Guest LilBambi Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 You can’t block Facebook using Windows 8′s hosts file - ghacks.net While you can still add any host you want to the hosts file and map it to an IP, you will notice that some of the mappings will get reset once you open an Internet browser. If you only save, close and re-open the hosts file you will still see the new mappings in the the file, but once you open a web browser, some of them are removed automatically from the hosts file. Two of the sites that you can’t block using the hosts file are facebook.com and ad.doubleclick.net, the former the most popular social networking site, the second a popular ad serving domain. This is just wrong! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crp Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 this doesn't sound right. Unless IE10 is the only browser that can work in W8. OH WAIT saw the update , and indeed it does make sense. though which ones get decided to be protected is something i would wonder about. hopefully for the power users there will be an option to leave the hosts alone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 Personally, I don't think Microsoft should be messing with a HOSTS file that is installed by the user. If they don't want Facebook or doubleclick, the user should be able to designate that in the HOSTS file without Microsoft stepping in and overriding it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crp Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 Personally, I don't think Microsoft should be messing with a HOSTS file that is installed by the user. If they don't want Facebook or doubleclick, the user should be able to designate that in the HOSTS file without Microsoft stepping in and overriding it. If you can guarantee that a malware won't change the HOST file, then yeah. But many anti-virus programs provide HOSTS file protection, the 'Defender' way is just another stab at it. poorly implemented, but understandable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tushman Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 (edited) You can’t block Facebook using Windows 8′s hosts file - ghacks.net This is just wrong! I agree - that is wrong. For those people who are using a router and would like a workaround solution, you can block any IP address through the router software. Most people who are not computer nerds would probably need some assistance with this, but there is always a workaround solution. We still have a few months to go before Win8 is released. Let's hope that MS will reconsider this one. At this point, i see no compelling reason to upgrade. Edited August 20, 2012 by Tushman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 Agreed Tushman. Hope they wise up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goretsky Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 Hello, This is a function of Windows Defender under Microsoft Windows 8, and not a feature of the operating system. From the description, it sounds like a good idea—it's going to benefit the majority of Windows users, e.g, the folks who are not sophisticated and do not edit their hosts file. I can understand why "power users" might be upset about it, but, relatively speaking, the number of people who are going to make these types of modifications are a miniscule fraction of a percentage point, and that's not the market for this operating system. Regards, Aryeh Goretsky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webb Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 I think you summed up everything (well, not everything, like price gouging and predatory marketing practices and the like, but a lot) that is wrong with Microsoft in a single sentence (and not a single sentence but three sentences but really the last one) ... relatively speaking, the number of people who are going to make these types of modifications are a miniscule fraction of a percentage point, and that's not the market for this operating system. That's not the market for any Microsoft operating system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webb Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 And that's why Internet Explorer enjoys a whopping 24% of the web browser market. It's free! It comes with the computer! You don't have to do anything to use it! You have to download and install another browser in order to NOT use it! But only 24% of users use it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ross549 Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 IE's market share has dropped from almost all of the market to 24% because of brand recognition. Microsoft did their best to make IE synonymous with the Internet, and succeeded in large part due to bundling. I don't think it was the right thing to do, but that's what they were able to get away with. Now, Microsoft has a couple of strong competitors on the market in Chrome and Firefox. Chrome is pushed on the Google homepage incessantly, and Firefox has been around long enough that it is becoming well known. I think you can generally say the same thing when you talk about linux. People just don't know what it is, because they think the only two options out there are Windows PCs and Macs. They simply don't realize that there are other alternatives out there. Adam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 (edited) It seems to boil down to the Coke and Pepsi marketing mentality in this country (that even seems to infect our political system but we won't talk about that because we stay away from politics and religion here for obvious polarizing reasons). Most people if they drink colas