Hello Robert Firth,

Since http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/communities/newsgroups is indeed a
Microsoft Based Web Site, the MVPs indeed are ** representatives ** of
Microsoft.

Yes, the MVPs are * not-paid - and - not-employees * of Microsoft.

Instead, MVPs are volunteers; many offering personal dogma, not factual
Technical Information gleaned from Microsoft.

Some MVPs are simply down right arrogant, insulting, and rude when they do
not have the knowledge for addressing specific Microsoft user issues. The
secondary results, an enormous disgrace for Microsoft's integrity and
reputation.
--
Firewall

Disclaimer:
Accept Vista as it is, or, Abandon Vista


"Robert Firth" wrote:

> >A Post from a MVP, containing *wrong* information can tarnish the integrity
> >and reputation of Microsoft.
>
> Remember, MVPs are in no way representatives of Microsoft. In general, they
> people who have provided beneficial assistence in the newsgroups over a long
> term period.
>
> --
> /* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> * Robert Firth *
> * Windows Vista x86 RTM *
> * http://www.WinVistaInfo.org *
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * */
>
> "FireWall2" <FireWall2@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:F72A8044-E297-4B06-804E-866664D76724@microsoft.com...
> > Hello LoneWolf,
> >
> > Free speech is just one portion within theses Forums.
> > **********************************************
> > A Post from a MVP, containing *wrong* information can tarnish the
> > integrity
> > and reputation of Microsoft.
> > **********************************************
> >
> > The below is a small excerpt extracted from Microsoft, courtesy Jim
> > Allchin.
> >
> > Although, the true purpose for my Post was for deterring how many people
> > are
> > aware of the inherent Security provided by Vista; and the factual
> > differences
> > between 32-bit and 64-bit Vista.
> >
> > Specifically learning how many, if any, MVPs are fully aware of Vista’s
> > inherent Security. Seems as if my curiosity has been somewhat addressed,
> > also, guessed at, for the characteristic differences between 32-bit Vista
> > and
> > 64-bit Vista.
> >
> > Much more specific Vista technology easily could have been included within
> > this Post, respecting time and space, for now, this should be adequate.
> > Apologize for the loaded (Post) question. My reason, too many people
> > within
> > this Forum display a great lack of understanding regarding Vista's
> > inherent
> > Ultimate Security.
> >
> > Te below is selected text (the gist) for how 64-bit Vista provides the
> > highest level of Protections (online or off-line) compared to 32-bit
> > Vista.
> >
> > Below, Microsoft's (Jim Allchin) Response:
> > Kernel Patch Protection also makes PCs more secure by helping protect
> > against potentially malicious software known as rootkits, which modify the
> > kernel in an attempt to hide from detection.
> >
> > Kernel Patch Protection is not new. Last year it was built into the 64-bit
> > versions of Windows XP and Windows Server 2003. With Windows Vista, Kernel
> > Patch Protection will likewise be incorporated into **64-bit versions
> > only.**
> > (emphasis added)
> >
> > We have been exploring ways to implement Kernel Patch Protection on 32-bit
> > Windows systems, but have not done this yet, although some customers have
> > requested it, because of limitations of the 32-bit architecture and
> > because
> > it will cause compatibility issues for some applications and devices that
> > are
> > already in use. In adapting applications and devices to take advantage of
> > 64-bit Windows, on the other hand, developers have an opportunity to
> > resolve
> > these compatibility issues.
> >
> > Some security vendors have asked Microsoft to provide instructions on how
> > to
> > disable Kernel Patch Protection in 64-bit versions of Windows, because
> > their
> > products include some features that modify the Windows kernel in
> > undocumented
> > and unsupported ways. Making exceptions and allowing some vendors special
> > access to modify the Windows Vista kernel is unworkable. It opens the door
> > wide for malicious software.
> >
> > For example, rootkits could be designed to present themselves to the
> > operating system in the guise of a legitimate application that was given
> > special access. Also, making exceptions will prolong the reliability
> > problems
> > that are caused by unsupported kernel modification, such as when multiple
> > applications compete to patch the same kernel interfaces.
> >
> > In the case of security solutions, unsupported kernel modifications also
> > limit your choices, by making it extremely difficult or impossible for
> > multiple security solutions to co-exist reliably on a system. We want to
> > work
> > with security providers to make common extensions available, so that any
> > security vendors can use them, and so that security software does not
> > itself
> > put your security and reliability at risk from malicious kernel
> > modifications.
> >
> > Here is what we are doing to maintain the integrity and security of 64-bit
> > Windows, while still addressing the needs of our security partners:
> >
> > • Contrary to some media reports, **Microsoft will not weaken the security
> > of 64-bit Windows by enabling some applications to modify the kernel of
> > the
> > operating system.** (emphasis added)
> >
> > • We have applied our no-exceptions policy against kernel patching to
> > Microsoft applications as well as third party applications,
> >
> > *** No application can bypass or weaken Kernel Patch Protection ***—this
> > is
> > essential to improving security and reliability for you. Note that many
> > third-party security companies provide highly competitive products without
> > modifying the Windows kernel in unsupported ways. (above emphasis added)
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Firewall
> >
> > Disclaimer:
> > Accept Vista as it is, or, Abandon Vista
> >
> >
> > "LoneWolf" wrote:
> >
> >> FireWall2:
> >>
> >> The best place to get your answer is "Vista Help &
> >> Support". You have told us that so many times, it
> >> must be so !
> >>
> >> In the mean-time, get ride of that 'Disclaimer'. It
> >> has absolutely no legal standing, and since you
> >> are in the 'legal profession', you should be able to
> >> come up with something better than that.
> >>
> >> regards
> >>
> >> LoneWolf
> >> B.Bus; LLB; M.Bus
> >>
> >> '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
> >>
> >> "FireWall2" wrote:
> >>
> >> > Which Version of Vista provides the highest level for online security,
> >> > 32-bit
> >> > or 64-bit ?
> >> >
> >> > Or, is each Version, 32-bit and 64-bit Vista equal with providing
> >> > online
> >> > security ?
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Firewall
> >> >
> >> > Disclaimer:
> >> > Accept Vista as it is, or, Abandon Vista
>