backtop


Print 50 comment(s) - last by BifurcatedBoat.. on Oct 17 at 3:02 PM

"If I ever meet you, I'll CTRL+ALT+DEL you!" -- Weird Al Yankovic

At a Harvard Univ. Q&A session this week, Microsoft Corp. (MSFTcofounder and former CEO Bill Gates spoke on a broad range of topics, but the highlight came when he mentioned CTRL+ALT+DEL -- the key combination that used to be required to log onto windows.

Asked by Harvard Campaign chair David Rubenstein, "Why, when I want to turn on my software and computer, do I need to have three fingers on Control, Alt, Delete? Who’s idea was that?"

... Mr. Gates quipped, "It was a big mistake."


The former CEO says he would have preferred a one-button login, but the International Business Machines Corp. (IBM) employee who designed the keyboard preferred the three button solution.  He explains:

You want to have something you do with the keyboard that is signaling to a very low level of the software — actually hard-coded in the hardware — that it really is bringing in the operating system you expect, instead of just a funny piece of software that puts up a screen that looks like a log-in screen, and then it listens to your password and then it’s able to do that.

But as PCWorld points out, if it was a mistake it was a fortunate one as it prevented a trojan from faking the log in screen.  The site writes:

Why? Because, as insecure as some perceive the Windows operating system to be, it could have been a thousand times worse if there were no keyboard interaction required to log on. That physical interaction tells the computer that you want to interface with the Microsoft Windows operating system, and ensures that rogue or spoofed software can't dupe users into typing usernames and passwords.

Others have defended the famous three button combination -- oft associated with errors and OS crashes in early Windows computers -- as being a key part of 90s nostalgia.


Even Weird Al Yankovic paid tribute to the shortcut in his song All About the Pentiums blasting, "If I ever meet you, I'll CTRL+ALT+DEL you!"

Source: YouTube



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Hindsight is 20/20
By Ammohunt on 9/27/2013 11:48:56 AM , Rating: 3
I don't understand the problem with CTRL+ALT+DEL they needed a key combination they picked one would CTRL+SPACEBAR+SCROLL LOCK been better?




RE: Hindsight is 20/20
By Argon18 on 9/27/13, Rating: -1
RE: Hindsight is 20/20
By XZerg on 9/27/2013 12:13:04 PM , Rating: 5
hahahahahahahahaahahhahahahahah.

iTard wearing shield of blissful ignorance.


RE: Hindsight is 20/20
By Argon18 on 9/30/13, Rating: -1
RE: Hindsight is 20/20
By 91TTZ on 9/27/2013 12:18:02 PM , Rating: 5
You sound clueless. The real reason most viruses run on Windows is because most users use Windows. There is nothing different about other operating systems which stops you from writing a virus for it.


RE: Hindsight is 20/20
By Tony Swash on 9/27/13, Rating: -1
RE: Hindsight is 20/20
By amanojaku on 9/27/2013 3:23:02 PM , Rating: 5
Nothing you or your source said explains the real reason exploits are more prevalent in one OS vs another. Yes, UNIX and Linux variants have less viruses and malware than Windows. No, most Windows systems do not have viruses and malware.

Consider the following:

1) There are MANY variants of UNIX; programming malware for all of them is a challenge because UNIX does not require all systems to use the same code internally, just that the APIs are consistent

2) UNIX requires specialized hardware; an Alpha for DEC, SPARC for Solaris, POWER for AIX, PA-RISC or Itanium for HP-UX, etc...

3) UNIX is not cheap, unless you plan to buy an older, unsupported box off of eBay that only runs older, unsupported software

4) BSD and Linux variants are not UNIX, and they each have unique coding, because UNIX does not define code, it defines interfaces

Windows is essentially a single OS, consistent across server and desktop, and backwards compatible with previous versions. For better or for worse, code that runs on one version of Windows can generally run unmodified on other versions of Windows. However, each release of Windows is more secure than previous versions. You would be hard pressed to get an old virus to infect a modern Windows system.

Then, there is the issue of ease of access. You can easily get your hands on a copy of Windows, legitimately or otherwise. You can easily gain access to Windows APIs, including the hidden Native API that most viruses target. This is not true for UNIX and its derivatives, with the exception of the BSDs (Free, Net, and Open), OS X, and Linux. Consequently, most *nix viruses are written for BSD, OS X, and Linux.

