same functionality that used to be built into the previous version of Windows is screwed up. Microsoft couldn't be bothered to put the package into the Windows DVD? There are cases where there is not likely going to be any further BIOS upgrades, such as older P3 or Athlon XP systems. Which are probably the best systems for running Vista ;-) Hey, if they worked fine, then they worked fine. You just need enough memory, and a DX9 video card and you're good to go, so a lot of those systems fulfilled more than the basic requirements to run Vista. So that's all that should matter. What's it of your business to make fun of that? They may have been part of the original beta test of Vista and they worked fine (even with Aero, with a sufficiently powerful video card). The people who beta-tested Vista may have been confident enough in Vista that they decided to buy the final version, based on their good beta experience. Little did they know that they were beta testing some other OS. Then these peoples should have used their brains. Someone who tests a beta version and believes the final product will work exactly the same is a moron. I think you're so brainwashed by Microsoft-think that your logic circuits have become scrambled. Just play back your own words in your own head: beta software has nothing to do with the final software? Prior to your indoctrination you would've likely laughed at a person who said something like that. In the Microsoft universe, it's your fault for buying Microsoft software, Microsoft is not responsible. Every other software company is responsible for making sure their software works, but not Microsoft. Microsoft only makes software worthwhile of piracy, nothing worthwhile of payment. Yousuf Khan |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Vista disables Cool'N'Quiet on some motherboards
On Mar 10, 4:33 pm, Tony Hill wrote:
His example of editing source code to make things work isn't very correct, but the basic point he was trying to make is dead-on. I use Linux fairly regularly, both at home and at work, and I find it to often be the best choice for many situations. However I have yet to see a distribution that wasn't FULL of bugs. I wouldn't trust an enterprise to Linux. Solaris is the way to go. Yousuf Khan |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Vista disables Cool'N'Quiet on some motherboards
On Mar 10, 10:39 am, "Venom" wrote:
And I bet you get ****ed off with this when you eventually discover it. It installs with Vista and lives in WINLOAD.EXE in the System32 folder. Let's see you try to get rid of it. Threat Details Copyright © 2007 Sunbelt-Software. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited. PC Tattletale Type Surveillance Tool Type Description Surveillance Tools are software applications that monitor and capture data from computers including screenshots, keystrokes, web cam and microphone data, instant messaging chat sessions, email, visited websites, programs run and files accessed and files shared on a P2P (peer to peer) network. Many Surveillance Tools can run in stealth mode, hidden from the user, and have the ability to store captured data for later retrieval by or transmission to another computer. A key logger is one simple, standard type of Surveillance Tool. It's not installed by Microsoft, it's something that is installed after the fact, as an application. Yousuf Khan |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Vista disables Cool'N'Quiet on some motherboards
Usually MS goes to great length to make buggy platforms work with the OS.
Since beginning, there were some workarounds to work with buggy PCI chipsets and bridges, ACPI bioses, etc. Now they seemed to decide that enough is enough and dropped those kludges. "YKhan" wrote in message ups.com... Functionality might be removed if a particular feature is so buggy that it doesn't work, and there's no time to fix it. For example, MS quite publically removed their new WinFS filesystem from the feature list because it didn't work, and they couldn't fix it quickly enough for release. Removal of that kind of functionality is quite related to beta-testing and debugging problems. However, this is a first I've heard of a feature being removed that was working perfectly. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Vista disables Cool'N'Quiet on some motherboards | YKhan | General | 63 | March 22nd 07 10:50 AM |
Cool'n'Quiet? | Erland Sommarskog | Asus Motherboards | 28 | August 19th 06 08:06 PM |
k8ns-939 and cool'n'quiet | Carchidi 4 President | Gigabyte Motherboards | 3 | July 1st 05 10:57 PM |
Cool'N'Quiet and Overclocking | Ed Light | AMD x86-64 Processors | 1 | May 26th 05 10:55 PM |
Cool'N'Quiet Overclocking | Ed Light | Overclocking AMD Processors | 0 | May 26th 05 10:13 PM |