70-622 ms press book question help

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

Afternoon guys, just revising for my 622 exam that's calendared in for the 1st March and don't understand the correct answer to one of the questions given in the book.

The question relates to which application would have issues running on a 32bit version of Windows Vista without a software update.

A) a 16bit app written for windows 2000
B) a 32bit app written for windows xp that requires admin privileges
C) an app written for 2000 that writes to a protected part of the registry
D) an app written for XP that writes to a protected part of the system files.

Now i could argue away any of them being correct, but looking at it.

A) Run in 2000 compatibility mode might resolve the issue
B) Run in the program with elevated admin privileges
C) and D) are covered by the virtualised part of the system files and registry that Vista has.

The most obvious answer, to me, would be A). It's an old program written in 16bit for an old version of Windows, even though 16bit code can run on Vista, i'd foresee this program to need an update from the vendor to be fully compatible with Vista.

The correct answer given by the book is B, would anyone agree or disagree with this?

 

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

B?

After reading I would say A too mate?
As you would need a software update from the manufactorer to transfer the 16bit calls to 32 bits.
Is that the full question or is there anything that you haven't mentioned? Like you have a limited account ect....

Dave

EDIT: Saying that I dont know to much about Vista but it does have an authentication screen that appears when installing programs. But doubt that would make much of a differnce?

But A can be solved by using Windows 2000 compaitibility mode so that may not require a software update?

 

Question as written:
Which of the following applications is least likely to run on a 32bit version of Windows Vista without a software update?

 

which book is this i'll have a look when i get back tomorrow evening

 

Its says in my 622 book:

Because of the new UAC feature in Windows Vista, programs that require administrator privileges must be re-written to handle the approval messages that appear when administrative tasks are performed." (page 532)

In other words; because the application needs admin privileges, it doesn't support the new admin messages shown in vista. Well thats what i make of it anyway.

 

It's the Microsoft Press Self Paced Training Kit one, Chapter 2 i think.

Question as written is - Which of the following applications is least likely to run on a 32bit version of Windows Vista without a software update?

A) a 16bit app written for windows 2000
B) a 32bit app written for windows xp that requires admin privileges
C) an app written for 2000 that writes to a protected part of the registry
D) an app written for XP that writes to a protected part of the system files.

Which book do you use Becki?

 

I'm using the MCITP book for 622 (self-paced training kit). the question is Chapter 3 lesson 2 page 99 and the answer is on page 532

 

i think you hit on the head!

 

Thanks, i just need to know the rest of the stuff for the 621 exam! lol

 

Haha, how odd, i'm understanding it now

 

I know that feeling, for ages ive struggled with basic subnets (12.12.12.12/24 for example) and the subnet masks which go with that type of address until one day it just clicked! just got to get my head around the rest of that topic now

 

Thanks for explaining it Becki .

Dave