In fact, one of the first viruses to affect consumers was the Elk Cloner, written for the Apple II in 1981.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elk_Cloner

x86 viruses and malware came later, in 1986. Brain affected DOS, not Windows.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%28c%29Brain

Soon after, Windows nearly killed the Mac, and more viruses were written for it. The widespread use of Windows meant a single virus could hit a large number of machines. The lack of knowledge on the part of users also meant that malware was unknowingly installed, meaning a user had to put it there. If I write a program that wipes your drive and steals your information, it's not a virus if you run it yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_engineering_%2...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ILOVEYOU

As you and your Juice crew point out, more malware is written for Android, a Linux derivative, than iOS. The has to do with the open source nature of Android, and the market share it has taken. And yet, there is iOS malware and OS X malware. Clearly, *nix is not immune, just obscure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_worm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notable_computer_viru...


RE: Hindsight is 20/20
By Tony Swash on 9/27/13, Rating: -1
RE: Hindsight is 20/20
By sprockkets on 9/27/2013 7:14:05 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
No you don't need a specialized or expensive piece of hardware to run Unix. Just buy a Mac.


How did I know Tony Swash would go this route?

It's quite amusing to watch you stupidly fall into your own trap there Tony.

Perhaps if you kept reading his post you wouldn't look like such an idiot.

Oh, and just because it is UNIX certified doesn't mean it is UNIX. OSX is

Mach kernel + BSD layer interface + shtty GUI !=UNIX


RE: Hindsight is 20/20
By EricMartello on 9/27/2013 11:38:43 PM , Rating: 2
Malware and viruses exist for all platforms. Considering that most malware is deployed on the basis that a certain percentage will be vulnerable to the exploit, you'd want to target the most widely used platform available to maximize infection. It just so happens that Windows is installed on most computers, and that makes it a prime target.

Infecting 10% of all Windows computers will yield better results than infecting 80-90% of all Mac or Linux computers.

It's a total myth that Linux, Mac or Unix itself are more secure simply because they're not ideal targets for malicious users.


RE: Hindsight is 20/20
By Avatar28 on 9/28/2013 10:01:54 PM , Rating: 2
Okay, explain this. iOS and Android, both *nix derivatives, have malware and viruses. Windows Phone, based on the Windows kernel, does not.


RE: Hindsight is 20/20
By Cheesew1z69 on 9/28/2013 10:53:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Windows Phone, based on the Windows kernel, does not.
Yet....


RE: Hindsight is 20/20
By Avatar28 on 9/28/2013 11:18:44 PM , Rating: 4
But according to Tony, the viruses are a direct side-effect of the kernel's insecurity, not small market-share. Therefore, by his arguments, *nix kernels should have little or no viruses while Windows Phone has lots.


RE: Hindsight is 20/20
By Cheesew1z69 on 9/29/2013 10:51:08 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
But according to Tony
That's the first problem...


RE: Hindsight is 20/20
By Argon18 on 9/30/2013 12:14:42 PM , Rating: 1
And that is indeed true. *nix kernels have no virusus. None. Zero. The only malware that affects a Unix-like OS, whether on a full computer or on a phone, is a Trojan.

No OS can protect you from Trojans, since a Trojan is a social engineering effort, not a technical one.

If you're going to comment here, at the bare minimum, please have a basic understanding of malware.


RE: Hindsight is 20/20
By Mitch101 on 9/28/2013 10:17:08 AM , Rating: 3
While many of us can appreciate your response to Tony by his reply should indicate hes never going to listen to reason. The best thing to do is keep it short and let him wear himself out with large response posts.

Or take his posts and teach kids not to use drugs.

Or turn them into stories you can sell on iTunes.


RE: Hindsight is 20/20
By amanojaku on 9/29/2013 10:54:04 AM , Rating: 2
Thanks. I don't write these posts to reply to people like Tony and Argon18, who've shown an irrational bias for or against a company or product. Instead, I'm attempting to stem the spread of false information, which I feel is criminal.

My posts are long, as well, but that's because I talk too much (sorry), I provide credible sources (if you're going to make a claim, you'd better back it up; I criticized Tiffany because of this the other day in the NSA article), and I provide detail since many people don't bother to read sources.


RE: Hindsight is 20/20
By nikon133 on 9/29/2013 4:09:02 PM , Rating: 2
... and yet, most hacking competitions in the last couple of years end up with OSX being hacked before Windows.

The message here is "Yes we can do it - no sweat - but why bother?"

And really - which respectable hacker would target less than 5% of worldwide community..?


