So much for Vista's Security...
 

Link

:rolleyes:

I am laughing out loud!..... even before it is released it sucks!


gotta say though, I am not looking forward to the day when the first OSX virus hits, I think it will wipe the smug grin of all of our faces :rolleyes:

probably that will be the reason a virus for OSX will end up getting written. Spite of a different kind. :(

I agree. I'm sure OS X is not uncrackable by any means. We casual users have to just not brag about it, or they're going to get pissed! hehe

So much for market share determining the number of viruses. :rolleyes: Vista has a virus but 0% market share. :p

LOL, I never thought of that!

Maybe it's part of the deal:

Thank you for buying Vista! Included in this box:
...

• Install DVD
  • OS
  • shell environment
  • virus pre-installed
• Coupon: $5 off select virus software
• Manual not included

...well, seems now that the shell environment Monad is removed from the upcoming release of Vista due to, you guessed it: virus threat! Is there really anything new left in this Windoze upgrade other than a slightly polished desktop?

-seagull

A four year wait for a new theme. :rolleyes:

Something’s rotten in the Kingdom of Redmond…
 

Perhaps no other company on earth can invest such huge resources in developing a new generation OS.

With all these resources at their disposal, what does it tell you when a hacker comes up with a virus after 8 days? Does it not force us to conclude that there is something very, very wrong at the core of Microsoft’s strategic vision?

Microsoft has had years (and taken far more years than they said they would). Is this really the best they can do? Honestly, I am sure PC users everywhere were expecting Microsoft to solve their gargantuan security problems once and for all…


With best regards,
ArcticStones

I agree with ArcticStones.......... I am not a big one for conspiracy theorys.......... but....... do you think MS specifically design their OS to make it easy for it to catch viri?
I mean... how many people that release viri are actually caught and prosicuted?...... and how many billions of pounds are made from the sale of Anti virus software every year?

maby I should invent something that could kill everyones computer and then make my millions selling the cure!

I will call it a 'schmoogle'

who wants to buy some anti-schmoogle software?!

The problem is that any new OS they create has to remain compatible with the old ones, at least to some degree.

Microsoft has always sold Windoze on the idea that there was more software available for it than any other platform. Never mind that most of it was junk. If they were to make a new OS that couldn't run all the old Windoze software, then according to their own marketing all of their competitors have products you should buy instead since they would all have more software available.

I'm no programmer, but it seems to me that the main difference between MS Windows and other OS's (UNIX, Linux, Mac OS X +++) lies in the foundation (think of an OS as a large house). While both Linux and UNIX (thus also OS X) can be said to have a concrete foundation set on stable bedrock, Windows is more like a house on stilts built in soft soil. No matter how many extra stilts you but in, the nature of the ground (and the increasing weight of the house) will always be a security hazard.

I think the move that Apple made when going from OS 9 to OS X, effectively replacing the whole foundation of their system, will pay off bigtime vs MS in the years to come, especially in terms of security.
I can't begin to imagine the hours of debugging and struggling with old insecure code that MS engineers have to go through when developing a new version of Windows. Or how this reduces the amount of effort spent on true innovation, and increases the possibilty of introducing security threaths when old and new code has to work together.

I know this is a bold statement but my bet is that MS will totally flop with Windows Vista. I can't really see why an XP user would switch. With so many promised features gone, the promise of increased security was really the last real selling point for the next version of Windows.

-seagull

You're right. The foundation is bad, so no matter what they do to make the windows pretty, the whole thing collapses easily.

I was only half joking when I said "So much for market share determining the number of viruses." Obviously, OS X would have been hit with at least several viruses by now if it were just a matter of market share. After all, virus writers are people too, and who wants to put in the kind of effort it would take to write an OS X virus when every version of Windoze is so easy to beat?

No, but they do specifically design it so it is super-easy to install things and to retain backward compatibility. Their strategy has always been that software should be able to do anything it wants on the machine once the installer is launched. This of course means that nefarious installers have free reign.

