Microsoft Announces DX12 Support for Windows 7

Delicieuxz

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 11, 2016
Messages
1,155
Don't get me wrong. I detest what Microsoft did with Windows 10 to strongarm their way on the customer and take telemetry data. Between that and running unpatched - however - putting up with Microsofts Win10 shit is by far the lesser evil.

Personally I have given up on Windows completely for my general purpose computing. I keep it around solely for games, and do everything else dual booted to Windows.

I see what you are saying about only using it for games limiting the likelihood of exposure, but is that entirely honest? Are there never times when when one Google's for game patch notes, troubleshooting during crashes or anything like that?

Is it really worth becoming part of a botnet, acquiring a keylogger, and potentially having an expensive Steam account stolen? Or even worse, having all the partitions on your local machine ransomwared?

Security first.
No offense, but you remind me of a person whose life is wrapped up into the one thing they do, like making a special kind of rubber for some shoes that is 371% more efficient than other shoe rubber and absorbs 59% more impact than another shoe's rubber, and so everything for that person comes back to the topic of shoe rubber and how this one special kind of shoe rubber reigns supreme over all others and if anything bad happens it has to do with how that special shoe rubber wasn't used.


The point of having a computer is to be able to do the things that you need and want to with it. Usability naturally comes before security, as without something usable there is no need for security to protect it. Therefore, when Microsoft's tyrannical updates regime threatens the usability of a system, the thing of primary importance, its usability, must be protected by shutting off those invading updates.

Security is dependent upon there first being usability, and so usability is a greater consideration than security and security is secondary to usability.


Any disruption, hoop-jumping, or delay to being able to do what a person needs and wants to on their computer is a problem.

A person decides whether they want Microsoft to be harvesting personal and other data from their computer. And if they don't want Microsoft harvesting data from their computer, then Microsoft harvesting data from their computer without willed permission is a security risk.

Windows Updates breaking things and bricking systems is a security failure.


As has been stated, Windows Updates patches do not equate security, and are even large security risks. And letting Microsoft have free reign to do whatever they want to your PC and OS is a massive security hole.

By arguing that people should have no control over their system is like stealing people's rights over their own property from them, and is advocating for Microsoft's reign of tyranny.
 
Last edited:

dreadcthulhu

Weaksauce
Joined
Apr 10, 2017
Messages
121
I hope Microsoft puts a poison pill in Windows 7 that permanently and irrevocabbly disables its network stack starting ~ 1 month after the EOL date.

Otherwise there are going to be so many unpatched idiots out there ruining the internet for all of us.

Every operating system, computer or mobile shouöd have this built into the kernel from the gold release so there is no circumventing it.
If Microsoft released a patch that did that, all that would happen is that people would do clean installs of Windows 7, and not allow it to do any updates, thus resulting in a huge number of machines with no security patches on them. And the idea that a software company should be able to put a kill switch in its software seems a lot more dangerous than a bunch of people not being properly patched. And how would that sort of thing even work with open source operating systems? The whole point of those is that the end user has control of what software runs on their computer, not anyone else.
 

Lakados

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
2,577
If that was true they would have pushed Vulkan for the simple reason that they would have support for other platforms than Windows without any hassle.
Yeah and just re train their entire dev team for the new API while they are at it and then make that transition for all their programs going forward while rebuilding all their development tools that they have been building and working in for the last 15 years .... It's not that easy to take an entrenched entity with a seasoned team and just switch API's like that. DX9->10->11->12 while requiring work isn't a complete rebuild from the ground up you can reuse a lot of your code base. And Apple still gives Vulkan a lot of headaches on their system they are probably better off working in DX12 and Metal for the foreseeable future especially if Apple does go ahead with their migration from Intel over to their own chips for their desktops & laptops.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
30,640
No offense, but you remind me of a person whose life is wrapped up into the one thing they do, like making a special kind of rubber for some shoes that is 371% more efficient than other shoe rubber and absorbs 59% more impact than another shoe's rubber, and so everything for that person comes back to the topic of shoe rubber and how this one special kind of shoe rubber reigns supreme over all others and if anything bad happens it has to do with how that special shoe rubber wasn't used.


The point of having a computer is to be able to do the things that you need and want to with it. Usability naturally comes before security, as without something usable there is no need for security to protect it. Therefore, when Microsoft's tyrannical updates regime threatens the usability of a system, the thing of primary importance, its usability, must be protected by shutting off those invading updates.

Security is dependent upon there first being usability, and so usability is a greater consideration than security and security is secondary to usability.

There is a reason in medicine we test safety first, before we try to prove efficacy.