RE: Hindsight is 20/20
By xti on 9/30/2013 8:58:25 AM , Rating: 2
stop being an idiot.

would you rather write a virus that will affect 10 users? (mac)

or write one that affects millions? (win)


RE: Hindsight is 20/20
By Argon18 on 9/30/2013 12:18:37 PM , Rating: 1
Are you retarded? The #1 most deployed operating system in the world is Linux. The Linux kernel runs every Android phone, it runs every Cisco networking switch, it has right now today, several billion running installations. Far more than Windows or anything else.

Why are there no Linux viruses? None? Zero? Answer me that, Wintard.


RE: Hindsight is 20/20
By ammaross on 9/30/2013 1:55:08 PM , Rating: 2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_malware#Viruses... has a nice list of a few:
Viruses:
42 [31][32]
Arches [33]
Alaeda - Virus.Linux.Alaeda[34]
Bad Bunny - Perl.Badbunny[6][35]
Binom - Linux/Binom[36]
Bliss - requires root privileges
Brundle[37]
Bukowski[38]
Caveat [39][40]
Coin [41][42]
Diesel - Virus.Linux.Diesel.962[43]
Hasher [44][45]
Kagob a - Virus.Linux.Kagob.a[46]
Kagob b - Virus.Linux.Kagob.b[47]
Lacrimae (aka Crimea) [48][49]
MetaPHOR (also known as Simile)[50]
Nuxbee - Virus.Linux.Nuxbee.1403[51]
OSF.8759
PiLoT[52][53]
Podloso - Linux.Podloso (The iPod virus)[54][55]
RELx [56]
Rike - Virus.Linux.Rike.1627[57]
RST - Virus.Linux.RST.a[58] (known for infecting Korean release of Mozilla Suite 1.7.6 and Thunderbird 1.0.2 in September 2005[59])
Satyr - Virus.Linux.Satyr.a[60]
Staog
Vit - Virus.Linux.Vit.4096[61]
Winter - Virus.Linux.Winter.341[62]
Winux (also known as Lindose and PEElf)[63]
Wit virus[64]
ZipWorm - Virus.Linux.ZipWorm[65]


RE: Hindsight is 20/20
By Flunk on 9/30/2013 2:16:27 PM , Rating: 2
What! contradictory facts? That's unpossible.

I maintain that the unsinkable duck is yet unsinkable for it does not respond to petty things such as facts or reasoning!


RE: Hindsight is 20/20
By xti on 9/30/2013 5:26:59 PM , Rating: 2
wat?

consumer level OS gets much worse PR. stop trying to be right by nitpicking on every last possible scenario you nerd.

so again, hitting windows OS is going to get much more attention, heck its why sites like DT exist. if you disagree...find me the latest consumer targeted virus that made a mainstream news article.


RE: Hindsight is 20/20
By Argon18 on 9/30/2013 12:10:42 PM , Rating: 2
And you sound like a Wintard. The majority of operating systems out there are UNIX-like, an inherently more secure computing model than Windows. A Wintard is clueless about UNIX, so I can understand your confusion. The only notable non-UNIX-like OS's are OpenVMS and the various Mainframe systems, and they too are inherently more secure than Windows.

If you're going to comment in a thread about OS security, lesson #1 here is don't be a Wintard. Have a clue about how other OS's work before you cup Steve Ballmer's nutsack.


RE: Hindsight is 20/20
By BRB29 on 9/27/2013 12:34:13 PM , Rating: 2
what other OS don't have virus or any kind of malware?


RE: Hindsight is 20/20
By Avatar28 on 9/28/2013 9:55:35 PM , Rating: 2
I don't believe Windows Phone has any malware currently. Take that for what it's worth.

iOS and Android, both *nix derivatives, have malware. Windows Phone, based on the Windows kernel, doesn't.


RE: Hindsight is 20/20
By sprockkets on 9/29/2013 11:49:09 AM , Rating: 2
If you can root/jailbreak/unlock it, it can get malware. Android makes it easy since it allows the user to install 3rd party stuff if the user authorizes it. But I wouldn't want that taken away ever.

There are plenty of ways to unlock windows phones if you look for it. It isn't easy but is possible. Of course, what you can do with a closed OS keeps the dev attention to it fairly small compared to Android.


RE: Hindsight is 20/20
By Flunk on 9/30/2013 2:24:24 PM , Rating: 2
For the sake of argument, if you're writing viruses that only affect unlocked Windows Phones the possible pool of devices to infect is so small that you'd never make your development costs back.