Apple risked a lot when they made a fundamental change, but it was needed. I think the risk is far greater for MS if they make such a huge change, because if they lose the "everything runs on Windows" advantage, people will have a reason to look at alternatives. People are lazy, and not so bright, in general. They continue to buy Windows because making a conscious effort to think is more daunting to them than the problems they encounter with Windows. If they suddenly were forced to think about what apps work on "new Windows" they might also look at what runs on a Mac.

Maybe MS should think about a complete OS shift....

Unix worked with Mac OS.

Maybe they should look into that....

That would be Bad news for Mac people, though. I hope they don't do that. ;)

... maybe they should just throw in the towel. :D

Yeah, I agree, they should have thought about a complete OS shift. But now it is too late for them. And that is the story of MS in the last ten years. Innovation has been pushed back in favour of business strategies to keep their market position. MS has changed from beeing one of the innovators bringing computers in to the homes of everyman (let's admit it) into a company that is desperatly battling to keep up to the state of the art. I see MS in the future as a company focusing on Xbox, Media PC and maybe on Office. I think they allready have lost the OS battle even though we won't see the results in a couple of years. They have a lot of cash and a lot of lawyers, but in the long run it will not be enough when other major players in the IT-world see that there are alternatives in the personal computer arena. At least that is what I'm hoping.

-seagull

Microsoft an innovator? :eek: I must have missed something. Was Win 3.1 an innovation? Win 95? Certainly not DOS, since it was a reverse engineer of CP/M. Excel? No, Visicalc was out years before. Word? Not really. It was just Macwrite with more "features." Did they start the desktop publishing boom in the late 80s? No, that was Apple. First with web browser? Nyet. I'm at a loss here. Somebody tell me about these innovations I missed!

monopoly...?? No wait, that had been done before too.

I see your point cwtnospam, but what I'm saying is just that MS did bring PCs into more homes and to the fingertips of more people than ever before, good or bad you have to admit that ;) Wether or not they "stole" technology to bring that all together I'll still give them credit for achieving the position they've had in the last 10-15 years. My point is that MS is slowly but surely loosing the grip they've had because more and more people are starting to realise that there are alternatives. I must admit that some five years ago I didn't know about any other desktop without that "Start"-button down on the left hand corner. I do believe many others have the same experience.

-seagull

Yep, Microsoft is an innovator
 

.

Yep, I certainly do consider Microsoft an innovator.

In what area? Business practices! I can think of no other company that has had comparable success, maintaining its flexibility across across an astonishingly broad range, and for such a long time. And despite reaching a behemoth size, they have retained their highly agressive practices.

In addition, Microsoft has shown it’s ability to move quickly and decisively into new areas of business. Their development and launch of Internet Explorer is a case in point, and this Web browser’s market share is still impessive. Second case in point: the XBox.

Now I am not commenting on the morality of their business practices, nor on the quality of their products – but there is no doubt about Microsoft’s ability to innovate.


With best regards,
ArcticStones


PS. Even though I’m an avowed Mac user, I try very hard not to succumb to the temptation of unobjective Windows/Microsoft bashing. I mean after all, it’s easy enough to bash Microsoft on purely objective grounds. ;)

...my thoughts exactly, ArcticStones. Like it or not MS must have achieved their their position by some means other than magic ;) .

-seagull

The first company to make Billions off of other peoples ideas, maybe?

Bill Gates is so wrapped up in cramming so many useless features into they're software that many home users will never use or even know they're there. Word has so many key combinations, its ridiculous.

Anyway, I think if Microsoft wants to stay afloat in the OS wars, they need to reorganize themselves and FAST. They need to simplify things.

I see Windows Vista as being Windoze XP, plus service pack 3, plus a face lift, plus some security updates ( they must not be so advanced if people already have virus' for them ) plus some framework. And they are going to call it a full OS. I think they should just accept its not a new OS and sell it for like $69.99 and call it Service Pack 3.

Really? What about all of the major oil companies? Most have been around much longer and are more profitable, especially now that they're getting more government subsidies. Talk about innovation!