at all, will drink Coke or Pepsi. Only a small number will opt for some other name cola, or even another type of soda. Me, I don't drink much soda, and when I do, it's Cream, Rootbeer, Sasparilla, or maybe an Orange soda. But mainly I drink water, iced trea (black, white, green), or other herbal tea (Chai Tea is really good). And I use ALL three operating systems: Windows, Mac, and Linux. BUT I never use the ubiquitous browser in any OS Internet Explorer in Windows, Safari on the Mac, or the GUI default in Linux). Edited August 21, 2012 by LilBambi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 BTW: If this is Windows Defender at fault, it is still made to do that by Microsoft, so it matters not where it originates. There should be a switch that users can use to turn that 'ability' on/off for advanced/power users, or people who just don't use or like Facebook or their 'like' buttons. Facebook is not 100% universal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ross549 Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 As long as you don't take facebook too seriously, then it works and is a great utility to keep up with your friends. I use it extensively, but I also have it locked down and highly customized. I don't do things like games and such nonsense. I also manage a variety of groups and pages. Even my cat has a page! http://www.facebook.com/mr.tater.tot You can use almost any way you like. My wife's feed and page are very different than mine. Adam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ross549 Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 I won't laugh- you have just as valid a point as any. Facebook was never designed to replace phone and in-personal socialization. It is a good tool when you are busy and don't have time to meet up or call. I am up this ungodly hour of the morning, and I am able to interact with my friends before they are up for the day. Adam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goretsky Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 Hello, There's plenty of things to be critical about regarding Microsoft's corporate behavior in the past—and, as a matter of fact, there's a rather good listing at Wikipedia under the subject of Criticism of Microsoft—however, I think it is fair to say that Microsoft "paid their debt to society" and has moved on with their corporate life. If you take a look at the last five years or so of criticism, it seems the worst anyone has to say about Microsoft was that some individual employees engaged in some clueless behavior on social media. Frankly, I have worked with people who did worse things than those in the past. Does Microsoft play hardball? Yes, they absolutely do, just like Apple, Google, IBM, Oracle and so forth. As a matter of fact, Microsoft is a direct competitor to my employer (we make the same types of products and target the same types of markets) so I have to compete against them as well. However, I have to say that when dealing with them as a competitor and a developer who relies on their tools, they have always been honest, open and courteous. Even if the answer was sometimes, "No." Microsoft is a big company, and they have to create products which are going to run on hundreds of millions of devices. An important part of that means making products that don't break when given the hypothetical "could your mom use X" test. If one doesn't want that type of experience, there's nothing that prevents them from going out and purchasing a support and maintenance contract from Oracle, Mandriva or Red Hat or some other company that provides commercial services for Linux. For that matter, there's companies like eComStation or even Apple, if you want to be locked into using their hardware. From looking at this article, it appears upgrade pricing for Windows 8 will be $40 for users of Windows XP, Vista and 7, with Windows 8 package having promotional pricing for $70 (and another $70 to upgrade to Windows 8 Pro). While that may be out of some people's reach, financially, I certainly do not think that is gouging. Regards, Aryeh Goretsky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ross549 Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 The pricing has gotten a lot better with Windows upgrades. I think Apple has sucessfully pushed the envelope in this area. Sales to OEMs are Microsoft's moneymaker anyway.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goretsky Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 Hello, Sadly, the most interesting things about Windows 8 to me are "under the hood" and, thus, not the kind of thing one can easily point to and say "heywouljalookatthat," but here are some of the things I'm looking forward to: client hypervisor Early Launch Anti Malware (ELAM) improvements to SmartScreen improvements to Windows Filtering Platform OS refresh and reset options sensors (accelerometer, gyroscope, magnetometer, etc.) UEFI support (Trusted Boot) USB 3.0 support Windows Store Windows To Go WinRT API There's a lot of innovation that went into Windows 8. Admittedly, it might not be things that matter personally to you, but I think Microsoft has just done an outstanding job with respect to their security posture, especially on the 64-bit editions of Windows 8. Regards, Aryeh Goretsky zero innovation does not cost very much to produce, so, we can sell the os for less. ok, someone tell me what 8 has that improves on 7, or makes my life easier. (pa-leeeese, don't say touch screen.