Windows Phone is a combination of unpopular and highly-closed so I don't expect we'll be seeing much malware unless at least one of those two conditions change.

To be fair, if you keep smartphone locked and only use the vendor's app store you're note likely to have many problems regardless of which OS you're using.


RE: Hindsight is 20/20
By prophet001 on 9/27/2013 1:30:02 PM , Rating: 2
The ignorance is strong with this one. He will do well for the fodder.


RE: Hindsight is 20/20
By Piiman on 9/28/2013 9:49:43 AM , Rating: 1
ohhh so windows isn't a real OS? LOL ok then


RE: Hindsight is 20/20
By Monkey's Uncle on 9/28/2013 11:32:54 AM , Rating: 1
LOL. You really aren't very bright are you ^^


RE: Hindsight is 20/20
By kmmatney on 9/27/2013 7:50:51 PM , Rating: 2
I don't get all this talk about using this for logging in. CTL+ALT+DEL existed way before windows - it was used in DOS to restart/reboot your system (DOS didn't have a login, nornmally).


RE: Hindsight is 20/20
By Mitch101 on 9/28/2013 10:19:44 AM , Rating: 2
This is where CTRL+ALT+DEL came from the guy who invented it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdGQsBDSEpk


Sigh...
By amanojaku on 9/27/2013 12:02:28 PM , Rating: 4
Don't bother reporting on news if you don't read the source material. The creator of Ctrl+Alt+Del never intended it to be a login sequence.
quote:
David Bradley, a designer of the original IBM PC, is responsible for inventing the “Control-Alt-Delete” command to reboot a system. He famously poked fun at Gates on stage during IBM’s 20th anniversary of the IBM PC.

“I may have invented it, but Bill made it famous,” Bradley said.

A decade later in an interview with CNET, Bradley said he didn’t really know why Microsoft decided to make his invention their log-in command.

“Why they used it for the log-in also, I don’t know,” he said. “I guess it made sense for them.”
http://www.geekwire.com/2013/gates-harvard/

You don't want to reboot a computer using one button, so Ctrl+Alt+Del made sense to ensure system availability. MS repurposed Ctrl+Alt+Del to perform logins. That made sense, too. If someone hit that key sequence on a normally functioning system, it would reboot it unnecessarily. It switched to a reboot function during a BSOD, which is an abnormal condition. And I don't see what the big deal is. We don't hit that key sequence much in a day. It has little impact on productivity or usability.




RE: Sigh...
By NellyFromMA on 9/27/2013 12:29:09 PM , Rating: 2
So, because this guy says its true, that means what Bill says isn't? I mean one isn't a fact over the other. What's worse, this is the most uninteresting hair to split ever.


RE: Sigh...
By amanojaku on 9/27/2013 1:27:28 PM , Rating: 3
Nelly, you gave me crap when I said something was wrong with Stephon Elop's track record as an executive. Therefore, it made no sense for Nokia to appoint him as CEO. A few days later, an article comes out confirming that his contract was written to give him a bonus if Nokia failed and he sold a portion of the business. His predecessor had no such wording in HIS contract. It was as if Nokia's board knew he'd probably fail.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/terokuittinen/2013/09/...

Now, you're giving me crap when I point out the issue in this article's statement about the purpose of Crtl+Alt+Del. The guy wrote the damn code and programmed the damn hardware. What Mick, and others online, have written is false. There was NO login screen at the time Ctrl+Alt+Del was created. It came out in 1981; Windows came out in 1985. Ctrl+Alt+Del was a way to reboot the system quickly without having to perform memory tests. If you ever used an old system, you'd know that the memory tests took several minutes. Newer systems generally bypass this step, because it still takes a while, especially with large amounts of memory installed.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/51674/history-ctrl-...

As to the issue of logins, I'm not splitting hairs. What I don't get is Bill Gate's issue with the damn key sequence. He makes it sound like it was the worst thing to happen to Windows. I've never heard anyone complain about it. You do it in the morning, and again at lunch. Maybe if you put your laptop to sleep to go to a meeting. It takes all of two seconds to perform. How did that negatively impact the Windows experience?

Remapping Ctrl+Alt+Del to a login screen made sense since leaving it there meant a person could accidentally reboot a system that was functioning perfectly. The same thing happened to power switches later on; by default, you have to hold the switch for a few seconds in order to reboot. Before, your knee would hit the button on a tower (or your toddler would press it), and all your work was lost.

