Microsoft's Most Successful Failure

m4dm4n writes "As we near the end of mainstream support of Win2k The Register looks back at what it has achieved. What was meant to be Microsoft's most secure OS ever turned into a disaster. Worm after worm changed the face of internet security in Win2k's first 2 years. Five years down the line the battle is far from won, but the improvements are dramatic." From the article: "Things were different in the year 2000. Programmers felt vindicated that the Y2K bug didn't turn out to be that big of a deal. We made it past January 1st, and then it was time to move on. Windows 2000 came out that first quarter, just as security was becoming more interesting to more people -- and Windows was a good place to start. It was also seemed to be the start of a new breed of Windows hackers."

Comments

Pro-Micro$oft

[solomonrex]

I thought this article was so pro-M$, that it was embarassing. I mean, don't you get the sense these M$ problems made him a lot of money? Because I did.

And declaring how much better they are NOW? Doesn't it matter that we still spend millions of dollars on anti-everything software, and lose additional money it terms of resources spent to run that software?

I'd love to do one of those massive statistics estimates, where judging that every Windows computer connected to the Internet is running anti-virus, and that takes 10% of resources including updates, M$ security costs the country $3 bil, etc.... you get the point. This should be a bigger deal. Lots of individuals stop using their computer because of these hassles and money, and businesses soldier on because they feel they have no choice.

And I'm sure M$ is crying that their constant massive updates are killing dial-up and making millions in Windows Security software and consulting, like with this author.

Re:Failure -- A bit harsh?

[alexhs]

> Turn off all the graphical bullshit so that XP looks like Win2k and it'll run as fast as Win2k.

Only if you have 256 MB of memory or more.
AFAIK, using "classic" skin instead of Luna doesn't free memory.
XP uses 100 MB, so with 128 MB RAM you are a little short for other apps, and using swap decreases performance.

As a side note, there is one aspect where Luna is better than classic :
the pixel in the corner where lies the start button can be used to fire that start menu.

Re:Warning

[MikeFM]

*shrugs* I've installed both OS's on hundreds of systems, taught many newbies to use both, dealt with man hardware and software issues on both. Unless you're a complete newbie that isn't doing anything but turning the system on playing Minesweeper then Linux is easier. For that matter Minesweeper is just about as easy to find on my Linux box and it has nicer graphics. (My only bitch is that distros insist on making the default taskbar menus offer to many options.)

Of course most Windows users are so used to suffering that they no longer realize that they are suffering. ;)

Re:say what you want...

[MikeFM]

It only works because everyone else makes an effort to work with Windows. It's not anything technical as to how Windows functions.

X could be easier to configure but usually you can change the resolution by going into Config, Screen, and changing the resolution. About the same as Windows. More likely than it actually being harder it's just that you're not as familiar with it.