Moving quickly into new areas doesn't require innovation, just money. Internet Explorer took them over a year to get out after they announced. The first versions were horrible, but their monopoly allowed them to beat Netscape into the ground. No innovation there.
As for XBox, it's just another me too product that arrives decades after the real innovators.

They did achieve it by means other than magic. They've very carefully protected the monopoly that IBM was dumb enough to hand them. That may be a legitimate business tactic, but it is in no way innovative.

Microsoft did not bring any PCs into any homes or businesses. IBM did that, and even that was not an innovation. They simply had the manufacturing capability, the marketing dollars, and the name recognition to do it.

I'm certainly not arguing that Microsoft wasn't successful. They were and are. That just doesn't make them innovative, no matter how much money they make. Innovation is and always has been a step or two above their capabilities. It just isn't in their culture, and it isn't what they do.

OK cwtnospam, I'll agree with you that MS has not been especially innovative, at least not in a technology sense.

My first point was to say that MS has had a major impact as an OS for the average PC user over the last 10-15 years.

Second, we are starting to see that impact seriously decreasing due to the fact that the "average PC user" (if there is such a thing) is becoming more aware of alternative OSs. The apparent lack of security in the new Windows Vista is an indication that MS will continue to loose OS market share, especially since their new OS does not bring any other significant feature to the table.

All "innovation-issues" aside I think we agree on these two points, right :)

Best regards
seagull

Yes, absolutely. They've definitely had an impact. Far greater than I would have liked to see, because I believe they've actually stifled a great many innovators, to the detriment of consumers. Fortunately, it does appear that they're losing their grip. It can't come soon enough for me.

Yes. I realize you're too blinded by your violent MS hatred to consider such a thing, but there is a lot they've done both directly and indirectly to bring computers to the masses, and to make them more usable. You point out Visicalc and Excel as an example; well, they made the spreadsheet far more usable for the average person, plus expanded its capabilities tremendously.

Lawsuits are futile...
 

Your right cwtnospam. They wouldn't know an innovative idea if it came up and kicked them in the pants. :)

They're culture has never been to innovate or come up with ideas that could change the face of computing.

If Microsoft is so freaking innovative, why is it when they need a new kind of software, they simply buy a company that makes the software they want and call it their own? A great example of this would be the new Spyware Beta they are offering.

Like I said. No innovation.

They're culture has always been to assimilate ;)

Microsofts new Maxim should be:

We are Microsoft. Your technological innovations and distinctiveness will be added to our own. Lawsuits are futile. Your ideas will be assimilated. ;)

OK so, let's assume that MS after a few years finally realize that it can't hold to a virtual OS monopoly, in what direction will they direct their business? I suggested in an earlier post that I see Xbox, Media PC and Office as the major focus of MS in the years ahead. What are your thoughts?

-seagull

How does that count as innovation? When provided with enough consumer feed back, the makers of Visicalc would have made it easier to use in time and given it better features.

Innovation would be like doing something to revolutionize the spreedsheet market. Not rip off someone elses software and make it easier to use.

Sorry, but I must still side with cwtnospam. Innovation comes from orginal ideas. If you remember, Apple played a major part in Microsofts early years of buisness. Microsoft made Word and Excel for Mac. But then Bill Gates did the underhanded thing and copied Apple's software.

Sorry, but still no innovation.

These are all things that were happening with or without them. Real innovation requires new ideas. The refinement of an innovation is not itself an innovation. Visicalc was an innovation. Excel a refinement. Netscape was an innovation. IE was crap, and not an innovation or a refinement.

They would foucus on Xbox and Office, though if they stopped producing Windows, I can only see them making Office:mac. But thats not very feasable is it? Media Center...meh.....

Media Center is an OKAY product. There is certainly room for improvement, but Media center is just an off-shoot of Professional. They would definitely make some kind of media box. Not with Media Center Edition, but like a TiVo sort of thing, but bloated with lots of features. It would run a watered down version of Media Center.

They would continue in the buisness market and even if they gave up on Windows, they would still make server applications and products.