What people complained about was the BSOD. If Bill thought it was a bad idea for people to have to hit Ctrl+Alt+Del, he should have forced his programmers to make the system more stable, like Windows 7. I've never seen a BSOD in Windows 7. I'm sure it exists, but the OS is rock solid.


RE: Sigh...
By Schrag4 on 9/27/2013 4:23:30 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
There was NO login screen at the time Ctrl+Alt+Del was created. It came out in 1981; Windows came out in 1985. Ctrl+Alt+Del was a way to reboot the system quickly without having to perform memory tests.


This is worth repeating. Anyone who grew up using PCs without Windows knows this, but I suppose I'm getting old (I still feel like a kid, does that count?).

quote:
As to the issue of logins, I'm not splitting hairs. What I don't get is Bill Gate's issue with the damn key sequence. He makes it sound like it was the worst thing to happen to Windows. I've never heard anyone complain about it. You do it in the morning, and again at lunch. Maybe if you put your laptop to sleep to go to a meeting. It takes all of two seconds to perform. How did that negatively impact the Windows experience?


This is the first time I've ever heard anyone complain about the Ctrl-Alt-Del key combination. Not only is it easy to remember, it's easy to perform, but not too easy (done by accident). It must be a really slow news day.


RE: Sigh...
By ven1ger on 9/27/2013 5:44:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What Mick, and others online, have written is false. There was NO login screen at the time Ctrl+Alt+Del was created. It came out in 1981; Windows came out in 1985. Ctrl+Alt+Del was a way to reboot the system quickly without having to perform memory tests. If you ever used an old system, you'd know that the memory tests took several minutes. Newer systems generally bypass this step, because it still takes a while, especially with large amounts of memory installed.


Correct, for users of DOS, there was no log-in, you start-up your computer wait for the memory tests to cycle through and for DOS to load. Don't remember it being minutes, somehow I seem to recall I used to hit the ESC to skip the memory test, which might be why.


RE: Sigh...
By Gondor on 9/29/2013 9:59:55 AM , Rating: 2
Some BIOSes only performed thorough check on bottom 640K of RAM, others had the option to speed up the test (by making it less thorough) for the whole. Systems that didn't employ either of these (or ESC to skip) really did take about a minute to perform that one check out of many that system does after power-up.


RE: Sigh...
By Solandri on 9/27/2013 6:35:07 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Ctrl+Alt+Del was a way to reboot the system quickly without having to perform memory tests.

Well, that was a side-effect. The real reason for ctrl-alt-del is it generates a non-maskable interrupt (NMI). That means it bypasses any software that's running and instructs the CPU to perform a function put in place by the OS. In the case of DOS, this meant ctrl-alt-del could reboot your system even if the software you were running had crashed and was non-responsive.

quote:
Remapping Ctrl+Alt+Del to a login screen made sense since leaving it there meant a person could accidentally reboot a system that was functioning perfectly.

No, the reason for making it pop up the login screen is because the NMI cannot be overridden. By attaching the login screen to the ctrl-alt-del NMI, any time you press ctrl-alt-del you are guaranteed to get Windows Server's login prompt. A trojan cannot pop up a login prompt designed to look identical to the real login prompt, in hopes of getting your password.

The reboot function of ctrl-alt-del became deprecated with the switch to preemptive multitasking. The old cooperative multitasking systems would give control of the computer to a program, and the program was expected to give control back after a few milliseconds. Each program cooperates by giving up the CPU after using it briefly. But if a program crashed, it would never give control back and you were forced to reboot with ctrl-alt-del.

With preemptive multitasking, the OS is always in control. It'll allow a program to have CPU time for a few milliseconds, then it'll pre-empt the program and take the CPU away to assign it to another program. Under this model, a crashed program only crashes itself, it doesn't affect the OS or other programs. So there is no more need for ctrl-alt-del to reboot the system unless the OS itself crashes (blue screens on Windows). This frees you up to assign other more useful functions to ctrl-alt-del.

Windows 3.x, 95, 98, and ME were cooperative. Windows NT, 2000, and all versions since then are preemptive. (MacOS was cooperative, OS X is preemptive. Unix has always been preemptive.)


RE: Sigh...
By ChronoReverse on 9/29/2013 11:34:41 AM , Rating: 2
Just as a note, Windows 9x were all pre-emptively multitaskers. Only Windows 3.x and below were cooperative.