Any disruption, hoop-jumping, or delay to being able to do what a person needs and wants to on their computer is a problem.

A person decides whether they want Microsoft to be harvesting personal and other data from their computer. And if they don't want Microsoft harvesting data from their computer, then Microsoft harvesting data from their computer without willed permission is a security risk.

Windows Updates breaking things and bricking systems is a security failure.


As has been stated, Windows Updates patches do not equate security, and are even large security risks. And letting Microsoft have free reign to do whatever they want to your PC and OS is a massive security hole.

By arguing that people should have no control over their system is like stealing people's rights over their own property from them, and is advocating for Microsoft's reign of tyranny.

If given a choice between being compromised tomorrow or not using your system for a day, which would you choose? The answer should be simple. Better a day without a computer, than the often irreversible damage incurred by being compromised.

There is a reason that the FDA requires medical device and pharma companies to prove safety before they even think about looking at efficacy.
 

odditory

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 23, 2007
Messages
6,422
And Apple still gives Vulkan a lot of headaches on their system they are probably better off working in DX12 and Metal for the foreseeable future especially if Apple does go ahead with their migration from Intel over to their own chips for their desktops & laptops.
What does Apple have to do with gaming?

They're not even in the personal computing business anymore.
 

PantherBlitz

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
421
Otherwise there are going to be so many unpatched idiots out there ruining the internet for all of us.
Naahh. Just read the comments section on most sites or Twitter in general and you will see that it is well on the way to ruin with or without patches.
 

Meeho

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
5,051
I hope Microsoft puts a poison pill in Windows 7 that permanently and irrevocabbly disables its network stack starting ~ 1 month after the EOL date.

Otherwise there are going to be so many unpatched idiots out there ruining the internet for all of us.

Every operating system, computer or mobile shouöd have this built into the kernel from the gold release so there is no circumventing it.
You're so full of shit it isn't funny anymore. Why stop there? Ban every Windows machine from accessing the Net, period. It should be Linux or nothing, as it's far more secure and botnet free than even a fully patched Win 10. You would want to keep the Internet as secure as possible, wouldn't you? Then continue by banning every Android phone while you're at it. Carry on indefinitely from there...
 

Zarathustra[H]

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
30,640
You're so full of shit it isn't funny anymore. Why stop there? Ban every Windows machine from accessing the Net, period. It should be Linux or nothing, as it's far more secure and botnet free than even a fully patched Win 10. You would want to keep the Internet as secure as possible, wouldn't you? Then continue by banning every Android phone while you're at it. Carry on indefinitely from there...
I believe in an absolute and unabiguous zero tolerance for ever running any unpatched software and I want it enforced to the greatest extent possible.

With all the shit going down, data/identities stolen, people's finances ruined, ransomware, DDOS attacks, etc. etc. I can't sympathise with anyone who puts any other consideration ahead of this for any product running software and connected to a network.

Even if you don't care about your own shit, by not patching you are increasing the risk to others.

The paralells to the vaccine debate are strong.

(Spoiler, I also believe anti-vaxxers should have their kids removed and belong in jail)
 

Pieter3dnow

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
6,785
Yeah and just re train their entire dev team for the new API while they are at it and then make that transition for all their programs going forward while rebuilding all their development tools that they have been building and working in for the last 15 years .... It's not that easy to take an entrenched entity with a seasoned team and just switch API's like that. DX9->10->11->12 while requiring work isn't a complete rebuild from the ground up you can reuse a lot of your code base. And Apple still gives Vulkan a lot of headaches on their system they are probably better off working in DX12 and Metal for the foreseeable future especially if Apple does go ahead with their migration from Intel over to their own chips for their desktops & laptops.
The amount of money WoW racked in over the years is so huge they could do a brand new engine every year and pay separate developers apart from the ones on WoW.

The idea behind DX12 is that you can do things faster and make the engine way better. Guess how that is going in WoW under DX12 at one time they had a patch for multi core enhancements but a lot of people in raids kept disconnecting.
I played WoW battle for azeroth and their glorious DX12 engine was much like DX11 :) (performance wise).
It was a little bit better under DX12 but not that you can brag about it either.
 

blkt

Gawd
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
666
I believe in an absolute and unabiguous zero tolerance for ever running any unpatched software and I want it enforced to the greatest extent possible.

With all the shit going down, data/identities stolen, people's finances ruined, ransomware, DDOS attacks, etc. etc. I can't sympathise with anyone who puts any other consideration ahead of this for any product running software and connected to a network.

Even if you don't care about your own shit, by not patching you are increasing the risk to others.

The paralells to the vaccine debate are strong.

(Spoiler, I also believe anti-vaxxers should have their kids removed and belong in jail)
s-the-path-to-the-dark-side-fear-leads-to-anger-anger-leads-to-hate-hate-leads-to-suffering-yoda.jpg
 

clockdogg

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 12, 2007
Messages
1,063
I believe in an absolute and unabiguous zero tolerance for ever running any unpatched software and I want it enforced to the greatest extent possible.

With all the shit going down, data/identities stolen, people's finances ruined, ransomware, DDOS attacks, etc. etc. I can't sympathise with anyone who puts any other consideration ahead of this for any product running software and connected to a network.

Even if you don't care about your own shit, by not patching you are increasing the risk to others.

The paralells to the vaccine debate are strong.

(Spoiler, I also believe anti-vaxxers should have their kids removed and belong in jail)

The only way to ensure total security and compliance with your zero tolerance policy is to ban humans from using computers to exchange data with other humans using computers. Being fully patched at the OS level has no effect on phishing attacks. Surprised you're not advocating: Patch the humans, then the machines.

While you're free to mix up your converging parallels, OS patching vs vaccinations are very very different things.

Most of the successful attacks occurred against server infrastructure, (Equifax says hi), not single personal computers. When the large corps take security seriously and successfully, then perhaps we can get draconian with single users to only connect to the net using known secure systems. If only there was an open source, secure OS for end users...
 

Zarathustra[H]

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
30,640
The only way to ensure total security and compliance with your zero tolerance policy is to ban humans from using computers to exchange data with other humans using computers. Being fully patched at the OS level has no effect on phishing attacks. Surprised you're not advocating: Patch the humans, then the machines.
This is one of the oldest logical fallacies in the book.

Just because we can never be perfect, doesn't mean we should not try to be the best we can be.
 

Lakados

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
2,577
You're so full of shit it isn't funny anymore. Why stop there? Ban every Windows machine from accessing the Net, period. It should be Linux or nothing, as it's far more secure and botnet free than even a fully patched Win 10. You would want to keep the Internet as secure as possible, wouldn't you? Then continue by banning every Android phone while you're at it. Carry on indefinitely from there...
If it were linux or nothing you would see a huge number of attacks and exploits starting to be aimed at Linux and you would just see a repeat of Microsoft's woes, Linux systems have just as many security holes as Microsoft's does the difference is user experience and a hard stance on user practices.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meeho
like this

Meeho

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
5,051
If it were linux or nothing you would see a huge number of attacks and exploits starting to be aimed at Linux and you would just see a repeat of Microsoft's woes, Linux systems have just as many security holes as Microsoft's does the difference is user experience and a hard stance on user practices.
It's as if the OS or its patch state is way down on the list of causes for most of the security/privacy problems online.
 

Meeho

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
5,051
I believe in an absolute and unabiguous zero tolerance for ever running any unpatched software and I want it enforced to the greatest extent possible.

With all the shit going down, data/identities stolen, people's finances ruined, ransomware, DDOS attacks, etc. etc. I can't sympathise with anyone who puts any other consideration ahead of this for any product running software and connected to a network.
Almost none of the the above were caused by unpatched OSes. You're proving my point.

Even if you don't care about your own shit, by not patching you are increasing the risk to others.
I am anal about securing my own shit, which is exactly why I don't depend on Windows patches.

The paralells to the vaccine debate are strong.

(Spoiler, I also believe anti-vaxxers should have their kids removed and belong in jail)
Oh, I believe you do. Your authoritarian control fetish leaves no doubt there.
 

Nausicaa

Weaksauce
Joined
Mar 9, 2015
Messages
123
Almost none of the the above were caused by unpatched OSes. You're proving my point.


I am anal about securing my own shit, which is exactly why I don't depend on Windows patches.


Oh, I believe you do. Your authoritarian control fetish leaves no doubt there.
What do you mean your "own shit"? On linux you write it yourself or depend on a stranger?
 

Lakados

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
2,577
Realistically they aren't. As a home user its pretty much impossible
Yeah, there are a number of ways to get access to it one of which is through Office 365, but the cheapest option will still cost you a few hundred per year.
 

Meeho

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
5,051
What do you mean your "own shit"? On linux you write it yourself or depend on a stranger?
As in my data and my servers, workstations and home PCs. Securing them by using various software, hardware and usage practices that make the OS itself the last line of defense. If I rely on the OS patches to keep me safe, I consider it a failure on my part. That is why I could use an XP install today and have the same security record. I'm not talking about anything special here, just common sense iT configuration and practices.
 
Last edited:

Nausicaa

Weaksauce
Joined
Mar 9, 2015
Messages
123

Delicieuxz

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 11, 2016
Messages
1,155
I tried to look up the differences, what is the difference between that and LTSB? Is enterprise licenses someone is selling? Where do they come from?
The difference between Windows 10 LTSB 2016 and LTSC 2019 is the same difference between Windows 10 Pro 1511 and 1809. The LTSB edition of Windows 10 has been renamed to LTSC for the 2019 release, while still being the same edition.

I guess the licenses come from whoever has an MSDN or VLSC account and wants to sell them. I'm not sure. It's legal to resell software, though, regardless of what the publisher thinks about it. So, it doesn't matter much to me beyond the detail that it means I can buy and run LTSC.
 

Nausicaa

Weaksauce
Joined
Mar 9, 2015
Messages
123
The difference between Windows 10 LTSB 2016 and LTSC 2019 is the same difference between Windows 10 Pro 1511 and 1809. The LTSB edition of Windows 10 has been renamed to LTSC for the 2019 release, while still being the same edition.

I guess the licenses come from whoever has an MSDN or VLSC account and wants to sell them. I'm not sure. It's legal to resell software, though, regardless of what the publisher thinks about it. So, it doesn't matter much to me beyond the detail that it means I can buy and run LTSC.
This is good to know, thank you!
 

Nausicaa

Weaksauce
Joined
Mar 9, 2015
Messages
123
Sorry, you've lost me. I have no idea what you're asking or what the context is.
Ok so if you secure your own things, at one point you have to trust a 3rd party unless you write your own OS or make your own hardware.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
30,640
Being a network administrator all I can say is you are wrong, I's no fallacy. All it takes is one stupid employee.
You seem to completely misse the point. I am well aware that people often do stupid things.

The logical fallacy is that just because people do stupid things, we should then disregard other areas of security like patching.

It's like saying, most accidents are caused by distracted driving, so lets not bother replacing those worn tires.

The fact that other problems exist is never a justification to not deal with a problem, unless you only have the budget or time to deal with a select few, in which case tackle the big ones and the easiest ones first.

Making sure you patch your shit can have an effect, and is a lot easier to do than to fix the People problem, and a well patched system can be more resistant to such things as priveleged escalation which many of the stupid "I clicked the link" exploits rely on.
 

Nausicaa

Weaksauce
Joined
Mar 9, 2015
Messages
123
You seem to completely misse the point. I am well aware that people often do stupid things.

The logical fallacy is that just because people do stupid things, we should then disregard other areas of security like patching.

It's like saying, most accidents are caused by distracted driving, so lets not bother replacing those worn tires.

The fact that other problems exist is never a justification to not deal with a problem, unless you only have the budget or time to deal with a select few, in which case tackle the big ones and the easiest ones first.

Making sure you patch your shit can have an effect, and is a lot easier to do than to fix the People problem, and a well patched system can be more resistant to such things as priveleged escalation which many of the stupid "I clicked the link" exploits rely on.
The problem is that I don't trust their updates and they break stuff a lot. I get why they do this (I use linux but manually update quite often) but windows not so much. They are doing the best they can though.
 

Bowman15

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 7, 2015
Messages
1,424
You seem to completely misse the point. I am well aware that people often do stupid things.

The logical fallacy is that just because people do stupid things, we should then disregard other areas of security like patching.

It's like saying, most accidents are caused by distracted driving, so lets not bother replacing those worn tires.

The fact that other problems exist is never a justification to not deal with a problem, unless you only have the budget or time to deal with a select few, in which case tackle the big ones and the easiest ones first.

Making sure you patch your shit can have an effect, and is a lot easier to do than to fix the People problem, and a well patched system can be more resistant to such things as priveleged escalation which many of the stupid "I clicked the link" exploits rely on.

Yikes, and you missed my point. The best patched system can still be circumvented by stupid employees. Ignoring real world issues like budget, time, lack of enough staff and or ignorant administration there is the simple fact that patching is not a simple process in a big corporation and testing takes time. Ever have an update or two take down domain software? I have and it's not pretty. It's not a fallacy IF you have to take hardware, software and the people that use it all into consideration. Dealing with IT is a reaction at best and admins will always be behind no matter what with zero day exploits and stupid employees. Its a never ending catch 22. Sure everyone wants to do the best security they can but in striving for fast "perfect security" you can actually cause more harm than good. Security is priority in corporations until it isn't. If you are master of your own pc at home good for you on security. But that is all your opinion is good for. That no excuse high horse you are riding is great but it's not reality.
 
Last edited:
Top