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 Trusted Boot should be USER enabled, not vendor enabled. For tablets, I think it will work well enough. Being forced to go through the UI previously known as Metro, and now called Modern, before you can actually get to a REAL Desktop OS ... that really stinks. IMHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ross549 Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 From what I understand there are developers out there working on a replacement for the Start Menu. However, I am hearing that those who have been using the Metro interface have really started to like it. Adam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Yep, Stardock has created Start8. We talked about that on the show week before last. Very cool. I just hope it's stable. As far as liking Windows 8. I will have to wait and see when I get the trial version of the latest release of Windows 8 installed locally. I just do not like the idea of having to basically boot two OSes to get to the one I want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goretsky Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Hello, I am curious as to why you think Trusted Boot should be user-enabled—in my experience, many people make poor decisions about computer security due to lack of understanding or wrong information. Isn't it better to provide the more secure setting by default? I think the Metro/Modern user interface is so tablet-centric that it is going to be off-putting to people. But we'll see how things go. Regards, Aryeh Goretsky Trusted Boot should be USER enabled, not vendor enabled. For tablets, I think it will work well enough. Being forced to go through the UI previously known as Metro, and now called Modern, before you can actually get to a REAL Desktop OS ... that really stinks. IMHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crp Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Hello, I am curious as to why you think Trusted Boot should be user-enabled—in my experience, many people make poor decisions about computer security due to lack of understanding or wrong information. Isn't it better to provide the more secure setting by default? I think the Metro/Modern user interface is so tablet-centric that it is going to be off-putting to people. But we'll see how things go. Regards, Aryeh Goretsky As to 'Trusted Boot', I have no problem making a user go through a couple of hoops to get to a user-enabled process, but don't shut out the user all together. To the w8 new UI, i'll have more on another post but I tried it out on a desktop - not pleasant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Sorry, I think I used the wrong word. User CONTROLLABLE. It can be enabled by default, but should be controllable by the user, if they so choose. That's what I mean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goretsky Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Hello, In order for a computer running a 64-bit version of Windows 8 to pass testing and receive a Hardware Compatibility Logo from Microsoft it must (1) have Secure Boot enabled by default; and (2) have an option in the UEFI firmware to disable Secure Boot. In other words, any computer that ships 64-bit Windows 8 on it must have the ability to disable the Secure Boot functionality in UEFI. Regards, Aryeh Goretsky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ross549 Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 That was amazingly mis-reported a few months back then, because it seemed that many bloggers had their knickers in a knot thinking there would be no way to install another OS on their machine. Adam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crp Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 From the guidelines Target Feature: System.Fundamentals.Firmware Title: All client systems must support UEFI Secure boot Applicable OS Versions Windows 8 (x86) Windows 8 (x64) Windows RT Windows Server 2012 [...] Mandatory. Enable/Disable Secure Boot. On non-ARM systems, it is required to implement the ability to disable Secure Boot via firmware setup. A physically present user must be allowed to disable Secure Boot via firmware setup without possession of PKpriv. A Windows Server may also disable Secure Boot remotely using a strongly authenticated (preferably public-key based) out-of-band management connection, such as to a baseboard management controller or service processor. Programmatic disabling of Secure Boot either during Boot Services or after exiting EFI Boot Services MUST NOT be possible. Disabling Secure Boot must not be possible on ARM systems. so it applies to all pc W8 but is not allowed for ARM W8. Also, getting in after the EFI booted is not allowed. A lot of the confusion was self-inflicted, as when softies talked about it they used 'RT' instead of ARM and also emphasized that software would not be allowed into the flow after EFI booting, sometimes leaving out the word "software" . But this is to be logo compliance, if a manufacturer did not care about that .... Also, this is basically saying no jailbreak capability for ARM'ed W8. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corrine Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 From Microsoft KB 2764944: Hosts file is detected as malware in Windows Defender: To resolve this issue, exclude the Hosts file from scanning in Windows Defender. To do this, follow these steps: Open Windows Defender. On the Settings tab, click Excluded files and locations. Under File locations, click Browse. Locate and then click the Hosts file. Note By default, the Hosts file is located in the %systemroot%\system32\drivers\etc folder. Click Add, and then click Save changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 Thanks Corrine! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.