RE: Sigh...
By ChronoReverse on 9/29/2013 11:38:33 AM , Rating: 2
Even more interesting, Windows 3 running on a 386 and above could actually pre-emptively multitask MSDOS windows. Regular windows apps still ran cooperatively with each other inside a single "virtual machine" but each MSDOS window was its own protected machine and was pre-emptively multitasked with each other virtual machine.


RE: Sigh...
By amanojaku on 9/29/2013 11:46:51 AM , Rating: 2
An NMI by itself is like a zipper that hasn't been sewn on to a jacket; it functions, but it serves no purpose.

Ctrl+Alt+Del was created for the sole purpose of rebooting the system in order to bypass memory checks. Mitch101 and I posted sources confirming this (thanks, Mitch). The creators of PC BIOS were also software developers. They got tired of waiting for their machines to reboot during BIOS development (BIOS is hardware AND software), so they made a clever workaround that was never intended to be used by anyone outside of the IBM team who created BIOS.

Memory checks were quite long with a slow CPU and a lot (for the time) of RAM. Even a modern server will take a while to perform a full memory check, because the CPU has not existed real mode, and thus runs at a slow speed. Imagine performing a memory test on 256 gibibytes or more when you can only address one mebibyte at a time! I've seen servers (IBM!!!) that took more than five minutes to boot because quick booting was disabled.

You are incorrect with regards to multitasking, as well. Windows 3.x and earlier were cooperative. Windows 95, 98, and ME were preemptively multitasked for 32-bit applications, with 16-bit applications running cooperatively. 16-bit apps that hung weren't a big deal; you could kill them, although it took a while for the scheduler to switch back to the kernel. (NT-based Windows has a faster multilevel feedback queue scheduler, so the user interface and kernel generally don't slow when an application hangs.) It was 16-bit drivers that hung that were fatal.

"How 16-Bit and 32-Bit Programs Multitask in Windows 95"
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/117567/en-us

"Windows 95 Architecture Components"
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc75112...

Preemptive multitasking appeared in a hybrid form with cooperative multitasking in Mac OS 8.6. It was crappy and limited, but it was there.

"Re: newbie question: What is a Blue Task"
http://lists.apple.com/archives/Mt-smp/2001/May/ms...

"Multilevel Feedback Queue"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multilevel_feedback_q...


RE: Sigh...
By augiem on 9/27/2013 10:50:15 PM , Rating: 3
Agree completely. Not one single news headline in the last few days has mentioned he said it was a mistake FOR A LOGIN COMMAND. I watched the whole hour long video. It was ONLY in reference to the login prompt. Journalists make me sick with their constant and deliberate misleading headlines. Money over all, the truth be damned. Sick.


Ctrl+Alt+Del was useful...
By compuser2010 on 9/27/2013 5:02:42 PM , Rating: 2
...in previous versions of Windows.

I liked how in Windows 98(SE), I would quickly press it twice to reboot my PC.

Microsoft made an excellent change for the better when under Windows XP it took one straight to the Task Manager. (It would be nice if they returned to this in subsequent versions, but unlikely to happen.)




RE: Ctrl+Alt+Del was useful...
By Khenglish on 9/27/2013 5:47:27 PM , Rating: 3
Ctrl+Shift+Esc brings up the task manager immediately on everything after XP.


RE: Ctrl+Alt+Del was useful...
By Moriicon on 9/28/2013 8:19:10 AM , Rating: 2
I love this key combination, and it only takes the thumb and index finger to execute :)


I Would Merely Note...
By mmatis on 9/28/2013 9:13:20 AM , Rating: 2
that the Trinity branch of Ubuntu still uses CTRL-ALT-DEL as a login cue. Of course, it does not seem to have Microsoft's patented Blue Screen of Death...




That's OK Bill
By superflex on 9/30/2013 11:54:31 AM , Rating: 2
We regret allowing you to become a 1 percenter and attempting to shove Common Core down our children's throats with your benevolent Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation money.
Go choke on a gold bar or something.




By BifurcatedBoat on 10/17/2013 3:02:50 PM , Rating: 2
You don't need to press Ctrl+Alt+Delete to start your computer, or reset it, or even start the task manager anymore for that matter.

However, I am thankful that the key combination for it is not easy to press. I hated it when for a while all of the keyboard manufacturers decided it was a good idea to add a keyboard button to shut your computer off.




"It looks like the iPhone 4 might be their Vista, and I'm okay with that." -- Microsoft COO Kevin Turner

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki